LAROUCHEPAC:

Interview with Jeff Rense
November 3rd, 2004 • 8:00pm •

Interview

LaRouche Takes a Sublime Look
At a Very Dangerous World for the
United States Since the Vote On Nov. 2

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed by Jeff Rense on his nationwide Internet/radio program, late in the evening on Nov. 4, 2004.

Jeff Rense: And welcome back as we continue to reel and recover, hopefully as much as that is possible from this week. I'm Jeff Rense, coast to coast and around the world as well on the internet side of our broadcast. And on Nov. 9, exactly one week after the U.S. Presidential elections—Presidential selections? I don't know if they stole the election, or they just flat out gave it to him this time, but—Lyndon LaRouche, former candidate for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination will address the nation, and the world, via an internet webcast, from the LaRouchePAC website. We'll talk more about that.

We're very honored to have back on the program today, a fairly frequent visitor and guest, and a man who has really caught the attention of a lot of people, not only in this country, but around the world, for the decades he has been speaking from his mind, his intellect, and his heart, about what's really wrong with the planet. Agree or disagree, it is always a pleasure, to speak with and to hear Lyndon LaRouche talk. Welcome back to the program, Lyndon!

Lyndon LaRouche: Thank you.

Rense: How are you feeling?

LaRouche: Well, I'm not doing too badly.

Rense: So, did you vote Tuesday, and vote often?

LaRouche: No. They suspended that. They didn't want me—I was enough trouble as it was, without just voting.

Rense: All right. Let's go back now. When you withdrew from the race, a couple of months ago, I guess, and threw your entire organization behind John Kerry, you were optimistic—as were many people, for a variety of reasons. Most people I know, who were not—boy! died-in-the-wool Bush neo-con disciples, wouldn't dream of voting to sanctify and to underwrite the kind of slaughter/butcher/crime/theft/perversion/and abrogation of the Constitution in this country, the likes of which we have never seen before, and which we have been painfully watching for years! And yet, what happened on Election Day has left not only half of America in shock, but much of the intelligent world! And I wanted to ask you the obvious questions: How did it go, in your mind? And how much of a likelihood was it that there was a fix involved here?

LaRouche: Well, there was a certain kind of fix. But, the problem was, the Democratic Party had generally goofed up the entire election, up past the Convention. As matter of fact, until after the Republican Convention.

Rense: Mainly what you're talking about, is the campaign, I think?

LaRouche: Yeah, the campaign.

But, then, it started late, even after that: That until you had former President Clinton talk directly to Kerry, there was no effective Kerry campaign.

Rense: How can that be, Lyndon? I agree with you, and I'm still pondering this: How could it have been such a limp, lackluster, zero campaign, which stayed about a half a mile from all the major issues of importance—how did that happen?

LaRouche: We had a good reading on that. In California, we plunged into the Recall election, to defend against Schwarzenegger. Now, Bill Clinton came out there, in the course of that effort, and offered to make a contribution. But, he realized that the Democratic Party machine, the national Democratic Party, was not going to fight this one. And were leaving Gray Davis out to hang.

I and some other people in the Democratic Party, decided and fought. Now, we had limited forces, largely our youth movement. We went into the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, which are strong points in California. In that area, we carried the area against Schwarzenegger, in both the Bay Area and in Los Angeles. The rest of the Democratic Party sat on its hands, and just waited for Schwarzenegger to walk in.

Now, this problem in the Democratic Party continued all the way through the Convention and past the time of the Republican Convention, until Kerry agreed with Clinton, in effect, that the campaign was a bummer, and we got started, really after Labor Day, on serious campaigning. Now what—

Rense: [interrupts] Excuse me, Lyndon—but, honestly, how could John Kerry have been that blind? I mean—

LaRouche: He was not blind, no. The Democratic Party—he was being advised by the Democratic Party, pressured by the Democratic Party, to go to 50% plus 1 vote, not to try to get a sweep. I said, this is nuts. You have to bring out the lower 80% of the voting population, income brackets; you have to bring in the youth, especially. They resisted the youth. They resisted going to the population who's been losing jobs, and things of that sort. And they said, we're going to stick with the customary programmed people who voted during three of the last four Federal elections.

Rense: That's a suicidal wish.

LaRouche: It turned out that way.

Then, you had Karl Rove, on the other side, who was playing the politics of fear, with religious cultism and so forth, and we could have knocked that off. But, the problem was, as you saw in Ohio—we might have even won Ohio, you know. We don't know yet; it was that close.

Rense: We'll never know, because of the—

LaRouche: Well, no. Who knows? We might actually know. We had, for example, we had over 100,000 extra votes in Cleveland alone, which have not yet been counted, or possibly counted. So, there is a big margin there.

But, the point was, nationally, the Democratic Party lost it. And they lost it, because there was no serious campaign, as there should have been, since actually November of last year—

Rense: Was this stupidity, or sabotage, Lyndon?

LaRouche: Ideology. Remember, that what happened with the Carter Administration—and it wasn't Jimmy Carter's fault entirely. But, under Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission went with a "me, too" approach to competition with the Nixon Republicans. And the Democratic Party has moved in that direction, up to now. Not to contest the thing, to be part of the system, not to go against it. To work within the system.

This became worse, with the founding of the Democratic arrangement between the Republicans and the Democrats. So, this imported from London.

And so, we now have, in the Congress, and around the Congress, we have people who are just running one party with two divisions. And the fundamental issues—for example, the problem with Clinton was, when he was President: Clinton was probably the brightest President we've had in a long, long time. But his policy as a President, was to go for tactics first, and then try to bring policy in second. My approach is different, directly the opposite: My point is, subordinate the tactics to the issue.

For example, now: We'll have a fight now in the Democratic Party. You know, a friendly quarrel. Some people agree with me, some don't. Some people say, "Well. The lesson is, we've got to go with the flow," which means, go with what happened with this election, and appeal to them, instead of appealing the other way. I'm saying, don't go with the flow. Because this financial crash which is coming down now, is going to convince even George Bush, that he wishes he hadn't been re-elected. This financial crisis, is also going to take people who were wrong—and they were wrong, as you and I know—they voted for Bush. That was morally wrong! That was intellectually wrong. They weren't voting for their own interests, they were voted for some crazy politics of fear, concocted by Karl Rove.

Elections, in my view, and politics, what I always stood for: Stand for what you stand for. Don't try to sell yourself as a travelling salesman, and find out what product you're going to sell. And that's where the problem lies.

Rense: I agree. I think that's a good analysis. I still cannot believe that the Democratic leadership was that stupid, but that's what we're hearing.

LaRouche: Yup! That's what I'm seeing.

Now, it's not hopeless. Because, it's hopeless in the sense, that were this to continue without interruption, the United States will be soon finished, as a nation—and I mean "soon," within this period.

Rense: Yeah, you're right. And thank you for saying that. I've been suggesting it, and to hear it from you underscores the importance of this issue. We will be finished , on not just one or two counts, but on multiple—

LaRouche: The war, for example. People know that we are losing the war in Iraq. It's a loser.

Rense: Right. Correct.

LaRouche: People in the State Department know we are losing that war. George Bush says, "no." Cheney says, "no." Others say, "no." The mass media often says, "no." We are losing it!

Now, the collapse of the international financial-monetary system is coming on now. It can not be stopped. We are bankrupt. George Bush and company hocked every piece of asset in sight, to try to hide the collapse for the duration of this election campaign: Now the collection agencies come in! So, we're going to face the worse financial crisis in modern history. It's going to hit in the coming period. And George Bush is going to soon wish that he hadn't been President, when he really gets hit with this.

Rense: Hold on, I agree. Let's develop that theme a little further. We have a break here.

The dollar, clearly, teetering, like a prize fighter, groggy, almost out on his feet now, ready to go down. Back in just a minute with Lyndon LaRouche. [station break]

Rense: Okay, welcome back, we're talking with Lyndon LaRouche, on this post-Election Day, plus two.

All right, Lyndon! The dollar, groggy. There are constant rumors about, perhaps Russia, dropping the dollar in favor of the euro; other nations as well. Certainly, Saddam Hussein did, in fact, drop the dollar, shortly before he was overthrown, and ousted, in favor of the euro.

How does it look to you, at this point now? And, if there was an impact on this issue of the dollar's weakness, by the election, address that, too.

LaRouche: Oh sure, there is an immediate impact, because, for example, had Kerry been announced as the winner, even by the morning of the 3rd, at that point, some things would have kicked in between the United States and Europe. Now, of course, Kerry would have no ability to make U.S. policy, directly through the Executive branch at that time. But the fact that he was coming in, would cause Europeans to talk to him, and there would be a discussion of options between an incoming President, two and a half months down the line, and Europeans. So, they would, in a sense, would hedge their bets on the assumption that the cooperation they discussed with an incoming President, would be an agreed deal.

Now, when Bush came in, the Europeans despise Bush. They're not going to tangle with him now, at least not as they've determined at this moment, as they tangled with Bush over the Iraq war onset—they're not going to do that kind of thing. But, they are simply not going to go along. Because, they can't.

Now, there is another factor—national factors. Now, the dollar is about—1 euro buys about $1.29. We're looking at, very soon, a steep climb of the euro relative to the dollar, maybe $1.50, maybe $2 for a euro.

In the meantime, Chinese and others, are moving their large dollar assets—the Chinese have tremendous dollar holdings—they're moving some of these dollar holdings into agreements with various parts of the world, such as Brazil; potentially Argentina, Canada, so forth; on raw materials, foodstuffs, oil, and things of that sort—needed by China.

So, what's happening is people are moving away from an endangered dollar, into investing in something which is more secure than a dollar, a contract on something useful for the future.

Under these conditions, and once people realize that the U.S. and British housing bubble, that is, the mortgage-based securities bubble, the financial derivatives system generally, and the fact that the oil-price level, which is still going to soar, is headed toward $60 now, maybe $75, and possibly $100; if there is a Middle East crisis, a new war in the Middle East, you're going to look at potentially, $100 a barrel oil. Now, within two months of that on the futures market, it's going to trickle into the home market, into heating oils, gasoline and so forth and so on, and also into the role of petroleum as a feedstock, for the chemical industry, as well.

So, we're in deep trouble. And George Bush and company, have postponed everything that should have been dealt with; it's now going to suddenly hit them, and they don't have alternatives .

Rense: You know, we talk about this $50 to $100 a barrel oil increase, Lyndon, and we don't think—usually most people don't think—that this isn't just our driving our cars. The petroleum industry is beyond gigantic: We're talking about the delivery of every single consumer item we eat , we use, we buy, we sell, by truck! By diesel engine. It doesn't matter! This impacts the entire economy, not just driving your SUV or your Volkswagen around town. People miss that point—not everybody, and not this audience. But, many Americans don't get it —they compartmentalize everything.

LaRouche: What we're dealing with, we're dealing with a society, which is engaged very largely in a culture of fear . The effect of 9/11 and the effect of the way George Bush and company reacted to it, the way Karl Rove has exploited it: The biggest factor in this election, in turning out a vote for Bush, was the politics of fear . Fear and denial. It's a psychotic condition. And it's a very dangerous condition, because, on the day after denial, you get an explosion of, "We was betrayed!" from the very people who turned out for Bush, even voting against their own apparent, vital interests.

Rense: Capital "D"—capital Denial. I just—and your point earlier, about how voting for the Bush-Cheney neo-con Tel Aviv axis, that cartel, was an immoral thing to do.

We just learned, two weeks ago, that we have—Americans have killed/slaughtered/dispatched between 100 and 200,000 Iraqi civilians, since the most recent war began. That is about as immoral as it gets. Now, that's not even counting the people on our side, we've lost, maimed, and brought home to basically hide away with ever-lessening veterans benefits. The morality of this thing—it's beyond negative. It's evil. And anybody who can support that, I don't understand. Unless they're completely brainwashed, totally bought, hook, line, and sinker, into this crap that's been spewed for months.

LaRouche: See, the average person doesn't think that way, not the lower 80%. They don't think that way. What they think is, in terms of denial. What they do is—of course, the generation between 30 and 50 years of age, in the lower 80% of family-income brackets, is the most vulnerable. They are living in a fantasy world, which is largely a mass-media-oriented fantasy world. Our news programs don't mean anything, any more; they don't actually get news. They are desensitized to the world.

Now, when you get a figure like 100,000 or more, of deaths in Iraq, against say 11,000-12,000 U.S. casualties, what you're dealing with is a ratio which reminds you, or should remind you, of Vietnam, which should remind you of the French in Algiers: That when you get people of that percentile, that is willing to continue to fight, under those penalties, it means that you are not dealing with some terrorist organization: You're dealing with a people in revolt, against terror! And we are the terror! Not the people! Then, that has to be understood. Then we can deal with it.

Rense: Exactly. All right. We'll take this break and return with Lyndon, just in a couple of minutes. I'm Jeff Rense, inviting you to rense.com, for real news, for real people. Back in a minute.

[station break]

And we're back, talking with Lyndon LaRouche, about the election. Lyndon, let's talk a little bit about the military aspects of this alleged war. As you know, they're drafting now men over 50, pulling them back into the military. The U.S. Army is now negotiating to try to get the ban on women in combat dropped, so they can send our young girls, 18 and 19, into the front lines to die, with their 18 and 19 year old friends and fellow soldiers. In January, they want this to begin. The American military allegedly, is stretched now to the point where—well, we have a presence in over 140 countries around the world—it is stretched so thin, that talk of invading Iran becomes rather amusing. If you're going to fight a stand-off battle with Iran, that's another story, but then we have a whole dynamic there we could talk about.

But, in general, how is the American military, from your perspective, and from what you've been able to glean?

LaRouche: It's a mess! We are destroying it. And we are destroying it especially in Iraq.

It was vulnerable when we went into Iraq, and we destroyed it, by the way of doing that. The key factor in destruction, of course, was the transition from Garner to Bremer. As I've said a number of times—I don't know if Bremer was personally responsible for that change of policy, or just carried it out. But, when we received the surrender of the Iraq officials—that means the Ba'ath Party and the military—under normal military operations, as Garner perceived it, then you take over, and you get these guys working for us. And with the idea, they're going to fix the country, under our direction. And when the thing is working, we're going to leave!

Now, so, instead of taking this force, which was an Iraqi force, and working with them, we turned them loose, and said, "We don't want you." We turned a military force which was capable, into a recruiting ground for guerrilla warfare against us. Then we had the policy, which would enrage people enough, they'd do that, in reaction.

So, this is totally insane.

The problem here, is not a military problem, though it's become one. I think, as I looked at this thing as a candidate, I knew how we could fix it; it's a tough problem, but with our professional military, and our leading generals, including retired generals, we knew how to fix it!

Now, under Bush's re-election, there's no prospect of fixing it.

What we're going to have to do, and of course, it involves the factor of orderly retreat: We're going to have to get out of there. We're going to have to, really, completely change our policy of employment; we're going to have to rebuild our military forces in a rational way, not the Cheney way. And we're going to have to do a lot of other things, in terms of developing our economy.

We can have a secure system. I know, from my knowledge of the world, the United States, if it's sane, can essentially have about as secure a world as you want. We can have cooperation to that effect. That's not a problem. But, the way we're going now, we're creating the insecurity, not trying to deal with it.

Rense: And, I might hasten to add: the Russians, eminently capable, in a strategic, technological and military sense; and the Chinese, certainly growing by leaps and bounds every month militarily, on every front, are watching the diminution, the deconstruction of America's military preparedness, very keenly, and probably smiling and chuckling.

One asks, almost rhetorically but not quite, is this destruction of the American military, this abrogation of it, as it were, being done with intent, by somebody? Is it being directed? Or is it sheer stupidity of these beast-men, as you called them so appropriately, using every tactic and tool they can to line their coffers of wealth?

LaRouche: It is the beast-man factor. But, the problem here—say, take the case of the Russians: The Russians are now, because we refused to continue our arrangement with them, are re-MIRVing SS-18s.

Rense: I know they are!

LaRouche: All right. So, but, this is part of the program, which the Bush Administration set into motion! It's not because the Russians are gloating over our aggressiveness. They don't want it! They don't want a conflict! They've got plenty of conflicts of their own. They're not looking for that trouble. The Chinese are not looking for that kind of trouble. But, we are pushing, pushing, pushing—partly because of malice, and partly because of sheer stupidity and incompetence.

Rense: Well, well-said.

Let's look quickly at the job issue. You mentioned something about policies on employment here. How do we create new jobs in America, Lyndon, when the jobs have been literally destroyed, here, by relocating—

I talked to two customer-service agencies, for two different companies. One was in the Philippines, and the other was in India, somewhere. He wouldn't tell me the name of the city. I mean, they come on with this very thick accent, saying "Hi, this is Andy," and I can hardly understand him. "Yeah, right, Andy, what's your real name?" "Uh, Ahmed." Anyway.

How're we going to reconstitute this job-destruction. Because it's not just a drain. These jobs are literally being eradicated. I mean, they're gone.

LaRouche: Yeah, well. Only one thing: Go back to a Bretton Woods system, as designed in 1944, under Roosevelt. And as we kept it, generally functioning through the period of President Kennedy's Presidency, and destroyed beginning with the Kissinger presidency, followed by the Brzezinski presidency. We destroyed the economy!

What we did, is, we, like the Romans, after the close of the Second Punic War: The Romans, which had been a people in Italy whose farmers and so forth had maintained the Italian system of Rome, went into a predatory mode of stealing from abroad, instituting slavery at home, shutting down their own farms, and things of that sort; and that became the Roman system, which eventually died. We have done, in the past 40 years, beginning with the time of the Vietnam War, we have done the same thing to the United States.

Now, there's only one thing to do: Take the entire policy, which has been adopted over the past period since especially 1971-72, under Nixon: Scrap the whole thing! Take Milton Friedman, and finally put him into permanent retirement! We don't need this flea-trade market, any more!

We'll have to rebuild on the basis of long-term trade agreements with other countries. I'm talking about 25- to 50-year trade agreements and credit agreements. We're going to have to rebuild our cities; rebuild our power systems; rebuild our transportation systems; rebuild our water systems. This will create enough employment, which will bring us up about 10 million jobs above the present. We have to protect that employment with fair trade policy agreements , with protectionist measures.

Rense: Very logical. Very pragmatic. That is always the case, when Lyndon talks economic policy. Back in just a couple of minutes.

[station break]

As always, Lyndon just made a very key point, which again, was just about virtually ignored in the alleged campaign. America's—not only is America bankrupt, but, America's infrastructure—roads, bridges, water, sewage, public works—is literally, most cases, in need of replacement, major rehabilitation, or outright scrapping. We are a nation that needs probably a couple of trillion dollars worth of work, at least, to try to reconstitute a reasonable measure of competence for these systems. Freeway overpasses, bridges, these things wear out. You know that.

We should have had a high-speed rail system in here, coast to coast, 20 years ago! You should be able to get on a train in Los Angeles and be in San Francisco in an hour and half, or in two hours. And they can do it in Japan. They can do it in Europe. But, we don't see it happening here. Take you five hours to fly on a plane sometimes—by the time you drive to the airport, and wait in line—.

The same issues exist for the East Coast population corridors as well.

I don't see anybody really addressing this, Lyndon, at all. I see talk of more overseas adventures, to fight "terror," "terrorism." Which you're supposed to define as anybody who doesn't agree with us any more. [LaRouche laughs] It's joke! This country—.

You have the answers. You always have. They're not a big mystery. You articulate them beautifully. But, the traitors in Congress-I'll call 'em that; 99%, 98% of them shouldn't be there—don't give a damn about this stuff! Not that I'm able to see.

LaRouche: No—well, they do. They do and they don't.

Rense: Talk's cheap. I know what you mean, but I don't see 'em doing anything! They're passing the Son of Patriot Act, and pork barrel legislation, and tacking on BS amendments to various laws and things, to further upbraid and curtail our freedoms and liberties. You know what they're doing.

LaRouche: I know what they're doing. But, the problem is a lack of guts. That will lead to all kinds of apologies for various things that you're afraid of doing. That's the essential problem. There is a corruption; there's a lot of corruption. But the worst kind of corruption is simply cowardice: "Why should I put my neck on the line? Why should I lose this or lose that advantage, by doing this? It's not going to work anyway! I'm not responsible. I'm not going to put myself on the line." That's the system. I think 80% of the Americans react that way, not just people in Congress.

It's bad morality, but that's what we've induced over the past—that's what we've induced over the past period.

Rense: What you're saying, is these people are basically motivated and governed and ruled and intimidated by fear as well.

LaRouche: Yeah, sure. This is—

Rense: We are a fear-based society.

LaRouche: Yeah, exactly. For most people. That's what I'm up against. You know, people like me, but they're afraid of me, because they're afraid what'll happen to them by being associated with me. You see that, very clearly, in the millions of people I have supporting me in various ways. But, when it comes to an election, they don't want to get caught!

Rense: I know. I know. Well, one thing, I think has changed in the last two or three or four years, and you've been talking about it and others have; I know I've been talking about it for many years: It is now okay for people—eh! It's always been okay, let me rephrase that: People are less paranoid about criticizing Zionist Israel, the neo-con agenda, and those who would seek to reduce America to nothing less than a slave state of a Zionist agenda, which does not have our best interests at heart.

LaRouche: I'll tell you where the strength comes from: It comes from young people, under 29, especially under 25. I'm talking about young adults: They know, that they have no future, under the system the way it's going. And therefore, they're either persuaded to be completely pessimistic and give up entirely; or, if they have any spark of life in them, to say, "this is wrong.: And they were a very positive factor in the turnout of voters in this campaign. We did not fail entirely with the Democrats. We had some successes. Successes were getting the mass vote out, and also, especially, getting youth out—under 29, but especially 18 to 25 age group. That made, in say, the city of Cleveland, Ohio for example, made a big difference .

Rense: Will the young people, will these people stay motivated over the next four years, or will they just say, "To hell, with this. My future is not Zionist. I want nothing to do with this garbage."

LaRouche: No, these young people—that's my job. My job is to, in a sense, give these guys the ability to become a growing, independent force in the United States. I have to think about the future, which is not people of my lifetime, but people of three generations, or two generations, after me. They are the future. I have to do something for them.

Rense: Uh-huh. That's the most wonderful gift anybody can do for our future.

LaRouche: We all ought to do that! We're all going to die, you know! So, sooner or later, we better get around to thinking about what we're leaving behind us. And try to leave something good, which will be alive after we're gone, which will be good, and will ensure that there is a future.

Rense: Did John Kerry fold up his tents too quickly?

LaRouche: I think he did. But, it was a call that's hard to criticize, because he's in the Congress. And on his side—you know, if you know the President of the United States is nuts, and a very disturbed personality, and if you know that the President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney, is a sociopath, who kills, or has people killed; and you're in the Senate, and you're trying to get some kind of legislation passed for the benefit of your constituency, or the benefit of the country, you say, "Well, let's back off a little bit, from confrontation with these guys." And that's essentially what happened.

Once you decide to stop the fight for President, that's what happens to you.

Rense: So, who emerges for the standard-bearer for the Democratic Party?

LaRouche: Well, I'm going to have to do that job, right now. But, I'm going to do my part, to ensure that there is, in the Democratic Party, a reorganized Democratic Party, a revived one—

Rense: If they don't rebuild it, and rethink it, and reinvent it, they're toast, again.

LaRouche: Well, we did that before. That's what Roosevelt did. Franklin Roosevelt did that with a party which was disgusting! And the Republican Party had just become disgusting. And so, the Democratic Party became a reincarnation of the best that had been left over from previous parties.

Rense: Well, you said it all, earlier, when you said, we have one party, with two divisions, now.

LaRouche: Yeah, sure!

And, we have to change politics in the United States. You know, the American people have made a mistake, not just their leaders. They've made a mistake. I know. I've lived all through this stuff. They just didn't have the guts to do it. Well, I can't criticize that—I just have to have the guts to help them do it!

Rense: We got a problem, though, in this country. We have, apparently, about 50% of the voting public, which doesn't see things like we do, like the other half of the voting public sees it. This country is shattered. The tear in the fabric is profound. I—the talk about "healing" is all nice, and [LaRouche chuckles], smarmy, but forget about it! These people are diametrically opposed to each other right now.

LaRouche: Well, there's shocks that are delivering. You have to take, sometimes, catastrophe as a blessing. It's this principle of the Sublime in history, as opposed to tragedy: You have to take the terrible, sometimes, as a blessing: Not because you want it, but because you know that this is the thing that is going to show the other guy, that what we've been doing is wrong.

It often—for example, let's take 1763: You had the Treaty of Paris, the British have been established as an empire. We were about to be crushed by our British ownership from abroad. We mobilized, in that catastrophe, behind Benjamin Franklin who created our Republic. To this day, this Republic, with all the corruption that's been done to it, is the rallying point in the world for people, as it was during Roosevelt's time. A lot weaker, a lot poorer, but we still have that. So, it wasn't a waste of time.

We took, out of the terrible conflict of our oppression, the struggle for our Constitution, our independence, we built something positive. With Lincoln, we built something positive out of something that was absolutely horrible. With Roosevelt, we built something positive out of something absolutely horrible. And the lesson of history is, that sometimes bad news is good news, if it gets you to respond to the bad news in the right way.

Rense: I like that positive, positive look at it. All right, speaking of "look," let's look at the immediate future now: With the drums being pounded that Iran has to go. The Iranians, of course, in all likelihood, are not going to go quietly, if at all. And I'm curious as to how you see the next two, three, four months?

LaRouche: Well, it's going to be a point of decision. And either this President, or this Presidency, will be tamed by the circumstances of the experiences that are going to come down upon it; or else, there isn't much of a future.

And, you know, I'm on the positive side: I'm looking for the alternatives, the opportunities, constantly, to bring the changes that are needed about. And I'm not squawking too much about the bad things, because I know that I have to use the bad things to bring people to their senses: Maybe we can change this. I think there is opportunity.

But, I must admit, the world, for the United States and for its people, is a far, far more dangerous place than it was before the vote on Nov. 2.

Rense: Far more dangerous. And, if Americans don't get it, and don't wake up now, Lyndon, I concur with you, fascism in this country will not just be a rumor—. Well, it's not a rumor, now. But, fascism will kick in very strongly, very quickly, and profoundly.

LaRouche: We will call the fascists, "Rove-ing" idiots! (After Karl Rove.)

Rense: Well, there you go, that's a perfect use of that name.

Lyndon, thank you for being here tonight. A pleasure. I wish we had better news to talk about, but let's be optimistic, and let's talk again, soon.

LaRouche: Okay, thank you.