National Webcast
Craig Isherwood, December 10, 2009

Australia's mission: The shift to a Pacific-centred world

INTRODUCTION

Tonight I would like to speak to you about a fundamental new mission for Australia which will define our nation for decades, and even centuries to come.

But that mission can only be understood, when placed in the present global strategic context, one which our news media, our Prime Minister, our MPs, and other so-called "authorities", have all been lying their heads off about. The reality is, that the world's financial and physical economy is now plunging into a potentially far worse crisis than the 14th century new Dark Age.

Back then looting by Venice-centred financiers—like the London and Wall St. looting of today—caused the collapse of Europe, and killed one-third to one-half of the entire population of Europe through the plague, through famine, and through chaotic violence and related causes. Under the present policies of globalisation and free trade, there will be no recovery! Never! Not in a million years, UNLESS we institute a dramatic shift in the present world strategic geometry, and do that very soon, within weeks or months.

The reality is that the world today is controlled by a monetary system, one centered in the City of London, with branch offices in Wall St. and other financial centers. This monetary system is based on looting the physical economy through outright usury, speculation, globalisation, privatisation and free trade. And this is the British Empire! It still exists, although today it doesn't rule so much by gunboats and redcoats, but by monetary and ideological control, and it is still run by the Queen and her murderous cadaver of a husband, Prince Philip. It is the collapse of this London-centered system which is plunging all the rest of us into hell, unless we do something about it.

This notion of a world-ruling, dictatorial imperial monetary power is not new to us as Australians. In fact, the old ALP was founded precisely in a struggle against what it called, the "Money Power". One of the great leaders of the old ALP was Frank Anstey, the man about whom John Curtin as Prime Minister said, "Of all the men who have influenced me, he influenced me the most." Anstey-and he reflected the majority sentiment in old Labor-wrote in his 1921 book, "The Money Power": "Australia is a mere appendage of financial London, without distinct economic existence ... London is, so far, the web centre of international finance. In London are assembled the actual chiefs or the representatives of the great financial houses of the world. The Money Power is something more than Capitalism... These men constitute the Financial Oligarchy. No nation can be really free where this financial oligarchy is permitted to hold dominion, and no 'democracy' can be aught but a name that does not shake it from its throne." Throughout our history, all of our great struggles have proceeded from this fight, to free ourselves of the Money Power. This was the great cause to which all of the true leaders of old Labor, notably John Curtin and Ben Chifley, were committed.

A credit system to break British imperialism

So what do we do now? How do we break this stranglehold of British imperial monetarism?

The American physical economist and statesman, my friend Lyndon LaRouche, whom I have known and worked with for almost twenty years now, has for decades been proposing pathways out of this disaster, and he now has a battle plan to defeat the British Empire and the Queen. It's called the Four Powers alliance. It's very simple, in principle: that the U.S., Russia, China, and India, who together represent a huge section of the world's population and a great deal of raw physical power, join together to initiate an entirely new kind of world financial system—a credit system, to replace the Queen's monetary system.

I will elaborate on that later, but, simply put, a credit system is what America was founded on in the first place, in a war against the British system of monetarist looting, which tried to strangle the young American colonies in the cradle, including by using free trade to try to wreck all their young industries.

A credit system, as founder of our original Commonwealth Bank King O'Malley intended, is based on government-controlled national banking for the public good, i.e. for the expansion of the physical economy, as opposed to privately controlled so-called central banking, which only benefits the vultures of London and Wall St. So dump free trade, dump globalisation and all that goes with it, in favour of these Four Powers establishing a new international system of perfectly sovereign nation states, each of which controls its own sovereign credit system for the public good.

The first steps toward this new world credit system were initiated, with crucial input from Mr. LaRouche himself, input going back many years, but in particular, just recently in discussions he held with government leaders at an international conference in early October at Rhodes, Greece, regarding Russia-China collaboration.

The upshot of all this was a remarkable set of agreements struck between Russia and China in September and October. In September, Russian President Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao approved a comprehensive "Russia-China 2018 Co-operation Program" to build 205 joint projects in the Russian Far East, Siberia and northeast China. Then, in mid-October, immediately on the heels of the Rhodes conference, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao signed 12 major agreements in the energy sphere, not only oil and gas, but also in the development of advanced generations of nuclear power. These are bilateral development programmes which, Prime Minister Putin emphasised, involve "cooperation in high technologies and trade in highly processed products." Nearly two dozen other agreements were signed by Russian and Chinese companies at the same time.

Russia has some of the richest mineral resources in the world in Siberia and the Russian Far East, but has only 25 million or so citizens in that whole vast region, so China is going to help develop that area, investing some of the almost $1 trillion U.S. dollars it holds, which will give real value to those dollars, which are otherwise fast becoming worthless. These are sovereign nation states collaborating, using each other's respective strengths, to build the physical economy of each nation for the public good. And because of their size and power, you see there the seed crystal of a new world alignment, if continued. If the U.S. and India join, this will represent an historic shift from an Atlantic-centred world, one dominated by the British Empire through London and Wall St., to a new, Pacific-centred world which will break the back of the British Empire forever.

The mass strike

Let me also report to you on two other crucial battle fronts against this British imperial system of monetarism, one of which involves Australia itself. The first front is in the U.S. where, if the U.S. is going to help initiate this Four Powers agreement, as it absolutely must if the whole thing is going to succeed, then the present policies of this narcissist nutcase President Barack Obama must be overthrown, because he is nothing but a bow-and-scrape toady of the British queen, including adopting her genocidal policies of so-called health care and carbon trading.

Though the major media has mainly blacked it out, as it does all important news, a political mass strike erupted in the U.S. in August, when hundreds of thousands, even millions of Americans packed town hall meetings with their Congressmen and held huge demonstrations around the country, including a huge one in Washington D.C. The lead issue was Obama's planned genocidal health care cuts, but the ferment was far deeper.

Like Australia, the U.S. population has been ravaged by this present economic collapse, with mass home foreclosures and 30% actual unemployment. They've seen mass cuts in federal and state-provided social and other services, since all 50 U.S. states are now hopelessly bankrupt, such that their state legislatures are in constant crisis session to enact even more deadly cuts, as their revenue stream disappears along with their farms and industries. Meanwhile, Obama has poured some $23 trillion into bailing out Wall St. and the City of London, with no benefit whatsoever to the average American.

So this unique phenomenon of a mass strike has broken out in America. It is a totally different social dynamic than that which rules in so-called "normal" times. Beginning in August, the American people have told their Congressmen, in increasingly strident tones, "Look, you jerk, you listen to us for a change. We are Americans, and you have no right to destroy us as you are doing." If you have seen any of these town meetings on the Internet, you know that this is radically different than "business as usual". So this mass strike, whose intellectual leadership is Lyndon LaRouche and his movement, is deepening by the day, and holds the real potential to overthrow, one way or another, Obama and his Wall St. and London backers. Perhaps you have seen this poster originated by LaRouche to portray Obama's literal copy of Hitler's murderous so-called "health care" policy from 1939—exterminating so-called "useless eaters"—which is everywhere in these meetings and demonstrations. Either Obama changes his policies, or gets impeached and thrown out of office. His popularity is now plunging at probably the fastest rate in history for a U.S. president.

The Queen and the Global Warming scam

Now a second front in this war against the British monetarist empire, has erupted against the global warming issue, as we have just seen in Australia. There is no such thing as man-made global warming! It is a total lie, one made up by Prince Philip and his World Wildlife Fund, to enforce a dictatorship over what remains of farming and industry worldwide, to shut them down, and to cut the world's population down from its present 6.7 billion down to 2 billion or even less. This "global warming scam" is a plot for global genocide, led by the British Crown. Prince Philip has repeatedly said that he wants to be reincarnated as a deadly virus to "help solve the world population problem". And fittingly enough, the guy who co-founded his World Wildlife Fund back in 1963 was the now-deceased Dutch Prince Bernhard—a proud former member of Hitler's Nazi Party! So, as you might expect, the Queen demanded draconian measures to stop non-existent "global warming", as the main item at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago on November 27, beginning with her opening address. She instructed her subjects in the 53 nations of the Commonwealth to adopt mandatory restrictions on carbon emissions, and Kevin Rudd helped write the main document for it. Her Imperial Majesty intended the CHOGM meeting as a warm-up for the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Conference now underway, to pass dictatorial emissions policy. Toward that goal, her fruity son Prince Charles will keynote the conference's second week, when some 100 world leaders are expected to show up.

Meanwhile, you have probably heard that the major theoretical center pushing global warming, the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in Britain, has been caught red-handed falsifying the data, suppressing the evidence that the world's temperature has actually been dropping for the last decade, and generally lying its head off. So who funds this great, oh-so-prestigious British university? Prince Philip's World Wildlife Fund! And also the British Government, and the major Anglo-Dutch cartels such as Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum—the same crowd which funds the World Wildlife Fund itself.

How the ETS was defeated

Now let's look at what happened here in Australia last week, in the stunning defeat in the Parliament of the global warming-derived scam known as the Emissions Trading Scheme, the ETS, because it reflects the same kind of mass strike process which has broken out in the U.S. against Obama and the U.S. Congress over health care. It's really beautiful, particularly when you look at the ironies of it.

Here is this plot by the British Crown and the City of London for a global dictatorship and genocide, under cover of stopping so-called "carbon emissions". And their toady Kevin Rudd has been a world leader in this, bringing that jerk and liar Fat Al Gore to Australia to help him sell this swindle, the same Al Gore whose personal mansion in Tennessee, complete with a huge heated swimming pool, eats up enough electricity to power an African nation for an entire year, and who is a partner in a London-based hedge fund selling emission trading rights. So this ETS fraud comes up in Parliament, and what happens? Well, you have to step back a couple of years to understand this.

Due to all the Greenie brainwashing in this country over a long, long time, in 2007 public opinion polls showed that 68% of Australians then favored urgent action to stop climate change. So, myself and my associates in the CEC and the LaRouche Youth Movement went to work. We first produced half a million copies of this special issue of our New Citizen newspaper in 2007.

We saturated the country with it, including the Fifth World Conference of Science Journalists being held at the Melbourne Hyatt.

Now the upheaval around that, including the uproar over that intervention even in the so-called major media, forced the airing of the UK Channel 4 documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle", on national television here.

Next, we continued to hammer both the scientific fraud and genocidal agenda behind global warming in our regular email press releases, which have a very wide circulation across Australia. The global warming issue determined the CEC's Senate preferences in the Nov. 2007 federal election, when we announced that "the CEC would hold their noses and preference the Liberal Party... because at least an outspoken faction of the Liberal Party had exposed 'global warming' for the utter fraud it was". In May 2008, we mobilised Australia to respond to the world food crisis, and exposed the ethanol fraud looting precious food production in favour of so-called 'renewable energy'. Radical greens like Clive Hamilton and John Quiggin started to denounce the CEC and LaRouche as leading the anti-global warming camp. This year, we repeatedly exposed the financial fraud behind carbon trading. The LaRouche Youth Movement intervened at Al Gore's tin-rattling breakfast with Australia's superannuation industry at Docklands in Melbourne in June, and in August we printed and distributed 350,000 copies of our New Citizen newspaper headlined, "Carbon Trading is Hitler-style Genocide".

All of this emboldened a number of leading scientists to speak out as well, led by our dear friend, the now-deceased Lance Endersbee, one of Australia's foremost engineers in a distinguished career going back to his role in the postwar years in building the great Snowy Hydro-electric Scheme.

But here is the fun part. As you know, going into this fight the Liberal Party was headed by Malcolm Turnbull, a former merchant banker for Goldman Sucks, the firm which has played a key role in looting and destroying the world economy.

Reflecting general Liberal Party sentiment, which in turn reflected the changes which we in the CEC and LYM had set in motion in the general population, Turnbull was opposed to this fraud, at least he argued that there shouldn't be any big rush on it, and that any final decision should be deferred until after the Copenhagen conference. That is, until 'ol Malcolm returned from a two-week visit to London. Then, he suddenly demanded that the Libs support immediate passage of the ETS. But, when Turnbull tried to ram this through the Liberal Party, he ran into the same buzz saw now dismantling Obama in the U.S.—a brewing mass strike of an Australian population sick to death of the personal ravages to themselves, to their friends and families, and to most everybody else they know, of the agony and devastation wrought by free trade, globalisation, privatisation, etc. As in America with health care, the ETS is only the tip of the iceberg—and these icebergs ain't melting, believe me, at least no more than usual. So, because of this mass strike, and the various Internet and other polls taken on the ETS issue which showed overwhelming opposition to it in the population, and particularly in the Libs' own base, they knew that they would likely disappear as a party, if they did what Turnbull wanted and did a dirty deal with Rudd to pass it. So what happened? The raving monarchist Tony Abbott—who had just a few months before, said that the ETS should be passed so as to "remove it as a potential election issue", all of a sudden leads the charge against the issue which the Queen herself demanded be enacted. Let's have no illusions about Tony Abbott, as some "hero of the people".

Tony Abbott, like Turnbull, was a Rhodes scholar, trained at Oxford with the scholarships established by Cecil Rhodes and the British imperial Round Table crowd back in the late 19th century, to train the elites of the colonies in "self-rule", but self-rule according to British imperial dictates. That is, the old Empah, but in its new guise of self-rule, the so-called "Commonwealth group of nations".

In fact, in the so-called debate over the republic back in the late 1990s, Abbott headed, "Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy", while merchant banker Turnbull headed the other side, the "Australian Republican Movement." Of course Turnbull and his crowd who were pushing a so-called "republic" were all toadies for Her Majesty, led by members of her Privy Council, beginning with the chairman of the whole effort, Privy Councillor and former Governor-General Sir Ninian Stephens. And it was all financed by the major corporations, beginning with Rio Tinto, in which the Queen is the single largest stockholder, the AMP Society insurance giant, the Commonwealth Bank and similar pillars of the financial oligarchy. These great republicans! Australians smelled that this so-called republic, particularly without a popularly elected President, was a fraud, and decisively voted it down.

Economic crisis is the driver

Ok, so we have these recent, highly optimistic developments with the Russian-Chinese deals, and the mass strike process erupting in both the U.S. and Australia, shaking up and threatening to overturn the established order of British monetarism. And all the while that monetarist imperial order is disintegrating as the global financial collapse accelerates, as it just has with the bankruptcy of Dubai, which is the dirty money capital of the British Empire, in particular for all the dope money involving Afghanistan. As of 2007, Afghanistan produced an astounding 8,200 tons of opium, accounting for 93% of the world's opium and heroin supply, with an estimated street value of $400-500 billion. Dubai now is what Hong Kong was until China took it over on July 1st 1997—the centre of the world's drug traffic—which was run by the British East India Company for the 19th and much of the 20th century, when, according to various historians and a famous study conducted by Mr. LaRouche's associates, drugs were often the single largest commodity in world trade.

Let me explain at this point the process of financial collapse in more detail, because this will also help us understand the way out of this mess. Here we have to look at a pedagogy first developed by Mr. LaRouche in 1996, called the Triple Curve Function, which I'll explain in a moment. But first a bit of history:

Since the end of the Seven Years War in 1763, which some historians have called "the First World War", when the British defeated the French and grabbed Canada and most of India from the French, the world has been dominated by the British Empire, centred in the City of London. This was not an empire of the British people, but of a private company, the British East India Company, which had the largest fleet and largest army in the world at the time, much larger than even the nation of Britain itself. When the East India Company went bankrupt in the middle of the 19th century for various reasons, including by President Abraham Lincoln's defeat of the British-backed, slave-owning Confederacy—which sold all their slave-grown cotton to Britain—the Empire became centred around the British Crown itself. You probably remember from school, that Queen Victoria's Prime Minister Disraeli granted her personal control over the nation of India. So this empire has been run by the Crown, at the apex of the City of London and the world financial empire run out of London.

Under this system of financial empire, "money" itself is given a value, it has a "price" and therefore the control of money, through this private financial cartel, controls nations—they control you. This is usury.

This Triple Curve depicts an economy dominated by a monetary system. And for most of European history, and for several thousands of years before that, most of the world has been ruled, most of the time, by empires. And the core of these empires, both historically, and still today, are these monetary systems. So monetarist systems have three interrelated curves Firstly the top curve, represents financial aggregates, the use of money for the purchase and sale of actual goods and services, the useful aspects of an economy.

The Second curve, represents the monetary aggregates: money that is used for the sale of money for money, and by money. Everything is money, money money! Wealth is money!

The third curve, represents actual physical production.

These are the three factors which combine together to function as a monetarist economy. And understanding this, and the inter-relationship among these three curves, is the method by which LaRouche has been the most successful economic forecaster in the world over the past 50 years.

Over the past decade, since 1996, as the bottom curve, that is, physical production, continued to collapse, the financial oligarchy started printing money through their privately-owned central banks to bail out their system.

In the year 2000, Mr. LaRouche updated his Triple Curve to show a critical point of instability, in which the rate of growth of the emission of monetary aggregates—the printing of money—overtook the rate of growth of the financial aggregates, and hyperinflation started to take off, which you have seen already for some time now in the skyrocketing price of oil, and in many other commodities such as fertilizer, food, and so on.

Then, in an international webcast on July 25th 2007, LaRouche delivered his best-known recent forecast, where he warned that we were then heading immediately into a world financial breakdown crisis. Three days later, that crisis exploded with the so-called "sub-prime" mortgage crisis, the collapse of Bear Sterns investment bank, and many similar things, a collapse which is still ongoing now, and becoming worse by the day.

LaRouche: [T]his occurs at a time when the world monetary financial system is actually now currently in the process of disintegrating. There's nothing mysterious about this; I've talked about it for some time, it's been in progress, it's not abating. What's listed as stock values and market values in the financial markets internationally is bunk! These are purely fictitious beliefs. There's no truth to it; the fakery is enormous. There is no possibility of a non-collapse of the present financial system-none! It's finished, now! The present financial system can not continue to exist under any circumstances, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations. Only a fundamental and sudden change in the world monetary financial system will prevent a general, immediate chain-reaction type of collapse. At what speed we don't know, but it will go on, and it will be unstoppable! And the longer it goes on before coming to an end, the worse things will get.

In August and September of that year, LaRouche proposed new legislation to solve the crisis, his Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, to freeze all mortgage foreclosures, and to put the entire U.S. financial system through bankruptcy reorganisation, to shift from a monetarist-dominated economy (the top curve), to a new credit system to foster the development of the real physical economy, the bottom curve. His HBPA would have solved the crisis then, and it gained extensive backing from city councils, state legislatures, and many state governors in the U.S. However, it was vigorously opposed by British and Wall St. stooges like Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Barney Frank, the Chairman of the House Finance committee. Consequently, the USA and the world moved into the next stage of the breakdown crisis, in which entire nations are starting to default, just like Dubai did in late November.

Here in Australia, the CEC led a major organizing drive throughout late 2007 and in 2008, for an Australian version of LaRouche's legislation. This proposal was endorsed by some entire local councils and hundreds of individual councillors, but was bitterly opposed by Kevin "007", and by our major banks.

Returning to the Triple Curve, in 2008 Mr. LaRouche updated it to reflect the fact that the financial aggregates curve, representing transactions in the economy tied to real goods and services, turned sharply downward, which produced further instability. So, to try and keep this monetarist system alive for just a bit longer, London and Wall St. instructed President Obama to pump $23 trillion into the U.S. and world banking systems. This has now brought the world to the very brink of a hyperinflationary collapse like that of Weimar Germany in 1923.

Because of that astronomical bailout, the kind of financial reorganisation Mr. LaRouche proposed in 2007 is no longer possible—the crisis is just too advanced. What is required now, is the wholesale reorganisation of the entire world's economy, so that each nation functions with a credit system, instead of an imperialist-dominated monetarist system.

In this new, healthy world economy, of the type implied by the recent China-Russia development projects, there will no longer be three curves, but only two—the monetary curve will be eliminated.

Yes, we will still have money for every day use, but it will be entirely subordinated to the other two curves, rather than an entity in itself. Thus you will only have two curves, rather than money dictating everything.

WORLD FINANCIAL REORGANISATION

Therefore, as of now, meaning in the immediate weeks and months ahead, we have to place the entire world's financial and monetary system into bankruptcy reorganisation, to literally quarantine and then write-off the trillions of dollars of unpayable speculative debt. The standard for doing this is best exemplified by the Glass-Steagall Act which President Franklin Roosevelt passed in 1933, to rein in the vultures of Wall St., so that he could organise a recovery of the U.S. physical economy, to pull the U.S. and the world out of the Great Depression. Glass-Steagall forbade commercial banks from engaging in the kind of wild Wall St. and London-type speculations in stocks and bonds, mortgages, derivatives, and all the other forms of speculation which have caused the present crisis, and which caused the Great Depression back then.

Legitimate debt that has claims to the underlying physical productive processes of economies will be preserved on the books of the banks, but an estimated $1 quadrillion in speculative instruments will simply be written off. Sovereign national governments will then create huge masses of new credit to fund large scale infrastructure and other development projects, to start rebuilding national economies. Here in Australia, for a brief period from 1911-1923, when Denison Miller chaired the original Commonwealth Bank along the principles outlined by its founder, King O'Malley, our Australian economy tended to function that way. It is how we financed our Transcontinental Railroad, for instance, which King O'Malley also directed, as Home Minister in the Andrew Fischer Labor government.

But we as a nation were not founded on a sovereign credit system, only the United States, of all nations in history, was actually founded that way. By Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the U.S. Federal government has the right to issue and control credit and money. This system was established by the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who had been General George Washington's aide-de-camp during the American Revolution against the British. When King O'Malley founded the Commonwealth National Bank in 1911, he proclaimed in Parliament, "I am the Hamilton of Australia of Australia. He was the greatest financial man who ever walked the earth, and his plans have never been improved upon."

By contrast with this American credit system, let us look at our Australian monetarist system. At first glance, Part V of our Constitution, entitled "Powers of the Parliament", seems to specify a national credit system. There, Section 51 grants the Parliament control over quote "Currency, coinage, and legal tender", and control over "Banking, other than State banking, also State banking beyond the limits of the State concerned, the incorporation of banks, and the issue of paper money."

However, all that is wiped out by Section 56 which gives the Queen's Governor-General the right to veto any bill whatsoever, and then Section 58, which, in the extremely unlikely case that the Governor-General might act independently of the Crown, specifies that the Queen has the final word on all Australian legislation, and that is still the case today, no matter what nonsense you may have heard to the contrary. And then the Banking Act 1959 and the Reserve Bank 1959 wiped out any remaining control over national currency or finances by the Commonwealth Bank, in favour of the new, privately-directed Reserve Bank.

The shift to a Pacific-centred world: Implications for Australia

Because they are based upon using credit to develop the national physical economies of both countries, the large-scale deals recently struck between Russia and China, open the door, potentially at least, to a world credit system. They clearly also foreshadow the shift of the center of world economic and political power to the Pacific, and therefore have sweeping implications for Australia. And Mr. LaRouche has been talking quite a bit about Australia of late, including in a pre-recorded video presentation to a conference in Moscow on December 3 of the Russian Anti-Globalist Resistance and the Academy of Geopolitical Studies, and in a live international webcast the same day. In the latter, he sketched some of the great infrastructure projects needed for both the U.S., and for the world, including high-speed rail lines across the Bering Strait between the Russian Far East and Alaska in the U.S. This would unite the U.S., Russia, Europe, Asia, and Africa in a single rail grid, everywhere but Australia, (something which we will have to solve before long.)

In his Dec 3rd webcast LaRouche emphasised the importance of Australia's role:

LaRouche: We can do that. We can unite this mega-planet, or this mega-continent, composed of Africa, the Americas, and Eurasia-and the Australians are eager to cooperate, because Australia has a great mass of such things as plutonium and thorium, which are the fine ingredients of nuclear power, these days. So therefore, Australia will be invited to contribute its development of its relevant industries in this large area they have for themselves as a nation, and they will have a future, in the world, by playing this kind of role of cooperation, as Australia, with Asia in particular.

So, Australia can unite with this new dynamic of a Four Powers Alliance, or it can continue its present role: as a ruined beachhead in Asia for the British Empire, an empire now renamed "the Commonwealth" for public relations purposes.

This present role of Australia, under Kevin Rudd as also under Howard, and under Hawke and Keating before, was spelt out most clearly in a 1995 report by the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, the RIIA, formerly known as the British imperial Round Table organisation founded by Cecil Rhodes, the Crown and the Rothschild and other private financiers back in the 1890s. This RIIA report was titled "The Economic Opportunities for Britain and the Commonwealth", and it is still British policy today.

It argued that Britain should use its extensive cultural and business networks of the Commonwealth—almost exactly as the Queen just did in opening the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago on November 27—as a launching pad to penetrate every corner of the globe. Although Her Imperial Majesty was a bit discreet on the purpose behind this new, world-dominating Commonwealth, the RIIA report spelled it out clearly: to loot every nation it can reach through the methods of "deregulation", "privatisation', and "free-trade." The biggest source of wealth is Asia. Therefore, the report stated, Britain should turn from a preoccupation with Europe, toward the vast riches of the Asia/Pacific region.

But the focal point of the entire report was Australia, that Australia should be the launching point for a renewed British imperial push into Asia, given the intimate ties between Britain and Australia already. As evidence of these ties, the report said that as of 1995 quote, "Australia sent 35% of its offshore direct investment to Britain, which is eight times more than could be expected from the size of the UK economy", while, from the other direction, "The UK sends about 7 percent of its offshore investment to Australia which is five times more than could be expected from the size of the Australian economy," end quote.

By 2008, the UK, with its population of 60 million had the highest total foreign investment in Australia of any country, with $427 billion—as opposed to only $74.5 billion in 1994. By comparison, the USA, with a population of 300 million, had only $418 billion. Already by 1994, 130 British-owned companies had set up their Asia/Pacific headquarters in Australia, and many more have done so since.

Over the last 14 years since that RIIA report was written, these flows of British capital into Australia have only increased, particularly given the massive looting operations represented by the mining boom of the last 12 years, which is dominated by the British raw materials cartel. In fact, while these British firms come here to loot us, Her Majesty's Australian toadies, such as that clown Bob Hawke and his nasty offsider Paul Keating, laid out the welcome mat for them when they started the whole regime of free trade and globalisation which has destroyed our farmers and small and medium-sized manufacturing industries. And that was the intent of this so-called "deregulation" of the Australian economy beginning under Hawke and the World's Greatest Treasurer, the Paul Keating who is now the chief executive of a private international merchant banking firm, one which would have made a tidy bundle if the privatisation of NSW's electricity industry had gone ahead. Keating said that Australia's new role in the British Empire, was to be as a raw materials exporter, i.e. a quarry; if other industries survived, fine, but they were no longer a priority—Australia's economic future lay in minerals exports, with maybe a bit of wool and wheat thrown in.

And Kevin Rudd, like Hawke and Keating and Howard before him, is nothing but a British imperial puppet in this process.

As Prime Minister and Labour Party leader, Rudd has campaigned for ever-greater financier dominance of Australia's financial system, including under the guise of "independence" for the privately-controlled Reserve Bank; he has committed Australia to lead the world in the British genocidal crusade on" climate change", for which he was a lead author of the climate change document adopted at the recent CHOGM meeting, which would ensure our agro-industrial oblivion; he has provided government funds to bail out the banks, and promised untold billions of dollars of taxpayer-backed government guarantees; he has spearheaded the British push to coordinate a global bail-out aka stimulus package through the G-20 and International Monetary Fund; and he has crusaded for even more British Free-trade. In the course of this latter, in February he proclaimed that "Protectionism is intrinsically evil".

In this latest issue of our New Citizen, we documented Kev's role in further detail, including, perhaps, his formal recruitment by British intelligence early in his career, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of income into the Rudd family household—a household now worth an estimated $60 million—comes directly from the British government, via his wife's company.

As you might expect of such a British toady, he is personally terrified of LaRouche, as in his response to a question at a public forum in Queensland earlier this year, when he spat the dummy and exploded, "LaRouche is right off the planet!"

AUSTRALIA'S TRUE MISSION, IN CONCERT WITH THE FOUR POWERS

If Australia is to have a future, we must have the guts to do several things: First, we should just quit the Commonwealth, full stop.

Second, we must dump the Queen as our head of state, junk our inherently weak and corrupt parliamentary system run by the Crown, and establish a republic, a course to which our greatest republican, the Rev. John Dunmore Lang, devoted his entire life—to establish what he called a new "United States of the Southern Seas".

And third, we must nationalise our huge raw materials deposits, some of the richest in the entire world, take them back from such British Crown cartels as Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton. Let me review a stark example in our recent national history, to show why these are not just "nice ideas", or "options," but are vital.

After many years in the wilderness, the Australian Labor Party finally came back into power in 1972 under Gough Whitlam. Whitlam was not perfect, by any means, but his government planned to "buy back the farm": To take sovereign control of our nation's resources back from the Queen's cartels led then by Rio Tinto, so we could implement grand development plans, such as the energy and infrastructure projects planned by Rex Connor, Whitlam's Minerals and Energy Minister. Of course, since the government had no sovereign control of credit, it had to look elsewhere to find the means to begin to implement these ideas. In the midst of an orchestrated scandal over this, the Queen directed her Governor General, a dog named John Kerr, to sack Whitlam. Anyone who believes that Kerr, a longtime MI-6 agent and notorious lap dog for the Queen just up and did that by himself, as Whitlam himself even believed—is a fool. In fact the Queen showered all kinds of honors and decorations on Kerr right afterwards, for his action. So, providing we act boldly, and in our sovereign national interest, to dump the Queen and her cartels, look at the enormous potential we have. For instance, LaRouche has emphasised the extraordinary importance of the huge raw materials deposits of Siberia, both for Russia, and for the whole region, for countries such as China and India, who are lacking many essential raw materials.

There are many comparisons between Siberia, and Australia.

As you can see, our total land area is about the same as Siberia and the Russian Far East, and, like those territories, Australia is very thinly-populated, and we will have to build entire new cities throughout Australia, just as the Russians will have to do there. But look at our incredible wealth of resources, similar to those of Siberia and the Far East. Australia has the world's largest deposits of recoverable brown coal, lead, rutile, zircon, nickel, tantalum, uranium, and zinc and ranks second in the world for bauxite, copper, gold, ilmenite, and silver.

Our reserves of industrial diamonds are third largest in the world and those of manganese ore, are fourth.

We are also the world's largest exporter of alumina, black coal, iron ore, lead and zinc. Reflecting the purposeful destruction of much of our agro-industrial base, particularly since Hawke and Keating, the resource sector is the country's largest single export sector. In 2006-2007, over 80% of its output was exported, accounting for approximately 49 per cent of the total goods and services exports, and 63% of Australia's merchandise export earnings. In 2006-07, mineral resource exports totalled $107.8 billion, or 77.4% of Australia's total commodity trade. From 2001-2007, Australian mine production increased by almost 21% to meet world demand, with China and Japan being Australia's largest buyers of minerals.

But the problem is this: all these raw materials, just as with a British colony in Africa, are exported unprocessed, and the only so-called "development" associated with them are the railroads which are built from the mines to the coasts, exactly as in Africa. And even back in the days when we used to have a half-decent rail system, the British purposely constructed it all on different gauges, to keep us disunited.

But I want to emphasise our wealth in two minerals, in particular, and what they mean to our national development over the decades ahead: uranium and thorium.

As you can see, Australia also holds the world's largest reserves of "known recoverable resources of uranium" (24% of the total, ahead of second-place Kazakhstan with 17%), but we have a staggering 40% of reserves "recoverable at low cost". We now produce 22% of the world's supply, second only to the 29% of Canada, another Crown colony which LaRouche expects is likely to break with the British Empire, also for reasons of national survival.

We also have the world's largest resources of thorium, ahead of India which is second. Now, once we throw off the shackles of British monetarism, these two minerals, in particular, open up an entire new world for ourselves, and for our neighbours.

To develop Australia, once we have sovereign control of our national credit, we will begin by building great national infrastructure projects, similar to what FDR did to pull the US out of the Great Depression in the 1930s, but which the Bank of England and the Crown prevented us from doing, even sacking Jack Lang as Premier of New South Wales, to maintain their stranglehold on us. These great infrastructure projects will be in three areas, all of which we are desperately short of right now: power, water, and transport.

Our tasks in Australia

Let me develop the basic outlines of each of these.

For power, we will develop a world-class nuclear power industry using our unmatched supplies of the basic nuclear fuels, uranium and thorium. To not do so would be the height of idiocy. The rest of the world is clearly going nuclear, so we can either join them, or sit here sweltering in the dark. Even more, we can actually play a leading role in developing this industry worldwide, by not only processing our uranium and thorium for export, but by developing a whole new, high-technology nuclear industry, including whole nuclear plants for export.

Now, some of you who have been brainwashed by the Greenies, might shriek, "We can't do that!" Why not? If you are worried about danger, I suppose you could always create a problem with any technology if you really wanted to. For instance, you could really hurt yourself by hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, or holding a lighted match under your nose, but no one has proposed banning hammers or matches, at least not yet. The reality is, that the development of mankind throughout history has always been based on the use of higher and higher technologies, in particular by developing energy sources with higher and higher energy flux densities, as you notice in this Table, from burning wood, to charcoal, to coal, to coke, to oil and gas (and other fossil fuels), to fission, and to fusion power, the way the Sun makes its energy. This table demonstrates the total lunacy of relying on the very weak energy flux density of solar-based technologies for the development of modern high-tech, high-energy based economies.

New generations of nuclear power plants have been designed, known as pebble bed reactors, which are absolutely safe and meltdown-proof. And thorium is a great fuel for reactors, because almost all natural thorium is useable in a reactor compared with 0.7% of uranium. India has a rapidly-developing research program into thorium reactors, and we should collaborate with her on that.

In addition to mastering ever-denser sources of energy, the history of mankind has also been one of using an ever increasing number of elements of the Periodic Table, as you see here, and that is what we will be doing with thorium, uranium, and the numerous other minerals Australia is blessed with. This animation is from a presentation made by Dr. Sergei Cherkasov of Russia's Vernadsky State Geological Museum, at a 2007 conference of the Schiller Institute.

This increasing mastery of the periodic table is an excellent illustration of the creative powers of the human mind.

Now, for the second major aspect of infrastructure, we again have to disregard the raving, unscientific Greenie nonsense about "wild rivers" and the like, and build numerous great water projects to ensure our water supplies, and to green our great deserts. In collaboration with Professor Lance Endersbee and other of our national water experts, the CEC already in 2002 outlined 18 great water projects, the research for which is mostly already completed, and which we could start building tomorrow. Our estimate in 2002, was that all of these could be built for only $40 billion dollars.

In our third major area of infrastructure, transport, we have to build a high-speed rail grid around each of our major cities, and between them, to unite our great continent. The Australian Ring Rail proposed by Professor Endersbee is typical of what we should do, which would also allow us to cheaply export our manufactures or agricultural products through Darwin into Asia. China already has built a working high-speed train between Beijing-Tianjin, which travels at 350 kilometres per hour. China plans to spend more than $1 trillion on expanding its railway network from 78,000 km today to 110,000 km in 2012 and to 120,000 km in 2020. By 2020, 13,000 km of this will be high-speed rail. China is now also working with the Russians to build high speed rail in Russia, in the deals they signed in September and October. And there is another great project in which we must engage, and that is to develop a space industry. We already have some valuable experience in that field, and have an ideal location at Cape York near the Equator, for launching. Over the next several generations, the real future of mankind is in going to the Moon, to develop a base there for the colonisation of Mars over the next century or so, just as Columbus set out to find and colonise a new world across the Atlantic. Already ten nations have plans to set up industrial complexes on the Moon. We must join them, and inspire generations of young Australians to master the great challenges of space travel and colonisation.

Our indispensible cultural role

And the challenge of mastering Space brings me to my next point: Our indispensable cultural role in the Pacific region. Without in anyway denigrating any other cultures, we in Australia are fortunate in that we embody the most powerful cultural potential mankind has yet developed. That culture extends from Classical Greece, through Christianity, into the 15th Century Golden Renaissance, a culture which gave birth to our modern nation state-centred civilisation, albeit a civilisation still shackled by this imperial monetarist system. But the guiding principle of this Western European culture, however badly it has been abused by the British Empire, is that, by virtue of the innate creative potentials of the human mind, each individual man and woman is created in the image of God the Creator. And that this creativity, this spark of divinity within us, is what makes the life of each and every human being, sacred.

For instance, our latest New Citizen carries groundbreaking research on how our forebears were not just thieves and convicts of all sorts who were scooped up out of jails in England and shipped out here. On the contrary, the majority of those shipped out here in 1788, right after the world-shaking American Revolution, were fiercely pro-American political prisoners, who, because of their noble political ideals, the British were terrified to leave at home, lest they infect the British Isles with this spirit of republicanism, this passionate belief in the profound worth of every human soul. This republican culture is very deep within us, which is why we voted down that fraud which Turnbull and the Queen's Privy Councillors were trying to sell us for a "republic" back in the late 1990s.

Settling some scores within ourselves

Finally, with this turn to a new, Pacific-centred world, and given what I have just said about our underlying republican culture, there are some scores which we have to settle within ourselves, as well as with the Queen and her murderous husband.

Our nation, the Commonwealth of Australia, was founded in 1901, as a result of two primary, but conflicting impulses. The British Money Power caused the deep Depression of the early 1890s here, leading to the great Maritime and Shearers' Strikes of 1894, which they ordered to be put down with bayonets and bullets. What ensued from that was a political mass strike, in which the best of the labor movement demanded an American-style republic, and pointedly took the American spelling of "Labor", for the name of their new party, the Australian Labor Party, to signify those ideals. However, the British demanded "Federation Under the Crown". And as a dirty trick to help make sure that they got that, as well as to supply slave labor for their plantations, they encouraged the immigration of Chinese, Pacific Islanders and other people from the Pacific region who would work for a fraction of what Australians would. Under that threat, and with some brainwashing provided by the eugenics movement which the British invented in the 1880s and 1890s—that there are inferior and superior races, just like Prince Philip believes today—the labor movement adopted the "White Australia" policy.

Many labor leaders, even such a great organiser as W.G. Spence, founder of the Australian Workers Union, therefore huddled for protection under the Crown, against what they viewed as the danger of being so-called "swamped" by Asians. This heritage raised its ugly head again under the pathetic Pauline Hanson, who was just a manipulated fool for the establishment, to make sure the unrest in rural and regional Australia did not turn to the CEC, and to LaRouche's ideas. Not longer after, John Howard once again manipulated those sentiments, around the Boat People issue, to win himself an election.

The British would always have us view ourselves as victims. Either victims to the unchangeable ruling anglophile Establishment, or as victims who might be lost among the masses of Asia, were we actually independent.

But tonight I am proposing, at long last, an entirely different way of viewing our position here in the Pacific. Our great water expert and the designer of the Sydney Harbor Bridge and the Bradfield Scheme to water Queensland and much of inland Australia, Dr. J.J.C. Bradfield, in the early 1940s saw us as a proud nation of 300 million, who were taming our vast, rugged continent and mastering any challenges before us.

And that is the vision which tonight I invite you to adopt once again—of a nation free at last of British monetarist imperialism, and with the kind of optimistic "we can do anything" attitude for which Australians were once famous, including in their highly-valued participation in the U.S. space program.

As to how we achieve the goals I have outlined, I ask you to reflect deeply on this mass strike process which is now sweeping the American political landscape, and of which you who are watching now, have yourselves had a real taste in this defeat which we in Australia have dealt the Queen on the global warming fraud, whatever happens in the coming week at Copenhagen. This developing mass strike is a deeper, more powerful process than almost any of you have experienced in your lifetimes, comparable only to how the nation united during World War II, and, before that, to the great upheavals of the 1890s, which produced "the first labor government in the world", in Queensland.

The greatest disservice we can do ourselves, is to deny our almost-unique republican birthright, even marred as it was with the whips and chains of British imperialism. So I ask you to contact the CEC, to organise with us to take advantage of this unique moment in world history. It is precisely the profound depth of the present global financial and economic crisis, which is shaking the ruling pillars of power. With a bit of a push in the right direction, they will collapse, and we can create a nation of which our children, their children, and all Australians for untold generations to come, can be proud.

Q & A

Question 1 - Jenna Oakley, Qld

Is it possible for the Government to create a two-way road system that would run along the outskirts (by side) of our current country rail lines? Utilising our dying railway stations as depots. These storage depots would be where our heavy freight trucks etc transfer their load onto lighter smaller vans to their delivery points of each country town. In turn, this gets more out of our million dollar railway loss and lightens up and makes safer our current road system. If we got the heavy freight moving vehicles off our roads and leave them for our people carriers only. Environmentally this is far more sound if viable.

Craig: It's possible for the government to do anything it chooses. The question is why hasn't it been done? And this question really gets to the heart of what has to be done for Australia and that is the issue of developing new industries, developing the production and productive industries that we have lost over the last 40 or 50 years, basically since the wind-down of the post-war reconstruction schemes, of which we only built one—the Snowy Mountain Scheme. There were others. There was the Bradfield Scheme and the Clarence River Scheme that were proposed to be built as great development projects in the post-war period. The problem is you can't piece back what's already disintegrated, all you can do is revolutionise it. And that is what the genius was of Prof. Lance Endersbee, because he saw that we had a massive tyranny of distance in this country and proposed not only these water projects, but also this high-speed transport corridor, up through the centre of the country. And the way you have to look at this, is it's not just a railway line shifting people, but this is like an artery-an artery to provide production. And what you do with these sorts of things, is you do what LaRouche has proposed with the Eurasian Landbridge proposal for Asia. Where you have these vast barren areas, like in Siberia and otherwise, where there is nothing there, you actually have a planned approach. The government decides to do something. These development deals between Russia and China are uniquely, government to government. The government is directing the development. So, we can say we want a development corridor right up through inland NSW, in through inland Qld, up through the NT to Darwin and then down through WA—a development corridor which consists, not just of a high-speed rail, but of water projects to provide water, if there isn't any. We would provide decent highways up through that area. We would provide the necessary government assistance to develop entire new areas, and that means what you do, is you allow the people of Australia to be creative.

People see an opportunity in these remote areas that can be built. You support them, and you don't put money in the middle of the equation. What you have to look at, is are we increasing the real wealth of our country, which is real physical production? What are we producing? So, what you do with these sorts of large infrastructure projects, is you provide the basis upon which we can grow the physical economy. You're growing the enterrprise, the potential for creativity of people and you support them in it.

See, you take very inhospitable areas, like Siberia with its permafrost and very cold places, which are hard to imagine, and you do the same in central Australia where it gets very, very, hot. You may decide to establish a town or city there, but you plan it. You provide the power, nuclear power. You don't do this insane stuff of running power cables thousands of kilometers to a remote area. You provide pebble bed reactors, modular high-temperature gas-cooled pebble reactors, the 100 megawatt variety. You can add to them as they are modular. Add one after the other as your city grows. You create localised nuclear power and if the Greenies don't like it, they don't have to live there! They can live in the cities and other areas if they want to.

So what you have to do, and this is what Bradfield's proposal was, was to develop the country by developing the physical landscape. That's why he proposed the Bradfield Scheme. That's what Lyndon LaRouche is proposing with the Eurasian Land-Bridge. You open up vast areas to new production and as you've seen with both Russia and Australia, we have enormous areas of raw materials wealth, that can be developed. We don't necessarily (with high-speed rail and developing inside the country), have to be too concerned about the location for certain industries.

But this is where people get really freaked out about the idea of having 300 million people. Our population density is about 2-3 per square kilometer. The entire internal part of the country is bone empty and bone dry! But it's empty! So you actually have to force development—creatively develop the inside of the country and look, if you're getting up to 300 million people over our land area, you're only talking about a jump of 5 or 6 people per square kilometer if you average it out.

And this means that when—coming back to the question in a sense—you create an artery like that with an intention for production, then the existing infrastructure which is there can be slotted into it, because the intention is production. Right. You don't have to modify the existing infrastructure simply to keep it there, but you actually give it a purpose and that purpose is derived from having something that we actually produce.

Now, Australia did have an extensive inland rail network, but it was all based upon, usually, the huge number of family farms going on which are now being shut down. And the rail lines are being pulled up because there is nothing going on out there, but this is a deliberate policy and whenever you talk about development these days, it's all about how much does it cost! Well who cares! How much does it cost if you don't do it! And this is more the issue that we are facing now.

So whatever it costs to build Lance Endersbee's Australian Ring-rail proposal, we should just get on with it and do it. We should build the Bradfield Scheme—bring that water down. Build the Clarence River scheme to help with the problems of the lack of water in the Murray-Darling basin. Build the Snowy Mountains scheme stage 2. Build the Ord River scheme stage 2. You want to create jobs, you do it by first creating the productive industries that create productive jobs.

Kevin Rudd's 52-odd billion, whatever it was, stimulus package, does not address this issue. He's too scared because it means taking on the Mother Queen—taking on the British Empire, but we as a country can't develop if we get stuck, and continue to be stuck as a country of the British Commonwealth, dominated by a monetarist system. When you've got sovereign nation states, Russia and China now collaborating together, sovereign nation states, and we are one of the 53 countries that just got told and given our marching orders by a Queen who doesn't give a damn about the Australian people. If she did, we wouldn't be having the problems we have, which is equivalent to being Africanised.

Question 2 - Stephen Trounson, WA

I understand Mr. LaRouche's hatred of the Monetary system, and I understand what it is, though not how it works in its intricacies. Could you please explain the physical components of the Credit system. The government pays for Infrastructure, but what then? Who gets the money value, if any, of this infrastructure? How does the government retrieve the money it cost to build this infrastructure? How do Government-induced fluctuations in amounts of money affect the agreed value of the currency on a global scale?

Craig: Well, first thing is you've got to forget money! It's over-rated. It's a disease. What we've got in this world now, is a quadrillion dollars of disease called money. It's unpayable and it's bringing the world's entire financial and monetary system apart. Because it is speculation! Money is an idiot—it's overrated!

What is not overrated is the need for physical economic production, like I said just before. So what you do, is you don't worry about who is going to pay what back. You expand who is producing, who's in work, who's got meaningful jobs. You expand the pie; not worry about how do I carve the pie up, but you expand it continuously, because you are expanding the potential in the minds of the Australian population. You are expanding their creativity in productive enterprises.

So, when Mr. LaRouche talks about his credit system, it's not money in the sense produced like it is now, which you can go to the bank and speculate with. This credit is directed specifically for large-scale infrastructure development projects for productive purposes. It's used as a sovereign instrument of sovereign governments. I mean, when the American revolutionary war was fought, Alexander Hamilton proposed national banking so that a national bank could take over the debt of the 13 bankrupt states that had fought the American War of Independence. Because, you can't have a sovereign nation state when someone else controls your credit—that is a monetary system. So he proposed a national bank, and he created the credit against the debt of those states and issued new credit for large-scale infrastructure development, the development of productive industry.

So, by, in a sense, increasing the productive output, increasing the pie and growing it exponentially—and it grows very quickly if you're actually doing this properly—you don't have to worry about where the money is coming from.

Look, how does infrastructure work? Well, who's been across Sydney Harbour Bridge lately? What would happen if that wasn't there? Can you imagine Sydney without the Sydney Harbour Bridge? Can you imagine the sort of economy that you wouldn't have, imagine the inability to have a network train system. You see, this is another problem that JJC Bradfield was having, and Jack Lang, is that they had to fight the same monetarists back then who said the bridge was too expensive! I think it was something like $80 million to build the bridge, a pittance in today's terms. That bridge was build in the 1930s and was paid off about 50 years later, but look what it did in expanding the potential production in the entire Sydney area. The time it took people to get to work and what happens in production, people don't think about things like how long it takes you to get to work. That's not factored into a monetarist scale of things. You're just slave fodder for the entrepreneurs to make money. And that is why we don't have the sort of infrastructure like high-speed trains that we should have in this country, particularly in the city regions, because its your time—who cares. And look what it is doing to the social fabric of families and so forth, the amount of time. If you want to buy a house in Melbourne, you've got to go what, 45 minutes or more out of town and then clog up the highways coming into work in the morning and sit on choked up highways going home at night, two hours travel each way, maybe more.

So, everyone gets fixated on money. What LaRouche is proposing with a credit system, in his Four Powers Alliance, is first of all the entire system has to be put into bankruptcy reorganisation and that is done as a political agreement among the sovereign nation states of Russia, China, India and the United States. That is a political agreement. It is not a financial agreement. It is saying we, as sovereign nation states, are going to take control of our circumstances and our nation and we are going to begin to issue new credit for development of our people, the general welfare principle. We are going to do that—right! We are not going to pay your gambling debts, or speculative money. Forget it, it's gone. You went to the casino and gambled and you lost! Who goes back to the cashier at the Casino and says, "Oh, I just lost a $100 million, can you give me my money back?" No-one does! Well, that is what we are talking about here.

And then you have Australia—we have written the legislation and it's in our book "What Australia Must Do to Survive the Depression", for a national bank. What you do, is you decide, as a country what you want to produce, what is necessary to increase the potential relative population density. How do you increase your population to make changes to the environment, to increase more population? How do you do that? And you come up with, we need this infrastructure, we need these schools, we need decent hospitals and you draw up, like a Bill. We need this—we need $100 billion worth of infrastructure this year, we need $100 billion the following year, another $100 billion the year after that and you go to the National Commonwealth Credit Bank and you say, "We want to create $100 billion worth of credit to spend in these areas" and then you spend it in those areas, for physical infrastructure. What happens is, you end up with more production, happier people, the government would have a health care system that is free, eye care is free, dental is free. Now people might get the idea that their government actually cares for them! We are only Australians because we live here in Australia. We live here in Australia therefore our government is elected to look after us, but under a monetarist system they look after the British Crown and the British imperial monetary system first, so we've got to turn the tables on it.

As far as retrieving money and so forth to build, you don't worry about that. It will come back, just like I illustrated with the Sydney Harbour Bridge and other great infrastructure projects. You increase the physical capacity for production and you don't worry about money, and that is a very difficult issue for a lot of people—so forget about money.

Question 3 - Anthony Allison, NSW

I understand Lyndon LaRouche's argument that globalisation leads to the death and degradation of many people and hence argues against moves to reduce the population. However, as technology improves, it results in higher productivity per person. Within Lyndon LaRouche's system of economics, is there a case for population policy? Surely, we don't need to keep increasing the world's population with the resultant strain this places on the resources of the planet?

Craig: This is the argument, you might say, the effective argument for population control, that there are too many people because we've got scarce resources. Well, there's a bit of an irony here. There are scarce resources, but the only reason the resources are scarce is because we haven't made the commitment into the development of the potential of all of the human beings on the face of this planet. And population policy—yes we should have as many people as possible who want to live! Can we support that many people—six, ten, twelve, fifteen billion people—of course we can! But we have to change our axioms about trying to make money in the process of doing it, to say how do we actually support such a population.

And this is where Lyn's work specifically comes into this issue immediately: well, if the world gets overpopulated, so-called, we'll just go out into space. We'll populate the moon, we'll populate Mars! We'll go elsewhere, because the idea of a resource is directly tied to the level of scientific and technological progress that is in a society at any particular time. And he's made it very clear—Lyn has—that at the present time we can only really support two billion people, but we've got 6.7 billion people. Why? Because we aren't yet fully committed to moving into the technologies to provide the resources to support the 6.7 billion people. We are still very much reliant on fossil fuels. We haven't moved into the nuclear realm of developing fission power, and then fusion power enough.

Now, if you take for example Australia, where we haven't mined even one tonne of thorium! We have the world's largest reserves of thorium and we haven't mined one tonne of it. Why? Because there is no demand! Because the research into the development of thorium reactors was pretty much shut down in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. The technology exists. India is doing a great job in establishing the fast breeder thorium reactor and thorium is a wonderful nuclear power. Why? Because it gives 40 times more energy per gram of fissionable material. Which means you've got an enormous potential for high density, cheap energy, if you move in that direction.

So when everyone talks about population issues, they always talk about static, or zero technological levels of growth. They rule out who we are as human beings. And are there scarce resources? Yes there are! And Lyn goes through this in detail in his publications and the Basement crew and the LaRouche Youth Movement talk about this a lot in terms of the work of Vladimir Vernadsky, the [Russian] biogeochemist who made the tremendous discoveries on the way the universe works.

We have, effectively, three distinct phase spaces. You have the lithosphere, which is the inert phase. You have the biosphere and you have the noösphere. But each of these phases is governed by what we call universal physical principles.

For example, the biosphere is governed by the universal physical principle of life. That is what governs the biosphere and what you have had in the lithosphere which we are now busily digging great holes in all around Australia, is the action of life—that is, microbes over the millions and millions of years have distilled, have brought together various elements, whether it be iron or copper or whatever, and it has deposited them in locations of very rich deposits. So we come along and we dig them out real quick. And that is what we have been doing, but we are getting to the point where those resources are going to be depleted. That is basic logic.

So what do you have to do, in order to make sure you can continue an ever-expanding supply of resources? You have to increase the energy flux density of power that is available to mankind and that is where the noösphere comes in because of what we are as human beings. We live in the noösphere. We are not just mere animals. Yes, we have life and we live, but we have something greater which is this power of cognition, the ability to actually make discoveries of unseen physical principles. You don't see gravity. You don't see life. But what you do see with your sensual apparatus, is you see the effects of those physical principles and in this universe of ours, as human beings, what we can notice, is that these visual senses, or auditory senses, create paradoxes, if you're serious about looking at them.

And therefore, you can make discoveries by looking at the paradoxes of these universal physical principles, which means there are many physical principles we haven't discovered yet. As we discover those, we open up the potential, not only higher and higher access to technologies, but we can turn those technologies, through the scientific and technological development process into being able to recover the elements that are currently scarce in the earth's crust.

There are ideas, like fusion torches, of vaporising and taking things down to the micro level of materials and sifting out the various elemental forms of those. You have enormous numbers of very high tech processes which are available to us, which no longer actually mean that we have to live in a world of scarce resources.

Take water for example. Why have we got a water shortage in Australia? It's not because there's no water—we are surrounded by it! Where's our nuclear power industry that can desalinate the sea water? Why haven't we got fission reactors, or better still, fusion reactors that can create rivers of fresh water in Melbourne? Because for the very reason, the argument always comes up about population, is because people deny the creative powers that make them different to an animal, that can make the discoveries of physical principle that can change, literally change, the environment that we live in.

And the point is, there are boundary conditions to what we know on earth and that is why Lyndon LaRouche has proposed that we go to Mars, because by going to Mars, what you do is you propose enormous paradoxes like, for example, how can you get to Mars and not end up like a blob of jelly in the bottom of the spacecraft, due to low gravity? How can you get there? Well, we have to develop the ability to travel at One-G, which is earth's gravitational field. One-G acceleration and one-G deceleration. How do you do that? Well you need to develop fission and fusion powered rockets. There's already designs for these things that were done in the 1950s and 60s but they were shut down because at the outset, we were governed by this monetarist system.

And it's an Empire! Prince Philip who wants to cull everyone by coming back as a deadly virus doesn't see human beings as created in the image of God. He sees them as pestilence, plagues, to cull, and that has been the governing dynamic of this empire for thousands of years actually.

We've seen glimmers where things have broken through like what was done with the United States through the collaboration of Cusa and Colombus and others, and you've seen the breakthrough that came with what Abraham Lincoln did, particularly with his moves after the American Civil War to establish the great continental railroad system there which opened up the incredible optimism, but also incredible productive capacity of the United States.

But then you saw it again under Roosevelt. Because Roosvelt's intention was not to go with this monetarism. He told Winston Churchill very clearly, "Winston, after the war, we are not going to have any more of these 19th Century, British colonial-type methods! We're going to have 20th Century methods", which means sovereign nation states. He intended to have the credit system LaRouche is providing now, which is sixty-odd years too late! But the same thing! It is the same idea—to have a communion of sovereign nation state republics, perfectly sovereign, creating their own credit for large-scale internal development and to destroy the parasite of this British monetarist nightmare that the world has lived under ever since.

And that is what LaRouche's credit system is all about, first and foremost, it is about the principle of supporting the general welfare using the powers of government to support that, subordinating this monetarist system, this idea of money, to production, to development, first and foremost. Just like our great Labor leaders of the past understood. This is not rocket science! This has been known in the past and the question though, in populations like ours, is, is there the political will to fight for it again?

For the last 21 years that is what we, as the CEC, have been doing here in Australia and that is why, uniquely, we are still here—stronger than ever, and we need to have a Republic and a credit system that goes with it, and we'll do very well, if you let the creative people in our country loose.

Question 4 - Bill McKelvey, VIC

I read with interest your comments on a regular basis via the email. I agree with most of what you say if not always the language used. Sugar attracts more ants than vinegar, so likening people to Hitler or Nazi's is a bit of a turn off.

What about the treachery of the Copenhagen Summit where it is alleged our "Trusted politicians" are signing up to world government under UN. This is in the fine print of the agreement they are there to sign. This was revealed on Sydney radio by one of Margaret Thatcher's former advisors. This carbon Tax is another tax to feed a burgeoning public service that will need more staff to administer it, more office space to house them and of course more green house emitting power to heat and cool them. Can't you get more people in the main stream media to "tell the truth" so the ordinary mums and dads who believe what they are told by the media will jump up and down. They are unfortunately the voting majority that politicians have hoodwinked. The few like us, they seem to be able to side step as fanatics or misled skeptics.

Craig: Well there is a bit of a paradox in your question, because on the one hand you are saying you want people to tell the truth, and when we do, and call certain people Hitler and Nazis, because they are, you don't like it! So, I'm not being nasty or anything, but in a sense, that is the problem, is people talk about the truth and they want to hear it, and they say they want to hear the truth, but they don't really. Because the truth in these times is somewhat scary.

And look, the CEC doesn't back off the truth. Go back and look at our material and we have always been, in a sense, ahead of the curve with LaRouche, on truth. Why did we put out "Global Warming is a Fraud!" in 540,000 papers when there was no other resistance in the population-no institutional resistance? Because it was the truth! That's all! Tell the truth.

Now, in this parliamentary system, you can't tell the truth. Are there people in there who would like to? Yes. Are there people who would love to work with a credit system to develop our country and have a magnetic levitation train system, a high-speed system, and water projects? Yes! Are they going to get it under the Crown? No!

So these guys, they are not bad people, but they are not like us, because we are prepared to tell the truth. If they tell the truth in their parties, they get de-selected and thrown out, removed, quick as anything. And I somewhat feel sorry for them because, it's a horrible, horrible compromise, to have to compromise on the truth, and global warming is a fraud! Barak Obama is a Hitler-type. His policies are Hitlerian. He wants to kill people. Period. Go and have a look at his own legislation. It's taken exactly from [Hitler's] Tiergarten Four legislation, word for word—the intention is to destroy anyone with disabilities, kill them off, deny them health care; anyone who's old, to euthanise them; anyone under the age of 15 or over 50, to deny them health care.

But see, what people don't realize is, that's a British policy! It came out of the NICE system in England. It's what we have adopted here, lock, stock and barrel. We've had this system for ages—passive euthanasia.

You know one in six people in the United Kingdom were euthanized against their will last year, through passive euthanasia. One in six people! That's disgusting! But that's the culture and that is what the world has degenerated to under a monetary system, so truth is a very interesting thing.

Well, I think what you should do, is join us. Come and learn what real truth is. Come and learn how the mass strike works. We are not directing this mass strike—not from the point of view that we caused it or anything. All we did was tell the truth and we have done it effectively. We've put a lot of material out over the years at great cost to our supporters; we are not a wealthy organisation but we put stuff out at great cost to ourselves even when we can't afford it, because it is the truth and has to be told in a certain period of history—a pregnant period of history where you've got to put the truth out. You do it no matter what and that is what we have always done.

So, you say, who can you trust? Well, ask, "Who is their master? What have they done?" Look at all the political movements that have come and gone in the last 21 years in particular.

People out there are hurting. This carbon tax would have been a disaster, but it was designed to be a disaster; it was designed to depopulate us. We have lost our producers, family farmers are being crucified. Why? Paul Keating said, we don't want wool and wheat anymore, we don't want agriculture, we just want to be a big hole in the ground. That's what he said, and look what's happened. Where's the support for our farmers? Why do they have to pay fertilizer prices, five and six times higher than last seasons, put up with the processes of government stripping away things like the Australian Wheat Marketing Board, the AWB which was set up by the national Party 60 or 70 ?? years ago to protect farmers against the very thing they are now having to face.

Any country that does that to their producers, unfortunately, doesn't have the moral fitness to survive, so we had better change our ways or otherwise we are going to become extinct people, and pretty fast.

Question 5 - Mandy Crerar, VIC

Hi, Craig. How much do you think Tony Scabbot and his new front bench understand about the larger cause of submitting any vestige of sovereignty to a NWO via ETS mandates? And does this make them less traitorous if they do understand this, than the sell-out stance of Labor?

Craig: I think you heard the pedigree of Tony Abbott in my presentation. This is just two sides of the same coin [Abbott and Turnbull] and they are both owned by the same mother, if you like, the Queen. The point is that this is typical of the crap games that are played in parliamentary systems. It means absolutely nothing in the longer curvature and you are going to see a great operation to hoodwink the Australian people that Tony Abbott's a great guy.

That's what you are seeing here. This is just a joke! I mean, Tony Abbott was John Howard's protégé you might say and he has been trained in the same policies. There's nothing different about Tony Abbott—"Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy"—he supports the same disease that we are trying to get rid of. He's going to play tricky politics and going to try and soak up as many votes as he can. He's going to pretend that he's going to be the saviour, but he is going to be a disaster like every other Liberal or Labor politician who's ever done that in

Look, the last real credible politicians, were a few within the Whitlam government, like Rex Connor and Jim Cairns. Jim Cairns supported LaRouche for a New Bretton Woods. These guys had what it took to represent our country and you have to go way back to Ben Chifley, as far as I can see, to find anyone who had the quality to stand on principle no matter what.

You've got others, like John Curtin and you go back through the old Labor Movement, but look at the quality of those people and what they stood for. They actually stood for the general welfare so when you look at Tony Abbott, as you say, "Skabbott", I think he is a bit of a flake on the top of a very nasty disease and that is our Parliamentary system. We need to change that. It's going to be an all-out fight to change that. It's going to take some time, it's going to take a whole new generation to educate themselves on what actually a republic is. That is what we have to do.

We have written a lot of material on this, in what we call our "Synarchy" New Citizen where we go through the pedigree of the Liberal Party, founded by fascists, founded by the people who loved Mussolini—that is where the Liberal Party's roots are—Robert Menzies was a creep! The guy literally benefitted from the blood and the tears of John Curtin and Ben Chifley. These are the guys who put into place the post-war reforms that brought in social security reforms and all sorts of reforms during the war. They took the hard yards, and Menzies just came afterwards and creamed it off. People say that Menzies was such a great leader—I can't find a damn thing that this guy's done, that is worth talking about, otherwise we would have already found it.

So, that is what you are talking about. Do political parties change their colours? No, they just go out of business, like the Democrats and others. So that is what you are talking about with Tony Abbott. If you believe the hype, the lies and the media, then you will be very foolish and it really does worry me, that our population is so fooled by this, again and again and again.

So, we need everyone's help in making sure that people know what the truth is in this particular period of time. Tony Abbott hasn't come out and said that global warming is a fraud, he hasn't said that yet, why not? Up front—it's a fraud! He hasn't said it. He's been playing political games and therein lies the rub. The guy is not prepared to tell the truth straight, forget him. He will be manipulated around through the system and our country will suffer in the process.

Moderator: As a matter of fact, Sen. Ron Boswell admitted that the only reason really that the Liberal/National coalition was forced to listen to the voice of their supporters is that otherwise they would look to the "charlatan extreme right for leadership and political representation". And that was in his own statement of Nov 19 on his website, so, he wouldn't possibly mean us, do you think?

Question 6 - L. Wood, WA

As a pensioner, we are caught between Woe and Go. If we go out and try and earn money to help ourselves we are penalised by the Centrelink income test. Then on the other hand if we say woe, we don't want to die on the job and we've had enough of work, we can basically survive on the pension without any frills. What do you believe is the fate of the pensioner in the future? Are we looking at even higher GST and other taxes and food prices escalating if the global warming theory puts even more costs onto farmers in carbon taxes etc? Are pensioners doomed to lose their mobility due to ever higher fuel costs? If euthanasia is legalised, could excuses be made for us to be legally eliminated because it would be too costly to keep us fed and cared for? What is the future for us oldies, and are we being made to feel we are a financial burden on society?

Craig: Yes you are! It's disgusting! And I think that we have an incredible wealth of older Australians who are pensioners who represent a national treasure to our country and if we are to build anything, we are going to need to call on those people, but see that is not the policy that reigns—that's not the monetarist policy—the monetarist policy is that you are a cost burden. Prince Philip wants to reduce the world's population from 6.7 billion down to two billion and the older people are high on the list as demonstrated by the health policy, by the push for euthanasia, so it's a worry. It's a real worry for a lot of pensioners who have spent their entire life working and don't have enough to live on. If the ETS tax ever gets up, and hopefully the mass strike will knock it down and take out the political parties with it, then that is one less burden, but it doesn't solve the problem. You have to increase the productive potential of our country. We have to go to large-scale infrastructure projects, build entire new industries. It's the power of government to develop and support those industries. We have to bring back tariff controls on a lot of industries, rebuild them. Eighty percent or so of what we produce in this country for our own domestic needs should be produced here. We should have at least 80% produced here. At the moment it is all one way—it is all coming out of foreign countries. That's the metric of any country that is actually in any way, or halfways to becoming sovereign. So it is a worry. Look, it is a stated policy that they want to kill off old people. They want to kill pensioners and they'll do it by reducing the pension if they can get away with it. They'll reduce people basically down to serfs, to slaves and that is an intentional policy and that is why we have to fight it and beat it.

Question 7 - Graduate student from University of NSW

1.Can Australia supply nuclear fuel for SE Asia?

2. What kind of nuclear reactor will power with thorium?

3. How about developing world and nuclear energy?

Craig: Well, Australia as we have mentioned, has the world's largest reserves of thorium and we have the largest low-cost reserves of uranium. Yes we can. We can supply south-east Asia with those products, but that would be a tremendous disservice to our country if that was all we were continuing to do, to export the raw materials. We should not do that. We should develop the nuclear industry within our country to do the reprocessing and value-add to those products.

I mean with the amount of alumina we export from this country, we should have our own aluminium smelters—decent ones—using all different grades of aluminium and so forth. So yes, we can do that, but as a sovereign government, acting in the national interest we would do it on the basis of reciprocal development projects, just like Russia and China are doing. We are happy to develop and export thorium, but we need to participate in reciprocal deals.

What kind of nuclear reaction will power thorium? Well, just about every kind of nuclear reactor can be powered by thorium. There's specific efficiencies that have to be developed but India is doing that now with its fast-breeder thorium reactor, but the science of thorium is very interesting because thorium is basically what they call a fertile radio-active material, which means that by itself it doesn't create nuclear reactions. So, in a sense it is stable. In fact its half life is three earth years or something huge like that—huge half lifes—but when you stimulate that little thorium atom with something like plutonium which gives off large numbers of neutrons, thorium will yield 40 times more power in effect, per unit of weight, and the good thing is it doesn't then actually lead to large amounts of proliferable material which can be used for nuclear weapons. So what you can actually do, is take thorium and in the fuel cell, build in plutonium around it, and burn up plutonium as a process of creating power, so that is absolutely brilliant. There is at least three times as much thorium available in the earth's crust, as there is uranium, so you have enormous resources when you compare it to uranium.

And look this technology, there has been research done on specific types of reactors in the United States, in Russia, in France, using different combinations of fuel rods and combinations of these fuel types to be able to stimulate thorium to create the nuclear reaction. But, it's mostly been shut down and India is the only country that is really developing this right now. And that is why I said before, we need to work in partnership with India to develop our own thorium nuclear industry—our own uranium nuclear industry. This is at our doorstep. We can do this. And then create high-temperature, gas-cooled, thorium-based reactors that we can send out all over the world. Create them in assembly plants, assemble them that way and send them out throughout the world.

So of course, in terms of developing world and nuclear energy, that's exactly what we have to do, not simply because it's just a nice idea, but it is absolutely vital to be able to revive the basis for us to support 6.7 billion people.

Question 8 - Alexandra Liddell, Qld

How long can the market continue to be artificially propped up before boom goes to bust? Or will it be a slow fizzle?

Craig: The system is dead, it's just waiting for a coffin to put it below ground! It's gone. It's gone now-the crash has happened. How long it takes for the corpse to be buried, I don't know. It's a bit like cancer. Once you have been diagnosed with an unfortunate terminal disease, you can't necessarily predict how long it's going to be before you actually succumb to that fatal disease. It could be days, months or weeks, but we are now at a point, as you are seeing with the sovereign default of Dubai and many other countries, that the crisis that could have been solved initially starting in 2007 with Mr. LaRouche's HBPA (Homeowners and Bank Protection Act) and here in Australia the same idea, in collaboration with the Four Powers agreement back then, we didn't have to be where we are today. Is it going to be a fizzle or a pop, well I can't answer that. All I can say is the whole system is finished.

We get a lot of these sorts of questions on the phones and from our contacts who are worried about their money. Where do I put my money? How do I save my money? Well, it's gone! There is no chance. It's finished: unless we have the Four Powers Agreement and move in the direction that Mr. LaRouche has said, and specified, of which the directionality is coming with Russia and China, there is no chance. There is so much debt, so much unpayable debt, so many financial obligations in the system that it is unbelievable—it just can't be paid, right!

So, I don't know. It could be tomorrow that you wake up and the banks are all shut—something has happened. I mean, we weren't expecting Dubai, were we? No. We don't know where it is going to break out, we don't know how it is going to die, how quickly or however, but it's gone. It's finished and all you can do is organise with us politically to help change the system. Go for a credit system. Go for the Four Powers agreement. The solution is a political solution, it's not a monetary solution. It has nothing to do with money whatsoever but we can do it.

As LaRouche pointed out, you get an alliance between Russia and China and India and the United States and many other countries will jump on board immediately. They know the system is shot—finished! Maybe Australia will be the last, I don't know. I hope not. Maybe we'll have to do better and make sure we are the first in line to join the Four Powers.

Question 9 -National Business Owner, VIC

How does one both personally, and in business commercially, best manage finances given what's happening, and prepare for what is about to happen economically on an international scale?

Craig: With great difficulty! It's very difficult in this period of time. I mean you have got a complete freeze up of the entire credit system, ie. in the bank credit system, because the entire system is coming down.

Now, you are going to get ups and downs and all sorts of games being played, but the elites, the financiers, know that this system is stuffed—it's finished. No planning can be done for any serious-thinking people for the future, whilst you have a monetarist system which is in the process of disintegration. There isn't anything you can do. I mean you can shift money from one bank to the next, but which one goes first? You can put it in the stock market and lose it. You can put in into superannuation and lose it. Right? You can put it into cash and it gets destroyed. The value of your cash gets destroyed like what's happened to the value of the U.S. dollar. So, there is no business solution in business. It is all high risk right now because the entire system is gone. So there is nowhere you can put your money, under the bed or whatever, and survive.

Look, we are moving into hyperinflation. You get a period of initial deflation where companies and so forth are trying to flog off their assets or their products in order to get the cash flow coming in—sort of on impulse—and what Rudd has done is chuck in $52 billion to stimulate demand, so that you can go into the shop and buy those goods, but the problem is, a lot of those people go out of business because they can't afford to restock those goods because the price has gone up. So what happens is, those goods become less and less available, at a higher and higher price, hence the hyperinflation, and the way this system works, because it is a difficult thing for people to understand the difference between say financial and monetary aggregates, on the Triple Curve.

I can give you an illustration that I have used around the country. It gives you a sense of how the monetarist/speculative system drives the physical producer out of work.

You take for example here in Melbourne we used to have a massive manufacturing area. It is greatly shrunk on what it used to be. I mean the whole eastern suburbs used to be, according to various people who used to live here, masses of factories, small family-owned factories, which have all been shut down because of globalisation and free trade.

But take a hypothetical armature manufacturer, someone who uses a great deal of copper wire, because he manufactures armatures for starter motors, for electrical generators, for all sorts of small and large motors, and he is manufacturing using copper as a principal ingredient. So, he goes into the market and all of a sudden the copper that used to be a $1000/tonne, has now jumped to $5000/tonne, and he has to buy 100 tonnes of that copper for every three months of operation, and so he's got 100 workers there that are happily producing these starter motors. And he says, okay, well I can probably mortgage the house and get the money necessary to buy 100 tonnes of copper at $5000/tonne, which is $500,000. So our producer rings up his supplier who has to look up the London Metals Exchange and says, on the 1st June the price of copper is $5000, therefore it's $500,000. So he signs the contract and in 30 days he will take his semi-trailers and he will pick up that copper wire. And the trucks roll in on the 1st July, he writes the cheque out and it goes through his bank, he has since mortgaged his house to pay for it, and for the next immediate period ahead he continues to manufacture copper-based starter motors and so forth.

Three months later he is down to his last 10 tonnes of copper so he rings up his supplier and the supplier says, "I'm sorry but the price of copper is now $11,000/tonne." He says, "but I can only afford $350,000 towards copper", so he cuts his order down to $350,000 worth. So he goes in and picks up the equivalent of something like 30 tonnes of copper, but he has 100 workers! What does he do? There is not enough raw materials to support 100 workers, so he has to lay 50% or 60% of them off. So he has to sack 50 or 60 workers, and those workers go home, maybe get a bit of severance pay. They've all got mortgages. They can no longer afford to buy the goods and services in the economy. Remember the second curve—how it dropped—like LaRouche was forecasting. So, they've got mortgages they can't pay, so the rate of housing foreclosures goes up in that particular area, because they can't afford to pay their mortgages.

So this guy continues the process of making armatures, with just 30 or so workers. Meanwhile the government has deregulated the entire system of free trade, is bringing in very, very cheap starter motors and so forth from overseas and the price is dropping. He has to drop his price to try and compete.

At the same time all this is going on, on the 40th floor of Collins Street, you have a room with 100 computers in it, each with a commodities trader behind it. And the same commodity trader on the same day, the 1st June, wants to buy copper to speculate in. He doesn't want to buy 100 tonnes of copper, he wants to buy a million tonnes of copper and he will go and fork out $5 billion on credit of one of the big banks to buy that copper. But he doesn't intend to take delivery of it. He doesn't want to produce anything with it. Ten minutes after the trade is logged on the computer, the price goes up by $10. Sell! Sell! He just made a quick $10 million! A minute later, he reinvests, the same thing again, another million tonnes. This time at $5009 and it goes up again. Sell! And the frightening thing, is this is what is happening, not just with that one trader, but every one of the traders on that floor, in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of office blocks, all around the world, all speculating on a physical commodity that is putting our physical productive workers out of work.

There is your bottom curve falling through the floor, if you extrapolate that across the entire world's economy. Think about that $10 million profit being piled upon pile upon pile of money into bank accounts or whatever, as entries in the ledgers as profit. There's your monetary aggregates—money being created! But think about what the financial aggregates are, in the sense that now those 60 or 70 workers that you put out of work, can't afford to buy the same level of groceries from the store, they can't afford to buy what they used to. So the physical demand for physical goods and services falls through the floor. But you get to a point where you don't have any more producers any more. You don't have any more farmers, people can't compete because it has all been governed by making money!

And that is why this system—you are going to hear talk about Abbott saying we have to reregulate the system. You are going to hear a lot of bank bashing, how bad the banks are for making things so tough—yes it's bad—but what we have to do is go with an entire new system. Wipe out the monetarist function. Eliminate that monetary curve. Reregulate the money supply in the sense of only creating the money necessary to fund physical production—real physical production. Go back to the two curves. So the real activity of the economy is production first and foremost and the financial curve underneath is just a reflection of the ability of the community to buy and sell those services. Money is not even there because it is so regulated that it doesn't exist.

So, if you're running a business like our armature manufacturer, I wouldn't suggest you stay there very long, because you are going to suffer the same fate in this type of monetary system, as he is, as many businesses that are in productive industries know.

Moderator: I will preface this next question by saying that Betty Windsor, the little Queen of England, is in a spot of bother when Lord Christopher Monkton tells EIR that she had better not intervene in politics again, or she will lose our loyalty and then she will lose the throne! No idle threat, coming from the man whose grandfather arranged the abdication of Edward VIII.

Question 10 - Bill Boulton

Craig, two questions - The Zionists control our defacto government in conjunction with Betty Windsor's Masons. They control our judicature. How can we change that? The Brits have kept us in a quasi colonial state simply because we have never issued a formal declaration of independence. Why don't we do just that? Don't forget that the Brits handed over their sovereignty to the EU last Friday. What about ours?

Craig: We get a lot of people over the years who get fixated on this group or that group, whether it be the Rothchilds or the Bilderburgers Society or—ahhhhh there is so many of them—you sort of start to throw your hands up in the air.

Look, the issue is not one particular group. It's the ideology, the philosophy that these guys adhere to and they are all part of the same camp, if they support British monetarism. And there's no solution by just picking on one little individual group. Yeh, they might be the most rotten people in the world, but the system still exists. It's a bit like having the Board Room in the monetarist Empire, and you just have the different changing chairmen. The Board Room, the system still exists, so Queen Lizzie is a key part at the top of the chain. Edward VII used to be in a sense, the Doge of all Doges, if you want to talk about Venetian financier models. He used to be the ruler of all rulers of this elite group of families and groups that support the concept of oligarchical control through empire. These guys scramble to all be oligarchs. They scamble to be the Zeuz of the gods of Olympus. But they also fight amongst themselves, which is particularly interesting with Elisa's quotes from Lord Monkton.

He tipped a bucket on her [the Queen] with what he said, but he still said "I support my Queen"! Because he won't break from the system because he is part of it. He has made some very useful and honest statements about global warming which are very useful because they are true. The truth doesn't matter who says it, the truth is the truth, and he has whatever are his own reasons. He has spoken the truth very loudly which has had a ricocheting effect, brilliantly so, behind the Copenhagen discussions and not-so-behind, in fact quite up front. Because I know there are a lot of people who are looking to Lord Monkton for leadership on this issue, but it is a mistake.

This guy is part of the Empire. He is part of the monetarist system that we have been talking about. He is part of that faction. Remember, the Americans had to fight a revolutionary war in order to kick out the policies of free trade, and globalisation and privatisation.

So, I would encourage the questioner to subscribe to some of our literature and open his eyes to a much bigger agenda than just trying to blame individual groups or groupings of people for this problem. The problem goes back to the very attitude that the god Zeus had towards people.

That is where this starts. Do you believe that human beings are created in the image of God the Creator, and endowed with creative reason and therefore by that, innately sacred? Or do you believe, as the global warmers and the population-control freaks and those hideous people like Prince Philip believe, that man is nothing more than another animal, that has to be controlled and culled whenever necessary.

If you believe the former, like we do, that man is in fact created in God's image and is sacred, then you are part of a true Republican faction. If you believe the latter, then you are part of the oligarchy. You may be very, very junior, but you share the same ideology, so when it comes to politics, when it comes to anything, you have to answer this question of any group. What is their view—their honest view of the nature of man—first and foremost. If you can answer that question of that group, honestly, and get the truth, then you will know where you stand, because it all actually boils down to that.

[The following two questions were answered as one.]

Question 11 - Peter Edington, NSW

Hullo Craig, I agree with some of your ideas and not with others. The world's troubles are partly caused by globalisation. The globalisation is probably more US than British driven but that is moot. Greed generally (whether globalised or not) causes someone, somewhere to miss out on something, and we are all too greedy. On Climate Change I think that Australia, as the highest per capita CO₂ emitter should take a lead in cutting their pollution —regardless of CO₂ issues, exhaust from fossil fuels is noxious to humans and carbon particles lead to the smog/pollution and illness.

Question 12 - Ray Thomas, VIC

Such huge amounts of gas are being exported—does this mean—surely an end to any hope of national gas pipeline infrastructure to help provide lower pollution energy in the future?

Craig: There are two parts to this question. One is on the question of greed and the other is on the question of CO₂. I want to take the "greed" one first, because you know, I have some chickens at home, and if you have ever seen chickens when they get a piece of meat, that someone else wants, it's war for all. And the problem is, that's what animal behaviour becomes! That's what an animal is, but it is NOT human behaviour.

Now, we are reduced—the population can be reduced—to being animals if you have this financial oligarchy treating us like animals. But what you get is this excuse that greed is the root cause of the problem. It is not!

If you treat people as human beings and give them the ability to develop their creative powers they become human beings. They develop a beauty about them that is unbelievable! A power that is unbelievable! They are not animals. Consequently, we can change our environment.

We can take young people, young kids, and we can treat them like Africans and starve them to death by the millions, or, we can take those Africans, those young kids, and we can give them decent health care, access to clean water, decent energy so the farms around them can produce decent food, decent agricultural technology. We can give them decent education and access to classical education—the education that was involved in the 15th Century Golden Renaissance, to master the principles of the universe that are there to be mastered by human beings—not by chooks, or dogs or cats, but by human beings.

And that should be the policy of government, to develop first and foremost the potentialities of the population. But instead, we are not. We are treated like chooks! Joe Bjelke-Petersen used to talk about the media being chooks. Well that is sometimes how you feel by the politicians today, that we are nothing more than chooks to be fed. It's survival of the fittest—all this Darwinian crap. It doesn't apply to human beings. We are fundamentally not animals. That is the first thing and it is actually a cop-out to say that greed is the issue, because it removes the issue of "what are you going to do for humanity?" And I hear it all the time and it's wrong.

The second thing on CO₂. CO₂ is not a pollutant! It's not! It's plant food. Agriculture 101 taught us that CO₂ is plant food. If you want to increase the production of green plant material you feed it chlorophyll. You feed the plant structures. You give decent sunlight, and plenty of CO₂, so it can create the sugars necessary to create the various tissues it needs in order to develop. If you've got a nursery, you close the nursery up and you pump CO₂ into it! For goodness sake!—basic chemistry here. But see, most people are not taught this, and they believe it because they don't know. And that is the biggest tragedy in one sense, is that people don't know this basic science.

So, when people start talking about cutting CO2, they actually don't know what they are talking about. They have been brainwashed and happily brainwashed for whatever reason, into believing a lie.

I was talking to a doctor the other day who just could not get past the idea that the world is going to warm by 2 degrees because of CO₂—man-made CO₂—just couldn't get past it! And this is an intelligent person, but you see what has happened with the CO₂ debate, is it has turned into a religious debate, in a sense. And it has been promoted as a religious debate and if you ever try to oppose global warming, you are a skeptic, you are a non-believer! You're ostracized but that is not really the issue. The issue is the fact that you are telling the truth and you're trying to oppose global genocide, which is actually the truth behind the matter. You're trying to stop Prince Philip's plans. You're trying to stop the degeneration of the world from 6.7 to 2 billion people.

And we do have problems with pollution in places—yes—but that is pollution, stuff that gets stuck in the rivers and so forth and in the air that shouldn't be there. But you use various types of technology to deal with that. We have done that. You can do that stuff, but, if you want to pick on a real greenhouse gas, why not pick on water vapour, there's tons of it! Because it's not sexy!

Question 13 - Sleiman Yohanna, Melbourne, VIC

My question is: Under our current Parliamentary system, can we impeach the Prime Minister for the damage he is doing to our nation through carbon trading and other policies which are destroying our economy?

Craig: The only person that can impeach the Prime Minister, is going to be the Queen or her Governor-General, and he is doing such a great job for her in ruining our country, that I doubt that that is going to be possible. Look, the issue is actually having the guts to tell the truth and to come out and organise even when it is uncomfortable. Because being in politics these days, you have to deal with masses of ignorant people that believe in popular opinion, so consequently, can we impeach the Prime Minister? We can impeach him by voting him out, by developing and supporting another political organisation that has got the record on the board, on the policy issues that will save our country, and replace him>—not just replace him, but replace the entire rotten, smelly system. And that is what we are about. So, the Queen can sack him at any time, but I don't think that's going to happen.

Question 14 - Doug Mitchell, LYM Australia, Melbourne, VIC

Hi Craig, You laid out a profound scientific task for Australia with the emphasis on developing the full use of our resources which will take many years. In the organizing, there are many unscientific young people who can't have a rational discussion about nuclear. They think solar is the answer. How are we going to educate our young people to be optimistic and to develop a scientific method instead of being blind believers?

Craig: Again, it comes back to telling the truth and sticking to it. And also, organising around profound ideas and letting the consequences of not making the decisions necessary to make mankind's survival assured, hit them in the head.

Now, we can only do what we can do. We can pour in as much of our time, effort or whatever, telling the truth, publishing literature, leading the horse to water, but the proverbial is that you cannot make him drink, but we live in a world that has real consequences. We live in a world where the global financial disintegration is going to have incredibly important personal consequences for many, many people. So consequently our organization, and even for young people, the same thing—tell the truth, provide the alternative and just keep on doing it! Don't worry about how many bums on seats at any one particular time. If we ever did that in our organisation we would have gone out of business. We tell the truth, we get the message out as best we can and we try and get as many people as possible to join us to do the same thing.

But I think the other thing is, you have to really look to Mr. LaRouche's work, and discover the optimism that he has. Now I have been through some pretty heavy stuff tonight and I've laid out some pretty frightening scenarios for those who are listening, but Mr. LaRouche is the eternal optimist!

Now, figure it out, how can that be? Well, because he always knows there is a potential for change in people—that is the thing about people, they can change! And under the mass strike conditions that we are in here in Australia, what is happening today is not going to be the same as tomorrow; it's not going to be the same as the next day. We don't know where the next breakout is going to come, so from that point of view, what can we do? Tell the truth, don't deviate, don't worry about popular opinion and just stand firm and if people want to join us in that, we should welcome them with open arms and don't worry about their foibles—just bring them in—because we represent an optimistic movement for this country, as what I have laid out with the great development projects. We can do this! We can do this. The question is: do you want to? Do you think that we can beat the Crown? And that is why it requires some pretty serious thought about what I have raised over the course of tonight, because these are new ideas for some, and it puts you guys, the ones that are listening on the Webcast and in this audience tonight, on the mat. What are you going to do? Do more than you are doing today, and that will be one very good step forward.

Thanks very much.

Moderator: I would like to thank everybody who is watching tonight both in the audience and over the internet, and I urge all of you who are not already members of the CEC to visit our website, visit our on-line store and join us as a member, become a subscriber to one of our publications, and even more importantly, become an activist with the CEC, which actually means becoming a part of the new leadership of this country.

Through the course of this week, LaRouche described the fact that we are on the verge of a complete change in politics on a planetary scale, including the probable break-up of the British Empire, and Australia can play an incredible role in that. It is very obvious from what Craig went through tonight, from the events in politics here in the recent weeks, of the likes we haven't seen for many decades in this country, that we have all of the elements of real politics taking shape in this country with an awakened citizenry, but not just people waking up enraged, railing against their leaders, but a population that is being inspired with real ideas, with real leadership—being educated and being mobilised.

I'd like to end with the words of King O'Malley, the founder of our Commonwealth Bank, because he foreshadowed that Australia could make a major shift, worldwide. He said that when Australians wake up good and proper one day, then let the rest of world look this way, there'll be something to see, that I promise you.

Thanks very much and we'll see you again soon.