From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!wupost!uunet!ccs!covici Sun Feb 21 16:37:38 PST 1993
Article: 16812 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!wupost!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 02/18/93
Message-ID: <260-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 21 Feb 93 11:34:8 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 746


          FOR MORE INFORMATION, WRITE EIR NEWS SERVICE
             P.O. BOX 17390, WASHINGTON, DC  20041.


                 EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LAROUCHE

   February 18, 1993
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky

   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence Review}
Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. I am on the line
with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota.
   Mr. LaRouche, we have just heard from Bill Clinton in his
State of the Union message. He talks about $500 billion in new
taxes and spending cuts. He is talking about reducing the debt,
he is talking about investment.
   Does this program do the job?
   MR. LAROUCHE: No. There are features of it which are
possibly workable, or even represent emotions moving in the right
direction; but the program overall is guaranteed to be a flop in
its present form.

           - Clinton's State of the Union Message: -
        - The President Did Not Address the Key Issues -

   Q: Why so?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, as I have said before: First of all,
there is a misdiagnosis of the problem by the Clinton
administration.
   Clinton's speech was in some parts artfully done, admitting
that both [political] parties have been responsible for the mess
and that this goes way back. But the fact of the matter is, that
all the key issues are the ones he didn't address.
   We are in actually a worldwide depression, in which the
United States is collapsing a bit faster than Japan or Western
Continental Europe, and has been collapsing for a longer period
of time because of policies we adopted during the middle
1960s--that is, policy axioms, policy assumptions; the rock-drug
counterculture, the New Age, which, together with the
anti-technology, anti-scientific bias which is reflected, of
course, today in our school systems. So we no longer have an
orientation toward growth and real growth; growth in
productivity has always depended and will always depend upon a
relatively massive concentration on investment in scientific and
technological progress.
   Secondly, as part of that, changes in educational policy,
away from a traditional, pro-scientific educational policy into a
social-engineering-of-the-student's-mind policy, has given us a
labor force which today is no longer capable of the kind of
productivity which is implied in a recovery program, without very
special measures and a change in philosophical orientation.
   And the mechanism of the debt growth and the growth in the
fiscal crisis, is a combination of deregulation, free market
policies so called, but especially the role of the Federal
Reserve system under this arrangement. {As long as they do not
touch the Federal Reserve system and its problems, there is no
possibility--no matter how stringent or austere the measures--of
dealing with the growth of the total national debt, or the growth
of the fiscal bite of the debt into the operating budgets.}
   To make it clear: Let us assume that President Clinton is
going to carry out the program of Ross Perot. Ross Perot would
assuredly be {as big a failure} on this count as Clinton.
Obviously, we would expect that if Bush had been elected, he
would have done pretty much the same. So any of the three leading
candidates, which the voters voted for, would have done as badly
as Clinton is doing right now. The thinking of any of them would
have assured us a catastrophe.

         - $600-$1 Trillion in Credit Needed Per Year -

   Q: Does the debt stand in opposition to any kind of a real
investment policy?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely.
   The basic problem here, in terms of the debt and in terms of
debt service, is that you have got to stop buying high-priced
debt, which means no more 7-and-a-half to 8 percent thirty-year
bonds, for example. That is the crux of the matter there.
   And you have to increase the tax revenue base without
raising the tax rates generally. There are cases where tax rates
could be raised without a counterproductive effect, and perhaps
should be raised. But in general, the tax rates {should not be
raised.}
   The way to solve the problem is to increase the tax revenue
base of households and business income; if we do not expand that
income, there is no possibility of a rational solution to this
problem.
   To do that, you have to create credit. The question is,
where are you going to create the credit, and how much? You have
to create about $1 trillion a year of new credit--somewhere
between $600 billion and $1 trillion a year minimum--to get the
economy moving, to get to a breakeven point, where the problems
of the economy are met, and the problems of balancing the budget
are met. If you do not do that, you are not going to solve the
problem.
   If you are going to do that through the Fed mechanism, you
are going to blow the system out--at least under present
arrangements. Because the Fed creates money out of thin air, not
out of taxes, not out of deposits, but out of thin air, at about
3 percent. Then the Federal government borrows that money, at
about 4 and a half to 7 and a half percent now.
   At present, the banks are going {heavily} into government
bonds, because their own situation is so desperate. In other
words, the Federal government is bailing out the commercial banks
and other institutions, by offering this growth in debt through
the Federal bond route, through the Federal Reserve mechanism. If
you do not change that and go back to direct creation of currency
by the Treasury, under bills authorized by the Congress, and do not
deposit that money say, at 2 percent on ten years, 2 percent on
20 years, somewhere in there, to selected categories of
investment--
   [commercial break]
   
     - No Recovery Unless We Take on the Federal Reserve -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the difficulties
with President Clinton's new economic program.
   Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the problems that the
Federal Reserve has in terms of generating credit. Can we pick up
from that point?
   MR. LAROUCHE: The point is, that unless you dump the Federal
Reserve mechanism of monetary generation, and take those powers
away from the Fed, and go back to the Constitution (of which the
Fed is actually in violation, so that is not a big
innovation), you cannot get this economy out of a depression.
   The issue here is, that there are commercial and financial
interests, such as the commercial banks, which are presently
being subsidized by the Federal debt. That is, the banks which
are out of position under the new rules, or were close to it,
went to the Fed, borrowed money on the discount mechanism, money
which the Fed created out of thin air and loaned at about 3
percent. The banks turned around and made a secure investment in
U.S. government bonds at between 4 and a half to, say, 7 and a
half percent, depending upon the length of maturity.
   Those bond purchases were then used to bail out the banks'
position, and the banks themselves. So what has happened is--
which is what neither Perot nor Clinton nor Bush has mentioned in
the campaign or Clinton today--that it is that swindle by these
financial interests of the United States taxpayer through the
Fed, which is the principal mechanism causing the difficulty we
have, in trying to get the economy moving.
   These interests, which have pressured Clinton into making a
very modest recovery program (actually much less than $30 billion
in total investment), are the same interests which are looting
off the Federal government, the Federal taxpayer. Unless we go to
the other mechanism, that is, of creating money at the Treasury,
not the Fed, and of loaning it at 2 percent on 10 years to
selected categories of borrowers, then what would happen if you
tried to cram a monetary aggregate buildup through the Fed for a
recovery, is that these financial swindlers--I think they are
fairly called swindlers--would simply take most of that money,
and plug it in to their speculative financial bubble to try to
prop it up. That would blow out the U.S. economy in a
hyperinflationary explosion if that were attempted.
   No President, no Congress, can get a recovery out of this
spiralling downward depression we are still in, unless they take
on the Fed. We must remember, also, that we are not even looking
at, directly, in any of these discussions, the major mechanism of
the financial bubble which has threatened to blow out the whole
world financial system, and that is called derivatives. That is a
whole other subject in itself.
   We have {trillions of dollars} of unaccounted paper as
obligations floating around the system internationally; and when
that blows out, the whole financial system will blow out. Any
more of that kind of speculation which is now ongoing, and we
have reached the point where that becomes uncontrollable.
   So that is why, perhaps for all the good motivation or
whatever that Mr. Clinton has, what he proposed yesterday, just
cannot work.

   Q: So far, it seems, in terms of spending cuts on the
Federal budget, one thing which has remained sacrosanct,
untouchable, is the Federal debt. You have mentioned this
derivative market, the trillions of dollars in terms of debt. Is
there any way of getting a stimulus investment program with this
kind of debt? And if we have to restructure the debt, then what
is the nature of the stimulus program that you recommend?
   MR. LAROUCHE: I have already recommended it. I had a
10-point program which I announced in the {Washington Times} and
various other media during January and so forth of last year.
This program had a significant impact on the Democratic Party and
others. We hear echoes of this word ``infrastructure'' all over
the place, a term which essentially I introduced in this form.
Clinton had adopted a small, pale shadow of that.
   That is what has to be done.
   To do that, you have to do as I say. You have to generate
your credit the constitutional way, and create what used to be
called debt-free money. The Federal government no longer goes
into debt to create its own currency, which is what the problem
is here.
   It is not a question of how to pay or restructure the debt.
The essential thing is that {you have to take the nation off the
Fed monetary mechanism and go back to constitutional mechanisms.}
If you do not do that, nothing will work. If you do it my way,
which is the constitutional way, it {can} work. It is going to
take a lot of hardship to get it going because we do not have a
labor force which has the education and skills--especially
college graduates are not too good for real work these days.
   But if you do not do it that way, it is not going to work.
And that is the problem. It is not a matter of restructuring the
debt--forget restructuring the debt, that is not going to work,
{unless} you go to this other mechanism.
   So the restructuring of the debt is not the problem. It's a
problem; but it's not {the} problem. {The} problem is to get off
the Federal Reserve tit.
   
   Q: Some people recommend that the Federal Reserve should be
shut down. Is that your recommendation?
   MR. LAROUCHE: No.
   I would take the thing over, make it constitutional, and
make it a National Bank of deposit. I would peel off certain
aspects of it to go away from the Federal Reserve district
operation to a constitutional approach, which is to make the
principle that of state banking systems, a corresponding bank
within states for a National Bank, rather than having the Federal
Reserve regions which, in my view, are on principle
unconstitutional.
   
               - President Clinton's Cutbacks: -
    - ``The American Public Is Still a Bunch of Suckers'' -

   Q: Some of the cutback programs: Mr. Clinton has put out
polls. ABC, CBS, all of the news, have had polls saying that the
American population is willing to accept this sacrifice in such
areas as health care, in social security. What will this do in
terms of the actual living standards of the population?
   MR. LAROUCHE: We are going down. This is going to be share
the poverty, to a certain degree--not much sharing, but a lot of
poverty. This is not going to work. There is no way.
   But the public is {desperate} now. The public themselves are
not willing yet to look at what they consider the really radical
solutions; and until the public is willing to look at radical
solutions--which means saying that deregulation was insane, free
trade is insane, and things like that, unless they are willing to
start talking about that and the Fed, then the public is going
to, out of pure desperation, listen to any con man who comes
along offering a supposed solution with a good pitch, with good
motivational language.
   Anything which does not attack free trade or the Federal
Reserve, or deregulation, they are going to tend to accept,
because they do not want to attack free trade, the Federal
Reserve, or deregulation. Therefore, I am afraid that most of the
American public is still a bunch of suckers who are going to
fall, in large part at least, for any hokum that comes out from
the best con man in sight. And that is the situation that we are
in, unfortunately.

    - Radical Solutions: the Von Schleicher Government and -
                   - U.S. Wartime Programs -

   Q: You talk about radical solutions. Are there any
historical precedents for what you are proposing, in the
twentieth century?
   MR. LAROUCHE: In the twentieth century, there are lots of
them.
   There was one attempted in Germany, and the Anglo-American
powers couped the von Schleicher government in Germany, and put
Hitler into power to prevent it from being implemented.
   Then they let a certain form of that solution, which was
being implemented under Dregger. They allowed that to continue
under Hitler, which was the real cause for the so-called recovery
under Hitler. But Hitler had been opposed to that program,
totally; but the foreign bankers said, well you can do it,
because we will shut it off whenever it goes too far.
   But there have been frequent moves in that direction.
Elements of our own recovery programs at various times during
this century, were reversions to it--Take wartime financing, for
example. World War I, World War II, the mechanisms for financing
were imitations of our original constitutional system--parodies
of it at least--of the so-called Hamiltonian or the Monroe or
John Quincy Adams or Lincoln sort of mobilization.

      - The LaRouche Program: Creating Six Million Jobs -
   
   Q: What is the size and dimension of your job-creation
program compared to what Clinton is talking about? He is talking
about 200,000 jobs.
   MR. LAROUCHE: If you do not have about 6 million
jobs--remember, you have about 17.3 percent of our total labor
force which is actually unemployed. That is full-time equivalent
unemployment. They are listing about 7.1 percent unemployment, so
the difference is about 10 percent of the labor force is somehow
lost even in the accounted figures of the Labor Department. And
there is actually a larger unemployment factor than even the
official figures of 7.3. So we have plenty of people who are
unemployed.
   To get enough tax revenue base increase from households and
business to balance the budget without raising tax rates on
businesses and middle- to lower-income households, you have to
have about 6 million more people employed. That is going to mean
that you have to stick in a stimulant in the form of credit, of
somewhere between $600 billion and about $1 trillion minimum to
get the wheels turning to get that kind of employment.

   Q: Some people say this will be inflationary. Is it
inflationary?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Not if you do it properly, if you invest in
basic economic infrastructure, the right stuff. If you
concentrate on using sectors which are collapsing now, say, auto
and aerospace, and find out the other products that they can
create right away, because of their technological capabilities,
to supply or help supply some of these infrastructure projects
such as rail systems with equipment, then you are going to end up
with the right result.
   Of course, if you throw it around on make-work projects and
so forth--which are not economic--then you could have an
inflationary result, not because of the mechanism you are using,
but because you are applying it to things which are not the most
productive.

        - ``We Have to Cut Our Dependency on Imports'' -

   Q: There is a resolution being introduced into the North
Dakota State Legislature which calls for a moratorium on farm
foreclosures in the farm sector. Is that the kind of direction
that you would recommend?
   MR. LAROUCHE: I would include that. Absolutely. Although
most people do not realize it, we are net importers of food from
foreign countries. If we are going to try to even balance our
national balance-of-payments situation, we are going to have to
cut out our dependency on imports, by providing protection of
various kinds for domestic producers who are either of
competitive or potentially competitive quality.
   For example, that is why I would support a piece of
legislation which has come out of committee from [Senators]
Bennett Johnston [D-LA] and [Bob] Krueger [D-TX], which would
establish a trigger price tariff on petroleum, setting a price on
petroleum, and if petroleum is priced to come in the country at a
lower price, we will just put a tax on it to make up the
difference, to protect the U.S. native producers.
   Those kinds of protective measures, which are not unfriendly
and not really trade war against anybody--that has to be done,
and stopping farm foreclosures in order to save the irreparable
damage of losing this capacity, is one of the measures that has
to be taken, not only for the farmer, but for the eater, for the
consumer.

           - The Situation in Russia and Worldwide: -
               - Heading Toward an April Crisis -

   Q: Let's move on for a second, and just start to touch on it
before our next break. In terms of the global situation, there
was recently a referendum that was postponed in Russia. Are we
dealing with a dual-power situation? The referendum asked whether
Russia should have presidential or parliamentary rule.
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, in a sense. Not really that.
   They call it dual power, and they call it that over there
because of the history of the Russian Revolutions of 1917, where
the term dual power was used especially during the spring,
summer, and fall of 1917. Therefore Russian Bolshevik history
causes Russians today to use the term dual power.
   What there is, is an instability based on recognition--
   [commercial break]

   Q: We have been discussing the current situation in Russia,
especially given the referendum, which was recently postponed,
which was to decide whether they were going to have parliamentary
or presidential rule.
   My question originally was: Does this indicate a dual power
or multipower situation?
   Mr. LaRouche, you were beginning to develop the current
political situation within the former Soviet Union.
   MR. LAROUCHE: The problem is, that the imposition of IMF
(International Monetary Fund) conditionalities on Eastern Europe,
including the former Soviet Union, Russia in particular, has
caused a situation which is vastly worse than anything since the
postwar period the Russians and others have experienced under
communism.
   So people in Russia are generally perceiving that the kind
of capitalism which is being pushed by the IMF and by Jeffrey
Sachs from Harvard, is worse--far worse--than communism. At the
same time, the policy of the current group in power in Russia, is
to propitiate Western powers, especially the United States, and
to do nothing at this time, at least--at this immediate
moment--to upset that Yalta-like understanding which was
established first between Reagan-Bush and Gorbachov, and then
renewed in a different form through London with Yeltsin.
   Therefore, the Russians are pretending to be cooperative and
are, in some sense, actually cooperative on this dual-power
arrangement, which is actually between East and West, a
Yalta-like agreement, but at the same time recognizing that they
can no longer continue this process. There is a situation of
desperation arising internally as a result of the continued
deterioration of the economic, and therefore also the political
and social situation.
   So we have a situation not of dual power--that is misleading
in a sense--but of instability: acute and worsening instability.
The situation is coming toward a crisis estimated for the month
of April, which will be a worldwide global crisis, because of
many crises coming to a head simultaneously about that time. And
that is the situation.

   Q: You had the recent re-founding of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union in Moscow. Does this indicate that we will soon
see the former communists of the former Soviet Union re-emerge in
power?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Maybe not as communists. That may be a gadfly
arrangement. But what you will see, is the Russian
{nomenklatura,} which will consist of old historic interests,
elements of the Red Army military tradition, elements of the
Russian Orthodox Church and others forming a kind of
establishment, a new, post-communist or post-Bolshevik Russian
establishment.
   You will see something which is much more independent, much
less prone to take orders from London and Washington. Whether it
is going to be a communist dictatorship, I doubt that. It could
happen, but I doubt it very much. It is going to be something
new, not something rewarmed, or old.
   
   Q: Recent discussions, in terms of the Balkans, involve both
the former Soviet Union--Russia--and the United States. Is this
current discussion process, with Bartholomew working with
Kozyrev, a continuation of the Yalta agreements, and what does it
mean for the Balkans and Europe?
   MR. LAROUCHE: It is not really a very interesting subject,
because it is all obvious.
   First of all, Mr. [Cyrus] Vance, who recently announced that
he is going to retire from this function, and Mr. [David] Owen,
were lying their heads off. Everything they said in support of
this UN Geneva negotiation: they were lying. They were lying
diplomatically, which is not considered the same thing as a lie
in politics. But from the standpoint of the average citizen, they
were just lying their heads off. This is not going to solve
anything.
   What is being done in former Yugoslavia, is that from the
beginning, from 1989-1990, the British and U.S. governments not
only supported but helped to direct the aggression of the Serbian
fascist formation around Milosevic, the present president of
Serbia, to commit genocidal crimes, first against Croatians and
then against the Bosnians, and they are now ready to go against
Kosova and ready to go in Macedonia or, as it is called,
Makedonija.
   The United States is fully supporting that, as is the
British government. There {is} an understanding with Moscow on
this matter. Moscow is making itself more vocal, but that is a
part of Moscow making itself more vocal on many things,
including, as we may note, Iraq.
   So there is a kind of continued Yalta agreement. The thing
that put me in prison--this renewed Yalta agreement between
Washington and Moscow (Gorbachov in that case), is still running
the world, pretty much. That is running to a large degree the
Balkans situation, but the whole thing is unstable. This
bloodshed, this horror show, is going to blow up again.

     - ``There Is Only One Reason for My Incarceration'' -

   Q: Speaking of your incarceration, you have now been in
prison for more than four years. More than one thousand legal
experts from around the country have described your case as a
political incarceration.
   What are the main political reasons for your incarceration?
   MR. LAROUCHE: There is only one real reason for my
incarceration. If you go back to 1986 and you look particularly
at the featured articles in the leading Soviet press on the
subject of me, from July 1986 through October.
   This press echoed what was being said to the United States
and others from behind the scenes through diplomatic and other
channels. Moscow demanded of the United States government, that
the United States government demonstrate a commitment to my
elimination--and they used the word imprisonment--as a condition
for the summit negotiations, which were then tentatively
scheduled for October. They didn't specify October, but the
summit negotiations which were referenced were to occur in
October.
   Under the pressure of these pressures from Moscow, an
agreement was reached between the Gorbachov government and the
Reagan-Bush administration. And the British were brought into it,
the British establishment as well, because we talked to them, and
they told me about their involvement in this. And the ADL, which
is partly a Soviet KGB asset, was also involved in that--the
Anti-Defamation League. But that was on the ground, not on the
higher level.
   As a result of that, a raid was conducted against the
headquarters of publishing organizations associated with me in
Leesburg, Va., and elsewhere--a demonstrative raid, which was to
signal to Moscow a commitment on the part of the Reagan-Bush
administration to put me in prison and show the Russians they
meant business on this thing, which assured the success of the
Reykjavik Summit.
   I was kept in partly because Bush had a personal hatred
against me. There were other factors involved in this. But the
essential reason, the difference between my being in prison and
being harassed on the street, so to speak, was essentially this
agreement between Moscow and Washington, with London consulting.
And that is the way it has stood up to the present time.

       - My Back-Channel Negotiations With the Soviets -

   Q: You had been involved with the Reagan administration in
certain types of East-West affairs. Can you please describe that
involvement?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Very simply. In late 1981, representatives of
the weekly intelligence news magazine {Executive Intelligence
Review,} with which I am associated, were approached at the
United Nations by a very high-level Soviet intelligence official.
Certain questions and suggestions were made by this official to
this representative of the {Executive Intelligence Review.} This
was reported to me promptly at that time, and I asked the
individual who had been contacted to write a memorandum of the
exchange, and I forwarded an accompanying covering memorandum to
relevant places in the U.S. government, giving my opinion on this
matter.
   As a result, about a month later, the decision of the U.S.
government communicated to me, was to ask me, under the National
Security Act provisions, to undertake, on behalf of the Reagan
administration, a back-channel discussion with Soviet high-level
channels--to open up a new back-channel with Moscow.
   The agreement was, with my discussion of the clarification
of this with the U.S. government, that what we would do, is that
we would as a trial float, with full discussion with Moscow, what
I was proposing, which later became known as the SDI. And that I
would select, by probing, which channel in the U.S. we would use,
for this back-channel exchange, which eventually was taken over
by the National Security Council, to Moscow's top leadership. I
picked a man in Washington who was approved, and we began
discussions in February.
   As some will recall, there was a three-day conference in
Washington in the middle of February [1982] where I publicly
surfaced the same material that I was discussing with the
gentleman from Moscow.
   So we fully explored all the features of my proposal for
what became known as the SDI with Moscow. In about the beginning
of February 1983, I had a clarification from Moscow, from Yuri
Andropov, or his immediate circles. Yuri Andropov was then the
General Secretary of the Soviet Union. The clarification was that
they agreed with me that what was called the SDI the way I
designed it would work as a ballistic missile defense system.
They agreed that the technological spin-offs of this for the
economy would be highly beneficial; but they said that they would
not agree to this policy under any circumstances, because the
United States and the West would have an advantage in this kind
of program. Therefore, they were very interested in the other
things we were talking about, they wanted to continue the back
channel, but they assured me that their decision at that point
not only was that Moscow would not accept it, but Moscow had a
fix in with the top leadership of the Democratic Party to make
sure it would not be adopted in the United States.
   Then [President] Reagan announced on March 23, in the
concluding portion segment of his televised speech that night,
the exact terms which I had previously indicated to the Moscow
channel, saying that if the President were to offer this package,
how would you react. The President of the United States, Ronald
Reagan, on March 23 offered to Moscow publicly, by way of
national television, exactly the proposal which I had presented
to Moscow as the tentative trial-balloon proposal earlier. At
that point, from the highest level, my back channel said, ``We
are shutting down the back channel. From the highest level, we
are cutting you off.''
   And immediately, I was attacked by the Soviets, first not by
name, that is, not in print, but in May of 1983, [Fyodor]
Burlatsky, who is a KGB man, a top adviser to Andropov in
{Literaturnaya Gazeta,} which is a KGB publication, denounced the
operation.
   Meanwhile, all kinds of KGB operations against me were set
into place around the world. In the fall of 1983, the Soviet
government officially, through Burlatsky, identified {me} as a
{casus belli,} saying that the existence of my personality and my
position of influence in the U.S. government, would be a
potential cause for a general thermonuclear war between the two
superpowers. And that continued more or less; it quieted down
under Chernenko, but when Gorbachov came in, the heat on me
increased, and this led to the heavy demand on the U.S.
government by Moscow, to the effect that there would be no
agreement.
   The reason for this heat was, that I had warned them in 1982
and 1983, that if they did not enter into such an agreement to
revive their economy and reorient this strategic situation, that
their continued commitment to try to achieve a first-strike
war-winning capability, would result in the collapse of the
Soviet economy within about five years, that is, about 1988. They
knew that. They hated me for it, and saw me as being the evil
genius who understood them and their problems and their economy
all too well.
   And that is the way it is. Since then, I have had a lot of
trouble, first, being thrown into jail, and then being kept there
by Bush as a result of that New Yalta type of agreement between
Gorbachov and the Reagan-Bush administrations.

    - The SDI Would Have Meant a Technological Revolution -
   
   Q: In terms of policy, why did the advocates of the New
Yalta arrangements view the SDI proposal as a threat to what they
were trying to do?
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, because it meant a technological
revolution. My doing this, was exactly--the Russians had it
almost right. I was trying to find a way to peace and avoiding a
very increasingly likelihood, from the middle 1970s on, of a
first-strike thermonuclear strike by one of the powers which
would mean a horrible situation on this planet naturally.
   We were getting into that, the so-called nuclear deterrence
policy of Kissinger and company; this sort of thing had just
blown up; it was no longer working, it was more dangerous than it
was protection.
   But the Russians knew that I understood that the biggest
problem they have with their population, is a cultural problem,
where the Russian peasant mentality, as they call it, refused to
accept technology on the plant floor or in agriculture, and only
in a certain segment of the Soviet economy, the
military-industrial center, were new technologies more or less
efficiently employed and deployed. But in the civilian sector and
in the agricultural sector, technological improvement was not
assimilable.
   And I understood this superiority of Western civilization
over Soviet culture. And I was playing it for all it was worth,
saying, okay, if you guys will accept this arrangement, get us
out of this first strike, help us both get out of the
first-strike situation, and then enter into economic cooperation
along these lines, we will have a peaceful situation which will
be beneficial to all of us. That was my general approach. They
knew that. They were not willing to accept peace on that basis at
that time.
   As a matter of fact, the papers the U.S. obtained, as well
as the Germans, during the unification of East and West Germany,
indicated that up until 1989, {the Soviets were still preparing
for a first-strike assault within the foreseeable future upon the
West.} They understood that I understood this; their top man
Nikolai Ogarkov, the General Marshal who was the author of the
Ogarkov Plan of assault, understood that; and I was considered
the opposite number in strategic thinking to Ogarkov, and they
wanted me out of the way.
   
   Q: So once the Soviets had spent themselves in terms of
military buildup and failed, they were forced to accept the
current IMF (International Monetary Fund) policies.
   Does this new situation that we are in, pose a strategic
threat?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, it does. What Bush did and what the
British and others did, beginning 1989 or 1990 with the fall of
the [Berlin] Wall, was the worst possible thing. It was the thing
I warned against in 1988 in the rather widely celebrated Berlin
address I made on this subject about the imminent collapse of the
Wall, the imminent reunification of Germany with Berlin as the
prospective capital and the problems inside the Soviet economy.
   What they did, was they said: Okay, the Russians are weak,
they have to accept our diktat to some degree. We are going to
destroy Eastern Europe and its economy. We are going to destroy
the former Soviet economy by these kinds of pressures.
   What they should have done--which they thought was being too
generous--was to cooperate in developing Eastern Europe,
especially Poland, which they wrecked. The United States and
Britain have {wrecked} Poland, almost to an irrecoverable level.
They have wrecked eastern Germany by putting pressure on Germany
to do so; and they tried to wreck the former Soviet Union.
   What this did--instead of following the development policy
which I had proposed, the so-called ``food for peace''
policy--was to put the Russians into an {adversarial} mood
against the United States in particular. And what is building up
now there in the so-called return of the hard-liners, is that a
bunch of people are saying, ``Okay. The United States and Britain
are going to collapse''--and they are right. They are going to
collapse at the present time. They say, ``We have to wait. And we
are going to be a superpower again.''
   That is the strategic threat.
   [commercial break]

                  - Gay Edgar Hoover Exposed -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, a recent biography of the former FBI
director J. Edgar Hoover indicated that he was involved with
organized crime elements such as Meyer Lansky, the criminal
lawyer Roy Cohn, and he was involved in blackmailing [U.S.]
Presidents and all types of different dirty-tricks activities. He
had a homosexual proclivity, he was compromised.
   How does this compare with the investigative work that you
and your associates have done, in terms of the FBI?
   MR. LAROUCHE: We became rather experts on the subject of
Hoover's FBI. Not because we wished to become that deeply
involved, but because we were forced to.
   In 1969, the FBI, ostensibly at the instigation of McGeorge
Bundy, ran dirty tricks, particularly out of the New York office
of Division Five of the FBI against us on behalf of Mark Rudd and
that sort of persons, who were being funded at that time by
McGeorge Bundy's Ford Foundation. People didn't know that it was
the Ford Foundation money that gave you the Weathermen
terrorists, but that was the fact of the matter.
   They escalated; but they generally escalated in conjunction
with the Communist Party against us. It was very interesting to
us at the time: Why was the FBI working {with} the Communist
Party as a political ally? What is this all about?
   Then in 1971, 1972, this escalated. Hoover died, of course,
in the meantime; but the operations which Hoover had set into
motion against us, particularly through his New York office, went
to the point that in November of 1973, according to FBI paperwork
which they have largely issued substantially redacted but the
elements are there, the FBI used its assets in the leadership of
the Communist Party USA to deploy the Communist Party to have me
assassinated.
   The word they use in their document is ``elimination.'' It
caused the Communist Party to perceive that my elimination would
solve the problems of the Communist Party. There {was} a
deployment by the Communist Party from terrorists from Puerto
Rico who were Cuban-linked, who came up in December of 1973 and
again, patrolling the area where I was living. So obviously they
were all assigned. I blew this, but thereafter the FBI escalated.
   Then later, the {New York Times} and the ADL collaborated
with the famous attorney who was a great buddy--an intimate
buddy, shall we say, of J. Edgar Hoover--Roy Cohn, who was
deployed against us, and who hired a gutter type by the name of
Dennis King, who he used as a cover for running an attack on us.
   We caught the {New York Times} plotting to set me up for
prosecution by running defamatory, misleading stories. We got
them on tape, Montgomery and Blum; so the {Times} because we had
[evidence of] malice aforethought on them. They farmed it out to
Roy Cohn. We investigated Roy Cohn, and in the process of other
investigations of the FBI, in massive FOIA discovery, but in
particular in the Cohn investigation, we came across essentially
nearly everything that is now reported in the [Anthony] Summers
book--and more.

   Q: This is quite an extraordinary story. Obviously the
implications for the United States of America, if this is true
that the FBI and the former director of the FBI were involved
with organized crime elements, are unbelievable.
   We will return next week with ``{Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' Thank you very much, Mr.
LaRouche.

                             - 30 -

 THE PRECEDING TRANSCRIPT WAS PROVIDED TO FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE
                   BY EIR NEWS SERVICE, INC.
         FOR MORE INFORMATION, WRITE EIR NEWS SERVICE,
             P.O. BOX 17390, WASHINGTON, DC  20041.

     EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LAROUCHE IS BROADCAST SATURDAYS
           FROM 7:00 PM TO 8:00 PM EST VIA SATELLITE:

   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

            
 



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

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