From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon May 10 08:57:56 PDT 1993 Article: 20710 of alt.activism Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!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 to Lyndon LaRouche 5/5/93 Keywords: economics,CAN, ADL, Bosnia Message-ID: <299-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 10 May 93 9:6:3 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 745 - ATTENTION FREE LAROUCHE ATTENTION FREE LAROUCHE - The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure to get him free. Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview formatted with news breaks and commercials. To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within stations' listening area can be most effective. Program director and general managers are usually the ones to make decisions about programming. Get interested contacts with businesses or products to advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry the program. Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern. For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC 3:1 Companding, Flat or Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W Trans 2 7.5 mHz Wide Band Video Subcarrier EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LaROUCHE Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. - Why the U.S. Must Oppose the New {Entente Cordiale} - - and Reverse the Insanity of Geopolitics - Mr. LaRouche, good morning. We have a situation in Bosnia which just keeps getting worse and worse. What are the parameters for coming up with a solution for this part of the world? MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, you have to recognize the {fact} of the matter. You have to recognize that George Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and Mikhail Gorbachov unleashed the Serbian fascist allies of a section of British intelligence around Milosevic in an attempt to undercut the southern flank of Europe for geopolitical reasons. Now in the British press, and in statements of British public officials, such as Douglas Hurd, the foreign minister, in the context of the Balladur-Major discussions it is recently coming to the surface, that they are saying, shamelessly and explicitly, that the [1904] {Entente Cordiale} which organized World War I is in effect between the British and French governments {against the United States policy,} on behalf of supporting the Serbs, to let the Serbs run loose, continuing their genocide, their ``ethnic cleansing,'' and mass rape, in the former Yugoslavia, in the Balkans. So that is what the problem is. The question is: Will President Clinton lose his nerve and back down piecemeal under pressure from Paris and London--under the pressure of the same Entente Cordiale politics which caused World War I and implicitly World War II; or will the United States take {effective action} in this situation? The United States is going to do something. The question is, is it going to be an effective action? The effective action is very simple. You have to say: We are going {to reverse the geopolitical insanity} of Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachov, who unleashed this cat in the first place. We are going back to a policy of national sovereignty, of sovereignty of nation states. Under those conditions, we are going to implement a policy which will get the Serbs' military forces and all the so-called Bosnian-Croatian Serbs--who are nothing but instruments of Belgrade policy--back to the borders which existed prior to the start of this war. The way we're going to do it, is to lift the arms embargo against arming the Bosnians and the Croatians in particular. We are going to support the self-defense of the Bosnians and the Croatians against this Serbian fascist plot with air support. We are going to put only enough in there, in terms of ground troops, to coordinate the relationship between the defendants, the Bosnians and the Croats, against the war criminal aggressors, the Serbs, under the direction of Milosevic and such creatures or assets of his as Karadzic. If we do that, we have a clear and effective military policy. However, if we go in for a peacekeeping role, so called, or a U.N. role--anything which Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the present U.N. Secretary General, or London or Paris would tend to accept now--then we are in for trouble, we are in for a loser--and more horror. That does not mean we can't win Paris and/or London over--if the United States takes an absolutely firm position and threatens to let the cat out of the bag and say, ``If you gentlemen in Paris and London are going to oppose us on this, we're going to have to tell the American people and the world what you really have been up to. We're going to talk about geopolitics, and we're going to talk about our own President's--Bush's, together with Thatcher's and Gorbachov's role--in unleashing this holy hell in the Balkans and for what reason you did it. So if you don't want to get this thing slapped in your face, you better go along with this.'' And that's the way to get the job done. Q: There are some who say at this point that the war in the Balkans was caused by certain powers, such as Germany recognizing Croatia too early. MR. LAROUCHE: That was strictly a British operation. Whenever you hear that, you have a guilty party. People who spread that line, are people who are behind the original policy, Thatcher's policy, which was unfortunately supported by President George Bush, and which was used as the basis for getting Mikhail Gorbachov to assist in supporting the British operation for the bloody destabilization of the Balkans. Remember, this is the same British operation which resulted in the assassination of a leading German banker, Alfred Herrhausen, and also a leading German official, Detlev Rohwedder, among others; a bloody policy. If these guys want to use that line, we are going to throw the dead fish back in their face, and say, ``Okay, you murderers. You scat. We don't want to hear from you.'' Q: We are looking at this point at a policy mess in the Balkans. The Vance-Owen Plan has now been accepted by Serbia-- MR. LAROUCHE: I think that's incorrect. Serbia has {not} accepted the Vance-Owen plan. What Serbia has said is that they are not opposing; they are un-opposing it; and this is that deal that was whipped up outside of Athens. They are un-opposing it, not supporting it, on the condition, number one, that the Bosnian Serb parliament--which is a rump parliament, it's really an extension of Belgrade--accepts it. As Karadzic has said, the conditions for acceptance include the so-called corridor this and that, which of course is not in there. So the Vance-Owen Plan {has never been accepted} by the Serbs; and the propaganda to the contrary effect, is simply something out of that witch-doctor psychiatrist Lord Owen's monkeying around with that witch-doctor psychiatrist Karadzic, the war criminal. Owen knows what he is doing; he is condoning and continuing the policy of butchery and genocide, by the Serbs in the Balkans, {which has been British policy since this mess started.} So we should not accept the idea that the British or their friend Boutros-Ghali in the U.N. Security Council are sincerely motivated in making these kinds of nonsensical reports. - Geopolitics a Policy of Criminals, not `Miscalculation' - Q: You have termed the British and the French policies as geopolitics and characterized the U.N. Secretariat also as ``playing geopolitics.'' What does this mean? Most Americans don't really have a sense of what geopolitics is. MR. LAROUCHE: Well, in American history, that's Teddy Roosevelt. That's the Confederacy--of which Teddy Roosevelt through his uncle and adviser the traitor Bullock was a part; that's Admiral Thayer Mahan with his ``blue-water Navy'' nonsense, and that's that Confederate-minded scoundrel, President Woodrow Wilson, the co-founder of the second founding of the Ku Klux Klan, if you want to know one reason why President Woodrow Wilson as president was a scoundrel. He was as President a co-founder of the Ku Klux Klan's second coming. Geopolitics is very simple. The British faction, which was associated with the Royal family, since 1714, 1716; that group is called the Venetian Party. This is a group of Venetians who thought they could no longer control the world from Venice, and they said ``Let's move North to places such as England and take it over as an island nation, and the Netherlands. And we'll use that as the basis for the new Venice of the North.'' The same Venetian families, the friends of Paolo Sarpi, moved North. Now these people have had the idea of building a global empire as a caricature of a worldwide Roman Empire; that is the new world order. Their main concern has been the progress of scientific and technological progress unleashed in part in the United States by the American Revolution, but continued in Europe under the auspices of what was often called the American System--that is, that with the development of France and then Germany, that you would have a buildup from Paris through Berlin, to Moscow, to Kiev, all the way to Vladivostok, Tokyo, etc., under which the Eurasian continent, led by rail developments in the nineteenth century, would undergo a rapid development in the per capita productive powers of labor in agriculture, industry, and science. To prevent that, the British adopted a doctrine (which various people contributed to inventing) which is associated with Halford Mackinder the Fabian (a Social Democrat, British style), who was key to organizing World War I together with the other Fabians like Milner. They said essentially, that if Britain takes control of the United States, which is what, to a large degree, happened under Teddy Roosevelt, who was a {raving} Anglophile, would do anything London told him to do; that the British will control ``the rim'' of the world. That is, the Americans will be controlled jointly by Britain and the United States; the ``rim countries'' of Japan, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, will be controlled; India will be controlled. But the ``danger'' will come from France being drawn into an alliance with Berlin and Moscow, from this Eurasian development--which is what Tsar Alexander II was for, which is what Russia's Count Sergei Witte was for. So they said, ``What we have to do, is to divide Europe against itself. We have to get France involved with Britain. We have to get Russia in a war against Germany;'' and so forth and so on. And by these balance-of-power methods or divide-and-conquer methods, we have to prevent any extensive scientific and technological progress from taking place in the Eurasian continent as a whole. [commercial break] Q: Before we begin to discuss Clinton's 100 days in office, his economic and foreign policies, let's finish up with this discussion of geopolitics. The UN Secretariat is particularly involved in geopolitics; what is the problem with this approach? MR. LAROUCHE: The problem is, that this thing stinks. It's caused two world wars in this century. If somebody wants to start it again, they're going to end up with another world war. So anyone who talks in those directions, ought to be just rushed out the door real fast, and told to come back in another century, when we'll be better equipped to deal with their crazy arguments, or have the psychiatric institutions which are required for people who think in those directions. Now Boutros Boutros-Ghali has shown himself, since becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations, every inch a British geopolitician. This goes to everything. First of all, remember that the [Berlin] Wall came down as a result of President Reagan putting his name to the Strategic Defense Initiative policy which I had worked out in conjunction with people in his National Security Council and elsewhere. That brought down the walls of the Soviet Empire. What has happened--to understand Boutros-Ghali--is that, at that point, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachov, worked out a deal, which was not actually entirely kind to Mr. Gorbachov's Russia, in which the Anglo-Americans said, ``All right. Now we have weakened definitely, almost eliminated, the last competitor for the Anglo-American thermonuclear power. Let's chop the world up the way we wanted to all along. Let's eliminate scientific and technological progress; let's reduce the population of the world, mostly, especially, dark-skinned branches of the human race. Let's do this; and let's destroy eastern Europe and Russia, let's destroy eastern Germany, let's destroy a good part of Europe as well as Africa and South America.'' That is the policy; that is the policy of this faction inside the United Nations. And I say this not on a speculation, but because I know this directly from statements from the mouths of the relevant top officials of that faction in and around the United Nations. That is their policy. Their policy is a policy of genocide. They are actually {quite delighted} by what is happening in the slaughter in the Balkans. So one must understand that geopolitics is not an argument to be dealt with as if it were some kind of rational, slightly mistaken argument which people who have some wrong assumptions are making; no. These people are starting from {bad motives}; they are {bad people,} with bad motives. They are like a burglar. You say, ``What's wrong with the burglar's argument for the way he wants to rob the bank?'' Who cares about what's wrong with his argument? The fact is, he wants to rob the bank! And that's the way you have to deal with these geopoliticians. Don't dignify them by assuming that they have ``good faith'' and are simply misled by a miscalculation. No; they may be miscalculating, but the essential thing is, they are criminals. - Clinton's 100 Days: An Administration of Indecision - Q: After 100 days-plus in office, President Clinton is looking at a world which is getting deeper and deeper into crisis. He has been handed the potential at least, with the German reunification and the opening up of eastern Europe, of embarking on an era of great development. How would you rate President Clinton's first 100 days in office? MR. LAROUCHE: He has had pretty much a disaster. Of course, it is not all his fault; but so far he has not done, on a number of occasions, what he should have done. For example, let's take that Republican filibuster. He should have faced them down, and gone after them hammer and tongs. Instead, he allowed a filibuster to take the dynamic away from his administration. He should never have allowed that. These guys want to filibuster: Okay. They're going to take responsibility. We need something, they do not represent the majority, they represented a {minority} of the vote. They're using a filibuster. They're not using it for any moral reason whatsoever. They were simply doing it to try to break Clinton, because they had a reading, on the basis of President Clinton's role as Governor of Arkansas, where some of the press down there called him ``Slick Willie,'' that Clinton, under pressure from various forces inside his own combination as well as outside, would spin like a weathervane under what appeared to be prevailing winds. That's what they're doing to him on foreign policy, in the Bosnia case; they have been spinning him like a weathervane with pressure from various quarters, getting him to back down a bit here and there, that kind of stuff; and thus far--not entirely wrongly, of course--Clinton has not measured up to virtually any of his pre-election promises, except homosexuals in the military, and that's of course not complete yet. And what he is doing, is not going to work at present. If Clinton goes ahead {boldly,} and treats British and French objections as he should, to get the right policy going in Bosnia, that will help to save him; and if he turns around and begins to clobber some people like that idiot, Sen. Phil Gramm--``Landfill'' Gramm, that kind of idiocy--and {if he does not make the mistake of slapping on taxes all over the place,} and if he puts that health plan on the shelf for a while, until he figures out what he's going to do with the economy as a whole, he might come out of this all right. But at present, one must admit: it does not look good. It looks like an administration of indecision and bad decisions in the main. It does not look good at all. - ``Learn the ABCs of Economics'' - Q: Let's look at Senator Gramm and his policy for a minute. The Gramm-Rudman bill calling for balanced budget amendment types of things; everyone thinks that this is the way to go. If you talk to people on the streets, they think that you have to balance a budget in the same way you have to balance your household budget, you're going to have to do something, you're going to have to cut somewhere; why is this approach totally wrong? MR. LAROUCHE. It's totally insane. It's not wrong, it's insane. First of all, when people approach a thing like a national economy, they should understand that a national economy, particularly a modern national economy, is not something that some guy just born into a remote aboriginal tribe is going to come up with as a matter of aboriginal tribal common sense. A modern economy was developed by phases. It is a very complex process, and it's the kind of thing which most of the people in Washington today, just don't know anything about. And most people who are, unfortunately, graduating economics courses at universities today, don't know anything about. The first thing is, if you want to take the household equivalent; If, in the old days, before you had health insurance, and such things, Grandma was sick, well, the family went out and earned more money, if needed, to take care of Grandma. Today, we have an economy that is sick. According to Labor Department estimates, we have 18 million people who are in the adult labor force who are not employed. They're unemployed. Nearly 18 million people. Well, we have to give them jobs. We have, in addition to that, people who are improperly employed: people who are employed flipping hamburgers; adults flipping hamburgers at minimum wages and these kinds of things. They can't support a family on that. We have communities that are collapsing for lack of infrastructure; we have people who are going to become stupid and unemployable because the local school system doesn't give them a real education, it gives them one of these motivational kinds of New Age stuff instead. Hospital facilities broken down--the whole business. We don't have infrastructure for industry if you wanted to put one in many localities in the country. This means we have to go out and put people to work to produce more wealth; {and that's the way to balance the budget.} You don't balance the budget by melting Grandma down in the furnace, which is what Phil Gramm essentially says. You know, ``You can't balance the budget because Grandma's health problems are costing too much money? Throw her in the furnace!'' That is what Gramm is saying, in effect, with his funny drawl from that part of the country. And that is what has to be understood. If you want to understand economics and make economic policy, {please sit down and understand the ABCs of economics}; please {at least} read the founding economic document of our Federal republic, George Washington's Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's {On the Subject of Manufactures}; read Hamilton on national banking, on national credit. Read these things that founded our country. Learn the ABCs of economics. And don't go babbling and prattling like some idiot, like Milton Friedman, or like that fool from Texas, Senator Gramm. Q: This is ``{EIR} Talks with LaRouche.'' If people want to send in questions to Mr. LaRouche, he can be reached through ``{EIR} Talks with LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, on taxes and job creation programs: How do you think Clinton is doing? MR. LAROUCHE: Very badly right now. Of course, he is not doing as badly as the Republicans and others in the Congress are doing, as anyone who follows that disaster, Phil Gramm, or echoes his reasoning--or echoes the arguments, for example, of Ross Perot, particularly, in his resurrection of his campaign as an independent after the two conventions, who follows this kind of Perot or Phil Gramm reasoning, is making an absolute disaster. And relative to that, Bill Clinton is practically a hero. - ``There Has Been No Real Recovery'' - Q: Moment to moment we hear one story or another, whether the economy is rebounding or not. One month ago, they said the economy was rebounding; now they say they have new statistics which show that housing starts are down or housing applications are down; what is the situation? Clinton was going to push a stimulus program, and it was a summer jobs creation program, and he backed off a little bit, because of the so-called rebounding economy. What is the situation? MR. LAROUCHE: No, he didn't back off because of a rebounding economy; he backed off because the political weathervane was pointing in a different direction, and he or his administration didn't have the stomach to take on the Senate at that time. That's all there was to it. There never was a recovery. There has not been a recovery particularly since 1987; it never occurred. People think that because somebody's got a job picking up paper or raking leaves or something else, that that's a recovery. That's no recovery. A recovery occurs in two things. It occurs, first of all, in the simple production by Americans of either the objects which we require to survive as a nation, to maintain our standard of living; or objects which we sell overseas in return for the objects which we require for the producers' and households' consumption. The second thing that is required for recovery, and is generally the driver for recovery, is the production of technological progress. That means machine tools, investment in improved machine tools; changes in methods of production which use improved machine tools; it means an increase in the ratio of investment per capita; it means investment in infrastructure; power production; more power plants. Has anyone seen more power plants going in recently? It means cleaning up water; has anyone seen large-scale water and sewage system improvement to clean up the sewer-spreading system we now have instead of a sewage disposal system? And do people see a national rail system going into effect, which is what we desperately need for a sustainable recovery? Do people see improvements in the local schools? Do we see better teachers, not these nitwits who are trying to teach homosexuality to people at the age of six, but real teachers, who teach geometry and things like that? Do we see a reduction in class size in the schools so the students can have some of the close instruction they require? Do we see an effective elimination of the drug problems in the schools, despite all the people being thrown in the hoosegow? Is the school drug problem being removed? No. Do we see better medical care? No. So, none of the things that you would have to see if a recovery were in progress are happening. What {is} happening, which is called ``the recovery,'' is this growth of this cancerous, deadly, one-trillion-dollar-a-day speculation in futures, etc., called derivatives about which people don't know much; but it is that spinning of money and fictitious money, through Wall Street and other circuits, which does result in a certain amount of employment of parasites, like Michael Milken; parasites like that (who are also tied to organized crime, incidentally). But that is what people are calling the recovery. When it comes to the things that make a difference, that get people out from living under bridges into houses and things like that, that has not been happening since 1987. - Tax Derivatives, Not People - Q: You have proposed a derivatives tax. We hear from some people that anything like that, would collapse the fragile banking structure. First of all, explain what your derivatives tax is. MR. LAROUCHE: Well, very simply, we have a bunch of swindlers who are looting pension funds, looting corporate income, which should be going into job creation and investment and all that sort of thing ,but is instead going off into a wild spin of speculation around the world. That's {one trillion dollars a day.} That's about $350 trillion a year, actually (or somewhere in that vicinity), as compared with less than $6 trillion a year total U.S. GNP. Imagine: {50 times at least} the GNP of the United States is going up in smoke every year as derivatives; and that is the main driver for the growth of the Federal deficit and the growth of the national debt. Now that compares with the total world GNP. So we're talking about 25 times the total world Gross National Product is spinning around in this wild speculation, sucking the blood out of pension funds and everything else in sight. And I proposed that we ought to put a sales tax on that, that we should tax every transaction a measly one-tenth of one percent of the notional value of the asset which is the subject of speculation--and bring this thing under control. Now, the people who are opposed to this, you'll generally find, have a friend who is engaged in this swindle. We have called that corruption--or we can call that stupidity. But why not tax something which is evil, which doesn't do anybody any good, instead of taxing things like incomes, which people need? It doesn't do most people any good, and certainly doesn't do the nation any good. If you want to put a tax on something--stick it on derivatives, buddy; don't stick it on people. Q: We're coming up to a break at this point, but I want to ask a question which perhaps you can answer in the next segment. What would you say is the most important foreign policy initiative or set of initiatives that the Clinton administration can go with in the next couple of months? We're coming up to our break at this point, so let us leave with that question, and we'll return with that question. [commercial break] - International Cooperation Among Nation-States - - Depends on What President Clinton Will Do - Q: Mr. LaRouche, what is the most important foreign policy initiative that the Clinton administration can go with at this point? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the Clinton administration should immediately go with, over any objections from Boutros-Ghali, from London or from Paris, a policy of lifting the arms embargo on arming the Bosnian and Croatian governments as sovereign nation-states, and of providing close air support for throwing the Serbian forces back across the borders of Croatia and Bosnia prior to the outbreak of the Serbian aggression against Croatia and Serbia last year or two years ago. That should be the policy. Why? As opposed to a collection of words, what is required is an {action} which reverses a trend in foreign policy; and that action will do it. That will smoke out all the cats and dogs and put all the problems on the table to be addressed, whereas talking about some new foreign policy, is like talking about a new world order; It's either not going to happen, or it's bad. Get in there, arm the Croats and the Bosnians by lifting the arms embargo on arms delivery {to those sovereign nation-states}--{recognized} sovereign nation-states--with the objective of throwing the aggressors, the war criminals, the Serbian fascist armed forces, back across the borders which were the borders of Croatia and Bosnia prior to the initial Serbian aggression of 1991. That is the objective. Once that's done, you've set up a set of policy parameters in action. We are eliminating {globalism} and all kinds of insanity associated with it. We are going back to the principle upon which western European civilization and its successors have been based, the principle of the sovereign nation-state and representative government based on a common, literate form of language of people in sovereign nation-states. If you don't have that, people cannot participate in their government. If they don't speak the same language, it's very difficult, isn't it? We have to go with the idea of {national political economy,} that every nation is responsible for its own credit system and its national economy. On the basis of these kinds of principles, together with the principles which were set forth {by the United States at its founding,} as under the first administration of George Washington, principles which served us well every time we adhered to them; principles which are well known, by the followers of Charles de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic of France in Europe, by the followers of Friedrich List--these principles are all well known in Europe. The followers of Sergei Witte, say, in the Russian case. These policies are known. The policy should be to say that there will be international cooperation on the basis of these policies among sovereign nation-states with national political economy, who will cooperate in joint policies, joint development, who will cooperate in trade agreements to keep world trade orderly, to keep from taking in each other's laundry. And all of that depends upon: Does the Clinton administration {have the guts} to throw a wet fish in the face of John Major and his French Theophile Delcasses of today, and say, ``We are not going to tolerate this any more. We are going back to a system that works, a system of global cooperation in which we invite Russia and the former member states which were formerly part of the former Soviet Union, to collaborate, as well as other nations, to create a sensible, neighborly, new world order based on respect for the dignity and sovereignty of every nation, and the right of every nation to develop its political economy.'' That is what we have to do. - The Cult Awareness Network's Operation is Nazism - Q: Over the past couple of weeks, we have been discussing the situation in Waco, Texas, the Branch Davidian cult. Congressmen Hughes in congressional hearings on it, has proposed that something be done, that the FBI go after the 2500 cults; Cynthia Kisser of the Cult Awareness Network, has also suggested a similar policy. What does this kind of approach do, and should Janet Reno listen to them? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I reject the word cult as applied to the Branch Davidians. I have known of cults--the cult of Albert Pike, for example, is a cult. Every organized religion on this planet, virtually, could be called a cult--and every Freemasonic organization, particularly of the Scottish Rite, can be called a cult. It is a cult. As a matter of fact, the Scottish Rite is, according to Pike, a Lucifer-worshipping, anti-Christian cult. So let's talk about the Branch Davidian Church and understand that it's a sect with some very peculiar beliefs, an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. All right. But what Hughes is saying--let's not buy into this use of ``cult'' language. That's crap. The sooner we get rid of it, the better, and get back to some sensible terms. What Hughes proposed, was that this kind of operation go on, to which the FBI officials present responded to Hughes, saying that that would be illegal. Mr. Hughes, whether he knows it or not, is actually proposing the worst kind of fascism. He's going further than Adolf Hitler, saying, we're going to pick out a group, we'll call it a useless eater or something, and we'll go in and shoot it. Then you have Cynthia Kisser, this former topless dancer according to affidavits we received from fellow employees, who is a member of an organization, the Cult Awareness Network, which is a bunch of kooks. The former official head of that, whom she replaced, of course, had to resign. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing Cynthia Kisser of the Cult Awareness Network's proposal to go after the 2500 organizations which she has identified as cults. MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, I emphasize that she is herself a disreputable person; and she is part of a disreputable organization which has been engaged in soliciting and perpetrating crimes, the crimes of kidnapping, all over the United States: kidnapping for hire. So the appearance of this woman and members of her organization--such as Galen Kelly, of course, who is another one of her confederates who is facing charges, again, of kidnapping, in an upcoming trial in Virginia and this fellow Rick Ross, who is her key man on the ground in the Waco situation and is facing, again, potential indictment for kidnapping charges, and he himself is a convicted felon, a former jewel thief himself--on television, has been sponsored by corrupt elements in the media. Also to be taken into account, is the fact that it was the Cult Awareness Network, with the support of the Anti-Defamation League which {created} the situation in Waco, Texas in the first place. It was {false affidavits} created by the Cult Awareness Network {in collaboration with} assets of the Anti-Defamation League which caused the events in February, in which the ATF went in shooting on the basis of what they knew to be a fraudulent search warrant and that started the killing. And the recent murder--the holocaust--against the members of the church in Waco, Texas, after 51 days of torture of the American public was done to cover up the original crimes of Higgins's ATF in collaboration with the Cult Awareness Network and the Anti-Defamation League, and behind the scenes, of course, this offshoot of the people who gave your nephew LSD, MK-Ultra, the American Family Foundation. So this evil in our society, which we have tolerated much too long, through the mouthpiece of Hughes, now proposes Hitler-like methods against the American people. Kisser, according to affidavits, a former topless dancer and a kook all around, associated with a criminal enterprise, proposes targeting 2,500 groups which she says she doesn't like in the United States. {That's Nazism!} If we tolerate these kinds of people, we are not going to have a nation. - ``Classical Music Belongs to Everyone'' - Q: Very recently, Lewis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam did a performance of Felix Mendelssohn. Farrakhan is a violinist, and he gave this performance, and he said that this music is music which can be used to reach out beyond the barriers. How do you feel about this approach, and the concept that Farrakhan is talking about? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, forget for a moment the fact that Felix Mendelssohn was the grandson of one of the greatest Jews in modern history, Moses Mendelssohn. Just look at him as a prodigy who in his youth was a prodigy somewhat comparable to Mozart. Look at his string symphonies from the time he was a teenager, and even slightly earlier. For example, this E minor violin concerto of Mendelssohn's is an outgrowth of that particular period of his life. It is one of the most remarkable, most beautiful works in all music. And Farrakhan, of course, was a very gifted young violinist who was put off actually by, racism in our society from seeking a career as a concert violinist, and he became part of the Nation of Islam years ago, and gave up his career as a public violinist, though he maintained, in recent years, I understand, his work on the violin; and I understand from reviewers who are otherwise somewhat hostile to him politically, that his performance was a credible musical performance. Well, it happens that, what is called Classical music really belongs to everyone. I can trace its roots back about 8,000 years to some Vedic hymns of which we have knowledge now, of course, in the ancient priests' Sanskrit Vedic, which were actually based on the principles of Classical music. Classical music comes from the natural way of singing, that is, a method of singing and speaking or vocalization which is based on the maximum amount of the relatively purest tones, or purest of the intended tones, with a minimum amount of breath being expelled from the mouth--the most efficient way of speaking and singing; the most natural way, therefore, of speaking and singing. Therefore, what is called Classical music is a development of those principles, a development of the so-called {bel canto,} the most efficient and best way of speaking and singing. So it belongs to {everybody,} because everyone has these {natural proclivities.} I don't care what the color of their skin is, or what their cultural background; every person, unless they are deformed in some unfortunate way, have these natural ways of singing, natural ways of expressing music. And this is simply the most highly developed form of that. So why should we turn around to black people, as we used to say, and say, ``hey, what are you trying to do? You're trying to learn Classical music? Ha, ha. Don't you know you're black? You're inferior. You can't learn Classical music.'' I always hated that. It's immoral, it's racist; and so is it immoral to object to Minister Farrakhan using his talent to perform Classical music. MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have to wind up at this point. We will pick up on this discussion next week. Thank you very much. - 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.