This transcription of the webcast question and answer period appears in the February 5, 2010 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Dialogue with LaRouche

For the questions and answers period after LaRouche's opening presentation, co-host Debra Freeman communicated with the audience from offsite after Route I-95 was closed due to the snowstorm that hit the Washington area that day. The PDF version of the entire webcast transcription is available here.

Schlanger: We'll be doing our question and answer session, and it'll be somewhat unconventional, at least at the beginning. Thanks to Al Gore's global warming, Debra Freeman is stuck on a highway somewhere, hopefully near here.

But before I get to Debra, let me just make an announcement, that part of what we can do to provide the leadership in the United States to follow up what happened in Massachusetts last week, is that there are three candidacies, three campaigns of LaRouche Youth Movement members, running for the Congress: Kesha Rogers in Texas, the 22nd District; Rachel Brown in Barney Frank's district, Bailout Barney Frank's district in Massachusetts, running against Bailout Barney Frank; and Summer Justice Shields, running for Congress to unseat the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. And there will be a literature table outside the room after this event, for people to pick up literature, get the websites, the information you need, and to contribute to these campaigns, as well as our regular LaRouche PAC table, which also is a place where you should stop, get literature, and make contributions.

Debra Freeman: Lyn, a couple of the international questions reflect some confusion from some of our friends abroad, as to what is going on in the United States and in Europe, and then we have a significant number of questions from institutions here in the U.S.—and unfortunately, some of those reflect a certain difficulty in understanding what is happening right now. But I'm completely confident, Lyn, that you can clarify these problems.

Is Obama Now for Glass-Steagall?

The first question comes from Alexander Nagorny, who is the deputy editor of the Russian weekly newspaper Zavtra. And he says: "Mr. LaRouche, we have a question for you about the role of Larry Summers. In the Clinton Administration, Summers was the one who pushed through the repeal of laws regulating banking and finance. Why is it that now, Obama has come out for restoring certain of these Roosevelt laws? And yet, the same Summers is Obama's main advisor, and strategist in the area of finance and economics? Does this mean that other forces in the Administration, or perhaps President Obama, himself, has defeated Summers? Or, have Summers, and the investment banking forces behind him, changed their views? Or, perhaps there's some third explanation? Mr. LaRouche's reply would help clarify a great deal for the Russian public."

LaRouche: I'd be very glad to have the opportunity to do exactly that.

First of all, Obama has proposed nothing good. What happened was that Obama, sensing that he was not too popular in Massachusetts, at the immediate close of the recent election up there, turned to a man whom he had snubbed for most of the year, the former head of the Federal Reserve System, and took that poor fellow who was neglected on the beach, and said, "Now I like you." And Obama said, he's going to have a Glass-Steagall reform, and poor Volcker is standing there—above Obama—that's his best quality, is to be above Obama—but saying nothing! Because Volcker, who had been cast to the dogs, suddenly crawled and accepted a handout from Obama.

There was no intention to apply a Glass-Steagall reform, in the United States. And as a matter of fact, we checked that with Volcker himself, and Volcker had said nothing about it. But Volcker was very clear, no Glass-Steagall reform, which had been promised by Obama, was going to be introduced. Obama has no intention of a Glass-Steagall reform, at the time he said he was for it! He's a liar! The only reason you wouldn't call him a liar, is because he's also so mentally defective, you don't know what his intentions are. You know what his intentions tend to be, but you don't know whether he's honest or not. We generally assume he's either stupid, or dishonest. And there's a question mark, which it is. So, nothing honest.

See, the point is this: The crucial point, as opposed to what the question goes at up front, is this: We have, in recent decades, especially since October of 1987, when we had a Great Depression, like the '29 Depression, in October 1987—. Volcker had been, at that time, head of the Federal Reserve System. But he did nothing about this depression, because he said he was going to leave the problem to his incoming successor, which was Alan Greenspan. Otherwise known as "Green Death."

What Greenspan unleashed, was something which had been considered criminal before then, which we called "financial derivatives." And most of the world financial system since that time, especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, has depended upon the use of financial derivatives, rather than legal and decent forms of public credit. Today, the mass of that corruption, of worthless credit—"I promise you this; I don't have anything to back it up, but I promise you this," that kind of credit—is the greatest amount of debt outstanding on the planet. As long as you try to engage in what's called "bailout," the support of this bankrupt paper, as long as you support London and London's practices—because London is the center of this corruption. If you don't kick the British in the testicles (if they have testicles; I'm not sure that's their method of breeding, hmm?)—the amount of debt you are accepting, embracing, of absolutely worthless debt, which is many times larger than all the legitimate debt on the planet, if you don't just wipe that off the books by a Glass-Steagall method, this planet will never recover, from this depression.

Now, if you do that, you don't have to kill the United Kingdom. I'm not for killing the people of the United Kingdom; I want to take the money away from the British monarchy, and that will make them live, in poverty—which I consider a blessed state, for them!

So therefore, we eliminate or, just wipe this off the books! Reverse the bailout! Cancel the bailout! And everything that smells like the bailout. Go back to a Glass-Steagall standard of commercial banking, which includes protection of savings banks and so forth. Go back to what I proposed in 2007, when I proposed the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, which was killed by Barney Frank and company. If that legislation had been enacted, we would not be in the mess we're in in the United States and the world, today! If you don't like poverty, if you don't like suffering, blame Barney Frank! He will give you a reply that nobody will understand, but at least it will be a reply! Mumbles.

But the point is, the deeper issue is that. The issue is: London! If you're not prepared to break London's power, in international finance, and restrict London itself to the same kind of protection for its honest debt, which we afford to ourselves, as by a Glass-Steagall standard, there's no solution. So, shut down the big moneybags, the big creditors of London: Bankrupt them! Extinguish their role in world history. And apply a Glass-Steagall standard to international credit.

Now, then, nations, through treaty agreements, based on a fixed-exchange-rate system which we must create, a fixed-exchange-rate credit-system among nations, which means you're not going to have fluctuating interest rates among nations—under those conditions, we can rebuild the planet.

So, the important thing, is not only was the President lying, or just babbling out of stupidity—the same thing—when he stood beside, or behind, or below Paul Volcker, and made this lie—but if we don't do that, if we don't cancel this thing, if we don't eliminate the British system, if we don't go back to a global Glass-Steagall sense of a credit-system, rather than a monetary system, there's no chance of preventing the entire planet from going into several generations of a new dark age. If you want to save humanity, cancel that system, and do what Paul Volcker had said once he would do—which was an honest statement by him; he wasn't willing to go as far as I would go, but he did actually intend, at the time he was picked for this committee, he did intend to apply a Glass-Steagall standard, an actual one. And he did not believe, that the President, right after the Massachusetts election, that the President was proposing a Glass-Steagall standard; he was not! The President was lying—as he often does.

So, we have to sink the British Empire, that is, that system of money, of credit; we have to sink it. If we're not willing to sink it, no part of this planet will continue to exist in a civilized form.

Eliminate the Euro

Freeman: The next question I think, also reflects a terrible misunderstanding that has to be corrected. This question comes from a journalist in Kazakstan, and she says: "Hello, Mr. LaRouche. My question to you is this: Do you really think that it would be a good idea for people now to be getting out of the euro, and into the dollar? Is it likely that Greece, Portugal, and Ireland will leave the Eurozone, and that after that, the euro will strengthen dramatically, because then it will represent only strong economies like Germany and France? If that is true, then, in fact, people should really be getting into the euro, since it will soon be the strongest currency in the world? Many thanks in advance for your reply."

LaRouche: Okay. Well, first of all, if that were to happen—and it's already happening right now, the question that's been posed, and it's been postponed because certain elections are going on. You have the case of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who wrote a report on the past Sunday [Jan. 17, London Sunday Telegraph], in which he said truthfully that the euro system was in danger of a general collapse, a collapse under which no nation such as Portugal, Greece, Ireland, and Spain could escape. They're now victims of an empire, and they can't get out of it, except by being destroyed. And he said that. So, within one hour, or at least two hours, no longer, of the time he uttered that from Britain, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, his article was pulled. What he said in the article, from the point of law and practice, now, was true. Fortunately, somebody drew down the article from his website, and kept it. And then when it was pulled from the Telegraph, the article was all over the world, because of this one guy who got on the case and copied it, and drew it down right away. So, it's out, and it's a big scandal.

Now, what is happening right now, yesterday and today, is the question of trying to cook up some kind of a bail-out scheme, which will, in effect, crush—not kick out, but crush with the force of extermination—Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. And, it won't stop there. That's the situation!

What you have to do, is eliminate the euro. Because the euro, first of all, in the system as adopted, deprives every nation of Europe—continental Europe, west of Belarus—deprives it of existence as a sovereign nation. As of this instant, from the standpoint of international law, as proposed by the leaders of the European Union and the European system, there is no sovereignty in any part of Western and Central Europe, west of Belarus. It doesn't exist!

The euro is, under those conditions, one of the most worthless currencies on the planet. So, relieve yourself of that!

There's only one solution. We have to create a warfare bloc, a financial warfare bloc. The financial warfare bloc which I've proposed, consists of the United States, Russia, China, and India. That doesn't mean to exclude other nations; that means that you have to have a bloc with enough power, as a fixed-exchange-rate system among the dollar, the ruble, the currency systems of China and of India. If you do that, you can break every part of the world that opposes that. And most parts of the world will happily join it. Most nations of Africa, for example, nations of Asia. We have indications from South Korea; they're ready to go, full speed. We're getting nuclear development in the United Arab Emirates—we're getting that, big scale. We're changing the planet with our policies. We have to make those policies effective. So, that's the scheme.

And Kazakstan is a key part of this process. The development of the kinds of railway systems and power systems, which are needed in Siberia, for example, which are crucial for the development of the entirety of Asia, and crucial for the future survival of Europe, once it's freed of slavery to the British Empire. And the key thing here is to get the United States freed from this Obama mess, and go back to being a nation-state again, going back to the fixed-exchange-rate system of Franklin Roosevelt, as Roosevelt had intended before he died. Bringing especially the United States, Russia, China, and India together as a center group around which other nations can gather, and making immediate long-term trade agreements and investment agreements, which will enable us to get this planet moving.

That's the only solution; there are no slick tricks available. Rough, open-handed policy. Don't try to sneak something through. Crush things, you know—crush the eggs that should not be opened.

Rebuilding Haiti

Freeman: The next question comes from a recently retired officer in the Army Corps of Engineers, who has been recruited by former President Clinton to work with him on the relief effort in Haiti. And he says: "Mr. LaRouche, one, I want to thank you for your efforts, both here in the United States and internationally, because they are indeed very desperately needed.

"I must preface my remarks by telling you that, having been on the ground in Haiti, I have never seen a greater human catastrophe, despite all my years in the U.S. military. Despite what I believe is probably an unprecedented relief effort, we're faced with a task of trying to figure out how to establish food banks in Port au Prince that could feed 1.5 million people daily. And obviously, it is almost impossible to do.

"And undoubtedly, while this catastrophe was caused by this earthquake, the fact is that this area was desperately poor before the earthquake hit. And while we will clearly continue to struggle to deal with the immediate needs of this population, the assessment that I've given to my superiors is that the only way to address this current nightmare, is that Haiti must be rebuilt from the ground up.

"Now, unlike Africa, you're dealing with a relatively compact geographic area which is very close to the United States, and what I and some others have done is, we've taken your proposal for a job-training paradigm modelled on FDR's programs, and we've adapted it for an effort to rebuild Haiti. Now, obviously, such an effort has enormous potential to both train and re-employ hundreds of thousands of Americans, to engage American business and industry, and at the same time, to address a humanitarian catastrophe. We already have indications from the Congressional Black Caucus, and other members, particularly members of the Senate, that they would support such an initiative.

"This is obviously not the Four-Power Agreement, but it is an approach that would, if I may say so, turn lemons into lemonade. But it is also my assessment, that while this would require, without any doubt, a private-public partnership, that it must be government-initiated in order to succeed.

"I'd really appreciate your views on this, and whether or not you think that it is a worthwhile effort to pursue, or whether it is simply a diversion from a more compelling, greater need."

LaRouche: Yes. What should be done is the following, in my view. First of all, the government of the United States should make a contract with the government of Haiti. And the contract is for the reconstruction of the economy and system of the nation of Haiti.

I know something about Haiti and the extreme difficulties which are a cumulative problem there, and what it's going to take to really beat that. You can not apply a band-aid to Haiti. And you can not bring in many other countries, because the objective is, if the country is going to be viable, coming out of this mess, you have to have a sovereign Haiti. So, the contract has to be essentially, a United States treaty agreement, a treaty agreement to re-establish the efficient sovereignty of the nation of Haiti, after the destructive effect of this and preceding difficulties.

What's the big deal, after all? It's a small nation, of people who have been subjected to all kinds of terrible history; who have been promised this, and betrayed, and promised that, and betrayed, and promised and betrayed. Never delivered. It's in a group of national territories which has also tended to be somewhat of a mess, in one way or the other. So, therefore, it's a model approach. We say, "Okay, we make a contract with the government, as a treaty agreement, between the United States and Haiti, to assure the rebuilding of their country, in a form in which it will actually be a functioning country which can survive."

It's going to take a quarter-century to get that job done. You've got to change a lot of things. But the one, the most important thing to change, is the attitude which presently prevails, around the world in dealing with things like this. It's called "fix-it," "patch the system." My view is, you have to leave a viable system behind. Don't patch it and walk away. Make a contract and say, "Well, you're a small country. We can absorb the burden. We're going to work with you, under the protection of the United States, to make sure you come out of this successfully." Not merely successfully, in the sense of solving the immediate crisis, which was done before; it didn't work too well. We have to follow through: We have to think about a nation's ability to maintain itself, not to be maintained from time to time because of internal crises, or because of an act of nature.

And that's the kind of relationship we should have with nations, so let's go back and have it. We used to do this, you know, in the immediate post-Civil War period in the United States. We used to have ex-military, from both the Confederate Army and the Union Army, travel overseas, as to Egypt, to build up the system of that country. Until the British got us kicked out of there, we did a fine job, and then the British turned it into something else.

But in our Constitutional structure, in our tradition, a country right next to ours, Haiti, just a few drops across the street, is in terrible condition, as part of a divided island territory, where problems tend to run across the border. Help them! Not just because you want to help them, but because you want to reaffirm a standard of morality in international affairs. And our commitment must be, to make sure we're not just going to promise something—we're going to get it done. And if we get it done, and it's successful, it will be good for all of us.

How a CCC Policy Would Work

Schlanger: I think in keeping with this theme of reconstruction, I'll take the next question from here, from an official of the United Auto Workers, who's here from Franklin County Ohio, Columbus. He says: "I came to the webcast three years ago, and I think more eyes are open now." This is a reference to the period when Mr. LaRouche had his legislation for saving the machine-tool capacity of the United States, a policy which was also rejected by Nancy Pelosi, and people like Barney Frank. He goes on to say: "And I feel there is much more support now than ever before for this policy. So let's win this one. Keep up all your good work!" But the question, he says: "I hope we can re-open the auto industry to build infrastructure and nuclear power plants. How can we do that?"

LaRouche: What we have is, we have a problem here; we have a shortage of technology, working technology, in the United States today. We are losing; we no longer have the industries which we once had. They have been destroyed. The labor force has been scattered. The machine tools have been destroyed in large degree. The territories which existed as floor space in the former auto and aircraft industries, and similar kinds of industries, don't exist any more. They were dissolved, especially from the beginning of 2006 onward. A betrayal of the United States, which was done by the U.S. Congress after the year 2005, the beginning of 2006.

Now, what we have out there is, we have human beings, especially machine-tool-design people, and people like that, who are crucial. And what we have to do is think about that. What I've intended to do, and I've made proposals in that direction, is my so-called recovery plan for the United States.

My conception of the CCC-equivalent for today—and I've used the term CCC, because it is a tradition in our people—all these young people out there, who have essentially no real skill, or very little, and who don't have the social savvy to be able apply to skills if they have them—they're not socially responsible. They don't understand what responsibility to be on a job is. They don't understand that it's not just getting something. I'm against a "jobs policy," because the jobs policy means a dumping policy. You take a bunch of people, you don't do anything to make them more productive, you have some kind of an operation housing them, and they don't improve. They never become productive. So, I'm not for a jobs program; I'm for a productive employment program. First of all, to take people who are productive, and make sure that they have a chance to be suitably employed. And to provide those who are not productive in skills, and develop them into people who have productive skills.

Now, how do you do that? You start with a CCC-type operation. You have a list of people who are retired machine-tool designers, other kinds of things, auto industry and related. Now, you want them on deck, because that's your training cadre. They will be doing two things. They will be heading up teams of people who are going to be assimilated into employment, because they have the skills to direct it. They know what the score is; they know how to do the job. They provide the supervision, training, and guidance, on the job.

You also have them as screening, as training. You've got young guys out there. Now, they all look terrible. Nobody would want to employ them, who knew what they do. But we want them employed anyway, so we're going to have to have a little transition here, where we can get them into employable condition.

So, we take the CCC formula, which we used for people who were not quite as badly off, as many of these young people are today, back in the 1930s. You put them in a training program—like 16 years of age, 18 years of age, up to 25; that age-range. And you get them out there, away from where they lived, because the habits of degeneracy are associated with the places where they lived. Get them out of there! Take the persons away from the infection. The neighborhood is the infection. Get them out of the so-called " 'hood." If you can't do that, you can't do a damned thing with them, except things you don't want to do. So therefore, get them out of the neighborhood, get them out of their environment, which is the disease. Their environment is the disease. Right? Get them out in camps someplace; not just to herd them, but to give them a new environment, where they can develop new habits. Get them away from the contamination with old habits. That's your job!

Now, you look at them; you've got these young guys. What do you do with them? Well, you get a relationship with them. You get them where they understand that you're their friend, that you intend to do something good for them. They may not agree at the time, but they understand that you have a good attitude toward them, and that you think that the old " 'hood" business is not good for them. And they're going to squawk, because many of them are on drugs. And if you can't get them away from where they can get drugs, you're not going to get anywhere with them. They have some sexual habits which are not too good, either. You don't want that.

So therefore, you're going to try to give them a chance, a second life, away from the life which was destroying them. And you're going to treat them as if they were your children. You're not going to mother them; that's not a good idea. There's a word for that—but don't do that. What you have to do is, give them a new life. And just point out what the problems are; they know what the problems are, but it's like the old socks they never washed. They can't get rid of using them. So, make them wash their socks.

Now, if they decide that they want to have a life—and that's the whole point—and I think the point in this case is, you've got to say: "We're going to save a large percentage of these people, because we know we're going to fail in many cases. The cases are too far gone. We're going to try; we're going to be humane. But what we're really shooting for, we're trying to find the core of a labor force, a future labor force, among these young guys. So, we're going to give them every opportunity, by giving them people who can guide them in acquiring the skills which attract them."

And the thing is, you're going to give them a new form of play. You're going to offer them a chance to play a game which is more attractive and less risky than the old kinds of games. And you're going to talk about what the objective is to learning how to play this game. And being young people, they will respond to games. So, you have to give them an environment in which they can gradually make the transition into serious self-training, self-development. Some people you will find, are more or less immediately ready to go. Maybe one in ten, two out of ten, or whatever. So, you take that.

Now you have the people who are the former engineers, machine-tool designers, and so forth, who are now unemployed. Well, they are qualified to give these young guys access to the skills and outlook which are needed for productive employment. And it's that relationship; you're getting a generational tradition, you're getting a leap from a generation which is being destroyed.

The youth born in the past 25 years have been thrown into a dead society, and have adapted to a dead, corrupt society. Therefore, you've got to give them a chance to come into a new society. What do you do then? You give them a cadre, an older cadre from a previous generation, who had these kinds of skills, and who will look at this as equivalent to the same generation as might have been their children. You're going to help them make that transition into a useful life. And what's going to be important for them, is the dignity they get, by making the transition.

The biggest problem will be drugs. And for that, and other reasons, you want to start to move them away from that, into encampments, under supervision and selection, and then move them, as they progress, into job opportunities that you know about and you're creating.

So, for example, we're going to create a national high-speed rail system. We're not going to get rid of the automobile, but we're going to use it a lot less. We're going to use high-speed mass transit systems. So, the first thing we're going to do is, we're going to say, "We're going to build a national high-speed transit system, along with a rivers and water management system." These are major projects. Now, these projects are not just self-contained. They depend upon a supply of services, productive skills from local industries. So now, you have government credit, which on the one hand is used for the government program, for, say, the high-speed rail and similar kinds of programs, water programs. Now, you have the people who are working in private concerns, or firms which are being established through government credit, as private concerns, employing key leading figures in those firms who have the requisite skills for the job. And you are going to start building things, which cut into the high-speed rail, water systems, and power systems, immediately.

Now, you're going to start creating industries in local communities, along the routes that these water systems and other transport systems are going to go—and power systems. You're going to create those routes. You want to have in every community—you don't want to have commuting 50 miles a day back and forth to work, as a way of life. You want to rebuild the idea of the towns and cities. Not big, super-cities, not megalopolises, but reasonably sized towns and cities—25,000, 50,000, 100,000 population at most. And you're going take these cities, which are in the pathway of these projects, like rail projects and water projects. So, you're going to have government credit available, under a Glass-Steagall system, of Federal credit, which will actually provide the credit as capital, needed to produce these new industries.

The public projects, the large-scale public projects, become the driver for fomenting the development of the industries which are needed to act as vendors to these large projects, in the area which the projects are going through. And that's the way you do it.

So you take a mass of people, a mass of essentially unemployed, useless people, and you sort the thing out a bit, to try to save everybody you can save, who wants to be saved from this Hell they've been living in. You get them into a situation where they find a new identity—not as trash! And that's the way you do it. Nobody on this project is trash. No one on this project will be trash! "You're going to be somebody." That's our objective. And you're going to make a contribution to society that you don't have to be ashamed of. And you're going to have a chance at a good life, and hopefully a long one. Not getting killed in some thing around the corner. Eh?

And it's that simple, in my view. Use our sense. We had these experiences—I mean, those of you who are as old as I am, and there are, unfortunately, too few of us. (Something happened, they died out on me, all these old friends of mine.)

But we have to create that kind of process. It's the kind of thing that Franklin Roosevelt tried to do in his own way, in his own time. It's not quite the same, today, but the principle is the same. We just have to design the way we apply the principle to fit the circumstances. But the point is, we have to combine saving our young people, who are being destroyed, with saving our skilled people, who have been unemployed and rendered useless—put these two things together with a common solution. One: Federal projects like water projects and transportation projects, as such. National weather, national conservation. And then combine that with the fact that these things need, in every community they pass through, they need supporting industries for the things that those projects will require in that area.

So in that way, you have a sense of forming a plan, on a credit system—a plan for re-assimilating the unemployed of the older category, and those who are questionably employed, or not employed, among the younger ones. Take that view. Give yourself 25 years. I'll do all I can in the meantime.

A Stupid Affront to China

Freeman: This question comes from one of the members of the Stanford group, who is working on the taskforce on the Four-Power Agreement that was formed around the time of our last webcast. And his question to you is this: "Lyn, I think you probably know that yesterday, the Obama Administration announced the sale of $6 billion worth of Patriot anti-missile systems, helicopters, mine-sweeping ships, and communications equipment to Taiwan, which the People's Republic of China views as part of its territory. This morning, in a rather strongly worded statement, the Chinese Defense Ministry announced that China was suspending all military exchanges with the United States as a result of this action.

"Now, I'm aware of the fact that very often, nations respond as they feel they must to certain events by other nations, but it doesn't significantly affect the long-term potential for cooperation. My question to you—because I must tell you I was very alarmed when I saw this—is, number one, how serious is this? And number two, what in the world is Obama thinking?"

LaRouche: Obama's a British agent, he's not a loyal American. But he's no damned good, on top of that.

Now, the point here is this: This is a deliberate British move against China. Now, the key thing you have to do, when the Chinese complain about this, is you say, "Good, you're right. But we don't consider Obama our President. He's a British stooge. Now, we have to combine ourselves together to get rid of this stooge." It's a humanitarian question, not a diplomatic question. We want a human President. We don't have one right now.

And that's the way you have to approach it, you have to be frank. You know, someone says, well, China's done this—see, this is the old game, the old, British game: Get two people to fight. Create an issue to get them to fight each other. Then let them become enemies who want to do bad things to each other. This is what Google was doing. Same thing. Silly! It's not Google—it's orchestrated. It's Obama. It's British. So why not say so? Say, this is another reason for getting rid of Obama. Obama is not our President, because he's not loyal to the people and nation of the United States! And some people have not caught on to that reality yet. Some stupid people think that Obama is actually a loyal citizen of the United States. He's not a loyal citizen of the United States. He's the loyal citizen of some empire off there under Nero, as a direct heir of Nero, the Emperor Nero, or something like that.

Get Obama Out!

But this guy is not us! He has no right to be President. Oh, he's elected, but he's gone past that: When a President of the United States proposes a health-care policy which is not only a copy of Adolf Hitler's wartime health-care policy, but goes in similar directions on other things, this guy has got to go! And we as citizens, if we're citizens: This guy's got to go!

Because we won't have a United States if we keep him around! We're destroying everything. But, getting into fights with people we should not be getting into fights with, is contrary to our vital interests; this guy has got to go! The time for him has come to an end. Let him go into retirement, preferably in some other country, maybe an island-country, someplace, where they can do something with him. But this thing is no longer tolerable. This guy has committed crimes against humanity. He's betrayed the American people. He's betrayed the vital interests of the United States. There is no proper place for him.

Take that whole gang he dragged in: Just fire them. Get 'em out of there! We have people in the Federal government system, or associated with it closely, as some people in the staffs of the Congress and so forth—we have people. We can put together a government of the United States, very quickly, simply by—Whisk! these bums!—get 'em out of there! Clean house!

See, our force here, our power lies in the fact that the Congress and the Presidency have failed to represent the Constitution of the United States and the people of the United States. The people of the United States are already in the mood to get rid of these guys, but they're not sure how to go about doing the job. As each week passes, that becomes more and more the mood among the people: The great majority of the people of the United States do not want this guy in office.

So why is he in office? You don't have to find a crime—high crimes and misdemeanors are the charge for impeachment—but he doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. If he's not serving the interests of the United States, if he is acting against the interests of the United States, especially against what many people in the United States regard as the interests of the United States, like the many people protesting. That's a misdemeanor! If a guy is coming in and urinating in your living room, even if he's not arrested for a crime for doing that—because he's a mental case—and you try to tell him not to do that, and he keeps doing it, you have to take corrective action! You have to correct a misdemeanor.

Now this guy's behavior, his mental behavior, is itself a misdemeanor. I often think that his relationship to three teleprompters is also a sexual misdemeanor.

But, the point is, the intent of the Constitution is to defend the United States, and to defend its Constitution. He's an offense to the U.S. Constitution. When he proposed a policy of Hitler-like homicide as a health-care policy, that was a reason for him to go. Because he has demonstrated, he is not trustworthy in the post of President. He has demonstrated, repeatedly, that he's an impediment to the welfare of the nation, and he's not trustworthy morally as a President: He should go. And many people in general are about to say so, very loudly.

We have to take the positive side. We don't want the rough side, we want the positive side. "Get out of here, buddy! Just walk, you don't have to run, walk! But you get out of here! We don't want you!" If we don't do that, we don't have a nation!

Now if we're willing to tolerate something that means we don't have a nation any more, is that a violation against our nation? Of course it is! It is a very serious thing to impeach a President, and you don't do it unless you have to. But you have no objection to doing it, if you have to. If he's a problem for the country, because he's not honest, because he's insane, like Woodrow Wilson, he should go. If he won't behave himself, he has to go, and we have to do it. We can't do it the way the British do—get some assassin to come in and solve the problem, which is a typical British trick. We don't do that! But this guy's got to go. It's been demonstrated, this country can not continue to exist with him as President.

Financial Meltdown in Europe

Freeman: This question comes from a former member of President Clinton's Cabinet. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, as I'm sure you're aware, Germany triggered a near-panic flight from Southern European debt markets this week, by warning that there would be no EU bailouts for Greece. What some people are saying, is that this decision could in fact be fatal for the entire Eurozone.

"I was at a seminar earlier in the week, where Nouriel Roubini said that the deeper problem is the problem in Spain, where youth unemployment is apparently at about 45%, and the housing bust has a long way to go. Roubini said that while Greece could be fatal to the Eurozone, Spain is simply too big to contain, and that if Spain goes under, it would be a disaster for the global system.

"During the last month or so, most of everyone's attention has been focused on the situation in the United States. However, I think we're right back where we were in looking at the current period as the period of sovereign defaults. While I've studied your Four-Power Agreement and find it to be extremely interesting, I don't see it coming into being quickly enough to address this immediate crisis. I know you said earlier in your webcast, 'No more bailouts,' but my question to you is, how in fact should this be addressed, to avoid global chaos?"

LaRouche: The problem is largely that the Banco Santander and so forth, [Banco] Bilbao and so forth in Spain, were extensions of the problem with the Royal Bank of Scotland. And this is all over South and Central America, especially South America. So what we have is a case of Spain polluted by corruption on a grand scale, and the corruption was steered from the United Kingdom, by circles close to the British monarchy, such as the Royal Bank of Scotland. We know that history. We know those connections. Now, in all of these cases, you have several problems that must be considered. First of all, the 3% rule of the European system, that a country can go into debt for only 3% total of its GDP, or the equivalent: That's insane!

Take the case, first of all, of Greece. Greece is probably over 100%, not 3%, in trouble. So what's the solution? Well, Greece doesn't have a real economy, to support its population. Therefore, Greece needs an economy, sufficient so that it becomes a viable economy. Spain is not a viable economy for similar reasons: lack of adequate development! Italy has a problem.

Let's take Italy. Let's take the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno as a policy. The Cassa per il Mezzogiorno is shut down, in effect. And Italy has been destroyed by the Britannia yacht's visit to Italy. So the shutting down of the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno, and the catastrophe caused by the Britannia yacht intervention in the politics of Italy, is another case in point.

Germany was destroyed by the combined ruling, dictatorial ruling, of the Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher, the President of France, François Mitterrand—who was a British agent at that time, so he doesn't really count as a full President—and the President of the United States, George H.W. Bush! The son of the guy who put Hitler into power in Germany, by financing the entry into power from the bank, Brown Brothers Harriman in New York City. So you got a Nazi tradition from Wall Street, the Bush family, which has not done much good for humanity, let alone the United States.

And what these guys did, is, they gave an order. [German Chancellor] Helmut Kohl said, "Okay, we're a nation. We're one nation, reunited. Nobody has objected to this, so we're going to start uniting the nation—East and West Germany." Mitterrand said, and Kohl qualified that, what he said to him was a threat of military attack on Germany if Germany should try to unite. Margaret Thatcher said: "Germany must be destroyed. It can be admitted, but it will be destroyed. Why? It will be reduced." For example, take the case of Berlin. Berlin, during the period prior to the reunification, Berlin was a concentration of high-technology industries. What happened to those industries? They're gone! Why are they gone? Because the British demanded it, under an agreement imposed on Germany, by force, by Thatcher, Mitterrand, and George H.W. Bush.

The entire problem of Western and Central Europe has been the destruction of the economy of Western and Central Europe by this arrangement which became the euro, and the euro was the issue at that time. What has also happened, is the British have moved—particularly since that terrible pig Tony Blair, that liar and murderer, Tony Blair—what they did is, they moved to destroy all sovereignty of any nation in Western and Central Europe. And the same pigs—Blair and company—whose stooge is the current President of the United States, Barack Obama—in a speech in Chicago, attested to this—and that's probably why Chicago got picked.

So we're being destroyed by these guys; we're being destroyed by the policy. The economic problem is not the failure of a nation to do what it should do. In these cases, it was the imposition by an international imperial force, typified by an agreement among Thatcher, Mitterrand, and Bush to destroy Germany, which led to the destruction of the sovereignty of the nations of Western and Central Europe, which orchestrated the destruction of the former Soviet Union in a similar fashion. And you have foolish people on the continent of Europe, including Russia, who kiss the butt of the British up to the present day! And when you're kissing the butt of the British, it's hard for you to see the reality of the world beyond.

And so the whole problem of the euro is, cancel it! My point is, there's no chance of trying to negotiate with the euro as an entity, with the European Union as an entity; you can't negotiate with it on a global scale. It is not a factor. The Atlantic Ocean leads nowhere, because it comes from nowhere, and nowhere is Europe. Not today. There's no sovereignty there! Why are you trying to cut a deal with a guy—you know, it's like corrupting a minor: Think of the European nations as a minor. It's not allowed to make decisions. It's not an adult any more. It's not allowed to make adult decisions. Now, are you going to go out and cut a contract with a child who's a minor, an unlawful agreement, a morally disgusting kind of corruption? Of course not. So, we are forced to go to where we can go.

I personally feel very good about China. I feel good about what Russia is. There are a couple of Russians I don't feel too good about, but that's another matter. But as a nation, yes, I feel good about Russia, historically and otherwise. I feel good about India. I feel good about South Korea. I see a lot of good in Japan, which will come forth in this kind of agreement. I see a lot in South Asia which is either very good, or something we have to assist in protecting. I believe that we have to kick the British out of Africa, entirely. They've been there too long, and they must never return. It must be a law.

So therefore, don't be so pessimistic. I promise you that whatever I do, some other things are certain, and that is, Obama is gone soon. Not because I say so, but because he is gone, soon. He has been used up. Those of you who have paid very close attention to certain signs, will have seen what I see: His days are numbered. By me? No, not by me. I comment on it. Not by me. His days are numbered because the people who own him are ready to dump him. Who owns him? The British. They have signalled, they're about to dump him, so he is soon gone. If you have any plans for travel with Obama, you should get the bad news: The trip's off!

Irony and Classical Culture

Schlanger: There are a number of questions here that obviously have been inspired by your discussion about how to save the younger generation, as well as what you talked about in the body of your presentation, Lyn, on the development of culture. And there's a question here that I'd like you to answer from an elementary school teacher. He said, "What would an elementary school teacher's role be in beginning to establish a Classical culture in the United States?"

LaRouche: Well, the most important thing in the United States is Classical English-language literature. You have to make the language your own. Now, that means not learning how to obey orders. It means understanding what the most creative of the Classical writers in English literature is.

Because creativity is located in something which is not much known in schools today. There are teachers who still remember the old days, when Classical studies were still allowed, but that's pretty much disappeared. What helped to kill it, of course, was the New York Times Style Book. That did a great deal to kill anything resembling Classical thinking. Because the existence of Classical irony, as the late William Empson famously dealt with that matter—that idea of Classical irony doesn't exist any more.

There's a certain quality of playfulness in Classical art, Classical literature, song, painting, and so forth. This Classical tradition is based on the principle of irony. And irony is based on the gaps which are not filled, fortunately, by formalities. In other words, the New York Times Style Book will destroy the minds of your children, but they will be nicely embalmed children, embalmed in a spiritual sense, because they will never be able to think creatively, but they will always speak correctly. Hmm? So it's a kind of green fascism or something like that.

So the problem, essentially, is that we need to understand that the creative powers of mind are not located in mathematics. There is no creativity in mathematics. It's located in the powers of the imagination, and it's located in the ironies which exist within the use of a Classical development of a form of a national language, or popular language. And people use the irony as a way of insight into innovations, into meanings that were not suspected earlier, but which prove to be valid.

You see, just coming up with something like we do these days, like crazy rock singers and whatnot, just because it's new and different, does not mean it's valid. You strike upon something which is different, which tends to violate the usages which are prescribed, but you recognize, that using that way of thinking opens a door to you of something you had overlooked, and therefore you think differently.

Irony, Classical irony. William Empson, in his work, is quite useful in this, in the English language, even though he was an Englishman, which is a little drawback, but that's all right.

But, that irony—you see, irony is, you're trying to solve a problem, and all the textbooks and the formal teachings don't tell you how to solve the problem. But then, you let your imagination wander, and you think about ambiguities, which you know. For example, take a painting, take one of the most famous paintings: Rembrandt, in which the bust of Homer is looking from his eye sockets, not from eyes, but eye sockets, at this silly fop Aristotle, patting the head of the bust of Homer. And that's fun! That essentially conveys an idea, several things, to anyone who has even a smattering of culture. That this stone, this piece of marble, portrayed by Rembrandt, this mere skull of Homer, and not even his eyes, but the eye sockets which replace the lacking eyes, is looking with curiosity and contempt at this foolish fop Aristotle, who's patting the top of his skull! There's a wonderfully good thing, and Rembrandt is like that.

Shelley is full of that in the English language. Keats is, of course; the Ode on a Grecian Urn is a typical example of this, where the ironies which arise in slight shifts in the use of language, suggest the existence of something you've overlooked before. The same thing is true in the role of irony in Classical musical composition, in Bach's counterpoint. It's true in everything! Creativity lies in Classical art forms. The greatest destruction of the culture of the American people, is the loss of Classical artistic culture, by the kind of junk which was promulgated in the postwar period.

That's the secret here. Humor, vicious humor, but based on a principle of irony, with a purpose!

Financial Forecasting Is a Fraud

Freeman: Lyn, this is the inevitable question from the Stanford Group on the Triple Curve. The writer says: "Lyn, we've been anxiously waiting for the opportunity to actually sit down with you personally, and show you what we've done, and discuss some of your recent activity. However, there always seems to be some reason why this is postponed. And before I ask my question, I'd like to propose to you that you just kind of come on out here and hang out with us, and forget the formalities, because we really do need to get down to business." And I think that's a proposal I'd endorse, actually.

He goes on to say: "In the recent weeks, there certainly has been some confusion, I think, on the website, with diagrams of the Triple Curve going up, and coming down, and we initially were somewhat alarmed. But we're actually satisfied that we're on the right track, and we're continuing the work that we started some months ago. But, it's my own view that it would be very important, because I know it's important for our own interns here, to hear it directly from you, as to what the confusion was, and why it might have come about. If you could do that for us. Thank you."

LaRouche: Fine, I'm glad to do that. I would enjoy doing that. I had just explained to people—you know, my first real discovery, notable discovery in forecasting, occurred in the year 1956. At that point, I was an executive for a consulting firm, and one of my areas of specialty was in dealing with the auto industry, which I soon discovered, based on my exposure to many client cases, and similar clinical cases, was really a nightmare. And it characterized the entire downfall of the United States which occurred during the 1950s.

So, in 1956, on the basis of my study of the auto industry, and some other features of the U.S. economy which coincided with this problem in the auto industry, I forecast, in the Summer of '56, that there would be, between the end of February and the beginning of March 1957, the most steep recession that the United States had experienced in the postwar period up to that time. And the point was, that people who were playing with the monetary figures, which is what most of the forecasters were doing then, were trying to take a monetary statistical approach to understanding an economy: All failed. They were all incompetent.

Now therefore, to understand the Triple Curve, which actually came as a refinement of my successful forecast of the February-March 1957 collapse, is that financial data is worthless as a forecasting tool. I will just describe one thing here—I've described it before, but the point was: What I discovered was a rotten contract between the automobile manufacturers and the automobile dealerships. At that time, the manufacturers had, with their contract with the dealerships, an agreement that the dealer would not sell the automobile below the approved list price of the manufacturer. Fine! And at a later point, also to promote these sales of automobiles, we went from a one-year term of credit to 24 months and so forth, and up to 36 months. So, in all of this, and not only in the auto industry, but in certain other categories of the U.S. economy, the U.S. economy was as corrupt as hell, fiscally. The financial statistics were fraudulent, inherently fraudulent; but most people believed in it.

For example, in that period, the quality of the automobile that was produced deteriorated. Because they were always using cost reductions, and we'd have automobiles delivered with Coke bottles and sandwiches buried in various parts of the car, stinking like hell. You'd have to take the car apart, and get the rotten sandwich, and Coke bottle, and so forth out of there, before you could deliver it. That was a typical kind of thing that was going on, then, in Detroit. This was particularly true of General Motors at that time.

So, the prices were meaningless. A 36-month contract, in 1956, a 36-month contract on a new car purchase, would have 35 months of equal payments, and the 36th month was a lollapalooza. It could be ten times, even, the rest of the whole thing, or something like that. Also, because of this contract, in order to sell all these cars that they were trying to sell—and they were opening up dealerships; you would have gas stations opening up a new-car automobile dealership—the competition of the effort to sell these cars was so great, while the quality was deteriorating. So therefore, you would have this pile-up of these 36-month contracts which came along. And the 36th balloon note, the 36th payment. And the assumption was, among the credulous, was that since you were going to trade the car in in about 24 months, after the initial purchase of the new car, there wouldn't be a 36th-month note problem, because this would all have been absorbed into the trade-in process.

The other side of the trade-in process was, that in order to pretend that they'd sold the new car at the retail list price, what they would do is, they would add a value to the inventory value of a used car taken in trade. And this could be 50% or more higher, than the actual used-car value on the wholesale trading market. So that the entire business was based on an accumulation of fraudulent assumptions of value, which were considered, you know, consumable. And you reached the point of the 36-month term, at the end of the first quarter in 1957. Which meant that the whole thing would have to dump a lot of this value, and it would cause a chain-reaction collapse within the U.S. economy, which it did. The greatest postwar recession, was caused by this.

Now, the point is, those who forecast on the basis of statistical trends in recorded transactions, are idiots! Because, in economy, financial values attributed by the accountants, are usually far distant from any reality. And everyone is cheating—even more so these days; they're lying. They are showing transactions as book transactions in dollar amounts, and there's nothing to back it up, except the assumption that some sucker is going to buy this thing out at a higher price, with an also worthless kind of payment.

So, in this simple sense, the worst thing you can do as a forecaster, is to believe in financial forecasting, so-called financial-market forecasting. Only an idiot believes in it! But as long as there are idiots who believe in it more than somebody else, the somebody else who can swindle a more stupid person into buying into it, does so. And therefore, you build up a gigantic bubble of absolutely worthless paper.

What this means is, that you're coming down—that your apparent growth is a result of your collapse: What you appear to claim as growth, is actually a product of the fact that you are collapsing. And that's what's wrong with your forecaster, in the most obvious way.

There are other reasons for this. If you believe in job sales, rather than in value of product and production value, you're also being stupid. The guys who say we're going to solve the U.S. economy by providing jobs—you're not going to solve the U.S. economy, solve this problem, by creating jobs! You've got to create productive jobs! You have to control the ratio of manufacturing, which must be sufficiently high, and must be sufficiently technologically progressive, to sustain the market as a whole. If you're creating jobs, without creating productive jobs, you're buying into doom.

What Is Productivity?

If you don't understand that technological progress is necessary, if you don't understand that the existence of the economy depends upon the fact that as the economy grows, and as we use up the richest concentration of natural resources, the economy is going to collapse—unless we increase the capital intensity of investment in production and advance in technology.

If you're going to windmills as a source of electrical power, it's a loser! That is, if you take the cost of the construction and the operation of the windmill and the cost of pulling it down when it wears out, the total income from a windmill in terms of electrical power, is a loser. Whereas, if you take the same amount of money, and invest it in nuclear power, you'll profit, and your productivity zooms.

The productivity, therefore, depends upon the increase of the capital intensity and technology, technological progress of investment. It also depends upon the ratio of the number of people in the labor force, who are productive as such: that is, producers, who represent an improved technology at a higher capital-intense level. And that other functions depend upon comparable advances, in the technology of services and so forth; for example, medical services and these kinds of things, all kinds of services. So therefore, scientific-technological and cultural progress in developing the minds, and bodies, and physical powers of human beings, is the only source of keeping an even level, in terms of the productive powers of labor. So therefore, otherwise, you're suffering from attrition, same thing as that.

And also, remember this other, little more complicated thing, but it's an essential consideration. We look at the world from the standpoint of V.I. Vernadsky, the famous Academician. Now, for Vernadsky, the universe is composed of three different types of material, the universe we deal with on Earth.

One, we deal with what's called the Lithosphere. This is a stratum of the planet, which the living processes come into contact in one way or the other, and this is made of things of not-living matter. Not a product of living processes.

We have a second category of plant and animal life, and pre-plant and animal life, but life as such.

A third, quite different, is human. Now, plants and animals do progress, that is, they have evolution of species. New species, new varieties develop, new combinations occur. A higher form of life on the average, of life itself, occurs. It doesn't occur by anybody's will. Animals breed, but they don't think about it, they just do it. They may sniff each other in certain parts of the body, but that doesn't mean that they're thinking. They're selecting, they're not thinking. And you get no creativity, living creativity, obviously, in non-living materials. You're supposed to get it in human beings, and now therefore, the potential population density of a particular type of non-living material, in the first category, or living material, living species, tends to be fixed in a systemic way. In human beings, no.

Let's take the comparison of the world population of monkeys and gorillas. Gorillas have a very small, very small population, as compared with human beings. Animals—mammals, for example—have a fixed potential as an aggregate of a Biosphere species. Human beings have no limits on the human population, except those set by scientific and technological progress, such as going to Mars, such as visiting various other parts of the galaxy, where we might find planets which are much more agreeable for us than Mars. Humanity has no such limitation. Humanity, only humanity, is creative. Man is not an animal. Animals would like to be man, but they're not.

So therefore, we have to consider the fact that we, as human beings, live in an economy, by utilizing to a very large degree, the dead bodies of plants and animals which are now embodied in the Biosphere. And as we do this, we obviously select those resources, of these types of dead bodies which are more accessible and more concentrated. In other words, we take the richest ores, not the poorest. So, as we use up the richest ores, we are compelled to use less-rich ores. How do we do this? We change our practice to use forms of power which are of a higher rank in energy-flux density. The measure of the power to do work by a calorie of input is dependent upon the energy-flux density in which that calorie is expressed.

Today, it is impossible to maintain the present population of civilization as a whole, without nuclear and thermonuclear fusion power. You can't do it! If you want to eliminate thermonuclear fusion and nuclear fission, die! Because you will! You want to live on windmills? You're doomed, as I showed here on this projection, that map [Figure 1]. Well, that's what you're looking at. The area where human life is going to occur, is in the red area, where the thermonuclear fusion and nuclear fission are most highly concentrated for the future. And the dead areas are the green ones! The disgusting areas, not yet dead, are the brown ones.

And therefore, these factors, these trends and the common features, measurable features of the results of these combined trends, define the way the economy works. You get paid for what you accomplish. To get paid, you have to accomplish it. We have a great growth in the monetary system of monetary aggregate per se, because monetary aggregate is sold at a profit. It doesn't actually produce anything, it doesn't earn anything, but it claims to earn something. Most of the income of the world today is based on financial aggregate, which is absolutely worthless from a physical economic standpoint. The amount of the financial aggregate which is useful, because it goes through the economy, the physical economy, has been shrinking since 2007.

Actually, this has been a trend, which was established in 1966-67. Since the beginning of the first year of the U.S. Indo-China war, the U.S. economy has been dying. The death rate has accelerated. Since 1987, it has gone into a plunge. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, when there was no longer any investment in advancement in technology to speak of, the world economy has collapsed.

'Green' Policy Means Death!

We now have the goal, established by the British Empire, of actually destroying technology. And the spread, in what area? Where is the green? Where is the brown? It's in the area where stupid jerks say they want windmills and they want solar collectors. Solar collectors are a waste of money! They're worse than a waste of money. They're destroying the potential for humanity, because a calorie of sunlight impinging upon a solar collector is a waste of money, whereas a calorie of sunlight impinging upon a green plant, through the action of chlorophyll, converts that calorie into a higher energy-flux density, in a certain way, which results in the proliferation of trees and crops, where otherwise you get desert.

The more solar collectors you have, the more desert you're creating, where there should be green. The less solar collectors you have and the more reliance upon plant life, green plant life, the better off you are. So, tear up and destroy the solar collectors. Get the plants back! We love the plants! Green plants!

If you want higher energy-flux density, let the living processes of plant life help you. Let them give you trees. With a green field, you get 1-2% yield with solar radiation. With a good forest, you get 10%! Hey buddy, what do you want? We didn't fix our water system in the Western Plains. Look at the Ogallala Aquifer, that's there. We're destroying the United States territory, by not developing the green! And the green comes in the form of trees and plants, and living processes generally. The biggest source of it, is similar processes in the oceans.

So, the green policy is a criminal policy! And thus we have the effects of attrition, which are destroying the population potential of the planet as a whole—as a result of green policies. Green is the color of death!

So these are the kinds of factors you have to consider. Physical process factors, and the evolutionary processes.

And one must understand a little bit more about the great Albert Einstein, as well as Vernadsky, two followers of Bernhard Riemann whose studies are absolutely crucial. On these studies, all of my achievements in economy and forecasting have been based, on this point of view. How do you think about the universe? What is really a scientific attitude? Anybody who believes in solar collectors is really not a scientist; he's a fool.

The AIG Bailout

Freeman: This question comes from someone who is currently an elected official in New York State. He says, "Mr. LaRouche, I know that you are now aware of the fact that my good friend, Eliot Spitzer, with help from Professor Partnoy of the West Coast, has convinced Representative Israel from Long Island to introduce something which is called the Financial Crisis Public Disclosure Act."

And what this bill does, for people who are listening to the webcast who may not be aware of it, is, it directs the Treasury Secretary to put online the e-mails of high-level AIG employees, so that the public can conduct an investigation of the company's collapse and subsequent government bailout.

"I was very, very happy to hear that this was going to occur, because one of the things that is apparent to me, is that under current conditions, there is not going to be a serious investigation of what, in fact, occurred with the AIG bailout and, frankly, with the other option that followed soon thereafter.

"Now, some people argue that no investigation can be conducted unless it's conducted either by the Congress or by Executive Order; but it is my understanding that, so far, more than 250,000 documents have been turned over to the House of Representatives about this scandal. And, my understanding, from the reports that I've gotten, is that not only AIG, but also various people who held positions in the government, sought to keep the details of this bailout secret. And this, I believe, poses a real danger.

"There are many Americans who have indicated that they would be more than happy to volunteer to comb through these various documents and try to put together the truth of what in fact happened. At this point, it is my own view that the only real investigation that is going to take place is this kind of open-source investigation. It would, in fact, be the equivalent of a citizens' Pecora Commission, with many very well-equipped individuals, like Governor Spitzer and Professor Partnoy, participating, and lending their expertise to the work that many citizen volunteers would do.

"I don't think it's enough, but I think that it would go a long way to at least satisfying the desire on the part of the U.S. population to know what happened, and what happened to their money. And I also think that it would put excruciating pressure on the U.S. Congress, and that is also something that at this particular point in our nation's history, I believe is necessary. I'd like you to comment on this, and whether in fact you think that it is a worthwhile thing to pursue."

LaRouche: Well, our big problem here is the fact that, largely due to the nature of the press, the mass media, as much as the government, the general population of the United States, and those who would normally be concerned as citizens, do not have the habit or the access to this kind of process. The idea of an informed citizenry means that you don't just sit there and eat whatever is poured on the table at a Salvation Army rest home or something, as the nourishment of your intellect, but that you are participating in doing something that the press doesn't do for you, now. Our press is largely a bunch of lies, and often some of our volunteer efforts, of citizens in opinion areas, are not competent. They don't know what they're talking about. When they do get access, and when they do try to discuss things, they don't know what they're talking about. And therefore, it takes time, undue time, often, for our citizenry to become aroused to the fact that there is a problem, and to understand what the problem is. And that's one of our big problems.

Now, this is extremely useful, and you're going to find, I'm sure, some very nasty efforts to bury this thing, coming from Obama and related circles.

Obama and the British

Schlanger: Let me bring up a question that we've gotten from the Internet, and also from people here. The theme of this webcast has been "The End of the Obama Administration," and it seems that this idea has provoked a lot of people. I'm assuming that if someone is informing the President, he'd be provoked by this. But there are people with similar questions, so let me throw these out to you, Lyn.

What happens after Obama goes? There's still Biden, maybe Pelosi. We still have a sell-out Congress. So what should we do beyond impeaching Obama?

LaRouche: Well, the first thing you have to do is, you have to defang the present Administration. Obviously, the members of the Congress are terrified of the Obama Administration. Getting rid of it already solves three-quarters of your problem. The fact that you dump something that's not fit to exist, restores confidence of the citizen in our system of government.

Secondly, I know something about our government, its structure and behavior, and it's not that bad—you have to have a few snakes around there, scaring people to death, to get by with this kind of crap. Our members of Congress are really cowards. It's disgusting, it's the most disgusting thing. So you can't get rid of all of our members of Congress, it's not very feasible. But you can scare them into becoming citizens again.

And by getting Obama out—it's already happening in a sense. People are quitting the Senate, they're planning to quit in the House of Representatives—they don't want to part of this crap any more. Get rid of Obama, you're going to get a fresh blush of something in the U.S. population, and it will be good, if you get that crowd out of there.

For example, obviously, everybody knows it: What Obama is doing to Hillary Clinton is beneath anything—and it's disgusting. And the fact that he gets by with doing that, intimidates a lot of people. Now, I happened to know, that before most of you knew it, Hillary Clinton had indicated that she thought she was going to run for President. At that point, orders came from London, and the orders were, she will not be allowed to get anywhere near the Presidency. And Obama was created as a part of that decision. Included in that decision was the head of the [Democrats in the] Senate, Harry Reid. The basis for that decision by those circles came at the beginning of 2006.

In November of 2004, we were signing off on the Democratic Presidential campaign, which had just been defeated that year. I held a conference in Washington, at which I proposed that we mobilize a defense of Social Security against what I knew was the Bush intention to destroy Social Security. We had a number of Democrats who came on board on that one. We fought a fight through 2006 to defend that, and we succeeded.

In the meantime, in the Spring of 2005, a very nasty, evil gentleman, Felix Rohatyn, and others, working with George Shultz, the former Secretary of State, who is also a very evil person, launched a campaign which had two features. One was the campaign already in progress: Shultz and Rohatyn had been for a private army policy to replace the military. We've seen that trend already, of the use of mercenaries instead of U.S. military, and it resulted in terribly incompetent military policies, strategic policies, as a result of that change. We should have no mercenaries in the U.S. military system, defense system—none! It's a kind of corruption which goes with tyranny.

And they like the mercenaries also, because when they get dead, you don't have to pay them pensions. They don't get pensions. They're just killers, useless killers.

So anyway, we went along, nonetheless, despite the fact that Rohatyn declared warfare against me, together with a Senator from Connecticut, Dodd, at that point—this is the Spring of 2005—the 2005 campaign for Social Security went on.

During the same period, about February or March of that year, 2005, I moved for action by the Federal government to reform the U.S. auto industry. What I proposed was that we decide the level of automobile production which the United States manufacturing process should engage in, and we should separate that by taking the rest of the same portion, including the floor space and so forth of the auto industry and aircraft industry, and use that for other products, such as rebuilding our water systems, like the river-canal systems, all these kinds of things. Because, if you go back to the history of the auto industry, particularly what happened during World War II, and even earlier, during the First World War, is, the United States became an arsenal of democracy, in a sense. And we produced everything, every kind of thing you could imagine, then, out of what we call the auto industry today.

Because the basis of the auto industry is essentially a machine-tool-design-based industry. You want to build railroads, you want to build airplanes—whatever you want to build, that kind of production is crucial. So, my determination was at that point, to save that. We have to have the government intervene to create a national infrastructure commission, which would take the floor space, otherwise not needed, but the floor space owned, essentially, by the auto industry, and go back to the diversified production of things that we needed, that we were not producing, and thus make the auto industry itself more economical, by taking this burden out of it, and assigning this thing to productive works.

Okay, so that was being killed. In January, that was killed.

Now, this coincided somewhat with Hillary's desire to become President. So, in February of 2006, everything went in the wrong direction, and everything was going in a dynamic which meant that this crowd, London-based, including Harry Reid, were out to say, Hillary Clinton will not be allowed to become President, at any cost, in any way. And her situation in the Senate, after the conclusion of the primary in 2008, had always been shaped by that condition. She was told that if she went back in the Senate, she would get nothing, no time, no right treatment, she would be shunned. This decision was a London decision, not a U.S. decision, but a London decision. And the London decision was against me, because the fear was, that if she got in as President, that I would be turned loose again. And that's why things happened the way they did.

Okay, so that's the issue there. And it's still the same thing today. So you have a London-steered dictatorship inside the United States, which is run through the Obama campaign. It's not run by U.S. citizens, as such. There are U.S. citizens who are accomplices in this. President Obama is not the real President of the United States. He is the stooge inserted into the Presidency of the United States, controlled by the Queen of England. The policies of the Obama Administration are all made in Britain. There is not a single policy of the Obama Administration, of any significance, which was not made in Britain. He is not a representative of the United States. His heart and his ownership are not there. His ownership is through channels such as Valerie Jarrett and his wife, Michelle, both of whom are higher-ranking and much more intelligent than he is, and nastier, too—or, at least Valerie Jarrett is.

So, that's the situation. Now, if you can take that into account, then we know exactly, knowing what the enemy is afraid of, and afraid of in me, even at my age—that tells you what the real story is. If we get rid of this, this dirty deal in which Harry Reid was a figure, to rig the U.S. Presidential election, then you understand how much better things would be without Obama.

A Principle of Statecraft

Schlanger: Okay, we have one final question, and for those whose questions have not been answered, given the possibility of time for Mr. LaRouche, he'll answer some of them; or feel free to talk to organizers here. But I think this is something that's on a number of people's minds, and it came from an economist, who writes: "There have been appeals to Russia and China, among others, to break from the dollar system, which is being collapsed by the actions of our own government at present. Even if Obama is removed, how do you know that we can trust the governments of Russia and China to work with the post-Obama U.S. government?"

LaRouche: Well, you should read Percy Shelley's A Defence of Poetry. The principle of society is not the individual will as such. The individual will plays a part in society, obviously, but poetry, great poetry, succeeds and is Classical because it addresses the principle Shelley raises in his A Defence of Poetry, and emphasizes and underscores in the last paragraph of that particular writing. It's actually the principle of social dynamics. That human behavior is not based on what is usually most obvious, what people say, or that sort of thing. Human behavior is based on an idea, which is very much similar to Albert Einstein's description of the significance of the discovery of gravitation by Johannes Kepler.

That there are higher principles in the universe of various kinds. Some we can consider as permanent, or more or less permanent. Others we can consider as transitional. Gravitation, of course, is more or less a permanent principle. The idea of gravitation, of a universe that is finite in its immediate form, but is not bounded externally. And poetry, the best poetry as Shelley describes it, is based on this same principle as it applies in Classical art. That there are moods, or what seem to be moods in the course of a period of life of a population, in which people are swept by a common principle, which is in one sense elusive, and yet extremely efficient.

For example, when the United States population was under the influence before June of 1944, when the invasion of France occurred—at that point, a change occurred in the U.S. mood. Because what had happened was, that Hitler was put into power, both from the City of London, from the British financial circles, and also by people in New York City, such as Brown Brothers Harriman, as by the grandfather of President George W. Bush, Jr., who personally put Hitler into power in Germany. The British put Hitler into power in Germany. But then, something happened, there was a change, on Churchill's part in particular. The recognition that Hitler had forces, military forces, that had succeeded in beating a superior force in France; that is, the military forces of France were superior to the military forces of Germany at that time. And yet, the German Wehrmacht won the war against France, because the fascist government rigged it.

Now, two surprises for the British. First of all, they had always intended to back Hitler's invasion against the Soviet Union. And that part of fascism was always understood. But they'd always understood that England and France would contain Hitler, because the toll of fighting a war against the Soviet Union would weaken Germany, so that the French and British forces combined could control Germany. It was the concept of the Western Front. What had happened is, some of the Wehrmacht had convinced Hitler that it was stupid to go against the Soviet Union before you had eliminated France, because otherwise France would be used to crush Germany after the war with the Soviets.

So therefore, you had a fascist government in France. And the fascist government in France arranged the French command in such a fashion that the worst possible troops were put in the most critical positions, and the best troops were put in the worst positions. The best commanders were put in the worst commands, and the worst commanders were put in the best commands. And because of this, they were able to orchestrate what was otherwise an impossible victory of the Nazi Wehrmacht in France.

As this thing developed, some people in England suddenly got the bright idea that this had all been a very bad idea. Bad for the cause of fascism, among other things. So therefore, Churchill led the drive to ally with the United States, which they had intended to destroy! The United States was intended to be on the chopping block after this war to crush Germany. So, now, it came kissing the United States. And all the people in Wall Street, who had backed Hitler, directly and fully consciously, like the grandfather of the recent President Bush, and the father of that Bush, were all Nazis. And they have not changed their essential character to this day.

So then what happens? June 6, 1944. The Allied invasion of northern France breaks through. The German command, the military command, says, we've got to negotiate surrender. The British then are afraid the Americans will be able to handle that. The Wehrmacht is ready to make a coup against Hitler. The British tip off Hitler's crowd about this, so the Wehrmacht commanders who are going to turn against Hitler in order to secure peace, were killed. And, the United States became the target of destruction, by Winston Churchill. That's the way these things work.

Our Strategic Approach

So, if we understand—the strategic move is crucial here, which the American people generally are ready to go with, and that is, a Glass-Steagall clean-out of the international monetary system, financial system. Because if we use the Glass-Steagall standard, the entirety of the fake value of this bubble, this financial bubble, is wiped out. Two things follow from that wipe-out: Number one, by getting rid of that debt, the Wall Street debt, the bail-out debt, we now enable the United States government to reorganize the banking system, wipe out Wall Street. We don't need Wall Street; just wipe it out, it's bankrupt! It's worthless, it can't pay its debts. Wipe it off. We no longer owe anything to Wall Street. They can't pay their debts. They're worthless! They are bankrupted. We don't need Wall Street!

Because all we have to do, is take this sick and actually bankrupt Federal Reserve System, which is also bankrupt in fact. We absorb it as a bankrupt institution under U.S. law. It's a bankrupt U.S. institution, a private institution of a special type. We bankrupt it. We put the assets and the key personnel, who are useful in the Federal Reserve System, in the Third National Bank of the United States. Now, we fund the Third National Bank of the United States as a vehicle of funding of the rebuilding of the U.S. economy. And we're very careful to eliminate all centers of power of those who have brought us into this mess.

We have members in the Congress, we have people in other institutions of government, we have people who are not officially in government, but who are very influential in circles of government, who will act under those circumstances to save the United States. And if we're successful, we will reach a quick agreement—and that will not be distant from now—a quick agreement with Russia, China, and India. And once we reach that agreement, we will set up a fixed-exchange-rate treaty agreement among the United States and these other three powers. We will then bring other nations into the Four-Power Agreement, under the protection of the Four-Power Agreement, because they are weaker nations. We will take the kind of projects which are being discussed by Russia, China, and India today, those types of projects. We will create international credit under a fixed-exchange-rate system, to rebuild the world economy.

Now, you've got three shifts to look at here. You have the condition of the mood, the dominant mood at the time that Hitler was running high under British protection. You have the counterthrust, which is coming from Franklin Roosevelt, from the United States. You have the point that the British are coming to the United States and saying, "Save our ass!" Franklin said, "Yes. But at the end of the war, the Empire is gone." Franklin died, and they came back in with Truman.

So the mood swung, actually from June-July of 1944, when suddenly all these people who had faithfully supported the United States, together with the British against Hitler in that interval, suddenly went back to being pro-Hitler—not Hitler as such, but to the fascist idea. And that included Bush, the grandfather of the recent President Bush, who was a Nazi! Who personally moved the money on behalf of Brown Brothers Harriman to fund Hitler so he wouldn't go bankrupt, so he could become Chancellor of Germany.

Then the swing-back during the war. So therefore, we had a real support, a consensus of the United States that we were going to defeat Hitler, and we did it. But in the meantime, there was a shift back to a pro-fascist view in the U.S. Congress, in the general election, Federal election of 1944. That gave us the Truman era.

We had a shift back from that partly under Eisenhower, against that fascist, stupid pig, Truman, but it was a limited one. John F. Kennedy came in, and by the time he got into the fight over the steel question, he was really committed to a Franklin Roosevelt orientation. He was killed because he opposed a war in Indo-China, a U.S. long war in Indo-China. He opposed that on the basis of consultation with Gen. Douglas MacArthur and consulting with Dwight Eisenhower. So, we got the war, we got the swing.

Then, we got the 68ers, another swing. Now, the 68er generation is about to go out of power. The 68er generation, except for those who are the people who are protesting out there against Obama, the ones who like to be 68ers still, are the ones who are hated.

So now, we are having a mood swing. The American people are ready again, as Shelley defines this kind of swing, are ready to mobilize for certain ideas, if they recognize them. Once they do, they will back the change, and you won't be able to control them. As long as you stick to the program, you won't worry about controlling them. And we will have a Congress, which once again becomes honestly representative of the American people. And you will find that all the buried, hidden patriots inside the U.S. government will suddenly come out and show the guts again to start doing their job as leaders of our government. That, I think, is our perspective.

Schlanger: I'm assured that Debbie is still out there with one more question, which she says is a very important question, Debbie?

Freeman: Okay, I don't know how important the question is, but I know if Lyn doesn't answer it, I'll be harassed all week, so that makes it important.

LaRouche: Good. Good for you. You're ahead of them.

Germany in the 1930s

Freeman: Lyn will recognize who the question comes from. He says, "Lyn, as you may know, my good buddy Oliver Stone, who by the way I think is a brilliant filmmaker—"

LaRouche: Yes.

Freeman: "—is working on a ten-part documentary on the 20th Century, called 'The Secret History of the United States.' Now, he told me that the aim of his documentary, and he's got a couple of historians helping him with it, was to offer a fuller understanding of the 20th Century, and how some of those lessons might be relevant to Barack Obama in 2010.

"Now, earlier this week, he was making a presentation in Asia, and during that presentation, he unveiled a key part of this series that he's working on. And he said that while he has no doubt and that there is no question that Adolf Hitler was a monster, and that he has no empathy for Hitler at all, that he also recognizes, that while Hitler was a monster, so was Frankenstein. And just like Frankenstein was a monster, there was a Dr. Frankenstein who created him.

"Stone went on to say, that the research that they've done has shown that Hitler's rise to power was almost entirely enabled by Western bankers and by big business in the West, who supported and appreciated his vow to destroy communism and control the labor force. Now, he went on to go through the fact that these Western bankers who backed Hitler, helped Hitler seduce Germany's military-industrial complex to support him in the early stages. I found this to be shocking, but at the same time, I know there's historic accuracy to it, despite the fact that Stone knows that he's going to be gone after by all kinds of people if he pursues this. Personally I think it's a worthwhile endeavor.

"Now, I know that you know a great deal about this period. You've written a lot about it. Your wife is a German, and she's written a lot about it. What I'd like you to comment on here, today, is what can we in America learn from Germany in the 1930s?"

LaRouche: We have to learn that the genesis of this, is entirely the British oligarchy and its New York-centered offshoots. Entirely. If you look back at the history of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century, you see that clearly. You're looking at fascism, when you're talking about people like Teddy Roosevelt in the United States. Now, what is Roosevelt? Teddy Roosevelt? Teddy Roosevelt was the nephew of the head of the Confederacy intelligence service, based in London during the Civil War.

The Civil War was a creation of the British Empire entirely. The slave system in the United States was a creation of the British Empire, entirely. There were fragments of the thing, but remember, the key thing on this was Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee Nation, in a certain part of the United States, was an autonomous institution which had its own written language, its own schools, and its own culture. And the Cherokee Nation was destroyed, with the help of Andrew Jackson, who was a tool of the New York crowd, which was a tool of the British crowd.

Now, why was the Cherokee Nation destroyed? Because it occupied a territory which the British intended to use, for the spread of the system of slavery from places like Virginia down into the southern states and across the belt north of that area, north of the Gulf of Mexico. In order to do that—the Cherokee Nation was situated just there, so the destruction of the Cherokee Nation, and the way it was done, was largely with an operation assisted and guided by Andrew Jackson, who had been an agent of Aaron Burr, the traitor, and British agent.

If you look at the history—and we've documented this kind of history, the history of the British East India Company, especially from February 1763 on, the population of North America was divided between two factions, the patriotic faction and the British faction. The British faction was the Boston- and New York-based—chiefly, at that time, the British East India Company. Aaron Burr was a part of this, all these guys were parts of this.

Where's your fascism? You want to see facsism? Look at the British in India. That's fascism. It's a horror story. You want to see the Middle East under Sykes-Picot, still today? That's fascism! The British oligarchy and its American offshoot are fascist, and there's nothing that Hitler's done, which they didn't do—in a sense, by their standards—better! Right to the present day! That's the problem. But they're a slimy bunch. They're slippery. Their ideology is always the same.

Hitler was their tool, a tool with a German flavor because you had an oligarchic tendency—. Look at the British royal family. Look at the present British royal family, and look at the German oligarchical families which are tied to the British royal family, including Prince Philip himself. That's the problem. That's where the fascism lies. It always is fascism. It's always population control! It's always that. It's also always the destruction of scientific and technological progress, except as the British need it to combat their enemies.

But once they control a territory, their intention is to crush the cause of freedom. And Hitler was nothing but a product of this. He was not sui generis, he was not something they bought into. They created him! And he did nothing they didn't want him to do.

You have to understand the British oligarchy, and the system it represents, is the epitome of pure evil. If you want to have Satan, he's wearing the Union Jerk.

Schlanger: Well, I think there's no question that the next days and weeks will be a time of great change, and we have a lot of work to do on that, and I'd like to have you join me in thanking Lyn for his example of statecraft that we saw today, and that we've seen for, oh, half a century.

LaRouche: Thank you, all. Thank you. Have fun.