Subject: EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 5/13/93

From: [email-masked] (John Covici)
Date: 17 May 93 11:50:1 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 
   May 13, 1993 
   
   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. 

 - Sen. Biden Blasts Chamberlain-like Approach to Balkans -

   EIR:  Mr. LaRouche, recently Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
mentioned, in a discussion to Congress, that Europe was
acting in a [Neville] Chamberlain-like fashion in reference
to the former Yugoslavia. Is this the case?  What are we
dealing with now in terms of the former Yugoslavia? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, what one must
understand is that the British press and its sympathizers in
the United States, are being completely false, completely
hypocritical. 
   The British initiated the war in former Yugoslavia, the
current Balkan war. The people who are on the Serbian side,
who are conducting these atrocities in Croatia, in Bosnia, in
Kosova, and so forth: these are all essentially British
intelligence assets of long standing, and we know their
pedigrees. These are personally assets of the same kind of
circles that control Henry Kissinger in the United States,
for example. 
   Mrs. Thatcher started the war, beginning with the policy
which she launched, in November of 1989, when her government,
through such voices as Nicholas Ridley--then her Minister,
now deceased--and Conor Cruise O'Brien, came up with this
``Fourth Reich'' propaganda, which was echoed in Israel,
echoed among the Serbs in Yugoslavia, echoed, of course,
throughout the British press, essentially. And she launched
this war, by bringing George Bush and [Mikhail] Gorbachov
into support of her policy, to use the Serbs to create such
confusion and bloodletting on the southern flank of central
Europe, that the likelihood of a cooperation, an economic
cooperation developing among France, Germany, and Russia,
among others, would be obviated. 
   In other words, as the British themselves have admitted
to our friends who have talked to them about this: Yes, of
course we ran a geopolitical operation; that's how this thing
ran. 
   The fascist-faction of Serbs who have been running this
war have been successful so far, {only because} the British
and their influence over the United Nations' policy, has
continued to set a situation where the Serbs are armed to the
teeth, and their victims, the Bosnians, and the Croats to a
lesser degree, cannot get weapons. 
   So, therefore, what the United Nations has been doing,
under French, as well as British support, has been setting up
the Bosnians and Croats to become the victims of the Serbs.
The British role has been to start and to perpetuate this
war, to the victory of the Serbs, for the purpose of keeping
the Balkans, for an indefinite period ahead, completely
unstable. 
   In a sense, this is {exactly} what the policy of
Chamberlain's faction in Britain was during the 1930's.
{They,} with the support of certain people in New York then,
put Hitler into power in Germany. They actually {moved} the
money. George Bush's father, as a Harriman man, chief
official of the Harrimans, moved the money, which enabled the
Hitler coup d'etat to be organized on the Nazi side. They put
Hitler into power, and they kept him in there until 1938, and
after the {Kristallnacht,} that is, the breaking of the
Jewish windows and so forth in Berlin in 1938, they did
change their policy. But up through that time, the British
and the Americans were supporting Hitler. 
   In the same way, the British, together with people like
Brent Scowcroft and George Bush and Lawrence Eagleburger
under Bush were very close to these Serbian fascists,
supported the fascist operation. And they've tried to protect
it so far. And they've used all their muscle and influence
inside the U.S. news media, as we see in television, for
example, to do everything possible to prevent the United
States from interfering with what is now called openly an
{Entente Cordiale} policy of Britain and France to destroy
the Balkan front. That is what Biden is referring to, the
fact that these forces inside Europe {are} acting, quite
literally, like Neville Chamberlain. 

   EIR:  What is Maggie Thatcher trying to gain? 
   MR. LAROUCHE:  Oh, I don't think Maggie Thatcher
necessarily understands what she's doing here. After all, she
was only, shall we say, in a sense, a puppet of certain
assets in Britain. She might be a talking puppet, her own
voice. But essentially, she is controlled, her opinion was
shaped. 
   This was the geopolitical faction in Britain which
organized this particular war. Because they wanted it. And
they organized it, beginning 1989. And they got it going full
steam in 1991. It's Britain's war, with the support of the
Gorbachov faction inside Russia, and with the support of
certain elements in the United States, such as the
Anti-Defamation League, for example, a British asset, which
does that. Certain parts of the news media are completely
controlled by these people. They're on this side--which is
one of the reasons why the Clinton administration has such
difficulty in finding its way toward policy on this question. 
   [commercial break] 

   - Russia: ``A Point of No Return Is Being Reached'' -

   EIR: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the former
Yugoslavia. I'd like to move on to the former Soviet Union.
In a recent article in {Nezavisimaya Gazeta,} which is an
independent publication in Russia, Professor [Taras]
Muranivsky criticized the monetaristic policy that's being
followed in Russia--the ``shock therapy''/Jeffrey Sachs
program--and indicated that what is necessary is to follow
principles of physical economy. And he mentioned your name in
reference to the kinds of approaches that should be followed.
Would you please comment on the current situation in the
former Soviet Union? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Look at it from the standpoint of the
disorientation of a great number of good people inside the
United States, who think that this business in the Balkans or
in Russia is a great distance away, that Russia is no longer
a superpower, that we shouldn't get involved in these things.
That's because the news media is telling them that. And
people tend to believe what they hear from the news media on
faith. 
   The fact of the matter is, we are probably a month or so
away from a point of no return, especially in Russia, as well
as the Balkans. But more importantly in Russia, of course,
because of the very specific forces which would be unleashed
by an unfortunate turn there. 
   If the United States and Britain succeed in forcing
Boris Yeltsin and his government to continue the shock
therapy program--that is, the IMF conditionalities, free
trade, etc. program--then we are coming very rapidly to the
point that the entire situation blows up, in which we get
unleashed forces which can no longer be controlled in any
ordinary sense. If that occurs, then the United States
itself, which is a part of a shrinking world, will find
itself that it (the United States) is the backyard of Europe
and Asia, which will be the cockpit of a new kind of general
warfare. 
   That is what is in motion. I'm not saying that general
war is going to break out in June; by no means. What I'm
saying, is that {a point of no return} is being reached,
after which it will be virtually {impossible} to prevent a
several-years buildup, of increasing conflict, leading toward
new wars of a global significance, which will affect those
inside the United States. 
   Let me add just one thing to that, to indicate what is
going on in the United States. At the present time, we are
getting into a situation where a new kind of violence is
ready to break out around the world, including inside the
United States itself. People may not realize it, but we're
becoming a society which is ready to explode with violence.
This is a result of the complete irrationality of public
policy, as expressed in many ways. People are just ready to
explode. Riots and everything else--while maybe somebody is
playing with them--are about to break out because of this. 
   A similar situation exists in Europe, and in Russia. We
are on the verge of a point, where violence will soon break
out in a new way. And wars will break out around the world,
of a type that we have not seen before. Ultimately, nuclear
weapons would be involved. 
   Americans today who say we should not be involved in
Russia, and should not worry about the Balkans, and not get
involved there, and assume that everything is all right in
Russia (except that they are having troubles), are foolish,
because we'll find ourselves involved in violence at home
because of our policies here, engaging violence which is
erupting for similar reasons in other parts of the world,
finding ourselves in a new war which we don't know how to
stop. 
   So we must realize what Professor Taras Muranivsky is
saying about my policies, {how urgent} the change to that
direction is. {That change must begin to appear within the
next 30-60 days.} If it does not, the world is going to
slide, irreversibly, over the coming months and years, into a
kind of hell beyond the imagination of virtually every
American. 

   EIR: If we look at the political situation in Russia,
Boris Yeltsin seems to have gained a certain credibility with
the referendum, but he is still in great difficulty. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Actually he didn't {gain} anything. That's
completely a U.S. press illusion, a news media illusion.
Boris Yeltsin gained {nothing} by the referendum. 
   The problem in Russia is that the lack of a clear
alternative policy to the policy of Yeltsin and Company,
means that a policy of drift is in place. What is happening,
is that transformations in Russia are occurring, under Boris
Yeltsin. So the face of Boris Yeltsin persists, but the
policy behind the face keeps changing; and the policy behind
the face is about to explode. Boris Yeltsin has gained
{nothing} by that referendum. What they've got is worse decay
than {before} the referendum--a worse buildup, a worse
potential of explosion. And we should not believe much of
anything we hear from the news media from the Russian
quarters or the Balkan quarters these days. 
   [commercial break] 

- We Must Find a Way Out of Violence Based on Irrationality -

   EIR: Mr. LaRouche earlier, you mentioned that we are
reaching a point of no return, that in June you expect
violence in different parts of Europe, perhaps Russia, the
United States. Are we looking at a new kind of world war? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Yes. But let's not say that I'm
``predicting violence'' to break out in June. I'm predicting
{a point of no return,} which is quite different. For
example. When Hitler launched, in 1938, the {Kristallnacht,}
that was a point of no return. We did not go to war
immediately in 1938. We went to war, well, gradually over
1939, 1940, 1941. But that was all predetermined. 
   By the time that Hitler had been allowed to get to the
point of power, that he dared to launch the {Kristallnacht}
against the Jews in Berlin, and so forth, in 1938, that meant
he was virtually unstoppable, and we were going to have to
fight a war. 
   Now, that's what I'm talking about, not the outbreak of
violence. I'm not talking about something that people are
likely to read about in the newspapers. I'm talking about
that kind of event: the buildup, where an Adolf Hitler, or
his contemporary equivalent, {dares} to make a kind of move
which is effectively irreversible, without going to a general
war. 
   Now, let me give you an example of the kind of war we
are going to from the United States. If people will look at
their universities today, they will find that in many
universities {no competent subjects} are being taught, at
least to a very large part of the student population. 
   A case in point: Stanford University. Only an example.
It's called ``multiculturalism.'' A couple of years ago or
so, Stanford decided that people would not be forced, as
students, to study the works of ``Dead White European
Males,'' but rather would read the writings of feminist
figures and so-called Third World cultural figures and things
like that. 
   What was produced for this, was a group of ethnic or
multicultural programs which which were absolute violence and
absolute frauds. There are varieties of ``Afrocentrism,'' so
called, which teach somehow, that the black race in Egypt
developed culture, and that the Europeans only stole it, but
all the great scientific discoveries were made, presumably,
palpably, 4,000 years ago by black scientists in Egypt, or
something. 
   It's a complete fraud. There's no basis for it. What's
its function? Why do universities teach this kind of stuff?
Not only do they have programs for Hispanics, they have
programs for others. It's the same thing. It is turning
society, through multiculturalism, against itself. 
   When you get a person coming out of college, who has
studied nothing but Afrocentrism, for what kind of employment
is that person qualified? Only one thing: to go out among
desperate ghetto populations--for example, in the
Afrocentrist case--and to organize riots. We have also in the
other cultural programs the same thing: to make society
completely irrational and insane; to turn people against each
other, completely irrationally; and when people take
desperate irrational views, the result will be violence. 
   We in the United States are headed {rapidly} toward
violence. Not just because of TV violence, but because of
violence of the mind, irrationalism. Like this multicultural
program, or the ``World of Difference'' program by the
Anti-Defamation League. The teaching of homosexuality to
six-year-old kids is a matter of law in the New York City
school system, is something which is going to lead to
{violence}, because it's irrational, it's insane. 
   We have around the world a similar situation. We have
the IMF policies. The IMF policies are {insane}. They are
imposed upon people. They are {irrational;} there is no
rational sense to any of them. They are insane. And people
are going to react to insane irrationalism with violence,
because they can no longer react with words, with
negotiation. 
   And that's the kind of world into which we are heading.
And that's what is fearful. If we do not find {rational}
solutions to some of these problems, or begin to find them
very soon, then we're going to hell. 
   For example. I've said that the United States must very
quickly do a number of things in the Balkans, whether
unilaterally, or with the Allies--with them or without them;
{it must be done} for the sake of this planet. 
   First, the Bosnians must get weapons immediately. 
   Second, the Croats must get weapons immediately. 
   The Serbs must be shut off, because they have committed
the crimes. The Bosnians are the victims; the Croats are the
victims. The Serbs' forces, in this case, are the aggressors.
Their people have perpetrated the war crimes. 
   We have to establish a policy of sovereign
nation-states. The devil with this Thornburgh Doctrine.
Sovereignty of nation-states. We have to establish the
principle of national economy, and the cooperation among
national economies for mutual advantage. 
   We don't seem to have the will to do that; and the will
is being tested in various parts of the world, but it is also
being tested in the Balkans. 
   [commercial break] 

   EIR: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the Balkan
crisis, and what Bill Clinton has to do. Please pick up on
that point. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, the United States must, at
all costs, insist that the Bosnian, Croat, and other victims
will receive arms assistance, and if we have to provide air
assistance, coordinated, say, by special forces observers to
coordinate the ground-air relationship, then we will do so.
We should not be involved, in any way, in sticking a
so-called ``peacekeeping police force,'' an expansion of the
thing the British and French have been doing, for example,
into the Balkans. {That is a quagmire.} Do not get involved
in a peacekeeping force in the Balkans. That's the lesson to
be learned. Don't do it. 
   If you are going in with military forces, you are going
in for war; and don't go with military forces, unless you're
planning to go to war! That's the first rule to make in these
kinds of things. And anyone who says the contrary, just don't
pay any attention to them; better get them out of office as
soon as possible; they're dangerous. 
   So we are going to war, by adopting the victims as our
allies, and saying they have the right to defend themselves,
and we will give them certain assistance, in their fighting
to defend themselves--we are not going to go in and do the
fighting for them, but we will give them assistance in
fighting. 
   If we do that, that act will tell the world that there
is still reason, there is still rationality on this planet.
And since we claim to be the leading superpower on this
planet, this is our obligation. If we do not do this, we are
no longer a superpower; and nobody is going to pay much
attention to us, either abroad, or within the United States
itself. The people here at home will lose confidence in their
own government, and the United States itself, internally,
will become increasingly ungovernable. And that's the point
at which you're going to get a lot of violence breaking out
inside the United States. 
   When desperate people--and they are desperate,
increasingly so--in the United States, sense that their
government is no longer a real government, it's a shadow
government, a paper government, a weathervane that goes with
whatever the news media and the British and the French tell
them to do; when that happens, well, we've lost authority in
the world, which we can only get back by {violence}. And
that's no good. And we've lost authority at home, and will
have violence erupting here, from desperate people in all
kinds of ways. 
   The potential for violence is there; and once people
lose confidence in the government's ability to be rational,
and to carry out its policies and decisions in some kind of
rational way, we're going to have it here as well as
elsewhere. 

- ``The {Entente Cordiale} Must Be Exposed and Eliminated'' -

   EIR: The current Balkan crisis, the current crisis in
Europe, reminds people of the buildup to World War I. There
was an {Entente Cordiale} at that point. There is a
British-French agreement at this point. Do you see
similarities? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely! As a matter of fact, the
British and the French are saying so. The British are saying,
that the French nation has become a catamite for a British
sodomite, which is what the relationship was between
Britain's Lord Grey and the French Minister Theophile
Delcasse in the period from 1898, the period of the so-called
Fashoda Agreement, through the formal establishment of a
French alliance with Britain against Germany. 
   The French and the British did several things in that
period, through Freemasonic channels. They started the Balkan
wars, but they also, as part of that, made the ``Young Turk''
coup d'etat through Freemasonic channels in Turkey, which was
one of the key steps toward getting the Balkan war going, and
to getting the Russians involved in a commitment in
connection with the Serbs in the Balkan war, which was the
trigger that was eventually used in 1912-1914 to get World
War I started. 
   What's happened now, is that a faction in France,
beginning with [Francois] Mitterrand, has wittingly, through
Freemasonic circles, gotten into the same relationship to the
powers that be in London that started World War I. And the
British are crowing about that. That's not simply a comment
from the sidelines, somebody's opinion. 
   {That Entente Cordiale is the official policy of the
British government,} and is so stated publicly in loud voice,
repeatedly, throughout the British press. It's the kind of
combination which is intended to make France a political
catamite for Britain in a geopolitical move which tries to
get Germany, the Balkans, Russia, and other parts of Eurasia,
involved in a mutual bloodletting for the greater glory of
the British line. That's how we got World War I, and that's
how we are on the verge, within maybe weeks, of a point of no
return in European politics. 
   That Entente Cordiale must be exposed and must be
eliminated! And if the United States finds that Britain and
Paris are forming an Entente Cordiale, with the British
claiming it to be so; the French not objecting, then the
United States must take diplomatic action of such a form that
{no support, cooperation, or sympathy of any kind,} is given
to such a London-Paris formation. 

   EIR: Part of that policy, at that point, was to keep
certain powers in an economically weakened position. And we
see the same thing today with Russia, and also with Germany,
where Britain and France are trying to keep them in an
economically weakened position. If this is so, what are the
implications of this, in terms of the ongoing strategic
situation? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: That's just {part} of the process leading
to a new kind of general war. 
   Paris, of course, depends upon Germany. The French
economy will not function today without German cooperation
and German support. So the French cannot lie, economically,
with a Britain which is already itself an economic rubbish
pile. There is no economy in Britain to speak of; it's
completely collapsed. We see the kind of thinking that Phil
Gramm is expressing, carried out to the point of total
destruction of a nation, or, self-destruction of a nation, in
the case of Britain. So, the French are not going to get
anything, economically, out of Britain. They depend upon
Germany. 
   So France has been walking a very strange policy:
politically, strategically, they're allied with Britain,
against Germany; whereas, economically, they depend upon
Germany. What they want is for Germany to be relatively
weakened, as it is today, and be somewhat self-destructive,
so it doesn't become much more powerful than France; and then
France and Germany, two weakened economies, lean on each
other like two drunks trying to negotiate their way back home
some late Saturday night or something, struggling into the
future, if there is one for them. That's the French policy. 
   This is absolute nonsense. And of course, the French are
fully behind the Balkan war. They've done everything possible
to ensure the victory of the Serbian fascists against their
rape victims, quite cynically but quite openly. And of course
they have been so far fully behind these destructive policies
in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union which are
driving Russia, in particular, into a great Russian fit,
which is potentially a new superpower conflict. But they seem
so {committed} to their policies that they are {blind} to any
consequences. 
   It's like people saying, ``Look, I don't care what the
consequences are, we have made our policy, we have made our
minds up, we are going to {do} this. We don't care what the
results will be.'' And that's the kind of fit they've gotten
into. That's why I say the United States must {disregard} the
sensibilities of London and Paris on this issue, and say,
we'll offer you a better deal, one that is rational. 
   But again, this is one of these things that leads to
violence. When people adopt policies, which are contrary to
reason, which are destructive, which drive people to
desperation, then you get violence. 
   [commercial break] 

        - How Russia Can Be Economically Developed -

   EIR: Mr. LaRouche, Professor Taras Muranivsky, in
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, wrote about different economic models
that have been followed, specifically the models of Germany
and Japan, in terms of reconstruction. What kind of reference
point do we have for the former Soviet Union at this point,
in terms of these models? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, you don't have a clear model; you
have an approximate model. You have a cultural precedent and
a couple of quasi-precedents. For example, Peter the Great,
the Romanov who brought Russia out of barbarism--that is, the
barbarism of the Mongol occupation and its aftermath and the
breakdown of Ivan Grozny's (Ivan the Terrible's) regime, was
essentially a Third Romer. That is, Peter believed that
Russia must become the capital of a Third Rome; but he
believed in a western Roman model, based on the superiority
of the West, over, say, the eastern Orthodox region of the
world as such. So he believed {culturally} in the
West--western European Christianity--as opposed to eastern
European Christianity--more or less. 
   But Peter cooperated, as Leibniz offered, in adopting
Leibniz's economic model, for a very successful and rapid
buildup of the Russian economy, until Leibniz's policy was
thrown out by his successors. 
   But the fact of the success of Peter the Great, despite
the ``downsides'' (as people would say these days), to
Peter's policy, is a model. 
   Then you have a great period of development, under
Alexander II, until about 1898-1905. 
   Alexander, who was an ally of Lincoln, against the
British and French, freed the serfs in Russia, greatly
admired Lincoln's efforts to free the black slaves in the
United States. He modeled himself, in many ways, upon
American precedents, particularly the ideas of [Alexander]
Hamilton; and he had great ministers, like Mendeleyev, who
was the great scientist who created the Periodic Table, who
also built the railroads in Russia, on, again, a U.S. model. 
   Then he had Count Sergei Witte, his great minister, who
several times intervened in the process of Russian history,
first with the great buildup of Russia prior to the 1905
disaster; then after 1905, when the disaster occurred, it was
Witte who pushed through the program which was actually in
part carried out by [Peter] Stolypin, for which Stolypin is
given credit, which resulted in a very successful
industrialization of Russia, at least in part, during that
period. So the Russians {do} have that. 
   The Russians also have something else. Apart from the
weaknesses and criticisms which can be made of Russian
science, Russian science, in part, is very good. The problem
with Russia, on the economic side, has been the inability to
get some excellent science moved down the pipeline, into the
civilian economy, though it's done a little better in the
military sector of the economy. 
   So the Russian people do have points of reference, in
their own history, by which they can have access to
understanding points of reference in western European and
North American history. That is, they can look at the
successes of the United States. They can look at the
successes, say, of De Gaulle in France under the Fifth
Republic, and say, yes, we want to do something like that. 
   I would say that what the Russians would tend to go for,
under this kind of thing that Professor Taras Muranivsky is
talking about, would be a Gaullist model, as some people
would call it--a dirigist model of the reform direction of
French capitalism under De Gaulle. That's the kind of thing
which would work in Russia. Whereas, the Milton Friedman,
crazy ``Landfill'' Gramm model will not work. It will only
lead to World War III. 

           - A Worldwide Reconstruction Program -
          - Based on Infrastructural Development -

   EIR: If you look at the railroad projects that you have
proposed, they open up the East and West in a way that we
haven't seen, given the Cold War, since of course the end of
the Cold War. You had an emphasis on a North-South direction
of rail lines in many countries, and not on an East-West
direction, especially in Germany, for example. 
   Now, this great railroad project: what will that
involve, in terms of manpower, in terms of the employment
question, in terms of general social conditions in western
Europe and eastern Europe? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Let's give our U.S. audience something
from their own unhappy experience. One of the greatest
failures, one of the greatest {causes} of the present
Depression and misery in the United States--the fact that
there are about 18 million people in the labor force
unemployed, according to Labor Department figures--is
deregulation, deregulation of trucking and airlines, for
example. 
   The airlines are crashing. I don't when the planes are
going to start crashing, too. It is a result of the {idiocy}
called deregulation. The trucking system and the rail system
is crashing, because of deregulation. 
   What happened in many parts of the country, is when
trucking deregulation occurred, it meant, for example, that
every trucker rushed into Cleveland or Detroit, or similar
major markets, and the little industrialized towns and cities
around these major cities, could get either no service, could
not get regular reliable service, and what they {could} get,
was at a vastly higher price. 
   You find the same thing in airline tickets. For example,
people will find, when flying around the country, that
sometimes they can get from the East Coast to the West Coast
on a cheaper ticket, than they can get to some place a few
hundred miles away, which is some smaller city. 
   So, it wrecked our economy, in a very vital way. One of
the worst pieces of insanity ever invented in U.S. economic
policy was this deregulation. 
   Now look at the United States, with our vast distances,
relative to western Europe. And now look at Russia. Just
imagine what it costs, and how much time it takes, to get a
package of freight or materials, from some place in Russia,
to another place in Russia, as opposed to the United States,
which is smaller than Russia; and compare that with Belgium,
which has the highest density of population in the world--the
least overpopulated part of the world in that sense, contrary
to the neomalthusians. Look at the cost of freight there. 
   In western Europe, places are much closer together, and
therefore the cost of freight is cheaper. They have a good
rail system, relative to ours. 
   In Russia, you cannot have a rational development of the
economy, without a high-speed, reliable rail system, combined
with a barge system for certain kinds of bulk freight. 
   Another comparison: Let's look at the Pacific Ocean and
the Indian Ocean. The greatest part of the world's
population, including the Pacific Coast of the Americas, the
Pacific Coast of China, Japan, and so forth, and the Indian
Ocean coast of Australia, South India, East Africa--that's
the center of the world, in terms of the next century and
beyond. 
   Let's look at the cost of freight across ocean waters.
At 20-odd knots per ship, that's not a very good prospect. It
will work sometimes. But it's not good for economic
development of the type we need. 
   How about using what Japan's people are working on?
Magneto-hydrodynamic propulsion, without propellers, using
magnets to move water as a way of propulsion. That will give
us speeds of up to 200 miles an hour, or 100 miles an hour,
or whatever, in moving across the ocean. That means use of
new materials, of course, for the hulls of such ships; that
means that we can make ocean travel in the Pacific for
carrying freight economical. 
   That's what we're talking about, is this part of
infrastructure: energy; transport--especially organized
transport of this integrated truck-rail system and ocean
system and barge system. That is what you need as the
baseline for effective development. Otherwise, your costs of
production soar enormously. 
   And the Russians see that. They will not develop an
industry, without that kind of infrastructural development
transportation. 
   On the other side, if we want to convert some of the
Russian military capability, and other eastern European
military capabilities--such as that of Slovakia--from arms
production into high-tech production, without lowering the
level of production of technology, if we use these large rail
projects and similar kinds of things, those infrastructure
projects, as in our national experience, become the contract
base for private firms to grow up in size and develop and
establish themselves, by servicing, competitively, these
large-scale projects. 
   There is no possibility of a rational development and
stability of the Russian economy, without such an approach.
And as I say, I mention our own experience, that is, the
stupidity of our government in allowing deregulation to be
started and to continue, is an example of one of the reasons,
from our own painful experience, of why Europe succeeds
better than the United States, why Japan functions better
than the United States, economically, and why Russia cannot
function without this kind of development. 

   EIR: President Clinton has been having a lot of trouble
selling his stimulus package. Here, we're talking about a
European rail project. If he were to get behind this, how
could he incorporate this concept with a concept that would
be acceptable for the American population? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, Clinton does not have
to dictate the economic policy to Russia to get this kind of
thing going. Nor do the American people have to consent to
Clinton's doing that. So it's not up the Americans; it's up
to the Russians. 
   What is happening presently, is that as long as the
United States supports the IMF conditionalities policy, and
says the Russians {can't} do it, then you're driving the
Russians into a rage, where you're going to have a superpower
conflict. So if you don't want World War III, kick the IMF in
the head, tell it to cut this out, and tell it to pull back
Sachs to Harvard. Put him in a cage perhaps in the Franklin
Park Zoo, if it still exists up there in Boston, because he
should not be allowed meddling in economies. He's dangerous. 
   Let the Russians do what they have to do, to develop
their economy, and don't insist that they copy our insanity. 
   As far as Clinton's problems are concerned, it's partly
the fact that he had not yet apparently fully learned that
you cannot run Washington the way you run Arkansas, that you
cannot be that flexible. He's a little bit too flexible when
it comes to these kinds of issues. He backs down too quickly. 
   As President, I would not have put up with that kind of
filibuster that the Republicans organized in the Congress.
They would never have {dared} to pull that on me. But they
backed him down. It's that simple. And the American people
backed up the filibusterers, because the filibusterers seemed
to be the fellow who had won the the ballgame, as it were. 
   The problem is if Clinton can get by now one or two
crucial policies, such as getting through this Balkan policy,
despite the news media manipulation, he might be able to turn
the situation around, not only in the Balkans, but give
himself the authority and capability of dealing with a number
of domestic American problems, as well as others. 

   EIR: We will be back next week with ``{EIR'}s Talks With
Lyndon LaRouche.'' If you want to send questions into Mr.
LaRouche, you can reach us at EIR Talks With LaRouche, P.O.
Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390. 

                           - 30 -

----
         John Covici
          [email-masked]