|
|
|||||
|
Announcer: [garbled tape for first few seconds] ...issues facing the world. It is a candidacy and his past, ... LaRouche: Bush put me in, and Clinton got me out. Announcer: And the legacy oftentimes has people doubt what you have to say. They look at you as a former crook -- is that a difficult thing for you to overcome? LaRouche: Not really. The problems of the American people are of a different origin than that. The reason they would believe that kind of nonsense, because everybody knows, who thinks, that when you go up against the Establishment in this country, in an effective way, and do what I did, the Establishment becomes very angry, and says, "Let's get rid of this guy," and if they don't kill you -- well, there are a couple of times the FBI planned to have me killed by the Communist Party back in the 1970s, and there was a real effort to have me wiped out in October 6 or 7, one of the two dates, back in 1986. What I did, for example, in causing a process which led to Ronald Reagan adopting my policy, and announcing it as the SDI, did not please a lot of people in the United States, or abroad. The Soviet Union government wanted my hide for that one. Announcer: What scares the Establishment today about what we'll be talking about ? LaRouche: Well, the point is this. We've got a system which doesn't work, and the Establishment becomes frightened with the idea that somebody understands what the system is, understands why it doesn't work, understands what its weak points are, understands what needs to be done to replace, or fix, the bad system, and also, at the same time, believes that the Establishment should not be ruling our country, but rather a political leadership which is responsive to the general welfare of not only all of the people, present and future, of our nation, but also the idea of promoting that there should be a concern for the general welfare among sovereign nation states, as cooperating partners. And that, that kind of idea, is what the Establishment people hate. They hate the idea that I might have a solution, I might succeed in convincing some people to adopt it. Announcer: You, and others, believe that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was on the right track. LaRouche: Well, he saved our country from something like that which happened in Germany at about the same time. Roosevelt prevented a fascist attempt, a dictatorship, in the United States, under conditions of depression. Under parallel conditions, even though they were somewhat different, the same kinds of people, British and American interests, funded Hitler, and brought Hitler into power in Germany, with the consequence we know. So, Roosevelt not only got the United States out of the depression, which the legacy of Calvin Coolidge and Andrew Mellon created, but he also led the country in a revival, led us successfully through World War II, and set up, as much as survived his death, set up a world system which, from 1945 to 1965, as an economic system, actually worked. So that whatever you can say in criticism of Franklin Roosevelt as a President, on this or that issue, the fact is, he did the job. Announcer: September 11, 2023 is a date which we'll all remember, but your organization, I know, you yourself, have a kind of countervailing viewpoint of what that event means, in terms of our course that we're on today. LaRouche: Yeah. I was on Jack Stockwell's two-hour broadcast, as this thing started, and as he came out of his news broadcast, and started to talk with me, this stuff was all over CNN, and everything else -- that this was going on. So, Jack naturally turned to me, and asked me to explain what I thought was going on. And I explained what was going on: that this was an inside job. People really wanted to do something really terrible to us -- I didn't know exactly who was doing it, or what their purpose was, but I recognized from my experience in questions of national security, how our security systems in general work, that nobody could do what was done to us, on that occasion, unless there was a big leak in the security provisions which should have prevented that from being successful. Maybe not the first plane, but at least the following planes. And obviously, you had to conclude that either our system of security was so broken down, that all of the safeguards which we had presumed had been built in, were non-operational, or that at least some of the safeguards had been turned off, by somebody at a high level on the inside. It's the only way it could have happened. Nobody from Afghanistan, in a cave in Afghanistan, could have ever cooked this thing up -- it's not possible. So, I stated the obvious thing, and I also stated that I hoped that nobody'd be a big enough idiot to suggest that Osama bin Laden did. But, you know what the result was. Announcer: But Osama bin Laden serves our purposes today, right? LaRouche: Well, he didn't do a very good job in serving United States purposes. For example, we're stuck in a no-win war in Afghanistan, under conditions in which 20,000 or so fighters, who fade into the background after coming out to strike, operating in the area of mountain warfare, could pin down a quarter million U.S. and related troops. Something like what the Soviets faced in Afghanistan with the operation against them there, in the 1980s. So, for us to get into that kind of war, given all the records we have on mountain warfare, what the problems are of fighting mountain warfare, of the problems of Afghanistan, of the history of the British operations in Afghanistan, the Soviet operations in Afghanistan, ours, and so forth -- to get into that kind of war, meant that either our military had gotten drunk, or that they were being overridden by something that was lunatic. So, the Afghanistan war was a piece of idiocy, which we should have never gotten into. No evidence was ever publicly presented to show any link between what happened in New York, and Washington, on the 11th, and Afghanistan. No public evidence was presented by any government, at any time, to show the pre-existence of a link between Afghanistan, or things like that, and what happened to us. So, somebody decided that it would be convenient to come up with a certain interpretation of what happened in New York and Washington, rather than coming to the obvious conclusion, which I think was too frightening for them. Announcer: In fact, you, and others, Mr. LaRouche, in your organization, say the events of Sept. 11 were, in effect, an attempted coup d'etat, that really was not directly related to Islamic fanaticism, correct? LaRouche: Exactly. For example, you got into the day before that, and the preceding days -- August, and September. That President George Bush, who's, to me, not great shucks, but he was on a right track on this one, was moving for the United States to fix up the mistakes which had been made in part by Clinton, by putting full U.S. support on the early establishment of a Palestinian sovereign state. Now, this was in place up until the 10th. On the 11th of September, that decision died. Now, this was not entirely just an Israeli problem. We have a faction in the United States, typified by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Sam Huntington, his buddy, and by Bernard Lewis, a British intelligence operative who is a key adviser, and has been, to Kissinger, to Brzezinski, and to Huntington, on these matters. And these guys have cooked up what's called the "Clash of Civilizations" policy. The idea is that we should now enter a global war with Islam -- not necessarily a unified Islam, but a global war in which Islamic factions fight each other, and we get involved in trying to mop up the operation. This idea of a perpetual, continuing long war, like that the Roman legions used to run in order to enforce their empires, has become a popular idea in one faction in the U.S. military, called the utopians. We saw a danger of that in the Korean war, after MacArthur was fired. A protracted, no-win war, which was never really resolved. We got out of it, but it was never resolved. Then we plunged into another utopian war, in Vietnam, in the end of 1964, '65. Again, a no-win war, a foolish war to get into, which every commander of any strength had warned us against, including Eisenhower, and especially MacArthur -- don't get into long-win wars in Asia. We'll just lost. And we almost lost the United States with that war. So, they're now again back at the same shop, with the wild-eyed utopians, are going in and saying with superweapons, and a few other things, they can win war. Well, you cannot -- they don't understand war any more. They're sitting there with delusions, sandbox delusions, or computer game delusions, and thinking you can run the politics of the world in that way. And this is a problem. And these guys saw that what happened with New York, what happened in Washington, was an excellent way of overturning George Bush's search for peace in the Middle East, and pushing Bush and company into a position where they would go with something in the direction of Palestine, Afghanistan today, Iraq tomorrow, and so forth -- and then all down the line. And that is the great danger which terrifies the governments, all of the governments, of Western Europe, including all the sane members of the British government. And this is our problem. And that's what September 11th means. It was a change, a phase-change, in our politics, from politics of saying we were looking for peace, economic recovery, to problems going on, and so forth. Instead, we went to a thing: no, our solution is to go to war, long war, all over the planet, against all kinds of people. And that was the issue for me: the phase-change which I feared on September 11th, and the phase-change which has continued since then. Announcer: As I understand this... And incidentally for those of you who are just tuning in ... we're talking to former and future Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche today. Executive Intelligence Review. We'll have a phone number and a website for you here in a moment. As I understand this process in reading through the materials on the web, this long war lines the pockets of the military-industrial complex which is a $400 bill ion industry in the U.S. alone, and as an economist, you see the rationalization for that, but it comes at the expense of domestic public works projects, that you believe ultimately would bring peace and stability and jobs to America. LaRouche: Well, if somebody thinks that what George Bush has signed on to, in terms of this arms buildup, is going to help the economy, they don't understand the situation. What George Bush has done -- you know, what Roosevelt did, and Roosevelt started in 1936 with plans, which he mobilized a lot of top people in the United States, knowing that we were going to be drawn into a war against Nazi Germany. We knew that in '36. So he made plans which began to come to the surface in '38, and so forth, and by 1940 we were fully prepared to mobilize a vast mobilization of a rebuilt U.S. industrial potential, led by some very ingenious economic and other leaders, in the private sector and elsewhere, who, together with Roosevelt, set into motion a recovery, and military mobilization, which astonished the entire world. And that got us through 1945. Now, that was based on rebuilding of the U.S. economy. It was based on public works. It was based on reorganization of our financial system. All of these things went into that, and made it possible for the United States to emerge in 1945, as the world's virtually only power. We had great power in our hands, as a result of this. It could be power for good, and Roosevelt intended it to be for good. We had benefits internally. People who are living today, remember the benefits that came. For example, in the Dakotas, and so forth, from some of these programs, which benefitted in reviving agriculture, industry, and so forth. And these things have all been taken down and destroyed since. Now, as a result of that, we have a policy which is still a post-industrial policy. We have on the books, and in practice, U.S. government policies which are carrying us down to the ditch. But in the meantime, George Bush's backers, and the backers of many people in the Congress, their financial backers, are getting large contributions from Wall St.-centered corporations, which have invested in these military industries. Now, what is happening, apart from rebuilding some of the bombs we lost over Afghanistan, and things like that, is simply putting money into the pockets of the stockholders, and financiers, behind some of these corporations. On the level of actual production, of providing an actual physical stimulus to the growth of production inside the United States, and so forth, it's not being done. So, that this thing that is talked about, about a war economy recovery, is absolute nonsense. People are going to take the money and run! They're not going to invest it in building more industries, creating more jobs, and things of that sort. Announcer: Explain, Mr. LaRouche, then, how, as we bring this back domestically a little bit, how the Enron derivatives scandal is an example of what you just talked about. LaRouche: Well, this is one of the worst cases of corruption in modern history. You had Wendy Gramm, the wife of Senator Phil Gramm, who were the pivotal figures in the Congress in pushing this swindle through. And it's a pure swindle. What they did, with the aid of Congressmen who were getting donations from all kinds of places, for their campaigns, they would vote things through which actually set up the legalization of what we would consider organized crime. And what happened to the nation is the destruction, the systemic destruction, of our energy system, both on the production and distribution level, and using the old system, what's left of the old system, as a basis for looting. The same thing happened, for example, in the so-called telecom sector. We put up oodles of cable, of optical cable, it was supposed to be our new communications system. We didn't bother to put in the switching systems whereby they could be used -- and that is so-called `lit up', and used to improve communications in the United States. They're just sitting there. Then you have these swindlers coming in, and leasing access to this unused, unlit resource from one another, boosting the market up in there, and calling it a profit. And this is great profit, typical of the great profit, of the so-called telecom industry, which is now, worldwide, in the process of a worldwide collapse. So, this kind of mentality, typified by those in the Congress who support Wendy Gramm... Wendy Gramm was in Enron. She got out of the place in time to keep her husband from being up there asking the other senators questions, about how he and his wife pulled this swindle off. Announcer: Is this problem systemic to corporations, or has the American mentality of working hard, and accumulating wealth, and capitalism with a little socialism mixed in between, has this idea failed for some reason? Where do you address this? LaRouche: Fine. Look at what we've lost. Now, innovation, real technological innovation, was very rarely generated from large stockholder-controlled corporations. The large stockholder-controlled corporation is interested primarily in the short-term return for the stockholder, usually on the stock market, not in terms of dividend payments as such, but the yields, the so-called yield on the stock. So therefore, they will try to maximize the so-called earnings reports, that is, the net earnings reports, as a way of boosting the returns on these stocks or other holdings. So, it's a sort-of-a John Law bubble game that's played. Now, on the other side, where the innovation came from, as you know from the farmer: technology--the investment in agriculture, in the United States, starting with the Roosevelt rural electrification, and so forth, but continuing during and beyond World War II, was a miracle. But it was a miracle of technology, determined largely by the family-operated farm, that is, or multi-family-operated farm or ranch--and they invested tremendous amounts of technology and energy and so forth, in increasing the productivity of the land. The same thing happened in industries: the small industry, the small entrepreneur, employing, say, between 15-200 people--that sort of thing--the guy is committed to making a success of the firm, for the future. He's interested in technology; he wants the firm to improve; he wants to make a better product; he wants things to grow. This is the guy, together with our educational system, and our science and so forth, who makes the economy tick. What has happened is, we have destroyed the American farmer, beginning with Carter, who really did a very good job of fdestroying the American farmer, at the orders of Brzezinski. We also have destroyed, through the shutdown of the savings-and-loan associations, with the swindle run against that by the Federal Reserve Chairman--we shut down a lot of our infrastructure. We shut down our small, privately held industries, which were the gut of production. You could look around the United States today, and see virtual dustbowls, where there was once prosperity. And the dustbowls are caused by the ruin of the farmer, and the ruin of the other kinds of small-scale, privately held entrepreneurships, where the real ingenuity-- For example, in agriculture: The relationship between the agriculture extension services and similar institutions, and agriculture, were the driving force, where technology was pushing the nation forward, together with infrastructure. The same thing was true, in a certain way, with certain universities and industries. And that system: we have destroyed. And the system we have left, the privateer-owned stockholder corporation, which cares about the earnings reports and gambling on a speculative gain in earnings--these guys are sucking the blood out of the system, and we've destroyed the people who used to make the system work. Announcer: Well, as you have talked to farmers and ranchers across our seven states and two Canadian provinces today, Mr. LaRouche, the destruction of the American family farmer is real for a lot of folks out here, and they view it as a concentration in the meatpacking and the Cargills of the world, and their inability to control their destinies any more. What would you do, if you were President in 2004 to change that? LaRouche: I'd put it back, put the system back, and rebuild it exactly as Roosevelt--not just as he did it, but as the lessons of what he did, and what was done in the immediate post-war period under Eisenhower, for example--the lessons of that should be used, as an example of what worked, and contrasted with what has not worked, especially since 1974-75. Go back and say: All right, we made a mistake. The United States has made a mistake. Canada shared in this mistake. We're going to put the system back. We're going to do what worked. We're going to develop a period of long-term credit, up to 25 years credit, at 1-2% simple interest rates, maximum. We're going to use this, together with government projects from the state and Federal level, in order to rebuild the system. But, not only to restore agriculture, so that we have national security in quality food supplies, and national security in the ability to produce these supplies. And we're going to have a situation in which the agriculture, and this development, is used as a way of building up communities. For example, people talk about agriculture. Well, what about the implement dealer? What about all the industries, in towns and cities, throughout the so-called agricultural belt, which were built up, based on the prosperity of agriculture and its growth? That has to be put back, too. School systems have to be put back in the system. We have to get the population back from overcrowded, congested cities, in communities around the nation, which have an integrated character, as they are integrated with out productive processes, and with the proper use of land. Announcer: What would be the role of our U.S. military in all of this? LaRouche: Well, I want to go back to a complete selective service system. The selective service system has two things. First of all, you get the best quality of soldier. Secondly, you have the best impact on the population. Thirdly, you have, in addition, you have an integration of the military system, which would actually fight any war, if it were necessary, with the population in general. So you have-- You know, this developed in France, with Lazard Carnot, who was the major general who led France to victory against the invading armies before they got rid of Robespierre, there, in France. The same thing was done in Germany, around Gerhardt Scharnhorst, with this idea of what was called, in German, auftragstaktik, mission-tactics. The point being that, in warfare--and we know this from the the Second World War, those of us who served in the Second World War--you go into an area, where the military has taken over an area: What have you got? You've got people there. You've got a locality. You're now in charge of this territory. Well, what do you do? Well, you improvise. Or you go into, even, a combat situation. And you've got--yes, you have a mission, but the situation you've run into, does not correspond to what you anticipated. Therefore, you have to have commanders, in terms of junior officers, or middle-rank officers, and non-commissioned officers, who are trained and developed to think in such a way, that they will develop a competent response to the unexpected situation, which they found in that area. They won't go in trying to bomb everybody in sight, and wipe out everybody, which is what the idiots will do, like the Roman soldiers did. But, you're out there to win a war. To win a war means winning political acceptance of your victory to the people against whom you're fighting. And that means that you have to have a certain kind of mentality. The object of war is peace. The object of the American people is not to fight a way, if possible, and not to fight a long war at all. Therefore, the object is: How do you win the objectives of peace? Or, how do you avoid war, with the objectives of peace. Announcer: Our policy today is the annihilation of the enemy, right? LaRouche: Exactly. And that's like the Roman Empire, in its worst phase. And that's what Brzezinski, that what's Huntington represent. His "Soldier and the State"-- Announcer: Do they represent that, Mr. LaRouche, because they believe that philosophically, or is there an economic condition they think is necessary to continue? LaRouche: No. They--the people who are in this, this utopian system, actually believe in the system. Why do they believe in the system? Because they're fascists. Remember, that when the book was first written, The Soldier and the State, by Sam Huntington, at that time, Nazism was not a very popular thing. But what he proposed, if you understand military history, and look at not only the Roman precedent, the Roman legions and the empire, but look at the copy of the Roman legions, which was done by Napoleon Bonaparte, who was the first modern fascist; by Mussolini, who was a failure in this area; or by Hitler. Now what happened with the Hitler system: They developed what was called the Waffen-SS, that is, the military SS. This was composed of people from many different countries, in separate units--just like the Roman legions did--and they were extermination forces, for perpetual warfare. What Huntington has proposed, what his Solder and the State has proposed, what has conditioned many people in the military, especially in the special warfare area, or in the strategists who like to think about special warfare, is this idea of perpetual war; we will create a professional army; you will be a professional army. And they mean like the Waffen-SS, the Nazi Waffen-SS. This will go in various parts of the world, and teach everybody a lesson: You either do as we tell you, or we will kill you all. So, this is a conception of these maniacs, who are actually Nazi-like fascists. We call them "universal fascists." But they also have, behind them, certain financier interests, who think this is a good game to play with, or to use on occasion. So you have this combination. Some people are opportunists, who will use this kind of capability, this universal fascist capability, typified by Brzezinski, Huntington, and so forth, the special warfare crowd. But, you also have the second force, is the people who have been brainwashed and drilled into hardcore SS men, in our military. Announcer: And the justification, of course, is that they're enemies--"If you're not with us, you're against us," and therefore, in order to make the world safe for American-style democracy, we need to kill our enemies. LaRouche: Well, this is--only idiots would think that. Anybody who's studied history, who knows something about politics, or who deals with international politics, as I do. No, this is bunk. This is nonsense. The object of warfare--and we've been through this--the human race, in modern historical times, has been through this again and again and again. The lesson is clear. The principle of justified warfare. The object of warfare is not war. The object of warfare is acceptable peace, of the type which is exemplified by the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the long period of religious warfare. The point is, is to establish the conditions, under which people on both sides are willing to live together in peace, because they recognize that their fundamental... [tape change] ...than any other President in history, and the nuclear bombs were not necessary to win. We were just sitting there waiting for the Japan military to collapse as a result of the blockade, which was very effective. And by September or October, the U.S. troops could have walked in peacefully, with no bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. That was the U.S. plan; that was the military plan of the MacArthur group. So, you see, MacArthur fought a few tough battles--people under his command. But they didn't fight any unnecessary battles. The fought the strategically crucial battles which were necessary to win the war, and nothing else. And their aim was to bring about a peace, based on the defeated forces acceptance of the victory. And that's what a military policy should be. Announcer: [inaud] the example of postwar Japan, with MacArthur at the helm, and those following years of 1945, before that [inaud]-- LaRouche: I know. We almost did that. That's what we were trying to do in Europe. What we did, for example, when the U.S. military--I had some friends of mine, who are now deceased, who were among the commanders of forces, U.S. forces in Europe, who went into southern Germany, and Austria, and so forth, in that period. When they got there, into a town, they fixed the town: They got the mayor and the other people together, the people of the community, and they set up a functioning economic system, management of that community, which they knew was necessary, from an engineering standpoint, to keep their base of operations secure. You don't want chaos in a region where you're trying to control it. So, you control the territory, by doing that. In the postwar period, after the Cold War really started, the U.S. cooperation with Germany and France--for example, Jean Monet, who was a key figure, a collaborator of Franklin Roosevelt, who was key in the postwar reconstruction of Europe--Monet's plan brought together the Benelux countries, France, and Germany, which had been at each other's throat, in the previous period, into the iron and steel agreement, which was the basis for the recovery program in Europe, during that period. So, we have learned from that, and many other similar lessons, we have learned that, what you do, is you go into an area: you want to have the area controlled for peace. If you're fighting a war, you want the area you've moved through to be controlled for peace, as part of your rear end. And, that's the way you go ahead. And we've got to get back to that kind of thinking. Announcer: [Gives contact information, website, phone, etc.] Thanks for your time, Mr. LaRouche. LaRouche: Good, Mark. Thank you. Announcer: I appreciate the insight, and keep up the good work. LaRouche: Well, I had fun. Call me anytime. Announcer: Okay. Thanks a lot, sir. |
|||||