The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon//eir.081193

From oneb!!!!agate!!!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Aug 16 06:36:43 PDT 1993
Article: 25903 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!!!!agate!!!uunet!ccs!covici
From: (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 08/11/93 (was EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche)
Message-ID: <>
Date: 15 Aug 93 22:23:6 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 653

Note the change of name of this series from EIR Talks to Lyndon 
LaRouche to EIR Talks.

   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

   ``{EIR} Talks''
   August 11, 1993 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

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

   Clinton Must Take on France and Britain Directly on the
   Balkan Issue

   Today we are going to be discussing Bill Clinton and the
particulars of NATO's decision to go with air strikes, however
with certain qualifications. 
   What is Mr. Clinton doing, in terms of giving up foreign
policy to NATO and NATO in turn giving up foreign policy to the
United Nations? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well actually, the Clinton administration
backed down totally to the British line, and tried to appear not
to have done so. 
   This procedure, as it came out of Brussels, under which the
military action will not occur, will be limited to, will be
coordinated with, the United Nations--that after each action they
will go back to the United Nations before going to the next
military action--all of this sort of thing, means that {nothing
at all of any significance will be done.} 
   In the meantime, the French put their U.N.-assigned troops
on the mountaintop with the Serbians, which means that one could
not bomb the most relevant position of the Serbian artillery,
without hitting French U.N. troops. 
   The thing literally stinks. 
   If I were President of the United States, I should be laying
before the American people {precisely} what these modern
Daladiers such as Lord Owen, who is worse than Chamberlain, and
the French have done in this situation, and say, this is the
problem we have to deal with. I think the American people have
the right to know what is going on in the Balkans. If we're going
to make policy, if there's a possibility of military action, I
think the American people ought to know what's going on. 
   I think that unless Clinton does that and says openly that
the Bosnians are being destroyed because the French and British
are acting as virtual allies or directors of the genocide being
done by the Serbian fascists there, I don't think we can make
   We have to call a spade a spade. 

   Q: Congressman McCloskey from Indiana has issued a call
which asks for the resignation of Lord Owen, who is the mediator
in the Bosnia situation. What will this resignation do, if it
goes through? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, it should be recalled that
friends of ours were in the middle of this operation which forced
the exposure of what Lord Owen had done, his duplicity, that Lord
Owen was working as a virtual agent of those Serbians such as
Karajdzic, the psychiatrist. 
   Remember, Lord Owen is a psychiatrist, and he is
connected very directly through these professional channels
to Karajdzic, not merely in the profession of psychiatry, but
the operations in Bosnia were run and designed on the basis
of certain psychiatric principles of psychological warfare,
in which Owen's circles were participating in the theoretical
planning side of designing this kind of warfare. 
   So Owen is not simply ``connected'' to Karajdzic by
professional linkages; he is actually a part of the group of
people who designed this kind of warfare; and they were using
this kind of psychological warfare to try to turn all of
Bosnia-Hercegovina--and part of Croatia, too--over to these
fascist Serbs. And that meant that the Kosova region of the
former Yugoslavia would be subject to massive ``ethnic cleansing''
against the so-called Albanian population there; and that
Makedonija would be the next to go, which means the whole Balkan
war would spread. 
   So we got that exposed, that that was exactly the game that
was being played. That was exposed in a meeting in Geneva. That
came out in the press, through our participation and our friends'
participation. We got to the bottom of this. We exposed it. Many
people have demanded it. 
   The issue here, as my wife Helga put it in a private
discussion with some people a week ago, and as I put it
otherwise, is that if the Clinton administration accepts this
kind of arrangement, submits to it, to this British-French
diktat, the type that they did at the NATO meeting, then the
United States becomes strategically--that is, politically and
diplomatically--a paper tiger. And bombing Iraq again, or bombing
or killing Somalians is not going to give any credibility to the
United States. 
   The crucial issue the United States has to face is twofold
on this military-strategic level. The United States has to face
the fact that the British are working {against} the most vital
interests of the United States in the Balkans and in China, among
other places. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the Clinton
administration's giving up, in terms of taking control of
strategic and foreign policy because of its relationship with
Britain and France. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The issue here is, focus on the balance, for
example, between the Balkans and what is happening in Russia. 
   As my wife Helga said, and as I have discussed this with
her, it makes no difference what Clinton does to attack the Serbs
or not attack them militarily in former Yugoslavia; what the
United States {fears} will happen in Russia, {will happen
   The argument is, that if the United States were to
participate with Europe, or on its own, in bombing action against
the artillery positions of the Serbs and some of the supply
routes and so forth, to stop these atrocities, that would
tend to relieve it, but then Russia would react adversely.
{That is probably true.} 
   They fear also, that this would topple Yeltsin in Russia,
and the hardliners. {That is also possibly true.} But if they did
nothing, they would also accelerate the change in Russia, which
is now on the tracks. It's a train on the tracks, the engine is
moving, the train is moving. It might cause the train to speed up
a little bit, but even that is debatable. It is happening. 
   So the United States has lost Russia, just as surely as some
pro-British meddlers in the State Department and elsewhere back
in the late 1940s, gave China to the communists. I don't accept
the Joe McCarthy version of that, of course, but there was a very
large element of truth in that, that the United States brought
the communists to power by supporting British policy on that
issue back in the 1940s. 
   The United States bungled under George Bush--and Clinton
has yet to undo that bungling. George Bush created a situation in
which once the Iron Curtain had fallen, instead of opening the
world to cooperation and development, and the road to durable
peace, by the economic policies of George Soros and others, which
the United States and others imposed upon Russia and eastern
Europe, the United States has driven Russia into a mood of bitter
hostility against the West again. 
   What is coming back in Russia, is {not} a communist power,
but a Great Russian power--{as I warned these guys} under the
Reagan administration back in 1983 to 1985. I repeatedly warned
them: I said, you are going to see the fall of communism, but you
are going to see, if you continue these kinds of policies, the
danger of the return of Russian power, a thermonuclear power, in
the form of a Great Russian/Third Rome government. 
   That is going to tend to happen {anyway}; it is too late to
simply reverse that. We can only {shape,} or {tend to shape,}
what that development {is} at this stage. We have thrown away our
options. Bush did the most of it. But the Clinton administration,
by failing to act to correct this Bush error, by tolerating the
shock therapy, by tolerating George Soros, by not taking action
in the Balkans, allowed the Bush program to continue, and that
sent us down onto this road. 
   So that is the issue. 
   If we do not act in Bosnia to stop the Serbs, the United
States has no political, diplomatic, strategic credibility on
this planet. 
   That loss of credibility, more than any Russian resentment
against our action against their Serbian ``little brothers,''
will accelerate Moscow's perception that the United States {is} a
paper tiger, and the Russians will come on with a hostile
attitude toward the United States as they reconsolidate their
power very rapidly. 
   In the meantime, what we face is a China blowup also, in
the context of the oncoming depression, the greatest monetary
crisis in world history (or at least known world history),
ongoing into the spring of next year. 
   These strategic crises, and so forth. We are facing a crisis
beyond belief; and it's no exaggeration, that the Clinton
administration will absolutely go down, with no credibility, and
the United States perhaps, too, in ways beyond ordinary
imagination, {unless this problem is reversed very quickly.} 

   Q: We're coming up to a break, but quickly, what do you
think of the recent resignation of Marshall Freeman Harris and
previously John Western from the State Department? These were two
individuals who were involved in the Bosnia desk. John Western
was, of course, involved in looking at war crimes of the
Serbians, and Harris was the head of the Bosnia desk. 
   What does this mean for the State Department and Warren
Christopher, does it show tremendous disarray? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: What it shows, as they have said (and I have
some other sources), is that professionals in the Washington
bureaucracy, people who have been around there who represent
professionals, who have some sense of how things are going, know
that the present policy of capitulation to the Anglo-French
pro-Serbian alliance, the capitulation to the antics of
Boutros-Boutros-Ghali is a backdown. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, there have been a number of
resignations in the State Department--Marshall Freeman Harris
and John Western--over Bosnia. What is the significance of
these resignations? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: As I was saying before we came up to the
break, this symptomizes a reaction within the professional
establishment in the Washington government, our national
government, especially in the State Department, but I think not
limited to that by any means, who are resigning, sacrificing
their careers in effect, to deliver a warning to the White House,
to the Congress, and to the American people, of how bad this
backdown to the Anglo-French policy and the Boutros-Ghali policy,
   This continued backdown since April and May to this
Anglo-French dirty operation typified by Lord Owen's duplicity,
is something which, if the Clinton administration continues to
tolerate this as much as another week, could be an absolute
disaster for the strategic situation and for all policy, and for
the credibility of the Clinton administration as a whole. 
   There is no diversionary, compensating, offsetting tactic by
which President Clinton could save his administration from the
absolute disaster which will hit it if he does not bite the
bullet on this issue of confronting openly, boldly, and
effectively, the duplicity of London and Paris in the recent
years on this Balkan issue. 
   If he doesn't do it, nobody in the world is going to believe
him; and he is not going to get a single important domestic
program through. So this is make-or-break for President Bill
Clinton. That's what this resignation signifies. It's a symptom
of a general condition of the government, where they're saying
this administration ain't working. Not on the budget balancing,
not on all this frou-fra that we get in the press. It's not
working, because it is not addressing and is evading the
fundamental issue upon which the very existence of this
administration and the credibility of the United States globally,
as well as domestically, hangs absolutely. And there is no way
that Clinton's administration is going to survive, unless he
bites the bullet and takes on the French and British directly and
openly on this Balkan issue. 
       The Meaning of the Third Rome Tendency for Russia 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, the figure of Solzhenitsyn is recently
emerging in Russia. He represents a critique of the West, very
knowledgeable about the West. He pushes such figures as Stolypin
and Dostoyevsky. Of course, you have promoted Witte who
represents a different tendency than Stolypin. 
   Solzhenitsyn claims that the territory of Russia includes
not only Russia but Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. 
   What is the difference between what Solzhenitsyn represents,
what Stolypin represents, and your view of how Russia has to go
in terms of the policies of Count Witte, and what is the
significance of this in terms of the strategic breakdown you've
just been describing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: There are two aspects to be considered, in
respect to what Solzhenitsyn is saying. 
   First of all, Solzhenitsyn and I have been crossing paths on
this since the middle of the 1980s. Solzhenitsyn once made a
public statement in a meeting in Washington, stating that I was
the only one advising the Reagan administration who seemed to
understand the Russian situation. That was in response to my
warnings that Russia was headed toward a transition through
crisis from Bolshevism to a non-Bolshevik, Third Rome Russian
   Solzhenitsyn, of course, is intellectually a literary, not
merely a literary, but essentially a literary proponent of the
Third Rome. That is, he understands the modern literature which
shapes those aspects of the Russian culture which tend toward
Third Rome; and that is what he is talking about when he talks
about Dostoyevsky, who is a prime Third Romer, and people like
   The issue is this. The Russians are not being moved
today by Stolypin or Dostoyevsky. One must not read that in.
Those are only symptoms, they are not causes. 
   The Russians are moving to a Third Rome for reasons I
indicated over 10 years ago. The Russians are reacting to certain
axiomatic assumptions, which most Russians accept in their bones;
and they are reacting to the crisis on the basis of those
assumptions. Those assumptions produce results, in terms of
policies, which in the mind of the literary observer, correspond
to the same kinds of thinking one can read in the diaries of
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have been talking about the Third Rome.
What is the Third Rome, and what are these assumptions that you
have been discussing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Following the collapse of Charlemagne's order
in Europe, which occurred as a result of what was called the New
Dark Age in European history, that's covering the very late
thirteenth century and up to the middle of the fourteenth
century, there erupted throughout Europe a policy impulse for the
creation of a new Roman Empire, because Charlemagne's Holy Roman
Empire had sort of taken that place. 
   This erupted in Russia beginning the middle of the fifteenth
century. By about 1510 A.D., a Russian monk by the name of
Philotheus of Pskov issued a statement like a prophecy which
became the basis for the existence of the czarist government
under a number of people of the sixteenth century, including Ivan
Grozny, the famous Ivan the Terrible. 
   This has always been, as Dostoyevsky, for example,
celebrates it, the conception that Russia will be the third and
the last and everlasting version of a worldwide new Roman Empire.
The very title of czar, which is Russian for Caesar, was adopted
in the sixteenth century by the princes of Muscovy to identify
this Third Rome imperialist thrust deeply embedded axiomatically
in Muscovite culture, embedded in the bones of virtually every
peasant in Russia while they are attached to this monarchy. 
   So what has happened, with the collapse of Bolshevism, the
failure of Bolshevism from the Russian standpoint, the Russians
go back to the axioms which existed before Bolshevism, and which
shaped Bolshevik figures as Stalin. Stalin, for example, was a
combination of a Bolshevik {and} a Third Romer, especially so in
the 1930s and 1940s, into the 1950s. 
   But that's what we're talking about. 
   The alternative is, what kind of a breakdown, and what kind
of a Third Rome are you going to get? Not necessarily a Third
Rome Russian Empire, but what kind of a Third Rome Russian
government? Are you going to get what Solzhenitskyn represents, a
sophisticated version of this kind of thing? Are you going to get
an Ivan Grozny, the emergence of figures who remind us of Ivan
the Terrible or Stalin in his Third Rome period? Not Bolsheviks,
but Great Russians? Or are you going to get something else? 
   The only choice we have, as a United States or Western
Europe, is to contribute policy inputs which tend to cause
Russians to make a rational choice of what kind of new Russia
they are going to put together; and to exercise some tolerance
and moderation toward peoples within the former Soviet Union, in
the process. 
   We can do that, if we would dump George Soros and our IMF
conditionalities and free trade, etc., policies. We could take a
much more positive policy, by playing up Germany in Europe as the
instrument of an international policy, to get some economic
development going in all of eastern Europe, and to offer that
kind of cooperation to Russia, as opposed to the kind of program
which was shoved down Russian throats through Bush and Bush's--as
you might say--patsy, the former dictator, Mikhail Gorbachov. 

     U.S. Policy Towards China: We're Up Against Britain 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, recently, there were figures that were
revised, official figures of the Chinese government, which said
that the agricultural surplus labor from China, has risen from
170 million to 400 million. That's one-third of the population of
   This obviously represents economic disaster. What are the
implications of this for the end of the 20th century and into the
next century, if this basic collapse in China continues? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: There is a fight going on, an obvious one. 
   We've got two programs. The United States apparently is
going with an enterprise zone policy for China. What we see
coming up in Shanghai, in Guangdong Province, in Hainan, in
Hongkong--the Hongkong model--is the one being pushed by the
United States. 
   That is, take this 400 million Chinese surplus labor, mostly
from the countryside; cut Chinese food production by cutting
these people down, actually; then ship these people as coolie
labor to these coastal enterprise zone regions, as in Shanghai,
Guangdong, Hainan, and so forth. They are already pouring in
   Now, the United States foolishly believes that this program
will work. There is a CIA report which has gone to the President
and is floating around Congress, reported in the press. It's an
absolutely lunatic piece of paper, saying this is prosperity,
this is growth. It's terrible. 
   Taking up to 400 million of your population, one-third of
your population--more than one-third, actually, because there are
less than 1.2 billion Chinese on the mainland, so 400 million
Chinese being surplus labor--that's more than one-third. 
   Let's take the 400 million. Let's melt them down in slave
labor. It's sort of like Auschwitz, what the Nazis did at
Auschwitz, which was to kill people largely through slave labor. 
   So you take 400 million Chinese and you melt them down one
by one in these enterprise slave-labor projects, these so-called
enterprise zone projects. 
   Some Chinese become rich, through peddling the product of
slave labor. China becomes poor, through losing population,
thorugh melting down its own population. 
   China will go, under these conditions, into an explosive
   Now the British understand this, and what I have directly
from high levels in Beijing, is that the Chinese there understand
it, too. They understand that what the British foresee for China,
is absolute chaos and general explosion. And the Chinese are very
angry at the British--at least that crowd in Beijing--because
they know what the British are up to. 
   So the United States has a conflict with Britain, not only
in Bosnia policy, where the British are running the United
Nations and France and the Balkans; but the United States has a
policy conflict, where a foolish United States policy, run by
people who don't know what they're doing--just greedy people who
don't want to see what they're doing--against a British policy
which is more sophisticated and very diabolical. 
   So what this means, is that there is no Chinese economic
miracle. This CIA report is ridiculous. It's silly, or worse than
silly; and the Chinese themselves have now pointed that out
   But we're up against a fight with Britain on this policy. If
the United States continues to submit to this British way of
thinking in the Balkans, on Russia, in terms of European
continental policy generally, or in China, then what Mr. Clinton
is going to do, is to take the inheritance he has from Bush--a
world in crisis, a world in collapse, and a United States in
disgrace, and find that delivered to his doorstep. And so China's
just another example of this great crisis, which all hinges on
the inability of the Clinton administration so far to face up to
a showdown, to force London to submit and get into line with some
kind of sane program. 
   [commercial break] 

      The Mississippi Valley Floods: Weather Patterns Show We
     are in a Cooling Phase 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, President Clinton has just received
about $4.7 billion in aid to deal with the crisis in the
Mississippi Valley, the Mississippi flood situation. The
flood has taken 50 lives, 70,000 people are homeless. There
is at least $8 billion in crop damage. {Executive
Intelligence Review} estimates damage at over $20 billion. 
   What can Mr. Clinton do with this $4.7 billion? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: He can do very little. 
   Recall that Sen. Wellstone from Minnesota was leading a
fight to get compensation for the category of cases, 20 cents
for compensation or assistance per dollar of damage up
through 40 cents of compensation per dollar of damage. That
is an improvement. There is an indication that the Clinton
administration would make efforts, with sensible people in
Congress, to increase the assistance for the people in the
   That is, I don't think the Clinton administration wants to
see a repeat of its catastrophic failure of U.S. domestic relief
efforts in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. Maybe they're going to
learn a lesson from studying the disaster, the failure of policy
in that case. 
   But $4.7 billion means that there won't be enough money even
to meet that 40 cents on the dollar figure. It means an absolute
disaster for the Midwest.
   Remember that the problem here, is not simply one flood.
It's a result of several things, mostly, most significantly, the
eruption of the Philippine volcano Mt. Pinatubo about three years
ago. We are in what some meteorologists are calling a mini-Ice
   The effect of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo has been to
generate torrential rains and droughts alternately in parts
of the world, contrary to general preceding trends. This
condition is expected to exist for several years to come. 
   As we look overall at the flood condition in the Midwest
we see that where the Corps of Engineers program was
functioning, or where other entities were working up to the Corps
of Engineers' 500-year standard, so called, in the region, that
the levees held. Where people went cheapo, did not maintain their
works, as in Davenport, or failed to come up to Corps of Engineers'
standards, we had a catastrophe. And because of a lack of Corps
of Engineers work, because the Corps of Engineers had been cut
back, we had this catastrophe--which could have been averted. 
   We are going to have {more} catastrophes of this type over
the coming years, unless we fundamentally change policies. We
could expect, that over the coming 2-3 years, we could have major
repeats of this problem and other problems, such as the droughts
in the Southeast. Not because of the weather, but because the
United States, for opportunistic, political reasons, did not want
to face itself, let alone tell the American people, that this
flood condition was {foreknown,} at least a year ago, when we had
the Pinatubo haze over the North American continent. 
   {We knew this was coming}; and we did nothing to stop it,
because it would have meant a change in policy. We {should have}
known this was coming three years ago, at least two and a half,
at least 18 months ago. We did nothing to stop it. Because the
Bush administration built in a policy, which the Clinton
administration has not changed, which says, ignore it; pretend it
isn't going to happen. And because some people in the Bush
administration and Clinton administration did not want to say,
Hey, buddy, there {is no global warming}; your cow excreting gas
from its rear end is not going to bring on global warming; we are
entering, fellas, into a mini-Ice Age period, a short period in
which the weather will become cooler in places like Minnesota and
the Dakotas and so forth. 
   So they didn't want to tell the truth, because they didn't
want to face the budgetary implications of that, that you had to
build up the Corps of Engineers program in anticipation of this
quickly; and they didn't wish to offend those crazy kooks who
keep talking about this nonsense about global warming, which is
never coming. We're actually already in a global cooling phase
anyway, and we're going into a short-term inflection of a
probable mini-Ice Age. That doesn't mean you're going to have big
glaciers crushing in your window or your roof, but it does mean
there will be a significant cooling effect in parts of the
Northern Hemisphere. 
   So that's the way to look at it. And the $4.7 billion is
   Look at Clinton's problem. Clinton tried, at the beginning
of his administration, to get through a mini-program, a
toe-in-the-water program as I described it, for some job creation
and some infrastructure and some incentives. The Gramm-led people
in the Senate, the crazy free-market ideologues, shut that down;
and Clinton is afraid to do anything in that direction now. 
   But what we need, is a massive, multi-billion dollar
emergency program, not only to repair the damage that's done, but
to rebuild the area, to anticipate the {next} crisis. It's not
going to be 500 years until the next flood, or a similar crisis
in this region. {We're still in the same period of weather
conditions that caused the flood in the first place.} 
   So Clinton has got to spend. And if you think about it, it's
going to force the administration and others to think about this
lunatic budget-balancing policy. The problem behind all this, the
reason that some people in the Senate and elsewhere won't do
anything to get the President to correct this error, or help him
correct the error, is that they're all seized with this delusion,
like much of the American public, which is fostered by people
like Ross Perot, that big government spending has caused the
problem, and cutting government spending is going to solve the
   It's absolute nonsense. We have a smaller percentile of
federal non-military employees today than we had 20-25 years ago.
So where's the big government spending on government operations?
Yes, there is government subsidy to the big bankers; there's
government being looted through the Federal Reserve System
operations by the big bankers. There is $50 per day per person
being looted out of the U.S. economy by this derivatives swindle,
and that sort of thing. 
   But the problem is not an excess of government spending on
government operations. The problem is not entitlements as such;
although that seems to be a problem, it is not the cause of the
problem. The cause of the problem is that about 17.2 percent
of the U.S. labor force, according to government figures,
government data, are unemployed. That's over 20 million Americans
unemployed; and if we put some of these people back to work, and
rebuild some of the businesses we've torn down through lunatic
policies over the period 1978-1989, then we can have an increae
in the number of people earning money, and earning decent money,
not flipping hamburgers at low wages. We have businesses which
will become taxpayers. These taxpayers will carry the burden, or
help to carry the burden, in states, localities, as well as the
federal government. Under those conditions, we can begin to bring
this budgetary imbalance under control. If we at the same time
shut down this kind of Fed operation, and shut down the
derivatives market, we can keep the international financial
succubus from sucking the lifeblood out of the economy. 
   Most of the increase in federal debt is caused by the New
York bankers' Federal Reserve operations. Everybody in Washington
who understands how this works, knows that. Many people in the
public do not know that. The free enterprise nuts will not tell
you that. But that's our problem. We have got to go into a
rational protectionist mode of the type the United States has
stood for since the time of President George Washington. 
   We have got to get our businesses going. We have got to get
6 to 8 to 10 million more people working in good jobs, not phony
or service-type jobs, but real jobs producing wealth, and we have
got to start rebuilding the infrastructure of the water systems,
the rail systems, the power systems, the sanitations systems, the
medical systems, the education system of this country. And under
those conditions, we can get out of this mess. 
   But going in the direction they're going in now, the
government's offer of $4.7 billion, as against the $20-25 billion
which is necessary just to repair the damage, not even including
the buildup for the next threat of flood; under those conditions,
we are in real trouble. And tell the American people to wake up
to what's wrong with our policy making, not just with this or
that policy. 
   I'm afraid that Washington is going to continue to go in
this direction; and the United States, as long as that continues,
until people wake up, is going down the sewer. 

       Why John Demjanjuk Is Being Persecuted by the OSI 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have a couple of minutes left, and what
I would like to have you discuss, is the case of John Demjanjuk. 
   The saga keeps going. the Supreme Court of Israel has found
him innocent. He is not Ivan the Terrible, and yet, the
Department of Justice and the United States is arguing that he
should not be returned. 
   Why are they so intent on preventing John Demjanjuk from
being returned after so much harm and so much human suffering has
been done to him? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The Demjanjuk case follows a pattern which
began with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger back in the
mid-1970s, who negotiated a deal through Ambassador Dobrynin, the
Soviet ambassador to Washington, with the Moscow Procurator,
under which the United States government agreed to target
American citizens designated by the Soviet government as enemies
of the Soviet Union under the allegation that they had been war
   From that point to the present, there has not been a single
case in which a valid conviction on war crimes has been made by
the United States government, that is, through the Justice
Department, through this Office of Special Investigations. Not a
single case. 
   In the Soobzokov case, Tscherim Soobzokov escaped
prosecution back in the 1970s because his lawyers forced the
{New York Times} to admit that in order to prosecute him they
had gone to the Soviet KGB to get forged evidence built, in
which to make false allegations against Soobzokov. When that
came out in trial, Soobzokov got a sealed settlement with the
{New York Times}, which had to pay him off for that bit of
lying and operation, and the Office of Special Investigations
was forced to shut down their case. 
   But every case which the OSI has brought against an alleged
Nazi-period war-crimes or crimes-against-humanity individual, has
been a fake. 
   Now the Demjanjuk case is a similar fake. {There is no
legitimate evidence against Demjanjuk.} The Israeli courts have
admitted that the case against him that he was [the Nazi
concentration camp guard known as] Ivan the Terrible was tainted.
He was not Ivan the Terrible. And, according to Justice
Department papers, they knew he was not Ivan the Terrible back in
1978 before they started the case. 
   Now, they now say there is another case against him. That
case rests on one single piece of paper manufactured by the KGB.
It is all over Europe, including in a report in {Der Spiegel,} a
leading newsweekly magazine, reporting the details of the fakery
of that particular document. 
   There is no case against John Demjanjuk charging that he
either is Ivan the Terrible or any other kind of a Nazi guard. No
   MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have to end at this point.
We'll come back to this case, I'm sure. We will see you next
week. Thank you very much. 
     If anyone has any questions for Mr. LaRouche, wants to
send them in, write to: {EIR} Talks with LaRouche, c/o EIR
News Service Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390,
Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 

         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.