From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Sep 27 18:18:47 PDT 1993
Article: 28001 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 09/22/93
Message-ID: <423-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 26 Sep 93 21:0:28 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 643



   - ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE   ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE -

    The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
    Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
    The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview
formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
    To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within 
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
    Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry
the program. 
    Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly
tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from
satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are
broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

    Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W          
    Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC                
    3:1 Companding, Flat           

      or      

    Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
    Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
    Wide Band Video Subcarrier    
The LaRouche files are now available by automatic list service.  To 
get  an index of the files, you must subscribe to the LaRouche 
mailing list.  To do this, send a message to listserv@ccs.covici.com 
with a line (not the subject line) saying
subscribe lar-lst

After that, to get an index, say
index lar-lst

	{EIR} Talks
	Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky
	September 22, 1993

	MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s
Talks. I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Lyndon LaRouche
from Rochester, Minnesota.
	Mr. LaRouche, welcome.
	MR. LAROUCHE: Good morning.

	Q: We had some interesting developments this Tuesday, in
terms of Boris Yeltsin, the President of Russia, disbanding the
Parliament, and saying that the Parliament will not meet until
elections are held on December 11 and 12.
	No one can predict what's going to happen. What are the
basic implications of what's going on?
	MR. LAROUCHE: The evaluation that I have from inside Moscow
at a high level is that Yeltsin has moved, and he may have lost
his head--that is, he has engaged in, in what we call in military
terms, flight forward. This obviously occurred with
fore-discussion with the government of the United States and
others; maybe not in all the details, but certainly a great deal
of it was discussed. And it was immediately pre-qualified, to try
to make it work, by getting an alignment of various governments
on it.
	Now the other aspect of this which has to be taken into
account to appreciate the weight of it, is the Polish elections,
which involved an estimated 40% abstention from the vote, which
would be typical for a United States general election, but not
typical for a European country, which produced, by virtue of the
abstention, a de facto communist return to power. Maybe as a
minority government, who knows what.
	The point is two things. First of all, the shock therapy,
the IMF conditionalities and so forth, are producing the effect
in Russia which we see forecast in the crisis developments in
Poland and elsewhere, so that in any case, that's not going to
work. As a matter of fact, that's producing a social crisis. The
efforts now are to implement political measures to put lids on
the social and economic crises generated by these insane Sen.
Phil Gramm-type of thinking in international policy, or
Thatcher-type thinking in international policy; and this has
produced a freak-out, a coup and an attempted countercoup and who
knows what else to come in Moscow.
	This occurs at a time when the United States is running
blind. First of all, I know Washington, I know how these things
function. Washington is in a fit; it's saying the democracy
policy is going to work, the economic policy is going to work,
the Russia policy is going to work--well, none of them are going
to work. But Washington {insists} on being optimistic about those
results.
	And so we have a pattern around the world, of governments
and leading nations which are all ready to fall--not only in
Moscow, in the former communist countries of Eastern Europe, but
in Germany, where the government is very vulnerable in the coming
elections (which may begin to topple it); Italy of course; Spain;
Greece; Britain; the Canadian government's going through an
overturn; and the governments of South and Central America, and
so forth and so on--including, of course, ultimately the Clinton
administration if it continues on this track.
	We have come to a turning point; the United States is
whistling in the dark on military policy, saying that Russia is
only a regional military power. Russia is emerging again as a
great thermonuclear global power; it's still exercising those
military capabilities, albeit on a reduced scale. We have a
crisis in China of undetermined magnitude. Everything is falling
apart, and Washington is whistling as it walks by its own
graveyard--at least, that's the way things are going now.
	And the Russian situation should be seen as a coup, an
attempted countercoup and so forth, which {reflect} the fact that
none of the policies which are currently popular with the U.S.
press in Washington, are going to work; as a matter of fact,
they're coming to the end of their road. These policies, as
policy complexes, are facing doom--imminent doom.

	Q: Would you say that the return of Yegor Gaidar prior to this
announcement by Yeltsin indicates a return in Moscow to certain economic
policies--the shock therapy policies--that Gaidar represents?
	MR. LAROUCHE: That's what the U.S. press will tend to say,
and U.S. official Washington. That's absolute nonsense.
	Gaidar returned because he's popular among the Western
powers, because Yeltsin received a little pocket money from the
United States, because the Russians are playing the situation for
all they can; and so he is a {symptom} of Yeltsin's relationship
with the government of the United States. That's all he
represents. He represents {nothing} in and of himself. On the
Russian side, he represents the fact that they have not gotten
their act together, they have not decided what policy they're
going to follow.
	But Washington has it completely wrong.

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, the debate that has been going on, or the
struggle that has been going on between Yeltsin and the Speaker
of the Parliament, Ruslan Khasbulatov, between the Parliament and
the President, is just one of the many struggles that is taking
place in Moscow at this point. As a matter of fact, some say
there's a bigger struggle taking place between the regions and
the center. What does this indicate in terms of the basic
tensions and disintegration that's taking place in Russia at this
point?
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the situation in Russia and China is no
longer simply a crisis of the former communist bloc or of the
former Soviet Union or Russia as such.
	The crisis in Russia is a reflection of a global breakdown
crisis, which, contrary to some complacent and foolish fellows in
the United States, includes the United States.
	{The U.S. economy is collapsing.} The world economy is
collapsing. I'm talking about physical economy. Sure, the
magnitude of paper, the magnitude of so-called GNP is measured
largely in fictitious paper, that is, paper values which have
nothing behind them. Or an increase in paper values which has
nothing behind it.
	The real economy is collapsing. Employment is collapsing.
Business is collapsing; the tax revenue base is collapsing in the
United States. The per capita real purchasing power per family is
collapsing.
	The only thing that's increasing, is these so-called paper
markets, speculative market values, a financial bubble. The same
situation is true in Europe. It's catastrophic on the continent
of Europe. The same thing is true in China; China is headed
toward a possible civil war, dissolution, everything else. Not
that these will necessarily occur, but this is the direction in
which things are moving.
	Japan is retrenching; and so forth and so on. Go on around
the world, the same way.
	So what is happening in Russia, is a reflection of a general
breakdown crisis of physical economy and also of political
institutions around the world. This is accompanied by the fact
that the so-called political class in leading European countries
and others, is collapsing. Therefore, you have a crisis of
indecision--a crisis of indecision in Washington. The political
class in Washington is disintegrating. We see a similar
phenomenon in Germany. Since the Brandt education reforms of 1970
in Germany, Germany has been going downhill in terms of renewing
the leading political class and the other economic and other
cadres, intellectual cadres of the country.
	France is similar, since 1963, '68, with the educational
reforms there, which led to the bringing down of de Gaulle, and
then other problems--an erosive process.
	Italy: a similar kind of process. The country is being
disintegrated, partly from the outside. Britain: the political
class is in a crisis. The monarchy is in question, or the
continuation of the monarchy is in question; all kinds of things.
	So we have a general breakdown crisis, a physical economic
breakdown crisis which is affecting everything; we're on the
verge of the greatest financial blowout in history, at least in
modern history in relative scale. In absolute scale, of course in
history as a whole.
	The ruling political classes, institutions of countries,
including the United States, are disintegrating. That is, the
group of people who are powerful families and their hangers-on,
the Establishment, the foundation Establishment hangers-on;
they're disintegrating. So as you get to the age group under 50,
and even under 60, you get to people who are no longer capable of
functioning as those who are now either deceased or in their late
60s or 70s, say, my generation or older; as these people pass on,
or pass out of government, and are replaced by younger people, we
have a younger generation which is showing the effects of
miseducation, disorientation, confusion, of the New Age policy
and so forth; they simply just don't know how to handle these
kinds of things, and they're not realistic. So we can say that we
have the ruling political class in all of these countries,
including the United States, showing the loss of power to
govern.
	You may have a turn on the Republican side to Dole. Dole, as
I understand it, is about 73 years of age. He is not the greatest
genius in the world, but he is an old-style political class
figure; and you may find a turnback, a popular turnback, first
among leading circles and others, toward people in the over-60,
over-65 age group as a replacement political leadership of
institutions in the United States, because the younger generation
now currently in power does not seem to be able to handle the
situation --doesn't know how to get its act together. And that's
true all around the world.

	Q: The new developments in the Middle East; the fact that
you have Peres pushing for a certain type of economic reforms,
and you have a counter to that, where some people are saying
let's create another Hong Kong in Israel.
	What are the implications of this for the overall crisis?
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there are a number of things. First of
all, Peres and I seem to have agreed for a long time. We
collaborated off and on in various ways at times, along with
others in his circle, on the idea of a Middle East peace through
negotiation with the Palestinian Arabs, the PLO in particular.
	We've agreed on it; and he has reaffirmed the principal
basis for that agreement.
	I have insisted, since 1975, that the idea of finding a
Middle East peace as a {political} solution without putting
physical-economic development {foremost,} is an impossibility.
	Peres has increasingly leaned in that direction; and he has
reopened it.
	[commercial break]

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing Peres and the
Middle East policy and the implications of a Hong Kong-style
approach or a great infrastructure development approach.
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, Peres has understood, as I have
emphasized also, which is our point of coincidence, that without
economic development of the style which I have insisted upon for
the Middle East and for Europe and also for the United States;
without introducing that kind of infrastructure-based dirigist or
state-directed, state-credit-directed approach, it is impossible
to reach a Middle East peace, because the foundations for mutual
self-interest would not exist. Others have opposed that.
	You have the approach of George Soros and similar types of
people, who want to turn the Middle East simply into a financial
and gambling resort and house of prostitution or something like
that. That means the death of everything.
	Peres is no fool; some of the old fellows in Israel, unlike
the worst Likudniks like the Sharon types, are no fools either.
They see this and they have understood this for a long time. They
see it as more urgent than ever before.
	They see also an opportunity at this time to put this
through--and that's why they did it--at the same time they
realize the collapse of the governments of Europe and of the
United States, and the failure of the Bush-Thatcher globalist
approach, of which NAFTA and the GATT agreements are a part; that
the imminent collapse of these things, means that the Middle
East, unless it straightens out its own act internally,
regionally, will be subject to the chaos spilling over from
Eastern Europe, from the Balkans and so forth, and from the world
economic crisis.
	They see also, in terms of the Israeli population, from the
Israeli side, that the Israeli population will degenerate into a
population which can no longer care for itself or defend itself;
and that they must act now, while they still have the capability
of doing so, of reviving Israel by means of this kind of
cooperation and going back to an infrastructure-based, high-tech
economy rather than what some people would like, like Sharon's
backers, who would like a house of prostitution, financial
prostitution, political prostitution, and actual prostitution.
So they want to avoid that, and therefore they are moving in this
direction.
	That has to be appreciated. The reason people have trouble
and misunderstand the Middle East, primarily in the United
States, is that people in the United States are still idiotic
enough to believe that the kind of thinking that Senator Phil
Gramm or the free trade nuts and so forth, NAFTA supporters, GATT
supporters represent, that these kinds of things are real and
should prevail; whereas in Israel, where they are more realistic,
they know these things {cannot} prevail and also should not
prevail; and therefore they have to find a way into the future,
out of a dying past.

	Q: In the 1975-78 period, when you developed your Middle
East Oasis Plan, you pointed to the skill levels in the
Palestinian, Egyptian, and Israeli population as a source of
strength for building regional development in the area.
	What do you see at this point?
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, we're still in trouble, but we still
have the last gasp. Remember, around the world, in the changes in
cultural paradigms, educational policy, and economy, which
erupted over the period 1968 or 1966-1973, or 1968-1972, or
whatever you want to say--this turning point meant that the
average person who came into adulthood during that time or later,
is of a poorer quality in terms of education, in terms of
acculturation, in terms of motivation, in terms of rationality or
capacity for rationality, is {inferior} in these qualities to the
people, say, who completed maturity before the middle of the
1960s. So that's the problem in general.
	So as every year passes, especially as every decade passes,
the quality of the population of every country in the world, is
degenerating, is going downhill.
	We have to reverse this cultural paradigm; we have to
reverse the New Age. We have to go back to the sovereign
nation-state. The defense of the family; the defense of the
sacredness of individual life, that sort of thing.
	We've got to do that {now.} This is our last chance to do it
globally; that's what the Israelis are trying to do, and that's
what Arafat's trying to do: to seize this opportunity while
they are still alive to do it, before a younger generation which
presently would not be morally or intellectually capable of doing
it, is left with the task. They have to move now; this is their
last chance.
	[commercial break]

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, some of these Western governments are
looking at GATT and NAFTA as a panacea for their problems.
GATT--especially the Blair House accords--are seen as reviving or
restructuring agricultural policy throughout the West; France is
resisting; other countries perhaps are resisting.
	What is the situation? Can this possibly help?
	MR. LAROUCHE: No, it cannot help. It can only make things
worse.
	I see absolute insanity erupting from among circles which I
used to think were quite sane. The insanity takes the form of the
desperate effort to reconcile themselves intellectually with the
idea that NAFTA and GATT are inevitable. This occurs in Europe.
	For example. Let's take the great sucking sound theme.
Admittedly, Ross Perot is off on other issues related to this.
He's off on budget balancing, he's off on a few things. But on
the great sucking sound as such, he's absolutely correct.
	We are shipping jobs and businesses out of the United States
into developing-sector countries, in search of cheap labor--in
search of, essentially, slave labor.
	The argument is that this means that the goods that
Americans consume, imported from Mexico, China, and so forth, will
be cheaper than if those goods were produced in American firms in
the United States by American labor.
	Well, the question is, where are the American firms, and
where is the American population going to find the purchasing
power to buy these goods? Secondly, where is the government going
to find the tax revenue base to support even the existing levels
of federal, state, and local budget?
	If we do not have a tax revenue base which is generated
primarily by agriculture, industry, and infrastructure, and
things that benefit from that (other kinds of employment), we
don't have a country; we don't have the ability to support a
country.
	If we do not provide skilled employment--technologically
progressive skilled employment--where do we find the means to
increase our productivity? To increase our purchasing power to
meet our needs? To resist the attrition of old technologies? We
don't.
	The same thing is true for Germany or France or Italy. This
idea of exporting jobs to places where the cost of labor is
ostensibly cheaper, is one of the greatest pieces of insanity
ever conceived. The idea is to protect your national economy so
that within your nation, you have national economic security in
the sense that you either {produce} what you need for domestic
manufacturing business and producers' consumption and households'
consumption; or you produce a surplus of something, which can be
exchanged on the world market for some of the things you need for
your market basket, such as, say, bananas for the breakfast
table. We don't grow them much in the United States; we could,
with hothouses and with a lot of potassium fertilization of the
soil. But it's much better to get them from Nicaragua or Panama
than it is to get them in the United States. So we ship something
to Panama, Nicaragua, whatnot, to get our bananas. So we still
are not violating national economic self-sufficiency; but if you
export your jobs in general, if you make yourself dependent in
net upon what you can steal from other parts of the world by
monetary jiggery-pokery, then your nation is going downhill.
	You see this in education, with this insanity, this absolute
lunacy, of cutting education to eliminate the cognitive elements
of education.
	Let me just give you an example of that. Suppose I were to
insist, as President, that every teacher in the United States
could not be federally certified as qualified to teach unless
they could pass a basic examination, number one, in plane and
solid geometry; two, unless they could pass an examination in
U.S. and world history, which would ask the prospective teacher
to answer such questions, for example, as: What was the evidence
which caused American officials to believe that the British
government was behind British agent Booth's assassination of
Abraham Lincoln? Questions of that sort.
	If a person could not answer such ordinary questions to such
examinations competently, they would not be recognized as
qualified for the teaching profession.
	If we were to do that, you would eliminate most of the
teachers in the school systems today, which is merely a way of
saying that most teachers in the school systems today, are not
qualified to teach--at least not in a general way.
	Now they're shifting away from what they call cognitive
education, that is, education of the mind, to brainwashing of
emotional attitudes, which is called Outcome Based Education, or
Core Curriculum, or World Class Education--all the things they
call it.
	We are destroying our children. We are destroying our labor
force. And that goes along with deindustrialization and shipping
our work out to coolies abroad, and then training our people to
be fit for nothing here, with our children and our grandchildren
to be good for nothing but slave-labor coolies early into the
next century.
	So that is the most stupid thing imaginable.
	Now, we are coming up to a point where I think GATT is going
to flop, and NAFTA is going to flop. NAFTA is certainly going to
flop. We have a Canadian election coming up; and unless somebody
puts some real bayonets in there to force the voters to go
against their inclination, the Campbell government is going to be
out, the pro-NAFTA government of Canada is going to be out.
NAFTA is going to blow up; GATT is almost a dead letter; it's
being held together by baling wire and blow torches right now.
But if the Canadian elections upset NAFTA, that will be part of a
process which will ensure that GATT, which is virtually an
unworkable dead letter, will blow up too.
	So everything on which the United States government is
presumably {presently} premising the idea of a consensus, a
political consensus, is about to go down the tubes.

	Q: In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger had a program for the
reorganization of food, for using food as a strategic weapon. Is
this what the restructuring policy and GATT is all about?
	MR. LAROUCHE: This was not only Henry Kissinger; this was an
address given out in the northwestern state of Washington, I
believe, by Colby in that period, and others.
	That's only part of it. That's not it. It's population
control, Henry Kissinger of course was for starving most of the
people who have darker skin colors, starving them to death or
letting epidemic diseases take over the famine-ridden, and cut
down the numbers.
	There are people who are talking about reducing the U.S.
population down to 130 million or something like that; there are
those who are talking about reducing the world population to
below 1 billion by the obvious methods of famine and epidemic
disease. Henry Kissinger, of course, is a leader in that; and
that is still very active, that is very much international UN
policy today.

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing Henry Kissinger and
his policies of using food as a strategic weapon and population
control. Can you please continue?
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, we were actually discussing this in the
context of the export of jobs and things of that sort.
	There is a plan simply to use up the human race, for
example, in Mexico or in China. Let's take China. We've mentioned
this before in our discussions. You have about 400 million adult
Chinese in the interior who may be considered actually or
imminently surplus with respect to agricultural production as
it's now programmed.
	These people are being funneled in streams of millions of
persons toward Guangdong, Hainan, Shanghai, and so forth, in
China.
	It reminds me, with an awful sensation of {de@agja vu,} of the
cattle cars carrying the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to the
slave-labor camps where most of them died; that perhaps the
political and physical condition of Chinese coolies of this sort,
going into Chinese {maquiladoras,} is better than that of the
unfortunate victims of the Nazi ethnic cleansing policy; but the
principle is the same.
	We have people going to work at wages which, by and large,
as in the Mexican {maquiladoras,} are below the cost at which a
working individual, adult, can support a family--or even support
himself or herself--in an adequate standard of living by local
standards.
	What that means, is that when we employ people so, we are
effectively {melting down} living human bodies for whatever
profit we can squeeze out of them--like squeezing lemon juice out
of a lemon or grapefruit juice out of a grapefruit.
	We're talking about the scale in China of about 400
{million} people who face at least the prospect of that kind of
population reduction.
	The same is true in most of the world: Mexico, Central and
South America, and so forth and so on. And that's what we're
doing, and that is the basis for this notion of cheap labor
outside the United States.
	So we're destroying the United States; we're destroying the
interior of Western Europe. We're destroying the possibility,
possibly, of human life on this planet (at least as we have known
it recently in the past 400-500 years) by these kinds of policies
which Ross Perot associates with a great sucking sound.
	The solution is only to go back to what I have proposed and
others have endorsed, which is paralleled by the views of some
others such as the Vatican.
	We've got to go to a rule of this planet by moral natural
law. And by natural law, I mean the demonstration that humanity
is {distinct} from the beasts by the fact that humanity, through
development of reason, can alter human behavior collectively,
through individual scientific and related discoveries, to
increase man's power over nature per capita and per square
kilometer.
	That is the way the human race has survived for the past 2.2
million years or so; and if we abandon that, we are not going to
survive now.
	So go back to the idea that the individual, by virtue of
containing this potential for reason which no animal has, that
the individual is in the image of God as Creator--the son of God
in that respect--and that the family, which is the instrument of
birth and nurture of these young individuals into and through
adolescence, therefore must be an absolutely protected
institution; that anyone who wants to come in from the outside
and break up the family, or put it under the administration of a
local school counselor under OBE, must be imprisoned or whatever
is necessary, to keep them away from ``messing with the
families,'' as we'd say. 
	In order to have nations which function, we must have
sovereign nation-state republics, constitutional republics, which
are committed to these principles of law, as our Declaration of
Independence, as the Preamble of our Constitution commits us; and
these states must have absolute sovereignty, and be the
vehicle by which the people rule themselves through participation
in their own national sovereignty; that we must have agreement
among such sovereign nation-state republics upon this planet, to
agree that those are the principles by which each nation may
conduct its affairs, and those are the principles of natural law
which should govern relations among states on this planet--and
get rid of this New Age, Satanic hocus-pocus, which is becoming
so popular in the name of globalism--George Bush's and Margaret
Thatcher's globalism--recently.
	That is where the problem lies; and that is where the
problem of this NAFTA and GATT lies. These are simply instruments
of globalism, which are aimed to destroy, in the name of
democracy, in the name of free trade, the national sovereignty of
states, including that of the United States; to destroy the
family, as OBE, a United Nations concoction by Satanists working
through the United Nations, typifies the attempt to destroy the
family in the United States; and to destroy the idea of the
individual as sacred.
	These are the ways we must look at NAFTA, GATT; these are
not policies, these are evils. And they must be resisted. And I
would hope that very soon, the natural course of events, and a
natural political reaction, would bring about a pattern in which
both NAFTA and GATT will be destroyed.
	
	Q: Mr. LaRouche, I want to move on to another area.
	President Clinton seems to think he has a program for health
reform. Unfortunately, the program includes almost $250 billion
worth of cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.
	Can this program possibly fly and if it does, what are the
implications?
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, fly or not, it's an Auschwitz program.
The proposition is very simple. If I kill off the people who are
over 65 years of age, which is a growing segment of the U.S.
population and the part of the population which requires per
capita the highest rate of health care; if I also kill off people
who are over 40, over 50 or whatnot, who are severely chronically
ill or severely incapacitated, then I will reduce the national
health care cost per capita for the survivors of this genocidal
program, and thus I may have the price available for free
Band-Aids for the survivors; or low-level medical care for the
survivors.
	But whatever the health plan is that's voted in--and it will
be voted in with the idea of budget-balancing as part of the
health care program (and some people have already said that the
health care program must cut the federal budget); if that goes
into effect, it means that there will be a perceptibly increasing
similarity between such a health care package and what Hitler did
to the so-called useless eaters in Nazi Germany and in
Nazi-occupied territories in Europe.
	I don't care what they call it; if they are out to make
these kinds of cuts in care for those who need it by trying to
lop off the most costly part of health care--which is generally
chronically ill, seriously ill, and those over 60 or 65; if you
lop off medical care for these people while cutting down Social
Security for the aged, you're going to increase the death rate
among your parents and grandparents at a catastrophic rate, just
as the victims, the so-called useless eaters, were killed off by
the Nazis in the Nazi-occupied parts of wartime Europe. And
morally, that's where it goes.
	I don't know what is in Mr. Clinton or Mrs. Clinton's minds
on this. They may have amiable intentions; but the realities are
such that, as long as we are operating under this present New Age
policy, however amiable the intention of the sponsors of the
health care package, it is going to be a disaster unless we
change fundamentally, and get away from this New Age
postindustrial policy and GATT and NAFTA-like policies.

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, one last question in the remaining few
minutes that we have. Tim Wirth, the counselor to the State
Department, addressed President Clinton's new drug policy. He's
talking about revising the policy from interdiction to going at
the problem at the sources in terms of counseling.
	What do you think of this shift in drug policy, and is it
part of this New Age approach to social problems?
	MR. LAROUCHE: Counseling is a completely worthless
expenditure. Cut it out. Don't kid yourself.
	The counseling programs of which I know, will actually
increase the propensity for use of drugs--or suicide, one of the
two. Because the counseling methods which are used, like the
D.A.R.E. program, which is part of the same business, actually
lower the intrinsic self-esteem of the person. And if I lower
the intrinsic self-esteem of the person, as these drug-counseling
programs do, then I'm going to have a person who is weaker, who
lacks will power.
	I'll give an example of this, just quickly. There's a case
up in Washington of a guy who was suing in small claims court for
something like $1,300 from the tobacco company, which was the
price of a cigarette rejection program, of kicking the habit.
	Obviously, knowing what cigarette habits are, anyone who
wishes to kick the habit of smoking a cigarette, can kick that on
the instant. He looks at the cigarette, he crushes it, puts it
out; takes the pack, crushes it, gets rid of it; and never takes
a cigarette for the rest of his life.
	If he wishes to do that, he can do that. If he can't do
that, it's because he lacks will power. And I don't think it was
right of any court to give somebody compensation for the price of
a kick-the-habit cigarette course, because that simply indicated
that they lacked the will power to do it themselves; and the
cigarette companies are not to blame for their lack of will
power.
	The same thing is true generally in drugs. In drugs, yes,
there is need for medical and other assistance in dealing with
the aftereffects of a drug habit, a recreational drug habit;
sometimes this is very severe. That's needed.
	But essentially the drug policy in the United States since
about 1983, has been fraudulent. When I devised an anti-drug
program, I devised first of all exposing the nature of the
problem, how it came about. There was no drug problem in the
United States prior to 1964. It was incidental; it was not a
general cultural drug problem; didn't exist. The drugs existed,
but the problem didn't exist.
	It was the New Age counterculture, the rock-drug-sex
counterculture and other things, that brought it in. So expose
that: This is an attempt to destroy the nation by people who had
New Age ideas. The way to deal with it otherwise, was by
interdiction; also by assisting countries which were the victims
of the growing drug traffic.
	
	Q: We will return next week. If you wish to ask Mr. LaRouche
questions, write them in to  ``{EIR} Talks, c/o EIR News Service,
Inc., P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390.

                             - 30 -


 

----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor