From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!van-bc!vanbc.wimsey.com!cyber1.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!ccs!covici Mon May 31 10:20:03 PDT 1993
Article: 21756 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!van-bc!vanbc.wimsey.com!cyber1.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 05/24/93
Keywords: Bosnia Economics
Message-ID: <335-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 31 May 93 10:1:2 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 663

   - 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 24, 1993 

   Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks With
Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr.
LaRouche in Rochester, Minnesota.

          - Agreement on Bosnia `Worse Than Munich' -

   Mr. LaRouche, we have been examining the situation over the
past few weeks in Bosnia, and recently, U.S. Secretary of State
Warren Christopher, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev,
French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, have met in the United
Nations to agree that the next step will be ``safe havens'' for
Bosnia and for the former Yugoslavia.
   What is the implication of this approach for Europe and for
Bosnia, and, of course, for the rest of the Balkans?
   MR. LAROUCHE: It is not exactly clear what the implications
will be, because there are so many ways this could go. But what
could be said generically about the thing, is {it's an absolute
disaster.} It probably is the worst foreign policy catastrophe
for the United States government in recent time, in terms of its
implications, because this tends to discredit the United States
as an international factor in policy shaping.
   I think it's impossible to exaggerate the seriousness of the
situation; but I shouldn't wish to suggest hopelessness. This is
going to deteriorate. This is worse than what Daladier and
Chamberlain did at Munich, what the British and their friends
succeeded in imposing on the United States. It is far worse, as I
say, than what was conceded to Hitler by Chamberlain and
Daladier. We have to see what the next development is. This is
not going to stick. This is not going to lead to peace; this is
going to lead to extended chaos. We will have to see how the
United States government, the Clinton administration in
particular, reacts to this.
   That is, I think, what you would have to say. And if this were
to continue, if there were to be no correction on the part of the
Clinton administration, I would say that the chances of Mr.
Clinton's being reelected, would be zilch, on the basis of what
the consequences of this would be. I don't want to foreclose
happier turns in policy; but as of now, if this sticks, it's an
absolute disaster.

   Q: There has been a lot of speculation, a lot of discussion,
that various policies that have been discussed can contain the
situation in Bosnia, that the Bosnian situation is containable.
Is this the case, or is this a crisis that will rapidly spread
thorughout Europe?
   MR. LAROUCHE: This is like saying that the AIDS epidemic
will be contained by pretending it doesn't exist. This will
spread. You are not going to stop the Balkan war. The Balkan war
is going to continue to simmer and explode. So the idea that this
is ``peace in our time''--that's it. This is Neville Chamberlain
getting off the airplane in the airport in Britain, talking about
the hope that there would be ``peace in our time.'' It's just
folly. There is no peace. This is an absolute disaster.
   And one understands exactly: the Clinton administration's
policy was to go the other way. But two sets of factors
intervened to change the situation. One, tremendous pressure from
the British with the {Entente Cordiale} support from France; and
secondly, a campaign by the news media lying to the people in the
United States, liars who told the American people that they have
no interest in the Balkans. The same news media which told the
American people to go over and fight in the desert for a stinking
little thieving, corrupt, raping duchy there, in Kuwait, are
told, ``It's not really worth doing anything about the lives, the
mass murder, the genocide.''
   I think that the number of Americans who took that line was
exaggerated. I think that was the line of some people who hoped
to see Clinton go down, among other things.
   If you unleash genocide, if you unleash mass rape, rape
slave camps numbering tens of thousands of women; if you engage
in the final solution to the Bosnian Muslim ``problem,'' and you
imagine that that somehow it's going to contain itself within a
few foothills in the Balkans and not extend to the rest of the
world, you simply don't understand at all how the world works. 
   But I think a significant number of Americans were duped
into the delusion that it's far away, we shouldn't send any
troops to get messed up in that blood feud, which is the old lie
spread by our news media, which, unfortunately, usually do spread
lies.

   Q: Looking at the situation from the standpoint of President
Clinton, and his overall policy; what is his next step? How does
he get himself out of this quagmire? What are the things he has
to do now?
   MR. LAROUCHE: He has other things he can do, but he just
shot himself in the foot. I don't think he did it unassisted; it
was obvious he was under {tremendous} pressure. And the pressure
was: Are you going to break with our European allies? They said,
Put on the scale, on the one side the Bosnian Muslims, on the
other, the Europeans. Europeans don't want a Muslim state in
Europe; are you going to go against our European allies? Are you
going to go with the Muslims against our European allies? 
   [commercial break]

          - The British Foreign Intelligence Service -
   - is Running Operations to Destabilize European Nations -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, it has been said that the French especially
are involved in this entente with Britain to define this kind of
policy for the Balkans because they don't want to see a Muslim
state in Europe. Is this their policy, and what could be the
reason for this policy?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, look, don't use categories like
``French'' as such in this case.
   Let's go back to, say, 1908, in which the Grand Orient
Lodges of France and Italy, under the direction of the British
Lodges, with the Arabists and so forth (under the direction of
the British foreign intelligence service), orchestrated a coup
d'etat in the Ottoman Empire, in Salonika, Turkey, around a B'nai
B'rith Lodge in Salonika, which was backed and coordinated by
British intelligence through the French and more immediately,
through the Italian Grand Orient Lodges. This set the stage for
the Balkan Wars which led to World War I, and led to a B'nai
B'rith-dominated slaughter of the Armenians by the Kurds, among
other things.
   Now what we see here is not nations making decisions,
because the peoples of Europe have been very weak in expressing
any notion of national interest in the recent period. The domain
of national politics has been pre-empted once again by certain
Freemasonic factions running out of London through channels such
as the Grand Orient Lodge in France and others, and in Italy. And
we are seeing the same geometry of Freemasonic manipulation--that
is, using Freemasonic channels for conducting covert
operations--that we saw leading into World War I.
   So one should not speak of French interests or French
perceptions; one should speak of the controlling interest of the
moment in France, which happens to be centered in these
Freemasonic groups in France, which are under the control of the
Freemasonic channels around the British royal family in London.
That is where the problem lies.

   Q: More recently, we have seen a Bernard Lewis Plan, which
was designed to create a belt of chaos around the former Soviet
Union. Earlier on, you had the Balkan crisis, which is designed
to create crisis conditions that affect both the Middle East and
Europe.
   MR. LAROUCHE: The Bernard Lewis Plan was advertised by some
as directed at the former Soviet Union; but it was not really.
The Bernard Lewis Plan was much more long term. Remember, Bernard
Lewis was an agent of the British Arab Bureau, which was a branch
of the British foreign intelligence service with overlaps to the
old MI-5 relationship within the British colonial system. And
Bernard Lewis brought the plan to the United States, where a
British agent--that is, a man who professed himself publicly to
be an agent of British foreign intelligence, Henry
Kissinger--sponsored through the Aspen Institute, brought this
kind of thinking into our government. 
   The plan which is in progress is not a superpower relations
plan. It is a plan for destroying, depopulating, much of the
Third World region of this planet, and for depopulating regions
of the so-called South Europeans. That is, Italy, Yugoslavia,
Spain, as well as the Arabs on the other side of the
Mediterranean. That is the kind of racialist thinking which is in
the British intelligence service's operations, and Bernard Lewis,
who is now 80 or so and works out of Princeton, a man who was
sponsored by Henry Kissinger, and Henry Kissinger; that is their
thinking. 
   {They are racists out to destroy the human race} as they
did, for example, in Somalia. Henry Kissinger was one of the
people who started that process officially, when he was Secretary
of State back in 1975. Kissinger set up the war between Somalia
and Ethiopia. This same crew set up the idea of overthrowing Siad
Barre, the president of Somalia, in favor of the human rights or
political rights or ``democratization'' of the country by these
tribalist groups which were the political opposition to Barre.
That destroyed Somalia and led to a genocide in Somalia. We sent
in some relief forces to try to help, presumably.
   They are trying to do the same thing in Kenya, in Sudan. If
you hear attacks on Sudan, you know that the United States and
its friends are on a track toward perpetrating genocide in Kenya
and in Sudan. And that is what the plan is. It has nothing to do
with the former Soviet Union. The existence of the Soviet Union
was a collateral factor, but the long-term policy is genocide;
population policy. And it targets peoples whose skin color is a
little bit darker than the rest.

     - Now is the Time to Remove the Insane Policy-Makers -
           - from Economic and Political Management -

   Q: What is the ultimate purpose of this population policy?
Why would nations that have economic relations with these other
nations see this as a solution? Of what benefit is this?
   MR. LAROUCHE: Let me put it to you this way.
   If you were a wise businessman from another galaxy and
another solar system in this galaxy, and you came down in a
spaceship and you looked at some of the conditions on Earth,
would you invest in this planet at this time?
   Look at our universities. The people who are running our
universities, are dangerous lunatics. Parents pay $10-18,000,
whatnot, a year to send their sons or daughters to a university,
what do you get?
   [commercial break]

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were just talking about the prospects
of someone from outer space investing in the United States and
the world today.
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, as I said, look at the universities in
the United States, a university like Stanford or the University
of Pennsylvania, which are ones that are typical of once-proud
universities in the United States which people respected. One
would have quarrels with their policies, as I did; but
nonetheless, they turned out people with a certain kind of formal
competence. It was a challenge to get into them, and it was a
challenge for young people to graduate. That was fine.
   Today, that is no longer the case. You wouldn't send a child
to Stanford under the policy of not compelling students to study
the contributions of ``dead white European males.'' Any
university that does not teach and compel students to master the
crucial works of the greatest of dead white European males, is
turning out people who are totally incompetent for anything.
   Then go from the universities, where we see this generation
of 45 and under, the yuppies. The worst of the yuppies have taken
over there as university presidents and heads of departments, or
as these bunch of young clowns who have taken over the Modern
Language Association, the real apes, the real {1984} Orwellian
monsters, worse than fascists.
   Then you look into the management of the corporations, and
you remember the relatively competent management of industries
back into the 1960s, even into the middle 70s. And you look at
these clowns who are running our industries today. Look at Du
Pont, run by a bootlegger [Edgar Bronfman]. It's incredible.
Tasteless and disgusting and incompetent.
   Look at our industries, which are looted by clowns from
Manhattan, people with their takeovers, these swindles, who loot
pension funds. Then you look at the labor force. Our industries
are being taken away. Our labor force, which used to be one of
the prides of the world, is now being reduced to a bunch of
coolies. We have over 30 million Americans in disastrous
conditions. We have 18 million Americans who are {officially
unemployed,} according to Labor Department data on employment and
unemployment of the labor force in the United States.
   We are a disaster. We are shipping our jobs to coolies in
Mexico, and they aren't cheap enough labor, so we ship the jobs
to coolies who are being run into slave-labor Auschwitzes in
Guangdong and other parts of mainland China, where hundreds of
millions of Chinese are slated for slaughter, Auschwitz
style--that is, slave-labor style--in these cheap-labor enclaves
of Hainan and so forth in China.
   Look at this planet. You say, okay, what's capital? You find
this insane derivatives business. You find that the
derivatives--which is pure, speculative nonsense, with no
relationship to anything useful to humanity, a
{trillion-dollars-a-day} turnover, centered upon the 8 major
banks that control the New York Federal Reserve system, spinning
around. The U.S. Gross National Product is estimated at less than
$6 trillion-a-year; yet over $300 trillion-a-year of wild paper
is churning around, moving around the world, gobbling up pension
funds, gobbling up savings, gobbling up industries, looting
people; looting eastern Europe, looting China, looting South
America--the whole business. And you say this world is existing
by sustaining the worst, most insane bubble. It is destroying
itself by using up the stored-up wealth in the form of healthy
minds and bodies which are being destroyed; infrastructure,
rails, water systems, everything being destroyed in one part of
the world and the other.
   Would you invest in a planet that had lost the idea of
productive profitable investment? Of course not.
   Now would you as an American--let alone some imaginary,
hypothetical person from outer space--would {you} invest in this
planet, under its present policies?
   I would think, the first thing that people have to consider,
is to recognize, that those who have taken over the economic and
related science of management of this planet, are insane or
worse; and that we better get up off our duffs, as they say, and
go back to the kinds of policies which, imperfect as they might
have been, at least enable the human race to survive.
   And what we are seeing in Bosnia, in the toleration for this
worse-than-Hitler crime which these Serbian fascists are
perpetrating in Bosnia, this genocide, is a reflection of the
kind of moral and philosophical incompetence which permeates our
society.
   Don't blame Clinton entirely for this mess. He didn't create
it. But look around us, and look at the institutions, and look at
the news media, and look at the people sitting in front of their
television sets, watching idiocy rather than thinking and taking
care of business. You see that we Americans had better wake up
real fast, because we are going down all the tubes into rubbish
bin, unless we change our ways from what they have been during
the past 25-30 years.
   [commercial break]

    - Wall Street Yuppies Must Kick the Derivatives Habit -
          - So That We Can Rebuild the World Economy -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, not too long ago, some other people
discussed a derivatives tax or a tax on financial transactions,
such as Jim Wright and others. I know that you have proposed this
type of tax at this point. What makes you think that this kind of
proposal at this point, number one, {can} go through; and if it
does, how will it start to reverse the devastating collapse of
the U.S. productive sector and the world productive sector that
you have just been describing?
   MR. LAROUCHE: I don't know exactly what the consequences
will be. Nobody can tell; but I know we have to make the turn.
   You know, sometimes, you find yourself going toward the
Arctic in the winter, and you are wearing summer clothing. You
may not know, if you reverse your direction, exactly what your
destination will be; but you know you better start going South.
And I would say we {have to} do the derivatives tax, because we
have to start going South real fast. It's getting pretty cold up
there, pretty frigid, in the economic and political world.
   First of all, the president's tax program in its present
form is not going to fly. The opposition is too strong, and
somewhat rightly so. The BTU tax was a bad idea; the health
package in its present proposed form will not fly. Nothing is
going to fly, until we get some job-creating programs in, which
the President did put a toe-in-the-water, but he was
frustrated on that, and thus was thrown back into this Phil Gramm
nonsense of trying to base the tax increases on the amount of
budget cuts. It's an {impossible} task; it cannot be done. Even
Hercules, who cleaned out the Augean stables, couldn't take care
of the problem that has been thrown into Clinton's lap by that
formula.
   So we have to find a way to turn it around. Now, two things
are true.
   We have to destroy, in policy shaping, both in the private
sector and in the public sector, the mentality behind
derivatives, behind junk bonds, behind hostile takeovers of the
type that that thief--well, let's not go into the names, but a
famous thief did--who went to jail for these kinds of things.
Looting pension funds. That's all it is. Looting all kinds of
assets, looting corporations, destroying businesses, whatnot.
   So this derivatives market is a purely parasitical evil. It
is the biggest drug habit of the Wall Street financial area. And
they are going to have to kick the habit. We are not going to put
them in jail, I think; we are just going to take away their dope;
and their dope is derivatives.
   What we should do, what was proposed by Jim Wright and later
by the present Treasury Secretary, was a half-percent sales tax
on every derivatives transaction made.
   The thing to understand, is that the derivatives market is
purely parasitical, and only a bunch of dumb yuppies on Wall
Street and elsehwere, are really behind this. So why not tax
evil--because we do have to tax something at this point--and the
only thing you can tax, which is not counterproductive, which is
really big, in sight, is a good chunk of this
{trillion-dollar-a-day turnover} derivatives market.
   If you take one-tenth of one percent, if we say half of it
is accessible to U.S. taxing, that is a half-trillion dollars,
then you get a half-billion dollars tax per day. If you put
five-tenths of a percent on there, as Jim Wright or Sen. Lloyd
Bentson proposed, then you would get, of course,
two-and-a-half billion dollars a day.
   Whatever the figures are, it's a very large amount of tax
revenue, much bigger than the BTU tax, and it will help to
constrain what must be constrained, this derivatives business.
But by attacking this area, we say that this kind of wild yuppie
speculation, is no longer sacrosanct. And we are going to tax
these yuppies {long before} we start taxing real live people.

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, let me just fill out a scenario here, in
terms of your tax.
   The financial world says that they need that flow of money.
You put a tax on derivatives, and it dries up a whole flow of
money upon which the banking sector is dependent; and the banks
start going under. Give us your thoughts on this type of
scenario.
   MR. LAROUCHE: The point is, the money is not going anywhere
doing any good.
   We've got homeless people under bridges waiting for a
shape-up on jobs in the morning. And that is increasing. We have
people dying all over the country; we have people homeless who
simply don't have enough to pay these high rents. There is no
housing for them. We have people sick, because there is no money
to pay for the health care. I have people who are unemployed,
masses of them. I have 18 million Americans who are unemployed,
who could work and produce more wealth. There is no money going
in that direction.
   So wherever this money is going in derivatives, it is not
going any place good. {We do not need it; it is not doing
anything good for the country.}
   As far as the banks are concerned, the banks are essentially
bankrupt; they {have been} bankrupt. They were made bankrupt by
the policies of Paul Volcker back in 1979 on, with these kinds of
deregulation. They went bankrupt by doing insane things.
   We can keep the banks in business. There are ways of doing
that, without looting the nation to do it. We can have bank
reorganization acts, and whatever we need to keep the banking
institutions in business, in the national interest. That is not a
problem; and we do not have to bleed the country to death to do
it.
   {But these banks are not doing any good for the country.}
They are not providing any credit for any investment in industry.
They are not providing any credit for investment in things that
people can afford to buy. They are not investing in job creation;
and we need the money flowing into job creation and into
productive investment. We {desperately} need that.
   We have a lot of sick and hungry people around this country,
getting poorer every day. We have people who are being robbed of
their pensions by these swindlers. And these fellows are talking
about, ``We've gotta save the derivatives market, we've gotta
save the financial system,'' we just have to say to them, ``Well,
what {good} is the thing for us?'' You've got a cross between an
automobile and a boat that won't go down the highway, and it
can't float. And someone says, ``You've gotta save it.'' You say,
``what for?''
   Let's put our effort into saving things and building up things
that are doing some good for the world and for the nation. And if
this thing were to collapse because of a tax, so what? It's not
doing anybody any good. It's only making a bunch of parasitical
yuppies drunk with financial power every day. But it is ruining
the nation. It is taking all the money that {ought} to be going
into investment in useful things, and spinning it off into outer
space in this crazy derivatives market. This is the worst bubble
in history. It is worse than the John Law Bubble, or the South
Sea Islands Bubble. And we have to stop it, before it stops us.

     - U.S. Black-Box Research in the SDI and Cold Fusion -

   Q: Let's move on to another area.
   Not too long ago, Russian President Boris Yeltsin made an
offer to the United States to jointly develop a ballistic missile
defense system, a specific project. Not too long after that,
Secretary of Defense Les Aspin announced the closing of the
Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO). What is the status of
the Strategic Defense Initiative at this point? Is it still
important for the United States and for the world, and in what
way can this concept be expanded, perhaps, in the directions that
you had discussed not too long ago?
   [commercial break]

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, the SDI: Is it a dead issue? Is it
something that we should revive?
   MR. LAROUCHE: It is not dead, by any means. What was
announced recently, by Defense Secretary Les Aspin, which the
news media presented as proof that the system was dead,
particularly CNN, which led in that kind of hoax, was that the name
of the SDI Office, or the SDI function at the Pentagon, had been
{changed,} and that henceforth, the system would concentrate on
what is called ``theater tactical-strategic ballistic missile
defense,'' and things of that sort.
   It really is the same thing. They were just arranging money
at the time, but you'll find in black boxes in secret places, the
SDI is very much alive; and you will find that out very simply.
   Remember the case of cold fusion. The 1989 report by two of
the world's leading physical chemists, leading electrochemists,
Professor Martin Fleischmann and his associate, Professor Stanley
Pons, of having achieved cold fusion was greeted initially with
enthusiasm; then a tremendous attempt to libel the professors and
to call the experiment a hoax was unleashed.
   The fact is, today, we know that the proof is in the
pudding; [cold fusion] is fully proven. And the people who
attacked it, who derided it, including {Nature} magazine,
{Science,} and so forth, these people are fakers. We know that.
But then we find corporations like General Electric doing fake
studies to assist in trying to discredit this experiment, even
though it is now proven, around the world.
   We find the U.S. Defense Department and Energy Department
being turned against it. And you say, ``Wait a minute! If this is
not fake, and these guys are saying it's fake, why are they doing
that?''
   Well, that's because the cold fusion or better called
``solid-state fusion,'' experiments touch upon an area which is
directly related to the most sophisticated type of potential
weapons systems. And if this thing had not been suppressed the
way they did, in their view, then Third World countries, who
could have the means to get in on in this kind of experiment,
would get in on this technology. And they say we're not going to
have it.
   Secondly, they are trying to keep their secret research
under wraps; and the physical principles involved in solid-state
fusion, bear upon some very relevant military potential. And you
will find that it's off in that direction.
   Now look on the other side, the Russian side. The Russian
military-industrial complex, which is the part of the Russian
economy which is still functioning, contains the most advanced
and most skillful assembly of scientific potential anywhere on
this planet, vastly greater than that of the United States. And
since the take-down of the aerospace industry in Germany, and its
cutback in France and its virtual shutdown in Britain, excepting
Japan, the scientific and military potential of Russia and, in a
certain sense, also Ukraine, which has a very significant
capability of this type, under the Ukrainian National Academy of
Sciences, is greater than the United States and its immediate
allies combined.
   And what the Russians exposed in that April 2, 1993 offer,
is what I said they were doing years ago. I said this in 1983. We
published it again in 1985. I said the Russians are doing it.
They had at Krasnoyarsk, not a phased-array radar system, but
they have a phased-array microwave capability; and a phased-array
microwave capability can create a kind of contained
ball-lightning style electronic storm in the upper atmosphere,
which can destroy missiles. And this is what they came up with.
   They also came up with this powerful optical laser ideas,
which is what you have to do to steer this big ball-lightning
thing, with millions of volts per centimeter. It's tens of
millions of volts per centimeter. This is a very powerful weapon.
And that area of plasmoid research is a very important advanced
field.
   For example. The problem with the Russian or the Soviet
economy, in former times, was that they could not get scientific
research out of the laboratories and out of the military sector
into general civilian applications, and that had to do not with
the military sector; it had to do with the political and
sociological and other problems inside the civilian sector
generally. But that capability is there.
   And now, since we are destroying the economy and scientific
capabilities of Western Europe and the United States and trying
to destroy Japan's as well, we are becoming weaker and weaker and
weaker. So although Russia is becoming much weaker, as a result
of what's happened recently--since 1989 and earlier--we also are
becoming weaker at a much more rapid rate.
   But I assure you, the fact that the lid was put on cold
fusion in that way, is absolute scientific proof that behind the
walls, in the secret laboratories, the kind of work I suspect to
be going on, {is} going on; and all this public talk about SDI is
simply just that. It is simply a political adjustment at this
time of budget and other considerations.


    - ``If I am In the Picture, We Can Turn this Around'' -

   Q: If there is a secret U.S. development of the SDI going
on, why is that approach, which does not involve the joint
development of the project with Russia, a dangerous thing, and
why should we have scientists working on a joint development?
   What is the benefit of the joint development versus this
other approach?
   MR. LAROUCHE: We are not talking about sane people, so don't
try to find a sane explanation. We are talking about something
very insane.
   For example. You still have, running around on this planet,
the old British geopolitical thinking. The determination of this
bunch of geopoliticians, no matter what they say from time to
time, is persistent. They unleashed the Serbian fascists, who are
British intelligence assets, to commit this genocide in the
Balkans. And don't believe them when they say that they believe
that this will bring about a settlement or a containment. It
won't. And they know it; they are lying.
   {They wish this kind of problem to spread throughout
Europe,} to weaken France, but to destroy Germany, to destroy
eastern Europe, and to destroy the former Soviet Union.
   These guys may be saying that they are trying to be friends
with Moscow, but they are not. In the long run, the
geopoliticians aim at the destruction of northern Eurasia and the
disruption of the rest of Eurasia. What you saw in the Halford
Mackinder maps and similar kinds of geopoliticians' maps from
years ago, from the beginning of this century, {is still the
dominant strategic thinking of an Anglo-American circle} which is
the circle of people behind Henry Kissinger, the people who own
Henry Kissinger, for example.
   That is their thinking. They are determined to destroy
Russia if possible. Not because they expect Russia to do
something, but because they want to eliminate it; they always
have wanted to break it up and destroy it, throughout this
century. That is why these capitalists backed the Bolshevik
Revolution in 1917-1918. And it was the Anglo-Americans, together
with the friends of Parvus (Alexander Helphand), who was part of
that circle around the Freemasonic B'nai B'rith in Salonika, who
was involved in this.
   But they are afraid, in the meantime. The Russians still
have submarines, the Ukrainians have what they have; they are
afraid that the breaking up of Russia, what's being done in the
[Jeffrey] Sachs sex therapy or whatever they do to Russia these
days, will cause the Russians to be angry, and a faction will
come to power in Moscow (or St. Petersburg) which is very angry,
and which will make use of these powers to hit back against the
United States, and will attempt to pressure Europe into
conformity with a Russian-dominated world perspective. They are
deadly afraid.
   They see, coming down the line, a potential of a future
world war; and they are building up potential, in case of a
future world war. And they know that they, in a sense, are
working to cause such a war; because we could have a policy
toward Moscow today, which would avoid war, avoid that scenario.
But they are determined to keep on with that scenario; and they
know that their scenario leads toward war. And they are preparing
for that war. Not for tomorrow, not for the day after tomorrow;
but down the road. And that is what the secret research is all
about.

   Q: Even on those terms, is this a war-avoidance policy on
those terms? It doesn't seem to me that it is.
   MR. LAROUCHE: No, of course not. I said, don't look for
sanity.
   For example. The people who are running derivatives. Here is
a disease--it is a cancer, actually analogous, precisely
analogous to what a cancer is on the human body. A deadly cancer.
It has a three months approximately regeneration cycle. It
functions on the short term of two days. People who invest in
this, are investing on hours, days, adjustments. They call it
risk adjustment, risk management. It's absolutely insane.
   Anybody with any intelligence in business or in government,
would recognize that this is the worst {crime} going on in the
United States. All the other crime in the United States put
together, {is not half as bad} as allowing this derivatives
bubble to continue another day. What kind of people allow this to
go on, allow our nation to be destroyed for the sake of this kind
of bubble? That is insanity.
   What kind of people would pressure our President to
capitulate to a {lunatic} French-British alliance in the
extermination, the final solution to the Bosnian Muslim
``problem''? Who would allow that to happen again? What kind of
people are these?
   {Don't look for sane, rational explanations for their
behavior.} They are like a lunatic. He may be crazy, but that is
his behavior.

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were involved in some of the
discussions with the Soviets. We have about 30 seconds left. Is
there anything that you can recommend at this point, in terms of
this SDI policy for the Clinton administration?
   MR. LAROUCHE: No. The point is, only if I am in the picture,
can we turn this around.
   Remember, the Russians know that I was put in prison because
Gorbachov demanded a show of good faith from the Reagan-Bush
administration, and Bush {enthusiastically,} along with Henry
Kissinger, accepted the proposal of putting me in prison, in
order to show good faith with a Gorbachov who knew that my design
of SDI had led to, because of the Russians' refusal to behave
themselves, the collapse of the Soviet system. They wanted me out
of the way. They thought they could still save the Soviet system
if I were out of the way.

   MEL KLENETSKY: We will have to come back to this another
time. Mr. LaRouche, thank you very much for your time. We will
be back next week with ``{EIR'}s Talks With LaRouche.''
   If you have any questions for Mr. LaRouche, and ``{EIR'}s
Talks With LaRouche,'' please write ``{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