Lyndon LaRouche Interview With Bernie McCain
On WOL Radio
July 31, 2023

To send a link to this document to a friend

LaRouche: Oh, I'm frisky--

Host: But, you've always been frisky!

LaRouche: I get frisky in time. I'm getting very frisky, right now.

Host: The last time you and I spoke--I guess it was several months ago--we were looking at the Middle East. And you had a major concern about the intent of Mother Russia in that area of the world. But you had other concerns about what was taking place, and you were saying, we can look at Israel and we can look at the Palestinians, but there are more players in this mix, than just those two. Would you explain that for us?

LaRouche: Well sure. We're in--and I think everyone knows--ever since George Bush was elected President, or inaugurated President (since the election itself is still in doubt!), in August of that year, the year 2023--because, I had warned; I knew it--he was in deep economic trouble. So, at that point, someone (not him), somebody pulled what we call "Sept. 11." At that point, there were some great changes in policy. There was also an escalation in the Mideast policy, but now we're headed into the threat of going into an Iraq war, which many of our military people [think]--and I agree--would be folly, apart from being wrong.

So, we're in trouble around the world. The financial system is disintegrating around us. Tricks are being played to try to make it appear that the markets are doing fine, when we see firms--as in Northern Virginia, for example--collapsing, like WorldCom, and so forth, at great loss of employment, and no signs that that employment is going to come back.

So, we're in a crisis. And, as not unusually, when the world gets into a major financial crisis in modern times, you've got a danger of wars. We're now in a situation in which wars, terrible wars potentially, are erupting around the world. The threat of dictatorship in various countries, including the United States, is erupting. All as a part of this [behavior] to solve the economic crisis.

Host: Well, it's interesting that you said that there's a danger in this country of there becoming a dictatorship for many years. Most Americans almost dismiss that out of hand. Now, I don't necessarily agree that they should, but they do. And, more than likely one of the reasons that they're able to do that, is because of the amazing amount of misunderstanding that they have concerning the history. And, at no time, since its creation, have there not been forces moving to turn this into a dictatorship.

LaRouche: That's true. But, we've always had--despite some terrible Presidents, the institutions have managed to survive. And we had, along the line, people like John Quincy Adams; and more significantly, actually in terms of effect, Abraham Lincoln; and Franklin Roosevelt. In times of great crisis, our system, if it works, will tend to put in office, people and groups of people around whoever is President, which will actually begin to solve some of the problems.

If we don't do that, if that ever fails, then this system could go to a dictatorship. But therefore, our concerns should be, in looking for problems as individuals, in the United States in particular, we should be concerned about the Presidency, to make sure it functions in a time of danger to respond effectively to what only a government can do.

Host: When you take a look--and I've got to come around to this, and watch my positioning; when you take a look at where and what President Bush advocates, who supports him in that advocacy, and why, why are we moving toward Saddam Hussein and Iraq, in the manner in which we are, when we start talking about "weapons of mass destruction"; and the focus of the spotlight and magnification is on Iraq, when we have known for many years, that Iran is in the process of building a nuclear reactor, and the byproduct from that will be weapons-grade plutonium. We understand that. The question then becomes, at least for some, whether or not there's going to be a preemptive decision against Iran? But, the other question is, can this President and his minions stand or precipitate what would take place, if he went after Iran and Iraq, for both the same things? And it is a presumption of what they will do, and it is not necessarily what they have done. What they have done.

LaRouche: Exactly. But, first of all, apart from, probably, some mustard gas left or something left over from previous stocks, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction capability. There's no one in government, who's gone through the facts, even in secret committees which have reported what their conclusions are [inaud]. There is no evidence to support the allegation that Iraq is in the process of developing weapons of mass destruction. This has been said by a number of experts. Scott Ritter addressed a group in the British Parliament, and he told them about it, because he's an expert on the area.

Host: But the name of the game is, even if they were, they would--the parties who would be in collusion with that, would be allies of this country, and would be Russia, or Germany, or Italy, or Spain, or Great Britain, who would be involved. Great Britain was a side-door contractor when [Gerald Bull] the cannon-maker, who they finally killed, was involved with Saddam Hussein.

LaRouche: Well, this is the wrong approach to the problem, first of all.

You may have noticed, perhaps, that some of the military, the leading U.S. military, have expressed great disagreement with the proposals of some of the more political, but less militarily competent people, like Paul Wolfowitz, or Richard Perle--or, Lieberman or McCain--on this question. They say, it's incompetent to think of going into a war against Iraq. There is no reason to do so. And the effects are such, they don't know what they're doing.

Host: Stay on the line with us, Mr. LaRouche.... [station break].

Are we looking at centers of powers that are ruling in a free society, or are we looking at--how can I put it?--corrupted centers of power moving toward their own end, at whatever cost, to hold and gain that end?

LaRouche: It's not quite that simple, but generally, predominantly, in recent times, the predominant power has been the ugly fist of a certain group or tendencies, which have been predominant. We see, you know, great injustices, which are worse than what we've seen in a long time, prior, and these are rampant, now.

Host: Let me come back--and I have a concern about what I call "blatant hypocrisies" and inconsistencies, when I hear someone who is saying, "Embargoes should remain against Cuba, because Cuba has people that we disagree with politically and are adverse to the American Way." Well, my response to that is, "America has held and nurtured Nazis, knowing it, and therefore America has been an insult to other people in the world." When we turn around and say, "You know what? We ought to go after Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction." Well, so do we and so do our allies! What makes us stand head and shoulders above them? We're the only ones who've ever used the damned things!

LaRouche: Well, the point is, it's the wrong conception--military conception--entirely. You do not go to war, to try to make the world behave the way you want to impose your opinion upon it. What you try to do--. We've got great power in the United States. Not as much as we say we have, but we have a leading position of potential influence. An effective President of the United States can reach out, and cause things to happen in the world, simply by talking with other countries and coming to agreements. In that sense, we have great power.

I deal with a lot of countries. I'm travelling in different countries--not always with the head of state, or something, but meeting with people who are the influential circles in those countries. And, I know, that, if I were President, I would have no problem in dealing with the existence of a Cuba, an Iraq, Iran, for example, or anything. I would have no problem in dealing with most of those countries; there're a few places that're nasty. But, in most cases, with the power and influence of the United States, we can make a change in the relationships among nations, which is more productive, and is the final answer for our desire for security.

Host: Prior to your incarceration, your organization was worldwide. It was physical, it was seen, it was heard. Do you believe that since you have come away from that incarceration, that you have regained the kind of influence and effect that you had prior?

LaRouche: Oh absolutely--more, much more than ever before. I had a lot of influence, of course, as you know, at the time of the early years of the Reagan Administration. And, during the Carter Administration, people thought I was right on Carter. There was a lot of key money was spent to try to knock me out of the box on that one, but I was right. Not only on President Carter, so much--[I don't believe he knew inaud] what he was doing, but certainly on the case of Brzezinski, who did know what he was doing.

So, what has happened, I've been engaged among other things, as you know, on long-range economic forecasting. And I've never made a mistake. Every published forecast I've made has always worked out, whereas a lot of other people [], have goofed [], or otherwise, more than once.

So, I have a lot of authority of that type. The system is coming down. And, intelligent people in the world would like to get out from under, what looks to them as an onrushing world depression. So therefore, countries that would like to survive, and influential groups that would like to survive, would like to see my voice heard more in the United States. The point is, right now, with what's happening, I have, essentially, a very serious position as a contender for the nomination as the President of the United States.

Host: The question I would have [is]: If America and/or the world [is] moving toward a worldwide depression, as you say; and the majority of the world is working on the economic model, would you then see the resurrection and the expansion to exploit that model again? Or, do you see a new economic model in the forecast? And, if so, how would it work differently from what we have today, if those who have gained wealth, using the old model, still have anything to say about the rebuilding economic process?

Will you stay on board with us, sir?

LaRouche: Yeah, sure!

Host: Lyndon LaRouche on board with us. We don't want you to go anywhere.... [station break] [break ends in mid-sentence] A commentator, an observer of all the international political scene, for all the years that I have been in Washington--that's 24 years. The first opportunity that I had to do an interview with Mr. LaRouche, was in 1979. And I remember, that one of the things that we shared was a lack of confidence in the then-President Jimmy Carter. We have him on board with us.

Mr. LaRouche, when we take a look at players on the field: Senator McCain, Senator Lieberman, Senator Biden; we take a look at who surrounds them; we take a look at the President's men; take a look at Rumsfeld and Cheney, and Powell. And the question becomes: This marriage, that is possible, between the political and the economic representatives who sit in this administration, what benefit, and what harm, do you see in these men, and their associations?

LaRouche: Lieberman is not what he presents himself to be. And McCain is tied into the same networks as Lieberman. As you know, they have this Hudson Institute site operating in Washington, D.C., and which is an Arizona-, Indianapolis-based site, which is pushing a "Bull Moose" program for McCain to run a candidacy in the year 2023. And we also have seen that McCain and Lieberman have very similar policies, so they both--McCain is sort of a nasty guy, and Joe Lieberman tries to be smooth, but otherwise, they're the same policy.

Now, if these two guys are playing a key role as Senators in controlling an element in the Senate, in the Congress, and in the Republican and Democratic Party, they're a factional problem. I believe, that if these guys were not putting the pressure on the Presidency, which they're putting on it, we would not be as in grave a danger of an expanded Middle East war as we are today. I believe, that if the Bush people--most of them at least, or the Presidency--were going to respond to the Middle East and were going to do a couple of other things, they would respond much more rationally, than they are now, under the pressure of election campaigns for this coming November, under pressure of especially Lieberman and McCain in the Senate and the other influences they have.

Host: But those pressures are existent pressures on anyone who would be in that office. There would be the pressure of the opposition, there would be whatever pressure takes place out of the political situations that grow in everyday existence. And the exploitation that's going to take place from those people who are sitting in government, who are philosophically or politically in opposition to the President. So, you have Mr. Lieberman, you have Senator McCain, who have their own, particular agendas, sometimes in alliance with their parties and sometimes not. So, you've got to help me understand that better.

LaRouche: All right, fine. The problem is, it is actually not quite that simple. I deal with political people of similar kinds, all over the world. I don't always agree with them, and I don't always trust them. But, I find, if you try to work with them, you can work with people who--at least some of the time--with whom you disagree. That's real politics.  That's also diplomacy.

And, sometimes you run up against something else. For example, I've been down on this system of ours for a long time, that is, what's been operating for the past 35 years, internationally. Now, I have people today, what I would call "crocodiles," military crocodiles in the United Kingdom--generals and people like that--in Europe, elsewhere, who normally would be opposed to me on economics, would be opposed to me on military policy, on this or that. Today, they agree with me. So, I don't close the door on people--usually. I usually assume that they're human beings, and human beings can change, and experience can induce them to change their behavior.

So, you have to sweat it out, as I have, fight through the years, and wait until the times comes--as far as you personally are concerned--until they listen to you. And, in the meantime, you fight for what you're fighting for.

Now, in the case of Lieberman and McCain, you're dealing with something else. We're dealing with what are documented as connections to traditional organized crime. They have a special agenda, which has no correspondence to what either of the two parties believes they stand for. But they have a power bloc based on rather extraordinary financial resources. I think they're going to go down. I think I'm pulling them both down. I think what I'm doing and what my friends are doing will pull down Joe Lieberman. Which means, not that I'm going to be electing somebody to be the next Democratic President, or something. It means that we're going to open the field for other people to come back into the picture. And get some of these guys who are thuggish, who actually have things that lean in the direction of Adolf Hitler, we don't need that. And that's the difference.

Host: Well, when we take a look at these gentlemen--let me draft something else; this is my own theory, with a couple of others. One is that, the Halliburton thing is going to help: Mr. Cheney is not going to be around for the second go-around in the "run for the roses." He in all probability (this is my supposition), in all probability, will step away for "health reasons," before that period of time. The person I believe is going to be named to fill that slot, is going to be Secretary of State Colin Powell. They want him in position, so that they will be able to run him as a Vice Presidential candidate on the second part of George W.'s run.

LaRouche: Oh, I think some people have that agenda. I don't think it's flying right now. But it certainly is the case that Powell has been picked by a lot of people as, shall we say, "Mr. Sanity," amid the confusion that's going on in Washington. And, certainly, in certain instances, he has shown himself to be a relatively sane and competent person. So, therefore, there would be people who would be opposing what wildmen, like Wolfowitz and Cheney--maybe Cheney, not so much; Cheney's a little more slick; But what Lieberman is pushing, what Wolfowitz is pushing, and what McCain is pushing. And this is the issue: Can we get--do we have to be blackmailed by the people behind Lieberman and McCain, into going into wars--which I'm sure Colin Powell doesn't want; which I think most of our military don't want; which our allies in Europe, including in the United Kingdom, and continental Europe--most of them, at least--don't want. So, why are we being pushed into this, when the American people wouldn't want it, either?

My point is, how do we get rid, right now, of the thing that is threatening, right now, to push us into a Middle East war?

Host: Are you saying that Israel is running point for the U.S.? And who and what? And if not, who?

LaRouche: No. You've got two factions in Israel; you've got two factions in the Jewish community. The faction, which I have a sort of special loyalty to, is what's called the "Yiddish Renaissance" on the Polish side, or the Moses Mendelssohn tradition among German Jews. Then, you have people like that in Israel, who share that point of view. I have no difficulty in dealing with them on the basis of principles: moral, philosophical principles.

Host: But, if what they would like to see, is the United States step in, militarily in that arena of the world, so that presumably they will benefit, because "Big Brother" has stepped in there, it is going to affect the people of this country. How, then, do you speak to that?

LaRouche: Absolutely, that's the point: You have Sharon, Netanyahu, and Shamir, are typical products of a guy who pronounced himself a fascist, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who is the right-wing faction, in Israel--the dominant one--and who is supported by people like Lieberman's circles, Michael Steinhardt's circles, and so forth, in the United States.

You have a group in the English-speaking world, in the British Empire and in the United States, who have, for a long period of time, have used gangsters--sometimes Jewish gangsters, and similar kinds of interests--as instruments of manipulation. That is, you get a guy to do the dirty work for you, and if he becomes a nuisance, you shoot him!

Host: Everybody looks for a gonif. Go ahead.

LaRouche: Exactly, and that's what they've got. And I say, don't worry about it as a Jewish problem, it is not a Jewish problem. It's a problem for Jewish people. The problem is, the United States is not doing its job. And we should not allow ourselves to be blackmailed into doing anything but our job.

We have no problem in dealing with the typical, you know--. Many of our people, are Jewish people, who come from the European tradition of Moses Mendelssohn, or in Eastern Europe, the Yiddish Renaissance, which is the same thing. And, these people are our people: They think like us; they share our values; most of them are actually--they supported civil rights, back in the 1950s and 1960s, when nobody else would jump in in that way. And they're good people. So, it's not a Jewish question.

It's a question of the English-speaking people have developed organized crime, or various kinds of thuggery, which they use in our society to do the dirty work for them. And what they're doing is, they're using thugs, like Sharon, Netanyahu and that crowd in Israel, who are avowed fascists! And they're using them as tools to get the United States involved in a Middle East war, which is a complicated business, but it's being done. So, we shouldn't say, Israel's trying to manipulate us: There are forces inside the English-speaking world, who are using gangsters, like the backers of Lieberman, as tools to influence for their policy.

Host: Stay on board with us, sir.... [station break]

Lyndon LaRouche is on board with us. I've got a question to ask him; I want to get you in here, too.

Mr. LaRouche! Question: Are you a candidate for the Presidency of the United States?

LaRouche: Yes.

Host: Why are you running again?

LaRouche: Because I'm the only one qualified!

Host: [hearty laugh] Let me get Balile [ph] on board with us. Balile! You're on with Lyndon LaRouche.

Caller: Yes. Mr. LaRouche, I have a question for you.

LaRouche: Speak up, I have trouble hearing you.

Caller: Are you now, or have you ever been, a white supremacist? And, what is the nature of--

LaRouche: What?

Host: Balile! Speak up a little stronger, it's hard for him to hear you. This is an international call.

Caller: Okay. The question is: Are you now, or have you ever been, a white supremacist? Also, what is the nature of white supremacy, as it relates to the global climate we find ourselves in now?

LaRouche: Well, actually, white supremacy is a form of evil, [traffic report played over answer, which is inaudible]...

Host: [resumes mid-sentence] ... and the foreign policy of this country, in attitude and perception of what takes place, in both what we call the Middle East and Africa.

LaRouche: As I think you know, and I think other people know, who are, shall we say, "in the know": In 1966, Richard Nixon, in launching his campaign for the Presidential nomination and election, went down to Mississippi to meet with the Klan leaders, including meetings with people who are part of the Congress today; important officials of the Congress, from Mississippi and elsewhere. And they agreed on a policy, and you can imagine what it is: The Klan, which was revived in the United States, by a Democratic President--Woodrow Wilson, who launched the revival of the Klan from the White House. Then, you have Richard Nixon, a putative Republican, who launches his campaign for the Presidency, and wins it, on the basis of an alliance with the Ku Klux Klan.

So, that's the nature of our problem. And the so-called "right-wing" politics in the United States, tied to things like William F. Buckley, and the J. Edgar Hoover crowd--these traditional right-wingers--and we know them! I mean, those of us who have been around, know exactly what their pedigree is. We know them, when we meet them: It comes creeping out.

I knew when I was in military service, in World War II. We had these guys come in from all over the country, being drafted into platoon training, in camps in Texas and so forth. And, I saw them all, and I trained some of them. And, I tell you know what these guys are; I know where they come from: You have these poor, rag-tag fools, who are nonetheless organized by people like those whom Nixon met with, in 1966. And, you have to realize that the Nixon revolution, which coincided with the launching of the Indochina War, changed the character of the United States, from what it had been in 1964, when President Johnson pushed through two civil rights bills; which the Supreme Court, recently, implicitly, overturned.

Host: [Takes call from woman who complained about the traffic report playing over LaRouche's response on white supremacy. He promises to replay it in the next hour segment.]

Let me get Kia Muhammad [ph].

Caller: I'd like to ask Mr. LaRouche a couple of quick questions. How is it that an economist does not understand a person being paid for the work that they do. I'm talking about with respect to reparations. I mean, if my parents were to die and owe taxes, the United States government would make me pay the taxes on my parents. And my ancestors have definitely been brutalized by this United States--.

Host: Okay, but what is the question?

Caller: The question is, basically, how does an economist define being against reparations?

Host: Let's do the question this way: Mr. LaRouche, are you against reparations? Hold your answer, and Kia, don't go anywhere. [station break]

Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, a question was asked: Are you in favor, or not in favor, of reparations for blacks in this country, whose ancestors were held in slavery?

LaRouche: No, I don't think that would work. We'd never get it. If you fight for reparations, rather than things that we can get, you'll get less than nothing. For example, we've lost a very important black legislator from Alabama [U.S. Rep. Hilliard], because of an operation. The reason we were able to lose that legislator, at least temporarily, was because people didn't rally behind the kind of black political movement to make sure that turnout of the vote occurred, for that.

What we can and must fight for, is we've got to fight for the children, who are our future, to make sure that they have the kind of lives that make the suffering of their ancestors, who are now dead, justified. That is, people gave their lives and suffered under slavery. What do we do for the descendants of the slaves, to give them, finally, the right which they aspired to, a long time ago. For example, I had a great-great-grandfather, who was one of the organizers of the Underground Railroad movement in Ohio. He operated out of South Carolina and went into Ohio. We've been in this thing for a long time. Today, this issue is this: education, health care, job opportunities, and civil rights. These are things we can fight for. Why? And we can win. Because, when you fight for things like this, you're fighting for principles, which everybody has an interest in supporting.

Host: All right, now, let me grab another caller in here, very quickly. [Caller complained about traffic report interruption.]

Caller: I still had another question. Since Mr. LaRouche has been unsuccessful in his many runs at the Presidency, why doesn't he consider running in one of the traditional parties: the Democrat or the Republican Party?

Host: Good question. [station break]... The gentleman left us with a question. He said, this is not the first time you've "run for the roses," you've run before. You've not been successful. Have you thought about running in one of the popular parties, either as a Democratic or the Republican candidate, or, maybe as a Socialist candidate?

LaRouche: I ran as a Democratic candidate--and I was right. And the voters were wrong. And, they're now paying the price. Now, I'm not blaming them for it, I'm noting it as a fact. Now, the time has come that the depression against which I warned is here, if they kept with these policies. It was a long-range forecast, which is sometimes difficult for people to keep up with. But, nonetheless, that was the way it is. Now, the time has come, that what I propose will decide whether we're going to make it or not, as an economy. Otherwise, we're going into an incalculable period. But, the people need me, and I'm here. And, they've made a mistake in the past, and I've given them a chance to correct that mistake, in the present.

Host: For a few minutes, I want to hold onto you and I want to introduce you to some friends of mine: Out of Chicago, Illinois, at WVON, Mr. Cliff Kelly is on board with us; dear friend. Cliff!

Kelly: Hi!

Host: Lyndon LaRouche is on board with us.

Kelly: Wonderful. Wonderful. Hi, Mr. LaRouche.

LaRouche: Fine, miss you.

Kelly: Good to talk to you.

Host: And also joining us, on our live line, is another dear friend, out of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at WHAT--Mr. Reggie Bryant [ph] is on board.

Reggie Bryant, Cliff Kelly out of Chicago and Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, Presidential candidate.

Kelly: Hi Reggie.

Bryant: Gentlemen! Perennial Presidential candidate, you might add.

Host: Yes, we can do that. And, we've had some questions for Mr. LaRouche. One, we're trying to get back up and replay, so that you gentlemen would be able to hear his response. And, it has to do with--and in fact, I might just ask him to respond to it: Mr. LaRouche, earlier on, a caller asked you about reparations. You had a response to that. Would you share your response again?

LaRouche: Yeah. Reparations is a loser. There are things we should fight for, if we were not pessimistic, and we're not tempted to substitute a desire to get some money--quick money--which we'd never get; and substitute that for fighting for what we can get. The point is that: In politics, when you're dealing, as a minority in politics, you have to find ways of influencing the entire process. Now, you have to go to the question of principle. The question of principle is people's rights. The African-American, so-called, has been deprived of rights for a long time. Slavery is just one of them. Therefore, the time has come: How do we get this thing fixed?

My view is, that, what you have to do is, you have to get people unified around the idea of universal rights--as we did with the civil rights movement, with Martin Luther King. There are certain universal rights. We fight for those rights, and we demand that others who have the same interests, as human beings, fight with us to get us our rights, because it's their rights too, that are at stake. We've seen when the turn against Martin came, the assassination of Martin, the result of that: We've seen that the great movement of civil rights, which was inspiring in its time, has taken one defeat after the other, all the way down the road. There have been compensations, of some type for some situations, but generally, the poor are poorer than ever before.

[Host interrupted at this point to get the response of the other two talk-show hosts, both of whom disagreed with LaRouche.]

Top