Lyndon LaRouche Addresses Grand Pacific Alliance Conference

Print This Post

San Francisco, California, Oct. 29, 2011

LYNDON LAROUCHE: All right, now, I’m going to say something which is very unpleasant in terms of news, but it’s very important for benefits which we need, badly. We are now on the verge — and I don’t want to scare you, I want to warn you, and give you a sense of what we have to think about — we’re now at a point where the entire world system, but especially the trans-Atlantic system, as opposed to the trans-Pacific system, are on the verge of both a general collapse, and also a threat of a general World War III, and these are threats of immediate developments. They could be averted, were the United States to throw President Obama out of office, probably on the basis of the 25th Amendment, Section 4. Without throwing him out of office, it is almost certain that the world will be plunged into World War III. It may surprise some of you, as world wars have come on, partly by surprise for many people in the past, but this is now on the verge of happening.

What has happened is, is that the process involving the murder of the head of state of Libya, that murder, together with other people in the same batch, has accelerated certain developments, to the point that we’re on the edge of World War III. That does not mean it’s going to happen; it means that unless something such as, the impeachment, or suspension of Obama occurs, that suspension would mean, of course, getting into Glass-Steagall immediately; as long as he remains in office, Glass-Steagall would be blocked by him. Only getting him out of office, at least by putting him to a process of potential ouster from office under the 25th Amendment, Section 4, it will not be possible to get Glass-Steagall through. And if Glass-Steagall does not get through, now, the likelihood of World War III is there. That’s a fact.

Now, the idea of talking about this fact, is not to scare people, but to give them a warning about some of the things we must do, rather soon, in order to avoid World War III, or what would be called World War III. The way to understand this, is that in the first case, the British Empire, which is running these problems, these days, has decided, effectively to go to the point of launching what would become, in effect, World War III. This can be avoided, as I shall indicate. What we have, is, we have a general economic breakdown crisis, throughout the present world system, but especially throughout the trans-Atlantic system, that is, from Western and Central Europe and across the United States, in breadth, and up and down to the North Pole, and down to the South Pole: That whole region is now at the verge of being thrown into the equivalent of World War III, by the effects of the British government, and the support of the British operation, by British agent in fact, Barack Obama.

Now to understand this, you’ve have to compare the previous two world wars, with the slight difference in the situation, presently. The first two world wars were, apart from the Japan angle of World War II, were still centered on the trans-Atlantic region, with the Japan role a special situation. Today, there’s been a shift. The shift can be denoted in the following way: In World Wars I and II, the Balkan crisis, especially in World War I, but also in World War II, the Balkan crisis was actually the pivot of the war. In other words, the conflicts which were organized around the Balkan crisis and around some of Central Europe, were the trigger point for the Nazis’ launching of World War II. In this case, the shift has been made from the Balkan area, to the so-called Middle East.

Now, the Middle East is now like a Balkan pocket, and if the war breaks out, it will break out, first, as for providing incidents in the Middle East, in the sense that the operation against Libya, which was set up by the British, together with virtual British agent President Obama, and with also the United States and France, that this thing, this time, is now centered in the area of the Middle East. You have to think of the Middle East, with all its conflicts as being the replacement, or superseding what was done in World War I and II in terms of the role of the Balkans.

Now, the timing of this is forced by the fact that the entire trans-Atlantic economic system is in a state of collapse. That is, all of Europe, from the Atlantic up to virtually the Russian border, is now ready to collapse: It is financially bankrupt and is on the verge of the a total disintegration, not merely a crisis, not merely a depression, but a chain-reaction form of disintegration of the entire monetary-financial system. That’s what’s on the edge right now. Therefore, that crisis, that degree of crisis in Europe and in the United States, is the precondition for launching World War III.

Now, in that case, what is in important is that the shift of the center of the organization of world war, has gone from the trans-Atlantic region, as into the Balkan area and related areas in Europe, has now shifted to the Middle East. And you think about the Middle East and what’s happened to it, since World War II, there has been, especially — especially since the assassination of President Kennedy, there has been a tendency, a build up of warfare in the Middle East and beyond: That is, from the area say, from the Mediterranean into beyond the area of Pakistan and Afghanistan. This whole area has been a cockpit of Balkan-style war, in this whole region up to the present time.

The fact that the financial crisis of the trans-Atlantic region, throughout Europe, the so-called euro region, Britain, and the United States, and also nations to the south, this whole region is now hopelessly bankrupt, under the present system. Nothing can be done, at this stage, under this system, to save the transatlantic community from an onrushing breakdown crisis of the total economy. And that’s what starts the war: At the point that the system, the trans-Atlantic system is breaking down as an economy is the last moment for the British, who are the authors of this problem, as they were of the two first world wars, the British will have no choice from their standpoint, but to launch the war. The war will be launched, largely around the pivot of Asia, that is, of the western part of Asia, the cockpit where we had all these small mini-wars, and the Arab sector and related sector, and Afghanistan and so force, and the Pakistan area — Pakistan is part of this thing — this thing is now the “new Balkan war” center.

So the group of nations in that part, which reach from the Mediterranean Sea, back into the area of Pakistan, border of Pakistan, is now the “new Balkan” center, and it’s from this center that any general war will break out.

Also, that’s the location, this new area, the replacement for the Balkan area of former wars, now becomes the pivot; the second thing is timing: The timing is when the financial system of Europe, the trans-Atlantic financial system goes into a breakdown crisis: That is, where money, under the conditions of high rates of hyperinflation, now in much of the world, but especially in Europe and in the Americas, that this hyperinflationary point has been reached, of exhaustion, where the whole system is about to break down, therefore, the fact that you have a control point, a hot point of wars in the so-called Middle East, which is the “new Balkans,” combined with the breakdown of the trans-Atlantic British-centered system of control, mean that the British and their fellow travellers, have, in their view, no option but to go ahead with launching what would be equivalent to World War III.

Now, since the breakdown point is being approached very closely right now, at any day, of any week right now, you can have the sudden triggering , of a general breakdown crisis, financial breakdown crisis, and the launching of conditions of spreading war throughout the whole trans-Atlantic region and beyond.

That’s where we are. That’s what our problem is.

So therefore, what we must do, in our priorities: First, we must get this President out of office. If we don’t put him out of office, there’s no way that we can stop — within reason — can stop World War III from coming on. If we do that, if we do break the system, if we get Obama thrown out of office, we can then put Glass-Steagall into operation; if we then put Glass-Steagall into operation, we can launch a recovery of the U.S. economy, and if we do that in the U.S. economy, we will force a similar set of measures to be taken in Europe and other places. In that case, we can halt the acceleration of the financial breakdown crisis, launch a recovery process and thus escape the principal danger of war: That is, the principal danger of war is the combination of the financial-economic situation with the buildup of this crisis in the Middle East, the trigger.

So, that is the solution, and then, the fine plans that we are talking about, for the trans-Pacific region in the discussions being held in the Bay Area now, would then go into work. It would mean Obama would be out of office. We would have a new President, either immediately, or in the process of getting one, while we thrown Obama out, and that we have, then, a prospect for launching the beginning of a general recovery, in the United States, in the transatlantic region, but more particularly, a program of expansion based on cooperation between Asia, and the United States, Canada, and so forth, across the Pacific. And that was where the great recovery can be launched, where the projects exist now, and the commitment exists, say, as on the case of China, as on the case of Russia, now; the commitment is there to do these kinds of programs.

And if that is done, obviously, you will have revolts in Europe, against continued submission to the so-called British program for the euro system. The euro system will be dissolved, they will go back to becoming sovereign nation-states again, no longer what they’re being reduced to now, and we have a possibility of going into a true recovery, rebuilding the nation, and doing a trans-Pacific orientation, we can launch a great movement of economic recovery and development. That’s there.

So we have to face to the hard, dangerous and frightening questions, first, in order to gain access to hopefully a war-avoidance, where a war is now threatened, as many governments know, there is the danger of a general breakout of international warfare, unless this thing is brought under control. And you can say, if Obama remains as President, you can depend upon a total collapse of the U.S. economy. And every minute he is President, that danger increases, and it means that a great horror will hit the people in the United States in large, as well as of other countries.

So, we have a choice, we have a choice of going with what you’re looking at from the standpoint of the Bay Area, now, looking across the Pacific, and looking toward our cooperation with Asian countries across the Pacific, which means a recovery, really, of the United States will come from that. The alternative is, not to do it, to allow Obama to remain in office, in which case, the probability of a new world war, is not only almost inevitable, but it’s almost inevitably very soon. Because we’re reaching the two points, one point is the economic point of breakdown, the hyperinflationary breakdown process now; and the other part is the question of the development program. So we have an option in that direction.

I’ve spoken about this earlier, this noontime, this morning, and gone through some more detail on this, but that’s where we stand.

Now, our objective means other things have to be considered. We can not tolerate what is called the “Green program.” Because, the Green program means, that we do not have the capability of producing sufficiently to meet the needs of our people. A green project now, is being pushed heavily from Britain, and some people in the United States are being taken in, as in Germany, by the British policy for the Green policy. But the Green policy means that we will not be able to develop the kinds of technological improvements, which are necessary to produce conditions under which the present size of the U.S. population can continue to exist. So therefore, part of the thing that must be done, we must cancel, entirely, the so-called Green program, the so-called environmentalist program. It’s insane, there’s no reason for it, and if we stick to it, there’s no possibility of an economic recovery, but rather, a terrible time, almost as bad as warfare itself, in the United States.

So, we have our choices: Either we decide to do this, and enter into full cooperation with nations across the water, such as China and what Russia is doing from their side, there, and some other countries. And under that kind of cooperation we can make it.

Look at what the situation is: China is now one of the only net growth areas in the world. India has some significant features as well. But the basic drive comes from the role of, first, Russia, particularly in the Asian side of Russia, the big projects going on there, which are largely in cooperation with China and others; then, China, itself, which is a driver of economic growth. To the south, you have India, which is not in terrible shape, and has some significant potential. If we build this up, this revival of Europe, by taking it out of this Green zone, taking it out of this post-industrial policy, then Europe will find, that in the success, coming out of Russia, Russia’s Far Eastern operations, out of China, out of other countries in the Asian area, we can generate high-technology expansion of production and growth, therefore, of the economy. That’s our prospect for us right now. And that’s what I’m committed to.

And I just review, again, the chance we have, is that we can stop the war, the danger of war, in all probability, still now, by getting President Obama out of his office, {now}. Without removing President Obama from his functions as President, {now}, there is no hope of saving the U.S. economy, and no hope of the survival of the United States or other nations. So therefore, getting Obama out of office, and the grounds are there: He’s insane and he’s impeachable, not only on the grounds of insanity; he’s violated the law, he’s violated our Constitution, he should be thrown out of office immediately. Or suspended from his functions as President immediately, while the process of, shall we say, expulsion through the 25th Amendment, Section 4, and/or the normal impeachment process. He’s guilty on both counts.

If we throw him out, we can immediately restore our functions as a nation. Without that, we’re finished. He must be thrown out. Throwing him out, means that we can enact Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall will stop the collapse of the U.S. economy. The launching of a credit system, a Hamiltonian type of credit system, somewhat like what Franklin Roosevelt did in his recovery, now, will actually start an economic recovery progress. Without that program, there is no hope, of a recovery of the U.S. economy, and therefore, no hope, for the people of the United States generally.

Therefore, this must be done. And once we have “bitten the bullet” so to speak, and done these things, establish trans-Atlantic cooperation with people who agree with our outlook, have taken steps to prevent a general new world war from being launched, from London, once we’ve done these things, we are on the road to optimism. But we’re going to have to win the fight for an optimistic outcome. And that’s the tough message that has to be delivered and heard now.

And I would like from you, some feedback, on what is, for you, I’m sure, a very shocking message, but a truthful message, and the message which must be delivered, if we’re going to actually act effectively, to bring about the recovery of our nation and the peace of the world, which it should be our desire to achieve at this time.

DIALOGUE WITH LAROUCHE

MODERATOR: Okay, who wants a question? Mark will pass the microphone to those who have questions. We have a couple questions here. [Audio quality is insufficient to hear questions directly; moderator paraphrases them for Mr. LaRouche.]

I will tell you what she said. She says, “The American people need a real leader. Who is your candidate for President if we throw Obama out? Who will be the leader, to lead people in America?”

LAROUCHE: Well, for the moment, I’m capable of being a leader in getting this program through. You know I’m 89 years of age, and in a fairly frisky 89 years at that, which is the good side. But when you think ahead for four more years, or something like that, I don’t think I’d want to have the American people gamble on my being in good condition for all these coming years. At least, not as good as condition as is required from the President, which is a very tiresome, straining job. However, what I can do, and am doing, is, I’m providing the actual programmatic perspective, the strategic perspective, which urgently needed, to get this nation safely through the immediate weeks and months ahead.

In the meantime, the removal of Obama from the Presidency, which is required under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that getting him out, would automatically put in place the Vice President, who I think is a human being, distinguishable as such; and would bring into play the people who are going to be thrown out, or disappear from the Presidential office, and would automatically bring into play, with the help of the U.S. Congress, or people in the U.S. Congress would give us very quickly an emergency kind of government under a Vice President, or successor to the Vice President in a normal way — just like throwing Nixon out. You threw Nixon out, you had replacements available, some left over from the Nixon administration and some from other sources.

And that would be a normal course. That’s not the problem. The problem is, we need a specific program, which is fit to deal with the specific crisis which exists now. It’s an existential crisis: We’re threatened with a general economic breakdown crisis of the planet; we’re also threatened simultaneously with a British-organized process of general warfare, equivalent to saying World War III. So these two problems, of the general economic problem and the warfare, which British and other sources have put into motion around the so-called Middle East, as a new kind of warfare in the “Balkan” warfare, this is an immediate problem that must be executed, to clear the way for recovery. Now, that recovery, that is, specification of what must be done to clean up our government, and a specific economic policy, required to restore the United States and other nations to prosperity, are two areas in which I have specific capabilities, which I would put at the service, naturally, of my government, in order to deal with these problems. But who the President would be, I would say, I would assume now, at this point, at this moment, I would say the Vice President should normally take over the position of the President, and act as such, while the transition is made from throwing the old President out and bringing the Vice President in, as the Acting and permanent President.

That would be my option. The other thing is, the specification of the economic recovery approach, which is required for this nation: That, I have special expertise, which is beyond that of other economists, and therefore, then I function as an economist to provide the guidance in economic policy needed to carry out the recovery. So that’s where it stands. In other words, stick to the normal succession of the Presidency, when the President has to be thrown out, as has been done in the past a number of times. Once that’s done, then we have the reconstruction programs, and related programs, which must be installed: It’s in that area, and in some matters of security, of national security, that my particular special capabilities are outstanding and should be used, for the short time that I can be counted upon, to function in service of our nation on that account.

MODERATOR: We have another question.

Q: What do we suggest we do, to break the news to our friends and family, who are not really politically involved? What are some of the steps we can take to get all of us involved?

LAROUCHE: That’s exactly it: If the American citizen is not involved, he’s not acting like a citizen. Now, in recent times it’s understandable, while people have been very discouraged about the nature of their government. We’ve had two Bush leaguers, and now Obama. And now we’re getting on to about 11 years, approaching, and we have 11 years of not only bad government, but {horrible} government! As when you think about when Clinton was last President, we’ve gone {way down}, all the way toward the borders, or into Hell, over these 11 years, and we have to realize that people have become discouraged, because they have not been {confident} in their government! And there are strong reasons why they should be discontented, and not confident in their government.

Many people, American citizens, simply want nothing to do with their government, if at all possible. Now, they may need things from government, but they don’t {like} our government. They don’t trust it. Well, I don’t trust it either! Nobody who’s sane should trust the government, after the experience we’ve had, with George W. Bush, and now Obama, these years, to not build confidence in government, among people today, for example, who have reached the age of 30 — they have no reason to be very confident about our government. But they {need} to have control of our government, in the interests of its people. So our point should be, we need a leading force, among the citizenry of our nation, in order to get things going in the necessary direction. And experience teaches us, I think, that under such conditions, that people who are reluctant to like their government — which are many people these days — will come back into the fold of government, once they see signs that the worst evils are being removed, and some better options are being introduced. People, whether they like government or not, as incumbent government, or not, will respond, generally, to rational options for a better life and a better nation.

So, I’m not too much worried about the way many of our citizens feel about government. I understand those feelings. But some of us, who are willing to take the leadership and step forward to get things done that must be done, or to help get things done that must be helped, they will act. And I will count on two things: The need for benefits, by all of our citizens, generally; and the demonstration that we are going to do, in a reformed government, exactly what, in chief, the people of the United States, the citizens, will actually want. We can deliver that. And people will be patient with us, when they see that we’re moving things away from a very {bad} direction, into a more hopeful one. The government is not something of getting solid support from your citizen forever; it’s not a contract. There is an implicit contract, but that’s not it. It’s up to people in government, to provide the kind of leadership, which brings forth optimism in the citizen. People are saying, “Finally, we’re getting something that we need.”

MODERATOR: Lyn, we’re going to come back that last question in Chinese, Lyn. We’re just not sure what dialect he’s speaking. We have the next question right here.

Q: At the risk of perhaps oversimplifying your reasoning, it sounds to me, as if what you are saying is that if Obama is reelected the first Tuesday of November 2012, that the British shortly thereafter will institute World War III. I’m curious what you mean by that, if you could perhaps flesh out your argument, a) how’re they’re going to do that; and b) who they’re going to wage World War III against? Are you talking about the BRIC countries, or who’re you talking about?

LAROUCHE: Yeah, well, the point is, what most people don’t understand, and their lack of understanding of this thing complicates their ability to deal with the problems we have today. We have a British Empire on this planet, and it is the ruling political force on this planet at this time; it is not confined to the territory of the United Kingdom, of Britain, Scotland, Ireland and so forth.

It is actually an international force based on the model of the original Roman Empire. Now, the Roman Empire was changed, in form, to become Byzantium, for one period of time; Byzantium disintegrated, and what became known as the Crusader system, as one name for it, took the place of Byzantium. Then, at a later point, after a long period of religious warfare, from 1492 until the Peace of Westphalia, there was a hiatus of conflict in Europe. The conflict was resolved in a sense, by William of Orange, who was actually of Netherlands original, technically, but actually a representative of what was a new imperial cult; it was called the New Venetian Party. The New Venetian Party invaded England, under William of Orange, and this led toward what became, in the early part of the 18th century, the British Empire. The British Empire was a result of the outcome of the Seven Years War. From that point on, the British East India Company became the shell which organized the new British Empire. And that’s the thing we had to break with in 1763. We in the United States broke with England, essentially, over the establishment of the British Empire: That was the issue.

So today, still today, there has been a conflict among English-language-speaking people especially, between the United States, which is based on the idea of a republic, and the British system which is an empire, and has remained an empire. Now, an empire is not a country. An empire is a network, of different elements which are all under the control of an emperor, or some form of emperor, and the British Empire has been the dominant force on the planet, since 1763, after the British winning of that war, the Seven Years War. We, in the United States, have been the chief opponent, that is in principle, the chief opponent of the British Empire. But we, in periods of weakness, have become essentially dominated by British imperial influences on our own government. We’ve had certain Presidents, for example, as most notably, Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin Roosevelt, or William McKinley in between them, Presidents who have actually been U.S. Presidents, who represented the Constitution of {our} republic. We’ve also had many Presidents, who have been stooges for the British Empire. Now, this is all well understood by scholars who are familiar with the political history Europe, the political history of the United States in particular. And so therefore, the problem is, to restore the United States, freed of both George W. Bush, Jr., and of Barack Obama, and other scoundrels who have been introduced as traitorous creatures, into the control of our government. {We are out to take our government back!}

And that’s the system. Now, at this present moment, as I’ve said today, I’ve said it on another occasion earlier today, the British Empire, which is an international force which controls virtually all the nations of Africa — they are all captives of the British Empire; which controls, through alliance with the Saudis, controls whole sections of the world economy; and so forth and so on; and the influences which are subordinated, — or, I fear or other considerations — to the British system, {that} is our problem! The British Empire has set up a system, recently, which is about to run out of steam, that is this hyperinflationary system which was set up around the euro, and the euro was organized by the British Empire, after the fall of the Wall. The Chancellor of Germany was threatened with war against Germany by French military forces, unless he submitted, to the domination by the Franco-British alliance, including George H.W. Bush at that time. So, this system, which was founded at the time of the fall of the Wall in Germany, the time of the end of the Soviet system, and from that time on, the British Empire has dominated Europe. It has dominated, to a large degree, the United States, especially, under George W. Bush, Jr. and Obama: Both of these are agents of the British system.

They are not truly loyal citizens of the United States; their primary loyalties are to the British Empire, not to the United States. So therefore, what we’re talking about, is eliminating the cause of all the sufferings which people in the United States are basically complaining about! The economic suffering, the loss of jobs, the loss of rights, the police-state institutions which have been imposed upon us, especially under Obama but also under George W. Bush earlier, or Dick Cheney, if you want to use another name for it. So, that’s the situation. The question is, we want to get back a government, under the principles of our Constitution. {We do not have a government under the principles of our Constitution at this time!} Those rights have been taken away from us, surely, under George W. Bush, Jr., and under Obama. These people are working with a force in Britain, based in England, which is actually not an English policy, it’s a British policy, a British Empire policy. If we do not conquer and defeat that British Empire policy, you won’t be living much longer: Because, what’s planned for now, there is immediate threat of general warfare, throughout the Mediterranean region and beyond. Everyone who’s “in the know,” shall we say, knows that! We’re on the verge of general warfare! {General world war, right now.} And what happened to Qaddafi, set off, like lighting the fuse, on a bomb. And this death of Qaddafi, the killing of Qaddafi, has triggered a process now which was leading very rapidly, toward the direct outbreak of World War III. That’s now the case.

MODERATOR: We have three more questions that we’re going to take, and then that will be all. Do you have the time?

LAROUCHE: Yep, go ahead.

Q: Hello, my question is, with this process of removal of Obama and how we start to [inaudible] our Congress, our plan and our opportunities and our program, to get him out, as a better alternative to what’s in the future. And is there any impeachment in process now in Congress, or is it not going on right now with it?

LAROUCHE: Well, sometimes history passes to unusual instruments. When there’s a general breakdown, in the ordinary institutions of governments, not a total breakdown, not a total dysfunction, but an area, a period of indecision, failure to make necessary decisions in a timely fashion, the lack of such decision-making by elements of a government create a vacuum, which itself becomes potentially the greatest threat to the stability and continuity of government.

We have entered such a period. The Congress as a whole does not function. The President, in particular, is worse than — anything. He must be removed. So you have a situation where the President must be removed, for the sake of the survival of the nation, and its people, and the Congress in the main has been unable to take any of the necessary actions within its lawful powers, needed to remedy the situation. We are now experiencing in those terms, a general breakdown of the functioning of the U.S. government, and the failure to meet the needs of desperately hungry, unemployed people, is a hallmark of that situation. There {are} methods, which could be taken by the legislature, the Federal legislature, and by the President, which could be taken and {could have been taken}, all along the period of the Obama Administration thus far. Those measures which were necessary, {were never taken}, but rather, measures which were {destructive} of the continued welfare of our citizens, and of the nation itself.

So therefore, the time has come, in which a small minority of outspoken leaders can put on the public agenda, put the proposed measures needed, to remedy these problems, and that’s what I’m doing. I’m a senior figure as an economist, and in other capacities, in this kind of business. People who are leaders, actual leaders, in terms of their competences, know me very well. I engage in various kinds of dialogue with these people, often. We are, in one sense or another, constantly in touch with one another. I’m stepping forward, together with my immediate associates, and friends, to present those measures which must be taken, which are not being taken, by the present institutions of government in general; if somebody does not do what I am doing, then we are going to lose this nation.

Now, I’m not out there out of political ambition as a personality. I’m out there to do a job, period. I’m an expert economist; I’m probably the best economist in the world right now, in terms of these kinds of questions. I have an authority which is unique, in terms of professional skills. I am putting those skills to use, where they are needed. I also have a clear insight, into what our necessary relationships are, with people in Europe, where I’m also deeply involved, with people in Russia, included, leading circles in Russia; relevant circles in China, and I’m very sensitive to the interests of these other nations, which are partners of our nation.

And therefore, I have these special qualifications, as taken in combination, and I’m stepping forward, because I have the guts to do so, where some other people are more timorous about these things. So I’m sort of the spirit of an old soldier, in this matter: And I’m doing what has to be done, by somebody, within the United States, to perk up and set into motion, some of those other members of actual government, who have not been functioning too well, lately.

MODERATOR: Here’s the next question for you.

Q: Yeah, Lyn, would you speak a little bit more about the credit system that you mentioned?

LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure! Well, the credit system is actually the concept of a system which was founded by the United States; it was founded by the founders of the United States. It’s an integral part of the U.S. Federal Constitution, and the United States was based on the concept of a principle of credit, as opposed to a monetary system. In a monetary system, it assumes that there’s some guy out there who owns this stuff called “money”; and if you want to buy something, you got to go talk to this guy who owns money. You don’t have any democratic control over what’s produced; you don’t have any ability to set the policies, by which the government will function, by which the economy will function. This is given to another group of people.

Now, we have two groups of people who are generally considered as the sources of money: One is centered in the U.S. government, itself, in the power of the U.S. government to {create credit}, that is, legal credit, circulatable credit. The other are the actual generation of banking, ordinary banking, commercial banking, or various forms of commercial banking. The third is Wall Street, and similar kinds of things. Now, our point is, and the point of our system is, the intention of the Constitutional intention, of the Constitution of the United States, is that the control of money lies with the government and the responsibilities of government to maintain and support a commercial banking system, as well as a Federal credit system otherwise, and that anything outside that, is treated politically, as gambling! What has happened to us, most recently, again, is that with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which I consider a criminal act, {we have lost the sovereignty over our own money!} We are now victims of gamblers. And what we have, is, we have vast trillions of dollars of Federal debt, hyperinflationary debt, which is crushing our people, and crushing our economy! And unless we get {rid} of that, that kind of debt — in other words, all this bailout debt, which is being generated in Europe, being generated inside the United States, all that debt {is intrinsically worthless! No one could ever pay it!} No government could ever pay it! It’s toilet paper, and should be flushed!

Now, the way to do that, is take two steps: Step #1) first of all, you have to establish a Glass-Steagall Act, the same act that Roosevelt put in in 1933. That will put our affairs in order. However, there’s so much useless crap out there, called “money,” it’s absolutely worthless stuff, it has no intrinsic value, and never will, all it is doing is bankrupting our economy. So we go back to a Glass-Steagall system which will put the money which is being through banking systems, which is legal, and functional, but unfortunately, because of the overthrow of the Glass-Steagall Act as a restraint, we now have so much filth counted as monetary assets in our system, that with a Glass-Steagall we would not have enough real credit available from that system alone, to keep the economy functioning. {Therefore,} what we must do is go back to the principle of our Constitution, which is based on the concept of a credit system: And what would happen, the Federal government must, itself, go into its own debt, to provide the money, the usable money, needed to sustain the nation and its people. We should concentrate as much as possible, on investments in {improved production of real physical wealth, and real physical services}, such as health care and so forth. In that way, we could go, on a dime, right now, by one act, or two acts: 1) reenact Glass-Steagall. That changes the situation. Now, the situation is now back under control. However, the damage done, between the cancellation of Glass-Steagall and its reenactment, has left a gap, a hyperinflationary gap. Okay. Glass-Steagall restored will cancel those debts which do not correspond to the Constitutional standard for credit. But then, we don’t have enough of this credit to get the people back to work, and to make the large-scale, long-term investments, which are needed to make the economy viable again. I mean, we’ve got a lot of unemployed people, or misemployed people, out there, suffering people who are losing the health care they deserve and so forth: We’ve got to put them back into good health in terms of condition.

But we also have to accelerate the rebuilding of our economy, our physical economy, and create the high-tech jobs, the capital-intensive jobs, which will, like Glass-Steagall does, will actually create the possibility of credit, for large-scale things, to get our nation fully employed, back again!

And so, that’s what we need: So we need a credit system, and we used a credit system, of the government, to supply the loaned money, loaned credit, to necessary government functions, and to private investments and so forth, and other investments which we support, as being in the nation interest.

So therefore, we have, some of the work is being done by the government, as such, government-funded work of the Federal government, and also to state and local governments when needed; but also, loaned to private investments, which are going to produce things, or parts of things, which our nation needs, for high — well, it’s like restoring the equivalent of an automobile industry. We might not do the same way we did before with the automobile industry, but the principle of Detroit and so forth, high-technology, is necessary. We need high-technology from the same area, say, as the Ohio, and Detroit, and Michigan and so forth: We need these areas because they were repositories of people who had high degrees of technological training. They had the skills, to make an automobile, to make a ship, to make an airplane, whatever needed! So we need those people employed. We need the employment of them, in kinds of construction that the nation needs! We have to build up to a higher level of productivity, a higher quality of standard of living, these kinds of things.

So the credit system, where the government creates the credit which it expands for projects of national interest, or which it loans, in trust, to enterprises which are going to do something that we need done in the national interest, and that’s the way to build up an economy. We want full employment, or the equivalent, as fast as possible! We must put this nation back into shape, producing, being educated — we have, for example, a whole layer of young people, say, between 17 or 18 and 25, during this recent period, under George W. Bush and now, Obama; we have been destroying, virtually destroying in every possible way, the number of young people, say between 16 or 17 and 25, who have {no experience}, or virtually no experience, with any kind of real skill! With any kind of employment which makes sense for a human being! And this has got to come to an end.

Therefore, we need, and we can start, and we know how to do it, to launch a credit program, supplementing Glass-Steagall reform, which will put this nation, quickly on the road toward accelerating growth! Economic growth. And we have to do it very quickly, start the thing very quickly. That’s the job.

MODERATOR: All right, Lyn, we’re going to have the last question. If anyone else has any questions, if it’s all right I’ll just have them send them over to you?

LAROUCHE: Fine, whatever.

MODERATOR: Okay, so this will be the last question of the day, here.

Q: Thank you, Lyn, for taking my question. I drove two and a half hours one way to be here at this meeting; I drove in from El Dorado County. I’m very much in alignment with your philosophy and your thinking on the Seven Necessary Steps to bring our country back to sovereignty and to solidity again. I also am a member, a very active member of our local Tea Party. And I espoused the Seven Necessary Steps at each monthly meeting our Tea Party group, which is receiving your Seven Necessary Steps in a very positive manner. The Tea Party is very open to your thought processes about getting the country back in order, and back on track again. Our Congressman, Tom McClintock, has not yet co-sponsored onto Marcy Kaptur’s “Prudent Banking Act” yet, and I’ve been in communication with him.

I have a twofold question for you: What can the Tea Party do to align itself a little bit more with your philosophy? And what can we do to move in a positive direction to get some of your ideas along with fiscal responsibility in our national government and our local government, coming into play? And secondly, in that line, do you see any candidate, either from any party — independent, Republican or Democrat — that aligns themselves with your Seven Necessary Steps? Appreciate it, thank you very much.

LAROUCHE: Well, what’s the point here? We’ve got a very discomfitted and confused population, citizenry, because there have been some sole voices, lone voices in the situation in recent times. But increasingly — it was bad under George W. Bush, Jr., it was impossible, really. But something beyond impossible came into being under Obama. As a result of that, we’re now going on — you know approaching a dozen years now, of misleadership, — and I don’t mean ladies’ leadership! — and that has been a disaster. It’s been a psychological disaster, because you take, you know, approaching a dozen years, in the life of a group of citizens, that’s a big chunk of life! Just think, of going from, you know, graduating from university at the age of, say, 21, 22, or something like that, and then, going into the thirties, and finding yourself in a bum job, with bum opportunities and no rationality demonstrated by government.

Your citizen gets pretty much demoralized, at least temporarily, by the accumulation of such experience. And therefore, we have to not worry too much about some things that aren’t true; but we do have to worry very much about making things that must be true, come true. And that’s where we stand: We need a program which is oriented with high technology, because, look, for example — let me give you one other aspect of this thing: The planet Earth, and our Solar System as a whole is presently moving into an area of the galaxy; that is, you have the Solar System, and the Solar System is running around the edges, so to speak, of our galaxy. Now, what’s happened is, the living processes on Earth, have now entered a period, of galactic history, which no human being, to the best of our knowledge, has ever experienced! This involves potential dangers to human life: Under the influence of high technology of the type we know we need, we could defend the human species, against such threats, depending upon how great these threats become.

But we’re now entering a period, in which we can not stick, to limited — to old, used technologies. We must add higher-level technologies, which enable mankind to defend human life, against less pleasant electronic circumstances, for example, than we know now. Remember, the human species has been on this planet, for not more than probably a dozen million years. And all the things that happened, like the great kills of the dinosaurs and so forth, all happened under conditions at an earlier time, in a different part, when the Solar System was in a different part of the galaxy. We’re now going back into some of those difficult conditions. We know that, in principle, within certain limits, mankind has the potential, to control and deal with those risky conditions.

And therefore, what we have to think in terms of, is always keeping man moving ahead, technologically, scientifically, so that whatever’s coming up, mankind always has improved abilities, to deal with new problems, or problems of a new type, which may come upon us. We have a general idea of what that is; my associates and I have been working through about a half billion years of the evolution of life, within our Solar System, and under the influence of our galaxy, so we do know enough about this, to know what the nature of the playground is. And we know that we need that kind of development, that kind of progress, that kind of scientific progress, that is needed. And mankind {does need} to go out into outside the planet Earth’s region. We do need to have an extraterrestrial imperative. We do have to have heroes who are part of the scientific teams, who explore what we can do, in other parts of the planets, which we can not do from Earth itself, but which we need to have done.

And therefore, we have to have an idea of progress, an idea that each generation has the right to contribute some step of progress, for the case of humanity as a whole. We have to have a morality, which says, human beings are not animals; human beings are intellectual creatures, who are capable of making creative discoveries, which give man a greater power to live, and to work in the universe, than is possible for any other species we know. Mankind is a unique species. And we must affirm the uniqueness of the species we represent, as human beings, above all other known forms of life. And we must act as what we are, as create beings, whose role in the universe is to be, simply, creative beings, so that each generation, that is born and lives will have the opportunity to contribute some step of progress in the human condition, such that even though we may die, in each case, we contribute something which is immortal. We contribute to coming generations of human beings, the power to become stronger, and better, and more useful human beings, than preceded us.

And that’s the way we must think. If we think in those terms, and go out to build things and make things work in that way, we can’t go off track. We have the ideas — we should have the idea, that we have a short life, maybe less than a hundred years, at best, even now; I’m 89 myself! But we should have the perspective, that we are living, to give to coming generations something new, which will benefit the progress of human beings, under the conditions of the coming generations! And we must see that as a kind of immortality: If we can contribute, in our time, to something that’s needed by future human beings, a human society, {we know we’re on the right track.} And we feel that we are participating in the universe which continues, after we have died.

MODERATOR: Thank you Mr. LaRouche. I’d like to ask everybody to join me in thank Mr. Lyndon LaRouche for addressing the conference. [applause] We appreciate it, very much!

LAROUCHE: Thank you.