From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!news2.uunet.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Oct 11 05:11:05 PDT 1993
Article: 28830 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!news2.uunet.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 10/06/93
Message-ID: <438-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 9 Oct 93 16:52:16 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 631



   - 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 Fridays on satellite from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

    Satcom C-5,       transponder 15,channel 16-0.

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 
	October 6, 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. 

               Russia: We Are Creating a Monster

	Mr. LaRouche, events are breaking very, very quickly around
the world. In Moscow tanks have fired on the Moscow White House;
Yeltsin is moving in to form some kind of dictatorship. 
	Som people are saying he's solved the crisis. Has he solved
the crisis in Russia? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: He's solved, essentially, nothing. 
	Look back at this process. Look back at it from the Spring
of 1983, when I first presented publicly a report, which was the
same thing I was reporting to the National Security Council at
that time, on the question of prospective developments in Russia
around the U.S. proposal of the SDI. And I stressed that if
Russia--the Andropov government at that time--rejected
cooperation with the United States on the SDI the way President
Reagan had proposed in his March 23, 1983 address, and as I had
outlined in detail to the Russians during my back-channel role
over the preceding 14 months or so, that the Russian system would
collapse, that communism was on the road to collapsing under the
economic stress of that circumstance, and what would emerge, and
we would see it emerging more and more rapidly, even as early as
1983, but coming to the fore later down the highway, is the end
of communism and its replacement by a Great Russian dictatorship
premised upon the underlying Third Rome axioms, as they're
called, of the Russian Muscovite culture. 
	That is, in the absence of some change, that the Russian
culture will always revert to a Third Rome matrix, and that has
been the case for the past 500 years or so. 
	What we have seen, is precisely what we outlined back then,
that we would see a collapse of communism for economic reasons;
that out of that collapse of communism, which would be a valid
end of communism in Russia, we would see coming to the surface,
in the absence of cooperation with the United States along the
lines {I} indicated and that implicitly President Reagan
indicated, that we would see the emergence of a Third Rome
imperial dictatorship in Moscow. 
	That was the problem on which we had to concentrate. 
	Now what has happened, since 1989, with Bush and Thatcher
and their insanity, particularly with the Thatcher Fourth Reich
attack upon Germany, and the British unleashing of the Serbian
fascists against the rest of the Balkans, and the failure of the
United States to act to stop the fascist Serbs from slaughtering
the Bosnians and Croats and so forth; that with that, out of the
United States and Britain, with the pushing for IMF
conditionalities, shock therapy and dollarization of the Russian
economy, starting with Robert Strauss as Ambassador over there,
we have created a monster. 
	The monster is the threatened emergence of a Third
Rome-style of Russian dictatorship. Yeltsin is the first shoe to
drop in actually re-establishing a dictatorship based on the
military with the Church coming up behind, which will be a Third
Rome dictatorship unless U.S. policy changes radically from
everything which U.S. policy has been over the past eight years. 
	Q: Mr. LaRouche, you've indicated that the crisis in Russia
is not being helped at all by U.S. policy. What is U.S. policy at
this point toward Russia, and how should it change? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: U.S. policy toward Russia is the combination
of ideological insanity, which is the Frances Fukuyama {End of
History} book thesis, which is that the strategic policy of the
United States is to promote democracy and free trade throughout
the world, and to crush all opposition to the
democratization/free trade process. That's U.S. policy, combined
with a determination of the New York Federal Reserve bandits to
loot Russia through the kind of process of dollarization which
they have aimed presently at Mexico, Argentina, and they hope
Brazil. That's what the problem is. And that policy is what is
forcing the development, the eruption, of this Third Rome
dictatorship which will treat Yeltsin like a piece of toilet
paper. They'll use him, then they'll dump him. Other things are
in the wind; nothing is settled, nothing is resolved, nothing but
chaos and dictatorship loom. 

	Q: You mentioned free trade and promoting democracy. These
are words that are picked up by many in the emerging communist
countries, and the real issue is why do these countries feel that
this is the road that they have to take if they're going to be
westernized? 
	[commercial break] 

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, why do the countries of the East, the
former Soviet Union, look toward the West and look toward
accepting free market policies, accepting this form of
westernization? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the countries don't look toward the West
for free market policies. That's not true. 
	What they do is that the governments, under the threat, the
kinds of pressure which are applied through the IMF and so forth,
are submitting to dictatorial demands from the West of the
so-called free market policy. 
	Remember, the free market policy is a looting policy. The
free market, so called, is an ideology which the British apply to
other people and never to themselves, and was used only as a way
of looting other countries. Any country that accepts a free
market policy, so called, in the past 500 years of economic
history, especially in the past 300 years or so, since that
policy was introduced; any economy which has accepted that
policy, has been bankrupted. 
	The classic case of such bankruptcy, the early one, which is
mentioned by Mathew Carey in his lectures on the subject in
Philadelphia, following the War of 1812 against Great Britain
(our Second War against Britain), was Portugal. Portugal was one
of the most prosperous nations in the world, which was ruined by
submitting to British dogmas of free trade, and became a basket
case. Every nation which has submitted to free trade in the
history of mankind has become a basket case. 
	There are some countries which exported and there are some
which imported. The ones which export, do the looting; and the
ones which import, are being looted. That is the great sucking
sound which Ross Perot is referring to, actually, as the United
States and Mexico go under free trade policy, the United States
economy is being sucked dry, and they are trying to maintain the
sucked-dry U.S. economy by doing a little more sucking dry of the
Mexican economy. 
	So there is no attraction; this is imposed upon these
countries by political and other force; and what we have, as we
see in the Polish elections, as we see in the fights in Hungary,
as we see in the fights in Slovakia against the free traders of
Prague and as we see in the revolutionary situation which is now
exploding in the former Soviet Union; we see that free trade is
ruining the economies of Eastern Europe, which are now at 30
percent of the level of physical output they were in 1989 before
free trade was introduced. The Russian economy as a whole, is
below 50 percent of the level of output it was in 1990, before
the free trade policies began to be introduced under Gorbachov. 
	So that's the issue. It is free trade that caused the
revolution, and as long as the United States insists, together
with Britain, on backing the looters of the un-Magnificent Seven
banks of the New York Federal Reserve District, we are headed for
chaos, revolution, and bloodshed all over this planet. 
	
	Q: You mentioned Francis Fukuyama's ``end of history''
thesis. Was President Clinton's address to the United Nations a
reflection of that thesis, where he called for enlarging the free
markets of the world, and enlarging democracy? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: I have seen nothing in President Clinton's
statements to indicate that he has done any serious thinking
about any of these subjects. I think he simply is iterating a
policy which is coming out of centers in his own government, such
as Mr. Gergen, who has a well-known connection to the New York
banks. 
	But in the administration, I wouldn't suggest that Mr.
Clinton or Mrs. Clinton are responsible as generators of any of
the policies of their administration in general. They may have
certain things they're committed to as ideas but in terms of the
way policy is shaped, it's being shaped by forces which are
pretty much the same forces that were in place when Bush was
President. Different faces, but the same forces. 
	The Francis Fukuyama ideology: Don't refer to what Clinton
said. He's echoing his advisers. Look to the advisers. Look to
the State Department people who cooked this policy up. Look at
the McNamara crowd in the Defense Department. Look at similar
people, particularly Wall Street people, inside other parts of
the administration--people who are closely connected to the Wall
Street financial community, are the people who are pushing this
``end of history'' dogma. 

	Q: In terms of overall strategy, what does it mean when he
talks about enlarging the role of democracy? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: He doesn't know what he's talking about. Just
that simple. I have seen nothing in the President's utterances
which indicates that he has any idea of what he means by enlarging
the role of democracy. He simply means carrying out
Anglo-American policy. 
	For example. When the Russian state in the person of Yeltsin
dissolves an elected Parliament, later dissolves an elected
Moscow city government; dissolves the Federal Union of the CIS
states; arbitrarily dismisses governments of oblasts, and says
he's doing this for an election, and the President of the United
States says that we have confidence that Boris Yeltsin is pushing
the process of democratization, I wonder what would be said by
the American, if the White House were surrounded by his troops,
the Congress were being suppressed by the President, and Yeltsin
were cheering for it. 
	[commercial break] 

                  ``I Must Be In the Picture''

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, is there any faction or any hope for moving
toward a different policy from the West and for that policy to be
receptive in Moscow? 
	What I'm referring to, is two specific initiatives that
you've had in the past decade, one is the SDI policy, the other
is the European Triangle policy. 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, that's possible. Of course, as long as
I'm imprisoned, it's not possible; there's no possibility for
getting out of this mess. 
	It seems that I'm the only person in the U.S. political
process who has a developed alternative to what is rampant in New
York and Washington; that was essentially the reason why I was
put into prison. They wanted to quiet this and stop this. The
issue, of course, was the SDI, Gorbachov's demanding that I be
imprisoned because of my role in the SDI. That, of course was
crucial. 
	But there were other people who were very happy with that
demand from Gorbachov and cooperated to imprison me, as Gorbachov
demanded. 
	But if I'm not in the picture with these policies, there
will be no change. For example, take the case in point in Moscow.
Now, if things go as they're going, Yeltsin is now entirely
dependent upon what support he gets from the Russian military and
from the intermediating role of Aleksei II, the patriarch of the
Russian Orthodox Church, in trying to keep peace within Russia to
avoid chaos. That's all that Yeltsin has as support; otherwise
his government is nothing but a government of the New York
Federal Reserve District bankers together with people like the
{Biche} and {Mouche} of the twentieth century, the Soros
brothers, George and Paul, the looters, the bandits. 
	So he has no real basis. This is going from bad to worse;
the scenarios given by Gen. Scherer as options are generally the
direction in which things will move spontaneously, {as long as
the present policy structures in Washington and London persist
and as long as Europe tolerates it.} 
	But I would say that Europe is not capable of putting up
{much} resistance, except for France; so without a change
indicating that I'm a factor in the policy-shaping situation,
there would be no possibility of changing the current direction
of events in Moscow. 
	
	Q: A number of political pundits, experts on the East, are
saying that elections are the key thing now, and they are saying
that somehow, Yeltsin has to solidify the democratic process. 
	Number one, is this possible? Number two, is the West being
deceived by certain factions in the military over in Russia?
Number three, how are they responding to the recent enactment by
Russia's Central Bank that they are going to end transactions in
foreign currencies as of Jan. 1? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, let it be absolutely clear that
nobody in Washington or London is being fooled by anybody in
Moscow. There is absolutely no deception. 
	{Washington is self-deceived}; all deception of Washington
and London, comes from Washington and London. They are
self-deceived. They wish to believe, that the policies which they
have adopted--hysterically, obsessively, adopted--will rule
because they believe they have the power unopposed to impose them
on this planet. 
	They refuse to listen or heed any evidence which shows that
their policies are intrinsically unworkable, will blow up in
their faces. 
	So nobody in Russia, is fooling anybody in high circles in
the United States. High circles in the United States are too busy
fooling themselves to pay any attention to attempted
misleadership from Moscow. 
	The issue is now coming clear. For example. The Soviet
military, or part of it, invoked by Yeltsin, suppressed the
Parliament, suppressed the political parties, which would be the
opposition parties running for the election; and idiots in
Washington propose to see this as part of a democratization
process, and see an elections as being the solution to this.
These gentlemen in Washington are self-induced fools, they're out
of their skulls. There's no democratization process going on in
Russia. I think Sen. Dole and a few other people have made that
fairly clear in their utterances, that they're not fooled
entirely. 
	[commercial break] 

        Globalization of the Dollar is Unconstitutional


	Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were discussing the self-deception, as
you put it, that has taken place on the part of London and
Washington, D.C. Can you please continue? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: What has happened, of course, is the dollarization crisis.
The Central Bank of Russia, in the midst of all this tumult,
announced the termination of trading in foreign currencies as of
the first of November, and a cessation of holding of foreign
currencies, of depositing of foreign currencies for personal use,
as of the first of the year. 
	This has resulted overnight, since the announcement of that,
on Tuesday, beginning Wednesday, in a massive attack in the press
from the New York Federal Reserve District via the Wall Street
Journal and others, protesting {violently} against any attempt to
limit the dollarization of Russia. They're not talking about the
D-marks and other foreign currencies which are also floating in
the Russian circuit--or the Swiss franc, for example; they're
talking about the dollars. 
	Now the key here is, that the New York Federal Reserve
District, as we have warned, as I have warned, is committed in
NAFTA not to some kind of trading or sucking deal, as Perot talks
about; that's already happened. The great sucking sound has been
ongoing for sometime now; and it's nothing new; there's nothing
in the treaty that's important. 
	What's important in the treaty, is the financial agreements,
as chairman of the House Banking Committee Henry Gonzalez has emphasized. And
the objective is the dollarization of the hemisphere, in which
the United States loses its sovereignty over its own currency as
the dollar, the Federal Reserve dollar--no longer really the U.S.
dollar, it's called U.S. but it's really New York Federal Reserve
District/Citibank dollar--roams all over the world, has a bigger
basis in debt in other countries outside the United States, than
{in} the United States; and that dollar sucks the blood out of
Mexico, but also out of the United States, under a situation of
treaty agreements, under which the United States government no
longer has the power to control its own banking system, its own
currency. 
	Now what happened is that the mask has been ripped from
Jeffrey Sucks, or Jeffrey Sachs (forgive that, he's a sucking
sound, I keep thinking of Jeffrey Sachs in this connection); and
it's now clear that IMF conditionalities, World Bank
conditionalities, special bank conditionalities, G-7
conditionalities, the Sachsmania; all that stuff amounts to this
one deal by the New York Federal Reserve District, the
un-Magnificent Seven banks, which I fear Mr. Gergen, Special
Adviser to the President, would tend to represent--which George
Bush represented. 
	So those New York banks and finance houses are determined to
loot the entire world. And we have the phenomenon typified by
George Soros and his brother Paul, of the case of the famous
14th-century looters for the House of Bardi, {Biche} and
{Mouche,} as they were called, who disappeared from sight but not
from the pages of history, who typify the great bubble, the great
debt bubble, of the early to middle 14th century, which
collapsed in the middle of the century, a bubble which brought on
the collapse of economies, the collapse of world population,
which was called a New Dark Age. 
	And this New York banking system, backed from London,
represented by these two scoundrels, the {Biche} and {Mouche} of
the 20th century, George and Paul Soros, typifies the actual
policy of the United States government; and the government in
Washington is acting merely as an errand boy for this financial
interest in New York and London. And that is blowing up in
Russia. 
	That is going to lead, in some weeks or months or days to
the next crisis. And we're going to get a harder dictatorship in
Russia, in which the fact is that it is a global thermonuclear
power, developing great hatred against the United States not
because of the communist past, but because of the looting which
is being done to the Russian people by the {Biches} and {Mouches}
of the 20th century, for which they will blame London, but
especially the forces that support the New York Federal Reserve
District. 

	Q: How does your policy, the European Triangle policy,
differ from the Federal Reserve policy? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it differs by the fact that I would
suppress the Federal Reserve policy, absolutely suppress it. 
	What the Federal Reserve's doing, by the standards of the
law of many countries, is outright treason. Under our
constitutional law, we restrict the use of the word treason under
law, to those who give aid and comfort to our enemies, in
conditions of war or similar conditions. 
	In other countries, what is being done by the Fed and its
accomplices to the U.S. currency, to the U.S. defense capability,
to U.S. allies and friends and to the U.S. people, {would be
treated as a crime of high treason}; and accomplices of the New
York Fed would be treated as accomplices in high treason. 
	I take the view that we can't use the word treason under
U.S. law to enforce this, but we can talk about
constitutionality. The Federal Reserve system at present, and the
banking complex around it, is out of control, it is in gross
violation of the Constitution to the extent that either they
prevail or the U.S. Constitution and the United States prevail. 
	We are in a situation where reasonable people would be able
to understand--that is, people who are reasonably educated--would
be able to understand what I've warned about, that in about two
to three years from now, we can see the actual disintegration of
the government of the United States beginning. As early as that.
Because of the effects of this Fed demontage of the U.S. economy,
the loss of the tax revenue base, the objective economic base of
the U.S. economy, could lead to a process of disintegration. 
	So it's either we stop this now, and put the Fed under
control, or we're not going to have a United States; and we're
going to have a lot of Hell around the world as a result of the
use of the waning U.S. power to impose this kind of lunacy upon
others who begin to hate us desperately, such as Russians,
because of the suffering which they incur as a result of our
silly support for the New York Federal Reserve District. 
	
	Q: Let me just outline some of the areas that I think we
have to discuss in the next section. 
	We are looking in the United States at poverty figures that
have grown by 2 million over last year to 37 million people, and
that's at official rates, which show that a family of four is
classified at a poverty level if it makes under $14,000, which is
a ridiculous level to begin with. 
	How can the policies that you're talking about, the European
Triangle, the Middle East Oasis Plan, and an economic program for
the U.S., reverse this kind of situation, and how does it differ
from the IMF shock therapy policies? 
	[commercial break] 

              Return to American System Economics

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have been a voice in the dark, or a
voice from the wilderness; you have been a lone voice around the
world talking about economic development, and counterposing it to
the shock therapy/IMF conditionality policy that has brought the
world to the brink of disaster. 
	You spoke of this in October 1979 when Paul Volcker had his
high-interest-rate policy; you introduced the SDI policy; you
introduced the European Triangle policy, the Middle East Oasis
Plan, to reverse the dynamic that's taking place. 
	I think it's important for our listeners to understand the
differences between your policies and these other policies,
because what's needed is a political revolution--or something. 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I would say I'm not a lone voice. 
	What's happened is that many heads of governments such as,
for example, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, was moving in the direction that
I was moving in, with her own way, but we had some degree of
collaboration. And they killed her in 1984. They killed her when
I was suing NBC, the ADL et al., for libel. And Mrs. Gandhi was
killed by people who were supported openly at that time, by the
ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, that is, the terrorists who
killed Mrs. Gandhi, were terrorists who were openly supported by
the Anti-Defamation League in this country. 
	The same thing is true of Mr. Fred Wills in Guyana, who
presented the program in 1976 and presented it at the UN, was
kicked out of power and is dead now. He was almost killed, and
has died. 
	Governments around the world: Mr. Bhutto, who supported
participation in that kind of policy, was killed directly on
orders from Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State at the
time, who conveyed the deadly message. 
	And so forth and so on. Governments have been overthrown;
leaders of government have been murdered. Or take the case of
Alfred Herrhausen, the head of Deutsche Bank. In 1989, he was
killed on British orders, by British intelligence agents, because
he represented a policy which Mrs. Thatcher (or Mrs. Thatcher's
government through Nicholas Ridley and Conor Cruise O'Brien) and
others described as a Fourth Reich policy, a policy of economic
development of Eastern Europe using German banking as a pivot for
European participation in that change in the East. 
	So I'm not a lone voice. I am an initiator, there are many
people who have these views, who share my views, who have
temporarily supported them at times, but who have been crushed,
or even murdered, for going against the New York Federal Reserve
bank and its London partners on these kinds of policy issues. 
	So my policies are not different than those policies. Those
policies, from my standpoint, simply should not exist. I think
one should contrast my policies not with the shock therapy
policies, the IMF conditionalities policies; those policies
simply should not exist. They should be wiped from the slate. 
	The question is, what do the policies I represent, {mean} as
against a blank slate? And in that case, it can be said fairly,
that the policies in economics that I represent, were essentially
those of Gottfried Leibniz, the founder of modern economic
science, who founded economic science between 1672 and 1716, when
he did his very influential work. 
	But also I would say that the policies of the American
System, were those of George Washington, of Benjamin Franklin, of
Secretary of Treasury Hamilton, of the Careys, of Germany's
Friedrich List, of President Abraham Lincoln, who was murdered by
the same people who are my enemies today, that is, the same
forces; and by Count Sergei Witte in Russia, who adopted the
policies of Leibniz and List for Russia as an alternative, and
whose government was overthrown in order to stop those policies. 
	So we represent the continuity of a commitment to what was
the actual American tradition which was an anti-free trade
tradition. Anybody who believes, or who was told in a school,
that the United States was based on Adam Smith, should get their
money back from the school, plus damages for a consumer fraud.
The United States was founded {in opposition} to British free
trade and in opposition to every policy which Adam Smith
represents. 
	We were committed to a principle of education of our
citizens in cognitive education, in science, in classics--Greek
classics, for example. We would tolerate nothing of that
child-molesting doctrine of Outcome Based Education or Common
Core education or ``World of Difference'' education; we would
tolerate none of this child-molesting education. We demanded as
Americans in the 18th century and early 19th century,
we demanded real education; not child molesting, not fake
education of the type which is being pushed today. 
	We demanded traditionally, the right of all people,
especially ourselves, to have scientific and technological
progress not halted by some foreign power such as England; not
subject to some kind of Malthusian dictate which is the policy
England represented against us at that time. 
	We believed that all nations had the right to participate in
scientific and technological progress; we believed in the right
to invest in scientific and technological progress in the form of
public works, of infrastructure, canals; later railroads. We
believed in increasing the power available for production and for
household use, and that sort of thing. 
	And the cooperation among sovereign nation states to foster
mutually beneficial projects of infrastructure-building, of
scientific and technological progress; that is essentially my
policy. I happen to have some fairly sophisticated economic
science to go with that, but that's the policy. 
	But I think the important thing is that this is not
something which I just dreamed up in the past several decades;
this was the policy upon which the United States was founded in
mortal conflict with its deadly enemy, King George III's Great
Britain. And that's the policy which the United States should
have and should project today. 

       Change is Caused by the Creative Powers of Reason

	Q: One area where there is some discussions of this policy
is the Middle East. There's a Harvard Plan for the Middle East, a
World Bank plan for the Middle East; Foreign Minister of Israel
Shimon Peres has a slightly different plan; and of course you
have your Oasis Plan. 
	Can you explain to people how these two different approaches
would work, what the difference is? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Take the case of Russia as contrast. 
	Despite the disclaimers of some people around
Washington--and I'm talking about intelligent people, including
those in the intelligence community, the senior people, who are
older, say, over 46 or over 50 (because people who are under 50
or under 46 generally today, who are in government or are in
business are very poorly educated, one might say badly
miseducated). 
	But the senior people will debate among themselves with me,
and say, ``No, Lyn, you're wrong; yeah, there's a Third Rome
tendency in Russia, but there are other things going on.'' 
	That is nonsense. The only general tendency in Russia for
the past five to five and one-half centuries, at least in Muscovy
and in Muscovy Rus, has been the Third Rome tendency. Every
historian who knows anything about Russian history, will affirm
that. Anybody who reads the literature of Russia, of the
19th century, would know that. Anyone who studies
Dostoyevsky, would know that; Pushkin; and so forth. 
	We are seeing the Oblomov syndrome temporarily among the
mass of Russian people {right now} in the reaction to this
Yeltsin dictatorship. 
	So what is going to happen in Russia, until a change occurs,
is nothing but a Third Rome tendency; there is no other policy in
motion in terms of large forces or forces which might credibly
come to the top in Russia. 
	Aleksander Solzhenitsyn sitting in Paris as a potential
government-in-waiting for Russia is a Third Romer, and he
gives it very articulately. He's a very amiable person, but he's
a Third Romer, and expresses it in very literate, coherent, and
intelligible terms. 
	All right. If you want to change Russia from the Third Rome
imperial complex, how do you do it? 
	Obviously, you must not merely address some surface issue;
you have to address an axiomatic issue which underlies 550 years
of continuing Muscovite history. 
	Now the same thing comes up in the Middle East. How do you
end an axiomatic quarrel between Palestinians and other Arabs and
Israelis, a quarrel which goes back to the beginning of the
19th century, when Shaftesbury and others set up this
policy for the Ottoman Empire and brought in this idea of an
Israeli state as part of their Ottoman policy? 
	How do you deal with that policy? How do you get peace and
amiability and cooperation among Israelis and Arabs? 
	Obviously, you have to address an axiom. Now with dogs, you
could never do it. People know, who have dogs, sometimes you'll
see two dogs; they get to hating each other, and they will hate
each other for the rest of their lives, and when one of the old
dogs is about to die, and he sees the other dog, he'll get up off
his deathbed and try to kill him. People who have dogs know this
problem. 
	But human beings are not dogs. Human beings are capable of
changing; but the only force which will change human beings, is
not some squishy-smarmy kind of behavioral modification in the
classroom of the type that the ``World of Difference'' nonsense
proposes. 
	What causes change, is appealing to the noblest quality of
humanity; and the noblest quality of humanity, is centered around
those creative powers of reason which we love so much when we see
them expressed in the development of our young children. 
	These creative powers of reason in adults take the form of
scientific and technological and related cultural progress. 
	So therefore, the only basis for bringing peace in the
Middle East, is to foster a mutual interest in the benefits of
scientific and technological progress based on respect for
national sovereignty of both peoples, and based upon
participation in building up the infrastructure such as
desalination--water, first of all; power, and so forth; building
up these things in that area, so that you change the values. 
	The same thing is true in Russia. Without economic
development of Russia, without a going-away from this shock
therapy, there is no chance of anything but general thermonuclear
war down the pike, or absolute chaos of another type. 
	So in the Middle East. As has been said by Peres recently
again, as has been said by Abba Eban again recently, without
economic development, there is no possibility of peace in the
Middle East. Without economic development, without an end to
Malthusianism, without going back to investment in
infrastructure, without an end to shock therapy, without an end
to Fukuyama ideology, there is no possibility of anything but
chaos and thermonuclear war down the pike for this century. 

	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. 





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

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