PDA

View Full Version : LaRouche: On to Something, or Insane?




gb13
11-30-2008, 10:50 AM
I don't really know what to make of this guy. I was talking to one of the organizers for his PAC last night. We debated different things (he was very intelligent), and eventually agreed to disagree.

On the surface I liked a lot of his points: having a bankruptcy reorganization of the entire monetary system, bringing down the Fed, etc. But the more we talked the more socialistic it all started to sound -Especially when he started praising FDR.

Anyway, I went onto LaRouche PAC's website last night when I got home, and looked up his ideas and philosophies, and (as I expected) liked a lot of what I read. However, there are some fundamental differences of opinion in policy between what Paul, Schiff, et al, and what LaRouche is saying.

Read this:

(Taken From: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/20/statement-true-franklin-roosevelt-policy-lyndon-larouche.html)

Lyndon LaRouche made the following remarks to a private luncheon meeting in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 19, one day after his international webcast.

The most important thing is a clear understanding of where we stand. We have two issues: You have the issue of what the U.S. policy is going to be. I don't think the U.S. knows what its policy is going to be. There may be people in the incumbent government, and that which is about to be incumbent, who may respectively have ideas about what they're going to do, but I don't think any of them knows what they're actually going to do. They may have ideas which they think they're going to have, but that's going to change because the circumstances are going to change in a very shocking way.

We're leaving an administration which is totally bankrupt. It's created a greater mess than any U.S. Presidency in recent record. The situation's almost hopeless. We're now in the terminal phase of the existing international monetary system: This monetary system will not exist much longer. I'm talking about weeks, as a probable case. You probably will have, as of the middle of January, you might have a peep out of France from the President of France; so far, I don't think he's made up his mind exactly what he's going to do, but he might do something. Otherwise, from Western and Central Europe, you can't expect much of an initiative. You certainly will not get anything useful out of the United Kingdom at this time.

What is probable, and what is possible--but it's a big question mark--is, what is going to happen with the incoming administration in the United States. It's a very complicated question. Because there are deals, there are interests, there are arrangements, and I don't think any of these plans are going to work. I think this is a period in which most of the plans that people are making in government are going to fail, because the system is going to change very rapidly, and very profoundly.

We are in the end-phase of a general breakdown crisis, of the international monetary system. There has been nothing comparable to this in European history, since the 14th-century new dark age. We are going to have a total collapse of the system.

Now, the system's failure is complicated by the fact that governments have been lying. The crisis is not caused by some breakdown in some mortgage crisis inside the United States, or something in England as well. The crisis comes from the top down: The crisis comes from a long-term trend since 1968, which is the beginning of the problem. Which led into what the Nixon Administration did in canceling the Bretton Woods system. This opened a period of instability, which was aggravated by the creation of the expanded spot market for petroleum, 1973 and so forth, and so on.

So suddenly you had a fundamental change in the characteristic of the world monetary system, and this went through a phase. It went through a phase of de-industrialization of Europe and the United States, especially following the developments of 1989-1990, and so forth. So we have gone through a fundamental change.

In point of fact, the United States has had no net growth, in terms of physical standards, since the Fiscal Year 1967-68. There has been absolutely no physical expansion in the United States. We've had a comparable situation in Europe, which became worse, after the fall of the Wall, when the conditions were put in by Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand--then the President of France--and George Bush, the father, then. These conditionality sent Europe into a spin: Germany has been shrunken, actually, in net effect, as a result of these conditions. And from now, Europe--essentially Western and Central Continental Europe--are essentially impotent; Britain is going heavily into a crisis.

Therefore, the only remedy, in this crisis, because of the nature of the breakdown of the system, is creating a new international system, to replace the present monetary system, while putting the old monetary system into bankruptcy. Remember, most of you know that the United States, constitutionally, is not monetary system. The United States is unlike any nation of Europe: That our system is a credit system, not a monetary system. All other countries in Europe, some with more or less independence, are participants in an international monetary system, which is not controlled by any government. Even though the monetary system has agreements with governments, it is not controlled by them; whereas under the U.S. Constitution the creation of currency, or related credit, can only be done by consent of Congress, and by action of the Executive branch. Therefore, our currency--when our law is enforced--is entirely a credit currency; it's a currency of the U.S. government, the currency of the U.S. people. Whereas the other countries have monetary systems, where they participate by agreements with governments at a central monetary system, or a group of central monetary systems.

Therefore, the European system is essentially an imperialist system, in the sense that Europe is dominated by a monetary system, which belongs to no country, although each country has agreements with the monetary system. This is a continuation of the old Venetian system, under which an imperial power, in the old times, since about 1000 A.D., in the old times, the Venetian interests, the financier interests, control the credit and currency of the world. And functioned like an empire. This financial empire made agreements with governments, or controlled governments entirely. That was the system that crashed in the great crash, the great breakdown crisis in the 14th Century. Since that time, there has been no fundamental change: Europe still operates on the basis of monetary systems, which are based on supranational monetary systems which have contracts with governments.

But the United States is unique among leading governments, even though de Gaulle wanted to go in the same direction, but unique in the sense that our Constitution, means that our government in its credit system is the system of the United States.

Now: Since we have a world monetary system, the so-called IMF system today, this system is hopelessly bankrupt. The cause of the problem is not some mortgage crisis. The cause of the crisis, which broke out in July of 2007, was a result of an increase of an expansion of derivatives expansion, which now totals to obligations in excess of quadrillions of dollars! The greatest amount of this expansion occurred under the administration of the former head of the Federal Reserve System, Alan Greenspan. And we have now quadrillions of dollars of obligations, so denominated, which are self-expanding obligations. This hyper-inflationary monster is eating the world, and the only thing we can do is put it out of its misery: Put it into bankruptcy by governments, by agreements of governments, and create a new international system, which is based on credit systems, such as the Constitution of the United States provides.

What we have to have, also, is a fixed-exchange-rate system, like the one that Roosevelt intended, when he was still President. So, what we will have to do, is, we're going to have to put the entire system into bankruptcy reorganization, by decisions by the sovereign governments.

Now, to do this, there are four sovereign governments on the planet, who are absolutely crucial in launching something which can then be participated in by other governments. These are, the United States, and include Russia, China, and India. If these four countries enter into an agreement to reform the monetary system, and replace it with a credit system, we can get out of this mess alive, and safely. Because, if these four powers agree, and this represents a margin of power absolutely required to force through the reform, then Japan will automatically join; it's in its interest to do so. Korea will join; it's in its interest to do so. Other weaker countries will join; it's in their interests to do so. On that basis, we can create a fixed-exchange-rate system, to do what the original fixed-exchange-rate system was intended to do. We can use the credit system, based on this agreement, to reorganize the bankrupt monetary system, make sure that the immediate agreements that have to be reached can be settled. We can start to expand production, solve some of these problems, and postpone settlement of some of the other matters into the future, as you often do in a general bankruptcy reorganization.

It's the only chance, right now. And it depends upon good diplomacy, among the United States, Russia, China, and India, knowing that other countries will gladly join such a union, once it's started. And it will have to lead to a fixed-exchange-rate system, because we're going to have to launch long-term credit agreements, for large projects, especially in areas such as Asia, where you have whole regions, 70% of the population is extremely poor, and underdeveloped; Africa, which is potentially a large food-growing area, but is not able to do so, because of the present conditions.

We must create those conditions. This means, large-scale infrastructure development of things like power systems, sanitation systems, and so forth, to enable Africa to get on its own feet again. So these kind of projects will be necessary, and these are long-term projects. They need two generations of investment, or longer, in mass transportation, power and so forth. And we can come out of this.

But we're at the point, that this kind of agreement and discussion among nations is absolutely indispensable: There is {no way}, that you can make a compromise with the existing system, and survive. All attempts at compromise will fail! Because they will lead immediately to disaster: You have quadrillions of dollars of obligations, all of a short-term nature, coming down on the whole system! And there's no way you can postpone that thing. You come to the point, and say, "We are not going to honor derivatives obligations! We're going to freeze them, first. We're going to defend the economies, first. We're going to have a bankruptcy reorganization, which is in the general interest, first, the general interest of the nations and their peoples.

And this requires power to push it through, because the powers that are imposing this crash upon us, do have a lot of power. Therefore, you need a combination of power strong enough to break the will of that opposition. With that combination, we can succeed.

And that's the kind of crisis we face.

Now, we have a new President of the United States coming in, a President-elect--if somebody doesn't kill him, because you're in a kind of period where those things happen, in times of crises like these, highly unstable. And the trick is, to get this Presidency, of the United States, by one way or another, to enter into this agreement, with Russia, China, and India, that I've indicated; and bringing in other nations who are informed of what this is all about, into this agreement. But the basic thing, is we need a power bloc, which is powerful enough to break the back of the opposition to a reform. And that's where I think we stand right now. Everything flows from that.

So it's a very interesting period. And the month of January is going to be extremely interesting, if we don't have a complete blow-out before the end of this year. That's the kind of world we're living in. It had to come to this. We've been insane for a long time; we've been doing insane things for a long time. And now somebody came up and just presented the bill to us, for what the costs of this insanity were. And so, the time is, we just have to act like governments, take our responsibility seriously, come to agreements, agreements of reform, and adopt a perspective which is fair to all concerned. Which I think we can do fairly easily, if reasonable governments realize how serious the danger is, right now.

Thank you.

Truth Warrior
11-30-2008, 11:09 AM
The two provided options do NOT necessarily preclude each other.<IMHO> ;) :D

dvictr
11-30-2008, 11:10 AM
larouche and paul may agree on many of the problems with america today... but the solutions proposed are vastly different.

larouche is a neo-socialist... paul is a constitutionalist capitalist...

now that obama is president.. i dont think the larouched people have too much to complain about..

free.alive
11-30-2008, 12:53 PM
"The Ron Paul campaign is a cult. He's Lyndon LaRouche in disguise!"

This was the chant of one group of people at an anti-Hillary event (she was showing up in Seattle and we were giving her one of the famed "Ron Paul Welcomes"). The guy was a douchebag and when I went over to talk to him, I'd address him, he'd look at me perplexed. Then we would turn away again, and restart his chant. It was pretty fucking funny!

But what an ass that guy was....

gb13
11-30-2008, 01:19 PM
You guys are right about their differences... BUT, the apparent goal of avoiding world-wide economic meltdown is the same in both philosophies. They also share some common ground in some of the things that need to be done (i.e., shutting down the federal reserve, etc.).

The difference between the two positions is in their methodology. That is, Paul wants to return to a paleoconservative/libertarian system, while Larouche wants to enact more of an FDR type policy.

LaRouche also seems to have some conservative tendencies, though. He even constantly refers to the U.S. as a "Constitutional Republic", and seems to revere that system of government. I just don't understand how he reconciles the means of his philosophy with our ideal of a Constitutional Republic. He also thinks the end-result of this cirisi will be a lot more severe than Paul/Schiff. He seems to believe we will enter another dark-age of sorts.

The further into him I read, the more conspiracy-theory-oriented he seems, though. He believes that the British are planning to [do some not so nice things to] the president-elect (broken link): http: //www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/22/lyndon-larouches-november-22nd-warning-british-will-attempt-.html

He believes they are behind Mumbai (broken link): http: //www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/28/british-empire-loose-mumbai.html

He thinks they have been consistently trying to sabotage the U.S. since its inception, and even goes so far as to claim that they were behind the shootings of Lincoln, McKinnley, and Kennedy.

I really don't know what to make of him... Just keep getting more odd. :confused:

<edited for clarification>

Alawn
11-30-2008, 02:00 PM
insane

anaconda
11-30-2008, 03:01 PM
now that obama is president.. i dont think the larouched people have too much to complain about..

I think Lyndon was seriously backing Hillary.

gb13
11-30-2008, 04:18 PM
insane

haha yeah.