Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Jeffrey Steinberg

Two major events, both taking place this week, underscore the fact that the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, centered in the City of London, is arrived at a moment of truth that could determine, in the immediate hours and days ahead, whether the planet is plunged into a civilizational dark age. Very few people and institutions around the world have the faintest idea that this is happening, and among those who would pose an alternative to this potential true global tragedy, only Lyndon LaRouche has a clear idea of what can and must be done to politically defeat this horror show.

The events themselves, that signal this moment of truth, are the following:

First, we have the arrival in the Sea of Oman this week of the USS Stennis-led second US Navy carrier group. This means that the naval assets are in place in the Persian Gulf region to orchestrate a premeditated "accidental" confrontation between the US and Iran, which could trigger a full-scale American pre-emptive attack on Iran. In the past 24 hours, BBC has aired an exclusive expose of new US war plans, that would target the entire military infrastructure of Iran for a massive bombing campaign--not just limited strikes against a few purported secret nuclear weapons installations. This event is occurring as both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush are on long-scheduled overseas trips.

Second, we have the meeting this week of the Bank of Japan, where the decision will be made whether or not to abandon the yen carry trade, by raising interest rates. If a rate hike occurs, this will trigger a blow-out of the entire dollar-based global financial system. As LaRouche has emphasized , the entire global financial system is under the top-down control of Anglo-Dutch financiers centered in London. They run the system through the yen carry trade, and through the related emission of floods of US dollars through the Fed's printing press. The US government no longer reports M3 money supply data because they are willfully covering up this element of the one, global hyperinflationary bubble. The yen carry trade and the M3 pump priming are run out of the City of London, and they are all part of the biggest John Law financial bubble in history.

Now, with the Persian Gulf deployment and the Bank of Japan interest rate decision both on the table at the same moment, we are seeing manifestations--shadows on the cave wall--of a faction fight between two rival factions within the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, otherwise known as the Club of the Isles. There is one faction that is out to permanently destroy the United States now--once and for all. They are ready to pull the plug on the whole system, to bring down the United States and the entire nation-state system at this moment. They want the sudden-death destruction of the United States. The other, rival faction, wants a more managed process of destruction. They want to bleed the United States to death more slowly. The goal of the two factions is identical. Their approach differs.

The key thing that must be understood, is that there are no significant issues beyond this global showdown. It is noteworthy and interesting that Senator Levin and others are grappling with legislation to bring the hedge funds under control; but Levin and his co-sponsors do not understand the nature of the beast. They are blind to the fact that the hedge funds are instruments in the hands of the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy. The measures that they are considering will not solve the problem, even though their impulse is important to note.

There is only one way to defeat this top-down Anglo-Dutch drive to break up the nation-state system and plunge the world into a prolonged dark age. That is a political solution, coming from the Government of the United States. The lead must come from the institution of the Presidency. This is why Cheney and Bush have to go now! Once the Presidency has been restored, the U.S. can proceed with an alliance with Russia, China, and India to impose a political solution, based on what FDR did with the war mobilization and the creation of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system. That is the only alternative to the plunge into hell.


Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

We must never forget that former Vice-President Al Gore's 2000 Gore-Lieberman campaign was the midwife of the Bush-Cheney Presidency.

The issue to be considered here is no mere difference of policy. The issue is existential. At issue is a choice between one policy, under whose influence our civilization would soon cease to exist, that of Gore's policy, against the directly opposite choice of policy required, if civilization is to continue to exist during the immediately foreseeable future.

Let us now proceed in the confidence that the issue treated here is of no lesser importance than just that.

Essentially, after Al Gore's marbles are counted, his recent Hollywood, pulp-science-fiction-style production, on the theme of "Global Warming," is, obviously, a fraud designed by someone. Whoever that someone was, Al's fraud was done, apparently, for the pleasure of what were, obviously, swindlers, and has served to titillate many among our nation's, and others' current crop of the more excitably credulous, middle-class "bio-fools."

Stated for the record, the essentials of the relevant scientific evidence against Gore's latest version of the "Global Warming" hoax, are adequately summarized, in the weekly Executive Intelligence Review's March 2, 2007 edition.[1] Some people, no doubt, will also see the ironical hand of Mother Nature (no Hard Gore Luddite herself) in the great winter storm which chose to wrack entire regions of North America, at just the time that Gore's off-season Hollywood Hallowe'en party was being staged. Since those of us whose attention is focused more intently upon the actual dynamics of the U.S. political landscape, have never considered Al Gore the brightest bulb in the cloakroom, the question for us, is: who is using the notoriously mean, dumb, and clearly fat-headed Al "Ozymandias" Gore, again, and why, this time, in this way?[2]

However, our duty in this matter does not end there. In addition to the first issue, the evidence that Gore's package itself is a hoax, there are two elements of scientific method which must be addressed, if the larger, much more crucial issues involved are to be settled.

Second on the list of three, is the larger scientific issue: Gore's fraud aside, what are the considerations which actually govern the principal features of the Earth's cycles of alternate warming and cooling? What about the pattern of recent intensification of Solar radiation hitting the Earth? Does this year's early report from Denmark on the role of cosmic rays, answer the question, at least in significant part?[3] If so, what is the relationship to the earlier indications of the concentration of cosmic rays received from the area of the Crab Nebula?

Or, what about the movement of population out of traditional family-farm agriculture and productive employment in industry, into the ruin of a so-called "post-industrial society," all of which post-1968 trends of change away from a science-driver, agro-industrial economy, have had pernicious effects on the environment which we manage and inhabit? What about "Bio-Fuels," which are inherently energy-inefficient, and which will, if continued, cause a generations-long ecological disaster, and pro-genocidal food-crisis for our nation in particular, and the planet as whole?

Third on the same list, we have the principal subject taken up in the body of this report: what is the actual strategic motive for the continuing persistence of the promotion of the Kyoto hoax at this particular time? This third point, is the crucial point addressed in this present report.

The case of Gore himself, is a simple one, in every sense of the word. Whatever the intended implications of simple-minded Gore's travesty, the motive for his being used in the way he has been used most recently, takes us to much deeper political issues, as in the issues treated in the body of this present report, after the immediately following, additional prefatory remarks.

Unfortunately, Al Gore is not the only fool of his type among our republic's and Europe's political classes. Were he the only such fool, we might treasure him, even despite his bad temper, vicious fits, and silly Hallowe'en pranks, as we would value an endangered species of Madagascan forest lemur.

Unfortunately, Gore's type of so-called "Baby-Boomer" generation of North America and western and central Europe, is not a lovably rare species. It is a generation already represented by a great excess of the modern Sophist types from among the so-called "68er" generation, sometimes regarded justly as a "de-generation," born during the 1945-1956 interval: a species which proliferated between the close of World War II and the culturally shocking advent of the 1957-1960 U.S. economic recession. Therefore, we have that third point which I shall address in this present report: I explain.

On That Third Point
It is most notable, on account of this third point, that, today, those representatives of the professions of honest scientists and political historians who were capable of seeing, truthfully, the future actually embedded in the present, are those who, in the case of those nominally considered scientists, are a precious minority of their profession, and, who, among historians, appear to be almost a vanishing species.[4] When compared to the school of American historians, for example, even into the early parts of the post-World War II decades, the greater part of the currently reigning "Sixty-Eighter white collar" political class, has shown itself, with remarkable exceptions, as now, as a generation of the astonishingly credulous, which avoids any actual knowledge of science, and yet expresses opinions about science and its effects, which reveal either the influence of the most evil man of the Twentieth Century, Bertrand Russell, or simply a generation virtually incapable of thinking either historically or scientifically.

This has been a persisting, increasing challenge in my dealings with even some among my own associates who have expressed the characteristic moral failing of the predominantly Sophist Baby-Boomer generation, albeit on different issues than Gore's Luddite followers.[5] In my experience, today's usual Baby Boomer refuses to recognize what is happening to our nation, or even his, or her own generation. He or she is therefore a member of what had been called, ironically, "the Now Generation," the representative of a kind of species which recognizes moral accountability to neither a predecessor generation, nor a follower. It is a social stratum, unique to this interval of our national history, which is relatively hostile to the generation of its own parents, and, also, like the typical President George W. Bush, Jr., is blind to what are, in fact, the essential interests of the present young and future adult generations, and beyond.

The typical representative of that Baby-Boomer type, usually lacks even a semblance of the standard of comparison which the history of ideas had provided to the able scholars, scientists, and strategists of earlier generations. It might be said, that he, or she, as the "68er" and former Vice-President Al Gore illustrate the type, is a Luddite fanatic, or, if you prefer Classical references, an heir of the ancient, pro-Satanic, Delphic cult of Dionysus.

Therefore, those cases, like Gore, very rarely think in terms of a successful period of history as a process of an emergence of an added phase of the lawful evolution of human culture, to higher states out of a preceding one. Rather, all too typically, cardboard, or wind-up-toy personalities like Gore, think in terms of arbitrarily adopted "rules of thumb," as merely current fads in styles of "fashions"; typically Sophists, they think in terms of opinions about opinions: Athens' Pericles should blush. These are opinions which they tend to treat in a more reckless and hostile disregard for discoveries of any actual notions of principle, as this hostility to principle was expressed in the emergence of even such cults of Sophistry as ancient followers of Euclid, or, a grim, medieval Sophist variety of theologian among those of the Scholastic persuasion.[6]

I encounter this same problem in the course of reviewing the briefings produced among today's usual political figures, commentators, and so forth. The relevant types to which I refer have few principles, or even none; but, nonetheless, they produce an abundance of opinions, and curious "assessments" of sets of alleged facts, such as momentary opinions about the auspicious implications of an ephemeral item of news, or the like.

This pattern of behavior is typical of a stubborn persistence of the kind of sophistry we might associate with today's typical representatives of the Baby Boomers among North Americans, or those from western and central Europe. Those types are reacting to their narrowly defined immediate experience, but evade the reality of that process of those long waves of historical change, within which merely current events and decisions are trapped, often as passing exceptions.

It is, in other words, as we read, in Plato, the report of the ancient Egyptians, warning the ancient Greeks that "you have no old men among you." Today's leading political classes, and most others, too, rarely show any sense of an historical process as being anything more than a kind of mechanistic-statistical system of percussive interactions, interactions occurring chiefly within the confines of the local time of a certain generation's hope of rising to political and related ascendancy. They are Sophists, who think in terms of trend-lines in mere opinions, not realities. Therefore, usually, their assessment of almost any situation of significance, as in economic forecasting, is tragically wrong-headed, and stubbornly so.

So much for the unfortunate Gore and his sociological type; the question is: Who is using him now, in that way, and why? The answer is to be found within the realm of Riemannian dynamics.

1. History as Strategy
A contemporary neo-conservative, Francis Fukuyama, proclaimed some crucial events of the close of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, as portending "the end of history."[7] On the surface, his statement makes no sense, unless we take it to mean the perverted notion, that the collapse of the Soviet system signaled the birth of a single, world empire to be controlled in perpetuity—at least for a short time—by something which might be represented as a single and eternal, Anglo-American Liberal's world-empire.

Whether Fukuyama would still make such an argument as that today, is not settled, as far as I know. However, the argument as he made it, has no meaning in the known universe, excepting as the notion of a single, perpetual and eternal world-empire. The relevance of the case of Fukuyama to the case of Gore here, is that Fukuyama would be making the same form of argument respecting the making of policies, which is implied by the assertions of former Vice-President Al Gore. Gore's argument, is, notably, also the same implicit in currently avowed strategic policies of the current Bush-Cheney Administration.

Gore is implicitly, a pro-imperialist of the type we associate today with "globalization," and is also a follower of the ideology famous to ancient Greek culture as the pro-terrorist cult of Dionysus, which was putatively the original pro-environmentalist, terrorist cult of ancient European history. His more recent antecedent, is the cult which Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells presented as Wells' 1928 The Open Conspiracy; there are virtually none of the policies of globalization and "environmentalism" expressed by former U.S. Vice-President Gore which are not also those of a faithful devotee of the cult of the Bertrand Russell who vowed his aim to be to destroy what the U.S.A. represented. Do you wish, therefore, to "drown in Gore"?

In the ordinary course of things, it has been the custom among a numerous ration of an immoral people, to propose that a certain awful trend, or outcome in developments, or lack of change, is "inevitable," in and of itself. Usually, what that attitude reflects, is either a coward's refusal to take the risk of changing what must be changed, or an expression of either simply moral indifference, or cowardly laziness. A related indifference to responsibility appears in a much more important expression, as a doctrine, such as Al Gore's "Bio-Foolery," which claims the right, as follows, to impose a perpetual world imperialism.

In point of fact, since earlier than the fictional Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, imperialists of sundry shades and temperaments, have proclaimed the permanent inevitability of this or that, more or less global, empire, as if that empire might have been divinely ordained by mortal oligarchies disguised as pagan gods. Belshazzar's Feast, as portrayed successively by Rembrandt and the poet Heinrich Heine, is an example of such asinine imperial pomposity. The great Classical poet Percy Bysshe Shelley captured the essence of this matter in his Ozymandias, whose title served as the name later deliciously bestowed on Al Gore by some of his schoolmates. Such alleged "inevitability" was the intention of Imperial Rome, of Byzantium, of the European medieval ultramontane imperialism, of Adolf Hitler's "Thousand-Year Reich," and the design for the British Empire presented to Lord Shelburne by his lackey, Gibbon. That was the sense of the way in which Fukuyama trumpeted his expectations from the post-1989 decline of the Soviet system.[8]

Today, that "eternal," but nonetheless short-lived, presently doomed, post-1989 world financiers' empire of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, as envisaged by Fukuyama's book, is already virtually in ashes. Unless a special intervention is made soon, the ashes could also be our entire civilization's own. Today, modern European views of such pretended forms of eternal empires are often, like Fukuyama's, even sillier than comparable cases from ancient and medieval times.

The modern problem of empire is of special form, distinct from the ancient Roman and Byzantine types, a modern pattern which has been specific to globally extended European civilization since the latter quarter of the Sixteenth Century. I refer to what is termed, alternately, as the modern empiricism introduced by Venice's Paolo Sarpi, which has been specific to Sarpi's followers since the brutish Anglo-Dutch Liberalism of William of Orange, and, simply, the generic form of the British Imperialism of Lord Shelburne et al. since the February 1763 Peace of Paris. In known forms of modern European society, empiricism and Anglo-Dutch Liberalism are alternate names for a specific, modern, implicitly imperial type of oligarchical society, a type with a distinct kinship to, but also with qualitative distinctions from the medieval ultramontane system under the Venetian financier-oligarchy.

To understand the present course of that modern world history scientifically, there are two distinct, categorical conceptions to be defined, as if independently of one another, but then combined as one.

In the first category to be considered scientifically, we must consider the nature of the present world monetary-financial system, of approximately the 1968-2007 interval to date, as a passionately anti-American (e.g., anti-Franklin Roosevelt) outgrowth of that empiricist form of monetary-financial system founded under the leadership of Venice's Paolo Sarpi.

This presently collapsing, specifically anti-American system, is not only a monetary-financial system. It is also a systematic form of organization of the entirety of a generally accredited set of currently leading ideas associated with the extent of the reach of the present world monetary-financial system. That present, anti-American world system, still depends upon the legacy of the Bretton Woods dollar; but it is otherwise controlled as an Anglo-Dutch Liberal world-empire of financier-oligarchical rule. This hybrid is that present, Anglo-Dutch Liberal monetary-financial system, which has dominated the world increasingly since that 1968-1972, "neo-Venetian" undermining and collapse of the U.S.-dollar-based, fixed-exchange-rate system, a collapse which was orchestrated chiefly from London.

The second such category of relevant scientific evidence, is the essential, crucially functional distinction between systems of relations in the animal kingdom, and of the systems of ideas associated with each cultural phase of physical development, or lack of development, of human cultures.

These two, just-stated, crucially principled features of the present world organization, both the monetary-financial and the cultural-economic, are the most crucial features of the world situation to be urgently considered at this immediate juncture. We shall consider these two aspects and their interdependency at some modest length within the next chapter of this report.

Some auxiliary features of this process are to be considered before proceeding further with the scientific argument as such.

In that context, over the 1933-2007 interval to date, the central feature of the dynamic relations between the two competing monetary-financial/economic systems, the American System versus the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialist system of globalization, is, summarily, the following:

Earlier, during 1945-1967, the dominant world monetary-financial system had become, since 1933, the Twentieth-Century expression of the American System of political-economy, the so-called "Hamiltonian" system as expressed under the Administration of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That pro-Hamiltonian system was still premised, during the 1944-1967 interval, on the emergence of the U.S. fixed-exchange-rate world system, based on the U.S. gold-reserve-denominated dollar.

Modern world monetary-financial and economic history, was still pivoted, then, on the fact of the emergence of the U.S. leadership of the world system, under the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, during 1933-1945, and, after that, the regaining of imperial power by the anti-Franklin Roosevelt, Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of imperial monetarist power, over the period from the U.S. official plunge into the 1964-1972 official U.S. Indo-China war, to the present date.

The weakening of the U.S. economy by the folly of its protracted, 1964-1972 colonialist war in Indo-China, made possible Anglo-Dutch Liberal operations to bring down the U.S. fixed-exchange-rate-dollar-system over the 1964-1972 interval, and beyond. This process of post-1964 U.S. decline, was highlighted by the role of the first government of the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Harold Wilson, which sank the U.K. physical economy, savagely, to set up the conditions needed to pull down the U.S. dollar over the 1967-1972 interval.

A similar British strategy for ruining the U.S.A. is in operation at the present time, using the follies of the Bush-Cheney war-policy in Southwest Asia, to take the place, for today, of the 1964-1972 phase of the U.S. folly in Indo-China. The leading Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction is moving, currently, to wreck the United States as both an economy and a political power, absolutely, through aid of the effects of the U.S. and British Southwest Asia military adventures, and the rapid wrecking of the U.S. dollar through sinking the pound, temporarily, in a fashion echoing the first Harold Wilson government of the U.K.

This echoes what the U.K. of Thatcher and its French asset, the Mitterrand government of France, did to ruin Germany, beginning with 1989's "The Fall of the Wall," and, what their followers are doing now, through Cayman Islands-centered operations, combined with the deployment of fascist gangs, as out of Hamburg, echoing the Baader-Meinhof and like precedents today.[9] The strategic objective of that Anglo-Dutch targeting of the U.S.A. for destruction, is to remove the last principal obstacle, the United States itself, to setting up a "Tower of Babel" style of "unipolar," "free trade"-based world empire of "globalized" raw financier power. This would be a new form of world empire, but one modelled in principle on the precedent of the medieval partnership of the Venetian financier-oligarchy and its allies of the Crusading private armies of the Norman chivalry.

An Anglo-Dutch Liberal "success" against the U.S.A. in this current attempt already under way, would mean a probable, rather immediate plunge into a planetary dark age for all humanity; but, if anyone believes that latter fact would deter the Liberals, it is because those believers do not understand the force of ideology in existential extremes such as the present crisis. Meanwhile, if the political class of the U.S. continues to be brainwashed into adopting the "bio-fools" policy of the Bush Administration and Al Gore's latest Hallowe'en prank, the U.S. would cease to exist as a sovereign nation, that, relatively, very soon. Otherwise, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system will give up its current intentions only if the rest of the world acts efficiently to compel it to do so.

Culture: The True Force of Destiny
The most commonplace, and most characteristic intellectual failure in what passes for the presently reigning generation's attempted definitions of grand strategy, is the currently customary failure to take effectively into account the crucial aspect of the functional distinction of men and women from beasts. The cult of "information theory," is one of the important illustrations of the way the post-World War II U.S. generations have been brainwashed into a virtual stupor on account of this scientifically absurd cult-belief.

This kind of current cultural decadence, prevalent as a result of the mass brainwashing of the "white collar" strata among the reigning "Baby-Boomer" generation, is echoed in a study of bookshelves, the content of leading periodical publications, and, one may presume, temporary withdrawals from libraries. Such evidence reflects a present state of our society, a society whose influential professional and other educated classes, are concerned with the matter of what are merely heteronomic arrays of conflicting opinions, that in inverse proportion to the same persons' occupation with actual ideas. A study of addresses and discussions from policy-influencing assemblies, points to the same conclusion.

That class of evidence reflects a significant intellectual and moral degeneration, the worst of which has occurred with the dying out of the generation of the population, my father's and my own generations, generations which had been born between, approximately, the time of the assassination of U.S. President William McKinley and the onset of the celebrated 1929-1933 U.S. economic depression. The import of those general trends in culture among today's putatively literate classes, is demonstrated in a relatively simple way, by the case of the professional who mistakes an associated mathematical formula for a universal physical principle; he, or she thus substitutes a mere footprint of the relevant species, for the actual living species which casts that footprint!

The point which I have just made here was illustrated dramatically in a differing reaction of two audiences, linked simultaneously on the same electronic network, to the nature of a demonstration of a universal physical principle. Both were scientifically literate, but the one which reflected its experience with its own practiced demonstration of the principle of the "comma" in the choral counterpoint of Bach's and related performance, associated the physical principle with the "passion" of a proof of principle in relevant choral singing, whereas the other audience tended to list a series of formal proofs tantamount to mathematical formulas. The difference so expressed was that between "I know ... ," and "I know about...."

In the second case, "I know about ... ," an opinion about an opinion of scientific principle was foremost; whereas, in the other case, it was the experience of generating the proof of the idea of a principle itself, which was the prevalent object of the thought itself.[10]

Two matters of principle were thus illustrated by the experience of that occasion. First, the indispensable role of the experience of generating a solution for a challenge in Classical choral counterpoint, as typified by the standard of Bach, is essential for the development of the mind of the otherwise literate student of physical science and related matters. The successful exercise in counterpoint expresses the experienced quality of passion of belief which distinguishes "I know about" in physical science practice, from the actuality of "I know."

It was on this account, that I emphasized the development of a choral training program of regular practice based on the challenge of a strictly Florentine bel canto mastery of J.S. Bach's Jesu, meine Freude motet. It is in that contrapuntal heritage of Bach, as practiced by the greatest musical composers, from Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, et al., that the human soul is able to express passionate certainty for the discovery of a universal physical principle of physical science, or any expression of Classical composition and performance of art. A "strictly scientific" educational program in science tends to produce legions of well-rehearsed recitations by dead souls. Without the quality of Classical artistic passion of certainty, there is no vital scientific certainty.

Such is the secret of the way in which the promotion of the irrationalist views of rabidly existentialist Theodor Adorno et al., in the matter of musical composition, has been used, with relative success, in not merely corrupting a generation, and more, but virtually destroying its ability to think rationally, through the radiated influence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom and related programs and practices. The destruction of the ability to know works of Classical drama, among the generality of the Baby-Boomer generation, is the demonstrated effect of what is called in Germany "Regietheater" on the both quality of performance of Classical music and drama, and the souls of the members of the audience habituated to such, or even worse popularized forms, such as the case of "The Beatles," of pro-existentialist corruption.

The issue is not merely that such relatively brutish practices in artistic composition and performance, have a morally and intellectually lowering effect on the mental life of performers and audience alike. Something essential for the very notion of the idea of principle and of truth, is lost, as the essential artistic faculty for a sense of truth is more or less lost. "How you get your kicks!" tells more about you, than you know; it tells much of your ability, or lack of ability, to know what the term "truth" should signify.

Such matters determine the capacity for truthfulness and related matters in the individual and in the culture; this source of corruption, which was typified in expression by the tragic impact of Sophistry on that generation of Pericles' Athens which plunged into the cultural suicide of the Peloponnesian War, or the comparable Sophistry expressed by the U.S. plunge into the 1964-1972 War in Indo-China, and the consent to George W. Bush's lying which brought the U.S. into the currently continuing and spreading warfare in Southwest Asia.

So, as in the self-inflicted doom which Pericles' Sophistry-ridden Athens brought upon itself, such is the effect which turns much of the U.S. population, including many among its leading political circles, into former Vice-President Al Gore's and President George W. Bush's "Bio-Fools," today.

Responsible citizens of the U.S. today must change certain of the habits which are ruining themselves, our nation, and the chances of civilization generally. We must recognize the immorality implicit in support for the lunacy of Gore's fantasy, and of the related "Bio-Fools" syndrome, as an expression of the typical anti-science Sophistry usually expressed by the "68ers."

This example, this expression of the net effect of the pro-existentialist indoctrination of much of the Baby-Boomer population born during the approximate 1945-1956 interval, and of the effects of that on the further cultural decay of the "Baby-Boomer" culture of the 1960s, is today's echo of the self-inflicted ruin of Pericles' ancient Athens. It typifies the outcome of the degeneration of Athens and its influence during the Peloponnesian War; it is also the cultural decadence which made possible the emergence of the Roman and Byzantine empires, and, later, the ultramontane imperialism of Venetian financier-oligarchs and Norman Crusaders leading into the collapse of the Middle Ages into Europe's Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age."

We are witnessing precisely such a kind of lurch toward a new Dark Age of global humanity today, in the surge of organized popularity for former Vice-President Al Gore's hoax, and for the cult of "Bio-Foolery" in general. The followers of the Pied Piper of Cardboard, Al Gore, are to be compared with the children of Hamelin who followed their cult-leader out of the town, into the land of nevermore. A population which, like those foolish children, no longer governs itself by a passion for truth, but, rather, mere "popular opinion," is a population which has, at least for the moment, lost its grip on the moral fitness to survive.

Do any among you really wish to turn out to have been one of those kinds of unfortunates? Shame on you, if you do!

2. The Science of Society
In practical terms, the term "science" has a varying meaning for practice, as our attention shifts from emphasis on non-living processes, to living processes and their products, and, after that, as we shift attention from emphasis on living processes in general, to human behavior and social processes in particular. This distinction, which has been traditional for known European science since ancient Greece, was rigorously defined through the work of Academician V.I. Vernadsky's experimentally premised notion of a universal principle of life, and his preliminary success in beginning the same approach to the matter of the distinction between what are merely living processes and human characteristics, and specifics of the social behavior associated with those latter characteristics.[11]

Without emphasis on this implication of the work of Vernadsky, including, emphatically, the function of the Noösphere, there could not be a competent economic science, nor a competent insight into the topics posed by the questions which the Delphic cult of "environmentalism" poses today.

The problems which had already been set into motion by systemically incompetent trends in thinking about economy and its management, prior to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, were transformed into wildly systemic expressions during the late 1960s period of the U.S. War in Indo-China, and, then, went beyond bad fiction, to outright economic-financial insanity, in the pro-Malthusian and related effects caused by the insurgencies of the "68ers," during the course of the 1970s.

As a continuation of that plunge from national economic pride to galloping, prurient forms of decadence, over a time from the beginning of the 1980s, especially since reforms in U.S. Government and Federal Reserve methods of reporting from about 1982-1983 on, matters went beyond Sophistry, to the generally habituated fraud of economics reporting and bad analysis by leading governments and international institutions today. In this process, as the leaders of the economy and political institutions of the immediate post-war decades were winnowed out by the aging process, and with the rise of the "68ers" and their Dionysian impulses to replace the generation which began to die out during the 1970s and 1980s, the Dionysiac ideology of economic insanity came to reign in what was perceived as the presumed higher wisdom bred into those strata of the upper eighty percentile of family income brackets of the "68er" generation.

Today, nearly forty years since the "68ers' " plunge into their fashions in economic insanity, took a grip on generally accepted policy-thinking in the public and private sectors, our leading public and private institutions have come to be dominated by generally accepted views of national and global economic matters which lie far beyond what the U.S.A. of the 1930s and the post-World War II generation would have tolerated, rightly, as the outer limits of rational behavior. The toleration of the lunacies exemplified by the cult-followings of former Vice-President Al Gore, merely illustrates the degree to which the "68ers' " axiomatic qualities of thinking have come to dominate our nation's, and western and central Europe's policy-shaping, increasingly, over the recent several decades,

Therefore, the decadence, and even actual insanity, in much official forecasting and formulation of arguments as to policy of practice, have gone far beyond any competent sort of needed, comprehensive treatment of those issues posed by what we have pinpointed here as the nasty behavior of the illiterate Al Gore. This situation requires that we adopt a new basis in principle for that relevant scientific discussion which is located, uniquely, outside the mechanistic-statistical conceptions usually associated with financial forecasting and economy today, to locate the real, essentially physical, rather than wildly fictional assumptions, which pollute attempts at understanding of the issues confronting us today.

Therefore: Our Situation Now
This history of recent decades requires that what is addressed here be resituated in an elementary way, within the bounds of the Riemannian dynamics of human behavior and with the social processes defined by that behavior.

As an essential matter of review, consider the following crucial points respecting the history of the diseases our economies are suffering today,

To this end, look at the history of European science in retrospect; consider the history of that European science since the influence of Egypt, in the shaping of what had become the European culture associated with Thales, Heracleitus, Solon, the Pythagoreans, and Plato. As I, among others, have reported in various locations over recent decades, the known sum-total of success and failures in European science, from the influences of ancient Egypt, up to the present time, is the outcome of the conflict between, on the one side, oligarchical forms of corruption typified by the Sophists generally, and the Euclid cult in particular, and, on the opposing side, the anti-Euclidean, dynamic outlook associated with the Pythagoreans, Plato, Nicholas of Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz, Riemann, et al. That is the underlying continuing pattern of conflict within now globally extended European civilization as a whole, from the founding of Classical European culture as among the followers of Solon of Athens, to the present day,

Within the bounds of the historical development of modern economy itself, the relevant conflict within European civilization, is to be seen, clinically, as Plato saw it, as between the reductionist followers of the Sophists, as Euclid and the modern empiricists typify the Sophists, against the dynamic outlook associated, in physical science, with the Pythagoreans, Plato, Kepler, Leibniz, Riemann, et al. Today, this is merely typified by the example of the conflict between the Cartesian mechanistic-statistical folly expressed by the 1998 folly of LTCM's Morton Scholes, and the dynamic view of the physical-scientific basis of the American System of political-economy in which my own contributions are currently leading examples.

At the present time, for reason of the pathological effects of currently popular mechanistic-statistical modes of forecasting, it has been an imperative, existential challenge, that we must correct recently prevailing policy-shaping, by treating today's "conventional" shaping of economic policies as the disease, and my own alternative as the cure.

From that vantage-point, I proceed now, by presenting all the relevant matters to be treated from the standpoint of my method, that of Riemann dynamics, as I have defined the special characteristics of actual dynamic systems as ordered by human mental and related behavior in relevant locations published earlier.

An Outline of Dynamics for Today
For reasons clarified later in this chapter of the report, in any competent expression of modern economic studies and policy-shaping, the notions of economic principles are composed of a nested set of four distinct physical phase-spaces. These are, at the lowest end, principles expressed by intrinsically non-living processes. Physical functions in that domain are contained within a superior domain, the principles of living processes and their specific products: the Biosphere as defined by Academician V.I. Vernadsky. The Biosphere itself is contained within what Vernadsky defined as the Noösphere: the activities of, and interactions among living human individuals. Finally, the existence of mortal mankind, as mankind lies within an inclusive, superior domain, a domain whose existence is expressed by a universal principle of anti-entropy, the domain of the willful action of the Creator, and the related quality of the thus-finite, but unbounded universe as a whole.

However, it should not be inferred from the preceding paragraphs, that these processes are defined as attributes of elements; they must be defined in terms of differing qualities within the hierarchy of the universal processes in which the relevant elements are subsumed. Thus, an atom belonging ostensibly to the non-living domain, may participate in a process which is, itself, intrinsically an expression of the living domain. Thus, in that higher domain, the nominal elements are not linked mechanically, statistically; they are distinguished by the intrinsic unity of drama in which they are called to play their parts. In other words, the four indicated physical domains are dynamically, rather than kinetically interactive, that in the sense of dynamics employed by the Pythagoreans and Plato, and, in the same sense by Leibniz and Riemann.

These four, thus-nested domains of universal physical principles, efficiently bound all that occurs within our presently known universe. This is the general principle of Riemannian dynamics, as this arrangement is referred to by Albert Einstein. This is the crucial point of reference for the central, scientific argument presented in this present writing.

The relevant principle of what is sometimes termed "Grand Strategy," is, therefore, as follows.

Redefine the first of the two categories identified above. Instead of measuring economic processes in terms of monetary values, measure the economic effects in terms of physical-economic effects, per capita and per square kilometer. End the folly of usurer's ideology, that value is lawfully determined within monetary-financial systems. Employ relevant physical-economic parameters of an economy, such as that set defined by the crafting of the first government of the U.S.A. under its Federal Constitution, as by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton: to define changes in net rates of gain in physical productivity, as Hamilton did in his Report to the U.S. Congress On the Subject of Manufactures. It is especially important to emphasize measuring of the rate of changes in physical productivity for the national economy, and its population and territory, in their entirety as a (Riemannian) dynamic function defining economic value, rather than relying upon simple measurement of the current productivity within the financial accountants' microcosms of localized production itself.

A truly dangerous sort of "national idiot" is the fool who argues that "Some of our population produces profitable income for some of our business investments, whereas others so employed, or unemployed, apparently do not." Therefore, those misguided fellows deduce the proposal, that the job to be done is to get rid of those sections of the population and their activities, such as the lives of the ill, the unemployed, and the retired segments of the population, so that the surviving portion of the society will be "profitable."

The "Big MAC" rape of New York City, under the guidance of the true grandfather of that city's pot-holes, Felix Rohatyn, and similar operations of George Shultz's "Chicago Boys," conducted under the roles of Henry Kissinger and Felix Rohatyn through the installation of Chilean dictator Pinochet, are seen more clearly in the effects of the related "Operation Condor" against the formerly prosperous nations of the "Southern Cone." Consider the wealth extracted by some through the promotion of the drug cartels and the export of their product into the U.S.A. itself, as a financial profit, and increase of political power of some, as the means for promoting the ruin of the nations of the Americas as a whole.

Therefore, in other words, to avoid falling into such traps as those, we must measure the increase in physical-economic productivity (per capita and per square kilometer) as a function of the level of physical consumption per capita and per square kilometer. Measure physical consumption by the society as a whole, including the functional role of basic economic and social, as much as physical infrastructure as a whole, as the source of the increase of productivity of the whole process as a whole, and, thus, define the specific courses of action which increase total productivity as a whole, by means which increase the average rate of increase of physical consumption of the entire population and entire area as a whole. Full employment is the aim, and scientific and technological uplifting of the quality of the total national territory's infrastructure and science-driven technological progress, is the means.

Treat the second of the two categories as the "factor" of scientific and Classical-cultural progress.

To define the combined effect associated with the interdependency of the two categories, begin by tracing the interdependency of all land-area, and all parts of the population, combined in generating a net rate of physical growth, per capita and per square kilometer, of the national physical economy as a whole. Raise the productive power of the entire system of economy through highly energetic priorities set for capital-intensive modes of technological progress in modes of both production and basic economic infrastructure, per capita and per square kilometer of the nation as a whole.

`Energy': A Typical Mistake
The most typical evidence of scientific incompetence in treating modern economic processes, is to assume that uses of power can be measured in terms of simple, linear measures of so-called "energy," as in the terms of the hoax against the Ecole Polytechnique's Sadi Carnot's treatment of heat employed by the Sophists Kelvin, Clausius, and the mathematician Grassman, and in defiance of the evidence of Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and their associate Bernhard Riemann. Contrary to the arguments by the British and Austrian (Machian) school of thermodynamics, and also Maxwell, physical chemistry, as typified by the work of Mendeleyev and Harkins later, compels us to measure "energy" by such language of compromise as relative "energy-flux-density," in which what might be nominally treated as calories, must be adjusted conceptually, in regard for such matters as the higher energy-flux-densities required to proceed up-scale from chemistry, atomic physics, nuclear physics, thermonuclear physics, etc. The "quality of work" which power delivered with a certain "energy-flux-density" is able to accomplish, is the crucial determination of the relationship between generation and consumption of generated power and the quality of technology for which it is useful.

This approach actually dates explicitly from the work of Kepler in his discoveries respecting the harmonic relations among bodies within the Solar system as a whole, the harmonics which were actually crucial for Carl Gauss's defining the hypothesis for the orbital pathway of the asteroid Ceres. It is the same general matter which crops up in reflection on the celebrated "wavicle" issue of modern physical chemistry, and has, as Draper's leading student Professor Robert Moon recognized, the actual principle of ordering of the isotope domains, rather than some arbitrary scheme of "magic numbers."

To illustrate this point, contrast my method of long-range economic forecasting, which has been relatively infallible over decades, relative to the consistent, long-ranging failures of the notable putative competition, with the latter's foolish, mechanistic-statistical, implicitly "percussive" projections of most statistical-forecasting and related schemes.

The typical forecaster today still clings to the folly of attempting to predict a future result as the consequence of a kinematic sequence of actions. The catastrophic performance of Morton Scholes et al. in 1998, illustrates the point.

To illustrate the principled remedy for the usual errors of attempted long-range forecasting, simply say to oneself that the trajectory of a sequence of currently ongoing developments does not define its own pathway of action, nor does it define the rate of that action. Riemannian considerations must be employed, instead.

The Riemannian physical universe is, as Albert Einstein emphasized, the same physical universe, but in a more developed form of expression, seen by Johannes Kepler during the beginning of the Seventeenth Century. It is a finite, but unbounded universe, for the reason that nothing exists efficiently outside it. The universe is defined by a potentially enumerable set of universal physical principles, such as the principle of gravitation discovered, uniquely, by Kepler. The individual actions within that universe reflect the way in which the concerted, dynamic interaction among the relevant powers (principles) affects the phase-space under consideration.

Thus, in economics, for example, the most effective way of increasing productivity, is the introduction of the role of another universal physical principle to the domains of generalized basic economic infrastructure, as much as to production itself.

For example. Today, without the massive investment in technologies of nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion, there is no possibility of avoiding a foreseeable general collapse of human existence on this planet. It is through bringing new "rules of the game" into play, rather than acting on the game within the current rules of play, that progress in the human condition is feasible. There is no possibility that civilization could outlive the presently onrushing general economic breakdown of the present planetary system, unless the foolish ideas of Al Gore and his like are excluded from the enforced aspects of the political practice of the U.S.A.

3. The Relevant Strategic Confrontation
"... when I first became politically conscious Gladstone and Disraeli still confronted each other amid Victorian solidities, the British Empire seemed eternal, a threat to British naval supremacy was unthinkable, the country was aristocratic, rich and growing richer.... For an old man, with such a background, it is difficult to feel at home in a world of ... American Supremacy."
—Bertrand Russell, 1953[12]

Look at the case of Fukuyama, again. Since, in fact, the evidence which I gave in earlier reports, shows that a British ruin of the U.S. economy under the present world conditions of crisis, would be the doom of the world at large, including suicide of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal interests themselves, why should the British monarchy even consider the kind of clearly anti-American scheme which the Anglo-Dutch financier interests are currently deploying? Why should a Fukuyama have lent his own peculiar sort of support to what is, in fact, the same damned and doomed, Anglo-Dutch Liberal scheme? Why, really, did Adolf Hitler arrange his own and Eva Braun's deaths on the eve of the absolute defeat of his empire? ("Put out the light, and then put out the light": that the truth might be, hopefully, silenced forever, and thus, hopefully, tragically concealed.)[13]

The present state of mind of pro-malthusian Liberal Americans is not that far distant from the kind of despair which the frankly satanic Russell expressed in his 1953 The Impact of Science on Society. Indeed, most of the wild-eyed varieties of "Greenie" fanatics, such as Al Gore himself, are explicitly followers of Bertrand Russell on account of precisely these issues. Some similar types among us (the wildest of the neo-malthusians) are sufficiently far gone, ideologically, that they would actually seek the disintegration of the U.S. as a nation, but would do this for their own reasons. What is common to them all, is their devout wish not to continue to live in a world in which, in fact, the victory of their fantasy is clearly, immediately denied them.

All these and related other matters of politics, are reflections of the principles of dynamics.

There are two mutually opposing categorical systems of mankind, as typified by the republican model of Solon of Athens, Aeschylus, the Pythagoreans, Socrates, and Plato, on the one side, and the Delphic cult of the Pythian Apollo as typical of the opposing side. The principled significance of the division is, chiefly, the subject of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, in which Prometheus brings scientific knowledge to human beings, in opposition to the oligarchical, Mesopotamian-like, oligarchical model of the Delphi cult's Olympian "Greenie" Zeus.

The evolution of European history, as the concept of a European civilization emerged from those ancient times and their conflicts, has been a continuing struggle between two great, opposing systems: on the one side, we have the republican model as realized in the founding of commonwealth forms of states, as under France's Louis XI and his follower, England's Henry VII; on the opposing side, we have the modern continuations of the Roman, Byzantine, ultramontane, and those modern Liberal imperialist systems which were developed over the course of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries into the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperialism established and developed as the British model since the February 1763 Peace of Paris.

In brief, the conflict among the English-speaking peoples, between the emergence of the U.S. republic and the development of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism of the British Empire, has defined the global conflict between the republican and oligarchical systems to the present moment. The conflict between the "uncomfortable allies against Hitler," President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Britain represented by its Prime Minister Winston Churchill, continues to define the leading systemic features of the conflict throughout the crisis-stricken planet of the present moment.

At the time of the approach to the close of World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt's intention for the post-war world had been: 1.) to bring the existence of the British and other empires to an end; 2.) to liberate the colonized peoples, and 3.) to aid their physical-economic development, and to secure this elimination of imperial systems of the present and past by developing the United Nations Organization as a forum to promote the peaceful physical-economic and cultural development of the nations of the world as a whole. This intention was premised on the achievements of the American System of political-economy, as opposed to the British and related systems of oppression.

From the moment of President Franklin Roosevelt's death, the imperialistic oligarchical system created in the form of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism was committed to the systematic destruction and eradication of the American System of political-economy, as that system of economy had been defined by the American Revolution and the emergence under the leadership of such as Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton of what became known world-wide as the new commonwealth form of society, modelled on the intentions of the Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance's establishment of the anti-feudal sovereign nation-state republic. The hateful anti-Franklin D. Roosevelt cult, rampant still today, has reigned since the virtual moment of the news of President Roosevelt's death.

Putting to one side the now passed interval of communist states, the world is chiefly divided on principle, but the essential conflict is between two global standards: one, the American System as associated with the legacy of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, and, the other, the principal enemy of that design of U.S. policy, the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, otherwise described as the present expression of the New Venetian oligarchical system which was established by the initiatives of Venice's Paolo Sarpi.

Oligarchical Society Today
In the case of Bertrand Russell's 1953 utterance, Russell's declared existential difficulty of accepting a world dominated by the constitutional tradition of our American System of political-economy, can have principally one of two existential meanings: either that Russell would risk almost anything, including the "preventive nuclear war" which he proposed publicly in 1946, in the hope that his beloved British Empire might be freed of the existence of any power which did not affirm the triumph of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system over the American System. Should that option fail, he would simply prefer not to exist, if the American System were to continue to be hegemonic.

In ancient society, including that of ancient Greece and Rome, the dominant imperial form of society was the oligarchical model typified by Babylon and by the Greece under the sway of the Delphic cult of the Pythian Apollo. This oligarchical model was based on the assumption that the ruling stratum of society, the only part of society allowed to define the principles of law, is an oligarchy representing a consortium of powerful families who rule over the rest of society as men rule over herded or hunted cattle. This was also known in relevant ancient Greek times, such as the times of Socrates and Plato, as "the Persian Model." Aeschylus defines the Olympian Zeus as typical of the oligarchical model, under which some families reign by treating the majority of society as either hunted or herded cattle.

The charge which Aeschylus makes against the Olympian Zeus, of denying mankind access to knowledge of the use of "fire" (e.g., nuclear-fission power), was a crime against humanity then, as it is today.

This real-life legacy of Aeschylus' image of the Satanic Olympian Zeus, served as the basis for the spread of Sophistry in ancient Greek culture. It is the basis for so-called "environmentalist" cults, such as those of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore and his like today, including the terrorist cults launched, largely from London, via Hamburg and other locations, into Germany during the 1970s and 1980s. This is the import of the cult-formation of "Bio-Fools" built up recently, both within the George W. Bush, Jr. Administration and among Gore's devotees in the U.S.A. today.

The issue goes much deeper than the mere fact of the cult organized by the Club of Rome and its Soviet ally the Laxenberg, Austria-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Like the Luddite cult built up around the circles of the British East India Company's Haileybury School of economy, around Thomas Malthus et al., these often characteristically violent, "environmentalist" cults, as the terrorist and insurrectionist paramilitary operations by the "Greenies" in Germany during the late 1970s throughout the 1980s (and in the name of the then non-existent RAF, later).

Religion as a Medium of Oligarchy
Take the case of the death of Jesus Christ and of Apostles such as Peter and Paul. Jesus was born in the time of the Emperor Octavian (Augustus Caesar), and was judicially murdered under the authority of the Emperor Tiberius resident at the Isle of Capri, where the Roman Empire of the Caesars had, in fact, been born. The Roman Empire was of the character which the Apostle John identified as "The Whore of Babylon": in brief, as a continuation of the oligarchical model of empire, under which the mass of humanity was denied the exercise of those creative powers of human reason which express man as above the beasts. Jesus' Crucifixion by the Roman Empire of the Caesars, defines the future of mankind as mankind.

The Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, which is, as I shall explain here, essentially an imperial system of rule by a Venetian-style financier-oligarchy, is the typification of the same oligarchical model traced, implicitly, to the Roman Empire of the Caesars.

To understand such phenomena efficiently, you must look at these and kindred matters, in systemic terms of reference.

With the death which either occurs to a human individual, or which the individual brings, willfully, upon himself or herself, or risks for a cause of future humanity, we are confronted with something which is not comparable to the death of any other living creature than the human individual. With mankind, the living human body is the vehicle of the efficient existence of the individual human personality which continues beyond death, rather than the human identity an epiphenomenon of that body. For those who know the truth of this matter, the individual human identity is immortal, as contrasted with the mortal incarnation of that identity: the human mind's creative powers, unique to the human individual among all living individuals, expresses a function which surpasses death, through the medium of the human mind's expression of physically efficient ideas generated by a creative faculty whose character is typified by Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of gravitation.

To avoid mystification of what I am writing here, recognize that those qualities of ideas which express the same processes of thought through which experimentally validated discoveries of universal physical principle are brought forth for human practice, express that aspect of human mental life which is lacking in the lower forms of life. It is by this instrument that the human individual mind may contribute a discovery of a universal physical principle, such as Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, by means of which man's power to exist, as a species, in the universe, is increased by as much as even orders of magnitude of potential relative population-density.

Evil as a characteristic of a society, or a class of persons in society, is usually expressed in the form of suppressing the development of those creative powers of the individual human mind through which discoveries such as those of Kepler, are made available to mankind. The perfect example of this is the practice of the death penalty by the social forces behind the creation of London's U.S. puppet, called the Confederacy, against both the slave who had learned to read and write, and the person who was accused of assisting that slave. It was the suppression of the slave's access to the most advanced culture and science of his or her society, which presents us an image of slavery in its cruelest aspect, as the reckless use of Ritalin in schools echoes that today.

The role of Christianity under Christ and his Apostles was, in effect, to free mankind from what the Roman Empire represented, what the dream of the Apostle John denounced as "The Whore of Babylon," an alternate name for Gaea, the Whore of Delphi. Christianity's political expression was the freeing of mankind from that status of herded or hunted chattels, virtually mere beasts, by freeing them in their own minds, first, as Frederick Douglass emphasized for the U.S. slaves, and letting their minds then free their bodies.

To defend themselves against the forces of Christianity, the oligarchy sought top-down imperial control over the Christians, seeking to degrade the Christian churches to controlled institutions of the Roman Pantheon. As the case of Charlemagne illustrates, the struggle of Christianity to free itself from the imperial control of the Roman and Byzantine rule, and from the alliance of the brutish Norman chivalry with the Venetian financier oligarchy, is an essential aspect of the process through which the modern sovereign nation-state emerged during the course of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance. This does not imply that Christianity is not what Apostles such as John and Paul claimed it to be; it signifies that the freeing of mankind is a mission inherent in the ecumenical missions of Christianity.

However, the aspect of that of greatest relevance here, is the mission of freeing mankind to be mankind, free of bondage in the shackles of oligarchical traditions.

Today's Roman Empire
For the Christian today, Satan waves the Sophist's banner of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism. This view of history leads to clearer understanding of the actual great conflict on this planet as a whole today.

Prior to Paolo Sarpi's Liberal reform of the Europe-wide Venetian financier-oligarchy, the most often characteristic feature of oligarchical culture was the reduction of the state of mind of the great mass of the population to a kind of brutish, illiterate's ignorance like that which the Confederacy's advocates demanded be imposed upon American slaves. The Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, as centered in the great ecumenical Council of Florence, unleashed a rebirth of science, together with the launching of the modern sovereign nation-state republic, the so-called "commonwealth" organization of nation-state society.

However, the effect of the reforms launched under the banner of the Council of Florence, especially under the leadership of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, had launched the commonwealth form of nation-state, and also the modern physical science of such explicit followers of Cusa as Leonardo da Vinci and Johannes Kepler. As I have noted in an earlier report. Niccolò Machiavelli illustrates the crucial points in, especially, his Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy, where he illustrates the reasons that the emergence of the modern state, including the development of the city, had created a situation in which "traditionalist" feudalist measures could not secure an assured defeat of modern society militarily. The effect of technology on society's capabilities, meant that the Venetian financier-oligarchy would lose its battle against modern society, unless it made certain Sophistical forms of adaptation to the use of new technologies.

However, Sarpi made it the essential principle of Liberalism, that scientific truth be excluded, as the attacks on Kepler and the attacks on Leibniz by the followers of Descartes attest. The statistics of gambling, as developed out of its beginnings by Sarpi's personal lackey Galileo, became the substitute for actual principles of science, and mere mathematical formulas, premised upon Euclidean-Cartesian axiomatically aprioristic assumptions, replaced acknowledgment of the discovered existence of the actuality of universal physical principles such as Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation.

Probability replaced reason, so that the Devil himself might gamble with the fate of human souls drawn to the relevant American Enterprise Institute or kindred cultural bordello.

This was the basis for Paolo Sarpi's creation of the Liberalism which became later known as Anglo-Dutch Liberalism. Thus, today, we have a form of Anglo-Dutch Liberal imperialism, which dominates the post-1968 world. This functions as a new, only somewhat reformed version of the same design for world order familiar from European feudalism under Venetian financier-oligarchical hegemony of the past.

In one sense, the recent efforts, since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, to weaken and destroy th...

Here is an edited transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's keynote address to a LaRouche PAC webcast from Washington, D.C. on March 7, 2007. He was introduced by Lawrence Freeman, and the subsequent open discussion was moderated by LaRouche's East Coast spokeswoman, Debra Freeman.

Go to Questions and Answers

Lawrence Freeman: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to welcome you to this international webcast event, featuring physical economist and international statesman Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. We'd like to welcome the audience here in Washington, D.C., that managed to make it through the snow on the way to this event. And by way of introduction, I'll simply tell you that Mr. Al Gore is not very happy with Mr. LaRouche. And I will leave it to Mr. LaRouche to fill you in, as to why that's the case.

LaRouche: Thank you. You have perhaps noted that global warming has struck Washington, hard. Since Gore began talking about this nonsense, the weather has gone cold all over North America: We've had record storms in the Midwest; we have a record low temperature right now at Washington, D.C., for this time of year. So, everything seems to be saying, God seems to saying, "Gore is wrong!"

And he is wrong. But he's professional about it. He's professional about it.

Now, to situate the current situation—Gore's only a minor part of it—we're now gripped by the greatest financial collapse globally in modern world history. It's under way. It's like a landslide. It's coming on: It's started; it's not going to stop.

Now, these are not mechanical events. You can not predict a date of a depression generally, and this is worse than a depression; this is a breakdown crisis. Because there are many factors of human will which can intervene to change the date. But the condition under which a breakdown will occur, can be foreseen in a certain approximate time frame. We have now entered the time frame, where a general breakdown of the world financial-economic system is now inevitable.

That does not mean the situation's hopeless. It does mean that the situation's hopeless, unless, certain measures are taken to prevent the breakdown from continuing.

Now, the solution is to reorganize the planet, because we have a situation in which the entire international financial-monetary system is hopelessly bankrupt. There are, really, no independent banks left in the United States, for example, and a similar situation exists in Europe. The banking system of every part of the world, especially Europe and the Americas, is bankrupt.

Now, a bankruptcy is an interesting phenomenon, because at any point, under natural law, a government can declare its financial system to be bankrupt, and under law put the system into receivership for management. You can say, that foreclosures will not occur; that payments on pensions will continue, things of that sort; that credit will be available from the government for needed purposes, to keep the economy functioning, and for other purposes. So the bankruptcy of a financial system is not in itself an inevitable catastrophe. It may be a catastrophe for some of the bankers. But it's not necessarily a catastrophe for a nation: If the nation uses the sovereign powers of government, to deal with the problem, the worst effects of a bankruptcy can be averted, and time can be given for reconstruction to build back a self-sufficient economy all over again.

The Queen and the Cayman Islands
Right now, the amount of indebtedness outstanding is greater than ever could be repaid, so the system is hopelessly bankrupt. There is no independent bank in the United States. What's happened: Well, the Queen of England is controlling the world financial system, because the biggest factor in international affairs involves hedge funds and similar kinds of things which are controlled from a set of islands in the Caribbean, where the cayman crocodiles are out there, to eat you. And this island, which is wholly owned by the Queen of England, is the world headquarters for the financial speculation which is going worldwide: the Cayman Islands. There are a few other islands which also function similarly, including the Isle of Man in England. The key banking institution of record in this is the Bank of Scotland and Halifax, which is the British royal family's personal, favorite bank.

But the British monarchy controls the world financial banking system. The U.S. banks, including your major banks in the United States, are now in a subsidiary situation relative to this crisis. It is the Cayman Islands and similar kinds of institutions associated with hedge funds, which are controlling the international monetary-financial system. There's no possible way, that you could have a bankruptcy now, without a general collapse of the world economy as well as the United States banking system: except, that the government intervenes, to take precautionary actions, to put the system into receivership for reorganization, and that is the only way that we can get through this.

Now what we're going to have to do, is the following: This means we're going to have to replace the current President of the United States. We're going to have send the Vice President to places where he belongs. Mr. Libby may have suggestions on that point. To have a President, because our system does not function without a President, and we don't have a functional President on the premises. We have a dummy—worse than a dummy, a mean-spirited dummy, who has no comprehension of anything. And therefore, we require Presidential action, with the support of the Congress, to take the measures which are protectionist measures to save the American System itself from a disintegration process, which is already under way. I'll explain what this phenomenon is, in due course, but first give you the outline of what we're up against.

The Greenspan Bubble
What's happened, essentially, is that in 1987, in October of 1987, the United States experienced a depression, a Wall Street depression, parallel, exactly, to October-November 1929. At that point, the head of the Federal Reserve System was being replaced by Alan Greenspan, who was nominated to come in. Alan Greenspan said, "Hold everything, until I get in there. I'm going to fix it." What Greenspan did, was to create what is really an illegal form of money, through the Federal Reserve System, through credit, and used things like Fannie Mae, mortgages and mortgage-based securities, and things like that, to finance inflationary financing of the U.S. and world economy. This was followed up by the exploitation of the collapse of the Soviet system, where the British and the United States together connived, and looted Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union for some years. This helped to stave off the depression.

The mortgage bubble buildup in the United States, together with what's called the Y2K bubble—that is, the so-called "fix the computer systems" by investing in the computer market—in 1999-2000 this thing came to an end. It was no longer going to to work. But they kept it going. What they came into, was phony types of mortgages, which became the subprime mortgage market: That is, people were investing in taking loans out, mortgages out, for acquisition of properties when they had essentially no equity in the property.

So, this was piled on as a new mortgage influx, to sustain the system. The Y2K bubble had collapsed in the Spring of 2000. The mortgage bubble built up on the basis of conventional mortgages from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and so forth, this had reached a point of virtual saturation, relative to the requirements of the economy to keep it going. So, various things were added, the subprime market—then they went into the wildest of all gambling, which is the hedge fund type of gambling, which is actually a way of moving in, grabbing assets, looting the assets, destroying the company you take over, and moving on to the next one. The amount of debt that is built up in the system, is so great, there's no scheduling of repayment of the debt which could get us safely out of bankruptcy, global bankruptcy.

Under these conditions, you have a hopelessly bankrupt system, which is based largely on the Japanese yen, the overnight borrowing of the yen and similar kinds of things, which are used to feed the banks—but not the regular banks here, not the regular banks of the world, but to feed special banking institutions which are engaged in this wild-eyed speculation. And it all goes through the Queen of England's own nest, centered on the Cayman Islands, which is the real command headquarters of international finance today. This is ready to blow. And the breakdown of the subprime mortgage market, which is the front end of the capitulation of the entire mortgage bubble in the United States: Imagine a collapse of mortgage values, or titles, from $700,000 to $200,000 and less. That's the kind of situation which is building up, not far from here in Northern Virginia, as in Loudoun County; building up elsewhere. We're at the end of the game.

We're Coming to the End of the Road
Now, look at the Gore problem in that connection. Where's the Congress? The Congress is engaged in two great swindles. Swindle #1, biofuels. There's no possible way that this biofuels swindle could work. Because what the system requires—it consumes, actually, in raw, caloric terms, the production of this fuel produces less fuel in terms of power, than it consumes. In other words, there's no net gain from so-called biofuels. It's also an idiotic thing to do, because what biofuels means is reducing food! It means going into corn production for fuels, at a loss; that is, you get less power out of the fuel than you put into making it! This would mean destruction of the landscape, destruction of the entire economy, mass starvation around the world. It would destroy whole areas of food producing. Idiocy!

Then they come up with another thing, which Gore came up with—and this tells you something about the character of government these days: In 2001, we began to go into a world war. We got into the war, because the President of the United States lied. The Vice President of the United States lied. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom lied. The United Kingdom's Prime Minister lied by causing the death of [David] Kelly, who had exposed the fraud of his lies—in order to get the lies through, and protect the lies, Kelly died. Joe Wilson was sacrificed here, for similar reasons: to cover up the lie, that the President had made—had lied! The Vice President had lied. Others had lied.

But above all, Blair, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, had lied.

So, we're now in a maelstrom mess, in Southwest Asia, and elsewhere. We're losing the U.S. military. We still have naval forces and we still have an aircraft capability, but in terms of ground forces, we're losing it. We're losing the U.S. Army, we're losing the Marines and so forth. The scandal about Walter Reed Hospital, the lack of care for veterans returning from the combat in Southwest Asia, is typical. We are destroying the U.S. military. We are destroying the U.S. economy. The only part of the economy that's working significantly, is that which is being used to loot the U.S. government for the military production and operations, which are done under a civilian heading, rather than a military heading.

We're coming to the end of the road. There is no growth. Every part of Western and Central Europe is collapsing. The United Kingdom's basic economy is collapsing. The U.S. internal economy is physically collapsing. And you have this kind of situation: We have a global depression. But worse than a depression, because this means it's a breakdown crisis. It doesn't mean that you go for a period of unemployment and so forth. This means a genuine breakdown crisis, from which civilization would not spontaneously recover.

Where the Solution Lies
Now, there's a solution for this: The solution lies in the use of great political power. That doesn't mean dictatorship, it means a cooperation of groups of nations which represent great power. There are four such nations on this planet. One is still the United States, and the United States is key to orchestrating any remedy for the collapsing financial system, because we have the technology, built into our Constitution, for dealing with a crisis like this. It's worse than Roosevelt faced, but the same approach will work.

We have Russia, a major nation. China, with over 1.3 billion people, is a major nation. India with over 1 billion people is a major nation. If these four nations agree to support, in concert, a remedial action for the state of the world economy, and the state of world peace, it will happen. Because with that array of power, other nations will join that combination, and we will have a combination for recovery of the world's economy.

You have, for example, a mood in India: India wishes to have a large-scale development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, to provide what is needed for India. China is moving in that direction. Russia is moving in that direction. France is thinking of moving in that direction. Italy is thinking of moving in that direction. Poland is thinking about getting into nuclear power now, and so forth and so on. Because, without nuclear fission power, there's no possibility of survival of civilization.

Take the case of southern India, for example: typical problem. Southern India is depleted of water—a whole group of combinations in the post-war period helped to create this situation. Actually, the average temperature in southern India has risen significantly, as a result of the cutting down of the trees, which are used for fuel for cooking. Also, the southern part of India is in dire straits because of a lack of water. It has been drawing on fossil water reserves, in large degree, and the fossil water reserves are not being replaced. Now therefore, if you have—and India has a large stock of thorium—if you have the thorium high-temperature gas-cooled reactor model, in orders from 100 MW to 900 MW, you can in India, bespeckle the landscape with nuclear power, in order to do desalination, on a large scale. And nuclear power is the only efficient method of desalination. At a lower energy-flux-density, you can not efficiently, economically, desalinate on a large scale.

China is going to have to do the same thing. Around the world, we have a freshwater shortage, especially for human consumption and related consumption. For example, the Ogallala Aquifer in the Western United States is subsiding, sinking. Whole sections of the country that used to be prosperous, in terms of food production, are now dead, becoming arid, becoming deserts. We can, with nuclear power, we can economically increase the supply of freshwater, through desalination. We can also, by the same methods, we can produce synthetic fuels, from water, through nuclear power, which are called hydrogen-based fuels. Hydrogen-based fuels are the most efficient chemical fuels in existences. We can use them, produce them regionally and locally. We do not have to import oil; we do not have to use inferior methods of production.

So, that's a major industry. We also have a raw materials management problem. We have sufficient raw material assets on this planet available to us, to meet human requirements, for an expanding population. But! We must manage this. This requires the development of what we call an isotope economy. Which means moving toward controlled thermonuclear fusion as a source of management of these mineral resources. And it's not just a matter of quantity; we could get the quantity—the oceans are full of minerals; the greatest amount of the mineral resources of the planet are located in the oceans. But that's not the most efficient place to get them from. And therefore, we must think about the cost, the relative physical cost, of maintaining supplies of needed raw materials. And we're at the point where we could synthesize isotopes of a type that otherwise do not exist freely in nature, of the type we require. As a matter of fact, already one of the biggest by products of fission products, is the development of isotopes which are used in medicine.

So, these are the kinds of things we have to do.

We move in that direction. We move away from a post-industrial society, back to an agricultural and industrial society. We move into building large-scale infrastructure, to transform the land areas of the world, into fruitful ones. We have, for example, in this area around Washington, you have whole parts of the United States that used to be agricultural areas, that used to be industrial areas: like the Midwest, like the states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana. These states are now becoming destitute. They used to be the prime source of agricultural production and industrial production.

What happens? The people move away. Whole parts of the nation, the Western states and so forth, are becoming desert areas, in terms of economy.

So therefore, we have to rebuild the national economy. And we have to cooperate with other nations of the world, in building a system, a treaty system to create a new monetary system in order to organize credit over a 50-year period to come, which will meet these objectives.

Insanity of the Baby Boomers
That's the only realistic answer. The other things that you're getting, like the Gore thing—why is Gore's policy tolerated in maybe one-third or more of the members of this Congress, right now? Why? It's a form of insanity. But it's a form of insanity which is a mark of the times, it's a mark of the culture. You had, in the course of the 1980s and 1990s, the leadership of our economy which was dominated into that period by people of my generation. Those people went out of the economy. They died out, they retired, they lost skills, went out of production. And gradually, the key positions of power were occupied by people in the Baby-Boomer class.

Now, "Baby Boomer" is not an age-group. A Baby Boomer is characteristic of a certain age-group, but a certain membership in that age-group. And that is, the so-called "white-collar class": the people who were born, usually into white-collar-oriented culture, between 1945 and 1956, between the end of World War II and the 1957 Recession, which came as a shock. And the 1957 Recession, which came '57 through '61 and so forth, was a cultural shock, for that entire generation.

And this is the generation with the white-collar mentality. If you went back to the 1950s and you would look at things like Dr. Spock (the book, that is): how to raise a baby, how to turn a baby into a monster. And you had the white-collar syndrome. Look at the books of the time, The Organization Man, White Collar, and so forth—these books, social studies on the cultural changes that were occurring in the minds of a whole section of little kiddies, of that period. These little kiddies became the 68er generation. They were the ones who went to the leading colleges, to the best opportunities on the universities—and what did they do? They took their clothes off, they had strange sex with animals and things like that, or whatever it was they did to amuse themselves; as one thing after another became boring, "try another one"! I think several sexes were invented during this period of time!

So this generation was actually comparable, because of the way it was influenced, by calculation, in Western and Central Europe, and in the United States, and to some degree South and Central America, they were conditioned to be a replica of what was done under the Cult of Dionysus, in ancient Greek civilization, which is the source of sophistry: Destroy the society, destroy the culture, destroy the cities. As a matter of fact, in the 1966-68 period, you had professors who specialized in this aspect of history, who were organizing the most radical so-called "left" of that period, which actually was the most "right" of that period, also—these were the terrorist generation—and organizing them around the idea of terrorism, on the doctrine of the ancient Cult of Dionysus. For example, you had people organized around the Gaea cult. The Gaea cult is the mother-version of the Dionysian cult. And we had a whole generation of our people, systemically, through television, through mass media, through educational programs, who were conditioned to become a special generation which has no compassion—these are not the blue-collar population, but the white-collar—no compassion for their antecedents, and no compassion for their descendants. Absolutely unique in U.S. history, in European cultural history.

Every generation, prior to that, took pride in the sacrifice or other things they did, for the sake of their children's and grandchildren's betterment. Every generation thought of the care for its parents' generation. Every generation thought of two generations back—typical were the American immigrants, who came from Italy or other places, who came to the United States, as poor immigrants; got off the boat, went into places like Brooklyn, which were the receiving areas for these great influxes through Ellis Island; and within two generations, people who had come into the United States as poor people, were doctors, scientists, and so forth, of that generation. The American ideal of the melting pot, was not simply the melting pot idea, it was the idea that you bring people in, they come into the United States, seeking opportunity; they work their way up, they sacrifice for their children, their grandchildren; their grandchildren are usually their pride. And their pride, the fact that they'd made these sacrifices, in their personal life, in order to ensure that they produced a generation which would achieve, two generations ahead.

This was the American ideal. This was the American ideal from the time my first ancestors came to this country, in the second quarter of the 17th Century. From that point on, always the idea was to build a nation, and to build the people in it: to increase the freedom, the skill, the power of the individual in society. To give meaning to life today, because of the future that you're bringing forth by raising children and grandchildren and whatnot, and the changes you're making.

Paradigm-Shift After FDR's Death
So what happened was, in the post-war period, people who hated Franklin Roosevelt, who took over the country, by and large, almost on the moment of his death, joined up with Churchill and said, "We're not going to let the world be run by the United States. We're not going to let Franklin Roosevelt's ideal for the post-war period be realized. We're going to not decolonize!" And they didn't decolonize! The Japanese soldiers who had been put into internment camps in Vietnam, were taken out of the prison camps and given their weapons back by the British—to recolonize Indo-China! And the Netherlands Indies: A freedom movement existed and established itself by resistance against the Japanese during that period. The Dutch, the Anglo-Dutch moved in, with U.S. backing, to conduct a long war of suppression and denial of freedom, to a group of people who had already had their freedom!

This is the same thing around the world: Where the promise had been, with Roosevelt, to free the people of the world, to create a community of nations, which would cooperate with one another, for the common interest of freedom, but also to preserve the culture of those nations! And to keep the power and control over the culture of those nations within the people of that culture! That was Roosevelt's commitment, in places, for example as in Morocco, where he confronted Churchill on this question.

So what happened? The Churchill crowd, and what he represented in Britain, together with the scoundrels in the United States, when Roosevelt died, what did they do? They told Truman about the nuclear weapons. Roosevelt had not told Truman, the Vice President, about the nuclear weapons—at that time, the President didn't tell the Vice President such things. He was just sitting there and waiting. So, what Churchill insisted upon, with the advice of Lord Russell, Bertrand Russell, was to use the weapons—nuclear weapons, we had only two, they were both prototypes; one was a uranium prototype, the other was a plutonium prototype: two weapons. We dropped the only two nuclear weapons we had—or were to have for some time to come—on two civilian populations: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The purpose of that, was to inform the world, that the Anglo-Americans were going to use nuclear weapons to intimidate the world, as Russell himself said publicly, to intimidate the world into accepting world government. To eliminate the nation-state as an institution and establish a system of world government.

A World Empire
Now the intention to do that, in a different way, exists today, centered in the United Kingdom, and in people inside the United States and elsewhere, who share that kind of mentality. The intention is to eliminate the idea of the nation-state on this planet, and if nation-states were allowed, they will be simply administrative units, under world government: called globalization. To destroy the power of production in presently industrialized nations, and to move industry and disperse it through former colonial nations, underdeveloped nations, of poor people, as we see oppressed now.

The intention is, to destroy what the United States represented. To establish a kind of world empire, which in some features resembles what the medieval period was, when you had Venetian bankers and Norman Crusaders, with their little killing operations running the world, to return to that kind of system. This is what, explicitly, George Shultz proposes! This is explicitly what Felix Rohatyn proposes! This is explicitly what Cheney proposed, when he was Secretary of Defense, and what he's proposed, and implemented as Vice President of the United States. This is the policy!

And, sitting in London, are the people who are behind the Cayman Islands operation—which is the center of world economy, today, which is about to blow up!—there's the problem. Whereas, if those nations which believe that every people has a right to sovereignty of its nation, true sovereignty, and it's cooperation among sovereign nation-states that must run the planet, not some power, not some superpower, then we have a chance. If you have the United States, Russia, China, and India agree on that, despite whatever differences they have on other questions, if they agree on that, we can unite the world to stop this nonsense. It's our only chance at this point. And we are running out of time.

The Purpose Is To Destroy the United States
Now, what Gore represents is simply that.

Look, as I said, look what happened, in this thing in Southwest Asia. Why are we in a war, a continuing war in Southwest Asia? Why did somebody want to do that, and why'd they keep doing it? We've got two aspects to it: Number 1: Because, the purpose was, among other things, to destroy the United States. See, the United States was, even at that point, a great power. In terms of aerial, military power, its other, naval power, we were the tops in the world. But! You couldn't destroy the United States from outside at that point—but you could destroy it from inside. And we were being destroyed from inside: That was the mission of George W. Bush. How do you destroy us from the inside? Get us involved, as we were involved in the 1960s. How were we destroyed in the 1960s? Well, they killed Kennedy. And that was not by some guy called Oswald. Kennedy had become a pain, a threat to many people in the Anglo-American Establishment, and he was eliminated. That simple.

Everybody was terrified.

Because he was killed, we went ahead with the Vietnam, Indo-China War, which he was going to pull us out of. What did it do, the war, from 1964, the end of '64 through '72? It destroyed the United States to a large degree, internally. It coincided with the 68er eruption, and those considerations destroyed the United States, as it had been.

On that basis, the banking system, the international banking system, the fixed-exchanged-rate system, collapsed. With some help from London, through George Shultz, collapsed. We were destroyed from the inside!

We were sent into a ruinous war! The same way that ancient Greece, ancient Athens was destroyed by going into wars it shouldn't have gone into! Committing crimes against the people of the island of Melos, and other crimes. And you had the Peloponnesian War, which destroyed Greek civilization as a power—forever! since that time.

That's how you do it. Get your victim into a war, in which he ruins himself—and then move in on him. What's happening to us? We went into a war in Southwest Asia, which we had no business getting into. There was no reason to do that; there was no problem that required military action by the United States. It required cleverness, it required diplomacy. It required resolution, imagination. But war was not the solution. There were many things we could have done to deal with the situation. But that was not a situation which required war. We were brought into a war, where there were no grounds for war! The grounds were what? Regime change! Saddam Hussein never had superweapons, in this period, none! The idea he did was a lie! The President of the United States lied! The Vice President of the United States lied! The Prime Minister of Great Britain was the biggest liar of them all.

We went into a war which ruined the United States, by being drawn into a protracted war which has cost us billions. Not millions, but billions; not hundreds of millions, but billions. It's bleeding the United States to death. It is destroying the U.S. military on the ground. It's a crime against humanity. We were induced to do it, to destroy ourselves! By what? By agents. What agents? Agents of Blair. And agents, who are our President and Vice President and their accomplices.

Who else helped to do it? Well, the members of the Congress, the members of the Senate. The members of the Senate were Baby Boomers. And they knew this was a lie! They could smell it being a lie! They refused to challenge it! They authorized what had never been authorized before in U.S. Constitutional history, and let Bush have the handle on starting a war—actually Cheney. The lack of guts, the lack of integrity, on the part of the members of the Democratic and Republican parties in the Senate, made possible the means by which we as a nation were being destroyed—from the inside!—by protracted foreign wars. And anyone who's studied military history knows this: The way to destroy your enemy, is to get him involved in a useless war, a protracted war! And then, he will destroy himself.

But who is the victim in this case? The United States. Who is the intended victor? The United Kingdom. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal crowd: Which is precisely what Al Gore works for, and has always worked for.

Blood and Gore
I've read his proposals, Gore's proposals from this crazy book he wrote. The thing is clinically insane. The only thing that takes away from the aura of clinical insanity, is lying. But if you take Gore's lies and his clinical insanity together, you've got the whole package. There's nothing he says, in his principal theses in that book, which is true. Everything he says, in his principal theses, is a lie.

The way this thing was set into motion—it was not set into motion from the United States. Gore is not a creature of the United States: He's a representative of a firm called "Blood and Gore"—actually that's the name of the firm! That is his firm! His firm is a British firm. controlled by the British monarchy, and tied to the people who run the operation out of the Cayman Islands. Which is being run through the Bank of Scotland and Halifax, and similar kinds of institutions.

The Problem of Sophistry
So, you have the world's great financial bubble, the financial derivatives bubble, the thing that is ruining and looting all the banks in the United States, everything, being run chiefly, through the Queen of England's authority, through her tributory, the Cayman Islands. And probably 60-70% of the banking interests of the United States is being run through that thing. That's what Gore is working for! He's sort of the Aaron Burr—sort of lame-brained Aaron Burr—of our time. He's a traitor! In effect, he's a traitor.

But the thing is, what's wrong with our people? What's wrong with our members of the Senate, our members of the House of Representatives, that that they can't see this? We're being betrayed! We're being sold out! We're being doomed. And these idiots can't see it?

Why can't they see it? Because they're Baby Boomers.

See, the morality in every culture, whatever its morality, is a devotion of the living person, who has a sense of humanity to two things: to those who came before them, and those who will come after them. This is especially in the family itself, the parents, the children, the grandchildren. This is the elementary basis of morality in society. Your purpose in life is what you're doing with your life. And you think in terms of fulfilling a promise to your ancestors and fulfilling a promise to your descendants. That's the simple basis of humanity. It's what defines the human individual as immortal: that we live, we die in the flesh; but the means of our existence, the reason for our existence, exists in our devotion to those who came before us, and devotion to those who come after us.

What happened is, with the influence of sophistry, which was introduced in the generation born between 1945 and 1956, in the United States, that particular generation which became the campus-based Baby-Boomer generation of Europe and the United States in the 1960s, that generation has lost, through sophistry, the connection to a sense of moral responsibility to ancestor and for descendants. I mean, why should a soldier die, in battle, for his nation—unless he's just a killer—unless he sees an immortal purpose in the risk he's taking? Saying, that "If I die, my mission will be fulfilled." And the mission of life, is what morality is.

And the problem is, our people in the Congress do not have that strength—oh, some do. But by and large, at least one-third of the members of Congress do not have that. Republicans, Democrats alike, it's the same thing. Expressed in different ways, it doesn't mean much. Some people have a sense of morality, and some don't.

And the way society works, is that people who have a strong sense of morality must work together, as a cohesive force for that morality, and try to bring the moral weaklings in their tow, to inspire them, to move them. And that is forbidden, in a sense, in this Baby-Boomer culture. You're supposed to "go along with popular opinion." You're supposed to listen to what the neighbors are thinking! You have to think about this kind of thing. You will become an opportunist. You no longer have a commitment to principle, you don't believe in principle: You believe in advantage, and disadvantage.

And that's what's happened to us.

The problem before us, then, the practical problem, is the following. I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster alive, today. That's been the case, since about 1957-58, to the present time. I have never made a forecast which was wrong, though I've had a lot of problems with people insisting, "are you predicting this?" I say, "I don't predict. Forecasting is not predicting." Because human beings are creatures of will, and therefore, they will operate on the basis of their will, and they can change the course of events, more or less. But there are certain boundaries to their ability to change the course of events. These boundaries are called principles, like principles of science, principles of nature. And at some point, you have to change the principles on which you're operating, by bringing in new principles, in order to solve the problem.

What Makes Us Human?
Now, the nature of humanity is unlike the lemurs of Madagascar—Gore is probably a descendant of them. That, human being are distinguished from animals, we change our behavior. No animal species can change its behavior. They can adjust their behavior, but they can't change the range of their behavior in principle. It's limited in a sense, biologically.

The biggest change you can make in animal life, is by adopting one as a pet, or taming it. Then the animal will tend to adapt to the human being, and will look at the human being as some kind of a master figure in the herd, or whatever. You see this in dogs, if you have pet dogs, families with pet dogs. The way the various dogs, cats, and so forth adapt to the people, and how the dogs, cats, and so forth sense a hierarchy among the people. And they have their favorite people, and they will take their favorite people as number-one dog, huh? That's what they do. If you've had dogs in your family life, you know this. They scheme—they scheme on that, they invent stories for you and so forth. So, they're not unimportant, and not unlovable, but they're not human.

The human being is capable of doing one thing, which Al Gore could never do: make a legitimate discovery in scientific principle. And mankind, by discovering principles, as we've seen in human progress, is able to introduce new factors into the behavior of the universe. And thus, we're a human species—at most, we would be, just as an animal species, not capable of doing more than reaching a level of several million population, at any one time. We'd have about the same species potential as higher apes, like chimpanzees, if we're just looking at ourselves biologically. But human beings have something else: They have the power of discovery of principles. And therefore, by these powers of discovery of principles, in various way, human beings change the culture of mankind in a way that no animal species can do, and thus, in this way, mankind has achieved a population in excess of 6 billion people on this planet today, as opposed to merely a million if we were a species of ape.

This is our character: Our character is the power to make discoveries, of principle; the power of creativity, the power to change the conditions of life in the universe. This sort of thing. This is what makes us human. This is what makes us, in a sense, immortal, because we're capable of doing this. We can discover a principle, and that principle will live on, once it's discovered and circulated, and will affect generations yet to come. No animal can do that. We can do that.

So what you need, therefore, is an emphasis in society on development of the individual, as a sovereign individual, whose sovereignty is defined by their ability to discover something with their own powers of mind, which is a contribution to human knowledge, either as a principle or an implementation of that principle, and to pass that on to others, and thus shape the future of mankind by one's own contributions to mankind. And the relationship among human beings who do that, is a loving relationship. Because what somebody else discovers is to your advantage, or it's to the advantage of you in the sense of society. And therefore, you're in a happy society—like children in a happy school. There have been such things as happy schools! Where the children are actually discovering things, and reenacting the act of discovery, and of sharing the joy of making that discovery with one another. This is a normal, healthy relationship in society, as opposed to a dog-eat-dog kind of society. And that's what we can provide.

But we have to take, at this point, in my estimation, we have to take the fact that our leadership right now, in general, in the Congress, while there are many good people there, overall, the Congressional leadership is a failure. Because the members of the Congress who are willing to move, and disposed to move forward on these issues, are held back by the way the institution is crafted to suppress that which does not follow the "party line." And the "party line" is deadly. And the "party line" now in the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is crippled right now, by Gore! There's nothing which is more deadly to the Democratic Party than the presence of Gore in it! Blood and Gore! It's a name, but it's what you get as a result.

And thus, they're crippled, because people will not stand up for the truth. They will say, "You can not attack Gore, because he's popular." I say, "I attack him, because he's a liar! If you think he's popular, that's your fault, not mine!"

He is a liar! Everything he said on this question of global warming, is a lie!

The Science of Climate Change
For example: There has been a certain warming of the planet during the recent period. That's coming to an end. What was the warming of the planet caused by, CO2? No! CO2 had no effect on increasing the temperature of the climate. None. Say differently, it's a lie!

What warmed the planet? The Sun! Ya dumb bunny! The Sun—during the recent decade, there has been an increase of the intensity of solar radiation, impinging upon the Earth. This has raised the average temperature. The result is, you have—because of the way this worked, the Arctic ice is tending to recede, whereas the Antarctic ice is building up. So, they talk about the Arctic ice receding, and they're worried about the polar bears! Any of you guys wanna sleep with a polar bear? And they pay no attention to the other end, the Antarctic ("oh, that's the Southern part").

The whole thing is that. We also are dealing with many other questions of this type. Like for example, China observed this years ago: There was a phenomenon of a supernova, which was recognized from Earth, of course, many years after the supernova actually occurred. It was observed in China. And this phenomenon was what later became known as the Crab Nebula, which you can see. All the astronomical charts will give you this kind of information.

Now, some friends of ours in Germany, physicists, reported to us in the late 1980s, that the results of these observations were made by a phased-array observatory in the area of Germany near Denmark. And they determined that the cosmic ray radiation was coming focussed from the area of the Crab Nebula. And they checked with a smaller phased-array in England, where they hand a similar kind of result. So the cosmic ray wave invasion of the Earth, which is periodic, and very interesting, has a very significant effect on some things that occur in the environment, in the atmosphere. And so, this is also a factor. Because this kind of thing can cause more clouding, and more clouding can affect the temperature level on Earth. It also can change the chemistry of the atmosphere somewhat, because very high-energy particles hitting atoms in the atmosphere will produce some interesting effects, and may be significant cumulatively.

So there are all kinds of factors which have to be considered. There also are long-term cycles in the Solar System, itself, which will tend to determine this kind of phenomenon. But when Al Gore says, "CO2 is causing global warming," the man is a liar. And the people who support him as scientists are prostitutes. Because, anyone who studies the data that's available, knows this is the case! There's no doubt of this. The evidence is clear. How can you ignore observations that were actually made over several centuries, on CO2 concentrates in the atmosphere, ever since the 17th Century? How can you ignore that?

There has been no recent increase in CO2. The so-called ice [core] studies are a complete fraud. Because the older glacial ice gets, the more the CO2 vanishes from it. Therefore, you take old ice, it has less CO2 because it's old ice. Gore turns the thing around, and says, since there's less CO2 in the old ice, that means that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. Complete fraud! Complete fraud.

But people want to believe it! Because it's the approved thing to do. You get a grant for it, you get people lined up for it. And the thing is organized not from inside the United States, it's organized from outside the United States.

Environmentalism Is Genocide
Now, I'll give you one very nasty fact about this, which some people have noted before: If you go back to the 1920s—and I was around then, y'know! I picked up some information about this then, but also later on—you had a fellow called [Averell] Harriman. And Harriman was a guy who was one of the leading funders of Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany. He was an American. He had a guy that worked for him, called Bush, Prescott Bush. And Prescott Bush was the guy who wrote the order that moved the money into Hitler's coffers, in time to get Hitler nominated as the Chancellor of Germany. Well, Harriman was also involved in certain kinds of racialist studies—"eugenics," it was called then. And the eugenics studies of Harriman and company, and Morgan and so forth in the New York crowd, were the studies which were used by the Nazis, for their program of mass murder.

Now, at the end of the war, Hitler warn't so popular any more. He'd lost. People don't like to be associated with a loser. So they decided to change the name of the game. And the name of the game is called, today, "environmentalism." The intent of environmentalism, and the practice that was the result from it, is genocide used against masses of the human population. That's the intention. And if you look at the studies that were done in Austria, with the relevant accomplices—and in Russia, also, as well as in London—the intent to reduce the population of the planet, selectively.

For example: Henry Kissinger, 1974-75, is still on the payroll as National Security Advisor. And before he gave up that position, to remain just Secretary of State, he wrote a proposal on Africa, for depopulation of Africa. Genocide. That policy, which he enunciated then, which other people picked up on, are continuing with genocide against Africa. What you see as genocide, in Africa, is a product of that policy, onto which Henry Kissinger, among others, signed. That's the reality of this. The ugly reality.

We Need Some Serious Politics
So, my job is to worry. I know what the solutions are, the feasible solutions. I know what has to be done. And it has to come, in large part, from the United States. It has to come from my friends, the clowns on Capitol Hill, and some of them are not clowns, but from the clownish collection who tend to go along with something! Go along to get along! And against their own conscience! They go against their own conscience, in order to be "in" on it. "Well, we've agreed ... I've got to go along with the party." And that's what happens. You get one-third of the Congress, at least one-third of the Democratic members of Congress, are tied into Gore! They believe in Gore! They should believe in God, instead. But therefore, on that basis, they become a factor—"to have party unity" among these clowns!

You say, "Why don't you read the Old Testament, about Gideon's Army, or something. It's about time for one of those things to come along, now."

The problem is the failure of people to stand up as men, to stand up for what's right, to stand up for what they know they have to do. That's where the problem lies. And the failure to have the guts to stand up, even if you're one person sometimes, is what the problem is, right now,

We have the situation, we have the world crisis: Humanity is in jeopardy. The solutions exist: Do we mobilize for those things, or do we allow Al Gore and his admirers to stand in our way, when the fate of humanity's at stake?

We need serious politics back in the United States, again, away from the childish games which you've seen in the Congress lately. We have some very good people, they're very capable people, but they're held back by this factor. And Gore typifies that factor.

Gore was among those who lied. Like his buddy, his close buddy, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England, who was key in creating the Iraq/Southwest Asia mess for the United States. Lied, like Cheney. Lied, like President Bush. Lied like others.

Why do you complain about Cheney? Why do you complain about Bush? Why do you complain about some of the others, when you don't complain about Gore?

Dialogue With LaRouche
Debra Freeman: Thank you, Lyn. Well, we have a series of questions that were submitted while Lyn was speaking. As you might guess, some of the questions actually, while they address important issues, chose to avoid the central question that Lyn addressed, and that was particularly the case from the questions that were submitted from people here in Washington. However, a few brave souls decided to address the question directly, and I think we can start with those questions.

Why 'Scientists' Lie
The first question comes from a Democratic Senate Committee: "Mr. LaRouche, your staff knows that this office is no particular friend of Al Gore, nor do we think that global warming is the greatest priority to be addressed, given all the immediate dangers and crises that we face as a nation. However, I still don't see how you can take the position that it's a complete hoax. If you separate the issue itself from Al Gore, and how he might wish to use it, the fact is, that over at least the last decade, I have seen and heard one reputable scientist after another, express views ranging from concern to alarm about this very question. They also have provided a mountain of evidence. Now, are you asking us to accept that they are all wrong? These are scientists, they are not people with a political agenda. Presuming that they aren't completely incompetent, and perhaps you think they are incompetent, but if we presume that they're not incompetent—and if you do think so, say so—but if not, what could possibly motivate them to lie?"

And the reason why I'm starting with this question, Lyn, is—as you can imagine—variations of it have come from at least a dozen offices on Capitol Hill, and I think that the LaRouche Youth Movement (LYM) members who have been doing this work can attest to that.

LaRouche: We've had a chance to look at some of these arguments from so-called scientists. Some of them have scientific credentials, but their moral credentials are in question. This is a time—if you look at what's going on at the campuses, for example, you get an insight into this thing. Take the case of the wife of Cheney—or maybe he's the wife, I don't know—with her organization, "ACTA," which is functioning as a gestapo on the campuses. And if you look at the phenomenon of this gestapo on the campuses, run by Lynne Cheney, which has been in place in the United States since about 1987, when she's been active in this area, you see the degree to which the scientists on campuses are victims of terror. Now, these scientists on campuses tend not to be the strongest types in the world. Also, they happen to be of a generation called the Baby Boomer generation, by and large. And most of the scientists who speak up against this openly, are of an older generation—mine or slightly younger. We look at the facts of the matter, and study what the arguments and the premises are that these guys make, and from a scientific standpoint, it is immediately obvious that what they are saying is a fake. They may be accredited as this or that, but you also have another factor which you've got to take into account. The ones who are marched up to tell you this, and support this, are lying. They don't give a damn what the truth is; they're in there to lie. Their careers, their bonuses, their book publication, their speaking engagements here and there, their positions on faculties, whether they're fired or not. And if you look at the terror that is being run on the campuses right now by Lynne Cheney's organization, which is also Joe Lieberman's organization, and what they're doing, you have a Nazi-like operation running under Lynne Cheney on these campuses today. And it affects the professors as well as it does the students, probably more the professors, who in a sense are more vulnerable than the students. And careers are based on kissing the butt of what Lynne Cheney's crowd demands.

So, you do not have honesty. I have been through this myself with a lot of experience; that's probably because I'm better experienced than most of you are in the Congress, that I understand this. I know what fakery is in the United States justice; what fakery is in the leadership of political parties, including the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The corruption from the top is beyond belief. And every one of us who is involved in this process, in or outside of the Congress and the committees, knows it.

But the question they ask is, "How can we stand up to this, with all this prestige behind these lies? How can we deny the lies? Don't you realize how prestigious the lies are?" How can you protest against that? Sophistry! Sophistry! Sophistry! And it's those of us who can stand up to this sophistry and say, "We demand the truth. Now, let's ask you some questions, Mr. So-Called Scientist. Let's ask you the following question: What do you think of the ice bores? You say the ice bores are valuable? What kind of a faker are you, Mr. Expert?" They're not; the test proof is, they're not reliable. Anybody who uses these things is a liar, or an incompetent. CO2 is not a determinant of global warming. Water will tend to have more effect on global warming; CO2 is fractional.

So, the simple scientific evidence, if you look at it from the standpoint of scientific evidence, rather than the sophistry of hearing what people—so and so comes in, decorated with such and such credentials. Well, who sent him? Whose butt is he kissing? You have to take a hard view of these matters. This is a fraud; I stand by it's a fraud, and if you don't like it, you can go to Hell!

A Concern About Nuclear Power
Freeman: In light of that answer, I'd like to give the questioner from San Francisco, who said that LaRouche's representatives on the San Francisco University campus were giving him a bad name, the opportunity to change his question.

Lyn, the next question also is from the Senate Democratic leadership. And the question is a brief one. He says: "Mr. LaRouche, I've long been an advocate of nuclear power, although I'm a stronger advocate of nuclear power inside the United States than outside the United States, just because of security concerns. However, in the recent period, while I still support the development of nuclear power, I have more reservations about it than I have had in the past; largely because I have concerns about the manner in which public utilities in the U.S. are maintained and operated. I can't ignore this question when it comes before me, and I'm just wondering what your view is of this, since it's an immediate question that we have to deal with, particularly in light of the overall crisis of energy in the U.S. right now."

LaRouche: Oh, yes, I shall deal with that. The first thing is, that the concern is legitimate, in the sense that public utilities should be federally controlled, or federally and state controlled, as appropriate controls are required. The privatization of public utilities sometimes creates a crisis, a security crisis, because they are marching to a different drummer. Our proper concern, in public utilities like health care, or the military and so forth—in matters which are of general public interest—is that the security and well-being of the nation is the foremost concern, not profitability of the company. And if the company's not too profitable and we need it, we'll help it. But therefore, in this area, as we know from experience, that nuclear power is very powerful stuff, and therefore, it has to be administered and controlled in a responsible way.

Sometimes, private interests cut corners, so therefore, you have to have a very efficient Federal oversight. There was a determination in an earlier period, prior to the developments of the 1970s, to do just exactly that. There were also conflicting interests. We need the nuclear power absolutely. There is no chance of getting humanity safely through the challenges ahead without nuclear power.

Now, nuclear power today means specifically, high-temperature gas-cooled reactor equivalent; the most efficient and the safest. We also have the type which was used by the Jülich model, which was developed in Germany, which is the ball form of that, the carbonized ball form, which is largely, in the 200-MW range, self-regulating; that is, when the temperature rises, it shuts down the level of activity of the reactor, and therefore, it becomes self-regulating in terms of its level of activity. It's also much more convenient in terms of reprocessing, that sort of thing.

One of the big problems we had in the United States, with nuclear power, is the lack of reprocessing, and this is the result of the anti-nuclear lobby, which prevented the reprocessing from occurring. And you have people running around like little kids, saying, "What about the waste? What about the nuclear waste?" Well, go talk to your Congressman about that. Why wasn't the reprocessing done? Why were the impediments put in the way of the reprocessing? The intention on the part of the industry and the scientists involved, in dealing with nuclear energy and its application to public use, was always a very strong concern for everything that should be a matter of concern, every area. And as long as you had dedicated public servants, who were in this area of supervising the security of this operation, there was no significant danger. Because they generally would tend to look at the dark side of every problem, which is what you do with all security questions. You look for the worst possible case, and you try to prevent the worst possible case. And if you are able to work to prevent that, you figure you've done the job. And generally, that's been the case. But there's been sabotage, however, politically motivated sabotage of nuclear reactors, as occurred in the case of Three Mile Island, which had a significant effect on U.S. policy. But that was a sabotage job, done by powerful agencies who preferred to remain unknown.

So, I agree totally with it: that we must have an efficient system of Federal and state regulation of the operation of nuclear power facilities. We must have it. The standards have been established in earlier times, they can be improved and enhanced, but we need the power desperately, and therefore the point is to establish the Federal authority—again—needed to deal with the thing, and to work it out with other authorities, the programs that are needed to deal with this very legitimate concern.

Anglo-Dutch Liberalism: A Slime Mold
Freeman: The next question was submitted by Sue Daniels, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Texas Central Labor Council, and former vice president. She is currently an officer of the Coalition of Labor Union Women, and she submitted this question after reading the latest issue of Executive Intelligence Review. She said, "Lyn, I have two questions after reviewing this issue. One is, who actually makes up this Anglo-Dutch group that you refer to? And secondly, how does this group intend to control the means of human existence?"

LaRouche: Well, first of all, this is an old story, and this is one of those cases, where to really understand the problem, you have to look at European history in general. Now, European history, as we know it, as history, really is after Homer; it comes essentially about the 7th Century B.C., when the Egyptians, who were coming out of a dark age themselves, sponsored two groups in the Mediterranean, as naval forces to assist them in protecting them against the evil forces in the Mediterranean at the time. One was the Ionian seamen, coming out of Ionia, as Greek seamen, and they were functioning largely as traders and pirates. And so, they became an effective naval force which was to combat the forces of Tyre in the eastern Mediterranean. In the western Mediterranean, the Egyptians reached out in about 700 B.C., to their friends in Italy, who were the Etruscans. And the Etruscans were a branch of the Hittite culture, which had been established on the island of Elba, and established a center of iron traffic. From about 1600 B.C. on, the Hittites had been the only users of iron as a weapon and as a material of use.

So, this was the basis for the development of an independent culture typified by Solon of Athens and typified by the Pythagoreans, and by Plato and so forth and so on. And again, the enemy was the cult of Apollo at Delphi. Now, to get the picture, you look at the cult of Apollo, the temple area, which is the cult of Gaea, and this is in an area which is next to a seaport area. The seaport area was the center of maritime trade throughout the Mediterranean for this population. You look at the temple, the temple was surrounded by little temples, which represent the treasuries of the various city-states participating in this arrangement with the cult of Apollo. What they were doing was, they were running a loan-sharking operation throughout the Mediterranean. And this became the model in that culture for the development of what later became the Roman Empire system, what became the Byzantine system, what became the Venetian system of the Venetian oligarchs and their Norman chivalry crusaders, who were conducting slaughter at that time.

Now, with the collapse, in the 14th Century, of the Venetian system of that time, the so-called ultramontane system, you had the rise of European civilization, European form, with the Council of Florence in the 15th Century. You had a reaction against this by the Venetians, who, in a sense, organized the overthrow of Byzantium over Constantinople, to break up the organization which had been created around the Council of Florence. This was again done by the Venetians. So the Venetians came back.

In 1492, for example, you had the launching of slaughter of Jews and others, especially the expulsion of Jews, the slaughter and so forth, in 1492, by the Grand Inquisitor, Tomás de Torquemada, and an attempt to bring back the old feudal system, which had been run under the direction of the Venetian bankers. This didn't work; it caused all kinds of hell, but it didn't work as a system for reasons given by Machiavelli, for example, in his writings on these questions. So, you had a new system that was set up in the 16th Century, under the leadership of one called Paolo Sarpi, who was the leader of a different faction of Venice, which made a Venetian reform. What they introduced is called liberalism today, Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, which is the idea that you are allowed to practice innovation, as long as you don't discover any scientific reason for it. The point was to prevent the development of a society based on knowledge of this type, scientific knowledge and practice, but to allow a certain amount of innovation, so that your country, your force, would not fall behind in technology, with your rival force on the other side.

Now, this system went through various evolutions in the course of the 17th Century, and became known, with William of Orange's seizure, coup d'état, in London, as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system. The Anglo-Dutch Liberal system is the Anglo-Dutch Liberal version of the old Venetian oligarchical system. So, what you have today, particularly since 1763, with the Treaty of Paris of 1763, you have the British East India Company, and its successor as an empire, the British monarchy, later on. This system was established as a system of bankers, of loan sharks, which is operating above the level of governments, financing governments and controlling governments.

So this is like a slime mold; you've probably seen slime molds, they exist all over the place. And a slime mold goes through a phase where it seems to be a uniform slime, and then at another point, it takes the form of individualities standing up in the middle of the slime, as individualities....
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

April 11, 2007

Message of good wishes to be presented to the Anti- Globalist Resistance conference.

At first, the wicked turn in U.S. politics which has been led by the partnership of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore does tend to spread pessimism in many parts of the world. However, we must recognize, at the same time, that the pro-globalization policies of the current U.S.-British alliance are an absolutely unworkable program.

The present world monetary-financial system has entered the terminal phase of an onrushing general breakdown crisis of that system. In the meantime, we see that the Blair-Gore policy is being resisted by a rising commitment to the immediate introduction of programs of development of sources of power based on presently existing, improved designs for nuclear power. In fact, there is no possibility of sustaining civilization globally without this shift to a nuclear-fission and even more advanced modes of generation and application of power.

In fact, it would be possible to escape from the presently onrushing threat of a general monetary-financial breakdown globally, through a return to the kinds of policies which U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt had intended for the post-war world. A sudden and more or less world-wide reform would be required for such a remedy, but this means that the reform must be submitted by a concert of nations built up around leading cooperation among the world's present leading nations: the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India. Without a concert of agreement represented by these four crucial and other nations, the needed reform could not be introduced in a timely fashion.

Count Sergei Witte, promoter of American System economics and industrial development in Russia in the 19th century

Therefore, the urgent task of the moment is to build up a working agreement on the most crucial features of such a needed reform. Knowledge of what that reform must include, is a precondition for the will to implement it.

Otherwise, the objective remains essentially that which President Franklin Roosevelt had intended for the post-war world, had he lived. We require a world composed of respectively sovereign nation-states, united by an understanding of the essential cultural role of the principle of national sovereignties, and the need for cooperation among those nations on common goals and means for raising the level of existence of all parts of the planet, each to contribute in its own way.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed in this, but there is no moral choice for humanity today but to attempt to bring this about. Our discussion of this challenge, and of the means of bringing this change about, should be foremost on our agenda now.


WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1 (LPAC)--In his opening statement at the
LaRouche Pac May 1 webcast in Washington, D.C., Lyndon LaRouche emphasized the urgent necessity of replacing the hopelessly bankrupt world monetary-financial system.

"What must happen, if civilization is to be continued on this planet--it must happen very rapidly--is that the United States must enter into an agreement with Russia, China, India, and other countries, to establish immediately, an emergency, new international monetary system, based in conception, on the precedent of Franklin Roosevelt's launching of the Bretton Woods system in the period of 1944-45. That must happen, and can happen." LaRouche continued:

"Russia has already indicated, through President Putin, repeatedly--and through others--and I have some considerable investigation into this matter--an interest in working together with the United States, perhaps not with the jokers who are presently sitting in Washington, in the White House and similar places, but to establish a new relationship with the United States, different than that which now exists at the top, in order to bring together the nations of Russia, China, India, and the United States, and other nations, into treaty agreements which will establish immediately, a new emergency world monetary system, modeled in intention, on the agreement which Franklin Roosevelt orchestrated in 1944-45 for the post-war world.

"{That is the only option for humanity now. The time frame is immediate.} This is not something for 2009. Or even 2008. It's for 2007, and it must happen {now}: Because the entire system is presently, hopelessly bankrupt. It's being held together by pins and needles, and chewing gum...." For the full webcast transcript, or archived audio, see

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

The presently deteriorating political situation in the process of the Federal government's deliberations on critical issues in today's U.S.A. demands some frank speech from me now. During the days and weeks ahead, I shall formulate a programmatic policy-statement of the type urgently needed by leading political parties which have shown themselves currently unable to grasp the actual situation which menaces our own and other nations today. Therefore, for the present moment, I fill in the political gap left by the major party leaderships with a relatively few words to the wise.

Westward, south of Scandinavia, across continental Europe, from the borders of Russia and Belarus, and in the United Kingdom, Europe has become a spectacle of already failed, or failing incumbent governments. This is also virtually the present internal political condition of the U.S.A., a fact which I find the most notable characteristic presently among the present national leaders of the U.S. Democratic Party organization. For me, the most shameful of these spectacles is the chronic failures shown by the leaderships of both the Republican and Democratic parties, especially since February 2006.

Naturally, in this report, my special attention to relevant lessons from the recent past, is focused on the breakdown of the Democratic Party leadership since the overlapping incidents of the Alito confirmation, and the wretched way in which the Senate Democrats and Republicans, alike, sat on their hands while the core of U.S. industry, the auto industry, went under without a finger lifted by either party in our nation's defense against this terrible thing. Nonetheless, my passion is concentrated less on what has already happened, but on something far, far worse, which is about to happen, soon, unless our elected leaders mend their negligent ways.

In both Europe and the U.S.A. itself, the key to the waves of virtual abandonment of the functions of national sovereignty, is to be recognized in the interdependent, combined effects of the submission to a form of rape, and looting, which the combination of hedge-fund looting, and destruction of national sovereignty by globalization, represents. In effect, the U.S.A. and most of the population of western and central Europe have submitted, under the banner of globalization, to be sent in the direction of a threatened early return to a kind of imperial tyranny which was last seen in European history with the medieval alliance of a Venetian financier oligarchy and a brutish Norman chivalry.

In the meantime, the combination of the British Labour Party government and the Bush-Cheney maladministration, have committed repeated grossly impeachable offenses, while the Congress whimpers that it can do nothing for defense of our nation's Constitution against a usurper, the Vice-President Cheney - - better called the President of Vice - - who has used the President of the U.S. as he were like a badly maintained toilet-brush. It appears, that, like Hamlet, our Congress and our leading, pigeoned-livered, political parties, can do nothing for our nation's cause.

The fault lies not in our stars, "Dear Brutus," but in the fact that those who would be seen as our leaders, are showing the mentality of underlings whenever they are faced with the tyrants of wildly careening financier power.

Worst of all, some among the persons complicit in allowing this state of national affairs to prevail, are currently candidates for nomination to become the President of our United States. The acceleration of the early Presidential primaries has been particularly disgusting on this specific account. If that present trend were allowed to continue, the decision on leading candidates for the Presidential nomination would be made before any serious debate on the systemic substance on leading issues could occur.

"You Call These Candidates?"

So far, the candidates' debates among one another, have evaded any substantive commitment on any subject of actually crucial importance for our republic at this time. "Touchy-feely" issues predominate, while such facts are ignored as a world faced with the presently oncoming threat of an early, outbreak of the greatest financial and economic collapse in modern world history, and the fact that the cowardice shown by the Senate so far presents us now, not only with a nearly four-year-long, endless war in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but a serious threat of even a thermonuclear exchange among the powers of Eurasia, and, probably, also involving the U.S.A. On both of those exemplary issues, the candidates so far, have nothing useful to say. They are inclined, instead, either to flat (and frankly false) denials of such dangers, or whimpering protests of the form of "Please, please, please, don't tell me it is really so!"

On the subject of the economy, the worst damage is being done by those hedge-funds which have destroyed the U.S.-owned automotive industry, in favor of cheap-labor types of foreign-owned replacements, which are the same hedge-funds which appear to be buying up leading candidates for the Presidential nomination.

Recently, the same United Kingdom government whose wild-eyed, flagrant lies led the United States into the presently endless war in Iraq, has orchestrated a threatened conflict with the thermonuclear powers Russia and China. In all cases, the drive toward war is pushed by lies of leading governments who are, nonetheless, treated as "respectable" by at least most of our leading candidates for Presidential nominations.

Meanwhile, our friends in western and central Europe are in terrible shape politically and otherwise. What were formerly the Soviet- dominated Comecon states of eastern Europe, are in worse economic condition today than under Soviet domination, and are, with one or two exceptions, at most, in wretched internal political condition as well, inclined to a reckless form of arrogance which is in direct proportion to their lack of competence. None of these nations, as also the U.S.A., have shown any capability of defending themselves against the predatory forces of the hyena-like packs of hedge funds which are consuming the bone and marrow of those nations' welfare.

In Europe, the prevalent trend is toward fragmentation of political parties, thus creating weak, minority forms of parliamentary governments, or inherently weakened forms of coalition governments, a state of affairs with very ugly potential consequences under present world conditions. Typical are Belgium's case, on the one hand, and the fact that in recent elections in the United Kingdom, there were incongruent patterns of results in elections in England, Scotland, and Wales, with Labour generally losing ground in these cases. There is, after all, the danger of "too much democracy," under conditions of crisis in which no party is able to win majority support for urgently needed remedies for crisis.

What I Have Proposed

The crux of the world's strategic situation now, is the onrushing breakdown of the world's economy, chain-reaction style, under the impact of the greatest hyperinflationary bubble in world history. This is a bubble, centered in the pure swindle known as "hedge funds," which is centered in a lunatics' delusion far worse than the John Law-style bubbles of Europe's early Eighteenth Century. Unless leading nations, such as the United States, take actions to put the present world monetary-financial system under governmental reorganization in bankruptcy, the entire world will be plunged, soon, into the kind of chain-reaction collapse which sent Europe into a great new dark age during the middle of the Fourteenth Century.

Any concerned person has merely to look at the mass of nominal hedge-fund capitalization to see the indication that there is no way that that mass of financial claims could survive. Only a general reorganization of what is presently the world's inherently bankrupt monetary-financial system could avert a early collapse of the planet as a whole into a prolonged dark age. One third of Europe's population was wiped out in this way during the Fourteenth-Century dark age; the threat today would cut much deeper.

The obvious problem is, that although the U.S. abandoned its effective control over its own U.S. dollar, as it did this under the professional direction of George Shultz during 1971-72, the U.S. dollar has remained the principal denominator of international debt among the nations of the world as a whole. A collapse of the dollar would not eliminate just the U.S.A.; it would set off a global chain- reaction in the monetary-financial system, wiping out most of the booked valuation of claims against the U.S. dollar, while collapsing economies around the world through a collapse of the dollar-related markets. When the hedge-fund bubble is factored in as part of the bubble ripe for popping, we have a situation today which is far worse as a threat to humanity of this planet, than the collapse of the House of Bardi set off during the middle of the Fourteenth Century.

The only remedy for this threat would be putting the world financial-monetary system as a whole into reorganization by a concert of governments, and conducting the management of that bankrupt system under principles modeled on the Franklin Roosevelt Administration's design for a fixed-exchange-rate, protectionist system. Otherwise, the entire planet goes to Hell! That is the only choice actually available to you. One or the other decision; there is no significant in-between. You thought you had enjoyed the meal; now, you are faced with paying the bill for your indulgence in a deregulated, free-trade system of attempted globalization.

There are some governments which would not accept that reform, unless they were given no feasible alternative. To push through the needed reform, we would require a concert of agreement among no less than the combination of the U.S.A., Russia. China, and India. We would expect a number of additional nations, hopefully including Japan, to support this decision, and then most of the rest of the planet would join, whether with a hearty laugh (perhaps from Argentina, among others), a smile (perhaps from Italy), or only an assenting grimace (from certain others).

This reform of the monetary system, would require the replacement of a monetarist system by the kind of credit system embedded in the intention of the U.S. Federal Constitution. The bulk of the credit needed would be devoted to capital formation in long-term investments, pivoted on a large mass dedicated to the basic economic infrastructure required by a modern standard of productivity and living, and a matching high-technology driver in agriculture and industry.

Actually intelligent U.S. politicians would agree with my proposal, if only because, if they are really intelligent, they would recognize that they have no sane alternative.


Here are the remarks by Lyndon LaRouche to a Rome forum on June 6, on "The Future of the Economy: Market Radicalism or New Deal?" He was joined at the roundtable, organized by EIR, by Italy's Deputy Finance Minister Alfonso Gianni, and Giulio Tremonti, former Finance Minister and currently vice chairman of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. The hour-long audio of the three speeches, without the open discussion, can be downloaded from Radio

Since we have a crowded agenda, I shall limit myself to three essential points, and some comment on that, to conclude the statement of the points.

First of all, the world system, in its present form, is hopelessly bankrupt. There will never be a recovery of the present world, international monetary-financial system: It will never occur. Only a new system could survive. And only with a new system, could Europe or the United States, or the world as a whole, survive.

It's never possible to give a precise mathematical projection of the date of an inevitable financial collapse, because there are various acts of free will which can change the course of history, to make a bad situation worse, as a way of preventing a collapse. That is, if you want to stop a collapse which is intrinsically inevitable, the best way to do it, is to do something that makes the system worse, as has been done since 1987, when we had, in effect, a 1929 collapse.

For example, the United States is internally ungovernable at the present time. By the same standard, every government in Western and Central Europe is also ungovernable at this time. They're ungovernable, because the dominant force in the world today is typified by hedge funds. As long as you allow the hedge fund operation, which is largely a British operation, run through places like the Cayman Islands, you can not actually determine the destiny of any nation, in terms of this collapse.

You have a situation comparable to that of Europe in the middle of the 14th Century, when the House of Bardi collapsed in a hopeless bankruptcy. The only solution is to establish a new monetary system.

Now, it happens that all European systems are monetary systems, and they really don't function in a case like this. The attempt to establish any form of economy based on a money system, where money is independent of government, is impossible. Since 1971-72, the world has been run by money, not the world of money by governments. So, the solution is, in the case of the United States, we have a solution for this in our history: The United States does not constitutionally have a monetary system, not in the sense of European monetary systems. The United States system is a credit system, not a monetary system. The lawful constitutional utterance of money in the United States, is by an Act of Congress. Then, this issue of money is used as a form of credit, which can then be used to support a banking system. This was essentially the approach that Franklin Roosevelt took in March of 1933, when he came into office, after the U.S. economy had collapsed by one-third as a result of the Hoover Depression, which had actually been the result of the entire policy of the 1920s.

Under Roosevelt, as earlier under similar Presidents who had operated in this way, the chief function of government credit, that is, in the form of government debt used as credit, had been to promote both large-scale investment in long-term infrastructure development, and certain categories of investment in the private sector. The other essential part about the U.S. economy, to make it work and make money work, is to have a regulated economy. You do not allow the floating of money in free circulation to determine value. You use various forms of regulation, including customs systems and so forth, to keep the currency within a rational values relationship in the economy as a whole.

One of the things that's obvious, is, you can not run a national economy if the prime rate of lending by governments or other institutions, runs up over 1.5 to 2%. Otherwise you will tend to get long-term, secular inflation. And when you have inflation, the value of money and everything else goes to Hell. Because, when you loan money, if you loan it at a fixed rate that people can afford to pay, or that's profitable to the economy, you've got to prevent inflation from raising the cost of the debt, otherwise, you are putting a constriction on the growth of the economy. In the case of the United States, particularly, we found out that you have to have a fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, otherwise, you can not avoid the bad effects of fluctuations in international trade.

There were many errors made after the death of Roosevelt, in the way the monetary system of the U.S. was run. Briefly, the purpose of Roosevelt had been to take what the United States had developed, as the world's greatest monetary system and greatest economic system the world had ever known; but during wartime conditions, this system was used to build a war machine which was necessary to defeat Hitler. But a war economy is not a good economy; it does not produce net value in terms of what you spend for. But what we did in the United States, as part of everything Roosevelt did up through the end of the war, was to build the greatest productive machine the world had ever seen. What Roosevelt had intended, was to use the war machine, its productivity, to convert it to international as well as national uses, to rebuild a shattered world.

When Roosevelt died, Truman, who was a stooge for the British, started a conflict with the Soviet Union. This resulted in a war-economy situation again, which taxed the world, and created many other problems. At the same time, out of London, we developed an actual fascist movement inside the United States, which Eisenhower called the "military-industrial complex." Despite these problems, and the errors that caused them, up until the assassination of Kennedy, over the entire period from the end of the war until Kennedy's death, the U.S. economy and the U.S. system worked. Since the death of Kennedy, with the beginning of the long Indo-China War, which ruined us, the United States and the world system began to decay, under the related impact of the war and the rise of the "68ers." And with the decision of Nixon, and more specifically, George Shultz, in 1971-72, in creating the floating-exchange-rate system, the world economy as a whole has gone to Hell.

In October 1987, we went through the equivalent of a 1929 crash in the stock markets. The decision was made, in which Greenspan was typical, to go to a wildly speculative monetary system, which has ruined the world economy, and has brought us from a depression situation which existed in '87, into a breakdown crisis of the entire world system, which is the state of affairs right now. Over the entire period, taking into account the effect of the Vietnam War spending, over the entire period from 1971-72, under the floating-exchange-rate monetary system, we've had also a political process identified with the 68er phenomenon, which is actually the shift from a productive economy, to a purely speculative economy. The productive powers of labor, physically, per capita and per square kilometer, have been crashing, and the infrastructure has been crashing around much of the world.

Despite what has happened in China and what has happened to some degree in India, India and China are actually long-term failures. These are Asian-model societies, in which the lower 80% of the population is treated almost as animals. In both cases, you have an increases within the upper 20% of family-income brackets, and including a super-rich stratum within that, but the lower 80% has been falling in value, even relative to the so-called improvements and advantages of these economies on the international market.

- There Is a Way Out -

So, there are two things now, which I point now, as solutions or partial solutions for the present state of affairs: First of all, I have proposed that the United States government, Russia, China, and India, form an initiating bloc to agree to establish a new, international monetary system. And I recommend this, because these three partners--I listed Russia, China, and India--are the only three nations which are powerful enough in terms of their independence, which were likely to actually support such an initiation. No government of Western and Central Europe would even consider supporting such a measure. However, if these four powers agree to initiate such a proposal, it will work. And that proposal, I've made clear both to people in the United States, and to the relevant other three governments.

Now, we made a second step, which was part of my recent trip to Moscow. Some years ago, my wife, Helga, in expanding the definition of the Eurasian Land-Bridge development, as a system of transport and development tracks, had a discussion with a friend in Japan with the Mitsubishi operation; we looked at their specifications on the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the tunnel-bridge system from Siberia to Alaska, which would become the basis for a worldwide transit system, which I would aim at essentially to getting to a magnetic levitation system, rather than a friction-rail system, in some short order.

Now this is necessary, when you think of the condition of the populations of China, India, and other Asian countries. These countries are now inherently unstable, despite the surface appearance of success. The mass of poor in these countries is a political-economic time-bomb. Without some large-scale development programs, you can't do much for them. We have, in the northern part of Asia, vast resources underneath the soil: Under a high-technology environment, which requires a transportation system, you can, with technologies we know and skills we have now, we can develop these areas into sources of raw materials which will address this problem.

Helga and I have, over a period of years, made several approaches to Russia, on supporting such a policy--that is, the Siberian development policy. There was recently a conference in Russia, which I addressed by message, which adopted this policy, with very specific predicates. The intention is, to establish a rail-type connection, which runs from Eurasia, into the Americas, down through the Americas, and of course would run on a different track into Africa, to create a world system of transportation which is a transportation net for world development. The government of President Vladimir Putin has recently indicated its support for this proposal, and is making approaches to the United States on this issue. It is reported to me, though I've not yet confirmed it otherwise, that Putin will be making this point, or this representation, at the G8 conference now going on.

This is the kind of world we live in. We can put the world monetary-financial system under reorganization, provided we have specific motivating proposals which will make it work. Otherwise, the prospect for the planet, without such proposals, would be a very early arrival of a dark age.


Jeffrey Steinberg

On Wednesday, June 6, the British Broadcasting Corporation aired a sensational story, revealing that the British arms manufacturer BAE Systems, had paid more than $2 billion in bribes to Saudi Arabia's national security chief and longtime Ambassador in Washington, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, over a 22 year period. The BBC revelations were further detailed on June 11, in a one-hour Panorama TV documentary, provocatively titled "Princes, Planes and Pay-offs," which detailed a more than decade-long probe by the Guardian, BBC, and the British Serious Fraud Office (SFO), into the Al-Yamamah arms contract, a nearly $80 billion, 22-year long deal between BAE Systems and the Saudi government, in which British-made fighter jets and support services were provided to the Saudi Kingdom, beginning in 1985.

Every British government, from Margaret Thatcher, through John Major, to Tony Blair, has been thoroughly implicated in the BAE-Saudi scandal. In December 2006, Britain's Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, ordered the SFO probe shut, declaring that any further investigation would gravely jeopardize British national security. Prime Minister Blair fully backed his Attorney General, and is now scrambling to complete the fourth phase of the Al-Yamamah deal before he leaves office next month.

The furor that followed the Goldsmith announcement triggered a number of international investigations into the BAE Systems scandal, including by the Swiss government and the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the so-called "rich nations" club). More recently, the U.S. Department of Justice has reportedly opened a probe into money laundering and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, on the part of the British and the Saudis. The estimated $2 billion in cumulative payoffs to Prince Bandar, for his role in brokering the Al-Yamamah deal, went through the Saudi government accounts at Riggs Bank in Washington, D.C., thus opening the U.S. jurisdiction.

While the various British investigations into the Al-Yamamah (Arabic for "the dove") arms deal did unearth a vast network of front companies, offshore shells, and corrupt politicians, who benefited richly from the deal, EIR's own preliminary investigation into the scandal has uncovered a far more significant story, one that will send shock waves through the City of London financial circles, as well as top figures within the British monarchy, who are all implicated in a far bigger scheme that goes to the very heart of the Venetian-modeled Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of global finance, which is now on its last legs.


In 1985, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in part frightened by the ongoing war between its neighbors Iran and Iraq, which had reached a highly destructive phase known as the "war of the cities," sought to purchase large numbers of advanced fighter jets to build up their Royal Air Force. Initially, the Saudis sought approval from the Reagan Administration to purchase American-made F-15 fighters. The Saudi F-15 deal required Congressional approval, and the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) waged a massive effort to kill the sale. According to several well-informed Washington sources, Howard Teicher, a senior official on the Reagan National Security Council (director of Near East and South Asia, 1982-1985; senior director, Politico-Military Affairs, 1986-1987), also played a pivotal role in the AIPAC effort, which ultimately succeeded in killing the deal. Teicher, according to the sources, withheld information from Reagan, stalling a Congressional vote until AIPAC had fully mobilized, and then convinced the President to withdraw the request, rather than face an embarrassing defeat in the Congress.

Other sources have offered a slightly different version of the failure of the F-15 deal, claiming that intelligence community estimates, since the mid-1970s, had warned of instability in the Persian Gulf, and that there were, therefore, other reasons to question the advisability of the sales of advanced U.S. military technology to Saudi Arabia, particularly after the Khomeini Revolution in Iran.

Whatever the reason, the F-15 deal failed. The very next day, after the Reagan Administration threw in the towel, Prince Bandar, the Kingdom's de facto chief diplomat to Britain, the Soviet Union, and China, as well as the U.S.A., flew to London to meet with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. British arms sales did not require parliamentary approval, and the British government, in 1966, had created an agency, the Defence Export Services Organization (DESO), to hawk British arms around the globe. BAE Systems had been created in 1981, when Thatcher privatized the British arms manufacturing industry, which had, only four years earlier, been nationalized under the Labour government. And BAE Systems, the largest arms manufacturer in Europe, dominates the British defense sector.

The Bandar trip to London to confer with Thatcher had been in the works for months. A Ministry of Defence briefing paper, prepared for the Thatcher-Bandar sessions, stated, "Since early 1984, intensive efforts have been made to sell Tornado and Hawk to the Saudis. When, in the Autumn of 1984, they seemed to be leaning towards French Mirage fighters, Mr Heseltine paid an urgent visit to Saudi Arabia, carrying a letter from the Prime Minister to King Fahd. In December 1984, the Prime Minister started a series of important negotiations by meeting Prince Bandar, the son of Prince Sultan.... The Prime Minister met the King in Riyahd in April this year and in August the King wrote to her stating his decision to buy 48 Tornado IDS and 30 Hawk."

Thatcher also had every reason to feel confident that Bandar would be the perfect interlocutor between Saudi Arabia and Great Britain in the deal of the century. At age 16, several years after his father, Prince Sultan, had been named Minister of Defense of the Kingdom, the Prince was sent to England to study at the Royal Air Force College Cranwell, the elite officer's training school for future RAF pilots. At least one senior American intelligence official has reported widespread rumors that Bandar was recruited by MI6, the British Secret Intelligence Service, before he finished his RAF training. Other sources, intimately familiar with the goings-on at BAE Systems, report that the "private" aerospace giant has a sales force made up almost exclusively of "lads" recruited to MI6 before their hires.

Whether or not these reports are accurate, Bandar certainly is a serious Anglophile. The best accounts of his adventures in England appear in the 2006 book, The Prince—The Secret Story of the World's Most Intriguing Royal (HarperCollins, New York), by William Simpson, a Cranwell classmate, and still-intimate pal of the Prince. Simpson, who wrote the book with the full cooperation of Bandar, recounted his friend's intimate ties with every occupant of 10 Downing Street.

"In London," Simpson reported, "Bandar would breeze into Number Ten with unhibited panache. From Margaret Thatcher to John Major to Tony Blair, Bandar's access was extraordinary." By Prince Bandar's own account to Simpson about Al-Yamamah, "When we first made the agreement, we had no contract. It was a handshake between me and Mrs. Thatcher in Ten Downing Street." It was months before the final details of the Al-Yamamah deal were finalized, and the contracts signed. But even before the ink had dried, Britain had provided the initial delivery of Tornado jets—from the inventory of the RAF.

By the time the formal Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the British and Saudi defense ministers on Sept. 25, 1985, the original order had been expanded to 72 Tornado fighter jets and 30 Hawk training aircraft, along with other equipment and services. There have been two subsequent deals, Al-Yamamah II and III, and Al-Yamamah IV, worth as much as $40 billion in additional arms deliveries, is in the final stages.


The Al-Yamamah deal was structured as a barter arrangement. While the Saudis did agree to pay cash for certain services and infrastructure construction under separate sub-contracts—and those cash payments went, in part, to "consulting fees" or bribes, including the $2 billion to Prince Bandar's accounts at Riggs Bank, and similar reported payments to the Chilean dictator Gen. Augusto Pinochet and the Dutch Royal Consort, Prince Bernhard—the essential contract involved the Saudi delivery of oil to Britain, in return for the fighter jets.

And here is where the story gets really interesting.

Saudi Arabia agreed to provide Britain with one tanker of oil per day, for the entire life of the Al-Yamanah contracts. An oil tanker holds approximately 600,000 barrels of oil. BAE Systems began "official" delivery of the Toronado and Hawk planes to Saudi Arabia in 1989. BAE Systems now has approximately 5,000 employees inside Saudi Arabia, servicing the contract.

Is it possible to place a cash value on the oil deliveries to BAE Systems? According to sources familiar with the inner workings of Al-Yamamah, much of the Saudi oil was sold on the international spot market at market value, through British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell.

EIR economist John Hoefle has done an in-depth charting of the financial features of the oil transactions, based on BP's own daily tracking of world oil prices on the open market. Using BP's average annual cost of a barrel of Saudi crude oil, Hoefle concluded that the total value of the oil sales, based on the value of the dollar at the time of delivery, was $125 billion. In current U.S. dollar terms, that total soars to $160 billion.

Based on the best available public records, the total sticker price on the military equipment and services provided by BAE Systems to Saudi Arabia, over the 22-year period to date, was approximately $80 billion. And those figures are inflated by billions of dollars in slush fund payouts. Indeed, the latest limited-damage scandal around Al-Yamamah erupted in November 2006, when a Ministry of Defence document leaked out, providing the actual sticker price on the fighter jets. The figure confirmed the long-held suspicion that the prices of the jets had been jacked up by at least 40%.

BAE Systems, a crown jewel in the City of London financial/industrial structure, secured somewhere in the range of $80 billion in net profit from the arrangement—in league with BP and Royal Dutch Shell! Where did that money go, and what kinds of activities were financed with it? The answer to those questions, sources emphasize, holds the key to the power of Anglo-Dutch finance in the world today.

Prince Bandar's biographer and friend William Simpson certainly provided an insight into the inner workings of the Al-Yamamah project: "Although Al-Yamamah constitutes a highly unconventional way of doing business, its lucrative spin-offs are the by-product of a wholly political objective: a Saudi political objective and a British political objective. Al-Yamamah is, first and foremost, a political contract. Negotiated at the height of the Cold War, its unique structure has enabled the Saudis to purchase weapons from around the globe to fund the fight against Communism. Al-Yamamah money can be found in the clandestine purchase of Russian ordnance used in the expulsion of Qaddafi's troops from Chad. It can also be traced to arms bought from Egypt and other countries, and sent to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupying forces."

In effect, Prince Bandar's biographer confirms that Al-Yamamah is the biggest pool of clandestine cash in history—protected by Her Majesty's Official Secrets Act and the even more impenetrable finances of the City of London and the offshore, unregulated financial havens under British dominion.

The Saudi Side of the Street

For its part, the Saudi Royal Family did not exactly get ripped off in the Al-Yamamah deal. When the contract was signed in 1985, according to sources familiar with the arrangement, Saudi Arabia got an exemption from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The barter deal with BAE Systems did not come under their OPEC production quota. In other words, Saudi Arabia got OPEC approval to produce 600,000 barrels a day, above the OPEC ceiling, to make the arms purchases.

According to the Energy Information Administration, a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, over the life of the Al-Yamamah program, the average cost of a Saudi barrel of crude oil, delivered to tankers, was under $5 a barrel. At that price, the annual cost to the Saudis for the 600,000 barrels per day was $1.1 billion. Over the duration of the contract to date, the cost to the Saudis of the daily oil shipments was approximately $24.6 billion. The commercial value, in current dollars, as noted above, was $160 billion.

The Saudis have forged a crucial partnership with the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, headquartered in the City of London, and protected by the British Crown. They have, in league with BAE Systems, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and other City giants, established a private, offshore, hidden financial concentration that would have made the British East India Company managers of an earlier heyday of the British Empire, drool with envy.

At this moment, there is no way of calculating how much of that slush fund has been devoted to the clandestine wars and Anglo-American covert operations of the past two decades. Nor is it possible to estimate the multiplier effect of portions of those undisclosed, and unregulated funds having passed through the hedge funds of the Cayman Island, the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Panama, and Switzerland.

What is clear, is that the BAE Systems scandal goes far beyond the $2 billion that allegedly found its way into the pockets of Prince Bandar. It is a scandal that goes to the heart of the power of Anglo-Dutch finance.

There is much, much more to unearth, now that the door has been slightly opened into what already appears to be the swindle of the century.

Lord Goldsmith Admits Withholding Facts from OECD

June 15, 2007 (LPAC)--The U.S. Justice Department has opened a preliminary investigation of whether the British aerospace company BAE paid bribes to win contracts in Saudi Arabia, Chile, and elsewhere, the Los Angeles Times reports today. Citing several unnamed U.S. law enforcement officials, the Times says that the investigation is focused on whether BAE violated the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and U.S. money-laundering laws.

The Times's sources emphasized that the DOJ investigation is more extensive than previously reported. "It's not just the Saudi payments that are an issue here," said one official, adding that BAE deals with many other countries are also being scrutinized, and calling it "a company-wide thing."

The Saudi side of the probe, according to U.S. law enforcement officials, centers on Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., who is otherwise known to be a close ally of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Meanwhile, in a letter to Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Britain's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith admitted to the fact that information was withheld from the anti-corruption probe by the OECD of the BAE-Saudi Arabia deal.

Lord Goldsmith wrote that he himself was not involved in any decision to withhold information, that was made by the Serious Fraud Office based on "national security" interests. "I did not know the judgment the SFO had reached about this issue until it arose in the media last week.... I gave no orders, instruction or advice to the SFO about that." He did admit that his director general, Jonathan Jones was at the Paris meeting with the OECD to "deal with the national security aspects" and that Jones "was aware in general of what the SFO proposed to say and participated in the discussions in preparation for the working group meeting." He then claimed that "what level of detail to give about particular payments" never arose in those discussions."

In response Sir Menzies said, "These events get curiouser and curiouser. Major decisions...were taken by officials and not by those with direct ministerial responsibility. The plain unvarnished truth is that Britain did not reveal significant information to the OECD."


June 15, 2007 (LPAC)--BAE Systems, the worlds largest arms company, accused of covert-payments crimes which threaten to blow up the Anglo-Dutch imperial system, has hired a committee of experts to inquire whether the company is ethical.

Another, similar, panel of experts has been hired by private equity companies -- under increasing public attack for piratical corporate takeovers and asset-stripping that is erasing jobs everywhere -- to work out ethics rules that will block governments from regulating or interfering with this financial warfare.

The two panels are interlocked.

Last March, facing fire from trade unions and foreign governments, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown and the pirate firms' own trade association together appointed Sir David Walker, a former City of London investment banker and Bank of England executive, to chair the private equity working group.

Sir David Walker immediately appointed to his panel Lady Sarah Hogg, chairman of the giant "3i" private equity firm. EIR readers will recall Lady Hogg as the ringleader of the group that sacked BBC Director General Greg Dyke for standing up to the Blair-Cheney war lies; and recall that her "3i" firm is used to financially sponsor the Blair-Cheney slander campaign against Lyndon LaRouche.

On June 15, BAE Systems named former English Chief Justice Lord Harry Woolf to chair its experts panel. One focal point for the U.S. Justice Department interest in the BAE covert-payments scandal is the Persian Gulf Kingdom of Qatar, the alleged scene of huge BAE bribes which were reportedly laundered through the island of Jersey. Lord Woolf is himself currently in Qatar, where he has been hired by the new Qatar Financial Centre to run the "legal system" for an unregulated speculators' paradise that is explicitly modeled on the City of London.

Lord Woolf immediately appointed Sir David Walker -- who is of course busy running the other (private equity) panel -- to be on the BAE Systems' self-checking panel.

On being named to his lucrative post, Lord Woolf said "It is of importance to BAE Systems and this country that BAE Systems' ethical standards are irreproachable. BAE Systems believes this is the case. I am, however, agreeable at BAE Systems request to be Chairman of a wholly independent committee of unquestionable integrity to ascertain whether this is the case and, if in the committee's view this is not the situation, to identify the improvements BAE Systems needs to make so that BAE Systems can make the necessary changes."


June 19, 2007 (LPAC)--As one of the largest arms sales in history to the Middle East, the BAE deal is key to understanding Her Majesty the Queen's direct role in orchestrating the three Gulf wars of the last three decades, including the 1980-89 Iraq-Iran war, the 1991 Gulf War and the current Iraq war. It is also key to understanding the British role in the proposed war against Iran.

The object of these wars has been to destroy the two most important countries in the region, Iran and Iraq, as a key to resurrecting the global British Empire. This was best expressed by a retired British Military officer, who served as Her Majesty's military attache in Iraq in the 1980s. When the Gulf War began in 1991, he told this news service: "My dear sir, you have to understand this is how we built the British `Empah'. We had two powerful countries we wanted to destroy, in this case Iran and Iraq. We got them into a war and sold weapons to both sides. Just at the appropriate point we dried up on one and let the other beat him. Then we only had one country to destroy." This referred to the tilt towards Iraq in 1988, which led to the defeat of Iran. Three years later Iraq was manipulated into the war against Kuwait, only to be destroyed in the Gulf War.

The LPAC story, "The Queen's Connections to the BAE Scandal" touched on the direct role of Her Majesty's Crown Agents in the original BAE deal. The groundwork for this was laid by Sir John Cuckney, now Lord Cuckney of Millbank, who in the 1970s was Chairman of Crown Agents and Director of Millbank Technical Services, which, in 1978 was transferred to the Defense Ministry and renamed International Military Systems Ltd (IMS). Cuckney served as chairman of IMS until 1985. It was his replacement, Sir Colin Chandler, a BAE executive seconded to the Defense Ministry, who in 1985 negotiated the BAE deal.

In organizing IMS, Cuckney laid the basis for the massive arms and munitions sales to both Iran and Iraq during the first gulf war, the Iran-Iraq war. At the same time, Cuckney served as Director of the British Midland Bank between 1978 and 1988, where he founded and headed its Midland International Trade Services, the bank division expressly organized to sell the tools of war to both Iran and Iraq. Through these institutions Britain organized a European-wide network to sell arms and munitions to both Iran and Iraq in violation of the United Nations' sanctions against arms sales to both countries.

IMS, which was headed by Sir Colin Chandler between 1985 and 1989, was the key facilitator in this trade in weapons to Iran and Iraq. IMS had offices in both Iran and Iraq as well as in Saudi Arabia throughout the duration of the war. At stated above, Chandler was simultaneously a BAE executive and organizer of the BAE-Saudi deal.

The second Gulf War was initiated only after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher convinced President George Bush Sr. to "liberate" the Kingdom of Kuwait, which was considered nothing more then a British satrapy. It was Thatcher's advisors, such as Lord Cuckney, who organized the BAE deal only a few years before. It was then her successor Tony Blair, the Labor Party "Thatcherite," who marched into Iraq with the British stooge Vice President Dick Cheney.


June 19, 2007 (LPAC)--The Riggs Bank, the Washington-based institution at the center of the BAE Saudi scandal, has a long history as an asset of the British Crown. Riggs, while never in the league of the huge New York banks such as JP Morgan, was a strategically placed institution in the Washington area, often doing the finances for Presidents and legislators. Central to the financial operations of government institutions, it was once referred to as "just about the closest thing we'll ever have to a Bank of the United States." Indeed, other reports indicate that, during the first decades of its existence, Riggs was the "best known American banking institution" throughout the Far East.

Riggs bank grew out of a dry-goods firm started by a Baltimore financier George Peabody, who got his original financing from Elisha Riggs. Peabody partnered with Riggs to form Peabody Riggs in 1836, officially becoming a bank in 1852. During that time period, Peabody relocated to London, where he lived out the remainder of his life. While in London, Peabody developed close ties to the monarchy, including Queen Victoria herself. He also established relationships with both Junius Morgan and Nathaniel Rothschild, and was a central figure in the establishment the JS Morgan Bank, which was later transplanted to the US as JP Morgan Bank.

Peabody also had excellent relationships with another anglophile Baltimore firm (established in Liverpool), the Brown Brothers. Alexander Brown came to Baltimore in 1801, and established what is now known as the oldest banking house in the United States, still operating as Brown Brothers Harriman of New York; Brown, Shipley and Company of England; and Alex Brown and Son of Baltimore. Those relations may have been maintained through the years, for in 1998, J Carter Beese, a man who had spent the majority of his career at Alex. Brown, joined the board of Riggs.

In 1973, Riggs would become the first bank to open a facility with a foreign embassy, at the request of the British embassy itself. By 1980, Riggs will have established its first branch in a foreign country, at the US Embassy in London, supposedly at the request of the US State Department. In 1994, Riggs reportedly established the Riggs Bank Europe, through purchase of the Anglo-Portuguese Bank. In 2003, Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to the US, will directly join the board of the bank, just as the scandal involving the bank's connections to the Saudis and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet are beginning to surface.

In the immediate aftermath of the Bank's Saudi/Pinochet relationships, Riggs was quickly and quietly sold, to the Pittsburgh banking institution known as PNC bank.


June 20, 2007 (LPAC)--Stung by the exposure of its $80-billion slush fund for promoting war, revolution, and regime change, the British defense giant BAE has proposed a token gesture of reducing the number of independent advisers it uses for foreign arms sales.

The measure is intended, in large part, to try to reduce pressure from the United States, where a pending criminal investigation by the Justice Department, and scrutiny by other government agencies and Congress could foul up BAE attempts at takeover of a major U.S. arms contractor. The independent agents are the lower-level operatives in the bribery and kickback arrangements that form the heart of the company's operating practices, as in the 20-year running al Yamamah deal, arranged between the Margaret Thatcher government and Saudi Prince Bandar.

Mike Turner, BAE's chief executive, said the company would reduce the number of its independent advisers form 240 to "no more than 100 in the near term," according to a report in today's Financial Times of London. He made clear that the principal reason was to whitewash: "Now we have a huge market in the U.S. and we don't take any risks on our reputation," Turner is quoted as saying.

Reducing the number of agents is unlikely to stem the corrupt practices. In 1999, BAE reduced the number of its agents from 600 to 250 when it first entered the U.S. market, but the scandal only grew.


June 23, 2007 (LPAC)--Discussing the exploding British mega-scandal around the huge BAE Systems arms firm, at his June 21 Washington webcast, U.S. statesman and economist Lyndon LaRouche touched on the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Speaking of the current war and economic crisis, LaRouche said that BAE "is not the cause of the problem, it is a symptom of the problem: Is that more and more, under a system which was established, a change in the system established with the election of a non-person as a President, George W. Bush, Jr., under his chimpanzee keeper, the Vice President, that the world was being run, more and more, by what is behind the BAE. The BAE is actually better known as the British Empire. Some people call it the 'Brutish Empire.'

"Now, not all the people in England are guilty of this. Many of them, even who are Brits, or who believe in the imperial system, or the British Empire or whatever, think that what is being done now by BAE is insane. They think that other things are insane: They know that the idea of a global warming swindle is a hoax--they know that. They know it's totally unscientific, and could not be sold to a society in which science was still known as a subject for most people of that generation. And therefore, not because they are anti-British, but because they know that the system which is being run by the Blair government and its associates in the British system--being run by Blair's friend Cheney, and others--that this system is clinically insane. And therefore, they object to it. And they raised objections to it, which are registered in places like the London Guardian--called Guardian Unlimited these days--and the British BBC, and other locations.

"There was virtual silence on the subject of this, at least to its substance, inside the United States itself. It was only in the past three days, that there has been any appearance in the major English-speaking American press, of anything--even hinting at what has been the ongoing reality of this Bush Administration, since before the President was sworn in, in 2001. The world has been living under a system, which is the 9/11 system, which already existed, as I warned at the beginning of 2001, before President George W. Bush was inaugurated for the first time in January of 2001. Where I said: The world system has reached the point, that an onrushing collapse of the system is now in process. We can not determine exactly when or how this will occur, but we know the following two things:

Number 1, we know that this President and this Presidency can not deal with this crisis. Therefore, we must expect that the entire world will be subjected to the kind of thing we experienced in February of 1933, when Hermann Goering, the man behind the throne, the sort of Dick Cheney of the Hitler administration, orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag as a terrorist event. And this terrorist event was used on that night, or the following day, to install Hitler with dictatorial powers, which Hitler never lost, until the day he died!

"And I said then: The danger is that something like this will occur, under present trends in the United States, and it did occur: And it was called 9/11.

"Now, without going into the details of what we know and what we don't know about how 9/11 was orchestrated, we know that the only means by which this kind of thing is orchestrated, is found in one location: in a financial complex which is centered in the identity of the BAE.

Now, that's the mystery of 9/11. How it was done, the mechanics, that's irrelevant. We'll find out. And everybody in and around government who understands these matters, knows that!

And that's where the heat is, here."
Eric Margolis

Anyone who wants to understand what really goes on in the Mideast should have a look at the scandal that erupted earlier this month over the outsized character of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has long been a renowned mover, shaker, and charmer. As Saudi ambassador to the US, the influential Bandar schmoozed official Washington for two decades. He became an intimate of the Bush family. He invested a least $60 million in Saudi funds in the Carlyle Corp., in which the Bush family has important interests. Equally significant, Prince Bandar was a particular favorite at the CIA, where he was long considered one of its prime Mideast “assets.”

Bandar flew in his own personal Airbus A-340 painted in the colors of his favorite US football team, and threw lavish parties in his $135 million Aspen house and in Washington. He was Mr. SaudiAmerica. Congress, the media, and the rest of official Washington hailed Bandar as the kind of “good Arab” with whom the US was happy to do business.

After leaving Washington, Bandar returned home to become the highly influential head of national security and chief foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah. Bandar’s father, Crown Prince Sultan, is the nation’s powerful defense minister and next in line to the throne. Many Saudi observers believed Bandar was being positioned to sit one day on the throne of Saudi Arabia.
On top of all this, Bandar is also a marketing genius.

The UK Guardian newspaper and BBC recently revealed that Bandar personally received over US $2 billion in “marketing fees” from the British defense firm BAE as part of the huge, 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal. Al-Yamamah means dove in Arabic. Charges of massive corruption over the Al-Yamamah deal have swirled for years. But even for the rich Saudis, $2 billion is a lot of money. That’s twice what Washington’s most important Arab ally, Egypt, was given.

For the Saudi royals, Britain’s outgoing PM Tony Blair, and Washington, the “dove” and Bandar’s $2 billion worth of payola have become one big albatross.

During the 1980’s, Saudi Arabia sought to buy modern US warplanes. But the US pro-Israel lobby blocked the sale, costing the loss of billions in sales by US industry and 100,000 American jobs. The Reagan Administration advised the Saudis to go buy their warplanes from Britain.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was only too happy have the British defense firm, known today as BAE, sell the Saudis 120 Tornado strike aircraft, Hawk trainers, military equipment, and lucrative training and maintenance programs worth some $90–100 billion and the 100,000 jobs America lost. Over their operational lives of 20 or so years, warplanes consume six times their original cost in spare parts. These supply contract also went to BAE and other British industrial firms.

The Saudis could barely operate the modern military equipment they bought from the US, Britain, and France. Their military forces were a big zero. Most of it stayed in storage, or was operated by foreign mercenaries . The Saudi arms deals were really about buying military protection from the western powers.

All arms sales to the west’s Mideast clients routinely include 10–15% “commissions” to heads of state, generals, and their cronies. These funds are traditionally channeled through middlemen, the flamboyant Adnan Kashoggi being the most notorious.

Kickbacks, rechristened “marketing fees,” were of course expected in the Al-Yamamah deal. But Bandar’s $2 billion set a record for size and venality. Thatcher ordered Bandar’s payments carefully hidden from public gaze. They remained so until recent years when British and American government investigators began questioning secret, multi-million dollar payments to Prince Bandar routed from the UK to the shady Riggs Bank in Washington. Before it was shut down after a series of scandals, Riggs had become one of the favorite handlers of “black” money for pro-US autocratic regimes.

When Britain’s Serious Fraud Office began probing BAE’s secret payoffs to Bandar, Tony Blair sanctimoniously ordered the investigation shut down for “national security” reasons. The Saudis threatened to cancel their arms deals with Britain if payoff charges were made public by HM’s government. Blair was trying to sell the Saudis BAE’s new, high-tech Eurofighter. He blocked similar investigations by OECD, the international anti-bribery watchdog agency which was also closing in on the Saudi money trail.

Bandar denies any wrongdoing, claiming the “marketing” funds all went into a legitimate Defense Ministry account and were properly accounted for and audited.

Few believe him. The only “marketing” effort in the arms deal was payola to high Saudi officials. If the funds were legit, why all the secrecy and money laundering? Were the payments simply western “baksheesh” for Bandar and his clan? Were they to help him against his main power rival, Prince Turki Faisal, who is not seen as amenable to US and British interests as Bandar?

Could the billions have been used for covert operations, possibly with US participation? One recalls the Reagan years when money from Israel’s secret sales of US arms to Iran were used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.

The most significant effect of this revolting scandal is being felt in the Muslim world. One of the major reasons for the fast-spreading influence of militant Islamic groups like Hezbullah, Hamas, and Taliban has been their success in uprooting the Muslim world’s endemic corruption and nepotism. We are so used to Islamists being demonized as “terrorists” that their highly effective and popular social accomplishments are rarely noted. In fact, their appeal and popularity is based primarily on their welfare and incorruptibility.

Islamic militants insist the west exploits their nations by keeping deeply corrupt regimes in power. In exchange for protection from their own people and neighbors, and fabulous wealth, these authoritarian Arab regimes – always termed “moderates” by western media – sell oil on the cheap to the west and do its bidding. US-installed governments in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan are all noted for egregious corruption, including secret payoffs from Washington to their leaders.

No wonder Prince Bandar was always so amiable and accommodating. Or that he managed to fly out a planeload of Saudis the day after 9/11 when all US flights were grounded. Or that the Bush administration was trying to position the always amenable prince as the next Saudi monarch.

The Bandar scandal is hugely embarrassing for Blair and Bush, who claim to be leading a crusade to bring democracy and good government to the benighted Muslim world. It starkly confirms Islamists’ accusations that the west promotes corruption. And it dramatically exposes the dirty underbelly of the west’s much-vaunted “special relationship” with the Saudi royal family.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)