Received: from relay1.UU.NET by css.itd.umich.edu (5.67/2.2)
id AA27188; Tue, 19 Jan 93 12:23:17 -0500
Received: from uunet.uu.net (via LOCALHOST.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP
(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA12654; Tue, 19 Jan 93 12:23:14 -0500
Received: from ccs.UUCP by uunet.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
(queueing-rmail) id 122255.24670; Tue, 19 Jan 1993 12:22:55 EST
Received: by ccs.covici.com (UUPC/extended 1.11x);
Tue, 19 Jan 1993 07:15:03 est
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 07:14:31 est
From: "John Covici" <
[email protected]>
Message-Id: <
[email protected]>
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Reply-To: "John Covici" <
[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 01/11/93
Status: RO
X-Status:
``EIR Talks With Lyndon LaRouche''
will be broadcast on satellite from 7:00 to 8:00 Eastern this coming Saturday
night. Radio stations and others may get the program on either of the
coordinates below. Stations may otherwise make arrangements to
obtain tapes of the program for broadcast from the EIR Press
Staff.
Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W | Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W
Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC | Trans 2 7.5 mHz
3:1 Companding, Flat | Wide Band Video Subcarrier
``EIR Talks With Lyndon LaRouche''
will be broadcast on satellite from 7:00 to 8:00 Eastern this coming Saturday
night. Radio stations and others may get the program on either of the
coordinates below. Stations may otherwise make arrangements to
obtain tapes of the program for broadcast from the EIR Press
Staff.
Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W | Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W
Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC | Trans 2 7.5 mHz
3:1 Companding, Flat | Wide Band Video Subcarrier
EIR ``Talks With Lyndon LaRouche''
January 11, 1993
- Who Arranged the Assassination of Turajlic -
MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence Review'}s
``Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the
line with Lyndon LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota.
Mr. LaRouche, recently, the assassination of Bosnian deputy
prime minister Hakija Turajlic has brought up the thoughts that
we're back in a 1914 situation, a World War I situation. It's
been likened to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. What is
going to be happening in Bosnia and in Yugoslavia, and what can
be done to reverse the crisis, which seems to be deepening, every
single moment?
LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, you have to, before trying to
forecast anything--and you cannot predict, you can only forecast,
which means you can only set up the parameters which will lead to
each of the alternative, visible possible results.
Now, look at the assassination itself.
The UN essentially, under French direction in this case, the
French UN troops' direction, actually {arranged} the
assassination. The French contingent of UN forces was responsible
for taking the vice president[sic] from one location to an
adjacent location. They placed him inside an armored personnel
carrier. On the way out, they dismissed, by orders of the UN
command, several of the armored contingents, elements, of that
assignment, that contingent. On the way out shortly, they were
intercepted by an ``irregular,'' so-called, Serbian unit. And
contrary to all rules, {they opened up} the rear of the armored
personnel carrier, which they're not to do, and stood by while
the Serbians shot the vice president.
They are not supposed to, in any case, identify a passenger
in such a convoy. Nor are they, under any condition, to open the
rear to allow inspection, which was the pretext under which they
{arranged} the assassination of the vice president of Bosnia.
That incident in itself, is the issue. The issue is not the
Serbs, they do that all the time. They're murderers, they're
rapists--what not, everything you want; that is, these particular
Serbs, the ones who are working under the communist-fascist
faction of Serbians. The point here is, the French unit, under UN
direction, arranged the assassination. That is beyond doubt, it
is beyond question. The rules were broken. The rules were not
broken once, by one accident; they were broken repeatedly and
deliberately, in advance of and during the incident. So there's
no question of that.
All right. {French complicity,} under UN direction, in this
atrocity and others, is key to understanding this situation.
Okay. The government of France, specifically a government which
is tied to a very specific freemasonic group, the Grand Orient
Lodge in France, which is the same group which is tied to the
Serbian Lodges: this particular group, together with the British
group around Kissinger's friends, such as Lord Carrington and now
Lord Owen, the U.S. group: not only Kissinger's group but Cyrus
Vance, the Russians, a group in the United Nations which is
reflected in the Security Council by Secretary General Butros
Butros Ghali, and others, are all complicit, {intentionally,
deliberately, before the fact} in this horror show in Bosnia.
This was done, to the deliberate purpose of destabilizing
Central Europe. It was done as an {anti-Germany, anti-continental
Europe operation,} initiated by British intelligence, with the
complicity of the French government, and with the complicity of
the U.S. State Department, specifically Brent Scowcroft and Larry
Eagleburger, who were the two key figures, and their co-Kissinger
colleague, Lord Carrington, were the key figures visible in
arranging, {before the fact,} this particular horror show.
Once that's in place, then you see the danger of a World War
III. What has happened, is that a Russian faction, typified by
former Defense Minister Yazov {of the Gorbachov regime,} not the
Yeltsin regime, but the Gorbachov regime, set this into place on
the Russian side. This has been a Russian pan-Slavic operation,
with their little Serbian brothers, playing the Serbian front
against the Balkans and against Europe. {Precisely} the kind of
thing against which I warned in a nationwide, U.S. television
broadcast back in 1988, as part of my campaign then. It has come
to pass. And it is this. And if it spreads into conflict
involving Bulgaria, Greece, and Turkey, which will happen if the
Serbs go into Kosova and Makedonia. In that case you'll have a
generalized Balkan war, and who knows what can happen.
But the lines are already drawn. The interesting thing is
that {the allied powers of World Wars I and II, are the
governments}--that is, Russia, France, Britain, the United
States--have created the mess, and what we're headed for, is a
Cold War-type conflict with the former Soviet Union in the
Balkans.
- Tavistock Institute-Trained Psychiatrists Behind Mass Rapes -
Q: Mr. LaRouche, the situation in Serbia and Bosnia has been
called genocide, you called it genocide just a few moments ago.
Is there some kind of psychological warfare that is going on with
the rapes, the murders, the beheading of children? This is a
situation which is unprecedented in the recent period. It takes
us back to World War II and the Nazis. What are we dealing with
here?
LAROUCHE: We're dealing with a rather complex situation, in
terms of the details. But the details come to a very simple fact.
I say it's complex, because most people don't know some of the
background facts of this, which make the thing fairly simple to
those of us who are professionally qualified.
The Yugoslav government, the Tito government, has always
based its concept of warfare on guerrilla warfare. Remember that
the communist military of Yugoslavia under Tito, was forged in
guerrilla warfare. That is, despite its training in modern
warfare, it is essentially a guerrilla or irregular warfare
force. That's its greatest capability. And in the mountainous
regions of Yugoslavia, this is particularly notable.
Now, the Serbian forces are divided into several elements.
One is the major Serbian forces based in Serbia directly itself.
And these are Serbian remnants of the former Yugoslav army, which
were dominated by Serbian officers to begin with, Serbian
officers who are generally very close to the Soviet military, to
the Red Army. Very close relationship, even continuing during
periods of apparent conflict between the two states.
The Serbian reserves outside Serbia proper, within the
former Yugoslavia, had been formed into Croatian, Bosnian,
Kosovan, Makedonian, etc., special units, quasi-guerrilla type
units. Irregular warfare with artillery plus, and with Serbian
support. Now, the command for this guerrilla warfare, was
technically directed by a unit of the Serbian military or the
Yugoslav military, which is formerly based in the Croatian
capital of Zagreb. This unit in Zagreb was the psychological
warfare unit of the Yugoslav forces, the unit which specialized
in the dirtiest aspects of irregular or guerrilla
warfare. The commanders of these units, especially, notably, in
Bosnia, which are doing the worst atrocities currently; the
commanders of the units which are doing the atrocities in
Croatia, particularly in the case of Vukovar, where war crimes of
a terrible dimension were created there: These people are
{psychiatrists}--military commanders who are psychiatrists,
associated with the Zagreb center of the former Yugoslav Army's
guerrilla warfare/psychological warfare center. These people were
trained in these arts, {by British psychological warfare}--that
is, the London Tavistock Institute, which is an outgrowth of the
Rockefeller-funded London Tavistock Clinic (the Institute by the
way itself was also assisted by the Rockefellers), and is
associated also with the Frankfort School types.
Now this group in Yugoslavia, is not only connected to
British intelligence, through people like Fitzroy McLean, who is
still alive (he was Churchill's man, the guy who Churchill used
for the relationship with Tito during World War II which is why
the British supported the Communist partisans there, and also
very close, however, to the Bertrand Russell crowd). Bertie is
one of the dirtiest people you can imagine--was, he's dead now.
But these fellows are all very tightly interfaced with
British intelligence. And these guys, received their training
from the Freudians of the London Tavistock Institute. And what
they're doing, in terms of atrocities, is what Goebbels called,
during World War II, {Schrecklichkeit}--{war by terror.}
On the mass rape, officials of various governments, who have
been on the ground conducting surveys indicate that {not less
than 20,000 women and children} have been {raped} by Serbian
guerrillas under the direction of these psychiatrists; that many
of these women and children are retained in {rape concentration
camps,} where they are repeatedly raped. And many of the children
being raped, die, as a result of the horror of the rape. This
goes together with the ethnic cleansing, otherwise [called]
genocide; burning down the houses of anyone who is not a Serb, or
killing people who are not Serbs, beheading people, terrifying
them, driving them out. This is all part of {terror,} or is what
Goebbels called {Schrecklichkeit,} using techniques which were
developed, not only out of Zagreb by these psychiatrists, but
developed {in cooperation with} institutions such as the London
Tavistock Institute.
And that is the horror which faces us, this kind of warfare.
And we're doing nothing, of course, to stop it. Some people are
complaining about it, but we're doing nothing to stop it. The
worst horror show of the 20th century is now occurring there, and
in effect, United Nations forces, under a French commander, with
the backing of Vance and Owen, and others, are condoning the
continuation of the worst genocide, the worst war crimes, crimes
against humanity of the 20th century, in this location. And
that's the story.
Q: This is an incredible story that you're telling, in terms
of the French complicity. Is there an international investigation
into this that is now going on?
LAROUCHE: Well, there may be investigations, but remember,
publicly, since this is UN security, and since this horror show
is being run {with the consent} of the Russian, British, French,
U.S., and Israeli governments--as a matter of fact the Israelis
are supporting it, the Greek government is also supporting the
Serbs and so forth and so on. Under these circumstances, the New
World Order which George Bush hailed with the collapse of the
Iron Curtain back in '89 and '90, is the sponsor of this horror
show. And therefore, people who are complaining, and there are
people who are complaining, there are fairly high level people, a
minister was fired in Germany for complaining about this
horror show and the condoning of it; there are people in the
British Parliament who are complaining about it, and elsewhere.
And in France. But at the highest level, of the governments in
power right now, the lid is on, and they refuse to accept the
implications of these facts.
- The New Age Ideology: The Extermination of Christianity -
Q: In the recent period, this use of psychological terror by
irregular forces has been seen, in Peru, for example, used by
the Sendero Luminoso. Is this also a Tavistock operation?
Now you mentioned Tavistock. It would be also useful to
clarify the Tavistock psychological testing operations that were
used during World War II and how that continued.
LAROUCHE: We've warned about the Tavistock operation for
years. We made a major expose of that in '73 and '74. We
published a series of reports, which was captioned, collectively,
``The Tavistock Grin.'' We've mapped the people in this. These
Tavistock people, are New Age; and people have to
realize, to appreciate this, that Sigmund Freud, was a very
evil man, he was very clever in some respects in psychology and
you can't deny his cleverness or some of the things he describes
as psychological phenomena, pathological, actually occur.
But Sigmund Freud was a very evil and very dangerous man.
And he is one of the intellectual authors of the processes which
have been applied in the field in this case.
If you're looking at Sendero Luminoso, which is, in effect,
supported by a number of governments, for example, Amnesty
International supports, very actively has supported, Sendero
Luminoso and its practices. There are French intelligence
elements which go way back, in the Ayacucho operation [at the
University of Huamanga]. As a matter of fact, it was the standing
joke, and it was a very ugly joke, that you couldn't become a
leading member of Sendero Luminoso, unless you spoke French,
unless you were a French professor. The teacher of Jacques
Soustelle was very keen on setting this into motion.
What you're looking at here, is people who are specifically
committed--personally, philosophically--to eradicating
Christianity from this planet. And they're carrying civilization
back deliberately, to a pre-Christian standard of bestiality, to
{paganism.} One of the Tavistock experts, or consultants to
Tavistock, has commented on that specifically, that what this is
doing, by the world tolerating these mass rapes--you know, you
wink at a girl in an office these days, you can lose your job and
go to prison, I guess; but if you commit mass rape in Bosnia,
you'd probably have the blessing of the same U.S. courts that
would support the complaint against sexual harassment in a U.S.
office. That's the nature of things these days--insanity.
But what we're seeing, is a breakdown in the morality, not
only of the Serbs, of these communist-fascist types who are doing
this, but we're seeing a breakdown in morality of {all of the
governments} which are participating in condoning and covering up
this atrocity.
Q: The New Age doctrine, and its attempts to destroy
Christianity: Can you develop that a little bit for people?
People understand that we're losing our moral base, but they
don't understand that there's a deeper operation involved here.
LAROUCHE: This is an old story. It goes back years to the
end of the 16th century-beginning of the 17th century, the
formation of Rosicrucian cults in England and Bavaria and France
and elsewhere, which became known as the Enlightenment, that is,
the Enlightenment of Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Newton, and so
forth. And certain elements of freemasonry, which were direct
outgrowths of the Rosicrucians, such as the British Freemasonry
in 1640 and later, were essentially these Rosicrucian cults,
which were paganist, pro-paganist, which revived ancient
religions, such as the religions of Hiram of Tyre, pagan
religions of that type. The Isis cult of Egypt, the Magna Mater
cult of the Romans, and so forth, with the idea of eliminating
Christianity and going back to paganism.
So, among very high-level and influential circles, there has
been, for some centuries, a lingering determination to bring
about a revival of a kind of world order, a one-world order,
which is modelled upon the pagan Roman Empire. A number of Nazis
and others, such as the friends of Houston Stewart Chamberlain,
the cousin of Neville Chamberlain in England, have argued that
the crime of the Jews, was to bring into being Christianity, and
it was Judaism and Christianity which destroyed the magnificent
Roman pagan civilization, and if we're to get something
``beautiful'' like the Roman pagan imperial civilization back, we
have to get rid of this ``virus'' of Judaism and especially
Christianity.
Hitler was of those views. Hitler's specific words were,
that his operations against Jews were simply a pilot operation
for his main purpose, which was, had he won the war, {to
exterminate Christianity from this planet.} And not only on
Hitler's side, did we have that kind of thinking, but on the
British side, such as the Houston Stewart Chamberlain side, the
Bernard Shaws, the H.G. Wells, these other Satanic figures, such
as Aleister Crowley, who were sympathetic to Hitler at one point
or another; these characters in the West have been as much in
that direction as was Adolf Hitler.
And that's what we're up against, is the influence of that,
through the New Age, the elements of Satanism being purveyed to
our children through the rock-drug-sex counterculture, and other
things of that sort.
- The West's Policy Toward Eastern Europe: -
- ``Geopolitical Malice'' -
Q: We have been discussing the breakup of eastern Europe.
Mr. LaRouche, eastern Europe has been subject to political chaos
and the economic policy that the West has offered eastern Europe,
has not been sufficient to deal with the social and political
chaos that's occurring there. What is wrong with that economic
policy, and how can it be changed?
LAROUCHE: You've got two things. First of all, there is a
certain element of geopolitical malice in policies such as the
IMF policies toward eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union,
as well as incompetence. They've applied the same policy which
they've applied to developing countries such as South American
countries, which have ruined those economies; or to Africa, which
has turned sub-Saharan Africa particularly into a region of
outright genocide through economic means--Somalia, Ethiopia, has
been living with that for a long time. Kissinger started that war
between Ethiopia and Somalia, back when he was Secretary of State
under Ford, and actually prepared it while he was under Nixon. So
that war, that genocide in Sudan, I know Kissinger's role in
causing genocide in Sudan, as well as in Somalia and Ethiopia. So
these policies are responsible for this sort of thing.
Now, the interesting part about the policies, is that in
core, the philosophy, the rhetoric, which is used to justify
these policies, is the rhetoric of Margaret Thatcher and is the
rhetoric of most of our leading university economics departments
in the United States today, as well as people like Senator Phil
Gramm or other people in the Congress, who have been pushing
deregulation, who have been pushing radical free trade, such as
Carla Hills, for example, who is an exponent of the same disease.
So, what they've done is two things. First of all, they have
tried to bring the whole world into a homogenized arrangement
under deregulation/free trade--which, incidentally, includes the
intention to destroy the sovereignty of the United States itself.
That's the intention of these people. And when they start moving
jobs out of the United States, into Mexico or into the coast of
China, because they say labor is cheaper there, and propose that
a U.S. population with a much-reduced real wage level, instead of
producing its own goods, will now buy them from cheap labor in
Mexico or Communist China, you see that these fellows are very
consciously destroying not only the American farmer, which
they've done consciously, but destroying the sovereignty of the
United States itself. So they're not really misguided in the
sense of having some love for the United States. They have no
love for the United States, not really. They're out to build a
one-world mess.
Now what they intend to do, is to keep the domination not of
the United States, but of the wealthy foundations which control
the United States and control Britain and so forth, to make the
Anglo-American section of these superwealthy foundations, the
ruling force on this planet. And one of the things they intend to
do, of course, is to destroy everything that was the former
contending number two superpower--the Soviet Union. So therefore,
they wish to destroy as much as they can of eastern Europe and
the former Soviet Union, prior to the time that Russia, when it
gets fed up with this nonsense, decides to go back and become an
empire again. So that's part of the process.
But the gut of the thing, is that these economic policies,
of free trade, deregulation, all this nonsense: this is what has
destroyed the United States over the past 30 years approximately,
since the assassination of Kennedy, particularly since about '65,
'66, when this process of turning us into a post-industrial
junkheap began. And that's what they're applying in eastern
Europe and in the former Soviet Union--{with malice.}
- Media Lies versus Economic Reality -
Q: Most people in the United States feel that free trade,
deregulation, will help them. It will decrease the amount of
government spending, and it will therefore lower the cost for the
middle class, and other types of arguments along these lines.
LAROUCHE: I don't know about most people believing that. I
don't think that's true. The media tell us they do. We've got a
lot of homeless people out there, we've got a lot of farmers who
are out of business, about 50 percent of the farmers are being
eliminated from agriculture. We've got people losing their jobs
left and right. Industries are going down. People are going from
jobs in which they can support a family, at least with some
difficulty, but could do it, into flipping hamburgers or flipping
``Hamburger Helper'' disguised as hamburger in some fast-food
joint, at near-minimum wages.
I don't think these people {believe} that what's happened to
them, in reducing their standard of living and throwing them into
the street as homeless or so forth; I don't believe that they
think that the economic policies of the past quarter-century have
done them much good or their families much good.
What you have, is you have a vocal group of people who
essentially make their living as parasites. For example, the
Yuppies who work on Wall Street, peddling futures and other kinds
of things of that sort--derivatives of derivatives, they're
sometimes called. And these parasites, who think that the world
owes them a living, and who are much touted--people who still
have enough money to buy a copy of the {New York Times} and the
{Washington Post} every day and buy the magazines, and who go to
the fancy restaurants, such as they are. These are the people
whose opinions are quoted, usually. And yes, they're deluded.
Because they think that they're somehow better than the majority
of the people who are out there struggling. And when we talk
about, when will people wake up to how bad the economy is,
generally you mean: When are these jerks going to be thrown out
of their jobs, these parasites, going to be thrown out on to the
streets, to realize that they are not prosperous? They don't care
about the United States as a whole; they only care if they've got
a job, if they think the income is flowing their way, or if they
think they're going to make a killing on their speculation
against tomorrow.
So we have news media and others, who are pumping up
so-called public opinion. We have foolish people who believe
differently, who nonetheless think they ought to be overheard
saying that this is good for us. But I don't think the majority
of Americans, if push comes to shove, actually believe any of
this nonsense.
- How to Solve the Problem of the National Debt -
Q: For 60 months we were told, during the Reagan
administration, that we were in a period of economic growth. What
is the difference, when we have the stock markets growing and
people making money, and people working at flipping hamburgers,
and other types of economic development?
Why couldn't that growth just continue?
LAROUCHE: It couldn't. People are not making money. They're
stealing it. These are speculators, Wall Street people.
Take the way our national debt is growing. How is the
national debt growing? It's growing because of the Federal
Reserve system, and follow the procedure. Exactly how is the
national debt created? Not this monkey business that Phil Gramm
and jerks--forgive the expression but I think it's
appropriate--around the Congress and elsewhere, say it on the
talk shows.
The national debt is created, when the Federal Reserve
system begins by taking paper from a bank, for example, and
discounting it, let's say, today, at less than 3 percent. It then
gives that bank a check in the model operation. The bank
deposits the check with its bank--or maybe this is done
electronically, it's the same thing. That check is processed for
clearing. It goes back to the Federal Reserve, which takes U.S.
currency printed by the Federal Reserve and issued by the Federal
Reserve, and issues that to cover the check.
Now in effect, this bank has borrowed the money, which is
created out of thin air, at something around 3 percent, from the
Federal Reserve system. Where did the Federal Reserve system get
its money? From no place. It created it out of thin air, and
loans it at about three percent, to these bankers or others.
These fellows turn around today, and they {loan} that money
to the Federal government at a one and a half percent spread,
four and a half percent, up to eight percent--a five percent
spread. And the debt grows and grows and grows.
Q: They loan it to the Federal government, you said, or they
loan it to the public?
LAROUCHE: They loan it to the Federal government. The
public, they loan it at 18 percent, through credit card debt.
They create it out of thin air, and loan it to the public at,
say, up to 18 percent. They loan it to the Federal government at
four and a half percent. {Federal debt is being paid to this
process chiefly.} The bankers are not in the banking business.
They're in the business of raping the Federal government, raping
the fiscal life of the United States government. And the problem
that Clinton is facing, is that unless he tackles this, there's
no chance of getting a recovery going. There never was a
recovery. That's all bunk! There was a four percent decline,
estimated, in retail sales, relative to a year ago, this past
December. There {was} no recovery. They're going to downsize
these things fast, but for the meantime, they talk about
recovery. They were lying--as usual. As they have since 1983.
Just plain lying.
But the public reads it in the newspaper, the public sees it
on these soap operas which are called the evening news
broadcasts, or CNN, which is a big soap opera. And they tend to
believe it, because who are they to contradict such almighty,
wise oracles as CNN?
Q: So you mean to say that the banks borrow the money from
the Fed, and then loan it back to the government, make profit
from the government, make profit from the public; how are we
supposed to get rid of the Federal debt?
LAROUCHE: Very simply. Go back to the Constitution. The
Federal Reserve has been unconstitutional and illegal therefore
from the beginning. But nobody's had the guts to say so, except a
few people who are called kooks and cranks are saying so--but
they happen to be right. And it's actually those who say the
Federal Reserve is necessary and good for us, who are the kooks
and the cranks. They happen to be the majority. But that's the
way things go, sometimes.
Q: When Clinton, Perot, and Bush were asked whether the
Federal Reserve was the problem during the Presidential debates,
they all said no, it wasn't the problem, that the Federal Reserve
has to be maintained.
LAROUCHE: Well honestly, I think that none of them
understand anything about it. I know Clinton doesn't--otherwise
he wouldn't have been euchred the way he was. I know that Ross
Perot doesn't understand anything about it. He's probably a smart
huckster, but he doesn't know anything about economics. And he's
showed that repeatedly, in this piece he commissioned to have
these various people write for him, and in some of the things he
said on television, that I witnessed. He has {no} understanding
of economics. You don't have to know anything about how the
economy works sometimes to be a smart businessman, if you're in
the business of fast deals. He said a few useful things, of
course, but they weren't that major.
And Bush, of course, was in a state. Bush doesn't really
{wish} to understand anything about economics, and never did.
Bush never made a nickel in his life that wasn't given to him by
his family or by Farish or somebody. So how do you expect {him}
to know anything about economics?
- Why Clinton Should Rely On My Advice -
Q: Clinton comes into office, he's facing a debt which is
$400 billion a year or bigger. What does he do?
LAROUCHE: He's going to be in a tough position. Domestic
policy is going to be in tough shape this time around. Clinton
said certain things up through November. Now see what's
happening.
On foreign policy, except for Warren Christopher, who does
know something about the foreign policy establishment, who's in
there as secretary of state, the Clinton administration has
almost no understanding of anything about the world at large.
Very parochial, very ingrown, very attuned into popular opinion
or mis-opinion, misinformation, misinformed opinion in the
United States. He doesn't know anything about the world at large
at all--despite his trip to Oxford.
But what the Bush administration has done (I don't think
George has done this, but George has been played, to play a key
role in this), the Bush administration has created, for the
incoming Clinton administration, the biggest thicket of complex
and highly dangerous worldwide foreign policy crises, that any
incoming government has seen, even including Roosevelt facing
World War II in this century. And there's no sign of
understanding what he has to do about it. So Clinton is going to
be so tangled in foreign policy problems, that he's not going to
have much time or energy for domestic problems.
On domestic problems, he's simply going to fool around with
his cutting medical care for the aged and the sick and the weak
and the poor, actually. And a few other things like that, because
he's been boxed in to the point, that he actually has no recovery
stimulus program at all left.
We're facing a disaster and Clinton's facing a disaster, at
least with the present trends, in continuing from his campaign in
his policy shaping.
Q: On domestic policy: What does Mr. Clinton have to do?
LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, he has to rely on, I think to
a large degree, my advice, because it's the only thing around
that could possibly save him.
This crew that he's got working for him--some of them may be
well intentioned or might become well intentioned; but they
simply {don't know.}
For example: He's got a bunch of people who are trained in
economics. They're university-trained in economics. They put
Reich over in Labor with the argument that he hadn't had an
economics education. He probably was the most intelligent of them
in that lot, on economics. He had the advantage of not being
brainwashed by economics at some university.
These guys have been trained. They're young people who came
up in the generation that went into college about the early '70s.
They are the post-1968 generation. They have been {brainwashed}
more than the generation before them. They have had no real
education by the standards that we set, say, in the '60s or '50s.
And, when they're faced with these crises, they have their
ideology, the things they've been taught work, they've been
reading in the {Washington Post,} the {New York Times} and
elsewhere, that what they say is a credible philosophy; but {it
doesn't work}--but they believe in it.
They have no preparation for turning around. Finding their
whole philosophy doesn't work, their whole policy doesn't work,
and coming up with an alternative. They'll just fumble and
fumble, worse than ever.
So Clinton will probably find from {within} his
administration, barring a few old hands that might have some
inkling of what you do in a situation like this, such as
Christopher, who is connected to older people.
He has no resources among his young people for dealing with
this crisis. And that's why I say, without exaggeration: If I'm
not loose and supplying the guidelines of what has to be done,
Clinton is going to be the worst catastrophe of the 20th
century--not necessarily because of any bad things he's done
himself, but simply because he lacks the ability--so far--to even
understand what the problems are he faces.
- ``Clinton's Economic Stimulus Program Is Tokenism'' -
Q: Clinton had been talking at some point of an industrial
recovery program, of an economic stimulus program. How does that
compare with the industrial recovery program that you have put
forward?
LAROUCHE: It has nothing to do with it. It's tokenism.
Look, we have a problem, in terms of full-time equivalent
unemployment, that is, combining part-time unemployment and full-
time unemployment, to turn it all into the equivalent of
full-time employment: There are {17.3 million people} in the
United States labor force who are unemployed. We have a shrinking
percentile of the employed labor force actually {producing}
anything--that is, producing infrastructure, producing in
manufacturing or in agriculture. We are an {importing nation.} We
do not produce our own food supply any more; we get it from other
countries, because we've eliminated our farmers. We no longer
meet our own manufacturing needs, because we've destroyed the
skills, we've destroyed the industries, we've destroyed the tool
industries. Then we blame Germany and Japan for cheating for not
being as stupid as we are in our economics.
We have no infrastructure. We have a water crisis, it's
going to get worse. We're going to have brownouts and blackouts
increasingly. Whole sections of the country will collapse for
lack of energy on the continuing policy. And so forth and so on.
So, in this kind of situation, you've got to have a lot of
people put back to work in hard industry, that is,
infrastructure, basically, in manufacturing and also, in
improving agriculture.
- To Create Employment -
- Clinton Must Take on the Federal Reserve -
Q: The big question, Mr. LaRouche, is how do we create new
jobs, and the kind of jobs that would make a difference? What
would be your advice to Mr. Clinton in terms of reversing this
economic depression as quickly as possible?
LAROUCHE: Very simply, he has to tackle the Federal Reserve
question, and has to tackle the idiots in the public generally,
as well as in the university economic departments.
We have the unemployed. We either have, or can secure the
capital goods, the equipment, needed to put those unemployed to
work. All we need is the money, and I mean cash, credit, to
employ both those people at productive capacity, with that
equipment. We have to put things together.
Now, any cash we put into this, on the average, we pick the
right things, will bring back more wealth, than is represented by
the cash issue. So therefore, it's an investment, it is not a
subsidy, in the sense of a giveaway. It's not welfare. It's a
productive investment, the best productive investment we can
make.
Most of this investment, has to go, primarily--that is, as
initial investment, into infrastructure. That means water
projects, rail projects, some highway patching, some bridge
repair, some bridge replacement, things of that sort. Energy. And
so forth.
Now, as a result of investing in these projects, these
projects will in turn buy from U.S. corporations, such as the
aerospace automobile complex for building locomotives of the new
type, or building trains for the new rail system, that sort of
thing. So this is the natural stimulant of the economy, which
ensures that for every nickel we invest generally, on the average
at least, we're getting seven cents or something back, in terms
of new physical wealth of a type which we badly need.
We're also putting people to work in upgraded jobs on the
average--not only upgraded from unemployment, but upgraded from
going back to technological emphasis in skills. And when you
increase technology, these pay scales, these skills, the standard
of living generally goes up. And that's the way to do it.
Now to do that, you have to recognize: We have a hole of
about a trillion dollars a year in our throughput in production,
which is required to balance the tax budget, the fiscal budget,
and all these other things. So what you have to do, is to create
that money, not by the Federal Reserve system--we cannot have the
Federal Reserve issue the credit, nor can we have the money
coming out of there to finance the private credit, to get these
projects going. It won't work that way. You've got that 3
percent, 4 and a half percent to 8 percent, to 18 percent factor.
It would be hyperinflationary, if you tried to stimulate the
economy under the Federal Reserve system.
Q: So how do you create the credit?
LAROUCHE: You have to create it by the government printing
press as the Constitution specifies. The Congress passes a law at
the request of the President. The President issues the money,
places it on deposit with national banks like the Federal Reserve
institutions physically, which distribute the money as lending
power, to the government, state, and federal agencies, and their
private vendors, to get this economy going. And you have to put
in between a half-trillion and a trillion dollars of that kind of
credit {per year} to get this economy turned around.
Clinton's talking at best between $20 and $30 billion a
year. That's a bad joke. Until he gets up to $500 billion a year,
he's not even serious.
MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we'll be back next week. Thank
you very much. This is {Executive Intelligence Review'}s ``Talks
With Lyndon LaRouche.''
--
John Covici
[email protected]
