Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 5/5/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 10 May 93 9:6:3 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 transcript below 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 Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 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 

   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 U.S. Must Oppose the New {Entente Cordiale} -
        - and Reverse the Insanity of Geopolitics -

   Mr. LaRouche, good morning. We have a situation in
Bosnia which just keeps getting worse and worse. What are the
parameters for coming up with a solution for this part of the
world? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, you have to recognize the
{fact} of the matter. You have to recognize that George Bush,
Margaret Thatcher, and Mikhail Gorbachov unleashed the
Serbian fascist allies of a section of British intelligence
around Milosevic in an attempt to undercut the southern flank
of Europe for geopolitical reasons. 
   Now in the British press, and in statements of British
public officials, such as Douglas Hurd, the foreign minister,
in the context of the Balladur-Major discussions it is
recently coming to the surface, that they are saying,
shamelessly and explicitly, that the [1904] {Entente
Cordiale} which organized World War I is in effect between
the British and French governments {against the United States
policy,} on behalf of supporting the Serbs, to let the Serbs
run loose, continuing their genocide, their ``ethnic
cleansing,'' and mass rape, in the former Yugoslavia, in the
Balkans. 
   So that is what the problem is. The question is: Will
President Clinton lose his nerve and back down piecemeal
under pressure from Paris and London--under the pressure of
the same Entente Cordiale politics which caused World War I
and implicitly World War II; or will the United States take
{effective action} in this situation? 
   The United States is going to do something. The question
is, is it going to be an effective action? 
   The effective action is very simple. You have to say: We
are going {to reverse the geopolitical insanity} of Margaret
Thatcher, George Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachov, who unleashed
this cat in the first place. We are going back to a policy of
national sovereignty, of sovereignty of nation states. Under
those conditions, we are going to implement a policy which
will get the Serbs' military forces and all the so-called
Bosnian-Croatian Serbs--who are nothing but instruments of
Belgrade policy--back to the borders which existed prior to
the start of this war. 
   The way we're going to do it, is to lift the arms
embargo against arming the Bosnians and the Croatians in
particular. We are going to support the self-defense of the
Bosnians and the Croatians against this Serbian fascist plot
with air support. We are going to put only enough in there,
in terms of ground troops, to coordinate the relationship
between the defendants, the Bosnians and the Croats, against
the war criminal aggressors, the Serbs, under the direction
of Milosevic and such creatures or assets of his as Karadzic. 
   If we do that, we have a clear and effective military
policy. However, if we go in for a peacekeeping role, so
called, or a U.N. role--anything which Boutros Boutros-Ghali,
the present U.N. Secretary General, or London or Paris would
tend to accept now--then we are in for trouble, we are in for
a loser--and more horror. 
   That does not mean we can't win Paris and/or London
over--if the United States takes an absolutely firm position
and threatens to let the cat out of the bag and say, ``If you
gentlemen in Paris and London are going to oppose us on this,
we're going to have to tell the American people and the world
what you really have been up to. We're going to talk about
geopolitics, and we're going to talk about our own
President's--Bush's, together with Thatcher's and Gorbachov's
role--in unleashing this holy hell in the Balkans and for
what reason you did it. So if you don't want to get this
thing slapped in your face, you better go along with this.'' 
   And that's the way to get the job done. 
   
   Q: There are some who say at this point that the war in
the Balkans was caused by certain powers, such as Germany
recognizing Croatia too early. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: That was strictly a British operation. 
   Whenever you hear that, you have a guilty party. People
who spread that line, are people who are behind the original
policy, Thatcher's policy, which was unfortunately supported
by President George Bush, and which was used as the basis for
getting Mikhail Gorbachov to assist in supporting the British
operation for the bloody destabilization of the Balkans. 
   Remember, this is the same British operation which
resulted in the assassination of a leading German banker,
Alfred Herrhausen, and also a leading German official, Detlev
Rohwedder, among others; a bloody policy. If these guys want
to use that line, we are going to throw the dead fish back in
their face, and say, ``Okay, you murderers. You scat. We
don't want to hear from you.'' 

   Q: We are looking at this point at a policy mess in the
Balkans. The Vance-Owen Plan has now been accepted by
Serbia-- 
   MR. LAROUCHE: I think that's incorrect. Serbia has {not}
accepted the Vance-Owen plan. 
   What Serbia has said is that they are not opposing; they
are un-opposing it; and this is that deal that was whipped up
outside of Athens. They are un-opposing it, not supporting
it, on the condition, number one, that the Bosnian Serb
parliament--which is a rump parliament, it's really an
extension of Belgrade--accepts it. 
   As Karadzic has said, the conditions for acceptance
include the so-called corridor this and that, which of course
is not in there. So the Vance-Owen Plan {has never been
accepted} by the Serbs; and the propaganda to the contrary
effect, is simply something out of that witch-doctor
psychiatrist Lord Owen's monkeying around with that
witch-doctor psychiatrist Karadzic, the war criminal. 
   Owen knows what he is doing; he is condoning and
continuing the policy of butchery and genocide, by the Serbs
in the Balkans, {which has been British policy since this
mess started.} So we should not accept the idea that the
British or their friend Boutros-Ghali in the U.N. Security
Council are sincerely motivated in making these kinds of
nonsensical reports. 

- Geopolitics a Policy of Criminals, not `Miscalculation' - 

   Q: You have termed the British and the French policies
as geopolitics and characterized the U.N. Secretariat also as
``playing geopolitics.'' What does this mean? Most Americans
don't really have a sense of what geopolitics is. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, in American history, that's Teddy
Roosevelt. That's the Confederacy--of which Teddy Roosevelt
through his uncle and adviser the traitor Bullock was a part;
that's Admiral Thayer Mahan with his ``blue-water Navy''
nonsense, and that's that Confederate-minded scoundrel,
President Woodrow Wilson, the co-founder of the second
founding of the Ku Klux Klan, if you want to know one reason
why President Woodrow Wilson as president was a scoundrel. He
was as President a co-founder of the Ku Klux Klan's second
coming. 
   Geopolitics is very simple. The British faction, which
was associated with the Royal family, since 1714, 1716; that
group is called the Venetian Party. This is a group of
Venetians who thought they could no longer control the world
from Venice, and they said ``Let's move North to places such
as England and take it over as an island nation, and the
Netherlands. And we'll use that as the basis for the new
Venice of the North.'' The same Venetian families, the
friends of Paolo Sarpi, moved North. 
   Now these people have had the idea of building a global
empire as a caricature of a worldwide Roman Empire; that is
the new world order. Their main concern has been the progress
of scientific and technological progress unleashed in part in
the United States by the American Revolution, but continued
in Europe under the auspices of what was often called the
American System--that is, that with the development of France
and then Germany, that you would have a buildup from Paris
through Berlin, to Moscow, to Kiev, all the way to
Vladivostok, Tokyo, etc., under which the Eurasian continent,
led by rail developments in the nineteenth century, would
undergo a rapid development in the per capita productive
powers of labor in agriculture, industry, and science. 
   To prevent that, the British adopted a doctrine (which
various people contributed to inventing) which is associated
with Halford Mackinder the Fabian (a Social Democrat, British
style), who was key to organizing World War I together with
the other Fabians like Milner. They said essentially, that if
Britain takes control of the United States, which is what, to
a large degree, happened under Teddy Roosevelt, who was a
{raving} Anglophile, would do anything London told him to do;
that the British will control ``the rim'' of the world. That
is, the Americans will be controlled jointly by Britain and
the United States; the ``rim countries'' of Japan, Indonesia,
Southeast Asia, will be controlled; India will be controlled. 
   But the ``danger'' will come from France being drawn
into an alliance with Berlin and Moscow, from this Eurasian
development--which is what Tsar Alexander II was for, which
is what Russia's Count Sergei Witte was for. 
   So they said, ``What we have to do, is to divide Europe
against itself. We have to get France involved with Britain.
We have to get Russia in a war against Germany;'' and so
forth and so on. And by these balance-of-power methods or
divide-and-conquer methods, we have to prevent any extensive
scientific and technological progress from taking place in
the Eurasian continent as a whole. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Before we begin to discuss Clinton's 100 days in
office, his economic and foreign policies, let's finish up
with this discussion of geopolitics. The UN Secretariat is
particularly involved in geopolitics; what is the problem
with this approach? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: The problem is, that this thing stinks.
It's caused two world wars in this century. If somebody wants
to start it again, they're going to end up with another world
war. So anyone who talks in those directions, ought to be
just rushed out the door real fast, and told to come back in
another century, when we'll be better equipped to deal with
their crazy arguments, or have the psychiatric institutions
which are required for people who think in those directions. 
   Now Boutros Boutros-Ghali has shown himself, since
becoming the Secretary-General of the United Nations, every
inch a British geopolitician. This goes to everything. 
   First of all, remember that the [Berlin] Wall came down
as a result of President Reagan putting his name to the
Strategic Defense Initiative policy which I had worked out in
conjunction with people in his National Security Council and
elsewhere. That brought down the walls of the Soviet Empire. 
   What has happened--to understand Boutros-Ghali--is that,
at that point, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, and Mikhail
Gorbachov, worked out a deal, which was not actually entirely
kind to Mr. Gorbachov's Russia, in which the Anglo-Americans
said, ``All right. Now we have weakened definitely, almost
eliminated, the last competitor for the Anglo-American
thermonuclear power. Let's chop the world up the way we
wanted to all along. Let's eliminate scientific and
technological progress; let's reduce the population of the
world, mostly, especially, dark-skinned branches of the human
race. Let's do this; and let's destroy eastern Europe and
Russia, let's destroy eastern Germany, let's destroy a good
part of Europe as well as Africa and South America.'' 
   That is the policy; that is the policy of this faction
inside the United Nations. And I say this not on a
speculation, but because I know this directly from statements
from the mouths of the relevant top officials of that faction
in and around the United Nations. That is their policy. Their
policy is a policy of genocide. They are actually {quite
delighted} by what is happening in the slaughter in the
Balkans. 
   So one must understand that geopolitics is not an
argument to be dealt with as if it were some kind of
rational, slightly mistaken argument which people who have
some wrong assumptions are making; no. 
   These people are starting from {bad motives}; they are
{bad people,} with bad motives. They are like a burglar. You
say, ``What's wrong with the burglar's argument for the way
he wants to rob the bank?'' Who cares about what's wrong with
his argument? The fact is, he wants to rob the bank! And
that's the way you have to deal with these geopoliticians.
Don't dignify them by assuming that they have ``good faith''
and are simply misled by a miscalculation. No; they may be
miscalculating, but the essential thing is, they are
criminals. 

  - Clinton's 100 Days: An Administration of Indecision -

   Q: After 100 days-plus in office, President Clinton is
looking at a world which is getting deeper and deeper into
crisis. He has been handed the potential at least, with the
German reunification and the opening up of eastern Europe, of
embarking on an era of great development. 
   How would you rate President Clinton's first 100 days in
office? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: He has had pretty much a disaster. Of
course, it is not all his fault; but so far he has not done,
on a number of occasions, what he should have done. 
   For example, let's take that Republican filibuster. He
should have faced them down, and gone after them hammer and
tongs. Instead, he allowed a filibuster to take the dynamic
away from his administration. He should never have allowed
that. These guys want to filibuster: Okay. They're going to
take responsibility. We need something, they do not represent
the majority, they represented a {minority} of the vote.
They're using a filibuster. They're not using it for any
moral reason whatsoever. 
   They were simply doing it to try to break Clinton,
because they had a reading, on the basis of President
Clinton's role as Governor of Arkansas, where some of the
press down there called him ``Slick Willie,'' that Clinton,
under pressure from various forces inside his own combination
as well as outside, would spin like a weathervane under what
appeared to be prevailing winds. 
   That's what they're doing to him on foreign policy, in
the Bosnia case; they have been spinning him like a
weathervane with pressure from various quarters, getting him
to back down a bit here and there, that kind of stuff; and
thus far--not entirely wrongly, of course--Clinton has not
measured up to virtually any of his pre-election promises,
except homosexuals in the military, and that's of course not
complete yet. And what he is doing, is not going to work at
present. 
   If Clinton goes ahead {boldly,} and treats British and
French objections as he should, to get the right policy going
in Bosnia, that will help to save him; and if he turns around
and begins to clobber some people like that idiot, Sen. Phil
Gramm--``Landfill'' Gramm, that kind of idiocy--and {if he
does not make the mistake of slapping on taxes all over the
place,} and if he puts that health plan on the shelf for a
while, until he figures out what he's going to do with the
economy as a whole, he might come out of this all right. 
   But at present, one must admit: it does not look good.
It looks like an administration of indecision and bad
decisions in the main. It does not look good at all. 

            - ``Learn the ABCs of Economics'' -

   Q: Let's look at Senator Gramm and his policy for a
minute. The Gramm-Rudman bill calling for balanced budget
amendment types of things; everyone thinks that this is the
way to go. If you talk to people on the streets, they think
that you have to balance a budget in the same way you have to
balance your household budget, you're going to have to do
something, you're going to have to cut somewhere; why is this
approach totally wrong? 
   MR. LAROUCHE. It's totally insane. It's not wrong, it's
insane. 
   First of all, when people approach a thing like a
national economy, they should understand that a national
economy, particularly a modern national economy, is not
something that some guy just born into a remote aboriginal
tribe is going to come up with as a matter of aboriginal
tribal common sense. 
   A modern economy was developed by phases. It is a very
complex process, and it's the kind of thing which most of the
people in Washington today, just don't know anything about.
And most people who are, unfortunately, graduating economics
courses at universities today, don't know anything about. 
   The first thing is, if you want to take the household
equivalent; If, in the old days, before you had health
insurance, and such things, Grandma was sick, well, the
family went out and earned more money, if needed, to take
care of Grandma. 
   Today, we have an economy that is sick. According to
Labor Department estimates, we have 18 million people who are
in the adult labor force who are not employed. They're
unemployed. Nearly 18 million people. 
   Well, we have to give them jobs. We have, in addition to
that, people who are improperly employed: people who are
employed flipping hamburgers; adults flipping hamburgers at
minimum wages and these kinds of things. They can't support a
family on that. 
   We have communities that are collapsing for lack of
infrastructure; we have people who are going to become stupid
and unemployable because the local school system doesn't give
them a real education, it gives them one of these
motivational kinds of New Age stuff instead. Hospital
facilities broken down--the whole business. 
   We don't have infrastructure for industry if you wanted
to put one in many localities in the country. 
   This means we have to go out and put people to work to
produce more wealth; {and that's the way to balance the
budget.} 
   You don't balance the budget by melting Grandma down in
the furnace, which is what Phil Gramm essentially says. You
know, ``You can't balance the budget because Grandma's health
problems are costing too much money? Throw her in the
furnace!'' That is what Gramm is saying, in effect, with his
funny drawl from that part of the country. And that is what
has to be understood. 
   If you want to understand economics and make economic
policy, {please sit down and understand the ABCs of
economics}; please {at least} read the founding economic
document of our Federal republic, George Washington's
Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's {On the Subject of
Manufactures}; read Hamilton on national banking, on national
credit. Read these things that founded our country. Learn the
ABCs of economics. And don't go babbling and prattling like
some idiot, like Milton Friedman, or like that fool from
Texas, Senator Gramm. 
   Q: This is ``{EIR} Talks with LaRouche.'' If people want
to send in questions to Mr. LaRouche, he can be reached
through ``{EIR} Talks with LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390,
Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, on taxes and job creation programs: How
do you think Clinton is doing? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Very badly right now. Of course, he is not
doing as badly as the Republicans and others in the Congress
are doing, as anyone who follows that disaster, Phil Gramm,
or echoes his reasoning--or echoes the arguments, for
example, of Ross Perot, particularly, in his resurrection of
his campaign as an independent after the two conventions, who
follows this kind of Perot or Phil Gramm reasoning, is making
an absolute disaster. 
   And relative to that, Bill Clinton is practically a
hero. 

          - ``There Has Been No Real Recovery'' -

   Q: Moment to moment we hear one story or another,
whether the economy is rebounding or not. One month ago, they
said the economy was rebounding; now they say they have new
statistics which show that housing starts are down or housing
applications are down; what is the situation? Clinton was
going to push a stimulus program, and it was a summer jobs
creation program, and he backed off a little bit, because of
the so-called rebounding economy. 
   What is the situation? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: No, he didn't back off because of a
rebounding economy; he backed off because the political
weathervane was pointing in a different direction, and he or
his administration didn't have the stomach to take on the
Senate at that time. That's all there was to it. There never
was a recovery. There has not been a recovery particularly
since 1987; it never occurred. People think that because
somebody's got a job picking up paper or raking leaves or
something else, that that's a recovery. That's no recovery. 
   A recovery occurs in two things. It occurs, first of
all, in the simple production by Americans of either the
objects which we require to survive as a nation, to maintain
our standard of living; or objects which we sell overseas in
return for the objects which we require for the producers'
and households' consumption. 
   The second thing that is required for recovery, and is
generally the driver for recovery, is the production of
technological progress. That means machine tools, investment
in improved machine tools; changes in methods of production
which use improved machine tools; it means an increase in the
ratio of investment per capita; it means investment in
infrastructure; power production; more power plants. Has
anyone seen more power plants going in recently? It means
cleaning up water; has anyone seen large-scale water and
sewage system improvement to clean up the sewer-spreading
system we now have instead of a sewage disposal system? And
do people see a national rail system going into effect, which
is what we desperately need for a sustainable recovery? 
   Do people see improvements in the local schools? Do we
see better teachers, not these nitwits who are trying to
teach homosexuality to people at the age of six, but real
teachers, who teach geometry and things like that? Do we see
a reduction in class size in the schools so the students can
have some of the close instruction they require? Do we see an
effective elimination of the drug problems in the schools,
despite all the people being thrown in the hoosegow? Is the
school drug problem being removed? No. 
   Do we see better medical care? No. 
   So, none of the things that you would have to see if a
recovery were in progress are happening. 
   What {is} happening, which is called ``the recovery,''
is this growth of this cancerous, deadly,
one-trillion-dollar-a-day speculation in futures, etc.,
called derivatives about which people don't know much; but it
is that spinning of money and fictitious money, through Wall
Street and other circuits, which does result in a certain
amount of employment of parasites, like Michael Milken;
parasites like that (who are also tied to organized crime,
incidentally). 
   But that is what people are calling the recovery. 
   When it comes to the things that make a difference, that
get people out from living under bridges into houses and
things like that, that has not been happening since 1987. 

              - Tax Derivatives, Not People -

   Q: You have proposed a derivatives tax. We hear from
some people that anything like that, would collapse the
fragile banking structure. First of all, explain what your
derivatives tax is. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, very simply, we have a bunch of
swindlers who are looting pension funds, looting corporate
income, which should be going into job creation and
investment and all that sort of thing ,but is instead going
off into a wild spin of speculation around the world. That's
{one trillion dollars a day.} That's about $350 trillion a
year, actually (or somewhere in that vicinity), as compared
with less than $6 trillion a year total U.S. GNP. Imagine:
{50 times at least} the GNP of the United States is going up
in smoke every year as derivatives; and that is the main
driver for the growth of the Federal deficit and the growth
of the national debt. 
   Now that compares with the total world GNP. So we're
talking about 25 times the total world Gross National Product
is spinning around in this wild speculation, sucking the
blood out of pension funds and everything else in sight. And
I proposed that we ought to put a sales tax on that, that we
should tax every transaction a measly one-tenth of one
percent of the notional value of the asset which is the
subject of speculation--and bring this thing under control. 
   Now, the people who are opposed to this, you'll
generally find, have a friend who is engaged in this swindle.
We have called that corruption--or we can call that
stupidity. 
   But why not tax something which is evil, which doesn't
do anybody any good, instead of taxing things like incomes,
which people need? It doesn't do most people any good, and
certainly doesn't do the nation any good. If you want to put
a tax on something--stick it on derivatives, buddy; don't
stick it on people. 
   
   Q: We're coming up to a break at this point, but I want
to ask a question which perhaps you can answer in the next
segment. 
   What would you say is the most important foreign policy
initiative or set of initiatives that the Clinton
administration can go with in the next couple of months? 
   We're coming up to our break at this point, so let us
leave with that question, and we'll return with that
question. 
   [commercial break] 

     - International Cooperation Among Nation-States -
       - Depends on What President Clinton Will Do -

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, what is the most important foreign
policy initiative that the Clinton administration can go with
at this point? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the Clinton administration should
immediately go with, over any objections from Boutros-Ghali,
from London or from Paris, a policy of lifting the arms
embargo on arming the Bosnian and Croatian governments as
sovereign nation-states, and of providing close air support
for throwing the Serbian forces back across the borders of
Croatia and Bosnia prior to the outbreak of the Serbian
aggression against Croatia and Serbia last year or two years
ago. 
     That should be the policy. Why? 
   As opposed to a collection of words, what is required is
an {action} which reverses a trend in foreign policy; and
that action will do it. That will smoke out all the cats and
dogs and put all the problems on the table to be addressed,
whereas talking about some new foreign policy, is like
talking about a new world order; It's either not going to
happen, or it's bad. 
   Get in there, arm the Croats and the Bosnians by lifting
the arms embargo on arms delivery {to those sovereign
nation-states}--{recognized} sovereign nation-states--with
the objective of throwing the aggressors, the war criminals,
the Serbian fascist armed forces, back across the borders
which were the borders of Croatia and Bosnia prior to the
initial Serbian aggression of 1991. That is the objective.
Once that's done, you've set up a set of policy parameters in
action. We are eliminating {globalism} and all kinds of
insanity associated with it. We are going back to the
principle upon which western European civilization and its
successors have been based, the principle of the sovereign
nation-state and representative government based on a common,
literate form of language of people in sovereign
nation-states. 
   If you don't have that, people cannot participate in
their government. If they don't speak the same language, it's
very difficult, isn't it? We have to go with the idea of
{national political economy,} that every nation is
responsible for its own credit system and its national
economy. 
   On the basis of these kinds of principles, together with
the principles which were set forth {by the United States at
its founding,} as under the first administration of George
Washington, principles which served us well every time we
adhered to them; principles which are well known, by the
followers of Charles de Gaulle of the Fifth Republic of
France in Europe, by the followers of Friedrich List--these
principles are all well known in Europe. The followers of
Sergei Witte, say, in the Russian case. These policies are
known. 
   The policy should be to say that there will be
international cooperation on the basis of these policies
among sovereign nation-states with national political
economy, who will cooperate in joint policies, joint
development, who will cooperate in trade agreements to keep
world trade orderly, to keep from taking in each other's
laundry. 
   And all of that depends upon: Does the Clinton
administration {have the guts} to throw a wet fish in the
face of John Major and his French Theophile Delcasses of
today, and say, ``We are not going to tolerate this any more.
We are going back to a system that works, a system of global
cooperation in which we invite Russia and the former member
states which were formerly part of the former Soviet Union,
to collaborate, as well as other nations, to create a
sensible, neighborly, new world order based on respect for
the dignity and sovereignty of every nation, and the right of
every nation to develop its political economy.'' That is what
we have to do. 

    - The Cult Awareness Network's Operation is Nazism -

   Q: Over the past couple of weeks, we have been
discussing the situation in Waco, Texas, the Branch Davidian
cult. Congressmen Hughes in congressional hearings on it, has
proposed that something be done, that the FBI go after the
2500 cults; Cynthia Kisser of the Cult Awareness Network, has
also suggested a similar policy. 
   What does this kind of approach do, and should Janet
Reno listen to them? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I reject the word cult as applied to
the Branch Davidians. I have known of cults--the cult of
Albert Pike, for example, is a cult. Every organized religion
on this planet, virtually, could be called a cult--and every
Freemasonic organization, particularly of the Scottish Rite,
can be called a cult. It is a cult. As a matter of fact, the
Scottish Rite is, according to Pike, a Lucifer-worshipping,
anti-Christian cult. 
   So let's talk about the Branch Davidian Church and
understand that it's a sect with some very peculiar beliefs,
an offshoot of the Seventh Day Adventists. All right. 
   But what Hughes is saying--let's not buy into this use
of ``cult'' language. That's crap. The sooner we get rid of
it, the better, and get back to some sensible terms. 
   What Hughes proposed, was that this kind of operation go
on, to which the FBI officials present responded to Hughes,
saying that that would be illegal. 
   Mr. Hughes, whether he knows it or not, is actually
proposing the worst kind of fascism. He's going further than
Adolf Hitler, saying, we're going to pick out a group, we'll
call it a useless eater or something, and we'll go in and
shoot it. 
   Then you have Cynthia Kisser, this former topless dancer
according to affidavits we received from fellow employees,
who is a member of an organization, the Cult Awareness
Network, which is a bunch of kooks. The former official head
of that, whom she replaced, of course, had to resign. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing Cynthia Kisser
of the Cult Awareness Network's proposal to go after the 2500
organizations which she has identified as cults. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, I emphasize that she is
herself a disreputable person; and she is part of a
disreputable organization which has been engaged in
soliciting and perpetrating crimes, the crimes of kidnapping,
all over the United States: kidnapping for hire. 
   So the appearance of this woman and members of her
organization--such as Galen Kelly, of course, who is another
one of her confederates who is facing charges, again, of
kidnapping, in an upcoming trial in Virginia and this fellow
Rick Ross, who is her key man on the ground in the Waco
situation and is facing, again, potential indictment for
kidnapping charges, and he himself is a convicted felon, a
former jewel thief himself--on television, has been sponsored
by corrupt elements in the media. 
   Also to be taken into account, is the fact that it was
the Cult Awareness Network, with the support of the
Anti-Defamation League which {created} the situation in Waco,
Texas in the first place. It was {false affidavits} created
by the Cult Awareness Network {in collaboration with} assets
of the Anti-Defamation League which caused the events in
February, in which the ATF went in shooting on the basis of
what they knew to be a fraudulent search warrant and that
started the killing. And the recent murder--the
holocaust--against the members of the church in Waco, Texas,
after 51 days of torture of the American public was done to
cover up the original crimes of Higgins's ATF in
collaboration with the Cult Awareness Network and the
Anti-Defamation League, and behind the scenes, of course,
this offshoot of the people who gave your nephew LSD,
MK-Ultra, the American Family Foundation. 
   So this evil in our society, which we have tolerated
much too long, through the mouthpiece of Hughes, now proposes
Hitler-like methods against the American people. Kisser,
according to affidavits, a former topless dancer and a kook
all around, associated with a criminal enterprise, proposes
targeting 2,500 groups which she says she doesn't like in the
United States. 
   {That's Nazism!} If we tolerate these kinds of people,
we are not going to have a nation. 

        - ``Classical Music Belongs to Everyone'' -

   Q: Very recently, Lewis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam
did a performance of Felix Mendelssohn. Farrakhan is a
violinist, and he gave this performance, and he said that
this music is music which can be used to reach out beyond the
barriers. How do you feel about this approach, and the
concept that Farrakhan is talking about? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, forget for a moment the fact that
Felix Mendelssohn was the grandson of one of the greatest
Jews in modern history, Moses Mendelssohn. Just look at him
as a prodigy who in his youth was a prodigy somewhat
comparable to Mozart. Look at his string symphonies from the
time he was a teenager, and even slightly earlier. For
example, this E minor violin concerto of Mendelssohn's is an
outgrowth of that particular period of his life. It is one of
the most remarkable, most beautiful works in all music. And
Farrakhan, of course, was a very gifted young violinist who
was put off actually by, racism in our society from seeking a
career as a concert violinist, and he became part of the
Nation of Islam years ago, and gave up his career as a public
violinist, though he maintained, in recent years, I
understand, his work on the violin; and I understand from
reviewers who are otherwise somewhat hostile to him
politically, that his performance was a credible musical
performance. 
   Well, it happens that, what is called Classical music
really belongs to everyone. I can trace its roots back about
8,000 years to some Vedic hymns of which we have knowledge
now, of course, in the ancient priests' Sanskrit Vedic, which
were actually based on the principles of Classical music. 
   Classical music comes from the natural way of singing,
that is, a method of singing and speaking or vocalization
which is based on the maximum amount of the relatively purest
tones, or purest of the intended tones, with a minimum amount
of breath being expelled from the mouth--the most efficient
way of speaking and singing; the most natural way, therefore,
of speaking and singing. 
   Therefore, what is called Classical music is a
development of those principles, a development of the
so-called {bel canto,} the most efficient and best way of
speaking and singing. 
   So it belongs to {everybody,} because everyone has these
{natural proclivities.} I don't care what the color of their
skin is, or what their cultural background; every person,
unless they are deformed in some unfortunate way, have these
natural ways of singing, natural ways of expressing music.
And this is simply the most highly developed form of that. 
   So why should we turn around to black people, as we used
to say, and say, ``hey, what are you trying to do? You're
trying to learn Classical music? Ha, ha. Don't you know
you're black? You're inferior. You can't learn Classical
music.'' 
   I always hated that. It's immoral, it's racist; and so
is it immoral to object to Minister Farrakhan using his
talent to perform Classical music. 
   MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have to wind up at this
point. We will pick up on this discussion next week. Thank
you very much. 
     
                           - 30 -

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]