From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Oct  4 19:05:31 PDT 1993


   - 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 29, 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. 

           ``Clinton Is Heading Toward a Shipwreck'' 

    Mr. LaRouche, President Clinton has just announced a new
foreign and strategic policy to the United Nations. He talks
about, basically, the reduction of a threat from the former
Soviet Union, that Russia is no longer a strategic power, but is
a regional power. He talks about enlarging the democratization
process, free markets. In essence, this is an expansion of the
Project Democracy efforts that began under Bush. 
    What do you think of this new doctrine? What are its
implications for the current strategic global crisis that we're
looking at?              

    MR. LAROUCHE: I heard these proposals first from the Les
Aspin version of it. Then I picked up on the Anthony Lake
exposition. I missed the Albright report directly and I just
heard about Clinton's clarification. But this is essentially a
continuation of George Bush's policy, or at least the policy of
his administration, and overall suggests that Clinton has been
drawn into playing the same kind of losing game which George Bush
played with Gorbachov. 
    There are many people, not just myself and a few of my
friends, but many people--some of them not my friends, shall we
say--in high places around the world, who are extremely concerned
about, shall we say euphemistically, the extreme naivete of the
U.S. administration. 
    It appears to many around the world--and to me--that the
United States government presently and the United States
intelligence services, to the extent they're visible, are paying
no attention to the underlying realities of the ongoing process
in the world, but seem persuaded, foolishly, that you can drown
two-thirds of the world in bloody, Dark Age conflict and live in
the other one-third of the world in peaceful serenity,
concentrating on things like master projects in health plans,
paying no attention to the monstrous storms which are building up
around the world, which will hit the United States very soon. 
    So we are very concerned. I think I'm speaking not only for
myself but others, that the Clinton administration is presently a
ship headed for the rocks--because of its apparent deal with the
Bush people (if not Bush himself), but with the Bush crowd, in
trying to come to a kind of condominium with the Bush crowd, and
continuing in effect what are Bush policies. 
    The former Soviet Union is not a regional power; it is a
global thermonuclear superpower which is in a certain amount of
chaos presently. 
    If the present chaos continues, it either will disintegrate
into a nuclear civil war with global implications, or we shall
see--and this is quite probable--the emergence of a dictatorship
in Russia (not a communist dictatorship but a Great Russian
dictatorship), which will be a thermonuclear superpower and
remain such at the time that the West, the Atlantic powers, are
collapsing as a result of an oncoming social crisis triggered
by a general financial collapse, a collapse centered in
out-of-control derivatives markets. And on that point too, the
administration is paying no attention; is reluctant--as Bush
was--to offend the New York Fed crowd, and is bowing to the New
York Fed crowd and its financial house attributes, which is just
feeding the onrushing, derivatives-centered, international global
financial collapse. 
    So I think we're in a very dangerous situation for the
United States. We might say the administration is saying, well,
there is no bread; let them eat cake. It's a very similar thing.
Doom is right over the corner unless this stops, but they seem
stubbornly determined to continue their present policy. 
    
    Q: You mentioned two things. You mentioned that with
two-thirds of the population of the world, one policy is being
applied; and you mentioned the emergence of GATT. 
    Of course, Clinton says that NAFTA, GATT, the World Bank,
the IMF policies are the foundation of his new strategic policy. 
    Would you say that he is moving toward a colonial policy? Is
this a new colonial policy that we're talking about, or a
continuation of Bush's colonial policy?
 
    MR. LAROUCHE: In a sense. But I wouldn't say colonial. I
think that's a very bad term. People who are using colonialism,
are going back into the 19th and 18th centuries, and are not
paying attention to the determining realities of this period. 
    {This is not a neocolonial period.} This is a New Age
period, and that's what the problem is. 
    These ideas that Clinton has espoused, the idea that
democracy and free trade are strategic goals which are the proper
subject of concern of the Defense Department, of our
military-strategic policy; {this is absolute childishness,}
infantilism; this has no place--well, this is like the captain of
the Titanic headed for the iceberg. 
    [commercial break] 

     Russia is Implementing a Great Russia Policy 
                 Based on Third Rome Axiomatics 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we are currently looking at a President
Yeltsin who has troops surrounding the Parliament in Moscow. No
one knows what's going to happen in the coming weeks ahead in
Russia. Nevertheless, whether Yeltsin goes with some kind of
compromise, which he's rejected at this point in spite of the
advice of leaders around him, or whether he goes with some sort
of violent confrontation, can it be said that Mr. Yeltsin is
heading toward an irrevocable imperial turn in Moscow? 

    MR. LAROUCHE: I don't know. I think he's heading toward a
shipwreck. The Russian process is somewhat complicated. When you
try to look at it in these terms, you don't get answers, because
you're merely looking at a shipwreck. It won't work. 
    The essential problem here is not Yeltsin. The problem is
twofold. 
    First, the U.S. government, so far, is playing the same game
with Yeltsin, essentially, that Bush played with Gorbachov. That
is the essential insanity of the tactical approach to the Yeltsin
question: playing this game of tangible personalities as
personalities, saying this is our man in Moscow. 
    This is the most dangerous thing you can do, particularly
with a former adversary superpower, in which the enemy image in
the military and other institutions, are still there, the
{nomenklatura,}--and have been there for most of the past Cold War
period of the United States or the Anglo-American powers, despite
the back-channel agreements which existed. 
    So to play this ``Yeltsin is our man in Moscow,'' is the
{stupidest} thing in the world to play. It's like playing
soap-opera scenarios, not real politics. 
    The other side of this, is that the so-called free-market
policy, which means IMF conditionalities, shock therapy, George
Soros, etc.; this is destroying and is injuring Russia, the
people of Russia, and driving them mad. {The impetus for violence
comes from the very policy which the United States is imposing.}
And the United States support for Yeltsin has been {conditional}
upon Yeltsin's embrace of not just Gaidar, but Yeltsin's embrace
of this democracy-free trade dogma, this globalist dogma, which
the Clinton administration has adopted as a {substitute} for a
strategic policy. 
    That is, the Clinton administration so far, particularly in
the last period, since Gergen came in to the White House, has
moved itself into the position of continuing this Bush
policy--failing to recognize, or refusing to consider {anything}
which defines strategy as based on something other than this
so-called globalist democracy/free trade issue, pushing all other
considerations to one side. They are blinding themselves to the
actually determining issues. 
    Democracy and globalism, or free trade, is {not} on the
agenda of the Russian process. It is the thing which is {driving}
it toward an explosion. 
    Now, the question is, can Yeltsin take the pressure, without
going into flight forward? It appeared, the way he handled the
coup--which may be called a preventive coup--was flight forward.
And there was speculation around the world, as to whether he was
drinking a little bit too much at the time. He did it. It was a
very dangerous situation, out of which nothing good can come
directly, and he's now in a desperate, frustrated situation, in
which the propensity for violence increases as he fails to
enforce his will--extremely dangerous. 
    The problem is, in Washington, they're not looking at that.
The strategic considerations in Washington are: Is this furthering
the cause of the spread of democracy? Of course, they don't mind
a little dictatorship, as long as democracy is furthered by the
dictator; and is it furthering above all, the so-called free
trade/GATT/NAFTA, etc., complex? And it's that GATT/NAFTA complex
which is driving the world into a military type of strategic
conflict which Washington refuses to admit exists as a
possibility. And that's where our problem is. 
    
    Q: If you look at the case of Georgia, Shevardnadze, who was
part of the Russian {nomenklatura,} the Foreign Minister
for the Soviet Union for a long time, has been syaing that
Russia is behind the rebel occupation and feeding of the rebel
forces in Sukhumi, which just took over the capital, and he
bitterly went after this. 
    Is this part of how Yeltsin and his crew are moving against
the republics?                                     

    MR. LAROUCHE: Not really. That's one way you can look at it,
but that's spin, pure spin. 
    What is happening, is that the United States and other
powers are forcing Russia into being the globalist partner of the
Anglo-American powers. Under those circumstances, it's not
Yeltsin, it is inevitable: There is a Great Russian process based
on Third Rome axiomatics which is in the saddle in Moscow, that's
the way things are going, Yeltsin or no Yeltsin. And that's what
Washington is paying no attention to. 
    [commercial break] 

                      The Federal Reserve:
                Citizens Must Study My Proposals

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, Henry Gonzalez, the chairman of the House
Banking Committee, called for a reorganization or restructuring
of the Federal Reserve. He said the Federal Reserve should be
brought more under the control of Congress and the people,
especially by giving them the appointments of Federal Reserve
Bank presidents. 
    His specific proposal was rejected by President Clinton, who
said that the calls for overhauling the Fed were unwarranted at
this point, that the Fed has done a great job. 
    Do you think we have to restructure the Federal Reserve? Is
it doing a great job? 

    MR. LAROUCHE: Of course we have to restructure the Federal
Reserve. I wouldn't even think that's a legitimate question, as
to whether we have to or not. 
    The significant part of that is not what Congressman
Gonzalez said in that point. That's correct, he's moving in the
right direction politically toward what we have to do, which is
to bring the entire monetary credit policy and banking policy of
the United States back under constitutionality. That's correct. 
    The significant part of that exchange, however, is not what Henry
Gonzalez did, or what he's proposing; that's perfectly sane
stuff. What's significant is Clinton's rejection of it, by way of
a letter to the Congressman. 
    This indicates the same thing that I warned about, after one
of those so-called debates among Clinton, Bush, and Perot last
year, where the question was posed to all three of the
candidates: How would they respond to suggestions to bring the
Fed under control? And all, like the three famous monkeys, the
three famous candidates said, ``Hear no evil, speak no evil, see
no evil.'' They said they would support the Federal Reserve
system. That's the Bush policy, essentially, and in this respect,
Clinton played exactly a continuation of the Bush script--that
is, the New York Fed and the seven-plus banks which are the heart
of the Fed, including Citibank, are the sacred cows before which
the interest of our nation must give way: constitutionality,
national interest, employment interest--everything must give way
to the pleasure of this bunch of bankers and brokers up in New
York City. That's essentially the way it is. 
    And Gonzalez is one of the few people standing up visibly,
defending the Constitution of the nation with a cautious but
correct approach. He's a senior figure, knows what the score
is--he's not a fool--as against these people who are pandering to
that bunch of looters and fools in New York City. 
    Remember, New York City is no longer really old bankers.
It's almost an insult to the old bankers to call these guys
bankers. These are nothing but Yuppie maniacs using the
mechanisms of the old banking system, the Fed system, but running
away with a complete New Age derivatives/utopian lunacy; and so
what has happened, is that the President of the United States is
so far defending lunacy against Henry Gonzalez. And that's the
way to look at it. 
    
    Q: Is there any way of beginning to restructure the Fed and
restructure the U.S. economy to start to reverse the tremendous
fall--                  

    MR. LAROUCHE: I dealt with that in the election campaign.
All of this stuff is in my campaign programs. Any citizen who is
concerned about this country, is not going to ask me for a
one-line answer. They're going to say ``What do you propose?''
Well it's all in there. It's in a series of books, including
matters referenced in a book-length
publication of the LaRouche-Bevel campaign. It's all there. It's
what I had in my television broadcasts during the campaign. Not
many people voted for that; well, that was their mistake. That
wasn't just Clinton's mistake nor Bush's mistake; they didn't
vote for me, now they're going into hell. 
    {People have to learn that lesson.} They made a mistake by
not considering seriously enough what I was saying. 
    Now either that's going to change, and a lot of people are
going to now consider what I said by getting a copy of that book
or other materials, or old campaign broadcasts, and studying
them, and learning what the answers are, or they're just going to
continue to pepper me with requests for one-line answers which
really don't address the subject. 
    Yes, we do have to make a major revision. Yes, if I were in
charge, I could fix it. It would be a big fight, but I could fix
it, if they didn't kill me first. 
    But under the present course of action, {nothing} is going
to work. 
    [commercial break] 

               NAFTA: ``A One-time Trip to Hell'' 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, the {New York Times} has had another
editorial in support of NAFTA. They have had a whole sequence of
ad campaigns, multi-page ad campaigns pushing for NAFTA. Of
course, Ross Perot has a book against NAFTA, but
from what I understand, your objection to NAFTA goes far beyond
the issue of loss of jobs and trade.
 
    MR. LAROUCHE: That's right. 
    What I've said is that, insofar as Ross refers to the
problem of the ``great sucking sound,'' he's absolutely correct,
and no sane American, I think, can take issue with him
on that subject--that is, any sane American who knows the ABCs of
economics, even simple business economics. 
    The problem is that NAFTA is not just that. We have to look
at this thing, not as a trade-union issue--which is essentially
what Perot was doing, looking at it from the standpoint of
a small business, a trade-union pattern, ``my town is losing its
two industries,'' ``my town is losing jobs.'' That's all valid
insofar as it goes, but it does not address the core issue. 
    Look at the overall policy, look at
those who designed NAFTA. Of course this is a policy which
came to the fore under Bush, and is merely a continuation of the
Bush policy during the Clinton administration period. In a sense,
when Clinton was campaigning, he was of two minds on this
business, and now he's gone over to being of one mind, which
means he's adopted Bush policies--at least so far, on this
question. 
    What we're looking at is a destruction of the United
States, first of all. 
    Without jobs and without businesses in the United States, or
with a downsizing of the United States so that instead of working
in a machine tool shop or a factory that produces high-tech
equipment you're now flipping hamburgers or performing slave
services some place, obviously the level of
tax-revenue base, as well as income in the United States, is
collapsing--per capita income. 
    So they're destroying and disintegrating the United States.
There will be no purchasing power to purchase these products from
overseas, and therefore, the whole proposition is insane from any
standpoint, except somebody who is selling the parts of existing
civilization for whatever cash they can get for it. 
    So it's a one-time trip to hell. 
    NAFTA is absolutely insane. 
    What's at issue now, is not whether businesses will run to
Mexico. That has already been decided, that's happening. Mexico
is being looted at the same time the United States is being
looted by this process of chaos. 
    What is at issue at this point, is a far more fundamental
thing. 
    Our {very national existence} is now on the edge. If the
financial provisions, or the clear intent--I don't know the exact
language, because I haven't seen it, Henry Gonzalez would like to
see the exact language, I understand--but I know the direction of
intent of this agreement; and the direction of intent, is the old
Paul Warburg scheme with a New Age spin on it. And that is to
begin basing the U.S. dollar more and more, {not} as a currency of
the United States, but as a currency of {many} currencies, in
which the Mexican state finances the U.S. dollar. The U.S. dollar
becomes a Mexican dollar. Many countries then begin to control
it. We no longer have sovereignty over our own currency, our own
banking system, our own credit system. We are simply another
victim of a global financial swindle, in which the main agency
for this upfront is the New York Fed district, and the seven
banks, including Citibank, which are the banks that own, in
effect, the Federal Reserve district. 
    So essentially, what we're dealing with here, is a
continuation of Paul Warburg's swindle to its New Age extreme, in
which the United States government presently, despite the
objections of Henry Gonzalez and others, is surrendering the
sovereignty of the United States to a collection of private
bankers whose mentality is that of the Soros brothers, Paul and
George. 
    This is absolute immoral insanity, and there is no excuse
for it. No one who can be elected to office in the United States,
has the right to claim to be stupid enough to tolerate this out
of innocent ignorance. This is a swindle, the worst swindle I've
seen among all financial swindles. And anyone who tolerates it,
is culpable. They are culpable of acts which are tantamount to
treason against the Constitution of the United States, whether
they intend that or not. And they had better stop short and
consider what they're really getting into, and cut this nonsense
out. 
                        
    Q: Mr. LaRouche, I have two questions. You may only be able
to answer one in this time segment. Number one, how is
sovereignty destroyed with this policy, and number two, in the
past, the United States dollar was the denomination for world
trade, in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s; how is it going to be
different under NAFTA?                            

    MR. LAROUCHE: Let me take the second question first. 
    There {is} no such comparison. Yes, the U.S. dollar was the
standard for world trade in the postwar period; but it was
because it was a strong dollar based on the industry, the power
of production of the United States, the mobilization of the U.S.
productive potential which occurred in World War II. 
    We had the greatest productive machine on this planet in
agriculture, in manufactured goods, and so forth. Everybody
wanted our goods, our farm products (if they could afford them);
our industrial products. They wanted them. Our machine tools:
they wanted them. 
    Now, we have nothing. We are a junkyard. We produce almost
nothing. We have to beg the Japanese to let us produce an
automobile which can even meet a Japanese standard as competitors'
technologically. We're a junkyard. 
    What this does, is to take the dollar {out} of the United
States, it's no longer a U.S. dollar. It's the dollar of a bunch
of bankers based in part in New York, who have no loyalties to
the United States, who {do as they will}; who have no
accountability to the American people. They make no significant
investment in building up U.S. industries, but they'd rather tear
them down and export them. They make no investment in agriculture
to speak of; they loot our farmers. They make no investment in
infrastructure; the {New York Times} as a mouthpiece for these
swindlers, says ``No, let the Mississippi River's flood destroy
the farms of Iowa and parts of Illinois. Let's wipe out these
farmers. We don't care. Let Mother Nature do as she will.''
That's not the voice of a bunch of patriotic citizens; that's the
voice of a bunch of scoundrels. 
    So this is the scoundrel-dollar they're proposing, not the
kind of U.S. dollar we had at the end of World War II. 
    [commercial break] 

                   Mississippi Valley Flood:
Let's Put the Corps of Engineers--and Our Youth--Back to Work

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, the state of Iowa has used up $3.5 billion
in appropriations from the General Fund in dealing with the flood
crisis. They have already spent it. They're looking in some kind
of way for emergency sessions. 
    How are they going to deal with the crisis, and what is
President Clinton doing to help them, or what should he do to
help them?                             

    MR. LAROUCHE: There was a report which was produced by
{Executive Intelligence Review} which was published in
significant part in {EIR,} the magazine. That report is the key
to looking at this business. 
    Essentially, from 1940 until recently, the Corps of
Engineers built up a system of flood control or water management
which from Cairo, Illinois south has functioned perfectly in
this recent period, as well as any system could. It met the
standard of the 500-year flood cycle. 
    North of Cairo, the results are much poorer, spotty. The
worst case, of course, is Davenport, Iowa, where the citizens of
Davenport opposed building up the levees for fear that the levees
would drive away some of the business from riverboat gambling:
{sic transit gloria Davenport.} 
    The problem has been that the Minneapolis and other grain
cartels and railroad complexes and the Democratic machine based
in the organized-crime-controlled (since Floyd Olson)
Democratic Farmer Labor Party machine in Minnesota and to
some degree Iowa, have opposed successfully these kinds of flood
control measure--or adequate flood-control measures--sometimes
saying that the railroads shouldn't have to build up their tracks
to accommodate this, playing upon the cupidity of citizens to
induce a significant number to oppose these. 
    So as a result of these foolish measures, the citizens of
those affected states are left open to flooding--except, say,
Mankato, which did a good job in defending itself, or other
cities, like the other three, the non-Davenport cities, in the
Quad Cities area. 
    This area has left itself open to flooding. 
    This area we have made, as a part of national policy, the center
of U.S. grain policy, this nine-odd-state area, which we are now
leaving open to jeopardy,. 
    Now we have to look at the problem a little bit differently,
at a different level. 
    We have now entered into a new weather pattern. We are
headed toward, maybe 5,000 years from now, a new Ice Age. We
won't see glaciers sitting on top of Minnesota and Iowa for the
next centuries or so; but we are moving into a change toward a
long-term cooling pattern, not global warming, or anything of the
sort. 
    So we have to be prepared for more problems of this type.
This is not one incident that's going to go away. {These could
happen again}, next year or in the foreseeable future, this kind
of pattern. 
    So we have to act immediately, to do what has {succeeded}
south of Cairo, north of Cairo. We have to bring back the Corps
of Engineers. 
    Now given the fact that we have so many youth who are
killing each other in these drug-infested cities of ours, youth
who are uneducated, youth who are being destroyed by the
introduction of OBE-type education into the school system, this
is the time to say: Let's take 3 million of our otherwise
quasi-employable or unemployable youth, and let's use them for
something which will rescue them. Let's provide them with some
kind of a work-education regime away from the places where they
live in a kill-or-be-killed urban hellhole of drugs, into a
(relatively, at least) drug-free atmosphere working for such things
as the Corps of Engineers in building up levee systems the way
the CCCs were used back in the 1930s, but perhaps better than the
CCCs. We at least know enough from experience, we can do the good
things the CCCs did, without repeating some of the omissions that
they were guilty of, so to speak. 
    So I would say that's one of the lessons we've learned.
We've got to find the money nationally; and we can find it in
terms of a type of banking reform that I've proposed and that I
think Mr. Gonzalez, among others, would support; and let's create
the kinds of programs of reconstruction which are job-creating,
which address in that way major social problems in our society.
Let's use some resources which are otherwise going to waste, left
fallow, to bring this nation back into a sensible direction. And
that's the way I would approach it. 
    This is a national emergency. The people of Iowa require not
merely Iowa help, they require national assistance, the same way
that we ran the Corps of Engineers program so successfully from
Cairo down the Mississippi to New Orleans. 
    Remember: Not a single part of that area suffered a failure
of the Corps of Engineers system, in that entire stretch; and
without that system, they would have had worse flood conditions
than they had north of Cairo. So the problem is to bring north of
Cairo on the Missouri and Mississippi into conformity with south
of Cairo. Let's put the Corps of Engineers back to work doing
what they did so well; let's get the extra human beings to help
do the thing by addressing a social problem of creating a
CCC-type program to augment the Corps of Engineers capability and
rescue some millions of our youth who otherwise seem headed for
the graveyard or worse. 

                      Health Care Reform:
                What the Clintons are Not Saying

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, in the last couple of weeks, we've had the
introduction with great fanfare, of Clinton's health care
program. Hillary Clinton has been testifying in Congress and
receiving applause, it would appear, or this is what the press is
saying. 
    Yet, if you look closely at the health care program, they're
talking about restricting choices for the elderly, they're
talking about $250 billion in cuts in Medicare and Medicaid. 
    How would you characterize this type of approach? Is this
the way we have to begin to deal with the soaring prices in the
health industry?               

    MR. LAROUCHE: Of course not. 
    There are certain elements that the Clintons have put
forward, which are not unreasonable, like eliminating some of the
paperwork, the administrative burden, which is an expensive
cancer complicating all of the problems of health care in the
recent period. When regulation is focused upon interfering with
the relationship between the physician and the patient, that
regulation is counterproductive. It is corrosive, it is
cancerous. The regulation should be addressed to providing the
stream of services to people who need it, and finding the income,
from private and public sources, to satisfy them. 
    That far, that's good. That's good. 
    But the problem is first of all, what the Clintons are not
saying, and what, as a result of their not addressing, they are
trapped into supporting. 
    As I said, I will grant that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have
amiable intentions in this; but I think they may be so bemused by
their own program, and so fearful of taking on some very relevant
issues affecting that program, that they're trapped into a
neo-Malthusian population reduction program, which has certain
resemblances to the Nazi slave-labor concentration camp system,
of eliminating useless eaters. 
    Essentially, some of these caps and limitations, which are
seen through the prism of the overall reduction in Medicare,
Medicaid and so forth--some of these caps and provisions, which
may seem innocent or simply legalisms on the surface, or budget
reductions on the surface--mean that we're taking very sick
people, we're taking older people, over 60, 65, or even over 55,
who are the section of the people which needs most of the medical
care. It's children and older people, essentially, and certain
categories of the very poor, very ill, who are more subject to
disease. 
    And we're saying no, we're going to cut down the medical
care to these people. It's like saying we're going to take
medical care away from those who need it, in order to provide
cheap, free medical care to everyone who {doesn't} need it, or
who needs very little of it, or relatively little. 
    That's where we're headed. 
    So this is a population reduction scheme to trim the U.S.
population, to reverse the way the pyramid has gone. We've moved
away from a society which has a large young population and a
smaller older population, to a society which has a growing older
population and a shrinking younger population. And this method of
population control by capping medical services delivered, and by
not addressing the problem of medical services in the hard-core
poverty areas, simply becomes an effective way, as the Nazis
would say, of eliminating the useless eaters. 
    And as I say, I will grant all amiable intentions to the
Clintons; but this is where it's going, unless we change the
direction. 
    What the Clintons are not addressing, is the fact that the
medical problem is the result of two things. 
    First of all, it's the result of population reduction. So
therefore we don't have the pyramid statistically to support
medical care that we had years ago. But more fundamentally, it's
the past 25-odd years shift into a post-industrial society which
has shrunk the tax-revenue base and the income base which
supported medical care years ago, but is no longer there in that
ratio to support it today. 
    It is not that medical costs have risen; it is that medical
costs are largely labor-intensive costs of highly skilled
professional and other labor. And when you collapse the economy,
you find out that these costs remain relatively constant, whereas
wages and other income are dropping. 
    The rise in medical costs for medical care, relative to,
say, 1968 as a date of comparison, is largely a result of the
insane post-industrial society, neo-Malthusian dogmas which the
United States government has adopted over the past 25-odd years. 

       ``If Russia Goes to Hell, We'll Be Going to Hell''

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, in the last minute that we have, let's come
back to Russia and the strategic situation. 
    What can Clinton do at this point? We're talking about
economic proposals. Is there anything that Clinton can do or
should do? We have the Balkans, the Middle East; are there any
closing remarks you want to leave us with?
 
    MR. LAROUCHE: I think we're just about out of time, and I
would say generally, that I've laid everything out in earlier
broadcasts and interviews, and in things that are published. It's
not a simple thing. There is no simple gimmick. It's a
fundamental problem in policy, and until we make that policy, the United
States is headed to Hell, along with most of the rest of the
world. 
    We are not going to have a situation in which Hell is
confined to two-thirds of this planet and we in the other
one-third survive nicely. 
    If Russia goes to Hell, we'll be going to Hell, too, because
that problem will radiate right into our backyard. 
    
    MEL KLENETSKY: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche. We will
see you next week. This is EIR Talks. I'm Mel Klenetsky. If
people want to send in questions for Mr. LaRouche, write to EIR
Talks, c/o EIR News Service, Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390.


                             - 30 -

 

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

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