|
LaRouche in 2004 LaRouche interview with Romàn Rojas Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Oct. 8, 2023 by Romàn Roja of Radio Màgica Caracas, Venezuela. Q: Mr. LaRouche, the formal war seems to have begun with the British and U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and the Taliban. What do you think of this current phase of the conflict, and what do you think is going to happen? LaRouche: Well, you've got two problems here. One is, you have Osama bin Laden, and to a certain degree the Taliban also. The Taliban operates on the basis of international drug trafficking, and are a source of instability, based on Afghanistan, throughout the region. Now, Osama bin Laden we know from way back, when he was kicked out of Sudan by the President of Sudan. And, he then disappeared into Afghanistan. Now he is a problem; but, I've always separated the Osama bin Laden problem, from the question of what happened in the United States on Sept. 11. As you know, in Venezuela, and in the Americas generally, there is a problem of international drug-financed and related types of destabilization. And, as we know, none of these organizations could exist very long, unless they were protected by some governments, or by some very wealthy and powerful financial interests, which sometimes exert the same kind of power as governments. But, we must make a distinction, as I do, between what was, on the basis of technical features, an internal operation like a coup d'etat attempt, inside the United States; and, you have to distinguish between that problem, and a problem that it intersects, which is the combination of international professional terrorism, which is all run by governments, or powerful financial interests. This international terrorism is not an organization as such. It is a sort of a kind of profession, from which governments hire assassins and similar types. So we have two problems. One is the significance, the strategic significance, of the attack on the United States. That overlaps a different problem, which is this mess of international terrorism, which should have been cleaned up a long time ago. Now you have a war going, which is following a political pathway of least resistance. The issue is, can President Bush separate the attack on Taliban and Osama bin Laden, from both the "clash of civilizations" thesis of Brzezinski and the other madmen, and the fact that there was an operation inside the United States which also has to be uprooted? And this problem inside is of great strategic danger to all civilization. So, we have a war on our hands, that's now an institution. We're going to have to try to find our way out of that dangerous passage, hopefully safely. Q: Mr. LaRouche, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated on German television, that nuclear weapons should be used to bomb Libya, Syria, and other countries in the Middle East. What do you think of these statements and this current of thought? LaRouche: This is very dangerous. Kissinger is actually a sort of a twin of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He was created at Harvard University by the same units as Brzezinski; and, the people that recruited him in the United States, him and Brzezinski both, were a bunch of racists under the leadership of a fellow called William Yandell Elliott, belonging to that special group called the Nashville Agrarians, that particular group of racists. And these people, also, like Elliott, are very close in their thinking, to the thinking of the famous H.G. Wells and Bertrand Russell. And, this group in the United States, is probably one of the most evil things that the United States has had within it over, at least of significance, of the past 35 years. What these fellows want to do, is to go back to a kind of warfare which would throw all of Central Asia, all of Eurasia, into chaos--combined with religious warfare. It is the most dangerous, most insane thing that was ever invented. Now, of course, Kissinger is no longer as young as he was. He's two years younger than I am;, but he's about 30 years older in terms of mental condition. So he's not as serious a problem as he used to be. But, what he represents, and typifies, is a nasty problem. Q: Mr. LaRouche, what are your views about what President Putin of Russia is doing? LaRouche: Putin is a very interesting man. I wouldn't want to overestimate him, but when you look at the other heads of state around most of the world, this man is actually a bright light on the horizon. Now, his-- the thrust of him and his people around him, obviously: I haven't talked to him; so therefore I don't know what his private intentions are. I do know something about the Russian trends right now. You see a pattern of actions, which is an attempt to reunify Eurasia around economic development, including reaching to Japan, to China, to India, to Southeast Asia, and Western Continental Europe. So, actually, what Putin is proposing could be the cornerstone for implementing what I've proposed, which is sometimes called the Eurasian Land-Bridge project. If three things are done, I think we're out of this world mess we're in right now. First of all, we have to have an economic and financial reform. We have to go back to something like the Bretton Woods system we had between 1946 and 1963. We need large-scale cooperation in terms of economic projects, to revive the world economy. And using a Eurasian revival as a way of building up Africa and the Americas. If the United States enters into agreement with the nations of continental Eurasia on this project, I think the world will be safe. And therefore, that's what I concentrate my efforts on, is on that perspective. Q: Doesn't this war put off the kind of cooperation for progress and development among the nations of the world, which you've just described? LaRouche: Absolutely, that's the major concern. Q: You've stated on many occasions that the world's economic and financial depression did not begin on Sept. 11, but long before. Did that same financial situation have any influence, with regard to the terrorist attacks in New York? LaRouche: Well, yeah, I compared the situation to a number of previous ones, especially the case of Germany in 1932-33-34. For example, if the German Chancellor von Schleicher had remained in office in Germany until Roosevelt had become President of the United States, you would have had an agreement between Roosevelt and Germany on economic revival, which would have been the spark plug for world economic recovery. By putting Hitler into power, which was done largely by British and American financial interests, what happened was that we, inevitably, were going to world war. I wouldn't want to make the comparison an exact one; but, this is the kind of thing that anyone who has studied the history closely, as I have, sees and thinks about when you see something like that which has just happened. Q: I remember having read, in fact in EIR magazine, that in 1956 in the town of Pugwash where some conferences began, which continued throughout the entire Cold War, one of the participants, a scientist, drew a world map, or the proposal of world for the coming 50 years. And among the things he spoke of was that there had to be, among the great powers, the assurance that they could destroy each other with the nuclear missiles that they had. And there was on point which drew my attention, which is that he spoke of the destruction of the Middle East. Can you comment on this? LaRouche: Well, this is the H.G. Wells-Bertrand Russell policy. You see, Wells, in 1913, was the first to propose using nuclear weapons as a way of ending the nation state, and establishing world government. In 1928, Wells wrote this book called The Open Conspiracy, which Russell publicly praised; and, from that point on, the two of them were in collaboration on this idea of building up nuclear confrontation, nuclear weapons confrontation, and even launching nuclear war, as Russell proposed openly, in order to terrify the world into accepting world government, and abandoning the nation state. When Russell reached an agreement with Nikita Khrushchov, the Russian General Secretary, in the middle of the 1950s, this led to the Pugwash Conference being convened, which had as its purpose, a continuation of that Russell-Wells policy. Then you had people, influentials, like in the United States, such as John J. McCloy, who hired Henry Kissinger as one of his subordinates, who actually pushed through this kind of policy, which was called the detente, the SALT-I, SALT II, so forth and so on. And, one would find today that the ideology which one can read in the summation by Wells in The Open Conspiracy, is the ideology of Kissinger, of Madeleine Albright, the former foreign minister, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Korbel, who was the father of Madeleine Albright and patron of Condoleezza Rice. This issue of the fight between the idea of defending the sovereign nation state, and world government, and the ideas of not only the Pugwash Conference, but the Club of Rome and so forth-- This conflict between European civilization, and this kind of ideology, is the essential conflict on this planet today. It's what we face in the Americas, for example. All of us who are patriots of our countries in the Americas, are for the sovereignty of our countries, in the terms of: each country will defend the general welfare of its people, its land, and its posterity. We should work together for our common interest; and, that's the way to peace and prosperity. These other guys have a different idea. They hate everything we stand for. They want to destroy us. Q: Mr. LaRouche, do today's world leaders have the necessary level of consciousness and capabilities to be able to achieve the change of the planet, by taking the path which you have noted? LaRouche: Not many of them. This is going to be an act of conscience in which some leaders who generally are older, -- we might say the wise men of the human tribe, are going to have to talk to the younger people who are in power, and say to them, "Look, you've made a mess of everything. Now, listen to us; there's a way out of this mess." And, to teach them also how to mobilize the people; really, not by synthetic mass propaganda, but by bringing tears of joy to the average farmer, the average small citizen. In that way we can survive. Humanity always, in all its progress, has come out of terrible conditions. There's an essential goodness in the human species, which enables us, under times of crisis -- sometimes with good leadership, and even in times of crisis as bad as this one. There have been worse crises in the past of humanity. So, I'm not optimistic in the sense of making a promise, But, optimistic in the sense that I know there is a way out, and the possibility that we can travel that road. And right now that's the thing that's most worth doing. Q: What are you doing today, in Germany, Mr. LaRouche? LaRouche: Well, I've got a lot of meetings. Europe, of course, is a center of many of the things I do. I have a series of meetings and conferences and so forth, which I'm going to be working on over the next few weeks, in several countries. Q: In general, what countries do you think could act in an intelligent way to save the world from this situation? Which are the important counties, those that could do something? LaRouche: Well, actually, many countries can be. But the key things are this. As I've emphasized to people: if you know what's happened to the world, there are only three nations in this world, as national cultures, which have any confidence in their ability to initiate global solutions--for worse, or for better. The British monarchy, which is also the monarchy of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and so forth; the American culture, which has never thought of itself as having been defeated or occupied; and Russian national culture, which is a Eurasian nation in its mentality. What the nations of the world look for, is one, two, or three of these powers, to give leadership, to bring nations together, to deliberate on these questions, as we deliberated at Bretton Woods in 1944. This, however, depends not just on conferences; it depends on a process of discussion and organizing people. And, in the meantime, every time we have a meeting, every time we have a discussion, that goes in that direction, we're making a step toward bringing together such a conference. To make it very personal, I'm very much involved psychologically, emotionally, with the nations of South and Central America. I say to them, I want to give you the permission to step forward and speak your own mind, and have a discussion as a group on these questions before us. We've got to bring the nation states from being virtual colonies, or semi-colonies, to really be a moral nation, to have moral government. That government, its people, its nation, must have a sense of sovereignty, and responsibility. That's what I think the hope is. Q: Mr. LaRouche, our time has run out. We thank you for your words and thoughts, and orientation, which the Venezuelan public has heard today. |