LaRouche’s Four Laws: Man’s Unique Nature

Buzz Aldrin about to be the second human being to step foot on the moon.

 

by Tony Papert

Only the adoption of Lyndon LaRouche’s June 8, 2014 “Four New Laws to Save the USA Now,” can save the trans-Atlantic region from a “general, physical-economic chain-reaction breakdown-crisis.” If you intend to be anything more than a mere bystander, or worse, in this onrushing crisis, you must read and understand the Four Laws.

What I hope to do here is to improve your insight, if possible, into the great premise underlying LaRouche’s Four Laws. That premise, as he makes clear, is the totally unique nature of the human species in the entire universe. Only man creates new forms of existence never seen before and otherwise impossible. Only man creates the future; only man creates the future existence of humanity; and only man creates human creativity itself.

This true human nature is most accessible to visionary scientists,— and there is no true scientist who is not a visionary.

Space pioneer Krafft A. Ehricke, who became a close co-worker with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche during the 1980s, was such a visionary scientist. Writing in the dark days of the early 1950s (in the first volume of his work, “Space Flight,”), he reached back through millions of years of evolution to recall “the enormous effort” which “water-borne life” had undertaken “to adapt itself to existence on land.” He likened that to man’s stepping out into space,— not through biological evolution, but through the new quality of the human mind.

Thoughts like these permeated the space pioneers,— it is known that Wernher von Braun compared Neil Armstrong’s stepping onto the surface of the moon, with that “enormous effort” through which life moved from the ocean onto the land.

In a magnificent work written in 1966, which looked back from the year 2000 on man’s progress in space since 1966, Krafft Ehricke said that now (in 2000) an average of two flights per month are taking off from earth for other parts of the solar system,— plus incomparably more satellite and moon-launches. Most of the spaceships travelling through solar space are powered by controlled fusion using the deuterium-helium 3 reaction. Ehricke does not simply name this reaction; he goes into great detail about both the reaction itself, and how it can be controlled and used for a rocket engine. But he notes that the deuterium-helium 3 reaction will not hold first place for long,— because already man is moving toward mastery of matter-antimatter reactions.

In a memorable passage, Ehricke recalls how mankind had freed itself from the death-cult of the 20th Century, to embrace its new-found freedom.

We, in the year 2000, look back at the twentieth century as the years in which the new era was finally born after centuries of incubation in the minds and hearts of great men and women of many nations. The twentieth century is the gulf which separates the last century of the old era and the first century of the new one in which values, outlooks and frames of reference are quite different. The hour of birth, be it of a life or of an era, is the hour of truth in which pain, doubt and fear challenge, and the intensity of their onslaught causes the compensating forces of strength, confidence and bravery to rise to rare peaks of intensity and power. The world seems to break apart under the agony of this unmerciful confrontation of the old and the new. The great symbols of the space age, namely, rocket technology, nuclear technology and modern electronic technology were born in the dark days of World War II. But, since war can never bear peace, the rockets remained missiles, the nuclear devices remained bombs and the radar did not cease to be the ear which was anxiously listening for the signal of death from the hostile world of `the other side.’ The past was lost, the future not yet won; and mankind shivered in the feverish chill of hostility, hatred and death-fear unleashed in the succession of wars and confrontations.These were the realities.

Throughout those years, a small group of people of many nationalities, while facing those realities, refused to surrender their vision of missiles-turned-spacecraft, of nuclear power becoming a means of propelling space vehicles to other worlds and of radar waves reporting exciting discoveries from deep space. What they suggested seemed at first impractical, inconsequential and without utility or payoff. But we now know that they had built their case on the solid foundations of long-range logic and realism… Space became a very real challenge to man; and there was no way back to the old days. There never is.” [“Solar Transportation,” American Astronautical Society Science and Technology Series, vol. 10, Space Age in Fiscal Year 2001, An American Astronautical Society Publication, 1967, p. 164]

Let us conclude with Krafft’s retelling of the beginning of the space age with the first successful launch of the first cosmic rocket, the German A-4, later called the V-2, on October 3, 1942.

Those were the `wild west’ days of rocketry and space flight. You didn’t have to be miles away. You could almost stand beside the rocket, and I was on the roof of one of those high-rise buildings, actually looking down to the launch complex, just a few hundred meters distance. And then came the countdown and ignition. The system lifted off with a roar. It lifted up straight, and, of course, we all screamed with delight. It hadn’t exploded on the launch complex. The guidance system seemed to work… it looked like a fiery sword going into the sky. Then came the enormous roar—the whole sky seemed to vibrate. This kind of unearthly roaring sound was something human ears had never heard [before].You know, it’s very hard to describe what you feel when you stand on the threshold of a whole new era, of a whole new age that you know will be coming. It’s like those people must have felt—Columbus or Magellan—that for the first time, saw entire new worlds, and knew the world would never be the same after this… This is the feeling many of us had.

For me, it was absolutely overwhelming. I almost fell off the roof, I was so excited.

When we came down together we congratulated ourselves. We knew the Space Age had begun and Dr. Dornberger made a very moving speech at the time, and said, `Well, this is the key to the universe. This is the first day of the Space Age.'” [Marsha Freeman, Krafft Ehricke’s Extraterrestrial Imperative, Apogee Books, 2008, p. 16]

Posted in LaRouche's four laws, LPAC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Fireside Chat with Jeff Steinberg, July 28, 2016

 

Join us for a live Q&A discussion with Jeff Steinberg, EIR’s counterintelligence editor.

Ask a question.

Posted in LPAC, Manhattan Project | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

LaRouche Discusses 9/11 Attack As It Unfolds (with transcript)

 

The following interview was conducted on September 11, 2001, between Jack Stockwell, morning radio host on K-TALK radio in Salt Lake City, Utah, and 2004 Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. It was on the air from 7:15 to 9:00 A.M., Mountain Daylight Time.

Stockwell: Well, I’m still sitting here looking at this incredible picture, this incredible image in front of me of this burning World Trade Center, as these two jets have just slammed. One jet has slammed into each of the two towers.

So, we’ll go ahead, and I’m going to go ahead and get my guest on here with me. Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Yes.

Stockwell: Good morning, sir.

LaRouche: Good morning, Jack.

Stockwell: Well, what a pleasure and an honor to have you back on my program again. I was hoping to move the discussion initially with what we were going to do here into the area of the sublime.

LaRouche: Yes, right.

Stockwell: But now, with what has just happened in New York, with this—you know, interesting enough. Just yesterday, I received—I think it was just yesterday—a bundle of leaflets from your organization in Leesburg that I regularly pass out in my office warning of terrorist attacks in America here very shortly.

LaRouche: Yes.

Stockwell: And here we have the morning that you’re on my program, what’s happening in New York at the World Trade Center. I don’t know if you’ve seen these images or pictures yet on the television.

LaRouche: I haven’t yet. I was just sitting up here working, and just heard about it before I went to call you.

Stockwell: Yes. Well, the smoke is billowing out of the one tower here. My wife called me a moment ago. And apparently they caught, live, on film, the second jet smashing in to one of the other towers.

LaRouche: Obviously, this is not exactly an accident.

Stockwell: No, sir. I don’t believe it is.

LaRouche: I mean, it’s not a coincidence. It’s obviously—this is so remote in probability that there has to be intention in this thing.

Stockwell: Well, it’s one thing for somebody to strap on a jacket made of dynamite and walk into a diner in downtown Jerusalem. It’s another thing to jump inside of a Lear jet and go smashing in the side of a building like that.

LaRouche: The thing you have to look at, and the context in which this is occurring, is two things. First of all, the first suspicion that’s going to be on this is Osama bin Laden. That name is going to come up prominently, whether as suspicion or just suspicion.

Stockwell: Certainly.

LaRouche: And the second thing, which is not unrelated to the Osama bin Laden question, is this festival which is planned—really a terrorist festival for Washington, D.C.

Stockwell: At the end of the month.

LaRouche: Yes. We have a global process. Look, the financial system’s coming down. That’s always a dangerous thing. Because when the entire system is being shaken up the way it is now, by the finacial collapse, political things happen, because various people try to intervene and orchestrate events by spectacular interventions, which will change, shall we say, get public attention off one thing and put it on another.

So, this is obviously—I mean, I cannot draw a conclusion, except the circumstances tell me something rather evil is behind this thing. And I don’t know which, but they’re both connected, because I know the Goldsmith brothers—for example, Jimmy Goldsmith was key in helping to create—he’s now deceased—Osama bin Laden and people like that. The Taliban and so forth.

And at the same time, his brother, Teddy Goldsmith, who is still very much alive, is sort of the spiritual godfather of this movement which is planning to inundate Washington, D.C., with some pretty nasty stuff at the end of this month.

Stockwell: Something to a much greater degree than what happened in Seattle.

LaRouche: Oh, absolutely. This thing went from Seattle—Seattle was basically a terrorist operation. But, you know, if you look at the history of how terrorist operations are run, you would run a hardcore terrorist operation. And around it, they would run sympathizer operations which were not necessarily wittingly connected to the terrorist operation. But they were run and coordinated simultaneously.

In Seattle, you had the so-called legitimate protest, wihch was largely trade union-backed. But into the same scenario, you had coming out of Canada, based in Canada—and the Canadian-U.S. border is rather leaky, you know. And they were coming across in droves over there to do funny things.

Then you had the operation, a conference in Porto Alegre, Brazil, just a short time ago, which Teddy Goldsmith chaired. And this cuts into the people who are generally the ambiance of international terrorism.

Then, from there, from Genoa, they went to some other things. But the big thing—from Porto Alegre to Genoa, where they staged an upscale terrorist operation.

Now, from what I know of the details of the terrorist operations being prepared in Maryland and Virginia for Washington, D.C., where they’re being prestaged, this is intended to be much bigger than Genoa.

So, what you have is a challenge to the integrity of the nation’s capital, of what is ostensibly the most powerful nation—a nuclear power—on this planet. And that is not funny.

Stockwell: If you can—the FBI is now saying that a plane was possibly hijacked for this attack. If you can do that with the World Trade Center, what could you do with the White House?

LaRouche: Absolutely. I’ve been very concerned about this. You know, I’m not very sympathetic with what some of these agencies do. But I’m concerned, not just as a presidential precandidate. But I’m concerned with the security of the United States and the peace of the world. And this is not good for the health of the nation or the world. These things should not happen.

And we could prevent this kind of stuff. But we just don’t do it, because, I don’t know. Someone says let it happen.

Stockwell: How would you prevent terrorist activity?

LaRouche: Well, the thing is, if you don’t—if you dispense with the myth that there are a number of unknown people out there coming out of the mists, and nobody knows where they come from, then you would say, How can you stop the terrorist operations?

If you know how the world is actually organized, you know you cannot organize a sustained preparation for terrorist operations in any country without the backing of a powerful government, or governments.

So that, if you know what the operation is—and I would say, you know, I have been warning against this Teddy Goldsmith operation all along, because I know what it’s connected to politically. It’s extremely dangerous.

And if I had been President, or in a similar position during this period, I would have had an all-out, very discreet, but very all-out and effective discussion with some other governments in the world, and we together would have taken appropriate steps to try to neutralize this kind of danger.

Of course, you can’t be 100 percent in this sort of thing. But you can do a pretty good job. And two planes. Now, that’s pretty big. That’s—one plane, that might not be preventible. But two in the same short —

No, that’s not small-time stuff.

Stockwell: No, this is pretty serious. Hold on a second here, Mr. LaRouche. I have a traffic update I need to give my listeners. Thanks a lot, Don.

Lyndon, is there any reason to assume that this would be something other than Osama bin Laden?

LaRouche: Sure. There are many. Osama bin Laden is a controlled entity. Osama bin Laden is not an independent force. Remember how he came into existence. Osama bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi arabian. Back in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, or shall we say the Brzezinski administration, the idea of running an Afghanistan war on the borders of Soviet territory was cooked up by Brzezinski as a geopolitical operation.

Well, Brzezinski was responsible. He didn’t necessarily cook it up. But all right. This thing started, and an Anglo-American unit, running together with a certain section of the Pakistani military, the funny-funny boys in the Pakistani military, set up this operation.

The United States government and British government and others—that is, our funny-funny boys—went out and recruited a lot of Islamic people to fight communism and defend Holy Islam, and so forth. That sort of line.

They recruited in many countries. And they deployed them. Now later, they killed some of the same people they deployed. You know, they’re expendable. So they don’t really have an insurance policy that goes with their recruitment.

But they were recruited. Osama bin Laden was one of the big funding agents of this, a funding conduit which was used by people, among others, then-Vice President George Bush. This is Iran-Contra, or what’s called Iran-Contra, which I’ve called it by other names which I wouldn’t put on the air.

So this thing is left behind. And suddenly now we find Osama bin Laden becomes the name. And Osama bin Laden could not last, the way he’s running around, if he didn’t have big protection. And it’s not just from a section of the Pakistani government or Afghanistan. It’s from other governments who would like to see the effects that Osama bin Laden produces thrown around.

So, now you can blame Osama bin Laden. At some point, you go in and kill him, and you say the problem was solved. But you never considered who sent, who created Osama bin Laden, and who protected him, and deployed his forces and name for these purposes.

And as we saw in terrorism in Italy in the 1970s, for example, the people who were running the so-called terrorist operations in Italy, ware not really the groups that had the credit for it. They were actually runaway NATO asset organizations at a very high level. The same people that killed the former prime minister Aldo Moro in that period.

So, in a case like this, don’t assume that the popular names that everybody knows, or that the FBI quotes and so forth, that this is the real problem.

They may be part of the problem.

Stockwell: Well, our mind, especially in our degenerating Western culture, always runs for the simple answer. We want the kind of answer that will free us from our guilt and our responsibilities of the neglect of our government and our fellow man all these years. And so, we run to the simplistic.

And the simplistic, of course, is there; he is, the big, bad bogey man from the Middle East, who has caused us so many problems before. And I certainly understand what you’re saying there, that the more simple we can make the presentation, then the less obligated any of us are.

Anyway, why would they be doing this? I mean, is there some—I mean, here we have a market crashing. We don’t just have a market crashing. We have an entire economy crashing within the arena of a culture that’s crashing.

LaRouche: Yes.

Stockwell. We are—if war, massive war were to break out in the Middle East any second, nobody would be surprised. If Putin were to be assassinated, if Arafat were to be assassinated, if Sharon were to be assassinated, nobody would be surprised.

I mean, we are sitting on powderkeg of powderkegs. And with all of the other provocations that could occur around the world to stop a lot of the economic unity and development that is beginning to gain some momentum between the large powers on the other side of the planet, why in the world fly a jet in the World Trade Center?

LaRouche: This is to create a provocation inside the United States. I mean, that’s the only reason that would be done. As you probably know—for example, stories may come out that this is done by some Arab group which is protesting the U.S. government’s sympathy for Sharon, or for the Israeli Defense Force. I don’t know if the Israeli Defense Force are going to kill Sharon tomorrow, I mean, because there’s real conflict there. And these guys tend to shoot, then think.

But some story like that. But what we’re into is a period where the word is not terrorism. Terrorism is a part of the picture. The word is “destabilization.” The problem part, from my standpoint, is, look at our own government.

And we are, in a sense, still sort of a superpower. I think the term is probably not quite appropriate for our present state of affairs. But we used to be a superpower, and we still have a dominant position in the world.

But what kind of a government do we have? Well, the Bush administration. And the thing was crashing, you see poor Secretary O’Neill babbling around. You see Rumsfeld has become a joke in his own Defense Department.

Stockwell: Well, he’s—I think the newspaper slug I—the one I just most recently read, was that he’s going to take on the Pentagon.

LaRouche: This is all a sideshow. The point is, President George Bush doesn’t function. He’s been in there, and as I said, this January 3rd, when I first announced and made a prognosis to what his administration would be, it’s been one catastrophe after another.

Nothing he has proposed has actually worked. Some of the things he proposed have been done, but they are disasters. And he’s not capable of being a President as such, unless he were controlled by a group of advisers who would give him good advice and solve his problems on how to deal with situations.

But he doesn’t have that. He has a nut like Wolfowitz over there underneath Rumsfeld nominally, who’s actually running the Defense Department. You have Armitage in the State Department, and similar kinds of things.

These guys as I know them are nuts. And they are nuts in there. Then you look at the Democratic Party. And you have the statement from Daschle, who’s the Senate Majority Leader now, saying he can’t do anything, it’s up to Bush, the President, who Daschle knows can’t do anything.

Stockwell: Yes. Well, Daschle is saying—I think he said over the weekened something like, Well, you know, they’ve got control of the House, and they’ve got control of the White House. And we have a very slim majority in the Senate, and boy, there’s just nothing we can do.

LaRouche: Well, he’s wrong, and he knows it. Because I’ve got a certain position in the Democratic Party, despite what Al Gore would like to think. And I could be in a position very easily to steer these guys into doing things that would begin to work, even with the limited strength the Democratic Party has today.

And I think that if the Party would do some of those things, we would do two things. We would not only be able to move and shake the population a bit into believing there’s somebody up there that might help them, you’d also find a number of Republicans who are not nuts, and who are simply patriotic, and will listen to reason, who would cooperate with the Democrats in doing some of the things we have to do. We have a vacuum of leadership.

Stockwell: With all of the ills and the evils and the mistakes and the corruption that might have been involved with the Clinton Administration, at least when you called the White House, there was somebody there that would answer the phone.

LaRouche: (Laughs) And especially when Bob Rubin was there helping Clinton out. I may not have approved of what Bob did many times, but at least he was competent.

Stockwell: Yes, exactly. Now we’ve got a situation where I’m afraid there would probably just be a recording inviting you down to the ranch.

Now, there was a recent comment here on the television a few moments ago that Bush would be making comments relative to this terrorist attack. This is the biggest thing since probably Oklahoma.

LaRouche: Much bigger.

Stockwell: Well, yes. I think the implications of this will be much bigger.

LaRouche: It’s much bigger.

Stockwell: You know, when Oklahoma first happened, the first two or three days—and I remember, I was glued to the television set. The first two or three days, there was a large implication towards the Middle East and the Arabs that were running around town.

And then they kind of covered that up, and that was out of the picture, and they never mentioned it any more.

LaRouche: Well, largely, this is a domestic covert operation, which we had word of beforehand. Everybody had the word, and if I had been President, I mean, on the basis of just what I knew, I would have taken certain actions immediately, which would—security/surveillance actions in anticipation of exactly that kind of problem.

So, we were not mystified. The problem is that fun and games is being played by various institutions, and we don’t have anybody really effectively in charge.

Stockwell: Now, Bush just made a comment. He said, The plane was an American Airlines Boeing 767 out of Boston. And they don’t know whether there were any passengers on it or not. They think that it was a hijacked airplane.

But a Boeing 767 from Boston was the plane tthat did it. And the President has guaranteed everybody he’s going to bring the terrorists to justice. And he’s talked to the Governor of New York, and they’re going to bring them to justice. And he said, God bless the victims. It’s a little late for that.

LaRouche: As a matter of fact, that is the worst thing he can do. If he would have said, “Of course, we are going to go get to the bottom of this, and deal with it in an appropriate way,” that would be the right thing to say.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: But to say that he’s going to solve the problem by bringing somebody to justice, that is the worst thing he can say.

Stockwell: Yes. Because again, it goes back to—just to underscore what you were saying at the very beginning, that if we can find a couple of guys running around New York right now, trying to get out of town, or Boston, or wherever the thing took place, trying to hurry up and get on the next ship back to Saudi Arabia or whatever, like that was the end of the problem.

But as you were pointing out there at the beginning, it’s just part of a network, a network that can only exist by the support and the organizational strength of some major superpower on the planet.

LaRouche: I can make a flat statement on that, Jack.

Stockwell: Please.

LaRouche: If I were President of the United States right now, I would have already acted before this happened, not even knowing that this was going to happen.

And I would have had the following cooperation. I would have had cooperation from Russia, from Germany, from France, from Italy. I probably would have gotten a good deal from certain forces in Britain as well.

And we would have—and Japan, and China. And Arab countries, including Egypt. And we would have put our heads togehter real quick, pooling our resources, and said, whether we agree on other issues or not, this kind of thing is not going to happen, and we’re going to see to it it doesn’t.

And that would work. The problem is, you’ve got the foolish President of the United States— and I say that advisedly. A friend of mine just said in Massachusetts, and he’s running for office up there, for a Congressional seat. He said Bush can’t even defend his daughters from being bombed.

Stockwell: (Mr. Stockwell laughs.) Well, that took me a second. Bush can’t even protect his own daughters from being bombed. Well, out of respect for what’s just happened here, still, that’s hilarious.

LaRouche: Well, you’ve got to have a sense of humor even in the worst situation. If you don’t, your head is not cool, and your judgment will not be clear. I always advise my friends, the worse it gets, the more laughter you’d better be able to generate. If you haven’t got a sense of humor about any situation, no matter how serious —

Remember what Roosevelt did? Roosevelt did two things in running for President after the disaster that Coolidge bestowed on Hoover. Roosevelt started his campaign in West Virginia, with the famous statement talking about the Forgotten Man.

And then, when he entered office, he addressed the American people with the theme, There’s nothing as much to be feared as fear itself. And the key thing—we’ve got a citizenry, a frightened citizenry, a frightened and confused world, who are in the state of denial, because they’re frightened.

They wish to deny this crisis. They wish to believe that the thing is going to bounce back miraculously tomorrow, that suddenly the NASDAQ will suddenly jump out of its grave and suddenly become prosperous again.

The time now is needed, to reassure, in particular, the American people that somebody is in charge, that those persons in charge know what they’re doing, and they’re going to fix the situation, and they will call upoon the American people for support as needed.

That would work. But this kind of thing, of vengeance-seeking and snarling and growling to prove how mad you are, this isn’t government. This is side-show. This is Bozo the Clown putting on an act.

Stockwell: So we’ve got a situation here where this could just be the beginning, esxpecially with what we’ve got coming up with the Jacobin terrorist activity that a lot of people are expecting in Washington at this big summit at the end of themonth, because —

I mean, we are so vulnerable now. When you were mentioning all these other countries that could get together and stop this, any one of them are vulnerable. But there seems to be an increasing vulnerability within the United States, as we sink deeper into deinal, and bury our heads in the sand, and then go back to the old tried and true methods of fear-based living that we’ve always done with before, where our millennial fears and our Armageddonist concerns, and all these things, start coming back to the surface.

And we get our old barking dog outfits out of the closet, and get them back on again. Incidents like this in the midst of an economic crish, in the midst of a morality crash, could be the beginning of a provocation of some serious setbacks in this country, just from our own Justice Department.

Just from—you know, anything like this could get to a situation where we could find our own liberties in this country in serious attack, just because of the level of incompetence that exists in the government in leadership positions, backed up or at least undergirded to some degree, by some very malicious personalities that have been in the Justice Department and Defense Department for decades waiting for the right provocation to occur to move in to their crisis management operations.

LaRouche: And it won’t work. The point is, they’re idiots. And, you know, I really pity the current President. You know, and you know, I really pity the current President. He’s not a friend of mine. His father certainly was not a friend of mine. But, he’s President, and I think of him sitting in the office, and I realize the poor man has no conception, and no capability, of understanding what the world situation is, and what is actually hitting him.

He’s got a Treasury Secretary O’Neill who certainly does not inspire confidence in any sane observer. You’ve got Wolfowitz who’s a nut. You’ve got Armitage, another nut. You’ve got problems… And then you look at the Democratic Party—you see this crazy Lieberman, running around with this faith-based initiative. This is silly stuff! You see Daschle ducking, bobbing and weaving, so he doesn’t take a punch.

Here we are in a crisis, a financial crisis, now we have this terrorist thing, which probably indicates that more things are on the way, but maybe of a different variety, but on the way—and we have no leadership. You have the American people sitting out there, being more and more frightened as this kind of thing occurs, and they look up, and they go into the cockpit to see who’s flying the plane that’s in trouble, and they find a three-year old kid sitting in the pilot seat, and nobody else there.

That’s what our problem is. That’s our biggest problem. We have the means to deal with the worst kind of problem that I can envisage is likely to happen now. But if we don’t have the leadership, if we don’t reach out to the kind of cooperation we could have, that I know I could have, with key parts of the world, other countries, …

Stockwell: Yes—traffic update…

Don, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Don: Hello. We’re getting some other reports here, we want to confirm, regarding some more terrorist activity occurring at other sites.

LaRouche: Really?

Don: But I don’t want to mention it over the air, because I would like to have that confirmed before I say what somebody just called in and said…

Stockwell: Gee whiz, this is quite a day. What a day! You know, we’re sitting out here in the middle of this vast emptiness in the West, and we’re removed from the East Coast culturally, we’re removed politically, we are removed economically; we’ve kind of got this Marlboro man attitude out here in the West that: “Well, hell with New York, and they’re all a bunch of queers anyway.” And, as we go into deeper denial, trying desperately…

I have been reporting to my listeners for some time now, every step of the breakdown that I’ve been able to investigate and report, and get clear in my own mind, of the economic collapse, of the political collapse, and we’ve seemed to escape it to a large degree. But now we’re starting to have significant layoffs occurring in Utah, and it’s finally becoming very real around here, that we aren’t a separate people. We’re not this unique group of pioneer progeny, that tamed the West, and we can tame any other kind of a problem. We are in the same ship, the ship has hit the iceberg, we don’t have enough lifeboats, and what we need right now desperately is a captain who knows how to keep the ship alive long enough, to keep it on the surface of the water.

And, as we get more and more of these indications, constantly,… I like the comment that you made there a moment ago, about the NASDAQ jumping back out of the grave—the implication, of course, is that it’s dead.

The little kinds of—what, a plane? A plane has flown into the Pentagon. They’ve had an explosion at the Pentagon now.

LaRouche: That’s confirmed?

Stockwell: I don’t know if that’s confirmed or not, it must be coming in from another… What’s the source of that?

CBS is reporting that a plane has flown into the Pentagon.

LaRouche: I hope that somebody’s got some reports of where these planes were coming from…

Stockwell: Well, one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, was definitely confirmed as an American Airlines 767 hijacked out of Boston. They haven’t announced yet whether there was anybody on the plane or not.

LaRouche: Must have been. There must have been. The point is, unless there’s really a goofup. Because, how can a plane take off, without clearance? And if it’s taking off without clearance, it becomes an immediate security problem.

Stockwell: Yes. … The Pentagon? It is confirmed now, on several news sources, that the Pentagon is experiencing explosions right now. My goodness!

LaRouche: They mean business!

Stockwell: They’re evacuating the White House at the moment, and yes, obviously, they mean business. …

LaRouche: This is a very systematic operation. If they’re snatching planes… if all three of these planes—the two we have from New York and this thing on the Pentagon—to get that kind of thing, to snatch planes like that, that’s a pretty sophisticated operation.

Stockwell: Oh, yeah. This isn’t a bunch of malcontents, of some grass-roots organization, finally striking back. You’re going to have to have some rather heavy-duty intelligence network, and some real intelligence experience with this.

LaRouche: The question is, where were the relevant intelligence agencies which are in charge of monitoring this problem? Now, I’ve been putting this out for some time—not this, I didn’t know this airplane thing, but I assumed almost anything could happen… but on the Washington, D.C. targetting. So obviously, the Pentagon means that this is obviously, clearly a Washington, D.C. targetting. This is obviously intended to imply something coming out of the Middle East. This means that there’s been some kind of either incompetence or fix on the whole security operation, because you CAN’T get this kind of thing without a real goofup, on the security side. So somebody in charge of security was really not very effectively in charge.

You can’t go around snatching planes in a coordinated fashion, like this. You can’t do it. Somebody has to be really sloppy.

Stockwell: Well, we’ve got… you know. If this were arising from some Middle East effect, it’s been almost a year now since the Clintons did their about-face with the Palestinians, in order to secure election for Hillary with the Jewish vote in New York. And ever since then, I don’t know what the death count is—between 2 and 3000 maybe, in the Middle East, just because of Hillary’s need to get the Jewish vote.

LaRouche: Well, I think that that was something that fell in there.

Stockwell: Well, that’s probably true, but then Sharon’s march up the Temple Mount stairs…

LaRouche: It’s not Sharon. Sharon did, but it’s not Sharon’s operation. That sort of thing comes from the inside of the Israeli Defense Forces, and that Sharon is virtually a civilized human being compared to some of those guys in there. And I’ve been afraid that they might kill him, in order to use his killing, as a pretext for using, shall we call, weapons of mass destruction, against places like Baghdad, and Damascus, and Teheran.

Stockwell: Were they the forces behind Rabin’s assassination?

Stockwell: The same crowd. Absolutely. And there are people in the United States, who politically, in a sense, are authors of the production of some of these nuts, who have been shipped into Israel, to increase the problem there.

Then of course, you have the operation, which is, you have them in the Arab world, you have some of the same people who are running the Israeli nuts, are also running an operation, by recruiting certain Islamic nationals, people of Islamic persuasion, to do similar kinds of things, in order to set—rub two sticks together to make a fire.

Stockwell: All right. These are not isolated events. There’s some orchestration, some intelligence, behind all of this. This isn’t just the IDF, it isn’t just Osama bin Laden, or somebody wanting to bring down the infidel in the name of Allah. We’ve got it confirmed now, the White House is being evacuated, the Pentagon is evacuated; it was just a fire, it wasn’t a bomb, but they have a record of a U.S. military helicopter circling the Pentagon, and then there was a massive fireball …

LaRouche: Could be a bomb on a truck or something…

Stockwell: Yes, it could be another truck bomb. Those shaped-charges have proven to be very effective in the past. So, where does this end, then? Not in the sense of in the future, where does end in the sense of organization? Where’s this going back to, Lyndon? Who’s doing this?

LaRouche: This goes back, in a sense, to me. Because what’s happened is, the United States no longer has leadership, that is, efficiently. The present Presidency, the Republican Party as an organization in the Senate and the House, is a complete moral and intellectual disaster. There are some good people in there, but there’s not a leadership, a unified leadership, or anything like coherence.

In the Democratic party, the Democratic Party in the Senate, which is now a has-been, slim margin of majority in the Senate, is not … there’s no leadership! It has no response to the reality of the present period. And when you have the leader of the Senate Democrats, the leader of the house there, saying that he’s not going to do anything, because it’s up to George Bush—and he knows that George Bush can’t do anything of significance—it’s complete irresponsibility!

And then all the other institutions, political institutions, party institutions—the problem is, is that people have for so long, have believed so deeply in the kinds of changes in culture which were introduced over the past 35 years, especially since Nixon ran his Southern Strategy, that campaign; that we have lost our sense of leadership in the nation, we’ve lost our sense of what the United States’ leading role must be, not because of somebody’s ego, but because of our responsibility to the world at large.

I know, from my direct personal experience, and I have it, you know, in a lot of countries—South America, Central America, different parts of Asia, Russia, Germany, Eastern Europe, Italy, and so forth, India—I know people in these countries. If I were in a position of leadership in Washington, and either President, or advising a President, I know how to deal with this kind of problem.

We in the world have the resources. The United States has the ability to get the cooperation from those resources. What I fear now is that some fool is going to say, “No, we’re going to go along with the existing team—the existing team is what is causing the problem, it’s fatal.”

Stockwell: … The FAA has just grounded all flights in the United States. This hasn’t happened since World War II. All flights are now grounded in the United States. – [traffic break] –

Stockwell: Apparently, what we got here, there are FAA flights in the air, of course, which are being brought down, or being told to come down. President Bush is currently in Washington state [sic], at an elementary school, talking about education.

LaRouche: Doesn’t do much for education, but maybe it keeps him calm.

Stockwell: Yeah, but he says he’s going to get to the bottom of this in a hurry. There are pictures of Air Force One—all flights are halted except Air Force One, and it’s coming back to Washington. Maybe he’s already on the plane. But the Pentagon’s evacuated, the White House is evacuated. Gosh, maybe Leesburg better evacuate.

You know, there has been a history of distractions that have been perpetrated to try to keep… all of this Gary Condit stuff, you know, things like this, just distractions to keep people’s minds away from what is taking place, of a much more serious nature, not the least of which is what is happening in the market place, the stock exchange, and all the exchanges, for that matter.

This, I guess, is going to be the distraction of all time. It’s hard to imagine this. We’ve got a break coming up here shortly. I think we have you scheduled for another hour, don’t we, Lyn?

LaRouche: Yes, something like that.

Stockwell: Good, because we can all take a look at the television during the NBC news break. I can imagine what they’re going to be talking about on the radio. And then we can get back together at 8 o’clock and get that going.

But we have just a couple of more minutes here. And that is, we’re dealing with a mindset here, that is certainly not oriented to the Preamble of our Constitution. And in fact, I don’t know that they’re even oriented towards any basic Judeo-Christian thought, in the divine nature of man, but more in the sense of some misguided Darwinian concepts, that we are part of an evolutionary tree that needs to be curbed, and culled, and husbanded, and who will stop at nothing. Who else… what else, I have no reason… there’s no way to substantiate this, but jets into a building is one thing, but there’s a lot of other things that can be done with our water supply, and our air, and the biological-chemical stuff, that could be going on right now, that isn’t quite as obvious as an exploding office building in downtown New York.

LaRouche: The problem is now what this is going to generate. Obviously, just as you indicate, it’s going to generate— Whatever happens really, that is, in actuality, the paranoia is going to produce effects just as if it had happened, even if it didn’t.

Stockwell: Yes, because that’s how we work, isn’t it? And the thing that worries me the most about this, is not that the initial attack may be over with, but what will be a leaderless government’s response to this?

LaRouche: That’s a good question. This could be the worst thing the United States could do to itself.

Nobody trusts the United States abroad right now. This, the election, what happened on November 7 last year, what happened in the Supreme Court…

Stockwell: Well, it was a coup! It was a Supreme Court coup for the White House.

LaRouche: But all these things, from the standpoint of Europeans, and others abroad, looking at the United States… Japan is on the edge. It’s taken about all it can take in terms of blackmail from the United States. China has reconciled itself to the fact that the United States, as the market of last option…

Stockwell: Same with Mexico..

LaRouche: The same thing. The President of Mexico, presumably the one guy who George W. Bush would know where to find him, came to Washington to meet with the President; brought up an agenda which the President should have been informed about beforehand, undoubtedly was; and the President meets with President Vicente Fox on this question of immigration, which we ought to have a working understanding on. If you don’t have the final solution, at least you can be working on it, and say we’re going to work on it. We don’t. He turned it down, the President. Publically turned it down.

Sent the President of Mexico, presumably the only man, the only President on this planet who really liked, or tried to like George Bush, and he sends him packing to Mexico in desperation, to face a political crisis which the United States in a sense is imposing upon its neighbor Mexico. This is the kind of thing that people around the world, seeing this happen to the United States, if the President reacts, in “We’re going to get revenge, we’re going to teach everybody a lesson,” the President will have the worst possible effect for the United States. This is not the way to react.

Stockwell: I want to give you a toll-free number here, where you can get some more information, relative to what we’re speaking of. Ladies and gentlemen, 1-888-347-3258. 888-347-3258. Yeah, we’re talking about very likely thousands of—

Witnesses are saying that they are seeing people jumping out of the World Trade Center.

LaRouche: That’s a phenomenon, that is a phenomenon, that happens.

Stockwell: My God!

LaRouche: But the point is, you think about—you start with the beginning. You say, a plane comes out of Logan Airport in Boston, American Airlines. And the report, which may not be accurate, of course, is that it was hijacked after takeover—which would make sense; I mean, that’s the way something like that would tend to happen.

But there are people on that plane—you know what the size of that plane is.

Stockwell: Yes, a 767 is going to hold at least 250 people.

LaRouche: Okay, fine. So, they’re going to crash into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City, Lower Manhattan? Already, you’ve got a death toll right there. A real massive one.

Now, you have the building collapse, right after the beginning of the business day, and presumably most of the employees, and a lot of other people, are going in there—you’ve got—you’re talking about a mega-catastrophe in terms of human toll building up around this thing.

And you begin to get a pattern too. Because these things that happened, since they appear to be intentional, and the coordination suggests intention, this means it’s a planned operation—it is an attack on the United States, from whom we don’t know. I’ve got my own ideas about how this thing worked.

And obviously, this thing is, somebody obviously intended to enrage the United States into going in full-force in support of the a launching of the Israeli Defense Force against neighboring Arab nations. This is what this kind of thing is suggesting.

Stockwell: The Sears Tower has just been evacuated.

LaRouche: Uh-huh.

Stockwell: Just, you know— So, what we’re— More on what you just said there. More on the idea that because the United States is not making concerted efforts to slow down the IDF, in their continuing assassination policies regarding the PLO, and the elimination of all Palestinians from Israel, and the Greater Israel area, and because the Islamic people see the United States’ unwillingness to be involved in calming down the idea—

LaRouche: I don’t think this is an Islamic national operation. I think this was on the other side. I would say the capability, and the motivation, for the intention, does not come from the Arab world. And the isolated Arab groups, which might intend to do something like that, don’t have that capability.

Stockwell: Done by—

LaRouche: Well, by people you want the United States to go to war against the Arab world, along the line of what Brzezinski and his man Huntington talk about as the “Clash of Civilizations”! It’s a geopolitical provocation! It’s run by people whose intentions coincide with that of some of the wildest people in the Israeli Defense Forces. People who would have the ability to play that kind of game inside the United States.

Stockwell: The use of agents provocateur has been used very many times in the past.

LaRouche: Ah, this is standard operating procedure. It’s standard geopolitical tricks. Nothing esoteric about it. It’s what’s done all the time. This is just done on a grander scale.

Stockwell: Oh, now you’re going to love this one, Lyn. The latest talk coming in over CBS now, is, they’re talking about gathering the Administrative leaders, and military leaders, at a bomb shelter, where the President can direct a world war.

That just came in over CBS.

LaRouche: That’s exactly it.

Stockwell: That ought to really give you some hope and confidence that George Bush Jr. would be directing a world war!

LaRouche: The myth of the thing about Pearl Harbor, was that Roosevelt planned it. You had some people who spread that myth. They say that because they wish to believe it. Not because they have any evidence. The evidence is quite to the contrary: The British had organized Japan, to bomb Pearl Harbor, to attack it in a naval attack on Pearl Harbor, back at the beginning of the 1920s, when the British were allied with Japan against the United States, on the question of the naval power. This was the thing that Billy Mitchell talked about, in his court martial. He wasn’t particularly liked for that. But what happened is, contrary to what the U.S. expected, because they did send the aircraft carriers out to sea, because of the tension with Japan at that point, in order not to put the aircraft carriers at risk from the Japanese Navy. You saw what happened at Midway later, as a result of that wise decision.

Stockwell: Yeah, and the Coral Sea.

LaRouche: Some people would like to think that if you convince the American people that Pearl Harbor has been bombed again, that you can use that effect, which I saw on the streets on Sunday, that famous Sunday, December 7, 1941, you can use that event to mobilize the American people, particularly under the conditions of present denial and hysteria about the economy, and so forth, they can do something and mobilize the United States in a foolish direction. This would drive the world berserk. To think that you have lunatics in the United States, who would even threaten to go to world war over a thing like this.

Instead, we should recognize we’ve made some mistakes and correct them real fast and coolly, with as little panic as possible.

Stockwell: I’ve got another one for you. The smoke in downtown Manhattan is clearing, and there is no second tower.

LaRouche: That I can understand. It’s awful, but, those of us who —

Stockwell: What response can the United States possibly have now?

LaRouche: The United States needs a Franklin Roosevelt, who will say we have nothing to fear as much as fear itself. Yes, we have things to fear, but nothing as much as fear itself. Nothing as much as panic itself. This is the time for cool heads. You do not win wars by panicking, by flight-forward. What I’m afraid of from this White House is, because of its very weakness, it would tend to go into flight-forward.

What I’m afraid of from this White House is, because of its very weakness, it will tend to go into flight-forward. Actually, George W. Bush is not exactly a combat veteran. So, you don’t expect him—I mean, he may have been in the National Guard, down in Texas—but he’s not the kind of guy you’d want in charge of a military major unit in time of war. You want somebody with a cool head. You want the MacArthurs at time of war. You want commanders like that. You want leaders like that, who do not blow their gaskets, even in the face of the most horrible penalties, do not lose self-control. I’m afraid that the people in Washington are going to delight and are having a sexual fantasy about losing self-control. They’re going to pull out some kind of favorite horror movie and try to act that out as a scenario.

Stockwell: This advice, of nothing to fear but fear itself, goes right down to the last man listening to this program right now. We have people in Washington right now, I can see them sitting at a table, saying, “We have got to have the President order martial law immediately.”

LaRouche: Absolutely.

Stockwell: That kind of crazy thinking.

LaRouche: Absolutely. The worst thing they can do. It’s the worst thing for the security of the United States to pull a stunt like that. Anyone who would do it has to be a real, certifiable, historical idiot!

Stockwell: What can be, what should be, the U.S. response in the next 24 to 48 hours to this?

LaRouche: I would hope that some of these guys get smart enough to call me up. Because there are people that I would think of as the kind of team that could be pulled together, as a special team, to advise the President and other institutions on how to respond to this. That could reach out to other governments informally, for the informal kind of cooperation which would make the formal cooperation work.

Stockwell: All right, I’ve got a couple of people with some questions for you, if you don’t mind.

LaRouche: Sure.

Stockwell: I’m going to go ahead and bring you folks on the air, along with Lyndon LaRouche. Ryan, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Ryan: Hi, Lyndon. It’s exciting to talk to you. I really hadn’t been introduced to your movement till I started listening to the Jack Stockwell show, but I’m finding you have quite a few interesting things to say. Boy, Jack’s been talking about this crap for a long time, and I’ll tell you, it’s really scary. I wanted to see if maybe you thought that maybe this was an oligarchical ploy, to gain power, at a key time. Or maybe this is just a random terrorist attack.

LaRouche: No, it’s not random. This is obviously a highly planned attack by a very capable agency, this kind of thing. If it is coordinated, as portrayed, and I see no reason to work on any other working hypothesis at this time; if it becomes less, fine—be grateful. But this already is a horror show of the first magnitude.

Ryan: Oh my heck, I can’t believe it. I can’t believe they even collapsed the tower.

LaRouche: Oh, but this couldn’t happen—this is not amateur night. This is big. Therefore we need, the first thing we need, is cool heads.

Ryan: I agree. And that’s what I’m afraid of. Just like Jack said, I’m afraid of them declaring martial law. I can just see it as plain as day, them saying they need to come and—

LaRouche: That would be the end of the United States. The United States could not take martial law. It would disintegrate.

Ryan: I know they couldn’t take it, and that’s what I’m afraid of. I mean, omigosh, I can’t believe how scary it is, if they— And I guess I just see them doing it, as plain as day, that’s the thing that terrifies me.

LaRouche: You get some Ku Klux Klan mentalities who would think that would work, but anybody who knows anything, knows that this country, right now, is morally very fragile. This country can disintegrate as a nation; it’s very fragile, as a result of what’s been done to it.

Largely as a result of the entertainment that’s supplied it. Look at what appears on television, other forms of mass entertainment.

Ryan: And I think it’s all been a ploy over the last 50 years by the oligarchy to obtain the power that they want over this country.

LaRouche: Well, it’s actually to change the world in a certain way. But I’m not drawing any conclusions beyond what I know, because I have to be cool at this time, because I’m vindicated, in a sense, therefore I have not got the luxury of indulging myself in any wild speculation. I have to be cool, and anything I say, I have to be right.

Ryan: I’m glad that we have a person who’s going to be—

LaRouche: So, I’ll say what I know, but I’m not going to leap to conclusions. I’m going to see what the facts are, but in the meantime I know the first thing is, keep cool, especially those who are in leading positions.

Ryan: I agree. I appreciate your time, Lyndon.

Stockwell: Thanks, Ryan.

What happened, what they’re saying now, Lyn, is that the second plane flew into one of the structural corners of the second building, knowing that it would bring that—they think that’s what brought the second one down, was that the plane—obviously, well, I don’t know obviously, because I don’t know either, but I would suspect that anybody that would be going to that kind of an extreme move, would have those planes loaded with sufficient explosives.

LaRouche: Well, the fuel alone is something, you know. Shortly after takeoff, a fuelled plane has a certain amount of explosive potential.

No, I just think we’ve got to get more evidence on it. But obviously, what we know is that this is, doesn’t conform to any coincidence of any kind.

Stockwell: … When we come back, I want to talk about what the IDF would be trying to accomplish with an act like this….

Stockwell: Twenty-three minutes after the hour, my guest Lyndon LaRouche. I’ve often told you, ladies and gentlemen, that my source of information that I use relative to my radio programs, comes from a majority of sources from around the planet. Newspaper headlines out of Germany, out of China, out of Russia, out of South America, France, Italy, the British Isles. And one thing that is predominant in international media, that you do not see in the United States media, is the discussion of Mr. LaRouche and his ideas regarding a new Bretton Woods, individual state sovereignty, the end of this economic system, in the sense that it has to be completely reorganized, or, what has happened—these are my words—what has happened in Manhattan, what happened to the rest of world, financially.

And I have often talked about that, I have given you phone numbers where you can check in the information yourself. I’ve had information in my office that you can come by, in my clinic, to pick up additional information. And what is going on right now, I’ve been talking about three to four years, ever since my association with Mr. LaRouche, in the sense of the orchestration of events leading in this particular direction, to force the United States to come to war, in the Middle East. And I’ve talked about that, I’ve talked about how I don’t want to see my sons going to war in the Middle East, but I can’t help but see that day materializing before me.

Lyn, is the American government crazy enough right now, to have a war response to this?

LaRouche: Well, try stupid enough.

Stockwell: All right.

LaRouche: Then, that’s possible.

Stockwell: And who would they go shooting at?

LaRouche: Well, they would just react.

Stockwell: More intensified bombings of Baghdad, or something stupid like that.

LaRouche: Or some foolish thing. They would react out of stupidity.

See, the problem here is, that years ago, we had certain criteria like industry, agriculture, science, physical reality. And therefore you ahd a population which would look at things in a practical way, in the way a progressive farmer, the way a small entrepreneurial industrialist would look at things, an engineer, and so forth. We don’t have that anymore. We have a population which lives more and more in fantasy land. And we have leaders who were selected.

Look, let me be frank. I think this is a time we’ve got to be very honest, no strained politeness.

Look, we had two idiots running for President as of, up to Nov. 7 of last year. One dumb, with a real bad combination around him. And you had the other one, who was a mental case, of a different kind, Gore. This is a fact. This is a reality—this is not the time to be polite, or to be diplomatic. And, therefore, what happened is, the institutions, including the mass media, the moneybags of various parts of the country, put their money behind these two specimens.

Now, I was the best qualified, but put that aside. You had other people, like Kerry in Massachusetts, for example, and other people, who were more qualified—they were sane. And even if they had shortcomings, if you put them in the Oval office, and put a good bunch of advisers around there, you might get a good process of government out of them. We don’t.

So, what we have is, is we have an American people, which sat there and watched, while what they knew to be a mental case and a dummy, were the only available Presidents of the United States, and anybody who understands what the Presidency of the United States means, as an absolutely unique quality of institution on this planet, would realize the importance of having a qualified President in that office at the time when the financial crisis, the global monetary crisis, was inevitable. And these two clowns—and Lieberman as well—the Vice-Presidential candidate, didn’t say a word, about the crisis, the financial crisis, which was then oncoming. People have lost tens of trillions of dollars globally, from the collapse of this system. In one sector of the U.S. financial market alone, three trillion dollars, which hit a lot of poor people, as well as others, who were putting their savings there, hoping to get that extra nickel to stretch their pension—that sort of thing.

We have a bubble that’s about to burst in real estate now. So, these issues are facing us, and nobody was paying attention to any of the obvious, massively obvious, real issues coming up.

So, now you’ve got a population which, if you read the print press, you look at the so-called television news, of various kinds, including the stuff that’s on websites, and you see absolute gibberish and idiocy. So what do you expect? The American people have no sense of what the reality of the real, current situation is, and therefore you have leaders who don’t even want to know what reality is—they want to have a fantasy. And it’s extremely dangerous.

We’ve got to get cooler heads together, now, and put some direction into this. But I’m really afraid of what would happen, if you leave the decision to be made in the hands of just the few who are the obvious ones right now, in power.

Stockwell: Well, this could—you know, I’m thinking that it’s almost impossible for the United States to not do anything. You know, when you looked at what happened in Oklahoma City, nothing on this scale. Nothing against, I’m sorry for the people whose lives were lost and families and such, but this, if this is as bad as I think it is, what happened today, the United States can’t just do nothing.

LaRouche: Well, the United States, first of all, the President of the United States, or someone who’s next to him, who’s intelligent, should immediately call President Putin of Russia. And between the two of them, they should talk to all the key leaders in France, Germany, Italy, and so forth. Japan, as well. Bring the Chinese in on it. The Chinese will have their own reaction, but bring them in on it. Through a group of leaders.

And say, this has happened in the United States. “You guys all know what this kind of thing means. Let’s put this thing, this genie back in the bottle.” And, that’s what has to be done.

Then tell the American people you’re doing it. Say, “We are not going to allow this kind of situation, which obviously had roots, to continue. We and other nations are going to cooperate to bring this under control.” That’s what the American people have to hear from the President, or somebody around him, or somebody else in charge. Maybe Don Rumsfeld, maybe Powell, Colin Powell, is the guy to deliver that message. But somebody’s got to deliver that message now.

Stockwell: A conjointed effort, among the—Now, this is just in. Another plane has been hijacked, and it’s en route to Washington, D.C. right now.

LaRouche: They’ll probably shoot it down now.

Stockwell: Well, they’re going to have to. If they’re aware of that, they’ll have to shoot it down. Oh, my goodness.

LaRouche: This is like the wildest of your Hollywood scenarios.

Stockwell: Well, I mean, Orson Welles, and his War of the Worlds thing out of New Jersey, back in the ’30s. Could it have been any more real than this? This is absolutely incredible.

LaRouche: I think there have probably—then, if this is happening, all the more reason for somebody to do what I suggested.

Putin would accept a call, of course, from Bush. Bush, say he’s calling on his behalf, put the right people on the phone. It’s still daytime in Moscow, or evening time—10 hours difference. So, to call him right now. And to call the relevant people in Germany, France, somebody in London—I don’t know that that dumb Prime Minister’s any good for anything, but—and Italy. And Japan. And China. And a few other countries. Consult with them. Set up a consultative arrangement. Say, we’re going to stop this thing now. That’s what it takes.

Stockwell: Do we have the leadership, though, to support that? Do we have the orientation? I mean, we’ve got three different basic levels of thinking that exist inside Washington right now. You’ve got this Brzezinski-Huntington clash of civilizations kind of concept; you have Ashcroft and Armitage and that group; and then you’ve got another group that is a little oligarchical in their design as well, in the sense of bringing everything in totally under control of Wall Street.

You know, if you had— I mean, I can’t think of a Sargeant York mentality in Washington.

LaRouche: I think it’s perfectly legitimate for— See, the President of the United States has certain constitutionally inherent emergency powers. I would not really declare a national emergency—that’s probably the wrong thing to do, because it would activate the wrong things. But I would use the emergency powers of the President, and I would use the person of George W. Bush. He’s President after all! Forget how he got there—he’s President. He has got to, as President, to enter into an emergency discussion, with prominent leaders of other nations, and to try to bring the world community more or less into agreement—but quickly, and report that agreement to the American people now. Preferably within hours.

Stockwell: To bring down that fear factor.

LaRouche: To bring it down—he’s got to do something for a change! This guy has done nothing so far as President! This is the time for him at last to shoot that bolt, and do something.

All he has to do, he doesn’t have to be a genius, all he has to do is call Putin. And I’m sure that he’d get cooperation from Putin, and would, on that basis, if those two powers, which are the former superpowers, come to an agreement, to bring other nations together as a consultative basis, what are we going to do stop this show right now, to make sure it doesn’t get out of hand.

Stockwell: Exactly.

LaRouche: And then report that back to the American people. That is exactly my druthers. That is what should happen within hours.

Stockwell: The numbers that are coming in right now between the two buildings—50,000 people worked in those two buildings—and they’re showing a shot from the Statue of Liberty right now, and you cannot even see Manhattan, because of the smoke.

LaRouche: This is a big one, somebody went for a big one.

Stockwell: Well, this is the financial capital of the world that we’re dealing with here.

LaRouche: Well, actually, London is the financial capital, but—

Stockwell: Well, well, okay.

LaRouche: It’s the image of the financial capital of the world.

Stockwell: Right. I agree with that.

LaRouche: Sometimes the image is bigger than the real thing.

Stockwell: That’s right. And because of the image of the United States, and the position that it holds in the rest of the world, and what New York means to the United States, it’s like going for the jugular. Or in this case, the carotid.

LaRouche: Somebody wants this thing to go out of control. That’s why they’re doing this. This is not an attack; this is a provocation. It’s a provocation with an intention behind it. To create a programmed reaction from the institutions of the United States. This is not some dumb guy with a turban some place in the world, trying to get revenge for what’s going on in the Middle East. This is something different.

Stockwell: Those of you who are interested, you’re welcome to call in here and talk to Mr. LaRouche yourself. You won’t get an opportunity like this very often. Locally, 254-5855. Utah County, 470-5855. North Davis/Weaver County 670-5855. I’m going to give you again a toll-free number where you can get some more intelligence on all the stuff that we’re talking about: 1-888-347-3258. Randy, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Randy: I was in Washington less than a week ago and I just went there with the feeling that I probably wouldn’t see it intact again.

Stockwell: Well, that was prophetic.

Randy: I’ve been feeling this, and I have feelings now about the Olympics here. I want you to comment on it.

Stockwell: What we want to do here, I don’t want to step on anybody’s feelings, Randy, but at a moment like this, what we have to be using is knowledge, fact-based knowledge, common sense and a cool head.

Randy: I think we need to have some thought of what’s coming, too.

LaRouche: What’s coming is what’s going to come in the next days, the next hours. If the President of the United States, with the support of people, make their own mistake, the world’s going to be in hell. That’s the hurdle we’ve got to get over. If the President of the United States and people around him panic, and react to this, as some of the press leaks so far that I’ve heard of, are indicating, then this world is going in hell. Therefore, we have to worry about the next hours.

Stockwell: Yes, we want our responses about those next few hours. Randy, thanks for your call. Richard, on the cell phone, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Richard: He repeated what I—no, I don’t want to repeat this. I was worried about the Olympics and the security and the risk that we’re going to be at in about February, the whole thing is worrisome to me, everything. But, the Olympics was on my mind. That’s what I was going to say.

LaRouche: That’s fine. That’s all right. But, the point is that the next hours are going to be decisive.

Richard: Yes, I understand that.

LaRouche: The point is, sometimes when you go to the Olympics, think of yourself maybe as in denial. Here, in the next hours, the existence of the United States is in jeopardy. The security of the Olympics, if you raise that as an issue, is typical of what people will react to. It’s like the flight-foward or go into a foxhole under conditions of warfare.

Richard: Well, if you run for President, I’m voting for you. Because you’ve got more common sense than anybody I’ve heard in government anyplace.

Stockwell: Well, there’s one vote from Utah for you, Lyndon. Helen, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Helen: Thank you so much, Jack. Mr. LaRouche, this system, capitalism here in the developed countries, has become very expensive for them to invest. They need quick returns on their expensive investment, big returns, so that it is cheaper for them to invest in a foreign country and they can wait for long-term results. Do you think that this system has become so expensive? I used to think a collapse, nobody wanted. But now, perhaps, they think a collapse would bring this system, would consolidate their gains. What do you think about that?

LaRouche: No, I think they’re all crazy right now—

Helen: —these people who are establishing a global government.

LaRouche: They don’t have any sense at all. They’ll grab assets, but they don’t have any sense about the future. They’re that crowd. And I don’t see, I deal with Washington, I deal with these circles, and they just don’t, there’s no sense, in the leadership of the Republican or Democratic party—there may be individual exceptions to that, but I’m talking about the party as an organization, and the Federal government as an organization—they have no sense of anything in the future. They are in Lollipop Land, when it comes to economics.

Stockwell: You have made the comment in the past, that one of the clear-cut, more obvious descriptions of somebody who simply cannot be trusted in what they have to say regarding economics, is someone who’s been to economics school.

LaRouche: [laughing] Well, generally. There are a few exceptions, of people who’ve studied economics, who have the sense to know what they don’t know. That’s where I find sensible people. Those who think they have all the answers, based on what is taught as generally accepted doctrine, they’re dangerous.

Stockwell: Alright. We’re going to go to traffic really quick and then we’ll be right back. Craig, up in the north, you’ll be next, questions regarding martial law….

Stockwell: This means there’s no panic on the streets of Salt Lake.

We’ve got reports coming in right now of a plane crashing in Pittsburgh. We’ll get more information on that here in a moment. Craig, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Craig: Mr. LaRouche, with your knowledge of protocol for the institutions of government and their reaction to something of this magnitude today, do you have any feelings on martial law.

LaRouche: I think it would be the wrong thing to do. I think we should set a quiet emergency, where law enforcement and other agencies head an alert, pull in their reserves and have them available, double check the security, pull security assets (if they were off duty today) back in, go over the files and check. Because we don’t know what—see, you’re going to have things that are going to go off, not necessarily as the result of any centralized plan, but things will go off simply being ignited by the kind of atmosphere. You’re going to have people going crazy.

Stockwell: Yes!

LaRouche: You’re going to have obvious kinds of problems. So, therefore, I would say the United States should be mobilized to have a heightened sense of security, but not martial law, and not a national emergency, despite the horrible degree of awfulness of what happened in New York. New York has an emergency. They have a physical emergency that’s going to require a lot of assistance. Every place that they get hit is going to require assistance. All right. That kind of mobilization—yes. But keep it calm. The worst thing that can happen to us now, is that the nut factor turns loose, and complicates what is already a terrible problem.

Craig: The thought that comes to my mind is the Gulf War, and the way the President’s father reacted to that. A knee-jerk reaction like that right now would be terrible.

LaRouche: We’ve got too many jerks already. No, we need calmness. That’s why I emphasize that somebody has to, I think, press on President Bush. He’s not his father. He may have a different reaction.

Craig: I just passed my office building and the whole office is down screwed around the television and the fear in the room is just incredible.

Stockwell: Then you go back there, Craig, and institute a sane, calm mind, and make sure that they don’t panic. Give them the Roosevelt inaugural address, nothing to fear but fear itself.

LaRouche: Give them what I told you, what I told them on the air.

Stockwell: Yes. Thanks, Craig.

Craig: An honor talking to you, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Thank you.

Stockwell: About 15 minutes before the top of the hour. There is a line available, 254-5855, if you’d like to talk to Mr. LaRouche, an announced candidate, already, a pre-candidate for the 2004 Presidential election in the Democratic Party.

I reported to you a year ago, in the Arkansas primary, where the votes were stolen, the kinds of things that were done in Michigan, the things that were done within the Democratic Party, to make sure Mr. LaRouche never made it to the Convention, so that they could deliver the cigar store Indian to you, Mr. Al Gore.

I don’t know if they are ready yet, to listen. It’s like the old Don McLain song “Vincent” [1972, American Apple Pie]—perhaps they never will. But, one thing that is absolutely certain: Of all the things you had to say this morning, the thing that smacks me with the greatest amount of truth and reality, is that very calm response that must be taking place in all of our minds and hearts right now. Fear can drive people into some of the most bizarre, most ridiculous, most murderous suicidal behavior imaginable. And there is probably already a certain sector of the country heading for the hills, which is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing at this point in time.

Those of you who are listening to this program, listening to Mr. LaRouche, who haven’t gone to work, or you’re talking to people at work, or talking to family—I have a brother-in-law right downtown Manhattan. He’s the first one that came to my mind. Well, not downtown, he’s a little north up near Cornell. But, still my concern, and I’ll be talking to him as soon as phone lines can be established, but still, wherever you’re talking to family, wherever you’re talking to co-workers, or whatever else, you must keep a cool head at this point in time, where we have so little facts as to what’s happened, and we’ve been dealt a heavy, heavy blow. Fifty thousand people work in those two buildings. Both the buildings are now on the ground. It’s probably going to take a month before all this information comes out. Let’s go on here. Sharon, you’re on the Stockwell show.

Sharon: I was just commenting on an observation that today’s date is 9-1-1 actually, kind of coincidental, it seems like in tragedy, things like that are coincidental.

Stockwell: Yes, 9-1-1. Interesting.

Sharon: The other thing I was going to say is I live here in Park City, and I don’t think the Olympics is a topic for worry. I think our economy and our stock exchange is what we need to be worried about, and more immediate.

I have a future son-in-law who works for Legg Mason in Florida, and he said, from what they’ve heard, it’s going to be closed for the whole week.

Stockwell: The market?

Sharon: Yes.

Stockwell: I’m supposed to go to a stock market report here in two minutes, and I suspect that’s probably what they’re going to say, that there is no market.

Sharon: Well, I’m very concerned about the economy, and I know that Mr. LaRouche is very expert in that area. And if he would expound on some of that, we’d be interested.

Stockwell: Thanks.

Sharon: Bye.

Stockwell: One good thing we can say about this, if it does close down the market for a week, that it will take another week for it to crash.

LaRouche: And the other thing is, you know, the system is going to crash, the financial system. Accept it. Don’t say it never will happen. It’s going to happen. It’s happening right now.

What you do is you say, what do we do to save the economy? And to save the economy, means do something that may not have been too popular in much of the Salt Lake community recently. Go back and think about what Franklin Roosevelt did in a situation which was admittedly less severe than the world faces today, in terms of economy.

But what he did worked. He took an economy that had been ruined by Teddy Roosevelt, by Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge. And with all the difficulty he had in doing it—and the mistakes he made in the process—he got the economy up.

What we have to do, is take that approach. We’re going to keep the jobs functioning, and we’re going to keep the economy functioning. There are ways to do it. Roosevelt pioneered in that direction. We know a lot more of how to do that now than we did when he was President. We’re going to have to do it. It’s simply that way.

Think clearly. We can always, as a nation, as a nation-state, with the powers of our government, and the powers of our Presidency, there is no financial or monetary which this government cannot bring under control, and cannot utilize the situation to bring about a recovery. So, that’s the way we have to think about it.

Stockwell: All right. We’re going to the Wall Street Journal Report here in just a moment. I don’t know if there’s—what there’s going to be. If it’s only for a second, we’ll be right back, of course.

But I’ve got about 30 seconds. Lyn, who was it that fired the missile into the MI-6 Building a while ago? Do you remember that? Yes, in London.

LaRouche: That’s a little bit mysterious, as to who did what to whom. The problem is, it was an operation. These things don’t happen in the British system, except through their Privy Council apparatus.

Stockwell: Alright. We’re going to jump over here really quick to—all the news web pages, the pages can’t be displayed. This is interesting. I keep trying to go to these news web pages I was going to before. Maybe it’s because they’re updating them.

But let’s see what we can pick up here, if we can pick up anything. No, all I’m getting is an empty signal here. There is no Wall Street Journal report. The building has been evacuated. That’s why. Alright. The Stock Exchange has been evacuated. Alright. Well, that takes care of the market for today. Well, at least it will last for another day.

Lyn, you were saying there a moment ago that the system was over. Now, what a lot of people, what a lot of my listeners need to understand, Mr. LaRouche, is the difference between our economic systems of this country that’s driving this market crash, and basic economics.

That there’s a difference—you can go in right now, and change the economics to save the system, rather than leaving the same system of economics that’s currently afloat and watching it crash on the shores of absolute bankruptcy.

There are things that can be done right now to save our system, and leave it intact—or not the system, but the economy of this country, with a drastic change in the system.

LaRouche: Very simply. You just use the principle of the general welfare, as it’s actually intended in the Preamble of the Constitution, as Roosevelt used that authority. You declare bankruptcy when needed.

For example, most of the banks of the United States are potentially bankrupt, if they’re not already bankrupt. Well, do you let the banks shut down? You don’t. You have the Treasury Department move in on the Federal Reserve System, which is the mother of these things. Take over the Federal Reserve System under bankruptcy reorganization.

And under the authority of bankruptcy reorganization, in cooperation with the states, who also control banks, charter them, you make sure that banks must keep their doors open, will keep their doors open.

You must ensure that employment is maintained. You must ensure that actually it grows. You must ensure that pensions are paid. You must ensure that communities function. And you must also have some growth. Otherwise, how are you going to reorganize out of bankruptcy if you don’t have some real growth, which means that certain projects, like infrastructure projects—necessary ones—are put into place, to absorb some of the unemployment which is inevitable, and get the economy moving again.

On that basis, using nothing but the precedents we have in our national law, our national history, we could reorganize this economy out of a virtually total monetary and financial collapse, by the will of government and the cooperation of the people, with good leadership in a very short period of time.

Stockwell: Well, I’m thinking of about two or three directions I want to go here. But we’ve only got a few minutes left. I want to get Max on here real quick. Let me give you another number again, ladies and gentlemen. 1-888-347-3258 for more information about what we’ve been talking about today.

Max, you’re on the Stockwell Show.

Max: You know, we’ve seen the world economy fall pretty far. I think, with the World Trade Centers both collapsing, I think that was the last domino to fall to world collapse. Seriously.

And I’ve got quite a bit of money in the bank, I sold some land recently. I’m thinking, do I need to go pull that out, or would it do me any good to pull it out?

LaRouche: I would ask the question, would it do any good to pull it out. You know, we’re going toward a gold reserve system in various countries, including Russia. Twelve countries have now minted gold coins, which are more or less a monetary unit. And the gold is going to increase.

So I think we’re headed for a gold reserve system. I think our basic option, above all things, apart from being prudent, just plain prudent, be conservative. Don’t go for the bucks, go to save as much as you can. Diversify your risk. And try to keep something there, so if something goes down, you’ll have something else. That’s general good sense.

But the point is, we have to get the government to use its powers to start a reorganization and recovery program, with an understanding that we have to save the American people, and the economy, and their future. It’s that simple.

Max: I think the cow’s out of the barn now. You know what I mean? I’m talking what do I do right this moment? Because I’m scared.

LaRouche: Diversify. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Go for minimal risk.

Max: So you’re saying, Go pull some out, and get it diversified right now, or —

LaRouche: Diversify.

Max: That’s about the only chance I’ve got. Because there might be a run on the banks tomorrow, right?

LaRouche: Diversity your risk. Buy some government bonds, if you can.

Stockwell: That’s one of the safest things out there, is government bonds.

LaRouche: That’s right.

Stockwell: Short-term government bonds.

LaRouche: Your deposit, your insured deposits, and the regular banking system are two of the most secure things if you don’t have a lot of good gold there that you can turn into a monetary asset.

Max: That’s a good idea. Thank you.

Stockwell: Thanks, Max. Appreciate your call. Just a few minutes left here. You know, I can’t tell you how much of an honor this is to have you on my program.

LaRouche: It’s fun to be with you, Jack.

Stockwell: It’s fun to have you here. We’re going to try and squeeze in—oh, he’s not going to come on. I thought I was going to squeeze in another caller here for a moment.

The latest now. Fighter planes are scrambling to this hijacked plane. They’ve got a hijacked plane on its way to Washington.

LaRouche: They’re going to try to—

Stockwell: They’re going to shoot her down.

LaRouche: Bull it down or shoot it down.

Stockwell: Or force it off, yeah, to a path different— But boy, I’ll tell you. This is—you know, ever since you mentioned this at the very beginning of the program, Lyn, it keeps coming back up in my little prefrontal cortex here.

And that is that the Arabs don’t have the ability to pull somethiing of this level off. You feel pretty strongly about that?

LaRouche: I know that. I know the Arab governments. I’ve been talking to them directly or indirectly over some period. At least, the key ones. And they don’t want this kind of thing. But I know who does want it.

Stockwell: Alright. Now, you were talking about possibly the idea of the Israeli government—

LaRouche: Or certain factions within it.

Stockwell: Certain factions within it. Just like there are certain factions within the Pentagon that would love for us to go to war in the Middle East.

LaRouche: Same thing. Exactly. Like Wolfowitz, for example. I don’t think the world is safe with someone like him in the Defense Department, frankly.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: First, he never served in the military.

Stockwell: Wolfowitz?

LaRouche: To my knowledge, he never had actual service in the military. I don’t think he knows what that means, psychologically. I think people who have had some experience in wartime service, or something like that, may have some sense of what the reality of military operations are, particuarly if they got to some higher rank, or some intelligence.

Or if they’ve studied military history with that background, they might have some sense of what they’re talking about.

But a guy like Wolfowitz impresses me, from the kind of things I’ve seen him do, he doesn’t know what time it is. He’s dangerous. He’s dangerous, not because he’s capable, he’s dangerous because he’s incapable. A very bad idea to put that nut in there.

I think a lot of generals would agree with me.

Stockwell: Yes. Well, we have about a minute left, Lyn. Can you bring something sublime out of this?

LaRouche: I think the point is, when you get a crisis, which is like a war. I mean, this—what is reported in New York, you’re talking about 50,000 people possibly killed. Do you realize that’s in the order of magnitude of the official death toll of—

Stockwell: —of Vietnam.

LaRouche: —of Vietnam.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: So this is not a minor thing. This is not something that happened. This is not a terrorist incident. It’s something much bigger.

But when you get into a crisis like this, the first thing you have to do, especially terrible crises, the more terrible they are, the more this principle applies: Do not panic! Do not shout “fire” in a crowded theater! Get the people safe and out.

And what’s needed now, is to recognize that we got to this mess because the institutions of our government—forget who did it. Forget who did whatever’s done.

But think about this could not have happened if our government functioned. And the reason our government didn’t function and doesn’t function—I hope that changes quickly now—is because nobody was paying attention.

Stockwell: Yes.

LaRouche: Therefore, let us pay attention and recognize that when we are running the economy the way we are running it, the things we’ve been doing, we have set ourselves up for this kind of crisis.

The thing to respond to a crisis like this, is to remove long-term and medium-term causes of the crisis itself, of the situation which allowed this to happen, to come to this pass.

Stockwell: Lyndon, we’ve got to go. Thank you so much, sir, for being my guest today.

LaRouche: Thank you.

Stockwell: We’ll talk to you again. Bye-bye.

Posted in 9/11, LPAC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deutsche Bank Turning into a “Zero Bank”

The net profit of Germany’s biggest bank is down to almost zero: in the second quarter of this year, the bank made only EU18 million of profit. In the same quarter a year ago, it was EU796 million. This implies a loss in profits within one year by 97.5%.  At the Frankfurt exchange this morning, Deutsche Bank’s shares dropped by 6%.

In the first quarter of 2016, the bank still made a net profit of  EU236 million; against that, Q2 brought a loss by 94%. The sector “global markets” had most of the losses in Q2 with 28%, followed by asset management with -18% and other wealth management with -12%; the only profitable sector was Postbank, with a net profit of 13%.

The said Q2 mini-profit, however, is due to relatively low legal expenses of EU120 million from April to July; a year ago, the bank had to shoulder EU1.2 billion during the same period. CEO John Cryan, a British banker from the investment branch, said he is content with the performance of the bank to the extent that it is going through a “rather difficult period,” but he did not give any indication that a fundamental change of strategy is considered. Should the bank’s performance not improve, even more streamlining and cost-cutting would be on the agenda, Cryan said in the context of the Q2 figures.

As for “Project Jade,” which, according to recent media leaks, is a new strategy of Deutsche Bank to survive by separating investment and commercial activities from each other, a bank spokesman declared: “Project Jade is not about splitting the bank. It is rather a project that has been running for quite some time, to simplify the bank as such and in its structure.” A similar denial of separation plans was made by Marcus Schenck of the board, saying in a conference call with select media this afternoon, “Some people believe that we are forced to sell Postbank in 2017, but that is not the case.”

Posted in Glass Steagall, LPAC | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global Banks Exposed as Counterparties to Deutsche Bank Derivatives

Global Systemically Important Banks (GSIBs) have vast exposure as counterparties to post-Herrhausen Deutsche Bank’s huge derivatives portfolio, and will incur sweeping losses if Deutsche Bank defaults.

Schiller Institute chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche has made an urgent call for Deutsche Bank to be saved with a one-time financial infusion, and be reorganized to return to its original function as an exemplar of the German industrial bank, whose major purpose was to make low-interest loans for long-term global physical infrastructure building. This was exemplified in Alfred Herrhausen’s program to issue such loans to rebuild Poland in 1989.

Today, if Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s urgent proposal is not taken up, not only will Deutsche Bank fail, but widespread financial carnage will result in Europe, Asia, and the U.S. banks, and some will not survive.

A diagram in ZeroHedge, based on the June 30 IMF Report which called Deutsche Bank the most systemically risky bank, quantifies the exposure to Deutsche Bank’s risk, of banks on three continents, as highest, higher, and high, as follows:

* In Asia, most exposed to potential Deutsche bank defaults are, with largest exposure, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Mitsubishi; medium exposure: Bank of China, Sumitomo, and Mizuho Banks.

* In Europe, the largest exposures to Deutsche Bank are: HSBC, BNP Paribas, Barclays; medium exposure: Santander, Societe Generale, Credit Agricole, Royal Bank of Scotland, and Credit Suisse

* In the United States, the largest exposure is JPMorganChase; medium exposure: Citibank, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley; and lesser exposure: Bank of NY Mellon and State Street Bank.

Posted in Glass Steagall, LPAC | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

LaRouche: Never Forget the Lessons of Herrhausen

The Deutsche Bank policy of Herrhausen, focused on increasing the productive powers of labor, must be restored. [photo: Lucas Kaufmann]

 

Major financial media in Europe and the United States are warning that the European financial system is on the edge of a blowout, whether the trigger is a collapse of the world’s oldest bank, Monte dei Paschi, as part of a general bank collapse in Italy, or a derivatives meltdown by Deutsche Bank, recently described by the IMF as the world’s most “systemically risky” financial institution. The entire trans-Atlantic financial system is at the breaking point, and for this reason, a panicked consensus is emerging among some of the key players in the British game–the European Central Bank, the IMF, JPMorgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs–that a temporary cancellation of the bail-in law is essential, to allow for a bailout of the Italian banks, estimated at between 210 and 360 billion euro in currently non-performing debt. Deutsche Bank held an impromptu press conference on Wednesday by one of its directors to “protest too much” that the bank is not considering a split up between its London-centered gambling operations (Deutsche Bank has $55 trillion in derivatives exposure) and its other units, even after posting a second-quarter drop in profits of 97.5 percent, and a 20-percent decline in earnings from the same quarter in 2015.

The epic collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system is, today, the number one factor driving the danger of war–thermonuclear war–provoked by Obama and NATO against Russia. The latest provocation comes from the Bulgarian government, which has accused Russia of violating a fabricated “NATO air space” under Bulgarian control.

The simple reality, expressed today by Lyndon LaRouche in discussions with colleagues is that “Deutsche Bank is dead. This needs to be said plainly and bluntly.” He added that the Germans ought to “ask Putin’s advice.”

While Wall Street continues to go ballistic over the fact that both the Republican and Democratic Parties put the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall in their platforms for the 2016 presidential elections, LaRouche took the issue one step further. While Glass-Steagall is essential, more is needed. The image of the former Chairman of Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen, must be invoked. Under Herrhausen, Deutsche Bank was an industrial bank that invested in the real economy. Deutsche Bank, even at the height of the Cold War, invested heavily in the Soviet economy, providing loans for pipelines, power plants, roads and railroads. Herrhausen’s assassination, on Nov. 30, 1989, coincided with the railroaded jailing of Lyndon LaRouche by the same George H.W. Bush-Margaret Thatcher-Francois Mitterrand forces that imposed the Maastricht straight-jacket on Germany, thus killing the Herrhausen plan to integrate the nations of the former Warsaw Pact into a single European-Eurasian economic space.

The German economy is on the edge of collapse, which is guaranteed if Deutsche Bank goes under. That must be prevented at all costs, but the immediate measures must involve a return to the kind of banking that was practiced by Herrhausen. If Germany goes under, a thermonuclear World War III is virtually guaranteed, and it must be prevented by emergency actions.

Another manifestation of the deadly crisis facing humanity today is the spreading plague of blind terrorism, whether it be atrocities by the Islamic State and other Anglo-Saudi created jihadist cults, or the “new violence” recently seen in Germany and Japan, involving youth who are brainwashed into violent acts by their addiction to point-and-shoot video games.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and president of the Schiller Institute, has called for an international, coordinated effort to crush this terrorist scourge–in close collaboration with Russia. Last September, in his address before the United Nations Security Council, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for an international effort to defeat jihadist terrorism, modeled on the World War II alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union. On Wednesday, July 27, Putin addressed a meeting of the top Russian security and law enforcement officials and reiterated that call for a global war on terrorism, which is now a civilizational crisis that all nations must combat.

Posted in Glass Steagall, LPAC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zepp-LaRouche: After Terrorist Attacks, Cooperation with Russia Is Even More Urgent

Schiller Institute founder and president Helga Zepp-LaRouche speaking in Berlin. Photo: Julien Lemaitre

 

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The author is chairwoman of the German political party Civil Rights Movement Solidarity, BueSo.

While France has been hit by five horrendous terror attacks since the beginning of 2015, and brutal attacks have occurred in the same time frame in more than 30 countries (often more than once) in Europe, Asia, the United States, and Africa—the reality of the terrorist threat has now been experienced firsthand in Germany, with the attacks in Wuerzburg and Munich,1 whatever the biography or description of the perpetrators turns out to be (whether political Islamists or “self-radicalized” lone assassins). Without a doubt, the problem of international terrorism is one of the major threats to humanity as a whole.

In a situation in which a whole array of crises is coming on thick and fast—the growing war danger in Europe, Southwest Asia, and the Pacific; an attempted coup and subsequent consolidation of state power in Turkey, a NATO state; Brexit and the erosion of the European Union; and a new imminent financial crisis, to name only a few—it should be obvious that we can only solve these crises if we discard the old ways of thinking and geopolitical rancors, and if the most important states work together on an international level.

CSU parliamentarian Hans-Peter Uhl was right, in the wake of the night of horror in Munich, to call for improved, preventive measures and heightened cooperation among the relevant authorities, both domestically and abroad. But given the history and international operating mode of radical Islam, that obviously implies cooperation with Russia, the victim that has the most expertise on the networks in Chechnya and their links to the Right Sector in Ukraine and to ISIS, and which has proven, through its military intervention in Syria, to be the only country that has successfully pushed back the power of ISIS.

It is therefore urgent to take up the offer extended by President Vladimir Putin in his speech to the UN General Assembly in 2015. After pointing to the fatal consequences of the West’s policy of training allegedly “moderate” rebels to combat secular governments in the Middle East, who then defected in droves to ISIS, Putin stressed:

“In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make declarations about the threat of terrorism, and at the same time turn a blind eye to the channels used to finance and support terrorists, including revenues from drug trafficking, the illegal oil trade, and the arms trade.”It is equally irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups and use them to achieve your political goals, hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them….

“What we actually propose is to be guided by common values and common interests rather than by ambitions. Relying on international law, we must join efforts to address the problem that all of us are facing, and create a genuinely broad international coalition against terrorism. Similar to the anti-Hitler coalition, it could unite a broad range of parties willing to stand firm against those who, just like the Nazis, sow evil and hatred of humankind. And of course, Muslim nations should play a key role in such a coalition, since Islamic State not only poses a direct threat to them, but also tarnishes one of the greatest world religions with its atrocities. The ideologues of these extremists make a mockery of Islam and subvert its true humanist values.” [Kremlin translation]

Especially since the newly released Chilcot Inquiry report in Great Britain spotlights how Tony Blair orchestrated the war of aggression against Iraq on the basis of conscious lies, and the disclosure of the suppressed 28 pages of the official Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 has left no doubt as to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing terrorism, a “more of the same” policy is tantamount to complicity in any new terrorist attacks.

The German authorities can no longer hide behind the usual sociological sophisms. The credibility of Mr. Uhl and Interior Minister Thomas de Maziere, of the members of the Bundestag’s domestic affairs committee, and of course of Chancellor Merkel, will depend on whether they initiate an official investigation to elucidate as quickly as possible the implications of these two documents—the Chilcot Report and the 28 pages—and draw the conclusions from them. It is unacceptable, under any circumstances, to use the attacks in Wuerzburg and Munich as the excuse to build up a police state as Turkish President Erdogan is doing, and to cooperate with precisely those governments that are exposed and implicated by the Chilcot Report and the 28 pages.

The Next Financial Crisis: Italy

A dramatic change in policy is also urgently necessary with respect to another existential crisis, the financial one. The word is out everywhere that Italy is the new Greece. But unlike Greece, it doesn’t represent just two percent of the European Union’s GDP, but is the fourth largest industrial nation in Europe. Yet the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the German Finance Ministry are pursuing the same brutal and incompetent policy which has already ruined Greece and eroded the European Union (EU). Italy’s GDP has shrunk by about 25 percent as a result of the EU’s murderous austerity policy since the 2008 financial crisis, leading to horrible consequences for the healthcare system and pensions, an increase in unemployment, the shutdown of many small and medium-sized businesses, and a dramatic rise in suicides. One result of this shrinking of the real economy by about one quarter is that the Italian banks are now sitting on 360 billion euros of non-performing loans.

The medicine that ECB head Mario Draghi, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the Bundesbank, and German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaueble intend to administer to the “sick man of Europe,” is poisonous. They all agree, with minimal differences, that Italian savers and investors should pay for the rescue of the sick banks, as the EU’s bail-in law prescribes, thus accepting the Cyprus model—in the event that the stress test results for the Italian banks, to be made public at the end of July, show—as expected—that these banks are undercapitalized.

In that case, Italian savers and investors would have their money expropriated, and Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, as a result, would be threatened with a revolt. He would most likely lose the upcoming referendum for constitutional reform in October and he would lose the subsequent elections. The Five Star Movement would then set in motion Italy’s exit from the euro and the European Union.

While various media, among them Die Welt, describe Italy as a “failed state,” putting it for all intents and purposes in the same category as Somalia or Iraq, the so-called EU political leadership is doing nothing—absolutely nothing—to remedy the crisis. What these soulless EU bureaucrats—such as Juncker, ECB head Draghi, and other politicians and bankers who have made their careers by passing through the revolving door between politics and the major banking houses several times—have not for one moment taken into account, is that their policies in support of the casino economy are ruining entire nations, the lives and fortunes of many millions of people.

The Solution

There is a solution: The Bueso is working with many collaborators in Europe and the United States in a campaign to avert the threatened insolvency of Deutsche Bank through a return to the banking philosophy which underlay the policy of the assassinated chairman of the bank, Alfred Herrhausen.2 This campaign has generated a good deal of attention from the financial sector, since everyone knows that the trans-Atlantic financial system is hopelessly bankrupt. In this context, the report that Deutsche Bank is preparing for an in-house separation of its business and investment sections, is of interest.

The fact that the demand for a return to the Glass-Steagall banking separation law has been incorporated into the party platforms of both the Democratic and Republican parties—the result of many years of campaigning by the LaRouche Political Action Committee—has so far had two interesting results: It has produced screams from Wall Street, which fears Glass-Steagall more than the devil fears holy water, and it has discredited all those who constantly claimed that it couldn’t be done.

In these turbulent days there is a simple measure at hand, which will allow anyone to see whether leading politicians are championing the general welfare of the people they are supposed to represent, or whether they are lobbyists for other interests. This measure is their readiness to seize the existing solutions—that is, to accept Putin’s offer, and to return to an economic policy based on serving the general welfare. Politicians who fail to measure up should be hounded out of office for just that reason.

Posted in LPAC, new paradigm | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment