From oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Sep 13 07:32:02 PDT 1993
Article: 27226 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ccs!covici
From: covici@ccs.covici.com (John Covici)
Reply-To: covici@ccs.covici.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 09/08/93
Message-ID: <408-PCNews-126beta@ccs.covici.com>
Date: 13 Sep 93 7:45:26 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 646


   - 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


    September 8, 1993 
    Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. 
    EIR Talks 
    Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

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

     On the Israeli-PLO Peace Initiative: 
        Infrastructure Is Key to Development of the Middle
     East's Economy 

    For the first question, I'd like to ask you about a
particular project that you have been involved in for many,
many years: the Oasis Plan, and of course this is the plan
that is being discussed in terms of the Israeli-Palestinian
Liberation Organization talks at this point. 
    What do you think needs to be done in these talks, and
what are the parameters that you have been working on for
many, many years in these types of talks? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Briefly, I started on this in April of
1975, at which point I made approaches to both Israeli and
certain Arab circles, a wide variety of Arab circles,
including the Palestinians, proposing this as a basis for
peace, and indicating, as I indicate to the present
day--warning also, in the same sense--that unless you start
with an economic development package which is based on
infrastructural development for the Middle East, that any
attempt at a political solution of the conflict between Arabs
and Israelis, particularly between Palestinians and Israelis,
will fail. 
    Now, I have had more sympathy on that from the Israeli
side over the years, than I have from the Palestinians. Some
Palestinians very much so; but the Palestinians and most of
the Peace Now movement, have, up to now on the Palestinian
side, insisted that they had to get a political
solution--that is, the political question settled--before
going into a discussion of economics. 
    I said, If you do that, you will fail. And over the
years, they {have} failed. 
    We had two periods in which a leading faction of the
Israelis were moving in this direction. One was in late 1975,
early 1976, when I was working with a number of Israelis as
well as Palestinians, to try to bring this into shape. Then
again it erupted in the middle of the 1980s, at the time that
Shimon Peres was taking his turn as Prime Minister of Israel.
During that period, we worked closely with Shimon Peres's
office, and several of his key aides, to try to move very
rapidly and concretely on economic development projects which
would be the basis for sought agreements. 
    At that point, I produced a number of reports, not only
for Mr. Peres's office, but also for the National Security
Council, that is, a report to both, on my proposals on this,
in which, for purposes of explication, we referred to it as a
new Marshall Plan for the Middle East, that is, something
done as an emergency relief exercise, excepting all such
things as IMF conditionalities, as was done with the Marshall
Plan with Europe; and also we called it an Oasis Plan, to
emphasize the importance of water and water development and
water management projects as the keystone of any successful
economic development program for that region. 
    That continued; unfortunately, the factional opposition
to Mr. Peres prevented him from carrying that out as his
office intended, and now, lo and behold, we find again that
Shimon Peres comes back in as foreign minister in a Rabin
government; he meets discreetly with the PLO leadership in
Norway and places like that; and lo and behold, he comes
forth with an agreement in which, under the economic section
of the proposed transition to peace, we have the first five
points which are a straightforward revival of the kinds of
proposals for immediate action which Peres's office and we
agreed upon, together with certain Palestinians, back in the
Spring of 1986, to be specific. So it's quite a {deja vu}--a
very pleasant {deja vu.} 
    The urgent thing here is that we must move with all
speed to {immediately} get these economic development
projects, such as the canal from Gaza to the Dead Sea, going
immediately, because if we wait until we discuss this thing
out, enemies of progress and enemies of the human race, such
as Kissinger and his friends, will be successful, through
people like Sharon's buddies, in intervening to drown this
agreement in blood and chaos; but now we have an opportunity.
If we move fast enough to get the economic development
started, we can have an agreement in the Middle East which
succeeds where, because of the Bush and Thatcher
administrations, we failed to seize the opportunity when the
Wall came down in eastern Europe. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, before we discuss Henry Kissinger's
recent op-ed, I would like your comments on some aspects of
this Oasis Plan, or these new Middle East peace talks in
terms of economic programs. 
    I know you have emphasized infrastructure development. I
know also in these discussions, they are talking about
enterprise zones. What do you recommend, in terms of the
general approach that should be taken, in terms of these
parameters? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there are three things which,
broadly, are absolutely indispensable; and
don't--{don't}--introduce at all into the Middle East this
idea of Chinese coolie labor called enterprise zones. I can
think of no better way to blow up Gaza than to declare it the
kind of enterprise zone which my old acquaintance--an
affectionate fellow, but wrongheaded on economics, Jack
Kemp--would recommend. 
    The basis of economy is infrastructure, especially
modern economy; and anybody who wants to put a factory in the
middle of an infrastructurally undeveloped swamp, should be
certified as an economic idiot; and that's essentially what
enterprise zones amount to. They are just coolie slave-labor
projects, pure and simple, which are doomed in the long run,
and which will blow up in any case. 
    What's needed, is this. 
    First of all, the key to the Middle East is water. The
density of useable water for agriculture and human
consumption, as well as industry, per capita and per square
kilometer, is the key to develop the Middle East. {Without
satisfying that requirement,} you're banging your head
against a wall; you'll fail. 
    The first thing are canals and desalination. The second
thing that's required, of course, is power. 
    Now, the Palestinians, more than the Israelis, have been
brainwashed--let me use the term advisedly--into saying,
well, we don't want nuclear power, because then we will lose
the support from around the world of our lefty friends the
environmentalists; and the Palestinians have come, foolishly,
to rely upon their lefty environmentalist friends. 
    I can see no way in which the kind of success which we
envisage can be done without nuclear power, particularly in
desalination. I would use things like the ASEA Brown Bovari
(ABB) multi-megawatt units which are thorium based or that
sort of thing, which involve no problem of nuclear
proliferation, but which work; and I would use installations
of four units, to keep them very simple--it's called a potato
reactor. I would use that, and use them in units of four, so
that you can shut one down whenever you want to. Otherwise,
you use the power mainly for industrial and related load. But
use all your off-power, your excess capacity or potentially
idle capacity for desalination. 
    That will provide us power. The third thing we need, is
other forms of transportation, and that involves railroads.
Railways are the key. The Middle East is not a very big area,
but we do require railroads if we're going to function
efficiently. I understand the French are interested in
helping out with that one. 
    We also need urban infrastructure: sewage, sanitation,
housing, that sort of thing. And we should then plug into
that basic infrastructural development appropriate
agro-industrial complexes industry. That is, a combination of
agriculture and manufacturing, which should be moved toward
high-tech manufacturing. That would give us exactly what we
need. If we do that, it will work. I admit, we have to fight
over this issue of nuclear power, which is indispensable in
my view, but let's get the other things going and then argue
about that as we go along. 

           Kissinger Is a Mouth for a Very Evil Crowd 

    Q: Let's go to the next issue. Henry Kissinger has an
op-ed. He says that multilateral action on the part of the
United Nations no longer works. He says that it worked during
the Korean War, but it will not work any more. 
    What is he really talking about here? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: He's talking about bloodshed in the
Balkans. He's taking the fact that the United Nations is
disgraced and is collapsing, because of its failure in these
operations, especially the Balkans, which has made the
Security of the United Nations an object of moral contempt in
the eyes of many around the world. 
    He's taking that to say: Well, don't do anything about
the Balkans. 
    The irony of this is that Kissinger, is tied to the
Hollinger Corporation, that is, Lord Carrington and that
section of the British royal family and British Intelligence;
and Kissinger has been, of course, all his adult life, since
the very early 1950s when he went to work for British
Intelligence at Harvard, an asset of British intelligence. 
    Kissinger and his crowd were the authors of the bloody
bloodshed we have in the Balkans; and he's saying don't
meddle. Let the bloodshed wear itself down; let the parties
exhaust themselves. Let the Serbs win. He's very clear on
this: Let the Serbs win. No matter what they do, they've won
the war, let them win. That's Kissinger. He's a very evil
fellow. I don't think he's a very courageous fellow; he's got
a big mouth, and his mouth is nothing but an aperture for the
crowd that has owned him for the past 40-odd years. But
nonetheless, it's symptomatic as a mouth of the behavior of
the crowd that owns his mouth. They are very evil. 
    [commercial break] 

     The Clinton Administration is Inheriting the Whirlwind 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, speaking about the Balkans, speaking
about Serbia and Bosnia, there was a public letter signed by
100 influentials--Thatcher, Shultz, Jeane
Kirkpatrick--telling President Clinton that he has to act in
Bosnia. What is the significance of this? What is also the
significance of the nine opposition parties in Croatia, which
signed on in opposition to what Tudjman is doing in terms of
the Owen-Stoltenberg talks? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: That's a very mixed bag, that letter. 
    First of all, many of the people who started the war in
the Balkans back in 1989, when they decided to do this kind
of thing, are actually signators to this now. 
    The complication is this. First of all, they all are of
the opinion which is reflected in part by Henry Kissinger in
his op-ed. They were perfectly content to have the Muslims
wiped out, and then the Croatians subjugated again in a new
onslaught. But they're covering their butt, and they're also
doing something else. 
    The Thatcher-Bush New World Disorder of 1989 to
approximately the present, has been the greatest piece of
folly in the 20th century, a folly of major powers. 
    We had the opportunity, had we followed the guidelines
which I indicated as early as 1988, before the imminent
collapse of the Wall, as I viewed it at that time, for
economic development projects which would have given the
world a {durable basis for peace.} 
    What is now happening, as a result of going to the
Bush-Thatcher alternative of looting eastern Europe and
looting the former Soviet Union through operations like those
of George Soros, the ``derivatives king,'' is that we have
now created an adversarial relationship of a Russian imperial
power which is now very rapidly putting itself together. 
    I would say that the last chance for an easy approach to
peace in Europe, came in the period this past year of about
the time of the so-called summit between Yeltsin and Clinton
in April up until, say, June. The Clinton administration, by
backing down, blew it. And so they now are inheriting the
whirlwind, so to speak; they are inheriting the effects of
the Bush-Thatcher folly. 
    The Thatcher crowd, the Atlanticist crowd, are saying in
effect, look, we don't give a damn about the Balkans; we
don't care about the Bosnians. Let 'em slaughter 'em.
{But}--{but} the United States and the Atlantic Alliance, is
losing all credibility in face of a rapid comeback of a
Russian imperial military capability. These fellows are not
total fools, they know that the Russians really are not ready
to start a war with the West at this point. But they see that
we've passed the point of virtual no-return; and that down
the pike, if things continue in the present direction,
particularly with the upcoming financial collapse of the
West, that under those circumstances, we have a very credible
adversarial relationship emerging between the West and
Moscow, a relationship which will become very nasty down the
road. 
    Therefore, they're saying the failure to take military
action, such as bombing the Serbs in the Balkans, has
destroyed the credibility of the Western alliance. We now
have to do something, not for the sake of the people in the
Balkans, but to regain the credibility of the United States
as the {primus inter pares} power of the Atlantic alliance.
That's the kind of realistic or cynical attitude which is
displayed by that hundred luminaries signing that letter. 
    Of course, numerous among them may be quite honest,
quite sincere, and quite right-headed morally individuals who
signed it; I'm not denying that. But I know, when you see
certain names in there, these guys haven't done anything good
for the human race in 40-50 years; and I have seen no sign of
their doing it now. 
    [commercial break] 

        Unless the West Adopts My Policies, There Will Be A
     Showdown Between Moscow and the Western Powers 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the former
Soviet Union and some of the problems that have been created
by the Bush-Thatcher policy. Before we get into this, I would
like you to comment on the statement by the nine opposition
parties from Croatia, if you'd care to; and also I'd then
like to get into, in terms of the former Soviet Union, the
issue of Ukraine, this deal that's occurring in terms of the
Black Sea Fleet, oil and debt relief in exchange for control
of the Black Sea Fleet. Is this an example of the Russian
imperial impulse taking over? And what are the chances that
Kravchuk will be able to pull it off, from the standpoint of
Ukraine? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, on the Croatian opposition
parties. That's real. It comes a bit late. It is the
fortunate character of this world of ours (Leibniz called it
``the best of all possible worlds''), that the good embodied
within people will respond ultimately to evil by conquering
evil with good. 
    We are seeing that in Croatia. As to whether this
response of good to evil comes soon enough, that is
questionable. But nonetheless, these people are right. They
have had it up to the neck and higher with this betrayal,
this bloodshed, and they're erupting. That's good. 
    As to Ukraine: What we are seeing in the meetings
occuring this weekend in Moscow as part of a week-long
process, is the rebuilding of a Moscow empire. 
    What we saw in the case of Ukraine, was the simple
capitulation of Kravchuk of Ukraine to massive threats,
pressure, and bait from a Moscow force which is coming back,
at the same time that anyone in eastern Europe knows the
United States will do nothing for them; they have no defense,
no aid, no succor in face of a menace from Moscow; and they
have no immediate option. All the options have been stripped
away from them. 
    So there's a tendency to capitulate. That could be
reversed, but we would have to reverse the policies of
Washington, and of much of Europe, on these kinds of issues.
It is part of this capitulation of Ukraine or Kravchuk to the
demands of Russia, giving the nuclear weapons to Russia,
giving the fleet to Russia, as payment for the unpaid oil
debt; that is simply what it is; but you also have to look at
the Caucasus. 
    You have Ciller, the new Prime Minister of Turkey, going
to Moscow to meet with an old adversary of mine, Heidar
Aliyev, who now is the dictator or the maximum leader of
Azerbaijan. And he is one of the wiliest Turks on this
planet, a former member of the Politburo; specialty in
operations throughout the world over a long period of time,
together with Yevgeny Primakov, in places like India. He used
to own half the Soviet assets in Delhi and places like that;
and other parts of the Middle East. 
    So he's a very powerful intelligence figure who went
back to Moscow with Yeltsin to meet with Shevardnadze, the
former head of the KGB of Georgia, and with the Prime
Minister of Turkey, to negotiate the Caucasus situation; and
then Moscow meanwhile issues a threat to Iran to keep its
nose out of the conflicts among Turks and Armenians in the
Transcaucasus. 
    That's the kind of the world in which we live. Very
rapidly we are seeing a Russia which is filled with hatred
against the United States because of a sense that the United
States betrayed them when the Russians offered their
trust--that is, the betrayal by Bush and Thatcher, and the
sense of non-responsiveness by Clinton--and this hatred is
building up: Okay, we're going to come back, we're going to
build a Russian empire again. 
    And that's the direction in which things are going. It
can be changed, it can be altered; but we would have to alter
the policies of the United States. 
    The Russians are very familiar with my policies. If
Moscow thought that my policies were going to be adopted, at
this point, in place of the present policies in Washington,
then the Russians might stop and think, and other forces in
Moscow might come together, and change the direction of
things. But pending an adoption of my policies by people in
the West such as the United States government, there is not
much chance of anything, except a coming showdown between
Moscow and Western powers which are shattered by the coming
financial collapse. 

     Why We Urgently Need a Muslim-Christian Dialogue Today 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, I'd like to discuss a call that you
issued recently. It affects such areas as the Transcaucasus,
the Muslim republics in the former Soviet Union, and of
course the Muslim world. 
    You recently called for a Muslim-Christian dialogue. Why
do you think this is so important at this point? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Because there are people in London and
elsewhere--there are friends of Kissinger, for example--who
wish to provoke the Muslim populations of the world into a
state of rage against the non-Muslim powers of the northern
part of this hemisphere; and then to use the rage evinced so
from the Islamic populations, to tell the populations of
Europe and the United States and Russia, that there is a
global Islamic threat to civilization; and to launch a kind
of crusade against Islam. 
    There are various people who have recognized this, who
tried to head it off. Notable, of course, consistently, has
been the papacy. The pope's visit to Sudan earlier this year,
is an example of the attempt to prevent this kind of
religious warfare, which some people in London, and France as
well, and elsewhere, would like to stir up. 
    It is important to stop that, because if we have that
kind of policy continuing, this threat to have a war with the
Islamic populations, and if the brainwashing operation goes
ahead and brainwashes most of the American people, as it's
tended to do successfully in recent years, then that will do
two things. 
    Not only will we have a horror show of global bloodshed;
but also, we will have the worst kind of fascist states and
governments and forms of society in North America and Western
Europe and Russia, under conditions of that kind of warfare.
You'll have a total mobilization of totalitarian governments
and massive oppression of people in the United States as well
as elsewhere, unless that's stopped. 
    What we hope to do--what I would hope to do--is by
bringing this dialogue forth, we create a forum, not
necessarily a place but a process, a forum, in which these
matters can be discussed in an ecumenical way, between people
who are predominantly Jewish or Christian and their
antecedents in the Northern Hemisphere. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, before we get to your recent
predictions on impending financial collapse and a two to
three-year window before the United States could possibly
disintegrate, its economy and institutions, I would like you
to finish up on this very interesting discussion on a
Muslim-Christian dialogue. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: This idea is not exactly a new one. 
    The fall of Constantinople was arranged by some
treasonous Venetians and others, and by the Holy Mountain
faction of Mt. Athos in Greece (headed by a guy called
Scolarius, later called Patriarch Gennadios, who was made a
patriarch by the Ottoman government) from the inside. That
betrayal led to the collapse of Christianity in the eastern
part of Europe to a large degree, and elsewhere. Immediately
following the fall of Constantinople, some people in Europe
wanted to have a slaughter, a new crusade against the Turks. 
    Nicolaus of Cusa and his friends, who were the authors
of the Council of Florence, this great ecumenical agreement,
and others, decided on a different course. They decided on a
course, one, of continuing the Council of Florence's
(1438-1440) commitment to evangelization of the globe,
largely through exploration, such as that done by the
Spaniards. Christopher Columbus's trip, including the
planning and the people involved in the planning, was
actually engineered by this evangelical movement--which
spread all over the planet. India, China, as well as the
Americas. They also proposed with the Islamic population, a
Christian-Muslim dialogue among various religions, notably
including Christians, Jews, and Islamic peoples. 
    This was called the peace of faith. A dialogue was
written by Nicolaus of Cusa, for a peace of faith, for a
rational discussion of natural law policy based on the common
considerations of the great monotheistic religions; and that
seems to be the correct way to approach this today. There are
certain things, the sacredness of individual human life; the
sacredness, in that sense, of the family, which conceives and
nurtures the young. That institution must be protected from
its enemies in society; and in modern times, we have to
defend also the idea of the sovereignty of nation-states, and
seek cooperation among sovereign nation-states, and no more
of this crazy Bush league globaloney, I think, is a fair way
of putting it, this globalism which the world is drifing
into, which means hell. 
    So that's the reason for doing it, is to simply open up
an aperture of dialogue in which we can expose the evil which
is being done by globalism. 

 ``The Financial Bubble: Sucking the Blood Out of Our
Economy'' 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, recently, Neue Zuercher Zeitung, the
Swiss newspaper, indicated that September could be a month of
financial collapse, especially in the United States. You have
echoed these kinds of predictions; you have also indicated
that in two to three years the United States, unless it
changes its poliices, will totally disintegrate; can you give
us some more insights into the process that you see
unfolding? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, we have an anomalous
situation. The economies of the world have been collapsing.
They have been collapsing--you could say, over the long run,
the United States economy has been collapsing since about
1970. That is, we have been living on using up our previous
improvements in infrastructure: water systems, we see the
levees, for example; the recent floods. Power systems; we're
running out of power, as our power capacity runs down. Our
urban centers are decaying; all of these things. And this has
been in progress with us for over 20 years. 
    In Europe, it came a little more slowly, except in
Britain, where the collapse probably started in the middle of
the 1960s. But continental Europe generally came more slowly. 
    Since about 1978, 1979, with deregulation and the
so-called Volcker high-interest rate measures, we have
essentially destroyed the basic understructure, not only of
infrastructure, that is, water systems, rail systems, power
generation, urban sanitation and so forth; but we have also
destroyed agriculture, and we have destroyed manufacturing.
It's hard to find a legitimate manufacturing company these
days. They have all been taken over by corporate raiders who
are simply looting them, like some kind of parasite sucking
the juice out of its victim. Like some grasshopper caught in
the spider's web, and the spider comes and sucks its juices
every now and then, until the thing dies; and that's what's
happening to our industries as these big raiders, the hostile
takeovers, the Michael Milkens and the Kravises and so forth,
have done their work. 
    But at the same time, we have a purely financial bubble,
the biggest bubble in history; the biggest John Law bubble in
all history, based around options and mutual funds and things
of that sort. 
    In the past three years, our banking system in the
United States is no longer a real banking system. It is
mainly a sucked-out husk which is used for the conveying of
Federal Reserve printing press money through places like
Citibank, to feed this big derivatives financial bubble. 
    The financial bubble is sucking the blood out of our
economy in every direction; it's taking the last remains of
juice. It is the main cause of our federal indebtedness,
contrary to those idiots in Washington who think that firing
federal employess is going to help balance the budget;
they're crazy. It won't do any good at all. 
    Well, we've come to the point that, with the juice
almost gone out of the real economy, nothing for the parasite
to suck on, more or less, the financial bubble is about to
pop. 
    Exacly when it will pop, is difficult to say, in terms
of exact dates; because it's the nature of a bubble. It takes
a big prick to cause a bubble to pop. But we're coming up to
that point of extreme instability, in which any slight
disturbance could increasingly so set off this bubble. 
    When it collapses, we're talking about a collapse of a
better part of $10-12 trillion, which is tied up in purely
financial speculation, which has a turnover of between $300
and $350 trillion a year. 
    For example. Two-thirds of the U.S. currency in
circulation, is circulating outside the United States. That's
mostly circulating in terms of this bubble. When that
collapses, Wall Street will go, everything will go; and all
of these crazy Yuppie dreams, which have seduced this nation
for the past 10 years or so--they're all gone. 
    So that's where we're standing on that. So the Neue
Zuercher Zeitung has been repeatedly putting up the warning
flags, warning that we're about to have a financial collapse.
And no one with any brains, can argue with that. We're on the
brink of a financial collapse; the only question is on what
day the bubble will burst. 
    Once it bursts, there's no stopping it. We're finished.
Our financial system in its present form, the IMF system in
its present form, is finished forever. 
    At the same time, the collapse of infrastructure, the
collapse of agriculture, the collapse of high-skilled
employment, in the United States, means that we're getting to
the point where these budget-cutting nonsenses, that is, Phil
Gramm and idiots like him; this kind of nonsense of neglect
and folly, and resistance to any stimulus program to get the
economy moving again, to get more skilled jobs--not
hamburger-flipping jobs, but real jobs--created, along with
the collapse of education under the influence of this lunacy
called OBE or Core curriculum. We're going to have
unemployables produced by the school system. 
    All of this means, that we're getting to the point
where, within one or two more cycles of budget balancing or
budgetary process in Washington, we're going to see that the
state and local government, and parts of the federal
government programs, are going to simply be shut down,
because there's no money, no tax revenue base, to support
them. If you raise taxes, you'll simply collapse the economy.
If you don't raise taxes, you'll collapse the economy. 
    So we have come to the point that the present accepted
wisdom of the past 10-15 years in Washington, no longer
works; and if we continue to try to apply these
budget-balancing reforms; if we try to solve the problem by
firing more government employees instead of attending to
business, as we should, we are going to find that about three
years from now, at least in a worst-case scenario (not the
absolute worse, but a probable one), the government of the
United States is starting to disintegrate, on the local,
state and federal level. And once that happens, in our
present ideological frame of reference, then nothing will
stop it. This nation will be finished. 
    So we have, in the immediate year ahead, this fall, the
last chance to begin to turn this around, to save our
nation--and to save much of the world. 

        ``The Gore-Clinton Proposal Is Just Cosmetics'' 

    Q: We have about 2 minutes left, Mr. LaRouche, and I'd
like you to comment on the recent Gore-Clinton proposal for
reducing federal jobs by 25,000 jobs over the next five
years. It's supposedly a government reorganization plan. I
know in the past, in 1984, you had a whole program for
government reorganization. How does this compare to yours? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: It's just cosmetics. They're under
tremendous pressure. Clinton has not had a single success so
far. He talks about the budgetary bill he got through. That
was no success, the Congress and he both had to have a bill.
No matter what was in it, they had to pass it, so that the
federal government would be manageable. Without that budget,
you get to the point where the U.S. government starts to run
on chits, because by law it doesn't have the budgetary
authority to continue operation. So they {had} to get a
budget through--no matter what was in it. That was no
success. 
    Clinton's earlier efforts to get some kind of stimulus
program going, even the most modest kind, was shot down. His
health plan is in deep trouble. NAFTA is a disaster; and in
Washington, they're scrambling. They're trying to find some
token they can throw out there, which, for its short-term
advertising and public relations effect, will restore some
credibility of motion to the administration. They're trying
to get some momentum going from some place; and so far, they
have failed to do it. 
    This is just a game, it doesn't really mean anything at
all, it just contributes to the overall disaster, it's just
more sliding down a greased slope toward the precipice.
That's all it amounts to. One shouldn't get too excited about
it, maybe a little bit disgusted, but otherwise, not too
excited. 

    Q: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche. We will see you
next week. This is ``{EIR} Talks.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. If you
would like to send in questions to Mr. LaRouche, address them
to ``{EIR} Talks,'' c/o EIR News Service, Inc., Attention:
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