From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!cyber1.cyberstore.ca!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Tue Jun 29 07:26:35 PDT 1993 Article: 23143 of alt.activism Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!vanbc.wimsey.com!cyber1.cyberstore.ca!math.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 06/23/93 Keywords: Bosnia, derivatives, budget Message-ID: <346-PCNews-125beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 28 Jun 93 8:39:49 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 The LaRouche files are now available by automatic list service. To get an index of the files, you must subscribe to the LaRouche mailing list. To do this, send a message to listserv@ccs.covici.com with a line saying subscribe lar-lst After that, to get an index, say index lar-lst June 23, 1993 EIR'S 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 Monetary System is Overripe for a Financial Blowout Before we begin discussing the Philadelphia Conference of Jim Bevel, the July 4 Cosigners' Conference, I want to go into a discussion of some economic developments that are occurring around the country and around the world. Recently, a {Der Spiegel} article referred to the threat of a 1987-style financial blowout throughout the world. What are we looking at now, in terms of world finance, that makes {Der Spiegel} put this threat forward at this point, Mr. LaRouche? MR. LAROUCHE: A number of things are going on. First of all, we have to recognize that there is now and has been a general overripeness for a total blowout of the present international monetary system. The blowout, of course, is caused by most immediately, the way in which the derivatives have ballooned into the worst bubble by far in the known history of mankind. If one looks very simply at how a bubble works, then one understands the general nature of the situation. A bubble works by pyramiding speculation on the basis of a market which operates somewhat in terms of what is called a price earnings ratio. Now the market always sucks on reality, because people eventually are going to spend some of this money, and they're going to spend this money in part for things that are produced; and if the number of things produced is collapsing, then the amount of money that's needed, or real production that's needed to sustain the bubble, becomes very difficult to maintain. So what's happening, is the bubble is drawing money as profit, as loot, and as disinvestment, {out of} agriculture, production, out of building up infrastructure, {out of} personal income; {out of} manufacturing and trade, and it's going into this bubble. So as the bubble becomes large, and as the growth of the bubble shrinks real production, you're approaching a point at which the bubble is going to pop; and we are in that condition now. It is very difficult to say when the bubble will pop, because subjective factors, such as the lunacy of people around this fellow George Soros, could set it off. It could be the detonator. It could be the prick in the balloon. Or it could be something else. But when {Spiegel} says that we are in for a crisis, that's what they're really referring to. This bubble runs immediately on balance to about $9-10 trillion, which involves a turnover of about $350 trillion a year (remember, the U.S. GNP is about five and a half trillion dollars, which gives you an idea of how big the bubble is, relative to the world). So this bubble is a big debt bubble which can blow and blow everything else out with it. And we are on the edge of that occurring. That's essentially what {Spiegel} is talking about. Why George ``Golem'' Soros Must Be Put Out of Business Q: Congressman Gonzalez just put a statement into the {Congressional Record} calling for an investigation of George Soros. What is he trying to accomplish by this investigation and why has he singled out George Soros? MR. LAROUCHE: Because Soros is the worst example of something. Because Henry Gonzalez, the congressman, knows essentially what the nature of Soros is. Remember, according to a puff piece that was done (I think by Public Broadcasting company or some similar agency), Soros said that the way he survived as a young Jew in a Nazi-occupied or Nazi-collaborator Hungary, was by working for a guy who was looting the property of Jews. And he hid himself, working for this guy; and he said that his success in this, stamped his life. Soris is doing essentially the same thing now, in terms of what he's doing to eastern European economies and others, which he did by looting dead and dying Jews in Hungary. It's a horrible image of one whom one would be more likely to say ``Golem Soros'' than George Soros. This is horrible. And he says this about himself. But that's what he does. George is a creature who, to my knowledge, actually has two ownerships. One, he has backing from the New York Fed district, from people like Corrigan and so forth there; and secondly, he has backing from Jimmy Goldsmith, and from the Rothschilds--Jacob Rothschild. Which means he's pretty well connected. He has tremendous insider information, secret information, on what's going on inside central banks; and on the basis of that, he's equipped to loot whole currencies by using derivatives the way that Michael Milken used junk bonds, in order to loot entire currencies and entire countries. Soros is {really} a gravedigger--or a cannibal, perhaps; and therefore George Soros, with what he's doing, is a tremendous threat to the interests of the United States. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing George Soros, the big privateer, speculator in derivatives, and the potential investigation that's been called for by Congressman Gonzalez from Texas. You were developing some points about him. Please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: Well, George Soros is also a strategic threat to the United States, in more than one way. George set up shop, for example, in Poland in 1989. It was George who brought this rather notorious little creature from Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs, the so-called economist, with his shock therapy into Poland. And George did the same thing in Russia. And George is working closely with an ex-State Department official, R. Mark Palmer, in Budapest and Hungary. George is trying to nazify by calumny everybody who opposes his looting of one of these economies. Now in Russia, George is especially dangerous to the United States. People may hear that recently, there was a former Soviet (Russian) military operation based out of Kaliningrad on the Baltics, which is part of Russia, next to Lithuania, preparing to take back militarily part or all of the Baltic States. This goes with a pattern which is developing. What is happening in Russia, is that the good will which many Russians felt toward the United States from 1989 into 1991, is gone. A great hatred of the United States is building up, because the Russians have reason to believe that George Soros, with a lot of his friends, is a tool of the Anglo-Americans in looting their economy like carpetbaggers; and there is real hatred building up against the United States because we allow George Soros to run loose in Russia, and in eastern Europe. People in Washington seem to be somewhat blind to that--at least most of them. But it's a danger. If we wanted to avoid terrible threats in the future, we would pull back George Soros, an American citizen, right now; and we would stop his operations cold. But apparently we don't want to touch it. When we bring these kinds of things up, there are certain people around the world who are deeply invested in this derivatives swindle market, who will do anything to defend it. They'll even blow the planet up, or let it blow up, rather than have their little petty piracy and looting of the economy be interfered with. And that's where George Soros is a real danger, which is why Henry Gonzalez is very much on the right track in saying that George Soros's activities are in conflict with the most vital interests of the United States and of our banking institutions. In the meantime, George typifies and is the tip of the iceberg, of what could blow up the whole economy, as {Spiegel} says. A Solution to the Budget Crisis: How to Get a Real Recovery Program Going Q: Mr. LaRouche, if we look at the budget crisis in the United States and the difficulty that both Congress and the President have in implementing a program that can sustain the existing economy; or if we look at the crisis of government around the world, one has to ask if it is possible {at all} to propose or develop an economic policy without kicking over the table and ending this speculative binge and the tremendous debt structures that are crippling economies around the world. MR. LAROUCHE: I don't know about kicking over the table. The question is, how do you get the rats out of the house, without burning down the house? That's the problem. Let's take a look at President Clinton's real problem. The President's problem is typified by a silly fellow from Texas, who unfortunately happens to be a U.S. Senator. His name is Phil Gramm, and he was the co-author of the greatest disaster which was ever enacted on financial and related matters by the Congress, the so-called Gramm-Rudman lunacy. People should know that it has never worked. It's been a disaster. So if you look at Gramm-Rudman, and realize what that's done, and what a failure that's been, you wouldn't leap too quickly to support new offers and new proposals made by a fellow called Phil Gramm from Texas. But the problem is, the White House did not go after this. The White House was afraid of, not so much George Bush's old cronies or others, as afraid of Ross Perot. Ross Perot has said you've got to cut the budget. The problem with cutting the budget by cutting federal expenditures and raising taxes--which is what's going on, one way or the other--is that you're going to sink the tax revenue base. The problem is, you're going to cut out more jobs, lose more jobs, lose more income from the tax revenue base of not only the federal government but the state and local governments than you'll ever save. That is, you {cannot} cut the budget; and Ross Perot just hasn't gotten that idea through his head yet. You cannot cut the budget. You have to sustain the budget at its present level; and you cannot add new kinds of taxes on the middle to low income, or on productive industry--which means that you've got to {increase credit} into job creation. And as I have said repeatedly, without a 6-8 million level increase in jobs which are not flipping hamburgers, or not other so-called low-skill service jobs; unless you do that, you're not going to save the U.S. economy. It's going to collapse. There's nothing you can do. And so far, the administration, after this toe-in-the-water gesture in the direction of tax incentives in terms of investment credit and in terms of some federal investment in job creation, has not wanted to go in that direction since then. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were just discussing the basic budget crisis and the kind of approaches that need to be taken if the economic crisis is going to be resolved. MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, you have to have an economic program, which is what I indicated during my campaign of 1992. And there is nothing that could work, which is not consistent with what I proposed from 1992. And what I said then, would not work. But at the same time as we are trying to get a recovery program going--and believe me, we are in a spiraling depression as most people who are paying attention to reality rather than news reports know--we are going to have to bring this speculation under control, including derivatives. We {must} bring this bubble down. The argument will be, this will bankrupt the banks; well, let me tell you, the banks are essentially already bankrupted. What we're going to need on the bank side, is a Bank Reorganization Act, which provides each town in the United States with access to private banking services, which take care of the town. Without that, the town's going to go flat. So you must have a Banking Reorganization Act that keeps the bank functioning in every town and in all cities in the United States. We need that kind of act. Even if the banks are bankrupt, we have to have functioning banks. And we will use federal credits if necessary, as I have indicated, over the period of years, as the means of keeping such banks going under such circumstances, while we sort out their accounts. But we {must, must, must} stop junk bonds, stop derivatives; stop speculation; stop the bleed-out of a half-trillion dollars from the economy into recreational drugs--at least a good part of that, which we could if we wanted to. We must stop other kinds of waste, which are much larger than the defense budget, at the same time. And if we do not bring down and terminate this derivatives speculation, there is no possible way of organizing a recovery or even of preventing the United States from going into a dark age, in which, because the money's not there, the municipality closes down, or the state government in some cases may close down; whole sections of the federal government may close down for lack of money, lack of tax revenue; and that could lead to an actual disintegration of the United States. So we better get on the derivatives and go against Phil Gramm and company, and get a recovery program going. Deregulation and the Derivatives Speculative Bubble Q: When did this overall bubble begin, and how do you rectify it? How do you change it? MR. LAROUCHE: The bubble began essentially, in the present form, back in 1978 and 1979, with the deregulation under Carter or beginning under Carter: deregulation of transportation, particularly trucking; air transport, which has pretty much flattened the air industry. It's a bellwether of what's going on. It's ruined the trucking industry, ruined the warehousing industry entirely, and has sunk the airlines. It also, over 1978-79, deregulation was put into the banking/financial system under Volcker, beginning October 1979. And that led to the present proliferation of speculative financial bubbles. The general problem goes back to 1969 and 1970, but especially to the 1973-1974 oil price crisis, which started this kind of speculation with these so-called petroleum investments. Then, in 1982, George Bush and Company pushed through the Congress further deregulation acts, which blew out the banking system, particularly the savings and loan banks, and have just created this kind of thing where people like Mike Milken and Ivan Boesky ran loose, destroying one American corporation after another, in a hostile takeover or leveraged buyout, that sort of thing. So that's the way the bubble has grown; and now this derivatives bubble, which is the wildest, most insane speculation of all, has taken over the world economy. Unless we bring down the derivatives market, bring it under control, shut it down largely, and stop George Soros, we are not going to have an economy. We are going into a dark age. [commercial break] Why President Clinton Must Take a Moral Position on the Horror Show in the Balkans Q: Mr. LaRouche, one area in the world which seems to be getting worse and worse, is the Balkans. What can be done at this point? The crisis seems to be getting deeper and deeper, and many, many people feel at this point that it is inevitable that it will spread beyond the Balkans into Europe as well. MR. LAROUCHE: The events of the past week which pertain to that, are as follows. First of all, it was made public that the United States, President Clinton, sent a letter to the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, stating that it was still the White House position that the arms embargo against Bosnia should be lifted so that the Bosnians could have the weapons to defend themselves against these Serbian fascists who are committing terrible crimes against humanity throughout the region. Chancellor Kohl, at a meeting of the European 12 in Copenhagen presented that policy. According to various press reports and other indications, there was a wild fight inside those meetings. The Anglo-French Entente Cordiale ganged up on Kohl and tried to give him a beating. I think Kohl probably stood up pretty well to that kind of situation. But that's the fact. In the meantime, because the United States government as a whole, whatever the White House is doing (not counting the Congress), has backed down to the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale the way the Woodrow Wilson administration backed down to Britain getting the world into World War I. We have a spreading war in the Balkans with a horror show beyond believe already in progress. It's going into Kosova, it's going into Makedonija. It's going to involve the neighbors of former Yugoslavia very soon. Nothing can stop it; it's absolute insanity and madness; and the British and their French political catamite puppets of the moment, are pushing this thing for all it's worth--or not worth. But this typifies the situation around the world. In the meantime, we have the Hyde Amendment, which has gotten through the House under the Foreign Relations Aid Bill, which mandates the United States to lift the embargo against Bosnia on very good legal grounds--treaty grounds--and there is the Dole-Lugar Bill in the Senate, which we hope will be out before the Fourth of July, while there's still a Bosnia around as an amendment; and the two of the things mandate the President of the United States to proceed, with the authority and backing of the Congress, to lift the embargo, whether the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale likes it or not--which is what should be done. If that is not done, if the United States and a few other countries, do not have the will to reverse that pro-Serbian fascist crowd around Carrington and Kissinger in London, the people who unleashed this war in the first place and who are entirely morally responsible for unleashing this war--Kissinger's and Carrington's friends, the same thing--if we haven't got the guts and the will power to say no to that, and to buck these people and tell them to shut up and sit down, we're going to stop that war, we're going to stop the Serbs before this thing spreads all over the planet, we're going to have the worst crisis in Europe of this century--worse than the first two world wars. That is, with the Russian situation ready to blow up, the Transcaucasus situation, the situation in Central Asia, the Middle East crisis, the Far East crisis, the Chinese investment bubble about to pop (perhaps not this week or this month but soon), we are in a terrible situation. {There is not a single government in the world at present,} including that of Mr. Kohl, who stood up fairly well in Copenhagen this past week, which will stand and withstand the waves of breakdown which are occurring. And of course the British government and the French government will also both go fairly soon at the present rate. So there's not a government in the world that's going to stand while the war spreads out of the Balkans and into various hotspots all over the world--unless we act very soon to get the implications of that Hyde Amendment and the Dole-Lugar provision into law, and the President to act upon that, to say we are going to take a moral position on the Balkans, a sane position, shall we say, whether the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale likes it or not. As a superpower, the United States is going to meet our responsibilities, and we are not going to let the Chicken Littles of London and Paris stop us. The Central Role of the British Royal Family In the Destabilization of Italy Q: The Balkans crisis is one which threatens the entire Southern Flank of NATO, what is known as the Southern Flank of NATO. Would you say that the recent developments, for example, in the political situation within Italy, with the Lombard League coming to the fore in northern Italy in recent elections, is a result of that crisis in the Balkans? MR. LAROUCHE: It is and it isn't. Certainly the Balkan crisis creates some of the mood. All of those, including the Italian press, who are watching their Ps and Qs on this, know what the cause of the destabilization of Italy is. The British royal family and a circle around it, hosted a meeting on the British royal yacht, Britannia. This included notables from several parts of the world, including the people inside Italy (or many of them) who are behind orchestrating the present political crisis in Italy. The operation which is destabilizing is run partly through Freemasonic channels such as Grand Orient, under British direction, and with the support from certain Freemasons in the United States. It is not an internal Italian affair strictly, it is something run against Italy from the outside. The key leadership of the thing was provided by this meeting which was held on the British royal family's yacht Britannia, off the coast of Italy. And people, as I said, inside Italy, who are leading and orchestrating this from inside government were on that yacht, in that meeting, planning to destroy Italy. The attempt to partition Italy by playing the Lega Lombarda in the North as an alternative to resistance to this, which is the Rete network in the South: that game is entirely orchestrated from the outside. It is not strictly an autonomous Italian endemic affair. So you can't find ``Italian'' reasons why this should occur. You'll find ``Italian effects'' of what's being orchestrated from abroad. This undoubtedly includes, among those who are orchestrating this, some of the people--shall we say admirers of Kissinger's friends--who back in 1978 kidnapped and murdered the former prime minister of Italy, Aldo Moro. The same circle is involved in that, and that of course is said even boldly in certain parts of the Italian press at this time. [commercial break] Why We Need a July 4 Declaration of Independence Cosigners' Convention Q: Mr. LaRouche, your running mate in the 1992 elections, Rev. James Bevel, is holding a conference in Philadelphia on July 4. He calls it a Co-signers' Convention, where he is asking people to sign on to the Declaration of Independence. What is the purpose of this conference, and what message is Rev. James Bevel bringing to the American public with it? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, let's look at the background. I think to some listeners most of this is obvious. We are trying to affirm--Jim is trying to cause to be affirmed--the principles on which the nation was founded, at a time that those principles are being flouted. There is even an attempt by the so-called deconstructionists around the Modern Language Association and universities and by the Anti-Defamation League's ``World of Difference'' program, which is a deconstructionist program--which is actually spiritual child-molesting is what the ADL is pushing--which is causing great anger against the National Education Association and other institutions which are pushing this sort of thing, around the country among parents. We have people who are demanding that their children be pulled out of school, and that the government give money and compensation for alternative education, so people can escape from public schools, where their children are being spiritually child-molested by NEA-type ideologues and ADL-type ideologues in these ``World of Difference'' and other kinds of multicultural programs. That comes up in many places in society. People would like to get back to the principles upon which the nation is founded; they're desperate, they don't know what to do. And so Rev. Jim Bevel has taken the tack of saying ``Let's affirm and make sure we understand. And affirm and co-sign the principles upon which this nation was founded, and let's get back to those principles, and away from this racist multiculturalism spread by aid of such vehicles as the Anti-Defamation League's ``World of Difference'' multicultural or properly described as deconstructionist policy, of deconstructing the mind and morals of the United States.'' So that is the essential purpose as I see it. The United States' 1776 Revolution--our War Against Britain or war against the royal family of Britain's George III, and against the British East India Company, the owners of Adam Smith, was a very good thing; but in some of its positive aspects it was somewhat confused. That is, we in the young United States represented a tradition from Europe--the best tradition from Europe--which was largely associated with a fellow called Gottfried Leibniz, who was virtually the founder of much of modern science back at the end of the seventeenth century and also a great political influence. He was personal adviser to the tsar of Russia successfully and to many other sources, and built up a large network of collaborators, which reached into circles such as those of Cotton Mather up in Massachusetts to the Lieutenant-Governor at one time of Virginia, Alexander Spotswood, to the colonial governor of New York, Hunter, and to the other sponsors of Abraham Lincoln. All of these people were great people each in their own way, and they each contributed some of this influence, against the Lockean ideas, which were more popular among the radicals in England. So this was the United States: the idea that human beings are sacred as individuals in the eyes of God; that we all have natural rights which no government can rightly tamper with, and that we have to base a society on a society which will promote--not a society which will be as an anarchist desires or on libertarian ideas--but a society which {will promote and protect} these natural rights of people, especially the rights to manufacturing, which was a big issue of the American Revolution. The right to education: remember in 1790, at the time of our national census, Americans had well over 90 percent literacy rates and England a very poor quality of 40 percent. {We were twice as literate, more than twice as intelligent, as the British person on the average.} We earned twice as much money, because we were more productive. We had a superior culture and a superior society to that in England, and we did not want the corruption which permeated England with its imperial ambitions to destroy us from within. Those are still very good principles today, because they are I think fairly described as permanent ones. And even though our Revolution was in many respects imperfect, although there were many different shadings of ideas involved, the central principle as reflected by young Tom Jefferson then, sitting down under the guidance of the people around him and drafting this document under the direction of people such as Ben Franklin: this is a very good thing. As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence {is,} in principle, the basis of our law, as reflected in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Federal Constitution merely provides an institutional mechanism of a federal form to make that law effective. But the Declaration of Independence is the basis of our conceptions of law pretty much as a nation. And so affirming it, is a very good thing at this time. Q: Mr. LaRouche, many, many schools today teach a line that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of aristocrats, that many of them owned slaves, that many of them wanted to make George Washington king; that Abraham Lincoln only declared the Emancipation Proclamation for political reasons and he wasn't really against slavery from a basic moral position and therefore the Founding Fathers and Lincoln and others, do not reflect a real positive trend, but they were really political creatures. MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the people who believe that, of course, are generally uneducated people who don't know what they're talking about, who are simply repeating what liars say. But they are liars, for example, in the form of teachers. For example, you have people who {hate} the American Revolution, who generally are pro-British, or they are close to people like H.G. Wells in their thinking, as most of the radicals whom we encountered back during the 1960s and early 1970s. They are a product of what a woman named Marilyn Ferguson, who is an insider, described in the book as ``the Aquarian Conspiracy.'' The people who are marching through the institutions today, who are under 46 generally, can be traced back to the radicals of the late 1960s and early 1970s. These are the people who are running parts of our government, they are running our university departments if not the universities as a whole themselves; they are people who are running our corporations, people who I would not have employed as parking-lot sweepers for any corporation back in the 1960s. They are not to be trusted even with managing a parking lot. But they are managing sections of government and corporations today. These are the kinds of fellows who are involved in the speculation in junk bonds and in derivatives; that sort of mentality. These are greedy little people with no heed and no care for anybody else; and they have an ideology, an ideology which we call deconstructionism--which they call deconstructionism, which is traced back from that proto-Nazi, Friedrich Nietzsche and people like that. And people like H.G. Wells who at one time was a professed fascist and a Nazi-like thinker in his time. And these people have these crazy, ideological ideas. And they will do {anything} to defame the founders of the United States and to defame an Abraham Lincoln who {saved} the United States and defeated Britain and France--the Entente Cordiale powers--against traitors. And remember people like Albert Pike and people like Judah Benjamin and people like Jefferson Davis, were conscious traitors. They were not ``honest rebels''; they were British agents and they knew it--engaged in a plot to divide the United States into several parts, so that the British Empire could prevail over the United States by splitting the United States up. Lincoln {saved} the United States. Lincoln freed the slaves in bold moves. He always hated slavery and tried to destroy it. But he understood that you needed a government which could stop slavery; and the people who were his opponents, including the founders of B'nai B'rith, if the truth be known, who tell some of these lies today were pro-slavery. In many parts, the leaders of B'nai B'rith {were slave-traders}--the [Moses Michael] Hayes interests, for example, were slave traders, who were bringing black slaves into the United States in the nineteenth century; and the people who spread these lies today, against Lincoln and others, are people who have an evil purpose. Unfortunately, because our people are so poorly educated, virtually not educated at all in many cases, even though they spend time in schools or even in universities, where they learn nothing, are credulous enough to swallow these kinds of propagandistic lies. People have to study and people are going to have to rethink. They're going to have to sit down and pay attention. Say to them, ``Okay, you say this about Lincoln. Prove it! Can you prove it? Don't tell me you heard it some place or you read it some place. Prove it. You can't prove it, buddy. There is no proof of this. So don't go around peddling something that you don't know.'' The Founding Fathers. ``You don't know anything about the Founding Fathers. Why do you say these things? You haven't studied the question. You're just repeating what you heard in some silly class, told to you by some crazy leftist who's now a teacher or a professor but who was out in the streets with acid trips and sexual trips back in the late 1960s, early 1970s.'' People have got to learn to stop having their opinions and instead try to have honest opinions, where they don't claim to know something they don't know; and when they {do} claim to know something, they're ready to back it up with facts, not with slogans. Q: Mr. LaRouche, thank you very much. We're coming to the end of our program. We will return next week with ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If people want to send messages or questions into Mr. LaRouche, they can do so by writing to ``{EIR'}s 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.