From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!uunet!ccs!covici Sat Mar 27 18:42:35 PST 1993 Article: 18589 of alt.activism Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!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 3/24/93 Message-ID: <270-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 28 Mar 93 0:10:27 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 679 - 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 Saturdays on satellite from 7:00 PM to 8:00 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 March 24, 1993 Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche'' Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky Q: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We are on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. - The Principles Behind the SDI - Mr. LaRouche, welcome. It is the tenth anniversary of the SDI and you had a lot to do with the SDI; as a matter of fact, the Soviet press has often described you as the intellectual author of the SDI. What do you think of the discussion that Mr. Reagan recently put forward on the SDI, and what is the significance of the SDI for us today? MR. LAROUCHE: I heard the tape of President Reagan's videotaped discussion with a group in Washington. I heard that; I thought it was extremely significant. He left out, of course, the critical area of technology sharing with Moscow, which was the crucial feature of SDI. In other words, in my discussions, there were three features, that we needed a strategic ballistic missile defense, which the former president had emphasized. I am in complete agreement with him on that. Secondly, that no defense is possible {except through} the use of what were called in diplomatic documents ``new physical principles,'' that is, lasers and similar businesses. Interceptor are {not,} although they may be an auxiliary means, are not an essential feautre of an {effective} Strategic Defense Initiative, and thirdly, technology sharing. These are the three points. They are as valid today under somewhat different circumstances as they were then, ten years ago, as he emphasized in his address; and therefore it is a very useful address on his part. Q: What is the significance of the new physical principles? We have seen some of these interceptor rockets in the Persian Gulf excursion. What is the difference between the kind of rockets that were used there and the kind of ballistic missile defense that you are talking about, based on new physical principles? MR. LAROUCHE: If you are talking about the use of those kinds of rockets as a strategic ballistic missile defense, you are making a very expensive, {very bad joke.} You cannot base a defense on so-called high-speed interceptor rockets. There are two reasons involved. The more fundamental reason, from a physical standpoint, is that you cannot do the job. The ratio of the speed of the warheads coming in as against the rockets, means that with a saturation attack, you just simply cannot do that. Secondly, the cost of the rockets: Relative to what might be an effective interceptor rocket by those standards, I can make an assault rocket cheaper. Therefore the cost of interception is greater than the cost of the assault, which means that the whole system is technologically and economically a failure. What is required, is systems which have very high speeds relative to the rockets or warheads they are intercepting; and they must have {relatively low amounts} of total energy involved in the system, relative to the energy of the rocket, the carrier vehicle, and the warhead movement. This means that you are talking about lasers and related kinds of what were called in the diplomatic language ``new physical principles.'' No other system, that is, no system of any lesser capability or sophistication, will work. According to [Admiral] Watkins's recent statement, under SDI development, with only 30-odd billions spent, we were actually getting close to the demonstration of {principle,} in terms of the endurance[?] standards with the SDI at the point it was really attenuated by Bush and friends. - Applications of the SDI Approach Today - Q: Is the SDI approach, the ballistic missile defense, based on new physical principles, still applicable today? Is it something that the U.S. government and other governments should be pursuing? MR. LAROUCHE: If someone who may not be your adversary has a weapon which may be principally deployed in your direction potentially, on the basis of a strategic conflict hypothesis, you better have the complementary defensive system to cope with that weapon; otherwise, your military posture is based on faith and trust in the good will [laughs] of the fellow who may be your adversary. Besides, the cost of these systems, contrary to much weeping and moaning around the Congress on these questions, is actually zero, if it is properly done. In order to have a high-technology economy, you require, contrary to that poor Margaret Thatcher and George Bush's radicals, what you require is a government-backed research program, very much like some people proposed for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) back in former days. The government-research program, which will often have to take care of the {military} needs of government; and military needs always must be based on the most advanced technology as a pivot. You can spill that military technology over through the machine-tool sector into the private sector. The gains in productivity--that is, profitability and income and productivity--which you get in the private sector from the use of these military technologies will leave you a tax yield, at normal rates of taxation, which is much greater than you expend on the military systems using the same technology. So actually, if you do things properly, with a proper arsenal concept, then actually the {net cost} to the economy of the military defense system, is zero. When you use {old} technologies, of course, for military systems, then those military expenditures are a pure out-of-pocket cost. But when you use {advanced} technologies for military systems and you are introducing those advanced technologies into your productive sector, then the increase in income per capita, will far more than offset the cost of the military applications under any reasonable business of defense. Q: President Kennedy, of course, used this kind of approach with the Apollo Project. I know that you have indicated, in your discussions of the SDI in the mid-1980s, that the SDI could be used for technological spin-offs in the areas of a Moon shot, of a Moon-Mars program, and also in the areas of a biological SDI for AIDS research. Do you think that President Clinton can design such a program for today, and would it be useful in terms of the overall strategic and economic crisis that we are now dealing with? MR. LAROUCHE: One problem here. You mentioned Reagan earlier; and people are going to make a lot of criticisms of Reagan, and I can make them too, on various points. But the thing to remember about Reagan and the Reagan presidency, particularly the first four years or so, say, up to 1985--after 1986 he began to run into more troubles--but up through that period, despite all the bad things that Reagan did, and they were no worse than what Carter did and so forth before him, so I guess that comparison is all right; he did something historic. He did something which is only approximated perhaps by what Kennedy started out to do before he was shot. President Reagan changed the course of history for the better through, principally, his adoption and promulgation of the SDI concept. President Reagan adopted that policy, albeit it was my policy--he adopted it, I didn't. I was just in the background and negotiating it, and providing the guidance on this. But he adopted it. He carried it through as president; and therefore he deserves the credit in that respect for actually causing the changing of the course of history for the better, that is, the breakdown of the Warsaw Pact system. The problem today, which comes to Clinton's doorstep, is the fact that Thatcher and Bush, principally, as the responsible heads of government and state, respectively, destroyed all of the good work that Reagan did in this connection, by their crazy policy toward attacking Germany by unleashing Serbia against the southern flank of Europe and by imposing insane conditions upon Russia and Eastern European countries which are pushing Russia today into an adversarial emotional posture against the United States and Britain, with Russia still having the world's largest and second-largest naval- and land-based rocket arsenal. What the Clinton administration today is faced with, is that it must replicate, in its own way, what Reagan did. I provided the policy. A certain group of Reagan people liked it; Roy Godson and his crowd hated it. Ollie North hated it in that period. James Baker III ostensibly hated it, and tried to sabotage it, as the Russians were convinced he was going to do. But nonetheless, Reagan took the policy and ran with it. Clinton may not have a policy to solve these problems comparable to the SDI, but he can get one, from the proper set of advisers. I am perfectly prepared to do the job for Clinton that I did for Reagan in this respect. We can change the situation, but Clinton would have to resort to the same geometry of policy-making to which Reagan resorted in launching the SDI in the first place. - The ``Star Wars'' Lobby Opposition to the SDI - Q: We have heard the Strategic Defense Initiative or ballistic missile defense, referred to as ``Star Wars.'' Some people argue that the Strategic Defense Initiative provides a defensive nuclear umbrella, which could end the threat of thermonuclear war, and others say it is a Star Wars system which could lead to further instabilities and lead to one party having an offensive capability over the other. Which is correct? MR. LAROUCHE: The latter is nonsense, absolute nonsense. The people who devised the latter argument were hoaxsters and incompetents. The kindest thing to say about them, is that they were totally incompetent and a little bit mentally deranged. That is the {kindest} thing you can say about them; the more probable fact, is that they were a bunch of fraudsters and hoaxsters. Of course, a lot of people, including Senator Kennedy, were duped into adopting that ``Star Wars'' formulation, which was cooked up by pro-Soviet, pro-Andropov opponents, in a sense of the SDI, such as the Mondale circuit, which was very much committed to this opposition. But that is absolutely incompetent. As Reagan made the point quite adequately on the first point: Is it a smart, unprovocative posture to leave yourself absolutely helpless against a first strike; and without a strategic ballistic missile defense, what was happening back in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, was progress in improvement of missiles, particularly including calculating the use of the Electromagnetic Pulse effect, which would have permitted a well-prepared party to launch a first strike, which the Soviets were prepared to do up into 1989, according to recent evidence collected in [former] East Germany and elsewhere. So to say that it is provocative, is nonsense. In order to avoid the provocation, I proposed, and the Reagan administration accepted--President Reagan accepted--the idea that we {first} had to discuss this with the Soviets, and offer them the opportunity to do the same thing. This was to eliminate any {even subjective} perception of that kind of strategic provocative advantage-taking. So the Soviets were advised of this. The U.S. government authorized me and asked me to run this back-channel discussion with the Soviets. I laid it out {fully} with the Soviets from February of 1982 into March of 1983. {Almost 13 months before the President announced it,} the Soviets had a full disclosure of what this meant, a full disclosure of the possible intent of the United States government to make such an offer to them, and had a full chance to reflect upon all of the features of the program. [commercial break] - U.S. Policy Toward Third World Nuclear Powers - Q: We have been discussing the tenth anniversary of the SDI. Mr. LaRouche, what about countries which have nuclear weapons or are proposing to become nuclear powers, like North Korea? How does the SDI policy differ in dealing with North Korea? We are talking about going over there and stripping them of their nuclear weapons. Is that the right approach? MR. LAROUCHE: No. We can deal with that. First of all, the penalty of launching a strategic style of nuclear attack by any nation, if it fails, is horrendous. We do not have to go into that. So therefore, if one has an effective strategic defense, that does not mean that you can stop every possible missile they might launch; but it means you can effectively stop a general launch. That is, you can destroy it to such a degree, that either none or only a very small part of the whole attack succeeds, and you can even damage that. If we had a {global defense,} any attack from a nation such as North Korea would be totally impotent with modern technology. But that would require using the new physical principles, not interceptor rockets. As I said, interceptor rockets have {inherent} shortcomings from an economic, military, and other standpoint. They are too slow, whereas lasers travel at the speed of light and other types of systems travel at high relativistic speeds. So the possibility of interception is great; the cost in terms of energy, the pulse of energy that is used to destroy a warhead or a missile is really very small, relative to the energy represented by launching a high-speed rocket. But that energy is concentrated in a very effective way as by laser self-focussing characteristics, for example, so that it does the job with a minimum amount of relative energy. One calculation was, just so you understand this, is that possibly a strategic defense would cost us 10 cents of strategic defense for every missile stopped as against a dollar's worth of missile stopped by that method [of using interceptor rockets]. So you have essentially a 10-to-1 advantage in economy and in other qualities over the offense; so the defense has the advantage; and against a small country--this was something we discussed back then, in 1982 or 1983--even apart from the major nuclear powers, against small nuclear powers, the defense, of course, would even have a relatively much greater advantage, almost an absolute advantage as in the case of a country such as North Korea. Q: The threat of nuclear power by a Third World country, by a developing country, is one of the reasons that is given for the policy of technological apartheid. Is this a useful policy or should we be developing a different policy toward the Third World? MR. LAROUCHE: This is just insanity. It is double talk. What happens is, you get a bunch of these people who are the kind of people who club seals. That is, they stage a phony seal hunters' killing of seals in order to photograph it and put it on television and say, ``Oh, this horrible thing that these guys are doing against seals,'' when it is {they themselves} who are staging it. You have people saying, ``Well, we have to stop nuclear power''; then they complain about countries cutting down the trees for renewable resources of energy, and so forth, as they did with Brazil. That was precisely the case. They went into Brazil in the 1960s and said, ``Brazil, you cannot have nuclear power, you've got this wonderful Amazon rain forest, you have all this wood up here, other biomass; why don't you burn this biomass as a renewable resource for your energy supplies, make alcohol of it, whatnot, instead of using nuclear power?'' Then we turn around and quite rightly say that the cutting down of the Amazon is an ecological catastrophe, as it has been, and, well, you [Brazil] have to cut that out too. This is a {complete fraud,} this cutting out of nuclear power. {Safe} nuclear power, of course; any technology has to be safely used, whether it is a razor blade or anything else. But what they have done is that they have latched onto the horror of Chernobyl and similar kinds of actual and anticipated cases in order to find a new argument for denying Third World countries the right to have the energy needed to feed and care for the population. What these people are doing with their policy, is killing more people with their policy, than would be killed by a nuclear incident. - The Danger of a Thirty Years' War - Q: Let's go to another nuclear power, the former Soviet Union. The Russian republic and other republics have nuclear weapons--33,000 warheads. There is quite a bit of difficulty over there at this point. A lot of the world is holding their breath as we wait and see whether Yeltsin emerges in the current struggle that is taking place between him and the Congress of People's Deputies. What do you think President Clinton can do in this situation? We are talking about a summit. What can be done? MR. LAROUCHE: As I said before, he can go my way, or it will be totally ineffective. As long as Clinton and the Thatcherites in Britain succeed in continuing to impose the so-called reform reform program of IMF conditionalities upon Russia under the present policy guidelines, which were set into motion under Thatcher and Bush, which are called the Project Democracy guidelines, the situation in Russia will deteriorate and we will very rapidly have the emergence of Russia as a thermonuclear power--which it already is--with a {resolve} and a {hostile emotional projection} against the United States and Britain, particularly, for what the Russians will say and feel that the West has done to them, in the sense of betrayal. This reform package, as it is called, including shock therapy, IMF conditionalities--this so-called democratization of the economy--guarantees the march in the direction of World War III; and I am not suggesting a thermonuclear World War III. I am suggesting that you have two thermonuclear powers and a couple more, but two principal thermonuclear powers, Washington and Moscow, each with enough power to blow each other off the map without SDI, which presently does not exist, at least not in a deployed form. Under those conditions, the two powers are at a standoff. The U.S. has essentially no military capability that has not been destroyed, taken down. The Russians have some significant scores of divisions which could be deployed. But what you are looking at, is a world ruined by new kinds of what might be called surrogate warfare, to use the old language, in areas such as former Yugoslavia, the Balkans today, or Central Asia with Hekmatyar the drug pusher in a strong base in Afghanistan stirring up problems in the former Soviet republic of Tajikistan, the so-called roof of the world; crisis in Africa, crisis in the subcontinent, possible war in the subcontinent; and crisis in China. We could have thirty years or more of total chaos spreading around this planet in terms of economic chaos, conflicts, all with the two nuclear arsenals creating the standoff umbrella under which all this hell by lesser means--clubs, rocks, what have you--goes forward. And that is the kind of world in which we are threatened to be plunged: a worldwide depression, worldwide chaos, and the kinds of horror shows which are going on now in former Yugoslavia or even worse horror shows as a general spreading pattern across this planet over the decade to come. [commercial break] - My 1988 Food For Peace Proposal for the East - Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were involved in back-channel discussions with the former Soviet leadership right before the SDI came into existence. You had discussions with them about that specific policy, the ballistic missile defense, and you also had discussions with them about the economic potentials of that policy and economic spinoffs. What makes you think that we can design some kind of similar approach at this point that the Soviets would accept? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's not just that. Of course, the SDI policy would still go forward in a new form, but the basis of it today is somewhat different. One has to look at what I proposed and what happened and the effects of doing something stupidly different than that which I and some others proposed be done in 1988-89. In 1988, particularly centering around an address which was later televised, which I gave in Berlin on Columbus Day, I indicated that we were facing the imminent prospect of reunification of Germany with Berlin becoming the future capital of Germany, out of a process of demontage occuring in the economies of the Warsaw Pact; and I indicated that the collapse would probably begin in eastern Europe because of the economic situation there and that the economic disorder in eastern Europe would spread rapidly into a crisis within the economy of the Soviet Union. I suggested that in addition to considering what the reunification of Germany would mean, that we look at the prospect that this process would begin politically in Poland, and that the United States should adopt a correct policy in Poland and used that as a model for proposals to the Soivet Union and components thereof as to what could be done practically in their area, as a global economic development perspective. This was proposed under the auspices of the name ``Food for Peace,'' a revival of an old name, which was done deliberately, in order to express the continuation of those kinds of policies as an offer. What happened is that Thatcher and Bush, as the policy carriers of that period, went in the opposite direction. Deutsche Bank banker Alfred Herrhausen, who proposed a policy similar to mine, was killed, assassinated, by British interests because they did not like what he was offering. They did not like mine, either. I proposed what was called the Productive Triangle proposal which continues to be much discussed in Moscow these days, in some certain precincts. I proposed that the industrial heartland of the world is the area from Paris to Vienna to Berlin. That is the greatest concentration of historic development of productive potential in any part of the world. It is an area about the size of Japan, with about 110 million people in it, which has the greatest concentration of potential development if used. And the idea is to use that potential to spread its benefit in terms of the flow of new technologies in machine-tool form, along the logistical lines of transportation and so forth, into all parts of Eurasia and beyond as a global recovery. That can be done. The SDI technologies, along with space technologies, new biological technologies, and other things, come in as a part of the frontier technologies, the steps which mankind as a whole must next take to continue the flow of technological and productive progress; and we would simply treat the SDI technologies as part of that spectrum--but an important part. - Why the Danger of a Great Russia is Emerging - Q: As you are talking, I hear Margaret Thatcher and I hear the gurus of the Heritage Foundation and others saying, ``Isn't it better that we now have the former Soviet Union in a weakened condition, and wouldn't the policies that you're proposing, strengthen the former Soviet Union, an adversary, and create more difficulties for the United States?'' MR. LAROUCHE: Beginning 1983, I warned these idiots--and I use the term idiots because the criminality of what they have done is beyond belief when we consider the dangerous world we live in today--I warned them that if they went with that kind of policy toward Russia, that what they would do, is they would see the fall of communism. This was back in spring 1983 and after that I continued to warn them of this. I said, ``What will happen, is that you are going to see the end of Bolshevism in Russia. That is coming rapidly.'' And I saw that as coming within approximately a five-year period at that time. What you are going to see, which is already in progress there, is the emergence of a new kind of Great Russian imperialism, which will be not Bolshevik, but it will be just as much a problem. {And that is exactly what is happening,} and that is what they did. You cannot take a superpower like Russia, which has never, in its own view of the matter, lost a war, which does not know the word defeat, and attempt to defeat it by economic policy means, without driving it into a state of rage in which it looks to its assets to see what it can do about that. That is exactly what the Yeltsin crisis is. The Yeltsin crisis is not caused by something inside Russia. The Yeltsin crisis is caused by the fact that Mr. Yeltsin has been seen, by the Russians, {as the agent of the Anglo-American policies which the Russian people and leading institutions have grown to hate.} Under these conditions, the Russians are looking for some kind of a strong government. They do not want to go back to Bolshevism; they do not like to go back to communism; but they want some kind of a strong government--not a military dictatorship--which will assure them, that these trends of the past several years {will be reversed.} What they wish to be rid of, is {everything} which the Clinton administration and the British government still calls ``reform.'' They want to be rid of those economic reforms. They want different kinds of reforms entirely; and as long as we continue to push the present form of reforms as proposed by the IMF and the Project Democracy crowd, you are going to push Russia into the posture of becoming, as I warned back in 1983, a Great Russian empire, nuclear armed, the alternate major world thermonuclear superpower; and that is where we stand. So that kind of argument to which you refer, is absolute nonsense and shows an utter failure or refusal to understand the situation. Let me add something to that, which is relevant. The problem today is not simply that people have the wrong policies. The problem today is that they are proceeding, at the highest level, from a set of assumptions which are like the axioms of some formal geometry. [commercial break] - A Change in Current Axiomatic Assumptions Is Required - Q: We have been discussing the current situation of the former Soviet Union and the problem of the approach of people like Margaret Thatcher. You were discussing the axiomatics involved. Let us pick up from there. MR. LAROUCHE: Policy making in the United States in the main, with the exception of the SDI initiative, which was adopted and promulgated by President Reagan, increasingly over the past 25 years, has been operating in a direction which has destroyed the United States and Britain as former industrial powers, in moving, in effect, into the ``post-nation-state'' world, which is largely deindustrialized and radically ecologized. In the context of this, at the same time that some people on the Trilateral Commission have been proposing the {end} of democracy, they have been doing this under the name of {promoting democracy}--simply promoting democracy as a way of destroying all kinds of authoritative institutions of national governments and so forth. As long as we continue to accept these assumptions-- deindustrialization, free trade, deregulation, and radical democracy--as long as these assumptions are pushed, we will always come to policies which fail. If people would look at the past period since 1963, since the assassiantion of President Kennedy, and if they would look at the succession of policy changes in foreign policy, in military policy, in economic policy which have occurred, what they will see, relative to, say, the early 1960s, is a rapid decay of both Britain and the United States, for example, and a gradual spread of that decay from the United States and Britain into western Europe, into a worsening situation of the so-called developing regions, Southeast Asia, southern Asia, Africa, so-called Latin America. All these areas have been decaying under the influence of these policies. But the policies have been constantly changing. So as long as these assumptions underlying all of these changed policies continue, we are going to come to new policies which are as bad or worse than the policies we are proposing to reform. Therefore only a radical {change in assumptions} can lead us out of this pattern of downward slide; and that means going back to what worked, going back essentially to a commitment to scientific and technological progress, to capital-intensive, energy-intensive investment in agriculture, industry, and so forth; and to the principle of the {sovereign nation-state} as the instrument of credit creation and infrastructure-building on which the whole economy rests. That is the way we have to go. If we do not go that way, we are going into a literal hell on earth. - The Potential for Developing the Balkans - Q: Your Productive Triangle proposal: How would that impact the area which is now in major conflict in the former Yugoslavia? MR. LAROUCHE: That has become a complicated problem, because technically, if we could have peace in the area-- Look at a map. Look at the Danube. The Danube is the major artery of bulk freight movement and cheapness and efficiency of bulk freight movement is the first premise of an effective or growing economy. If you also look at the map, there are some other proposals for waterways which would link the Danube to the Adriatic Sea. These proposals come from people in the region. This would mean that you would have a network of water arteries: barge movement, for example, which would make efficient bulk freight movement available to the entire region. Then you add to this some other minor canal systems and high-speed rail systems, along with energy projects, water-management projects, and so forth, and you have the infrastructure for a very rapid utilization of the industrial and agricultural potentials of the entire region. So if we can get some stable borders in that region and get rid of homicidal fascists like Milosevic, Karadzic, and people like that, and get back to normal in the region and build an economy, we can succeed; but only as a {part} of a general revival of the European economy, the Eurasian economy, centered upon the potential of industrial spinoffs from the region centered around Paris, Vienna, and Berlin. Q: The current Balkan crisis is one which is raising the spectre of World War I and the lead-up to World War I. You mentioned earlier axiomatics and geopolitics. Can you give us a sense of what are the axiomatics and geopolitics which led to World War I, and the axiomatics and gepolitics which are being applied by people like Thatcher and others, which could lead us into a current world war situation, especially in reference to this Balkan area? MR. LAROUCHE: Since the Congress of Vienna period, since 1812-1813, since the so-called German Liberation Wars otherwise known as the War of 1812, when the Germans around von Humboldt and Scharnhorst and von Stein cooperated with Tsar [Alexander I] of Russia to set a trap and close a trap on Napoleon Bonaparte, Britain and some people in France, of course, the old pro-Napoleonics, have been horrified by the prospect that Germany and Russia might unite for the kind of economic cooperation which existed back in the beginning of the eighteenth century between Gottfried Leibniz and Peter the Great, which was the first great industrialization of Russia, where Peter the Great carried out the industrial reforms proposed by Gottfried Leibniz. So out of this developed a theory called ``geopolitics,'' which is the ``theory of the Eurasian heartland,'' so called, challenging the sea power of the British Empire. And the British always included, prospectively, the area of North America as coming back to become part of the British Empire. From 1880 on, the British became very excited about what they saw as the threat that German economic development, which was vastly surpassing anything in Britain, would again ``infect'' Russia with industrial and agricultural development. So in order to prevent that, they developed the doctrine of geopolitics. What they used was pan-Slavism and French revenge-ism[sic] after the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War, as motivations for building an alliance against Germany while also carving up the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This was triggered, by British agents and their friends in Venice and in Salonika, as the Balkan Wars of the nineteenth century and the Balkan Wars of the twentieth century. So you had Russians drawn into the Balkans by an affinity with Serbians, which is called pan-Slavism. So the Russians were taking the side of the Serbs against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottomans. Then you had the French, who were also in deep through the Freemasonic connections with the Serbian terrorists of that period, the Black Hand Society and so forth; and all this all became a division of Europe against itself, which Britain saw as preventing Europe from engaging in the kind of economic development, which would make Eurasia a successful competitor to the worldwide power of the British Empire. When Germany was reunified, we heard from Margaret Thatcher's circle, from Conor Cruise O'Brien and from the now recently deceased Nicholas Ridley, the cry of ``Fourth Reich,'' the argument that Germany was now going back to take over all of Europe, and therefore Britain had to get the Russians and the Balkans, the Serbs in particular, to go at Germany. They got Bush into support of this policy; and so Milosevic, who is essentially a British Intelligence asset, and some Serbs who were also Russian assets, were co-deployed by an agreement between the Thatcher government and Gorbachov to launch this war in the Balkans--in the same way that British Intelligence had launched the Balkan Wars preceding World War I to ignite World War I. - ``The Derivatives Market Is Going to Pop'' - Q: This is EIR Talks With Lyndon LaRouche. If people want to send in questions to MR. LaRouche, write to ``{EIR} Talks With LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. Mr. LaRouche, we are coming up to the last few minutes of our show. In these last few minutes, is there anything in terms of this strategic situation that you would like to reiterate? I know you have a derivative tax policy. In terms of war-avoidance policy, is this derivative tax a war-avoidance policy? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, what we have now, is the greatest financial bubble in history, which is getting ready to pop like an overstretched balloon; and no one can tell the exact date that this thing will pop. But it is going to pop, without doubt; and when that happens, the financial structures of Europe, of the United States and so forth, will be wiped out as if by the greatest tidal wave in all of history. Unless we take measures now to prepare for that, which is inevitable, and to bring this thing under control as part of preparing for it. The greatest sucking of wealth out of the economy, is going into this derivatives bubble. This is futures speculations, interest rates swaps and so forth. This is a trade which amounts to about {$1 trillion a day} worldwide, about $300-350 trillion a year certainly. MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we are coming up to the end of our show. I did not give you enough time to describe this very important policy. We will come back to this next week. We will return next week with ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' We will see you all again next week. - 30 - ---- John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.