Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 02/01/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 7 Feb 93 1:4:48 GMT

- ``EIR TALKS WITH LAROUCHE'' -

   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with Lyndon LaRouche. Want stations in your area
to air a weekly briefing from LaRouche? Call them. The EIR
Press Staff will provide them with a weekly tape for
broadcast. Or they can pull it down from satellite using the
coordinates below. Including breaks for ads and news, each
broadcast is one hour long. 
   The following interview will be broadcast on satellite
from 7:00 to 8:00 Eastern this coming Saturday night. 

Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W      |     Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC  or     Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
3:1 Companding, Flat        |     Wide Band Video Subcarrier    

                 EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LAROUCHE

   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
   February 1, 1993 

   Note: { indicates begin-emphasis and } indicates
end-emphasis. 

   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``Executive Intelligence
Review's Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're
on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. 
   Mr. LaRouche, the biggest problem facing the Clinton
administration of course is the U.S. economy, and despite the
fact that some people are saying that there was a little bit of a
recovery, we are looking at Sears laying off 50,000 people, the
aerospace sector laying off 31,000 workers, and Westinghouse and
other major coprorations dumping their top executives. 
   What can Mr. Clinton do, what does Mr. Clinton have to do,
to get on top of this situation?                         
   LAROUCHE: It's getting worse and worse by the week, by the
day. Clinton plunged into this social agenda, so called, that is,
the issues of abortion and homosexuals in the military, and
related things, realy by default, because he had nothing on the
economy. The health care issue in the advertised form is not
going to fly. It will end up in a crisis. 
   Essentially, two things have to be considered. First of all,
there never was a recovery. There hasn't been a recovery really
since the Volcker recession of 1982. There have been expansions
in certain sections of the economy, while the rest goes down. 
   For example. Let's take unemployment. {Actual unemployment
in the United States, by the standards we used to measure
unemployment in the 1930s, is today about 17 percent.} That is,
using U.S. government official figures, from which they derive
the reported official rate of unemployment. If we were to take
the same figures as those used back in the 1930s, we would come
up with 17 percent. 
   The United States {has been and is in a continuing
depression.} There is a collapse of employment, there is a
collapse o findustry, there is a collapse of agriculture. We are
really a net agricultural importing nation if you take the whole
spectrum of agricultural consumption. Our industry is collapsing,
our infrastructure is collapsing. We are in a depression which is
actually {worse} than that of the 1930s. The illusion in this
matter, is fostered by focusing upon Wall Street. People are
waiting for the great financial crash, something worse than
October 1987, and until they see that, many people will continue
to harbor the delusion that there is not a depression ongoing.
Once that crash hits, of course, then all bets are off, and they
will recognize the depression. 
   President Clinton's only chance to get this economy and his
administration under control was, from the outset, to
admit that there is a general economic crisis, globally as well
as nationally, and to announce a series of measures which would
include, of course, taking on the Fed[eral Reserve system]. Until
that is done, until that reality is faced, this administration
will not ``muddle through,'' but muddle downward, in a downward
spiral. There is no hope for it, until that reality of the
economy is faced. 

            - How to Rebuild the Nation as a Whole -

   Q: You have indicated some of the measures that are necesary
should you be in some kind of position to aid Mr. Clinton. You
have also indicated that the only way that Mr. Clinton would be
able to deal with this recovery, would be to apply your program
and to give you your political freedom. What are some of the
measures that you would implement, were you to go at it? 
   LAROUCHE: Very simply, what I have said repeatedly. We have
to have an industrial recovery, which means credit expansion, not
by the present Federal Reserve central banking measures. 
   We {cannot} have a recovery if getting the monetary
aggregates expanded, means New York bankers and others, borrowing
from the Fed at 3 percent or at about that rate, using fiat money
created by the Fed, and turning around and loaning that money at
between four and a half and 8 percent to the Federal government
for Federal paper. 
   So we cannot have the Federal government going into debt to
the commercial banking system, i.e., the Fed, as a way of
expanding. If you try to do that in that way, since the New York
and related financial markets will skim off most of what you
generate, you will generate a very dangerous inflation. The only
way to expand--and we must expand by approximately a trillion
dollars minimum in our throughput--we must expand in the
industry/agriculture/infrastructure sector, not the financial
sector. And in order to get that in there at low interests rates,
we have to bypass the Fed mechanism, we have to go back to the
Constitution and issue the money directly, place it with the
banking system only as a depository instrument, and loan this at,
say, 2 percent per annum for loans which have a maturity, say, of
10 to 20 years. And restrict it, of course, to infrastructure,
agriculture, and key industries for this kind of lending. That
will get us out of the troubles. Without that, the United States
has no domestic policy worth mentioning, and without a decent
domestic policy, we really don't have a foreign policy. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you mentioned $1 trillion in investment.
Recently a U.S. Conference of Mayors talked about 7,000 public
works projects that needed to be done worth about $28 billion
and 400,000 jobs. Is this the kind of direction that you're
talking about? 
   LAROUCHE: No, it is not. Some of that would be subsumed, of
course. The mayors are just putting things together without
thinking about {how} this problem is to be addressed, and they
come up with numbers based on programs and needs they have. But
they don't see the larger picture. 
   You have to remember that the entire political process of
which these mayors are a part, that is, the national political
parties, really are no longer an efficient mechanism for leading
this nation. They have decayed. The merger of the two parties at
the top into the Project Democracy apparatus, which was done
about 1982 was the death knell of the political parties as
they used to exist in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and so forth; they
are gone. 
   And the mayors are like a leaderless group which comes
together, each putting on the table, like the famous case of the
blind men discussing the elephant: each putting their own part of
the elephant, the leg in New York, or the tail in San Francisco
or whatever, putting these things on the table, each from their
own point of view, and saying, this is what the nation needs.
This is what they see would make them comfortable, make their
people comfortable, or relieve the pain in their local area.
They are not looking at the thing from a national standpoint,
except to realize that Washington is not doing anything. 
   They are not addressing one question: What would Clinton
have to do, with the support of the Congress, to deliver a result
which would give any of the kinds of relief around the nation as
a whole which the mayors are collectively suggesting? And that
is what they refuse to look at, in general. If we do not
recognize that we're in a depression, the reason we are in a
depression is because we have had the wrong policy drift for 30
years, that is, the post-Kennedy policy drift, and if we do not
reverse the causes of the depression, the depression is not going
to go away. 
   The cause of the depression is the {policy drift} of the
past 30 years. And you have to reverse that policy drift,
otherwise, you don't remove the causes of the depression; if you
don't remove the causes, you continue to have the depression. It
is like an alcoholic saying he is going to become sober tomorrow.
Yes, sobriety would be a beautiful state, but you have to think
about how to realize it, and you have to get off this hooch of
policy drift. Particularly, you have to get away from the idea of
the ``Now generation'' thinking. You have to think about
long-term investment. You have to think about investment in
production, not simply consumerism. And that sort of thing. And
until they are willing to address that, what they have to say may
be useful as input to a policy shaper, but what they are saying
does not represent in any sense a policy that the administration
can run with. 
   The administration needs to take on this Fed question. And
if they don't take on the Fed question, you can forget all these
mayors' programs--they are just not going to fly. 

      - The Incompetence of Short-Term Economic Planning -

   Q: Can you be more specific in terms of what that policy
drift is, what causes it, and why our country has gone in that
direction? 
   LAROUCHE: Part of the problem is this. 
   We have people who are underprivileged, that is, they are
forced to go to college, and when they go to a college today like
Stanford, which used to be a respectable university but which
has now gone the other way, they study things like macroeconomics
and microeconomics and what-not, and if they pass all those
courses, they become totally incompetent, fanatically
incompetent, in economics. 
   You have to recognize, as Hamilton and others did, the
founders of this nation, that what we call profit--that is, not
profit from swindling or profit from horse trading--but profit
from national production comes from increasing the productive
powers of labor through scientific and technological progress,
and through investment in a capital-intensive and
energy-intensive mode. 
   There is no other way in the archaeological as well as
recorded history of mankind, that any civilization has ever
developed a profit as a growth factor, as a factor of improvement
in conditions of life and stability, except by those means. 
   What happened is, in 1964 approximately, right after the
assassination of President Kennedy, there was a rash of proposals
for several things which destroyed the assumptions of policy upon
which this nation had built itself up to that point. One, they
went to a post-industtrial society. You had the Fund for the
Republic out there in Santa Barbara, California, which produced
the so-called Triple Revolution report. They were all over the
place. 
   The ``New Left'' of that period was anti-production, that
sort of thing. Then you had the counterculture in general.
We had the rise of the post-industrial ideology. Zbigniew
Brzezinski, for example, was an exponent of that in 1967. We had
the population policy introduced in the State Department in 1966.
So then we had the wild environmentalism and most of this stuff
that is called ecologism today, is pure ideological quackery
which, although most people don't know it, originated with the
Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s. 
   And these things have destroyed the very foundation, the
very set of assumptions, upon which society can generate a
profit. So what we have been doing is to live off our past,
long-term investments in the form of improvements in land for
agricluture, infrastructure, cities and so forth--we have been
burning them up. And we have been refusing to account for these
things we have been using up as part of the costs of production.
So we draw up a balance sheet and we say, well, ``Let's consider
only the very short-term paid-out costs and paid-in income.'' And
they come up with a calculation: ``oh, we're doing all right.''
Then the bridge falls. ``Oh, we didn't set money aside for the
bridge. We can't afford to build a new bridge. That bridge has
to go.'' The water system collapses. ``Oh, we don't have money
for a new water system.'' They write that off. 
   So the society collapses into a physical depression, because
of the way these people think. And this is generally accepted
thinking. When you hear these talk-show discussions on radio or
television or read the newspapers, this kind of nonsense, which
was introduced as a kind of mass brainwashing, beginning about
1964; this has taken over and is becoming the prevailing way of
thinking about policy. And that is the thing that has allowed us
to drift deeper and deeper into this muck of
depression--confusion, fear, anxiety, and so forth. 
   We are now talking about killing off our old people through
``health-care efficiency,'' that is, cut off the heavy extra
costs that old people sometimes require if you're going to keep
them alive, in order to save the money for band-aids to be
distributed to the survivors. Unless you change this kind of
thinking, there is no hope for this nation. 

        - The Origins of the Environmentalist Movement -

   Q: Many people believe that there is a moderate population
policy and a moderate environmental policy that can be followed.
Is there, and how did these policies originate with the Nazis, as
you just mentioned? 
   LAROUCHE: There is no such thing as ``moderate'' ecologism,
there is no such thing as a ``moderate'' population policy. It is
all nonsense. You can't have it. 
   I think Walter Reuther once talked about, there is no such
thing as ``a little pregnancy''--either you are pregnant, or you
are not. 
   This is an ideology which--well, that's a long story, Mel,
as you know. There have been movements throughout history which
are against what the United States represented, movements such as
the 1815-1816 conferences at Vienna and Paris which established
the Holy Alliance. The policy of Castlereagh was part of that in
England, and the continuation of that by people like Palmerston.
You had the attempt to drive the United States, under British
direction, from the kind of republic that Alexander Hamilton and
George Washington and so forth conceived, into a
Confederate-style slave society, in which the poor whites and
even the planters were culturally little more elevated in their
cultural conditions of life than the chattel slaves. We overcame
that and saved the nation; but those tendencies, this kind of
feudalist mentality, as it sometimes might be called, of going
back to nature, the ideas of that idiot Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
and so forth; going back to the ``simple life,'' that technology
is bad for you--all these kinds of things. 
   As long as a population believes that, that population
represents a nation which is not going to long survive. And that
is where we are now. We cannot compromise on this issue, we have
to face the truth. There is a difference between truth and
falsehood. If we do not face the truth, that the human species
has risen above the level of the baboon only by means of what we
call cultural progress associated with, inclusively, scientific
and technological progress, and if we do not recognize that if
we drop that policy of progress, we go back to the level of the
baboon or worse, then there is no way of shaping a policy. 

    - ``I represent Alexander Hamilton's Way of Thinking'' -

   Q: Your associates have said that you have to have your
political freedom and be part of implementing your economic
policy. Why do you have to be part of that economic policy, why
can it not be implemented today by President Clinton? 
   LAROUCHE: Because he has no idea of what to do. 
   You cannot walk in with a blueprint to a man who has no
training in construction and say, ``Build this.'' 
   The problem is even worse. Only someone of about my age or
slightly older would be capable of understanding what needs to
be done--in principle that is. Because what I represent, from the
standpoint of these new young radicals, these Yuppies--I am a
dinosaur. I represent the kind of thinking which was the ruling
and commonplace way of thinking in our nation, back to Alexander
Hamilton and back up through the Kennedy years. 
   I am the kind of guy who cheered for space exploration from
a pro-scientific standpoint and understood something about what
the meant for us here on Earth and here in this nation. 
   Only people who {think that way} are capable of responding
moment to moment with the policy responses to breaking
developments which are needed to get a policy through. You cannot
ship a blueprint into the White House and think that that policy
is going to work as some kind of a master plan. Brookings
Institute and others hold these conferences where they come up
with these master plans, policy structures--well they don't
work. You can have the right policy and you can have the wrong
policy, but it does not work simply because you have the right
general or wrong general policy. It works because you have people
on the scene who are sufficiently philosophically and otherwise
trained to respond to unexpected breaking developments in the
appropriate way, to make the policy work. And to make that
response, you have to be steeped in, shall we say, the axioms and
postulates of the kind of thinking which underlines the oplicy. 
   Clinton and company could recognize the validity of my
policy, particularly as they recognize the {invalidity} of the
policy they are following, and which they have inherited. But
they {do not know what to do.} And you have to have someone on
the scene who is engaged in the matter, who is engaged in the
discussions, who is giving them constantly inputs of how to
respond appropriately to unexpected breaking developments. And
most of history consists of unexpected breaking developments. And
if you don't deal with unexpected breaking developments in the
appropriate way, no matter how fine your policy seems in general
terms, it is not going to fly. 

      - Super 301: ``Bashing Our Competitors Is Lunacy'' -

   Q: You have called for a policy which protects native
industries; what is the difference between that policy and the
kind of policy that, say, Congressman Richard Gephardt is talking
about, Super 301, which involves bashing our trading partners? I
want to come back to that question in just a moment when we
return. 
   [commercial break] 
   Q: Mr. LaRouche, Gephardt has proposed Super 301, which is
designed to slap the wrist of our trading partners. Is this the
kind of protectionism that you have been calling for to protect
our native industries? 
   LAROUCHE: No. First of all, Gephardt understands {nothing}
about economics, really. We have had it out with him again and
again, and we just cannot seem to get it through his head, as to
what economics is all about. Maybe he has talents in some other
directions, and should switch his efforts to those places where
he has better qualifications. 
   Let's take an example. We had a report out of the energy
committee by Bennett Johnson and Kruger, which caused a little
flip in the international petroleum market the day after it was
announced. The committee has recommended a piece of legislation
which I designed back in 1988, as you may recall, when I proposed
that we set a trigger-price tariff on importated petroleum, based
on calculating a domestic price which covered not only the direct
short-term cost of producing petroleum from existing wells, but
which took into account, like a parity price, the averate cost of
continuing to develop and maintain petroleum resources in the
United States. 
   We were talking then, in 1987-1988, about between $22
and $25 a barrel. So what the committee has come up with, is
proposing that $25 a barrel be a trigger price, and that
petroleum approaching our shores which is priced at less than
$25 have a tariff put on it, which is equal to the difference
between that import price and $25, thus to promote the domestic
petroleum industry and prevent us from losing a whole industry,
essentially. 
   Now that is protectionism. That does not hurt anybody. That
simply protects us, and forces us to keep an industry which is
vital to us, which we need. 
   In the case of Japan or Europe: We do not have any more
entire categories of essential parts of a modern industrial
society. Japan and Western Europe still do have many of these
elements which we lack. The reason we do not have them, has
nothing to do with anything done by Japan or West Germany, for
example. We do not have these companies, because of our
environmentalist, our free trade, our Volcker policies of 1979
through 1982 and on--those domestic policies. We have been
idiots. We have shut down our industries; then we import from
another country that which we no longer produce ourselves; then
we blame the foreign country for being unfair for not being as
stupid as we are. 
   That is the import of Super 301. We do not want that kind of
thinking any more. It is destructive. 
   What we wish to do, is to have arrangements, under which we
have, shall we say, mutual protection among partner-nations,
whereby we set fair prices and we base a tariff system on fair
prices, which allows each nation to do what it should do to
protect its own native industries, particularly those industries
which are vital to us. 
   For example, if Japan develops certain industries, those
industries are vital to us. That is the only place from which we
are going to get capital goods to revive our economy. If we want
to shut down the only foreign supplier who can supply us a good,
like a piece of capital equipment, which is indispensable to our
national interest, and which we cannot produce or obtain from any
place else but that nation--if we go over and bomb that plant out
of existence by military or economic means, we are lunatic. And
unfortunately, what Carla Hills and company were doing, in line
with the Gephardt policy under the now-gone Bush administration,
was {absolute lunacy!} And these kinds of policies of bashing our
competitors, is lunacy. It reflects again the kind of thinking of
people who do not understand the ABCs of economics, or people who
unfortunately, may have studied economics all too recently at
Harvard or Yale or MIT, or Stanford, or someplace else, who
believe in this stuff. They believe in this cult idiocy called
free market theories. 

      - ``A Superpower Conflict Is Rapidly Shaping Up'' -

   Q: What has been the result of the free market policy as it
is applied to Eastern Europe, for example, the Jeffrey Sachs and
Gaidar plans in the Soviet Union? 
   LAROUCHE: If we get into World War III, which is something
that I think that even the NATO leadership and some people around
Clinton are trying to avoid-- 
   We got into this danger of World War III for many reasons,
but the reason we were pushed into it, in that direction, instead
of toward peaceful development, was that in 1989-1990, when the
Iron Curtain collapsed, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, instead
of using the admittedly somewhat obsolete industrial productive
capacity in the former Soviet empire to continue to produce goods
for modernization of the entire region and also for Third World
development, we said shut it down, because it is not competitive;
and we looted it. 
   The result was, that we collapsed these economies in eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union to a lower level by far than
they had ever been under communism. And we convinced a lot of
people in eastern Europe, that the Anglo-American plan of
capitalism was a bigger failure than communism from their own
experience. So what happened is, that there is a tendency to
regress, not toward communism, but toward leadership of these
countries, by a combination which is the same group which was
the controlling interest in chief under communist dictatorship. 
   In this connection, we are developing an adversarial
conflict between Russia, which really is still a superpower,
apart from all the troubles it is having, and the Anglo-American
powers. This entails a lot of other things around the planet
which are blowing up; it also entails the fact, as we hear from
England, that they don't have military capability any more of
any significance, and the United Sttates neither. So we are
collapsing economically and militarily; the Russians have
collapsed, but they haven't collapsed as far as we seem to be
about to do; and therefore, on a lower level globally, a lower
level of technology capability, we are back in a superpower
conlict shaping up rapidly for the next couple of years
ahead--unless we reverse this idiocy. 

              - The LaRouche Productive Triangle -

   Q: The Ukrainian Parliament recently denounced the economic
reforms and after one year in Russia, we are seeing that the
economic policy has resulted in 1300 percent inflation, and 18
percent collapse in production. Is there any direction, in terms
of the East bloc, which would go toward the kind of policy
approach that you have? 
   LAROUCHE: Well, not necessarily. 
   You cannot talk in those terms, because they are in pretty
bad shape now. 
   When the Berlin Wall was coming down, I summarized what
needed to be done in line with the policy outlines I had given
in the 1985-1988 period, in connection with my campaign for the
presidential nomination then. It was called the Productive
Triangle policy. 
   What I did, was to focus upon the center of the world which
had the highest per capita and per square kilometer productivity
of any part of this planet, which is a roughly spherical
triangular region from about Paris, moving a little bit also to
the West of there, down to Vienna, up across Bohemia into Berlin
and back to Paris. This region, which has an area about the size
of Japan's total area, which has a population of about 110
million people, is the concentration of the greatest productive
power on this planet. And if you wish to get technology moving,
you have to go into the tool and related sectors of this part of
the planet, this productive triangle; and by building up
transportation and related networks, to connect the spinning off
of this economic technology driver in this area, to spin it off
to every part of the world. That would mean doing that in part
with the southeastern and eastern Europe and the former Soviet
union. 
   That was my proposal. That would work. {That is still
possible.} But nothing else will work. There has to be a global
policy, it cannot be simply a regional tactic. 
   
         - ``You Cannot Bring the Dead Back to Life'' -

   Q: Will that policy affect the regions that we are seeing at
this point that are exploding, such as the Balkans, such as
Tajikistan, where it is reported that more than 500,000 people
have been killed and of course the Balkans situation, where we
have the reports on rape camps and other types of atrocities;
does your economic policy reach into these areas? 
   LAROUCHE: It does and it doesn't. 
   Without my kind of policy, there is no solution for these
crises; but my kind of economic policy, does not automatically
assure a solution for the crises. The crises have happened; the
crises happened because warnings which I gave were not heeded in
time; and once people are dead, you cannot bring them back to
life by applying the policies which would have prevented them
from dying. And in part, many of the options which existed in
this part of the world, {are dead--murdered}--by people who were
too foolish to heed the warnings which I and others gave earlier.
And you are not going to bring them back to life. {You cannot
bring the dead back to life.} Once you kill somebody, don't say,
``now I am willing to do the right thing and bring them back to
life.'' You have killed them. And this planet will pay, for a
very long time to come, the penalty for the crimes we have
committed, the crimes of ignorance as well as others, in
following the bad policy and not listening to people such as me,
who warned them, accurately, of exactly what would happen, if
they continued the kind of policy which they did continue. 
   If we go on the right policy, we build a fulcrum of
development which gives options for dealing with these areas
which we otherwise do not have. But I am not suggesting, and I
would warn anybody against suggesting, that you could bring the
dead back to life. It is too late. You should have thought of
that before you killed the guy. 

     - The Castlereagh/Palmerston Network in the Balkans -

   Q: In 1988, you predicted that there would be a Balkan
crisis. You indicated that there are certain geopolitical
thinkers and strategic thinkers in Moscow who wanted to createa
Greater Seriba; what is the thinking behind these people and are
these people behind the conflict at this point? 
   LAROUCHE: This is something which has been around for a long
time. In the 19th century, the British, fearing that France and
Germany would enter into cooperation with Russia for economic
development, deployed, through largely Freemasonic channels,
operations--Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell (Bertrand Russell's
grandfather and Palmerston's buddy) were among those who were key
in this. 
   The ``Young Europe'' and the ``Young America'' operations of
Palmerston's stooge, Giuseppe Mazzini, in Italy, were part of
this. Karl Marx was a product of Palmerston, although Marx
never wanted to admit it, of course. But Marx was actually dupe
of Lord Palmerston. As a matter of fact, while Marx was living in
England, he was run by a fellow called Urquhart, who was based at
the British Library, sometimes called the British Museum, who was
Marx's controller. And Urquhart was an agent of Lord Palmertson. 
   So, while Marx was writing bad things about Palmerston bcak
in the 1850s or something, he was actually working for Palmerston
but didn't know it. 
   But these kinds of things started then. 
   Now, a competitor of Marx, by the name of Bakunin, who was
also a buddy of that Nazi, the composer Richard Wagner, and also
in a sense a buddy of that other Nazi Friedrich Nietzsche, the
deconstructionist; these people were simply assets of
Palmerston's Mazzini operation, the Young Europe operation, the
radicals. And they spread this Pan-Slavic garbage into Russia and
into southeastern Europe through these Freemasonic lodges which
were the Mazzini-type lodges run by the British. We had this
Serbian Black Hand society, all these kinds of things that
started the Balkan Wars ultimately of the late 19th century and
the early 20th century. The same people are up to the same thing
all over agian. This is not something that was cooked up
yesterday in somebody's kitchen or somebody's spook think-tank;
these are movements and tendencies and operations and
brainwashings, which have been kicking around for hundreds of
years. 

- The Only Solution for the Middle East Is Global Development -

   Q: The Middle East at this point, the Palestinian crisis,
is affected by the same situation, and yet, we are looking at a
powderkeg that seems to continue to grow, continue to develop,
and we never seem to have an end in that particular area. Is
there anything that Mr. Clinton can do at this point, or that
Warren Christopher can do, in terms of this crisis? 
   LAROUCHE: Warren Christopher is an old hand. He is an old
bureaucrat. He is an old Establishment fixer. And he has certain
capabilities, which will be perhaps, in the present state, rather
important, to have somebody in there who knows how to do his job.
I am not necessarily endorsing any of Mr. Christopher's policies,
but I do indicate that he does have certain competencies which
were lacking under, shall we say, Baker. 
   The Middle East is a mess because we want to have it a mess.
The Middle East is, to this day, despite the U.S. bungling and
interventions in the area, still run by the old British
intleligence crowd. And they wish to have it a mess. Israel is to
a large degree {controlled} by this crowd. The Israelis would not
want to admit it; but if you know how things work, you understand
how it is controlled. And they are making it a mess. 
   I do not think that anyone could come up with a Middle East
policy which is going to work by itself. 
   For example, I have worked on policies for years, and worked
with Israelis and Arabs and others to try to get these into
motion, which are economic development policies of mutual benefit
to all in that region, and therefore, by having a common
intererst in something of mutual benefit to all, particularly in
economics, one can hope that you can build confidence and build
peace. 
   Unfortunately, this has not worked so far because of this
kind of British control I talked about. Until that is faced, we
are not likely to have it. And you are not going to build ecnomic
development in the Middle East, while you are tearing down the
economy of the world, as we are still doing. So again, I think
the Middle East is like the dead man. We murdered him, and no one
is going to come up with an easy solution for bringing him back
to life. However, if we have the right overall economic policy,
and apply that policy to the Middle East, we have options for
doing useful things. But anyone who is going to try to guarantee
a solution in the Middle East per se, shows their utter ignorance
of history in general as well as recent history. 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you and your associates have indicated that
one of the major political enemies of yours is the
Anti-Defamation  League. I would like for us to touch upon a
particular scandal which is brewing at this point in San
Franciscos, where the Anti-Defamation League is accused of being
involved with a certain police intelligence spying that took
place, on the police intelligence files, and wound up in the ADL
offices and were passed on to the South African and Israeli
governments. 
   What are we dealing with, with the ADL? I don't think that
you are going to be able to touch on it in the next few second,
but perhaps when we get back, what are we dealing with, with the
ADL, and why do they consider you to be the biggest enemy in the
world, and why have they been involved in a political targetting
operation? 
   We will return with that question, to ``Executive
Intelligence Review's Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' 
   [commercial break] 

  - The ADL Is Deployed By A Faction of British Intelligence -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, earlier on, you mentioned that you were
involved in trying to get an economic devleopment program with
Israel. The Anti-Defamation League is supposedly a great firend
of Israel; why do they consider you their mortal enemy? 
   LAROUCHE: Well, for only one reason. 
   First of all, the ADL is not an independent organization
which makes its own policy. The ADL is an offshoot of a
Confederate organization, the B'nai B'rith, which was founded in
1842-1843 in Charleston, South Carolina, as a subsidiary of
Palmerston's organization, and actually that branch of the
Southern Freemasonry was working with Lord Palmerston, was under
his direction, and called itself, as the case of Albert Pike
exemplifies in this, ``Young America,'' which was the offshoot of
Mazzini's ``Young Europe.'' 
   This organization has always worked for a faction of British
intelligence. As a shorthand, call it the Castlereagh-Palmerston
faction. It has never served an independent Jewish interest,
contrary to its own publicity. It has not. 
   For example, the deployment against us, against me in
particular, {was ordered} from New York City by British
intelligence through a British intelligence agent, Canon Edward
West of the New York Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Canon West
was also a coordinator for British intelligence's Hospitaller of
St. John organization, the Knights of Jerusalem. And that is the
way it has been run. 
   We were exposing drug running. We were exposing the role of
banks in drug-money laundering, the kind of thing that was done
by Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky, for example, back in 1977-1978
period. And that is when the ADL was put on our case by these
fellows. 
   Today, it is the same thing. 
   The ADL actually spiritually has been associated with the Ku
Klux Klan. It was created about 1913. The Ku Klux Klan was
organized in about 1915, the second organization, under this guy
Simmons, was organized by a group of people including President
Woodrow Wilson. And the key to organization {behind} organizing
the Klan, that is, doing the dirty work, was the ADL and what
became known as the Hollywood crowd, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, that
crowd. 
   So, the ADL has never been an independent agency. In
connection with the ADL's work, the ADL not only has been key in
running the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th century, despite all its
talk about its anti-hate this and that, I hate that, the ADL and
certain elements in Israel, have also been in tight with the
apartheid factions of the government of South Africa, and they
have also been in, through other channels, with the African
National Congress. 
   So, there is nothing unusual, as the case of Jonathan Jay
Pollard exemplifies this, in organizations like the ADL--which
are not Jewish organizations, they are something else, but they
use a Jewish cover, doing these kinds of things, running wth
right-wing organizations, doing spying for the Soviet Union, or
spying for South Africa or something like that. Nothing unusual;
the only thing that is puzzling about this, is Americans do not
really understand what the ADL is. 
   [commercial break] 
   MEL KLENETSKY: We will have to have further discussions on
the ADL and the Pollard case in the coming week or perhaps in the
future. This has been ``Executive Intelligence Review's Talks
With Lyndon LaRouche.'' 
                             - 30 -

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]