The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon//eir.062393

From oneb!!!!!!uunet!ccs!covici Tue Jun 29 07:26:35 PDT 1993
Article: 23143 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!!!!!!uunet!ccs!covici
From: (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 06/23/93
Keywords: Bosnia, derivatives, budget
Message-ID: <>
Date: 28 Jun 93 8:39:49 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 663


	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           


	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 
with a line saying
subscribe lar-lst

After that, to get an index, say
index lar-lst

	June 23, 1993 
	Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

	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,

     Why the Monetary System is Overripe for a 
                       Financial Blowout 

	Before we begin discussing the Philadelphia Conference
of Jim Bevel, the July 4 Cosigners' Conference, I want to go
into a discussion of some economic developments that are
occurring around the country and around the world. 
	Recently, a {Der Spiegel} article referred to the threat
of a 1987-style financial blowout throughout the world. What
are we looking at now, in terms of world finance, that makes
{Der Spiegel} put this threat forward at this point, Mr.
	MR. LAROUCHE: A number of things are going on. First of
all, we have to recognize that there is now and has been a
general overripeness for a total blowout of the present
international monetary system. The blowout, of course, is
caused by most immediately, the way in which the derivatives
have ballooned into the worst bubble by far in the known
history of mankind. 
	If one looks very simply at how a bubble works, then one
understands the general nature of the situation. 
	A bubble works by pyramiding speculation on the basis of
a market which operates somewhat in terms of what is called a
price earnings ratio. Now the market always sucks on reality,
because people eventually are going to spend some of this
money, and they're going to spend this money in part for
things that are produced; and if the number of things
produced is collapsing, then the amount of money that's
needed, or real production that's needed to sustain the
bubble, becomes very difficult to maintain. 
	So what's happening, is the bubble is drawing money as
profit, as loot, and as disinvestment, {out of} agriculture,
production, out of building up infrastructure, {out of}
personal income; {out of} manufacturing and trade, and it's
going into this bubble. 
	So as the bubble becomes large, and as the growth of the
bubble shrinks real production, you're approaching a point at
which the bubble is going to pop; and we are in that
condition now. 
	It is very difficult to say when the bubble will pop,
because subjective factors, such as the lunacy of people
around this fellow George Soros, could set it off. It could
be the detonator. It could be the prick in the balloon. Or it
could be something else. 
	But when {Spiegel} says that we are in for a crisis,
that's what they're really referring to. This bubble runs
immediately on balance to about $9-10 trillion, which
involves a turnover of about $350 trillion a year (remember,
the U.S. GNP is about five and a half trillion dollars, which
gives you an idea of how big the bubble is, relative to the
world). So this bubble is a big debt bubble which can blow
and blow everything else out with it. And we are on the edge
of that occurring. That's essentially what {Spiegel} is
talking about. 

     Why George ``Golem'' Soros Must Be Put Out of Business 

	Q: Congressman Gonzalez just put a statement into the
{Congressional Record} calling for an investigation of George
Soros. What is he trying to accomplish by this investigation
and why has he singled out George Soros? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Because Soros is the worst example of
something. Because Henry Gonzalez, the congressman, knows
essentially what the nature of Soros is. 
	Remember, according to a puff piece that was done (I
think by Public Broadcasting company or some similar agency),
Soros said that the way he survived as a young Jew in a
Nazi-occupied or Nazi-collaborator Hungary, was by working
for a guy who was looting the property of Jews. And he hid
himself, working for this guy; and he said that his success
in this, stamped his life. 
	Soris is doing essentially the same thing now, in terms
of what he's doing to eastern European economies and others,
which he did by looting dead and dying Jews in Hungary. It's
a horrible image of one whom one would be more likely to say
``Golem Soros'' than George Soros. This is horrible. And he
says this about himself. But that's what he does. 
	George is a creature who, to my knowledge, actually has
two ownerships. 
	One, he has backing from the New York Fed district, from
people like Corrigan and so forth there; and secondly, he has
backing from Jimmy Goldsmith, and from the Rothschilds--Jacob
Rothschild. Which means he's pretty well connected. He has
tremendous insider information, secret information, on what's
going on inside central banks; and on the basis of that, he's
equipped to loot whole currencies by using derivatives the
way that Michael Milken used junk bonds, in order to loot
entire currencies and entire countries. 
	Soros is {really} a gravedigger--or a cannibal, perhaps;
and therefore George Soros, with what he's doing, is a
tremendous threat to the interests of the United States. 
	[commercial break] 

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing George Soros,
the big privateer, speculator in derivatives, and the
potential investigation that's been called for by Congressman
Gonzalez from Texas. You were developing some points about
him. Please continue. 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, George Soros is also a strategic
threat to the United States, in more than one way. George set
up shop, for example, in Poland in 1989. It was George who
brought this rather notorious little creature from Harvard,
Jeffrey Sachs, the so-called economist, with his shock
therapy into Poland. And George did the same thing in Russia.
And George is working closely with an ex-State Department
official, R. Mark Palmer, in Budapest and Hungary. 
	George is trying to nazify by calumny everybody who
opposes his looting of one of these economies. 
	Now in Russia, George is especially dangerous to the
United States. People may hear that recently, there was a
former Soviet (Russian) military operation based out of
Kaliningrad on the Baltics, which is part of Russia, next to
Lithuania, preparing to take back militarily part or all of
the Baltic States. 
	This goes with a pattern which is developing. 
	What is happening in Russia, is that the good will which
many Russians felt toward the United States from 1989 into
1991, is gone. A great hatred of the United States is
building up, because the Russians have reason to believe that
George Soros, with a lot of his friends, is a tool of the
Anglo-Americans in looting their economy like carpetbaggers;
and there is real hatred building up against the United
States because we allow George Soros to run loose in Russia,
and in eastern Europe. 
	People in Washington seem to be somewhat blind to
that--at least most of them. But it's a danger. 
	If we wanted to avoid terrible threats in the future, we
would pull back George Soros, an American citizen, right now;
and we would stop his operations cold. But apparently we
don't want to touch it. 
	When we bring these kinds of things up, there are
certain people around the world who are deeply invested in
this derivatives swindle market, who will do anything to
defend it. They'll even blow the planet up, or let it blow
up, rather than have their little petty piracy and looting of
the economy be interfered with. And that's where George Soros
is a real danger, which is why Henry Gonzalez is very much on
the right track in saying that George Soros's activities are
in conflict with the most vital interests of the United
States and of our banking institutions. In the meantime,
George typifies and is the tip of the iceberg, of what could
blow up the whole economy, as {Spiegel} says. 

     	A Solution to the Budget Crisis: How to Get a Real
     Recovery Program Going 

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, if we look at the budget crisis in the
United States and the difficulty that both Congress and the
President have in implementing a program that can sustain the
existing economy; or if we look at the crisis of government
around the world, one has to ask if it is possible {at all}
to propose or develop an economic policy without kicking over
the table and ending this speculative binge and the
tremendous debt structures that are crippling economies
around the world. 
	MR. LAROUCHE: I don't know about kicking over the table. 
	The question is, how do you get the rats out of the
house, without burning down the house? That's the problem. 
	Let's take a look at President Clinton's real problem. 
	The President's problem is typified by a silly fellow
from Texas, who unfortunately happens to be a U.S. Senator.
His name is Phil Gramm, and he was the co-author of the
greatest disaster which was ever enacted on financial and
related matters by the Congress, the so-called Gramm-Rudman
lunacy. People should know that it has never worked. It's
been a disaster. 
	So if you look at Gramm-Rudman, and realize what that's
done, and what a failure that's been, you wouldn't leap too
quickly to support new offers and new proposals made by a
fellow called Phil Gramm from Texas. 
	But the problem is, the White House did not go after
this. The White House was afraid of, not so much George
Bush's old cronies or others, as afraid of Ross Perot. Ross
Perot has said you've got to cut the budget. 
	The problem with cutting the budget by cutting federal
expenditures and raising taxes--which is what's going on, one
way or the other--is that you're going to sink the tax
revenue base. 
	The problem is, you're going to cut out more jobs, lose
more jobs, lose more income from the tax revenue base of not
only the federal government but the state and local
governments than you'll ever save. 
	That is, you {cannot} cut the budget; and Ross Perot
just hasn't gotten that idea through his head yet. You cannot
cut the budget. You have to sustain the budget at its present
level; and you cannot add new kinds of taxes on the middle to
low income, or on productive industry--which means that
you've got to {increase credit} into job creation. And as I
have said repeatedly, without a 6-8 million level increase in
jobs which are not flipping hamburgers, or not other
so-called low-skill service jobs; unless you do that, you're
not going to save the U.S. economy. It's going to collapse.
There's nothing you can do. And so far, the administration,
after this toe-in-the-water gesture in the direction of tax
incentives in terms of investment credit and in terms of some
federal investment in job creation, has not wanted to go in
that direction since then. 
	[commercial break] 
	Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were just discussing the basic
budget crisis and the kind of approaches that need to be
taken if the economic crisis is going to be resolved. 
	MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, you have to have an economic
program, which is what I indicated during my campaign of
1992. And there is nothing that could work, which is not
consistent with what I proposed from 1992. And what I said
then, would not work. 
	But at the same time as we are trying to get a recovery
program going--and believe me, we are in a spiraling
depression as most people who are paying attention to reality
rather than news reports know--we are going to have to bring
this speculation under control, including derivatives. 
	We {must} bring this bubble down. 
	The argument will be, this will bankrupt the banks;
well, let me tell you, the banks are essentially already
bankrupted. What we're going to need on the bank side, is a
Bank Reorganization Act, which provides each town in the
United States with access to private banking services, which
take care of the town. Without that, the town's going to go
	So you must have a Banking Reorganization Act that keeps
the bank functioning in every town and in all cities in the
United States. We need that kind of act. Even if the banks
are bankrupt, we have to have functioning banks. And we will
use federal credits if necessary, as I have indicated, over
the period of years, as the means of keeping such banks going
under such circumstances, while we sort out their accounts. 
	But we {must, must, must} stop junk bonds, stop
derivatives; stop speculation; stop the bleed-out of a
half-trillion dollars from the economy into recreational
drugs--at least a good part of that, which we could if we
wanted to. We must stop other kinds of waste, which are much
larger than the defense budget, at the same time. 
	And if we do not bring down and terminate this
derivatives speculation, there is no possible way of
organizing a recovery or even of preventing the United States
from going into a dark age, in which, because the money's not
there, the municipality closes down, or the state government
in some cases may close down; whole sections of the federal
government may close down for lack of money, lack of tax
revenue; and that could lead to an actual disintegration of
the United States. 
	So we better get on the derivatives and go against Phil
Gramm and company, and get a recovery program going. 

      Deregulation and the Derivatives Speculative Bubble 

	Q: When did this overall bubble begin, and how do you
rectify it? How do you change it? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: The bubble began essentially, in the
present form, back in 1978 and 1979, with the deregulation
under Carter or beginning under Carter: deregulation of
transportation, particularly trucking; air transport, which
has pretty much flattened the air industry. It's a bellwether
of what's going on. It's ruined the trucking industry, ruined
the warehousing industry entirely, and has sunk the airlines.
It also, over 1978-79, deregulation was put into the
banking/financial system under Volcker, beginning October
1979. And that led to the present proliferation of
speculative financial bubbles. 
	The general problem goes back to 1969 and 1970, but
especially to the 1973-1974 oil price crisis, which started
this kind of speculation with these so-called petroleum
investments. Then, in 1982, George Bush and Company pushed
through the Congress further deregulation acts, which blew
out the banking system, particularly the savings and loan
banks, and have just created this kind of thing where people
like Mike Milken and Ivan Boesky ran loose, destroying one
American corporation after another, in a hostile takeover or
leveraged buyout, that sort of thing. 
	So that's the way the bubble has grown; and now this
derivatives bubble, which is the wildest, most insane
speculation of all, has taken over the world economy. Unless
we bring down the derivatives market, bring it under control,
shut it down largely, and stop George Soros, we are not going
to have an economy. We are going into a dark age. 
	[commercial break] 

     Why President Clinton Must Take a Moral Position 
               on the Horror Show in the Balkans 

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, one area in the world which seems to be
getting worse and worse, is the Balkans. What can be done at
this point? The crisis seems to be getting deeper and deeper,
and many, many people feel at this point that it is
inevitable that it will spread beyond the Balkans into Europe
as well. 
	MR. LAROUCHE: The events of the past week which pertain
to that, are as follows. 
	First of all, it was made public that the United States,
President Clinton, sent a letter to the Chancellor of
Germany, Helmut Kohl, stating that it was still the White
House position that the arms embargo against Bosnia should be
lifted so that the Bosnians could have the weapons to defend
themselves against these Serbian fascists who are committing
terrible crimes against humanity throughout the region. 
	Chancellor Kohl, at a meeting of the European 12 in
Copenhagen presented that policy. According to various press
reports and other indications, there was a wild fight inside
those meetings. The Anglo-French Entente Cordiale ganged up
on Kohl and tried to give him a beating. I think Kohl
probably stood up pretty well to that kind of situation. But
that's the fact. 
	In the meantime, because the United States government as
a whole, whatever the White House is doing (not counting the
Congress), has backed down to the Anglo-French Entente
Cordiale the way the Woodrow Wilson administration backed
down to Britain getting the world into World War I. 
	We have a spreading war in the Balkans with a horror
show beyond believe already in progress. It's going into
Kosova, it's going into Makedonija. It's going to involve the
neighbors of former Yugoslavia very soon. Nothing can stop
it; it's absolute insanity and madness; and the British and
their French political catamite puppets of the moment, are
pushing this thing for all it's worth--or not worth. 
	But this typifies the situation around the world. 
	In the meantime, we have the Hyde Amendment, which has
gotten through the House under the Foreign Relations Aid
Bill, which mandates the United States to lift the embargo
against Bosnia on very good legal grounds--treaty
grounds--and there is the Dole-Lugar Bill in the Senate,
which we hope will be out before the Fourth of July, while
there's still a Bosnia around as an amendment; and the two of
the things mandate the President of the United States to
proceed, with the authority and backing of the Congress, to
lift the embargo, whether the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale
likes it or not--which is what should be done. 
	If that is not done, if the United States and a few
other countries, do not have the will to reverse that
pro-Serbian fascist crowd around Carrington and Kissinger in
London, the people who unleashed this war in the first place
and who are entirely morally responsible for unleashing this
war--Kissinger's and Carrington's friends, the same thing--if
we haven't got the guts and the will power to say no to that,
and to buck these people and tell them to shut up and sit
down, we're going to stop that war, we're going to stop the
Serbs before this thing spreads all over the planet, we're
going to have the worst crisis in Europe of this
century--worse than the first two world wars. 
	That is, with the Russian situation ready to blow up,
the Transcaucasus situation, the situation in Central Asia,
the Middle East crisis, the Far East crisis, the Chinese
investment bubble about to pop (perhaps not this week or this
month but soon), we are in a terrible situation. 
	{There is not a single government in the world at
present,} including that of Mr. Kohl, who stood up fairly
well in Copenhagen this past week, which will stand and
withstand the waves of breakdown which are occurring. And of
course the British government and the French government will
also both go fairly soon at the present rate. 
	So there's not a government in the world that's going to
stand while the war spreads out of the Balkans and into
various hotspots all over the world--unless we act very soon
to get the implications of that Hyde Amendment and the
Dole-Lugar provision into law, and the President to act upon
that, to say we are going to take a moral position on the
Balkans, a sane position, shall we say, whether the
Anglo-French Entente Cordiale likes it or not. As a
superpower, the United States is going to meet our
responsibilities, and we are not going to let the Chicken
Littles of London and Paris stop us. 

     The Central Role of the British Royal Family 
                In the Destabilization of Italy 

	Q: The Balkans crisis is one which threatens the entire
Southern Flank of NATO, what is known as the Southern Flank
of NATO. Would you say that the recent developments, for
example, in the political situation within Italy, with the
Lombard League coming to the fore in northern Italy in recent
elections, is a result of that crisis in the Balkans? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: It is and it isn't. 
	Certainly the Balkan crisis creates some of the mood.
All of those, including the Italian press, who are watching
their Ps and Qs on this, know what the cause of the
destabilization of Italy is. 
	The British royal family and a circle around it, hosted
a meeting on the British royal yacht, Britannia. This
included notables from several parts of the world, including
the people inside Italy (or many of them) who are behind
orchestrating the present political crisis in Italy. 
	The operation which is destabilizing is run partly
through Freemasonic channels such as Grand Orient, under
British direction, and with the support from certain
Freemasons in the United States. It is not an internal
Italian affair strictly, it is something run against Italy
from the outside. 
	The key leadership of the thing was provided by this
meeting which was held on the British royal family's yacht
Britannia, off the coast of Italy. And people, as I said,
inside Italy, who are leading and orchestrating this from
inside government were on that yacht, in that meeting,
planning to destroy Italy. 
	The attempt to partition Italy by playing the Lega
Lombarda in the North as an alternative to resistance to
this, which is the Rete network in the South: that game is
entirely orchestrated from the outside. It is not strictly an
autonomous Italian endemic affair. 
	So you can't find ``Italian'' reasons why this should
occur. You'll find ``Italian effects'' of what's being
orchestrated from abroad. 
	This undoubtedly includes, among those who are
orchestrating this, some of the people--shall we say admirers
of Kissinger's friends--who back in 1978 kidnapped and
murdered the former prime minister of Italy, Aldo Moro. The
same circle is involved in that, and that of course is said
even boldly in certain parts of the Italian press at this
	[commercial break] 

     Why We Need a July 4 Declaration of Independence 
                     Cosigners' Convention 

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, your running mate in the 1992
elections, Rev. James Bevel, is holding a conference in
Philadelphia on July 4. He calls it a Co-signers' Convention,
where he is asking people to sign on to the Declaration of
	What is the purpose of this conference, and what message
is Rev. James Bevel bringing to the American public with it? 
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, let's look at the background. 
	I think to some listeners most of this is obvious. We
are trying to affirm--Jim is trying to cause to be
affirmed--the principles on which the nation was founded, at
a time that those principles are being flouted. There is even
an attempt by the so-called deconstructionists around the
Modern Language Association and universities and by the
Anti-Defamation League's ``World of Difference'' program,
which is a deconstructionist program--which is actually
spiritual child-molesting is what the ADL is pushing--which
is causing great anger against the National Education
Association and other institutions which are pushing this
sort of thing, around the country among parents. We have
people who are demanding that their children be pulled out of
school, and that the government give money and compensation
for alternative education, so people can escape from public
schools, where their children are being spiritually
child-molested by NEA-type ideologues and ADL-type ideologues
in these ``World of Difference'' and other kinds of
multicultural programs. 
	That comes up in many places in society. People would
like to get back to the principles upon which the nation is
founded; they're desperate, they don't know what to do. 
	And so Rev. Jim Bevel has taken the tack of saying
``Let's affirm and make sure we understand. And affirm and
co-sign the principles upon which this nation was founded,
and let's get back to those principles, and away from this
racist multiculturalism spread by aid of such vehicles as the
Anti-Defamation League's ``World of Difference''
multicultural or properly described as deconstructionist
policy, of deconstructing the mind and morals of the United
	So that is the essential purpose as I see it. 
	The United States' 1776 Revolution--our War Against
Britain or war against the royal family of Britain's George
III, and against the British East India Company, the owners
of Adam Smith, was a very good thing; but in some of its
positive aspects it was somewhat confused. 
	That is, we in the young United States represented a
tradition from Europe--the best tradition from Europe--which
was largely associated with a fellow called Gottfried
Leibniz, who was virtually the founder of much of modern
science back at the end of the seventeenth century and also a
great political influence. He was personal adviser to the
tsar of Russia successfully and to many other sources, and
built up a large network of collaborators, which reached into
circles such as those of Cotton Mather up in Massachusetts to
the Lieutenant-Governor at one time of Virginia, Alexander
Spotswood, to the colonial governor of New York, Hunter, and
to the other sponsors of Abraham Lincoln. 
	All of these people were great people each in their own
way, and they each contributed some of this influence,
against the Lockean ideas, which were more popular among the
radicals in England. 
	So this was the United States: the idea that human
beings are sacred as individuals in the eyes of God; that we
all have natural rights which no government can rightly
tamper with, and that we have to base a society on a society
which will promote--not a society which will be as an
anarchist desires or on libertarian ideas--but a society
which {will promote and protect} these natural rights of
people, especially the rights to manufacturing, which was a
big issue of the American Revolution. 
	The right to education: remember in 1790, at the time of
our national census, Americans had well over 90 percent
literacy rates and England a very poor quality of 40 percent.
{We were twice as literate, more than twice as intelligent,
as the British person on the average.} We earned twice as
much money, because we were more productive. 
	We had a superior culture and a superior society to that
in England, and we did not want the corruption which
permeated England with its imperial ambitions to destroy us
from within. 
	Those are still very good principles today, because they
are I think fairly described as permanent ones. And even
though our Revolution was in many respects imperfect,
although there were many different shadings of ideas
involved, the central principle as reflected by young Tom
Jefferson then, sitting down under the guidance of the people
around him and drafting this document under the direction of
people such as Ben Franklin: this is a very good thing. As a
matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence {is,} in
principle, the basis of our law, as reflected in the Preamble
to the Constitution. 
	The Federal Constitution merely provides an
institutional mechanism of a federal form to make that law
effective. But the Declaration of Independence is the basis
of our conceptions of law pretty much as a nation. And so
affirming it, is a very good thing at this time. 
	Q: Mr. LaRouche, many, many schools today teach a line
that the Founding Fathers were a bunch of aristocrats, that
many of them owned slaves, that many of them wanted to make
George Washington king; that Abraham Lincoln only declared
the Emancipation Proclamation for political reasons and he
wasn't really against slavery from a basic moral position and
therefore the Founding Fathers and Lincoln and others, do not
reflect a real positive trend, but they were really political
	MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the people who believe that, of
course, are generally uneducated people who don't know what
they're talking about, who are simply repeating what liars
say. But they are liars, for example, in the form of
	For example, you have people who {hate} the American
Revolution, who generally are pro-British, or they are close
to people like H.G. Wells in their thinking, as most of the
radicals whom we encountered back during the 1960s and early
1970s. They are a product of what a woman named Marilyn
Ferguson, who is an insider, described in the book as ``the
Aquarian Conspiracy.'' 
	The people who are marching through the institutions
today, who are under 46 generally, can be traced back to the
radicals of the late 1960s and early 1970s. These are the
people who are running parts of our government, they are
running our university departments if not the universities as
a whole themselves; they are people who are running our
corporations, people who I would not have employed as
parking-lot sweepers for any corporation back in the 1960s.
They are not to be trusted even with managing a parking lot.
But they are managing sections of government and corporations
	These are the kinds of fellows who are involved in the
speculation in junk bonds and in derivatives; that sort of
mentality. These are greedy little people with no heed and no
care for anybody else; and they have an ideology, an ideology
which we call deconstructionism--which they call
deconstructionism, which is traced back from that proto-Nazi,
Friedrich Nietzsche and people like that. And people like
H.G. Wells who at one time was a professed fascist and a
Nazi-like thinker in his time. 
	And these people have these crazy, ideological ideas.
And they will do {anything} to defame the founders of the
United States and to defame an Abraham Lincoln who {saved}
the United States and defeated Britain and France--the
Entente Cordiale powers--against traitors. And remember
people like Albert Pike and people like Judah Benjamin and
people like Jefferson Davis, were conscious traitors. They
were not ``honest rebels''; they were British agents and they
knew it--engaged in a plot to divide the United States into
several parts, so that the British Empire could prevail over
the United States by splitting the United States up. 
	Lincoln {saved} the United States. Lincoln freed the
slaves in bold moves. He always hated slavery and tried to
destroy it. But he understood that you needed a government
which could stop slavery; and the people who were his
opponents, including the founders of B'nai B'rith, if the
truth be known, who tell some of these lies today were
pro-slavery. In many parts, the leaders of B'nai B'rith {were
slave-traders}--the [Moses Michael] Hayes interests, for
example, were slave traders, who were bringing black slaves
into the United States in the nineteenth century; and the
people who spread these lies today, against Lincoln and
others, are people who have an evil purpose. 
	Unfortunately, because our people are so poorly
educated, virtually not educated at all in many cases, even
though they spend time in schools or even in universities,
where they learn nothing, are credulous enough to swallow
these kinds of propagandistic lies. 
	People have to study and people are going to have to
rethink. They're going to have to sit down and pay attention.
Say to them, ``Okay, you say this about Lincoln. Prove it!
Can you prove it? Don't tell me you heard it some place or
you read it some place. Prove it. You can't prove it, buddy.
There is no proof of this. So don't go around peddling
something that you don't know.'' 
	The Founding Fathers. ``You don't know anything about
the Founding Fathers. Why do you say these things? You
haven't studied the question. You're just repeating what you
heard in some silly class, told to you by some crazy leftist
who's now a teacher or a professor but who was out in the
streets with acid trips and sexual trips back in the late
1960s, early 1970s.'' 
	People have got to learn to stop having their opinions
and instead try to have honest opinions, where they don't
claim to know something they don't know; and when they {do}
claim to know something, they're ready to back it up with
facts, not with slogans. 

	Q: Mr. LaRouche, thank you very much. We're coming to
the end of our program. We will return next week with
``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If people want to
send messages or questions into Mr. LaRouche, they can do so
by writing to ``{EIR'}s Talks With LaRouche,'' P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390.           

                           - 30 -

         John Covici

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.