The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon//eir.101493

From oneb!!destroyer!!!!uunet!ccs!covici Sun Oct 17 20:10:13 PDT 1993
Article: 29243 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!!destroyer!!!!uunet!ccs!covici
From: (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 10/14/93
Message-ID: <>
Date: 16 Oct 93 0:34:51 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 608


    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 Fridays on satellite from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

    Satcom C-5,       transponder 15,channel 16-0.

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 (not the subject line)  saying
subscribe lar-lst

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

    {EIR} Talks 
    Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
    October 14, 1993 

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

      ``Margaret Thatcher's Memoirs are a Major Scandal'' 

    Q: Maggie Thatcher just issued her memoirs, and there's a
great deal of discussion about this throughout the European
press, not so much in the American press at this point. 
    Maggie Thatcher says that she had a policy opposing German
reunification. What do you think are the implications of that
policy today? Is this the policy being followed by John Major? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: In a sense, it is. There are some
modifications in the British Establishment on this matter. 
    But Maggie was not only opposing German reunification; she
was so concerned about it, that she was doing everything possible
to prevent the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and to maintain the
Iron Curtain. According to her account, that was the gist of her
effort in negotiation with Mikhail Gorbachov, who was of course
very much a project of hers from British policy standpoint. That
was her effort, as well as that, of course, of a British asset,
the World Jewish Congress, in working with the Stasi and with the
East German regime to try to keep it in power when the people of
East Germany wanted to get rid of it. 
    That was very much her policy. In her memoirs, she says, of
course, that she put pressure on France, she tried to put
pressure on Bush and others, to ensure that the Wall did not come
down, that the communist system stayed up. As a matter of fact,
the Iron Lady turned out, according to her memoirs, to be the
chief defender of the Iron Curtain, putting a new light on what
the term Iron Lady might have meant at the time. 
    It's a major scandal, although {none} of this was surprising
to me or to my associates or to other people, particularly
leading people in the intelligence community who knew this all
    For example, her policy was, as she said, what we would
describe--she doesn't use the word geopolitical, but what she
means is of course what we would call geopolitical. That is, that
the longstanding policy of Britain, since (she says) the time of
Bismarck, has been to keep Germany down for fear that the German
economic power, not just political and military ambitions, but
German economic power, would dominate a unified Europe as, de
Gaulle would say, ``from the Atlantic to the Urals,'' and that
this power of an economically empowered unified Europe, centered
around German economic accomplishment, with Germany sharing its
economic power with other nations on the continent, would mean a
threat to vital British interests. 
    That, of course, is the reason that Britain organized World
War I. That was the reason that Britain, together with Prescott
Bush (George Bush's father), for example, put Hitler into power
against von Schleicher in Germany, to ensure that by putting
Hitler in, who they backed at the time actually, they would
cause a war in Europe and keep Europe divided, causing World War
II in that way, of course. 
    And in a similar way, their monkeying around with these IMF
policies and shock therapy policies, once the communist
regime had fallen, has now
brought to power in Russia, {with the backing and at the
instigation of the IMF}, a military dictatorship with Yeltsin as
its temporary figurehead. 
    So we now have a thermonuclear, hostile power in Moscow, the
head of an Imperial Third Rome--not a communist regime, but a
Third Rome regime with many of the old communist apparatchniks in
it--which is as a result of this same policy. So that, I think,
is the scandal of Thatcher's policy. She, of course, carried it
out, she brags about it. But I don't think we can say it's
entirely her policy. There are forces in the United States, in
Britain and elsewhere, who share these views and who share guilt
for two world wars so far and seem to be about to bring upon us
the potential of a third. 
    Q: Georgi Arbatov recently made some comments about how
shock therapy is bringing back an imperial regime in Russia, and
the West is losing a golden opportunity. 
    Would you say that this analysis of Arbatov is shared by
many in the Soviet Union at this point? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, absolutely. This was expressed in a
different way by a member of the Gorbachov Institute, who stated
that it was IMF pressure two weeks before the Yeltsin coup--not
any developments on the part of Khasbulatov and Rutskoy but
rather a deliberate plan, under pressure of the IMF--which
prompted Yeltsin to make a military coup suppressing all
democratically elected institutions in Russia. That's essentially
what is the prevailing view of those voices which we're hearing,
Arbatov and others, today. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, would you say that the shock therapy
policies of the West are a reflection of what Maggie Thatcher
intended in terms of her geopolitical policies? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: We must not exaggerate her role in this. She
was, of course, the Iron Lady of London; but she was essentially
a puppet. Remember that before she was elected as the Prime
Minister, she was a fairly obscure figure with no particular
ideas associated with her. Then we had people like Geoffrey Howe
and others who came in and coached her, and she began to develop
this program which caused her to be called the Iron Lady, not
because she was tough on defense but more because she was tough
on breaking unions and things like that. 
    So she got to be known as the Iron Lady because of that. 
    She is therefore not to be considered as an author of
policies or a mind. I don't think she's a stupid person, but
she's not a mental giant or policy shaper. She rather reflects a
current or at least during her time the opinion of a current of
which she was representative, in principally Anglo-American
    I picked up things in France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere,
during the period of the late '70s and in the course of the '80s,
of real Thatcher admirers who were followers and co-thinkers of
her policy. They may not all be co-thinkers of hers today; but
she must be seen largely as a {spokesman} of a policy, like the
man who runs a corporation, for example, but under a board of
directors, whose policies are not necessarily originally hers. 
        Yeltsin's Imperial Dictatorship Is the Result of Soviet
                   of the LaRouche SDI Policy 

    Q: You mentioned earlier that the the Gorbachov Institute
spokesperson indicated that the IMF had wanted the developments
in Moscow. 
    Did he cite any evidence as to IMF desires to move Yeltsin
in the direction that he moved? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, Arbatov did. Arbatov was at a Congress
of the Evangelical Church in Germany at which Georgi Arbatov was
a featured speaker. And he stated that forces in the West had
imposed shock therapy and IMF conditionalities as a strategic
effort to destroy the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact--to
destroy the economies, to destroy the nations--and blamed this
willful destructiveness coming out of the United States (and he
named people such as Richard Perle among those who he blamed for
this kind of thinking) for the conditions which had led to the
establishment of an imperial military dictatorship in Russia. 
    The Gorbachov Institute representative was much more narrow
in simply indicating that the coup had not been provoked by
Rutskoy and Khasbulatov, but rather had been provoked two weeks
{before} the siege of the White House, the seat of the
Parliament; but by the IMF pressures. 
    Essentially, it boils down to this--and you see this in all
of the figures around Yeltsin. {Yeltsin has no Russian power
base} outside of the military and security forces of Russia--that
is, no popular base whatsoever. That's why he has dissolved {all}
of the elected parliamentary bodies regionally and nationally.
All the democratic institutions are gone; and Yeltsin destroyed
    The issue here is that people like Yegor Gaidar and others,
who are exponents of Jeffrey Sachs' shock therapy policy, of IMF
conditionalities, were pushed into power by the IMF saying that
the money would not be coming unless these guys were made all
powerful {and that the democratic institutions (notably the
Parliament) would have to be eliminated} in order to eliminate
resistance to these kinds of measures. 
    So essentially, what the Gorbachov Institute man said, was
that this was done in a way we would describe, as being the
typical way that the United States dictates orders from
Manhattan, from Citibank or Chase Manhattan Bank, to Mexico or
Venezuela or Brazil or Argentina or something of that sort. So
Russia was treated as a colonial power. 
    This puts Yeltsin, implicitly, as Arbatov emphasized, in the
hands of the military and security forces, and we now have an
imperial military dictatorship in Russia, for which Yeltsin is,
in effect, merely a figurehead. 
    The significance of this is clear if we go back to the
spring of 1983, during a period when I was still supplying, shall
we say, services and information to the Reagan National Security
Council under Clark. 
    At that time, I published, in May, a report on the future of
Russia indicating the tendencies which had been reflected and
unleashed by Yuri Andropov, then the General Secretary of the
Communist Party, the dictator; what his rejection of Reagan's
preference of the SDI meant. 
    [commercial break] 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were just discussing some of your
inputs into the Reagan administration back in 1983. Please
    MR. LAROUCHE: My view was that the Andropov rejection of the
offer of cooperation around the SDI made by President Reagan, was
a signal that the Russian establishment around Andropov had
decided to go for what might be called by historians an imperial
Third Rome. 
    The implication was this, as I stated at the time. The
refusal to accept Reagan's offer but instead to go with a
{Soviet-only} SDI program, meant that the Russian and East Bloc
economies would be wrecked to the degree that communism would
collapse in Russia, as it was already tending to do; and that out
of this mess would emerge a new Third Rome-type imperial,
non-communist Russian dictatorship or Muscovite dictatorship,
which would be as much an adversarial force against the West as
the communist had ever been. 
    That was the thesis which we repeated-- It was published in
{EIR,} as you may recall, at that time; I believe it was May.
This caused quite a ruckus when that was published. I was called
all sorts of things from every quarter. I was already being
attacked, of course, by the Soviet KGB and Andropov through
Fyodor Burlatsky, who was his chief public relations spokesman
and adviser at the time. 
    It was repeated in many reports, including the Third Rome
{Global Showdown} report of July 1985, which caused Ted Turner's
organization, CNN, to become quite upset. 
    But now, events have shown that the West's imposition of
shock therapy and IMF conditionalities upon a Russia which had
already crumbled as I had forecast repeatedly, including October
12 of 1988, of the imminent collapse of the Iron Curtain. 
    We wasted the opportunity, and we imposed these terrible
conditions upon Eastern Europe--including East Germany, by the
way, which Margaret Thatcher was partly responsible for--of
ruining and looting the people there--to the point that the
Polish model applied to Russia, as it ruined Poland and caused
the communists to come back to power in Poland, so the same
model, the same IMF conditionalities or Sachs shock therapy, or
Harvard model, instead of opening Russia to democracy, as had
happened after the Wall had fallen and after Gorbachov had
fallen; instead today, we have an imperial, Third Rome-style
Russian military dictatorship, with Yeltsin at least temporarily
as its figurehead. And that's where we stand. 
    One would hope that London and Washington would learn
lessons, not merely from the fact that what I said was right, but
that if you go back to 1983, {my analysis} of the trends in
Moscow and the effects of Western policy upon those trends in
Moscow, has been exactly correct. And {everyone} who has made a
policy contrary to that which I proposed in that connection, back
since 1983, has been proven wrong. Will they admit their error?
If they do not admit their error, then they're going to make more
bad policy; and we could be looking, down the road, at a
thermonuclear World War III. 
    Because contrary to Secretary of Defense Les Aspin's remarks
recently, Russia is not a ``regional'' thermonuclear power; it is
a {global} thermonuclear power. And somebody in Washington had
better tell Les and the President that that's the case. 

    Q: Is there any way to put the genie back in the bottle, is
there any way to reverse the destruction that shock therapy has
done, in terms of the East? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I think we're running out of time for
that. I can give you an answer to that after the break. Yes,
there is. 
    [commercial break] 

     ``Do We Have the Guts to {Fundamentally} Change The
     Direction of Policy-shaping in Washington?'' 
    Q: Mr. LaRouche, many people see the Russian occupation of
Georgia at this point as a signal that there is an imperial
restoration taking place in Moscow. 
    Is there anything that can be done to reverse these trends? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there's something that should be done to
attempt to reverse these trends, and could reverse them globally.
This would mean scrapping the trends in U.S. policy overall, of
the past 30 years since the assassination of President Kennedy. 
    I'm not attacking [President Lyndon] Johnson, because
Johnson acted, as he indicated toward the end of his life that he
had acted because following the Kennedy assassination, President
Lyndon Johnson was convinced that there was an assassination
capability which would kill American and, in my view, other
leaders who opposed the Yalta agreements, the modified Versailles
policies, the Yalta agreements, set up, respectively, at the end of
World War I in Versailles, and then in the Yalta and the UNO
agreements at the end of World War II. 
    Kennedy threatened to do so; and he was killed. De Gaulle
threatened to do so, and the same people who killed Kennedy,
tried to kill de Gaulle. Mattei in Italy was killed for the same
    Many people have been killed, including Bhutto of Pakistan,
for this reason. Herrhausen in Germany was killed for the same
    Anyone who tries to oppose the system which has been set up,
under which the geopolitical doctrine of the Anglo-American
leading families or at least the majority of them, have dominated
the world since World War I, any political figure who does so, is
in danger. 
    So Johnson knew that, at least in a certain way. And
therefore, Johnson acted, as he believed, under the target sights
of assassins' weapons. 
    But we can date the policy, in particular this one, to 1963,
when there was a decision to make a cultural paradigm shift away
from what the world had been (at least Western civilization up to
that point), based on scientific and technological progress, to a
post-industrial, eliminating the Europan Christian cultural
matrix by aid of a rock-drug-sex and satanism counterculture.
That is our problem. 
    The only way you can define a peace among nations, is the
way that Shimon Peres and Abba Eban and others in Israel have
stated again recently, in their relationship to the Palestinians. 
    Only if you define a common interest in economic progress
and related things, can you have peace. 
    Now these fellows are saying that the only basis for peace
with Russia, is to impose terrible looting upon the Russian
people and others. If we establish a common interest and persuade
the Russians that we mean it, in economic cooperation based on
scientific and technological progress, to increase the productive
powers of labor, the standard of living, and the sense of
political freedom or the economic environment of political
freedom, then it is possible to prevent this terrible catastrophe
from occurring. 
    The problem is, that people today are either so brainwashed
into the postindustrial utopian syndrome, or they're so {afraid}
of going the way, say, Kennedy went, or Johnson feared he might
have gone if he bucked it, that they go along with the current
    If we are willing to decide, that {changing this policy is
better than having a thermonuclear war down the line,} then we
can probably restore peace and avoid this terrible danger. 
    If we say that we're so committed to this post-industrial,
neo-Malthusian policy, this countercultural policy, that we
cannot change it, then I can almost guarantee either global chaos
which will engulf and destroy the United States along with other
nations very soon; or destruction the other way, by a
thermonuclear war. 
    So it's up to us: Do we have the guts to change
{fundamentally,} to reverse fundamentally, the direction of
policy-shaping in Washington since the assassination of Kennedy,
or do we not? If we are unwilling to make that change in our
domestic and foreign policy, then there is not much hope for
peace or security on this planet for some decades to come. 

            On the Election of Papandreou in Greece 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, before we get to a discussion of Haiti and
Somalia, I want to continue with the East, because there was a
recent election in Greece, the election of Papandreou, a
socialist who beat Mitsotakis, which may have significance for
the Balkan crisis. 
    Do you think that the Papandreou election will in some way
impact what is known as the NATO Southern Flank, impact this
whole Balkan area, which extends over into Greece and involves
    MR. LAROUCHE: It will impact it, in terms of a tendency.
What the exact result will be, it's hard to forecast. But I would
say, as the outgoing Prime Minister Mitsotakis made clear, that
the election of a marginal government, of a Papandreou, with his
socialist PASOK party, flanked by the KKE, the Greek Communist
Party, a very tiny party, but which gives him the margin for
governing; such a government--a socialist-communist government in
Greece at this time--increases greatly the danger that Greek
forces will move against Albania, and will move into Macedonia,
the capital of Skomje, under some condition, which is quite
likely, thus triggering or at least accelerating a generalized
Balkan war which will engulf most of Central Europe and other
parts of the world. 
    That's the problem. Mitsotakis was brought down because
Mitsotakis went along with IMF economic and related policies.
That weakened him, because these policies are savage, they're
brutal; and the Greek people had enough of this kind of torment.
So they voted for Papandreou, because they thought Papandreou
would be easier on them economically. 
    But Papandreou is much more of a kind of a racist fanatic,
or at least his machine is; and the KKE, that is, the Comunist
Party of Greece, are racist fanatics in this respect. 
    So the danger that Greek forces will try to intervene, to
try to run away from continuing domestic unhappiness by a
diversionary military escapade aboard, a foreign military
adventure, is far greater now, than would have been possible
under Prime Minister Mitsotakis. 
    [commercial break] 

     On Clinton Foreign Policy in Haiti and Somalia: 
              ``We Have No Global Foreign Policy'' 

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the election of
Papandreou, the Balkans. I want to move over to Haiti and
Somalia. President Clinton seems to be having a great deal of
difficulty in these two areas. Do you have any advice for him, or
any indication of what should be done in terms of these areas of
the world? 
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there are many problems. I'm not certain
that I know all of the problems inside the White House and White
House circles. But certain things are obvious. 
    It is said, for example, that President Clinton's crew tend
toward isolationism; that is, that they do not have a foreign
policy, really, except a hand-me-down from Bush, somewhat
modified, perhaps; but a hand-me-down. That is, a reflex, along
with what Les Aspin is proposing. And that they would rather
concentrate on domestic issues, which have not been too kind to
Mr. Clinton so far; and he is now endeavoring to push NAFTA and
the health insurance plan which again will run into difficulty.
But for the moment he has attempted to maintain a public
attention on these two domestic or Western Hemispheric problems,
and to keep Europe and Eurasia, out of people's minds. 
    As a result, the Clinton administration has surrendered
essentially, to the Boutros-Ghali United Nations Security
Council. And in both the cases of Somalia and in Haiti, the
United States is following a policy which is essentially a
One-World dogma centered in certain circles around the United
Nations, the people who believe in One World, who believe in what
is better called globaloney. This UN policy is reflected in the
administration, in the policy recently enunciated by Les Aspin,
Anthony Lake, Madeline Albright at the United Nations and echoed
by Clinton himself in a few remarks. 
    That is the continuation of the Project Democracy or Bush
Neo-con policy of saying that the only issues of foreign policy
and strategic doctrine for the United States, now that the Soviet
empire has collapsed and we are the only superpower, is to impose
radical democracy as we define it from moment to moment, and
radical free trade upon the entire world; and that we will use
military force to adjust the process of bringing what we call
democracy and we call free trade to every country, to crush the
opposition to these policies within those countries. 
    So it's really globaloney again. 
    Well, we now have ``imposed democracy'' on Russia. Yeltsin
has suppressed democratically elected institution in the joint,
virtually. Maybe a few here and there are still standing, despite
his ukases; but we call that now ``democracy.'' 
    Democracy, we find, is whatever submits to the pleasure of
people such as Citibank and the Federal Reserve District of
    So that's where the policy lies. As long as that continues
now, you're going to have a disaster. 
    The problem is this, essentially. If you believe that
Project Democracy or the Neo-con utopians, the globalonists
around the Neo-cons, with their ideas of democracy and free
trade--if you believe that is reality, then you are going to tend
to deny the existence of any reality which says that your policy
is a bunch of meaningless tomfoolery. 
    So that's what we have in Somalia. We say we're upholding a
policy. We have no policy; but we're upholding a policy which
turns out to be a Boutros-Ghali globaloney policy. So we end up
attacking someone because Boutros-Ghali doesn't like him: General
Aideed, who is a fellow whom we helped to bring to power. We
overthrew the former President of Somalia by pitting against the
President a bunch of political parties, each of which was based
in some tribalist or similar regionalist association, which were
not national parties. 
    We succeded by that combination in overthrowing Siad Barre,
the former President of Somalia--just as we succeeded, as Henry
Kissinger started back in the 1970s, a war between Somalia and
Ethiopia, as part of this same project. 
    So now we decide we don't like General Aideed, we're going
to get rid of him. So we cook up a pretext, we say we're going to
hunt him down and get rid of him. Now we start killing a lot of
Somalis under Boutros-Ghali's ingenious direction; and the
Somalis begin shooting back. U.S. troops, under the UN command,
go into an elementary trap. They go in to shoot people; people
get tired of being shot, so they set up an elementary military
trap. So the attack continues; and the UN forces, in this case
U.S.-supplied, fall into an elementary military trap. That is,
you start shooting, knowing somebody's coming; they send more;
you're ready for them, you ambush them. They send in air support;
you ambush that. And you have, in addition to hundreds of Somali
dead, a few score of U.S. dead and prisoners. Now that mess. 
    So we have people in the Congress, particularly in the
Senate, who are aware that this has somehow gone way awry, who
say let's get out of there. Not because they have any policy for
the area as such; they don't. But they say {we} have no policy,
and we should not be using military force in an area where it
seems the UN command has gone crazy, and we have no policy. 
    In the case of Haiti, the same thing. There is a commitment
to support a very unpopular former President of Haiti, Aristide,
who killed a lot of people and was thrown out of the country
because of his own terroristic, brutal crimes against humanity in
his own country. 
    But we were determined, because he was our puppet, to stick
him back in there, against the will of the Haitian people--through
a lot of the emigre@aa groups in the United States who are not there
on the scene--made believe that Aristide, because he's been
friendly toward them and because the U.S. tells them he's a good
guy, feel that Aristide is a victim. They are misinformed on this
    But nonetheless, we see, more and more, that the same
policy, which is very clearly demonstrated in Somalia, now seems
to be developing in Haiti. People {don't} understand the issues
of Haiti; they don't know what the policy ought to be toward
Haiti; but they see this is just another massive bloodbath. And
they're sick of it; because the United States has no credible
policy for Haiti. 
    The problem comes back to this. Let's look at reality.
Reality has nothing to do with, in the narrow sense, with a Haiti
policy or a Somalia policy. Somalia is part of Africa; but the
United States has no Africa policy. 
    Haiti is really economically part of the Caribbean and
Central and South America, toward which the United States has no good
policy at this time. 
    The problem is, we don't have a {global} policy. Because we
are still supporting the Sachs shock therapy; we're supporting
IMF conditionalities upon Russia, conditionalities which have
turned Russia, which was open to us, into a military-imperial
dictatorship, a thermonuclear power which is beginning, as
Arbatov warned, to hate us bitterly because of what we've done in
this connection. We are collapsing the United States; we are
about to turn the U.S. dollar into an international rag over
which the U.S. has no control. We're destroying the economies of
Europe and North America and other parts of the world. {We have
no policy in Washington.} 
    So it's not a matter of the Clinton administration fixing up
a few things. What has to be done, is what I warned had to be
done during the last election campaign of 1992. I warned in some
degree in these half-hour television broadcasts of mine; and I
also warned in a book which was a campaign book, the
{LaRouche-Bevel Campaign Book.} It's all there, essentially. And
the only possibility for the administration to get out of this
mess, is to {take that book,} and take some of the other policies
which my friends and I have been working on for some years, and
say, okay, here is a policy. We don't have a policy; let's have a
policy; here is a policy. Obviously, the old policies left over
from the Bush administration and the Neo-cons of Project
Democracy, are a disaster; globaloney is a disaster. Let's go
back to the good old American ways of basing a nation on
investment in education for scientific and technological
progress. Let's open the doors for employment and participation
of other kinds, by all persons, of whatever skin color and
background, in this kind of scientific and technological
progress, and the benefits it brings. 
    If we do that domestically, a growth policy domestically,
which means big credit policies for expansion; and if we take the
same policy and project it on our foreign policy, we can come out
of this mess. But without such changes, there's not much hope for
this old country of ours. 

        NAFTA: What are the Financial Trade Agreements? 

    Q: We have a few minutes left, Mr. LaRouche. I'd just like
you to discuss NAFTA a little bit. You mention that it's more
than just a trade deal, it's a financial swindle. Give us some
insight into that, please. 
    MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, all the trade aspects of NAFTA
are essentially already in place. So there is no NAFTA Treaty.
The trade agreements are essentially in place. What is not clear,
is one thing: the credit arrangements, the financial
arrangements, which Henry Gonzalez, the chairman of the relevant
House Committee, has been pounding for: Tell us what the
financial trade agreements are. 
    Well, we know what the financial trade agreements are,
because we know what the policy is of the New York Federal
Reserve District, with the un-Magnificent Seven banks there. 
    Their policy is to take the U.S. dollar. Already, two-thirds
of our dollars in print, which are U.S. Federal Reserve dollars,
are outside the United States. They're {not} U.S. dollars.
They're international dollars. And their policy is to take
the U.S. dollar and increase the amount of
dollars issued by up to about $100 billion in Mexico. Dollarize
the economies of Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru, the same way.
Dollarize the former Soviet Union, which is one of their
policies; and so forth and so on. 
    So this is the policy of these guys; and this means that we
have lost our sovereignty over our own currency and the dollar
becomes nothing but a vehicle of an international derivatives
financial speculative bubble--a bubble which, incidentally, is at
the verge of collapsing sometime very soon, even this
month, or next month, or next spring; but the thing is about to
    The big boom on Wall Street and other markets is nothing but
a warning  of a big bubble preparing itself to burst fairly soon,
maybe immediately, maybe longer; but in the near future. 

    MEL KLENETSKY: Thank you very much, Mr. LaRouche. We will
see you next week. This is EIR Talks. I'm Mel Klenetsky. If
people want to send in questions for Mr. LaRouche, write to EIR
Talks, c/o EIR News Service, Inc., Attn: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box
17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 

                             - 30 -

If you would like more articles from these publications directly,
then subscribe to the LaRouche Issues mailing list.
To subscribe to the LaRouche Issues Mailing list send a 1 line message
to with the command
subscribe lar-lst

To get an index of available files
send the command
index lar-lst

         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.