The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon//eir.102093

From oneb!!utcsri!utnut!torn!!!!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Oct 25 09:28:29 PDT 1993
Article: 29812 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!!utcsri!utnut!torn!!!!uunet!ccs!covici
From: (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 10/20/93
Message-ID: <>
Date: 23 Oct 93 9:22:9 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 641


    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

    Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky
    October 20, 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.

     Reaction to U.S. Foreign Policy Triggered by Events in

    Mr. LaRouche, there's been a virtual revolt in Congress
against Clinton's foreign policy. There's been criticism of
Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti. Representative McCloskey just returned
from Sarajevo and called for [Secrtary of State] Warren
Christopher's resignation on the grounds of the inadequacy of the
Bosnia policy. You've had calls for the resignation of [Defense
Secretary] Les Aspin.
    How do you rate Clinton's foreign policy at this point, and
what do you think of this recent revolt?
    MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, the revolt itself is a product
of the events of October.
    You will note that, if you go back to September, even though
Clinton did have problems in the formulation of his foreign
policy, the {reaction} to his foreign policy erupted in October,
and came to the surface chiefly around the events in Moscow on
the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th and so forth.
    This is what Clinton's problem has been.
    This has called into question all of his foreign policy, not
necessarily for reasons of which all of the congressmen and
others are aware; but it's obvious that the entire policy,
especially the policy from George Bush and Margaret Thatcher's
reactions to the events of 1989, have been to date a failure.
    This is not a Clinton failure; this is a failure of U.S.
foreign and economic policy over the entire period, from
approximately the time of George Bush's inauguration, to the
present. The significant thing is that Clinton is now suffering
for the effects of his failing to overturn the foreign policy
drift which he inherited from the previous president, George
    And this has hit precisely because the blowing up of Russia
signifies that Russia is {not} a thing of the past. There is not
one superpower in the world; there are two superpowers: a Russia
which is reawakening in a non-communist form as an imperial
dictatorship--at least that's the trend, at present; which has
more nuclear warheads than the United States; and the United
States which, economically and otherwise--including military
capabilities--is on the down side.
    And all of this comes together as a shock; and under the
conditions of this shock, people in Congress and elsewhere are
awakening and criticizing, left and right, every aspect of
foreign policy.
    So it's not the result of Somalia or Haiti, etc., etc. The
problem is: Russia blew up, which meant that the entire
calculation of the Bush administration to date has been a
catastrophic failure; and Clinton's failure to address that and
to change that, in a demonstrative way, is the root of the
criticism he's getting.
    Q: Recently, in a {Washington Post} interview, Clinton
attacked Britain and France, and put the responsibility for the
Bosnia policy on {their} shoulders. Is this what has occurred, or
does he hold some responsibility for this policy as well?
    MR. LAROUCHE: That's irrelevant. Of course he holds
responsibility for what he has {not} done.
    When you are the Number 1 superpower, and the world looks to
you, your sins of omission--what you don't do that you should
do--are just as culpable as any sins of commission. Therefore,
Clinton's capitulation to the Anglo-French or the
British-created, or the Thatcher-created {Entente Cordiale}
between Britain and France against the United States in Serbia;
his capitulation to that, as well as George Bush's capitulation
to that earlier, is what is hurting him now.
    He is absolutely correct when he attacks Britain and France
in this respect. He would be more correct if he were to attack
France for capitulating to an {Entente Cordiale} rather than
saying Britain and France are co-equal. Of course, France is
responsible for what it does; but historically, we have to see
what the problem is, and the problem comes from Britain, as the
Thatcher memoirs indicate.
    Now Clinton has awakened to that in making these criticisms,
{in part}; but he has not yet addressed the root of the problem.
That's what I think should be said about it.
    We certainly should welcome the fact that he is publicly
stating that his foreign policy in the Balkans failed in part
because he did {not} override the resistance from London and
Paris; that's good--it doesn't go far enough.
    Q: Similarly, Clinton has also, along with [National
Security Adviser] Tony Lake, been making major statements
concerning radical shock therapy--not major statements, but he's
expressed concern.
    Is there a reevaluation of shock therapy economics taking
    MR. LAROUCHE: Sure. There is a response, which you're
getting from Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is moving into perhaps a
more significant position in the Democratic Party foreign policy
establishment at the present.
    You're also getting, remember, from the other side of the
aisle, from Sen. Bob Dole, criticisms which were quite trenchant
and quite appropriate on this subject.
    So it's all very interesting, the fact that he's doing it.
    [commercial break]

          Russia Is Drifting into a Third Rome Policy

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just talking about the
possibilities of a reevaluation of shock therapy. Last week we
discussed Georgi Arbatov's statements in this regard.
    You mentioned Zbigniew Brzezinski. What is Zbigniew
Brzezinski doing in this regard at this point?
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's not clear. Brzezinski is using a
certain amount of rhetoric. His rhetoric in part is appropriate
from an academic standpoint, that is, he has identified, as have
a number of others--correctly--the Third Rome impulse.
    That is, the Russian people, the Muscovite Russians, given
no creative leadership in a different direction, will naturally
slip into an axiomatic way of thinking which has been prevalent
in Muscovite Rus since the middle at least of the fifteenth
century, as Russia came out from under the Mongol domination.
    They came out with this idea, which came to the surface in
about 1510, called the ``Third Rome''--that is, the belief that
the two Romes, the Rome of the Western Roman Empire and the Rome
of the Byzantine Empire, had both failed for moral reasons; and
that Russia, led by the Russian Orthodox Church, must become the
third and final world empire, to last indefinitely.
    And the Russian, without any elaborated thoughts
(Dostoevsky, of course had a great deal to say about that, and
that's reflective of what goes on in Russia); but the Russian
naturally goes into this suspicion and moral contempt for the
West, in the belief that Russia must be a world empire to bring
the world into moral order so that Russians can live in peace.
And whenever Russia goes into a crisis, particularly a crisis of
contempt for Western Europe, etc., then the Russian people
naturally drift into this way of thinking.
    And that Brzezinski has, in his own terms, correctly
identified, as opposed to many of the foreign policy
establishment, particularly utopians, or the people who support,
say, this free trade democracy nonsense, and shock therapy. Those
people have no competence whatsoever in Russian history, Russian
{cultural} history; and what they're doing, which is essentially
what Brzezinski is saying and a few other critics, is that these
nuts, typified by Sachs and the IMF conditionalities-makers, are
driving Russia into an imperial Third Rome dictatorship, brimming
with hatred against the West, precisely because of the misery
brought upon them by shock therapy--not by communists, not by a
communist heritage--but by shock therapy and IMF
    And this hatred against the West, combined with suffering of
the Russian people, is activating a Third Rome impulse which
{controls} Russian politics to a large degree. Not because
anybody in Russia is {conspiring} to do that; but because the
axiomatic {cultural} assumptions underlying Russian belief, are,
under these conditions, driving the Russian process in that
direction, sometimes without regard to the intentions of leading
participants in the Russian process.

     Why Margaret Thatcher Was Horrified by the LaRouche-Reagan
     SDI Policy
    Q: We were discussing the Thatcher memoirs last week, and
more and more things seem to be coming out about them.
    One of the things that came out, was that Margaret Thatcher
had a tremendous fear about President Reagan's policy on the SDI,
the fear of sharing technology with the Russians.
    Of course, you were very much involved in that process, and
this was an aspect of your policy. Can you comment on Thatcher's
memoirs in this regard?
    MR. LAROUCHE: It's very significant. She puts her finger
right on the button.
    First of all, Thatcher doesn't understand anything about
technology, despite the fact that she was educated as a chemist.
She has no understanding of the technologies, or the military
implications of these technologies. It's very obvious. Her
memoirs merely make clear what was confided to us by many
top-level figures in the British policy-shaping establishment
back then, back in the 82-83-84 period: {the woman just does not
    But the other side, which she underlines herself, is what
shocked her, what frightened her, what appalled her, was that
President Reagan was offering not merely to share technologies
relevant to SDI with the Russians; what appalled her was the idea
that the Russians and the United States, combined, would make
their technologies available for not only military but peaceful
uses to the people with yellow and brown skins--the so-called
developing countries.
    This is what she makes very explicit and underlines appalled
her. This was the feature of my design which Reagan echoed in
this respect, which shows how silly people were who used the
words ``Star Wars.'' They understood {nothing} about the policy.
They're talking about ``Star Wars,'' and were so bemused by their
silly little oxymoronic words, they paid no attention.
    But apparently Mrs. Thatcher, with all her intellectual
limitations, did get the point, that what I had designed and what
President Reagan had done, was to take the issue of the danger of
a thermonuclear first strike, and to combine the technologies
needed to stop that first strike with a general peace-building
policy based on technological progress.
    [commercial break]
    Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing Margaret Thatcher's
memoirs, specifically her disdain for or lack of understanding of
the SDI policy and the economic spinoffs of that policy. You were
raising some very interesting points. Please continue.
    MR. LAROUCHE: The issue here was that, first of all, on the
one side, the idiots, the McNamara enthusiasts, for example, will
say: Well, the Mutual and Assured Destruction
policy--deterrence--kept the peace from 1958, when Pugwash first
announced it, until the present, until the Wall fell. Therefore,
since there was no general thermonuclear war from 1958 on,
obvoiusly deterrence worked.
    Well that is a real piece of idiot's sophistry.
    The reason that this issue came up in the middle of the
1970s, when I climbed aboard the question then, was that the
increase in the targeting accuracy and the close positioning of
Soviet nuclear submarines off our coast, as well as our placing
strategic nuclear missiles closer to Russia, was that we had
reached the point, with such considerations as electromagnetic
pulse (EMP) weapons, that a first strike was becoming possible;
and because of the short range of the forward-based missiles
which would deliver the electromagnetic pulse pin-down effect,
say, to the U.S. continent, the U.S. President or the Russian
General Secretary or military, had about two to three minutes
maximum, within which to react to a relatively small but
significant flotilla of missiles coming from the opposite
direction, either from NATO or from Soviet forces.
    This was the danger; and this forced us to recognize that
Mutual and Assured Destruction--that is, reliance upon the
deterrent effects of counterstrike--was insanity. True, we never
got to a thermonuclear war; but we were headed in that direction
from a military standpoint.
    So that made us look at this question about how do you
defeat missiles, a strategically significant number of missiles
aimed at your country. Well, you can't do it with rockets; you
cannot do it with high-speed rockets, for various reasons, one of
which is that the cost of interception by high-speed rockets, is
greater than the cost of the assault. So that doesn't work.
    Therefore we had to look at what the Russians had described
in {Soviet Military Strategy,} Sokolovsky's doctrine, back in
1963, that the Soviets were committed to using what are called in
the diplomatic language, ``new physical principles''--not the
so-called kinetic energy weapons, but new physical principles,
to stop these missiles.
    What I did, was to change all this by putting in an economic
consideration. I said, what we have to do, in order to be able to
pay for such a deployment, and in order to solve some of the
problems that we have ([Dr. Edward] Teller echoed this, for
example, in his ``common aims of mankind,'' back in 1982), was to
insist that we must launch a science-driver global economic boom,
using these same principles that we would use for defense against
missiles, by using them in the civilian sector, to make new
technologies, technological revolutions, of the type we had begun
to make in the 1960s with the Kennedy space program.
    That was my policy; and that was the thing that got Mrs.
Thatcher really up the pipe. This meant overthrowing the entire
New Age, post-industrial garbage which has put the world into
such poverty and suffering as we find in the United States, for
example, or Britain today. That's where she went up the pipe.

     Russia: We Must Look at the Realities of the Situation
    Q: We are looking, at this point, at President Yeltsin in
Moscow moving on various newspapers, closing down newspapers and
opposition parties. I'd like to begin to discuss that aspect of
developments at this point.
    MR. LAROUCHE. One has to look at two things.
    Of course these things are happening. The country is Russia,
it's under terrible conditions right now, largely because of
shock therapy and largely because of IMF conditionalities.
    The military is in charge, together with the security
forces; Yeltsin is a figure of questionable durability--how many
months he can stay in power, or whether he's purely a figurehead.
But the essence of the matter, is that the policies which are
ruining Russia, the economic policies, the so-called shock
therapy or IMF conditionalities policies--
    I'll come back to this.
    [commercial break]

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, how can Yeltsin turn the situation in
Russia around, or how would you characterize the fact that the
West is talking about Yeltsin as a defender of democracy when all
he seems to be doing is disbanding democratic institutions,
closing down newspapers, closing down opposition parties? Where
is this all going to lead?
    MR. LAROUCHE: What is happening in Russia, is exactly,
essentially what Georgi Arbatov described in his address to a
major meeting in Germany, a meeting of the German Evangelical
Church in Tutzing, Tuesday, the 12th of October.
    It's interesting, of course, and very significant, that
despite the importance of Georgi Arbatov, which every news
service in the world recognized earlier; and despite the fact
that this was one of the most important meetings which has
occurred on policy in the recent period in Europe, there is
virtually no coverage of the meeting, of the conference, or of
what was said, {anywhere} in the international news media--very
significant. As a matter of fact, EIR is {the only news service
in the world to give any significant coverage to this major
    Remember that Georgi Arbatov went in there, and submitted an
English-language text as a prepared text of his speech to be
given to the conference. That was done on Oct. 11. On Oct. 12, he
gave a free lecture address in German, which went 180 degrees
opposite to the political line on Russia which had been in the
English text provided a day earlier, or 24 hours or so earlier.
    That's the significant point. And the fact is, that Georgi
told the truth, said that it is IMF conditionalities and shock
therapy which is driving Russia into an imperial dictatorship.
And that's what these fellows didn't want to hear, and that's why
there was no coverage of the Tutzing conference.
    {Right at the conference,} Americans who participated were
jumping out of their skins. A lot of Germans were going berserk
on hearing this unwanted message from Georgi Arbatov.
    What is happening?
    First of all, the United States does not, forgive the
expression, give a {damn} about democracy in Russia. If you got
inside Russia (where I'm relying now on firsthand reports from
high levels and high-level observers who know what's going on
inside Moscow, as opposed to the garbage which is coming out
through the news media, which is highly misleading), the shock
therapy policy of Gaidar--remember it was Yeltsin's renomination
of Gaidar that set off this crisis. Yeltsin did this under
pressure from the West, specifically the United States.
    What is happening is, that all over Moscow, there are
American advisers. It is the American advisers peddling shock
therapy and IMF conditionalities, who pushed Yeltsin to make this
coup against every elected institution and most newspapers,
except the presidency, in Russia.
    So the United States, in effect, authored the coup. It was
done on behalf of the United States, because Yeltsin and company
had no practical alternative at that moment, except to submit to
U.S. demands that they go ahead with a coup suppressing the
elected Russian Parliament.
    So all this talk about democracy from Washington, is pure
garbage. It has nothing to do with anything.
    Now what democracy means in Washington, is to suppress every
Russian institution which will resist shock therapy measures.
That's what they mean by democracy. And they're pushing Yeltsin
with full desperation.
    What they're going to get, which everyone who understands
the situation knows, is General Winter is going to take command
of the military forces, which are the base of the Yeltsin
government. And that General Winter, or Field Marshal Winter, is
misery--misery caused by a continuation of IMF conditionalities
and shock therapy. Which means that either Yeltsin changes, or if
he refuses to change in the appropriate direction, come spring,
or somewhere in that vicinity--no one can predict {exactly} what
will happen, but we can see the direction in which things are
moving--down that road, we're going to a very hard dictatorship;
and as Georgi Arbatov said, an imperial Russian dictatorship. In
other words, a Third Rome dictatorship. Not a communist
dictatorship; but a thermonuclear power brim-full of hatred
against that United States which imposed shock therapy, and which
imposed IMF conditionalities.
    It should be noted that most of the crooks who are being
attacked for corruption, are friends of former ambassador Bob
Strauss, in effect. These are former communist officials or
high-level nomenklatura figures, who have gone over to this kind
of speculation, who are the thieves and robbers looting the
Russian economy, and it's against them that the Russian people
are directing their hatred. And more and more, that hatred of
these speculators, the people who are living richly, buying
Mercedes-Benz cars and living in all kinds of luxury while the
Russians are living on $5-10 a month, many of them, in terms of
purchasing power. The hatred against these speculators, these
parasites, is being spun off the parasites, against the people
who are authoring and backing the parasites, to a large degree
the United States. And that's the truth that must be told.
    Yes, Yeltsin is doing what he's doing. But we must look at
the reality of the situation, as Brzezinski in his own limited
way is saying. And Brzezinski is saying, in his own limited way,
that the policy of the United States at present, is strategic
lunacy. And in effect, that's a fair statement. And that's the
point where Brzezinski and I would tend to concur, though we may
differ on other aspects of the process.
    But that's what we must see. When we see a news media report
about the defense of democracy in Russia and hear it from the
U.S. news media, the first thing we should do, is rush to the
bathroom and vomit, if we have any knowledge of what the truth of
the situation is.

    Q: Would you say that, under these circumstances, of Yeltsin
capitulating to U.S. demands, he has signed his political death
    MR. LAROUCHE: I don't know. I wouldn't put things in such
simplistic terms. Yeltsin is a Russian. In the long run, within
his abilities, he will be responsive to what he considers
pragmatically, perhaps, the vital interests of Russia; and of
course his own ambitions. But his own amibitions are couched in
Russian terms. He's a special type of personality, and that has
to be factored in.
    The question is: Will he turn, as the Russian institutions
demand--military, church, and other institutions--and will he be
seen as an {effective} instrument of a turn in policy?
    If not, then they'll dump him. If he does, he could be
around as the author of the next turn in policy. So one should
not speculate in soap opera versions of Russian politics. One
should look at these things as they are.
    [commercial break]

                    Robert Fogel Is a Quack

    Q: Mr. LaRouche, Robert Fogel just won the Nobel Prize in
economics, in a new area call cliometrics. His thesis says that
slavery was economically efficient, also that slavery was good
for the cohesion of the black family. He challenged the theory
that railroads are necessary for development.
    Do you agree with this policy? It seems quite radical.
    MR. LAROUCHE: The man is an utter quack. There is no basis
for anything he says. He obviously has no understanding of
economics. He's a part of that Chicago School, the most radical
post-Milton Friedman generation in terms of statistics. This is
absolute unscientific nonsense. And I think the Nobel Prize
Committee that awarded him the prize, knows it. The man is
virtually, from the standpoint of any professional economist of a
traditional type, would be considered an absolute lunatic. That
is not because people disagree with his views, which are
certainly objectionable morally, but because he's not only
immoral, but he is totally incompetent.
    This cliometrics is a new, fancy word for statistical
jiggery-pokery, doesn't mean anything. It's nonsense.

      LaRouche Elected to International Ecological Academy

    Q: You were just elected as an Academician to the
International Ecological Academy in Moscow. What does this mean?
Why are they electing you? How do they know you in Moscow?
    MR. LAROUCHE: Well, they know a good deal about me.
    The election occurred in a meeting in Moscow of the
Committee of 100 Academicians which founded the institution.
There were reasons for that, but it was actually founded in the
Baltic countries about 7-odd years ago.
    The award was made for, specifically, a book, the {Science
of Christian Economy,} which was published a couple of years ago,
which sums up a good deal of my work. But those Academicians who
supported the award, referred also to another book, which is more
available in a Russian translation from some years earlier. It's
a college textbook, {So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics?}
    It was given, not as an honorary award like a Nobel Prize,
but they specified it was given as a working award, that is, the
equivalent of a professorship. In the European system, this is
about two steps above professor, with the idea that I would be
working with the Academy as a scientist.
    The award was given specifically for my original and
important discoveries in the field of physical economy; and also
for some of the beneficial impact of these discoveries in
economics upon the field of physics.
    The essential thing is in the discovery, which was
originally made in 1952. So like many things of that sort, it
goes way back in one's life. I was only about 30 years old when I
did that, and most of my scientific work since then, has rested
upon enhancing what I discovered when I was 30, and I'm now 71.
    Essentially, what I did, is I reacted against the two
central fallacies of the work of Norbert Wiener in information
theory, and also against the work of the systems analysts, the
operations research people as they were known then, and against
the work of Professor John von Neumann in economics and in other
fields. So that was what prompted me.
    First of all, a term, ``negentropy,'' was used by Wiener to
describe human communication, communication of human ideas, which
is absolutely absurd.
    Now the first business on which my discovery was based, is
the fact that Wiener and Company use negentropy, that is, as they
define it, from the statistical work of a fellow called Ludwig
Boltzmann back at the turn of the century, who described this
from the standpoint of gas theory. And they applied this also to
describe living processes.
    Now there are characteristic features of living processes,
as distinct from non-living ones which absolutely cannot be
described from this standpoint. That was absurdity number one.
    Absurdity number two, is the fact that the human species,
unlike any other species of animal, actually has the capability
of {willfully changing for the better} its mode of existence,
through such forms as what we call today technological progress.
    On that basis, if man were an animal, he would have a
baboon-like potential as a species for about not more than 10
million members of his species globally. But man today has over 5
billion people, at a much higher level than would be possible in
a primitive man; and all of this has been done, through ideas,
through particularly ideas which correspond or are equivalent to,
or analogous to, scientific and technological progress.
    Thus, it is the communication of these revolutionary ideas
of practice which distinguishes man and distinguishes human
communication from anything which can be approximated by a gas
theory, or a non-living process.
    So those were the two points from which I started. And on
this basis, through seeing the significance of the work of a
fellow named Georg Cantor, one of the greatest mathematicians of
the past 200 years or so, and the impact of Cantor's work on the
work of another nineteenth-century scientific giant, Bernhard
Riemann, I was able to develop a new conception of how economic
processes work, a conception which has been proven valid as
against the Brand X theories which are abounding today.
    In Russia and in Eastern Europe, this has a very specific
    Remember, in Russian society and Eastern European society,
in addition to the military forces and to the other kinds of
political forces and so forth, one of the most important parts of
the society, is the scientific community. Russia functions only
to the extent that its scientific community plays an integral
part in shaping the ideas on which the society functions. And
sooner or later, the society will tend to turn to its scientists
for ideas on how to deal with the great crisis which has arisen,
specifically, a crisis which shows that not only was communism a
failure economically--at least in the civilian sector--but that
the Western version of free trade, or the Adam Smith version,
never worked; and there's a recognition, of course, that there
was a form of capitalism in the West which {did} work, typified
by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, the Treasury Secretary of the
United States, or Abraham Lincoln, or in the German experience,
Friedrich List, who was a follower of Hamilton; and in the
Russian experience, Count Sergei Witte, who was largely a
follower in economic theory of Germany's Friedrich List.
    So what is emerging, is the idea of a Third Way in economic,
which is related to the forms of capitalism associated with the
young United States under the leadership of people like Hamilton
and the Careys, and Abraham Lincoln, as an alternative to not
only Bolshevism, but as an alternative to this crazy Adam Smith
stuff, which poor Mrs. Margaret Thatcher--or Lady Thatcher, as
they call her now--propounds. Shock therapy, what [Jeffrey] Sachs
    So the significance of this, is that my ideas, my work,
represents the best articulation of what some would call the
Third Way, something different than the kind of stuff which
Harvard preaches today, and also something radically different
than Bolshevism. And this is the alternative to the chaos which
the world sees.
    There are other people who have similar ideas; but my ideas
are the most articulate and the best scientifically grounded, as
well as representing a contribution to scientific thought. So
that was why the award was made.
    The implication of the award, is that this establishes,
within the European and other scientific communities, a
recognition that my work in economics is the alternative to which
the world is going to have to turn to get out of the mess caused
by the twin collapse of both Bolshevism and of the free trade
model in the West.

                  ``Fogel Is Like a Disease''
    Q: Just for a moment, coming back to Robert Fogel and the
necessity of railroad development: Can you just give us a sense
of how your approach, this approach, is totally opposite to that?
    MR. LAROUCHE: Take Fogel.
    I don't sell my stuff as something better than Fogel. I say
Fogel is like a disease. It's junk. Throw it away. I wouldn't
compare my views with his. His are simply incompetent. Put his
views out of the way, then consider mine.
    But very simply, what's stupid about him? First of all, on
railroads. Before railroads, canals.
    There has been no modern economy which has developed without
the development of modes of transportation: canals, ocean travel,
of course, and seacoast, ship travel; roads, and railroads.
    Now, if you take the cost of transport measured in
ton-mile-hour dollars, or the equivalent; measure it for seaborne
traffic, for coastal navigational traffic; for canal traffic, for
highway traffic, and for railroad traffic. Leave air out, that's
a special case. You would discover very quickly, that without
canal traffic and road traffic and sea traffic, there could be no
economic development of a nation.
    Secondly, rail traffic, {even to this day,} given, say, 300
miles or so distance, is the cheapest and best mode of travel for
moving freight in general, available. It's also the best for
moving passengers 300-350 mile distances. It is uneconomical to
use air transport for transporting passengers between two densely
populated centers by means of air transport.
    Rail is fast and faster than air transport {in effect}--that
is, from point of starting to point of destination. The only
problem with rail today is that we don't maintain our rail
system. It doesn't function because of mismanagement or economic
backwardness. We're not using the new technologies we should use.
    But even today, without a revival of rails, this economy is
not going to revive.
    Without rails, there would have been no great industrial
revolution in the United States or in continental Europe. It's
just a simple matter of plain fact, and you can measure the
calculations in cost of travel and time lapsed, which is the time
of inventory buildup, the time of perishability of goods. Without
the rail system augmenting the canal system and ocean travel,
there could have been no 18th or 19th century development of the
economies of North America or Western Europe.
    Fogel's statistics just show that he does not know how to
pull his figures together; his data are completely screwed up.
    The same thing on slavery. The key thing about slaves, is
that the productivity of the slave, was way below that of the
non-slave, with the result twofoldly, first, that in the South,
the poor white population of the South, was reduced almost to the
level of baboonery or almost to the level of slave illiteracy as
a result of having to compete with slaves. The entire economy of
the United States was being dragged down by the cheap labor
policy of slavery, by the undercutting of the educational level,
the household income level of most of the population.

    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 -

         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.