--------

--------

Support LaRouche's Homeowners and Bank Protection Bill, the first of Three Steps to Survival

March 5-8, 2004 Cadre School

 THE PHASE-CHANGES OF MARCH 5: 'THERE'S A RUMBLING,
A RUMBLING, LIKE THE PRE-SHOCK OF AN EARTHQUAKE'

Audio

On March 5, 2004, Lyndon LaRouche addressed a weekend cadre school of the Australian LaRouche Youth Movement, which was held at Anglesea. Mr. LaRouche was welcomed by Doug Mitchell, a leader of the LYM, who moderated the question-and-answer dialogue which followed the opening remarks that are transcribed here. It was the first Australian LYM dialogue with Mr. LaRouche.

DOUG MITCHELL: So, last night, when Bruce [Director] gave his presentation, he put a title on this cadre school: "Ending the 'On the Beach' Mentality" here in Australia. It would be interesting, to see if you got something to say about that. But, it's a pretty historic occasion, to have you address a cadre school, and I think I'll just leave it over to you.

LAROUCHE: Okay. Okay, now we have a very interesting day, today, in Europe and the United States. It's been building up over the past days, but it hit today, that in the wake of the Super Tuesday, that's this past week, primary elections, there has been a significant phase-shift, not only in the election process in the United States, where John Kerry, the Senator, and I are the only leading candidates who are still in the race. There are some others, who are in there for delegates; not for nomination.

There is some tremendous turmoil, in other issues:

For example, you take the case, which has caused much comment in Germany. You have the head of the IMF, who is sitting on top of the poor Argentines, and he was suddenly called back, in a sense, to Germany. That is, he was notified, that he was being appointed the President of Germany, to succeed the present President. And the fellow got on his plane, and left there, dropped the IMF, left his IMF post, and went back to Germany! The comment in Germany is, that Horst Koehler was getting out of the IMF, while the getting was good!

We have similar things like that: We have Greenspan, is mooted to be on the ropes, that Bush wants him fired. Gordon Brown, of the United Kingdom, is being mooted as a possible successor for Koehler; and similar kinds of things are going on.

What you have, is a general turmoil, around the world, which indicates that we're on the edge of a phase-change. You have the gyrations in the relationship between the valuation of the dollar and the euro, and other things of that sort.

In terms of my own experience, the response to me, is suddenly, greatly improved, inside the United States, in the media, and so forth, in terms of contacts, people I'm talking to, and that sort of thing.

So, there is a phase-shift in world affairs. And this obviously reflects one thing, among others: And that is, that this shebang, this present world monetary system is on the way to the burial grounds. Exactly which direction it will take, where the undertakers will lead it, and so forth, is not yet certain. But, it's obvious, there's a phase-change.

You've got two things, that are going on politically, internationally—especially, in the United States, but not just there. You have the neo-conservatives, these are the extreme right-wing animals, like Richard Perle and so forth; and contrary to the statements by some, that Richard Perle is not out, the fact of Richard Perle's withdrawing from his position with the Bush Administration, is a part of the same process as the withdrawal of Conrad Black—the man who was the moneybags for many of the neo-conservatives—who is in trouble all over the place, because they're sort of tired of his sort of funding of neo-conservatives.

This coincides with something else: Not only is the Bush neo-conservative phenomenon in trouble—and I probably must take the blame for a great deal of the suffering around the Bush camp, and others—but, the perception is, that the Bush sort of right-wing is not really going to work. It is not going to "carry the day," so to speak. And therefore, the right wing of importance right now, in the United States, is situated in the Democratic Party, on the Democratic side!

In the Democratic Party, we have a major conflict, between two views, in which my view lies in there, somewhere. You have one view, which is typified by the circles around the former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, which recognizes the severity of the present international monetary-financial crisis, as very few others of that generation do. (Oh, he's not actually a Baby Boomer; he's a little bit too old for that.)

But, then you have, on the opposite side, you have the group around Lazard Frères, who has a pro-Schachtian position. And if you haven't been told this already, Hjalmar Schacht was the man who, for the Bank of England chief, put Hitler in power in Germany, in 1933. And he is famous, not only for that, but as the Economics Minister of the Nazi system, and his policies, his economic austerity policies, are those which are associated with Nazism, the way Hitler came to power. These policies are not only popular with the outright fascists, or the obvious fascists—like the neo-conservatives around the Bush camp; like the Richard Perles and the Conrad Blacks, and so forth.

But, there is also another variety of fascist, as there was during the 1922-1945 period of the fascist heyday in Europe: These are the left-wing fascists, and they are typified by the Lazard Frères crowd, which was, during that period in European history, was very fascist, indeed. It's a hard-core Synarchist organization. Its typical expression in the United States, of that group, is Felix Rohatyn, an alumnus of Middlebury College in Vermont, where I had a funny experience some months ago. And he represents the pro-fascist economic policy alternative, inside the United States. His group, inside the Democratic Party, is moving to replace George Bush as President, because they say he's hopeless. But they have their own brand of fascism; and their commitment is to keep me out, at all costs.

What has happened now, is there's a shift in the situation. And some people in Europe have put it this way: Is that, Felix Rohatyn's crowd is incompetent. What they intend to do, what they're willing to do, will not fly under the conditions of the present world international financial crisis. It just won't fly. For example, one thing that Rohatyn and so forth will be dead against, is capital controls. Now, what is going to happen, of course, as the crisis hits with fuller force—and that can be in days; we're on the edge of it now: It can be weeks. It can be days. It can even be a couple of months or more. But, we're on the edge now. It is going to happen. What is keeping the system alive, is a hyperinflationary bubble of money-printing. In other words, a hyperinflationary process is keeping this bubble going, as long as the system will keep accepting the outpouring of this mass of money into the system, especially dollars and so forth.

It's going to come down: When it comes down, and if the world is not going to go "On the Beach" so to speak (in line with your discussion yesterday), then, there are going to have to be some changes.

First of all, we're going to have to put the IMF system into bankruptcy reorganization. That is, governments will have to take over, as they did during the immediate post-war period, when with the founding the original Bretton Woods system, governments took over, and the banks had to behave themselves, at that time. At a later time, up through 1989, there were changes. The Bretton Woods system was cancelled in '71-72. And in 1992, essentially, the Maastricht agreements and so forth, Europe gave up sanity, in terms of monetary policy.

But, we're going to have to go back to that. We're going to have go back to what was changed. We're going to have to put the IMF system into bankruptcy. Central banking systems are going to be taken into receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization. Governments are going to have to take control, of the business of generating and managing credit, credit of states. Under these circumstances, we're going to have to go back to a regulated system, of international trade and finance. We're going to have to go to capital controls: That is, governments are going to take responsibility for determining what our lawful priorities, in the flow of capital funds, and in what is allowable in the movement of capital funds. Because, in a crisis, we must manage, as you do in any bankruptcy.

Now, the Felix Rohatyn crowd, the Lazard Frères types, and similar types, are dead set against capital controls, or anything like that. They're dead set against protectionist measures. And protectionist measures are absolutely indispensable, for getting through the crisis that's coming on us now.

I represent that, but other people recognize, that this kind of measure, which I represent, must be used—they may not agree with the way I want to use it, or the way I want to do it—but they agree, it must be used, under conditions of this kind of crisis. And, they can see this kind of crisis coming on, now. And they see that the magnitude of the potential blowout, is far beyond anything that would permit a Felix Rohatyn's policies, to be applied to the present situation. For example, if the policies of Schacht are applied—and that's what you're looking at, in terms of the debt collection operation against Argentina—this is pure fascism in economic policy: The IMF is practicing pure fascism in its support for these collection policies.

But, that's the policy that would be applied, to the interior of every country in the world!—including Australia, of course—if these policies were continued. These are Schachtian, pro-Nazi policies. They may not call them pro-Nazi, but that's what they are.

So, there's a big fight about that. And the general opinion, among informed people, is that the Nazi-like policies, the Schachtian policies, which are associated with Felix Rohatyn's proposals will not fly, in this period, unless you want to have a general collapse of world civilization: a new dark age.

So, today, in the past couple of days, especially today, there's a rumbling, a rumbling, like the pre-shock of an earthquake. And that's what I was experiencing, during the course of the day, and overnight. There's a big change coming. And, I don't know what's coming. I think the monotremes of Australia will survive, but I wonder if some of the still more primitive animals, such as your local breed of neo-conservative, will also come out of this thing intact.

So, that’s the nature of the situation.

Now, otherwise, on the subject of the youth movement: The key thing to understand this youth movement phenomenon—and this is something that's become empirically significant, around the world, as in the United States, during the recent four years. About 40 years ago, in the United States, and in the United Kingdom, following the assassination of President Kennedy, and the ouster of Macmillan in the United Kingdom, as Prime Minister—it was a coup—with the first Harold Wilson government in the United Kingdom, coming along shortly after the ouster of Macmillan, and what happened with the United States, after Kennedy was killed, and President Johnson was terrified (at least on these questions), we went into the Vietnam War, Indo-China War.

At that point, there was a cultural paradigm-shift, in the generation of university age, those particularly who were going into universities, at that time. This presented a cultural paradigm-shift, away from an idea of a producer society, which the United States had been the leading example of, up to that point, and against technology—an anti-technology, post-industrial movement, of which the most colorful form was the rock-drug-sex counterculture. But the rock-drug-sex counterculture was only the most extreme, the most radical, the most carnival tent-show-type part of this process of cultural change.

During the past 40 years, the culture of the United States has changed, and of the United Kingdom. And this has spilled over, into continental Europe, especially with the '68ers. It spilled into Central and South America. So, around this part of the world, and other parts of the world, the generation now in their fifties or their early sixties, the so-called Baby-Boomer generation, all around the world, are dominated by a generational phenomenon. In other words, even if people are not smoking pot, and having sex with strange animals, they are still Baby Boomers, in the sense, that most of them accept the values, which are common to that generation. And the values which are common to that generation, are acceptance of the leading role of cultural policy-changes, which have occurred, during this 40-year period.

Now, what has happened as a result of this, over 40 years, the culture of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and of the United States, the Americas generally, has changed: It has changed to a post-industrial society. As a result of that change, and what goes with it, the present world monetary-financial economic system is finished! It's gone, to the point, it can no longer stand on its own legs. It is about to collapse.

Now, younger people, who were entering adulthood, during the recent four years—that is, going from adolescence to adulthood—looked around them, and said, "What we are going through, is a no-future society. That is, what our parents' generation have done to us, is, give us a no-future society in which to live—and not live it very well, and perhaps, not at all." So therefore, you had a conflict between young adults—that is, people who are young, but who think like adults; they don't think like adolescents or children. They think about their responsibility for being "mama" and "papa"; not being the children of the household, but being the parents in the household, or thinking in that direction. So therefore, they tend to be somewhat independent, and say, "Well, I'm not going to accept—. I'm not going to Hell! I don't care what my parents tell me to do, I'm not going there. I don't want the place. I'm going to change things, if possible. I'm not going to accept no-future, as a perspective."

What you have, therefore, is you have a conflict, between the parents' generation, and the younger generation, the young adults. This is not a conflict of prejudice: this is a conflict of reality. The older generation is still clinging, to those values and habits of behavior and belief, which mean no future for humanity. The younger generation's conflict with its parents' generation, is not the usual kind of thing, of the young people quarreling with the parents. It's not "leaving the egg," so to speak. This is real.

The younger generation represents a potentially healthy generation, for turning society back, away from, a no-future society perspective. Whereas the older generation is embedded with habits: habits of thinking, prejudices, knee-jerk reactions, emotional reflexes—all these things, which are against—would prevent a future for the younger generation, and their children. So, this is the nature of the conflict.

Thus, under these circumstances, what is needed, is that the younger generation, while it may not know everything it needs to know, is instinctively right, in sensing that their parents' generation's values—the people in their fifties and their early sixties—are wrong. They may not know exactly why they're wrong, but they know they're wrong, because the parents' generation is living in a no-future fantasy. And they know, that they've got to find their way out of this no-future end-game. That's the nature of the conflict.

Therefore, at this time, the kind of youth movement, which we've organized, in the United States, spread into Europe, and we have some seeds down there in Australia. This is absolutely essential, not to stage a generational quarrel, per se. The problem is, the older generation is habituated to those habits, those ways of behaving, which mean a no-future society. And therefore, young people must have their independence, which is their independence of the Baby-Boomer ideology. Because, if we don't get the world freed of the grip of Baby-Boomer ideology, the world is not going to make it, except plunging into a new dark age.

Therefore, the development of a young generation, which will lead their parents' generation out of madness, is the key to civilization.

This is not entirely uncommon in human history: That often cultures go down, not because they didn't have the magic elixir, or something of that sort; but, because they got into cultural habits, which in practice, led to acceptance of, or caused, a collapse of civilization. The Roman Empire is an example of a long process of decadence. Medieval European society, the so-called "ultramontane society," of the Welf faction, and similar people, is an example of that: That these cultural trends destroy civilization. They may not destroy everybody in it, but they put us into a dark age or a relative dark age, repeatedly.

So therefore, when you come to a dark age, the problem is not that a dark age is natural—except for accidents, natural accidents, which are beyond our reach—every catastrophe mankind faces, is imposed by mankind itself. It is not imposed by one or two leaders, usually—very rarely: It is imposed by the fact, that the majority of the population, has become cultural addicted to habits of behavior and thinking, which have led, over the course of time, to a collapse of civilization.

That's what we face, now, a collapse of civilization crisis. Not a mistake, which has to be fixed. Not a gimmick. You don't go to the store, and buy a new costume, and solve this problem. You have to go to a store, and get a new mind! A mind free of these cultural habits, which were developed with the Baby-Boomer generation, as the post-industrial, pleasure-society ideology, which has come to dominate Europe and the Americas, in the recent period. And, of course, has had not pleasant effects on the possibilities in Australia.

And therefore, the younger generation—those of us who are wise enough, will support the younger generation's efforts, to get out of this mess, and to lead their parents' generation, and others, under the pressure of crisis, into going back to ideas which worked. And building the future, by going back to the fork in the road, where they made the wrong turn. And make the proper turn this time, and get their reluctant parents' generation, to go along with the journey. Under those circumstances, there is no reason we should not come out of this crisis quite well, with a little suffering and hard work. But, if we don't make that change, there's no chance.

And therefore, in times like this, it is sometimes a generation of young adults which makes the turn.

Take the case of the history of the United States: If you look at the age, of the people who became the leaders of the United States—those who formed the Declaration of Independence; those who created the Constitution, and so forth—these people were recruited around a fellow, a scientist, a leading world scientist at the time, Benjamin Franklin, who was influenced from Europe. Influenced by, in part, people like Priestley, in England; Watt, who was recruited by Franklin and Priestley, who developed the famous Watt steam engine—in France, with the assistance of a great Frenchman, Lavoisier, who was killed by the French Revolution. By Leibniz's influence, directly, through his writings.

So, these young people, around the best ideas from Europe, grouped around Franklin, from the middle of the 1770s on, became a leadership, which created the United States. They were, with few exceptions, a youth movement. George Washington was not exactly a youth at that time; nor, of course, was Franklin, who died at a ripe old age. But, these guys—the Hamiltons, the Madisons, the Jeffersons, and so forth—these were part of a youth movement.

Now, what you have to think of yourself, today, is being typical of youth who are making this kind of turn. You have to think of yourselves, as people who are reaching out to find the so-called secrets of society—sometimes, the lost secrets of society—which are needed to rebuild nations, rebuild civilization. And, you are acting in that way, and in that degree, as the conscience of your nation, and the conscience of civilization, to turn the world back to where we made the wrong turn, especially the wrong turn of the middle of the 1960s. In that way, we shall come out all right. Not perfect, but all right.

And, that's, I think, what you are implicitly doing.

Thank you.

'WE DON'T WANT AN EMPIRE; WE DON'T WANT AN IMPERIAL AGENCY
DICTATING LAW TO THE PEOPLE OF SOVEREIGN STATES'

{Here is the dialogue between the Australian youth movement cadre school and Lyndon LaRouche on March 5, 2004 (unproofed transcript). The dialogue was moderated by Doug Mitchell in Australia.}

MITCHELL: All right, thanks for that Lyn. I guess we'll open for questions and answers now. Everyone should come up, and speak loudly and clearly, and introduce who you are, and also slowly. Anyone want to be first?

Q: Hi Lyn, this in André, Generation X, which knows nothing. I was wondering, in this current situation--what's happening in Argentina--is it possible that we can have worldwide insurrection against IMF?

LAROUCHE: In a sense, yes. The question is, what kind of an insurrection? Go back to the 1780s in Europe: You had, France was a corrupted by a fellow who should be known to people in Australia, not by handshakes, but by reputation--Lord Shelburne. Lord Shelburne was the key figure, and quite a Satanic fellow; a key figure of the British East India Company, which, in 1763, with the Treaty of Paris, after defeating the French, had become an empire. Not the empire of a nation, but the empire of a company! The British East India Company.

These fellows were determined to stop the American Revolution. They failed to stop it. But, they did succeed in planning the destruction of France. So, what happened is, when Shelburne, and his crowd, using people of his like Bentham, whom Shelburne stuck into the British Foreign Office, which had been created about 1782: These fellows organized the French Revolution. So, instead of having the revolution that was needed in France, the reform typified by what Lafayette and Bailly proposed to the monarchy, to build a monarchy, which was modelled on the experience of the American Revolution and the Constitution, just earlier, instead you got the Bastille event and chaos all the way on. Philippe Égalité and Jacques Necker were Shelburne agents. The people who led the holocaust, which became known as the Jacobin Terror, were agents of Shelburne. Napoleon was a creation of the Martinists, which had been a group that had been organized by Shelburne.

So that, you had a revolution, but you had a stinking revolution, from which France has not fully recovered, culturally, to the present day. So, there is going to be a revolution. The question is: which one? Is it going to be a return to the principles of, the idea of Leibniz and Franklin and so forth--which we've turned away from, largely? Or, is it going .PAGE to be into some kind of fascistic, or other dionysiac madness? And, that's the danger.

Yes, there will be a revolution. The question is, which? Will it be sane. Will it be a return in the road, where we made the wrong turn, and go back on the right turn this time? Or, is it going to be chaos? Is it going to be a dark age? That's the question.

Yes, there will a revolution. What is being done to Argentina will trigger a revolution. If we can not intervene, to cause the correct turn to be made, it will be chaos, and it will be Hell.

Q: Hi Lyn, it's Rhys McGuckin from Australia. [laughter in the background] (I'm used to that.)

The main thing that I'm interested in--I don't know if you've heard about these law that have been passed here, in Australia, which give our Attorney General, the power to ban organizations, similar to what you had under Hitler's regime. But, I was interested in what your thoughts are about how you'd go about attacking that, in any kind of particular sense?

And the other question I have, is around the cultural question, in terms of Asiatic cultures. I've been doing a bit of studying in the history of the Asian nations, especially China and Japan, and how they react differently, to, say that Western European cultures do. Thank you.

LAROUCHE: Two things: I think on the question of repressive laws, it's noted that there is a certain group in the Australian Privy Council, the instrument of the monarchy in Australian, which is tied to the neo-conservative, or pro-fascist wing, internationally. And it's not unusual to find that, through those channels, there's a great hatred of me, in particular. And, laws will be attempted, and operations will be attempted against us, through these channels.

Now, the other side of the thing is, that these fellows are going against the current of history. Presently, in the United States, and the United Kingdom--more so, the United States--the fascists, that is, the neo-conservatives, are on the way out. The people who are closest to these fellows in Australia, who have fostered this new legislation. So, these fellows are on the down side, international, and they are making a big mistake. When you take the down side road, in a crisis, you're likely to have the same effect as driving on the wrong side of the highway: You might crash into something, and wish you hadn't, if you lived to wish to regret anything at all.

That, I think, is the general perspective you have to take on this.

Now, there a crowd in the United Kingdom itself, which is running a dirty operation, attempted against me, around what was a clear-cut case of suicide in Germany. This suicide, which was concluded to be such, on the basis of very clear and conclusive evidence, by the German police: a fellow threw himself against a .PAGE car; it didn't kill him, but injured him. He threw himself into another car, was either killed or almost killed, and then, lying in the highway, was run over quite accidentally, by a third car, which didn't see him lying in the highway. And so, a fellow who ran off, suddenly, and obviously went from where he had been, to the highway, at rather top running speed, was some crazy impulse--which we do not know and would not comment on. But, that's the way it happened. So, the parents and so forth, went down there, in Germany, to look at this thing. And were perfectly content--not happy with the suicide, of course!--but content that the German police, and the others on the scene, had done what they could, to avoid, avert, this irreparable harm, or to deal with it afterward.

Then, they got back to London, and at some, subsequent point, fell into the hands of some uglies. And the uglies tried to use them to set up an operation against me--which we paid no attention to, the issue itself, because it's a clear-cut case of a suicide. And obviously, the roots of such a suicide, in that case, lie in the fellow's childhood and adolescence, not in anything that happened to him in Germany. Something inside him, which was pathological, obviously erupted. And, in this circumstance, we don't know what. We don't know whether he got a strange telephone call from somebody, or whatever it was. We don't know. And, it's not profitable at this point, to poke into it.

We just know this kind of thing happens. Youth suicides happen, especially more these days. And when they happen, there is some root in that, in their adolescence or earlier, which has caused this action by them.

But, there is a group of uglies, who are associated with the same kind of ideology against me, which has been expressed by some of these fellows in the Privy Council in Australia. And they are determined to run a dirty operation, inside the United Kingdom, and they run a chaos-factor operation. And so, I just pay no attention to it, until they go into the United States, and try to do something there, at which they will get their little bottoms kicked, if they start to do it there. Otherwise, I pay no particular response to this nonsense.

But, what you're seeing in Australia, is a reflection of the same kind of mentality, and connections, typified by the Murdoch connections, which was expressed by the filthy operation--special ops--going on in the United Kingdom.

So, this is part of it. The fact, that these may not be exactly the same people that are tied to Richard Perle, directly, but Richard Perle's crowd is going down, in the United States. Bush is probably on the way to defeat, unless the Democrats make some terrible mistake, in not doing what they should do. And, under those circumstance, and in these conditions of crisis, it's very likely, that the Privy Council fellows, who sponsored this thing, are going to find themselves the "odd man out." In the meantime, it does represent a nuisance, and you're going to have .PAGE to deal with it. But, that's that.

Now, on this cultural question: The problem we face, is--as I've said many times--is the question of the nature of man. Most of the problems of mankind, in known history, and obviously earlier, from archeological finds, is that most people, in history, most cultures, treated most of the people associated with that culture, either as wild cattle, to be hunted and killed--and possibly eaten; or, as herded cattle, to be raised, and to be culled in the course of time. So, the problem is, that most of humanity, until modern times, has treated most people as animals, not humans. That is, the distinctions, apart from talking (and some of them talk a lot), apart from talking, there's almost no distinction, in the cultural orientation of policymaking behavior, and that toward animals. As a result of that, we have cultural defects in populations.

The positive side is this: What is man? That's the question everyone has to answer, if they wish to avoid the mistakes of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The question is one of immortality. How do you identify yourself. Do you identify yourself as like a cow, or perhaps a kangaroo! Who pops out of the pouch, and then, is on its way to the soup, or something. Or, do you find yourself, that you have a meaning in life: That you, as a human being, have assimilated something specifically human, like a scientific discovery, which has been transmitted to you from earlier generations. A language, for example. A language is a product of many generations of work, and discovery--and transmitted that. And then, when you die, you go on. Hopefully, you have done something, which is memorable, in the sense that it added to the development of humanity, or defended the development of humanity up to that point. And, that is a sense of identity of being human.

Then, you have the cultural problem, that entire cultures accept forms of doctrine and practice, which reject, in practice, this distinction between man and the beast. That is the essential cultural problem. The advantage of European civilization, and the contribution of Christianity, as such--not the Mel Gibson variety of nonsense, but real Christianity--the contribution of that, to mankind, has defined European civilization as a good. It is something which was needed. It was something that was good. It was something, which the Greeks, who started the process of European civilization--before they were called Greeks; when they were called "Peoples of the Sea"--developed their civilization in the shadow of the Pyramids of Giza, in Egypt; where the Pyramids themselves demonstrate the principles of a very advanced, relatively speaking, kind of astronomy. And Greek science, such as that of Thales and the Pythagoreans, is a reflection of what the so-called Greeks learned, from the Egyptians, chiefly.

From there, there was a conception of man, which was based on the recognition of the principle that distinguishes man from the animal: the ability to discover principles which can not be seen, but which are principles which run the universe. The idea .PAGE that the value of man lies in this ability, to discovery, to create, to perpetuate, these principles, whether we call them scientific principles or Classical artistic principles, is the expression of the nature of the individual.

Now, in the 15th Century, in Europe, in the Renaissance, there was a great revolution--an embattled revolution, but a great one, which established modern European civilization, which established for the first time, the modern nation-state, in which government is accountable for the welfare of all its people, and their posterity. This form of government was first instituted in France, under Louis XI. And was instituted in England, by the defeat of Richard III, who represented the old, bad stuff, and the kingdom of Henry VII. This was the beginning of modern civilization. And it spread. You find the greatest achievements, physical, economic, scientific, and so forth, in the world, since that time--the most notable achievements, relatively speaking, for humanity, were those which came out of this good part of the Classical Greek legacy, expressed by the 15th-Century Renaissance.

So therefore, our view of this matter should be as follows, I propose: First of all, we should love all humanity, the sense that we recognize that every creature born, who is human, is not a kangaroo and is not a monotreme; but rather, is human, which involves a quality of creativity--the power of discovery and implementation of universal principles, which can not be seen with the senses, but which can be known by the mind. This is our great achievement.

That isn't to say, that other cultures have not made contributions: They have. The existence of a mere language, itself, is a reflection of a contribution to culture. But, we have, in European civilization, a very distinct mission, in the fact that we have the legacy of the 15th-Century Renaissance, the Classical Greek legacy, the best side of it: the side of Plato, the side of Solon, the side of Thales, of Pythagoras, and so forth--we have the best. And in the 15th Century, this was expressed.

Which means, we have a mission, not {against} humanity, other cultures than our own--but {for} humanity! That, we respect them. We respect their sovereignty. We encourage their expression of their sovereignty. But, in the meantime, we stick to the development of our language. We try to improve it. We stick to the legacy of science, of Classical science. We stick to the legacy of Classical artistic culture. And we stick to the legacy of seeing man, human, as intrinsically immortal: That is, although we come and go, as mortal beings, we come to assimilate cultural contributions of many generations before us, as no animal can. And we hopefully contribute something, to leave behind us, for future generations, which makes us memorable in the sense, that we remember the names of the greatest scientists, whose discoveries we know; or, the greatest political achievements, we honor and know. .PAGE

So, we should look at things that way. We say, we live in one planet, one human race. All people, biologically and otherwise, have the same unique qualities which no animal has. We love that. We work to defend it. And we go about our own business, in our own countries, trying to make our contribution to our own needs, but also to the benefit of other countries, to humanity in general. And this becomes a community of principle.

So, yes, there are problems, there are problems in Asian cultures. This is one of the big problems that we have to understand and deal with in the coming period. Australia's in the thick of it, so to speak--Australia and New Zealand. I haven't seen New Zealand recently. I think it's still there, someplace, but I haven't been in touch with it for a long time.

But, Australia is there, I know that. That's good. Australia has a lot of land. It has a lot of desert--but, it also has a lot of water around that desert. It may be somewhat salty water, but it's what, about 1% saline: that's about the same salinity that goes through our bloodstreams. And, we can make use of that, with modern technology. We can make the desert bloom. Australia could become a very rich area, a very rich area of development. And I think Australians ought to think about that. That ought to be the immediate concern of many Australians: How do we take this continent, squatting out here, to the south of Asia, way down in there in the ocean, with all this salt water around, and all this desert within. What do we do with it?! How do we make this better? How do we enjoy doing it? That ought to be the concern.

But, as part of that, we also ought to be concerned about the future of humanity over coming generations. And there are some great missions, in which we ought to participate, in each of our nations. Each ought to find its place, in making some specific kind of contributions to humanity as a whole, which can be considered national treasures, national achievements, national contributions to the culture of civilization as a whole.

There are cultural questions. There are cultural differences. But there are no differences between one human being and another. We all have the same potentiality. We sort of have to come to a convergence, on recognizing what the principle of convergence is.

Q: Hi Lyn, this is Joanne. At the ICLC conference, you mentioned in passing, about Roosevelt's campaign, and the fact that they tried to keep him off the nomination then. I was just wondering if you could go through a little bit--I mean, whether he had a youth movement? Whether it was the DNC that was keeping him out, like is happening with you? And just how it unfolded that he got the nomination?

LAROUCHE: Yeah, there are parallels. He didn't have much of a youth movement, as such. He began to get something like it, around him, during the course of the 1930s, in his leadership of the nation out of the depths of an economic depression.

But, Roosevelt, remember, was the great-great-grandson of .PAGE Isaac Roosevelt. Roosevelt came one generation before me; so his great-great-grandfather was the generation before my great-great-grandfather. And we're all in the United States, I mean, we've been there for some time, you know--like the kangaroos in Australia. So, this Isaac Roosevelt was a New York banker, who was the enemy of the traitor Aaron Burr, and was an ally of Alexander Hamilton.

So, Roosevelt, in his Harvard University graduating process, wrote a paper of some significance, affirming his loyalty to that legacy of the American System of political economy, the same legacy to which his great-great-grandfather had been attached. That was in us--when I spoke about great-grand-grandfather, my great-great-grandfather, one of them on the maternal side, was from the English side of the family who had settled as an anti-slavery Quaker--you may know what those things are--in the Carolinas, associated with a fellow called John Wolman [ph], who's a rather famous figure of that type from that period. And he had to skedaddle out of the Carolinas, because the wrong fellows were out to get him. They didn't like this kind of thing that was interfering with their gentle practice of human slavery.

But, we had a tradition, in the family. Much of the rest of the tradition I didn't accept, but there were some good things, as there are in most families. Somewhere, back there, is a legacy that you can be proud of. It's a poor family, that doesn't have some legacy of that sort.

And so, Roosevelt had that. The Twenties were terrible: You have to realize, that after the killing of the President McKinley, that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were terrible! Both were not only offspring of the leaders of the Confederacy, but they were dedicated to that tradition: Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Coolidge was no better. And, Hoover was a gifted man, but he was a hard right-wing type. So therefore, what had culturally, over the course of two generations, that which was born about the beginning of the last century and so forth, this was not very good.

But, Roosevelt was able to use a crisis to awaken within the people, who needed salvation from this mess, a sense of a movement, and that movement is very important. I was sort of drawn into it; drawn into it, by military service, and other ways. And I've spent my life since the last war, trying to defend that, against, chiefly, bad fellows in my own country! So, that's how I got my career, was actually, not that I was a follower of Roosevelt in any simple-minded way, but the Roosevelt legacy, which I recognize as an essential part of American history, was my legacy. And it was my duty to promote and defend that. Roosevelt had that same sense, in his own way.

Now, the situation now is, as follows: We have, worldwide, as we had in Roosevelt's time, we have a fascist movement. Remember, that many people--for example, you've probably heard the name of John Dewey, who's famous in the United States in association with education. John Dewey was a British agent. He .PAGE was an agent of British influence--bad kind of British influence. And these guys, in the 1920s and early 1930s, were avowed fascists! I mean, people that were called "liberal" in the history books and the textbooks of the United States today, were fascists, and open fascists, then! John Dewey was a fascist: an admirer of Mussolini. You had, around Roosevelt, people who were fascists, admirers of Mussolini.

But, at that point, the threat to the existence of the United States, and civilization, was fascism. Fascism was actually a name, for what was known as the Synarchist International, which created all the fascist movements in Europe, between 1922 and 1945. My enemies today, like the group around Rohatyn, a fascist; for example, Lazard Frères, during the period of World War II was a fascist organization in France, a part of the Synarchist International. So, some things are the same.

We're fighting, I'm fighting fascism today. I recognize that the attempt to create a fascist world, or what would be called a fascist or Synarchist world, today, has resulted in people trying to destroy the kind of culture, the kind of economic policy, which was our source of strength. It was this cultural paradigm-shift, which introduced the rock-drug-sex counterculture, as an emblem of the change, which has destroyed the economy of the United States, of New Zealand, of Australia, the United Kingdom, much of Europe, and South and Central America. This is the enemy!

Now, therefore, because young people are human, and because, as young adults they have the capacity to express the will to act as adults, to fix what needs fixing, to act like good parents, or as good parents should, to fix what needs fixing, to get humanity back on the right track. That's the key to it. That's the key to what we're doing. We recognize that the great enemy, which is used by fascism, is not just the economic policies of a Felix Rohatyn, or the IMF leaders in general: What needs fixing, is a return of the American people, in particular, to the cultural standard, which corresponds to our civilization. And if we get back to that standard, then we will be able to fix what has gone wrong.

The youth movement, if I provide the right kind of leadership, and others do, the youth movement is the emblem of those who say, "Mommy, Daddy, you made a big mistake. Don't worry, Mommy, Daddy--we're going to fix it for you, so that you can go out of this life, with honor, rather than disgrace." It's not just a youth movement per se: It's simply young people, when they're feeling frisky, and they're beginning adult life, and they have energy; they will stay up until 3 o'clock in the morning fighting out ideas; they will make a university education out of a street corner, or a room--and it will be a better university classroom, than they could get in most universities, today. Because, they have the energy and devotion, to achieve that goal.

So, that's what it is. It takes all forms at different .PAGE times. In my time, I was a rebel. Not a rebel against society, but a rebel for society. I saw what we were getting "a lot of crap," as we say, and I thought I ought to fight against it. I didn't seem to have much of a chance, then, of succeeding. But, over the course of time, I've had a fairly large success, as measured by the {rage} and {fear}, which my activities seem to bestir, in the enemies of civilization. And, I'm, as they say, "damned proud of that"!

Q: Hi Lyn, I was just wondering what you think of the ICC, International Criminal Court? If it undermines nations' sovereignty, by intervening, when nations do not, or will not intervene?

LAROUCHE: Well, I think this is very dangerous. I'm against that sort of thing. There are cases, in which, at the end of a war, for example, as we had the end of the last war, we had something we did, which we managed badly, but which was not entirely wrong in principle. We also had an experimental approach, which was not decided, as to what it would be, called the United Nations Organization. And, different tendencies looked at the United Nations Organization as having one kind of a mission, others, a different kind of a mission. For reasons I could give at some length, the fundamental principle of modern civilization, is the principle of national sovereignty: And therefore, the idea of having all sorts of outsiders, come into a nation, and impose law upon it, is, in the ordinary course of things, not properly tolerable. And therefore, international courts, in that sense, are not tolerable--as permanent institutions, as higher courts to run the world, to create, in effect, a world court of world government? No! I'm against it. It's wrong!

In the case, suppose a bunch of allied nations take on a group of dictatorships, in a war, and those dictatorships have perpetrated evil, and are embedded as institutions, with evil: They are defeated under the law of war; they are occupied under the law of war. Now, at that point, the governments, which have defeated these nations, become morally and legally responsible for the occupation of that country. Not to become a permanent occupation, but to do something, and get out of there, as we did, in the best things we did, in post-war Germany. We also did some foolish things, and some bad things.

But, a temporary role of international justice, operating under the law of war, is admissible, and necessary. But, it's strictly restricted, in my view, that it must not undermine the principle of the sovereignty of the nation-state. And that's a deep question, which I've written about a great deal, so I won't try to elaborate the full story here. But, that's the issue.

I'm against this. It's wrong. Where we should be doing it, under the law--. For example, let's take the case of the Middle East peace. Now, we don't have to bomb Israel, in order to bring about Middle East peace. But we do have to exert a concert of .PAGE influence, to bring about justice on the side of both the Palestinians and the Israelis. We have to deal with the repercussions of this conflict, which has gone on for several generations, now, in the Middle East. We have end this conflict, not only between the two peoples, but also as it affects the Middle East as a whole. So therefore, we should use power. There are many kinds of instruments of influence, of diplomacy, and economics, and so forth, that {can be used}, to bring power to bear, without destroying, or damaging, the principle of national sovereignty.

And therefore, my view is, we must always start, from the principle of the end result. The goal toward which we're reaching, is not to set up a permanent court, which sits above nations, like an ultramontane system, which we had more than a bad taste of, from the Roman Empire, and from the ultramontane system, run by Venice, the Cluniacs, and the Crusaders, during the Medieval period. {We don't want that. We do not want an empire!} We don't want an imperial agency, dictating law to the people of sovereign states. We must have a fostering of the sovereignty of nations, the sovereignty of their people. And, when we violate that sovereign, temporarily, for a sufficient and good reason, once we've done the job, we get out!--and return the people to their sovereignty.

And that's why I don't like this court stuff.

MITCHELL: Okay, Lyn, how's your time going? Do you have time for a few more questions?

LAROUCHE: Yeah, a couple, sure.

Q: G'day Lyn, it's Will here. I love your work, what.

I just had a question: Could you give us your view on what you think happened to the civilization that left the ancient rock art, up in the Kimberleys of northern Australia? And maybe, where they came from, as well?

LAROUCHE: Well, you have to go back--rather than going from civilization as such, we have to go back and get a global picture of the record of mankind. For example, look at the ocean out there, if you can see it from the beach. Now, go back, 19,000 years: Where was the shoreline of Australia, 19-20,000 years ago. It was probably 300 feet or 400 feet below the level of the shoreline today. This was the period, which much of the water of the planet, which was caught up in one of those cycles we call "ice ages," in which hundreds of feet of ice, or thousands of feet of ice, were piled on to of the Northern Hemisphere, and the way they're piled on Antarctica today.

And, when this stuff melted, during a cyclical period of about 200,000 years or so, then the waters rose. Now, in this process, you ask yourself, "Where were the people, when all these ice cubes were piled up there? And when the waters were much lower, the waters of the oceans were much lower than today, say 300-400 feet. As you see, even into relatively modern times, before 2000 B.C., in the vicinity of India; where you go off the .PAGE coast of India, and you will find, that some distance out, you'll find 100 feet or so below the surface of the ocean, you will find cities, ports, and things like that.

So, obviously, civilization has undergone some great catastrophes over the course of its existence. Humanity has probably existed on this planet for 2 million years, as recognizably human. Or, something in that order; we have to assume that. The antiquity of culture, the antiquity of certain things, in terms of culture that we know of, bespeak that.

So, in the process, there were a lot of things happened. Some cultures, as such, disappeared. They disappeared {into} something. Sometimes they were killed off by disease, by so-called natural catastrophes, because they were fragile and small; by climate changes; or, the people were simply assimilated into other cultures. The characteristic culture, obviously, of this great period of the Ice Ages, was much more concentrated in what we call "Peoples of the Sea." And you find records of this, and footprints of this, in all kinds of ways: That, it's obvious that civilization did not start inland, and move outward to the coasts and to the oceans, but quite the contrary. If you think about it, where, if you want to concentrate a population, where are you likely to find food? Well, the likeliest place to find food, is where there is water. And, where the fish grow. And where are the fish found? Well, the fish generally are found near the mouths of great rivers. Then, you look at some of the things about crops, foodstuffs, plants, and you find that the plant-stock, the plants we use as vegetables and so forth today, came from all parts of the world, and were bred and developed in {other} parts of the world, which obviously is a reflection of the activity of an oceangoing, maritime culture. Which was the Peoples of the Sea phenomenon, in the development of the Mediterranean civilization, is an example of this.

So, when you look at these fellows, these examples up there, you say--instead of trying to look at the evidence, and trying to construct a civilization and its history, from that evidence, let's find the context: When did occur? What was going on, in the world, before then? What were the levels of the oceans beforehand? And, do we find, offshore someplace, some evidence of this.

You know, there's this thing about Australia, which came up in connection with this culture: There is obviously a very ancient waterway cleavage, between the Australian continent and the islands of the Indonesian Archipelago. It was always there. So, people obviously came across, as was emphasized by the researches, came across the water, to Australia; which was in a somewhat different condition then, than now. And they obviously build some kind of a culture. And something happened to them.

And then later, or somehow, you had people who were later called the Aborigines, came into the picture, at a later point.

This is what happens! And so therefore, scientists must always look at the global situation, the global pattern of .PAGE behavior. We must recognize that not only birds migrate tens of thousands of miles, but also, people do. And maritime cultures have developed, probably are the great drivers, of the progress of scientific and greater knowledge.

Just think about it: One key to this, is astronomy, or astro-navigation, "astrogation." What we know of science, the history of science, as exemplified by Egypt, man got, from looking at the stars and planets, looking at the sky--this was known to the Pythagoreans, as the viewpoint of "spherics." This view of spherics was characteristic of the great culture of Egypt. The Great Pyramids of Egypt are astrophysical instruments, which are part of observing the heavens.

Now, the other thing that people did, apart from looking at the sky where they lived, and seeing how rivers varied with the seasons, how to build a calendar and so forth: Astrogation, that people travelled rather long distances, cultures migrated rather long distances, and did so by astrogation--by using the stars, their study of the astronomy, as the way of navigating.

So, these kinds of things, evidences are the things we have to put together, in order to try to put figure out, how mankind lived in earlier times. And you find some evidence, such as that up there, and you look at it--you say, "Well, what was going on, in the Earth, during the period prior to, and during, these events?" But, you have to look at it from a global standpoint. And the fact that the stuff is there, in Australia, I think is particularly fascinating, because it poses a question, a very particular question, which is otherwise not considered. And who knows where it may lead, in terms of discovery about mankind, by following our nose, and looking at that evidence, and not saying, "how was it developed here?" but: "how did it get here?"

Fun. It's a good subject, for people who are of inquiring minds and willing to go through the hard work of solving some of the riddles involved.

MITCHELL: Okay Lyn, we've got the last question from someone, who's probably going to join the youth movement in a few years time. He's a bit a young, minus that 18- to 25-year-old age bracket. But, I just thought I'd let you know. I've got a couple of questions, and there's probably a few others with questions as well, but we can always e-mail you. But, here's Adrian.

But, after this, I want to see if you have any concluding remarks, probably on Australia. But, I'll let Adrian ask his question.

Q: G'day, how you doing? I was just wondering, I don't know much about it, but I was wondering if I could have your input, about the drug-trafficking behind the Queen? It just seems like a very interesting topic.

LAROUCHE: Well, the history of the drug traffic is interesting; it's very ancient, of course. But, in the course of the modern European history, the Iberians--what we call Portugal and Spain today--at about the beginning of the 16th Century, .PAGE began the African slave trade. The African slave trade was largely based--unlike the slave trade before then, Mediterranean slave trade before then--was based on catching a lot of people in Africa, sorting them out, killing off the older men, who would tend to resist, and put the young boys, and children, and young women, into cages; sort them out; put them on boats; and ship them across the Atlantic Ocean, to various points in the Americas. This was the African slave trade, which was started by the Portuguese, {and} the Spanish; and which the Spanish continued to conduct, with the exception to opposition to it by Charles III and people like that of Spain, late into the 19th Century.

For example, the monarchy of Isabel II of Spain, was the principal slave catcher and trader, into the Americas, including the United States, during the early 19th Century. In the process, the Dutch also picked up on this, and also got involved in the slave trade. And offshoots of the Dutch maritime agencies were involved in the slave trade to a very late time, into the early 19th Century. The British were also involved. The British East India Company was very much involved in the slave trade.

But, about 1790, the British East India Company made a change. They were sitting in India, which they had absorbed into formation of what became the British Empire, and they discovered this opium. And they discovered that they could probably destroy China, as a way to bring it into this expanding British Empire. And get some profit at the same time, by dumping the opium produced in India, transported by the British East India Company into China.

In that decade, the 1790s, we had a bunch of traitors in the United States, called the Essex Junto in New England; they extended into New York, as well. Now, they were, early on, operating out of Boston and otherwise, in the British slave trade. But then, the British East India Company told them, "Let's get out of the slave trade. Come with us, in the opium trade. Because there's more profit in the opium trade, than the slave trade. And let's leave the slave trade to these lower fellows, these inferior fellows, the Spanish and Portuguese"--and to some degree, the Dutch, who would pick up a nickel here and there, as they say. So, that's it.

So, as a result of that, the slave trade, and the drug trade, became hallmarks of the historical evolution of the British Empire, that is, of the British East India Company Empire.

This is a very profitable trade, and it is used by people in the United States, and has never been fully repudiated by the British monarchy to the present day. So, the British monarchy, and the little islands in the Caribbean, are part of this. And if you look at the figures on the drug trade, which we did the documentation on, it's all over the place. And what you have, is you have people like George Soros, for example. Take George Soros's background: George Soros was Jewish, in origin. But, .PAGE during the Nazi period, as a boy, he concealed his Jewish parentage, and was engaged by the Nazi occupying authority in looting the wealth of Jews. Not a very good, Jewish enterprise. So, he was later picked up in London, with his brother, and he was trained in British economic methods, monetary methods. And then, transferred his operations, more and more, into the Americas, where he became not only the British agent he was in the pound operation--which made him wealthy and powerful; but, he also is influential throughout the Americas today, as a factor in the drug trade! He openly promotes the drug trade.

So, this is the tradition. So, what you have, is this: You have the Anglo-Dutch Liberal tradition, which came up as a Venetian offshoot, in the course, essentially, of 17th and 18th Century. The institution of the slave trade, has essentially passed. But, the institution of the drug trade has continued: It has spread from the Spanish, and Portuguese, and through financial arrangements, into the Anglo-Dutch enterprises. And it remains an integral part, of the economy of the British Empire (or what's left of it, today), and of the United States, and some other countries, which participate in promoting the cocaine, etc. drug traffic.

The drug traffic is a source of profit. It's a source of political operations, and so forth, as you see in the Middle East; as you see in the case of Afghanistan, today.

So, yes, there is a British monarchy involvement in the drug trade, which has continued since the time, especially, of Lord Shelburne and company. Lord Shelburne and Jeremy Bentham, and the so-called Utilitarians. It's there. This practice has been extended, to include the practice of the United States, and other countries, and it's a key affliction of the world today. So, don't talk just about the British drug trade, the opium trade. Look at this phenomenon: Look at where it came from; look what it represents; and then, when you find it, still, in the British system, say, "So what?" This is a worldwide phenomenon, it's a phenomenon, today, of the influence of Anglo-Dutch Liberalism, which says, "If you can make a dollar at it, you can make a pound at it, it's all right."

MITCHELL: So, Lyn, have you got any closing remarks. I mean particularly, this cadre school, with this topic of ending the "On the Beach" mentality down here?

LAROUCHE: Well, you've got quite a job to do. If you've got 40, you've got the base for building something. Because it takes class sizes of 15 to 25, to do any real intellectual work of any importance to a youth movement. You have to think of a youth movement as a university-on-wheels, which is somewhat like a regular university, except the people in it generally work harder at knowledge, than people in universities do. People in universities tend to be very lazy. They get habits, they get routines. They try to pick up learning, rather than actually going through the process of discovering knowledge. Whereas young .PAGE people who will go through the Socratic method of Plato, starting from rather elementary questions, to build up actual discoveries of knowledge--they work much harder. They have much better motivation. And they develop much better moral character.

So, I would say, that's what you want to do. It's what we're doing in the States. We're trying to get this going in Europe. We're trying in Mexico and so forth. We've got a youth movement started in Argentina, that sort of thing. So, it's very important. Australia needs a youth movement. It needs this kind of youth movement. It needs to have a national youth movement, which is a catalyst for the renewal of the best of Australia. In other words, every youth movement of this type is intrinsically patriotic: Because, the question is, "What're you going to do with this country of ours? What're we going to make of it? What's good about it, apart from monotremes? And, what are we going to do in the future? What role are we going to play among nations?"

So, a youth movement is a catalyst, for the development of the culture of a people, and it essentially is a patriotic movement, because it says, "We are looking for our immortality. What came before us? And what are we determined shall come after us? What shall our contribution be? What shall we not only accomplish ourselves, but what shall we bestir in others around us? To bestir them to make their contributions, to make the nation a better nation, and much more worthy of our pride?"

That spirit, and that method, that patriotic approach toward building a sovereign national culture, or renewing it, is the essence of a good youth movement. And that's what we need. We need it in Australia, and we need it elsewhere.

MITCHELL: Thanks Lyn [drowned out by applause].

LAROUCHE: Thank you, and be good. So, adieu.

MITCHELL: Hoo-roo! [background, "See you!" "Bye!" "Thank you!"]