Click here to view or read the transcript of U.S. physical economist Lyndon LaRouche’s May 8th webcast, entitled “Tragedy and Hope”, in which he declared war on the British Empire and its free-trade system, which has brought the world to a starvation crisis.
LaRouche attacked the British invention of a new form of colonialism—globalisation—through which industries, manufacturing and agriculture have been stripped and sent to populations where the lower 80% of the population is illiterate and does not participate in the economy—the “colonies of manufacturing”. Food production in particular has been smashed, and vilified by Prince Philip’s World Wildlife Fund as an “environmental threat”.
“The free-trade system is based on the system of the ancient mercantile banker system, like the old Venetian systems, in which concerts of financial investors control the economy. And these powers, in turn, control the governments. What we’re faced with today, is exactly that: We’re faced with a situation, in which the United States government is controlled entirely by international financial interests, which are now centred in London.”
LaRouche called for:
- The doubling of world food production, and nullification of any policy that contradicts that goal.
- A two-tiered credit system which includes low interest, long-term loans for development.
- A New Bretton Woods monetary conference to re-establish a fixed-exchange-rate system and put the current financial system through bankruptcy reorganisation.
- The implementation of his Homeowners and Bank Protection Act.
Click on these links to read what LaRouche had to say about:
The fraud that occurred in the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic primaries.
The intended British war against Russia and China.
The financial crash and what the “subprime crisis” really was.
How the British/Venetian “syndicate of financiers” took control of the U.S. economy through the float of the U.S. dollar and the oil price hoax.
Why and how the costs of production have been artificially raised in the developed world.
For the background to the global financial-economic breakdown in progress,
order a free copy of the “Firewall: In Defence of the Nation State” DVD here.
The fraud that occurred in the North Carolina and Indiana Democratic primaries.
The issue is not the election. The election is a battle in a war. It is not something unto itself. The result of this election in itself is a matter of indifference. It's a question of how the battle is won and lost which is important.
We have, obviously, two disasters running for President, though one has a good constituency—that is, Obama has a very large constituency, which is important; it is sensitive to the lower 80% of family-income brackets, as the top of the Obama campaign is not; it's on the other side. But Hillary's campaign is significant. But the issue is: that forces in Britain, with their stooges in the United States, have said that a Hillary Clinton election—even a nomination—would mean that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would be in the White House. And this, the British Empire, such as it is, and its lackeys in Washington and elsewhere, are determined shall not happen; and you're talking about methods such as assassination, if deemed necessary to prevent Hillary from becoming President.
It was not just the Republicans who turned out en masse to vote for Obama, in yesterday's Indiana, and also North Carolina campaigns: That's what the margin was there. That's not issue. That's part of the fraud. This was a gigantic fraud. I sat there at the television set, and watched this thing coming down in the last phases, and I saw something, that, from my nose, I could see the stink all over the place! This election was totally fraudulent; exactly how the fraud orchestrated—we know one thing: There was a massive turnout of Republican and related vote for Obama, in Raleigh-Durham [North Carolina]; in contrast to other cities in North Carolina, where the expected result was going along—until the last minute, when a miracle occurred: Voters—who had not yet been born!—were flooding the polls, at the last minute. We've seen this sort of thing before. ...
And therefore, you are now, at the same time that you have people who have orchestrated this last phase of this election in the United States, in Indiana and North Carolina, have orchestrated a coup d'état against the U.S. Constitutional system. That's what it is, in fact: This is treason! What happened yesterday is treason! Because its intention was treasonous. Not because the act itself was anything more than a crime, but the intention was treasonous. Therefore, it's treason. And the enemy of the United States, is thus, those who are taking the food away from the people of the United States, and some other countries.
This thing is building up. It's recognized internationally. Most countries are already facing this crisis. The rate of food shortage is increasing, because the stocking from various food stores, annual stores, has been already delivered, and there's not enough. So, as the fact of the empty warehouses, and equivalent forms of supplies, as these things go down, without food, the food crisis is going to accelerate. And you're going to have, not only other parts of the world, but also American citizens, who are now faced with the threat of death by food shortages.
The time has come, that those who're trying to gloat over the fakery they pulled yesterday, has come to an end. Because a hungry people will be a revolting people. And those who set forth this conflict, will have to reap the harvest.
Therefore, we must not be pessimistic about what's happening in this last phase of the election. It's a fraud. The fraud with the present powers will make it stick, because that's what they do—they're fakers. They whole thing is a fraud: They don't want Obama. They just want to use him to destroy Hillary Clinton, that's all. Once they destroy Hillary Clinton, they'll get rid of Obama. That's their intention. and their intention is to bring in a fascist regime, in the United States, a Presidency which will be, in effect, a fascist regime, which will cooperate with the British and bring the United States into alliance with the United Kingdom, or the Anglo-Dutch Liberals—not all Brits are for this, by the way, and they're some influential ones; and with western and central Europe taken over by this same imperial power. An imperial power whose intention is, to go to war against Russia, China, India, and other countries, using nuclear power [weapons?]! That's the intention.
So therefore, the issue here is not the election result. The issue is not the President. Obama is not competent to be a President; he has none of the makings of competence. Many of his constituents are valuable people, who are tied to the interests of the lower 80%, and they should be encouraged and defended, and their rights defended.
Obama's a failure. He's sort of an Elmer Gantry of politics, huh? That's the best way to characterize him.
And thus, we're now at a point, where a revolutionary movement, or the makings of it, is building up around the food issue. And therefore, those who triumphed yesterday, are not going to continue to triumph for long: The result is, either we win, and restore the kind of government we require, in various nations, and among nations. Or this world is going to go into Hell, because the crisis won't quit. The people will die of hunger, they will die in increasing numbers; they will kill for food. The structure of society will be destroyed in the fight over food, which is not there.
And therefore, either we win this fight against this evil, or there won't by anything to fight for.
The intended British war against Russia and China.
But there's another issue here: There's also an issue of World War III. And World War III is between the British Empire, better known as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal banking financial system, on the one side, and the principal nations of Eurasia—Russia, China, India—and other nations, are the targets of intended warfare by the British Empire, which is already turning Continental Europe into a mere colony of the British Empire, through the program of the Lisbon Treaty. If the Lisbon Treaty were adopted—and it's being pushed for adoption now—there would not be a single nation on the continent of Europe, west of Belarus and Russia, which had any sovereignty whatsoever. The British Empire would control the entirety of that region of Europe, from Portugal to the borders of Belarus and Russia, as a puppet, of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financial interests.
It is those interests, represented in the United States, for a long time, especially since 1971-72, have taken over control of the U.S. dollar, control of the United States: Now, they're moving in for the kill. And that's the issue.
The issue is, the fools think—in the Democratic Party, the people at the top are generally, largely corrupt in this thing. They're lying their heads off. I watched some of them lie on television, watched some of the television commentators lying like hell about what was going on right under their noses, on television. You can see the facts, and you see what they were saying: two different things.
But, you're looking at a war between an empire, run by London, not necessarily all the British people, but it's by the Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier cartel: the same cartel that put Mussolini into in Italy; the same cartel that put Hitler into power in Germany! And we're now at the brink of something like a Hitler power taking over the United States. If they grab the United States, then they will grab all of Europe under the Lisbon Treaty. If they control the United States and parts of Europe under the Lisbon Treaty, then you will have an actual fighting war emerging on this planet, against the continent of Africa and much of the continent of Asia, and other places. You will have dictatorship; you will have mass starvation. The elimination of whole sections of the population of parts of the world through starvation. And that's part of the British program! It's the food war! ...
What you're having is a world dictatorship, under the name of globalization—better called a New Tower of Babel—in which the cultures as being destroyed, as the United States is being destroyed, as Germany is being destroyed, as Italy is being destroyed, as France is being destroyed—and the attempt to make war on China, India, and Russia.
And that's the intent of the British Empire: Nothing less than the destruction and breakup of China, the breakup of Russia, the breakup of India. That is the policy of the British Empire now. That's the policy they're condemned to. The policy is to take every nation, of continental Europe, west of Belarus and west of Russia, and under the Lisbon Treaty, which is now being voted up by many institutions of government in continental Europe, strip every nation of Europe, from the Atlantic Ocean to the border at Belarus and Russian. And we'll have no sovereignty. That is, there will be no government which has the authority to contradict the Lisbon Treaty organization. NATO is intended to absorbed, by the Lisbon Treaty. And the forces of Europe, which are not NATO forces, will be combined with NATO forces for warfare against points East: Russia, former parts of the Soviet Union other than Russia, China, Korea, India, as well as Southwest Asia, where they're doing an excellent job of mutilating the whole countryside.
This is what we're dealing with.
The financial crash and what the “subprime crisis” really was.
Anyway, what happened relevantly now, to this present situation, is, approximately nine months ago, slightly more, on the 25th of July of last year, 2007, I made a statement here, in this forum, in which I said, that a new, general breakdown crisis of the financial system was now in progress. Three days later, we had the beginning of what some fools called the "subprime crisis." It was not the subprime crisis.
Some of you have seen a building, torn down by explosives, and you blow it out from underneath, and the building collapses into the area where you exploded. That's what the "subprime crisis" really was. The subprime crisis was the weak underbelly of a large financial system, which was collapsing! But the collapse was not the collapse of the subprime system! The collapse was the collapse of the entire international financial-monetary system, which is now entered, into, very visibly, a hyperinflationary phase: We are now, globally, in a hyperinflationary phase.
So, at that time, around the 25th of last July, I introduced one, then, of several measures which I had crafted for defense of the United States, in particular, against this crisis, which has broken out: That is, this new world depression. It's more than a depression. It's something like what happened to Europe, during the middle of the 14th Century, when the bank of Lucca, the House of Bardi, when bankrupt and all of Europe plunged into a new dark age.
We are now in a period, where the world as a whole, is in the process of collapsing into a new dark age, similar to, but worse than—potentially, unless we stop it—worse than that that happened to Europe in the middle of the 14th Century. That's the situation we're in.
Now, the measures I proposed, were, first of all, the HBPA: That is, Federal legislation, which we're now getting supporting legislation for in states; which means that the households' mortgages will not be foreclosed. But rather, the households which are effectively put into receivership, that is, protection, bankruptcy protection, and people allowed to stay in there homes, paying a reasonable fee in the form of something equivalent to rent, for that, instead of this mortgage process, until we can straighten the message out.
We don't want to destroy the communities, we don't want to destroy the people, we don't want to have people—let's keep people in their places. That way, we've got a structure to begin with. Now, if you're going to something else, which is the second part of the thing: You have to provide bankruptcy security to the banks, that is, the chartered banks, the Federal banks and the state banks. Because if the Federal and state banks in communities begin to disintegrate, you don't have an organized community any more! So therefore, forget the Federal Reserve; send Bernanke back, with his helicopter beanie or whatever it is, and send him back to where he belongs; and put the Federal Reserve system itself, which is is bankrupt in fact, by virtue of its members being bankrupt. Put it into the receivership, under the U.S. Teasury Department! Where it still functions: The offices are there, the people are there, but it's now taking orders directly from the Treasury Department, not controlling the Treasury Department. And in that way, we can save the system from a chaotic collapse.
This condition is generally spreading throughout the world. If you look at the rate of hyperinflation.
Now, there's one part of this hyperinflation, which is of special significance: Food. Now, when you look at what happened yesterday, in terms of the fraudulent operation by Republicans and others in this primary election yesterday, you say: "What's he power that can defeat these predators, these imperialists, these parasites, these murderers?" Who are behind the use of the Democratic Party top down, and other institutions, and the press generally, used in trying to destroy the possibility of a Clinton Presidency in the United States? That's your issue: Why? That is, to eliminate the possibility of the United States being a factor. Because, what would happen? And where's this come into the food problem? Now, when people are denied this or that benefit, people of the lower 80% and many others will say, "Well, we gotta learn to put up with this. Can't we compromise? Isn't there some compromise that we can accept? Can't we get together and make a compromise?" And you get a bunch of compromised people, who just really aren't capable of doing anything useful.
But food is different: If you don't have food tonight, to put on the table in the morning, that's kind of personal. And it becomes universal.
How the British/Venetian “syndicate of financiers” took control of the U.S. economy through the float of the U.S. dollar and the oil price hoax.
Now, you have people who come up with what's called a "free-trade system." And the problem is, as I said, we have very few competent economists. Now, theoretically, they're all incompetent, but some of them are not stupid. And therefore, they're essentially incompetent in defining what an economy is, and how it works, but they're not stupid, and therefore, they have a practical view of how to deal with this crazy thing called "money."
For example, back in my old days as a management consultant, we would have, in happier times then, you would have a conflict in most corporations—that is producer corporations, industrial corporations, for example—where you would have the department which is the department of production, of design, of product-making, and so forth, and these people would think in one way. But then you would have usually, especially as Wall Street became more powerful, the company would be controlled again by Wall Street—by the stockholders! By these wonderful people called stockholders. They probably don't even know where the company is—and they just bought into yesterday, and they're going to sell the stock tomorrow. [laughter] So these stockholders have an Wall Street interest which comes in, as you'd see some type of finance officer or so forth of the firm, and therefore the firm is operating on the one hand, with departments which are the production and product design and so forth departments, which know what economics is, particularly under the old protectionist system we used to have, years ago; whereas, the banking client says, "No. You run the corporations for the sake of the stockholders." And it's not just the stockholders of this corporation; what you operate from is a central banking function, like the Federal Reserve system, in which a concert of financial interest determines policy for all types of firms in the U.S. economy, and takes over control of more and more of these firms.
So therefore, the free-trade system is a system which is based on what? It's based on the system of the ancient mercantile banker system, like the old Venetian systems, in which concerts of private financial investors, control the economy. And these powers, in turn, control the governments.
What we're faced with today, is exactly that: We're faced with a situation, in which the United States government is controlled entirely by international financial interests, which are now centered in London. This occurred in the following way: When Nixon came into power, his administration, under the advice of George Shultz, caused the Bretton Woods system to be destroyed. That is, the United States went off the fixed-exchange-rate standard, the international fixed-exchange-rate system.
In the following period, after these, a second operation was run. It was run from Europe. It was run by bankers associated with the Middle East petroleum production, including Saudi Arabia as part of this combination. These guys created, in the 1970s, a famous, artificial shortage of petroleum, a freeze on the delivery of petroleum. So you had tankers, full of petroleum, floating off the coasts, moored off the coasts of the United States and other places, but especially the United States, and we had an "oil shortage." We had a wild increase in prices of petroleum. Out of this, what had happened is, the United States had lost the power to control its own currency, the dollar, under the Federal Reserve system, and, now, the power to control the price of the dollar was being determined by what was called the oil cartel, the Amsterdam-based spot market oil cartel.
So, we no longer controlled our own currency, more and more, from that point on, under Nixon, and under the programs of the Rockefeller brothers, during that period. We destroyed every bit of the essential structure of our economy as it came out of the Great Depression, under Roosevelt's leadership.
You go back further, and look at the fight. The fight was, first of all, the United States against Britain. It was a fight for our freedom, and a fight against the efforts of the British to destroy us, in various ways. Like for example, the British who controlled international slavery during the 19th Century, through their Spanish suckers. The Spanish monarchy was a tool of the British monarchy in running the slave system. The spread of slavery in the United States was run by the British, through the Spanish, who were their puppets.
Why and how the costs of production have been artificially raised in the developed world.
FREEMAN: We’ve gotten a lot of questions concerning the production of food for domestic markets versus international markets, and this in a sense reflects it. This question was submitted by Senator Joey Pendleton, who is the Minority Whip of the Kentucky state senator, and who also is the co-sponsor of SR90, which is the Kentucky Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, that he and Senator Perry Clark passed through the Kentucky senate on the final day of the session, in a Republican-controlled senate, they add. Okay, so he says, “Lyn, in addition to my service in the legislature, I’m an active farmer and I also serve on the faculty of the Murray State University Agricultural Program. As I’m sure you know, farmers today face a horrific crisis. We’re seeing rising prices for fuel, fertilizer, and virtually everything we need to farm. We’re responsible for feeding our nation, and frankly, we do have to feed part of the world. I agree that using corn for ethanol is not viable. We have to move back to using corn for the food supply. The question that I have is how can we feed the world, with the rising cost of production, and yet at the same time, keep food cheap for the domestic market? What is your idea on how to keep farmers in American farming, to keep them in business and to provide our own nation with a supply of cheap good food for the table?”
LAROUCHE: We’ve got a couple of problems here. First of all, when you reduce the productivity of an economy, you do not lower the overhead costs of maintaining that economy. When you have fewer people working, as a percent of the total population, you are increasing the cost of existence. If you restrict production, you are increasing the cost of production, for this reason. On top of that, the prices of products are not based on cost, that is, not physical costs. If you take the physical costs that goes into it, including everything, and starting from a certain average price of labor and measuring the equivalent of price of labor with cost, if you do that, you discover that most of the price increases today really are not real, they’re speculative, they’re monopolistic.
For example, what the British do, the idea is really very old. Create a shortage and raise the price by creating a shortage. Now, by creating a shortage, you have two ways of increasing the price. First of all, you have a speculative, a monopolistic increase in price. You have a monopoly, you can bid the price up. You can steal the money, not because the cost has risen, but because the price has risen. And the cost that’s risen is the parasite, the cost of the parasite who does the stealing. That’s the way it works. So therefore, the other way, is reducing, by monopolistic methods, reduce the baseline of net production of the entire economy. That is, you have a given population. How much product, useful product, can that population generate? Well, obviously, that’s a factor of technology and of policy of employment. If you are not advancing technology, if you’re reducing the amount of production, and so forth, the costs of maintaining society then become reflected, including the parasitical costs, become reflected inversely in the price of the product that you’re producing.
So therefore, the general point is to have a rational maximization of production, in which you always have an overproduction. But also, you maintain production to distribute it in many areas of the world. For example, take petroleum. The petroleum business is absolutely insane. Petroleum as a product was invented by Mendeleyev, who created the Baku oil thing in Russia. It was his design. But the petroleum was then used by the British Navy, in preparation for World War I, and they discovered that they could make British cruisers which were oil-burning rather than coal-burning. And the game was such that this gave them greater range and increased the seapower of the British Navy. So the British took a part of the Middle East, which is now called Kuwait, which is actually British Petroleum, and they took this area and tried to use that as a lever. Then, by encouraging the development of the use of petroleum, by pushing automobiles rather than rail systems. Now, when you use trucks, for example, highway trucks as replacement for rails, you increase the cost greatly, vastly. But you eliminate the rail system, and you have to use the trucks. Now therefore, the social costs of maintaining the transport of goods, zooms out of the inefficiencies you’ve generated! This is the kind of problem we face.
If you think-forget the money thing! Don’t assume that the price is right. The price is often a thieve’s price. But don’t assume that. Therefore, if you look at it in physical terms, then the things become obvious. If you start to measure economy by taking an average price of labor, which you measure in commodity content, as a family household. You start with a family. Somebody’s working. They’re in a family. You take a normal family (break in tape here). Make a table, education, etc. Put it in there. Get your average costs of maintaining a human being in that society, to be produtive, or a family to be productive. (break in tape here). Think about how you optimize the cost of production, and effectively lower the cost of production. Then it all becomes very simply.
So don’t move product all over the road. Diversify your production rationally, use every part of the world that is suitable for a certain kind of production, locally, don’t use petroleum as much-use it as a feedstock. Petroleum is an excellent feedstock for chemicals and many other things. Do it that way. Don’t haul it all around the world at a great markup, and then say that’s the cost of production. It’s not. So use nuclear power, higher energy flux density. Use that. You’ve changed the production. Everybody’s more productive. The cost declines, because cost is relative to the cost of maintaining a human being. So therefore, you make people more productive, the cost of maintaining a human being in terms of product is cheaper. And don’t let the parasites get in and steal. Then the prices will not go up. It’s very simple. Good government, good understanding of how economies work, this is the issue. And the problem is, we do not have the problem. We have the problem only to the degree that you have mismanagement. It’s not a feminist movement, it’s something else.
