LaRouche On Uncorking the Hidden Promise in Australia, Because 'The Battle for Civilization Is On Now'
December 16th, 2004 • 8:00pm •


Here are Lyndon LaRouche's keynote remarks and the subsequent dialogue with a gathering of the Australian branch of the LaRouche Youth Movement, on Dec. 17, 2004. Craig Isherwood is chairman of the Citizens Elector Council party, and Doug Mitchell is a former candidate for Australian Parliament and a LaRouche Movement leader.

Lyndon LaRouche: Who's there?

Craig Isherwood: Hello Lyn, it's Craig Isherwood down here, and I'm with Doug Mitchell. Doug Mitchell is going to moderate the whole panel with you this morning—or this afternoon or this evening your time. So I'm going to head over to him straightaway.

We'll make sure that everyone who speaks, speaks loudly and clearly. That's the watchword, guys: When you ask questions later.

Doug Mitchell: Hello Lyn. It's great to have Australians given the opportunity to enjoy your actual unique insight into the strategic situation. Again, we're here on the beach, to celebrate an Australian Christmas, LaRouche-style.

So, without any further introduction, I'd like to introduce the greatest living human being on the planet, today: Lyndon LaRouche.

LaRouche: Okay, I shall go ahead.

Now, there are three topical areas or subject areas I shall cover in the presentation to you now. And I'm doing this in the manner, which is determined by the fact that this is a very important moment in history. And we're not in regular touch, for various reasons, largely my schedule and whatnot. So therefore, I thought I'd give you a summary which might have some durability, and general usefulness for the entire developments of the period. And for reference over the weeks ahead, when I shall be doing various things. And I hope what I say today will help you to understand more readily, in the future, what I mean, when I do certain things.

Now, the three areas I want to take is, first the fact that there is a global phase-shift currently in progress. This means in general, that the rules of behavior and the rules governing what you can expect as responses, now, are different, and are rapidly becoming more and more different, than they were some weeks ago. So therefore, you can not use the rules of interpretation you would use to judge events, say, several weeks ago, say somewhere back around September or the summer, and apply them to the situation which is rapidly changing now.

The second thing, I want to indicate our role as an international organization, especially my role in this particular situation . And that's crucial.

And then, thirdly, what I want to do is, to get to the point, having covered the two previous areas, to point out where, from my knowledge, Australia comes into this picture, in the functional sense.

So, let me start with the question of what this global phase-shift currently in progress, entails. Of the three things to say, about what this Bush's Pinochet Plan is, what that means: The question is, who actually won the U.S. election? Which is not as clear, as the international press might imply. Thirdly, the fact that the system which is now, the collapse in progress is unstoppable. Nothing will prevent the biggest monetary-financial collapse of the world system, currently in progress, from stopping , as long as the system exists.

This is a finished, dead system. The IMF/World Bank system, and so forth, as we know it today, is dead. It's just a matter of when we bury the thing. And the only remedy is a new system. Until a satisfactory, new system comes in, then this collapse now ongoing will become worse and worse at an accelerating rate.

Now, what has happened recently, as you may recall some years ago, when Augusto Pinochet, the former, longstanding dictator from about 1973 to 1990 of Chile, was interrupted in his retirement where he was residing at the moment in the United Kingdom, by a judge from Spain, who raised the question of a war crimes/crimes against humanity charge and trial against Pinochet in Chile. Pinochet went to Chile, but temporarily at least about two years ago, evaded the prosecution, the process of trial on these charges, because he was diagnosed, according to the opinion of a court who dealt with that at that time, as having subcortical mental deficiency: unable to stand that kind of trial.

What has happened recently, and it happened in the same context as a very disorderly visit by U.S. President George Bush to Chile recently, in which, again, the indictment came out freshly. Now, the coincidence here, which is crucial, when I say about "Bush's Pinochet Plan," is that Bush, for some time, and people who advise him for a longer time, have intended to, in a sense, loot and destroy the U.S. Social Security system. And the model which Bush was using for the United States, is the form of social security system, which the Pinochet government installed in Chile about 1980—in connection with people like George Shultz.

This is the big issue.

Now, what we're dealing with, is this: We have, not only the spread of the Chile Pinochet Plan into the United States, or the attempt at insertion of it; we also have an attack on Peru, where a similar raid on the social welfare system is occurring there; we have a similar process in progress in Mexico. We have, in France, under the extremely radical right-wing ministration, under Chirac—that is, this is not Chirac's policy as such, this is the policy of Sarkozy, who is a wild-eyed neo-con, of the type you don't want in your neighborhood. But, he's now the head of the party, the electoral party, of the present government, and he is running wild, and he has ideas, which are very much like those of Pinochet—especially in the economic area. At the same time, we have in Germany, Hartz IV, which is a total, cruel destruction of the German social welfare system, now in progress. We have similar unpleasantries in Italy.

So, this is not simply about the U.S.A. or Chile. This is an international pattern, and it coincides with something else: It coincides with the fact that the Pinochet administration and the coup that brought Pinochet to power, in 1973-75, was part of what was called Operation Condor. Operation Condor was a—well it was really a Gestapo SS-type of murder operation, using people, as a core, who had been exiled from Nazi Germany via Spain, into the Americas. They were part of what was called the "ratline" of Nazis, wanted Nazis (or not-wanted in one sense, but "wanted" in the other) who had successfully found niches for their existence, in Bolivia, such as the case of Della Chiaie from Italy who was a Nazi; in Chile, and in Argentina.

And as you may recall, from the early 1970s, there were thousands of deaths of disappeared people, under a torture and murder operation, run by these Nazis, called Operation Condor.

In Operation Condor, then-dictator of Chile Pinochet was a key figure. Also a key figure was, of course, Henry Kissinger who was then Secretary of State; and also, more significantly than Kissinger, was George Shultz, who is the key figure of what was called the "Chicago Boys" who set up the whole package, including the Pinochet dictatorship and the Pinochet looting of the social security system of Chile.

Now, the social security system installed in Chile is now going under, it is now collapsing. It's finished. It's bankrupt, essentially. And it never really did pay people. It paid only a limited number of people. It was a skim-off. In other words, the government of Chile was bailed out, by looting the previously existing social security system of Chile. And this was used to prop up, during the 1980s, a shaky government of Pinochet, on the verge of collapse.

This plan is what George Bush and Co., with George Shultz and Co. behind them, is trying to push through, in an emergency crash basis in the United States right now. What George is planning to do, knowing that the system is collapsing, that the U.S. is about to go under in bankruptcy, is proposing to loot the Social Security system of the United States, to the tune of trillions, in order to get some apparent capital, financial capital, to stave off what is otherwise the imminent, general collapse of the U.S. financial situation: That is, a deep depression of the United States, which of course would mean a deep depression worldwide.

And that's where we stand.

So, the larger picture is this: Go back to the 1920s and 1930s. Go back to the time of the heirs that the Versailles Treaty, were on the road to establishing fascism as a system throughout Europe. In the early phases, up through the middle of the 1930s, in particular, Britain was in on it. People like Beaverbrook were a key part of this operation, which was moving toward a British United Kingdom accommodation with the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. Some of the fellows, such as the head of the Bank of England Montagu Norman, during the relevant period—and his friends in New York City, including Harriman, including du Pont, including Morgan, and so forth—were all in this project, which, from the early 1930s had intended to put Adolf Hitler into power in Germany.

And what their master plan was, as some of you, or your parents may recall, at that point the initial plan was, that Hitler would be backed. He was backed, by actually Hjalmar Schacht, who was one of the conspirators in this thing; he was an agent of Montagu Norman. And they initially had the German forces attacking the Soviet Union.

At that point, the crowd in London which were backing Hitler, were confident that the attack on the Soviet Union by Hitler would be the start of the war. And once the Hitler forces were deeply engaged in the depths of Russia, at that point, the French and British would attack the Germans at the rear—which is not a sexual act, but it has the same implications.

In the middle of the 1930s, it was discovered that Stalin, who at that point was aware of the intention of European and British conspirators of this thing, Stalin made an overture to Hitler; or the Hitler government, which became known as the Hitler-Stalin Pact, at a certain point, otherwise known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Now, as this pact was coming into view, even before it was formally installed, certain elements of the British government and establishment recognized that the original plan, in which they intended to exclude the United States from this little, private war in Eurasia, that this plan wouldn't work. Because Hitler would move against the west first, in which case, the situation in London and in Paris, was rather precarious. And particularly after the case of Chamberlain's MÂf®nchen negotiations with Hitler, it was perfectly clear that this was the situation.

So, in this process, the British establishment dumped Edward VIII, who had been, shall we say, too close, to the pro-Hitler side of this earlier plan, and went with a change. Now, many people, including Beaverbrook and Lord Halifax and so forth, up into May of 1940, were still about to cut a deal with Hitler. Churchill, who had been opposed to this for some time, represented a group in the United Kingdom, and particularly in what is called the British Commonwealth today, who were opposed to the idea of the British Empire, or the British Commonwealth, being sucked into the property of Adolf Hitler on the continent of Europe.

And so, for that reason, Churchill had been rather opposed to this friendly approach to Hitler from people like Beaverbrook, Halifax and so forth. Notable, remember, that Beaverbrook and Halifax were key figures in World War II during the British alliance with the United States. But they had a rather bad record, prior to that point.

So, in the critical point, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt struck up an agreement, and this agreement frustrated forever, very quickly, the possibility that Adolf Hitler's empire would conquer the world. But, it did not eliminate the problem of a very bad war, which would continue for some time. And that was that war.

Now, at the end of the war, the financier interests, after the death of Roosevelt, the financier interests called the Synarchist International, or sometimes the cartel, which had actually been the financial power behind this Nazi operation, was protected. A certain number of the Nazis, who were prominent figures were put on the chopping block, as a matter of politics, a matter of discretion.

But, many of the elements of the Nazi system were protected. Including the assets of most of the chief financial conspirators, who were not Germans, essentially, but who actually owned the assets of the Nazi system, such as the Goeringwerke, which was one of the big properties under the Nazis. This was owned by foreigners through various cartel arrangements. And these cartel arrangements were left essentially intact, and exist still today .

So, the fellows who put Hitler into power, at the top level, on the financial level, were able to back off , from the Hitler project, before Hitler went down. And as part of the system, under Truman and Churchill and so forth, they were brought into the Western system, the Anglo-American system. At that point, under the pretext of being the best anti-Communists.

So, what has happened, is the same apparatus, deeply embedded in the trans-Atlantic financial cartel interests—the same group, including du Pont, Morgan, the former Harriman interests, and so forth—these guys were the backers of the Nazis, and they are backers of this kind of project today.

Pinochet and the Pinochet coup, and Operation Condor, was a reflection of this: That the Nazi system, after the middle 1960s, with the Nixon election, the Nazi system was being moved back into power . And the Pinochet project was one of these operations.

That operation has gone into effect now, and that's what the Pinochet Plan for the United States is. Again, as in the 1920s and 1930s, an intrinsically bankrupt financial-monetary system, is collapsing. It's at the end of its rope. They're short of funds to keep credibility for their institutions. They're moving to establish dictatorships to replace what is called affectionately "democracy." Military fascist-type or similar coups are in process. And the Pinochet Plan, the idea of imposing that on the United States under the Bush Administration, if that were to be pulled off successfully, we're looking at a long period of a kind of fascism, which we prevented from becoming a world system, back in 1940, which would become an attempt at such a world system today.

Now, nobody could actually succeed in establishing the kind of Nazi paradise, which is behind the current Bush Presidency's move on the Social Security plan. But, they would make a "melluva hess" of the world at large, and would probably plunge the world into a New Dark Age: not because of their power, but because of their existence as a power, prevented the rest of us who know how to fix this problem, from taking the actions which could prevent a plunge like that of Europe's 14th Century, into a significant, multigenerational Dark Age for humanity.

So, that's what the basic problem is, right now.

In the meantime, it's not accidental, that there is much reason to doubt, that George Bush was actually elected President, on Nov. 2 of this past year. The mass of irregularities, and actually crimes—election crimes, and other crimes—committed, in order to create the appearance that George Bush had won, is massive. So that the question of whether he actually won, now, is in increasing doubt . He may not be the actually re-elected President of the United States. But, somebody may push him in, in the same way that Adolf Hitler was pushed in. And therefore, that's one of the big fights in the United States.

The third issue, is, we are now, as I've indicated, we have entered the unstoppable phase—the final, unstoppable phase, of a general collapse of the world's present monetary-financial system. Nobody, no reform, no theft can save this system in its present form. It's doomed.

So these three things constitute the character of the situation.

Now, this brings us to our role in these developments. As you know, I believe, by now: That I had a plan for dealing with this problem, and the plan went into work the day after Nov. 7, 2000, when it was announced that George Bush had been elected. And I set into motion a series of actions, with that in view, that this was where we were headed. We had quite a fight about the question of the legitimacy of the election. In that process, my political position began to be greatly strengthened again, inside the United States and elsewhere—but inside the United States, especially during that.

You may recall, that at the beginning of January, shortly before the inauguration of George Bush in January 2001, I made a two-point, or two-leading-point forecast, saying that what we had to expect now, for the immediate term ahead, was first of all, that the world depression already in progress, would become much worse under a President as stupid as George Bush is. That under these conditions, that we must look forward in the early future, to something happening in the United States, an act of terror, like Hermann Goering's setting fire to the Reichstag in February 1933. The Reichstag Fire which was used, as 9/11 was used in the United States, to move toward dictatorship.

Now, the move toward dictatorship did occur, right after 9/11. It occurred, beginning in the evening , when plans for right-wing police-state measures, which had been prepared in previous months, were put into effect rapidly, under the apparent direction of Vice President Dick Cheney.

So, our position has been, on this question, we have built up more and more of a position. Now comes the time of the serious phase of the election campaign of 2004: The end of 2003, I had taken a leading role in mobilizing the opposition, the general opposition to Bush's intended war in Iraq. We didn't succeed in stopping the war. But we began to build up a combination of forces, inside institutions of the United States, in alliance with institutions elsewhere, to deal with the kind of situation that this represented, with the Iraq War as a focal point, not the only point, of our consideration.

In that process, the enemy moved—including George Shultz and Co.—the same oligarchy which had put Hitler in earlier, now moved to try to put an—well—Arnold Schwarzenegger, the weight-lifter, into the position of Governor of California. This was done largely under the coordinated direction of George Shultz and others.

We fought against this. The Democratic Party capitulated, they didn't fight it. They threw the election. And allowed a man who is — he's the new imported Austrian dictator. Adolf was sent to Germany. Schwarzenegger was sent from Austria, with a Nazi father, was sent to the United States. And this clown is the Governor of California today, because by and large, the Democratic Party didn't fight. Former President Clinton was prepared to fight. But, the rest of the party machine was not.

I was prepared to fight. We fought. We demonstrated that our approach to the thing was a winning capability, as in the case of the Los Angeles County area and the Bay Area in California. But otherwise, the rest of the Democratic Party machine in other parts of the state, lost. And therefore, we have this clown, a very dangerous clown, a very nasty one, as the Governor of California.

This submission to the Schwarzenegger operation of George Shultz and Co. characterized the entire primary campaign of the Democratic Party.

We were, at the same time, building up our machine. And we moved properly, in the circumstance of the Boston nominating convention of the Democratic Party, where we broke certain barriers, and became an integral part of the Democratic election campaign of the year.

However, that still didn't work, because the foot-draggers and the fools were still preventing the Democrats from running an effective campaign. About Labor Day, former President Clinton, who had discussions with Senator Kerry, the nominee, brought about a change in the composition of the campaign committee. We were brought in. I was a part of this. We changed the character of the Kerry campaign, from a sure loser, into a winning profile. Not just us, but those who agreed with us. And we did an excellent job.

We probably, actually won the election.

But, the enemy was waiting for any such effort. And therefore, the massive fraud apparatus, which without doubt did deploy in this operation—there was massive violation of the election law. Federal criminal violations of the law were perpetrated by Republican officials with the intent to create a fraudulent result of the vote.

Other measures were taken. Vote suppression measures, and others, which are also violations of U.S. Federal law. The figures that are reported, from places like Ohio and elsewhere, are obviously, wildly fraudulent. They probably would suffice to overturn the alleged result of the Nov. 2 election, in favor of Kerry. But, getting that overturned is, itself, quite a process—and we're in the middle of it.

So. Now, what we've got going now, is this: We are a key part of the resistance, leading the resistance against this operation, and the policies involved. We are involved with a number of leading committees in the Congress, and working with them. We're working with leading figures, political figures in the United States, leading elements of the U.S. establishment, to try to deal with these problems.

And within this process, I have certain special responsibilities.

Now, you know about the Nov. 9 webcast. I planned that before Election Day, knowing there would be reason, in any case, for me to make a webcast address, as an organizing action on the 9th of November. We did it. It did turn the situation: We got people off the floor. We got them moving. And we're now moving. And the movement has a certain dynamic of its own, in addition to what we've done to it, of course.

We're going to have another event. It's a part of a series of seminars among notable people, internationally—the United States, Europe, Asia—from a Jan. 5 webcast; to an event which will occur about a week later in Berlin, which will be a conference of notables from various countries discussing what we're going to do with the world situation; we have a February conference, naturally, in Northern Virginia, in which we do the same thing. We will have, in addition to our own conference events, we'll have an adjoining conference—before and after—on these matters on international policy. And then, obviously, we will have other conferences and meetings, in various parts of the world, in late February and March of this coming year.

These seminars will have to consider the problem, of how do we bring Europe, of course the United States in this—but the question is, our relationship to Europe—but a Europe related to Russia, India, China, as an axis of cooperation on Continental Europe: That is the key point.

We're going to have to, at the same time—and we're doing it—we're going to have to go with a deep exposure of the Nazi International today. However, we are not the only ones who are doing it. There is a book, which will be published in February out of a Swiss publishing house, and advance notices of this have appeared in the Swiss Neue ZÂf®rcher Zeitung . We have a book, just recently published by John Perkins, who is formerly associated with some of the people who do the nasties, during the 1970s and so forth. And he's done, in a sense, a "tell all" book about the dirties they were doing with the economic operations, the killings, and so forth during that period, killing of heads of states.

Much of the stuff that Perkins reports involves cases that I know personally, and that we and our associates, otherwise, know personally. So, the Perkins book is, in the main, we can attest as valuable. And is only a sample of what we already, otherwise know.

Also, we have an exposure of a very interesting situation: There are a number of banks, U.S. and European banks—especially, interestingly, if you get to Scotland, get to the Bank of Scotland, you ask about certain Spanish banks, such as the Banco Santander, which is close to the Bank of Scotland. Now, these fellows—Spanish and U.S. and other fellows, a few of them—actually are the ones who are, today, the financial holders of political control of the pro-Nazi-style movement in South America . These are the people who are maintaining the legacy of what Pinochet represents. These people are being exposed, by us, and others.

So, what you have, is people coming out of the woodwork, so to speak, and exposing two things: Exposing what they never would have exposed before—exposing, first of all, the banking system behind the Nazi system of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. And exposing the connection of those interests , and of the Nazi apparatus generally, to the operations which were run as terrorist operations and special operations, during the late 1960s, 1970s, and so forth.

The reason this is happening, is because responsible people in high places around the world, know, number one, that the system is collapsing: The financial system is going under —not just downunder—it's going under, all the way, around the world. They know also, that there is a pro-Nazi-style attempt, at establishing dictatorship as a form of government, globally, under these circumstances: a system of war and government, Nazi-style government, with these banking interests and others behind them, representing a continuity of the same crowd from the 1920s and 1930s that gave us Mussolini, Hitler, and so forth, and gave us the war.

So therefore, there are many people, who simply don't want to go to Hell, who are sticking their necks out as they never have before, in all these years, to tell a large part of the truth about the connection between what happened then, and what is on the way, now .

So therefore, there's where we are. We're in a global fight. This is not a question of a long-term forecast of a trend: We're talking about today and tomorrow; we're talking about the immediate present and future. The battle for civilization is on now—it is not something that might start down the road. And George Bush's pushing of the Pinochet privativation of Social Security is a linchpin, it's a pivot, in this whole international fight.

Now therefore, where does Australia come in? Well, all the bad side, you can say, it can happen. And Australia won't duck any of it. It won't lose any of it. But, let's take the possible good side—that's the part we ought to talk about, what we ought to concentrate on. What do we do about this? Presuming that we can beat these bastards off? What do we do with the world, that's dumped on our lap, on the day the system collapses and the Nazis are not in power?

Well, we have to look first of all, for Australia, have to look at the Eurasia connection . And you should be thinking about things like the youth movement, and the future of the position of Australia, in respect to Eurasia. Now, the youth movement itself, because the youth are the future, aren't they? Young adults, are the future. And therefore, you're talking about a youth movement, you're talking about the future of everybody, and everybody's society. And those who are older duffers, like me, we have to make sure, that the young adult youth are properly qualified to undertake the mission of assuming, gradually—but also a little bit rapidly—the responsibility of government: to deal with the situation which is going to be left on our doormat, with the crisis which is in process now.

What are you going to do in Australia, with Eurasia? How are you going to respond to the world situation, in terms of your relationship to Eurasia?

Now, there are a lot of changes, away from the things that you have been doing in Australia, recently—which have to be made. You can not continue the way you're going. No part of the world, as a whole, can really continue the way it's been going. So, that's not really picking on Australia. You're going to have to change your ways, as a nation, to conform to the reality which is now.

The first thing you have to look at, is the question of, what is the role of a predominantly European-cultured nation, Australia, in its tradition, in proximity to Asia? Now, I think you have some sense of that: That Asian culture and European culture, that is, the tradition of European civilization since the times of ancient Greece, is, these are quite different kinds of cultures. Essentially, we're all the same, on both sides of the divide on this. But, the history, the cultural history, of European civilization, and the cultural history—various cultural histories of Asian civilization, are quite different.

And Asian civilization, in terms of population size, was—and remains much bigger!

So therefore, you have the smaller part of the human population—the European culture side—which has been dominant, especially since the 15th-Century Renaissance, because of the emergence out of the Greek Classical tradition of the modern European nation-state culture, with its scientific and technological progress—the greatest culture the planet has ever seen, in the hands of nations, which represented only a minority of the world's populations.

And you had, under the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, and its imitators, you had the development of a period of centuries, of an imperial thrust, in which a small part of the world, representing states, particularly the British, Anglo-Dutch Liberal part, were looking at Asia and looking at Africa—and South and Central America, too—as places to loot, in an imperial, colonial way.

Now, the tables are turned. We, in the past 40 years, have destroyed the systems of economy under which Europe's economic power existed. Now, we find in numbers—even though there are great troubles in Asia: for example, you have a tremendous number of poor people, in an India, in which 300 million people may be living under approximately European standards, but 700 million do not. You have in China, you have a very important stratification, of some people in China are living on a highly productive level, technologically, some middle, but also, a large number on the lower end. This is characteristic of Asia.

But, Asia is going to become insistent, as Europe declines, to its own folly—as Australia declines to it own folly of the same period: Now, how're you going to cope, with the world around you, under these conditions? And, the threat of a great New Dark Age, just on top of it all?

Therefore, you have to define yourself in Australia, as being a nation, whose security is based on its usefulness to mankind. This means that you've got to take the best of the legacy of European civilization, our science and Classical culture. You've got to develop the entire population, as much as possible, of Australia, up to that standard. Otherwise, you're not useful! And if you don't have the weapons to conquer people and subjugate them? Except by being extremely useful.

So therefore, your Australian policy is going to have to be, largely, on one side, an "Asia up there" policy: How does Australia make itself so damned useful to that part of the world, and so important that it stay there, for that part of the world, that it has a long-term basis for security. What kind of development do you have to do, in Australia, to make Australia that kind of a power?

And therefore, how does Australia do, what also Europe is going to have to do— and the Americas—we're going to have to shift, from thinking in terms of a conflict between a European cultural tradition and an Asian cultural complex, into the emergence of what must become a Eurasian culture : That is, a culture in which the best of European Classical culture, is playing a leading part; but, this European Classical culture's contribution is becoming more and more integral to the self-development of Asian cultures.

And that is going to have to be the way we come to think. And we have to come to think in that way, fast .

Now, we have a special problem right now. You notice, that due to large-scale speculation, that the price of so-called raw materials, is rising rapidly. This is not because of the inherent cost of raw materials. It's not a cost-driven price rise: It's a speculation-driven price rise. And the speculation is largely expressed through financial derivatives, not through real money. But there's a great increase in prices of raw materials, minerals and so forth, especially in the price of petroleum. And this rise in the price of petroleum, in particular, but also other mineral substances, is not based on a volume/price ratio: It's based on the fact that people are trying to grab political control over raw materials for the future!

And you have an American effort to grab control of the world's raw materials. You have a European effort, of the United Kingdom, and Central and Western Europe—they're also out to grab control of raw materials, of all parts of the world. You have, Russia is a great power, in terms of the raw materials resources there. Then you have China, which is bereft of vast amounts of raw materials, relative to the rest of the world. But China is reaching out to acquire control over secured flow of raw materials, for China's present and future needs.

This is what's going on now.

So, you have a bunch of wild-eyed Physiocrats, who don't know anything about real economy, who don't know how to produce anything. But they do know that if you control the raw materials of the world, you can make slaves of those who don't have the raw materials, and that's what's going on right now. It's not going to work—except it's going to make "one melluva hess."

All right, now. Therefore, now go back to Australia: What is Australia's position, in terms of raw materials? There are some people who have thought of trying to harbor Australia's hidden raw materials as long as possible—not develop them, not use them, not put them on the market. Well, that's not going to work. Because, if somebody wants to come in and take you over and they can, whatever you have, they're going to take. And your cute idea of hiding things away in cupboards and chest and closets, is not going to work [through cartel-sponsored "Aboriginal land rights"—ed.]. So, the current policies of Australia on management of natural resources, is going to fall apart . It's going to be a gigantic failure.

Something else is going to have to happen. You're going to have to say, "Where is Australia's future, in terms of raw materials?" Well, there are some there. But, you're not going to be able to control, and hold those raw materials as yours, unless you develop them! So you better get about it! And change all those crazy laws, and provisions, that prevent that kind of development of the territory. You've got to think of the territory of Australia as something that has to be developed per capita, and per square kilometer; with anticipation of a large increase of the number of Australians.

But, there's something else more fundamental: The biggest fight over raw materials, doesn't usually mention one thing. The greatest source of the raw materials on which we live, depend on this planet, lie in and under the ocean . Now, Australia happens to be next to a lot of ocean—at least the coasts are. And therefore, the development of scientific capabilities, of the type that Russia will be developing: Because, remember Russia, with the Vernadsky memorial institution—which is just opposite the Kremlin, actually, in Moscow—is a center of knowledge of how to deal with these things, which is the best in the world, in terms of scientific roots.

Australia's going to have to think in those terms, of how to use its position, in the planet, which is sometimes unfortunate with respect to the costs of transportation, how to use that position to advantage, by understanding the significance of the oceans, and so forth, around it, as well as the resources within the country.

This means an image of the role of the Australian, has to change somewhat, doesn't it? It means that you have to develop a high-quality population, which can sort of do everything, which represents the very best of European civilization, which is able and acquires increased abilities, to deal on an amiable basis, with its neighbors of Asian culture, to make itself a most useful part of the vicinity of Asia in general. And to look at the oceans and other things around you, and be innovative, and see things that Australia can do, and should do, which are peculiar to the possibilities of its people and its situation—and make the place damned useful .

So therefore, we, who are associated with the young fellows in Australia coming up, we have to think about, developing our people, giving them perspective, helping them to get the skills and the outlook, to do this little, sort of quasi-magical turnaround, to make Australia, again, a land of realizing the promise which has been hidden there, waiting to be uncorked for some time.

That's my report.Questions and Answers

Mitchell: Okay, so Lyn, how long have you got to take some questions?

LaRouche: I can take a bit of time. I set aside about an hour in total, but I think we can do a little bit more. I'm recovering from a nasal pharyngeal, etc. etc., so I'm sort of hampered, but let's try for about half an hour or so.

Mitchell: Okay, great. So, we're going to ask people to come up and ask their questions. Just make sure you speak clearly, and state your name.

Question: Hey Lyn, it's Adam. I'm one of the youth who went over to America, but didn't get a chance to see you. I had a question, which was, that, recently you were asked what Australia's role was in the whole global scheme of things. And you replied that Australia was an historical anomaly, and that anomalies are just there to be enjoyed. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that, or at least state your answer more thoroughly.

LaRouche: You mean about Australia being an anomaly?

Mitchell: Yeah.

LaRouche: Well, yes it's an anomaly. Of course. I mean, you're down there; you've studied this thing. You've discussed it before about the history of Australia, about the early settlements and how the settlements were formed. And one goes back into things, like the Irish question; go back to the revolts in the United Kingdom, and how some people were shipped out of there for political reasons, either because of their political opinions, or because of the political implications of their credentials, back there.

So, naturally things developed there. So, what happened was, of course, is that in the course of time, this expressed itself in a split of Australia from the policies of Winston Churchill during the course of the war. Now, this split took the form, of course, of the collaboration with Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and a great accomplishment occurred. And what this accomplishment showed, was that, in the history of Australia, something was there, embedded in the development of the people, which, at that point was uncorked. And you saw a great promise in Australia.

It was, in a sense, the Australians tend to be of that tradition, expressed as something which is very much American. And if we in the United States were behaving more like what we are, or supposed to be, then the Australians would find it much nicer to work with us, because in Australia, obviously, the kind of potential with a specifically Australian form, is embedded there. There is, as was shown during the last war and immediately following, there was, and is a potential within the Australian population for doing some great things. With a limited number of people, but with some large and largely undeveloped resources: That's what I mean by the anomaly, is that, here is something, where, despite the fact it was developed as a colony and so forth, you couldn't prevent the natural human consequences of all these things from realizing themselves.

And so, the British monarchy, or the British East India Company or whatever, actually began to create another United States in Australia, and then, of course, at a later point, some people from the United Kingdom and elsewhere, decided to try to abort that tendency!

But, I would propose today, that Australia is one of those parts of the world, which for many reasons, finds itself naturally inclined toward looking toward a happy partnership with the United States. And not quarrelling too much with the Europeans, or the Brits in particular. But, just having a happy relationship with the United States, of the type that the MacArthur period represented earlier.

Question: Hello Mr. LaRouche, my name's Chris Lambert; I'm a just relatively new member. My question is, what are the current strategies to involve and excite people to join in making a better world? And do you think people need a comprehensive understanding of history and human nature, to incite a major religious and political movement?

LaRouche: Well, I've picked, you know, in the youth movement in the United States which has been under way for about five years now, in development, what—you see the same thing there: The cost of the university education, and then wondering if you're getting your money's worth, if you get it! Because, we've pretty much destroyed the kind of impulse toward real achievement, which formerly existed in higher education.

So, here I'm stuck with youth, people who, some have access to university education, that is, the material means to have the education—but they're not really getting it. What they're getting is, if it's half-good, it's only half-good, or quarter-good. Then, there are young people who can't afford access to a university of any worth, and there aren't many of those around either, not many places where they get a decent education. University education today is, in most areas, to one degree or another largely fakery, by standards of serious scientific and Classical work.

So therefore, my problem has been, if you're going to have a youth movement, you have to think of it as young people who are preparing to take their place as the future leaders of nations. That's the natural situation of the young adult 18 to 25 years of age these days. Those who are older, who are running the show, have to look forward to who is going to continue and carry on after them. And it's young adults in that age group, who are the ones who will, by and large, determine the degree to which a nation is capable of reproducing a leadership, providing the kind of leadership which will carry the nation on through troubles and opportunities to come.

So, that was my concern. And I said, let's junk this question of "let's go through a full spectrum of the catalogue of this or that university"—let's forget it for the moment. Let's concentrate on the essentials. Let's start with essentials before getting to specialties.

Now, the first thing I picked on was the question of, what is an idea? And this is one of the problems that most universities don't seem to know. They aren't able to teach it. What is an idea? Most people think it's a description of something, or a set of words. Or, an opinion. They don't know what an idea is, as typified by the great discoveries of ideas of science, of ideas of universal physical principles.

So, my first job, was to say, "Let's take the mind of the average individual, bright young fellow, university-eligible: What does this bright young fellow need to concentrate on, as one thing, which will represent an entry-point into self-development as a matured professional?" So, I said: Let's take the case of Gauss's doctoral dissertation from 1799, in which Gauss attacked Euler, Lagrange and others, for fakery in defining what became known as the fundamental theorem of algebra.

So, I said, we'll take that first. And the point of doing that, is that when you see what Gauss is saying, you now have a practical basis for understanding what an idea is. Now, once you understand the difference between an idea and a description of something, now you're on your way.

So, now you're looking at two things: You're looking at the idea, first of all, as what it is. You're looking at ideas , you're recognizing ideas where they exist; where other people have developed ideas and you have re-experienced that discovery. But then, the second thing, even more important: having gotten a notion, then, of the role of the idea in society, you now have to study the history of ideas. And you realize that the history, real history, is the history of ideas—how ideas develop, how they improve, this sort of thing.

But that's from the standpoint of individual mind, that's physical science. Then you go to another stage, and I had to face this, at a later point, when we began to take the youth movement development, which started in California and extended across the United States and beyond.

So therefore, I said, "now we have to take the second phase." And for that, I said, "Well—let's try music. Because, music is typical of the problem of Classical culture. Going from what we call 'physical science' to the social aspect of science." You know, in physical science, it's the individual mind looking at the physical universe. That's physical science, generally speaking, at least the emphasis. On the other side, you have—here you are, a society of people with ideas, including scientific ideas, physical ideas: How do you get these people to understand one another, to communicate, to cooperate; to work together to apply these ideas to the benefit of present and future generations?

This brings us to the question of communications: How do we communicate ideas? How do we develop ideas, or share that development? And the best example is, Classical music. Choral music. Simple choruses, or modest-size chorus. So, let's take a chorus. All right, what chorus shall we start with? Well, let's take the Bach motets—that's the beginning of modern Classical music, anyway. So, let's take the Bach motets. Let's take Jesu, meine Freude , the central hymn of the Bach motets. Let's take this thing.

Now, let's learn how to sing. Let's learn how to sing these, and let's find out what kind of problems we run into in the nature of ideas, when we try to find the proper way to sing these motets.

So, that's an introduction to social relations. Now, we demonstrated that, as you may have heard, in the campaign, leading in through Boston: Where we demonstrated that young people, choruses of young of up to 25—and we had over 100 people in Boston at that time, 100 young people—that simply singing in a Classical mode, in choral music, while working at the same time to improve their ability to do this and perform this, would have a greater impact on a political-social process, than any other form of activity. We demonstrated that: That Classical music, exemplified by the Bach motets, represents a way of thinking , a way of behaving, a way of communication, which is more powerful than any other form of communication we know . This is why, sometimes, the hymns are so important in religious services, because they impart a sense of something that can not be communicated efficiently in any other way.

So that's what we did. And in the case of Australia, that's what's needed. You need development of a high-quality sense of the individual person, and the social process. You need a sense of historical mission: Why are we working together? We're working because we are young adults, and the future of the nation is going to depend upon how well we developed.

So let's develop well. And let's reach out, and practice these arts as we're developing. Let's integrate ourselves into society. Let's turn to the older generations, and say, "Cheer up, fellow. We're here. We're getting prepared to carry on. Why don't you help us?"

And that's the way to go at it. And everything will fall in your lap. We found out, the efficiency—we've demonstrated it: the efficiency of this approach to education is far greater than any method of university education we can find in any part of the world. So, we've got a leg on something; we've got an access, we've got a little advantage here. We can do one thing, in particular, better than anyone else—so, let's do it!

Question: Hello Lyn, I just want to know, why have we got this worldwide mass insanity, when our forefathers were responsible for bringing the ideas of the common good, and of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

LaRouche: [chuckling] Well, if you look at the history of mankind—mankind has never—. You know, this idea of all these wonderful times in past history, it's a bunch of bunk. The history of mankind is a noble history, in the sense of mankind's struggle to better himself, to realize what his potential is. But generally, we haven't made a success of that. So, most of the time, we've had societies, in which a few people treated other people, the majority, as hunted or herded human cattle.

So, that's what the free trade system is, treating people largely as human cattle to the advantage of a few. So, the struggle is, is to develop society.

Now, the importance of European civilization, is that the best job in developing society came out of the Classical current in ancient Greek civilization. That's called "European civilization." And European history is a mess. But, there's one thing in European civilization which stands out, and that's the Classical tradition, which led to this great thing, called the scientific revolution which occurred in the 15th Century in Europe. Which is the great power of Europe, for cultural progress, for improvement of the human condition, and of the scientific powers of mankind, which has been going on for the past several centuries, despite all the evil that's been done within the European civilization during the same period.

So therefore, one should not become discouraged about mankind. One should realize, like digging to make a mine, you're digging for the future. You're trying to make things better. And the main thing, is to keep things going better.

Now, what happens, all the time, is you get a few good leaders who come along, and make some revolutionary changes for the better in society. And the first thing you know, within a short period of time, they turn around—not the leaders, but the people themselves—the people by and large, turn against the leaders who have brought them up to a higher state of civilization and society takes a step backwards toward brutishness; which is what you've seen, in the recent period.

So, what do we do? Do we complain about the nature of mankind? I do, but I don't. This is my job: My job is to deal with this situation. My job is not to have a perfect scheme, but to make a contribution, because that's what all the best ones have done. They've made a contribution. And those who make a contribution can say, that they've earned the right to die with a smile on their face. Because, having coming to the end of their mortal skein, they can be satisfied that the trip was necessary: that future generations will be honored, by this; and previous generations will be honored by you—your parents, and your grandparents, will be honored by you, because you, who are representative of their outcome, have proven that their life was necessary, by producing you. And you have to do the same for the next.

The idea that we're going to have to end the struggle, and enter a perfect society with a perfect design—I don't think so. Man's tendency for, as the Protestant preachers say, "backsliding" is tremendous . It's awesome. And I'm not sure, that if we get this system out of the present mire it's plunging into, that we won't see "backsliding" in the future. We've seen a lot of it, in most of history.

And modern history is much better on this account than ancient history and medieval history. All this idea about past history, man the "noble savage"—that's all bunk. Noble savages are not nice, they're beastly. We're better. And our job is to become better. But, our job is not to demand perfection—we don't have that power. Our job is to do the best we can. And people who have done the best they could, who have developed exceptional powers, have brought the human species forward. What we need is people like that, right now. That is going to decide whether or not there's civilization on this planet, or whether we go back to being something like apes.

Mitchell: Okay, Lyn, have we still got another ten minutes or so?

LaRouche: I think we can try that, yes. My nasal pharyngeal afflictions are bothering me—but I think I can stumble through.

Mitchell: I had a question—I was just given another one, but I think it's basically been answered.

You were talking a lot about the conferences coming up in Europe and Asia, and around the February conference, and how this is obviously going to be a crucial step in getting those in leadership to dump globalization and actually take that noble act. But, in your discussions with people in these leadership positions in the last 30 years or so, what do you see as the actual flaw in their thinking, that's stopping them from taking that noble act? And what is the role of Australia and the youth movement, specifically, in intervening on that here in Southeast Asia?

LaRouche: Well, I think the first thing to look at, is, to take your question from the inside forward: The thing we have to do, is to get a good image of the kind of world we're living in, and of defining ourselves in terms of our role in that universe.

Now, we're looking at something horrible. And we're dealing with questions that frighten people, who would rather not know exist. We're looking at a Dark Age of all humanity, where the human species—in other words, if we fail in the immediate months ahead, to turn the situation from the way it would seem to be going under a Bush Presidency, you're going to have the human population dropping to a level of less than 1 billion people—perhaps a half-billion people on this planet—at a fairly rapid rate.

Because, when you destroy the structure, underlying the populations of the planet today, particularly when you look at Asia—do you realize what the rate of death can be? In Asian countries, where people are living on the very edge of starvation and disease ? Do you realize, that countries of populations of over a billion, can lose a major part of that population, simply because of these kinds of effects? Under the spread of disease, in which disease now rejoices in the sick and dying human tissue, of the hungry—to create new diseases, which joyously reap the harvest of death, upon the population that survives starvation. That happened in a sense, in the New Dark Age in Europe, in a relatively mild form, during the 14th Century.

Now, people get into a state of denial. They try to pretend that that's not the case. "Oh, there has to be a way that we can stumble on!" Well, we can't! Because we've destroyed the infrastructure—on which we depend. For example: Most basic economic infrastructure, take for example, water works, transportation systems, power systems; structures, such as hospitals, and so forth—these structures, in a functioning condition, have a physical life that is, without major repairs and maintenance, have a physical life of the order of magnitude of 25 to 50 years. After which, they become pretty much run-down and crippled.

We have institutions we have not maintained: Look at Australia—look at institutions, which have not been renewed , which have say, a 40- to 50-year physical life span, and have not been renewed! When they go , when you lose power systems, when you lose clean-water management systems, when you lose medical care systems, and so forth: What happens to you? When the level of productivity drops—what happens to you? You suddenly have turned a population of human flesh, into a petrie dish for breeding new kinds of diseases. And you have a self-feeding process of destruction.

We're looking at the potential, for two things: First of all, a collapse of the world population from well over 6 billion today, to about a half-billion or so, within a generation or so now. We're looking at the disappearance of entire languages, entire cultures, through mass death, because it's differential. We're looking at extinction of levels of culture, which we call civilized. And people deny this. And they would rather have the problems they have, than take the risk of attacking a problem which they think is too powerful for them to deal with.

And, so the problem is that. The problem is that people are not willing to mobilize as, you know, people are sometimes when they say, "let's go to war." Not because they want to go to war, but because they feel they have no choice but to go to war. In that time, you get a mobilization of people who overcome their fears, and by mutual support, are able to keep the show going. That's what the situation is now. And the typical person is frightened. Terribly frightened. And you present them with the kinds of things I can present to them, quite truthfully, without the slightest exaggeration, I can frighten the pants off most everybody. Because I can document what I know. And they run away from that. And they will not rise to the occasion, unless you give them leadership, which gives them the confidence to fight. People look for leadership.

You know, MacArthur's arriving in Australia, by himself, virtually by himself—with this kind of a PT boat—arriving by himself, in Australia, which was being hung out to be destroyed , by a Japanese invasion, meant that somebody was there to stand up , and say, "We're going to fight. We're going to win." And the Australian people, some leaders responded, then others responded. And the Australian nation, with its small population, in a highly vulnerable position, stood up, and became a bastion for turning the situation around!

And that is typical of history: Is that, leadership which has the courage to see the evil, and to make people feel strong enough to look at the evil, and use their minds to try to solve the problem of dealing with it. And that's what's important here. The key thing is that. And what I try to do, is, I do the things which people say, "Don't do." But I do them, because I know that you should do them. Don't try to conceal ugliness from people. But on the other hand, don't terrify them without giving them a sense of an alternative.

Leadership is being out on the front lines yourself, and giving people the confidence to come along. But also the confidence based on valid ideas , ideas that will stand up to the test of experiment. And that's what we have to do.

That's what our function is, a function of leadership. I've done this trick for the Democratic Party. What I've done, is not because I have any great personal power over these guys. What I've done, is I've done the impossible. I've done the unthinkable. And the unthinkable has given a lot of people, who have talent, and power, and influence, confidence—has strengthened their confidence; has enabled us to pull more people together. We now have a growing power, a growing influence.

We can probably beat this dumb bunny in the White House! But we did it, by some of us, taking the leadership, providing the leadership, to encourage our fellows, and give them a sense of this . And suddenly, you have a bunch of people sitting on the ground, crying and mewling, and complaining, and whining: "I'm done! We're gone! We're finished!" And suddenly, you get these people to stand up, and say, "No. We're going to win." In a cold-blooded way, in a sense that we're just going to win, where we're just not going to go that way! We are going to do what it takes to win. "

And that's what you have to have in Australia. And it's what you have to have in every part of the world. And we have to work together, with an understanding of that, to give each other the sense of strength, and mutual support, that will enable us to provide the leadership, that the desperately frightened people of the world will recognize, and then stand up on their hind legs and begin to fight too. [applause]

Mitchell: Thanks Lyn, that was a brilliant conclusion, I think, to your remarks. I was going to ask for a conclusion, but I think you just said it.

So, on behalf of us around here, I just like to hope that you can stay warm and healthy, and that you have a Merry Christmas.

LaRouche: Well, thank you all. And, I'm not Tiny Tim, but I'll do the best I can!