From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!ccs!covici Sun Oct 17 20:10:13 PDT 1993 Article: 29243 of alt.activism Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!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 10/14/93 Message-ID: <445-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 16 Oct 93 0:34:51 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 608 - 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 Fridays on satellite from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Eastern. For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. Satcom C-5, transponder 15,channel 16-0. 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 (not the subject line) saying subscribe lar-lst After that, to get an index, say index lar-lst {EIR} Talks Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky October 14, 1993 MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks. I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Lyndon LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. Mr. LaRouche, welcome. MR. LAROUCHE: Good morning. ``Margaret Thatcher's Memoirs are a Major Scandal'' Q: Maggie Thatcher just issued her memoirs, and there's a great deal of discussion about this throughout the European press, not so much in the American press at this point. Maggie Thatcher says that she had a policy opposing German reunification. What do you think are the implications of that policy today? Is this the policy being followed by John Major? MR. LAROUCHE: In a sense, it is. There are some modifications in the British Establishment on this matter. But Maggie was not only opposing German reunification; she was so concerned about it, that she was doing everything possible to prevent the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and to maintain the Iron Curtain. According to her account, that was the gist of her effort in negotiation with Mikhail Gorbachov, who was of course very much a project of hers from British policy standpoint. That was her effort, as well as that, of course, of a British asset, the World Jewish Congress, in working with the Stasi and with the East German regime to try to keep it in power when the people of East Germany wanted to get rid of it. That was very much her policy. In her memoirs, she says, of course, that she put pressure on France, she tried to put pressure on Bush and others, to ensure that the Wall did not come down, that the communist system stayed up. As a matter of fact, the Iron Lady turned out, according to her memoirs, to be the chief defender of the Iron Curtain, putting a new light on what the term Iron Lady might have meant at the time. It's a major scandal, although {none} of this was surprising to me or to my associates or to other people, particularly leading people in the intelligence community who knew this all along. For example, her policy was, as she said, what we would describe--she doesn't use the word geopolitical, but what she means is of course what we would call geopolitical. That is, that the longstanding policy of Britain, since (she says) the time of Bismarck, has been to keep Germany down for fear that the German economic power, not just political and military ambitions, but German economic power, would dominate a unified Europe as, de Gaulle would say, ``from the Atlantic to the Urals,'' and that this power of an economically empowered unified Europe, centered around German economic accomplishment, with Germany sharing its economic power with other nations on the continent, would mean a threat to vital British interests. That, of course, is the reason that Britain organized World War I. That was the reason that Britain, together with Prescott Bush (George Bush's father), for example, put Hitler into power against von Schleicher in Germany, to ensure that by putting Hitler in, who they backed at the time actually, they would cause a war in Europe and keep Europe divided, causing World War II in that way, of course. And in a similar way, their monkeying around with these IMF policies and shock therapy policies, once the communist regime had fallen, has now brought to power in Russia, {with the backing and at the instigation of the IMF}, a military dictatorship with Yeltsin as its temporary figurehead. So we now have a thermonuclear, hostile power in Moscow, the head of an Imperial Third Rome--not a communist regime, but a Third Rome regime with many of the old communist apparatchniks in it--which is as a result of this same policy. So that, I think, is the scandal of Thatcher's policy. She, of course, carried it out, she brags about it. But I don't think we can say it's entirely her policy. There are forces in the United States, in Britain and elsewhere, who share these views and who share guilt for two world wars so far and seem to be about to bring upon us the potential of a third. Q: Georgi Arbatov recently made some comments about how shock therapy is bringing back an imperial regime in Russia, and the West is losing a golden opportunity. Would you say that this analysis of Arbatov is shared by many in the Soviet Union at this point? MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, absolutely. This was expressed in a different way by a member of the Gorbachov Institute, who stated that it was IMF pressure two weeks before the Yeltsin coup--not any developments on the part of Khasbulatov and Rutskoy but rather a deliberate plan, under pressure of the IMF--which prompted Yeltsin to make a military coup suppressing all democratically elected institutions in Russia. That's essentially what is the prevailing view of those voices which we're hearing, Arbatov and others, today. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, would you say that the shock therapy policies of the West are a reflection of what Maggie Thatcher intended in terms of her geopolitical policies? MR. LAROUCHE: We must not exaggerate her role in this. She was, of course, the Iron Lady of London; but she was essentially a puppet. Remember that before she was elected as the Prime Minister, she was a fairly obscure figure with no particular ideas associated with her. Then we had people like Geoffrey Howe and others who came in and coached her, and she began to develop this program which caused her to be called the Iron Lady, not because she was tough on defense but more because she was tough on breaking unions and things like that. So she got to be known as the Iron Lady because of that. She is therefore not to be considered as an author of policies or a mind. I don't think she's a stupid person, but she's not a mental giant or policy shaper. She rather reflects a current or at least during her time the opinion of a current of which she was representative, in principally Anglo-American circles. I picked up things in France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere, during the period of the late '70s and in the course of the '80s, of real Thatcher admirers who were followers and co-thinkers of her policy. They may not all be co-thinkers of hers today; but she must be seen largely as a {spokesman} of a policy, like the man who runs a corporation, for example, but under a board of directors, whose policies are not necessarily originally hers. Yeltsin's Imperial Dictatorship Is the Result of Soviet Rejection of the LaRouche SDI Policy Q: You mentioned earlier that the the Gorbachov Institute spokesperson indicated that the IMF had wanted the developments in Moscow. Did he cite any evidence as to IMF desires to move Yeltsin in the direction that he moved? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, Arbatov did. Arbatov was at a Congress of the Evangelical Church in Germany at which Georgi Arbatov was a featured speaker. And he stated that forces in the West had imposed shock therapy and IMF conditionalities as a strategic effort to destroy the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact--to destroy the economies, to destroy the nations--and blamed this willful destructiveness coming out of the United States (and he named people such as Richard Perle among those who he blamed for this kind of thinking) for the conditions which had led to the establishment of an imperial military dictatorship in Russia. The Gorbachov Institute representative was much more narrow in simply indicating that the coup had not been provoked by Rutskoy and Khasbulatov, but rather had been provoked two weeks {before} the siege of the White House, the seat of the Parliament; but by the IMF pressures. Essentially, it boils down to this--and you see this in all of the figures around Yeltsin. {Yeltsin has no Russian power base} outside of the military and security forces of Russia--that is, no popular base whatsoever. That's why he has dissolved {all} of the elected parliamentary bodies regionally and nationally. All the democratic institutions are gone; and Yeltsin destroyed them. The issue here is that people like Yegor Gaidar and others, who are exponents of Jeffrey Sachs' shock therapy policy, of IMF conditionalities, were pushed into power by the IMF saying that the money would not be coming unless these guys were made all powerful {and that the democratic institutions (notably the Parliament) would have to be eliminated} in order to eliminate resistance to these kinds of measures. So essentially, what the Gorbachov Institute man said, was that this was done in a way we would describe, as being the typical way that the United States dictates orders from Manhattan, from Citibank or Chase Manhattan Bank, to Mexico or Venezuela or Brazil or Argentina or something of that sort. So Russia was treated as a colonial power. This puts Yeltsin, implicitly, as Arbatov emphasized, in the hands of the military and security forces, and we now have an imperial military dictatorship in Russia, for which Yeltsin is, in effect, merely a figurehead. The significance of this is clear if we go back to the spring of 1983, during a period when I was still supplying, shall we say, services and information to the Reagan National Security Council under Clark. At that time, I published, in May, a report on the future of Russia indicating the tendencies which had been reflected and unleashed by Yuri Andropov, then the General Secretary of the Communist Party, the dictator; what his rejection of Reagan's preference of the SDI meant. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were just discussing some of your inputs into the Reagan administration back in 1983. Please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: My view was that the Andropov rejection of the offer of cooperation around the SDI made by President Reagan, was a signal that the Russian establishment around Andropov had decided to go for what might be called by historians an imperial Third Rome. The implication was this, as I stated at the time. The refusal to accept Reagan's offer but instead to go with a {Soviet-only} SDI program, meant that the Russian and East Bloc economies would be wrecked to the degree that communism would collapse in Russia, as it was already tending to do; and that out of this mess would emerge a new Third Rome-type imperial, non-communist Russian dictatorship or Muscovite dictatorship, which would be as much an adversarial force against the West as the communist had ever been. That was the thesis which we repeated-- It was published in {EIR,} as you may recall, at that time; I believe it was May. This caused quite a ruckus when that was published. I was called all sorts of things from every quarter. I was already being attacked, of course, by the Soviet KGB and Andropov through Fyodor Burlatsky, who was his chief public relations spokesman and adviser at the time. It was repeated in many reports, including the Third Rome {Global Showdown} report of July 1985, which caused Ted Turner's organization, CNN, to become quite upset. But now, events have shown that the West's imposition of shock therapy and IMF conditionalities upon a Russia which had already crumbled as I had forecast repeatedly, including October 12 of 1988, of the imminent collapse of the Iron Curtain. We wasted the opportunity, and we imposed these terrible conditions upon Eastern Europe--including East Germany, by the way, which Margaret Thatcher was partly responsible for--of ruining and looting the people there--to the point that the Polish model applied to Russia, as it ruined Poland and caused the communists to come back to power in Poland, so the same model, the same IMF conditionalities or Sachs shock therapy, or Harvard model, instead of opening Russia to democracy, as had happened after the Wall had fallen and after Gorbachov had fallen; instead today, we have an imperial, Third Rome-style Russian military dictatorship, with Yeltsin at least temporarily as its figurehead. And that's where we stand. One would hope that London and Washington would learn lessons, not merely from the fact that what I said was right, but that if you go back to 1983, {my analysis} of the trends in Moscow and the effects of Western policy upon those trends in Moscow, has been exactly correct. And {everyone} who has made a policy contrary to that which I proposed in that connection, back since 1983, has been proven wrong. Will they admit their error? If they do not admit their error, then they're going to make more bad policy; and we could be looking, down the road, at a thermonuclear World War III. Because contrary to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin's remarks recently, Russia is not a ``regional'' thermonuclear power; it is a {global} thermonuclear power. And somebody in Washington had better tell Les and the President that that's the case. Q: Is there any way to put the genie back in the bottle, is there any way to reverse the destruction that shock therapy has done, in terms of the East? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I think we're running out of time for that. I can give you an answer to that after the break. Yes, there is. [commercial break] ``Do We Have the Guts to {Fundamentally} Change The Direction of Policy-shaping in Washington?'' Q: Mr. LaRouche, many people see the Russian occupation of Georgia at this point as a signal that there is an imperial restoration taking place in Moscow. Is there anything that can be done to reverse these trends? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there's something that should be done to attempt to reverse these trends, and could reverse them globally. This would mean scrapping the trends in U.S. policy overall, of the past 30 years since the assassination of President Kennedy. I'm not attacking [President Lyndon] Johnson, because Johnson acted, as he indicated toward the end of his life that he had acted because following the Kennedy assassination, President Lyndon Johnson was convinced that there was an assassination capability which would kill American and, in my view, other leaders who opposed the Yalta agreements, the modified Versailles policies, the Yalta agreements, set up, respectively, at the end of World War I in Versailles, and then in the Yalta and the UNO agreements at the end of World War II. Kennedy threatened to do so; and he was killed. De Gaulle threatened to do so, and the same people who killed Kennedy, tried to kill de Gaulle. Mattei in Italy was killed for the same reason. Many people have been killed, including Bhutto of Pakistan, for this reason. Herrhausen in Germany was killed for the same reason. Anyone who tries to oppose the system which has been set up, under which the geopolitical doctrine of the Anglo-American leading families or at least the majority of them, have dominated the world since World War I, any political figure who does so, is in danger. So Johnson knew that, at least in a certain way. And therefore, Johnson acted, as he believed, under the target sights of assassins' weapons. But we can date the policy, in particular this one, to 1963, when there was a decision to make a cultural paradigm shift away from what the world had been (at least Western civilization up to that point), based on scientific and technological progress, to a post-industrial, eliminating the Europan Christian cultural matrix by aid of a rock-drug-sex and satanism counterculture. That is our problem. The only way you can define a peace among nations, is the way that Shimon Peres and Abba Eban and others in Israel have stated again recently, in their relationship to the Palestinians. Only if you define a common interest in economic progress and related things, can you have peace. Now these fellows are saying that the only basis for peace with Russia, is to impose terrible looting upon the Russian people and others. If we establish a common interest and persuade the Russians that we mean it, in economic cooperation based on scientific and technological progress, to increase the productive powers of labor, the standard of living, and the sense of political freedom or the economic environment of political freedom, then it is possible to prevent this terrible catastrophe from occurring. The problem is, that people today are either so brainwashed into the postindustrial utopian syndrome, or they're so {afraid} of going the way, say, Kennedy went, or Johnson feared he might have gone if he bucked it, that they go along with the current policy. If we are willing to decide, that {changing this policy is better than having a thermonuclear war down the line,} then we can probably restore peace and avoid this terrible danger. If we say that we're so committed to this post-industrial, neo-Malthusian policy, this countercultural policy, that we cannot change it, then I can almost guarantee either global chaos which will engulf and destroy the United States along with other nations very soon; or destruction the other way, by a thermonuclear war. So it's up to us: Do we have the guts to change {fundamentally,} to reverse fundamentally, the direction of policy-shaping in Washington since the assassination of Kennedy, or do we not? If we are unwilling to make that change in our domestic and foreign policy, then there is not much hope for peace or security on this planet for some decades to come. On the Election of Papandreou in Greece Q: Mr. LaRouche, before we get to a discussion of Haiti and Somalia, I want to continue with the East, because there was a recent election in Greece, the election of Papandreou, a socialist who beat Mitsotakis, which may have significance for the Balkan crisis. Do you think that the Papandreou election will in some way impact what is known as the NATO Southern Flank, impact this whole Balkan area, which extends over into Greece and involves Turkey? MR. LAROUCHE: It will impact it, in terms of a tendency. What the exact result will be, it's hard to forecast. But I would say, as the outgoing Prime Minister Mitsotakis made clear, that the election of a marginal government, of a Papandreou, with his socialist PASOK party, flanked by the KKE, the Greek Communist Party, a very tiny party, but which gives him the margin for governing; such a government--a socialist-communist government in Greece at this time--increases greatly the danger that Greek forces will move against Albania, and will move into Macedonia, the capital of Skomje, under some condition, which is quite likely, thus triggering or at least accelerating a generalized Balkan war which will engulf most of Central Europe and other parts of the world. That's the problem. Mitsotakis was brought down because Mitsotakis went along with IMF economic and related policies. That weakened him, because these policies are savage, they're brutal; and the Greek people had enough of this kind of torment. So they voted for Papandreou, because they thought Papandreou would be easier on them economically. But Papandreou is much more of a kind of a racist fanatic, or at least his machine is; and the KKE, that is, the Comunist Party of Greece, are racist fanatics in this respect. So the danger that Greek forces will try to intervene, to try to run away from continuing domestic unhappiness by a diversionary military escapade aboard, a foreign military adventure, is far greater now, than would have been possible under Prime Minister Mitsotakis. [commercial break] On Clinton Foreign Policy in Haiti and Somalia: ``We Have No Global Foreign Policy'' Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the election of Papandreou, the Balkans. I want to move over to Haiti and Somalia. President Clinton seems to be having a great deal of difficulty in these two areas. Do you have any advice for him, or any indication of what should be done in terms of these areas of the world? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there are many problems. I'm not certain that I know all of the problems inside the White House and White House circles. But certain things are obvious. It is said, for example, that President Clinton's crew tend toward isolationism; that is, that they do not have a foreign policy, really, except a hand-me-down from Bush, somewhat modified, perhaps; but a hand-me-down. That is, a reflex, along with what Les Aspin is proposing. And that they would rather concentrate on domestic issues, which have not been too kind to Mr. Clinton so far; and he is now endeavoring to push NAFTA and the health insurance plan which again will run into difficulty. But for the moment he has attempted to maintain a public attention on these two domestic or Western Hemispheric problems, and to keep Europe and Eurasia, out of people's minds. As a result, the Clinton administration has surrendered essentially, to the Boutros-Ghali United Nations Security Council. And in both the cases of Somalia and in Haiti, the United States is following a policy which is essentially a One-World dogma centered in certain circles around the United Nations, the people who believe in One World, who believe in what is better called globaloney. This UN policy is reflected in the administration, in the policy recently enunciated by Les Aspin, Anthony Lake, Madeline Albright at the United Nations and echoed by Clinton himself in a few remarks. That is the continuation of the Project Democracy or Bush Neo-con policy of saying that the only issues of foreign policy and strategic doctrine for the United States, now that the Soviet empire has collapsed and we are the only superpower, is to impose radical democracy as we define it from moment to moment, and radical free trade upon the entire world; and that we will use military force to adjust the process of bringing what we call democracy and we call free trade to every country, to crush the opposition to these policies within those countries. So it's really globaloney again. Well, we now have ``imposed democracy'' on Russia. Yeltsin has suppressed democratically elected institution in the joint, virtually. Maybe a few here and there are still standing, despite his ukases; but we call that now ``democracy.'' Democracy, we find, is whatever submits to the pleasure of people such as Citibank and the Federal Reserve District of Manhattan. So that's where the policy lies. As long as that continues now, you're going to have a disaster. The problem is this, essentially. If you believe that Project Democracy or the Neo-con utopians, the globalonists around the Neo-cons, with their ideas of democracy and free trade--if you believe that is reality, then you are going to tend to deny the existence of any reality which says that your policy is a bunch of meaningless tomfoolery. So that's what we have in Somalia. We say we're upholding a policy. We have no policy; but we're upholding a policy which turns out to be a Boutros-Ghali globaloney policy. So we end up attacking someone because Boutros-Ghali doesn't like him: General Aideed, who is a fellow whom we helped to bring to power. We overthrew the former President of Somalia by pitting against the President a bunch of political parties, each of which was based in some tribalist or similar regionalist association, which were not national parties. We succeded by that combination in overthrowing Siad Barre, the former President of Somalia--just as we succeeded, as Henry Kissinger started back in the 1970s, a war between Somalia and Ethiopia, as part of this same project. So now we decide we don't like General Aideed, we're going to get rid of him. So we cook up a pretext, we say we're going to hunt him down and get rid of him. Now we start killing a lot of Somalis under Boutros-Ghali's ingenious direction; and the Somalis begin shooting back. U.S. troops, under the UN command, go into an elementary trap. They go in to shoot people; people get tired of being shot, so they set up an elementary military trap. So the attack continues; and the UN forces, in this case U.S.-supplied, fall into an elementary military trap. That is, you start shooting, knowing somebody's coming; they send more; you're ready for them, you ambush them. They send in air support; you ambush that. And you have, in addition to hundreds of Somali dead, a few score of U.S. dead and prisoners. Now that mess. So we have people in the Congress, particularly in the Senate, who are aware that this has somehow gone way awry, who say let's get out of there. Not because they have any policy for the area as such; they don't. But they say {we} have no policy, and we should not be using military force in an area where it seems the UN command has gone crazy, and we have no policy. In the case of Haiti, the same thing. There is a commitment to support a very unpopular former President of Haiti, Aristide, who killed a lot of people and was thrown out of the country because of his own terroristic, brutal crimes against humanity in his own country. But we were determined, because he was our puppet, to stick him back in there, against the will of the Haitian people--through a lot of the emigre@aa groups in the United States who are not there on the scene--made believe that Aristide, because he's been friendly toward them and because the U.S. tells them he's a good guy, feel that Aristide is a victim. They are misinformed on this issue. But nonetheless, we see, more and more, that the same policy, which is very clearly demonstrated in Somalia, now seems to be developing in Haiti. People {don't} understand the issues of Haiti; they don't know what the policy ought to be toward Haiti; but they see this is just another massive bloodbath. And they're sick of it; because the United States has no credible policy for Haiti. The problem comes back to this. Let's look at reality. Reality has nothing to do with, in the narrow sense, with a Haiti policy or a Somalia policy. Somalia is part of Africa; but the United States has no Africa policy. Haiti is really economically part of the Caribbean and Central and South America, toward which the United States has no good policy at this time. The problem is, we don't have a {global} policy. Because we are still supporting the Sachs shock therapy; we're supporting IMF conditionalities upon Russia, conditionalities which have turned Russia, which was open to us, into a military-imperial dictatorship, a thermonuclear power which is beginning, as Arbatov warned, to hate us bitterly because of what we've done in this connection. We are collapsing the United States; we are about to turn the U.S. dollar into an international rag over which the U.S. has no control. We're destroying the economies of Europe and North America and other parts of the world. {We have no policy in Washington.} So it's not a matter of the Clinton administration fixing up a few things. What has to be done, is what I warned had to be done during the last election campaign of 1992. I warned in some degree in these half-hour television broadcasts of mine; and I also warned in a book which was a campaign book, the {LaRouche-Bevel Campaign Book.} It's all there, essentially. And the only possibility for the administration to get out of this mess, is to {take that book,} and take some of the other policies which my friends and I have been working on for some years, and say, okay, here is a policy. We don't have a policy; let's have a policy; here is a policy. Obviously, the old policies left over from the Bush administration and the Neo-cons of Project Democracy, are a disaster; globaloney is a disaster. Let's go back to the good old American ways of basing a nation on investment in education for scientific and technological progress. Let's open the doors for employment and participation of other kinds, by all persons, of whatever skin color and background, in this kind of scientific and technological progress, and the benefits it brings. If we do that domestically, a growth policy domestically, which means big credit policies for expansion; and if we take the same policy and project it on our foreign policy, we can come out of this mess. But without such changes, there's not much hope for this old country of ours. NAFTA: What are the Financial Trade Agreements? Q: We have a few minutes left, Mr. LaRouche. I'd just like you to discuss NAFTA a little bit. You mention that it's more than just a trade deal, it's a financial swindle. Give us some insight into that, please. MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, all the trade aspects of NAFTA are essentially already in place. So there is no NAFTA Treaty. The trade agreements are essentially in place. What is not clear, is one thing: the credit arrangements, the financial arrangements, which Henry Gonzalez, the chairman of the relevant House Committee, has been pounding for: Tell us what the financial trade agreements are. Well, we know what the financial trade agreements are, because we know what the policy is of the New York Federal Reserve District, with the un-Magnificent Seven banks there. Their policy is to take the U.S. dollar. Already, two-thirds of our dollars in print, which are U.S. Federal Reserve dollars, are outside the United States. They're {not} U.S. dollars. They're international dollars. And their policy is to take the U.S. dollar and increase the amount of dollars issued by up to about $100 billion in Mexico. Dollarize the economies of Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru, the same way. Dollarize the former Soviet Union, which is one of their policies; and so forth and so on. So this is the policy of these guys; and this means that we have lost our sovereignty over our own currency and the dollar becomes nothing but a vehicle of an international derivatives financial speculative bubble--a bubble which, incidentally, is at the verge of collapsing sometime very soon, even this month, or next month, or next spring; but the thing is about to pop. The big boom on Wall Street and other markets is nothing but a warning of a big bubble preparing itself to burst fairly soon, maybe immediately, maybe longer; but in the near future. MEL KLENETSKY: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche. We will see you next week. This is EIR Talks. I'm Mel Klenetsky. If people want to send in questions for Mr. LaRouche, write to EIR Talks, c/o EIR News Service, Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. - 30 - If you would like more articles from these publications directly, then subscribe to the LaRouche Issues mailing list. To subscribe to the LaRouche Issues Mailing list send a 1 line message to listserv@ccs.covici.com with the command subscribe lar-lst To get an index of available files send the command index lar-lst ---- 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.