MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky, and we
are on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota.
Mr. LaRouche, before we begin discussing the former Soviet
Union, I would like to ask you about a particular civil
disobedience action that some of your associates have been
involved in. Tony Chaitkin and your former vice-presidential
candidate Jim Bevel are coming up in a trial where they are
accused of statue-climbing, involving the statue of Albert Pike
in Washington, D.C.
- ``The Pike Statue Exemplifies What Is Rotten in America'' -
What is the significance of Albert Pike, and why are your
associates involved in bringing attention to the removal of this
statue?
MR. LAROUCHE: I was responsible for the campaign against
Pike. Pike was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan in 1865, and was
formally the chief judicial officer of the Klan. These facts were
not contested until a very recent time, until we mentioned this
sort of thing. All the histories of the Klan show that.
Also, if you look at Pike's writings, as reflected, for
example, in the Mother Lodge in Washington, D.C., where there is
a chapel dedicated to him (the Freemasonic Mother Lodge), and
read his correspondence with Giuseppe Mazzini, the man is an
utterly evil Satanist. As a matter of fact, calling him the
leader of the Klan should offend no one except the Ku Klux Klan.
He is really evil.
The fact is, that this statue is posted on government
property, has been for the greater part of this century; and to
have the founder of the Ku Klux Klan with his statue on the brink
of one of the largest black ghettoes in the United States--and in
our nation's capital, as practically the only Civil War figure so
represented, seemed to us a horrible obscenity, particularly at a
time when people are talking about racism and all these kinds of
things. Here is the penultimate racist, which he was beyond any
doubt, and a Satanist to boot, and his statue is there on Labor
Department property.
We asked that this be removed; and a number of meetings,
rallies, were held, filing in the usual manner, with legal
rallies and meetings held.
Then at one point, the Park Police, at the behest of
someone--that is, the Federal Park Police, on behest of someone,
came around seeking a pretext to do something to harass the
rallies and found that speakers Anton Chaitkin and the Reverend
Jim Bevel, the civil rights leader, were standing on the foot of
the statue and presumably on a property that was part of the
statue itself. Therefore they were arrested and were charged with
an offense which can mean up to six months in prison and a $500
fine each on that basis, as an obvious effort by the Park Police,
at someone's behest, to protect this racist Ku Klux Klan founder,
General Pike.
At first, the Freemasons, the Southern Jurisdiction of the
Scottish Rite, who are the donors of the statue and for whom Pike
was Supreme Commander from the late 1850s until the 1890s, said
that they were going to have the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith run interference and defend the statue. After a while, it
became obvious that the ADL was not succeeding in that, that the
issue of the statue was spreading around the country, as seems
quite logical, so that the Commander of the Scottish Rite
Southern Jurisdiction, Kleinknecht, issued a statement which
surfaced then in Iowa, but which was issued by him in a
publication to all Freemasonic Lodges and officers for public
distribution.
The pamphlet itself focusses its attack on me personally,
mentioning my name repeatedly throughout the little pamphlet that
the Scottish Rite put out, to which I have responded. That will
be published soon, I understand. I indicated the fact that not
only is there no basis for denying that Pike was the founder of
the original Klan, that is, the 1865-1867 Klan, but that Pike's
writings on every subject, including his {Morals and Dogma,} are
utterly consistent with what we find abhorrent in the Ku Klux
Klan, either in the original form under [Nathan] Bedford Forrest,
or the revival of the Klan that was sponsored in 1915 by the ADL
and Hollywood, with the blessing of the President of the United
States, Woodrow Wilson, that both the Klan's and Pike's
philosophy, as represented by things in the library of the
Scottish Rite, are completely consistent with the kind of evil
which we Americans attribute to the Klan.
- A Short History of the Scottish Rite Freemasons -
Q: You mentioned that there is a connection between the
Scottish Rite Freemasons, the Ku Klux Klan, and the ADL. Of
course, the Scottish Rite Freemasons are now contesting your
claim that pike was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan.
What is that connection? I am laying this question out now,
because we are coming up to a break, and I would like you to come
back to that question as soon as we return.
[commercial break]
Q: Mr. LaRouche, what is the connection between the Scottish
Rite Freemasons--what is the Scottish Rite Freemasons--and the
Anti-Defamation League, the ADL, and the Ku Klux Klan?
MR. LAROUCHE: The Scottish Rite Freemasons is a branch of
something which was initially founded in England during the time
of King Charles I, a Stuart, by a group of Rosicrucians who were
closely associated with Francis Bacon, his secretary Thomas
Hobbes, and Ashmole, of course, as well as others.
Originally it was a Rosicrucian order, and then it was
consummated as the Scottish Rite of Speculative Freemasonry,
essentially. It was mythologically aligned to the Templars,
because the Bruce family's position as a monarchical family, the
royal family of Scotland (Bruce being an ancestor of the Stuarts,
Bruce had come to power in Scotland with the help of the Templar
Order), and therefore, because of this association with the
Stuarts and what had become the British monarchy in effect at
that time, the Templar Order was made crucial for that founding
of the Scottish Rite. It went through other evolutions later, but
essentially the Scottish Rite is that.
It's a kind of religion, actually, a non-Christian religion
which is somewhat syncretic in terms of multi-religion, various
kinds of paganism, and so forth.
In the United States, the Scottish Rite was essentially an
organization of the Tories. There were other kinds of Freemasonry
in the United States, as a matter of fact [Benjamin] Franklin was
part of it, so was [George] Washington. But that was not the
Scottish Rite, in which Washington was a part.
The Scottish Rite was the organization of the Tory
opposition to the American War of Independence. They were not
kicked out at the end of the war, even though they had fought
against the American Revolution, because of the condition in the
Paris Treaty of 1783. They became an organization based largely
and originally in and around Boston and New York, as the Scottish
Rite up there. These became the slave traders and opium pushers
together with the British East India Company. They became a
powerful faction. Aaron Burr, for example, was a key figure of
this.
They always tended toward treason, as the case of Aaron
Burr, Andrew Jackson, and the so-called Hartford Convention of
1814, illustrate. At about the beginning of the nineteenth
century, they were formally based in Charleston, South Carolina.
They were banned for a while under the leadership of people such
as President John Quincy Adams. The treasonous aspect of the
Scottish Rite in the early nineteenth century, was recognized,
and they were virtually banned. They came back in the 1840s.
Relevant to your question, is that one of the organizations
founded in the early 1840s as an offshoot of the Charleston or
the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, was B'nai B'rith.
B'nai B'rith was essentially not a Jewish organization as such,
but rather the Jewish branch of the Southern Jurisdiction of the
Scottish Rite, and it was the faction of American Jews which were
engaged largely in the slave trade, and which were pro-slavery.
The B'nai B'rith became later the key intelligence organization
for the Confederacy and was banned for a while because it was the
Confederate intelligence organization. They were generally given
freedom and pardons after the end of the Civil War. So they
always had that tradition.
Later, the ADL was founded early in the nineteenth century,
shortly before the re-launching of the Ku Klux Klan; and the ADL
played a key part, together with Hollywood people like Louis B.
Mayer and Sam Goldwyn, who were part of this in the mass
recruiting to organize the revival of the Klan in 1915.
What most people in this century know as the Klan, is the
Klan which was organized with the sponsorship of President
Woodrow Wilson, by the way, actively, around a film called
initially {The Klansman,} otherwise known as D.W. Griffith's {The
Birth of a Nation,} which was a recruiting film for the Klan, and
which resulted in the mass launching of the Klan with the
sponsorship of figures associated with the ADL in large part.
That is the general connection; and therefore, on the
pro-slavery faction, of which Pike was a leading figure--as a
matter of fact he was Supreme Commander of the pro-slavery
faction of the Scottish Rite at that time. The ADL, which came
later, was an adjunct or inheritor of that relationship to Pike
and to slavery. So it is essentially the racist branch of the
so-called Jewish community in the United States, and was a
minority, because most Jewish people in the United States
supported Lincoln at that time, and the ADL was, shall we say,
the lower end of the community.
- How To Rebuild the Civil Rights Movement -
Q: Rev. James Bevel, who was your vice presidential
candidate in the 1992 elections, was a civil rights leader with
Martin Luther King. He was one of his top lieutenants and the
architect of the Birmingham campaign. Does he see this Pike
campaign as the centerpiece of the revival of the civil rights
movement, of a new civil rights movement?
MR. LAROUCHE: No.
We have to look at what destroyed the civil rights movement,
because it was destroyed largely after the assassination of
Martin Luther King. People were frightened. Various people went
various ways, some people became opportunists. Jim himself was
pushed out of the civil rights movement because of his insistence
on a fair trial for [James Earl] Ray, who he did not believe to
be and they did not believe actually to be the shooter of Martin
Luther King but only a patsy involved, complicit in the
operation, but not the shooter. And they believed that justice
was necessary, or Rev. Bevel did; that the civil rights movement
must take the position of justice for all, due process for all,
even the most deadly enemies of civil rights. But in this case
also, the fact that due process would probably mean that Ray
would be put in proper perspective, and the government would be
forced to seek out the true shooters and the architects of the
conspiracy to kill Dr. King.
For that reason, he was pushed aside, and people who were
not sympathetic to the purposes of the original civil rights
movement, began to roam free. Some people became discouraged.
Only by staging the fight at this time for clarifying these
aspects of our history--the Pike aspect--could you have an honest
civil rights movement. I do not think that the civil rights
movement's rebirth in any way depends upon the issue of the Pike
statue, but the Pike statue exemplifies what is rotten in
America, and the kind of rottenness that still pervades the
United Sstates at the highest level, i.e., the Pike statue in
Washington is supported by the U.S. government, which has to be
brought to the surface as part of the fight.
- How My SDI Policy Came About: -
- Back-Channel Negotiations With the Soviets in 1982-83 -
Q: Last week you indicated that you were in back-channel
negotiations with the Soviet Union, with Moscow in the early
1980s around the issue of ballistic missile defense. Today, we
are looking at 33,000 warheads in the former Soviet Union, and a
lot of people are beginning to worry about these 33,000 warheads.
What were your negotiations, what was the policy you were
trying to develop, why was it opposed in such a strong sense, and
could that policy be revived or some form of that policy be
revived today?
MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, I was not {trying} to establish
[a policy]; it was established.
What I proposed, on behalf of the U.S. government to the
Soviets in those back-channel negotiations, became in 1983 the
official policy of the United States: the Strategic Defense
Initiative.
That is clarified when one sees the televised speech which
President Reagan made on March 23, 1983. The offer of the SDI
which is in that speech, is exactly what I had indicated to
Soviet representatives at the highest level would be the policy
of the United States, if President Reagan accepted it, as I hoped
he would.
Essentially, the negotiations, for about 13 months, which I
conducted through back channels with Moscow for the National
Security Council and others here, was an exploratory operation.
Many people in the United States were committed to supporting my
proposal. This was a trial balloon, to try it out on the highest
level of the Soviets, at a time initially when [Leonid] Brezhnev
was still in, in order to avoid the kinds of dangerous situation
which would come if this were announced unilaterally without
exploratory discussion beforehand. The Soviets were fully aware
of this.
The crucial feature of this was something which was not much
discussed, however, in the major media. That is, I pointed out to
the Soviets that there was a long history of a relationship
between the United States and Russia prior to the Bolshevik
phenomenon, and that at various times in our history, especially
during the middle of the nineteenth century, Russia, under, say,
Alexander II, the Tsar of Russia, had been an ally of the United
States and had intervened on behalf of the United States during a
crucial part of our history, the Civil War, to prevent Britain
and France from invading the United States. That is what Russia
did for us at that time. Tsar Alexander II stopped the British
plan to invade the United States on behalf of the Confederacy or
if not invade at least to break the naval blockade of the
Confederacy and to use British and French combined naval power to
crush the United States.
[I told the Russians that] we had to look at things from a
higher standpoint of national interest, not these ideological
questions; that the Russian economy was in deep trouble, that is,
the Soviet economy at that time, 1982-1983; and that the U.S.
economy was in trouble--not as acute but in trouble. Unless
something was done, on the one hand we had the danger of
first-strike thermonuclear war almost by accident, that is, where
short-range missiles were so close to each other that a U.S.
President, for example, had about 2-3 minutes' warning time
before he had to push the button for full-scale nuclear war in
case the missiles started coming at us. A very dangerous
situation; as a matter of fact, the first-strike condition was
maintained on the Soviet side into 1989. There was always a
continuing danger of a first strike from the Soviet side into
1989, just before the collapse of East Germany occurred.
So I proposed that, first of all, since an effective
ballistic missile defense system could only be accomplished by
aid of what are called new physical principles in the diplomatic
language, and since those principles were now at the point of
readiness or near-readiness of development to be deployed, I
proposed that both the Soviets and the United States, with
others, agree to ballistic missile defense based on new physical
principles as a counterweight to the danger of first strike, and
secondly, that we agree to share this technology for peaceful
purposes, and to foster a general global economic development
based on these new technologies.
At the same time, I warned the Soviets that because of
problems known to them--known to them empirically at least,
according to their own literature--that within about five years
from 1982-1983, the likelihood would be, that on the present
course, with the present Soviet arms buildup and problems of the
economy, that the Soviet economy would collapse, beginning with a
collapse of Eastern Europe about 1988, approximately then, unless
some change of this type were introduced.
That is the relevant aspect of these negotiations. Today,
the [Berlin] Wall did come down, approximately 1988, actually
1989, as I forecast in 1982 and 1983 and then again in 1988. It
came down beginning in Eastern Europe for exactly the reasons I
had indicated. It continued to blow up the Soviet economy for the
reasons I had indicated; and now, we are sitting today with
eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in a demolition mess.
Things are {worse than ever}--
[commercial break]
- The Current Political Strategic Crisis -
Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the Strategic
Defense Initiative of Ronald Reagan and some of your involvement
in that particular program. Let's pick up where we left off.
MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, let me correct that. It is not
Ronald Reagan's and my involvement in it. {This was my policy.}
The policy which the President adopted was entirely of my design,
and that was the policy of the United States for a period of time
after the President's enunciation of it. Actually a little bit
before then.
The relevance of it today, is that we are now at a point
where--
Remember, I am taken out of the box in 1986. The Soviets
demand that I be imprisoned, or that the U.S. government show a
commitment to imprison me--this is 1986, and this is public
repeatedly from the highest level, as a condition of negotiations
with Moscow.
As a result of the agreements with Gorbachov, Gorbachov and
the West {failed} entirely to prevent what I forecast would
happen, if they did not follow the lines that I had indicated,
which had, at one point been U.S. policy. It failed. Bush failed
utterly. Gorbachov failed utterly. 1989: the Wall came down,
despite efforts to prevent that. And so forth and so on.
The entire former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact are
crumbling today, precisely for reasons I indicated back then in
1982 and 1983. Now we have come to the point, where, in the
coming weeks, into April, there will be some kind of upheaval or
convulsion in Moscow.
Things are getting much worse. The ability to hold the line,
continue the present policy of relations between East and West
under the Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachov agreements with Mrs.
Thatcher and others involved--{that is no longer working.} It is
going to blow up for just exactly the kinds of reasons I
indicated, back through the early 1980s.
We are now back to a potential strategic crisis. The U.S.
economy is collapsing. The British economy is collapsing. We are
spiralling deeper and deeper into a depression--pay no attention
to these lies about recovery. It never happened. We are into a
worldwide depression and are spiralling downward {rapidly.} Under
these conditions, the war in the Balkans, the war in the
Transcaucasus, the threats of explosion in the Middle East, and
so forth and so on, are putting us into a global strategic
conflict, in which if people do not wake up rapidly and finally
learn their lesson, to accept that of which I warned them back in
1982, 1983, and thereafter, then I fear that we are headed for
the worst.
- The Soviet Adversarial Position Toward LaRouche -
Q: You indicated that the leadership of the former Soviet
Union on the highest level was responsible for putting you in
prison. Did this come out in any kind of way during the trial
proceedings against you?
MR. LAROUCHE: It was presented, but it was suppressed. It
was presented both times. It was presented in Boston where they
dropped the trial because the jury was against them; and it came
out in Alexandria [Virginia] in the pretrial proceedings. The
judge ruled that this could not be presented. The judge acted at
the prosecution's behest as it did in many other areas,
completely fraudulent. Biggest bunch of liars I ever heard were
the government prosecutors and their perjured witnesses.
The judge willingly suppressed this information and as a
matter of fact made arguments--
The judge was lying, literally, because he had the evidence
presented that the Soviet attacks on me and the attacks by others
in conjunction with the Soviets, was presented as part of the
defense during the pretrial proceedings and the judge suppressed
that as he suppressed the entirety of the defense.
That is, we went in--
We had a month or so to prepare for trial up to the 10th of
November [1988]. As of the 10th of November, we had our defense,
which was a defense which would have been a winning defense: We
are not guilty of anything, the charges were fraudulent, this
should never have been brought in the first place. On the 10th
and 11th of November, just 10 days before trial, the judge, at
the government's behest, suppressed all of our defense, and
refused to allow us to bring any of our prepared defense into the
trial. So we went actually into a trial hacking our way as we
could, without being allowed to present a defense. The key part
of this was, of course, the Soviet adversarial situation.
When the Soviet government demanded of the U.S.
government--through its press, as well as through other
channels--demanded repeatedly that the U.S. government show a
commitment to imprisoning me as a price of superpower
negotiation, obviously that had something to do with reasons why
these clowns were allowed to get by with these fraudulent charges
against me. And the judge went along with it.
Q: You started to indicate that we are basically in a
strategic countdown toward global conflict/possible war. The
economic policies that you indicated, with your Strategic Defense
Initiative, plays upon a science-driver policy as the means for
economic development. How does that compare with the economic
policy which is currently being followed in the former Soviet
Union and creating this political conflict?
MR. LAROUCHE: Currently, in eastern Europe and the former
Soviet Union, I sometimes am stunned, although not really
surprised, by the folly which prevails in leading circles in
eastern European countries such as Poland, for example, or in the
former Soviet Union.
What has happened, because of because of the failures of
Gorbachov, they have turned around and said, well, we are going
to take the American system. In Poland, the Polish leadership,
despite the fact that what the United States has demanded of them
has wrecked the Polish economy (the Poles today are under far
worse economic conditions than they ever suffered under
communism), the Poles are clinging to the idea that the United
States is their friend against the big Russian monster, and
therefore, they must follow faithfully and with full belief
whatever the Americans suggest to them on economic policy. That
is causing a lot of Poles to starve.
In Russia, there is a different attitude. Only a few people,
most of whom are making money on swindles involving the U.S.,
Britain, and so forth, actually believe any of the hogwash which
is coming by way of people like Jeffrey Sachs or the
International Monetary Fund [IMF] or Washington. But the Russians
believe, that in order to maintain a political-strategic balance,
they must at least appear to accept the so-called free trade,
deregulation reforms which Washington and London demand.
The Russians actually do not believe in these reforms. They
think the Polish model is lunatic. They think it is insane. But
they do not want to have a confrontation with the United States
at this point, at least some of them. That is what Yeltsin
represents.
At the same time, other forces and most of the forces inside
the Russian government--not just the military--are saying
Yeltsin, if you continue this policy, you have got to go. Because
we have reached the point--speaking of Russia--that Russia will
begin to disintegrate unless we dump these policies which your
American friends have induced you to accept. That is the breaking
point.
So instead of going into the post-Wall Europe and saying,
let's go ahead with a science-driver/infrastructure development
program, which would have opened the whole area up to a peaceful
cooperation with the West for decades or longer to come, what we
did was to go in with a short-term program, which was very
destructive, and turned what had become a nation willing to
cooperate with us--i.e., the former Soviet Union--into what is
now becoming a bitter adversary again. It is one of the greatest
follies in human history, this particular nonsense which was put
into effect under the influence of the leadership of Bush and
Thatcher.
Q: Is the real agenda of the Jeffrey Sachs program, the
Gaidar program in the former Soviet Union, the basic
deindustrialization of the former Soviet Union, much like the
Morgenthau Plan after World War II [which was designed to
de-industrialize Germany after World War II]?
MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. But there are two aspects to it
Remember, there are two aspects to it. Remember, the Morgenthau
Plan has been brought home. We are pretty much deindustrialized.
The U.S. industrial economy is wrecked. We are an importing
nation, we are becoming a Third World nation. All industries are
being shipped out of the United States into places like Asia,
China, Southeast Asia--countries where cheap labor and unskilled
labor exist.
We are becoming a has-been nation, because of these
policies.
To understand how Jeffrey Sachs behaves, or people like him,
you have to understand two things. You have to understand, the
principles of, say, geometry as an analogy. In geometry, you have
a system of theorems which are based on consistency with an
underlying set of axiomatic assumptions. And you have different
geometries, which have different theorems, which are totally
inconsistent with the theorems of any other geometry, because the
axioms are different.
What Jeffrey Sachs is, is {axiomatically incompetent.}
Whatever he proposes, because of the very nature of his belief,
the axioms on which his mind functions, would produce this result
whether he had malice intended or not. That is what he is doing;
but I think he is doing it more out of stupidity because of his
axiomatic beliefs than he is out of any other reason.
But that is a general problem in and around Washington
today: that the generation of people under 45 who are coming into
leading positions in corporate life and in government and in
universities, are people who I have watched, from the time they
were virtually in diapers in the 1960s or 1970s, and saw their
beliefs then as a disaster, but these people with these idiotic,
disastrous beliefs have now by one reason or another, come into
dominant positions in universities, in certain aspects of
government, even in NASA, and in corporate life. And we have a
disaster.
I think that, while it is a disaster and there is malice by
people like Colby, and the Webster Doctrine has made it clear,
there is malice toward the former nations of the Soviet Empire;
it is not just malice, it is the fact that some people
unfortunately sincerely believe that nonsense they are peddling.
- Russian Thinking About the Current Geopolitical Conflict -
Q: You are listening to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s
Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If people want to write in
questions to Mr. LaRouche, they can reach us at ``{EIR} Talks
With Lyndon LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C.,
20041-0390.
Mr. LaRouche, some of the scholars and economists in the
former Soviet Union are talking about several different theories.
You have those who support [former Prime Minister Yegor] Gaidar
and the free market economic deregulation policy. You have others
who are looking toward the China model.
What is the China model, and will it work for the former
Soviet Union? Will it work for China?
MR. LAROUCHE: No.
First of all, let me say that the people who support Gaidar,
are very, very few in the Moscow government today, or anywhere in
Russia. They hate him. The only thing that keeps Gaidar or his
philosophy in place, is the fact that that is part of the
bargaining arrangement of Moscow with the Anglo-Americans. That
is the combination. It is not what any of them really believe.
Nor do any of them believe in the China model. That is not
what they believe. There may be a few of them around who believe
that. But that is not what they believe.
What they believe is, they have to get back to some system
of protectionism--which is not the China model--to rebuild the
industries of Russia under protectionism and that state credit
has to be directed. In other words, they are thinking more along
the lines of President [Charles] de Gaulle's dirigist model for
France, or at least in that direction, than they are in the
direction of Gaidar or China.
In the case of China, what you have emerging is a kind of
Eurasian geopolitics among Russians.
The Russians are very concerned to try to keep China in
their corner strategically. They would also like to get Central
Europe in their corner strategically. So they are thinking in
terms of a conflict--a geopolitical conflict almost--between
Eurasian forces of Europe and Asia against the Atlantic forces,
whom they see as the adversary. That is the way the strategic
conflict is shaping up.
You will hear much talk about the China model, you will hear
talk about Gaidar. This is mostly press hype and what is
understood by this press hype by most people, is directly
contrary to all reality.
- How Organized Crime Was Created in America -
Q: Earlier on, we discussed the Anti-Defamation League and
we discussed its involvement with the Pike statue and
Freemasonry. Your associates have come out with a book on {The
Ugly Face of the ADL,} which goes through the ADL's involvement
with organized crime.
Can you go through that a bit, can you elucidate on what is
the ADL's involvement with organized crime?
MR. LAROUCHE: Organized crime is an interesting phenomenon.
Organized crime was created by the Establishment. There was no
organized crime in the ordinary sense until the end of World War
I and the introduction of the Volstead Act [Prohibition of the
sale and consumption of alcohol]. That happened at the same time,
very significantly, that a Rockefeller friend, Mackenzie King,
had played a key part in ending alcoholic prohibition in wartime
Canada.
The Rockefellers, who controlled the top of the Baptist
Church at that time, and also controlled pretty much the Women's
Christian Temperance Union, the WCTU, which was the organizing
force for the Volstead Act, had a fellow called Abe Schoenfeld.
He was an investigator. Abe Schoenfeld investigated Jewish
organized crime. That is, the organized crime then headed up by
people like Arnold Rothstein. This was mostly the kind of thing
that is attributed to people like the Lubavitchers today, who run
rackets. There were also labor rackets and street crime and
ghetto crime, like the Bugsy [Siegel]-Meyer [Lansky] gang. They
were nothing but assassins. They were killers, the core of what
later became known as Murder, Inc., was nothing but Meyer Lansky
and Bugsy Siegel, who took over organized crime of course when
Arnold Rothstein was killed.
But organized crime was created top-down because the
Rockefellers and others, people like Vincent Astor, who was a
friend of Arnold Rothstein, people in Britain like Churchill, who
was in charge of the alcoholic beverage business at that time,
cut a deal, in which they decided that Jewish organized crime, or
Jewish crime, typified by Arnold Rothstein and the people who had
been investigated by Abe Schoenfeld, ran the best organized
criminal society available. So organized crime, that is, Jewish
organized crime, under Arnold Rothstein's leadership, received
the contracts from the British government, i.e., from Winston
Churchill's department, to bring the British hooch to U.S. shores
and to the Canadian border. This included some of that poisonous
stuff produced by the Bronfman brothers. Then Arnold Rothstein
would hire various kinds of people who were involved in labor
rackets and other kinds of things of all ethnic distinctions to
go up there as muscle to grab the hooch at the border, haul it
and distribute it, collect the money, and then Jewish organized
crime would launder the money to pay off the British.
So the ADL became an integral part of that operation through
personalities. For example, through Hollywood.
Hollywood itself was, as is well known, of people like Louis
B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn, who were part of the recruiting drive
for the Ku Klux Klan in 1915. So the ADL's connection to
organized crime, to the Ku Klux Klan, and to certain parts of the
Establishment that were running this stuff, was pretty much
congealed over the process from the period of about 1915 through
the 1930s.
[commercial break]
Q: Mr. LaRouche, the ADL presents itself as some kind of
civil rights organization, protecting civil rights. Yet the
Anti-Defamation League was involved in a major attack against
you. Why were they involved in an attack against you?
MR. LAROUCHE: There were two reasons. This went through two
general phases. First of all, the ADL launched itself against me
in 1978, and did so because I sponsored a book called {Dope.,
Inc.,} which exposed the methods of drug-money laundering.
It happens that the ADL leadership was heavily involved with
the importation of cocaine and of drug-money laundering in the
United States. Therefore, they were simply defending their
interest in the drug traffic, at the time they launched this
attack in May of 1978.
Q: Could you be more specific on that?
MR. LAROUCHE: I could, but I don't want to lose my thread on
this question.
The head of the ADL was a partner with Robert Vesco. They
were involved with drug trafficking. They were involved with the
Medellin [Colombia] cartel deeply, and with Hapaolim Bank in
Florida was a major conduit for the pivoting of money involved in
drug trafficking from this kind of stuff.
But they continued this attack. They were involved with Roy
Cohn, naturally, and a person now known as Gay Edgar Hoover since
the Anthony Summers book has hit the streets, who was a lover and
intimate of Roy Cohn--which I knew of my own knowledge
independently of any recent book.
But then, in 1986, when the Soviets demanded that the U.S.
government commit itself to imprisoning me, one of the major
assets used by the Soviet KGB was the ADL and associated
networks. This is direct; the ADL has had a longstanding
connection with former East German intelligence, the Stasi, and
to the Soviet KGB and the Soviet KGB has a standing connection to
the ADL. An example, of course, is the case of the [Jonathan Jay]
Pollard conviction, that Pollard was running information, in
conjunction with ADL figures, was spying against the United
States and providing sensitive information to the Soviet
government's military intelligence, via Israel, via Shamir at
that time.
So the Soviet government {used} the ADL, as did others on
this side; picked it up and used it when the United States
government was pushing to accept the Soviet demand that I be
imprisoned because of the SDI which of course was later than the
1978 issues.
MEL KLENETSKY: This has been ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon
LaRouche. Thank you.
