From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cs.ubc.ca!unixg.ubc.ca!news.mic.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!agate!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Aug 30 16:43:59 PDT 1993 - ATTENTION FREE LAROUCHE ATTENTION FREE LAROUCHE - The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure to get him free. Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview formatted with news breaks and commercials. To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within stations' listening area can be most effective. Program director and general managers are usually the ones to make decisions about programming. Get interested contacts with businesses or products to advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry the program. Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern. For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC 3:1 Companding, Flat or Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W Trans 2 7.5 mHz Wide Band Video Subcarrier The LaRouche files are now available by automatic list service. To get an index of the files, you must subscribe to the LaRouche mailing list. To do this, send a message to listserv@ccs.covici.com with a line saying subscribe lar-lst After that, to get an index, say index lar-lst EIR Talks August 25, 1993 Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. The U.S. Will Disintegrate in 2-3 Years Unless We Dump Friedmanite Economics and Outcome Based Education Mr. LaRouche, you've recently developed a thesis saying that the United States will disintegrate in two to three years. Can you please explain why you feel that way? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the basis of political institutions is economic. And the basic point is, as we see happening in Eastern Europe and Russia, where institutions are disintegrating, as the economic basis for tax revenues and other essential functions of society break down economically, we see a breakdown in the corresponding institutions of government; we see a sweep of cultural pessimism in populations as a result of the economic breakdown, all of which combines to create a growing mood of desperation and disintegration, a kind of process of crumbling of institutions such as we see, for example, very conspicuously in the breakdown in Eastern Europe, and in the former Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991, and more particularly in the past two years. What is happening in Washington, is that Washington, together with many citizens such as Ross Perot, is obsessed with an absolutely lunatic idea of budget cutting as a basis presumably for curing the great evil. If you look at the figures, as I have, the percentile of the total U.S. labor force which is employed by the federal government has been shrinking over the past 25 years--and this is the non-military, and that says nothing about the military which, of course, as we all know, is being drastically shrunken--``downsized,'' I believe is the current politically correct term for it. So therefore, those who say that government operations are causing a budget deficit, are obviously either lying, or a little bit lunatic. Then they will start cutting entitlements. Well, entitlements are pensions and things of that sort. That's murderous, to cut that. And obviously, that has been growing, but only relatively, and that's only because we've been having a lower birth rate, in part, and also a lower tax revenue base in real terms, that is, in constant dollar terms per capita. Therefore, even though pensions are not really increasing, they are relatively increasing, because we're shrinking the base out of which they're paid; therefore, the pension costs, the entitlement costs, are a larger percentile of the total revenue, because the total revenue is being shrunk, while the entitlements remain fixed or only slightly shrinking. Then the other aspect is, that the tax revenue base overall is shrinking. {But} the big increase in government spending is debt service; and debt service has been caused by deregulation and in the introduction of a gigantic, uncontrolled Federal Reserve-sponsored worldwide derivatives bubble, a financial bubble. And because of the present method of Federal Reserve operations with the banking system, we have an uncontrolled bubble which is sucking the blood out of government, as well as everything else. But the Congress and others refuse to attack the Fed. Now as long as they do that, and as long as they refuse to admit that insane environmentalist ideas--that is, ideas with no scientific basis whatsoever but popularized through the media, combined with these ideas about monetary policy--the ideas of Milton Friedman; as long as government says, and a large section of the population supports them, that the solution to our problems is to cut the federal budget by reductions in expenditures and increases in tax rates, what we're going to do, is to continue to collapse the U.S. economy more and more. You're putting more and more people out of work, or out of work and into cheap jobs which really are not necessary jobs, they're parasitism, like flipping hamburgers--rather useless service jobs. And, at the same time, you are shrinking the number of industries with deindustrialization, shipping jobs out of the country--there's one where Ross Perot is right--cutting the number of people who are working, shrinking the tax revenue base. When that happens, you can no longer sustain sections of government, starting, say, with cities--we had that around Pittsburgh some years ago, the beginning of that, of whole towns just literally shut down for lack of a tax revenue base. And you start to shut down local communities, functions of state government, perhaps an entire state government here and there, as the California case showed us what could happen, and then shrug off responsibility to the federal government, because the money is simply not there. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you've been discussing your thesis that the U.S. will disintegrate in the next two to three years. Please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: If we take the current projectable rate of decline, and we're in a spiraling worldwide economic depression. All this talk about recovery, is all nonsense. There has been no recovery anywhere in the world since the 1987 stock market crash, which actually was an early derivatives collapse. So if present policies continue, that is, if people continue to listen to Phil Gramm and Milton Friedman and people who say you can't touch the Fed, and people who defend derivatives; if you believe those people, in two to three years from now, we will begin to have a process of disintegration of government. This will be combined with the effects, if we don't change it, of our educational system reforms. The present Outcome Based Education reforms or Core education, or all these things that are being put into place in a number of states already, these things will have effects not only on children but on families, which will cause a cultural, sociological disintegration in the United States beyond anything you ever imagined before. Actually, Outcome Based Education is quite Satanic, as you know. The Satanists, that is, people who profess to worship Satan, and who see OBE as a way of eliminating Christianity, literally designed this Outcome Based Education program. They're the ones who are behind the program. No speculation, no question about it: cold, hard fact. Robert Muller et al. The injection of that hateful, destructive, Satanic program of education, under circumstances of economic downward spiral, including the collapse of institutions of government, the cessation of payment of responsibilities of government such as entitlements, with a worldwide depression spiral and no bottom in sight, will bring about a process of sociological as well as economic destabilization of the institutions of government. And we will get into a kind of disintegrative process like that we've seen in the past two years, in the former Soviet Union. That is the direction in which we are headed--{unless}; unless we dump Milton Friedman, Phil Gramm, and everything they represent, as well as dumping and kicking out of the schools these child molesters who are sometimes called facilitators or counselors. That's the point. It's not inevitable; we can still change it. But if we don't change the way we think about making policy, at least the majority of the people, and if the Congress continues to bend in the way it has been bending, under entertainment and news media pressure, then this nation will begin to disintegrate very visibly, within about three years. The {New York Times'}s SDI Hoax: ``The {New York Times} Is a Filthy Rag'' Q: Mr. LaRouche, you indicated a while back that one way out for the United States in the early 1980s, was to go with your approach on SDI. More recently, this has come up in the {New York Times} and other places, as an issue. The New York Times said--or implies--that the SDI fight was a fraud right from the start. Can you explain some of the various features of that debate? I know that you called for new physical principles. How would new physical principles shift the economy? MR. LAROUCHE: It's obvious. It would shift the economy, because if you put more technology in, as we did with the Kennedy Moon-landing crash program, with this aerospace program of the 1960s, every improvement in the economy which occurred since the middle 1960s, was the result of the technological spin-offs from the space program. It's the same thing. But the {Times} business, is an outright hoax. Bud McFarlane wrote an op-ed on this which was run in the {Times.} He's right. Bud is telling the truth about everything that he says about 1982 and thereafter, to my direct knowledge, through my participation in that National Security Council process on SDI. I can say that as an eyewitness. I was there. The {Times,} on the other hand, is straight lying. Remember, the {Times} has been incompetent. The {Times} attacked Edison, and said the light bulb should not be developed. It said that electrical power should not be developed. It practically called for the imprisonment of the Wright Brothers for trying to prove that a heavier-than-air aircraft could get off the ground. It demanded the shutdown of Goddard's rocket experiments, back in the 1920s, saying that no rocket could ever get out of the atmosphere, and therefore his experiments should be shut down. And they quoted their official scientist, the environmentalist of the 1920s, to prove that no rocket could ever leave the atmosphere. How wonderful. So the {Times} is like that. Now also, one thing in connection with what Bud McFarlane said, is that at the time, before the President announced the SDI, when I was negotiating the SDI with the Soviets through a back channel, an exploratory negotiation, the top Soviet representative in the back channel said to me in February of 1982: we agree with part of your proposal, we disagree with another part. We will not accept it. However, we have been assured {at the highest level of the Democratic Party} that someone in the White House will prevent your proposal from ever coming off President Reagan's desk. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing your back-channel negotiations on the SDI. Please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: So early in March, an associate of mine, with a representative of the National Security Council, met with one of President Reagan's speechwriters to draft what became the five-minute segment announcing the SDI on March 23 of 1983. Now on March 22, 1983, someone in the White House at a very high level whose name I know, pulled that segment. Overnight, the President, Reagan, put the segment back in, without telling the high-level adviser who had pulled it. And that's how it got on the air. This demonstrates, among other things, first of all, that the high levels of the Democratic Party {were working with the Soviet KGB to kill the SDI before it was announced}; that the {New York Times} is part of that complex. The {New York Times} has been lying about that as it did--for example, let's go back to another instance. In 1974, January, we had caught the FBI directly working with the highest levels of the Communist Party, to set up a physical elimination of me, which actually almost came off. We blew the story at the beginning of January 1974. Three weeks later, the {New York Times} was rushed in to run with a phony story to cover for the FBI. In 1979, the {New York Times} was working with Elizabeth Holtzman through its agent Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery, the guy who had done the story in 1974 to cover for the FBI, to set me up for prosecution. We bugged them. We put a man with wire in the situation, to continue the interview with Blum and Montgomery. We got the story from them. They were going with a major blast on me, a press blast, to signal an attack on me throughout the national media. The idea was to put me in prison within five years of such a campaign. We went out at that point with the tape recording, in two press conferences, one in New York and one in Washington. The New York Times} had to cut it out, and went over to Roy Cohn to contract to create this Dennis King phenomenon to get prior publication so they could go with their dirty story on me. Also, the same {Times} in that period, had set up, through the same Howard Blum, with Elizabeth Holtzman and Henry Kissinger, a Teamster official, Tscherim Soobzokov, for the kind of treatment that Demjanjuk got. Well, Soobzokov's lawyers obtained the proof that the {New York Times} had gone to the KGB office in Kiev, in Ukraine, to get Moscow to forge documents on Soobzokov, which would indicate that he had been a Nazi prison guard, or something to that effect. When it was proven that the {New York Times} had solicited a forgery, the {New York Times} had to settle with Soobzokov in a civil case, with a sealed agreement, under which they had to pay him for this lie which Howard Blum published on behalf of the {Times} in his book. And later, the U.S. government, the OSI, had had to drop its phony case against Soobzokov. After the OSI dropped its phony case against Soobzokov, then the B'nai B'rith, which is close to the {Times,} used its agents of the JDL to threaten Soobzokov, and Soobzokov was murdered. So the {New York Times} is a filthy rag, and as Bud very kindly puts it, the story they're running on the fraud of the SDI, is a fake--like most of the fakes, like its fake on the electric light bulb, on electric power, on heavier-than-air aircraft, on rockets getting out of the atmosphere and so forth. The {New York Times} is a fake, and it fakes things for political reasons of its own. Q: Mr. LaRouche, I understand that you have some further proof on the {New York Times} or FBI involvement in attempting to eliminate you. Wasn't there a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release? MR. LAROUCHE: Oh, yes. What there is, from November 1973, is an FBI release which indicates that the New York office of the FBI, with the knowledge of Washington, that is, immediately after Hoover's death, was working with the Communist Party to incite the Communist Party to preceive that if I were eliminated, the Communist Party's problems would be eliminated. [commercial break] The British Started World War I-- and the Balkan Crisis Today Q: Mr. LaRouche, a debate has broken out in the German and in the British press on who was responsible for World War I. The British are saying that the Germans were behind it. Of course there's a big debate going on about British involvement in causing the recent Bosnia crisis. So the British are trying to blame the recent Bosnia crisis on the Germans; others around the world, including Bosnian Vice President Ganic and others, are saying that Britain is behind this. And this relates back to World War I, and who caused World War I. Can you please give us some insight into this debate that's taking place at this point. MR. LAROUCHE: It's great, isn't it? In any case, this goes back as follows. In November 1989, Margaret Thatcher, faced with the prospect of disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, launched an attack on Germany accusing Germany's potential unification as constituting a Fourth Reich menace to civilization. At that point, British intelligence utilized all its assets, including its assets inside Yugoslavia, to prepare a Balkan war. Let me emphasize that Karadzic is not only a British agent, that is, an agent of a known British intelligence operation, run through the London Tavistock Institute; but that Lord Owen, the present British U.N. negotiator, is a psychiatrist like Karadzic who is part of the same psychological irregular warfare team run through the London Tavistock Institute and what used to be called and is still called by many, the Frankfurt School of Horkheimer, Adorno, Hannah Arendt, and that Nazi Martin Heidegger, et al. So it is a Nazi-Communist nest of New Agers inside the international psychiatric coordinating agency for British intelligence, British psychological warfare, the London Tavistock Institute, which utilized the agents who are committing the mass murder, the mass rape, the other horror shows in former Yugoslavia; the British orchestrated the whole thing from the beginning, in 1989--that is, this particular operation. What has happened in Yugoslavia, is that the British with their accomplices in France, Norway (that is, Stoltenberg of Norway, who is an old friend, an old ally of the Serbian faction which is committing these atrocities) have used, with U.S. complicity, the United Nations Organization, particularly under Boutros-Ghali, to run a cover to ensure that there is no effective resistance to this fascist Serb holocaust being run against the Bosnians today; and that is the essence of the matter. Now, what happens therefore, is that the Bosnians, the Italians, and some Germans, and me, have exposed the nature of this thing, and traced it back rightly to the origins of World War I. I published a number of papers which may not have hit the {New York times} or the {Washington Post,} but are widely circulated in government and related circles throughout the world, saying that the time has come to tell the truth about World War I, that World War I was started because Britain feared that France and Germany would accept the ideas of Count Sergei Witte, the Russian prime minister--the Russian genius of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century--to bring France, Germany, and Russia into cooperation around railroad building, as a way of creating economic cooperation and peace on the continent of Eurasia. The British consider this the greatest possible threat to the British Empire; and saw Germany's superiority in technology and economy as the thing that made possible the success of what Witte was proposing, and what people like Hanotaux in France were proposing. Therefore, the British set up a balance-of-power operation which became known as World War I, and used the British operations centered around Serbia in the Balkans to start a Balkan War, to get World War I ignited. That is the truth. The British know that. The British are widely aware of the publications in Italy, in Bosnia, in Croatia, and also in Germany to some degree, exposing the fact that what the British are doing in the Balkans today, since Margaret Thatcher started it in 1989, to unleash a Balkan war again, as it did in World War I, forces us to come out with the truth about how World War I actually started. That the British did it to get a war on the continent, to prevent cooperation among France, Germany, and Russia, which would be key to a Eurasian economic development bloc. And the same thing today: the British were afraid that German reunification would make a reorganized Russia susceptible to German economic influence, and that France would be drawn in; and that is why the British started this Balkan war, this horror show, and that is why the British have used the United Nations and the weakness of the United States, to commit mass murder, mass rape, and every other horror you can imagine, in the Balkans, to prevent that from happening. So the British are responding with {hysteria, screaming:} ``No, the Germans were guilty in World War I, everybody knows it, everyone knows it, didn't we tell them often enough?'' So that's what's going on. But the fact that the British feel obliged to repeat those lies again, with such hysteria, as the {Daily Telegraph} and other press have done in London, indicates that the report that I've been circulating, and that other press have been doing in Italy and elsewhere, are beginning to hit home. Why There is a Danger of a Coup in Egypt Q: If the British are moving to destabilize through the Bosnian crisis German reunification and East-West economic cooperation, would you say the current crisis in Egypt and Sudan is part of this picture? MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. At present, the British and elements of the U.S. government security services, and the Israelis, are moving for a coup in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak. The Egyptian government has already said that. For example. Take the New York World Trade Center bombing. The group arrested in connection with that, is a group which has several generations ownership by British intelligence--that is, Sheik Abdul Rahman. He has a pedigree in British intelligence service, the Arab Bureau of British Intelligence, going way back. Beginning about 1979-1980, the CIA, or not so much the CIA but the focal point, that is, a unit in the Joint Chiefs of Staff into which the CIA has plugged, among other agencies, since the days of Allen Dulles, ran guerrilla warfare through, chiefly, a major drug operative, Hekmatyar. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing Egypt and Sudan. Please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: So the CIA and the focal point crowd, including a woman called Major Karen McKay, picked up on this crowd, which included Rahman, in running through Pakistan the anti-Soviet operation in Afghanistan, kicking out all of the honest Afghanis, and supporting this drug-runner Hekmatyar as the key Afghan asset used to control the situation politically. And a lot of drug money was run through operations very much like the Iran-Contra drug money operation. As a matter of fact, much bigger than Iran-Contra; much bigger than the Contra operation out of Medellin, in order to finance this Afghan operation. So at some point, under Bush, these fellows were cut loose, and reverted back to their British intelligence parentage; and these are the fellows who are part of the operation which the FBI has gone after in New York, alleging that these are the people behind the killing of Meir Kahane, which may have been done by the Israelis themselves, in point of fact. He was an awful pest to them; and in the World Trade Center bombing. So this of course is the same crowd which is implicated by association--that is, the guy who is a member of it--who did the assassination shooting in front of CIA headquarters in Langley, to set the whole thing off. So on these bases--and the Egyptians, of course, know this--the Egyptians are saying this is all a part of a U.S. operation, but they don't like to say British and Israeli. It's probably more Israeli than anything else right now, in terms of on the ground, to overthrow the Mubarak government. And it's under Egyptian pressure, not only the pressure of this, that the United States is targeting Sudan, because the Egyptians were used for their failed operation to overthrow the government of Sudan; and therefore, the Egyptians are panic-stricken. In point of fact, the Sudanese are doing everything they can to keep out of the internal affairs of Egypt, because they know this. The U.S. Senate Should Examine the LaRouche Case for Human Rights Violations Before Accusing Other Countries Q: You mentioned this terrorist network recently. There's an interesting development that's occurring in Peru at this point, where Fujimori, the President of Peru, is going after Sendero Luminoso, the ``Shining Path'' terrorist group, and we have our friends in the {New York Times,} who have an editorial criticizing Fujimori for doing this, and also a letter from Patrick Leahy, the Senator from Vermont, and David Obey, [a congressman] from Wisconsin, saying that there's human rights violations. MR. LAROUCHE: The United States Senate should be occupied with human rights violations right here at home, before we can trust them to perceive what a human rights violation is. If they can't see what a human rights violation is, right here in the United States--a conspicuous one--how can we respect their judgment on something as distant as Peru? I'm a case of that. Everyone on Capitol Hill--except the odd moron or the guy who's been locked in the closet for a number of years--knows, as they do in the Justice Department, and as they do at the White House, that I was thrown into prison in response to demands by the Soviet government, the Gorbachov government; and that I was kept in prison, because George Bush and his friends and allies have personal hatred against me; otherwise I would never have gone to prison. The charges were phony. They know it; we have the paper; they know we have the paper; they know we have the sworn testimony of {their} agents, which proves the whole case was a fraud from the beginning. Now, around the world, governments and leading officials are telling the United States government, and Clinton personally: Get this guy out of jail, he's innocent! You--the United States--have a human rights violation! So if Mr. Leahy and Mr. Obey cannot perceive that {I} am a human rights violation, and a major one, by the United States government, I wouldn't trust their judgment in matters of Peru particularly, or any place else around the world. They haven't got their spectacles on right; they've got them on backwards or something, or upside down, or they're looking through the wrong end of the microscope, or whatever. What are the facts on Peru? The government of Fujimori of Peru has successfully crushed one of the most evil, most dangerous terrorist operations in the world, within a period of approximately a year. That is a miracle; that is a remarkable operation. Now it doesn't mean that Sendero Luminoso was completely exterminated. It probably is about 80 percent gone, and effectively is ineffective in the country. Counter-operations have succeeded. This operation by Peru against foreign-directed terrorists in their own country--and this runs through places like the Tavistock Institute and the Tavistock's friends in France in the ethnology section, is compared to the British experiment in Malaysia, at the end of World War II, in driving the Chinese Communists out of the country and into the jungles, where they became only a minor nuisance. The danger, of course, is that Sendero Luminoso might be brought back. This is like a TB case. You get TB; you take the medication; you control it. You've still got the TB in your system; but the TB is under control, and you can do all kinds of normal things, as long as you don't become immune-suppressed. But if you become immune-suppressed, the TB will break out again, and it can kill you. Now the same thing is true of Sendero Luminoso. Think of it as a disease, not anything else. A foreign-injected disease, and it was injected by the Comintern; the Communist International and others injected Sendero Luminoso into Peru in the 1920s. So it's an infection, a very small infection, based on people who are largely French-speaking. They are not Indians, they are French-speaking. If Peru were to be crushed, then this disease would break out again, like TB which had been brought under control. So the government of Fujimori has a crushing defeat of the terrorists--and they are terrorists, the worst in the world, comparable to the Pol Pot Khmer Rouge or to the Karadzic crowd of Bosnian-Serb mass rapists, mass murderers, and genocidalists generally, now operating in Bosnia. So Fujimori defeated them. But the virus, or the infectious agent, is still there, encysted in a military immune system control. The United States government, in a faction running through the State Department and other sections of intelligence associated with a figure called Luigi Einaudi, a longstanding, wily old fox, much more important as an individual than Henry Kissinger ever was, is determined to destroy Peru; and they have chosen this communist terrorist group, Sendero Luminoso, as its agent. It is the United States government and the human rights organizations working with Einaudi, who are today the backers of Sendero Luminoso. These people are terrorists. Now obviously, Senator Leahy and Rep. Obey, just don't know what they're talking about. They are being hassled, lobbied, what-not, by various people who've filled them up with a crock. And so they have been induced to write this letter to the {New York Times,} hoping probably for their own personal political advantage in so doing. But the ``human rights violations'' in Peru, are the human rights violations induced by the policies of the United States government, among others. And as I say, Leahy and Obey would be much more credible, if they would do something about getting {me,} a human rights case in the United States, out of jail. Then we'd be willing to listen to their judgment a little more readily, on matters of human rights violations outside the United States. What the Role of the U.S. Surgeon General Should Be Q: Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to move another area, the question of the proposed nomination for Surgeon General, Joycelyn Elders. Nat Hentoff recently had an article saying that we don't need a Surgeon General who accepts eugenics because of Elders' position on abortion, and the fact that she said abortion is very, very good because we have elimianted a whole number of cases of Down's Syndrome. What do you think the Surgeon General's position should be, and how do you respond to Mr. Hentoff's criticism of Joycelyn Elders? MR. LAROUCHE: Objectively, Nat Hentoff is right; sometimes he's wrong, but he's often right. And when he is right, he's generally pretty good. But we have to look at the program in perspective. Mr. Clinton, as Governor, was being profiled as a prospective presidential candidate for some time before he entered the race. In order to get Establishment approval for your candidacy, which I never got, which is the only reason, probably, I'm not President, you have to accept ``suggestions,'' as they're called. You've got to ``go with the right agenda''; and you've got to demonstrate, through meetings and participation in things like the Trilateral Commission and other things, an active commitment to that agenda. You've got to wed yourself to it, before the Establishment will ``trust'' you to be a member of their approved list of possible candidates. Mr. Clinton, while he was seeking that kind of approval, picked on many things which he may or may not fully support today, or which he may not have looked into critically at that time. One of these programs, was this woman's role in Arkansas. But on the other side, Nat Hentoff is absolutely correct. I could add to it; but it's not necessary. It's correct. It's enough to endorse him, he said the right thing, he said it first. What the President should consider, is consider my fight with the office of the Surgeon General, on the question of AIDS, and use that object lesson as a way of deciding how he wants his Surgeon General to function as the federal Surgeon General. I don't think C. Everett Koop was a bad guy. He comes from Minnesota, that doesn't mean he's all bad. I think he's probably a pretty good guy. But C. Everett Koop, we thought, was going to come down on the right side on the AIDS epidemic--until October 1986, when he said yes, AIDS is the most terrible epidemic we've faced, a most terrible disease. But we cannot fight this disease at the federal level at this time, because we are in a budget-balancing crisis. That's an accurate representation of the words. I don't have the exact quotation before me, but that's what he said. He said it under great pressure. This was the same line that came out of the United States government, which was, we must lie about HIV; we must say it's a sexually transmitted disease and so forth and so on; because the people out of their panic are going to force us to spend billions of dollars on fighting this disease, and we are not going to spend billions of dollars on fighting any disease, no matter how serious, while we're in this budget-balancing crisis. That's 1986. As a result of Koop's capitulation--but he wasn't the bad guy, he was the guy who came under pressure to do it, to carry the ball because he's Surgeon General--and because of the decision which was forced on Koop, by people in the Reagan administration and elsewhere, and also in the World Health Organization, the world has done effectively {nothing} to stop the AIDS epidemic. MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have run out of time. We will continue next week withthis discussion on the Surgeon General position and AIDS. ``EIR Talks'' will be back next week. If you have any questions, please write to ``{EIR} Talks,'' c/o EIR News Service, Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. - 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.