Lyndon LaRouche Press Conference In Little Rock, Arkansas
May 11, 2023

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Good morning. Lyndon LaRouche is on an extended campaign tour. He was in Kentucky, where I believe there's a primary today; with the primary in Arkansas next week. He's on the ballot, the only serious contender to John Kerry left. And the importance of this campaign is seen from the developments in the last days, that confirm what Lyndon LaRouche has been saying from the beginning: That we're up against a problem of a Beast-Man mentality, a tyrannical approach to politics from Cheney. And, it's necessary to rally Democrats to defeat this administration, but to begin the process of changing the situation in Southwest Asia, immediately.

So, I'll turn it over to Lyndon LaRouche, to tell you about his plan on this.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, there are two large issues before the country as a whole now, neither of which is being faced by other candidatesany of the others.

Number one, the economic crisis, which is a global economic crisis, which is now a pre-crash, crumbling phase, especially over the past two weeks.

Secondly, the Iraq crisis, which is not an Iraq crisisit's much more complicated. And no one is addressing, generally, from the standpoint of the candidacies of the parties, what has to be done to get out of that mess. I have put out, what you have a copy available here of, my LaRouche Doctrine; which is an ongoing operation, which is gathering support in the Middle East, so-called, and elsewhere, which is now becoming a feasible escape of the United States, from the continuing, worsening mess in Iraq. We can get out.

Those are the two issues. The key thing now, is, that what has to be done, is the following, and this is what breaks the nerve of a lot of candidates: We're in a depression, which is far worse than that of 1929-33. We have not gone into the official crash phase yet, but all the other conditions are there, and they are inevitable under the present system. Only a change in the system, of the type that Franklin Roosevelt introduced in March of 1933, will save the nation. We have the potentiality of support for such U.S. policy, from foreign countriesEurope and elsewhere. So, it is possible to escape from this depression, as we escaped from the last one.

But, at present, on the basis of the present policies of the Bush Administration, the Kerry campaign, the situation is hopeless. They're not paying attention to business on any of these questions. Kerry has his own reasons for that: He's laying back, and hoping that Bush falls, and then he can come in and say something later. But, what he's been saying, to my view, what I criticize him for, is, on these issues, he has been taking positions which will become irreversible liabilities hanging around his neck, next November. And I'm afraid he could blow the election, even though he potentially is a winner, given George Bush's problems.

So, that's my concern.

What has to be done, is this: The President of the United States will have to declare a national emergency, as Roosevelt did with the banking holiday. The international banking system, today, is hopelessly bankrupt. The international monetary-financial system can not be adjusted, it can not be reformed. It has to be radically transformed, as Roosevelt did, back in 1933.

The measures to be taken are tougher. The key thing is, the President of the United Stateshaving put the Federal Reserve System into bankruptcy, and having worked with foreign countries to put the IMF system, also, into bankruptcymust immediately launch a program, and I've specified a $6 trillion infrastructure-building program for the coming four years for the United States: This would involve water projects; large-scale power generation and distribution projects; health-care rehabilitation, obviously going back to the Hill-Burton law, repealing the HMO bill, which is impossible; and education policies, as well.

This means, we have to get government credit, would be created to finance these large projects, by capitalizing these investments in infrastructure. States would be encouraged to form public utilities, to capture some of these utilities. For example: a power generation and distribution network, which should be coordinatedit must be together, otherwise, it doesn't work. The states actually should go back to assuming responsibility for public utilities in that area. This would mean, the government would put the money up front, for the construction of the utility, and then encourage local people to invest in stocks or bonds of those utilitiesthe way we used to do it. Thus providing a safe and secure place of savings, for normal people and institutions who want highly secure types of savings.

This means, also, that the Federal government must have a promotion of high-technology development, centered around an expanded conception of the space program, as a science-driver program. In addition, to getting 10 million jobs, we must qualify people for these jobs; we must have the capital, which will go out largely, especially to medium and small-business, who are in the high-tech business, or necessary otherwise. And that credit would be run through banks under reorganization. The credit would be provided to local communities, with the kind of thing that Roosevelt used to do for this kind of thing, in order to get some of these business even revived, which are in trouble, or born as new enterprises, if that's warranted.

So, these are the kinds of measures that must be taken. For this kind of program, we can get support throughout much of the world. If the United States takes leadership in this way, most of Europe, at least, will support the United States, and cooperate with these kinds of policies. They will cooperate with the creation of a new international monetary system, to get us out this mess.

That's essentially what I'm going to do.

Q: With regard to Iraq, what would you do there? The war in Iraq, what would you do there?

LAROUCHE: As I laid out in this Doctrine. The point is, we're in an asymmetric warfare. This war is not an Iraq war. It was generated, actually, back in the early 1990s, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense; at which time, he tried to push through policies, which were, on the one hand, perpetual warfare policies, exploiting the collapse of the Soviet Union as a rival, with nuclear weapons, to assert U.S. hegemony internationally; with the use of nuclear weapons, the so-called mini-nukes, to enforce that hegemony; to privatize the military, that is, to take traditional functions of the military and privatize them, turn over to private corporations, these kinds of things.

At that time, the Bush Administration turned him down. But Cheney continued that policy, all the way through the '90s, until he became, as the Vice President. As Vice President, with his crowd, called the "neo- conservatives," he pushed this through, and got us into a war in Iraq, as well as the Afghanistan mess. The intention of Cheney is preventive nuclear warfare. And the targets include Syria, they include Iran, they include North Korea, other targets. What we're in, is a pattern of going toward a world war, running like a modernized science-fiction kind of Roman Empire.

We've got to get out of this mess. Because, with the present international financial crisis, we can not solve the international financial crisis, while we are generating and supporting the kind of conflict we are developing with our potential allies and partners around the world. It can't be done.

Give you one example: the Price of petroleum. The price of petroleum is now about $40 a barrel, on international markets$30-40, so forth. With any catastrophe in the Middle East, which affects petroleum supplies: We're talking $50 a barrel oil; we're talking about cut-off of oil from the Middle East, in large degree. This means a shock effect to the U.S. economy, we can't handle. We've got to bring the Middle East under control; we've got to bring the petroleum security question under control, now, as an integral part of the preparing for dealing with the ongoing monetary-financial crisis.

Q: Is it your contention, sir, that Mr. Cheney is the one who is, in effect, running the White House, as opposed to Mr. Bush?

LAROUCHE: Oh, of course he is! Look at Bush. Look at him, when he speaks. The poor guy is just not mentally there. He's the dumbest President we've ever had. And he's being controlled by Cheney.

Cheney is controlled by his wife; that's not well known. Lynne Cheney. Lynne Cheney has shaped every step of Dick Cheney's career. She's rescued him from the mud, many times, and put him in various positions. She's the one with the international influence. She's a behind-the-scenes figure. So, you have her, she's the one running the marionette puppet. She's got him on strings. He's got a dummy sitting on his lap, like a ventriloquist's dummy. And he's not using his belly as a ventriloquist, to tell the dummy what to say: He's using a teleprompter.

But, this is a disgusting situation. We all know it. People pretend it's not true. But, the danger is, you have the dumbest man in the Presidency we've ever had, with one of the most dangerous crises we've ever had, and he doesn't know what time it is.

Q: So, do you support immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops? Or how do we get out of the mess?

LAROUCHE: What you have to do, is, very simply: If the people that are responding to me now, coalescethey are tending to coalesce, in that part of the world, and elsewherethen, we have a partner. And normally, through the State Department, you would negotiate with this group of people, for a Southwest Asia security policy: This would include Turkey, it would include Armenia, it would include Azerbaijan, it would Iran, Egypt, and other countries. On the basis of having this partner for Southwest Asia security, we would take one order from the President of the United States to recognize this processpull Bremer out of there, quickly; he's a mess. But, put somebody else in there, one of our generals, for example; not one of these civilians, but a general. And arrange the disengagement of U.S. military forces in Iraq, from combat. Because, we would be in a position, then, to actually negotiate simultaneously with all of the people in the area.

But we would simply restore the government of Iraq to its previous state, that is, under the 1958 Constitution. Objectionable people, of course, would not be included. But, in general, you would pull the Iraqi military and other institutional figures to go in the process of rebuilding their own country. Bring the thing under the United Nations, as the sponsoring party. We would be a cooperating partner, with the United Nations group, in assisting this rebuilding of this nation of Iraq.

But, the objective is, also, to secure the entire region of Southwest Asia, as a secure region, so it's not going to blow up on us. We have opportunities for cooperation throughout Asia, between South Asia, East Asia and Europe. They're good opportunities. But if Southwest Asia blows up, it could affect the security of the whole region.

So, what we need right now, very quickly, is to get Southwest Asia under control. We have to adopt a policy, of the United States, to say, we're committed to that. We have to have the talking partners on the other side, who share that agreement.

We've got to bring about what Rabin wanted to do in Israel, to bring about an Oslo Accord type of peace negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis. There's a growing movement among Israelis, for renewing that, again, now. We have to encourage that. We have to give full backing of the United States to doing that job.

Q: Somebody on the Democratic National Committee who said, that their understanding is that you're not a registered voter, so, you're not eligible to get delegates

LAROUCHE: I know.

Q: [followup] Is that true? If it is true, why should people vote for you?

LAROUCHE: BecauseTerry McAuliffe is a liar. He said I'm an anti-Semite, pro-fascist, a racist, or this kind of thing. It's all a bunch of lies. I was framed up, everybody knows about it. It's no secret. Framed up by- -I was put in jail by Bush; I was gotten out of jail by Clinton. That's the story.

And some people who are tied to large banking interests, financial interests, are afraid of me; they've been afraid of me for a long time, on this issue: That I would act, as President Roosevelt acted in 1933. They know it. They don't want me even talking about that! They don't want it heard by the Democratic Party. Because, the Democratic Party, the poorer people, the lower 80% of the voters, have effectively no representation now, in terms of party procedures. They're neglected. You gather them in at election time, if you want them. But, my policy, is to bring the lower 80% of voters back into the process of running the party.

Q: [followup] So you are, or aren't a registered voter?

LAROUCHE: No.

Q: [followup] So, are you a protest vote? You didn't answer the question.

LAROUCHE: I'm not a protest vote. I'm a serious candidate. I'm the only serious candidate. Let me put it this way: People say, "What're your chances of being elected?" My chances of being elected, are better than what's going to happen to the country, if I'm not.

Q: With Arkansas being a conflict state, why do you think it's important to share your message here? And what are your plans for returning to here, before November?

LAROUCHE: Oh, I would obviously be campaigning here in the later phase, after the convention, because I am determined the Democratic Party wins the election! But, as of now, until the convention's proceedings are concluded, I'm still an active candidate.

Q: I understand you've been in Arkansas for a couple of days. And I was told you've been meeting with "top Democrats." Who've you been meeting with here? And what have those discussions been about?

LAROUCHE: We have delegates and others here. Most of the people in the state know me. I mean, the whole Clinton crowd knows me, for example; and some of the people who weren't too happy with Bill, also know me. So, I'm well known. I'm not an obscure figure.

Q: [followup] Can you name some names, whom you met with?

LAROUCHE: I let them drop their own names. There are lot of people, and most people know about it.

Q: Can you talk about your previous party affiliations, and how many times you've run for President?

LAROUCHE: Democratic Party. Except in 1975-76, I ran against Brzezinski, and I ran on an independent ticket, the Labor Party ticket, because I knew that Brzezinski was going to get us into some kind of nuclear warfare. And so I ran a campaign to expose that. I did expose it. And it stopped those people inside the Brzezinski crowd of Carter, from going in that direction.

Q: [followup] Can you enumerate the number of times?

LAROUCHE: Eight times.

Q: If I may return to my question: I mean, I was enticed to come out here by one of your press people, who said "he's been in the state for two days, meeting with top Democrats." You can't name a single

LAROUCHE: I'm not much of a name-dropper. I don't like that sort of thing.

Q: [followup] I guess what I'm trying to get at, is

LAROUCHE: I've been here. I've met most of the Democrats. I'm very close, in particular, to the civil rights movement. And my usual contacts here, are largely recognized leaders of the civil rights tradition in this state. There are also other people, as you saw, with the vote I got with the 2000 election here in this state. So, I have a base in the state, which is well known.

Q: [followup] The absence of those people here, at your side today, seem to indicate that they're not backing you, and the fact that you won't name anybody, seems to indicate that you have no support!

LAROUCHE: No. We had a meeting last night, and a number of people from around the state came here, who are also my representatives here.

Q: [followup] No top Democrats that you can name?

LAROUCHE: Well, I could name some, but I don't think it's necessary. I don't think it's relevant.

Q: [followup] You referred to this a moment ago, but if you do Google search for the name LaRouche, after the top two or three official sites, there are dozens of sites that label you a fascist, an anti-Semite, talk about your "cult." Are you a fringearen't you a nut?

LAROUCHE: No. Only the people who say that are nuts. [laughter]

Because anybody who wants to.

Q: [cuts him off] Look, seriously, can you address, why is there so much hatred? Why are there so many people out there calling you these names?

LAROUCHE: Because of a little debate I had in 1971, in New York City, where I. I have been a successful long-range forecaster, the most successful in 35 or 40 years. And I forecast the kind of condition which broke out in August of 1971. At that point, my associates and I, went after all these economists who had said this couldn't happen, when I said it was likely to happen. And they'd written books and said that the "built-in stabilizers" would prevent any crash from occurring. A crash had occurred.

So, I challenged them, on the basis of the competence of what was being taught in universities, as economics at that time. And I do, still today. What's being taught, in my view, is incompetent. We are now in a big crisis. An unbelievably serious crisis.

But, at that time, so, they picked a champion. I was causing a lot of problems. Students were upset, university students, because I was saying their professors were incompetent. And their professors were very unhappy. So, they picked a champion: Prof. Abba Lerner, who was considered the leading international Keynesian economist in the world at that time; British associated, but was teaching at Queens College in New York City.

So, he chosen, to challenge me to a debate, that I asked for. And, we wiped the floor with him. Because, what he'd done, what his policies were, his policies were those of Hjalmar Schacht, for a crisis: The same Hjalmar Schacht who was behind Hitler, Hitler's initials policies. So, I said, this is Schachtian policies. You've got liberals running, around, and they're actually pushing the policies of the fascist, Hjalmar Schacht. What goes on? At the end of the debate, which went on for some period of time that day, in which a lot of the celebrities of New York were there, to hear this great debate. At the end of it, he said, meekly, "But, if Germans had accepted Schacht's policy, Hitler would not have been necessary." End of debate.

The point was never take this guy on in debate, again.

And the banking interests, typified by Lazard Frères, by Felix Rohatyn, people like that; George Soros, George Shultz, these kinds of characters, are determined to keep me altogether out of politics. They do not want a Roosevelt.

Now, they're not going to take me on! They have never tried to take me on in debate. Never! What they do, is, they use the usual thing, which allowed in this countrybecause the problemas you know, being in the pressyou know one thing: There is no longer any law, on public figures, which restricts any press from reckless disregard for truth. We used to have a libel law, until 1984, which forbade lying openly, overtly, against public figures. After 1984, a decision was made, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, in which the law, which said that it is libelous to proceed with reckless disregard for truth, and it is particularly libelous when you proceed with maliciously motivated reckless disregard for truth.

Now, the sites you're referring to, all happen to be of the same species. They're associated with a guy called John Train, for example. This is a product of Tom Braden's and other people's "Cultural Freedom" operation Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was a brainwashing operation. This included people like Chip Berlet, who used to work for Tom Braden, as part of the National Student Association. These are spook operations.

All of this stuff, is nothing, but maliciously motivated, reckless disregard for truth. But many people repeat it.

Anybody who wants to check itmy record is full. My website makes it very easy for people to get my full record, on about anything! Anyone who wanted to check the facts, would not repeat that garbage! The only people who would repeat it, is, because they were instructed by their editor to. As you know, the problem we have in the press in this country, it is difficult to be a honest reporter. Because the institutions don't want it. To be an honest broadcaster. The only broadcast institutions that have any freedom, are to some degree, the small talk-show press, that kind of local radio, that kind of thing. But, the large-scale press has no freedom whatsoever. It's controlled by big money; it doesn't have independent statuslook at the crisis of all our major media. Look it, you got a top man is controlled by Wal-Mart, you know? This kind of thing.

So, that's our problem. And, you don't have honest discussion. Look it these guys, look at the debates we had, the television debates: These guys said nothing of any importance on these debates! Nothing! They don't want to say things of that importance. They want to lay back, create bite-size impressions; take positions, postures. They don't discuss the issue. We have serious problems in this country, and they're not being discussed.

Q: Can you clarify, how many days have you been in the state?

LAROUCHE: Oh, I've been here for a few days.

Q: [followup] How many days? Two, three?

LAROUCHE: This is the third day.

Q: [followup] And you're leaving today?

LAROUCHE: [followup] Yeah.

SCHLANGER: No, you'll be in the state.

LAROUCHE: No, I'll be in the state; I'm leaving the city, here, today.

Q: [followup] And how many more days are you going to be in Arkansas?

LAROUCHE: Oh, one more dayunless something comes up.

Q: [followup] So, you'll be here four days.

Q: And you're meeting with supporters around the state, as part of your- -?

LAROUCHE: Well, you have people who are registered as my delegates, for thisthey're supporters. They're all listed. I mean, they're listed supporters.

SCHLANGER: There's a debate tonight in Fayetteville, on the cable station, to which the other Presidential campaigns were invited. Mr. LaRouche will be thereor, tomorrow night. John Kerry will be raising money in Little Rock.

Q: When will you be debating with them?

LAROUCHE: Well, they don't want to debate with me

SCHLANGER: So, it may just be an interview on the cable station.

LAROUCHE: Apparently, Kucinich, I think, is staying up in Oregon. He's not moving from there, apparently. He's watching Ralph Nader, in Oregon, where they're competing for influence. And none of the others are in the business any more. Wesley Clark will, of course, appear here, supporting Kerry. Maybe somebody else will come in. I don't know whether Bill Clinton's coming in or not.

SCHLANGER: Any other questions?

Q: Nice to meet youthank you, very much.

LAROUCHE: Have fun.