Full Lyndon LaRouche Interview
 With Good Morning Egypt
April 12, 2023

Hanan Elbadry: Mr. LaRouche, welcome to “Good Morning, Egypt.”

First of all, I would like to know: How can you look at the American administration policy toward the Middle East crisis?

LaRouche: It's a tragic disaster, at this point. It is not a simple disaster, because I believe that the President of the United States does not really know what he is doing. That is, he is so controlled by a small group of people, which, probably except for Powell, are pretty much on the insane line we're hearing. And, he's acting under tremendous pressure, from a lobby inside the United States, which has made very clear, to the President, that, if he does anything to offend Sharon, his brother will lose the election in Florida; and, many in the Republican Party, will lose posts all over the country. So, we have a situation, which is complicated by a President of limitations--that is, of conceptual limitations: He truly does not understand the situation. He probably despises Sharon personally, privately. But he's convinced that his political party, and he, depend upon not offending Sharon, at this time. And so, he's in an impossible, tragic situation.

What is happening on the other side, is, the danger is: We're now in a situation from a military standpoint, where, what Sharon is doing can not work; what the IDF is doing can not work. You can not fight war this way.

Rabin understood that--Prime Minister Rabin. Rabin, therefore, made an agreement with Arafat, and met with Arafat, on what became known as the Oslo Plan: not because Rabin likes Arabs, but because Rabin realized, that they had to learn to live together at peace, because the alternative was something exactly like what is happening now, in Palestine and Israel--this nightmare, which is actually a copy of the Nazi operation against the Warsaw Ghetto. Exactly, literally: no difference whatsoever.

So, it's an impossible situation. But, this becomes, then, a trigger, which I think everybody in the region understands: This is a trigger for a wider war. Because Israel can not continue this internal operation, within the bounds of Palestine and Israel, at the present time. It will have to expand the war, or collapse. The immediately targets are Syria through Lebanon; Iraq; possibly Iran. But, you have to remember, that the Israeli command is not only Nazi-like in its thinking (not all Israelis, of course, but these people); but, they also are operating on a conception, in which they can do anything.

So, my concern is, in evaluating this situation: Europeans are resisting--not effectively, but they're resisting; the importance of their resistance is, they're putting pressure on the United States. The United States, alone, might not be able to stop Israel from doing what it's doing. But if the United States were to come over to the side of what some of the Arab nations and the Europeans are saying, that combination of forces could stop this horror-show.

That's my hope.

Elbadry: Is that because of the hawks in the Administration? Or that policy aiming toward war, not only in the Middle East, but everywhere?

LaRouche: Well, you've got a real factor of insanity in the U.S. population, which is a result, in fact, of an ongoing, worldwide depression. The United States, because of its political power, has been able to extract support--financial and other support from other nations--to create an appearance of stability in the U.S. economy, when, in point of fact, the economy is collapsing.

What we have, in the United States, is a growing internal desperation, almost to the point of madness, of trying to deny the reality of this depression, to pretend that there is not a depression, there is not a worldwide crisis. Under this, you have--. Without adequate leadership, you can have, even a major nation like the United States can become, temporarily, insane. And, I think, if you wanted to characterize the United States, overall, you would say, it's in a state of insanity. It's not as bad as Washington: Washington is the maximum point of insanity. Outside of Washington, you'll find people are less insane than they are in the Washington Beltway area. But, nonetheless, the insanity exists.

My concern is: How do I, as an American, turn this around, inside the United States? As I recognize it, I've got a situation in which the government is, in effect--the Congress, especially--is insane. And they're not likely to do anything sane. So, how do I do that? How do I, by adding my efforts to what other people are doing around the world, bring about a situation, in which we can turn this situation around?

I would hope that we can, possibly, turn George Bush around, because George Bush is simply a man, who is captured by his Administration. Powell is an aperture to people who are listening to more reasonable ideas. But, the larger number of people, in the immediate circle of the President, are pushing him in this direction--under domestic politics pressures, among other things. Can he be freed, of these pressures, long enough, to see clearly what his problem is? He's now facing a great number of different problems: all great crises. He's not the kind of man, who can intellectually handle a large number of crises simultaneously. Therefore, we can reduce his problems, to one or two crucial problems, on which he would concentrate his attention; perhaps we might be able to turn him around, too.

Elbadry: What about public opinion, the American public? You just mentioned how the people act, outside the capital. I need to know, how can you go through this? And, how can you explain, as a Democrat, does the Democratic Party have any role to play?

LaRouche: The Democratic Party is pretty much taken over. The Democratic Party, frankly, would probably be worse, than the Republican Party, on Middle East questions, because of the leadership, and the financial control over it. Gore, for example: Gore would have been worse than Bush, by far. Lieberman would be as bad as Bush. Gore is stupid, but Lieberman is clever, and intelligent. But, he's also bad. So, a bad man, who's an intelligent man, and a stupid man, or a sick man, who's not so intelligent, like Gore--it's not much of a choice.

The problem is, in most countries, is popular opinion: We know this, in all countries. One of the controlling factors, which is called “democracy”--it's not really democracy, it doesn't mean anything--but, it's popular opinion. Swings in popular opinion can cause governments to do things that are insane, or topple governments, who are trying to do something sane. The problem is, we don't have, really, a healthy society in the world today. The individual does not feel that they are a responsible member of society. They feel they are a victim of society, who can protest; who are swung by moods.

The United States is one of the worst: We are more controlled, in the United States, than in Europe, or probably in most other nations of the world, by manufactured, orchestrated public opinion, through mass media. We're the greatest victims of it. This is a development, which became worse over the past 35 years, since about 1965. Popular-opinion swings dominate. Therefore, yes, it is a problem. And popular opinion, in the United States--in my experience, with this population, as with other ones--is that, only the perception, of a fundamental crisis, a fundamental economic and other crisis, will convince American popular opinion to break out of the present mode. That is: If they perceive that the depression is the major issue--the economic depression--they're going to respond to the major issue: the depression. That will force a change in the agenda of thinking inside the United States.  Now, that crisis is coming on fast. It's coming on around the world.

Elbadry: What about the November election? How can the American, Arab, and Muslim play a role? There are many motives for them to go and act. As you know, in your area, there are more than 750,000 Arabs and Muslims, plus the people who supported them. And half of them, at least, have the right to vote.

LaRouche: Well, the problem is, what I've been trying to do, myself, in this connection: I've been put into a unique situation, personally, because I understand the situation--understand the situation here; I understand the situation in the so-called Islamic countries, which are targetted. I have people I know in these countries; I understand them, as much as any outsider would understand them. Therefore, I've tried to look at this from the top down: I understand the anger of the Palestinian. I understand the frustration of the Arab countries, around there. I understand the fear and anxiety of the Islamic population, as a totality--and others, as well. They tend to react with rage. If they believe there is no hope, for a better policy, from the United States and from Europe, they're going to become more and more angry. Which is bad for these countries, because they will tend be more easily destabilized by their own, accumulated rage.

So, what I try to do, is to say to my friends abroad--Islamic countries, Arab countries: “Here's the way we must discuss the situation--not you discuss the situation; not me discuss the situation--how should we discuss our common problem? We're trying to save civilization. Forget the so-called `differences.' We're trying to save civilization. You're capable of a rational solution--well, let's concentrate on it.” Then, if we do that--then, the targetted populations of Americans--of Arab-Americans and others--then have a sense that there's somebody representing a position, which corresponds to two things: They are Americans; they have thought of themselves as Americans. They didn't think of themselves as immigrants: They've been here for two, three generations, or longer! They think of themselves as being Americans, with families and connections abroad. And, they've reacted, as they supported the Bush campaign, largely, in the last election--as they thought that Gore was worse than Bush on policies of their concern. And many of them mobilized to support the Bush election. Now, they feel betrayed, by Bush. So, my sense, is to encourage them--and I would hope that others would do the same--to think of themselves as: They're American citizens, or American residents, whose immediate, personal interests are here; who have to find a way of expressing their views, here, but on the same level as people abroad, realize we have a common concern.

This is not a question of one nation against another, in principle. This is a question of an insane arrangement in relations among states. We have a common problem. Let's reduce it to a common problem; let's define it as a common solution: What do we propose, as the alternative to this insanity? Let us unify our forces across borders, around an idea of a solution. Let us try to mutually influence governments, to come to an understanding of that solution. We have an economic crisis around the world, which is beyond belief--even without the military crisis. We have terrible instabilities. We have governments that are generally incompetent, in many parts of the world. How do we save civilization, which is on the--? And, this problem, of the Middle East, is a marker, like a symptom of a disease; it's a marker of something that can destroy global civilization. How do we say, by cooperating with one another, that, there is a hope, an alternative to this nonsense?

Elbadry: But, as you know, there are good boys and bad boys, whether they are with us, or against us. This is the policy, now--the official policy, for the States.

LaRouche: That's a very dangerous enunciation of policy, but, in the United States, one thing is good about it: The President can talk--but that doesn't mean the people agree. I don't think most people even understand this. Most people in the United States are obsessed by the financial and economic crisis that they face. Forget the stock markets. Forget the market reports. Look at the number of bankruptcies; look at the people losing jobs, losing homes. Look at the collapse of schools, collapse of health-care systems. Think of families, families which have concerns, which are family concerns, neighborhood concerns, community concerns: These are the conditions of life they face. What is being said in Washington, is a diversion from the issues that concern them most. They would like to have national security. They were panicked by the stories told about Sept. 11 (which are not true stories, by the way), but nonetheless, they were panicked by the fact. See what you saw on television, in New York; or what you saw in Washington, on television. The stories that were told, the fears that were aroused. Yes, these divert. People do not face the fact of the depression, therefore, they tend to cling to illusions, even delusions: Someone tells them, it's going to be better--”Oh, good! Good! I'm glad to hear that news!” but it's not. And, therefore, the fact that somebody says that, doesn't click.

The thing to remember, is the case of Adolf Hitler: Because, we're in a situation like that of 1929-33, in which some people in England and the United States put Hitler into power in Germany, with a coup d'etat. The danger, in a situation like this, is that somebody will make coups d'etats, or wars, which suddenly move the world into a new dimension, away from the real issues of life. Sometimes dictatorships arise, because somebody is trying to divert attention, from a real problem, by a diversion; to mobilize people: “Defend the nation! Defend the nation!” That sort of thing. And, so the danger is--what the President is saying, could become reality in the minds of the population; but, at this point, it is not.

Elbadry: But, some are starting to realize that there is more spending here, on arms projects.

LaRouche: Not really so much on arms. They say they're spending on arms, but that also is a farce. The administration has a lot of friends--

Elbadry: That's why I mention this. Because I can remember what's going on in Alaska, and the oil companies--you know, the whole picture, how it looks.

LaRouche: See, this is strategic, in one sense; but, it's mostly economic: You have a great number of corporations in the United States, which are going bankrupt.

Elbadry: Yes.

LaRouche: The Bush Administration, and some Republicans, have a lot of money, a lot at stake, in these companies. What is happening, largely, is not actually an arms buildup, in a sense; they're replenishing some of the bombs they lost in Afghanistan--things like that. It would take a year, two years, to build up a military capability of any significance. Say, they want to go to Iraq: The best estimates, in the United States, it would take--to do an intelligent operation against Iraq, would require about a half-million soldiers. They're not ready. They don't have the logistics; they don't have the capability. Not yet.

But, in the meantime, what they're spending money on, is to bail out financial corporations, which happen to be the owners of arms industries. So, this is not really an arms buildup, in the sense of a Roosevelt-style preparation for a war. This is actually taking money, to keep some of their friends in business! And, in the oil business, you have two factors: You have the strategic issue--strategic oil; you have--Venezuela was just settled.

Elbadry: Today!

LaRouche: Yeah, right.

Elbadry: [laughing] The old code of honor [? inaud]!

LaRouche: Chavez went, and he went on time! He left at the appointed time. Now, the oil crisis in Venezuela, is now under control--at least apparently so. So, there remains, the oil-crisis state is now, immediately, Iraq. Because, if you have to have a combination of states--

Elbadry: He has the bad [?inaud] too!

LaRouche: And, so other things can happen. But, the oil business is also--the people behind this, they're not really strategic thinkers. They're money thinkers: They are greedy money thinkers, and they will go for their financial interests first, and national security interest, second. They will always try to dignify their greed, with the magic words of “national security.”

Elbadry: As usual, how the powers work.

LaRouche: Often, it does work that way. It is not how history works, but, in the short run: I often compare the situation of the U.S. government today, to that of Rome under Nero. Actually, you see, under Nero's absolute insanity, was running Rome, from the top down--people were killing each other.

Elbadry: Just burned the capital.

LaRouche: And, it's like that situation.

What we have, is a tragedy, a true tragedy: In which the controlling actors, at the top in the United States, are actually out of control. They're like characters in a Greek tragedy, headed toward the doom of their society. If they go on this way, they may destroy the world, but they will also destroy themselves. They don't think strategically--. Look at Afghanistan, for example: 20-30,000 fighters in mountain warfare could pin down a quarter-million American troops there, almost indefinitely. As long as the arms flow in there. And, the same thing that happened, will happen: This is not the end of the Afghanistan war; it's the beginning. As the Soviets found out, when they first went in there.

These people don't think! Getting into an Afghanistan war was insane! Allowing the Middle East war to develop, was insane! There is no intelligent motive, in the sense of a real U.S. interest, for such a thing to happen.

Elbadry: It will lead me to ask you, again, indirectly: What can you tell me, again, about American public opinion? In your opinion, how do you look toward that policy? One day--next month, next year--before ending the Bush term, or somehow they will wake up to, tell him... Do the American people have, really, if you put aside the powers that be--the money, the companies--have enough power to tell them, “Stop. Enough is enough?”

LaRouche: They've sensed implicitly, they do. If they understand that. But, the American people are still, largely, captured by an illusion, a delusion that this economic system will, somehow, “work out all right.”

They're sitting in a tragedy. Think of every tragedy--the Classic Greek tragedies, or any other tragedy: What you're looking at here, if you look at it from my standpoint, of a historian, philosopher, and so forth, what you see, is: You see my nation, is part of a civilization that is destroying itself. And the actors on stage, are like the actors in any tragedy, who are all contributing, in their own way, to the doom of the civilization, which has lost its grip, on the reality they need to recognize.

Can you save it? Well, in philosophy, in history, we have a concept, which is like that of Friedrich Schiller: the concept of the Sublime. That, yes: A tragedy is caused by the people themselves--not necessarily because they decided to do something badly, but because they allowed themselves to be stupid! Contrary to their own interest. Therefore, how do you save them? Is it possible to save a nation, which appears to be doomed, from its own tragedy? Well, Schiller raises the questions, in things like Jeanne d'Arc, for example--the play Jeanne d'Arc--and other plays: this concept of the Sublime. The function of leadership--and it comes down, often, to individual leaders, or small groups of leaders, who have the imagination and the ability, to introduce a new factor into the situation, which can capture the imagination of the people and show them a bright light that leads out of the darkness. That's our only chance.

And, I sit here saying, “I may be successful in changing the United States; I may be doomed. But, I have to act for the success, even if I'm doomed. That's the way I must act.” And, I must act with other people, around the world, who are concerned about humanity--each concerned about their nation--but also about humanity! We must save humanity, from this terrible danger! This is not a little problem. This is not a Middle East war. The Middle East war is a symptom of a decadence of civilization, which , unless stopped, could be the fuse that explodes the world, in the chaos.

Elbadry: Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that President Bush will have the chance to win another term, unlike his dad? Because there is an opinion fast making the rounds in the Arab world, saying that he's doing this--he's making up wars--because America likes to be a cowboy, just to keep his post.

LaRouche: I don't think that Bush is really that important, in terms of making policy in those terms. His father may have ideas, but his father was not a particularly intelligent man, particularly on domestic policy.

Elbadry: He's a CIA man.

LaRouche: Yeah, but that was nothing. I mean, some of the CIA men, are some of the most stupid men I ever met! They just happened to come from the right school, and so forth. Some of them were very intelligent, like a fellow I didn't disagree with too much--Colby.

Elbadry: He was a member, wasn't he?

LaRouche: Yes. He was very clever! A very clever fellow!

Elbadry: [inaud]

LaRouche: Some of them are, but it's not just that. The problem is: How is policy made? Now, in the United States, it's complicated, but it's also clear. For us, who know it (and there are very few of us here, who know it, huh?), how the American Constitutional system works. The Executive branch is a very flexible institution. We can go through a terrible crisis, without having to go to a dictatorship. In a parliamentary government, you will have a coup d'etat or a dictatorship, when the parliament can not solve an existential problem of the nation. In our system, the American system, we've been through terrible crises, but we have never lost our constitutional form of government: And, that is because of the way the government is constituted, by design, including the Executive branch.

Now, it's a complicated process: We have factions in the United States--two, basic factions. One is mine, which is called the “American Intellectual Tradition, which Franklin Roosevelt was also an expression of. There are others, who share that. They may not be conspicuous, but they're there. Then, you have a banker group, tied to the Southern Confederacy tradition, which is called the “American Tory tradition.” They are on top now.

Our government is a complex of--as Egypt is, too! Egypt's a large country, in the sense of its ancient characteristics, and, probably in Egypt, you can understand the United States better than many other Arab countries, because of that older system. You have an Executive--professionals, who do the military; other professionals. They're competent; they work. They're there, as institutions, whether the government changes, or not. We have the same thing here: We have institutions--formal institutions, and just groups of people, who are related to institutions: When the government wants to make a policy, to make it work, it has to call on leadership. It generally invokes, the people, generally--but it also invokes the institutions. And asks the institutions to mobilize around a policy. To do that, the institutions must discuss the policy, among themselves--a dialogue, among themselves--formal, informal, dialogue. That is now going on.

Now, I'm a different kind of person than Bush: I would be a President; Bush can never be a President. He can fill the office of President, but he can never really become a President. Because, the President of the United States, if he's competent, must be responsive, not to his personal or family interests; he must be constantly thinking about, not only the nation, but the future of the nation: What the effects of decisions today, will be on generations to come. As Eisenhower intervened in 1957; he acted like a President. He intervened, and said, “No!” Dulles would have said “Yes”; Eisenhower said, “No.” And, it was stopped--the Suez war was stopped.

A President must do that. The other alternative, to having such a President, is to have a group of institutions, which are able to reach a sitting President, and say, “Mr. President, what you're doing is not going to work.”

Elbadry: Advisers?

LaRouche: Not advisers. Here, Powell is probably a conduit for some of the better advisers that the President would have access to. But, I think, at present, he's shut off from the institutions. The kind of dialogue, that a President ought to have--I mean, the President ought not to be giving lectures to schoolchildren. It's not wrong to do that, but, the President, at a time of crisis, must be talking to many people in the institutions--inside and outside of government. He must be focussed on one or two questions on his agenda--leading questions: “How should I think about this? Tell me what you think.”

Elbadry: But there are always questions marks, regarding who he appointed--such as Mr. Ashcroft.

LaRouche: He's not institutional--he's a danger.

Elbadry: Yeah. And, they were talking yesterday, regarding Mr. Cheney, because of his health, whether, if he should step down during the next election, he would choose John Ashcroft to be his Vice President.

LaRouche: That would be a disaster. Cheney, actually (while he's got many shortcomings), at least, has a brain!

What I mean by institutions, I mean the kinds of people, who were out there--permanent people, in positions of government: permanent civil service; military; or, people outside government, who were in government, who represent institutional forces. The President would look for, actually, the intellligentsia, the American political intelligence intelligentsia; and meet with different currents among these, to see if he could get something, from these people. And, then, talk to foreign leaders, directly, in the same basis. And, say, “Look, this is secret, but let's discuss, what I'm thinking, what I'm hearing. What do you think?” And, then, you work out, with people like your Secretary of State, or someone else; you work out with foreign leaders: How are we going to solve this problem? And, when you find out, you have a basis for agreement, on solving this problem, then you act officially! Because, now you know, that you have an open ear and mouth, on the other side. And, now, you can bring it out into the public and make a policy.

Elbadry: Before we end this question, I would like to ask you: There is a kind of fear, among American Muslim and Arab communities, especially here [in metropolitan Washington], because of Mr. Ashcroft; not him, himself personally, but because of his policy and his assistants' policy. As you know, there have been many Arab-Americans, who have been through “security stuff”; many, many homes have been [searched or inhabitants questioned]--.

LaRouche: I know.

Elbadry: You know, it was a few weeks ago, 12 or 13 homes were--.

LaRouche: I know. We--.

Elbadry: How can you tell those people, now, if you were talking to them directly, through our program? What can you tell them? You have something to promise?

LaRouche: Yeah, I tell them what I tell you; same thing. This is wrong. I'm fighting against this. This is wrong: This hatred, is wrong. This victimization--we don't want another McCarthyism in the United States. We don't what happened to the Japanese-Americans, again, in the United States. We don't want racial, or similar kinds of hatred, inside the United States. This is wrong.

Now, Ashcroft is, in my opinion, a stupid man, with very strange--. But, he's not the problem. He's only one fool in that position. There's a large apparatus, in the Justice Department, and other institutions, which is perfectly capable of doing this kind of evil, without needing an Ashcroft to tell them to do it. We have, left over from past times--and this is in the span of my lifetime, and longer--institutions, in and around the Federal government, which are controlled by Wall Street bankers and similar types, who will do whatever they're told to do. And, they've done it before, and they will do it again. The danger, here, is not Ashcroft. Ashcroft is a fool; he's a menace; he's disgusting. But: he's not the problem. Look at the Supreme Court Justice, Scalia, for example--more dangerous, because he would back it up. And, he's got, maybe, four people with him on the Supreme Court, to support him. The danger is: There are institutions, which will operate as secret institutions, like a Gestapo.

And, that's what happened here--a Gestapo-style operation. It was an extra-legal operation, under a pretext.

So, therefore, what do I do? I take a certain amount of personal risk, in what I say internationally. I tell the truth: But somebody has to be seen, standing up to tell the truth. Otherwise, the people who are victimized, in that fashion--or think they might be next--are going to be frightened. And, they're going to be rendered impotent, ineffective. They'll hide in their holes, hoping it's not them next, instead of being an influence. I have to stand up, as an example of what the United States could be, to people in the Islamic world, the Arab world, as well as among Israelis, who are fighting against this fascism in Israel itself.

Elbadry: Let me tell you about something, I just rarely recognized: Yesterday, outside the State Department (we were there), there were groups from the African-American community, from the minorities, from Hispanic people. And, I felt the anger within those people. And they spoke out loudly against, calling for Condoleezza [Rice] and Colin Powell, and the other--.

LaRouche: This was the protest group, at the State Department?

Elbadry: Yes. They have been there for a week, now, daily. They go to the State Department; they go mostly outside the Israeli Embassy, and I believe tomorrow, they will be at the B'nai B'rith. And, today, there are also candlelight vigils on the Key Bridge in Roslyn, for the schoolchildren. You believe they recognize, how dangerous, the administration [policy is]. The African-Americans, finally, moving, and they saw that what is happening in the Middle East now, is something similar to what happened in South Africa. Plus, the fear of the security forces among targetted people, such as Arabs and Muslims. And, they are a kind of coalition--.

LaRouche: Let's look at this on two levels: You have people, who are professional agitation people--who know how to make agitation. They're not all stupid; sometimes they're right. But, there's a certain theatrical aspect to what they do. You have to look, also, at the depths of the same population, which you think are typified, by the people in the demonstration. These may be people, who've been at this demonstration, at that demonstration, and so forth. They're put together. Now, that doesn't mean they're wrong: But, that means that one must not overestimate that.

But, what this does reflect, which you can find out, in other ways, that the possibility of doing that--the fact that these people will do, what they're doing (and some of them are probably honest people); but, the fact that they would do it, means that they probably know, that out there, in the American population generally, there is a general anxiety--not about--because they don't understand the issues in the Middle East--but an anxiety, that they smell something, which they know is dangerous to them. And they realize, that this is the kind of thing that must be stopped. Because it's dangerous. It's like having a savage animal in your neighborhood: Not because you understand the animal, or its intentions, you just don't want that thing loose in your neighborhood, around your children.

And, people are reacting. And, the people who go out and protest: Some of them understand what they are doing; some do not. But the protest is possible, because behind the protest, there are many people who are not involved the protest, who would resonate, somewhat sympathetically, with that kind of process. In other words, it's not something that's come from the people, as such. But, it's people who realize what people are thinking, out there, and they stage a demonstration, believing that, possibly, they can engage what they know exists in the population generally. And, there is general, deep anxiety, in the population.

As in Europe. Look at Europe: Europeans are terrified of what this Middle East thing means, especially in terms, if it goes to an Iraq war. They're terrified.

Elbadry: Look at Belgium. And, even in Germany. But, let me tell you a story: One of our camera crew, he's an African- American, was surprised and shocked telling me that story. He told me, during the children's Easter Egg hunt at the White House--and he used to go there every year, to cover it--he found no African-American kids he could see among the group of children invited to come to the White House.

Do you see a symbolism in that story? What can you say?

LaRouche: We have--in terms of my political activity, we have a very large base, on the state level, of traditionally influential African-American political leaders--state-level, professional, and so forth. And, in the past year, or so, they've become highly demoralized--largely by the economic situation; by the fact that the Democratic Party is a failure, from their standpoint. So, you've got a demoralized population. This is the thing, I have to deal with. How do I deal with an American population, which is the natural constituency, for resisting what's happening--reversing it--who are demoralized?

What you do, in a situation like this, is, the only thing is: You just stand up. That's what the significance of these fellows protesting, at the State Department, and so forth is. Whatever is going on in their mind, the fact that somebody is standing up, itself has a useful effect, because it may give somebody else the courage to stand up, and actually say what they think. And, it may give them the courage, to feel they have the right, to say what they think.

Elbadry: Do you believe that next November's election will be a chance for those people to act?

LaRouche: No. It has to come before then. Our organizing around politics, in the United States, is always the most effective--

Elbadry: I'm talking about the Congressional elections.

LaRouche: Yeah, well, that's what I do. We are in this political process, not just so much on the election basis, but on the general party basis. The parties in this country don't function: The Democratic and Republican Party are junk, right now. There're many useful people in it. The problem is, the parties don't function; therefore, the people who're in it, tend to be dragged down, by the quality of the parties themselves, as an organization. So, therefore, I organize among these people; they know me. We talk to them, and I try to give leadership.

The key thing, in any situation--crisis situation--from my knowledge of history, is: The crucial factor, is leadership, which addresses the crucial issues. And, if you can do that, at least you're giving the people a reason for optimism. And, if you can give them a reason for optimism, which is justified, they often will respond. And, you have to be patient with the people.

Elbadry: If I'm American, now: What about Virginia? Because we are now talking to the people, all around the states. For instance, in Michigan, there are about 1 million. What is your advice, to me, to act immediately, to reflect my negative opinion toward what's going on against many Arabs?

LaRouche: I would always say the optimistic side is the most effective way: When people are being depressed, trying to depress them more, doesn't work. It's negative. So, you must not be essentially negative. You can say, “This stinks.” Clear. “This is wrong.” I think you know what the anger is, of people abroad, of what's happening from here.

Explain to me: How is it, that a country, with this history--the history of Franklin Roosevelt, and so forth--could get to this state, where they would allow this to go on? “What is happening in your politics, that allows you to tolerate this? Why don't you change your politics?” And, because, the idea that there's an alternative, is what's important. And, when someone from--.

Elbadry: I'm asking about alternatives. And, there are only Democrats and Republicans. Where can those people go?

LaRouche: That's the point: But we always fight inside these parties, as well. The people are the people. The parties do not own the people. Most of the majority of the people in the United States today, who could vote, do not like either party. They don't trust them; they might vote for one party, but only because they're voting against the other.

Elbadry: Exactly. This is my point.

LaRouche: They don't believe in it. So, the problem is, their pessimism. Their lack of sense of organization. The lack of discussion of ideas--the news media, the entertainment media, which suppress all important ideas. We're in a cultural desert here. You must watch this crazy news media/entertainment media--

Elbadry: They're all biased.

LaRouche: It's ugly! And, you can imagine a people, which is spending so much of its leisure time, entrapped, with obsessions, with mass news media, the mass entertainment media: What's the moral effect on them? They're depressed. They're demoralized. They've lost their senses.

Then, you look at the schools: The educational system in our school system, stinks. You would not graduate--a college graduate today, would not be qualified to graduate from a secondary school, 25 years, 30 years ago.

So, you have an ignorant population; a population, which used to be a producing society: It's now a consumer society. It doesn't produce any more. We get from foreign countries, from cheap labor; we extract credit from foreign countries, to buy their goods, of cheap labor! We live on credit! We don't produce!

Elbadry: Exactly.

LaRouche: That's our problem: We are actually, a decadent society! But, with an historical potential, embedded in us, from previous generations, which, if we can awaken it, can do some very--because, we are a power! If we decide to do something good, as the United States, we can tilt the balance in the world, to make something good happen. Like, if the United States decided, this mess in the Middle East is going to stop: It would stop! We have enough power to bring that about--not necessarily directly, but by shifting our influence.

And, my concern, is always to give a people a sense of optimism, of what they can do, with their lives. The problem is largely a moral one: The average American, today, does not think as they used to think 35 years ago. They've lost it. You have two generations, who don't think the same way. The older generation would have thought in terms of coming generations: “What am I doing for my family, my grandchildren's generation? What am I doing for my nation?” A person would sacrifice, in order to give a better education, for the children of a community; would sacrifice, to build this, to build that, from which they would not directly benefit, to have something better for their community.

Like large projects, like the thing in Egypt--this project, of the “new cities” project. Imagine something that would take from five to ten years, to become functional, in every case--

Elbadry: Like the Alexandria library?

LaRouche: Yeah! So, it's necessary! So, people in Egypt--I've talked with many of them, who were involved in this: It's an image of the future, of Egypt, of the Nile system of Africa, based on Egypt's traditional connection to Asia and to all of Africa. An image! where people, who are willing to devote their lives, and take pride--as Professor This or Something That, or Bureaucrat This--in the sense, they were devoting their life to this purpose, which is good, enjoyable work, in the sense that it had a good purpose; but they were thinking about what kind of a future, they were building. They could die with a smile on their face, because they had given their life to something, that meant something. Their life had not been wasted.

In the Americans, today, you don't have that sense. It still exists in every human being, potentially: A sense of, you say, “What happens if you die?” “Uh. Well, I'm worried about what I get, now.” That's your American response: “what I get, next week. I'm not going to think about tomorrow. I don't want to think about the community. I don't want to think about the nation, the world. I want to think about what I'm getting next week.” And therefore, a population, which is indoctrinated with that, a pleasure-seeking population--like the corruption of ancient Rome under Nero, and similar Emperors. Where they would march into the Coliseum, for mass spectator sports--people killing each other--hmm? mass spectator sports!

Elbadry: Yeah.

LaRouche: And, they were controlled by that. We have a similar phenomenon, in the United States: a Romantic phenomenon, of a useless population--like Rome was living on grain taken from North Africa, and what is now called France; sitting there, as parasites, amid vast slavery, and the most decadent, and corrupt, and disgusting mass of ruling strata, you could imagine--and, you have something, which is not too much different.

Elbadry: At least, there is a kind of hope, as I saw in Berkeley. When I saw the students on TV some days ago, I can imagine how the hope is not far off, in America.

LaRouche: Well, what I'm saying; what I just said to you, I'm saying as an optimist: I'm optimistic about human beings, about the potential, which lies in virtually every human being. And, I think, that with a certain amount of wisdom, we can devise ways to evoke that from them. But the first thing, is: What we have to be, ourselves. To be an effective leader, you must be irreproachable, in your commitment to that purpose. Because, if you're false, in any respect, the people will smell you out, and they won't believe you.

Elbadry: Do you think that people are still trying to block your access. Susan just told me, they had tried to kill you--.

LaRouche: Sure. Several times. The U.S. government tried to kill me several times.

Elbadry: Do you have the same feeling, now?

LaRouche: [laughing] I know it! But, it's also more complicated, because, again, I'm an institutional person, at this point. I'm an institution of the United States. And, institutions of the United States have been killed; they've been crushed, and imprisoned, and so forth, whatnot. But, an institutional figure has a certain protection, that others don't. But, they're afraid of me: The American Tory hates me, and they're afraid of me. But they have a problem: It's that, what I represent, in the United States, does have a broad base, historical base, which is embedded in the people, in the culture. My friendship with countries in the Americas, in Central and South America, is well known. My friendship with countries, such as Egypt; or my friendship with leading Russians, today; my friendships in Europe, and so forth. My attachment to the almost-hopeless cause of Sub-Saharan Africa, is well known. So, I'm an institutional figure. And, many people in the United States respect me--they may not agree with me, but they respect me.

Elbadry: So we do, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: So, it should go on, you know: Life is short. What you accomplish in your life, is what's really important. It can be shortened at any time--don't worry about it: Just go on, and do what you have to do. Be cautious; don't be indiscreet; don't be stupid. But, don't gamble for perfect solutions. They don't exist.

Elbadry: Thank you, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you for having us here with you.

LaRouche: Thank you.

Top