From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Aug 23 00:53:26 PDT 1993 Article: 26324 of alt.activism Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com Newsgroups: alt.activism Subject: EIR Talks 08/18/93 Message-ID: <396-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 22 Aug 93 23:31:37 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 701 - 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 ``{EIR} Talks'' August 18, 1993 Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. How Europe's Economic Crisis Could Become the Worst Crisis in Six Centuries Mr. LaRouche, before we discuss the crisis in the East, Moscow's growing difficulties, I would like to have your thoughts on the recent efforts to curb speculation that are coming out of Europe, especially France, where Mitterrand and Balladur have indicated that their country is in big difficulty. We are now looking at a 150 billion franc deficit, in terms of their efforts to curb George Soros and his speculative efforts against the franc. They are saying now that the only way to save the nation, is to have some kind of controls on speculative markets. Do you agree with this? MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. Yes. This is a long story which some people may recall from my forecast of an October stock market crash, back in the spring of 1987. One will recall, in that context, that there is a Nobel Prize winner from France, Maurice Allais, who was saying things which in part were the same things I was saying: that the worst financial bubble in history is building up around what we call today derivatives as a category. And we now have come to the point that involves an Anglo-American syndicate, centered around a fellow called Hartman, who is the guiding genius, so to speak, or coordinator of both BCCI and BNL. That is, remember the case of Altman, who was just vindicated by a jury in connection with the so-called BCCI banking case? BCCI was a British bank run through Switzerland by Hartman. We have the Drogoul case coming up in Atlanta, with all kinds of star witnesses being requested by the defense, which is the case of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, BNL. Both banks--BNL and BCCI--were run out of the city of Zug, Switzerland, by this fellow Hartman, for the Rothschild Continuation Trust, which is a front for British intelligence and British finance. So Soros, the big derivatives speculator operating in central Europe, the man who ran the run against the pound, the run against the franc, and so forth, is a creature of this. This involved Gerald Corrigan of the New York Fed, now retiring to join Soros's Russian operation; and this involved R. Mark Palmer, a State Department official. So this is an Anglo-American operation by those interests which ran BCCI, BNL, to try to bankrupt European currencies. So the Europeans, faced with the attack on their currencies by this bunch of gangsters, are saying they are going to have to do something about derivatives. They are going to have to eliminate the weapon--derivatives--which is being used by these scoundrels to attempt to bankrupt entire nations. And thus you find more and more people in France beginning to echo some of the things that I and others have said about derivatives for that reason. And naturally, in that sense, I agree. Q: It is indicated in {Figaro} magazine, that not just France, but also Japan, has a certain interest in curbing speculation, and there is a group in Japan which is calling on industrial countries to do so. Do you think that there is the possibility now, that the countries that have more of an interest in industrial development rather than speculation can come together at this point? MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, it's possible. Remember, I am the initial author of much of this. Remember also that when Jim Wright from Texas proposed that, when he was the Speaker of the House, they created a scandal and ran him out of government for proposing a tax on derivatives, mainly. So the powers behind this are great; and the question is: Do these people have the guts to defend their own nations? Now France is a somewhat nationalist nation, and so is Japan. And there is likely to be a nationalist reaction against this, and, as one sees from certain parts of the British press, the proposal which I have revived for a sales tax on derivatives, is very much in the wind. You will see also in yesterday's {Wall Street Journal,} in a front-page article, there is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this problem of derivatives, one of the first times that the {Wall Street Journal} has given any systematic attention to the danger to the entire world system from derivatives. But the sum-uppance is, either we put a tax on derivatives and re-institute {some form} of exchange controls, restore them, or else there is not going to be, very soon, any world monetary system as we now know it. It will blow up; it is in the process of blowing up now. It may be almost too late to save the monetary system; but the only thing that would save the world monetary system from a complete collapse, would be some kind of exchange control and tax measures against derivatives. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have previously discussed an Anglo-American-French entente, and now we're looking at a financial situation where it appears that Britain and the United States, in terms of speculation and the speculative operations, are moving against France. Do you think this is going to break up that previous strategic alliance, especially in terms of their efforts around Bosnia? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know around the Bosnian question. That's a little bit deeper. This is going to affect the relations of France to Britain, or at least to the Major government in Britain, as President Mitterrand almost seemed to echo me, in some respects. He is quite capable of this under certain circumstances, in saying that Europe depends upon cooperation between France and Germany. And one should recall, that the reason that de Gaulle got himself nearly killed by British-backed circles, the same circles that went after Kennedy later (or in the same period, too), was that he moved not only to establish French nuclear defense, which these people couldn't stand; but he moved as the leader of Fifth Republic France with Adenauer, to say that French political backing for cooperation with Germany could profitably shape Europe in such a way, that we would get a new continental Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, which would be strong enough to resist Anglo-American rapine against the continent. What has happened is that Mitterrand, in a sense, has definitely, but not spectacularly, reaffirmed that tradition of Charles de Gaulle. And that can happen. Look at the way politics works. To run politics of any kind--I don't care what the policy is--you must have the logistics, which means essentially economy. When you destroy the economy of a nation, you destroy the nation, because you take away the logistical capability of instituting any kind of political program. When the Anglo-American group, centered around the Major government, and also the former Bush government in the United States, attacks continental Europe in this way, attacks them on logistics, continental Europe must react against the Anglo-Americans, as the Japanese must too, in a sense, or else they will lose their logistical capability of having any politics at all, and they face, as Russia is facing now, the threatened disintegration of their nation. Therefore, will there be a reaction? Yes, there will be a reaction. Will it increase? It will become intense--up until the point that France, for example, might face the condition of a Bosnia, where, out of sheer weight of the collapse, it capitulates, for a later reaction to come. But we are in a period of crisis and upheaval, unlike anything previously in this century. We are in the most critical months of the entire century's history. We could possibly be in the worst crisis in European experience, in more than five centuries, in about six centuries. That's how bad it is. Unfortunately, the newspapers don't tell you much about this, and television doesn't, so most people are being caught unprepared for the earthquake-like developments which will occur, not merely in France, but of course more immediately in Russia right now. The LaRouche Productive Triangle: The Only Alternative to World War and Depression Q: Mr. LaRouche, there is a supermarket magnate in France whose name is LeClerc, who has a poster campaign, and he is calling for dealing with the economic recession/depression by building railroads. He's calling on the population to build railroads from Paris to Moscow to Beijing, from Paris to Johannesburg, South Africa. And he's saying that there are literally tens of millions of jobs that can be created with this. Is this the same kind of approach that you have outlined in your proposal for a European economic recovery triangle? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know that. I think it reflects the kind of thinking, the axiomatics of thinking which I was addressing, particularly back at the end of 1989, when I proposed the European Triangle program, which includes the Brest or Paris to Vladivostok railroad project as an axis for a new global political approach to the situation. And LeClerc is obviously echoing publicly and usefully that kind of thinking which I was trying to stir up back then, in 1989. Q: Do you think that your Triangle proposal is still applicable today? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's applicable in the sense that if you don't do it, you're going to have a general world war and depression, so you have a choice. you can turn it down; but I don't think you'd like the aftertaste. Q: We are coming up to a break in a moment. I would like to just pose a question to you, in terms of the former East bloc, especially Moscow, and the crisis that Yeltsin is now facing, in terms of his fight with the Parliament. Is this crisis going to come to the fore in the coming months ahead, and what do we do about it? [commercial break] Russia: `There Is Already a Crisis in Moscow' Q: Mr. LaRouche, President Yeltsin in Russia is calling for parliamentary elections with or without the approval of Parliament. There is a huge crisis brewing between the Parliament, Khasbulatov, and Yeltsin. And some say this is going to lead to, perhaps, even civil war in Russia in September. What do you think? MR. LAROUCHE: I think that's too simplistic. First of all, we know from eyewitness accounts in Russia, that Boris Yeltsin is generally considered to be drunk. The press reports indicate that he has very poor health, and that includes press reports coming out into the West. Today or yesterday, it is notable that {Nezavisimaya Gazeta,} the daily newspaper which supported Yeltsin back in the crisis two years ago, the putsch crisis, has now abandoned its support for him. We are now hearing rumors of very bad health of Mr. Yeltsin. On top of the general commentary on his health and on his alleged drunkenness which we have been hearing over the past couple of weeks, we know there is a three-way standoff among principal institutions in the Moscow government. You have Yeltsin on the one hand, as a personality, the President; you have attached to him, a staff which is running the government, a presidential staff of radical reformers, which is the main target of all the nationalist and other related attacks on the Yeltsin government. You have a parliamentary system under the political leadership, for the moment, of Khasbulatov, which is challenging this. You have within the parliamentary system some factions, and the question is: Which faction will come to power? In general, Moscow sources believe, that whenever excessively and persistingly unpleasant notices are being made of a leader's health, as in the case of, for example, Chernenko, who was already living on life-support systems when he was made General Secretary, that that is a bad sign for the leader's political longevity. So I think that all the signs are out, that Yeltsin might go very soon, and the question is, what would succeed him? Would it be civil war? He might not go; they might make a deal with him, to get rid of his associates and come to some kind of arrangement. I think Russia is groping toward an attempt to create a collective leadership for a while, since they have no one leader around whom the combination of forces might be put together for a new government. But what is inevitable, is this. The system is presently in a crisis. One of our problems in discussing it, is that the U.S. news media and, to a large degree much of the European, is not in any way reflecting the reality of what's going on in that neck of the woods. In a sense, they're lying, and also lying by omission, in the sense that the picture that is being given of the world in the news media, as I see it and hear about it, is out of all correspondence to reality. For example: CNN, the popular television news media; what it reports in a package, is out of all correspondence to reality. it has no correspondence to reality as it is going on. So I think one of the big problems here in discussing the Russian situation, is that the Russian situation itself, and the significance of the Russian situation, and of the Balkan situation, is totally unknown in any sense. It is not on the horizon in any real sense. People are saying, ``anti-Yeltsin,'' ``pro-Yeltsin,'' this kind of nonsense, it's a comic-strip or soap-opera type view of Russia. And it's not like that at all. It's a very complicated, highly explosive mixture, which could signal the slide of the world into the worst crisis in more than six centuries of European experience, at least. That's what's on the table, not for the distant future. We're talking about the next weeks and months. There is already a crisis in Moscow, an unbelievable crisis in the Russian system. This U.S.-sponsored economic reform system cannot continue; it is gone, it is going to go. The U.S. sticking with this free market, deregulation, all this nonsense, is going. Washington is in Never-Never-Dreamland, as far as I can see. You have a little voice from Dole or a few other people now and then who say something sensible on one question or another question; but overall, Washington is living in a fantasyland; and the U.S. population, by and large, dependent upon our corrupt news media, which {completely} misrepresents what's going on, are also in Never-Never-Land. So when we talk about the Russian crisis, I don't think the average American knows what's going on. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the Russian crisis. Can you please continue? MR.LAROUCHE: The problem here, as I say, is that when you're talking to an American audience, you have to recognize that the listener who is following the news media, so called, in the United States, has absolutely no understanding of what's going on; and therefore, if you talk about a crisis, he or she tries to fit it into what they hear from the news media, and it has no correspondence to that. That is the first thing of which we have to be aware in this kind of situation. What we're talking about, is essentially the United States move to break up, destroy, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, from 1991 on. After the fall of Gorbachov, the Anglo-Americans moved and continue to move behind people like Soros, to loot Eastern European economies, to the point that they are now 30% of what they were in 1989. To do similar things in Russia and Ukraine and so forth. So what they have done, is to create a situation where the good relations between Moscow and the Anglo-Americans, or between Warsaw and the Anglo-Americans or so forth, are all based on submission to this Soros kind of free trade/derivatives, speculative arrangement, which is a looting arrangement. On the other hand, none of these nations can survive, if they do not reject this Anglo-American policy, which means a break with the United States. In other words, the United States is forcing these nations to a break with it, as a price for their own survival. The Eastern European, nations by and large, have been occupied so many times, that they will tend to try to find a way of living with submission to these kinds of horrible circumstances, as we see in the case of Poland--up to a point. Russia, which has not been conquered since it came out of the Mongol yoke in the early fifteenth century, will not accept submission. That means that, no matter what happens, as long as the Clinton and Major governments continue to insist that Eastern Europe and Moscow go along with the so-called democratic reform, they are insisting that an explosion come in Russia, and they're insisting that we go back to a combination of either the old Cold War situation--this time not with the communists but with Great Russians, bearing the double eagle. And they're insisting that the alternative to cold war is absolute chaos, in which the United States itself would disintegrate. That is the reality of the Russian crisis, not some soap opera story as the U.S. press is representing the Yeltsin crisis. `As Long As I Am a Pariah, The World Faces War and Chaos' Q: You have indicated, in earlier shows, that the way to deal with the crisis in Moscow, is through some kind of combination of ruble reform and economic development. Is there such a package that can be implemented at this point, in terms of the emerging alliance in the West that we discussed earlier, that's fighting speculation? MR. LAROUCHE: Not exactly. There is and there isn't. The problem is, I'm key to this. The only time such a possibility arose, prior to 1989, was during 1983. It arose around the back-channel discussions which I was conducting on behalf of the Reagan administration with Moscow, discussions which pertained largely to what I defined as a strategic ballistic missile defense system cooperation--what Reagan announced on March 23 as the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative. Now, you have to remember that that five-minute segment of the Reagan speech was drafted with the cooperation of a collaborator of mine, and also with someone from the National Security Council, to make sure that what Reagan said in that segment, would conform {exactly} to what I'd been saying on his behalf with the Moscow back channels. And it did. Now, if Russia had accepted that proposal by Reagan, the effect would have been to change the world. That is, if the Russians had said, We go with what LaRouche is proposing, and we reject what Kissinger and McNamara are proposing (the so-called MAD doctrine)--that was what the issue was--if they had, then the world would have changed. Now, we face the same condition today. As long as I am stuck off in a corner as a pariah, I guarantee you there is no possibility of any such program working. As long as that condition exists, I guarantee you we have only two alternatives for this planet: Either go back to a cold war or quasi-hot war situation between the superpowers, with a lot of local wars around the world, or the kind of chaos in which the United States, for example, might disintegrate for economic and related reasons, over the coming three to four years. That is, in three to four years from now, we might be standing in a United States--if we're standing at all--which is in the process of breaking up. {That is already right now in progress,} though some idiots in the news media and around Washington refuse to admit that. The time that we don't have the tax base to maintain a local community, and we don't have resources from Washington to bail it out, that local community goes out of business politically. State governments and whole sections of the federal government will disintegrate. As long as we continue this lunatic balance-the-budget hysteria; as long as the United States is cutting its tax revenue base more and more and more, collapsing the economy, we will get to the point where we don't have enough tax revenue base to maintain the essential functions of government, we begin to disintegrate, and then chaos takes over where government disappears. That is tending to happen around the world, particularly with the collapse of economy, and this is the reality we must see, not looking for some pollsters' type of alternative. There are no pollsters' alternatives. Either we shift away from the McNamara, Kissinger, etc., line, the Bush-Thatcher line, get away from that and go to what I proposed philosophically first in 1982-83 in this back-channel arrangement and again in 1989-90, go to what I specifically have proposed, or else you get either war or chaos. Those are the three alternatives. And everything that is said about alternatives, falls under that. The Balkan Crisis: `The United States Has Created a Vacuum in World Leadership' Q: Mr. LaRouche, the President of Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic, has indicated that he feels his back is against the wall, and his only way out is to go with the partition arrangements that have been proposed by Lord Owen. What will happen if he does this? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's hard to say. First of all, look at the larger situation. Bosnia is being destroyed, and Bosnia was not destroyed by simply the Bosnian Serbs, or even Milosevic's Serbs. Bosnia was destroyed by a calculation set into motion by the Bush and Thatcher administrations and run by the Anglo-French alliance, and the United Nations under Boutros-Ghali. What they have done, is to strip the Bosnians of arms, let the Serbs have all the weapons they wanted. Every time the Bosnians tried to resist, or the Croats tried to resist, the United Nations, the United States, and Britain, intervened to attack them--cut them off and assist the Serbs. The UN troops in former Yugoslavia have acted consistently to assist the Serbs militarily in continuing their genocide against the Croats and Bosnians. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the Balkan crisis. Please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: Under these conditions, it's come to the point that Bosnia seems to have no objective alternative, but to come to some kind of a deal with its predators, the Owen-Stoltenberg-United Nations rape operation. Now the reason partly for this, is that the Clinton administration has twice--three times actually, but twice come up to the wire on this--threatened to use military force unilaterally if necessary, under the relevant provisions of its authority under the UN, to allow air assaults against the Bosnian Serbs, against their logistics and artillery bases, and to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian government. Twice it has failed to do that. What has happened, therefore, is that, although Bob Dole over on the Republican side is obviously using this issue and is sticking to the issue, that this is a crime, the Clinton administration has essentially thrown away its ability to govern, its credibility, by backing down twice in the way it has done on this military issue. That means that the United States has created a vacuum in Washington, and a vacuum in world leadership, in which the British-centered crowd is prevailing, and Izetbegovic and his people are being thrown to the mercy of these predators. However, it is also clear that the Parliament of Bosnia and the military leaders of Bosnia, will not accept what is being offered. So you have a continuing fight in which Izetbegovic is being terrorized into backing down to the predators; in which the United States as a result of this has created a vacuum in which the Clinton administration's credibility is all but gone for the future on domestic or foreign issues, and in which Clinton himself has retreated into non-starters, that is, non-starters as political rallying points--the budget, which was necessary, but is nothing to brag about in any respect. It's a failure, a horrible failure. And then going back to the health package which under these circumstances is going to be an even worse failure. So Clinton is running into predetermined failures, away from those issues. Now they're coming out with an attack on Sudan, attempting again a Bush tactic of distracting from the reality of the Balkan issue. The Balkan issue is going to blow up some more; it is not going to be quiet. The submission of Izetbegovic to these predators, would not end the Balkan wars. The Balkan wars are going to spread. And they're going to spread through other parts of the world, outside the Balkans themselves. So this is the worst, most catastrophic failure, and it is an unbelievable crisis for the Clinton administration. They have failed; and only by reversing course on these issues, can Clinton get something accomplished. Just to give you an example of this. The Clinton administration backed off from the idea of incentives, on the basis, as Hobart Rowen reported recently in the {Washington Post,} that simply lower interest rates would be a stimulant for the economy--which of course is not true. And that will prove itself, if you try to carry that out. All it will do, is to blow up the derivatives even worse. Because what the Clinton administration has overlooked, is the fact that the economy grows only if you put credit into the right place, that is, into industrial and agricultural and infrastructural jobs. If the credit does not go to those areas, then it will simply increase the rate of inflation. So unless you have some kind of a dirigist approach, which keeps the credit from flowing into certain areas which are speculative, and gets the credit flowing into areas which create useful jobs, not service jobs, not Wall Street jobs, then the U.S. economy is just going to slide deeper and deeper into the trough. So that program that Clinton relied upon, as an alternative to his original, better program, is going to be a catastrophic failure. His health plan under these circumstances, will be a catastrophic failure. His foreign policy so far, has been, in effect, because of these things we have indicated, has also been a catastrophic failure. So Clinton is now facing a crisis; and his crisis happens to be not his personal crisis, but it is the crisis of the United States, and also of the world. That is the situation. The Graham Case: How Immoral Educational Policies Have Caused Immorality in Government Q: Mr. LaRouche, I would like to move to another area. Gary Graham is a convicted criminal who sits on Death Row in Texas. He has been given a stay. His case has come to national attention, especially given the fact that Texas has a law that says you can't introduce new evidence after 30 days, especially in a capital case. President Clinton has a new crime bill. The new crime bill says that you must introduce a {habeas corpus} appeal in the first six months after conviction. What is happening to the United States judicial system? Some people think that we're turning barbaric. MR. LAROUCHE: Let's look at the crime rates of the United States. I stated this thesis earlier, but let's look at it. Of course, the point is, all the evidence now is that Gary Graham was innocent all along. And the Attorney General Morales--or perhaps we prefer to call him Im-Morales--of Texas has blocked every effort to hear that evidence. So this is unspeakable. Also remember, in connection with the earlier execution in Texas, the Herrera case; the Supreme Court, in support of Texas authorities, said in effect, that even provable innocence of a convicted person, is not a reason to stop their execution. Think of that. Just think of that. Any citizen who would vote for any law which would give these jokers in the federal government or the state governments the authority to carry out a death penalty, is actually a murderer. Because we already know, that at least 10% of the Death Row cases nationally are innocent of the crimes of which they are charged. That's great, isn't it? The point is, there is no longer any {truth-seeking} in the U.S. judicial process. But look at the overall situation, and let's get a real look at this crime issue. First of all, the fact is, that as of 1991, when the Soviet Union still existed, the United States had a higher rate--that is, per 100,000 citizens--of incarceration of its people in state and federal prisons, than any other nation on this planet; a 50% higher rate than the Soviet Union, approximately. What does that say? There are three hypotheses that can be presented to explain the rate of incarceration of American citizens. The first hypothesis is, that the typical American is the most criminal citizen of any nation on this planet; the second alternative, is that our criminal justice system is the most corrupt of any nation's on this planet. The third alternative, is that some combination of the two--corruption of the citizen and corruption of our criminal justice system--has combined to create this effect. But in any case, since we are still a quasi-democracy at least, and since public opinion still has a great effect on the way our neighbors behave and the way our criminal justice system and government work, then we have to say there's something wrong in American culture which has caused this situation. And we would say, well, it's not remarkable. Over the past 30 years, we have taken God out of the schools and we put Satan in, in the form of this OBE, or Outcome Based Education; and when people look at that closely, they will see that this was developed by professed Satanists. And that's the dominant trend in education in the United States. We have the rock-drug-sex counterculture, which has a lot of Satanism in it, explicit Satanism. We have gone from an industrial society which was committed to producing our own wealth and meeting our own needs, to a post-industrial society, which is throwing our jobs overseas some place, leaving our towns without industries, and leaving our citizens more and more without jobs, or with only coolie jobs. So we are destroying the nation; and this causes an immorality both in the citizens and in our culture, and an immorality in our government. And the thing to understand in the case of Texas Attorney General Im-Morales, is that his behavior exemplifies the chaos, the immorality, the moral breakdown of government and the citizenry, which is pervading the United States. And together with the economic crises which are partly a result of this immorality, the United States is headed rapidly toward the point, that we as a nation {might} begin to break up within the next two to three years. OBE: `Bush Brought in Satan as the Schoolmaster' Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have a couple of minutes left. I'm wondering if you can continue discussing the Satanic influences in the Outcome Based Education programs in the schools. MR. LAROUCHE: People have always been looking for the maximum evil on this planet, and for a while, a lot of people were convinced that communism was the maximum evil. But then, if you look at communism more closely, you'll find out that there's something worse. The most horrible feature of the communist regime in Russia, was the Anatole Lunacharsky educational reform, which is the model for the kinds of educational reform of the Bush educational reform. Remember, Bush was supposed to be the Education President. Well, Bush brought in Satan as the schoolmaster, under Lamar Alexander and these people. What is going on, particularly in four states--Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania--but also in degrees in 40 other states, is a program which is based on pure Satanism. That is, the authors of the program were--and are--professed Satanists. For example, you have Muller, who is the bigwig of this stuff. Muller is a member of a cult called the Lucifer Trust, that is, the worship of the Satan deity Lucifer, otherwise known as the Lucis Trust. The ideology associated with that, comes directly from the communist groups which were Satanic in their character, as Lunacharsky was a Satanist, which produced the Satanic educational reforms in Russia, and briefly in Hungary. Georg Lukacs, the Minister of Culture who introduced these things in Hungary in 1919, which the people revolted against, was the creator, the founder of the Frankfurt School, the Institute for Social Research, of people like Adorno, Horkheimer, and so forth; or Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger. These evil people. It is followers of the Frankfurt School, such as the B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League, with its ``World of Difference'' program, which continue the Hannah Arendt/Georg Lukacs tradition. The Stanford Research Institute's Willis Harman's group, with its Aquarian plot, which is documented in a book by Marilyn Ferguson, a close cooperator of Harman, is cited in these programs, as pushing this. This stuff is outright Satanic, and is being pushed around the country. Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have run out of time. This is ``{EIR} Talks.'' If you want to send in questions or find out more information about {Executive Intelligence Review,} please write to ``{EIR} Talks,'' c/o EIR News service Inc., Attention: Mel Klenetsky, 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.