This dialogue appears in the December 17, 2010 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

A RUSSIAN DIALOGUE WITH LAROUCHE & FRIENDS

The Cultural Imperative of
Russian-American Cooperation

The seminar excerpted here took place Sunday, Nov. 7, 2010, in northern Virginia. Participants in the discussion included Lyndon LaRouche; historian Alexander Nagorny, deputy editor of the Russian weekly Zavtra; Clifford Kiracofe, professor at the Virginia Military Institute and Washington and Lee University; Jeffrey Steinberg and Rachel Douglas of EIR; former U.S. Democratic Congressional candidate in Texas Kesha Rogers and Rogers' chief of staff, Ian Overton; former candidate for the Democratic nomination for Congress in Massachusetts Rachel Brown; Matthew Ogden and Anna Shavin of LPAC-TV; and Michael Kirsch, Michelle Lerner, Peter Martinson, and Meghan Rouillard of the LaRouchePAC Basement Team. References to "yesterday" are related to Lyndon LaRouche's webcast of Nov. 6.

[PDF version of this dialogue]

Alexander Nagorny: There are so many subjects I would like to touch upon, but I would start with a very simple phrase: that we're entering a very dangerous period of history, both for Russia, and the United States and Europe. And the events are pending, although it may take one year, or maybe three or four or five years, before a certain turning point in history takes place.

In this situation, I would say that it is no accident that we are meeting on the 7th of November. It's the day of the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution, at that time, was very much unexpected for people everywhere, but, still, it played a very big role in the later events.

Of course, it would be much better if the historic process developed gradually, without wars, revolutions, and things like that. But unfortunately, it's impossible, mainly due to the fact that many people may have some limited viewpoints, and, one way or another, direct their [activity], producing conditions for social change in a very revolutionary way.

Let me then, after this brief statement, say a few words about how I see the situation, and I will try to concentrate also on the political situation in Russia, how it develops right now.

In my view, of course, the central role in world history is played by the United States. And the events in other countries or in other continents are defined by the events which are taking place in Washington, D.C., and especially in the crazy heads of certain Washingtonian creatures.

In our analysis, the financial and economic crisis which started two years ago was not actually the crisis, it was just the preliminary thunderclap. And the real crisis is just pending. It is interconnected with the actions which are taken by the Federal Reserve System and, to a certain extent, by the financial establishment of the current administration. For us, it was rather unexpected that the infusion of $5 trillion into the American economy to support the major banks didn't produce hyperinflation, so far. But we understand the Federal Reserve System has a rather strict mechanism, and it can keep this money within the banking system. But, sooner or later, this will go into the economy, and we will see certain very important consequences.

And this, of course, is interconnected with the political situation, as it develops, and especially with those election campaign directions, which was repeated by Mr. LaRouche yesterday [in his Nov. 6 webcast]. Of course, these results don't change anything, right now. But, at the same time, we see that Obama is a very critical condition, together with the Democrats and the Republicans; they don't produce an alternative to that.

As events come closer and closer to the Presidential elections, there will be more and more impulses for the administration to take some external adventurist steps, so to speak. And, as we see it, there are two tactical chains of events.

One is connected with probably this or that kind of invasion against Iran.

And the second point, which is more strategic, is a struggle against China, the P.R.C., as the most efficient and quickly developing country. As I mentioned, generally, I don't know whether Mr. LaRouche was behind the Chinese leadership, but nevertheless, many recipes they are using, both in terms of combining the free market and central planning, as well as financial methods, resemble Mr. LaRouche's ideas. They are combining them, and the result is visible. Their development is so quick and produces such overwhelming results, that the Wall Street big guys cannot stay indifferent. So that's why the second idea we see is the attempt to encircle China by different conflict points. And the Chinese leadership will understand that, and of course, they are preparing for some kind of direct or indirect confrontation with the United States. But, so far, this confrontation is developing within adjacent areas, such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and probably, very soon, we will see the clash of interests in Central Asia, in the post-Soviet space. We also cannot overlook the unrelenting struggle in the world financial sphere.

A Dangerous Game

And now, I'd like to transfer my short speech to Russian events, what's happening in Russia. In Russia, as we all know, there is a duumvirate ruling the country between Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin. Some people say that there is an acute struggle between them, the struggle for the next Presidential term. Others say that it's nothing more than a show, and that Mr. Putin is ruling the situation, and Medvedev is just a stooge for certain things. Strange as it may seem, the situation is neither the first that I indicated, nor the second. Because it has both elements: from the first thing, and from the other.

Of course, Medvedev very much depends on Putin, but, at the same time, he is surrounded by powerful oligarchical groups, who are fed up with Mr. Putin. Secondly, of course, contacts which took place between Mr. Medvedev and Obama produced a very powerful support from the Obama Administration toward Mr. Medvedev, in terms of a second term, saying, "Go ahead, we will support." If you read the American or European newspapers, it's very obvious that the number one task is to exclude Mr. Putin from the political scene, from the political picture.

On the other hand, they are meeting together, and the basic, more important questions are solved mainly by Putin and his team, which concentrates on financial and economic matters. Strategic and international issues, I think, if they are not very important, Medvedev decides by himself; but if there is something very crucial, it is created in consultation with Putin.

But the final line is approaching, and what I expect is that there will be very important pressure on Mr. Putin, to yield the position, and go away, not participate in the forthcoming Presidential elections. What instruments are used? There are different psychological ones, through the press, the international press, and, of course, through the financial leverage which mainly the British financial alliances have.

I think that Mr. Putin is not acceptable to them, because, as I figure, he plays a more or less independent role. Besides, he doesn't allow the yielding of certain positions, beyond certain lines. And this line is, first of all, territorial integrity. Secondly, Putin concentrated in his hands tremendous financial wealth, because he is controlling certain oligarchic groups, and, besides, he is cutting 10% from every profit, from big operations, to his own account—not his personal account, but the account of the state-controlled financial assets.

Thirdly, Putin is playing a geopolitical game between China and the United States and Europe, and trying to establish some kind of independent position for the Russian Federation. The most illustrative example here may be the situation with the Customs Union, which is right now arranged by [Academician] Sergei Glazyev. The situation with the Customs Union is not a simple one, since it has powerful enemies both inside and outside the Russian Federation. We have witnessed many negative events around it, lately. It makes us ask, "What's going on here? Why this quarrel with [Belarus President Alexander] Lukashenka, and things like that?"

An informed source told me recently, "You understand that the Customs Union and the Unified Economic Space is entirely the idea of Mr. Putin. He invented it in his own head, although he's not a very high economic thinker, but still, it was his invention. And this invention was absolutely unexpected for such financial people as [Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Alexei] Kudrin, [Anatoly] Chubais, and others, but they had to accept it, because it was already placed on the table. And these people from different political sections started to sabotage it, under the carpet." This line is not acceptable to them, and that's why there is pressure to oust Mr. Putin. Whether it will happen or not, nobody knows, because what kind of, say, blackmail documents they will use, nobody knows.

And, on the other hand, it is more or less clear, right now, how this movement to oust Putin will develop. It will be connected, I think, with the [Mikhail] Khodorkovsky case. In December, or in January, we may expect that Dmitri Medvedev will pardon Khodorkovsky. As soon as he's out of prison, he becomes a very important political figure, and that will be a very negative situation for [Deputy Prime Minister Igor] Sechin and other people around Putin. And I think that through this campaign—the anti-Putin campaign will be developing in Russia very quickly—probably the approach to Putin from international circles will be "bad policeman/good policeman." The bad policeman will tell him that, "You will follow Mr. Milosevic, if you don't accept our proposals." And the good policeman will tell him that, "Well, we may appoint you the head of the International Olympic Committee or another very important position. You'll be accepted in all high circles in Europe and the States, and you will enjoy life," and things like that. I don't know whether he will accept this nonsense, but who knows?

Besides, in my view, we are witnessing a very dangerous game, by Medvedev's team, in terms of creating a new kind of relationship with NATO. The point is that everything is being done to show, that Russia is being incorporated into the NATO alliance, or creating an alliance with that alliance. If, in Lisbon, at the end of November, there will be such a proclamation, or some issue of documents, or signing of them, then the political alignment between major players will change. Because the Chinese will not accept this situation, and they will have to restructure their military and economic plan in terms of their borders. At least, the last 20 years, they didn't put any troops along the Russian borders and they were very friendly, proposing credits, work force, giant projects, and things like that. And if this thing is signed, then they may, if not change the situation and their line, make certain decisions that will move Russia and China apart. And Russia, in this situation, will find itself in a more subjugated position, towards the military alliance.

Potential for Conflict and War

Another example is the situation with the drug struggle, which is also used in the same direction. Approximately two weeks ago, it was announced that there was a joint operation—Russian-American operation—on the border of Pakistan, against some drug dealers. On the surface, it's very good. But, in reality, it was not a joint operation, because there were only two persons from the Russian Embassy there. And, secondly, as soon as Russian participation is obvious, then it is possible, say, for the Saudis, who are controlling, to a certain extent, the mujahids, to say, "You see! The Russians are again in Afghanistan. Let us step up operations in Caucasus." And in the Caucasus, the situation is actually developing very negatively. There are terrorist attacks or blows every day. Every day. Dagestan is in a very precarious situation. And this will give a legal justification. But that won't change anything in terms of the drug situation, and drug traffic. Drug traffic should be stopped by different methods, first and foremost, by very severe measures domestically.

So, all those events, which I enumerated, show that there is a very powerful movement to create new conflicts between different nations, which will produce chaos, at first on a regional level.

For example, one may easily imagine that if Obama wants to stay President, he might create some kind of a provocation. Not him, personally, but some security elements, units, like 9/11. Maybe in Europe. And then America will have to strike back, and then a regional conflict develops, and he gets reelected. It's possible, although of course it's not a fait accompli. But still this possibility exists. There exist also other scenarios for how to start the war in the area of Iran. And, at the same time, we have a very precarious situation in Pakistan, and in Afghanistan, with the spreading of military activities to Central Asia, and to the Caucasus.

And lastly, one remark concerning the U.S. domestic situation and medium-range events. The average American, at present, hates Obama and his team, which has shown an unbreakable link with the Wall Street/British-oriented guys. This leads to a Sarah Palin-type next President, who will make the overall situation a real debacle in every respect, with a high probability of overall war. Unless we stop them. That's my vision.

Thank you very much.

The Crisis Is Now

Lyndon LaRouche: I have a different perspective. I mean the facts that you represent as factors are obvious. The issue is, what's the timetable of events? What's the driver of overall events? There is a global process, which is more powerful than any national process, or any pair of nations involved in this. First of all, the entire world monetary-financial system is about to disintegrate. And, under present conditions, there's nothing that can stop that, on present policy.

Nagorny: Maybe reform? Other reforms?

LaRouche: No. No reform. No reform. It'll be the way it was dealt with, yesterday. Because the solution, if it comes, will come from the United States. And you saw, yesterday, what we're up against: We're up against a really fascist movement, in the name of the Republican faction. And what they're threatening to do, as Bill Clinton laid out yesterday, in his remarks. If that occurs, then you have the inevitable collapse of civilization, globally, very soon, in which the schemes of various governmental forces in the world will not control it. Because the world is essentially bankrupt.

Now, the most stable part of the world, right now, politically, is China and India. Now, they both have tremendous problems, internally. China has adopted a policy, among the many policies of China; as you know, there are many different policies going on at the same time, and many different commitments. But the essential thing is the question of the currency. The Chinese will defend their currency, and defend it on a basis of a fixed-exchange-rate demand. They will take measures to that degree. And this role of China is absolutely crucial for any salvation from this mess, because if China does not do that, then the whole world goes to Hell, very rapidly.

We're talking about weeks and months, we're not talking about years, because the entire world system is bankrupt.

For example, in Russia, the big problem is the influence of the Inter-Alpha Group, which, since 1971, has become the leading force in the world, as a financial force; it's the British Empire, really. But it's also the partnership between the British and the Saudis. Most of the troubles we've had, instability, are run in the old Sykes-Picot region. They're run through the Saudis, now. The Saudis are the key factor in chaos in this whole region, including the entire Islamic world. You have a Turkey factor, which is different, and contrary to that, and some other things. But this thing is ready to blow.

Right now, the likelihood is a complete, chain-reaction collapse, and disintegration of the world monetary-financial system. It's more than ripe right now. And what this Republican faction is proposing, for these negotiations to occur in the coming weeks, in the interim period, guarantees a total collapse. If they try this [budget-]cutting process, they are going to introduce a factor of social instability in the United States—explosive!

Now, the British are in a similar faction. The British have nothing. Their system, they call the BRIC.[1] And the problem that we see in Russia, is the influence, around Medvedev, in particular, of this BRIC thing. What this is, is the Bertrand Russell International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, a group that I know very well. And they're stupid, they have no competence whatsoever, no economic competence, at all. This whole thing about going with this research center—Skolkovo. It's nonsense. It's idiocy! And the problem is that the Medvedev factor, so far, in terms of international economic and financial policy, has been idiotic. Because there's no economy! And the key problem in Russia is, essentially, from a long-term standpoint, and really, now, in the short term, is: What happened to the Russian economy? The Russian economy was destroyed, systematically and deliberately, as part of this whole process of crushing Germany, crushing Poland, crushing the whole area. And unless there's some regrouping of productive power, physical productive power, the nation can not be held together. It will disintegrate.

And now, you have, on top of that, a collapse of the financial system. And since the power Medvedev is having, is largely this international financial power, if the financial system goes, he's got nothing! The weak part is, that he's not investing anything significantly, in physical production. And the key thing to Russia, as to the United States, as to Western Europe, right now, is a collapse of physical production, real physical values. We have a world food shortage, we have collapses of everything.

So, we're in a very short-term thing, and, right now, the situation in the United States is ready to trigger a general chain-reaction collapse internationally. And the reason I spoke so harshly to Clinton, and so forth, yesterday, was precisely that. The idea of a special kind of negotiation, step by step, step by step, with this Republican thing, doesn't work!

A Generational Problem

And it's a problem, here, with the generation that's in power. You have different generations in U.S. history. You have my generation and the older generation, which I shared, in my youth and young adulthood. Then you have the Baby-Boomer generation, those who were born after 1945-1946, that generation. They are essentially, largely, nonfunctional. They have some economic capability, some professional capabilities among them, but, intellectually, they are not a generation that you'd want to fight a war. They have no capability of sustained struggle for anything. They're frightened, they withdraw. Some of them have good ideas, good impulses, but they're weak; they have no structure.

I came from a generation that fought a world war! And I know all the imperfections I knew from that war, and I knew what the strengths were. Nations meant something then. And, coming out of the war, the victory over the Nazis was something, it meant something. And we went through that: One-third of the entire adult labor force, male labor force of the United States, was involved in warfare, for a period of '41 to '45.

The generation that came afterward, remember, is crushed. It was crushed by what we call McCarthyism. It was actually Trumanism. Here was the United States, which had come out of a depression, under the leadership of Roosevelt, from a very deep depression; it was a systematic organization. Now, once the war was ended, and as it was ending, what was behind Truman was committed to destroy that morality, that outlook of the American population, of my generation. And they used methods of intimidation, methods of persecution, to break a whole generation of people: the people who were most successful, financially, as a stratum, in that generation, that was my generation, who got the better jobs, who had security clearances to get better jobs, who would generally have homes, where other people might not have homes, because they didn't have security clearance. And, therefore, everything that had been represented by the Roosevelt revolution, in the United States, was crushed.

The children who were born to these people, as you saw in the 68ers: the 68er explosion was an expression of the degeneration of a youth generation, which were largely the children which went to the best universities. Because they got into the best universities, usually, because their parents were corrupt, that is, morally corrupt. And they showed it!

Now, we have a generation which is alienated in a different way. The young people, as our young people, have a different experience. It's very difficult for them to coordinate, and sustain coordination around a mission-orientation. They like projects. They'll go from one project to another project. But a coherent strategic outlook, which a healthy nation has, is a strategic outlook: a common sense of what the purpose of the nation is, and that you have to unify around the purpose of that nation, if you're going to get anything done. And we don't have that!

So, now we have a very fragile society. We have a society which has lost the morality, which my generation knew, coming out of World War II. We knew what a war was. And we knew, also, that all these wars we fought after that, were fake wars, organized by the British, as a way of destroying the United States's influence, and making the United States, again, a mere puppet of the British system, which is what's happened to it now, largely.

So, you have a very weak world. You see it in Russia, the effect. A whole generation has been wiped out, that had a certain strength. It had a certain sense of moral strength.

Nagorny: You know, as strange as it may seem, you are telling the same thing which we are observing in Russia. Because in Russia we see, for the last 25 years, an attempt to ruin the psychology of people through TV, through some sports, from everything that—it should be suppressed. But, strange as it may seem, the latest polls showed that the major answers are the same as 30 years ago. People may answer positively about the history of the country; they support the idea of integration and consolidation, rather than separation; the common effort, together, and the common cause, which is absolutely a blow against the liberal values.

LaRouche: Yes!

Nagorny: And I think it's the same thing in America, no?

LaRouche: No, it's an older generation. We've much [inaud.] been destroyed. See, the point in Russia: What happened, with the collapse of the Wall, was that there was a breakdown, and the nation was raped from the exterior. So that what you have—I mean, I went to the great Ordzhonikidze machine-tool factory in Moscow [in 1994], before they shut it down. And I looked at these people, and the people working at the machine tools, still then. Many of them were older people, obviously weakened by the conditions they had lived through, through the wartime period. You could see, physically, they had suffered from the wartime period. They had stayed at their machine tools and had done their work. They had been the force that had organized the weapons to defend Moscow! The same people! So therefore, they have a sense that the outsiders did it to them.

Nagorny: Yes, you're right.

LaRouche: In the case of Western Europe, especially—and to some degree in Germany, there's a similar thing, because of the war. But, in the United States and Western Europe? No, same thing: a complete loss of essential morality. That is, the morality of a people knowing that it has an interest it must defend. In Russia, the case is the denial of access to that. But in the United States, as we see, and with the Green movement, so-called, in Germany.

Now, the Green movement is a product of Nazism. It's a generation skipped, but the people—remember, Hitler was Green, in the 1920s. And Göring was Green. And they were "creative destructionists," it was their philosophy. They mobilized for war, as a destructive force, but they were anti-technology, anti-science, and it was actually the German military which forced Hitler to do scientific development, like elements of the space program, the rockets program, and so forth. But, for the Nazis, no! The Nazi ideology was destruction, creative destruction, in the extreme. So you have the Green generation. The Green uproar in Germany is a product of moral degeneration which goes back to the grandparents' generation, who were the Greenies, the fascist Greenies, of the 1920s. And that's what you're seeing with the anti-nuclear movement in Germany.

So, you have differentiations in this thing, but the overall problem is, the planet as a whole has a very poor morality, compared to what we had in European civilization, before going into World War I. That was really destructive. But now, the instincts of my generation, or the generation that's older than me, essentially, is lost in the United States. And my biggest problem, in organizing in the United States, is the fact that I'm dealing with a defective influence in the population, even among my own associates. Because they suffer from the effect of this corruption.

I mean, in my generation, you have a mission, like a military assignment. You're a soldier, okay, you have a mission: What's your mission? Okay, here's your mission. You find your place in the mission. That's your job. You're committed to it. You have a sense of mission! Today's generation does not have a sense of mission. It has a sense, "Well, I feel like this. I feel like that. I feel like doing this, now; I feel like doing that, now." So you don't have this sense, a sense of a unity of purpose.

The other side of it is, the older generation would think in terms of grandchildren. You're suffering, your typical population, you're going through suffering, through hardship, you're trying to rise up in society, you're trying to perform a mission which makes your life seem worthwhile to you, because you're doing something good for the society. You take pride in who you are, what your instincts are. Lost, now. People see the future in terms of their expected experience in life. The older generation, those who are healthy, would see the future in what their generation is going to produce for the future, and take pride in what they're going to create for the future. The grandfather would say to the grandchildren: "See what I'm doing for you. Here's what you're going to do with this. Here's your future. I'm giving you a future! Look at this thing we've done. We built this! You're going to build something." So you have this sense of mission.

And the moral problem is a lack—no matter what you call moral, formally, in terms of behavior; that's not morality. Morality is intention. Morality is conviction, that you are human and not an animal. Animals die. That's the end. Human beings must not die that way. They will die physically, but they won't die, because they will have had a mission, which they're committed to, and they will look upon what they're doing while they're alive, as a contribution to the future of society. They have a sense of immortality, that there is something immortal about their mission in life. And that's what you need, to build a nation, is a sense of the future. And all the greatest cultures we've had in known history have that characteristic. The forces of culture are that, the culture that's fit to survive. And the danger right now, is we have a population which can fight, but I wouldn't trust them too much. Because they won't stick to it; they'll go off and run to something else.

So, this unity of mission is lacking. And it's only with great effort that we are able to sustain anything like that in the United States. It doesn't come naturally. It comes because you push it.

And that's what happened when we did these [LaRouchePAC Congressional] campaigns. I said "three campaigns," because, with three campaigns, we could do the right job: that is, to set a pattern for the future. With many, diverse campaigns, we'd have a mess. So, we had three campaigns which we concentrated on; they concentrated on themselves, with a national mission. So, now, what we've done, in terms of the election campaign, we have established a sense of mission, in which we participated, and that means we have a potential for doing something with the future. And we're going in that way.

The problem is, most of society doesn't have that. And therefore, those who have a sense of mission must mobilize to sort of batter the people around them into adopting a sense of mission. Like the way I dealt with Clinton's crowd, yesterday. Bill's probably the brightest politician we've had, at least since Kennedy, and certainly since Roosevelt. But you see where he's soft, and his people are soft. They're dealing with this guy—the Republicans are going to come in with a purely fascist program, threaten to shut down the government for the time being, until the inauguration of the next term comes in, and impose a fascist program on the United States. Now, Clinton's tendency is to try to negotiate with this process. He opposed it! He hates it! His people hate it. But, I say: "You can not negotiate with them. You have to crush them. You have to figure out how to crush them. Because they're fascists!"

The 'Post-Industrial' Shift

Nagorny: One more question: Certain liberal figures in my country, and in the States, as I see it, are actually saying that, "Of course, there are different structural disproportions in American economy and finances. But all those disproportions will be solved through the scientific progress and new breakthroughs in science and technology, creating new products. That's why it's quite logical that the United States and Russia actually pushed away the production lines, but they will, America will, come with a new technological level, and make new technologies, even in terms of energy."

LaRouche: That's the policy of "creative destruction." That's Nietzsche, that's Schumpeter.

Nagorny: The idea that the electric car will help to solve the problem.

LaRouche: Scientifically, it's idiocy. It's incompetent! What we're doing is using windmills, solar collectors. Take the energy-flux density of a windmill, the energy-flux density of a solar collector: This is insanity! The whole policy is destruction! You got this from the British creative destruction policy. Nietzsche was the first, in his creative destruction. Then you had Sombart: creative destruction. He was not a Nazi, but he was a Nazi fellow-traveller. Then you had Schumpeter, who was actually a Nazi, but he's an English Nazi. And this Schumpeter kind of thinking, "creative destruction," is what the policy is!

The policy goes back, in history, to Aeschylus, through the Prometheus trilogy: to control people by making them stupid, because if a population is well-educated, intellectually developed, culturally developed, then they will not be slaves. If they're stupid, helpless, don't know what to do, then a ruling class can control them. If they're a proud people, then they can work as a proud people, within the framework of their culture.

Now, what we're doing, is we are actually destroying the ability to sustain human life. We are on a track now, physically, in physical economy, where the potential population-density will drop from 6.9 billion now, to 2, or less! We're on that track, right now. And there's no recovery from this. Once this starts, there's no recovery from it, because the dynamic of this will mean the total destruction of the planet. So, what we're in, right now, we're on the edge of this crisis. And that's why I fought so hard with Bill. They've got to understand, sometimes you can not compromise.

Now, in the former time, that meant something, because that meant, you were not going to give in. If you're not going to give in, that might mean war. You say, "Okay, you want war, you get war." In that point, you have a check.

Nagorny: Yes, but even if, say, a very good, talented, powerful U.S. President, a figure will come and become American President, don't you think that he will be surrounded by so many circumstances, that he can do—?

LaRouche: Only if he wants to. If a man is a President of the United States, under our Constitution and its tradition, in that case, the President is a very powerful figure, and such things will not work, against him. Roosevelt is a typical case of that. Abraham Lincoln was a case like that. John Quincy Adams was a case like that.

Nagorny: But society is much more complex right now, than 30 or 40 years ago.

LaRouche: It's more complicated, because it's more stupid. There's no intellectual coherence in society. Look at the fads, look at entertainment, cultural fads.

Nagorny: That was exactly on my tongue! Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he didn't have such an important and powerful enemy as Hollywood, in the '30s, as Hollywood is playing right now in the role of forging psychology and intellectual quality .

LaRouche: Not Hollywood; it's Facebook.

Nagorny: Facebook, Hollywood—

LaRouche: These kinds of phenomena, which are social engineering policies to turn people into animals: they destroy them. But it's part of the culture. How is this possible? It's only possible, because people have no purpose in living. We used to have it: You had a career, you had a profession, you had a sense of a family you're creating, a community you're creating, your sense of participation. What do people discuss? I mean, in former times, people would discuss, like ordinary families: The men in the family would go off and meet together and talk about the job, talk about their work. Talk about the different kinds of work they were doing, talk about the problems that they had with the place where they were working. Their minds were focused on their—oh, they were focused on other things, but this was typical—they were focused on their mission in life.

The problem of this generation is, these young people have no sense of mission in life. They have no purpose in living. They're now trying to find entertainment, as a substitute for a purpose in life. That's the weakness.

Organizing for NAWAPA

And right now, what we have, in organizing around the NAWAPA,[2] we find that we have older people, who are highly skilled professionals, engineers, and so forth. Their reaction is immediately responsive. We actually have, in the United States, the potential of organizing the NAWAPA project. This would be greatest project that mankind has ever undertaken. It would mean a complete change in the climate of the planet, because of the extent. This would mean going into the Bering Strait tunnel and railroad track. This would mean northern Russia, northern Siberia, which has riches in it, which can be developed, which are desperately needed by China and other countries to the south.

If Siberia is organized, as a machine, which some of the Vernadsky State Geological Museum people know how to do, to take this area, which is a really tough area to work with, but understanding how to make it work, with the aid of nuclear power. Russia, Siberia has now a great mission to perform for a couple of generations to come, in terms of the development of Asia as a whole.

And you have, then, the Arctic area. The Arctic area is a very significant area, which has never been really developed. People look at it. It's one of the crucial things which we're working on. This is one of the great challenges, develop the Arctic. If you look at it from the standpoint of the Solar System, rather than just the planet itself, you realize how important the Arctic is, what its significance is, within the galaxy, things like that.

And so, we have people who are capable of responding, still, to that kind of mission-orientation. And you have people who have skills, who are unemployed. You have the former auto industry. People have been laid off, they're still there. The whole area's destroyed.

Our estimate is, we can actually get 4 million jobs created by a state funding, on a credit system, a state funding of this project. It would take a half-century to complete, 30 years to a half-century to complete. But it would mean a revolution, it would change the climate, it would change a lot of things.

So, what we have is the best possibility of mission-orientations, which are tantamount to war, fighting a great war. But this is a different kind of war. It's a war of creation, as opposed to creative destruction. We can do that. But you have to do it! It's the only answer.

Nagorny: Yes, but in this case, there should be another, a different American President. There should be a different President in Russia, at least.

LaRouche: I think if you get a decent American President—and the only place you can do it from is the United States—you can deal with other things. Because, you know, I have some peculiar dealings with China, and I have a sense of some things about China, and what they respond to, particularly on the question of the value of their currency, a stable currency, which is what they require. And they will fight, to defend a stable currency. They will not be peaceful about this. And they will have a close relationship with India on this. So you have 1.4 billion people in China, 1.1 billion more in India, with a tremendous number of very poor people. These nations can not survive without a high rate of gain in technological progress. They'll be smothered by the lack of progress, by the backwardness.

Then you have other parts of Asia. South Korea will play a very important role if we have a development program. They're a small nation, but they have very important technological capabilities. Japan, with all its weaknesses, will play into that. It's the only chance it has, and it's especially interested in North Asia, as an area in which to invest its activities.

So, we have the potential. My view is, we have to fight this thing now. Because if we lose the United States, if a fascist regime actually takes over the United States, I don't think this planet can survive, not for a long time to come. And therefore, my view is, we've got to change this situation in the White House. The present President is clinically insane. There's a law against a clinically insane President being President, continuing to be President. The important thing is to force the issue, and get this guy out.

And he's totally a British puppet. To the extent he's anything, he's insane.

Nagorny: Do you think he will stay in office until the end of the office, or—?

LaRouche: I think he'll be dead before the end of the office! Because he's got the profile of Nero and Hitler, and they both ended their career by dying, by suicide. This mental type is one which is headed to a suicide. And as long as he is President, when you consider the tremendous powers of the U.S. Presidency, those powers can control forces for evil or for good, like we saw with the case of Roosevelt, on the other side, or Abraham Lincoln, earlier.

I think the only hope for the planet, is to get forces from various nations, which understand this, to realize that they have to cooperate, for a common end, of sovereign nations, united to a common purpose, to a common end.

Nagorny: Actually, if there is a change in the White House, it will be much easier to achieve changes in Moscow, positive changes.

LaRouche: Absolutely. Because, instantly, if Bill Clinton's friends were to replace Obama, a Clinton-Putin collaboration would erupt immediately.

Nagorny: And such persons as Kudrin, [Arkady] Dvorkovich, will disappear, because they are actually formulating the financial and economic policies.

LaRouche: I don't know. You see, a case like Kudrin, he's doing what his opportunities are. Because of a longer association with Putin, he might decide to change his stripes. He might be a certain kind of opportunist, a technician, who shifts his loyalties according to the way the wind is blowing.

Nagorny: Yes, I think so.

A Question of Real Leadership

LaRouche: But generally, that's a very important factor in history, is to get the wind going in the right direction, and get some of the people who are sensitive to wind directions to change their attitude—to choose a different career, or a little different mission-orientation. It's leadership! I mean, real leadership. You have to create a situation where you have real leaders, who get up in the morning, determining what the mission is for today, and talk to one another, and decide on common missions for common ends.

Nagorny: But so far, the G20 doesn't produce any constructive results; it's just blah, blah, blah.

LaRouche: No. It's a mess.

Well, look at the case. Take France, and you've got this crazy little animal, who is the President of France. In Germany, you have a mess. And the worst part of the mess is not from the top, it's from the bottom. It's from the Greenies. That's the worst problem. In Italy, you have a problem, North and South Italy are dividing more and more; but you have some people in Northern Italy who are responsive, and are technologically capable. But it's a mess. And that's what you have.

You have some things, traces in the Balkans. The Balkans have certain potentiality. They could be developed if they get some peace long enough, and get some development.

Nagorny: Turkey is developing very constructively.

LaRouche: Turkey will. Turkey, if you shift back to the Atatürk direction, Turkey can do something. That's the good thing in Turkey, is Atatürk.[3] And his legacy is very important: I mean, he's the one that made the peace with Syria, negotiated with Lenin, took the borders of Turkey, and said, "This is us. We are not Arabs, we do not own Arabs any more." The Arabs are independent, and the negotiation of the treaty with Syria did that. Syria, to this day, has a special characteristic because of the agreement between Atatürk and Syria: still that legacy. It may not be the best thing in the world, but it certain is useful.

Nagorny: And what is your vision about Iran, and its future?

LaRouche: Iran can also be handled. You have a real crisis now, but the whole area is orchestrated by the British. The whole Islamic world is under very heavy control by British intelligence, the real British intelligence. The usual kinds of operations that people overlook: the drug operation, for example.

Now, the advantage in Iran, is Iran hates the drug problem. So they're a positive factor as a nation, in terms of drugs. They're against the drug traffic. And they are not Sunni. Now, usually this Shi'a/Sunni division is not a happy thing to have around, because there's a lot of nasty conflict, with many potentials. But! If the Sunni world is dominated by corruption, which is controlled largely by the Saudis, who are about as corrupt as you can find on this planet, then a Shi'a nation may give you a little bit of an option for the conflict. Therefore, you have a Sunni/Shi'a division, and you can understand exactly how the Sunni works, and how the Shi'a works, in that particular area, particular when this crazy thing was set up for the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, completely a Saudi-run—British-controlled, Saudi-run—operation, using [Zbigniew] Brzezinski from the United States, as a way of setting this into motion.

So, if you understand these things, then you can take advantage of the fact that people have certain hesitations to go with certain other people, and you can talk to them, and try and negotiate a relationship of cooperation, which is good in itself. And if they find themselves in an operation and agreements which are good for them, they're more likely to be peaceful.

Nagorny: And do you think it is possible that the next President would realistically withdraw from Afghanistan?

LaRouche: Well, realistically, I've been saying that, right now, the possibility of a shift in the Presidency, in the United States, is centered around Bill Clinton, which is a minority position, but it's the only one that exists of that type, right now. And there are people within the Democratic Party, and there are people in the Republican Party, who do respect him. And he has matured considerably, from when he was President. When he was President, he was not a man who was an up-front leader. He was a leader, in the sense of doing things from behind the scenes, steering things, approving things, which were generally good. A few mistakes, here and there, but generally good. Now, he's come more and more into the idea of an initiator of programs. He's hesitant on this, but I don't worry about that, because I'm an initiator, anyway.

Nagorny: But, according to the American Constitution, is it possible, or no?

LaRouche: It is possible, technically, but that's a far reach. The point is, he's got a wife. He's got something in reserve. And she has actually, going into a position for which she was not really prepared—she wanted to be President, and she was qualified to run. But she, in office as Secretary of State, she's had a lot of experience, and gotten the feel of how to handle the Federal government. She was a participant in the atmosphere of the Federal government before, but she was not really a person to seize the reins of the Federal government. The Federal Presidency is a very tough thing to deal with, unless you understand it. And she has come, now, to understand it—with great pain, in the process of discovering it!

Nagorny: But generally speaking, you know, there should be really drastic changes in American approaches, and even in theory. Because, the IMF should be reconstructed, or maybe even dismantled.

LaRouche: No, we don't need the IMF. It's a mess now. What we need is really to get back to a fixed-exchange-rate system. Go back to that, because the problem is, we're operating on monetary systems. As long as we're functioning on monetarist systems, then we're prisoners of an international, effective imperial system, an imperial system of money, which is what monetarism always has been. If you have national credit systems, based on a national currency, and you also have a fixed-exchange-rate agreement among national systems, which means you're looking for two generations, three decades, four decades, for a future, so you have stability; therefore, you can have investment, under a fixed exchange rate, at very low interest rates, 1%, 1.5%, for a long-term investment.

Nagorny: A little bit more.

LaRouche: No, you don't need it. You don't need more. Because the idea is, if you have a stabilized currency, you don't need more.

Infrastructure for Global Development

Clifford Kiracofe: What you're talking about is large public investment.

LaRouche: Yes, public investment. The private thing is another matter. But it is the public infrastructure which is most important.

I've defined this more precisely, recently: You have to think in terms of a platform. Now, the original platform of European civilization was transoceanic, a maritime system. With Charlemagne, we went to another system. The system was still maritime, but based on a riparian system, with the use of canals to connect rivers. This opened the way for highways, for railroads. So the railroad revolution was a revolution.

All these things required a certain technology, in terms of energy-flux density. That is, you have to measure power in energy-flux density, not in calories. Because it's a physical conception, a physical measure.

So, you have to build a platform. And the platform is largely located in what we would call public works. Public works, not the way some nations define them, but public works, in the sense of rail systems, power systems, public sanitation systems, these kinds of things. And also, to maintain a level of energy-flux density. That is, what is the power commanded by the individual at the point of production? Which is all located in this infrastructure.

So, what you need to do is have a system, which is not dependent upon some independent investor, with money, coming along and investing in this project. You have to have a state-controlled system, among nations.

Nagorny: And how about money emission?

LaRouche: A fixed-exchange-rate credit system, just like Roosevelt had, a fixed-exchange-rate system. It's when the fixed-exchange-rate system was cancelled that we got into this whole phase of this mess.

Nagorny: As far as I remember, in Europe, there was a certain fixed exchange, in the '70s, I guess.

LaRouche: Yes, it was the Roosevelt system. It was an extension of the fixed-exchange-rate system into Europe.

Nagorny: And it was dismantled by—

Jeffrey Steinberg: [George] Soros busted it up in '92.

LaRouche: You see, you have to go to figures like Presidents. You have to look at President Charles de Gaulle. Now, Charles de Gaulle's problem was he was an anti-fascist, and France was a fascist nation. That's how the Wehrmacht conquered France, because there were so many fascists in the French government; they just arranged all the things so that a superior French force was defeated by a numerically inferior Wehrmacht, because it was corrupt as hell. And de Gaulle came back as the minority party, which was patriotic. And his second time, his second Presidency, as the Fifth Republic, he showed himself.

Now, de Gaulle's program was tremendous! It was the right program, and he was actually the right leader at that time.

British Manipulation of the Soviets

But Khrushchov was a British agent, of Bertrand Russell.

Nagorny: You know, generally speaking, you don't have to be a conscious agent. You can be conducted and ruled, just pulling the strings, knowing your psychology, and things like that.

LaRouche: Khrushchov may have going a couple of things going in his mind, but remember, he turned a couple of times in his political history, from one thing to the other. He made a number of jumps at that time.

Nagorny: The most interesting situation, of course, is connected with his report to the 20th Congress [of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in 1956]. Of course, from the legal point of view, it was an absolutely illegal thing. Because in the Party, you have to discuss the documents with your colleagues; then put it to a vote, and then produce it to the Congress. And this was a kind of a coup d'état. All of a sudden, after the Congress is over, people are assembled, and he starts to read the report.

Then, the question, who actually wrote it? Because Khrushchov was a person with a very powerful will, but he was not very much a literate person—

LaRouche: It was the British!

Nagorny: —and, actually, there were three persons who were writing it. Comrade [Otto] Kuusinen, Mr. [Pyotr] Pospelov, and the third one, Boris Ponomaryov. The three of them were preparing this report, and they, one way or another, convinced him that, in producing this report, actually, he would be smashing all the competitive figures around him. So he was doing it, thinking about his own interests.

LaRouche: You'll be very interested in this, then. First of all, Khrushchov advertised his relationship to British intelligence, as publicly and intentionally, by sending four representatives to the Bertrand Russell meeting of World Parliamentarians for World Government [in 1955]. That's when the official strategic coordination with British intelligence occurred. Now, this is also part of the same package with Russell, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, in Laxenburg, Austria, which is a strong influence on Medvedev, today. That same crowd. They're great for this "money" thing, but no concrete investment. Money, abstract. It's the Pirates of the Caribbean who are controlling Russia, from the Caribbean, largely!

So, this thing was started then. But even before, there was an antecedent, which is a very hairy one. Stalin was off and on, on a lot of questions, but he was very strong on Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. And he was committed to the survival of Roosevelt. He was committed to avoidance of war, after defeating the Nazis. And he was for the agreement with Roosevelt, on the Soviet Union and China. These were the three things which were key to the Roosevelt policy for the post-war period: not to worry about too many details about the internal structure of societies as such, but to build a system to end imperialism, and particularly to end British imperialism, which had dominated the planet in the previous period.

So, now, Stalin flipped back and forth on this, because he was enraged, at the same time, by the sense of betrayal, in the sense that everybody had been betrayed by the death of Franklin Roosevelt.

Roosevelt's Death: A Disaster for the World

So, what happened: Now you had, Eisenhower is now becoming President. And Eisenhower, like Douglas MacArthur, was committed to the same strategic policy as Roosevelt, as was the minority of the leadership of the OSS [Office of Strategic Services]. "Wild Bill" Donovan, the OSS.

So, these factors in U.S. intelligence, in the U.S. institutions associated with the Presidency—very important, is the Presidency—they were committed to "no conflict, no war conflict with Russia, or the Soviet Union, or China." The Roosevelt commitment was, to have a peaceful collaboration, which could evolve constructively, with the idea that technological progress, progress in the economy, would be the weapon through which improving of the cultural characteristics of nations could occur. But the main thing was to prevent the British from reconstituting their empire.

Now, this point was approaching, and Eisenhower was now going to become President of the United States. So the institutions of the United States reacted.

And you had an incident which occurred, also with Khrushchov's visit to Paris, for the Eisenhower-de Gaulle meeting [May 1960], right? A crucial point, which occurs twice in this part of history. And you remember what Eisenhower did, as President, in terms of the Suez crisis. He brought down the British prime minister.

Nagorny: Yes, I remember.

LaRouche: So that Eisenhower was a servant of the institutions of the United States, like Douglas MacArthur, and like some other people, who were essentially servants of the institutions. But, their ability to act was based on the permission they had, to take certain actions, a permission which had to come, essentially, from the institution of the Presidency. So, whoever controlled the institution of the Presidency, would control this process. Now, you're approaching a point—the United States has just gone through the McCarthy period. Or rather, the British policy has been the preventive bombing of the Soviet Union, nuclear bombing: Bertrand Russell.

That policy had continued until the Soviet Union had developed a capable nuclear arsenal, before the United States had had a deployable one, except for a couple of pieces of junk. At that point, this collapsed. That was the end of Truman. Truman was going for a war against the Soviet Union.

Nagorny: But at that time, I think there were few warheads.

LaRouche: No, but it was still very effective. The Soviet nuclear program, weapons program, was sufficiently effective, to prevent the Russell idea of a preemptive attack from occurring.

Now, you have Eisenhower coming in. Eisenhower is coming in as a continuation of the Presidency, with people from the OSS, as from the military and so forth, who are part of the institutions of Presidency, or tied to it; if they're not members of the Presidency, they're tied to it by profession, by commitment, by emotion, and everything else. So, now it becomes: We have a policy. The previous President, who has been entrusted with the powers of the Presidency, is a sonuvabitch, an evil sonuvabitch, a fascist. Truman was really a fascist.

So, now, a new President Eisenhower. Eisenhower as President can make negotiations. He did, as in Korea. He orchestrated it, in the process of becoming President, this new era. That was the danger from the British standpoint. Ah! Stalin is going to make another move, to reconcile with the United States under a new President, and get rid of the Truman process.

Suddenly, miraculously, Stalin dies! And then, at a later point in this process, Khrushchov sends four personal representatives, to meet with Russell, in Russell's World Parliamentarians for World Government, and that's where the deal was cut.

Then you get the Paris conference, de Gaulle, Eisenhower—now President—and, now Khrushchov. Khrushchov just blows the thing up.

Now, the same thing happened again, with Kennedy, because Kennedy was also recognized as having this affinity. Kennedy was close, actually, to people like Eisenhower, and especially to Douglas MacArthur, in terms of policy advisor. So, the continuity is, again, we're now going to have a peaceful arrangement, we're going to solve the problem. All right, what happens? The British organize the missile crisis—with Khrushchov. Then after this, the Central Committee tells Mr. Khrushchov to "go away." So, Brezhnev comes into the process.

Then Brezhnev has a problem, because his age catches up with him, very uncomfortably, and the Soviet Union has a problem.

The Fight Around the SDI

Nagorny: But, you know, Brezhnev was not, in effect, in command after his stroke, which took place in 1977, '78.

LaRouche: Exactly. You had an interim invisible government, of officials.

Nagorny: Actually, it was the big troika: [Yuri] Andropov, [Dmitri] Ustinov, and [Andrei] Gromyko, who were taking over.

LaRouche: So you had an interim government, which was a synthetic government, Soviet government, composed of these officials, while Brezhnev was not mentally in too good shape. They acted in his name, on his behalf, because they were looking for stability. It was a crisis, in fact, and it was in this process that the shift came in the following year.

So, in this process, this is what we had! And so, therefore the history was, as I said before, you had this breakout, and by that time, you had something left. You had another incident of the same type.

I had proposed what became known as the SDI. It was named that by people around Reagan, but it was my initiative. I created it, on the basis of several things that I was doing, including the scientific work.

When Reagan had been elected, and was about to become inaugurated as President, I got a message from a general officer, a Soviet officer in the United Nations, who sent me a message, and said, "How we can get to talk to the new President?" The Soviet interests. And so, I sent a letter to the White House, recommending that the White House accept this proposal for a discussion with this Soviet general, or whoever he was going to name as coming.

So, since I had already designed what became known as the SDI, I got this message back from the White House: "We're confused. It's very interesting; we're confused." So, the thing was transferred to the National Security Council. And so, I was suitably sworn in—not actually sworn in, but technically, just to make things look good—and so, I ran the operation, and pulled scientists and others together for the SDI, and Reagan then, of course, endorsed it.

Andropov went the other way.

Now, this was possible, because you had people from the leadership of the OSS, and other military institutions of the United States, who agreed with me on this proposal. And, therefore, we had also a number of leading general officers from Germany, from France, and a few from Italy, as well, and from other places. So, we had an international commitment, which is, again, the same legacy, as the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, the same legacy that you saw expressed by Eisenhower's role in becoming President, and what happened with the death of Stalin. You had the same thing, the problem with Khrushchov, same problem, same issue came up with the Paris meeting, of de Gaulle, Eisenhower, and Khrushchov. You had the same thing, a couple of times later. You had it again with what I experienced with the SDI. And we had a possibility of reviving the SDI. Reagan went for it, but then, Gorbachov went the other way, and Gorbachov was at that point very British, and he was operating on the British stage.

So, what happened is, that the people who represented that active legacy, from the World War II period, died out of old age. Except for a few, and they're pretty old, like me.

So, that is what the real thing is. There are processes in history, which today's generation has trouble understanding, because people today think in terms that, experience comes between birth and death of the individual. Whereas, my knowledge of social processes, the continuity of society, among human beings, as opposed to animals, is cultural. It's the transmission from one generation to another of ideas, which then may bear fruit in a future generation, or later generation. And that's the way things really work, in a good society, in a good situation in society. Because you have ideas, which are deeply embedded within the institutions of the nation.

Nagorny: Yes, but there are such institutions as Hollywood, which are not controlled, even by the President.

LaRouche: They're controlled by London. Hollywood is a house of prostitution, run from London.

Nagorny: But they're actually inducing the deterioration of morals and psychology of the people.

Kiracofe: It's the Frankfurt School concept.

LaRouche: But it's, actually, against the Presidency. It's a weak institution. The U.S. Presidency, when functioning, is a strong institution which can cope and deal with that. They can change a cultural trend. And a smart Presidency will do that.

Transmission of Cultural Principles

Matthew Ogden: One example, I think, is just important as a case in point. I was involved in helping to coordinate Rachel Brown's and Kesha Rogers' Congressional campaigns. And what we did with Rachel Brown in Massachusetts, was, we shaped her entire campaign around something: We made a video, entitled "The Two Massachusetts." And we brought to the surface a sense of historical patriotism that lies in the people of Massachusetts, going all the way back to 1630, when the first colonies were formed in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. And these were the foundations of the ideas of the credit system, the Glass-Steagall, but these were formed with Cotton Mather and with John Winthrop, and it's something which is in the blood of people, in that area of the country. And that's something that Rachel saw very clearly, in terms of the response that she got to her campaign, from people who might not even be conscious that this is what their history necessarily is. I think it's a good proof of principle of the way that things work here.

LaRouche: Part of the problem is, that we live in a society which has a very reductionist ideology, and people have lost sight of the fact that there are cultural principles which are implicitly embedded in society, even explicitly embedded in society. And these cultural principles are not mortal, in the sense that the human being, individually, is mortal. But certain cultural tendencies, certain cultural commitments, are transmitted from successive generations. And essentially, in putting nations together in cooperation, you have to look at the cultural depths of many successive generations of those people, and you have to find a way of bringing those cultural tendencies into cooperation, not just individuals into cooperation. If you want a secure treaty agreement, you want a secure partnership among nations, you have to bring the cultural trends in those nations into agreement, that is, into cooperative agreement. Then it works. Because then, real moral trust can occur. Without that kind of thing, real deep, moral trust can not occur; you get only incidental or coincidental kinds of cooperation, which becomes highly unstable, because they're easily unstabilized.

You know, like the relations with Russia, historically. The relationship of the United States to Russia is located in the 18th Century, is located in—well, actually, through the middle of the century, through the League of Armed Neutrality. Russia played a key role in that business, in Europe. So then, you had incidents. You had incidents in the early 19th Century. You had, around the U.S. Civil War, the Russian fleet protected New York and San Francisco. And it had a commitment from the Tsar to defend those things against the British operation. You had other things like that which occurred.

You had, also, a close relationship with Bismarck and the Tsar—two Tsars, actually. And the second one, Nicholas, got weak, and then the British were able to manipulate them.

Michael Kirsch: You also had Cassius Clay, the diplomat, under Lincoln. He taught American System economics in the Cabinet of Alexander II.

LaRouche: So, what you have, is the thing which I count on, is the unity and cooperation among cultures. And you try to enrich the culture that you're dealing with, and you find a cultural bond among different cultures. And those bonds, which are deeply embedded in part of the population as a whole of these respective peoples, is the securest basis for solving problems which may arise among those nations.

Kiracofe: But, Lyn, also, the cultures are under attack, as you've pointed out in the past, by our friends in the Frankfurt School, and others, who are systematically attacking cultures, to prevent just what you're saying.

LaRouche: I usually refer to Aeschylus in this, the Aeschylus drama, to get a sense of the depth of the cultural history of European civilization. When you see this relationship, you have a sense that it is culture which is the fundamental bond among peoples. And it's those things you have to go to, and enrich, and strengthen. And then you have a real, an immortal understanding, as opposed to a simple mortal one.

Nagorny: A very difficult situation exists in the cultural exchanges, right now, because if you take the Russian political spectrum of opinions, you will see that the pro-American segment of the elite is mainly ultra-liberal oriented, such as Chubais. And, you know, they are trying to insert the worst things from the United States onto the Russian territory. And that's why the reflective impulse of the public opinion is becoming anti-American. And how to cut off this kind of interaction, it's not—

LaRouche: We have this especially from George H.W. Bush. Clinton was an interim on this one, and the relations with Russia were not bad with Clinton; this shows even today. But then you have George W. Bush, Jr. for eight years, and you have this idiot clown, this fascist clown, who is now President of the United States, and you have the influence of the British on U.S. policy. You have the corruption of neighboring countries of Russia, as in Poland, as in Germany, as in France—France is a little more resistant—and that's what the problem is. You have created, you've introduced a bad cultural factor which has a cultural effect, and the only way to correct that is to reestablish roots in that, which was understood in U.S.-Russian relationships back in the 18th Century and 19th Century, repeatedly, up until the outbreak of war. And if the United States had not gone to war, on the side of Britain, in what's called the First World War, it would have remained that way. It's when the President of the United States was assassinated, and the Vice President was a pig, and the United States, therefore, got involved on the British side in the First World War, is when all the hell broke loose: There could not have occurred, the First World War, except for the death of—

Rachel Douglas: He's talking about the McKinley assassination, the shift to Anglophilia in the U.S. institutions.

Kiracofe: The shifting of the United States toward a more pro-British position.

LaRouche: I mean, the President was a British agent! Wilson was a British agent! Coolidge was a British agent. Hoover was a British agent.

Kiracofe: Colonel House was a British agent.

LaRouche: Roosevelt was a shift back. So you had, from McKinley to [Franklin] Roosevelt, a gap in American history. And what Roosevelt did, Roosevelt's approach was to go back, and to restore the tradition of his ancestor, Isaac Roosevelt, who formed the Bank of New York, who was a close associate of Alexander Hamilton.

So, we have these shifts constantly, which always is what I'm sensitive to, these cultural shifts, which are the most important. Because they don't deal with mortal, physical individuals. They deal with something which is transmitted from generation to generation as a cultural transmission. It's associated with the use of a language, with its literature, its music, and so forth. And scientific culture. And, for example, you have in Russia, today, you have among people who are rather aged, right now, as I am, you have people from the Vernadsky Institute and people like that, who represent a long history of Russian culture in the form of scientific and related culture. It's these factors, cultural factors, which are the most enduring, for the good, or for the bad.

Kirsch: How many people do you know, in Russia, who know that Adam Smith is a fraud?

Nagorny: Oh, not many. Not many, definitely. Because those who actually study American history, I would say, that even among them, you will find maybe four or five persons, who would penetrate into that depth of things. Generally, they go very superficially, looking through some textbooks, and simplified history things. And it's a very, I would say, illogical picture among Russian historians who approach American history. Because some of them are, as I said, liberals, and they're trying to take up all the things in a positive light, and especially from the liberal viewpoint. And the others, they are trying to analyze it mainly with a negative light.

Kirsch: The errors of the free market, or something.

Nagorny: Well, because of different explanations. But, generally, I would say that right now, there are good Russian historians which conduct research in American history, especially on the Presidents.

Kirsch: But they're not involved in the policymaking of the Russian government.

Nagorny: No, no.

An Anti-Free-Trade Impulse in Russia

Douglas: I have a related question, because there's kind of a pattern, but it's more isolated incidents, which actually speak to what Michael raised—just in the recent years. Looking for people in Russia who are anti-neo-liberal, but are not brainwashed to be totally anti-American, you see certain things.

Nagorny: That's the question, actually, which I raised, also.

Douglas: Here's the things I'm thinking of, and I want to know whether these things that I mention, you see as accidental, flash-in-the-pan, or are they really a pattern.

About six or seven years ago, Valeri Fadeyev, the editor of Expert, published a book, which was simply translations of the economic writings of Friedrich List, the collaborator of Mathew and Henry Carey, really the American System in Europe; List, [Dmitri] Mendeleyev, and [Sergei] Witte. Mendeleyev, of course, was in an intense discussion with the Americans on anti-British, anti-free trade economic policy, and was known as much as an anti-free-trader, as he was as a chemist.

Fadeyev published this book with an introduction—I translated it, and we put it in EIR[4]—saying, "This is the missing school of thought in the Russian economic policy deliberations."

Second, there was an article in a magazine, by Alexander Fomenko.[5] He wrote, about four or five years ago, an article on "the natural alliance which nobody ever talks about, namely the friendship between United States and Russia." And he brought out things: not only the Lincoln-Alexander alliance, but other things that are even controversial for Russia, and were at the time, like on the question of the purchase of Alaska. He brought out how, historically, the people in Russia who negotiated this purchase with [U.S. Secretary of State William] Seward, defended themselves against the charge of sellout, by arguing that, "No, this was very good, because the important thing was to box in the British, and for reasons of economic development and proximity," said these Russian advocates of the deal, "America would be in a better position to do that from Alaska than Russia could, and then we could move on to cooperation, including on the Pacific Rim."

Then there was the actual conference held at MGIMO [Moscow State Institute of International Relations], on the 125th anniversary of Roosevelt's birth.[6] This was 2007, where even [former President Putin's chief of staff Vladislav] Surkov was speaking. And the cynics were saying, "Oh, this is all just because they want to play up FDR, because Putin wants a third term, and FDR had four terms." But if you read the content of the speeches given there, these were not superficial speeches, in terms of the appreciation of what Roosevelt's economic policy had been, as a fight against the monetarists. So that was a third incident.

And then, you have things which, as you have indicated, might have some joking element in them, from Dr. [Igor] Panarin, but are also very interesting: namely, when Panarin writes his scenarios about the U.S. breaking up, he often says, "The force attacking the United States is the British, just as the force attacking Russia is the British. Maybe we would put Gorbachov on trial retrospectively as a British agent"—these kinds of things.

Not to mention, of course, the [2007] Bering Strait conference[7] itself, which the late Academician [Alexander] Granberg held, [Victor] Razbegin from the SOPS[8] held, in which there was really the sense that you would build this tunnel, as a matter of mutual interest for the development of both countries.

How do you see those views as being organized?

Nagorny: I know people whom you enumerated. I would put, also, Vladimir Pechatnov onto this list, and some others working in different institutes.

You know, among Russian historians and politologists, you wouldn't find outspoken anti-Americanism, per se. But, at the same time, anti-Americanism will appear, because of the domestic discussion, or domestic conflict, between liberals and non-liberals. If we characterize people which you mentioned, Fadeyev right now is rather important person in the establishment, heading a special discussion forum, and, at the same time, he is the head of some institute, along with his position, editor-in-chief for Expert. But you have to understand that Fadeyev is not a person who is producing the policy line. He is a PR and propaganda person, who is used by the Kremlin liberals, to keep harnessed public opinion.

Alexander Fomenko, he's a bright person, who served as a member of parliament in the Glazyev faction. And he speaks several languages and he's a very knowledgeable historian. He is, in his political position, a supporter of monarchy. And he is closely communicating with former Roman families in Europe, and with the Bourbon family, who have rather sharp anti-British sentiments, historically, because they consider that the French Revolution was arranged entirely as a British diversion, attack against the French, France's state.

LaRouche: Against the United States, also.

Kiracofe: Punishing the French for supporting us.

Empires and Revolutions

Nagorny: But I think that revolutions, of course, can be supported by certain foreign parties and powers, but, at the same time, they develop by themselves, because there are conditions for that. Of course, this or that can use these conditions, but still, it's not a concocted thing, you know?

LaRouche: Look at it from the standpoint of empire, the real conception of empire. I know the problem we run into is the fact that most people don't have a competent conception of empire. Ironically, one of the few people, historians, who had a conception of empire was Rosa Luxemburg, and all her contemporaries were wrong. She defined empire as based on international loans, that is she was referring to a monetarist system, and whoever controls the monetarist system can control the currencies and welfare of the world. And so, this was the issue at that time.

The other side of the issue was, of course, the American issue. The British were against the Americans, the American Revolution; the Americans were the threat to the British. So, therefore, once the international railway systems were developed, then you had the so-called geopolitical conflict, between the United States, on the one hand, the nations of Eurasia on the other hand, against the British. And the British handled that, by organizing wars among the nations of continental Europe.

And in these cases, the wars and the revolutions that followed—for example, take the case of Frederick Engels, who always was a British agent. So-called "Parvus" was his personal creation. He deployed Parvus into Germany; he also organized the arms business which Parvus was operating on, which was run together with the Young Turk movement, which Parvus was a part of. And the point was, the policy of the British was Parvus's policy! Permanent war/permanent revolution, which he drew Trotsky into, in terms of the 1905 Revolution, or the late part of the 1905 Revolution. It was Parvus who sold him on that thing: permanent war/permanent revolution.

This was typical. The British, beginning with the Napoleonic Wars, but even earlier: The British Empire was established as an empire, in the war, in 1763, the Peace of Paris, which set all the nations of Europe, except the Dutch and the British, into war among each other. So you had a Seven Years War, which involved everybody, ruined Europe, and had the specific, later purpose, when it was done again, of getting the United States isolated, totally, by aid of the Napoleonic Wars. The Napoleonic Wars were essentially what was used to destroy the United States. Because the United States had an alliance with Spain, had an alliance with France, and had an alliance with the League of Armed Neutrality under Catherine. All of these nations were destroyed! By British direction, orchestration of the Napoleonic Wars.

Kiracofe: And with World War I, the British get rid of the Russian Empire, the Austrian, and the Turkish.

LaRouche: And Bismarck understood this thing clearly. Bismarck had a secret agreement with the Russian Tsar, and the secret agreement was, if the Emperor of Germany were to decide to ally himself with the Emperor of Austria, the Habsburg, in a Balkan war, that Bismarck guaranteed to the Tsar that Germany would not support the Austrians in a Balkan war. And for that reason, in particular, the British organized the discharge of Bismarck, and what became known as war, of the 20th Century, became possible; beginning with the first war, with the war of Japan against China, a new war against China; then the war against Korea, and against Russia, up through 1905 and beyond.

So, most of the revolutions, in this whole period, have been organized by empires. Now, you look back in history, you go back to the Roman Empire, the Roman method of rule was by getting—

Nagorny: Barbarians fighting against each other.

LaRouche: Destroying nations.

Nagorny: But, you know what happened to the Roman Empire?

LaRouche: Exactly. So, the history has always been that the imperial system, which has always been based in European history on a monetarist system, and whatever power was a supranational power, controlled the monetarist system, could regulate the monetarist system, could control the forces of nations, and put them against each other. And that's still the case today.

So, that's the nature of the beast: that we are living in a situation where people believe in money. They believe that money represents wealth—which is idiocy! Money does not represent wealth! Wealth represents the productive forces in society. That's wealth. It's not money! We have this idiot [Sen.-elect Rand Paul], these Republicans, who just announced their program. They're idiots! They're nasty idiots, they're snake-like, poisonous idiots, but they're idiots!

Nagorny: Generally, right now, we see that China is the single nation which actually is absolutely independent in its economic decisions. And although there is a very strong pressure against the yuan, with revaluation of the yuan, but nothing actually comes out of it.

LaRouche: Well, what comes out, is now coming out, as also with India. You had a qualitative shift, as Russia has become less significant, under the Medvedev Presidency. It was much more significant under Putin.

Where Cooperation Can Emerge

Nagorny: You know, our problem is that Putin is not very much different from Medvedev. He's better, of course; he has some more sober ideas. But at the same time, for some unknown reason, he is absolutely in line with Mr. Kudrin, number one position. We do not understand how and why, he is suppressing the money supply in Russia.

LaRouche: May I suggest what the problem is? The problem is, you have Putin, who is obviously a nationalist, by his own personal instinct; he's a Russian nationalist. But his power lies in a confederation of confused forces, by which certain methods of corruption and other methods are used, manipulation. So, you have a man who represents the embodiment of this power, which he controls. But the power he holds is contingent upon playing these other elements, which are essentially disparate elements. So he becomes now, a prisoner: At the same time that he has the advantage of the coalition, he becomes a prisoner of this coalition of disparate forces.

And from my reading of some things I've seen, the possibility of close cooperation between Bill Clinton and Putin is a strong possibility. However, for the moment, because of these complications, nothing much is coming of it, at the present moment. There was a venture made in that direction, but the thing was, too soon, too soon.

Steinberg: The thing that struck me on that, when Alexander Nagorny was going through this profile of the way that the Khodorkovsky operation is about to be potentially used to bring down Putin, I think that it's not so much what he is, but looking—also from the British vantage-point—at what we're up to, what the Clinton crowd are up to, and others in the U.S., the potentiality for that renewal of that combination is enough of a threat to prompt this whole Jacob Rothschild British crowd to want to make a decisive move now against Putin.

LaRouche: It's more than that, Jeff. The point is you've got: The significance here, strategically, is Russia, China, and India. That's the crucial strategic point. And the question of how the United States relates to that partnership around Russia, China, and India.

Kiracofe: In a Westphalian format.

LaRouche: Absolutely. It's the only possible solution, strategically, for this situation.

The Imperial Game

Now, the purpose is not to promote Medvedev against Putin. The purpose is, is to prevent Russia from having a government which can hold itself together on the basis of a principle—then it [London] becomes totally vulnerable.

Nagorny: Yes, because if Medvedev wins this kind of competition, of course, he's too weak to keep the territories together, control different forces, and we will see, of course, the process of separation: separation economically, financially, politically, because the oligarchs wouldn't care anything about Mr. Medvedev. The regional leaders also will think their own and will play their own game.

Kiracofe: Brzezinski has already said that he wants to separate Siberia out.

Nagorny: You see, generally, the game is very intricate, as my friends, specialists on China, say, that Brzezinski and company suggested to China the "G2" formula, saying, "America and China will decide everything, everyone, the rest of the gang may go to Hell." But the Chinese, they rejected this idea in a very rude form. Then, after that happened, China finds itself in a very vulnerable position, and now it feels different pressures from different directions. And the demand, in terms of the currency revaluation, is one of these pressures.

LaRouche: They can't accept it, the Chinese can not accept it.

Nagorny: No. Same as the thing with this Nobel Prize winner, and other things, spy scandals.

Kiracofe: Islamic activity in the Uighur zone.

Nagorny: They are pressed, and as we understand this idea of a union, an alliance with [the NATO] alliance, the U.S. is prepared to pressure the Chinese, saying that, "You see? Russia and the old Europe created some kind of a formal alliance, and now NATO is on your borders. So let us better return back to the G2 formula, and think how to divide Siberia." Something like that—a simplified version, of course.

LaRouche: That's exactly what Medvedev's policy is on this negotiation, on the treaty negotiation on weapons. That's the intent from the European side.

Nagorny: You see, I can't understand how Medvedev could attain this position, because he's too weak, but he's being supported from different sides to go further.

LaRouche: What about the Pirates of the Caribbean? That's the control mechanism.

Nagorny: So, what happens next, nobody knows. But, for example, his visit to the Kurile Islands, is also very interesting, because they understand that they should pass Medvedev off as some kind of Russian nationalist, very patriotic, no territories to Europe, of course, in anticipation of the Presidential campaign.

Steinberg: So, you think it was a domestic political ploy.

War Against the British Faction in the U.S.

Kirsch: You see the way, in Lyn's webcast yesterday, the way he started out was: We have to understand our own history. Where does the power of the nation-state come from? And you can see with Rand Paul and these fanatic, fascist Republicans, who all push the magic of the marketplace, that somehow you'll get an excretion through the flow of buying and selling that will generate some product, right? That this is gripping not only the Russian leadership, but it's this unspoken thing, throughout, I think, everything, is the lack of understanding the power of what is a sovereign nation-state—and how it's antithetical to some external monetary group, that says, "Here's the value of money," or some external market—which generates progress.

Kiracofe: There's always been a British faction here. That British faction never went away, after our Revolution. It's still here. So you have London Republicans and London Democrats, and then you have patriotic ones. So, your liberals over there, so-called, neo-liberals, are meeting with the London faction of our people here. They're not meeting with the real nationalists.

Kirsch: And that's why I asked you about Adam Smith. It was because, we can see: The whole theme of Lyn's webcast yesterday was understanding what the powers of a republic are, in terms of the currency, but also, in terms of the economy. You would never get some something like NAWAPA, via different companies somehow building a new rail system, or somehow building a nuclear power plant. There has to be some idea which guides the economy.

Kesha Rogers: I think, going back to this conception, I realized during the campaigns, this idea that the only solution, the real solution is going to come from the United States, is critical. Because what we represented is—as Lyn pointed out—a mission-orientation for the entire world, that has been lost sight of. And what you were bringing up earlier, about this type of objective liberal mentality that people are taking on, that there's no conception of truth: I mean, this is what's destroying the thinking in the population. And so, you think about how dangerous it is, where, in the United States, you have this monetarist view of economics. And we see the dirty operations of it, on both sides of the aisle, especially during the campaigns.

What we fought against, Rachel Brown and myself, with calling for the immediate removal of President Obama, because this guy is a psycho, and what he represents is the British imperial and London financial interests. And so, you can recognize why people like [Rep.] Barney Frank, on the Democratic side, and people like my opponent [Rep. Pete Olson] on the Republican side, both can sort of unite, because they represent the same interest. And what we said, is, the only way you're going to stop this, is to get this insane President out, and to implement a Glass-Steagall banking reorganization. And that hasn't really come up in the discussion. Because there's no way you're going to stop this economic collapse without the implementation of Glass-Steagall in the United States.

And it dawned on me, as we were in the webcast, yesterday, that Lyn made the very critical point, that you have these Republicans coming in. I'll just say this: The incumbent that I ran against in the election for U.S. Congress in the 22nd District, was the liaison, the lackey to Phil Gramm! Who destroyed Glass-Steagall in '99. And when I was running in the election, I said, "Okay, well, I'm running against this guy," I said, "He's not a threat, he's just like some ... he's not even articulate! He can't talk!" But when I had the opportunity to sit down in a chair next to him, I said, "Oh, wow, this guy is dangerous." He seems like he's not dangerous, because he couldn't really express his ideas so well, but at the same time, when he started talking about the corruption of government, getting rid of all of these government organizations, how government needs to be out of people's lives. He praises the free market, he believes.... I mean, this is a guy who—I think he was taught magic—

Kiracofe: It's the destruction of the state! The goal is the destruction of the state. Actually, it was a book called the The State by a Frankfurt School guy in the 1920s, [Lassa] Oppenheim, and that book is the basis of Bill Buckley and some of these other conservatives. It's an attack on the state.

Americans, as Lyn explains, we're very proud of our institutions. And so, as Americans, we're very proud of our Congress, and our institutions. But, what the right wing has done, has imported, under these libertarian ideas, supposedly, an attack on the state, as the state. But we are the state: It's a republic! So, it's an attack on republican principles.

Rogers: Right. And if you don't get people to think in terms of the idea of commitment to nation and not commitment to party, as Lyn brought up, I mean, you're going to have a complete—. Because, it is true: Obama was already talking about shutting various social programs, shutting down Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and so forth, and this is exactly what the Republicans want, so it's just a smooth transition for them. And it's all a part of the monetarist view, instead of, as you said, commitment to a republic, commitment to nation-state.

And so, what our three campaigns represented, here in the United States, was the only direction and potential toward a real solution to the type of thinking that has degenerated and corrupted the population, into thinking, "Okay, you can actually just have your objective view; there's no commitment to truth. The view can only be that of, okay, money is what rules the world." And, I mean, that's taken over the political view, or the economic view, in almost every other nation, because the U.S. has been the model of that—or, should I say, the British Empire, and their view of monetarism.

And so, this question of Adam Smith becomes very critical, because that's what's corrupted economic policy throughout the entire planet. And I think what we have represented in these three campaigns is that, unless there's a shift from the United States, and you can actually have a driver, and leadership, which can challenge both sides—the Republicans, Democrats, or whoever you are—that the only solution comes from this commitment to patriotism; and patriotism being, not a commitment to parties, but a commitment to the principles of nation. That should be the model for the rest of the world.

Because if you can't get Obama out, then you can have corruption in leadership, controlled by the British all across the board. And so you'll see this domino effect, which is very important.

Nagorny: But it could take a rather long period of time, to win people to this side. And the critical events may take place rather quickly, as LaRouche was saying, and actually we will anticipate that the events, dramatic events are approaching. But of course, dramatic events, they may give a new impulse for clarification.

And what do you think about this leakage of the documents, from WikiLeaks?

Kiracofe: You know, there was opposition to both of those wars, from the very beginning. And really, if you look at the Iraq War—I had some experience on the Iraq War—if you look at the Iraq War, the intelligence community, and military professionals, and diplomats were opposed to the Iraq War. It's a politicians' war, basically on behalf of London. So there are institutions that are opposing this imperial policy.

Nagorny: But do you think that some remote person in Scandinavia could crack the cipher, and penetrate to the secret documents? What is the political sense of these leakages?

Steinberg: Well, it was intended to create a certain embarrassment. The first set of leaks were clearly aimed at creating a lot of embarrassment of the U.S. mishandling of the Pakistan-Afghanistan situation, and putting certain things out in terms of corruption by [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai. And then the second set of documents were focussed on Iraq. But these are very raw, these are raw field reports. These are documents that were at the level of Secret, not Top Secret, or anything higher. They were basically field reports from tactical deployments.

I think the real issue is: What was the intent of the leaks, and then the big media barrage around them? It was intended to basically further destabilize the situations in two war fronts, where the sane people in the United States want us to get the hell out of both of them. There's no reason for maintaining a continued military presence, the way we have it in Afghanistan, and there's no reason whatsoever for retaining 50,000 troops for the long haul in Iraq.

So, this created, in a certain sense, more of a disruption and a distraction. Because the real, the decisive fight is around the Obama question, is around the Glass-Steagall issue, and whether or not we're going to reestablish a functioning Presidency in the U.S. If that happens, it's a very clear, specific group of people, who are going to take the reins of power back, through perfectly Constitutional means, and under those circumstances, we are in a situation, where the next strategic logic is going to be to develop this Four Powers [U.S.A., Russia, China, and India] cooperation. It'll completely transform the strategic landscape very quickly.

You get Glass-Steagall through, in the United States, and that's something that can, in fact, be accomplished, during the immediate weeks ahead, in the lame-duck session of Congress. I mean, that was the purpose of Lyn's very, very tough message yesterday, to a general audience, but also a very specific audience, of people who were asking for Lyn's guidance on how to proceed over the immediate days ahead. There are some very, very heady decisions, that certain very specific people are going to have to make, which will determine whether or not we end this Obama Presidency under the right circumstances. And so, there was a universal audience, privileged to a very high-level, semi-private discussion. And that dynamic is now going to play out over the next several days.

And the thing that Lyn said the day before the election was, don't draw any conclusions from the numbers. We knew in advance what the outcome of the elections, more or less, was going to be. The issue was, how were people going to react, in the few days afterwards? How was that going to be presented at the webcast, yesterday? And what's going to happen as a result of the dialogue that occurred yesterday? That's, right now, the most crucial strategic process playing out, over the next week, ten days, whatever. And that's going to have an enormous impact on events that haven't yet happened. And that's going to really make a determination, precisely because, as you just said a moment ago, we are in a period, where events in the short term, are going to have such a decisive impact, because of the nature of the global disintegration process now under way, that those kinds of things, are going to be looked back on as real turning points in history.

That's where we are right now.

Kiracofe: There's also, that, as Lyn points out, with the resignation issue, Nixon resigned. The Republicans and others went: He didn't have support in the House of Representatives; there was that whole trial going on. So, Nixon realized, even Republicans were turning against him, so he had to pull out. Watergate trial. And Agnew resigned. And [Lyndon] Johnson wouldn't stand for re-election, right?

So, what Lyn is suggesting, it's perfectly logical in terms of domestic American politics. Other seated Presidents, or people who aspired to be President again, pull back and resigned, or did not run.

Steinberg: This is also where the British factor comes to play very prominently. There were clearly certain people in the upper echelons of the Democratic Party side of the establishment, in 1968, who realized that it was essential to put Robert Kennedy in as President, and made the move against Johnson, with the idea of the succession to Kennedy, who would have won the Presidency in '68 by a landslide. So there was an attempt, internally, within the United States, to correct the mistake, the horrible blunder that Johnson made with the British guns pointed to the back of his head, after [John] Kennedy was killed, of going into Vietnam. The Robert Kennedy move in '68 would have been a significant effort, to put things back on a certain track, even after we had gotten into this Vietnam mess. And the British stepped in and had Robert Kennedy assassinated, along with Martin Luther King, without which you would not have had Nixon in the Presidency.

So, this British factor, any time you ever take your eye off of it, you're doing it at great risk, if you're involved in serious global politics. And I think that's why understanding the historical foundations, is crucial.

We were talking, just on the way over here, about the fact that with Obama and the Rand Paul-type Republicans, you've got a perfect marriage of two British networks: the Martin Van Buren Democrats and the Austrian School Republicans. So, if you understand the background of that history, you see that we're living through a continuing fight against the British intervention into the U.S. political scene.

Kiracofe: Also, I have to definitely emphasize what Lyn said about fascism. This is extremely important, because, in the United States, the attack on FDR in the 1930s, was by a very powerful network of industrialists and bankers, Wall Street people and big business. And they organized an organization, the American Liberty League, and that organization was independent of the Democrats and the Republicans. It was an independent power-center. And they launched a massive attack on the Roosevelt Administration. After World War II, that organization, in various ways, has reconstructed itself. So, on the Republican side, the current "right-wing" quote/unquote Republicans basically feed back into a pre-World War II fascist, avowedly fascist, powerful American network, which is what Lyn is referring to about American fascism. So it's a very real, and historic problem we have here.

The public doesn't perceive it, because, as Jeff pointed out, the right-wing Republicans are using the Austrian School—rhetoric? I don't know how you want to say it, but it's really fascism, but it's being packaged as libertarianism, or "against the state." So it's being packaged in a way without using maybe Mussolini's terms, or Hitler's terms. It's being packaged in a way.

Michelle Lerner: But the attack on Franklin Roosevelt is still very explicit by them.

Kiracofe: Very explicit, that one is, yes! And that's their sort of talisman.

Steinberg: And by Obama.

Kiracofe: They're kind of cute, because they'll attack FDR, and they'll try to use the Austrian School, rather than attacking FDR like they did in the '30s, and praising Mussolini, or even Hitler, for that matter. So they learned their lesson about how do it, but the attack is the same attack, definitely, absolutely.

Nagorny: But at the same time, you know, to dismantle this system, one has to struggle with such colossal structures as Goldman Sachs, and others.

LaRouche: But sometimes, the point is, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Study the Lessons of History

One can't use simplistic thinking to deal with these kinds of problems. You've got to really understand the process. And you've got to use history. You've got to understand "secret things," so-called, which are lying there in the population, which influence them. People always like to read newspaper headlines, and often they become brainwashed by believing newspaper headlines. But, this distracts attention from what may be the real process.

You know, out there, while they're talking about this fight about politicians, you've got a population out there which is desperate, and enraged. And these fascists, like [Rand] Paul's crowd, don't know what they're dealing with! You can get a bloody street battle in the United States, very violent street battles in the United States, against these fascists. And it'll come perfectly spontaneously: It'll come as a mass strike. We're on the threshold of a mass-strike explosion against these fascists.

And that, then, becomes another factor: Then, what, when you have a mass-strike movement, how do you consolidate the mass-strike movement as a stable movement, as a stable political process? And that's where the art of politics comes in: It's how do you get stability, when you have a riotous, revolutionary situation? And often, people have failed to solve that problem.

We're on the verge, if this does not go through, the first phase is, they get through, they get the Democrats to capitulate, and they try the blackmail. That will lead to an explosion in the population. The explosion in the population can bring that down. But how do you calm things down afterward? With what institutional methods do you calm things down?

In other words, you eliminate the evil force, destroy it, make it immune. You've got to put a force back in, which is capable of being government, and reuniting the people. That's been done, but it's something that does not happen spontaneously. It happens because you think about it.

Ian Overton: That reminds me of some of the things you've been saying, in the paper you wrote, on the need to maybe stop looking at psychology from the standpoint of an individual, but to look at psychology from the standpoint of long historical processes, like a Percy Shelley psychology. We've been talking about a lot of different individuals who've taken up positions of authority, and their lack of moral caliber, and ability to handle crises such as this. I think that there's a direct relationship between the moral failures of leaders in society, and their disconnect from these long historical processes that shape and move people. Because they live and think from the standpoint of, "I was born, I exist, I die, I cease to exist," they're unable to comprehend or tap into, and move and shape these long historical processes.

LaRouche: And that's the issue of leadership. That, the true leader in society is not the so-called leader. The true leader in society is the person who has a higher understanding, of how the mind works, and speaks from that standpoint; because the ordinary people don't have that conception, they're responsive to it. That's the distinction. That's why I wrote this whole series of papers on this subject, not only because of science—primarily it was a scientific motive. But! The key thing is that you have to have a higher understanding than is popular, about how the human mind works. Most people don't even have a beginning of knowing how it works. But those of us who are taking responsibility for leadership, have to. Otherwise, we're not competent.

NAWAPA and the Vernadsky Tradition

Kirsch: I can add one thing that I've been thinking about the past few days, of how to address the sudden mass-strike that you're referring to. Because, there was some footage we had on our website of major protests in Europe of the budget cuts going on there. And the question is how you speak to that kind of rage, with something that would move them into an orderly group? Well, I thought back to the way in which we presented the image on our website of the NAWAPA project, because Mr. LaRouche told us that we had to put some kind of image that would move people, rather than just a formal, "Here's the way out the depression," right? But something that speaks to a different aspect of their mind.

We had a response because of both the detail of the proposal—we used this engineering report that had already been done—and the way we presented it with the 3-D image. We got a certain response from people, that we hadn't had—from my memory in this movement—of people watching a video and saying, "Omigosh! This is fantastic!" All kinds of these different groups, and corporations, and so forth.

Now, I consider, we're dealing with this radical fascist movement of people who think that there should be "hard currency," no government, no government currency, no government promotion of anything, and just this radical free market. And you have, then, the response to the blowup of the currency, the collapse of the value of our currency, and massive budget cutting, as Lyn has said, the cut-off of unemployment benefits. When you get this kind of reaction, you can't speak to those kind of people with, "Here's why free trade sucks," or, "Here's why you need a National Bank."

And so, I've been thinking that the same success we had in presenting an idea around NAWAPA, in the way that we've done, and the follow-up that we've had in discussions, if [we did] something similar, of being able to speak to people, and presenting something similar around the American System economics, and around, really, essentially that. Essentially what Lyn did yesterday: building a seamless presentation of "How do you pay for NAWAPA?" And that's the way that he responded to a lot of these guys saying, "We've got to know how we're going to pay for the recovery." Or, "How do we know we have the credit as a nation? How do we know we don't have to borrow from some private bank? How do we know we manifest, as government, our current credit and we don't have to balance our budget?" That's insane. We don't have to kill our people. We have the power as a nation.

So, I would just put that forward as the way I've been thinking in the last few days, is if we can achieve something which is not a formula, not a formal description, but something that has that kind of an idea, that's what we would need.

Lerner: I think the key thing with the presentation of the NAWAPA has actually been the concept of the platform, that Lyn had developed. I was thinking about this yesterday, because the questions were more detailed around fiscal things. That seems to me like it's more of a fear response, not to look at the deeper implications of what the NAWAPA program is.

What I mean by that is really taking up the challenge of how [Russian scientist V.I.] Vernadsky viewed the development of the species over hundreds of thousands of years, and not thinking in terms of everything that's happening right now, but thinking in terms of a shift to the higher platform. To be able to do that, you have to put it in a context of the history of the development of these platforms.

I think that concept was really what Lyn was driving for, when he intervened on the way that we were dealing with the problem of economics prior to taking up NAWAPA—but I think that that's what gets at this question of mission, and successive generations. I think that that has to continue to be the focus. And it's also very appropriate.

Interestingly, from the standpoint of Russia, there is the tradition of Vernadsky. And I think that there's still problems in the way that it's understood. And I think that's more what we actually have to go for, and take Lyn's advancement of Vernadsky's work and present it as that.

LaRouche: Well, that's it. You see in Russia, you see in the history of the fight between, say, Oparin and Vernadsky, in that period, even though it was only one paper in that time, and you see that Oparin represents complete destruction. It's completely British agent, essentially. [J.B.S.] Haldane and company. Then you look at Vernadsky, the way Vernadsky thinks. And what's the most important thing about the way Vernadsky thinks, the way he thinks about mankind, life and so forth. This is unique: It's one of the great contributions to all modern science, is that. It's not merely his achievements, as application. It's the way he thinks. And the point has been, that it's to try to get that concept put in a form that can be understood for what it is, which means you have to get into this question of the difference between man and the beast. The human mind is capable of creativity, in the sense that no beast is capable of creativity.

All species are creative, inherently. But they are not consciously, willfully creative. In the evolution of species, the species are creative. All animal life is creative. The universe is creative. The galaxy is creative. But what is consciously, willfully creative, as such, per se? It's a quality of the human mind which is unique to the human mind, and it's not something that happens inside the skull, as such. It's something that happens in society. It's individuated. And when you think in terms of cosmic radiation, as opposed to a periodic table, it becomes very clear. When you think of the universe as cosmic radiation, which is what it is, then it's clear.

Therefore, in dealing with a mass of people, you have to bring in principles. Now, the problem is, if you try to be too practical, in order to appeal to what they think they understand, you won't do the job. Because you're not communicating to them in a way which will affect them on the question of principle, the way Shelley writes about in the Defence of Poetry. There's this higher layer.

And what we try to do, is exactly that. You see the effect, for example: when we released this video, on NAWAPA, and we held back on publicizing it, till we had the whole thing programmed for presentation. We put it out, and the response was electric: electric among professionals who are competent to understand what we were presenting. The response was immediate, and unique.

Now, what that typified, is people who are actually creative, in the way they think. And you have a number of people who are specialists of all kinds, who have been involved, and associated with projects which involve different kinds of mental skills, different kinds of professional mental skills; and when you bring people together, with different mental skills, or development of skills, together for a common project, and they have to integrate that project, which involves different ways of conceptualizing, according to their profession, and you're putting the elements of this profession, interacting, to create an effect which does not exist in any part of this assembly of people, but exists only in the interrelationships among the group as a whole. And that's what happened.

We got an immediate thing, which he [Michael Kirsch] got, with his response from the whole group of specialists: we took specialists who were, you know, from my age-group or slightly younger, and they understood it that way. They could cooperate, they could talk to each other, different professions, who were all integral to this kind of project. And then we would find, there was a common action among them, which rose above the skill which was specific to any one of them. And they would interact, and they would joyfully interact, as his friends, on this thing he's done a few times, this program—they interact, beautifully! And it's like a transformation of these people, from being specialists in their own niche, and suddenly they become super-specialists. They become involved in each other's scientific specialty. And they become problem-solving geniuses, just by getting them together and talking to them!

And we got some of this same kind of quality. For example, the Vernadsky Institute [State Geological Museum] in Moscow. You get the same kind of thing from these people. They react exactly like that, when we had these conferences we participated in, with them. They react like that! And we get real, creative, scientific thinkers, particularly, though, in the Vernadsky tradition in Russia, or anyplace else. And this is a special kind of chemistry of the mind, which does not exist in normal university activity otherwise.

Kiracofe: And you can bring the public behind that. We've already had, for example, after World War II, under Eisenhower, we had a very large highway project, for our interstate highways, or a St. Lawrence Seaway project, which was a very large project in those days. So, you can bring in the public along with you, in some of these very large projects.

LaRouche: That's where the platform concept comes in. Because, in order to go to NAWAPA, what're we doing—we're taking a very large project. Conceptually, in one sense, it's very easy to understand. It's composed of these elements. Each one of these elements is completely comprehensible. But what's important is the interaction among these elements, that you're combining.

The Arctic Is Part of the Plan

Then you get into the effect on the Arctic. You trace this out to the way in which the potential, which we're organizing—we're organizing something to do this NAWAPA project. We're taking things we know. We're taking a potential. And we start to look at the potential, and we're now looking at the origin of life, and the development of life forms in the Arctic, and all these other kinds of questions which come in as mental stimuli, which you have to think about, on the impact of what you're doing. I mean, right now, the NAWAPA project, the whole Arctic project, which has been a long, mysterious thing, incomplete. This area is now open to us, conceptually. If we do this project, when we get up into Alaska, and into the Canadian thing, and into Russia, and start to look at the development of the potential of the Arctic, and the characteristics of the Arctic as distinct from other parts of the planet, you have a revolution, immediately—which we're running into.

Nagorny: But the Arctic could be not only common ground, but it may be a zone of conflicts. But, actually, right now, it is developing as a conflicting zone.

LaRouche: Therefore, we have to get the cooperation going. And the key thing is to get this project going, and then get the Bering Strait tunnel and rail put together. And you get the mission-orientation in Siberia, in Russian Siberia, for the development of the mineral resources of that area, which can only be dealt with, with the thinking of the Vernadsky approach. Because, when you're dealing with this kind of territory, this is not just Earth territory. It's much more complicated.

Nagorny: In Russia, the Arctic is mainly supervised by Mr. [Arthur] Chilingarov, who used to work as Vice Speaker of the Duma, but I think right now, he's simply a chairman of the Committee for Northern Territories. But he arranged several very interesting initiatives, which were unheard of in the '90s. For example, actually, he's a scholar, an Arctic scholar, and he spent much time researching things in Arctic stations during the Soviet times. But right now, he managed to arrange the expedition to the Northern Pole, and in a bathyscaph, they went down to the basin of the ocean, and put a Russian flag there. It made quite, you know, an outcry.

LaRouche: Actually, there are only a few nations, which really have efficient access to the Arctic. It's a territorial issue. You have Denmark, for example.

Nagorny: Denmark and Canada.

LaRouche: Alaska, Russia, three chiefly.

Nagorny: Great Britain.

LaRouche: Let them behave themselves.

Douglas: The Arctic Forum[9] in Moscow was limited to the five which actually have an Arctic littoral.

LaRouche: See, what we're dealing with, having fun with, in our Basement researches, which she [Lerner] is involved in this, on some of this biological stuff, we're dealing with life forms, the characteristic of life forms, and the history of life forms, which is unique! It's just an area of research that's unique! I mean, the history of unicell life forms, and what the relationship is to the Arctic, as a very specific area, with specific characteristics. Now, if you want to do something in that area, you want to function there, you've got to know what you're doing!

So, when we do these kinds of projects, we are opening up entirely new areas of thinking. And like the recent video, the second program we did on this—

Ogden: "The Extraterrestrial Imperative."[10]

LaRouche: When we look at the functional relationship, which is portrayed in that program, between what's happening on Earth, and the cycles of life and so forth on Earth, and you take the relationship of that to the galaxy, the 60-million-year-long cycle, and the galactic cycle, you look at the question of which life forms have evolved on Earth, under what kind of conditions, variable conditions....

Ogden: What we demonstrated is that both in the large and the small—in the large, in terms of increases in biodiversity and changes in predominant species, what sort of species is predominant on the planet; but also in terms of in the small, in terms of metabolism, life cycles, in the single organism—these are all dependent on a supra-galactical interaction of cosmic radiation. You have two interacting cycles, one 64-million-year cycle, and one 130-million-year cycle, where, on one hand, the Solar System, in orbiting around the galaxy, is going above and underneath the galaxy plane, so it's being exposed to more radiation on one side than on the other; and then, in the other, it's during this circulation around the galaxy, it's entering in and out of the spiral arms of the galaxy, where you have a greater or lesser density of this cosmic radiation. So everything we see in the small, here, on planet Earth, is a product of these huge, supra-Solar System-wide cycles.

LaRouche: And the effect is, mostly, interestingly, concentrated on the Arctic. Because of the characteristic of this region of the Earth's existence. So, plant life, or unicell life—

Nagorny: I remember, when I was teaching at the University of Washington, in 1993—well, my presentation of materials was not accepted very favorably, by the university. And all of a sudden, they suggested that I conduct seminars with Navy officers. I was very much surprised, I said, "Okay, let's go." And I had two groups. In one group, I had six young officers, around 30-35, mainly from the Intelligence Directorate of the Pacific Navy. And I gave them lectures about Russia, about political systems in the Pacific Rim countries. And then, after two months, I decided to give them some task, to prepare a paper. And everyone was free to choose anything.

So two of them chose a very interesting subject. One, a lady of 32, who was deputy intelligence department, aerial control, she took a subject, the North Arctic route around Siberia as the future key for the control of the Pacific. And she wrote a very good paper, by the way! And the second paper on the same subject was by a young person, but he was analyzing economic and political consequences of the melting climate conditions at the Northern Pole.

So, the interest is there, in the Arctic and Siberia, and it was actually not accidental. I think that they had a piece of advice from other people, to choose that kind of subject. And this interest will develop, it's absolutely clear.

And, if we have a second wave of real crisis, of course, such projects as NAWAPA, such as an Arctic route for the trade and exploration, will be key for the future of the mankind, and especially such countries as the United States, Russia, and so on and so forth.

But, in my view, you know, development of such projects takes time, whereas, we don't have time. Because the things will start happening, maybe next year. You were saying about weeks, even! In my view, it is months, maybe half a year, something like that. But both six months, or several weeks, it's a very short period of time.

LaRouche: Actually, in this case, it opens up much more nicely. First of all, the NAWAPA itself, as a project, begins to open it up, immediately, once you get into it. Once you get into this Arctic area; NAWAPA is actually Arctic fringe. And you get into that area, and if you start to get the tunnel-bridge, the railroad bridge, between Siberia and Alaska, you've opened up the whole area. I mean, that's immediately; the physical economic possibilities of actual exploration come there as a byproduct of simply doing the project, because you're touching that area. And what we were doing—what she [Meghan Rouillard] has been doing, in particular, with the biological work on this, which she's done a good part of the report on this—what you've been working on in this biological project. There's a whole area of investigation, you can start to get into right now. All of it is highly relevant. You just have to simply find people you're going to pull together, to move this forward.

If we start the NAWAPA project, we will immediately have a change in the politics of the United States. Whenever the agreement is made, to do that—.

A New Platform of Civilization

Nagorny: There should be a political will.

LaRouche: There will be, because, the point is, when you take what we have left, of our scientific engineering capability in the United States, and think of the fact we've got vast unemployment, including, we probably have about 40 million people who could be employed, in the combination of NAWAPA, and rail and maglev systems development, and also supporting supplies, vendors to the project. We start this in motion.

Then you think in terms of byproducts, as you do when you start to tear up territory, large projects: You dig things out of the ground, that you didn't know were there before. You come into processes that you didn't know were there before. So, you always have an immediate byproduct, an experimental byproduct, whenever you make big changes in the Earth's surface, you discover things. Or when you go into the Arctic waters, you find things about life, you didn't think existed before, anomalies.

So, immediately, you're doing that, and people are beginning to think in those terms. So, you're on the road to an accelerated rate, because you've come to what I call, a new platform. A project like this raises the platform level of civilization, in the same way that the introduction of transcontinental railways, was a change in the platform of civilization. The so-called, famous geopolitical shift. And that's what this will do. The changes in the weather, changes in patterns, by the implementation of NAWAPA, will, from the beginning, pose these questions.

And when you start putting people together—. You know, what we had, the experience in World War II, going into the war. The kinds of experimental work we did, as a byproduct of nuclear and other research, much research, and new technologies, immediately—this is a matter of years! You're not talking decades, you're talking about years! You've got people going at this two or three years, you can create new branches of applied science!

Nagorny: You know, strange as it may seem, I heard about the idea for a tunnel between Alaska and Chukotka, not from Mr. LaRouche. In 1979, I was sent to the BAM, the Baikal-Amur Railway, because there was such a practice, that people from the Academy of Science should go and meet people in the remote areas, and instruct them, what's going on. It's kind of a supporting information activity. And I flew to, first Irkutsk, then to another city, and by bus, I went along the Baikal-Amur Railway construction line. And usually I gave two lectures per day, and went over to another village or local construction site. And all of a sudden, on the third stop, during the third lecture, after I finished, some workers who were making the longest tunnel, they started saying, "Soon we will finish it. We have only a year and a half to work here. How about the tunnel to the United States!" I said, "Where, from here?" They said, "No! From Chukotka to Alaska."

LaRouche: Once you get into these areas, you take the talent we have, and our concern was: Take the talent we have in the United States, what's left of the labor force; take the highly skilled labor force, engineering and so forth. That's your spearhead in the project. Now, you have people who are skilled in other professions. We have, the auto industry was almost shut down in the United States. We still have the people who have the level of skill, of engineering, in the auto industry, machine-tool design and things like that. They're still there. We have aircraft design; it's the same thing! You have people, you know, naval design; same thing. So you bring these people into a project, a single project, and the project becomes a big thinking machine. Because by putting together, with a single task-orientation, a variety of different scientific and related skills, the automatic result is that you begin to get a fertility of ideas, a fertility of thinking, as we got in World War II, in launching it. There was a real fertility of thinking that was unleashed.

So, I think the immediate effects, the psychological effects, by the fact of putting 4 million people to work, now, who are unemployed in a nation that has collapsed—on the basis of a credit system, which we know how to do, we can do it!—results in a transformation in the way of thinking, of national thinking. You probably can think of the same thing in Russia, where revolutions occurred in projects, where intellectual collaboration was generated by a project which otherwise would have seemed impossible.

Kirsch: One thing on that is, we want to put on our website all these five videos that are talked about—people who are speaking on: What would this look like for the country? How would we do this? What can we do? What kind of technologies aren't being used? How would this impact ... ? And people in Europe, machinists, who are doing these big tunnels, people in Russia who are working in the Arctic, scientists up there, Russian industrialists—on our website, speaking about these things. So, they have a forum, which then other people can watch, and say, "Ah! Okay, I can see this discussion's going." At some point they say, "Oh, okay, I support this."

LaRouche: You need to establish a higher platform. So, you take projects which are largely related to infrastructure, high-technology changes in infrastructure. You have now raised the platform of technology on which you're functioning. This increases the productive powers of labor of everyone who participates in that higher platform, and that's the way to get the kind of revolution we need in economy, to get the world back in shape, from the desperate condition we're in. So, you need a collaboration, you need inspiration, you need projects which actually force that question.

Kirsch: We saw, with the space program, certain companies that were making some kind of metal, some kind of steel; now, people in the company are sitting down with these scientists and saying, "Well, we need this kind of metal." And whole new industries then open up, and whole new scientific branches to study how to make these new things open up. And so, when you're looking at NAWAPA, you're talking about every single layer in all of the historically scientific groups, who will have to be brought to the table, all of the people who still know how to build anything in the United States, who are about to go extinct, sitting back at the table. And you know—two things: One, as he was referencing earlier, this would bring back a bridge between the generations. Right now, you have a cut: The Baby-Boomer generation—they lost any sense of the future, and any sense of building something for the future. So there has to be a bridge between the new generation and the older.

And secondly, is that, on NAWAPA, because it's a new idea, it's not just, "We need some new rail, or we need a new power plant, or we need a dam," but because it's fundamentally something which is a new concept, and it has a challenge, that is, something we've never conquered before, I think that's what evokes, then, the discussion that would have never taken place in a former system.

Ogden: I was talking to a Russian acquaintance about NAWAPA and the Bering Strait crossing, and he said: "Your idea is brilliant. But in the Russian mentality, the first question will be, 'Where is the cash?' " He thought the only way the Bering Strait tunnel could get funded, would be to package it for Gazprom to fund, as a continuation of Prime Minister Putin's sea-floor gas pipeline projects to Germany, and to Turkey. He said, "You could attract attention by demanding a pipeline to Alaska, even though Alaska itself has a lot of gas—it doesn't matter. They are drilling for gas on Sakhalin Island. That way, Gazprom could accept it, and they have the money. By hooking people on the pipeline idea, you could put in the bridge," he said.

Kirsch: Yes, people say, "Where is the cash?" The way I'd respond to that, is: "What is cash?" Because, two things: One, you're never going to get anything like this, by just one company saying, "This is profitable for us." But it's profitable, in the real sense of profit, in that it will have a long-term increase for the whole population, in its technology capacity.

LaRouche: Especially employment.

Kirsch: If you look at NAWAPA—the North American Water and Power Alliance—the price tag they said, back in 1964, if you want to look at it in dollars: $100 billion. How much has it cost us, the fact that we never built it? Many, many, many times. It actually will be free, in the long term. But with a sovereign government here, now, we don't have to—there's no fixed amount of money. Putin said, two years ago—this is 2008, when the bailouts were going on—he said: We, here, in Russia, the difference between us and the United States, is we can't just print money. We have to have a fixed amount. We have to sell our resources to raise it.

The video we put on our website, "Continental Implications," we have, in collaboration with people who've done the feasibility studies. I mean, that is one of the things to buck the British transoceanic reliance on oil, is, China, shipping Alaskan coal to China; Russia-U.S.

The big fraud of Karl Marx-Adam Smith, is that private property is something that exists, private companies. But without the government, without a republic or a government, you didn't have any private ownership of anything, even your own self. There were ruling nobilities, the banking families, and there's nothing to guarantee private property without a government. So we do have private companies in the United States, we do promote private ingenuity. But, the government is what guarantees the wealth of any currency or company.

If we can get some patriots from the United States to do what he [LaRouche] said yesterday, we won't need to go looking for money.

LaRouche: What will work is if you get cooperation among nations, different nations, in this area, this area of potential cooperation, it will flourish. There's no question about it.

Douglas: And the SOPS design for the Bering Strait tunnel is a multimodal tunnel, including gas pipelines.

Ogden: The guy I was discussing with kept coming back to, "You have to find a source of money."

Douglas: But, you know what? We actually created the Transcontinental Railroad, by the state creating credit, by having a credit system, and not a money system. And Witte did the same thing in Russia, by a government credit system, not a money system.

Kirsch: This is actually why I raised Adam Smith, because the state—the nation-state, is what creates money. And what Lyndon LaRouche was just saying earlier today, that is important to understand, about Adam Smith, is that there was a Seven Years War, and at the end of that war, Britain came out with India, Canada, the East Indies, and a big global empire. But they couldn't have their military troops to occupy all those places. So they had to come up with a way of, "How do we get these colonies to still be colonies, and yet, we don't need to be there!" And that is exactly what an external source of the value of money comes from. And Adam Smith went to France, wrote his economic doctrine, and left out the power of the nation-state to do anything to provide for itself, and also develop its own sovereign manufacturing for itself, as well.

LaRouche: You can do it. With national credit, you can do it. You don't need money, you need national credit.

What Will It Take To Move People?

Nagorny: Well, in my view, we have discussed many interesting topics, and they are multi-sided, from international relations, history, economics, psychology, morality, philosophy. It's a very complex approach, and I think it paves the way to some kind of an agenda for the future.

But, in my modest understanding, this idea could grasp masses, only after a second wave of crisis. Because otherwise, people won't be very active. They won't be very much interested. They should be pressed by the circumstances.

LaRouche: Well, the United States population is desperate. They're now desperate, increasingly so. Entire communities, entire states, are absolutely desperate. So the motivation is there.

Nagorny: Yes, but the elite.

LaRouche: We know how to deal with the elite. I mean, we've been at history a long time, been working at history a long time. We have done things which have made the enemy very unhappy. If you can make the enemy very unhappy, that means you're probably doing something good.

No, you can do it! The United States is the one nation which can be mobilized most readily for this kind of purpose, because it's embedded in our multi-generational tradition. It's there. And what we got on the response, when we launched the NAWAPA project, again, once we had prepared it and presented it, where we do this mapping, the global mapping of the project, once we presented that—BOOM! You open up all kinds of areas. And it happened immediately, it happened very quickly, once we prepared.

Nagorny: As a state? Or ... ?

LaRouche: Well, as a national project. All it takes is, our system of government, the U.S. American system, is entirely based, in principle, constitutionally, on a credit system, not a monetary system. Therefore, if we can, on the cases of uttering credit, if we can generate a growth of actual, physical income, net physical income, from the process of giving credit for this development, we, in our system of government, can immediately explode, as Roosevelt did, in the 1930s, we can explode the productivity of the nation.

So, we don't have to have any favorable conditions. All we have to do, is have the desire of a large part of the population for employment, for productive employment, for some kind of security. And the American population will, even now, will respond to that. If you can promise, if you can say, "We can put shovels in the dirt, on work projects, next week," the American citizen will respond, especially now. Because they have almost nothing. They still have their skills, they still have their productive capacity. We have a whole section of young people who have no skills whatever, but in the middle group, in the middle age groups, income groups, we still have people who have skills. If you can put shovels in the dirt, next week, and employ people, in something which is productive, in the United States, as long as you don't have interference against you from the U.S. government, you can succeed. That's what Roosevelt did. We can do it, again.

Our system is especially designed for this kind of purpose. We've done it repeatedly, despite bad periods, bad Presidents, bad things. All we have to do, is have that: The American people will go for it. Particularly, if they're hungry and they want jobs. And we have states—whole Federal states in the United States are bankrupt, right now! So all these guys who are talking about power, about their system, about their free-trade system, and so forth, it's bunk! The whole system they're talking about is already as good as dead!

And we, who have this other policy, our policy, is the only policy which can live! These guys, their system is dead! We can operate, we know how to operate on a system of credit. We create state credit; if the state credit is going, on the average, for something that will pay for itself, in terms of benefits to society, we can do it, indefinitely! Until we run out of people to put to work.

That's our capability, that's our specific capability in our Constitution. But we need a Presidency, which will actually activate that part of our Constitution. And what we need, is actually unifying projects.

See, the advantage of NAWAPA: Just imagine this thing: We're taking this large project, which goes over the largest area of any project that mankind has ever undertaken. And the implication is, starting this project means, when we go through the Darien Gap, we're going all the way through South America, as well as North America. If we do that, and we connect to Russia, with Siberia, by the Alaskan—we build that route, well, what does that do? That opens up the whole area of Siberia, for the actual developing of a system which, in the condition of that soil, that weather condition, you can actually start to open up the development of mining in that area, because you have a way of developing it. You have China, which is desperately hungry for mineral resources it doesn't have—all kinds of things—we have them.

So therefore, now we have a means, a mechanism, for mining, and for developing communities, which are part of this mining process. No problem! It's a lot of work, a lot of sweat, a lot of danger, the usual problems of pioneering. But this means, that we now are integrating the interests of China with the function of Russia as a supplier of something that China desperately needs.

An Agreement Among Nations

We have an alliance with India, where the alliance on nuclear power, and going to fusion, is already an agreement, it's already a principle. So, we have that. For example, going to the thorium reactors, which is India's requirement: They need thorium reactors, because of the problems they have with the poor. You need local, small thorium reactors, which will actually be the basis for getting some kind of civilization to about two-thirds or one-half of the Indian population. They desperately need it. The situation in all Southeast Asia is very similar.

So, these things are inherently profitable, by any objective standards, because we very rapidly increase the productive powers of labor. We raise existence to a higher economic level, physical economic level. And that's all we have to do.

But we need an agreement among nations, at least some nations, which will agree to cooperate on the basis of this, as being a common-interest project.

Now, we take the Transaqua in Africa: It's the only chance for Africa, is Transaqua. I mean, that's the key project. Prevent Sudan from being split up; get the Transaqua program, bring back Lake Chad, with the Congo waters.

This is the future! If you connect these areas with rail systems, or magnetic levitation systems, which we can do, now, you can take all continents, except Australia, and you can integrate them, in one continuous system of mass transportation and a conveyor belt concept of economy.

It's the necessary mission of mankind, and this mission, with its implications, means, this is the next step to space. Two generations of this, of progress in this direction, and we will be ready to go to Mars. We will, in that process, we will have developed the technology to deal with the challenge of a Mars landing. And then, the human race is now off to the races.

That's where you must go, mankind must go, for the future of mankind. And you can not do it by one thing; you've got to have a cooperation among different cultures, which cooperate to a common end. It's elementary. And I'm confident, if we get rid of this Presidency, and get one in that functions, under the conditions of desperation right now, you can mobilize the majority of American people to support it.

But if we don't do that, the American people will become desperate, this country will go to Hell, and the planet will go to Hell.

Steinberg: Easy choice!

[1] The Brazil-Russia-India-China grouping was founded, on the initiative of Goldman Sachs, to wreck the potential for a Four-Power alliance of the last three countries with the United States, against the British Empire.

[2] The North American Water and Power Alliance, first proposed in 1964 by the Ralph M. Parsons Co., was never implemented. It would bring the abundant water of Alaska and western Canada southward, to the Great American Desert, including Mexico, and other areas of great need. See http://www.larouchepac.com/infrastructure for a large selection of videos, including specialist interviews.

[3] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Turkey, and its first President, 1923-30.

[4] Rachel Douglas, "Russian Editor: Revive National System of Political Economy," EIR, July 1, 2005.

[5] Konstantin Cheremnykh and Rachel Douglas, "Russians Look at Strategic Meaning of Historical Alliance with U.S.A.," EIR, June 8, 2007.

[6] Rachel Douglas, "Franklin Roosevelt in Post-Soviet Russia: Russians Honor FDR's `Historic Immortality.'" EIR, Feb. 23, 2007. Accompanying documentation.

[7] See Rachel Douglas, "Russian-American Team: World Needs Bering Strait Tunnel!," EIR, May 4, 2007.

[8] Russian Academy of Sciences Council for the Study of Productive Forces.

[9] "The Arctic: Territory of Dialogue," Moscow, Sept. 22-23, 2010.

[10] http://www.larouchepac.com/cosmicrays