From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Wed Sep  8 08:07:49 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


    September 1 
    ``EIR Talks'' 
    Interviewer: Webster Tarpley 

    WEBSTER TARPLEY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence
Review} Talks.'' My name is Webster Tarpley, sitting in today
for Mel Klenetsky, and we're on the line with Lyndon LaRouche
in Rochester, Minnesota. 

        Middle East Peace Negotiations: ``What's At Stake,
     Is World Peace'' 

    Mr. LaRouche, the world press in the past couple of days
has been filled with reports about a possible interim accord
between the Israeli government of Rabin and Peres and the
Palestinian Liberation Organization, with some kind of local
autonomy for the Gaza Strip and Jericho. This was based on a
series of meetings that have been held over the past several
months in Norway. 
    You have a history of recommending solutions for the
Middle East crisis going back to the middle 1970s, and I
wonder how you see these recent developments. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: This week, I just received some more
reports on some of the content of the agreement signed
between the PLO and the Israeli government of Rabin and Peres
in Norway. And my attention was called particularly to the
economic provisions. 
    Let me give first of all the good side, the up side of
this thing. 
    What they have proposed in general, except tourism and a
few other things--particularly the first five points--are
exactly what I had been stressing in my discussions both with
the PLO and with circles around Shimon Peres and others in
Israel, since 1975-76. 
    So it is {good.} On paper, those first five points of
economic agreement between the two entities look excellent;
and some of the details are remarkable for their excellence. 
    Now, on the down side. This plan is going to have
tremendous opposition from the friends of Sharon, shall we
say, inside Israel, inside the Israeli institutions, and from
circles in the United States such as the Anti-Defamation
League and others, who have always been on the ``kill the
Palestinians side'' here, and who will press Israel to take
the so-called Likud hard line, to try to disrupt this
agreement--which means they will be going for, possibly,
stirring up as many assassinations of PLO leaders, as they
have done in the past so often, and other things to disrupt
it, to say it violates international economic agreements and
so forth. 
    So there will be a down side. 
    This can be put through in its positive features only
with a stiff fight, and only with strong encouragement to
both Arafat's group, which signed this, and to the group
around Shimon Peres, which carried the ball on this for the
Rabin government. We should take it very seriously, and we
should push it; but also recognize that there are people in
the United States, as well as in Israel, part of the Zionist
Lobby here, especially, who will do their utmost to drown
this agreement in blood, and to prevent this cooperation from
ever occurring. 
    As to what it means, what's at stake here is world
peace. If this could be brought to fruition, to stability, to
some degree of security, it would establish a point of
stability in the Middle East between the Palestinians and
Israel, or some of them at least, which could become a
keystone for building peace based on economic cooperation of
a new type in other parts of the world. 
    So I am very much for it. I hope it succeeds; but I see
the great dangers which threaten it. 

     Why the Expose of Drug Use by the British Royal Family 
                 Gives Me Political Credibility 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have a couple of items from Great
Britain. The first is a series of revelations made by a
Scottish magazine called {Leopard,} which has gotten into all
of the main London dailies. This involves the records of a
small pharmacy in the village of Braemar near the royal
family's summer retreat, Balmoral Castle, in Scotland. 
    These records refer to the period of 1897 to 1914, and
the London {Times} sums it up saying that under Queen
Victoria, even though she ``was not amused,'' it looked like
the royal family ordered enough cocaine and heroin for the
royal family at Balmoral, ``to keep an entire Scottish glen
high in the highlands.'' 
    So what's involved here is cocaine, heroin, other kinds
of narcotics delivered to the British royal family, as well
as to such figures as Winston Churchill, who required cocaine
to keep himself going, and members of the Rothschild family,
who needed heroin, cocaine, and opium. And this has led to a
big brouhaha in London, saying that of all the scandals on
the British royal family, this seems to be the worst so far,
the first one involving the actual consumption of large
quantities of drugs. 
    Can you perhaps begin to give us an estimate of what
this all means? 
    MR. LAROUCHE. I would say there are two sides to this. 
    First of all, there is the story itself, of which I have
some knowledge. But more significant is the implications of
the way this story was leaked, and the way that, after the
publication by {Leopard,} all of the leading British press
dailies this past weekend simultaneously covered the story in
great depth. 
    I think you'll want to come back to that after we go to
our break. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we've just been commenting on the
British press reports about the consumption of heroin and
cocaine by the British royal family at Balmoral Castle in the
period between 1897 to 1914. That seems to be the big item in
London. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: There are two parts to this. 
    One is the story as leaked. It comes direct from the
records of this pharmacy. The pharmacy still has an
ownership, although the original ownership was bought out
long ago. So these old records, covering 1897 to about 1914,
obviously are uncontested as being factually true. 
    But the second, more significant business, is that this
is a direct attack on two things. First of all, believe it or
not, it is an attack on the Major government, which is viewed
by more and more of the British Establishment, as an absolute
disaster. And secondly, it is a part obviously of the
continuing attack on the incumbent or currently enthroned
branch of the British royal family, to put it as cautiously
as possible. 
    We have had the scandals in recent years against all
members of the royal family: their marriages, the marriages
of the two princes, other problems of the royal family,
scandals about the finances of the royal family; and behind
all this, there has been a tendency in some Establishment
circles to say that this royal family has--well, their eggs
are no longer up to par. We'd better get a new royal family;
or maybe we ought to have no royal family at all. 
    So that is what is at issue here. 
    The fact that all of the leading British press would
simultaneously back each other up and cover each other's
butt, so to speak, by breaking this story simultaneously from
the {Leopard,} indicates a very powerful factional commitment
to get rid of the Major government and also to go after the
British royal family itself. 
    The interesting thing is, as you may recall, even though
I didn't say it, NBC did say and attribute to me a statement
about the Queen of England pushing drugs. They said it over
and over again, beginning in 1982 and, through the courtesy
of the U.S. government and a fellow named John Train in New
York and his salon, all of the major U.S. news media repeated
it over and over and over again, between 1984 up through
1988. 
    They said that I said that the Queen of England pushes
drugs, which is not what I said. I said something quite more
precise: that she is responsible as head of government, for a
policy which is conducted by her subjects, a policy over
which she does have means of control which she is not
exerting, and therefore she is condoning, either by
negligence or otherwise, the massive drug trafficking and
drug-money laundering, which is being run through the British
offshore banks and other financial institutions. 
    {But} all over the world, not just in the U.S. media,
the statement is: ``The British Queen pushes drugs,''
originating from NBC. But that story is associated with my
name. 
    So when the British press in Britain--and it's spilled
over through a Reuters dispatch into other countries in
Europe--says that the British royal family has been a bunch
of drug users, including Winston Churchill and some others,
everyone in England, in the Establishment in particular,
treats this as something bearing on me, and as tending to
give {political credibility} to me, a political credibility
which I have gained at this point, by virtue, perversely, of
NBC TV. 
    And that is very much the point. This goes to other
things. There's a fuss in the British Establishment, as well
as in Europe, about me; things that I say are responded
to--perhaps because there isn't much else for them to respond
to these days, with nothing being said in Washington or a few
other centers. 
    So it has to be looked at in this twofold aspect. It is
what it is. It's a story, it's a scandal. But it is not a
National Enquirer scandal; it's quite substantial, based
strictly on fact. But the point of their putting it out in a
coordinated way, signifies a very significant political
effect. Immediately, as I say, the danger is to the Major
government, which is generally disliked, which might go in
the month of September; it might not; but it might go as
early as this month. Then there's a longer term danger to the
continuity of the currently sitting royal family; and it all
involves me. 

     How the British Are Trying to Cover Themselves 
             and their Central Role in Geopolitics 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have one other item from this debate
in the British Establishment. Professor Sir Michael Howard,
C.B.E., M.C, F.B.A., who was the Regius Professor of modern
history at Oxford University, the former Lovett Professor of
military and naval history at Yale, and who is currently the
governor of the Ditchley Foundation, has contributed to the
Ditchley Conference discussions, a lecture on ``Cold War,
Chill Peace,'' which was given recently. And in the course of
this, Sir Michael Howard goes back to the period of Napoleon
and the 100 years after 1815, to say that in that time, there
was no large European war, but that there was bad news,
because of developments that made Europe unstable:
industrialization transforming the economies of Western
Europe, and in particular, the growth of railways creating a
new major and political economic power in the center of
Europe, which was to shatter the international system that
began with the Prussian challenge to Austria, and went on
until 1945. 
    Can you comment on this? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: If you look at the British press as a
whole, including especially the London {Times} and the {Daily
Telegraph} and also, to some degree, the {Observer,} you will
see what Michael Howard's statement means. 
    First of all, partly, I must say, as a result of my work
in presenting, beginning particularly on Oct. 12, 1988, in a
televised interview I gave in Berlin, which was then
rebroadcast on national hook-up in the United States a couple
of weeks later, forecasting not only that we are on the
verge, beginning with developments in Poland, of a breakdown
of the Soviet system and Warsaw Pact economies leading toward
the prospective unification of Germany with Berlin as its
capital, there has been discussion of British geopolitics. I
also warned that the danger at that point, with Soviet and
other players involved, was a danger of a new war launched by
the Serbian section of the Yugoslav military against other
sections of Yugoslavia. 
    So in following up that analysis, at my instigation, but
also with the contributions of others, we have in Italy,
throughout the Italian press; throughout the press in
Croatia, and other countries, as well as in
Hercegovina-Bosnia [sic], the report about the British
involvement in setting up this war in backing the Serbs and
using the United Nations Security Council as a stalking horse
to protect and encourage the Serb aggression, first against
Croatia and Slovenia--notably Croatia--and against Bosnia and
prospectively against the Kosova district for ethnic
cleansing of the Albanians there--otherwise known as
genocide--of the Albanians there, and then against
Makedonija, and the danger of this war spilling over into
regions outside the former Yugoslav entity. 
    So we have indicated the reasons for this, and pointed
out the fact that in 1989, Prime Minister Thatcher's
government in Britain unleashed an attack on Germany, saying
that the unification of Germany, which was then more or less
imminent, was a threat to vital British interests; and that
Germany must be viewed as constituting a Fourth Reich,
prospectively; a danger to all of British interests, because
of the tremendous economic potential which a unified Germany
would have. 
    In the course of that, the British, together with such
elements of the Bush administration--Larry Eagleburger and
Brent Scowcroft, for example--unleashed their assets in
Serbia, to conduct a war of aggression against their former
neighbors; and these people, together with a developing
Anglo-French renewal of an {Entente Cordiale} through the
United Nations and through the weakness of Washington, first
through the complicity of Bush and then the weakness of
Clinton, have succeeded in disarming and suppressing the
victims of the Serbs, while promoting the Serbian rape and
other atrocities. 
    The obscenity of Lord Owen's behavior in buddy-buddy
relations he has developed with the chief butcher of Bosnia,
Karadzic, a fellow psychiatrist of Owen's, has underlined
this British complicity in creating this horror show. 
    So the British have reacted by complaining against those
terrible people who protest British responsibility for this
war. 
    Michael Howard has gone back, and turned everything on
its head. He said that German railroad building on the
continent of Europe was a threat to British interests which
caused World War I. 
    In point of fact, it was the cooperation offered by
Russia, first by Alexander II, but more specifically by Count
Sergei Witte, to both Gabriel Hanotaux in France and to
Germany for economic cooperation for development of
Eurasia--pretty much like a de Gaulle program for a Europe
from the Atlantic to the Urals--which prompted the British,
in the 1890s, to launch what became World War I. And they did
it by playing games with their allies in France, particularly
a fellow called Theophile Delcasse under a British official
named Lord Gray; and then the British intelligence service
used their Serbian assets of the time to launch a Balkan war,
including the assassination at Sarajevo. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were talking about the history of
British geopolitics in the World War I period. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: So, what Michael Howard has done in taking
the lead, is that he has said that German railroad building
was the threat that caused World War I. 
    In point of fact, it was not that, as I said; it was
Russian minister Count Sergei Witte's initiative toward
Germany and toward France, in cooperation with people like
Gabriel Hanotaux in France in the 1890s, which prompted the
British to decide to launch World War I, which they did, by
the {Entente Cordiale,} by deals with Russia, and by
inflaming the situation using their Serbian assets to start
another Balkan war, and then the assassination of the
Austrian Archduke at Sarajevo. 
    That has been the issue. The issue is, the British were
afraid, first of all, before World War I, that the
cooperation among France, Germany, and Russia, among others,
would ensure continental and Eurasian economic development,
which would mean the doom of any British attempt to dominate
the planet with the British Empire. So that's why World War I
occurred. 
    Now after that, the British came out rather weakened,
and could not continue their attempt at Anglo-Saxon world
domination, without the complicity of the United States,
which was a very troublesome and uneven process which was
finally settled in 1938 to the degree that the United States
predominantly, from then to the present time, has been
essentially American brawn or U.S. muscle guided by British
brains. 
    And so an {Anglo-American} world domination, is the
state today, particularly the financial interests of the
Anglo-Americans in London and Wall Street, for example. 
    So today, when Germany was reunified, the danger was,
that the collapse of the Iron Curtain, so called, would mean
that Western Europe particularly led by France and Germany,
would enter into cooperation with the newly freed states of
Eastern Europe, and possibly with Russia and with sections
such as Ukraine, to develop around railroad building a new
axis of cooperation for the economic development of Eurasia
and other parts of the world. 
    In which case, the Anglo-American domination of the
world, would cease. In order to prevent that, Mrs. Thatcher's
government, or the British state under Mrs. Thatcher's
government, launched this mess in the Balkans, among other
measures, and revived the same {Entente Cordiale} as a farce
which they had launched between Lord Gray and Theophile
DelCasse over the period 1898 to 1904, to start World War I. 
    So Michael Howard has simply taken this issue, perverted
it, spun it around a few times, and said, ``No, Germany is
responsible for the war in the Balkans, by threatening to
encourage economic development in the Balkans.'' It really is
the British trying to cover themselves for their own action.
It's getting very hot; things are about to blow up. 

      ``We Are Headed to the Worst Chaos of the Century'' 

    Q: And of course the Serbian genocide in Bosnia
continues. But in the midst of that, we've got nine Croatian
opposition parties--in opposition against the Tudjman regime
in Croatia--who have issued a statement from Zagreb which
condemns any idea of partitioning Bosnia. The statement
singles out in particular Mate Boban, the alleged Croatian
ethnic leader inside Bosnia as being anti-Croatian, condemns
the Geneva peace conference run by Lord Owen, and also points
out that the Serbian supporters internationally, are
motivated by geopolitical interests. So this breaks through,
to some degree, the ethnic orchestration that the British and
the French have tried to set up. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, precisely. 
    Something has got to break on this, one way or the
other. The question is, will the United States--which seems
unlikely at this time--break with the British and with the
{Entente Cordiale,} and proceed now to insist that this farce
called the peace negotiations or the map reconstructing in
Geneva come to a halt, and that the state of
Hercegovina-Bosnia, which was recognized by the United States
and other states, and that the government of Bosnia, which
was elected by an all-constituency majority, by 67 percent of
the vote throughout all of Hercegovina-Bosnia, be
reconstituted, and that the state of aggression and war
crimes committed by the Serbian fascist faction, which has
launched this war, be halted? 
    If that were to occur, we could stop this bloody mess.
If something like that does not occur, I would say that what
we're headed for, is something much more serious. I'm looking
also at dispatches from inside and elsewhere, insiders and
other public reports, from places such as Kiev and Moscow. 
    We are on the verge of a turn in world affairs, a turn
from the pattern of the 1989-1993 period to date. We are
headed potentially toward something like World War III, with
a reconstituted Russian state coming together under military
or other unification, from whatever state of chaos it
descends into, into an adversary relationship with a
collapsing Anglo-American power. 
    These collapsing powers--both the Russian much weakened
and the Anglo-Americans, which are about to be terribly
weakened by the coming collapse of the financial system--are
thermonuclear powers nonetheless. So we are in a condition of
globally spreading local wars, of which the Balkan war is but
a part. All kinds of riots; and not a government in the West
presently likely to survive this crisis; the new governments
coming up, are desperation governments. 
    So we are headed to the worst chaos of the century as of
now--unless we do something about this Balkan situation to
change our policy. Unfortunately, at the present it seems
unlikely that anyone in the United States in power, has the
combination of intelligence and guts to do what's needed. 

                  A Moral Test for Our Nation: Why Parents
Must Revolt Against Outcome-Based Education This Year 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, this is now back-to-school week for
many families across the United States, and that raises the
issue of Outcome-Based Education and related kinds of
spiritual child molestation going on in the schools. 
    In the Commonwealth of Virginia, Nancy Spannaus, whom
you know well, is running for governor, and she has called
for the ouster of Joe Spagnolo, the state education
commissioner, on the basis of his support of Outcome-Based
Education, which is called the Core curriculum in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. 
    How would you evaluate the fight against Outcome-Based
education across the United States, as kids go back to
school? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: It better become very serious. 
    This system of education, it should be emphasized, was
first tried out under the Bolshevik government. 
    If you look at some of the literature by the authors of
Outcome-Based Education and Core curriculum and similar kinds
of programs, you find they have lifted entire paragraphs from
the Bolshevik educational program. This also has similarities
to the Nazi program of education. 
    The object is to take the children away from their
parents, to make them hostile from the age of six against
their parents; to destroy all vestiges of Christian
civilization through such things as introducing compulsory
study of homosexuality at the age of six; and through the
introduction of mass hypnosis called the ``relaxation hour,''
and through the introduction of what are called facilitators
and counselors. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were talking to us about
Outcome-Based Education. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: All I can say at this point, essentially,
without running our time out, is that unless the American
people, or a majority of them, particularly parents, stand up
and revolt this year--including {this month}--to say we will
not tolerate any continuation of this kind of Satanic
brainwashing of our children by the National Education
Association culprits and others, what will happen in this
school year, or at least in the short term, will be an
irreversible degeneration of the nation's education system;
and the destruction of a large part of our children of the
pre-pubertal age children in particular-- irreversible
destruction of their minds and morals. Under these
conditions, if we fail to do this, if we fail to protect our
children from these Satanic mind-benders brainwashing our
children, then I think that when the other crises hit as they
will during the next two years, we will be unable morally to
face those crises; and we will find ourselves trapped in a
nightmare from which there seems no escape. 
    This is now a moral test for Americans. Those who stand
for Outcome-Based Education and similar things on one side;
they are the enemy forces. Whether they are personally the
enemies or not, they are the enemy forces; they have joined
it. 
    And those who oppose and demand the uprooting of
Outcome-Based Education and similar programs, are what's left
of morality in America; if the moral forces do not move to
moral victory quickly, this nation is not long for this
planet--at least not in its present form. 

  Why We Are Faced with the Worst Financial Crash in 650
Years 

    Q: Last week, the Neue Zuercher Zeitung, organ of the
Swiss bnaking interests, put out an article which seems to
point to a European prognosis of a United States financial
crash sometime in the next couple of months. It was the
danger of the overheating of the U.S. stock market that the
Neue Zuercher Zeitung was talking about, and also the
problems related to the derivative markets, have been focused
on even by the International Monetary Fund, that seems to be
saying that the potential of the derivative bubble to blow
out is now so great, that even the IMF is worried about it. 
    What can you say about the financial perspectives for
the world economy as we look into the autumn? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: The IMF report, as reported in
Switzerland--I have yet to see the copy of the original, but
the Swiss newspaper report of the content--is extremely
unusual, in the fact that the IMF very seldom tells the
truth, very seldom issues a report which admits the
circumstance. They usually try to say the opposite, as a way
of controlling the situation. 
    But look at what's happened, what they're reporting
about. In 1987, the first derivatives-driven collapse of the
U.S. economy occurred. Now this was caused originally by the
measures started by the Carter administration, with
deregulation in 1978, with the implementation of the banking
deregulation and Volcker measures under chairman Paul
Volcker, appointed as chairman of the Fed by Carter in
October of 1979. That's when he was installed. 
    This is the beginning. Then, in 1982, under the
leadership of Vice President Bush in the Senate and
elsewhere, a series of derivative or deregulation measures
were put into effect. This finished off the corpse of what
was left of the looted savings and loan associations and
other banks. 
    Five years later, in 1987, the banking system
essentially collapsed, but was bailed out by baling wire,
largely, and new measures. 
    Since that time, the Fed has engaged in trying to bail
out the bankrupt major banks of the United States, not just
the savings and loans. The only reason that major banks have
not gone under, is the vast printing press operation by the
Federal Reserve to bail out Citibank and other banks. This
bailout operation of the banks, has been the major reason for
the zooming of the U.S. federal deficit. There are other
causes, but this is the major one. 
    Now, in the past two to three years, according to IMF
and other reports, the character of the U.S. banking system
has been changed. These banks are no longer real banks. They
are dead banks brought back to life like Frankenstein
monsters. Banks used to take Federal Reserve credit and other
credit and loan it to agriculture, to industry, to
infrastructure, and to private investment in retailing and so
forth. 
    {They no longer do that.} They are sucking what remains
of the blood of agriculture, industry, railroads, power
stations, and private business. They are putting that Federal
Reserve pump money and non-money, and what they can loot from
the private sector and government, into a big, speculative
derivatives bubble, so that while there is no significant
inflation (there's some, but no significant inflation
relatively speaking) on the production side because of a
depression condition in real economy, there is a superboom in
speculation and paper. This has resulted in the current
zooming upward of thOBe U.S. stock exchange. 
    Now the U.S. stock exchange is no significant part in
and of itself of the current financial situation. {It's a
dead duck} which is being moved by puppet wires. The zooming
of this, simply reflects a wild speculation in derivatives,
in non-money--the biggest financial bubble in world history. 
    What the IMF is talking about, is the imminent danger of
a general worldwide financial collapse centered on this
derivatives bubble, this balloon, in the coming months and
weeks ahead. And that's where the situation stands. We are
faced with the worst financial crash in the past--let's
see--this will be 650 years. The worst financial crash since
the one set off in the middle of the fourteenth century--in
European history, at least. And that's coming up right fast,
unless we were to change this suddenly, which again, as I
say, unfortunately, seems unlikely. 

        The Mississippi Flood: The Department of
     Agriculture's Wetlands Proposal 
                Is a Moral Failure of Leadership 

    Q: You have been discussing the perspective that the
United States is in the process of decomposing, falling
apart, that the United States government and related agencies
are collapsing at a very rapid rate, that within the next two
or three years, there could be very little left of what we
have thought of as government. 
    Related to this, the issue of the flooding on the
Mississippi, the Missouri, and other Midwestern rivers: the
Department of Agriculture and an interagency task force under
Secretary Espy are now seriously discussing the idea, that
areas that have been inundated by the floods, will not be
restored but will be declared wetlands. They can be leased or
purchased by the federal government, they can be returned to
the state of pristine nature I guess that these fellows are
interested in; and it would also mean that you would not have
to build up any more levees, repair the levees, or other
flood control systems. 
    How would you see that as a symptom, perhaps, of the
United States heading toward collapse? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: This, of course, on the part of the U.S.
government, is absolute insanity and negligence. It's a moral
failure of leadership in the U.S. government, and under
pressure from agencies such as the {New York Times,} which
has proven itself to be wrong on every issue of science, in
the history of its existence. So I don't know why anybody
would allow themselves to be influenced by the {Times}--and
by one of the wildest-eyed idiots among the so-called radical
environmentalists. 
    I have gone over a report which was pulled together by
{EIR'}s Richard Freeman; and the facts which are most
relevant to this, are that the Mississippi runs from about
100 miles north of Minneapolis, to obviously the New Orleans
estuary. The midpoint there is Cairo, Illinois. From Cairo,
Illinois on down, which used to be the worst area of flooding
in the case of floods, there are no significant damages,
despite the fact that the flooding and the number of acre
feet per minute moving through there, was the greatest in
500-years, at least. That is, since the first colonists
landed in what is now the United States, in the Americas,
there has not been a flood like this; and the system stood. 
    Whereas the major damage was in the Upper Mississippi,
especially from below the Minnesota border down to Cairo.
What does this mean? 
    Beginning 1940, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
conducted one of the finest pieces of infrastructure
engineering in world history, in terms of the excellence with
which they did the job. And despite the fact that the flood
was as bad below Cairo, Illinois, as it was above, there was
no significant damage. Everything worked. The system worked
as it was supposed to. 
    The worst case is Davenport, Iowa, which took no
precautions of any significance for this flood, because they
did not want to impair the look of their waterfront for
promotion of riverboat gambling; whereas the other three Quad
Cities on both sides of the river, did take precautions, and
suffered relatively minimal damage. 
    The problem here was that north of Cairo, because of the
grain cartel, because of Democratic Party hacks and others,
hacks like Sen. Phil Gramm with their ideology, there is no
significant development of protection of the area, such as
that which exists, by the Corps of Engineers' work from Cairo
to New Orleans. And that's the problem. 
    Let's take the case of investment in the area. The cost
of the system is less than the damage it has prevented in
just one flood. So if you take the cost of the system over
all the floods which have occurred since 1940, when the lower
half of the Mississippi began to be put under control by the
Corps of Engineers, the cost of the system is less than the
damage it prevents--a very good investment. 
    Now if the United States government wants a
zero-investment approach to flood control, they're going to
find that they're going to cause more loss. Not only loss of
property, but loss of life; loss of employment; loss of the
very conditions of family life, in whole areas of the country
which are afflicted in this band-width that runs east of
Wichita, Kansas. 
    So this proposal as I hear it coming from government, is
absolutely clinically insane and morally irresponsible. In
this time of need for employment, with about 20-odd million
people unemployed in the United States according to the
monthly survey done by the Department of Labor; this is the
time to put people to work, under the auspices of the Corps
of Engineers, and finish this job, because what we have from
the weather forecasters--the scientific forecasters, not the
local news station--is that we must expect these kinds of
conditions to persist for the next two to three years. 
    The flood is not over; we could have the same thing
coming back next year, or the year after--let alone what
might be coming down the pike. 
    So it would be insane and irresponsible. We had the case
of Hurricane Andrew. Look what happened in Florida: nothing
significantly has been done to rebuild that area. 
    
    WEBSTER TARPLEY: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. We have run
out of time for this week. ``{EIR} Talks'' will be back next
week, If you have any questions, please write to us at the
following address: EIR Talks, c/o EIR News Service, P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 

                           - 30 -

----
         John Covici
          covici@ccs.covici.com

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor