Subject: LaRouche/Bevel pamphlet: part 2

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 22 Oct 92 9:12:44 GMT

- Introduction -
As of this point, the world has officially entered
into the second and greatest worldwide depression of the
20th century. Ironically, this new depression began in
London, 61 years to the week after the collapse of the
pound in September 1931 unleashed what is called, in
memory of us older folk of the present day, the Great
Depression. Ironically, it also occurred about 650 years
after the greatest financial crash in medieval or modern
European history. This occurred in 1342, when the king of
England repudiated England's debts to the banking houses
of Bardi and Peruzzi and so forth, the usurious banking
houses which had caused the plunge of Europe into a New
Dark Age, as it was called, as a result of their practice
of usury,@s1 or, shall we say, their practice of the
measures introduced in our own recent history by former
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker.@s2 
   You don't hear much about that depression from the
political campaigns. The Bush campaign and the Clinton
campaign are ducking the issue. Oh yes, they are all
talking about economic recovery. One is worse than the
other. Bush, Clinton, and Perot, thus far, are proposing
nothing but what we know from the 1920s and 1930s as
Mussolini-style fascism.@s3 Underlying the fact that these
gentlemen, so far, have apparently not the slightest idea
of what to do about the new Great Depression, is the fact that
they are all thinking in terms of increasing taxes,
(although George says he won't do it), and cutting
entitlements and other federal expenditures and state
expenditures savagely. What they're proposing--increasing
taxes and cutting budgets--will not work. In fact, it will
make the problem worse. 
   The reason we have budget crises is not that we have
spent too much. We may have spent on things we shouldn't
have spent for. But it's not that we're spending too much
money. The problem is that there is not enough tax
revenue, and not because we are not taxing people enough.
We could tax the speculative capital gains sector much
more heavily, but in general we're already overtaxing
ordinary households of ordinary families. The problem is
that we don't have enough tax revenues because the economy
is collapsing, because too many people are either
unemployed, underemployed, or employed at such low
incomes that they can't even support their families with
the miserable pittance they receive for some terrible
service job. 
   Obviously the only way this problem is going to be
solved is to increase the number of people who are working
and to increase the level of productive technology
employed by our labor force.@s4 In other words, we have to
increase the tax revenue base of state and federal
governments without increasing the tax rates, particularly
the tax rates on ordinary productive businesses or on
ordinary family households. Yes, tax the speculators as
much as you choose; dry speculation into extinction. That
would not be a bad thing. But don't tax industry, don't
tax farms, don't tax infrastructure, and don't tax the
normal family household any more than they are already
being taxed. In fact, in some cases we should have
reductions on the lower end and tax incentives to certain
businesses. That is the only way we're going to bring the
economy into balance and get out of the depression.@s5
   But none of the other candidates are willing to do
that for a very simple reason: Because they are appealing
to--one could use some very unpleasant words, but I
shan't--they are appealing, or playing up to popular
delusions which are associated with submission to the big
financial powers, the big financial families, the big
financial foundations, and the national news media which
is controlled together with the major entertainment media,
by those wealthy parasites who control our society. 
   The problem with Bush's program, the problem with
Clinton's program, the problem with Perot's program, is
that they are all playing into the hands of parasites. For
example, Felix Rohatyn of New York's Lazards Fre@agres
investment banking house. He's the fellow who gave you the
Big MAC bankers' dictatorship in New York. He's smart, but
he represents the parasites. Each one of these fellows is
more or less capitulating to the proposals of these
parasites as expressed through the mouth of their resident
philosopher, Felix Rohatyn. They are unwilling to address
the problem. 
   The problem is essentially this: First of all, a long
time ago, the United States moved away from what we used
to call the American System of Political-Economy, which
was premised on the fact that the U.S. government, as we
see in Article I of our federal Constitution, and also in
{Section 8} of that Constitution, has a monopoly
over the issuance and control of its own currency.@s6 Under
the Federal Reserve Act, in particular, a scheme involving
the backers of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the
U.S. surrendered its sovereignty, illegally and
unconstitutionally, to a private corporation created by
the Warburg interests and chartered by the federal
government--the so-called Federal Reserve System. Under
this arrangement, a group of financial bankers,
international financial bankers, to put a fine point on
it, actually controls the currency and credit of the
United States, not the government of the people of the
United States.@s7 That is what these fellows--Bush, Clinton,
and Perot--are refusing to face. That is the first
problem. 
   The second problem is that since the death of
President John F. Kennedy, the U.S.A. has adopted a new
set of axioms for policymaking. The name for this set of
axioms is the rock-drug-sex counterculture. The
rock-drug-sex counterculture was invented by an avowedly
satanic cult, the cult of Aleister Crowley in Britain, and
imported from Britain into the U.S.A. That's a fact.@s8
Family values are out the window. We have new sexes, we
have new this, we have new that. A diminishing number of
children are living in families with their own parents.
The number of step-children, the number of children with
single parents is rising catastrophically in the United
States, and that's a big part of our cultural and social
problems. 
   At the same time that the counterculture was
introduced, about the middle of the 1960s, the U.S.
government, under the rubric of the so-called Great
Society, adopted what was known by the ideologues as a
neo-Malthusian post-industrial policy--that is, a move
toward a utopia called a post-industrial society.@s9 
It's a lunatic utopia, but it's the one we're moving
toward. 
   The combination of neo-Malthusian and rock-drug-sex
counterculture morals and assumptions in shaping policy
have brought the U.S.A. into the decade of greed--the
decade from 1982 to 1992, the decade of the yuppie, the
decade of the person who makes a million on Wall
Street--unearned income, doing nothing--while the
industries, the farms, and the local communities collapse.
Many people are fascinated with Wall Street income, but it
is nothing more than pure speculation, unearned money,
nothing to do with production of food, nothing to do with
production of things we use from industry. This outlook
has dominated our policy, and it came as it must to an
end. The whole system has collapsed. The system which had
been praised, the system of deregulation, the system of
so-called free trade, has collapsed. 
   Do you want to get out of the depression? Not only
must we go back to the philosophy of government, and
philosophy of policy, we had at least in the Kennedy
administration. But even so, we're not going to recover.
There is no bottom to this depression as long as we
continue to do what, so far, Bush, Clinton, and Perot have
proposed to do: To try to save the disease at the expense
of the patient. To try to preserve these parasites behind
Felix Rohatyn, the bankers, the private bankers, the
international bankers who loot this country, to save that
system at the expense of the economy by means of what's
called austerity. 
   I know this austerity very well. Not only is it
specifically fascist, that is, it was invented as a policy
during the time of Mussolini and was Mussolini's Italy
policy, but we have a famous case in Germany of this in
the early 1930s, under the chancellor named Bruening.
Bruening ruined the German economy, which paved the way
for Hitler.@s1@s0 Do you want the same thing repeated today? 
   What we have today around the globe in foreign policy
and domestically is a growing World War III. This World War
III did not break out in the form of an exchange in
nuclear weapons. It could have, but it didn't. Instead,
the Berlin Wall came down, because the Russian economy
collapsed itself in the effort to prepare to launch war
against the United States. The economic collapse imposed
upon the Russian economy and the eastern European
economies by looting to sustain this war effort brought
about the conditions which led to the 1989-1990 collapse
of the Soviet imperial system.@s1@s1 So the war didn't come with
nuclear weapons. The war came in the Balkans, the war came
in the Middle East, the war came in Central Asia, the war
threatens in Southeast Asia. What we have is a spread of
little wars, of revolutions, of murderous riots, and so
forth, such as the Sendero Luminoso terrorists in Peru or
the similar narco-terrorists in Colombia and Brazil and so
forth.@s1@s2 
   War is spreading around the planet. The underlying
reason it is spreading is that the economy is collapsed.
There is nothing to hold nations together. Therefore, they
are splitting up into little micro-nations. There is no
common interest, because of the cultural and economic
policy changes which have occurred over the past 25 years. 
   If you vote for one of the media-approved candidates,
you're voting for your own destruction. You may not
deserve it, but if it comes and you've voted for one of
these candidates, you will have brought that misery upon
yourself. The time has come in which you must address the
problem. You must recognize that something has gone
wrong--that the policies of the post-Kennedy period,
except a few early things under Johnson in the direction
of civil rights, were generally wrong. The philosophy of
policymaking was and is wrong, and you have to take it
and throw it out the window. It's the utopian experiment that
failed. And we have to go back to the values we had no
later than the time of President John F. Kennedy. 
   I'm not holding up John F. Kennedy as an angel or a
saint or something of that sort. I'm simply indicating
that under his administration, we had the kind of policies
which have really kept the nation going, which would have
avoided the crisis to which we have come today. That's an
historical fact! 
   This is all underlined by the fact that it was about
61 years ago, prior to this week's collapse of the pound,
allowing the British pound to begin to float, plunging the
entire world into chaos, that in September 1931, the
British goverment also set the pound to float, plunging
the world into a Great Depression, and that in the year
1342, 650 years ago, there was a decision by the British
king, at that time a good decision, to repudiate London's
debts to the Bardi, Peruzzi, and other Venetian bankers,
which launched the great financial collapse of the
fourteenth century. The point is that we didn't get into
this mess accidentally. We got into it through policies
which were wrong, policies which every administration over
the past 25 years has supported, and policies which the
majority of the voting Americans have supported. The error
lies with the policies chosen by credulous voting
Americans, or a majority of those voters, who allow the
mass entertainment and news media, and not common sense,
to dictate the way they vote. 
      {Rochester, Minnesota
           September 18, 1992

1. LaRouche, Lyndon H., ``The Pestilence of Usury,''
New York: National Democratic Policy Committee, 1981.

2.  ``LaRouche Warns: Volcker's Measures Wil Lead to
Disaster,'' reprinted in {A Program for America.}
Washington, D.C.: LaRouche Democratic Campaign, 1985.

3. ``Project Democracy's Program: The Fascist Corporate
State,'' in {Project Democracy: The Parallel
Government Behind in the Iran-Contra Affair, EIR Special
Report,} Washington, D.C.: Executive
Intelligence Review, 1987.

4. Hamilton, Alexander, ``A Report to the Congress on
the Subject of Manufactures,'' (1791) reprinted in
Spannaus, Nancy and White, Christopher, {Political
Economy of the American Revolution,} New York:
University Editions, 1977.         

LaRouche, Lyndon H., ``The World Economic Depression
in Progress: Why It Happened, and How Recovery Must
Be Organized,'' Leesburg, Virginia: LaRouche Democratic
Campaign, 1986.

5. LaRouche, Lyndon, ``Summary of Federal Loan Measures
to Stabilize State and Local Tax Revenue Bases,''
published in {New Federalist,} Dec. 16, 1987.

6. Hamilton, Alexander, ``Report on a National Bank,'' (1790)
reprinted in Spannaus, Nancy and White, Christopher,
{Political Economy of the American Revolution,}
New York: University Editions, 1977. 

7.  Salisbury, W. Allen, {The Civil War and the
American System,'' New York: University Editions, 1978.

8. {Satanism: Crime Wave of the '90s, Executive
Intelligence Review Special Report,} Washington,
D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1990.

``Is Satanism in Your Schoolyard?'' Leesburg, Virginia:
{New Federalist} pamphlet, 1990.

9. LaRouche, Lyndon H., {There Are No Limits to
Growth,} New York: New Benjamin Franklin Publishing
Company, 1983.

10. LaRouche, Helga Zepp, editor, {The Hitler
Book,} New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984.

11. ``Global Showdown: The Russian Imperial War Plan
for 1988,'' {Executive Intelligence Review Special
Report,} Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence
Review, July 1985.

12. {Destroy Sendero Luminoso!} Leesburg,
Virginia: {New Federalist} special report,
1992.

``Bush's Surrender to Dope, Inc.: U.S. Policy Is
Destroying Colombia,'' {Executive Intelligence
Review} special report. Washington, D.C.: Executive
Intelligence Review, 1991.

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]