Turkish Magazine, Yarin,
Interviews Lyndon LaRouche
June 5, 2023

To send a link to this document to a friend

1. First of all, who is Mr. LaRouche? We introduced you to Turkey's readers after September 11. We got overwhelmingly positive feedback about your thoughts. How would you like to define and tell us your mission?

LaRouche Reply: I am a typical American patriot, in many senses of that term.  Most importantly, I am in what one of my, long-standing leading personal adversaries, Henry A. Kissinger, described, on May 10, 1982, to a London Chatham House audience, as in the same "American intellectual tradition" which identified as that of President Franklin Roosevelt.  That America intellectual tradition referenced by Kissinger, is the American version of the European Classical tradition of that opponent of John Locke, Gottfried Leibniz, whose influence was crucial in shaping the principles expressed by U.S. founder Benjamin Franklin, in the crafting of the 1776 Declaration of Independence and 1787-1789 draft of the Federal Constitution.

I am also typically American in a related sense. My earliest known ancestors to arrive in North America, from England and France, respectively, came in the Seventeenth Century; my additional immigrants, came from Scotland and Ireland during the second half of the Nineteenth Century.  According to relevant family historians, there is a trace of American Indian ancestry on the French-immigrant side. The U.S. was, and is, chiefly a nation of immigrants from an always increasing number of parts of the world. We were created, and continue to be a "new nation," for whom the issue of choice of unifying philosophy is the predominant factor in defining agreement and differences concerning the American national identity.

Some of the questions you have included, are implicitly answered, at least in significant part, by the following additional information respecting the place I, and my opponents, occupy in the U.S. political- philosophical spectrum.  The principal political-cultural division within the U.S.A., is the continuing struggle between the American intellectual tradition, and what has been known since 1763 as "The American Tory" tradition, to which immigrant Kissinger adheres.  The American Tory tradition is sub-divided into two allied, but relatively distinct groupings: the original American Tories of the Northeastern U.S., usually associated within financier and related interests, and the tradition of the Confederacy. Presidents Washington, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy are prominently typical of the American intellectual tradition. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Coolidge, Truman, Nixon, and Bush, are typical of the American Tory tradition.  The so-called "Christian Zionists" are a traditionally racist, specifically anti-semitic, reflection of the more or less fascist mass-base of the continued Confederacy tradition inside the U.S. today.

I am, by a profession of more than half a century, an economist within the American intellectual tradition typified by Franklin, Hamilton, the Careys, List, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. My principal professional achievements have been in the development of the science of physical economy, including an unblemished published record as a long-range economic forecaster during more than three decades.  My status as a figure of public controversy, inside the U.S. and abroad, is the result of my decision, following the events of 1962-1963, to oppose the then erupting effort to transform the U.S.A. from the successful producer society it had continued to be during the 1945-1965 interval of post-war reconstruction, into the decadent and, presently, potentially doomed form of so-called "consumer society," which it has become today.

2. Is it true that, some power centers, also, produce lies about you and your movement? Who are those centers? Why do you think your views irritate them? In addition what would you like to tell us about the US media? Who are they working for? Why is CNN international different than CNN domestic? Why don't you get a chance to submit your views in the mainstream US media?

LaRouche replies: The combined mass- entertainment, and news media of the U.S.  is far more monolithic and corrupt that I find among the comparable private institutions of nations of Europe, for example.  This moral decadence of the most influential institutions shaping public opinion, is chiefly the fruit of two major factors.  First, that the policy responsible for the process of degeneration which has led the U.S. media to its presently corrupt condition, is that set forth in Walter Lippmann's 1922 book "Public Opinion." Second, all of the principle entertainment and news mass-media of U.S. is controlled, top-down, by a single syndicate of international, English-speaking, "hard core Tory" financier interests based chiefly in the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

With the 1965-2002 process of economic and cultural degeneration of the U.S., from a producer economy, to become, predominantly, a consumer society, the generations reaching adulthood since the mid- 1960s have taken on, more and more, characteristics historians recognize in the role of "bread and circuses" in shaping the popular opinion of the decadent citizens of ancient imperial Rome. The U.S. mass news media becomes increasingly indistinguishable from the mass- entertainment media, and the characteristics of all mass-media take on, more and more, those of ancient imperial Rome.

As to the "power centers" which control the U.S. mass-media, top down,  these are typified, in every principal city of the U.S., by a cabal composed of certain leading financier interests and major law and accounting firms associated with those financier interests. This cabal includes elements of the leading political-party organizations tied to lik- minded circles within such relevant institutions of government as the Justice Department, Treasury Department, and State Department.

This cabal is typified by its commitment to the process of transforming the planet from a concert of sovereign nations, to a modern parody of the Roman Empire, a post-nation-state world, in which present nations have been chopped into fragments, a world ruled, by an international military force like those of the imperial Roman legions, a world under the reign of a English-speaking financier oligarchy echoing the model of Venice's role as a leading imperial maritime power during the interval from about A.D. 800 until Venice's political power evaporated, during the closing decades of the Seventeenth Century.

My policy of practice has been to act to restore the U.S. to the American intellectual tradition, and to defend and promote the sovereignty of nations throughout the world.  This policy is subsumed under the need to establish the basis for a long-term, post-imperialist community of principle among sovereign nation-states. The model of reference for that effort has been a return to the successful features of the monetary system of 1945-1965, this time including all nations as equal partners.  In leading circles in the U.S. and under the British monarchy, this policy is met promptly by extraordinary displays of rage from relevant leading circles.  They react to me personally accordingly.

3. You speak of the events of September 11th as  'The September 11 Coup D'etat" and claim that 'the enemy is inside'. With respect to last week's developments how should we understand September 11? Who is that enemy? What are their plans?

LaRouche replies: The purpose of the operation, as it actually occurred, was to push the current government of the U.S. into exactly what that government chose to do during the closing hours of the day.  The intend of those behind the coup, was to capture policy control of the U.S. government, to impel the government to unleash the "Clash of Civilizations" warfare proposed as the explicitly "geopolitical" doctrine of the circles of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel P. Huntington, and their chief mentor for this, Britain's elder Middle East intelligence official Bernard Lewis.  Every nation of the world, is implicitly targetted a process of, one by one, submission giving up all vestiges of national sovereignty for rule by an English-speaking, Roman-style world-wide empire.

Within that context, the core of that strategy is to target all Islamic nations of the world for destruction, as the ancient imperial Roman "Limes" policy did.  This targetting of Islam for crushing disruption, is intended to supply the unifying characteristics of the perpetual warfare policy of the intended new empire, as, for example, the destruction of the Germans by the Roman legions.  The rise and fall of the Byzantine, Mongol, and Ottoman empires, also provide relevant historical-strategic studies for any nations' planners of today.

To understand such policies, one must abandon the popular opinion about who-hits-whom, and look at the matter as all important empires of the world have done.  Look at the ancient empires of pre-Alexander Mesopotamia, the Roman empire, and so on.  How did the relatively small circles which maintained those empires conquer and control, for so long, vast territories, with numerous populations and cultures, always managing to prevent the victims from mustering the forces, or even the will to free themselves from imperial shackles?

 Look at the perpetual warfare policies of each and all of these empires.  Never fall into the trap of attempting to explain the general by taking each particular, local development one at a time.  The people who ran empires, thought in multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious terms, playing each and all of these against one another, and thus ruling through a principle of "divide and conquer."  There is no difference between the Bush "War against terror" doctrine of practice today, and the characteristic policy of any of the variously famous and infamous major empires of past known history.  (One problem is, that our schools and universities, and also our military and related strategists, no longer think or act in terms of such knowledge.)

4. In the aftermath of September 11, you published a special report that links Zbigniew Brzezinski directly to September 11.  What are the roles of Brezezinski and Kissinger in this event? In addition to their roles, what are your thoughts about so-called "clash of civilizations" theory? Is America, really, defending a civilization?

LaRouche replies: This is not a policy for defending one civilization against others.  To call the trends in the U.S.A. today, "civilization," is to make a mockery of that word itself.  To understand the "Clash of Civilizations" doctrine, it is sufficient to look at the current trends of practice against the U.S. population itself, inside, as well as outside the U.S.  I emphasize the "video games" phenomenon.

"Video games" were invented as a by-product of a set of projects developed by Britain's Bertrand Russell and his associates, such as Norbert Weiner and John "Theory of Games"  von Neumann, with much of the relevant work by these circles working on so-called "artificial intelligence" and related matters, done at the RLE center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  This work dates from the period the Air Force was being created and the closely related RAND Corporation was being formed, during the late 1940s. The impetus for this was supplied by Bertrand Russell's launching of his so-called Unification of the Sciences project, at Pennsylvania University, in 1938; one of the key channels used by the Unification of the Sciences project for this project was the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation's "Cybernetics" project.

The pretext used to motivate military and related support for these "video-games" policies were the themes set forth in "delphic" terms in his book "The Soldier and The State," repeatedly reprinted since its initial appearance in the mid-1950s.

The impetus for development of the presently widespread types of violence-oriented and related video games, came from the desire of a certain U.S. military-strategic faction of the U.S. and U.K. to develop a new type of professional soldier, a type intended to perform the function, for an empire ruled by relevant English-speaking oligarchs, which the Roman legions performed in their time, and the Nazi Waffen- SS had been designed to perform. The pretext for launching what became the present distribution of video mass-killer training games to children and adolescents, was the argument that the "kill ratio" of U.S. soldiers during World War II and the war in Korea, had been deplorably low.  The object was to find a way to induce young recruits to kill, wildly but also accurately, without thinking. These games, originally developed for military training, were exported, as products of private corporations to police forces, and also to both children young, aged three to eleven  (e.g., "Pokemon"), and post-puberty adolescents.  The object is to transform U.S. adolescents into cheaply trained "cannon fodder" for the type perpetual warfare which Huntington et al. intend.

As the case of the Roman imperial legions, certain experiences with U.S. combat units during World War II, and "fragging" in Vietnam attests, the kind of psychological effect which training of similar types produces, is likely to produce a combatant as ready to kill one or many more of his comrades, as a designated type of adversary.  A close examination, which I have done of the mental state of some adolescent and other victims of video-games addiction, shows the kind of pathological mental state those games inherently tend to produce among the present generation of adolescents.   The clincal effect is, to state the technical point precisely, socially-induced schizophrenic psychosis of high homicidal potential.

That is not to be classified as a defense of "civilization."

5. What is the organic link between William Elliot, Robert Strausz-Hupe, Bernard Lewis, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington and Sir Henry Alfred Kissenger? What is the domain that brings all these names together? (Sir, I think we can also add to this list those think-tanks: Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Cato Institute, and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) )

LaRouche replies: The center of this phenomenon was a program conducted at Harvard University under the direction of Professor Elliot. The cases of Brzezinski, Huntington, and Kissinger, are merely typical of virtually mass-produced clones of Elliot's design.  Elliot himself was a leading figures of a Nashville, Tennessee-based circle known as the "Nashville Agrarians," a group dominated by grandchildren of the leaders of the original Ku Klux Klan.  The most significant influence upon the group was British, with a featured role of the influence of the utopian fanatic H. G. Wells.  The 1928 alliance between Wells and Bertrand Russell, based on concurrence with the entire content of Wells' 1928 book, "The Open Conspiracy," and also Wells' 1933 draft for the motion-picture, "The Shape of Things to Come," typify the British utopian influences which the Agrarians blended with a pretense of anti-Yankee "Southern gentility."  Otherwise, all of those circles you list share in common the specific type universal fascist ideology which Wells' "Open Conspiracy" prescribes.

6. Mr.LaRouche, in addition to those organizations and names, many claim that AIPAC, ADL and ZOA have a great influence on US policies. To what extent is it true? And who are those organizations?

LaRouche replies: The myth, that Jewish organizations control the world through their control over the U.S.A., is a widely popularized myth, and a dangerous one.  In making this point to persons from outside the U.S. or the U.K.,  one should begin with the fact that those so-called "Christian Zionists,"  who are products of the U.K.'s "British Israelite" cults,  are the principal mass-based support for the policies of Israel's Ariel Sharon and B. Netanyahu today, have an unimpeachable record, of being the most virulent pack of rabid anti-semites known in U.S. history, up to the present day. These dangerous religious fanatics actually believe, that a "Battle of Armageddon," which, fairly estimated, would ultimately kill off the Jews in the Middle East, will bring those "Christian Zionists" the "promised' rewards of "the rapture."

If one looks at the relevant portions of the history of the Ottoman Empire and the influence of the section of Russia's Okhrana directed, until the immediate aftermath of th 1905 revolution, by the famous Col. Zubatov,  extremely relevant features of the history of Zionism show who, not Jews, have created and used the relevant varieties of Zionism, first, to serve British imperial Middle East interests in the crises of the Ottoman Empire, and by whom who is controlled by whom in the Middle East today. The intertwined personal histories of Zubatov assets Vladimir Jabotinsky and Alexander "Parvus" Helphand, and the role of both in British intelligence's founding and orchestration of the "Young Turk" organization, should catch the attention of relevant Turkish patriots.  However, in all this, "Parvus" was recruited by British intelligence in England, during a somewhat extended visit, during th 1890s, and like Jabotinsky was associated with the British directed "Young Turk" operation. Overall, the Okhrana of Col. Zubatov's time, was controlled  from the top by those British intelligence services whose persistent conduct gave a dirty old Russian name to the reigning Queen of England.

The elements of Zionism associated with the fascist Jabotinsky, were products of the Czarist government's anti-Jewish policies. The Jewish targets of both Zubatov and his asset Jabotinsky were the followers of  Moses Mendelssohn, and, more immediately, that so-called Yiddish Renaissance of which the Zubatov-targetted Bund was most exemplary. For historical reasons, including the Nazi regime's virtual extermination of those followers of Mendelssohn and the Yiddish Renaissance within reach in Europe, the horror of the Nazi's Jewish extermination program  gave hegemony to the post-World War II Jewish political currents.

In short, to this day, the control is control over Israel through relevant forces associated with the U.S.A. and the British monarchy.  It is sufficient to pose the question: "Is 'Mega' an instrument of Israeli control over the U.S., or is 'Mega' an instrument of Anglo-American control over Israel?" History, aided by diligent intelligence work says that the "Christian Zionist" fanatics are part of an operation to both the U.S.A. and Israel deployed to create the generalized "Clash of Civilizations War," against all Islam, for which Israel is deployed as the intended detonator today.

7. Sir, I am trying to learn what are the deep forces in the American system. More than names, what is the main interest that brings all those different groups, movements in one place? What would you like to tell us about their intentions? Although these forces are located in America, you have claimed several times that 'they are also using and working against America too'.

LaRouche replies: I have covered most of that in my replies to the preceding questions.  We live in a world, in which it is imperial forces, not national interests, which, predominantly, control the adopted policy-outlooks of governments.  Do not look for forces within a nation; look for the supranational, imperial interest, which also has its agents within many nations.  If nations' perception of actual national interests controlled their policy-shaping, the world would not have become the deadly mess it is today.

8. I will ask a different question about Israel. But, if you like to define global power centers, how would you like to do it? How many centers are we talking about? What about American unilateralism? In addition, for instance, can we talk about Anglo-Saxon/Jewish coalition at the one side, Europe (catholic, orthodox) coalition, and China based Asian coalition on the other side? Also there is the latest (openly) Protestant American/Jewish coalition within the United States to support Israel.

LaRouche replies: No.  Such classifications would be dangerously misleading. For example,  the nastiest Catholic group inside the U.S.A., is a faction of enemies of  the current Pope, centered in the Arlington (Virginia) Diocese, as pivotted upon a Mont Pelerin Society/Heritage Foundation-controlled institution called Christendom College.  The center of this pollution within the diocese, is the same St. Catherine's of Siena which formerly featured the head of the FBI, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and the now convicted, former FBI agent Robert Hanssen. The ideology this network is explicitly fascism of a Carlist variety, and expresses what Christian theology defines as rabidly gnostic forms of religious aberrations.

The closest ally of this faction based within the Arlington Diocese, is the set of "Christian Zionists" who pivot politically upon the network of Professor William Yandell Elliot's Nashville Agrarians.  The alliance of these "Christian Zionists" and the Christendom College set, is based on the notion of alliances around "single issues."  Both are significant in terms of their deep connections to elements of the U.S. government, sch as the Department of Justice in general, and FBI in particular.  These religious bodies are essentially the kept political whores of relevant factions within government.

9. If there is an Anglo-Saxon/Jewish coalition, then, at what level do they manipulate the global capitalist financial system? Can they create the crisis? What about their unity? Do they represent a united power center or do they also have some inner contradictions?

LaRouche replies: Answered above.

10. In your May 1st speech you mentioned, "They're crazy. Psychotic, in effect. Not in the real world. They have become a significant political force behind people like Pat Robertson in Virginia, for example. They're dangerous. This is the constituency, the constituency of hate, the Ku Klux Klan constituency. They have to have somebody to hate, somebody to kill. And they say, "Them A-rabs-look like black people to me." They do, don't they?... No, it is not the Israelis who control the Zionist Lobby, who control the United States. It is an Anglo-American faction of this type, which has an instrument inside Israel, called the right-wing Likud, typified by Netanyahu, who's more dangerous than Sharon is. These guys are the killers who are doing the work of the Anglo-American Roman Legion mentality in the Middle East".  Who are those guys? Edward Said calls them "American Zionist" who has no knowledge about what happened in the Mideast? They also are acting like more fanatical than a regular Jew in Tel Aviv. More importantly how this cult culture has emerged in the America?

The explanation of that set of phenomena would cover a large part of the  in-depth domestic and foreign history of the U.S.  I have covered important aspects of that above.  A few remarks about the political history of religion in the U.S. may be sufficient to supply a useful image of the situation to which the question refers.

The principal religious-doctrinal influences in English-speaking North America date from the Seventeenth-Century conflicts, within the Massachusetts Bay Colony,  between the British Israelites and the circles of the Winthrops and Mathers.  The typical expression of the worst among the British influences is Jonathan Edwards, the grandfather of the traitor Aaron Burr. All of the lunatic characteristics of Edwards' antics are found among the "Christian Zionists" and many among the pro- fascist Catholics of the type associated with Christendom College.

The original Catholic influence in the U.S. was genuine and patriotic, contrary to the explicit anti-Americanism which Christendom College typifies today.  The corruption among Catholics dates chiefly from the Habsburg interventions into the Americas from the period of Prince Metternich's Holy Alliance, on.  That nominally Catholic faction tended to sympathize with Spain and France's Napoleon III, and therefore with the Confederacy, and with Maximilian's occupation of Mexico, up to the point of the U.S. victory in its Civil war.  This was during a period in which the Spanish monarchy acted under British franchise in the traffic of African slaves into the U.S.  It is that pro-fascist, anti-American current, typified by the referenced case of the Arlington Diocese, which typifies the corruption within Catholic churches within the U.S. today.

11. I would like to turn to Europe. The EU's proposal to impose sanctions on US exports by mid-June, in retaliation against Washington's decision last month to curb steel imports, has brought Brussels and Washington a step closer to their most violent showdown over trade for years. What would you like to tell us about this tension? How should we read it? As a simple trade conflict or EU's struggle to establish herself as a power center? What should we expect in the future of their relationships, a divorce?

LaRouche replies: The crucial issue for all of Europe is, whether or not it is either willing, or able, to break free of the imperial overreach which the partnership of the present Bush Presidency and Blair ministry represents for the entirety of the continent of Europe, and also Japan?    Europe's fundamental, even desperately urgent objective interest, is to enter into systemic collaboration with Asia around long-ranging trade-and-development programs developed in cooperation with what I, and at one point, Russia's Evgeny Primakov defined as an Asian "Strategic Triangle" established on behalf of all continental Eurasia, through the included partnership roles of Russia, China, and India.  Either Europe adopts that policy, or it will be either simply crushed by U.S.-British efforts, or plunged into global chaos through the consequent, self-inflicted collapse of the present world monetary-financial system.

Sometimes in history, whether terms are negotiable, or not, becomes almost irrelevant, when contrasted to the question: Are any of the relevant parties capable of tolerating a policy which, at that moment, is indispensable if they are going to survive. That is the principal irony which confronts all the leading nations of the world today.  If they cling to present policy-guidelines, none of them with survive for much longer.

12. What do you think about London's position in the global system? In particular what are you thoughts on London's -as a center- effect on Turkey's geopolitical and geostrategic position? In this sense, what do you want to tell us about EU-Turkey relations?

LaRouche replies: The greatest degree of insanity presently found among the relevant English-speaking nations, is that encountered in two cases, the U.S.A. and Australia.  In Britain, the madmen are as mad as they are in thee U.S.A.; however, there is a significant opposition to what some influential circles there consider the sheer strategic lunacy of current trends in U.S. policy-shaping. In part, this reflects Britain's greater sensitivity to the importance of the well-being of continental Europe for Britain's own economic and other security.

Toward Turkey, the utopian's Anglo-American strategy will be to "use up" Turkey's strategic potential in the process of dismembering Turkey as a nation. The two immediate such uses of Turkey would be, against Syria and Iraq, and through transcaucasia into Central Asia.  Just as Israel would be destroyed by extension of its present policies, so Turkey would be dismembered in the process of its assigned roles in military operations targetting transcaucusus and Central Asia regions.  An operation against Iran would tend to be the last gasp of Turkey as a recognizable nation in its present form.

13.  Turkey is a link country. With respect to Eurasia geopolitics, what do you think about Turkey's role? Turkey also strategic partner with America and Israel. How real is that partnership? And, what do you think about future US-Turkey relations? Is Israel a compulsory element in that relationship?

LaRouche replies: It is clearly desirable that Turkey have the opportunity to cooperate in the setting of something like the kind of peace which the accord between Arafat and Rabin had intended.  Turkey is the northern element of the crossroads of Africa and Asia, of a Middle East which links the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean, and provides a crucial link, through Egypt, to Africa to Asia as a whole.

The horrid images of the urban effects of the recent major earthquakes in Egypt, should be used to point out the urgency of mobilizing the focii of potential economic growth within Turkey, to raise the per capita income of the population to levels at which a quality of housing and related urban infrastructure consistent with national security can be provided. Within the labor-force of Turkey, a potential exists, if certain preconditions are satisfied.  There must be an ample flow of low-cost, long-term credit, and there must be greatly expanded Middle East and related markets in which to earn the export income through which to meet Turkey's relevant internal security needs.

My approach is to define transport-oriented development corridors, along the geographically natural routes of trade.  In the case of the Middle East as a whole, a leading characteristic of such an effort must be relatively massive emphasis on the development and management of fresh-water resources and generation and management of power.

14. Sir, what would you like to tell Turkey's reader as a last remark? I thank you for giving me a chance to interview with you.

Let us cooperate, to build, world-wide, what one-time U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams proposed for the Americas, a community of interest among sovereign nation-state republics, which President Franklin Roosevelt referenced as a "good neighbor policy."  We need such a policy, still, for the Americas.  We need such a strategic perspective for the world.

- - Thank you!

Top