speed readers only

Well, for today’s occasion, let’s start with something you can refer to, because it’s in the briefing now, and will be published this week on this issue on “The Case of the Vice-President’s Mass Insanity.”

I put a good deal into this, in a fairly hasty way over the past couple of weeks. But there’s one thing in there, which pertains particularly to your deployments and activities, concerning me, which is in there, which is in there, which is of rather crucial importance, and I’d like to focus on that right now, because it may--it strikes something which I’m sure many of you have not even thought that much about. Though you’ve run into the charges against me, that I was convicted of this or that, or so forth. And actually, if you know the story, it has absolutely the opposite, directly opposite implications to what you might hear on the street from some nagging characters.

The reason I was sent to prison, was that on March 23rd of 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced, and proposed publicly on an internationally relayed U.S. television broadcast, in a five-minute at the conclusion of that talk to the nation: He proposed to the Soviet government explicitly, and to the people of the United States and others, that we should proceed to get out of the age of thermonuclear revenge weapons, and go instead to what he called a “Strategic Defense Initiative.”

Now, there are two aspects to what the President did then, and it’s the consequences of what he did, and what I had done in that connection, which produced a wave of hatred against me from both the leadership of the Democratic Party and Republican Party--many inside the Reagan Administration itself--and from the Soviet government. Especially from Andropov, who was then the General Secretary of the Soviet Union party, and then later from Mikhail Gorbachov, who himself, with his wife Raissa who’s now dead, publicly, repeatedly, and violently, asked essentially that I either be assassinated or imprisoned. And that attitude, expressed by the Soviet government of Gorbachov, was shared by the leadership of the Democratic Party, and by many in the Republican Party, including in the circles around Vice President George H.W. Bush, the father of the incumbent President.

Now, the issue is the following: Let me take Reagan’s side, first of all. Now, Reagan was, in a sense like me. He was a veteran of World War II period and experience, which means he was also a veteran of Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidency. And while he turned, in Hollywood, to a right-wing posture, under the influence of the Truman Administration and later, and became known as a right-winger on that issue--part of the anti-Soviet right wing mobilization which was launched in the wake of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--he, at the same time, through most of his political life later on, as these weapons, new weapons, new weapons, new weapons, came up; and then finally, of course, in the course of the late 1950s and more and more into the 1960s, there was the adoption of a policy that we would use mass development of rockets, ballistic missile rockets armed with thermonuclear warheads, and then multiple thermonuclear warheads, as a weapon so terrible that nobody would dare to go to war. Which was nonsense, because, the danger of going to war was increasing, actually, more or less, all of this period.

So, Reagan developed a deeply impassioned hatred of Henry A. Kissinger, because he saw Kissinger in the Nixon Administration, when Kissinger became Secretary of State--saw Kissinger as the embodiment of Satan, which is not an unfair judgment, but it was his judgment. He was always all along, he {hated} this idea that our defense should be dependent upon what he called “revenge weapons.” That is, “if they throw a nuclear missile, we throw one.” “If we throw one, they throw the works, and we throw the works.” Which means the virtual extermination of both sides, and a lot of the rest of the world besides.

So, he {hated} Henry Kissinger, and he {hated} revenge weapons, and the policy that Kissinger represented, overall.

Now, 1977: I began, because I was concerned with this particular problem myself, in my own way; and in my capacity in part as a leading figure in the Fusion Energy Foundation, mobilized the resources accessible to us, scientific and other resources, within and outside the FEF, to work on the fact that we knew that it were possible to develop systems which could actually intercept and defeat a barrage of thermonuclear weapons, ballistic missile weapons. Not that we could prevent them {all}, but we could prevent enough to prevent any launch of missiles from being strategically decisive, that is, to end in Hell. And the very fact that we were able to do that, if both sides would agree--the Soviet Union and we--if we would agree to develop these kinds of weapons systems, and the Soviets had a technological potential for doing that, too, as we did; if we cooperated in that purpose, and were operating on a policy of preparing to reach that stage of affairs, of mutual defense against thermonuclear ballistic attack, then we wouldn’t have an attack.

The problem was, we were already on a hair-trigger.

Now, what got me on this concern, was something that happened during the course of a 1976 campaign for the Presidency, where I was running as an independent for the Presidential election. And during this period, I came across letters, correspondence, emanating from the circles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the revival of an organization called the Committee for the Present Danger, which was at that point headed by Brzezinski’s crowd. And this correspondence indicated that they were moving for an actual provocation of a nuclear war.

So, I, in the course of this campaign, in the last phase of the election campaign of 1976, put this on a five-minute national NBC broadcast, as a campaign broadcast, featuring the danger of a nuclear war, coming out of the Carter candidacy, that is, the Trilateral Commission/Brzezinski candidacy. And then, repeated that, within the larger framework of a half-hour national TV broadcast, NBC this time, on the NBC network, on election eve.

This killed--at that time, my exposure of this--killed that plan which had been the basic strategic plan of Brzezinski and Co. for the Carter Administration. They had other plans, but this was the military plan.

So therefore, in 1977, the election by, what I had done bestirred some approaches to us and discussion with us from circles who were in, shall we say, “in the know.” And they indicated their interest in the fact that there had been a discussion about this kind of issue of a strategic defense, a science-based strategic defense against thermonuclear missile attacks. So, I got onto it, pulled together the resources we had; did some studies, I had some studies done in part, which indicated to me that we knew exactly how we could approach this question, from a scientific standpoint, of developing an alternative to this Mutual Assured Destruction of thermonuclear ballistic missile exchanges.

I featured that in 1979 in my own election campaign for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, in the summer of 1979. Then, because I had played a key part--not specifically intentionally, but because George Bush had got into a cat-fight with me by attacking me in New Hampshire, and I responded; and George H.W. Bush is not very bright, really--he’s not a psychotic like his son, but he’s not very bright. The idea of calling the CIA headquarters, the “George H.W. Bush Center for Intelligence” is the biggest oxymoron I’ve heard in recent years!

But, he reacted, and his crew went reacted, stupidly. And they went after me, and I went after them, and I exposed what they were doing, I exposed the Trilateral Commission operation, and I exposed his background, and his little special club, that Harriman had brought him into. So, he went wild. His crew went wild.

Now, in the middle of this, I met Reagan, as a candidate, where we were seated together in a candidates’ night in a place that no longer exists, what was then the New Hampshire Highway Hotel in Concord, New Hampshire. And we were off in a corner, so we were chatting while the proceedings were going on, with a couple thousand people there at this candidates’ night. And we got acquainted. We were already sort of acquainted anyway. Then, as a result of George Bush going wild, he really flubbed it against Reagan in a Manchester, New Hampshire candidates’ debate on the Republican side. And then, he really blew it, in Concord, New Hampshire, where Reagan made this famous thing, holding up this microphone--”I paid for this microphone!” And as a result of that, Reagan took the New Hampshire primary more or less like a landslide, and went on to take the Presidency--the Republican nomination and the Presidency.

Now, at the time that Reagan was elected, naturally, there was a reflection back to me, from Richard Richards, who was then heading the Republican Party organization. And I went down to Washington to meet with representatives of the incoming Reagan Administration. And I met a number of people, and what I did is put forth my “wish list” of what the United States government should do under a Reagan Presidency.

Now, much of this was not accepted. There was interest in a lot of things on my list, but much of it was not accepted. But some was. And one of the things that struck interest, was a series of developments: That I had proposed that the policy of the United States, be a proposal to the Soviet Union, and others, of a shared scientific development of an existing potential for developing weapons systems which could defeat the strategic purpose of a general thermonuclear ballistic missile attack.

This attracted interest. As a result of this, and some related things, I developed a relationship with the Reagan Administration, in which they accepted the idea of my conducting a back-channel discussion with the Soviet government--Andropov came in during that period, later--to explore the possibility of such cooperation among the United States and Soviet Union, and other countries.

In the meantime, we organized in Germany, in France, in Italy, and elsewhere, and in the United States, we organized a very large constituency, which was largely based on traditional, leading military thinkers, retired and others, in the governments, or in the retired services of these military organizations. So, we had quite a constituency going, for the idea of using an alternative to general thermonuclear missile exchange.

During this period, I had these rather regular chats with the Soviet representative--the representative of the Soviet government--who was meeting with me, for exchange on the discussion of the possibility that both the President of the United States and the Soviet government would come to an agreement on exploring and developing this alternative to Mutual and Assured Destruction. I had a meeting in February--as I reported in this recent paper again; I’ve reported it in several places, but what I reported there, recently, is of special significance--I had feedback from the Soviet government in February of 1983. And the report was then, a presentation to the effect that the Soviet government would agree that I was right. That it was technologically, that both the United States and the Soviet government {could} do this; but, they wouldn’t. They wouldn’t do it in cooperation with the United States. That instead, they would develop their own capability (and I knew something about what that was), and they would beat us, in a technological race to be ahead of us, in terms of this kind of nuclear missile defense.

So, I said to my interlocutor then, I said, “You guys are crazy. You don’t realize that if you take this course of action, that within approximately five years, the Soviet system would collapse, economically, for economic reasons of the strain of trying to do this under your present economic policies.” And that was that. We kept the door open for further discussion.

Now, I said, “If the President”--I put it this way: “If the President of the United States proffers to your government publicly, what I have outlined to you, as my design for this policy, and if your government then rejects this, as you have indicated they are inclined to do, then I can assure you that the Soviet Union will collapse, for economic reasons, within about five years.” Now, this is February 1983. So, I was off about a year--but it happened.

Now, the President went, on March 23rd, 1983, went on national television (actually, international), in a five-minute segment, to make an offer which was {precisely} the formulation which I had used, with one adjustment by him. But, precisely the substantive offer which I had proposed, in my discussions with the Soviet government.

Andropov summarily rejected it, with no--and would refuse, on repeated attempts, to reopen the discussion. That is, the Soviet government absolutely {refused} to even discuss this thing with the President of the United States, when the President of the United States had offered it. And, the result of that was, essentially, the collapse of the Soviet Union, beginning with the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact organization, in 1989.

Now, remember, this is March 23, 1983, when the President made this television address. {Immediately}, within a week or two, when it was clear that Andropov had summarily rejected this proposal, most of the Republican administration--not the President himself, but most of them in there, who had gone along with this only because the President was pushing it--but when Andropov turned it down, {they went wild}. Their intention was, to {get rid of me}, for two reasons: First of all, because I had done this. And secondly, because, in my success in doing this, {over their resistance and over their policy}, meant that I personally represented a strategic political capability, as a leading international {figure}, which was more than they wanted to handle.

So therefore, from that point on, with the campaign to eliminate me, which was started within days--no later than days or a couple of weeks--after the President’s address, there was a continuing effort, and a debate in those circles, either to kill me, or to defame me, imprison, defame by that methods, and get me out of business one way or the other.

Many people said, killing is the preferred objective. That included the Soviet government. The Soviet government, publicly, and repeatedly, demanded that I be eliminated, and said essentially, “by killing him or other means; imprisoning him, or other means.” And they went to that. That’s what they were committed to.

So, from that point on, {beyond} 1989, the policy of a dominant circle around then-Vice President, and later President George H.W. Bush, from Soviet government of Gorbachov, from the leadership of the Democratic Party, from the secret intelligence apparatus which is deeply embedded in the Department of Justice, and from those circles, there was a determination of “either kill him, or imprison him. If he beats these fake charges we’re cooking up against him--kill him!” And a lot of people who admired me and so forth, in our institutions, said, “Well, we don’t want him killed. If he can’t beat the charges in this frameup that’s coming up against him, let him go to prison, and we’ll get him out later.” And that’s what happened.

So, in effect, George H.W. Bush put me in the jug, and Bill Clinton got me out.

Now, everything about me, internationally as well as in the United States, in the political party apparatuses and so forth, is all determined to the present day by this policy. This policy on {me}, is the most sensitive issue inside the political infrastructure of the United States, and other countries.

And that’s what you’re up against in the street. And that’s what I summarily report upon, within the context of part of this paper on the subject of “The Vice-President’s Mass Insanity.” When you’re organizing or dealing with me on the streets, what you run into, whether in political party circles, or other circles, is either a direct reflection of people who are on the {inside} of this operation, or reflections of the inside of this operation; or people who are affected by the spillover of this thing from spring 1983, until, really, 1994. In this whole period, this was a central feature, and a not-secret feature of U.S. policy and the policies of governments in Europe, including the Mitterrand government in France, and others.

So, that’s what you’re up against.

Now, if you look at the thing, what this does--and its to your advantage to use it, and it belongs to you more than it does to me: because you’re going to be living for two or three more generations if the world doesn’t go crazy, and I’m not--so therefore, you’re going to have to live with {this} as my legacy, or part of my legacy: What you’re running up against, is, people say, “Didn’t he go to jail?” Yeah, because he’s a national folk hero. What was wrong with you--did you support him?

That’s your response. That’s what you’re up against. And you have to understand that. But that has an implication which I want to address right now--and then, I want to let you get back at me, after having said these things.

What I represent is a guy, coming out of World War II, came back to the United States after return from overseas service, to find a country which had changed; from a nation led by Franklin Roosevelt and his policies, with opposition to him within the institutions--and from England, from Churchill and Co.--to a United States under Truman, which had, for the purpose of destroying everything that Roosevelt represented, piecemeal, starting with the general international policy, that a Churchill-Truman effect alliance against Franklin Roosevelt and everything he represented, was in charge. And a right-wing crowd which Eisenhower later referred to, at the close of his Presidency, as the “military-industrial complex,” the pro-fascist right-wing took over! And the pro-fascist right-wing was composed of bankers, including Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the present President, who had been the guy who, from the U.S. side, {led} in moving the money which they controlled inside Germany, into the party coffers of the Nazi Party, at the time the Nazi Party was bankrupt, to get it out of bankruptcy, in time to have Hitler appointed first of all as Chancellor, and then, with the help of Goering setting fire to the Reichstag, becoming a dictator--which meant, of course, World War II. So, these guys, because they learned later, that the Hitler they had supported, had cut a deal with the Soviet government, under which Hitler would attack westward first, instead of eastward, as people like Prescott Bush had intended--that under these conditions, where Roosevelt’s dead, and Hitler is dead, these guys moved back the same kind of long-term strategic policy, and Anglo-Dutch Liberal policy, which became known as the Cold War.

I came back, and I found that among people who had been in military service and their same circles, who had been defenders and enthusiasts for Roosevelt and his policy, increasingly during the period of the 1930s and especially during the period of the war, many of these people out of sheer cowardice, I would say about 90% of them, turned within the course of the Truman Administration, into right-wing fascist fanatics in terms of their outlook of the world. Not because they were fascists themselves, but because they wanted “go along to get along.” If you want to get by, if you want to have a job, if you want to be secure, if you don’t want to be harassed by the FBI, be a fascist!

Now, these people weren’t fascists. But they had to {pretend} to be fascists, and many of them became fascists. And that’s what I’ve lived through.

As a result of this process, and as a result of the brainwashing of your parents’ generation, the people who were born in the immediate post-war period, or about that time, who were educated under the influence of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, during the 1950s and so forth, the so-called Baby-Boomer generation, were corrupted and virtually destroyed.

In the time that I was in prison, or being persecuted, between 1983 and approximately 1994, during that period, power passed in the United States, from my generation, to the Baby-Boomer generation. That is, the people who were running the government, running institutions in the 1980s, began to go out of positions of leadership, through retirement or attrition. Whereas the Baby-Boomer generation began to put its people in all the top positions in all the industries. And that’s what the change has been.

So, as a result of that, there are in leading positions, with the exceptions of some people as you’ll find in the Senate and some people in the Congress, or people like that in other institutions, retired or otherwise, who represent in a sense, the same kind of thinking or something like it, which I represented, you find that the majority of the Baby-Boomer generation has two problems: First of all, there’s very little leadership among them. That doesn’t mean they’re all bad people. It means they are so confused, their brains are turned into a kind of porridge, they can not think clearly and effectively.

They’re now sitting, looking at a rocking chair or equivalent, as Baby-Boomers, and hoping that when death comes, they won’t know it happened, or won’t know it’s happening. They have no sense of a future. They have only a sense of “doing our thing while we’re still alive.” Some of them are rich, most aren’t: They’re not corrupted by money as such. They’re corrupted by retreat into what’s called a “lifestyle.” It may be a poor lifestyle. It means going to certain meetings, meeting certain friends, doing certain things, wearing certain things, “being seen” doing this. Things like wearing old socks that never get washed, and you keep wearing them because they seem comfortable and familiar to you, where the new ones are strangers you don’t want to mess with. This lifestyle idiocy, which is as much in Europe, especially in Western Europe, as it is in the United States, that is the problem of the Baby-Boomer generation. Which in France, is called {les bobos}--{les bourgeois bohèmes}. Bobos--which has another connotation in Spanish slang. These are the bobos.

And therefore, as a result of that, the characteristics of leadership, of effective leadership, strategic leadership, have fallen to a large degree upon me, as almost an accident. You say, “Who understands this world? Who understands how to fix this?” And I’m stuck in the position, not that I regret or anything, but I’m stuck in the position, which I {do} regret, that the leadership required to get the United States and the world {out} of the present mess, falls upon a few people, a very few people. And I am the one person in the position, with the personal record--as I just indicated with the question of SDI, and its implications--who is qualified to lead this nation!

Now, at this point, I’m not running for President, and have no intention of doing so right now--under certain conditions I would accept the job, if I were needed; but what I’m trying to do now, is to use my knowledge, and my understanding of things that very few other people do understand, in order to get this nation to take the actions, which are needed to save the world {from Hell}. We’re headed into a general breakdown crisis of civilization: {No part of the world would survive a collapse of the United States at this time.} There’s no other part of the world, which has a plan or a capability, for maintaining the continued existence of civilized life on this planet for generations to come, if the United States goes down. And therefore, my role, in the United States, in building from here into other parts of the world, a motion which can save this planet {from Hell}, in the immediate weeks and months ahead: That’s my job.

And in a sense, that’s your job. It’s your job, for two reasons. First of all, I’m not going to be around that much longer. I won’t be around for another full generation. I might be around for another 10 years or so--I’m in relatively good condition, especially very good condition for my age. And I’ll be around and functioning for about a decade more. But {you} face the responsibility, for the coming two generations of saving this planet. You are typical of the people who must qualify themselves to lead, to lead this planet for the next 20-odd years, or more. You. Probably two generations. When you take the places which are occupied by the Baby-Boomers today.

And therefore, it’s important to you, and important for humanity as a whole, that {you}, whether in Europe or elsewhere, but especially in the United States, that {you understand what I have just said, and its implications.} I am now at the center of the possibility of the survival of civilized life on this planet. Not because I’m not that good, but because the rest fall that far short. I have a handful of people on this planet, relatively speaking, who are of my generation, or Baby-Boomer generation, who are still in action, who are capable of pulling together governments which are capable of doing the job to which I’m committed. But beyond that, there’s not much.

{You} represent the future of humanity. {You} represent the future of humanity {for two generations to come.}

You are not in the top positions, yet. You are going to qualify yourself rapidly, as many are--and I’ve watched this over the past, oh, a half-decade, as the Youth Movement has emerged. In the half-decade, those who have come into it, have produced, and in a group, which are the equivalent of university graduates, have gone through “our university” so to speak, who are actually becoming leading thinkers; becoming a generation of young people, of your generation, which is more qualified, potentially, than the generations in power.

But you’re not yet in power. You’re still a young generation, who are influencing power, and much continue to influence power and must continue to develop. But your development requires two things: First of all, what you must become. And the first thing you have to concentrate on, is what you must become; what role you must play, for the coming two generations--as a generation--for the coming {two} generations, the coming fifty years of this planet; you must qualify yourself to become the leadership of this planet, during the coming fifty years.

You must, in the meantime, now, at the same time, take your development, in two ways: First, as you develop, you are the most effective force, as a generation, or people from your generation, the most effective force in influencing those institutions in power. You are effective because, you are better than those who are not with us, in general. And you are effective, because they see you, as the future. When people your age-group come in, to the Congress, or to other institutions, intelligent people who can think, recognize {you} as the next generation, the coming generation. {You} are the ones, who make {me} a threat, for two generations to come. And intelligent people recognize that.

So therefore, you are doing a job now, at your age level, at your level of influence, and you are preparing yourself to become the leadership of the United States and other nations, in the course of the coming two generations. And if you understand where you came from, in part, is you came from my experience, or the things I experienced, and in part, you come from what happened to me between March of 1983 up to the present time, but especially 1983, into 1994, after Bush had put me into prison, and Clinton got me out.