Here is a transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's remarks and the Q&A session, at the May 1-2 CEC Activist’s Workshop. The panel was moderated by CEC leader Craig Isherwood.

Craig: It's really quite something to see so many people gathered from all the states and territories of Australia in this room, but I think it's even a greater privilege to be able to introduce to you the world's foremost physical economist and leader, particularly in this period of rather dangerous and precarious time. Mr LaRouche is the author of the Four Powers agreement, and the call for a global Glass-Steagall, and quite appropriate, given that we're in the Pacific region, the region that is actually showing the fastest economic growth, that we've been able to have the privilege of Mr LaRouche join us today, and speak to us direct and live. And hopefully at the end of Mr LaRouche's presentation, we might be able to take one or two questions, depending on his time.

So Lyn, I'd like to welcome you to Australia. It's been quite a long time, and we're all eager to hear what you have to say to us this morning.

Lyn: OK, fine. [Applause] Well, as I believe most of you know from there, that what we're engaged in from the United States and from Europe, is the transformation of the organisation of the world's economy, using the United States' experience, in particular for this purpose, to launch a reorganisation of a, what is now a totally bankrupt and hopelessly bankrupt, world economy in general, as we see particularly in Europe, to reorganise it in a form in which humanity can do quite nicely. I cannot promise a wonderful paradise for everyone instantly. It will take about two generations of development under a good program before we can say that we are really out of the mess and back to the kind of things we should desire. There are a lot of investments which have to be made as a ground-basis for these improvements.

But what we have essentially now is we have four powers which are in the picture, though there are problems among them which tend to obstruct this solution. They are the United States, Russia, China, and India, countries with whom you are quite familiar as to their general roles in the universe. There are other countries involved, but presently Europe's in a hopeless mess, there are possibilities of a recovery, but they depend upon Europe getting out of the euro, at least continental Europe getting out of the euro, but it needs an environment for Europe getting out of the euro, which includes the suitable kind of arrangements among Russia, China India, and the United States, and other countries, which will be immediately associated.

Now one of those countries, as you know, which has a very significant potential relative to this, is Australia. The fact of the matter is, that the Pacific Rim area, the western Pacific Rim, of which Australia shuts in on quite obviously, that this [interruption] the situation here is that Australia has certain, among other things, certain raw materials, such as thorium, and uranium, and other things. And this is sitting there, whereas to the north of Australia, you have in particular, Russia has something of the same nature of things, China has a shortage of this sort of thing, from the standpoint of the needs of Eurasia as a whole, India has a shortage of this sort of thing, other countries of this southern tier of Asia have shortages. We have countries such as Japan, which has a very important technological contribution to make. We have also South Korea, in particular, which has a remarkable capability for such a small nation. We have also the great market of the eastern part of Russia, in particular in terms of the development of mineral resources, and the transportation systems which are needed to transform these mineral resources, into supplies, or developed supplies, for the use of China, or India, and for other countries on the southern rim of Asia. And that's where Australia comes in, as one of the nations, the island nation, so to speak, which has a good deal of this sort of thing, which really has a great market for a condition of growth, in Eurasia.

Now, Europe depends on that, but Europe cannot initiate this. Only the United States, with its history, has the specific kinds of law, which can be quickly brought out of the closet, for this purpose of global organisation. Our constitution is not a European constitution. Our law as founded, our constitution as founded has no resemblance to the typical laws of Europe, which are actually so-called parliamentary systems. And parliamentary systems are actually an outgrowth of imperialism, with some effort to make some improvements or make imperialism more tolerable, imperialism being essentially monetarist imperialism. So Europe requires a role to be freed of the euro, but without getting out of the euro there's no hope for continental Europe, none. No recovery is possible. They have to get out of the euro anyway, they have to restore a system of sovereign nation-states, under a fixed-exchange-rate for the world, and under a Glass-Steagall standard, for cleaning up this mess we call the banking system. The present banking system of the world, is so bankrupt, at present, with so much toilet paper in there, really not negotiable, that it would be impossible to restart the world economy, in any normal form, as long as that toilet paper is jamming up the works of the economy. Therefore you require two things: First of all you require a Glass-Steagall reform. That is like the U.S. Glass-Steagall reform of Franklin Roosevelt. You need also, not only that kind of reform, in each and every country, to just throw away these illegitimate financial claims, which are based on fraudulent methods. But you also need a reform of a financial system, which will meet these needs of the world for development. And that means you need a combination of a Glass-Steagall reform, extended to a global reform, which then reorganises the way in which the world works, to eliminate these fraudulent kinds of things, and go back to what we would consider a solid, competent, merchant-type banking system. Which then has to operate, as Roosevelt specified, on an international, fixed-exchange-rate system. Only in that way, with a fixed-exchange-rate system, and with a Glass-Steagall control-type of banking system, can you utter credit at the approximately two per cent in international markets—two per cent per annum—needed to start a general recovery of the world economy. The principal driver for a recovery, as we see in excellent efforts in Asia, for example in China, and in India—they have very many poor people, and very unskilled people, in China, and in India, for example. So could you make a successful modern economy with people who lack the essential skills necessary to produce a modern economy? Well, what you can do, is you can concentrate on infrastructural investments, that by themselves will both increase the productive powers of labor through infrastructure, water, power, and so forth, all these things that mean that working people who are poor can increase their productivity through the benefits of access to power, cheap power, access to infrastructure generally. And therefore, then we can use the infrastructure investments, which will benefit, say, the poor of China, infrastructure such as large-scale transportation systems, modern transportation systems, high-density power systems—nuclear power systems, these kinds of things, this now creates the environment, for bringing in some of these otherwise very poor people, unskilled people, into employment in industries whose market is the development of the infrastructural systems. That's our general opportunity.

This all requires, first of all, global, large-scale infrastructure development: transportation, power, sanitation, water, and also building the basis for agricultural systems. Because otherwise, without that development, we do not have an adequate food supply for a population which is now running toward 6.7 billion people. So this is our general operation.

And I think that Australia quite naturally with a government which is friendly to this operation could readily take its trading, Australia's natural trading position because of its assets and its relationship to Asia, in particular, and to some degree to Africa, and turn that into a transformation of the economy of Australia. You have an island nation, and island continent nation, which is sitting there, with a very poor degree of development per square kilometre of territory, but with the potential for a very rapid development of both the market, and the infrastructure development, within the continent. And so, it is quite natural that we should be thinking in those kinds of terms. New Zealand of course is a different case, but when one talks about Australia, many people think about New Zealand too. But it's a somewhat different case, as you know.

So, this I think is our general perspective; the other aspect is more on the human side. What's our conception of mankind? Right now I think the conception of mankind is rather bestialised. It's bestialised particularly by the kinds of financial systems which are controlling the world, which are parasites sucking the blood of the world. These things can be put out of business to a large degree, by adopting a Glass-Steagall form of reform. That everything that does not meet a sensible standard of public and private finance, should be just shut down, as a parasite on society. And then with that reduced amount of claims by financial institutions, we can proceed to utter new credit, by nation-states, as the credit promised by nation-states, and use that credit for large-scale development projects. Use that through the medium of basic economic infrastructure, and turn around with that, and then develop other agriculture and industries, on the basis of the markets created by the infrastructure, not only markets for goods, but the opportunities for employment, employment which is required for the installation of infrastructure. And the industries which are revived, agriculture which is revived, by infrastructure programs, in this way, now become the seeds for the development of an economy.

The additional problem which has to be principally considered is the fact of the lack of cultural skills, of relevant cultural skills, by much of the population. We have, for example in the United States, in the generation which is now under 25 in particular, and many others, these people have no skills whatsoever. They are associated with the drug and other kinds of, depraved kinds of lifestyle, without any sense of a future, no purpose, no stable family relationships, no stable communities. And this is a very large part of the population as a whole, as in the United States or in Europe. We have many people, an increasing percentile of the total population, which is utterly useless, from an economic standpoint. One of our main challenges is to make this population useful. And we have to be patient about this, we have to go to programs like the U.S. used in the 1930s as the Civilian Conservation Corp, to take some of these young fellows, who just really are not, are asocial, and put them through constructive programs, as in military-style camps, where they are taken out of the environment which they were raised in, which is now a polluted environment, culturally, moved them into areas where they are given an opportunity to function in a different environment, one of productivity, and as we found during the 1930s in the United States with programs such as the WPA, and the CCC, we find that young people, once taken out of the slums, taken out of these depraved conditions, and given a few of experience, experiencing the opportunity of a real life, they suddenly become quite productive people. We had a case of very poor people in the state of Michigan, who were in the Civilian Conservation Corp, and they became a very important division, military division, in the conduct of WWII. That's typical of the kind of transformation.

But it means we have to, on the other, one side, be very—have a sense of urgency about this kind of reform, but a sense of prudent patience, about demanding the results we would like. The first result is to socialise the sections of the population, particularly the young population, which have been totally driven into depravity, and to rescue them from a depraved environment, depraved circumstances of life, and a lack of meaningful opportunities for development, into an area where they, with some degree of discipline, acquire the orientation and skills to become productive citizens. And that could be done fairly soon, if you're willing to wait a few years before you get anything you might consider results. But it's what we have to do.

We have to do this in Africa, for example, where you have large areas which are—it's hopeless from a normal view of a productive economy. These poor people have very little. The African population is largely agricultural, but an opportunity to develop agriculture, and to profit from it, is almost nil. So therefore we have a big rebuilding process, among the nations of Africa, of that type.

So we have to take this kind of view. Have a mainstream thrust: reform the world system—it's bankrupt now, it's hopelessly bankrupt. If we don't change it, the world's going to hell. Therefore we change it. We mobilise the willing to change it. The United States is intrinsically willing. The great majority of the United States, the ordinary people, maybe not some of the politicians, but the ordinary people, want a change. They desperately want it now. You have in Europe, continental Europe, a similar situation. Hmm? You have in Russia, a rather desperate situation. The lack of development of industry. The Russian nation, it has actually scientific and related skills, which they are not using. China is progressing nicely in its own terms, but if the United States and western Europe go down, as they may go down within the current weeks, then the situation of Russia and China and India will become hopeless, because if the trans-Atlantic section of the world economy goes down, which is what's threatened right now, then the world as a whole cannot be supported. No matter what's done that's good in Russia or what's done that's good in China, economically, or what's done in India, these countries cannot sustain themselves, independently of some kind of development with the rest of the world. And that would mean that the Pacific Rim area, the western Pacific Rim, also becomes threatened by a breakdown of the same type which originates now, admittedly in the trans-Atlantic region. And that's where we stand.

So you have the question of cultural optimism, as I think you know that very well, in Australia, and the question of cultural optimism is extremely important in the way the labour force and the citizenry think. And we have to be giving these people a justified sense of optimism about the future for themselves and their families. And we've got to go beyond the idea that your grandchildren might survive, which is a rather poor standard. We have to think of humanity as a, not a noble beast, but something better than a beast. I'm dealing now with scientific work, which involves the development of the solar system. This is not a cheap shot, it's a long-term program, but you have to get the various steps in progress now. And this area of investment involves the highest and most productive form of technology we know. In other words, the minute you start to talk about putting man into space, and you begin to develop a research program to put man successfully into space, you immediately are forced to go into areas of research and development which will give you the greatest possible gain in the productive powers of labour. That was our experience in the case of the U.S. program, especially from the time of the Kennedy launching of the space program, the moon-landing program, up until the actual fulfilment of the moon-landing program, at which point the whole thing was starting to collapse already. But we were getting 10 cents worth of productivity out of every penny we spent on the space program. This was the highest-gain program that the planet has known, of any sustained and extensive quality.

And therefore a country like Australia, which also has a space program capability of some importance, should consider the enlargement of the space program in cooperation with other countries which are involved with the same thing. Because Australia has a perfectly unique capability in this respect, in terms of territory, and in terms of a population which does have some of the ingredients necessary to conduct such a program. And which goes together with the benefit of opening up the large resources of uranium and thorium, and other metals, which are in the Australian soil. And Australia is a very important potential supplier of these, for an Asia in particular, which is right now extremely hungry in its potential demand for precisely these kinds of mineral resources, which Australia can very well, not only dig out, but refine and develop into useful forms, and play a very important, integral part in this revival of the entire region.

These are the kinds of things that I'm mostly concerned about, in terms of the economy as such. We are in a situation right now, in which there's a glimmer, of more than hope, that we might be able to be rid of this current President, soon. This President is now under attack, for offences which are, arguably, well-defined crimes. We have already had, in the past couple of weeks, a sudden emergence of development, as with a recent hearing before the Congress, which raised the question of criminal practices, by Wall Street, Goldman Sachs specifically. We also have, at the same time, another flank, where the attack is on the defined criminality of operations by some of the same and other firms of Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, of course. So now we have, we're now in a pincers, where because of lies which the President of the United States has been caught red-handed in, major lies, by him personally, this fellow is ready for impeachment. And as we say in the United States, referring back to the Nixon administration, we often, the way we impeach a President, is not by the crimes which he's caught red-handed in, but the lies he uses to cover up those crimes. And that's exactly the situation which we have now. The current President of the United States is now in the danger of being impeached, or ushered out of office by some compromise, because, not only because he is associated with crimes, in his practices, the practices of his administration, but lying about them. And that's what's likely to set him up. And in the past week in particular, since the beginning of the week, the heat has built up at a rapid rate. The landslide is beginning to accelerate. I can't guarantee it, but I tell you we're very close to the point that this bozo, as we say, is about to be out of office.

And that's I think is our primary global perspective, looking at it from the standpoint of Australia. We know what the situation is globally. There's a general breakdown crisis of the economy of the entire planet. Things cannot go on this way. And this is not something for years down the line, this is something right now this year, this month, and next month. The crisis is immediate. You're in a situation where potentially, this President could be out of office in the United States very soon. That would mean the elimination of the whole crew personally associated with him. It would mean also that people like Hillary Clinton and other people who are, shall we say, more standard types of federal representatives, would have to step in and take over the management of government. It would mean, probably, that the relations with China, India, and Russia, would improve greatly.

At the same time we have a situation in Europe right now, in which the silly thing was done. The breakdown of the European Union, or the euro system, is actually centred in the British system, because Lord Rothschild, Jacob Rothschild, in 1971, the same year the fixed-exchange-rate system was shut down, started what became known as the Inter-Alpha system of banking, of finance, which runs some of the fastest high-binder rackets in the world. This now is the real power of the British financial system, and also the Spanish, Portugal and Brazil system. This system is based among Russian types, criminal Russian types, who are to be found chiefly in among the Caribbean pirates of Antigua, the Cayman Islands, and so forth. Your have major Russian interests, financial interests, corporate financial interests, which do not have their headquarters in Russia, but for purposes of tax avoidance are rooted in the Antilles of the Caribbean. So you've got a bunch of crooks. There's now a confrontation between these crooks of this type, of the Gorbachev, Chubais type, and Russians who are patriots, as opposed to these types, Russians who are patriots, who wish to see the infrastructural and economic development of Russia proceed. Which means large-scale railroad systems, and similar kinds of systems, large-scale industries, intense cooperation with China, and India, and other countries in development of this whole region.

At the time when the Greek situation, which is now at the point of crisis which threatens the breakdown of the entire euro system, was made a mess of by the British, who tried to avoid the crisis in Spain, and in Portugal, and in Brazil, by calling the attention on an attempted bail-out prospect for Greece. There should have been no attempted bail-out process for Greece. Greece's problems should have been treated in a normal way. It could work its way through a partial bankruptcy of elements of its system, in a normal way, as it could as a nation-state. But instead they decided to make a great speculation in the Greek debt, as a way of trying to avoid revealing the debts, great debts, which are actually the British system's debts, that is the Inter-Alpha Group of Lord Jacob Rothschild and company, to avoid that, of Spain, Portugal and, chiefly, Brazil. Which also spills over among the racketeers from Russia and elsewhere, in the Caribbean.

So therefore, in the effort to avoid dealing with the real problems, which are primarily British problems, what they have done is they took a $40-odd billion euro debt of Greece, and they've transported it into the elevated value of approaching $200 billion. So the chances of bailing out Greece under those terms is virtually impossible. The only way it could be done is to cut Greece free, and to let it deal with its debt, in what it would have done as a sovereign nation-state, rather than a member of the euro system. Germany also has a crisis of that nature. France is less affected, but it is very strongly affected, nonetheless. Italy is strongly affected, though it's less obvious.

So therefore we have this kind of general breakdown of the world system, but, in my view, the only way you get out of this mess is have the current President of the United States, whose a hopeless case, that is he's incorrigible, you can't make this man a useful figure in government, you have to say he's sick, he's a disease more than a President, and you have to find some way to quietly get him moved out of office, and bring in a more normal sort of U.S. Presidential system. And I think that can be done.

If we did that, and if we get cooperation between the United States, Russia, China, India, and that means also Japan, and South Korea and so forth, and some other countries, then I think we can launch the initiation of a general reform of the world's present economic systems, in the form of a Glass-Steagall, fixed-exchange-rate system among nations, as Franklin Roosevelt had intended had he lived, and Truman had not replace him. That is possible now. As I said before, this is not something by which you're going to get rich quickly, but there's a difference between living, and dying. And that's the difference. If we make this kind of reform, civilisation will live. If we don't make this kind of reform, civilisation will die.

And I think that Australia has a very significant place in the process of this revival. Some of the things are obvious to you—you know what the assets are, of Australia, and how these assets would fit into this kind of program. You know some of the things which were not done in Australia, which should have been done, which under these kinds of circumstances, such as the Snowy River and so forth, could be done, still, which would be the beginning of some very important improvements in the productive powers of labor and conditions of life in Australia. So why not do it? Why not have a great time? You're not going to get that rich all of a sudden, but you're going to have a good life, with the sense that your children's generation have something meaningful waiting for them down, say two generations down the line, and a constant improvement in the conditions of life, in the meantime.

Now that's my general message. [Applause]

- DIALOGUE WITH LAROUCHE -

Craig: Thanks very much Lyn. How is your time?

Lyn: Go ahead, have fun.

Craig: OK, we will, because we have a room of about 115 people, and this is an invitation-only conference, of activists who are passionately wanting to take your message, particularly the idea of rebuilding our country, developing the large-scale infrastructure projects, taking it to the streets. Because I think you've indicated before, in past addresses, that one of the things that Australians do respond to, is this idea of developing our country. So if you want to ask Lyn a question, come up to the front, and ask whatever you like.

Question: I'm Jim Hazzard from Toowoomba Qld. Lyn, if and when you get rid of Obama, who or what did you have in mind to replace him, and how do you know that he will follow the LaRouche plan?

Lyn: Well, what's happening is that we've had a number of developments in recent months, especially since about March of last year. And my position today is significantly greatly improved, over that of an earlier period. Because as you also know, I've had some periods in the past, in my past life, particularly during the course of the 1970s and 1980s, where I was involved as a central figure in great power, not only in the United States but internationally, in terms of the SDI project, and other things of that nature, and in certain scientific projects, including space program undertakings. So I'm not unused to wielding a significant influence in great power. And today, again, in a somewhat different form, but nonetheless, as I would say, look at it this way: you have certain, suppose you take out all of the specific elements of the Obama administration which are specifically Obama, which come in and represent the Obama administration. If you pull those things out, and many of them would go with an impeachment-like process, which is already in motion now—as to whether the impeachment process is going to succeed or not, that I cannot guarantee, but I can say it is a highly likely opportunity, and it's now, it's not down the line, a year from now, even six months from now, it's now, it's already in process.

The impeachment of President Obama has been put into process this past week—that's the change. And I've been working for this for some time. Other people have been working independently. Our efforts converge. There are also aspects of European contact which will also go along with this, there's no question about it. We're having various conferences, we have assembled a pack of leading economists of the United States, that is the competent variety, which represent a competence for this. And if I look at the U.S. system, as I know the U.S. system, which most outsiders do not, the U.S. Presidential system is the system of the United States. We do not have a parliamentary system, although some people try to make us that. Our system is a Presidential system, and this includes not only the President of the United States, and his immediate associates, and officers, but it includes a vast army, of all kinds of federal institutions, because our government is not a parliamentary government. It's a federal government, a Presidential system, with, attached, balancing forces, which are part of the parliament, of parliamentary systems, but a congressional system. So the congress is powerful, as a balancing force, but the leadership of the United States lies not in a legislative system, but in a Presidential system. This includes all those institutions which, from day to day, run the United States as a federal government. Which are not the parliament, not as the Congress, it's not a parliament.

If we take those elements which are specifically Barack Obama elements, or Barack Obama closely-tied elements, if those are removed from government, who comes into office? Well first of all the Vice-President—he automatically comes in. Now he's not the quickest on the draw on everything, to the best effect at all times, but a President, particularly in these conditions, may exert great power as a President, but he's also controlled by the Presidential environment of the executive branch.

Now, then you have the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. She has a group of associates, of people in the government, who are associated with defense, and with diplomacy, which is itself a very, the highest ranking, after the President himself, the highest ranking aspect of the U.S. federal government. Then you have the mass of people, and the popularity of President Obama is getting into negative numbers, that is, the opposition to Obama, among the popular mass of people, far outnumbers any sympathy for Obama, in the mass of people. They despise him. They despise those members of the Congress who support him even more than they despise the President. So what would happen in the case of the current President's withdrawal from government, would be the current Vice-President and a team, which includes, prominently, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, would be the new tenor of government.

This would involve things you see, in the initiatives of Hillary Clinton, for example, which are in a direction contrary to that of the Obama administration. You see her negotiations as Secretary of State, diplomacy in various areas—quite different. Obama puts up with it, because there is a certain balance of power within the executive branch. And I am a very significant part of the intellectual aspect of this plan for mobilising the United States for a very sudden and very significant and very fortunate change to this practice. [Applause]

Question: Callum Payne here. Is the present Vice President likely to take over, or does he go with Obama, and who in your opinion might be the succeeding President.

Lyn: Well, what's likely to be, I think, and this is a rather wild one for some people's opinion, but he would, the Vice President takes over automatically. He's not a captive of Obama, personally. He was a long time a leading senator in the system, and he's quite experienced. Sometime says or makes a lot of booboos or fluffs, but nonetheless he is a qualified representative of a long legislative experience in the Senate, and is knowledgeable and has all the kinds of contacts you'd want. And he's a man who's likely to be very strongly advised by his associates, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of other things, and they form now a rather cohesive party of leadership in the United States.

The other important thing, although I'm very much involved in these questions of international security, and also foreign relations, as my dealings with Russia, my dealings with China, which I like the China situation very much, as something to deal with. There are things in Russia which I think are very useful, things in India which I admire very much. So I don't have much of a problem, my point of view is I know how we can cooperate with one another, under terms of self-interest. It's not really a problem. To find the problems, fight your way through, sort it out and so forth—we can do a good job, and it will work. So we have this potential.

The problem is, in Europe, well, right now continental Europe is not worth much. It's not capable of doing anything, under the euro. But the euro system is bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt right now, it's unsalvageable—it cannot be saved. It's doomed. Well, if the Europeans want to survive, they're going to get out of the euro. There's now an important movement inside Germany to get out of the euro. The Greek crisis has been a great incentive for Europeans to get out of the euro. France has a strong impulse to get out of the euro, not as strong as Germany right now, or as Italy, but it's a strong one.

So, we have a real opportunity before us, if Obama goes, and if he goes soon. And since it looks like he might go soon, and since I'm sort of on the inside of some of these things, I'm very confident the thing will work quite nicely. It will be a lot of problems, no question, but all government is a lot of problems. But you have to look at the net effect: despite all of the problems, do you think it will work? Yes, there are tremendous problems, but I think it can be made to work. And it's the thing that we've got to do. We've got to take the opportunity represented by getting Obama out of there, to do the things which mean going back to work. [Applause].

Question 3: My name is Costas Glumaz from Eton, NSW. All these crimes committed on 9-11 and these monstrosities all over the world, can we have, or is it possible to have another trial of Nuremburg, because I'm quite sure that truth is going to win in the end and we have to set an example for people, that if they do crimes like this, they have to be punished? That's my first question. My second question is, is it possible for Australia to become another state of the United States [laughter]?

Lyn: Of the latter question, I don't think the idea would sell very well in Australia! [more laughter] On the first question, we can do quite nicely. I believe in a system of sovereign nation states which are each respectively sovereign, but united in cooperation by certain conditions. One condition is of course, to be civilised; that helps a great deal. But then, we need a financial monetary etc. system, an economic system which is essentially consistent with what Franklin Roosevelt understood in the two great reforms that he installed, and unfortunately were scrambled by his death.

The first was Glass-Steagall which he did in the immediate period of coming into office and the Glass-Steagall provision which is actually in the Hamilton tradition, in point of fact, is the only way today that you could organise a banking system or recreate a banking system which is competent. Okay, then what Roosevelt did is, secondly, in 1944 at Bretton Woods, he set up the design for a post-war system of money, a system of cooperation on credit, based on a fixed exchange rate system for the nations of the world. Now that is absolutely essential in this case, because we must ensure, since we are looking for a 2% rate of basic interest rate internationally on long-term credit, especially for infrastructure. Therefore we want to ensure that currencies do not fluctuate, so that 2% becomes 5% for some nations, at which point the whole program goes into default.

So therefore, we need a fixed exchange rate system among respectively sovereign credit systems which means also sovereign currencies, so the sovereignty of the nation which is a cultural question, which goes down to the children and the language and so forth in history, and it is in these things which are the history of a people, language and culture especially, that this is the identity of a nation. So to try to amalgamate nations into an international, political system, is a mistake. What you want to do is create an international credit system which can unite nations around common cause and common purposes, while leaving their sovereignty as nations in tact, in other respects and that distinction I think is extremely important now, as it was in the past.

Question 4: Good evening Lyn. It's Rod Doel from Melbourne, Victoria. Being a colony of England, we have had this nasty little war on our doorstep in Sri Lanka, that has been pushed by these influences. My question is that, with your experience in foreign relations, what's a short precise of the history of Sri Lanka, and as a foreign policy for Australia to deal with these situations? These nasty little hot spots are constantly cropping up and the media really flogs this idea of a refugee crisis.

Lyn: I understand. The problem has been, and this is of course what the British Empire has used since it's been an empire, and this was emphasised by Bismarck. Remember, what happened is: go back to 1783. The United States had secured its independence through warfare and it had done this through an alliance with Spain, with France and with the support of the League of Armed Neutrality, whose strong force was that of the Emperors of Russia. Then if you look back, look beyond that, between 1783 and later on, and the emergence of Napoleon. What the British did, the British created the situation in which the fall of France occurred. Spain, which had been an ally of the Atlantic states was destroyed in terms of its political system; Russia was destroyed as all of continental Europe was destroyed, chiefly by Napoleonic wars.

Now despite what the French do, in Paris, in entombing Napoleon Bonaparte's corpse, Napoleon was actually, in fact, an agent of British interest, not because he thought he was an agent of British interest, but because he was a damn fool who was used by the British. He made war throughout the entire continent of Europe. This war, the Napoleonic wars in particular, destroyed Europe together with the French Revolution—destroyed Europe to the effect, that Europe became a vassal, a lackey of the British Empire. Later, after 1890, when Bismarck had been kicked out by orders of the Prince of Britain, the British Prince, from that point Bismarck observed correctly, that the way in which Britain had acquired its power, which was through the Seven Years War, where these nations of Europe fought each other, and Britain came out with an Empire—not the British nation, but the British East India Company of Lord Shelburne and company.

So that method, which is always the British foreign office method, was playing people against each other, nations against each other, for the greater glory and greater power of Britain.

You look at the history since that time, so the instinct of the Empire itself, and the Empire is not the British people, it's something that is sitting on top of them—it's as much Venetian as anything else. For example, you had Lord Jacob Rothschild set up his system for the Queen in 1971. This was set up by Rothschild for the British Queen at the point that the system was going into a crisis—by the Nixon administration's cancellation of the fixed exchange rate system. So now, Rothschilds was called the Inter-Alpha Group which operates out of a carry trade in Brazil, and is now become effectively, the key instrument of the British Empire—the British monarchy's assets, financial and rated assets, are all in the hands of this group which is associated with the work of Jacob Rothschild. Rothschild is not the Emperor of Britain, but he is the tool of the British Empire as an Empire, which is not located among the English people, the Scottish people, the Welsh people, or the Irish; it's located in an international financier power whose origin is in the British East India Company. The British East India Company was broken and absorbed by the British Monarchy, but it was like who absorbed whom! Actually, it was the British Monarchy as an imperial monarchy under Victoria, which was absorbed by the same financial interests which had exerted a monopolistic control over the British Empire. So now the British Empire was transformed into an instrument of the Monarchy, by making the Monarchy dependent on its role as an instrument of an Empire, of this type.

So, this is the nature of the problem and if we recognise that thing, we will not go into stupid long wars which kill a lot of people and end up leaving the world ruined by war and with the people and nations ruined by the economic effects of warfare, which is the condition we have seen in the world ever since 1763 with the conclusion of the Peace of Paris, the conclusion of the Seven Years War. And that is what Bismarck referred to: he said we are going now into a new Seven Years War! What's he talking about? He's talking about World War I. What was World War I? Well, it started with the British Crown Prince negotiating with the Mikado and organising what became a permanent state of warfare between the British and the ally Chinese of the British and Japan and Russia, and that war between Japan, on the one side, and against China and Russia, continued until August of 1945.

So, the big problem we have today is that most of the operations, such as those operated out of, shall we say Dubai, which is one of the great criminal centres of the world, orchestrated by international drug operations, organised in various parts of the world by financial operations, that wars are organised—like the two Iraq wars, the Afghanistan war, both what was started at the end of the 1970s and which has continued in one form or the other to the present—these wars, these perpetual wars are organised by international financial institutions which act as agents of Empire, by playing sovereign nations against each other, in the same way that the Seven Years War destroyed Europe, and the way in which the Napoleonic Wars destroyed the whole continent of Europe. And continental Europe played the role of a sucker repeatedly again and again and again.

Now, this time I would hope if we get free of this present mess, that that will not happen again, because if I have any say in this matter, and I think I would have some say if this reform occurs, we are not going to have any more long wars in Asia or other places. We are not going to play the fool of fighting wars in an arena like these crazy killers of the gladiators in the Roman arena, and the world as a large has played the role of gladiators of the Roman arena for the amusement and greater glory of an imperial financier force, and my view is, we will settle that issue by setting up a global system of a fixed exchange rate system [tape break] finance for banking and a fixed exchange rate system as Roosevelt had intended had he lived beyond the time of his death. And by doing that now, and teaching people to look at the history and say, here's how you became damned fools again and again and again. How let's cut it out! Don't be a damned fool any more. And whether we succeed or not, depends largely upon whether we can convince nations to understand what a damned fool is, and not be one.

Question 5: Hi Lyn, this is Glen from the Youth Movement here in Melbourne. I have two questions. The first one is about this disease we suffer from called environmentalism. Australia has a bad case of it! Right now in the media there is a lot of propaganda to convince everyone that Australia has too many people—22 million! [Lyn laughs heartily!] But apparently we are getting overcrowded. There is a lot of this talk and when I was doing some work on the origins of the environmental movement back last year, I traced it from the origin of Malthus to the Liberal imperial circles around the Cecil Rhodes Roundtable, and that spun off into the Fabian Society and other off-shoots, and one of the things, is I found I couldn't really understand some of the connections, like the role of people like Tony Blair today and the soft imperialism of the Fabians today. I don't fully understand how the Fabians operate in this whole mixture, so that is my first question if you could elaborate on that.

The second question on another subject is… [laughter] You see I don't get you that often you know! [more hearty laughter from Lyn] The second question is about Vernadsky and you wrote some years ago about your discovery in physical economy, being very similar to the elaboration of Vernadsky's discoveries. I am wondering how do you see your work as a continuation from Vernadsky's work and completing what Vernadsky was not able to complete? Thanks Lyn.

Lyn: Well, generally, I think we are not going to be stupid anymore. But on Vernadsky which is extremely important, my work is not based on Vernadsky; rather I adopted Vernadsky or recognised the value of Vernadsky's work in the course of my own development earlier than that, that is why my conversion, shall we say, to a fuller understanding of the work of my dear friend in the idea of what an economy is. But Vernadsky from that standpoint, especially all during the 1970s, the course of the 1970s and so forth, had an increasing influence on me in terms of his discovery. I knew of his work earlier, but I had mixed signals on what some of his writings were, or what the interpretation of his writings were, but then by the 1970s I had a very clear idea of what his discoveries meant independently of any secondary sources, and so I recognised that he was one of the great members of the 1890s launching of what became known as the modern society of physical chemistry. And physical chemistry is quite different than so-called mathematical physics or what is called just plain "physics". Physical chemistry is the concept in which there is no distinction, the categorical distinction among space, time and matter-the whole thing is one thing which are inseparable, and that doesn't represent a problem, in the tradition of Riemann, which is really where my work begins. And that is the general picture of it.

So, Vernadsky is extremely important as the development in physical science because what he does, which really goes back to the course of the 17th Century in the conclusions of Johannes Kepler, and a Johannes Kepler who is understood from the standpoint of Albert Einstein. So you have this development, and Vernadsky is one of the key figures in the development of physical chemistry—he and William Draper Harkins and other people who are of that category, and any competent science today is actually based on that concept of physical chemistry, including economics. In fact, financial aspects, monetary aspects of economy are significant, but they are not the primary basis for economy. They are not the way to design a competent economy. They are a way which you deal with the management of an economy, but not its design, not its intent, not its purpose. The intent is largely human, and the human intent and its realisation is largely associated with physical chemistry as Harkins and Vernadsky typify most, and also Einstein and to some degree Max Plank is crucial in this thing also. So that is what I am recruited to.

In terms of the reforms generally, otherwise, as I said before, in answers before, I would stand by that on the first part of your question.

Question 6: My name is Vincento Zumbo and I want to ask a question about the education of the masses in Australia because they are very, very poor. And the second one, is how can we change the medical system in this country to put [unclear] into the system, because if we want to make a healthy state here, we have to change the system?

Lyn: I think homeopathy is not necessarily a crucial consideration, but what is needed essentially is a general medical practice and scientific support for that practice, which is based on the model of the Hill-Burton system which operated in the United States until it was destroyed by the HMO system essentially, under Nixon. These systems which were good national systems, were actually a product of the experience of modern nations in warfare. This of course goes back essentially to [Ambrose?] in the Middle Ages etc. but in the modern warfare, especially World War I and II, and especially coming out of WWII where I was there in service at that time, what we did at the end of the war, we took the combat system of health care and we made a national system of it in the United States in the form of the Hill-Burton system.

What we did, is we specified that every county in the United States would meet a certain requirement in terms of specifications for numbers of physicians, number of beds and so forth, and the Federal government would back it up so it would include all kinds of private medical practice, as a coordinating agency. That worked excellently! We had less than two percent overload in terms of cost on top of direct medical costs of the system, in the system. What happened under Nixon generally, we had a system which then turned over, took this thing away from the power of the system it established-and the system we'd established in the United States, was based on our wartime experience in organising a medical system to support all the functions of a medical system under conditions of 17 million people under arms. You had a similar kind of medical system which was developed in Germany because in Germany the number of casualties who lost limbs and so forth, was much greater in density than any other place. You had a similar reform, an excellent medical system in France, and then you had the U.S. system. Good medical systems in the post-war period all more or less converged on the same kind of understanding of the role of the function of medicine for a general population under peace conditions, as for war conditions.

Now, on the question of education, what we need is to understand, to find the purpose of education first, and discuss the form second. The first function of education is to develop a population which is qualified to exist by its own means and it is only qualified to exist as now, but is qualified to develop its capability through successive generations. The general thing is we think normally in terms of three generations of people, take two or three 20 year intervals and we measure the essential policy of education and performance in terms of these divisions—the first 75 years of life-three parts, three generations. And we have to think about not only what the current generation needs of each of these generations are, but we have to think about the future two generations to come, and look a little bit beyond that. So medical practice and education are related, in a sense, in that we should have a system of education which is based on the future, looking at least three generations ahead.

This must include basically two things: we must think about scientific requirements; we must also think about the development of the creative powers of the human mind. Now, although science is generally blamed for much progress of humanity in technology, actually the root of scientific creativity lies in classical culture, not in mathematics. And one of the big mistakes in education is relying upon mathematics without considering the fact that we are not talking about a calculating machine, we're talking about a human mind which is capable of creativity. And for that role, for example, classical culture, classical architecture, classical music which has developed as a way of promoting the creative powers of young people from childhood, means that the power of creativity which we engender by aide of a good cultural educational system, leads to the successful future of a people. So the two things for me, the two questions, are related issues in that sense.

Question 7: I have a question submitted from Martin, from South Australia and he says, that he understands that there is a clear way of getting rid of Barack Obama and he can see who could replace him, but his question is, and many people have asked this question as well, "Who replaces you?"

Lyn: Well, I think you know, some of you know! I don't intend to be replaced straight away, because I think I've got to do some more work here—I haven't completed my work yet. I don't expect to live forever, that I can assure you I don't think that is possible, at least not in a physical state! I may be hanging around as a ghost some place and that may be useful too!

But what is required here is essentially the creation of a cadre force of leadership which can collectively assure the continuity. What I am doing, is we have under me where I work day by day, down in the Basement, I have a basement program. This Basement Program is associated with advanced features of physical science. These are young people in their late 20s, going into their 30s, who have a scientific background, and we are also developing their scientific capabilities. We are now in fields which are little known among most scientists, though they may know of them, but they don't know them as such. And this involves areas such as cosmic radiation.

In point of fact, the universe is permeated by what is called cosmic radiation. There is no empty space out there—none! What there is, is something that our senses do not sense directly, though which we know about indirectly because of the effects and the way we can manage these effects and prove their existence. And this is largely in the electronic domain. We are doing right now, a complete transfer/change of the so-called Periodic Table, to bring it away from a particle orientation which is common-place—not necessarily the intention of the founder of the Periodic Table, Mendelev—but we are going back using Mendelev's old criteria for which composing the Periodic Table, by looking at it from the standpoint of entirely cosmic radiation. We are looking at how cosmic radiation effects life. We are talking about mitosis, this kind of thing, and how electro-magnetic radiation is crucial in our understanding this. We are considering the problems which we have in going from Earth to Mars which you cannot do in a slow boat. You have to have an accelerating rate of transport, which usually means something like Helium III as a driver. An accelerated rate and deceleration all the way to Mars, which goes from instead of taking 300 days or so, it would take three days. Or it may take a little more. So this is what we are working on.

My view is that if you set into motion, engender a real science-driver program which must include classical music and poetry and so forth, in the same minds, because without a classical cultural orientation, you cannot develop a competent scientific education. And we are doing that, and so my view is that we are generating a new generation, a new young generation, which will be capable of directing mankind into the future. And I think that perhaps we ought to have a few people from Australia involved in that, don't you?

Question 8: My name is Geoff Cornell and I am an ex-farmer and it is probably about 7 years that I have been involved with the CEC. And like Craig, I come from a farming background and we know what physical economy is: in fact I don't think I knew what anything else was [Lyn laughs] until … in fact I have a brother who is into mergers and acquisitions and so he won't talk to me on this level. But this question is one that sometimes comes up about culture. Considering now, I am speaking about the indigenous people of Australia and more particularly about the clash of cultures that happens. After the Second World War, we had a great influx of Greeks and Italians and they contributed a lot to our culture and of course the next generation they melt in and become Aussies. So, my question is: how do we explain or how does the dynamic work between old cultures that are trying to be perpetuated, like our indigenous ones in this country and I know this has been done in other countries as well to perpetuate old cultures, so if you could tell us how we work that dynamic?

Lyn: Well first of all, you mentioned the obvious cases for comparison. First of all, we know because of the intellectual achievements of some people among the so-called indigenous population of Australia, that some of them have shown themselves to be quite geniuses, so contrary to some anthropologists, we know in general that there is no part of the human race which does not have the potential of each and all parts of the human race. And I don't believe in human races, obviously, therefore. If every person who is considered human represents a person with the same ultimate potential for creative development and contributions to society, I say that they all belong to the same race, the same species. Now, let's take the case of the Italian for example, coming as immigrants into Australia. Well first of all, the Italian can be an advantage because they are not exactly British and that's an advantage, isn't it! And that means you can have real Australians who look at things from an Australian standpoint, which I think would be a great advantage, at least from my standpoint if I were an Australian, I would consider that a great advantage! And then you look at what the Italian culture is. Now it has various components: it has a southern Italian component which is a victim of a lack of a Mezzogiorno program, and you have other Italians who were among the most gifted intellects in art and in science in the world. So there is no limit on that, and so therefore, what you need is, as we in the Untied States faced this thing with our immigration programs, which I think is the lesson or source book in this business.

There is no difference. What there is, is if a person immigrates into a nation, or is so-called indigenous, they are there and there is no reason why they shouldn't participate fully in the nation and become integrated as an Australia and be perfectly patriotic and devotedly patriotic Australians. And they come into that because they join the club, so to speak, and they join a common destiny and share a common interest among the whole people of that island continent. And that would be my view and I would say that that corresponds to my experience to the way things should be, but not always are, inside the United States.

Craig: Thanks very much Lyn. It has been absolutely brilliant to have you here in Australia. It's been a long time between drinks [Lyn laughs] and so we must do it more often I think! [Audience: Applause. Yes, yes!] Thankyou very much and we'll see you again.

Lyn: Have a merry old time!

Craig: We will. Thanks again.