[Here is the conclusion of Lyndon LaRouche's campaign press
conference in Concord, New Hampshire. This is an unproofed
draft.]

{{Q:}} Can you write a fourth edition to the "Children of
Satan"?
{{LaRouche:}} I couldn't hear you.
{{Rosenblatt:}} Are you going to write a fourth edition to
the "Children of Satan" pamphlet?
{{LaRouche:}} I wouldn't be surprised. You asked the
question, and I hadn't planned to take it, but I probably should
respond this way:
The essential nature of government, or what government
should be, is to liberate mankind from a long tradition of
humanity in society, in which a few people treated most people
as human cattle. They either hunted them down, for sport, as the
Spartans did and the Romans often did; or, they {herded them and
culled them, as cattle}. They treated them nice--they put 'em the
barn, they put 'em in the field, and then when they didn't
produce, they culled them, to save on medical expenses, because
they weren't productive.
The system of government, of modern government, in modern
European history, is based on the assumption that the government
is responsible to the people: What's the difference between a
man and an animal? How many people {know} the difference? The
difference lies in the human mind, the difference between the
quality of man and the beast. And when you have ideas like those
of Hobbes, or Locke, which does not distinguish between man and
the beast, what do you get? {Men treat men as beasts. And become
beasts, themselves.}
So, the key problem here, is twofold: First of all, the task
of government, the task of leadership, is to make the people
aware of the nature of man as made in the likeness of the
Creator. That man is not an animal. Therefore, man partakes of
the divine. And secondly, is to create those conditions which are
suitable, to a person of that nature. We don't want a dumb beast
working in the field, like a cow! We want a human being,
developing--developing ideas, transmitting those ideas to coming
generations; human beings who have a sense of immortality; a
sense of mission in life: not just a sense of obligation to do a
job, but a sense that they are getting something from their
previous generations; they're passing on something enriched to
coming generations. That they come and they go. You live and you
die, but in the time you're alive, {you do something}. You adopt
a mission in life, or have one thrust upon you. And you do it for
the benefit of future generations. And you can smile at death, if
you can do that.
That's been taken away from us.
People who take that away from people, people who destroy
young people, with drugs, with these kinds of things: They are
Satanic! Why? What do I mean, by Satanic? They are taking away,
the sense of humanity, from the individual; and they're taking
away the regard for the other person, as human, as in the image
of the Creator.
And, that's what's wrong with us. If we had this kind of
love, of human beings for human beings, which is described by
Plato in his Second Book of {The Republic}, as {agape}; which is
the same thing as in the {I Corinthians} 13, the same idea,
this idea of love of mankind: That, if you were devoted to that,
as your fundamental interest in life, that service of that,
government will work. And therefore, it's important to make that
distinction, it's important for politicians to finally get the
guts to make that distinction: It is wrong to do things, that
correspond to looking at a fellow human being, as some kind of
human cattle, or worse.
And therefore, I am writing more on it. And another piece is
coming out, very soon!

{{Q:}} In running for President, what have you learned in
your different campaigns? And, how has the Democratic Party
changed, since you started--?
{{LaRouche:}} Oh! The Democratic Party has gone to pot! It
was much better, a long time ago. You know, Clinton was a nice
guy, and that fooled a lot of people abut the Democratic Party.
He didn't always perform very well, but he was capable of
expressing nice intentions, and he was a very intelligent
President. He had some shortcomings, but they weren't in lack of
intelligence.
What's happened to the Democratic Party, is the Democratic
Party accepted the change. The Democratic Party was never a
party of principle. It was pretty much a piece of garbage for
much of its history, until Franklin Roosevelt came along, and he
changed it. And the Democratic Party rose at the time that the
Republican Party was really in its deepest decline. So, it was a
change in the character of the Democratic Party. So, when you
talk about the "Democratic Party," when you say, "What do you
like about the Democratic Party, historically?" you say,
"Franklin Roosevelt." Not that he's the beginning and ending of
it, but that typifies, in our history, a Democratic Party what
it should be.
When the cultural change occurred, in the middle of the
1960s, corresponding to the Indo-China War, Johnson's terror at
thinking of what it meant to see his President shot--and that
terrified Johnson, greatly. But, from that time on, we went
downhill, morally. We no longer were the same people. And, it
got worse and worse.
Now, history doesn't work, in four-year cycles. It works in
generations. It's been 40 years, approximately, since this
change took over the United States. The Democratic Party has
degenerated, as {most} of the political institutions, and other
institutions, have degenerated over those 40 years.
I'm probably the world's best economic forecaster, at least
on the record, in terms of what I've forecast and what has
happened, and I've seen this coming. I saw the changes. I saw
how they were going to occur. And I decided I had to do
something about it. And, then, when I saw what was happening,
with Brzezinski coming in with his Trilateral Commission, to take
over the Democratic Party in 1976, I decided I had to do
something. So, I got into politics, at that point, for that
reason: To stop what Brzezinski represented. It would be the
death of the Democratic Party, and the death of the nation, if
it continued.
And, the things that I've warned against, have all happened.
Now, in the cycle of history, people develop bad habits. A
cultural degeneration, such as the present one, develops as a
bad habit. People pick up bad habits. And, they begin to say,
"Well, these habits are the lessons of experience. Experience
has taught us this. Experience has given us the following
values." But, they're the wrong values! But, if the world doesn't
come crashing down, because you accept the wrong values within
three or four years, people say, "It's all right! It's all
right! Cultural change, fine!" Then, you come along to something
like a cyclical depression, as we saw back in 1928 through 1933.
You should think about--remember, some people are old enough to
remember, how people behaved--in New Hampshire, for example--{in
the 1920s.} I remember. They behaved terribly! They were
decadent! Terribly decadent--then, boom! 1928-29. You should see
the {shock}, that people went through, from '28 through '33--the
shock! You should see it in the state of New Hampshire--I saw in
'28 to '32, in particular. The shock! People you know! They
changed! They were terrified; they were frightened; they were
despondent.
Then, Roosevelt came along, and people were willing to shuck
the values of Coolidge and Hoover, the Flapper Era. They were
willing to make changes--reluctantly, but they made changes.
And, we survived! We developed a new paradigm.
But then, at the end of the war, we began to develop a
contrary paradigm, and anti-Roosevelt paradigm. And we began to
go down. We went back into the war business again! We went into
thermonuclear and nuclear war. Went into these crazy adventures,
that Eisenhower, in his own way, tried to stop. And, then
Kennedy was killed; the Missile Crisis happened. And they were
terrified again: So, people said, "Let's run from reality. Let's
go into a post-industrial society. Let's get away from this
technology--it frightens us! It frightens us!" We accepted new
values, that we could do something else, apart from producing
product. We would now {make our money}, or make our living, in
some other way. And, we went along with it.
And so, now, 40 years later, the price has to be paid. And,
history is often--if you look at the history of the
Peloponnesian War, for example, which is often studied by
scholars; look at the history of the religious wars from 1511 to
1648, in Europe; look at many of these phenomena, these long
cycles, cycles of more than a generation, which are
characteristic of human society. And, humanity, in general, has
progressed. The human species {has} progressed, in net effect,
over time, despite all these things.
But, the reason we survive, is because, when a time of
crisis comes, when bad habits have come to the end of their
skein, then if people step forward, and provide the new ideas
that are needed, then, maybe, the people in general will begin
to accept those ideas. A person in politics, as I am, has to
function that way: You function to win, because you're
functioning to win a change. You're not functioning on the basis
of running a popularity contest, though popularity is not
irrelevant. You're running, to bring about a change. You're on a
{mission}, to change the way things are going. And, you have to
be patient. You have to wait, till the people are ready to make
that change with you. And, that's what I've been doing, this
past quarter-century.

{{Q:}} I've heard from your secretary that you've been in
Africa many times. And I, myself, am African.
I'd like to ask you, how do you see yourself improving life
for vulnerable people, such as Africa and somewhere else?
{{LaRouche:}} Well, Africa has been--Sub-Saharan Africa in
particular, has been a target since the 1971-72 period, of
genocide. The turning point was 1976: I sponsored, with others,
an effort at the Colombo, Sri Lanka conference of the
Non-Aligned nations, for a just new world economic order; my
chief collaborator in that was Fred Wills, who was the Foreign
Minister of Guyana, who was an activist in Africa, and has been
very much involved in that.
But, since that time, especially since '75-'76, there has
been in Africa, {deliberate genocide}, promoted by policies such
as Henry Kissinger's NSSM-200. Which distinctly says, the
Africans have too much in terms of mineral resources, which we
want for our future. Therefore, we must now allow their
population to grow. We must make it shrink. And above all, we
must not let them enjoy technology, because they'll use up more
of these mineral resources, that we want for our future.
So, genocide has been Anglo-American policy, toward Africa,
since that time. And what you're seeing is the orchestration, in
the usual, customary ways, of genocide, against Africa.
So, how do we do it? Well, you go back to what Roosevelt
proposed in 1942-43, in the context of the invasion of Africa,
by the U.S. forces, where he had this meeting with Churchill on
these issues. He laid out to Churchill, and the others there, a
map, of what U.S. policy toward Africa would be, especially
North Africa, in the post-war period--that is, the northern part
of Africa. He laid out grand projects, of rail development,
water development, engineering developments, to give Africans
the basic, large-scale infrastructure, which would enable
them--in a de-colonized world--to build economies. Now, that
still is what has to be done today.
The point is a question of power: Where is the power going
to come--first of all, to free the African, from this
{genocide}, which is coming down on them, every day,
increasingly right now? Secondly, where do we get the means? My
view is that, if we organize--if the United States will work with
Europe and Eurasian countries, in the direction which Eurasia is
already going in, to solve the problem of the crisis {in}
Eurasia: that Eurasia, and the United States, together, will be
sufficiently strong to provide the assistance to Africa, to:
Number one, eliminate this genocide process; that is,
eliminate the elements of genocide, such as Museveni, for
example, in Uganda; who's an Anglo-American agent, who is
committing genocide against the people of his own country, and
other countries. To eliminate that factor, of support for
genocide.
And secondly, we should go in, with large-scale projects of
infrastructure-building. We should do it, by sponsoring African
corporations, which will take the development, and will own the
development. We will go in, on a technology-{transfer} method,
of putting our forces, our abilities in there, to assist them in
getting started, and will continue to support them. It's the
only chance.
Now, we have also, in Africa, we have another problem:
Disease. These conditions produce disease, and they produce
diseases which dangerous to all humanity. The HIV case is only
an example of this; it's only one of many. Therefore, we have to
help Africa, to deal with this tropical disease factor. I mean,
if you're sleeping on a mat, if children are sleeping on a mat,
in a tropical region of Africa, every disease-carrying bug in
the world gets through that mat, and {bites them}: And, they get
the diseases. So therefore, we have an epidemic problem that we
have to control.
We have to have, now, a policy {toward} Africa, which is not
one we need be ashamed of.

{{Q:}} Can you speak, considering, when you become
President, about your relationship to what kind of Supreme Court,
what your relationship to the Federal courts [is]? We have a
problem, where we can't [get?] judges into judgeships--there's a
backup, this way. And, just could you tell us your views about
jurisprudence?
{{LaRouche:}} Well, we got a problem in the Supreme Court,
typified by Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, whom I do not
consider fully human. And, you have five judges are on the
so-called conservative side--that doesn't mean that the four
judges who are on the non-conservative side, are perfect. But,
there has been, obviously, a deterioration in the quality of the
Supreme Court, since the middle of the 1970s. Which I think
we're all aware of. When Rehnquist got in there, things began to
get bad. Here is a man, is a racist from Arizona, and open
racist--and you put in an open racist in there, then promote him
to Chief Justice, that's not good. But, he's not so smart. Scalia
is a real slime-ball--really nasty. I don't think he's fully
human.
But, so yes, we have a system of Constitutional government,
where if two branches of government--the Executive and the
Congress--can come into an agreement, we can control the problem
of the Supreme Court. Our Constitution provides for that kind of
structure, that interrelationship. There's a fourth branch of
government, of course, not just the states. The fourth branch of
government is the people. And, the people, if the people form a
movement, and say, {"We are going to have this change," that
change will occur.} As long as at least two of the three Federal
branches agree.
If an election, a President of the United States, a
successful candidate for the Presidency, can carry the majority
of the House of Representatives, and can shift the Senate--we're
that close--a successful Democratic candidate, will carry the
Congress and will carry the Senate. And therefore, we will have
two sections of government, which can deal with the problem.
Also, the thing that has to be done, also, is we have to lay
before the American people, the question of the principles of
our Constitution. People tend to think of a sort of a Ten
Commandments, dos and donts. And, our Constitution is not a one
of dos and donts. Those Constitutions which are based on dos and
donts, don't survive. Ours is the only Constitution, which has
survived, since it was created. Every other government in the
world, has undergone radical changes in its Constitutions--or
overthrow of its Constitution, since that time.
The durability of our Constitution lies, first of all, in
the Preamble of the Constitution, and in the antecedent, of the
Declaration of Independence: two documents which were crafted
under the direction of Benjamin Franklin, which represented the
highest level of thinking from Europe. The Preamble of the
Constitution is the essence. Three principles: the sovereignty
of the nation, the general welfare, and posterity. And, if we
read the rest of the Constitution from that standpoint, those
three principles, we know what to do. The problem is, as with
the earlier question, men in this country, do not yet understand
fully, the significance of the difference between man and beast,
between human and human cattle. That should be the concept, which
my campaign is pushing. The concept of what is human. What
nature law principles flow, from consideration of the human
being as human? What is right and wrong, from that standpoint?
The same principles as {I Corinthians} 13--same principle: that,
if people understand the law, as {natural law}, and understand
our Constitution as a {reflection} of natural law, as a statement
of intention, then, if the people are mobilized behind it, and if
the Congress and the Presidency {understand} that's the rule of
the game, and if enough people on the Supreme Court join us, we
can control these problems.
The judgeship problem is, we are not getting good judges
proposed. We're getting bad judges! So, you get a jam-up on bad
judges. They're trying to pack the judges, the Federal court!
It's bad. There's no principle involved. It's pure thuggery. So,
that's our problem.
But, we have to look at it from a strategic standpoint: We
must take the Presidency. We must carry the House of
Representatives. We must carry a majority in the Senate. If we
do that, we can deal with our problems. But, it depends on a
conception of {natural law}, not so-called positive law.

{{Rosenblatt:}} We'll take one more, and then I think we're
going to wrap up. Go ahead.
{{Q:}} This is a little different. It's a question that I
get out there, in consideration. I think one of the things,
where a lot of the populists have gone toward the conservative
type of framework, and what George Bush has come forth with, is
this idea that there's too much government; that government
regulations on a variety of issues, are stopping the small
businessman, the different businessman from doing things; it's
stopping the doctors, they have to have extra people working for
them--there's all sorts of things like that. But the same point,
in this paradox, is, we have sort of, an idea of government
against people--it's too much government, that's government's
over there. And here, we have yourself coming forth as an FDR
type of Democrat, which people think, "Oh my gosh! We can't go
with that! We're going to have more government and more
enslavement!" I myself see through that paradox, but could you
speak to that?
{{LaRouche:}} Yes, well, first of all, the problem is, is
you can't blame the people, if the government has turned against
the people over the past 40 years, increasingly. For example, we
had the Missile Crisis. We never got justice, for a President
who was assassinated. We never got the truth, about the
Indo-China War--and, that's a {really} ugly story! People don't
know how ugly it is! In my travels around the world, and dealing
with various circles around the world, I can tell you: It's much
uglier, than anyone suspects! How that happened.
So, we turned against the people. Nixon turned against the
people. Look--a guy goes down--Nixon--goes down to Mississippi,
and meets with the leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, and
reorganizes the Republican Party for the 1966-68 Presidential
campaign, on the basis of what was called the "Southern
Strategy," which was an alliance with the Klan! The change in the
country, was, large hordes out of the Democratic Party in the
Southern states, began migrating, around the Southern Strategy,
from the Democratic Party into the Republican Party. So, the
Republican Party became the party of racism! Typified by this
man, who should be removed without DeLay, huh?
Then, you had this other phenomenon, the Democratic Party,
then, says, "Ah! We're losing Southerners! We can't control the
nation! We're losing Southerners! We're not getting money from
the big, fat contributors any more. So, we have to become more
conservative, too!" That became known as the "suburban
tendency," which took off actually under Brzezinski's influence.
It became very strong during the 1980s.
So, in effect, the people find their political parties, and
their government, is turning against them! Would you want to
give more power to your enemy? Therefore, you will say, "Better
a weaker government, that we suffer, than have them have too
much power." Now, the danger isn't too much power, but it's
Cheney is the danger! Cheney's dictatorship is the threat to
power. Ashcroft is a threat.
But, we do need government. But, the only way this can
function, is when the people have a sense of mission. We need a
mission, why? Power! Let's take this whole area--power!
Generation and distribution of power. We're {doomed} in New
England, with what's going on, now.
All right, therefore, how're we going to get power? Well,
first of all, we have to change some laws. We have to put back
what we broke. We have to have a system of state- and
government-franchised public utilities. We have to mobilize
credit. We're talking about trillions of dollars of credit,
nationally--probably $10, $15 trillion, nationally--just for
25-year-term investment, in generation and distribution of
power: Our economy depends upon it. We have similar problems in
water management--we're {losing} water management. We're losing
forests in part of the world--all these kinds of things.
Therefore, the individual can not do that; the individual
businessman, or groups of businessmen, can not solve that
problem. So, in these areas, where it's too big, or where it's
the general area, then government must step in, and provide the
mechanisms by which what is necessary--like public roads,
railway systems, whatever--are provided. When that's done, if
people are benefitting from that, and understand that as a
benefit to them, they will say, "We want the benefit."
But, it's the same problem we have with the youth problem.
The difference between the Baby-Boomer generation and the
younger generation: There's a cleavage, where the young people
will not tell the truth to their parents. It's not lying to
their parents. They just won't talk about it, to their parents!
When I talk to the young guys, they talk to me about the drug
problem! In their terms, not some fictitious terms--but what they
live through! They're trying to save this guy, save that guy!
It's all over the place! They don't {talk} about these things
with their parents' generation; they talk with me, about these
things!
And, that's part of the problem: When people have confidence
in government--when government has {earned} confidence, of the
people, then the people will fight for government.

{{Q:}} I just pulled out a new $20 bill, today. I don't know
if you've seen it, but it really looks like funny money. And
that's what the person behind the cash register said, who was a
postman. And, with the little $20 bills all over the place! But,
this is the question: Is the Federal Reserve actually under the
people of the United States? Or, is it a private enterprise? And
so therefore, the thing that we're really dealing with, is not
government per se, but who's controlling government on a
different level?
{{LaRouche:}} See, our system of government, was established
on the idea of national banking. And, national banking meant,
that we establish a monopoly on the debt incurred by the United
States, particularly foreign debt, and other debt. So that, our
government would never be a prey, and our people never a prey,
to debt. Therefore, we set the responsibility for that, in the
Constitution, for national banking, with a monopoly on the
issuance of currency, by the Federal government, with the
consent of Congress as to each issue.
We also use the ability of the United States to incur debt,
in the form of promises of delivery of future issue of currency,
also for international and other debt purposes.
So, we use this idea of public credit, under national
banking, as a way of running the whole economy--and controlling
it. Because, you have, for example, I've done this Triple Curve
thing: If you look at the curve of money, you'll find that
monetary aggregate has spun up. You find that the financial
aggregate has spun up, less fast, now, than in recent years
before. Whereas, the physical, per-capita output of the United
States has been collapsing!
So therefore, what has happened is, money has run out of
control. One of the functions of government, is not only to
issue money, but to regulate it--by taxation, by various kinds
of regulation, which prevent this inflationary cheating process
from occurring.
That system was taken away from us. It was taken away from
us, by the British gold standard, in part. It was taken away by
the van Buren-Jackson land bank operation, a real swindle. It
was also taken away by the Federal Reserve System, which was
dumped on us by the King of England, through his banker Jacob
Schiff, in New York City. So therefore, the Federal Reserve
System is a private corporation, chartered by the Federal
government, and technically, in part, regulated by the Federal
government. But, it functions like a European, independent
central banking system.
In the European independent central banking system, the
government itself is subject to veto control, by the bankers.
We, in the United States, today, are subject to veto control, by
the bankers. Everybody admires Alan Greenspan--who should stay
in his bathtub, and never come out of there! He is never going
to come clean, otherwise, huh?
All right, that's the problem. Yes, we are in the situation.
We are going to have to, as an emergency measure, we are going
to have to restore national banking. That doesn't mean
nationalize the banks: It means, that the banks will be put
through receivership, for bankruptcy reorganization, in order to
keep them open! But then, the Federal government is going to have
to organize the credit, to enable these private banks, or state
banks, or other banks, to function. Because we must maintain the
level of employment; we must maintain essential services; we
must increase employment to the level, that we have a breakeven
on the state budgets! If you can not balance your requirements
of state expenditure, with your income of your population, then
you're not going to have a healthy nation. So, the Federal
government {must} set priority, through the states, on getting
the states functioning.
And, national banking, as defined by Hamilton, and
others--Roosevelt tried to do that with an approximation, with
Jesse Jones' crowd. He revised the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation to do that. We're going to have to do something like
that.
But no, it is not. We are slaves, to the private interests,
at this point, and that's the big issue.