to Lyndon LaRouche's "New Bretton Woods" policy proposal.
address appears in the August
3, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Speaks on Surviving
the Global Financial Crash
via the Internet and to a live audience of 250 in Washington and at the UN
in New York, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. on July 24 pronounced the global
"floating-rate" or "post-Bretton Woods" financial
system to be in an unsalvageable collapse.
pre-candidate LaRouche denounced the Bush-Paul O'Neill economic team as
not even capable of acknowledging and making attempts to stop the
collapse, as President Clinton and Robert Rubin would have tried to
do—ironically, a judgment which O'Neill publicly confirmed in statements
made the same day. And LaRouche followed up his series of warnings in
recent weeks of Israeli war plans, and of potential use of an
assassination of Ariel Sharon to trigger all-out war: LaRouche stated
bluntly that it is forces outside the region, typified by Zbigniew
Brzezinski, who are driving for a Mideast War—to prevent Eurasian
nations from carrying out the Eurasian Land-Bridge development and thus
surviving this collapse. Again, his warning was notably confirmed the same
day, when former Secretary of State Alexander Haig publicly urged Israel
to prepare to attack and bomb Iran.
out the ideas and policies needed by nations to survive the crash, was the
major focus of LaRouche's powerful presentation. It was also the focus of
the hours of questions submitted to him: They came from diplomats from 25
countries; present and former U.S. elected officials; and active Americans
from the labor movement to the medical profession to the Democratic Party.
EIR reports here LaRouche's opening presentation, and many
of the questions raised and answered live on the webcast. Subheads are
LaRouche: We are now in the depths of a systemic financial crisis,
that, if war does not break out between now and the end of the year, or if
there are not assassinations of key figures from among international
leaders during this period, by the end of year, purely and simply, the
present financial system will have collapsed. And the present monetary
system as well. It can not be stopped. We're at the end of the system.
What we can do, is, we can save the economy, at the price of
sacrificing the existing system.
we must do is similar, in some respects, to what Franklin Roosevelt did in
1932-33, in running for President, in being elected, and inaugurating a
general recovery from the policies of Calvin Coolidge and his types. That
is, we must go back to the principle of the General Welfare—recognize
the system has been rotten, it's failed, it's produced misery; if it were
to continue, there would be no hope for the nation or the world. And
therefore, we have to go back to principles that have worked previously,
as Roosevelt did. And Roosevelt got us through the 1930s, and got us
through the war years. Roosevelt also had a plan for the postwar period.
Unfortunately, he died before the war ended, and therefore, the things
that he would have done, in many parts, were not done.
example: Roosevelt was absolutely committed, on the record, at the close
of the hostilities, to eliminate from this planet, all vestiges of Dutch,
Portuguese, British, and French colonialism. That was not done when he
died. Truman, together with Churchill's friends, restored colonialism. The
Dutch conducted a war, in what we call Indonesia, to restore colonialism.
The British sent Japanese troops in to reoccupy Indochina, to hold it for
the French, to restore colonialism there. The intention to free India was
postponed one year, with very serious consequences, as a result of that.
And so forth and so on.
nonetheless, what Roosevelt did, continued to the degree that we had, in
the relations among the United States, Western Europe, Japan, to some
degree South and Central America, and so forth, we had a postwar system
that worked. It was called a Bretton Woods system. It was based on fixed
exchange rates; it was based on capital controls; it was based on credit
controls; it was based on exchange controls; it was based on financial
controls; it was based on low interest rates—that is, basically between
1% and 2% prime interest for international long-term loans.
that system, up until the middle of the 1960s, Europe prospered, and the
United States prospered as a result of helping Europe. Some nations in
South and Central America benefitted significantly from that system,
despite the abuses which occurred under it.
System Does Not Work
after the death of Kennedy, the assassination of Kennedy, and after the
introduction of the Vietnam War, and after the appearance of the Wilson
government in England, changes were made in the world system which led to
a disaster. We can say, that as far as relations between the Americas and
Europe, the Americas and Japan, during that period, it worked, with all
the shortcomings. What we can also say, is that, since 1967, it has not
worked. Therefore, what we have is the wrong system. We had a system which
from 1945, the end of the war, to the middle of the 1960s, worked for us,
who were part of the system. We've had a system since 1967, since Harold
Wilson pulled down the pound in November of 1967, and since the dollar
followed with a collapse in March of that next year, since that time,
we've had a system that does not work, and has never worked.
1971, Nixon destroyed the system, by going to a floating-exchange-rate
system, rather than the fixed-exchange-rate system. Under Carter, we
destroyed, pretty much, everything that Nixon had not destroyed. And the
U.S. economy has been going down ever since.
example: As we mentioned before, if you look at the condition of life of
the lower 80% of U.S. family-income brackets, the conditions of life today
are far worse than they were in 1977. Since Carter became President, we've
had, consistently, a tragedy, in terms of the conditions of life of our
people, particularly those in the lower 80% of family-income brackets.
We've lost our railroads. We've lost our transportation systems. We've
lost our industries. We've lost our power systems. We've lost our medical
system. We've lost our health-care system, as a result of the measure that
Nixon put in, with the help of Moynihan, at the beginning of the 1970s,
the HMO system, which destroyed the Hill-Burton system that worked so well
for us. So, we have been destroyed, by policies, and by a philosophy of
policy-making, which has ruled us for 35 years.
the collapse of the Soviet Union, the people in Washington and New York
and London, decided they had an opportunity, a free hand to rule, and loot
the world. And the rate of destruction of the world's economy has
accelerated since 1989. What should have been a triumph for cooperation,
among two systems that had been at each other's throats, and now had a
chance to cooperate, was turned into a folly.
Under This System
we don't have a cyclical crisis. We don't have a system that has problems,
such that when it goes down, it will bounce back. There will be no
recovery from this system, under this system. As long as the IMF and
its present policies continue to be in authority, as long as the current
policies of the U.S. government continue to reign, as long as Wall Street
and the Federal Reserve system continue to reign, there is no
"up" for anyone in the United States, not even George Bush—who
may not be President for long. Some day he may get disgusted with his
inability to function, and quit.
part of the problem is the fact that the system is no good. It's been no
good for a long time. But economic systems are funny things.
example: They don't collapse all at once, at the moment you make bad
policies. For example, in the case of long-term infrastructure
investments, in terms of education policies. It takes a generation to
educate a child, to develop a child into a functioning adult. It takes a
generation, or about 25 years or so, to realize the full benefits of
infrastructure policies. Ten to 15 years to see an investment program in
industry work out, and balance out. So that you don't see the effects of
bad policies immediately. You see the effects down the line, when the
failure to make certain investments catches up with you. When allowing
certain industries to collapse, catches up with you. When you let the
agricultural system collapse, that it catches up with you. When your rail
systems collapse, because you didn't maintain them. When your power
systems collapse, because you didn't maintain them—all in the name of
later, down the line, the bad policies you made, 10, 15, 25 years ago,
catch up with you. And then, all at once, you're faced with a terrible
crisis. And silly people say, "Don't worry, it will bounce back.
There's always an upturn after a downturn. It's always that way. Don't
talk about a depression—you'll talk us into a depression! Even if you
know the system is collapsing, lie! Say you believe it's going to go up.
Because maybe if you say you believe strong enough, maybe the system will
go up." That's the kind of insanity you hear around you, these days.
right, the system is finished. Under the present system, under the present
policies of the United States—economic policies; under our
infrastructure policies, under every policy proposed by the Bush
Administration, this nation is going to Hell, and most of the world with
it. So, those things have to be changed suddenly, and we have to go back
to a standard that worked. Because you can't change things all at once.
You have to take, from past experience, those things that worked, and use
those as model for the policies you want people to quickly adopt. That's
why I say we're going to have to go back to a Bretton Woods model of the
type we had during the period 1945 to the middle of the 1960s. Only this
time, instead of just having the United States, the Americas, Western
Europe, involved, we have to bring the entire world into a cooperative
system of that type.
we have a good chance. As some of you know, I was just in Russia, invited
to lead the testimony to the Economic Commission of the Russian
Parliament, the Duma, which is a committee that is headed by one of the
leading economists of Russia, Sergei Glazyev. And we discussed these
things there, as we had discussed these policies earlier.
may have observed that President Putin of Russia has been busy lately. He
was in China, where he negotiated a new agreement among a group of
nations, which is called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That
Russia and India and China, other countries, are working together to build
a new system of cooperation in Eurasia. Russia is reaching out to Eastern
Europe, to Germany, to Italy, to France—with partners in Europe, to
create a Eurasia-wide system, which will include things such as: magnetic
levitation railway systems, sooner or later, connecting Rotterdam in the
Netherlands, to Shanghai.
the Chinese government has committed itself to build magnetic levitation
rail systems from Shanghai City to the airport. A similar plan is in
existence between Beijing, the capital of China, and its airport. There's
also an intention to extend that system, to connect Shanghai to Beijing.
There are other large-scale transportation systems planned, across
Eurasia. There's an intention to develop corridors of development, through
large-scale infrastructure development, across Eurasia. Japan is
negotiating with Russia, on developing a bridge, from the mainland of
Russia, to the northern islands of Japan, the Sakhalin island, down into
have the possibility, now, of connecting Pusan, the southern part of
Korea, to the mainland, main islands of Japan. We have, if we get peace in
the North—as it's being sought by the President of South Korea, with
North Korea—the railroad system of Korea will not only be linked
together, it will be connecting to China, and will be connecting also to
the Trans-Siberian Railroad network. So you will begin to have the
emergence of systems of transportation and development along those
corridors, from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean, across Eurasia.
is a part of the world which dominates the world's population. China has
who knows how many billion now—it's 1.2, 1.3 billion people, or more.
India is now over a billion people. Pakistan is a large country.
Bangladesh is a large country. The nations of Southeast Asia, this group
of ten, in Southeast Asia, are planning to cooperate. Japan is interested
in cooperation, with the nations of Southeast Asia. Korea wants to be part
of that cooperation. And so, what is afoot now is, nations such as around
the triangle of India, China, and Russia, systems of cooperation
throughout all Eurasia, are in the process of being built, or already
established, and to be developed, which will transform this planet.
what does that mean?
we create a new Bretton Woods system, by doing that kind of reform, we can
save the economies. But we need a lot of growth. How are we going to get
have to have a system of low-cost credit, on the long term, so that we can
produce, sell, and deliver to countries that need high technology for
their development for their people, on the 25-year term, that sort of
thing. We will turn countries which are now going bankrupt, like the
United States, like the nations of Western Europe, Germany, France, Italy,
nations that are going bankrupt in the West—. The United States is a
bankrupt nation—don't kid yourself, don't believe a thing O'Neill tells
you. He's either lying, or he doesn't know what he's talking about. This
nation is bankrupt.
America—look what's happened there. Just think back 10-20 years. Think
about the nations in Central and South America that you used to consider
independent and powerful nations in their own right.
for example—not the same. Panama—it doesn't exist any more. Ecuador
doesn't really exist; they closed it down—they call it dollarization.
Colombia is destroyed. Venezuela is on the way to be destroyed. Peru was
marked for destruction, and was being destroyed before Clinton left
office. Argentina's disintegrating. Brazil is on the chopping block for
disintegration. Chile's ready for a financial collapse. Bolivia's in
trouble; Paraguay and Uruguay: in big trouble.
at Africa. Africa is a case of genocide, condoned by the United
States, and conducted by the British and people in the United States. It's
pure genocide. This is not an error. These are not local wars—this is
example: The former President of the United States, George Bush—the
father of the present Bush, in that collection of family trees—in
partnership with the former Prime Minister of Canada, was involved with a
firm called Barrick Gold. They're sitting in part of Congo, where there
are diamonds and there's a lot of gold. And they're looting that area, for
profit, and maintaining their looting with the aid of private armies.
Throughout Africa, private armies, owned by large multinational
corporations, and including people, British Commonwealth figures, like
Mulroney, or U.S. figures like Bush, are engaged in witting genocide
against the peoples of Africa, for the purpose of trying to make a profit
out of stealing their raw materials, and reducing the population. That's
we have a rotten world. But we have all these people in China; they wish
to grow, they need to grow. They need infrastructural development, they
need technology. They've got some technology, they've got some good
technology. But they need more of it, because they have a lot of people,
and a lot of poor people, and a lot of interior regions that need
development. India's a somewhat different case, but it has a similar need.
Africa, we could do something about, if we had something going in Eurasia.
I've had plans on this for years. They're plans that will work, and can
work, if Africa's given a chance.
What we have to do—in addition to creating a system that works, like
the old Bretton Woods system, between 1945 and the middle of the 1960s—.
We have to have a program, a development program, an economic development
program, of the kind that Franklin Roosevelt represented in his time. We
have to take a mission—say, a 25-year period—and we have to say, what
are we going to do for humanity, during the coming generation of 25 years?
What we should say, is, we are going to rebuild our industries, to
produce the kinds of products that are needed in parts of the world, that
need the kind of things we ought to produce. And we're going to create a
system of credit—not money-lending—but credit, where they can come to
our store, and, on credit, buy what they need today, to build a future for
relationship can be the security of the next generation of our people.
It's also true for Europe, Western Europe. Russia is in-between. Russia is
a peculiar nation. It's the nation which is the only really Eurasian
nation of the world. That is, since the Russians freed themselves in the
Fifteenth Century from the last vestiges of Mongol occupation, Russia
became a nation which was European on the one side, but also Asian. It's
the typical Eurasian nation.
nation has several links to Southeast Asia, South Asia. One, it has a
middle area of Asia, which is poorly developed, but with some vast
resources. It has water resources, which are underdeveloped. If we make a
connection from Europe, as by rail links and other links, across Eurasia,
to China, down to India, into Japan, and so forth, this means that we will
have opened up the last real, big frontier of this planet, for
is an area with rich natural resources, but they're not rich unless you
can develop them. To develop natural reources, you require infrastructure.
You require the technology. With the cooperation among Western Europe,
Russia, China, India, and the other countries of Asia, we can do that. And
the United States should be a leading partner with that kind of effort.
And with that kind of effort by the United States, in cooperation with the
nations of Eurasia, we will have the power, the economic power on this
planet, to bring justice to areas like Africa, and rebuild Central and
should be our program.
Why Not a
the problem today is twofold. First of all, we have a government that
doesn't work. We don't seem to be able to elect Presidents that are worth
anything, recently. We had a choice between Gore and Bush, and both were
equally disastrous, in different ways, but both were a disaster, a pure
can't we choose a person for President who's qualified for the job?
Why can't we select someone for President who's not trying to please the
suburbanites, who are now going bankrupt because their Internet
investments are collapsing? Why don't we have a President who meets the
needs of all of the people, and their posterity? Why don't we choose one,
on the basis of that kind of selection, one who is committed to all of the
people and posterity, to the nation, and one who's competent to do the
job? Why do we keep picking people who are dedicated to the wrong purpose,
dedicated to a particular interest, not the nation as a whole, and people
who aren't even competent to do an incompetent job?
happened is this: The governments in Western Europe are not too good these
days. They're not like de Gaulle, they're not tough people, like Adenauer
in Germany, or the people we had in Italy, and so forth. These are pretty
poor governments. Maybe not as bad as the one we have in Washington right
now—the President we have in Washington right now—but they're pretty
of the things that bothers the world, and threatens the world, is that not
only do we have a crisis, but we have a situation now, which is worse than
if this crisis had hit while Clinton was still President. Be frank about
this. You may have your criticisms of Bill Clinton. But while Bill Clinton
and Bob Rubin, his Treasury Secretary, were on the job, and if you had a
crisis hitting the world and the nation, such as the crisis hitting the
United States right now—and we're in a collapse phase, don't kid
yourself. There's not going to be a bounce-back on this one. There is no
recovery in sight under the present policies—it will never happen. We
can have a recovery, but you're going to have to change the policies.
under Clinton, and Bob Rubin, they might not have had the ability or
willingness to take the measures needed to deal with the problem, but at
least you would have had someone in charge who would have responded to the
fact that we have a crisis. They might have made a mess of it, but at
least they would have tried. And people would have a sense, that there's
somebody in the White House, who had the brains to recognize the problem,
and at least was going to try to do something about it.
have a situation now—the worst financial crisis in modern American
history, worse than anything we experienced in the Twentieth Century, and
you have O'Neill, Bush's man: "We're not going to do anything about
it," they say. Bush, the most under-misestimated man in the White
House: "We're not going to do anything about it. We're just going to
go on, with our program. We're going to stick to our program," says
Bush. And Europe reacts the same way.
have, in a sense, the most powerful nation on this planet, the United
States, and the President isn't worth shucks.
that's not merely an indictment of the Presidency; that is a problem for
the world. The world has trouble pulling itself together. The United
States has been a dominant power in the world for some time, especially
since World War II. The world looks to the United States, as a willing
partner to talk to, about the common problems among nations, and expects
the United States to respond, with some degree of understanding, and
competence, to the fact that there's a crisis going on. And do something
about it. And you've got a Presidency now that doesn't care. It just plain
doesn't care. And if it cared, it'd probably be worse, because it doesn't
know what to do—and it'd probably do the wrong thing.
is demoralizing the world. We're in a very dangerous situation. As I said
before, if a war breaks out, or one of several key leaders of nations in
the world is killed, assassinated, in the coming weeks and months, then
you might have an incalculable situation in the world, where you couldn't
tell exactly what was going to happen.
G-8 Took No
example, right now, you have Ariel Sharon, the present dictator of Israel,
who's committed to a war in the Middle East. It's not because there's some
issue there. It's because he has a policy of going for war, a policy of
killing people. And there are people behind Sharon, if he were
assassinated, who are much worse. Worse people. I'm even afraid that he
might be assassinated, in which case something might be unleashed in the
Middle East that's worse than Sharon.
do you say? You've got all these nations in Europe. You've got the
government of the United States. Can't they do something to influence the
Israelis to stop making this war? Not George Bush. Not George Bush. Won't
do it. Oh, he might make a few noises, but he's not going to do anything.
They had a discussion at the so-called G-8 meeting in Genoa, where you had
these people floating on a ship while there were riots going on in the
city. They didn't do anything. They said they were going to do something.
But they didn't do anything. They just watched the riot and said,
maybe we won't have any more of these meetings.
the situation. We have a sense of the world going to Hell, and no one's in
the issue here is, where in the United States, are we going to find
somebody who represents the role that the United States must play? We've
got some good things going in the world. I've been involved in this. I've
been dealing with people in foreign countries, in many parts of the world,
influential people, people who make and shape policy. We have policies
that can be accepted and will work. We have to have somebody in the United
States, who represents that policy—forget who's President right
now—someone who represents that policy, around which people in the
United States can unify, to say, "The United States needs this
policy." And says that to the people in Europe, says that to the
people in Russia, says it to the people in China, and so forth.
those conditions, we can reach agreements. For example, the New Bretton
Woods system. We had leading politicians in Italy, members of government,
Senators and Deputies, who have supported me, publicly, internationally,
on a resolution to have a New Bretton Woods system, that is, a return to
the old Bretton Woods system, or something like it. That exists. But we
need something in the United States.
are many Democrats, as leaders, whom I respect as persons. But right now,
they're not doing their job. The Democratic Party has no clear leadership.
When Senator Lieberman, who was the Vice Presidential candidate with Gore,
is sitting in the middle of the biggest economic crisis the United States
has faced, and says, "It's not the economy, it's the culture,"
"We've got to join the Moral Majority," he says, in
effect—when Democrats line up behind that kind of leadership, you say,
nobody's paying attention to reality. There is no leadership.
had a fight on this, and it's still going on, on this D.C. General
Hospital. The health-care system of the United States is being destroyed,
systematically. That means, people are being killed! You kill the
health-care system, you shut down public hospitals, you do what's being
done with the HMOs: You are killing people! You are killing Americans!
Systematically, calculably. Don't say it's good policy. Don't say it's
necessary for free trade, or this or that. It's murder! And they're doing
don't like that. We got a lot of support for the D.C. hospital. We had
members of the Senate, other members of Congress, who supported it,
Democrats, and others. And then suddenly, they backed away! And let D.C.
General hang, saying "Well, it's a done deal. There's nothing we can
do about it." And people are dying as a result of that!
I have a lot of personal regard for some of these Democrats who backed
away. But they are not showing leadership! Leadership does not mean
waiting until you're elected to be President to lead the people.
Leadership means seizing the issue, and mobilizing the people, mobilizing
politicians. mobilizing others, as a political force to get our government
to take the action that our government must take.
is leadership of the people. It comes from leadership of the people, and
that's where we stand.
War To Stop
what's the danger, the biggest danger at this moment?
of all, if what I've proposed is not done, I can guarantee you, that
either we're going to be in a war, by the end of the year, or you're going
to see a depression beyond what most of you believe possible, an economic
depression, and chaos.
there's something worse than that. And let's look again at this Israel
situation. Don't try to understand the problem in Israel and the Middle
East from the standpoint of the Israelis or Arabs. That's not where the
problem lies. The Israelis are the Israelis, and the Arabs are the Arabs.
But they are not the cause of the great danger which may come out of the
Middle East war.
problem is this: Call it the "guns of August." Now, if you look
back into the Twentieth Century, you'll recall that in August of 1914, a
great world war began, a war that could be seen coming, that was planned
by most of the great powers. The first planner of the war was Britain; the
British monarchy planned World War I. Not the Germans, the British
monarchy. The British monarchy got an agreement with the French, got an
agreement with the Russians, and conducted some Balkan wars to heat the
story up, and got World War I started—to stop economic cooperation
was a horrible war, and Europe has never fully recovered from the effects
of that war, to this day.
in August of 1939, as the 1st of September approached, the Wehrmacht under
Hitler moved to launch World War II, which was also another geopolitical
war, to destroy the possibility of cooperation in Eurasia.
we have the possibility of cooperation in Eurasia. You look at the
agreements which I've seen, which some of you should have seen, the
agreements among China, discussions with Japan, India, and so forth,
Russia, other nations—you see that there's now a thrust for cooperation
in large-scale projects, and trade projects, which will build up Eurasia,
which will really start a world economic recovery. Somebody wants to stop
it. August is now approaching. For various reasons, August is a good month
to start a war, in Eurasia. And we're on the edge of a war.
war is not coming from the Israelis. The war is certainly not coming from
the Arabs, who don't want any war. The war is being orchestrated by people
chiefly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. There are
people here who say, if we do not; the only way—. Remember, Zbigniew
Brzezinski is one of these people. Brzezinski has said, the only way to
prevent China, Russia, India, and so forth, from cooperating in Eurasian
economic cooperation, is to do what? Is to start a war between Islam, and
the West. And how do you trigger such a war? You trigger it by getting a
religious war started in the Middle East.
is, if the war in the Middle East explodes, as it's about to explode—it
could explode on Sunday—if that war explodes, and let's suppose that
Sharon is assassinated by some Israeli madman in the process, and blames
it on some Arabs, then the madmen who will take over in the heat of battle
in Israel, will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction, against
targetted cities, such as Damascus, Baghdad, and Tehran, which are already
that were to happen, and were to happen in the context of an Israeli
seizing of the mosque site in Jerusalem, you would have a general
religious war—which would rage in repercussions throughout Eurasia, and
could destroy Eurasia, and lead to incalculable results. There are some
people in powerful positions, in the United Kingdom, and in powerful
positions inside the United States, who want that to happen. These people
include Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has stated his position on this
therefore, what you need at this point, is, we need a movement for
leadership inside the United States, which says, "We in the United
States are not going to tolerate this." People who will not fink out,
as they did on the D.C. General Hospital fight. People who will not fink
out as they did on the question of putting caps on energy prices. Who will
not fink out on the fight to restore a regulated system of energy supply
in the interest of the general welfare.
assure you that if the United States, if a movement in the United States,
emerges around that idea, you will have support in other parts of the
world, and if the United States puts some serious political muscle behind
the determination to avoid that war, it can be stopped. The guns of August
can be stopped.
at the history of European civilization during my lifetime, which is
significant. We've had two world wars, which have almost destroyed
civilization in each case. We're now in a situation where the world
economy has been destroyed. The economy of the United States has been
largely destroyed by the system which is now operating. The economies of
Europe, destroyed; of South America, Central America, are either
destroyed, or being destroyed. Civilization is in danger. And now we come
again to the point that August is coming, and the threat of a new war,
this time perhaps a religious war, is about to break out.
time in the United States, that some of us step forward with me, and say,
"We're not going to let it happen."
I think that if the American people see the kind of leadership that will not
capitulate, as too many otherwise good Democrats capitulated on D.C.
General, as too many good Democrats capitulated on repeal of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as they did in 2000, that the world will pay
attention. And I know the world—they'll pay attention. And I'm getting a
lot of heat from around the world, on me personally, "Please do
something about your country," and I'm appealing to you, right now,
to help me do it.