From oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!torn!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Sun Feb 7 19:26:00 PST 1993 Article: 16273 of alt.activism Path: oneb!cs.ubc.ca!utcsri!torn!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ccs!covici From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici) Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com Newsgroups: alt.activism Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 02/01/93 Message-ID: <253-PCNews-124beta@ccs.covici.com> Date: 7 Feb 93 1:4:48 GMT Organization: Covici Computer Systems Lines: 690 - ``EIR TALKS WITH LAROUCHE'' - Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly interviews with Lyndon LaRouche. Want stations in your area to air a weekly briefing from LaRouche? Call them. The EIR Press Staff will provide them with a weekly tape for broadcast. Or they can pull it down from satellite using the coordinates below. Including breaks for ads and news, each broadcast is one hour long. The following interview will be broadcast on satellite from 7:00 to 8:00 Eastern this coming Saturday night. Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W | Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC or Trans 2 7.5 mHz 3:1 Companding, Flat | Wide Band Video Subcarrier EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LAROUCHE Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky February 1, 1993 Note: { indicates begin-emphasis and } indicates end-emphasis. MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``Executive Intelligence Review's Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. Mr. LaRouche, the biggest problem facing the Clinton administration of course is the U.S. economy, and despite the fact that some people are saying that there was a little bit of a recovery, we are looking at Sears laying off 50,000 people, the aerospace sector laying off 31,000 workers, and Westinghouse and other major coprorations dumping their top executives. What can Mr. Clinton do, what does Mr. Clinton have to do, to get on top of this situation? LAROUCHE: It's getting worse and worse by the week, by the day. Clinton plunged into this social agenda, so called, that is, the issues of abortion and homosexuals in the military, and related things, realy by default, because he had nothing on the economy. The health care issue in the advertised form is not going to fly. It will end up in a crisis. Essentially, two things have to be considered. First of all, there never was a recovery. There hasn't been a recovery really since the Volcker recession of 1982. There have been expansions in certain sections of the economy, while the rest goes down. For example. Let's take unemployment. {Actual unemployment in the United States, by the standards we used to measure unemployment in the 1930s, is today about 17 percent.} That is, using U.S. government official figures, from which they derive the reported official rate of unemployment. If we were to take the same figures as those used back in the 1930s, we would come up with 17 percent. The United States {has been and is in a continuing depression.} There is a collapse of employment, there is a collapse o findustry, there is a collapse of agriculture. We are really a net agricultural importing nation if you take the whole spectrum of agricultural consumption. Our industry is collapsing, our infrastructure is collapsing. We are in a depression which is actually {worse} than that of the 1930s. The illusion in this matter, is fostered by focusing upon Wall Street. People are waiting for the great financial crash, something worse than October 1987, and until they see that, many people will continue to harbor the delusion that there is not a depression ongoing. Once that crash hits, of course, then all bets are off, and they will recognize the depression. President Clinton's only chance to get this economy and his administration under control was, from the outset, to admit that there is a general economic crisis, globally as well as nationally, and to announce a series of measures which would include, of course, taking on the Fed[eral Reserve system]. Until that is done, until that reality is faced, this administration will not ``muddle through,'' but muddle downward, in a downward spiral. There is no hope for it, until that reality of the economy is faced. - How to Rebuild the Nation as a Whole - Q: You have indicated some of the measures that are necesary should you be in some kind of position to aid Mr. Clinton. You have also indicated that the only way that Mr. Clinton would be able to deal with this recovery, would be to apply your program and to give you your political freedom. What are some of the measures that you would implement, were you to go at it? LAROUCHE: Very simply, what I have said repeatedly. We have to have an industrial recovery, which means credit expansion, not by the present Federal Reserve central banking measures. We {cannot} have a recovery if getting the monetary aggregates expanded, means New York bankers and others, borrowing from the Fed at 3 percent or at about that rate, using fiat money created by the Fed, and turning around and loaning that money at between four and a half and 8 percent to the Federal government for Federal paper. So we cannot have the Federal government going into debt to the commercial banking system, i.e., the Fed, as a way of expanding. If you try to do that in that way, since the New York and related financial markets will skim off most of what you generate, you will generate a very dangerous inflation. The only way to expand--and we must expand by approximately a trillion dollars minimum in our throughput--we must expand in the industry/agriculture/infrastructure sector, not the financial sector. And in order to get that in there at low interests rates, we have to bypass the Fed mechanism, we have to go back to the Constitution and issue the money directly, place it with the banking system only as a depository instrument, and loan this at, say, 2 percent per annum for loans which have a maturity, say, of 10 to 20 years. And restrict it, of course, to infrastructure, agriculture, and key industries for this kind of lending. That will get us out of the troubles. Without that, the United States has no domestic policy worth mentioning, and without a decent domestic policy, we really don't have a foreign policy. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you mentioned $1 trillion in investment. Recently a U.S. Conference of Mayors talked about 7,000 public works projects that needed to be done worth about $28 billion and 400,000 jobs. Is this the kind of direction that you're talking about? LAROUCHE: No, it is not. Some of that would be subsumed, of course. The mayors are just putting things together without thinking about {how} this problem is to be addressed, and they come up with numbers based on programs and needs they have. But they don't see the larger picture. You have to remember that the entire political process of which these mayors are a part, that is, the national political parties, really are no longer an efficient mechanism for leading this nation. They have decayed. The merger of the two parties at the top into the Project Democracy apparatus, which was done about 1982 was the death knell of the political parties as they used to exist in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and so forth; they are gone. And the mayors are like a leaderless group which comes together, each putting on the table, like the famous case of the blind men discussing the elephant: each putting their own part of the elephant, the leg in New York, or the tail in San Francisco or whatever, putting these things on the table, each from their own point of view, and saying, this is what the nation needs. This is what they see would make them comfortable, make their people comfortable, or relieve the pain in their local area. They are not looking at the thing from a national standpoint, except to realize that Washington is not doing anything. They are not addressing one question: What would Clinton have to do, with the support of the Congress, to deliver a result which would give any of the kinds of relief around the nation as a whole which the mayors are collectively suggesting? And that is what they refuse to look at, in general. If we do not recognize that we're in a depression, the reason we are in a depression is because we have had the wrong policy drift for 30 years, that is, the post-Kennedy policy drift, and if we do not reverse the causes of the depression, the depression is not going to go away. The cause of the depression is the {policy drift} of the past 30 years. And you have to reverse that policy drift, otherwise, you don't remove the causes of the depression; if you don't remove the causes, you continue to have the depression. It is like an alcoholic saying he is going to become sober tomorrow. Yes, sobriety would be a beautiful state, but you have to think about how to realize it, and you have to get off this hooch of policy drift. Particularly, you have to get away from the idea of the ``Now generation'' thinking. You have to think about long-term investment. You have to think about investment in production, not simply consumerism. And that sort of thing. And until they are willing to address that, what they have to say may be useful as input to a policy shaper, but what they are saying does not represent in any sense a policy that the administration can run with. The administration needs to take on this Fed question. And if they don't take on the Fed question, you can forget all these mayors' programs--they are just not going to fly. - The Incompetence of Short-Term Economic Planning - Q: Can you be more specific in terms of what that policy drift is, what causes it, and why our country has gone in that direction? LAROUCHE: Part of the problem is this. We have people who are underprivileged, that is, they are forced to go to college, and when they go to a college today like Stanford, which used to be a respectable university but which has now gone the other way, they study things like macroeconomics and microeconomics and what-not, and if they pass all those courses, they become totally incompetent, fanatically incompetent, in economics. You have to recognize, as Hamilton and others did, the founders of this nation, that what we call profit--that is, not profit from swindling or profit from horse trading--but profit from national production comes from increasing the productive powers of labor through scientific and technological progress, and through investment in a capital-intensive and energy-intensive mode. There is no other way in the archaeological as well as recorded history of mankind, that any civilization has ever developed a profit as a growth factor, as a factor of improvement in conditions of life and stability, except by those means. What happened is, in 1964 approximately, right after the assassination of President Kennedy, there was a rash of proposals for several things which destroyed the assumptions of policy upon which this nation had built itself up to that point. One, they went to a post-industtrial society. You had the Fund for the Republic out there in Santa Barbara, California, which produced the so-called Triple Revolution report. They were all over the place. The ``New Left'' of that period was anti-production, that sort of thing. Then you had the counterculture in general. We had the rise of the post-industrial ideology. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for example, was an exponent of that in 1967. We had the population policy introduced in the State Department in 1966. So then we had the wild environmentalism and most of this stuff that is called ecologism today, is pure ideological quackery which, although most people don't know it, originated with the Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s. And these things have destroyed the very foundation, the very set of assumptions, upon which society can generate a profit. So what we have been doing is to live off our past, long-term investments in the form of improvements in land for agricluture, infrastructure, cities and so forth--we have been burning them up. And we have been refusing to account for these things we have been using up as part of the costs of production. So we draw up a balance sheet and we say, well, ``Let's consider only the very short-term paid-out costs and paid-in income.'' And they come up with a calculation: ``oh, we're doing all right.'' Then the bridge falls. ``Oh, we didn't set money aside for the bridge. We can't afford to build a new bridge. That bridge has to go.'' The water system collapses. ``Oh, we don't have money for a new water system.'' They write that off. So the society collapses into a physical depression, because of the way these people think. And this is generally accepted thinking. When you hear these talk-show discussions on radio or television or read the newspapers, this kind of nonsense, which was introduced as a kind of mass brainwashing, beginning about 1964; this has taken over and is becoming the prevailing way of thinking about policy. And that is the thing that has allowed us to drift deeper and deeper into this muck of depression--confusion, fear, anxiety, and so forth. We are now talking about killing off our old people through ``health-care efficiency,'' that is, cut off the heavy extra costs that old people sometimes require if you're going to keep them alive, in order to save the money for band-aids to be distributed to the survivors. Unless you change this kind of thinking, there is no hope for this nation. - The Origins of the Environmentalist Movement - Q: Many people believe that there is a moderate population policy and a moderate environmental policy that can be followed. Is there, and how did these policies originate with the Nazis, as you just mentioned? LAROUCHE: There is no such thing as ``moderate'' ecologism, there is no such thing as a ``moderate'' population policy. It is all nonsense. You can't have it. I think Walter Reuther once talked about, there is no such thing as ``a little pregnancy''--either you are pregnant, or you are not. This is an ideology which--well, that's a long story, Mel, as you know. There have been movements throughout history which are against what the United States represented, movements such as the 1815-1816 conferences at Vienna and Paris which established the Holy Alliance. The policy of Castlereagh was part of that in England, and the continuation of that by people like Palmerston. You had the attempt to drive the United States, under British direction, from the kind of republic that Alexander Hamilton and George Washington and so forth conceived, into a Confederate-style slave society, in which the poor whites and even the planters were culturally little more elevated in their cultural conditions of life than the chattel slaves. We overcame that and saved the nation; but those tendencies, this kind of feudalist mentality, as it sometimes might be called, of going back to nature, the ideas of that idiot Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and so forth; going back to the ``simple life,'' that technology is bad for you--all these kinds of things. As long as a population believes that, that population represents a nation which is not going to long survive. And that is where we are now. We cannot compromise on this issue, we have to face the truth. There is a difference between truth and falsehood. If we do not face the truth, that the human species has risen above the level of the baboon only by means of what we call cultural progress associated with, inclusively, scientific and technological progress, and if we do not recognize that if we drop that policy of progress, we go back to the level of the baboon or worse, then there is no way of shaping a policy. - ``I represent Alexander Hamilton's Way of Thinking'' - Q: Your associates have said that you have to have your political freedom and be part of implementing your economic policy. Why do you have to be part of that economic policy, why can it not be implemented today by President Clinton? LAROUCHE: Because he has no idea of what to do. You cannot walk in with a blueprint to a man who has no training in construction and say, ``Build this.'' The problem is even worse. Only someone of about my age or slightly older would be capable of understanding what needs to be done--in principle that is. Because what I represent, from the standpoint of these new young radicals, these Yuppies--I am a dinosaur. I represent the kind of thinking which was the ruling and commonplace way of thinking in our nation, back to Alexander Hamilton and back up through the Kennedy years. I am the kind of guy who cheered for space exploration from a pro-scientific standpoint and understood something about what the meant for us here on Earth and here in this nation. Only people who {think that way} are capable of responding moment to moment with the policy responses to breaking developments which are needed to get a policy through. You cannot ship a blueprint into the White House and think that that policy is going to work as some kind of a master plan. Brookings Institute and others hold these conferences where they come up with these master plans, policy structures--well they don't work. You can have the right policy and you can have the wrong policy, but it does not work simply because you have the right general or wrong general policy. It works because you have people on the scene who are sufficiently philosophically and otherwise trained to respond to unexpected breaking developments in the appropriate way, to make the policy work. And to make that response, you have to be steeped in, shall we say, the axioms and postulates of the kind of thinking which underlines the oplicy. Clinton and company could recognize the validity of my policy, particularly as they recognize the {invalidity} of the policy they are following, and which they have inherited. But they {do not know what to do.} And you have to have someone on the scene who is engaged in the matter, who is engaged in the discussions, who is giving them constantly inputs of how to respond appropriately to unexpected breaking developments. And most of history consists of unexpected breaking developments. And if you don't deal with unexpected breaking developments in the appropriate way, no matter how fine your policy seems in general terms, it is not going to fly. - Super 301: ``Bashing Our Competitors Is Lunacy'' - Q: You have called for a policy which protects native industries; what is the difference between that policy and the kind of policy that, say, Congressman Richard Gephardt is talking about, Super 301, which involves bashing our trading partners? I want to come back to that question in just a moment when we return. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, Gephardt has proposed Super 301, which is designed to slap the wrist of our trading partners. Is this the kind of protectionism that you have been calling for to protect our native industries? LAROUCHE: No. First of all, Gephardt understands {nothing} about economics, really. We have had it out with him again and again, and we just cannot seem to get it through his head, as to what economics is all about. Maybe he has talents in some other directions, and should switch his efforts to those places where he has better qualifications. Let's take an example. We had a report out of the energy committee by Bennett Johnson and Kruger, which caused a little flip in the international petroleum market the day after it was announced. The committee has recommended a piece of legislation which I designed back in 1988, as you may recall, when I proposed that we set a trigger-price tariff on importated petroleum, based on calculating a domestic price which covered not only the direct short-term cost of producing petroleum from existing wells, but which took into account, like a parity price, the averate cost of continuing to develop and maintain petroleum resources in the United States. We were talking then, in 1987-1988, about between $22 and $25 a barrel. So what the committee has come up with, is proposing that $25 a barrel be a trigger price, and that petroleum approaching our shores which is priced at less than $25 have a tariff put on it, which is equal to the difference between that import price and $25, thus to promote the domestic petroleum industry and prevent us from losing a whole industry, essentially. Now that is protectionism. That does not hurt anybody. That simply protects us, and forces us to keep an industry which is vital to us, which we need. In the case of Japan or Europe: We do not have any more entire categories of essential parts of a modern industrial society. Japan and Western Europe still do have many of these elements which we lack. The reason we do not have them, has nothing to do with anything done by Japan or West Germany, for example. We do not have these companies, because of our environmentalist, our free trade, our Volcker policies of 1979 through 1982 and on--those domestic policies. We have been idiots. We have shut down our industries; then we import from another country that which we no longer produce ourselves; then we blame the foreign country for being unfair for not being as stupid as we are. That is the import of Super 301. We do not want that kind of thinking any more. It is destructive. What we wish to do, is to have arrangements, under which we have, shall we say, mutual protection among partner-nations, whereby we set fair prices and we base a tariff system on fair prices, which allows each nation to do what it should do to protect its own native industries, particularly those industries which are vital to us. For example, if Japan develops certain industries, those industries are vital to us. That is the only place from which we are going to get capital goods to revive our economy. If we want to shut down the only foreign supplier who can supply us a good, like a piece of capital equipment, which is indispensable to our national interest, and which we cannot produce or obtain from any place else but that nation--if we go over and bomb that plant out of existence by military or economic means, we are lunatic. And unfortunately, what Carla Hills and company were doing, in line with the Gephardt policy under the now-gone Bush administration, was {absolute lunacy!} And these kinds of policies of bashing our competitors, is lunacy. It reflects again the kind of thinking of people who do not understand the ABCs of economics, or people who unfortunately, may have studied economics all too recently at Harvard or Yale or MIT, or Stanford, or someplace else, who believe in this stuff. They believe in this cult idiocy called free market theories. - ``A Superpower Conflict Is Rapidly Shaping Up'' - Q: What has been the result of the free market policy as it is applied to Eastern Europe, for example, the Jeffrey Sachs and Gaidar plans in the Soviet Union? LAROUCHE: If we get into World War III, which is something that I think that even the NATO leadership and some people around Clinton are trying to avoid-- We got into this danger of World War III for many reasons, but the reason we were pushed into it, in that direction, instead of toward peaceful development, was that in 1989-1990, when the Iron Curtain collapsed, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, instead of using the admittedly somewhat obsolete industrial productive capacity in the former Soviet empire to continue to produce goods for modernization of the entire region and also for Third World development, we said shut it down, because it is not competitive; and we looted it. The result was, that we collapsed these economies in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to a lower level by far than they had ever been under communism. And we convinced a lot of people in eastern Europe, that the Anglo-American plan of capitalism was a bigger failure than communism from their own experience. So what happened is, that there is a tendency to regress, not toward communism, but toward leadership of these countries, by a combination which is the same group which was the controlling interest in chief under communist dictatorship. In this connection, we are developing an adversarial conflict between Russia, which really is still a superpower, apart from all the troubles it is having, and the Anglo-American powers. This entails a lot of other things around the planet which are blowing up; it also entails the fact, as we hear from England, that they don't have military capability any more of any significance, and the United Sttates neither. So we are collapsing economically and militarily; the Russians have collapsed, but they haven't collapsed as far as we seem to be about to do; and therefore, on a lower level globally, a lower level of technology capability, we are back in a superpower conlict shaping up rapidly for the next couple of years ahead--unless we reverse this idiocy. - The LaRouche Productive Triangle - Q: The Ukrainian Parliament recently denounced the economic reforms and after one year in Russia, we are seeing that the economic policy has resulted in 1300 percent inflation, and 18 percent collapse in production. Is there any direction, in terms of the East bloc, which would go toward the kind of policy approach that you have? LAROUCHE: Well, not necessarily. You cannot talk in those terms, because they are in pretty bad shape now. When the Berlin Wall was coming down, I summarized what needed to be done in line with the policy outlines I had given in the 1985-1988 period, in connection with my campaign for the presidential nomination then. It was called the Productive Triangle policy. What I did, was to focus upon the center of the world which had the highest per capita and per square kilometer productivity of any part of this planet, which is a roughly spherical triangular region from about Paris, moving a little bit also to the West of there, down to Vienna, up across Bohemia into Berlin and back to Paris. This region, which has an area about the size of Japan's total area, which has a population of about 110 million people, is the concentration of the greatest productive power on this planet. And if you wish to get technology moving, you have to go into the tool and related sectors of this part of the planet, this productive triangle; and by building up transportation and related networks, to connect the spinning off of this economic technology driver in this area, to spin it off to every part of the world. That would mean doing that in part with the southeastern and eastern Europe and the former Soviet union. That was my proposal. That would work. {That is still possible.} But nothing else will work. There has to be a global policy, it cannot be simply a regional tactic. - ``You Cannot Bring the Dead Back to Life'' - Q: Will that policy affect the regions that we are seeing at this point that are exploding, such as the Balkans, such as Tajikistan, where it is reported that more than 500,000 people have been killed and of course the Balkans situation, where we have the reports on rape camps and other types of atrocities; does your economic policy reach into these areas? LAROUCHE: It does and it doesn't. Without my kind of policy, there is no solution for these crises; but my kind of economic policy, does not automatically assure a solution for the crises. The crises have happened; the crises happened because warnings which I gave were not heeded in time; and once people are dead, you cannot bring them back to life by applying the policies which would have prevented them from dying. And in part, many of the options which existed in this part of the world, {are dead--murdered}--by people who were too foolish to heed the warnings which I and others gave earlier. And you are not going to bring them back to life. {You cannot bring the dead back to life.} Once you kill somebody, don't say, ``now I am willing to do the right thing and bring them back to life.'' You have killed them. And this planet will pay, for a very long time to come, the penalty for the crimes we have committed, the crimes of ignorance as well as others, in following the bad policy and not listening to people such as me, who warned them, accurately, of exactly what would happen, if they continued the kind of policy which they did continue. If we go on the right policy, we build a fulcrum of development which gives options for dealing with these areas which we otherwise do not have. But I am not suggesting, and I would warn anybody against suggesting, that you could bring the dead back to life. It is too late. You should have thought of that before you killed the guy. - The Castlereagh/Palmerston Network in the Balkans - Q: In 1988, you predicted that there would be a Balkan crisis. You indicated that there are certain geopolitical thinkers and strategic thinkers in Moscow who wanted to createa Greater Seriba; what is the thinking behind these people and are these people behind the conflict at this point? LAROUCHE: This is something which has been around for a long time. In the 19th century, the British, fearing that France and Germany would enter into cooperation with Russia for economic development, deployed, through largely Freemasonic channels, operations--Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell (Bertrand Russell's grandfather and Palmerston's buddy) were among those who were key in this. The ``Young Europe'' and the ``Young America'' operations of Palmerston's stooge, Giuseppe Mazzini, in Italy, were part of this. Karl Marx was a product of Palmerston, although Marx never wanted to admit it, of course. But Marx was actually dupe of Lord Palmerston. As a matter of fact, while Marx was living in England, he was run by a fellow called Urquhart, who was based at the British Library, sometimes called the British Museum, who was Marx's controller. And Urquhart was an agent of Lord Palmertson. So, while Marx was writing bad things about Palmerston bcak in the 1850s or something, he was actually working for Palmerston but didn't know it. But these kinds of things started then. Now, a competitor of Marx, by the name of Bakunin, who was also a buddy of that Nazi, the composer Richard Wagner, and also in a sense a buddy of that other Nazi Friedrich Nietzsche, the deconstructionist; these people were simply assets of Palmerston's Mazzini operation, the Young Europe operation, the radicals. And they spread this Pan-Slavic garbage into Russia and into southeastern Europe through these Freemasonic lodges which were the Mazzini-type lodges run by the British. We had this Serbian Black Hand society, all these kinds of things that started the Balkan Wars ultimately of the late 19th century and the early 20th century. The same people are up to the same thing all over agian. This is not something that was cooked up yesterday in somebody's kitchen or somebody's spook think-tank; these are movements and tendencies and operations and brainwashings, which have been kicking around for hundreds of years. - The Only Solution for the Middle East Is Global Development - Q: The Middle East at this point, the Palestinian crisis, is affected by the same situation, and yet, we are looking at a powderkeg that seems to continue to grow, continue to develop, and we never seem to have an end in that particular area. Is there anything that Mr. Clinton can do at this point, or that Warren Christopher can do, in terms of this crisis? LAROUCHE: Warren Christopher is an old hand. He is an old bureaucrat. He is an old Establishment fixer. And he has certain capabilities, which will be perhaps, in the present state, rather important, to have somebody in there who knows how to do his job. I am not necessarily endorsing any of Mr. Christopher's policies, but I do indicate that he does have certain competencies which were lacking under, shall we say, Baker. The Middle East is a mess because we want to have it a mess. The Middle East is, to this day, despite the U.S. bungling and interventions in the area, still run by the old British intleligence crowd. And they wish to have it a mess. Israel is to a large degree {controlled} by this crowd. The Israelis would not want to admit it; but if you know how things work, you understand how it is controlled. And they are making it a mess. I do not think that anyone could come up with a Middle East policy which is going to work by itself. For example, I have worked on policies for years, and worked with Israelis and Arabs and others to try to get these into motion, which are economic development policies of mutual benefit to all in that region, and therefore, by having a common intererst in something of mutual benefit to all, particularly in economics, one can hope that you can build confidence and build peace. Unfortunately, this has not worked so far because of this kind of British control I talked about. Until that is faced, we are not likely to have it. And you are not going to build ecnomic development in the Middle East, while you are tearing down the economy of the world, as we are still doing. So again, I think the Middle East is like the dead man. We murdered him, and no one is going to come up with an easy solution for bringing him back to life. However, if we have the right overall economic policy, and apply that policy to the Middle East, we have options for doing useful things. But anyone who is going to try to guarantee a solution in the Middle East per se, shows their utter ignorance of history in general as well as recent history. Q: Mr. LaRouche, you and your associates have indicated that one of the major political enemies of yours is the Anti-Defamation League. I would like for us to touch upon a particular scandal which is brewing at this point in San Franciscos, where the Anti-Defamation League is accused of being involved with a certain police intelligence spying that took place, on the police intelligence files, and wound up in the ADL offices and were passed on to the South African and Israeli governments. What are we dealing with, with the ADL? I don't think that you are going to be able to touch on it in the next few second, but perhaps when we get back, what are we dealing with, with the ADL, and why do they consider you to be the biggest enemy in the world, and why have they been involved in a political targetting operation? We will return with that question, to ``Executive Intelligence Review's Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' [commercial break] - The ADL Is Deployed By A Faction of British Intelligence - Q: Mr. LaRouche, earlier on, you mentioned that you were involved in trying to get an economic devleopment program with Israel. The Anti-Defamation League is supposedly a great firend of Israel; why do they consider you their mortal enemy? LAROUCHE: Well, for only one reason. First of all, the ADL is not an independent organization which makes its own policy. The ADL is an offshoot of a Confederate organization, the B'nai B'rith, which was founded in 1842-1843 in Charleston, South Carolina, as a subsidiary of Palmerston's organization, and actually that branch of the Southern Freemasonry was working with Lord Palmerston, was under his direction, and called itself, as the case of Albert Pike exemplifies in this, ``Young America,'' which was the offshoot of Mazzini's ``Young Europe.'' This organization has always worked for a faction of British intelligence. As a shorthand, call it the Castlereagh-Palmerston faction. It has never served an independent Jewish interest, contrary to its own publicity. It has not. For example, the deployment against us, against me in particular, {was ordered} from New York City by British intelligence through a British intelligence agent, Canon Edward West of the New York Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Canon West was also a coordinator for British intelligence's Hospitaller of St. John organization, the Knights of Jerusalem. And that is the way it has been run. We were exposing drug running. We were exposing the role of banks in drug-money laundering, the kind of thing that was done by Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky, for example, back in 1977-1978 period. And that is when the ADL was put on our case by these fellows. Today, it is the same thing. The ADL actually spiritually has been associated with the Ku Klux Klan. It was created about 1913. The Ku Klux Klan was organized in about 1915, the second organization, under this guy Simmons, was organized by a group of people including President Woodrow Wilson. And the key to organization {behind} organizing the Klan, that is, doing the dirty work, was the ADL and what became known as the Hollywood crowd, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, that crowd. So, the ADL has never been an independent agency. In connection with the ADL's work, the ADL not only has been key in running the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century, despite all its talk about its anti-hate this and that, I hate that, the ADL and certain elements in Israel, have also been in tight with the apartheid factions of the government of South Africa, and they have also been in, through other channels, with the African National Congress. So, there is nothing unusual, as the case of Jonathan Jay Pollard exemplifies this, in organizations like the ADL--which are not Jewish organizations, they are something else, but they use a Jewish cover, doing these kinds of things, running wth right-wing organizations, doing spying for the Soviet Union, or spying for South Africa or something like that. Nothing unusual; the only thing that is puzzling about this, is Americans do not really understand what the ADL is. [commercial break] MEL KLENETSKY: We will have to have further discussions on the ADL and the Pollard case in the coming week or perhaps in the future. This has been ``Executive Intelligence Review's Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' - 30 - ---- John Covici covici@ccs.covici.com
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.