Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 03/30/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 3 Apr 93 21:28:3 GMT

- ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE   ATTENTION   FREE LAROUCHE -

   The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
   Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
   The above transcript is from a weekly hour-long interview
formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
   To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within 
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
   Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry
the program. 
   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly
tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from
satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are
broadcast Saturdays on satellite from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

   Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W          
   Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC                
   3:1 Companding, Flat           

     or      

   Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
   Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
   Wide Band Video Subcarrier    
      EIR TALKS WITH LYNDON LaROUCHE 

   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
   March 30, 1993 

   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. 

    - Why the French Socialist Party Was Swept Out of Power -

   Mr. LaRouche, recent developments in France have profound
implications for Europe and perhaps the rest of the world. Can you
indicate to us exactly what is happening and why the Socialist
Party was swept out of power? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The problem is this. Because of the mess which
Mrs. Thatcher and George Bush led in making of the great
opportunity which opened up at the end of 1989, with the crumbling
of the so-called Iron Curtain, we have a situation in which
governments around the world have deteriorated to the point that no
one really is on top of the situation. They have the power to
command, but they do not have the power to address any problems. 
   This is the case in Britain, which is essentially a disgusting
mess from the standpoint of government. Germany: Chancellor Kohl is
trying to hold on to his seat, but there is not much else going on
around him. Italy: the government is crumbling because of an
Anglo-American, essentially British but Anglo-American,
destabilization of the whole political system of Italy, through
covert operations. A similar process is being launched in Germany
now, though not as intensively or extensively as in Italy. 
   In France, you have a similar situation of ungovernability
developing. 
   You have a similar situation in eastern Europe. People will
talk about Poland, but it is a mess. 
   We have also at the same time, what many people recognize is
the greatest crisis imaginable, in terms of Moscow; if this process
continues--and it is not going to be a soap opera result, it is
going to be something more complicated--but if the present process
of insistence on so-called reforms, that is, on IMF
conditionalities and shock therapy persists, we are going to have
the emergence of a very angry Moscow as a new, not a communist
system but a Russian Empire, armed with nuclear weapons. We are
going to have an adversarial situation, which does not mean nuclear
war, but it means that the two nuclear powers will be at a
standoff, Moscow and Washington, and a great number of wars and
other forms of chaos will spread around the world, under the
umbrella of that kind of thermonuclear standoff. 
   No one in the West so far is willing to give up on these IMF
conditionalities, on deindustrialization, on free trade, on
derivatives and so forth and so on; and therefore, you have
ungovernability in {every part of the world,} including the United
States. This nation is not being governed down there; and it is a
mess because of these policy reasons, that people are clinging
desperately to these policies, which will no longer work. 
   Now in France: you have coming in a RPR-led, Chirac-led
government, which is not going to be a very strong government,
because Chirac is close to some of the people who think like Bush,
some of the liberal side of the Republicans. Not quite; he's French
and he's in French politics. But he is not in any real sense a
Gaullist, that is, not a follower of the kind of philosophical
approach of the late president, Charles de Gaulle. But he is more
like one of our Republican liberals in French terms, not in
American terms. 
   So you are going to have a continuation of the problem. We are
going to new crises. The only significant thing in France, is that
it shows the French population's disgust with the kind of deals
with the Anglo-Americans which the Mitterrand government had been
making, the Mitterrand government of [Prime Minister Beregovoy] and
so forth. So its negative influences are great , its positive
influences are yet to be seen. There may be some positive
influences. The French will be much more nationalistic now on the
gut issues, national sovereignty and national issues, but that is
about where it lies. 
   
   Q: The French government at this point consists of
approximately 500 deputies who come from this coalition of Chirac's
party, which is the Gaullist Party, and Valery Giscard d'Estaing's
party, the UDR. Can this coalition put together policies which will
begin to get France out of the current crisis that it finds itself
in, with the depression hitting France like it has hit the United
States and other parts of Europe? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: No, it cannot. 
   The reason is, it is not a question of whether they have the
power to make a policy. They have the power to make a policy, but
do they have the personalities who are capable of making the
policies, no. Do they know what the policy is? No. 
   The only policies that are going to work, are those which I
have indicated will work; that is, just to make it clear, so that
we don't waste time on this kind of speculation which I know much
of the press will be doing. 
   You've got several things you've got to do. You've got to end
globalism. Go back to the idea of sovereign nation-states, and
political economy on the ideas of national political economy as
described, for example, by the exponent in Europe of the American
System, Friedrich List. So sovereign nation-states, national
political economy, no more globalism; no more free trade: dirigism,
with heavy emphasis upon financing with credit for advanced
technologies and basic economic infrastructure--rails, power
systems, communications systems, medical systems, improvement of
education, that sort of thing. Cooperation among nation-states for
stable currencies, achieving the objective of stability among
currencies which we had in the early stages of the Bretton Woods
system, with a gold reserve system perhaps, and with very strict
reserve requirements among nations so we can have low-cost credit
in international trade. 
   Those are the directions we've got to go into. Until we do go
in those directions, forget policy. It is just going to be one big
mess after the other. 

           - The Crisis of Ungovernability in Europe -

   Q: The French government at this point, with Giscard d'Estaing
and Chirac in the middle of it, has to deal with a number of the
issues that you are addressing. Certainly the Gaullist tradition,
that of Charles de Gaulle, has, in its history a basic policy which
has led in this direction. 
   You were in discussions at the beginning of the 1980s with a
number of members of the Gaullist Party and the French military on
your SDI policy, which was a war-avoidance policy and an economic
spin-off policy. Do you have any indication that there is any kind
of political momentum there, or could political momentum be put
into place, which can start to move in that direction? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I'll put it this way. My discussions with
the old French Gaullists, back in the time when the French
Gaullists were going out of existence, that is, about the middle to
late 1970s, were typical. There are a few still around. But there
is no longer a Gaullist Party in France, not as an organized
political party. {It does not exist.} The appellation of
``Gaullist'' to Jacques Chirac is simply a term of convenience. It
doesn't mean anything. It's like somebody wearing their
grandmother's dress, like children wearing their grandmother's
clothes or something to a little child's fancy ball. It doesn't
mean anything. 
   As far as the SDI is concerned, on the economic aspect of the
SDI, I think you will find there is a growing support for that from
within Russia, among significant but not dominant forces yet inside
Russia itself. You will find there are elites in the establishment,
elite sections of the establishment in Germany, in France, and
elsewhere, who recognize this. There are people in Britain, who
recognize some of these points. We have people in the United States
who are willing to consider this, though you will not see it up
front. 
   The problem here is ungovernability and the inability of
Europe to govern, which is a condition which has been brought about
largely and intentionally by the United States--they did not want
Europe showing independence in the aftermath of the collapse of the
communist system in the East. And they have achieved it. 
   Now, everything lies upon the United States and the Clinton
administration. If President Clinton is willing to abandon, and
recognize the urgency of abandoning, the kinds of policies which,
up to this moment, he has still continued to publicly support, then
initiative from the United States could turn the situation. 
   Let me refer to the situation with Reagan, for example, and
the original SDI. The same logic applies today. 
   I designed what became known as the SDI, that is, the policy
that Reagan announced in that last five minutes of his speech of
March 23, 1983. As a matter of fact, it was one of my associates
who drafted that, together with a person from the National Security
Council and the speechwriter for Reagan involved. James Baker III
tried to shut that off, pulled it out, but Judge Clark and the
President put it back in. 
   I designed that policy, and, through various means, sold it to
President Reagan, who, with certain passion, took the most crucial
elements of defense concern in that policy and adopted them and
stuck to that {personally} for some  period of time into 1986 when
the Reykjavik Summit blew up with no agreements over the SDI issue. 
   So what happened was, that we intervened to present a policy
from outside government, into the right channels of the
Establishment and government, to the point that one man, Ronald
Reagan, as President, by adopting the policy, changed the course of
history. That initiative came from the United States. 
   At the same time, I had indicated at the end of 1982, when I
had presented all of these issues specifically on French territory
to the leading French military in a series of meetings; and just
shortly after that, I had presented the full thing to the Planning
Commission of the German military, and so forth and so on. Later
Japan bought it through our my own and other collaborators'--direct
influence. And that is how the support for the SDI was sold to
Japan. 
   But what is needed is the same thing: An imaginative policy
which does not presently exist anywhere in the normal policy-making
apparatus of the Clinton administration, which is introduced to the
Clinton administration essentially from the outside, which it
adopts, and which changes the course of history, just as Ronald
Reagan changed the course of history, and ultimately brought down
the walls in the East by adopting that policy and making that
speech on March 23, 1983. The same thing has to be done now. 
   Europe will support such an initiative from the United States;
but the United States must make the initiative. And I am afraid
that unless I am involved in drafting the policy, there is no one
left in the policy-making Establishment in the United States who
has sufficient comprehension of all of the issues involved, to
design a policy with which the Clinton admnistration could get the
world out of its present mess. 

   Q: This is ``{EIR} Talks With LaRouche.'' If you want to send
questions to Mr. LaRouche, he can be reached at ``{EIR} Talks With
LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 
   [commercial break] 

             - How Americans Have Been Brainwashed -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the SDI and your
discussions with the Reagan administration about it. You also
mentioned earlier about the ungovernability of Europe, that it was
brought about by the United States. Can you please explain to us
what policies, both in the Bush administration and currently in the
Clinton administration, are creating ungovernability in Europe? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: For the American citizen to understand this
issue, we have to look into some of the brainwashing, and I think
that term has to be used, of the majority of American citizens
themselves. 
   For example, most American citizens still believe that Germany
caused World War I and World War II. Of course, in the case of
World War II, Hitler was a terrible problem and did take the
actions which actually led to the general warfare. But the causes
of World War II go back to about 1932-33, when a group around
Averell Harriman and company in the United States, and similar
people in Britain allied to Harriman, actually put Hitler into
power, to overthrow the von Schleicher government. Had they not
overthrown the von Schleicher government, there would have been no
World War II in that form; there would have been no Hitler. 
   So in that sense, the fact is, that the United States and
Britain caused World Wars I and II. Britain is primarily
responsible for World War I, and was a co-author, and probably the
initiating co-author, of the design for what became World War II. 
   {This is directly contrary to all typical American belief.}
They are taught in school, they are taught by the news media, etc.,
etc., etc.; and when you tell a typical American and show him even
the facts which show that George Bush's father, Prescott Bush, as
the general manager, chief executive officer, for Averell Harriman,
{moved the money into the Nazi Party to put Hitler into power,}
he'll say, ``No, that can't be true. I couldn't believe that.'' But
it's true. 
   And so the problem in making American policy, for the
president--even the best president--is that he's got to contend
with the fact that the majority of Americans are living in a
virtual reality of a soap opera when it comes to this kind of
aspect of history. So they can't understand what is happening in
the world. 
   The issue was the same at the beginning of the twentieth
century and earlier, it was the same in the Hitler period, it is
the same today. 
   With the rise of the German economy to technological
leadership in the world, which happened during the middle to late
19th century as a result of the progress and primary and world
leadership of German science, the British feared--not the
Americans, because the Americans were allied with the Germans at
that time, initially--that Germany would succeed in bringing Paris,
(i.e., France), and St. Petersburg (i.e., Russia), at that point,
into cooperation with other nations around infrastructure projects
such as those proposed later by people like Count Sergei Witte in
Russia, to develop all of Eurasia on the basis of modern technology
and infrastructure. 
   The British thought that if that were to occur, that would be
the end of the British Empire, because the continent of Eurasia
would be so strong that no island-based empire from the outside
could dominate the world, as Britain was dominating the world at
the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. 
   The same thing that happened then, is happening now. {Before}
the unification of Germany occurred, you had Mrs. Thatcher, with
her Conor Cruise O'Brien and her minister, now recently deceased,
Nicholas Ridley, insisting that the great danger to world peace was
the reunification of Germany; and the term used was Fourth Reich.
That was a signal for both U.S. intelligence services and British
intelligence services to do a number of things to destabilize all
of Europe, which they did. And at the same time, the British and
some of the Americans worked with Gorbachov; and Gorbachov, partly
through Minister [Dmitri] Yazov, the defense minister, set loose
certain U.S. and British assets in former Yugoslavia--that is, the
fascist faction of Milosevic in Serbia. 
   They launched the war on what is called strategically the
southern flank of Central Europe. The purpose of this war and these
other measures was to weaken the governments and economies of
western Europe, while weakening the economies, and actually ruining
the economies, of the former communist states of eastern Europe,
including Poland, which they have done. Poland is down to about 30
percent of the level of economy it was at the time that it came out
from under Soviet domination; and to collapse also of the former
Soviet Union. 
   This has produced this dangerous war-threatening situation,
and that is where we stand: that is where the problem lies. 
   One has to understand that; and somebody is going to have to
take the American people by the ears and say, ``cut out this
nonsense, take your fairy tales about German war guilt, throw them
away; yes, the Germans under the Kaiser were a bunch of fools, and
fell into the trap; Hitler was an American creation, who did
provoke the war, who did horrible things, no question about it. But
let's look at how these things are set up, and not just look at
what happens once they are set up.'' 
   
   Q: We have been discussing how the United States brought about
a certain crisis in Europe, and you just mentioned the Balkans.
What can President Clinton do at this point, in terms of the Balkan
crisis, if there is any one thing that can be done? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The point is, we cannot tolerate this mess.
There are war crimes. Genocide is going on in the Balkans.
Eagleburger and Scowcroft and the other Bush leaguers, the
Kissinger-Bush league types, together with Carrington's crowd and
Lord Owen's crowd, and Britain, are responsible for this mess. We
have to recognize that the Europeans and the Americans committed a
great crime in tolerating this situation for as long as we have. We
are going to have to take various kinds of measures. 
   These measures can be taken, with a lot of fine tuning. But
they can be taken, they have to be taken. But there is no
fundamental solution to the problem, unless we address it in the
way I previously indicated just a few minutes before. 
   [commercial break] 

- Why Nation States Must Return to National Political Economy - 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have just been discussing the crisis in
Europe, the crisis of ungovernability, as you put it, and we
started off this show talking about France and the recent
elections. One of the things that they are trying to do in France
is to privatize the Banque de France. There is also a crisis over
the derivative markets in Europe. 
   How will this privatization help or hinder what is brewing as
a major financial blow-up with the derivatives crisis? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, there are several areas of an economy
which our Founding Fathers rightly recognized as insane, that is,
it is insane to put them in so-called private hands. These are
generally basic economic infrastructure. We can have basic economic
infrastructure in private hands to the extent that we have
privately owned but publicly regulated utilities, such as
electricity or rail or whatnot. But to have them outright freely
controlled entirely in private hands, is insanity. 
   Another area is the public school system. To be forced to go
to private schools, as some people are trying to force the American
people to do by destroying the public ones, is also insanity;
because you deprive somebody of an education, and you begin to
produce a class difference between the literate and the illiterate
in the society, which is exactly the worst thing to do. 
   The other thing that you must {never, never, never} turn over
to private hands, is the national creation of currency. 
   The Banque de France, as a national institution, as a
government-controlled institution, is one of the few institutions
in the world which is {sane} presently, in terms of economic
policy. To privatize that, would be like France putting its neck in
the guillotine: that is the end of France. 
   Unfortunately, the tendency of the advisers around Chirac, who
probably think somewhat like Jude Wanniski, for example, and that
crowd, Kemp and Wanniski, would be to go in that direction, though
the old people still around the Gaullists (nominally Gaullist
movement), and the old patriots, will say no, that's a national
institution, you cannot turn it over to private hands. 
   That will be quite a fight, although, I would say at the
present time, that the danger is that the human race will lose that
fight, and it probably will be privatized if Chirac is prime
minister. But I would hope not. 
   The point is, that what we have to do, together with the idea
of going back to sovereign nation-states, away from globalism, back
to national political economy, is to go back to the {original}
conception of national banking on which the United States was
founded as a federal republic, the so-called Hamiltonian system. If
we do {not} do that, then we are going to crash. There is nothing
will stop us from going to whatever bottom is, in the ongoing
depression. 
   As far as the derivatives market is concerned, this has to be
brought under control. I have proposed one thing, the one thing
that would simply work even with, say, a Clinton administration and
other governments right now, with their weakness: Put a one-tenth
of one percent per transaction tax on the nominal value of
derivatives, {at the point they are transacted.} That is, if a
fellow is selling an option or proffering an option and somebody is
taking the option, then the tax is collectible from the seller or
the presenter of the option, {at the time that transaction occurs.}
That must be promptly paid into, in the United States' case, the
U.S. Treasury--if the seller is an American bank, for example. That
is, the bank must, at that instant, take the total value of the
asset, which is subject to option and the instant that option is
given, or sold, that bank must pay one-tenth of one percent of the
full value of the asset, into the coffers of the U.S. Treasury. And
if they do not do it, the bank is fined and the official in
question goes to prison; and that is the only way you are going to
bring these derivatives under control at present. 
   It is also a wonderful source of income. We are talking about
more than a trillion dollars a day worldwide in these derivatives,
so you could get up to a billion dollars a day of tax revenue for
the U.S. government out of it, which is a little over $300 billion
a year, potentially, which is about the magnitude of the present
deficit, so, from the standpoint of fiscal balancing, it is a
perfectly fine suggestion. 

           - National Banking versus Private Banking -

   Q: There are many people in the United States who are very
upset with the Federal Reserve system because it is the kind of
private bank that you are talking about. And a lot of people do not
understand what this national banking versus private banking is.
Can you give us a sense of why the Founding Fathers called for a
national bank, and what was their conception, and what is the
difference between that, and the Federal Reserve of today? 
   MR. LAROUCHE:  Well, they already knew what the Bank of
England was like. They knew what kind of a swindle it was; and they
knew that you could not have any sovereignty of the United States,
unless you had a national bank. 
   If you had had a private central bank running the United
States at that time, then our enemies in Britain and elsewhere,
would simply have used that mechanism to ruin our currency and to
destroy us. By setting up national banking, we protected our
currency. 
   Now as to what the national banks do. The central bank, in
this case, is a private bank. The Federal Reserve system is
actually a private bank, or a consortium of private banking
interests, chartered to run the U.S. currency by the federal
government, by law. It is an unconstitutional law, but
nevertheless, they did it; and the Constitution will just have to
sit and suffer, is their attitude. 
   So, what happens is, today, these private banks take some
paper and they discount it with the Federal Reserve system at, say,
2 percent, two and a half percent, 3 percent. The Federal Reserve
then {makes up money out of thin air,} invents it--like a
counterfeiter--and then loans that money to the private banking
system (it is counterfeit money effectively), at those prices. The
banking system in turn, and others, will turn around and, in a
large part of their transactions, {they will buy government bonds,}
which the government will pay 4, four-and-a-half, up to seven and a
half percent. 
   So this is a mechanism for {indebting the federal government};
and the problem is, you cannot expand the economy under this system
without indebting the federal government, and putting our
government and its policy {in the hands of foreign, as well as
domestic, private interests}--the worst idea in the world. 
   Under national banking, according to the Constitution, the
President of the United States solicits a bill from the Congress.
The Congress passes legislation. 
   [commercial break.] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were just discussing the intricacies of
national banking. Can you please pick up where you left off and
give us a sense of what the difference is between national banking
as the Founding Fathers conceived it, and the Federal Reserve
system of today? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Let's go through national banking step by step. 
   The President asks for a bill from the Congress authorizing
the Secretary of the Treasury to issue new issue of U.S. currency.
The Congress passes the bill, and, in this situation, the President
signs the bill, making it law, and the Treasury Secretary then
orders the printing of the money. 
   The money is then deposited with the national bank. The
national bank is the custodian, that is, the service institution
which acts as custodian on a service basis, for the U.S. Treasury,
using banking principles. The instruction of the Treasury, as the
Congress may dictate in the bill, adding conditions to the issuance
of the currency, goes now as loans. It is loaned at, I would
recommend, a basic rate of somewhere around 2 percent for 10 to 20
years. Two percent per annum would be about the loan rate, the
prime lending rate. This would be the rate which would apply to
federal government institutions, such as these projects, something
like the TVA, for example, to borrow money directly from the
national bank, and so would state banks. I would go away from the
regional banking of the Federal Reserve and more back to state
banks, so that the federal government and the states are back in a
constitutional relationship on this. 
   Then we would have the vendors; for example, a big rail
project or a water project will have private vendors. Say, for a
rail project, you will have vendors like General Motors, for
example, or part of the airframe industry will be involved in that
sort of thing. So they will want credit to fulfill their contract
to deliver materials to the project, the rail project or the
whatever. They will go to a bank, and they will get preferred
low-interest borrowing, and they will be paid on progress, that is,
as they complete their part of the contract, they will be given a
payment by a check on behalf of the project, to the vendor, and so
you will stimulate the private sector, as well as that. 
   Now you will also have certain priorities, under my druthers,
for high-tech and other sectors of the economy as well as
infrastructure, and we would be pushing that, using also the power
of the federal government to protect developing industries that we
need inside the United States to get us back in shape. 
   So in that case, the point is that the federal government has
no direct debt. Every penny for which this money is loaned, as
created, goes into creating new masses of physical wealth, so the
amount of wealth being created, is greater than the amount of money
being put into circulation. So it is not inflationary. 
   Under the Federal Reserve system, not only do you create a
growing debt for the U.S. government--now over $4 trillion--but you
also have an inflationary drive, because the money does {not} go
into usual things, but goes largely into parasitical things, such
as funding today, this gigantic bubble of about a trillion dollars
a day worldwide, of these so-called derivatives. That is the
essential difference. 

                 - Only a Change in U.S. Policy -
                  - Can Prevent a U.S.-Russia -
                    - Adversary Relationship -

   Q: Fyodorov, who is the person who is now in charge of
economics in Russia, is proposing that what should happen with
Russian industry, is that Russia should move away from Russian
heavy industry into the service industries. He is talking about
jacking up interest rates, he is talking about control of the
Central Bank, and there is a lot of indication that he is going
along with a mild form of shock therapy that the IMF is proposing. 
   Where is this going to lead Russia, and what are the
implications of this for the rest of the world, especially for the
Clinton administration? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, everything you are hearing from
Russia now, especially from the international press--Russian press,
European press, U.S. press, forget it. Take it with a grain of
salt. 
   Everything is subject to change on the day of the meeting
between Yeltsin and Clinton; and everything that is being said from
Moscow now, is being said with an eye to the meeting between
Yeltsin and Clinton on the one side, and the G-7 meeting in Tokyo
on the other side. 
   After the early part of May, we are going to have to see where
things lie; however, {if} this kind of idiocy, which Fyodorov is
pushing, were to be continued long after early April, after these
meetings, then you are looking at a build-up toward a new level of
disaster inside Russia and inside the former Soviet Union as a
whole. 
   There are several scenarios; but in general, what is in
process, is a process of transition, not necessarily of sudden
events; a process of transition to a tough government, centered
perhaps around the Civic Union group in Russia, not the military or
anybody else, but the Civic Union group, that is the most likely,
the most orderly development which could occur; so that by fall,
with the prospect of elections in October now being more than
mooted there, you would have a new government, you would have a
very angry people. And by that time, either the United States would
have gotten off this nonsense about demanding support for IMF
reforms, and looking in new directions, or else we are building up
very rapidly a thermonuclear adversary relationship between Moscow
and Washington, under which all kinds of hell busts loose. 
   So the question here is not so much the Russian side. I think
there are options on the Russian side whereby, by policy offers to
Russia and to other countries, whereby we could change the geometry
of the process now in progress, for the better. The responsibility
lies primarily in Washington, not in Moscow; and when Washington
gets off this so-called economic reform package, as it is now
presented, and goes to a sensible package of the type I have
indicated, then we can probably see some better results. 
   But as of now, we are on track for a confrontation--not a
thermonuclear shoot-out, but a thermonuclear adversary situation,
which will remain perhaps for decades to come, under which all
kinds of hell will break out around the world, not thermonuclear
war, but about every kind of hell you can imagine, short of
thermonuclear explosions. 

      - ``Kenya's President Moi Is Going Down With Honor'' -

   Q: When we discuss hell, we have to look at the economies of
the Third World, of the developing sector. 
   Very recently, the president of Kenya, Daniel arap Moi,
declared that he was not going to abide by the IMF
conditionalities. What hope does this give Moi for saving his
country, and what hope does this represent for other Third World
leaders? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Moi's action is correct. It is an act, however,
of desperation. The fact that it is correct, does not mean it will
succeed, in short. But it is the right thing to do. He is going
down with honor, so to speak; he is taking his country down to hell
with honor. Whereas, if his policy were to be rejected by his own
people, if he were to be overthrown, his country would go down to
hell in dishonor. There is a little difference there. 
   To understand this, you have to look at Somalia and look at
Kenya. They are somewhat comparable, and this all has to do with
what [Zbigniew] Brzezinski, back in the 1970s, called the ``Arc of
Crisis,'' which Henry Kissinger had put into government policy when
he was secretary of state, when it was called the Bernard Lewis
Plan. 
   The Bernard Lewis Plan was to take the area from India,
especially, up through Turkey, that is, through Iran and
Afghanistan, down through the other countries of the Middle East,
through Egypt and Sudan into Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, and so
forth, to destroy, under the guise of population policy, these
sections of the world--by targeting what is a largely or
significantly Islamic portion of the world for destruction. 
   Kissinger is responsible, of course, for the destruction of
Ethiopia. He did that while he was secretary of state, in 1975,
approximately. He set this into motion. 
   Somalia was done later, but it was done under a continuation
of the Kissinger policy. They took the government of Siad Barre,
who had been a military figure, who had been president of Somalia,
who represented a national party, whereas the opposition in
Somalia, represented tribalist groups. Once the tribalist groups
got together, under U.S. and British sponsorship, with the Israelis
involved in that, too, to overthrow Siad Barre, the various
tribalist factions began shooting each other. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the particular case
of Kenya and President Moi's efforts to go against the IMF. What
hopes are there for the Kenyan people in this effort? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, as I indicated, in the parallel,
comparable case of Somalia, once the U.S. and Britain succeeded in
toppling the national government of Barre, that is, the national
party behind the Barre government, and turned the government over
to a squabbling mess of tribalist parties, the tribalist parties
began shooting each other along tribalist lines, carving Somalia,
which had been a united nation, up into a group of, effectively,
micro-states. 
   That is what they intend to do with Sudan; and that is what
they intend to do with Kenya; and Moi, I think, knows that. The
KANU Party, which is Moi's party, is the only party in Kenya (that
is, of any size), which has a national commitment, that is, a
national base. {All} of the opposition parties, which are presently
lined up with the IMF, politically, the opponents of Moi, each and
all represent local tribalist gropus, which, if they get rid of Moi
and KANU, the government, they will begin shooting each other, as
was done in Somalia. And we will have another Somalia in Kenya,
which is, per capita, one of the wealthiest and best-developed
areas in all Africa. 
   So what we are looking at here, is {deliberate genocide,}
taken under the auspices of the policies of the International
Monetary Fund and World Bank; and taken with the full support of
the Project Democracy crowd in Washington, the so-called social
democrats, the right-wing social democrats if you want to call them
that, the neo-conservatives; these are the people who are doing
that. 
   These people, as I have said before, with their policies, are
{worse} than Adolf Hitler; because they are killing a lot more
people in ways of which Hitler had not yet dreamed--like the
Karadzic/Serbian Nazis in former Yugoslavia. 

      - Return to the Hill-Burton Standards of Health Care -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, one of the things that is coming up at this
point, in terms of discussion in the Clinton administration, is the
health policy. Unfortunately, Mr. Clinton seems to be going with
the Oregon Plan. Is there any way that the Clinton administration
could structure a medical policy which would, in essence, be the
kind of policy that would give good health care to all Americans? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, all you have to do is go back,
essentially, to the kind of health care policy which existed prior
to Big Mac in New York in 1975; under the impact of the budget
crisis, which is really caused by the real estate sharks and the
looting of New York City, they began to tear down a very
good--imperfect but good--medical care system. 
   You had a system of public and private voluntary hospitals and
clinics; if someone fell down on the street in New York, you'd say,
``Call a cop!'' and the policeman would call an ambulance, the
ambulance would attend to the person who has fallen down, or
whatever, and take the person to the nearest emergency room for
treatment, without bothering to pick the person's pocket to find
out what credit cards he has. 
   They took that system down. I would go back to that. We have
to go back to the Hill-Burton standards of health care. We have, to
make sure there exists in every community of the United States, a
combination of public and private--that is, voluntary, so called,
institutions, which are committed to providing the health care
needs of the community. And they must have the right combination of
health care facilities, that is, the right kinds of surgical wards,
internal medicine, etc., and for the right kinds of illness and
diseases, including chronic diseases, burn elements, trauma
elements, all these sorts of things. 
   So each community of the United States should have sufficient
access to that kind of care, in sufficient amounts, to meet the
anticipated or anticipatable, needs of the population. 
   That should be done by a system of combined federal, state,
and local backing of public institutions, among which I would
include veterans' hospitals, for example, rebuilding those again,
as functioning institutions for veterans; and also private
institutions with which the government agencies involved,
cooperate, in order to have a package, where we say we have in this
community between private and public facilities, the right number
of beds, the right number of physicians, the right number of staff
to support, and we can take care of people in even an unanticipated
emergency, but we can take reasonably good care of people in an
emergency. 
   We can do that cheaply, and we can do that more cheaply, by
avoiding all of this gestapo-like paperwork which is stuck on
doctors and medical-care institutions, where they have to go by the
book; and the effect today, is instead of treating patients, under
present malpractice codes and insurance codes and so forth, they
treat diseases, not people. 
   That is, you go into a doctor, you get a diagnosis, and they
put down on paper, well, so-and-so, such-and-such a disease. They
look this up in a book, which lists this disease; and this book, or
something equivalent, tells the physician what medication, what
tests and so forth, he can provide that patient. Once the patient
has received the treatment prescribed for that disease, the patient
is kicked out, whether he is dying or recovered or not. 
   So that kind of lunacy is very costly; and what we have to do,
is get this private rip-off out of the medical business, and go
back to what we used to have, a combination of private and public
institutions, which work together to provide adequate care. Most of
this can be covered economically, if we managed it so, by
reasonable methods of payments, public contributions, private
payments, and so forth, and we could pick up the tab for the odd
case or the indigent case of the person who simply does not have
the money to care for himself, but who needs the care. 
   That is the system. 
   If we go the other way, we have a little nasty fascist
organization in this country, called ``Lead or Leave.'' It is worse
than Hitler. It says, not just kill all Jews and all gypsies and
all communists; it says, ``Kill all old people.'' These young
fellows, who are sponsored by people like Sen. Paul Tsongas and
Peter Peterson and Sen. Warren Rudman, are {dangerous.} This is
worse than Nazism, and we had better get this thing cleaned up,
before it goes much further, and get back to, instead, ``growing
the economy,'' as Clinton once said, to the point that we can
afford to meet these responsibilities. 
                    
   Q: Well, perhaps your derivative tax is a way that we can get
the health system back on track. 
   Mr. LaRouche, thank you very much. 

                              - 30 -

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]