Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 4/14/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 18 Apr 93 7:17:38 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'' 
   April 14, 1993 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 
   [N.B.: { means begin emphasis, } means end emphasis.]

   MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon
LaRouche. We are on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester,
Minnesota. 

             - ``Russian SDI Offer Is On `Go'|'' -

   Mr. LaRouche, on April 2, {Izvestia} had an article saying
that Russian President Yeltsin was going to make an offer to
President Clinton for a joint development of the Strategic
Defense Initiative. To date, we have not heard any public
acknowledgement that this offer was made in Vancouver. We are
wondering whether the Clinton administration is ready to handle
such an offer. Do they understand the implications, and would the
SDI offer provide for the Clinton administration a way out of the
many troubles that it is facing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: What you have not heard, is an explicit
statement through the leading daily electronic or print media of
any reaction to the Russian offer at Vancouver. All we know is
the offer was made and there were signals given from the
President's press sources that they had received offers in this
area, without referencing the specific offer itself. And of
course there was the reference to Russian Prime Minister
Chernomyrdin together with Vice President Gore being in charge of
one aspect of this, and then we have the Russian Defense Minister
coming to Washington to meet with the Pentagon and other people,
and that will form a different discussion committee. 
   However, apparently there is a problem. The Clinton
administration has put in only a small fraction of the number of
political appointees it requires for staffing of the government
after the Bush administration. 
   There is an additional problem. Under Bush, who, together
with his secretary of state, Baker, (Baker tried to sabotage the
SDI in 1983), were the major saboteurs of the SDI effort from
{inside} the Reagan administration, the SDI was stuck in the
State Department under the direction of anti-SDI spokesman James
Baker III. 
   Obviously, Mr. Clinton will have to replace those Bush
appointees' positions in order to get that mess out of the State
Department and will have to decide where he is going to locate
the negotiations and other discussions: Are they going to be
located in the State Department, or is he going to do more or
less as Reagan would have done and have a special channel for it?
   So it is on go; it is a very serious offer. There is a very
mysterious kind of international news media effort directed from
someplace, to put the lid on the story; but the story is broken.
We have checked it at various sources. It's go. How well it is
being handled, that is another matter; but it is so far a go. 

     - The Destruction of the Economies of Eastern Europe -
             - is the Major Strategic Issue Today -

   Q: What are the implications in terms of strategic matters
between the United States and the former Soviet Union, between
the former Soviet Union and Western Europe, between the different
nuclear republics in the former Soviet Union, should this policy
be adopted? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, we have to understand the
Ukraine situation. Ukraine is extremely important. It has been
covered in {EIR,} discussions with a couple of officials, leading
figures from Ukraine who describe the situation. 
   The Ukrainians don't particularly wish to be a major nuclear
power; however, they are not going to give up their nuclear
weapons for the START talks until certain matters are settled.
They are matters of national security, national identity. 
   This involves a three-way problem largely, among the United
States, Moscow, and also Kiev. So Ukraine has a very
understandable position. They are the world's third nuclear power
now. They are in any case, even without nuclear weapons, the
world's third military power. They are aware of certain
possibilities, which frighten them; but they are not going to
throw away their capability utterly of dealing with them. 
   Therefore the pressure from Washington quarters to have
Ukraine sign on to the START agreements willy-nilly are just
mistaken conceptions; they are a waste of time. 
   The more fundamental strategic issue is not a military one,
in the ordinary sense, but is rather an economic one. The
essential issue is this. 
   In 1989 and early 1990, at the point the walls came down, we
had a great opportunity for utilizing the economic potentials,
albeit some technologically obsolete, in eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, in order to build up a large infrastructure
project and to base a transformation of the economies of eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union on these infrastructural
projects to create the market for which a transformation in terms
of private industry, could occur. 
   What happened is a combination of malice and {pure
incompetence} from Thatcher and Bush. Mr. Bush apparently was
sort of a co-thinker fanatical incompetent from Texas, Senator
Phil Gramm and similar thinking people like this poor idiot from
Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs, who is probably malicious, but he is also
an idiot. He does not know anything about economics and yet he is
considered this great witch doctor of economics travelling all
over the world, now into Poland, where he ruined that economy,
and Russia. 
   The problem is, that as of today, the eastern European
economies are generally {down to a level of 30 percent} of the
agricultural and industrial potential they had in 1989. And in
the former Soviet Union, we have a similar condition, not quite
as drastic, but nonetheless strategically decisive. 
   This economic issue, with its social and its
political-social implications, is the major strategic issue. As
long as the United States continues to support what is called
free market, shock therapy, IMF conditionalities, and the kind of
central banking which the Federal Reserve still demands, we are
headed toward a potential war. 
   So these fools in Washington and elsewhere have got to get
off it and get back to reality. Unless they give up the idiocy of
shock therapy and free market and so forth that they launched in
1990, they are going to drive the Russians into a mood. There is
now in Russia a great lethargy; this lethargy is a precursor of a
{massive rage.} Once that erupts, the strategic situation, in its
present form, becomes uncontrollable, at least from the
standpoint of being able to do anything good. 
   So we have to address the economic situation. We have to
take the Phil Gramms and the Jeffrey Sachses of the world; we
have to put them away in a camp for mentally retarded someplace,
and get them out of policy shaping; and recognize that a
tremendous, fabulous error was committed by that madwoman
Margaret Thatcher and that homicidal psychotic George Bush. 
   We have to go back and realize that we lost a great
opoprtunity in 1989-90. We have to go back and try to recapture
that opportunity. That is the essence of the strategic situation.

          - ``Shock Therapy Is Like Bubonic Plague'' -

   Q: How does shock therapy work, and what are the
alternatives to it? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It's insanity. 
   The question is: What is the alternative to bubonic plague?
{Don't have it.} Just {eliminate} it. 
   This is a result of the fact that people under 45 or so in
the United States have been subjected to what is called a
cultural paradigm shift, and subjected to brainwashing of the
most massive sort in line with New Age thinking; and if you look
at most of the managers of leading U.S. industries who are in
this age bracket, the so-called Yuppie bracket, so to speak (that
does not mean that everybody under 45 is an idiot, but it does
mean that a great number of people who have risen to the top
represent an ideology which is absolute idiocy and incompetence);
these people are rising to the top of control of our
corporations, departments of government. They are coming into the
Congress, and so forth and so on. Some of them may be morally
well-meaning people, they just do not know what they are doing. 
   And Jeffrey Sachs is typical of the insanity in economics
teachings and doctrines which have reigned for the past 20 years.
   This stuff is not describable in rational terms; it is
simply lunacy. It is shutting down industry in order to enrich
speculators like George Soros, who runs rampant all over Europe
looting the place like Genghis Khan and doing it with derivatives
and other kinds of financial speculation. 
   You should not dignify shock therapy or dignify the thinking
of Jeffrey Sachs in any way. {This man is a lunatic,} just as
Phil Gramm is a lunatic. The alternative to disaster is to get
these people and what they represent out of the policy-making of
government and international relations. 

              - Why We Must Once Again Implement -
    - the Policy of Scientific and Technological Progress -

   Q: And what is the alternative to what these gentlemen have
been doing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: It is not an alternative; it is going back to
sanity. 
   The entirety of Western civilization's accomplishments, of
550 years, since the middle of the fifteenth century, the revival
out of the Dark Age of the fourteenth century; the essence of
Western civilization's {superiority} in power, in the ability to
meet the needs of people, in the improvement of the human rights
of the individual and the family; all of these things flow from a
commitment to meeting the economic needs of development as well
as current consumption, of the family household and the
individual, through emphasis on investment in infrastructural
development and in scientific and technological progress. 
   We have to go back to a policy of long-term commitment to
fostering investment in scientific and technological progress--as
we used to do--in building infrastructure. 
   Let me give you one example of how this insanity is working.
That madwoman Margaret Thatcher, the former prime minister of
Britain-- 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you gave an incredible statistic, that
eastern Europe is operating at 30 percent of its industrial and
agricultural capacity. What are the alternatives, or, as you put
it very, very clearly, what is the only rational approach that
can be taken in terms of policy toward this part of the world? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Two things have to be understood and one thing
must be emphasized, because very few people in the world,
including in government or so-called professors in universities
have any understanding whatsoever of the basic principle of
history. 
   Some people, of course, remember geometry--some people who
are old enough, actually had a course in geometry in junior high
school or high school. They remember that they started with
Euclidean axioms and postulates, and they could derive, with aid
of construction, every theorem in Euclidean geometry by starting
with those axioms and postulates; and every theorem developed was
perfectly consistent with those axioms and postulates. And thus
the axioms and postulates {predetermined} what kinds of theorems
you could develop. 
   If you {changed} the axioms or postulates in part, as some
people also remember, such as changing the so-called parallel
postulate, you would get a different geometry with different
theorems as possibilities, and a different overall result. 
   In history, it is the same thing. The superiority of Western
civilization is not based on some specific fixed doctrtine,
because we have had many changes, as many of us know who studied
anything of history in the past 550 years. We have had bad
changes, we have had changes for the better. 
   For example, the United States, originally, was one of those
changes for the better. We have a Constitution which is
{unprecedented} in that period--the original Federal Constitution
of the United States, toward which we no longer show much
respect, but it was a very good Constitution. It was original. 
   But it came under a certain set of {axioms,} which were
adopted in the middle of the fifteenth century. These axioms--and
you look at the population curve, you look at the income figures
for various parts of the world--wherever these axioms were
introduced after being developed in Western Europe, these axioms
have resulted in a {bettering} of the potential for existence of
the individual, the family, and a bettering of the potential for
individual freedom. 
   So this covers many choices of particular policy; so instead
of thinking about details of what {policy} will work, you have to
think of what kind of {axioms of policy making} must be adopted
to bring nations with different structures to agreement on a set
of policies which, even though the implementation may be
different from one country to another, the principles are the
same and therefore the various theorems that different nations
adopt, will be compatible. 
   Now, in economics, the basic principle is this. 
   Actual net profit, that is {profit from labor,} comes {only}
from technological progress. That is, by increasing productivity
through technological progress, we {increase} what people produce
over and above what they require to consume to be able to produce
at that level; and that margin of difference is the source of
physical profit for society as a whole. 
   So if you employ enough people using the right technology,
they can improve their standard of living, and that factor of
improvement is the profit which, presumably, they reinvest in
further improvements. 
   That is the principle of scientific and technological
progress; and from about 1440 A.D. until about 1966, that was the
prevailing axiomatic policy of the United States and of Western
Europe. 

        - Economic Requirements for All Nations Today -

   It was also the policy of developing nations which wished
access to the right to have the same kind of economic policy for
themselves. People were talking about equality, parity, equal
oppportunity for developing nations and what they meant, was that
they wanted the right to technological progress. 
   What we have to do, is go back to that. If we go back to
that, there are a great number of options, all of which will
work, within which there are certain things that have to be done.
   You must have a major, infrastructural development policy.
For example, we require that in the United States. We have a
water crisis; and without a major infrastructural investment in
water resources development, a Federal project in cooperation
with the states, we are going to be sick. 
   For example, Mrs. Thatcher in London (our un-favorite
screech-owl from Britain), privatized the water systems of
Britain, saying they would be more efficient. So she did it.
Prime Minister Major continued the policy. The public water
systems were privatized; the private water systems decided to
increase their profit by cutting off the poor-paying sections of
cities from water. So {whole sections of British cities were cut
off from their water supplies.} As a result of that, unsanitary
conditions broke out, and now we have epidemics affecting the
entire population of Britain coming as a result of Mrs.
Thatcher's insistence upon privatizing the water systems. 
   We need infrastructure-building, we need transportation
facilities, we need energy, these kinds of things. Those are
basics. We need a fostering of medium- to long-term investment in
manufacturing, in agriculture, using improved technology. 
   {We need to minimize,} and cut back to the maximum, the
waste of labor in financial speculation and the cost of it, and
in service industries. We need to put less emphasis upon
fast-food stands. For example, we should actually {raise} minimum
wages so as to {cut down} on fast-food stands. Because that is
{waste.} That depresses the entire economy, when you take people
away from employment in factories and put them into fast-food
stands. When you take people and train them in college not for
engineering, but to become parasites on Wall Street peddling
stock options and things like that, that is waste. 
   So if we accept these axioms, going back to a philosophy of
government which was accepted as a moral approach to government
in the United States, say, up to 1966, and take the comparable
view overseas and in other parts of the world, then we have
agreed upon a set of axioms which will lead nations to come
readily to agreement among different kinds of policies but
policies which are compatible; under those conditions we can have
an economic revival. 

       - How President Kennedy's Policies Were Replaced -
               - by ``The Aquarian Conspiracy'' -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have made the point frequently that
many in the Clinton administration are baby boomers, that they
were born in the aftermath of World War II and they do not have a
reference point, and you are now talking about creating an
axiomatic shift in policies. What are the policies that are
associated with these different periods of development? You
mentioned 1966. What were the pre-1966 policies, and how do they
contrast themselves to the post-1966 policies? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The Kennedy policy was the last good policy
initiative the United States had. Reagan did a great job with
pushing the SDI and a few things have happened along the way
which were good. But the last general policy which was any good
for the United States, was the Kennedy policy. I do not want to
overpraise John F. Kennedy, but the fact is, that the policies of
his administration, {in contrast to} some of the policies of the
Eisenhower and Truman administrations and in contrast to what was
pushed on Johnson and what followed Johnson, the Kennedy
presidency stands out as the last good presidency to date of the
United States for that reason. 
   The irony of the Kennedy administration was this. We began
to work on space exploration--the human race did--in the
nineteenth century. Much of the work on space exploration dates
from then. In the 1920s, after World War I, with the success of
the aircraft, an aerospace idea began to develop of man in the
Solar System, man in the universe, as opposed to man with his
feet stuck in the mud of the planet Earth. 
   We began to move in those directions, and Kennedy furthered
that, with his crash program approach to a manned landing on the
Moon, which was successful. If we look back today, we find that
most of the technology which benefits us today, from that period,
were technologies which were actually developed as a result of
the Kennedy crash program and the National Science Foundation
efforts which were started by the Eisenhower people, the
so-called Sputnik program, but actually were put into operation
under Kennedy and under the influence of the Kennedy space
program. 
   So we had a choice; the choice was man is going into space
first with a couple of steps on the Moon. Then with larger
colonies, space stations, and so forth, we would master other
planets, we would do terra-forming of planets eventually,
starting with colonies under bubbles, and man would generally go
out into space as we developed the technologies which led us in
that direction. 
   So around the middle 1960s--1963-1966--a bunch of people who
were followers of kooks such as Friedrich Nietzsche, H.G. Wells,
Bertrand Russell, or the professed Satanist Aleister Crowley
began pushing-- 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were just discussing the Kennedy space
program and its implications in terms of policy. You began to
mention Aleister Crowley. Can you pick up from that point? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: For example, there was a book published at the
end of the 1970s by a woman named Marilyn Ferguson from Stanford
Research Institute. She was a protege of a fellow named Willis
Harman. This book, while it is a rather weird book to read, is
nonetheless accurate in describing from the inside the people who
effected what is called a cultural paradigm shift beginning the
middle of the 1960s. This goes back to the ``Triple Revolution'';
this goes back to the shooting of Martin Luther King, because
Martin Luther King represents obviously the desire for
participation in technological progress and so forth by the Black
minority of the United States, and civil rights for everyone
actually on the same basis. 
   These people did not want that. They wanted what is called
the ``World of Difference'' program, they wanted what is called
multicultural diversity, in which Black people develop a
different culture, a sub-culture, an inferior subculture, that
is, the inability to master technology because of the kind of
cultural conditioning, in order to destroy them, to convert them
back into slaves, in effect, or Yahoos--that sort of thing. 
   So we had a turn. Instead of fostering the development of
the minds of our youth for an age of space science and space
exploration, they said ``We have too many people.'' And they
said, as did H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell, and these other
people ``We have too many people--especially people with black
skins, with brown skins, with yellow skins, and people who are
Mediterranean, such as Turks, Greeks, Yugoslavs, Spanish, and
Italians as well.'' 
   These were the exact words of the founders of the leading
Malthusian institution, the Club of Rome, Dr. Alexander King and
others. Solly Zuckerman. The Soviets became involved in the same
thing, through IIASA, the International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, which is the leading institute there. We had a
fellow called Ivan Frolov in Moscow, head of the Moscow Global
Systems group. We had a group in England, around economists at
Cambridge University, who were the Cambridge Systems Analysis
group, who represented the same thing. 
   These people were determined to orchestrate a vast genocide
against black-skinned, yellow-skinned, brown-skinned,
olive-skinned people around the world, while also {lowering the
level of the U.S. population to a bunch of coolies.} 
   We see that happening now. 
   The high-tech jobs are being shipped out of the United
States to Mexico, then they bounce from Mexico to slave-labor
camps in China; and in the meanwhile, the American is left
without a job. He is now reduced to flipping hamburgers at low
wages in some shop--he cannot support a family on that--and now
the Americans are becoming coolies. We are going to a nomad
society, where you travel around the United States, sleeping
under bridges, shaping up for coolie jobs in the morning, and
entertaining yourself at night with a virtual reality apparatus
which is, shall we say, an active-matrix screen in front of your
eyes, a set of earphones, a pair of gloves which give you a sense
of virtual reality, and a microphone into which to speak, and you
live in a fantasy world, as a coolie slave, being entertained
with the latest interactive Hollywood product. 
   That is what is happening to us. 
   Now, what has happened is that the young people of Clinton's
generation and younger, have been denied geometry--they are no
longer educated in geometry. They are given a kind of
maethematics which enables them to run a PC keyboard, but not a
machine tool. They have no knowledge of history; their history is
a pseudo-history based on films, TV film specials, that sort of
stuff--and garbage--and they are educated in performance-oriented
education, which is not real education, but is brainwashing,
motivation to adopt new cultural life-styles, things like that.
This kind of garbage. 
   And so we have a population which is being reduced to the
level of what Jonathan Swift described as ``Yahoos'' in his
famous {Gulliver's Travels.} That is what has happened. The
unfortunate people have been victimized for about two
generations, that is, for two and a half to three decades of
transformation of the cultural paradigms in the schools, in the
mass media, and so forth. So we have a whole population which is
{crippled} by virtue of lack of education and miseducation. And
that is our problem. 

             - How Minority Groups Are Controlled -

   Q: One of the things that you just mentioned, was that the
population control movement, the Malthusian movement, is racist.
What is interesting, is that most minority groups at this point
would favor population control, or their leaders say so, such as
Jesse Jackson. 
   How have they been convinced that this somehow is in their
benefit? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: They have not been convinced of that. The way
it works is this. 
   We know, personally, the civil rights movement
leadership--at least those people who are still alive of it--from
the 1950s and 1960s. These are our friends. 
   They are there. They never went away. But they somehow,
after the killing of Martin Luther King, lost the leadership of
the civil rights movement. You can look at the various kinds of
movements in various ethnic groups, so called, around the
country. You will see a similar pattern. 
   The people who represent the traditional Judaeo-Christian
philosophy of European civilization in the United States, those
kinds of people get kicked out of a function; and somebody who
comes along who is willing to babble whatever script the
foundations will fund, are put in a position and called
``leaders.'' 
   So do not blame the groups for having adopted such policies;
they did not adopt them. What happened, is that their natural
leaders--the kinds of people, say, in the civil rights movement,
who were associated with Martin Luther King back in the
1960s--were pushed out of leadership, by use of money and
political pressure; and they were replaced by people who were
willing to be prostitutes, who were willing to babble whatever
line on race theory, cultural diversity, on population control
and so forth; whatever kookery the major powerful foundations are
willing to fund; they are in power. They are the ones who end up
on television. They are the ones who are quoted in the press. 
   It was not the people, it was not the Black or the
Afro-American who did that. It was the foundations who said,
``Well, this guy is going to get the publicity, he is going to be
your leader. And if you try to get another leader, like Marion
Barry in Washington, we will frame him up. We will find some
vulnerability, some chink in his armor. We will throw him in jail
and discredit him.'' 
   [commercial break] 

          - How U.S.-Russian Cooperation on the SDI -
         - Could Create the Necessary Paradigm Shift -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we were earlier discussing ballistic
missile defense, and it seems that there are many, many different
areas of the world that are quite concerned with a U.S.-Russian
program (should such a program be adopted); areas such as China,
perhaps even the former nuclear republics within the former
Soviet Union, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and even Ukraine. 
   How do we answer these concerns? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, you don't try to. Do not
accept--we have just been discussing axioms. Do not accept
propositions which are premised on false axiomatics. People say,
``Well, the world is going to go this way, and therefore we have
to discuss things in the way the world is going to go.'' And I
say: Bunk. You are wasting your time. 
   If the world continues to go in that way, we are all going
to fry anyway. So let's not worry about it, so let's forget the
question. If the world goes that way, we are all going to die or
virtually the same thing. So let's not worry about it. 
   Let's talk about changing the axioms. 
   What we have to do, and we still have maybe ten minutes to
twelve, five minutes to twelve, whatever it is. From what I know
of the situation in Russia, we still have a last chance to turn
things around. And that change will have to come in terms of
policy initiatives through the Clinton administration. It will
not be some future adminsitration; it will be {this} Clinton
adminsitration or it is not going to happen. And we have to get
the Phil Gramms out of the way so we can attend to business, as
we should be doing. 
   We have to make a paradigm shift of the following kind. 
   The wars of this century began in the last century when the
British were afraid that with the development of Germany and a
natural tendency of Czar Alexander II to reach out to Germany and
to the United States and Japan for allies, that Germany, France,
Russia, and Japan and the United States--the Lincoln United
States which hated Britain and the British Empire--would come
into economic cooperation; not alliance, but economic
cooperation; and under that policy, the Eurasian continent,
including China, would become the center of a global economic
development which would destroy the ability of the British Empire
to rule the world or dominate it. 
   For that reason, Britain in various ways {caused World War
I.} Naturally, there were fools in Germany, fools in France,
fools in Russia, who played along with this in their part, in
Austro-Hungary. But it is the British who are the guilty parties
for World War I. They were determined to cause a war among
France, Germany, Russia, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire,
in order to destroy the continent, to create bloody hatreds on
the continent, which would prevent that kind of Eurasian
cooperation from ever occurring. 
   This was called geopolitics, the doctrine of Britain's
Halford Mackinder, or Germany's Karl Haushofer. For geopolitical
reasons, again, Anglo-American powers, including Averell Harriman
personally, put Adolf Hitler into power in Germany in 1933; not
only because Harriman agreed with Hitler's racial policies, but
because they wished to use Hitler to ensure a new war among
France, Germany, and Russia. And they got World war II as a
result of that. 
   In 1989-1990, the British, fearing that the unification of
Germany would lead to cooperation among France, Germany, and a
new Russia, a post-Bolshevik Russia, decided to destabilize
Europe for the same reason that Britain orchestrated World War I
and World War II. 
   That is the problem; and that is the thing we have to deal
with. {We must say, for once and for all:} Two world wars and
this hell are more than enough. {No more geopolitics.} To hell
with the British Empire. We are now going to foster the
cooperation among Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Kiev, and other capitals
for mutually beneficial economic development projects; and the
United States is going to participate fully in fostering that
kind of approach. 
   That is the essential change we must make. This change must
be based on a commitment to scientific and technological
progress, {as the Russian offer to Clinton on the plasmoid
defense system typifies.} That cooperation around SDI, as the
Russians have offered, from Yeltsin to Clinton, would be a
keystone in making this paradigm shift, as the enemies would call
it, back to the anti-geopolitical policy which would be the basis
for building some kind of world war avoidance and peace. 

   Q: China is the big power of the next century
population-wise. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Maybe. It could be destroying itself also, as
the alternative. 

  - The Strategic Key to U.S. Policy for the Coming Century: -
     - How and Why China and Russia Can and Must Be Saved -

   Q: How do we make sure that they enter the twenty-first
century, in a way which is productive? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, we have a few problems. We have a
problem of Russia. 
   Providing that {we make the change,} that we say that
geopolitics is dead, we're not going to tolerate it any more,
we're going to be sane, we are going to act as Americans in the
Judaeo-Christian tradition, no more of this usury, this nonsense,
this British idiocy against which we fought in our War of
Independence. We are going to cooperate with Europe, Eurasia, to
foster a system which will lead to peace. 
   Once we say that, we have two problems. One is Russia. If I
were free now from prison, and I don't need much, but all they
have to do is to signal from the U.S. that they are interested in
having my ideas discussed. 
   [commercial break] 
   
   Q: Welcome back to ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.''
First of all, if you have any questions that you want to put to
Mr. LaRouche, you can write to ``{EIR} Talks with LaRouche,''
P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390. 
   Mr. LaRouche, you were putting forward a very interesting
thought. Should you be released from prison you would have
certain kinds of policies that would lead to long-term war
avoidance. Please continue at that point. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Remember that everybody in a high-ranking
position in Moscow, knows a number of things. First of all, they
know that Gorbachov got a deal with the Bush faction in the
Reagan administration to put me in prison. They also know what I
offered in 1982-83 on behalf of the Reagan administration and
that I was dealing for the Reagan administration. They were
involved in it, at a high level. Andropov demanded my scalp;
Gorbachov demanded that I be imprisoned. That sort of thing. 
   Therefore, in the highest levels of Moscow, I have a
credibility--not necessarily that they ``liked'' me, but I have a
credibility--because I was right and they were wrong and the
United States government, in turning away from my policies, was
also wrong. They {know} that. Therefore, as a person, I have a
credibility with our former enemies which exceeds that of
probably any other person in the United States. Therefore, if I
say to Moscow, I think this is what our governments ought to do,
as a matter of direction in which to find cooperation, Moscow is
going to say, ``This is very credible.'' And therefore I have an
ability to influence events, influence thinking, which is
probably greater than any other individual person in the United
States. 
   On the basis of knowing that--and I have indications of that
at this time--I know that I could propose, with some influence if
I had the {implicit toleration} of the Clinton administration, I
could propose certain things that would be taken very seriously
in Moscow. 
   This brings us to two things. We have two tasks. 
   First of all, Moscow would accept, I think, what I would
offer as a proposal. And I think the Clinton administration would
accept it too. 
   The problem we would face, would be this. We could get the
Russian leadership to agree to the offer; but could the Russian
people carry it out? Well, in 1989-90 I think they could have
begun to carry it out. But a terrible situation has developed
since then--water has flowed under the bridge, so to speak. 
   We have a {cultural problem} to address. The Russians have
it, but we have to consider it in Moscow, among the Russian
people, to get them to successfully implement a program that
would work. That is number one. 
   Number two, if we do that, if we get that kind of
cooperation with Moscow, then we can say that northern Eurasia is
going to be in order, and we can rest easy on that one. Now we
come to China. 
   China is in the process of a great process of
self-destruction. It is back into a Taoist (it always was Taoist
and Lgalist under Mao Zedong and the communists), but it is now
going into an end-phase of a Taoist cycle in which we see
{hundreds of millions} of Chinese being shipped from inner China
to slave-labor projects on the coast, and these can only be
described economically as slave-labor projects. {These Chinese
are going to die.} There is going to be a vast consuming of
hundreds of millions of so-called surplus Chinese from the
hinterlands, in the gas ovens of the enterprise zones along the
coasts of China. That is, they will take Chinese bodies, throw
them into slave labor; they will work cheap, they will produce
income for some people, but they will die of hunger and disease
in the process of their bodies being consumed--like the slave
labor used by the Nazis at Auschwitz, in the I.G. Farben plant,
for example. That is what is going on. 
   If China is to be saved, not only must this kind of policy
come to an end, but you must have a Chinese regime which invokes
from within China's culture, the Confucian tradition within
China, {in opposition} to the Taoist-Legalist philosophy. Unless
that is done, China cannot be saved; and if China cannot be
saved, then {all of the Indian-Pacific Ocean Basin region of this
planet will become a hell,} particularly the Asian side. 
   So we must solve the China question; but solving the China
question, of course, is predicated upon coming to the kinds of
cooperation with Russia which we desperately need on that side. 
   So these two task--of solving relations with Russia, which
takes care of one part of the world, but then also addressing
this problem of the cultural crisis of China--stand before us. 
   The United States and all of us who are intelligent, {must
understand the significance of the difference between the
Confucian and Taoist-Legalist tradition in China.} We must put
ourselves fully on the side of the Confucian heritage, which has
an affinity with the Judaeo-Christian tradition and help the
Chinese address this problem. 
   Remember we are talking about less than 1.2 billion mainland
Chinese and about 1.5 billion Chinese in total. So we are talking
about a very large chunk of the human race, and when we talk
about the nations with whom China has relations, we are talking
about a much larger chunk of the human race. 
   So our cultural policy toward Russia, and our cultural
policy toward China, must be the strategic key to the policy of
the United States for the coming century. 
                       
   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we are out of time. Thank you very much. We
will return next week. 

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]