From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon May 17 12:01:24 PDT 1993 Article: 20950 of alt.activism Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com Newsgroups: alt.activism Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 5/13/93 Keywords: Bosnia, Economics Message-ID: <305-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 17 May 93 11:50:1 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 706 - 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 May 13, 1993 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. - Sen. Biden Blasts Chamberlain-like Approach to Balkans - EIR: Mr. LaRouche, recently Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) mentioned, in a discussion to Congress, that Europe was acting in a [Neville] Chamberlain-like fashion in reference to the former Yugoslavia. Is this the case? What are we dealing with now in terms of the former Yugoslavia? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, what one must understand is that the British press and its sympathizers in the United States, are being completely false, completely hypocritical. The British initiated the war in former Yugoslavia, the current Balkan war. The people who are on the Serbian side, who are conducting these atrocities in Croatia, in Bosnia, in Kosova, and so forth: these are all essentially British intelligence assets of long standing, and we know their pedigrees. These are personally assets of the same kind of circles that control Henry Kissinger in the United States, for example. Mrs. Thatcher started the war, beginning with the policy which she launched, in November of 1989, when her government, through such voices as Nicholas Ridley--then her Minister, now deceased--and Conor Cruise O'Brien, came up with this ``Fourth Reich'' propaganda, which was echoed in Israel, echoed among the Serbs in Yugoslavia, echoed, of course, throughout the British press, essentially. And she launched this war, by bringing George Bush and [Mikhail] Gorbachov into support of her policy, to use the Serbs to create such confusion and bloodletting on the southern flank of central Europe, that the likelihood of a cooperation, an economic cooperation developing among France, Germany, and Russia, among others, would be obviated. In other words, as the British themselves have admitted to our friends who have talked to them about this: Yes, of course we ran a geopolitical operation; that's how this thing ran. The fascist-faction of Serbs who have been running this war have been successful so far, {only because} the British and their influence over the United Nations' policy, has continued to set a situation where the Serbs are armed to the teeth, and their victims, the Bosnians, and the Croats to a lesser degree, cannot get weapons. So, therefore, what the United Nations has been doing, under French, as well as British support, has been setting up the Bosnians and Croats to become the victims of the Serbs. The British role has been to start and to perpetuate this war, to the victory of the Serbs, for the purpose of keeping the Balkans, for an indefinite period ahead, completely unstable. In a sense, this is {exactly} what the policy of Chamberlain's faction in Britain was during the 1930's. {They,} with the support of certain people in New York then, put Hitler into power in Germany. They actually {moved} the money. George Bush's father, as a Harriman man, chief official of the Harrimans, moved the money, which enabled the Hitler coup d'etat to be organized on the Nazi side. They put Hitler into power, and they kept him in there until 1938, and after the {Kristallnacht,} that is, the breaking of the Jewish windows and so forth in Berlin in 1938, they did change their policy. But up through that time, the British and the Americans were supporting Hitler. In the same way, the British, together with people like Brent Scowcroft and George Bush and Lawrence Eagleburger under Bush were very close to these Serbian fascists, supported the fascist operation. And they've tried to protect it so far. And they've used all their muscle and influence inside the U.S. news media, as we see in television, for example, to do everything possible to prevent the United States from interfering with what is now called openly an {Entente Cordiale} policy of Britain and France to destroy the Balkan front. That is what Biden is referring to, the fact that these forces inside Europe {are} acting, quite literally, like Neville Chamberlain. EIR: What is Maggie Thatcher trying to gain? MR. LAROUCHE: Oh, I don't think Maggie Thatcher necessarily understands what she's doing here. After all, she was only, shall we say, in a sense, a puppet of certain assets in Britain. She might be a talking puppet, her own voice. But essentially, she is controlled, her opinion was shaped. This was the geopolitical faction in Britain which organized this particular war. Because they wanted it. And they organized it, beginning 1989. And they got it going full steam in 1991. It's Britain's war, with the support of the Gorbachov faction inside Russia, and with the support of certain elements in the United States, such as the Anti-Defamation League, for example, a British asset, which does that. Certain parts of the news media are completely controlled by these people. They're on this side--which is one of the reasons why the Clinton administration has such difficulty in finding its way toward policy on this question. [commercial break] - Russia: ``A Point of No Return Is Being Reached'' - EIR: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the former Yugoslavia. I'd like to move on to the former Soviet Union. In a recent article in {Nezavisimaya Gazeta,} which is an independent publication in Russia, Professor [Taras] Muranivsky criticized the monetaristic policy that's being followed in Russia--the ``shock therapy''/Jeffrey Sachs program--and indicated that what is necessary is to follow principles of physical economy. And he mentioned your name in reference to the kinds of approaches that should be followed. Would you please comment on the current situation in the former Soviet Union? MR. LAROUCHE: Look at it from the standpoint of the disorientation of a great number of good people inside the United States, who think that this business in the Balkans or in Russia is a great distance away, that Russia is no longer a superpower, that we shouldn't get involved in these things. That's because the news media is telling them that. And people tend to believe what they hear from the news media on faith. The fact of the matter is, we are probably a month or so away from a point of no return, especially in Russia, as well as the Balkans. But more importantly in Russia, of course, because of the very specific forces which would be unleashed by an unfortunate turn there. If the United States and Britain succeed in forcing Boris Yeltsin and his government to continue the shock therapy program--that is, the IMF conditionalities, free trade, etc. program--then we are coming very rapidly to the point that the entire situation blows up, in which we get unleashed forces which can no longer be controlled in any ordinary sense. If that occurs, then the United States itself, which is a part of a shrinking world, will find itself that it (the United States) is the backyard of Europe and Asia, which will be the cockpit of a new kind of general warfare. That is what is in motion. I'm not saying that general war is going to break out in June; by no means. What I'm saying, is that {a point of no return} is being reached, after which it will be virtually {impossible} to prevent a several-years buildup, of increasing conflict, leading toward new wars of a global significance, which will affect those inside the United States. Let me add just one thing to that, to indicate what is going on in the United States. At the present time, we are getting into a situation where a new kind of violence is ready to break out around the world, including inside the United States itself. People may not realize it, but we're becoming a society which is ready to explode with violence. This is a result of the complete irrationality of public policy, as expressed in many ways. People are just ready to explode. Riots and everything else--while maybe somebody is playing with them--are about to break out because of this. A similar situation exists in Europe, and in Russia. We are on the verge of a point, where violence will soon break out in a new way. And wars will break out around the world, of a type that we have not seen before. Ultimately, nuclear weapons would be involved. Americans today who say we should not be involved in Russia, and should not worry about the Balkans, and not get involved there, and assume that everything is all right in Russia (except that they are having troubles), are foolish, because we'll find ourselves involved in violence at home because of our policies here, engaging violence which is erupting for similar reasons in other parts of the world, finding ourselves in a new war which we don't know how to stop. So we must realize what Professor Taras Muranivsky is saying about my policies, {how urgent} the change to that direction is. {That change must begin to appear within the next 30-60 days.} If it does not, the world is going to slide, irreversibly, over the coming months and years, into a kind of hell beyond the imagination of virtually every American. EIR: If we look at the political situation in Russia, Boris Yeltsin seems to have gained a certain credibility with the referendum, but he is still in great difficulty. MR. LAROUCHE: Actually he didn't {gain} anything. That's completely a U.S. press illusion, a news media illusion. Boris Yeltsin gained {nothing} by the referendum. The problem in Russia is that the lack of a clear alternative policy to the policy of Yeltsin and Company, means that a policy of drift is in place. What is happening, is that transformations in Russia are occurring, under Boris Yeltsin. So the face of Boris Yeltsin persists, but the policy behind the face keeps changing; and the policy behind the face is about to explode. Boris Yeltsin has gained {nothing} by that referendum. What they've got is worse decay than {before} the referendum--a worse buildup, a worse potential of explosion. And we should not believe much of anything we hear from the news media from the Russian quarters or the Balkan quarters these days. [commercial break] - We Must Find a Way Out of Violence Based on Irrationality - EIR: Mr. LaRouche earlier, you mentioned that we are reaching a point of no return, that in June you expect violence in different parts of Europe, perhaps Russia, the United States. Are we looking at a new kind of world war? MR. LAROUCHE: Yes. But let's not say that I'm ``predicting violence'' to break out in June. I'm predicting {a point of no return,} which is quite different. For example. When Hitler launched, in 1938, the {Kristallnacht,} that was a point of no return. We did not go to war immediately in 1938. We went to war, well, gradually over 1939, 1940, 1941. But that was all predetermined. By the time that Hitler had been allowed to get to the point of power, that he dared to launch the {Kristallnacht} against the Jews in Berlin, and so forth, in 1938, that meant he was virtually unstoppable, and we were going to have to fight a war. Now, that's what I'm talking about, not the outbreak of violence. I'm not talking about something that people are likely to read about in the newspapers. I'm talking about that kind of event: the buildup, where an Adolf Hitler, or his contemporary equivalent, {dares} to make a kind of move which is effectively irreversible, without going to a general war. Now, let me give you an example of the kind of war we are going to from the United States. If people will look at their universities today, they will find that in many universities {no competent subjects} are being taught, at least to a very large part of the student population. A case in point: Stanford University. Only an example. It's called ``multiculturalism.'' A couple of years ago or so, Stanford decided that people would not be forced, as students, to study the works of ``Dead White European Males,'' but rather would read the writings of feminist figures and so-called Third World cultural figures and things like that. What was produced for this, was a group of ethnic or multicultural programs which which were absolute violence and absolute frauds. There are varieties of ``Afrocentrism,'' so called, which teach somehow, that the black race in Egypt developed culture, and that the Europeans only stole it, but all the great scientific discoveries were made, presumably, palpably, 4,000 years ago by black scientists in Egypt, or something. It's a complete fraud. There's no basis for it. What's its function? Why do universities teach this kind of stuff? Not only do they have programs for Hispanics, they have programs for others. It's the same thing. It is turning society, through multiculturalism, against itself. When you get a person coming out of college, who has studied nothing but Afrocentrism, for what kind of employment is that person qualified? Only one thing: to go out among desperate ghetto populations--for example, in the Afrocentrist case--and to organize riots. We have also in the other cultural programs the same thing: to make society completely irrational and insane; to turn people against each other, completely irrationally; and when people take desperate irrational views, the result will be violence. We in the United States are headed {rapidly} toward violence. Not just because of TV violence, but because of violence of the mind, irrationalism. Like this multicultural program, or the ``World of Difference'' program by the Anti-Defamation League. The teaching of homosexuality to six-year-old kids is a matter of law in the New York City school system, is something which is going to lead to {violence}, because it's irrational, it's insane. We have around the world a similar situation. We have the IMF policies. The IMF policies are {insane}. They are imposed upon people. They are {irrational;} there is no rational sense to any of them. They are insane. And people are going to react to insane irrationalism with violence, because they can no longer react with words, with negotiation. And that's the kind of world into which we are heading. And that's what is fearful. If we do not find {rational} solutions to some of these problems, or begin to find them very soon, then we're going to hell. For example. I've said that the United States must very quickly do a number of things in the Balkans, whether unilaterally, or with the Allies--with them or without them; {it must be done} for the sake of this planet. First, the Bosnians must get weapons immediately. Second, the Croats must get weapons immediately. The Serbs must be shut off, because they have committed the crimes. The Bosnians are the victims; the Croats are the victims. The Serbs' forces, in this case, are the aggressors. Their people have perpetrated the war crimes. We have to establish a policy of sovereign nation-states. The devil with this Thornburgh Doctrine. Sovereignty of nation-states. We have to establish the principle of national economy, and the cooperation among national economies for mutual advantage. We don't seem to have the will to do that; and the will is being tested in various parts of the world, but it is also being tested in the Balkans. [commercial break] EIR: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the Balkan crisis, and what Bill Clinton has to do. Please pick up on that point. MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, the United States must, at all costs, insist that the Bosnian, Croat, and other victims will receive arms assistance, and if we have to provide air assistance, coordinated, say, by special forces observers to coordinate the ground-air relationship, then we will do so. We should not be involved, in any way, in sticking a so-called ``peacekeeping police force,'' an expansion of the thing the British and French have been doing, for example, into the Balkans. {That is a quagmire.} Do not get involved in a peacekeeping force in the Balkans. That's the lesson to be learned. Don't do it. If you are going in with military forces, you are going in for war; and don't go with military forces, unless you're planning to go to war! That's the first rule to make in these kinds of things. And anyone who says the contrary, just don't pay any attention to them; better get them out of office as soon as possible; they're dangerous. So we are going to war, by adopting the victims as our allies, and saying they have the right to defend themselves, and we will give them certain assistance, in their fighting to defend themselves--we are not going to go in and do the fighting for them, but we will give them assistance in fighting. If we do that, that act will tell the world that there is still reason, there is still rationality on this planet. And since we claim to be the leading superpower on this planet, this is our obligation. If we do not do this, we are no longer a superpower; and nobody is going to pay much attention to us, either abroad, or within the United States itself. The people here at home will lose confidence in their own government, and the United States itself, internally, will become increasingly ungovernable. And that's the point at which you're going to get a lot of violence breaking out inside the United States. When desperate people--and they are desperate, increasingly so--in the United States, sense that their government is no longer a real government, it's a shadow government, a paper government, a weathervane that goes with whatever the news media and the British and the French tell them to do; when that happens, well, we've lost authority in the world, which we can only get back by {violence}. And that's no good. And we've lost authority at home, and will have violence erupting here, from desperate people in all kinds of ways. The potential for violence is there; and once people lose confidence in the government's ability to be rational, and to carry out its policies and decisions in some kind of rational way, we're going to have it here as well as elsewhere. - ``The {Entente Cordiale} Must Be Exposed and Eliminated'' - EIR: The current Balkan crisis, the current crisis in Europe, reminds people of the buildup to World War I. There was an {Entente Cordiale} at that point. There is a British-French agreement at this point. Do you see similarities? MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely! As a matter of fact, the British and the French are saying so. The British are saying, that the French nation has become a catamite for a British sodomite, which is what the relationship was between Britain's Lord Grey and the French Minister Theophile Delcasse in the period from 1898, the period of the so-called Fashoda Agreement, through the formal establishment of a French alliance with Britain against Germany. The French and the British did several things in that period, through Freemasonic channels. They started the Balkan wars, but they also, as part of that, made the ``Young Turk'' coup d'etat through Freemasonic channels in Turkey, which was one of the key steps toward getting the Balkan war going, and to getting the Russians involved in a commitment in connection with the Serbs in the Balkan war, which was the trigger that was eventually used in 1912-1914 to get World War I started. What's happened now, is that a faction in France, beginning with [Francois] Mitterrand, has wittingly, through Freemasonic circles, gotten into the same relationship to the powers that be in London that started World War I. And the British are crowing about that. That's not simply a comment from the sidelines, somebody's opinion. {That Entente Cordiale is the official policy of the British government,} and is so stated publicly in loud voice, repeatedly, throughout the British press. It's the kind of combination which is intended to make France a political catamite for Britain in a geopolitical move which tries to get Germany, the Balkans, Russia, and other parts of Eurasia, involved in a mutual bloodletting for the greater glory of the British line. That's how we got World War I, and that's how we are on the verge, within maybe weeks, of a point of no return in European politics. That Entente Cordiale must be exposed and must be eliminated! And if the United States finds that Britain and Paris are forming an Entente Cordiale, with the British claiming it to be so; the French not objecting, then the United States must take diplomatic action of such a form that {no support, cooperation, or sympathy of any kind,} is given to such a London-Paris formation. EIR: Part of that policy, at that point, was to keep certain powers in an economically weakened position. And we see the same thing today with Russia, and also with Germany, where Britain and France are trying to keep them in an economically weakened position. If this is so, what are the implications of this, in terms of the ongoing strategic situation? MR. LAROUCHE: That's just {part} of the process leading to a new kind of general war. Paris, of course, depends upon Germany. The French economy will not function today without German cooperation and German support. So the French cannot lie, economically, with a Britain which is already itself an economic rubbish pile. There is no economy in Britain to speak of; it's completely collapsed. We see the kind of thinking that Phil Gramm is expressing, carried out to the point of total destruction of a nation, or, self-destruction of a nation, in the case of Britain. So, the French are not going to get anything, economically, out of Britain. They depend upon Germany. So France has been walking a very strange policy: politically, strategically, they're allied with Britain, against Germany; whereas, economically, they depend upon Germany. What they want is for Germany to be relatively weakened, as it is today, and be somewhat self-destructive, so it doesn't become much more powerful than France; and then France and Germany, two weakened economies, lean on each other like two drunks trying to negotiate their way back home some late Saturday night or something, struggling into the future, if there is one for them. That's the French policy. This is absolute nonsense. And of course, the French are fully behind the Balkan war. They've done everything possible to ensure the victory of the Serbian fascists against their rape victims, quite cynically but quite openly. And of course they have been so far fully behind these destructive policies in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union which are driving Russia, in particular, into a great Russian fit, which is potentially a new superpower conflict. But they seem so {committed} to their policies that they are {blind} to any consequences. It's like people saying, ``Look, I don't care what the consequences are, we have made our policy, we have made our minds up, we are going to {do} this. We don't care what the results will be.'' And that's the kind of fit they've gotten into. That's why I say the United States must {disregard} the sensibilities of London and Paris on this issue, and say, we'll offer you a better deal, one that is rational. But again, this is one of these things that leads to violence. When people adopt policies, which are contrary to reason, which are destructive, which drive people to desperation, then you get violence. [commercial break] - How Russia Can Be Economically Developed - EIR: Mr. LaRouche, Professor Taras Muranivsky, in Nezavisimaya Gazeta, wrote about different economic models that have been followed, specifically the models of Germany and Japan, in terms of reconstruction. What kind of reference point do we have for the former Soviet Union at this point, in terms of these models? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, you don't have a clear model; you have an approximate model. You have a cultural precedent and a couple of quasi-precedents. For example, Peter the Great, the Romanov who brought Russia out of barbarism--that is, the barbarism of the Mongol occupation and its aftermath and the breakdown of Ivan Grozny's (Ivan the Terrible's) regime, was essentially a Third Romer. That is, Peter believed that Russia must become the capital of a Third Rome; but he believed in a western Roman model, based on the superiority of the West, over, say, the eastern Orthodox region of the world as such. So he believed {culturally} in the West--western European Christianity--as opposed to eastern European Christianity--more or less. But Peter cooperated, as Leibniz offered, in adopting Leibniz's economic model, for a very successful and rapid buildup of the Russian economy, until Leibniz's policy was thrown out by his successors. But the fact of the success of Peter the Great, despite the ``downsides'' (as people would say these days), to Peter's policy, is a model. Then you have a great period of development, under Alexander II, until about 1898-1905. Alexander, who was an ally of Lincoln, against the British and French, freed the serfs in Russia, greatly admired Lincoln's efforts to free the black slaves in the United States. He modeled himself, in many ways, upon American precedents, particularly the ideas of [Alexander] Hamilton; and he had great ministers, like Mendeleyev, who was the great scientist who created the Periodic Table, who also built the railroads in Russia, on, again, a U.S. model. Then he had Count Sergei Witte, his great minister, who several times intervened in the process of Russian history, first with the great buildup of Russia prior to the 1905 disaster; then after 1905, when the disaster occurred, it was Witte who pushed through the program which was actually in part carried out by [Peter] Stolypin, for which Stolypin is given credit, which resulted in a very successful industrialization of Russia, at least in part, during that period. So the Russians {do} have that. The Russians also have something else. Apart from the weaknesses and criticisms which can be made of Russian science, Russian science, in part, is very good. The problem with Russia, on the economic side, has been the inability to get some excellent science moved down the pipeline, into the civilian economy, though it's done a little better in the military sector of the economy. So the Russian people do have points of reference, in their own history, by which they can have access to understanding points of reference in western European and North American history. That is, they can look at the successes of the United States. They can look at the successes, say, of De Gaulle in France under the Fifth Republic, and say, yes, we want to do something like that. I would say that what the Russians would tend to go for, under this kind of thing that Professor Taras Muranivsky is talking about, would be a Gaullist model, as some people would call it--a dirigist model of the reform direction of French capitalism under De Gaulle. That's the kind of thing which would work in Russia. Whereas, the Milton Friedman, crazy ``Landfill'' Gramm model will not work. It will only lead to World War III. - A Worldwide Reconstruction Program - - Based on Infrastructural Development - EIR: If you look at the railroad projects that you have proposed, they open up the East and West in a way that we haven't seen, given the Cold War, since of course the end of the Cold War. You had an emphasis on a North-South direction of rail lines in many countries, and not on an East-West direction, especially in Germany, for example. Now, this great railroad project: what will that involve, in terms of manpower, in terms of the employment question, in terms of general social conditions in western Europe and eastern Europe? MR. LAROUCHE: Let's give our U.S. audience something from their own unhappy experience. One of the greatest failures, one of the greatest {causes} of the present Depression and misery in the United States--the fact that there are about 18 million people in the labor force unemployed, according to Labor Department figures--is deregulation, deregulation of trucking and airlines, for example. The airlines are crashing. I don't when the planes are going to start crashing, too. It is a result of the {idiocy} called deregulation. The trucking system and the rail system is crashing, because of deregulation. What happened in many parts of the country, is when trucking deregulation occurred, it meant, for example, that every trucker rushed into Cleveland or Detroit, or similar major markets, and the little industrialized towns and cities around these major cities, could get either no service, could not get regular reliable service, and what they {could} get, was at a vastly higher price. You find the same thing in airline tickets. For example, people will find, when flying around the country, that sometimes they can get from the East Coast to the West Coast on a cheaper ticket, than they can get to some place a few hundred miles away, which is some smaller city. So, it wrecked our economy, in a very vital way. One of the worst pieces of insanity ever invented in U.S. economic policy was this deregulation. Now look at the United States, with our vast distances, relative to western Europe. And now look at Russia. Just imagine what it costs, and how much time it takes, to get a package of freight or materials, from some place in Russia, to another place in Russia, as opposed to the United States, which is smaller than Russia; and compare that with Belgium, which has the highest density of population in the world--the least overpopulated part of the world in that sense, contrary to the neomalthusians. Look at the cost of freight there. In western Europe, places are much closer together, and therefore the cost of freight is cheaper. They have a good rail system, relative to ours. In Russia, you cannot have a rational development of the economy, without a high-speed, reliable rail system, combined with a barge system for certain kinds of bulk freight. Another comparison: Let's look at the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean. The greatest part of the world's population, including the Pacific Coast of the Americas, the Pacific Coast of China, Japan, and so forth, and the Indian Ocean coast of Australia, South India, East Africa--that's the center of the world, in terms of the next century and beyond. Let's look at the cost of freight across ocean waters. At 20-odd knots per ship, that's not a very good prospect. It will work sometimes. But it's not good for economic development of the type we need. How about using what Japan's people are working on? Magneto-hydrodynamic propulsion, without propellers, using magnets to move water as a way of propulsion. That will give us speeds of up to 200 miles an hour, or 100 miles an hour, or whatever, in moving across the ocean. That means use of new materials, of course, for the hulls of such ships; that means that we can make ocean travel in the Pacific for carrying freight economical. That's what we're talking about, is this part of infrastructure: energy; transport--especially organized transport of this integrated truck-rail system and ocean system and barge system. That is what you need as the baseline for effective development. Otherwise, your costs of production soar enormously. And the Russians see that. They will not develop an industry, without that kind of infrastructural development transportation. On the other side, if we want to convert some of the Russian military capability, and other eastern European military capabilities--such as that of Slovakia--from arms production into high-tech production, without lowering the level of production of technology, if we use these large rail projects and similar kinds of things, those infrastructure projects, as in our national experience, become the contract base for private firms to grow up in size and develop and establish themselves, by servicing, competitively, these large-scale projects. There is no possibility of a rational development and stability of the Russian economy, without such an approach. And as I say, I mention our own experience, that is, the stupidity of our government in allowing deregulation to be started and to continue, is an example of one of the reasons, from our own painful experience, of why Europe succeeds better than the United States, why Japan functions better than the United States, economically, and why Russia cannot function without this kind of development. EIR: President Clinton has been having a lot of trouble selling his stimulus package. Here, we're talking about a European rail project. If he were to get behind this, how could he incorporate this concept with a concept that would be acceptable for the American population? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, Clinton does not have to dictate the economic policy to Russia to get this kind of thing going. Nor do the American people have to consent to Clinton's doing that. So it's not up the Americans; it's up to the Russians. What is happening presently, is that as long as the United States supports the IMF conditionalities policy, and says the Russians {can't} do it, then you're driving the Russians into a rage, where you're going to have a superpower conflict. So if you don't want World War III, kick the IMF in the head, tell it to cut this out, and tell it to pull back Sachs to Harvard. Put him in a cage perhaps in the Franklin Park Zoo, if it still exists up there in Boston, because he should not be allowed meddling in economies. He's dangerous. Let the Russians do what they have to do, to develop their economy, and don't insist that they copy our insanity. As far as Clinton's problems are concerned, it's partly the fact that he had not yet apparently fully learned that you cannot run Washington the way you run Arkansas, that you cannot be that flexible. He's a little bit too flexible when it comes to these kinds of issues. He backs down too quickly. As President, I would not have put up with that kind of filibuster that the Republicans organized in the Congress. They would never have {dared} to pull that on me. But they backed him down. It's that simple. And the American people backed up the filibusterers, because the filibusterers seemed to be the fellow who had won the the ballgame, as it were. The problem is if Clinton can get by now one or two crucial policies, such as getting through this Balkan policy, despite the news media manipulation, he might be able to turn the situation around, not only in the Balkans, but give himself the authority and capability of dealing with a number of domestic American problems, as well as others. EIR: We will be back next week with ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If you want to send questions into Mr. LaRouche, you can reach us at EIR Talks With LaRouche, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390. - 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.