From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Aug 30 16:43:59 PDT 1993


   - 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 25, 1993 
    Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

    MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with
Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. 

     The U.S. Will Disintegrate in 2-3 Years 
     Unless We Dump Friedmanite Economics 
                  and Outcome Based Education 

    Mr. LaRouche, you've recently developed a thesis saying
that the United States will disintegrate in two to three
years. Can you please explain why you feel that way? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the basis of political institutions
is economic. And the basic point is, as we see happening in
Eastern Europe and Russia, where institutions are
disintegrating, as the economic basis for tax revenues and
other essential functions of society break down economically,
we see a breakdown in the corresponding institutions of
government; we see a sweep of cultural pessimism in
populations as a result of the economic breakdown, all of
which combines to create a growing mood of desperation and
disintegration, a kind of process of crumbling of
institutions such as we see, for example, very conspicuously
in the breakdown in Eastern Europe, and in the former Soviet
Union between 1989 and 1991, and more particularly in the
past two years. 
    What is happening in Washington, is that Washington,
together with many citizens such as Ross Perot, is obsessed
with an absolutely lunatic idea of budget cutting as a basis
presumably for curing the great evil. If you look at the
figures, as I have, the percentile of the total U.S. labor
force which is employed by the federal government has been
shrinking over the past 25 years--and this is the
non-military, and that says nothing about the military which,
of course, as we all know, is being drastically
shrunken--``downsized,'' I believe is the current politically
correct term for it. 
    So therefore, those who say that government operations
are causing a budget deficit, are obviously either lying, or
a little bit lunatic. 
    Then they will start cutting entitlements. Well,
entitlements are pensions and things of that sort. That's
murderous, to cut that. And obviously, that has been growing,
but only relatively, and that's only because we've been
having a lower birth rate, in part, and also a lower tax
revenue base in real terms, that is, in constant dollar terms
per capita. 
    Therefore, even though pensions are not really
increasing, they are relatively increasing, because we're
shrinking the base out of which they're paid; therefore, the
pension costs, the entitlement costs, are a larger percentile
of the total revenue, because the total revenue is being
shrunk, while the entitlements remain fixed or only slightly
shrinking. 
    Then the other aspect is, that the tax revenue base
overall is shrinking. {But} the big increase in government
spending is debt service; and debt service has been caused by
deregulation and in the introduction of a gigantic,
uncontrolled Federal Reserve-sponsored worldwide derivatives
bubble, a financial bubble. And because of the present method
of Federal Reserve operations with the banking system, we
have an uncontrolled bubble which is sucking the blood out of
government, as well as everything else. 
    But the Congress and others refuse to attack the Fed. 
    Now as long as they do that, and as long as they refuse
to admit that insane environmentalist ideas--that is, ideas
with no scientific basis whatsoever but popularized through
the media, combined with these ideas about monetary
policy--the ideas of Milton Friedman; as long as government
says, and a large section of the population supports them,
that the solution to our problems is to cut the federal
budget by reductions in expenditures and increases in tax
rates, what we're going to do, is to continue to collapse the
U.S. economy more and more. You're putting more and more
people out of work, or out of work and into cheap jobs which
really are not necessary jobs, they're parasitism, like
flipping hamburgers--rather useless service jobs. And, at the
same time, you are shrinking the number of industries with
deindustrialization, shipping jobs out of the
country--there's one where Ross Perot is right--cutting the
number of people who are working, shrinking the tax revenue
base. 
    When that happens, you can no longer sustain sections of
government, starting, say, with cities--we had that around
Pittsburgh some years ago, the beginning of that, of whole
towns just literally shut down for lack of a tax revenue
base. And you start to shut down local communities, functions
of state government, perhaps an entire state government here
and there, as the California case showed us what could
happen, and then shrug off responsibility to the federal
government, because the money is simply not there. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you've been discussing your thesis that
the U.S. will disintegrate in the next two to three years.
Please continue. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: If we take the current projectable rate of
decline, and we're in a spiraling worldwide economic
depression. All this talk about recovery, is all nonsense.
There has been no recovery anywhere in the world since the
1987 stock market crash, which actually was an early
derivatives collapse. 
    So if present policies continue, that is, if people
continue to listen to Phil Gramm and Milton Friedman and
people who say you can't touch the Fed, and people who defend
derivatives; if you believe those people, in two to three
years from now, we will begin to have a process of
disintegration of government. This will be combined with the
effects, if we don't change it, of our educational system
reforms. 
    The present Outcome Based Education reforms or Core
education, or all these things that are being put into place
in a number of states already, these things will have effects
not only on children but on families, which will cause a
cultural, sociological disintegration in the United States
beyond anything you ever imagined before. Actually, Outcome
Based Education is quite Satanic, as you know. The Satanists,
that is, people who profess to worship Satan, and who see OBE
as a way of eliminating Christianity, literally designed this
Outcome Based Education program. They're the ones who are
behind the program. No speculation, no question about it:
cold, hard fact. Robert Muller et al. 
    The injection of that hateful, destructive, Satanic
program of education, under circumstances of economic
downward spiral, including the collapse of institutions of
government, the cessation of payment of responsibilities of
government such as entitlements, with a worldwide depression
spiral and no bottom in sight, will bring about a process of
sociological as well as economic destabilization of the
institutions of government. And we will get into a kind of
disintegrative process like that we've seen in the past two
years, in the former Soviet Union. That is the direction in
which we are headed--{unless}; unless we dump Milton
Friedman, Phil Gramm, and everything they represent, as well
as dumping and kicking out of the schools these child
molesters who are sometimes called facilitators or
counselors. That's the point. 
    It's not inevitable; we can still change it. But if we
don't change the way we think about making policy, at least
the majority of the people, and if the Congress continues to
bend in the way it has been bending, under entertainment and
news media pressure, then this nation will begin to
disintegrate very visibly, within about three years. 

        The {New York Times'}s SDI Hoax: ``The {New York
     Times} Is a Filthy Rag'' 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you indicated a while back that one way
out for the United States in the early 1980s, was to go with
your approach on SDI. More recently, this has come up in the
{New York Times} and other places, as an issue. The New York
Times said--or implies--that the SDI fight was a fraud right
from the start. 
    Can you explain some of the various features of that
debate? I know that you called for new physical principles.
How would new physical principles shift the economy? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: It's obvious. It would shift the economy,
because if you put more technology in, as we did with the
Kennedy Moon-landing crash program, with this aerospace
program of the 1960s, every improvement in the economy which
occurred since the middle 1960s, was the result of the
technological spin-offs from the space program. It's the same
thing. 
    But the {Times} business, is an outright hoax. Bud
McFarlane wrote an op-ed on this which was run in the
{Times.} He's right. Bud is telling the truth about
everything that he says about 1982 and thereafter, to my
direct knowledge, through my participation in that National
Security Council process on SDI. I can say that as an
eyewitness. I was there. 
    The {Times,} on the other hand, is straight lying.
Remember, the {Times} has been incompetent. The {Times}
attacked Edison, and said the light bulb should not be
developed. It said that electrical power should not be
developed. It practically called for the imprisonment of the
Wright Brothers for trying to prove that a heavier-than-air
aircraft could get off the ground. It demanded the shutdown
of Goddard's rocket experiments, back in the 1920s, saying
that no rocket could ever get out of the atmosphere, and
therefore his experiments should be shut down. And they
quoted their official scientist, the environmentalist of the
1920s, to prove that no rocket could ever leave the
atmosphere. How wonderful. 
    So the {Times} is like that. 
    Now also, one thing in connection with what Bud
McFarlane said, is that at the time, before the President
announced the SDI, when I was negotiating the SDI with the
Soviets through a back channel, an exploratory negotiation,
the top Soviet representative in the back channel said to me
in February of 1982: we agree with part of your proposal, we
disagree with another part. We will not accept it. However,
we have been assured {at the highest level of the Democratic
Party} that someone in the White House will prevent your
proposal from ever coming off President Reagan's desk. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing your back-channel
negotiations on the SDI. Please continue. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: So early in March, an associate of mine,
with a representative of the National Security Council, met
with one of President Reagan's speechwriters to draft what
became the five-minute segment announcing the SDI on March 23
of 1983. 
    Now on March 22, 1983, someone in the White House at a
very high level whose name I know, pulled that segment.
Overnight, the President, Reagan, put the segment back in,
without telling the high-level adviser who had pulled it. And
that's how it got on the air. 
    This demonstrates, among other things, first of all,
that the high levels of the Democratic Party {were working
with the Soviet KGB to kill the SDI before it was announced};
that the {New York Times} is part of that complex. The {New
York Times} has been lying about that as it did--for example,
let's go back to another instance. 
    In 1974, January, we had caught the FBI directly working
with the highest levels of the Communist Party, to set up a
physical elimination of me, which actually almost came off.
We blew the story at the beginning of January 1974. Three
weeks later, the {New York Times} was rushed in to run with a
phony story to cover for the FBI. 
    In 1979, the {New York Times} was working with Elizabeth
Holtzman through its agent Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery,
the guy who had done the story in 1974 to cover for the FBI,
to set me up for prosecution. We bugged them. We put a man
with wire in the situation, to continue the interview with
Blum and Montgomery. We got the story from them. They were
going with a major blast on me, a press blast, to signal an
attack on me throughout the national media. The idea was to
put me in prison within five years of such a campaign. 
    We went out at that point with the tape recording, in
two press conferences, one in New York and one in Washington.
The New York Times} had to cut it out, and went over to Roy
Cohn to contract to create this Dennis King phenomenon to get
prior publication so they could go with their dirty story on
me. 
    Also, the same {Times} in that period, had set up,
through the same Howard Blum, with Elizabeth Holtzman and
Henry Kissinger, a Teamster official, Tscherim Soobzokov, for
the kind of treatment that Demjanjuk got. Well, Soobzokov's
lawyers obtained the proof that the {New York Times} had gone
to the KGB office in Kiev, in Ukraine, to get Moscow to forge
documents on Soobzokov, which would indicate that he had been
a Nazi prison guard, or something to that effect. 
    When it was proven that the {New York Times} had
solicited a forgery, the {New York Times} had to settle with
Soobzokov in a civil case, with a sealed agreement, under
which they had to pay him for this lie which Howard Blum
published on behalf of the {Times} in his book. And later,
the U.S. government, the OSI, had had to drop its phony case
against Soobzokov. After the OSI dropped its phony case
against Soobzokov, then the B'nai B'rith, which is close to
the {Times,} used its agents of the JDL to threaten
Soobzokov, and Soobzokov was murdered. 
    So the {New York Times} is a filthy rag, and as Bud very
kindly puts it, the story they're running on the fraud of the
SDI, is a fake--like most of the fakes, like its fake on the
electric light bulb, on electric power, on heavier-than-air
aircraft, on rockets getting out of the atmosphere and so
forth. The {New York Times} is a fake, and it fakes things
for political reasons of its own. 
    
    Q: Mr. LaRouche, I understand that you have some further
proof on the {New York Times} or FBI involvement in
attempting to eliminate you. Wasn't there a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) release? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Oh, yes. What there is, from November
1973, is an FBI release which indicates that the New York
office of the FBI, with the knowledge of Washington, that is,
immediately after Hoover's death, was working with the
Communist Party to incite the Communist Party to preceive
that if I were eliminated, the Communist Party's problems
would be eliminated. 
    [commercial break] 

     The British Started World War I-- 
                  and the Balkan Crisis Today 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, a debate has broken out in the German
and in the British press on who was responsible for World War
I. The British are saying that the Germans were behind it. Of
course there's a big debate going on about British
involvement in causing the recent Bosnia crisis. So the
British are trying to blame the recent Bosnia crisis on the
Germans; others around the world, including Bosnian Vice
President Ganic and others, are saying that Britain is behind
this. And this relates back to World War I, and who caused
World War I. Can you please give us some insight into this
debate that's taking place at this point. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: It's great, isn't it? 
    In any case, this goes back as follows. 
    In November 1989, Margaret Thatcher, faced with the
prospect of disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, launched an
attack on Germany accusing Germany's potential unification as
constituting a Fourth Reich menace to civilization. At that
point, British intelligence utilized all its assets,
including its assets inside Yugoslavia, to prepare a Balkan
war. 
    Let me emphasize that Karadzic is not only a British
agent, that is, an agent of a known British intelligence
operation, run through the London Tavistock Institute; but
that Lord Owen, the present British U.N. negotiator, is a
psychiatrist like Karadzic who is part of the same
psychological irregular warfare team run through the London
Tavistock Institute and what used to be called and is still
called by many, the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno,
Hannah Arendt, and that Nazi Martin Heidegger, et al. 
    So it is a Nazi-Communist nest of New Agers inside the
international psychiatric coordinating agency for British
intelligence, British psychological warfare, the London
Tavistock Institute, which utilized the agents who are
committing the mass murder, the mass rape, the other horror
shows in former Yugoslavia; the British orchestrated the
whole thing from the beginning, in 1989--that is, this
particular operation. 
    What has happened in Yugoslavia, is that the British
with their accomplices in France, Norway (that is,
Stoltenberg of Norway, who is an old friend, an old ally of
the Serbian faction which is committing these atrocities)
have used, with U.S. complicity, the United Nations
Organization, particularly under Boutros-Ghali, to run a
cover to ensure that there is no effective resistance to this
fascist Serb holocaust being run against the Bosnians today;
and that is the essence of the matter. 
    Now, what happens therefore, is that the Bosnians, the
Italians, and some Germans, and me, have exposed the nature
of this thing, and traced it back rightly to the origins of
World War I. I published a number of papers which may not
have hit the {New York times} or the {Washington Post,} but
are widely circulated in government and related circles
throughout the world, saying that the time has come to tell
the truth about World War I, that World War I was started
because Britain feared that France and Germany would accept
the ideas of Count Sergei Witte, the Russian prime
minister--the Russian genius of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century--to bring France, Germany, and Russia into
cooperation around railroad building, as a way of creating
economic cooperation and peace on the continent of Eurasia. 
    The British consider this the greatest possible threat
to the British Empire; and saw Germany's superiority in
technology and economy as the thing that made possible the
success of what Witte was proposing, and what people like
Hanotaux in France were proposing. Therefore, the British set
up a balance-of-power operation which became known as World
War I, and used the British operations centered around Serbia
in the Balkans to start a Balkan War, to get World War I
ignited. 
    That is the truth. The British know that. The British
are widely aware of the publications in Italy, in Bosnia, in
Croatia, and also in Germany to some degree, exposing the
fact that what the British are doing in the Balkans today,
since Margaret Thatcher started it in 1989, to unleash a
Balkan war again, as it did in World War I, forces us to come
out with the truth about how World War I actually started.
That the British did it to get a war on the continent, to
prevent cooperation among France, Germany, and Russia, which
would be key to a Eurasian economic development bloc. 
    And the same thing today: the British were afraid that
German reunification would make a reorganized Russia
susceptible to German economic influence, and that France
would be drawn in; and that is why the British started this
Balkan war, this horror show, and that is why the British
have used the United Nations and the weakness of the United
States, to commit mass murder, mass rape, and every other
horror you can imagine, in the Balkans, to prevent that from
happening. 
    So the British are responding with {hysteria,
screaming:} ``No, the Germans were guilty in World War I,
everybody knows it, everyone knows it, didn't we tell them
often enough?'' So that's what's going on. But the fact that
the British feel obliged to repeat those lies again, with
such hysteria, as the {Daily Telegraph} and other press have
done in London, indicates that the report that I've been
circulating, and that other press have been doing in Italy
and elsewhere, are beginning to hit home. 

            Why There is a Danger of a Coup in Egypt 

    Q: If the British are moving to destabilize through the
Bosnian crisis German reunification and East-West economic
cooperation, would you say the current crisis in Egypt and
Sudan is part of this picture? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. 
    At present, the British and elements of the U.S.
government security services, and the Israelis, are moving
for a coup in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak. The Egyptian
government has already said that. 
    For example. Take the New York World Trade Center
bombing. The group arrested in connection with that, is a
group which has several generations ownership by British
intelligence--that is, Sheik Abdul Rahman. He has a pedigree
in British intelligence service, the Arab Bureau of British
Intelligence, going way back. Beginning about 1979-1980, the
CIA, or not so much the CIA but the focal point, that is, a
unit in the Joint Chiefs of Staff into which the CIA has
plugged, among other agencies, since the days of Allen
Dulles, ran guerrilla warfare through, chiefly, a major drug
operative, Hekmatyar. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing Egypt and
Sudan. Please continue. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: So the CIA and the focal point crowd,
including a woman called Major Karen McKay, picked up on this
crowd, which included Rahman, in running through Pakistan the
anti-Soviet operation in Afghanistan, kicking out all of the
honest Afghanis, and supporting this drug-runner Hekmatyar as
the key Afghan asset used to control the situation
politically. And a lot of drug money was run through
operations very much like the Iran-Contra drug money
operation. As a matter of fact, much bigger than Iran-Contra;
much bigger than the Contra operation out of Medellin, in
order to finance this Afghan operation. 
    So at some point, under Bush, these fellows were cut
loose, and reverted back to their British intelligence
parentage; and these are the fellows who are part of the
operation which the FBI has gone after in New York, alleging
that these are the people behind the killing of Meir Kahane,
which may have been done by the Israelis themselves, in point
of fact. He was an awful pest to them; and in the World Trade
Center bombing. 
    So this of course is the same crowd which is implicated
by association--that is, the guy who is a member of it--who
did the assassination shooting in front of CIA headquarters
in Langley, to set the whole thing off. 
    So on these bases--and the Egyptians, of course, know
this--the Egyptians are saying this is all a part of a U.S.
operation, but they don't like to say British and Israeli.
It's probably more Israeli than anything else right now, in
terms of on the ground, to overthrow the Mubarak government.
And it's under Egyptian pressure, not only the pressure of
this, that the United States is targeting Sudan, because the
Egyptians were used for their failed operation to overthrow
the government of Sudan; and therefore, the Egyptians are
panic-stricken. 
    In point of fact, the Sudanese are doing everything they
can to keep out of the internal affairs of Egypt, because
they know this. 

        The U.S. Senate Should Examine the LaRouche Case for
     Human Rights Violations Before Accusing Other Countries 
    
    Q: You mentioned this terrorist network recently.
There's an interesting development that's occurring in Peru
at this point, where Fujimori, the President of Peru, is
going after Sendero Luminoso, the ``Shining Path'' terrorist
group, and we have our friends in the {New York Times,} who
have an editorial criticizing Fujimori for doing this, and
also a letter from Patrick Leahy, the Senator from Vermont,
and David Obey, [a congressman] from Wisconsin, saying that
there's human rights violations. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: The United States Senate should be
occupied with human rights violations right here at home,
before we can trust them to perceive what a human rights
violation is. If they can't see what a human rights violation
is, right here in the United States--a conspicuous one--how
can we respect their judgment on something as distant as
Peru? 
    I'm a case of that. Everyone on Capitol Hill--except the
odd moron or the guy who's been locked in the closet for a
number of years--knows, as they do in the Justice Department,
and as they do at the White House, that I was thrown into
prison in response to demands by the Soviet government, the
Gorbachov government; and that I was kept in prison, because
George Bush and his friends and allies have personal hatred
against me; otherwise I would never have gone to prison. The
charges were phony. They know it; we have the paper; they
know we have the paper; they know we have the sworn testimony
of {their} agents, which proves the whole case was a fraud
from the beginning. 
    Now, around the world, governments and leading officials
are telling the United States government, and Clinton
personally: Get this guy out of jail, he's innocent! You--the
United States--have a human rights violation! So if Mr. Leahy
and Mr. Obey cannot perceive that {I} am a human rights
violation, and a major one, by the United States government,
I wouldn't trust their judgment in matters of Peru
particularly, or any place else around the world. They
haven't got their spectacles on right; they've got them on
backwards or something, or upside down, or they're looking
through the wrong end of the microscope, or whatever. 
    What are the facts on Peru? 
    The government of Fujimori of Peru has successfully
crushed one of the most evil, most dangerous terrorist
operations in the world, within a period of approximately a
year. That is a miracle; that is a remarkable operation. Now
it doesn't mean that Sendero Luminoso was completely
exterminated. It probably is about 80 percent gone, and
effectively is ineffective in the country. Counter-operations
have succeeded. This operation by Peru against
foreign-directed terrorists in their own country--and this
runs through places like the Tavistock Institute and the
Tavistock's friends in France in the ethnology section, is
compared to the British experiment in Malaysia, at the end of
World War II, in driving the Chinese Communists out of the
country and into the jungles, where they became only a minor
nuisance. The danger, of course, is that Sendero Luminoso
might be brought back. 
    This is like a TB case. You get TB; you take the
medication; you control it. You've still got the TB in your
system; but the TB is under control, and you can do all kinds
of normal things, as long as you don't become
immune-suppressed. But if you become immune-suppressed, the
TB will break out again, and it can kill you. 
    Now the same thing is true of Sendero Luminoso. Think of
it as a disease, not anything else. A foreign-injected
disease, and it was injected by the Comintern; the Communist
International and others injected Sendero Luminoso into Peru
in the 1920s. So it's an infection, a very small infection,
based on people who are largely French-speaking. They are not
Indians, they are French-speaking. 
    If Peru were to be crushed, then this disease would
break out again, like TB which had been brought under
control. So the government of Fujimori has a crushing defeat
of the terrorists--and they are terrorists, the worst in the
world, comparable to the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge or to the
Karadzic crowd of Bosnian-Serb mass rapists, mass murderers,
and genocidalists generally, now operating in Bosnia. So
Fujimori defeated them. But the virus, or the infectious
agent, is still there, encysted in a military immune system
control. 
    The United States government, in a faction running
through the State Department and other sections of
intelligence associated with a figure called Luigi Einaudi, a
longstanding, wily old fox, much more important as an
individual than Henry Kissinger ever was, is determined to
destroy Peru; and they have chosen this communist terrorist
group, Sendero Luminoso, as its agent. 
    It is the United States government and the human rights
organizations working with Einaudi, who are today the backers
of Sendero Luminoso. These people are terrorists. Now
obviously, Senator Leahy and Rep. Obey, just don't know what
they're talking about. They are being hassled, lobbied,
what-not, by various people who've filled them up with a
crock. And so they have been induced to write this letter to
the {New York Times,} hoping probably for their own personal
political advantage in so doing. 
    But the ``human rights violations'' in Peru, are the
human rights violations induced by the policies of the United
States government, among others. And as I say, Leahy and Obey
would be much more credible, if they would do something about
getting {me,} a human rights case in the United States, out
of jail. Then we'd be willing to listen to their judgment a
little more readily, on matters of human rights violations
outside the United States. 

      What the Role of the U.S. Surgeon General Should Be 
    
    Q: Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to move another area, the
question of the proposed nomination for Surgeon General,
Joycelyn Elders. Nat Hentoff recently had an article saying
that we don't need a Surgeon General who accepts eugenics
because of Elders' position on abortion, and the fact that
she said abortion is very, very good because we have
elimianted a whole number of cases of Down's Syndrome. 
    What do you think the Surgeon General's position should
be, and how do you respond to Mr. Hentoff's criticism of
Joycelyn Elders? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Objectively, Nat Hentoff is right;
sometimes he's wrong, but he's often right. And when he is
right, he's generally pretty good. 
    But we have to look at the program in perspective. Mr.
Clinton, as Governor, was being profiled as a prospective
presidential candidate for some time before he entered the
race. In order to get Establishment approval for your
candidacy, which I never got, which is the only reason,
probably, I'm not President, you have to accept
``suggestions,'' as they're called. You've got to ``go with
the right agenda''; and you've got to demonstrate, through
meetings and participation in things like the Trilateral
Commission and other things, an active commitment to that
agenda. You've got to wed yourself to it, before the
Establishment will ``trust'' you to be a member of their
approved list of possible candidates. 
    Mr. Clinton, while he was seeking that kind of approval,
picked on many things which he may or may not fully support
today, or which he may not have looked into critically at
that time. One of these programs, was this woman's role in
Arkansas. 
    But on the other side, Nat Hentoff is absolutely
correct. I could add to it; but it's not necessary. It's
correct. It's enough to endorse him, he said the right thing,
he said it first. 
    What the President should consider, is consider my fight
with the office of the Surgeon General, on the question of
AIDS, and use that object lesson as a way of deciding how he
wants his Surgeon General to function as the federal Surgeon
General. 
    I don't think C. Everett Koop was a bad guy. He comes
from Minnesota, that doesn't mean he's all bad. I think he's
probably a pretty good guy. 
    But C. Everett Koop, we thought, was going to come down
on the right side on the AIDS epidemic--until October 1986,
when he said yes, AIDS is the most terrible epidemic we've
faced, a most terrible disease. But we cannot fight this
disease at the federal level at this time, because we are in
a budget-balancing crisis. That's an accurate representation
of the words. I don't have the exact quotation before me, but
that's what he said. 
    He said it under great pressure. This was the same line
that came out of the United States government, which was, we
must lie about HIV; we must say it's a sexually transmitted
disease and so forth and so on; because the people out of
their panic are going to force us to spend billions of
dollars on fighting this disease, and we are not going to
spend billions of dollars on fighting any disease, no matter
how serious, while we're in this budget-balancing crisis.
That's 1986. 
    As a result of Koop's capitulation--but he wasn't the
bad guy, he was the guy who came under pressure to do it, to
carry the ball because he's Surgeon General--and because of
the decision which was forced on Koop, by people in the
Reagan administration and elsewhere, and also in the World
Health Organization, the world has done effectively {nothing}
to stop the AIDS epidemic. 

    MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have run out of time. We
will continue next week withthis discussion on the Surgeon
General position and AIDS. ``EIR Talks'' will be back next
week. If you have any questions, please write to ``{EIR}
Talks,'' c/o EIR News Service, Inc., Attn: 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