LAROUCHE ON DR. JACK STOCKWELL'S
 K-TALK IN SALT LAKE CITY, UT
September 10, 2023

To send a link to this document to a friend

Stockwell: Good morning, everybody. Five and a half minutes after the hour, 7 o'clock. Good Morning. Sept. 10, 2023, A terrific Tuesday morning. You're listening to the Jack Stockwell radio talk show program for the next two hours, and for the next two hours, live on the line, Lyndon LaRouche, the electable Lyndon LaRouche, I think is what the information packets are saying now. He will be my guest for two hours.

As we sit here -- Well, today is really, to me, the eve of September 11, because it was Tuesday of that week when it occurred -- not Wednesday, which, of course, is the 11th, is tomorrow, the day when people will be recognizing what happened a year ago. It was one year ago today, on this day, that Lyndon LaRouche was my guest. Five minutes into the program that morning, phone calls started coming into the station, regarding the attack on the World Trade Center. And so we've seen what we could do to get Mr. LaRouche back on. Lyn, you there?

LaRouche: I'm here.

Stockwell: Well, I'll tell you, this particular morning, of all the people on this planet, that I could have on my show, you sir, would probably be my first pick.

LaRouche: Well, we're on the edge of something, more than the memory of a year ago.

Stockwell: Yeah, well, you know, when you were on here a year ago, just a few minutes into the broadcast, the attacks started, and very quickly, into that interview, which I believe several hundred thousand copies of that interview were made, and sent around the planet -- but within a few minutes of that interview, you made it very clear that the first thing that would happen, is that it would be blamed on Osama bin Laden, and then the second thing you made very clear, is that he probably had very little, if anything, whatsoever to do with it at all. That to pull off something of this magnitude, required considerably contacts, information, influence, whatever, within the intelligence community of the United States. Not necessarily that the government was doing this to their own people, by any means; you were quite clear that you felt that George Bush had nothing to do with it; but that there were some rogue elements within the military, rogue elements that seemed to becoming more evident all the time, even with the war against the war, or the war within the war, about Iraq, that's going on back East now in Washington.

As even some prominent world figures, such as Kissinger and Brzezinski, Scowcroft, James Baker III, others, really starting to drag their feet. "Hold on, hold on, hold on now. Just slow down," while the Wolfowitz-Perle crowd continues to move faster and faster, at a forward pace, with Sharon, to engage this war with Iraq. And I think, as I have followed news releases that have occurred over the past year, I think you were right on the money. Everything you said, has pretty well been substantiated, at least in my mind.

We'll never know who did this, any more than we'll know who killed Jack Kennedy. But, like you have said in times past, you don't necessarily know where the animals on the side of the hill are, if you're out there lurking around in the hillside, but you know by the spore that the animals have been there.

So, here we're sitting, on the verge of an imminent attack. We were talking yesterday on my show about a Gulf of Tonkin incident. That was even on CNN yesterday. The possibility of further acts of provocation, by unknown parties. We could -- it's not unrealistic to suppose by the time this conversation's over here, within two hours, we could be knee deep in the muddy again.

LaRouche: I think that will always stick with us, since that event approximately a year ago, that you get in the shop, and you say, "You never know what's going to happen in the middle of the show."

Stockwell: Well, yeah, that was quite a precedent to be set. So, you know, you've got the Russians saying "don't do it," the Germans are saying, "Don't do it," the French, the Italians are saying "Don't do it." Tony Blair's over here, "Come on, come on, let's go do it, let's go do it." The line, I think, is clearly drawn as to who's on what side, and if you look at the interests of those who are on the side for war in Iraq, they're not necessarily of the same mindset as the Founding Fathers were.

LaRouche: No, absolutely not.

Stockwell: Well, what do you see happening here? I mean, we've got -- we're all sitting on the edge of our seat. Mr. Ritter is over there saying "Listen, there's nothing here. Forget it. This is all a big push by the Mega group in Washington to go to war with Iraq." And other people are saying, "No, this guy's a traitor, he's been paid off by Saddam to come out and say that there are no weapons of mass destruction." I mean, anything could happen. We're at a point now where we're just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

LaRouche: Well, yes, it's a question of what shoe is going to drop. You've got several possibilities.

You have, of course, the absolutely insane possibility, which is coming from this so-called Vulcan crowd, or it's so named by Condoleezza Rice, who's sort of the den mother of these characters. And they are itching, and they say, we should have done it already. But they don't say, "Iraq." They made it very clear. They don't say "Iraq," they say "Saudi Arabia." They say, " Syria." They're talking about a general perpetual war in the Middle East.

Now, this policy was first surfaced in 1998, or 96, rather. It was surfaced in a paper which these guys produced for the Prime Minister of Israel, then, Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu a few days later, presented that policy, which had been crafted for him by these guys, presented it to the U.S. Congress. And then the Wall Street Journal published a description of Netanyahu's policy, and endorsed it in an editorial.

Then there was an effort made -- it didn't fly at that time. Then there was an effort made, pressuring Clinton, at the moment he was coming under impeachment charges, to push the policy. He refused to at first, but then he later, under pressure of the impeachment threat, went to a protracted bombing operation against Iraq. Then it was called off.

So, they didn't get the policy through.

Then Sept. 11, they got the policy through. And the bombing of Afghanistan was simply the front end of it, and the same crowd, which prescribed the bombing of Afghanistan, is the same crowd pushing for a general war now.

Some people are saying that this is caused by the economic crisis. Now, the economic crisis is a factor in the mood in Washington. Obviously, the Bush Administration is trying to run away from the reality of economic crisis as rapidly as possibly -- that's not going to succeed. This crisis is occurring. It's about to go into an actual terminal phase.

But this other policy has a life of its own. People say, well, I've said the economic issues could push the mood of the American people, and institutions, to stop the war. But, we've reached the point now, that the issue is war per se. That is, are they going to war, or aren't they? The only alternative that's being pushed in the Establishment, apart from the people who say, "Don't do it," and the international establishment, is coming from Europe, and it's a policy which says, "Go to the UN." Now, it's a very tricky policy on the part of Blair, because Blair is following a British policy, which says, "Take it to the UN. Don't take unilateral action."

The Germans and French are saying, "No unilateral action." The French are saying, Chirac said recently, "UN." So, the problem is this now. Either they go ahead on a unilateral attack, or they try to jam it through the UN, and then, if they don't get it, to on a unilateral attack. If they do get, then they'll probably get it on the basis of getting something about restrictions on demands from Saddam Hussein, from Iraq in general. If Saddam Hussein refuses, then they'll probably go after him, saying, "Now we've got a UNO mandate to go after him, because he didn't accept the conditions."

Then, if Saddam Hussein is influenced to show some prudence, and say, "I'll cooperate with you guys," we'll avoid the war. Unless, Sharon goes mad, and goes unilaterally on {his} attack, to try to force the war in the Middle East, or does something to provoke a unilateral or something to start a war.

Stockwell: The breakaway ally scenario.

LAROUCHE; Exactly. Exactly. So, this is the danger. It's a complicated situation. My function is, that I'm being outspoken. You know, I tend to be like that. And as you get older, and you think about what you're leaving to the future, you're less cautious,  in one sense. You tell the truth. Because that's going to be written on your gravestone.

Stockwell: Well, speaking of growing older, happy birthday.

LaRouche: Oh, thank you.

Stockwell: On your recent 80th birthday. You're still on the air, but I'm going to bring Bob on here [traffic report]

Stockwell: If you're just tuning in, Lyndon LaRouche, live from back in Virginia, my guest this morning, on the eve of the Sept. 11th attack in New York City, Washington, D.C., and a field in Southern Pennsylvania.

There are those, Lyn, who are saying that this war cry of the Vulcans -- others have called them the "chickenhawks" since they don't have any military service among them, not enough military service among them to even equate to one experience in bootcamp -- but, equating a lot of what they're hearing, Bush, Blair, old Rambo Rumsfeld himself, Cheney, -- equating what they're saying to the war chants in Nuremberg, by one of their earlier role models, Adolf Hitler himself.

LaRouche: Well, there is a strong element of fascism in this. You see this in terms of the various combinations of policy. It is, in a sense -- it belongs to the Nietzchean, post-Nietzchean, existentialist movement. And you cannot understand these guys, behind it, unless you look at that.

For example. Take the Vulcans. What's the history of the Vulcans?

The Vulcan organization has a political pedigree as Trotskyists. The whole crowd started that way. These are ex-Trotskyists, or Trotskyists, or whatever, who went from left, or talking left, to right. And they've gone all the way. So, what you're dealing with is an element of radicalism, and I've written about this subject, of how some of these guys became the way they became. And it goes over into this extreme of bring actually trying to be utopians, followers implicitly of Bertrand Russell, and H.G. Wells, who wished to create their idea of a utopian world order. They are not trying to deal with the reality of the world. They're trying to {impose} their utopian conception of world order, arbitrarily, on the world.

Some of these guys are used, under the label of Zionism. So, you have a bunch of these ex-Trotskyists, turned Nazis, or fascists. And they're dealing with this kind of H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, operation, as part of our utopian faction. For example, you have Mellon Scaife, who's involved in boosting them. You had the Principals' Committee, for President Clinton, was heavily saturated with the same people, the same mentality. You have the Jabotinsky crowd in Israel, the so-called Likud faction, Netanyahu, Sharon and so forth, these guys are... Remember, Jabotinsky professed to be not only a fascist, but Jabotinsky tried to get an alliance with Hitler, even after Hitler had been elected. And appealed to Hitler to drop the anti-Semitism, and the two of them would get along just fine.

So, you have this kind of mentality, which is controlling Israel, at the moment. There's a lot of resistance in Israel to this kind of thing. But now it's on top. And we have in the United States, on top, something which is integral to that, which you might call a "Pollard II," same crowd that were indicated as being the collaborators of Jonathan Pollard, and his spying, for which he's sitting in prison -- that same crowd of his friends, and cronies, are now the Vulcans, and they include also some of the guys in the Principals' Committee, who were influencing Clinton on the bombing operation. These guys are not in the real world. They're not responding to real issues. They're like a guy, holding a sawed-off shotgun, in an apartment holding a family hostage. He's not responding to the family, he's not responding to the real world, he's responding to an agenda he has in his mind. And what he is going to do, will be based on the way that agenda determines his reactions to whatever goes on around him.

And that's what we have. We have a crowd, who are, in a sense, worse than Hitler, because they're completely divorced from reality. But they have a strong agenda, and George Shultz and company brought them again into a key position in the present Bush Administration. And that's our problem.

We have nuts in Israel, we have nuts here. And we have good people, we have good people in Israel. But the nuts, for the moment, seem to be on top.

Stockwell: Well, you have editorials showing up, this last weekend, in the New York Times and Washington Post, pushing and pushing and pushing for further conflict in Iraq. The media of America, for the most part, seems to be supporting this. But there... how do you account for people like Kissinger and Brzezinski, who have been the architects of this kind of policy, following that NSSM document 200, back in 1974, who've been the architects of globalism, of American imperialism, of going out and looting any income stream, or source of raw materials, that they could find. What are they putting their foot down, and kind of dragging it, to stop that little scooter down the hill, that they're riding?

LaRouche: Kissinger is, above all other things, a completely slimy opportunist. I know the gentleman fairly well, I never shook his hand, I've sat a few inches away from him, at one point, by accident, in a VIP [ ] into a plane. But, I know him very well. He's a complete slimy opportunist. But he's also, like Brzezinski, his fellow spawn of the same species, he's a creation of this H.G. Wells cult, associated with the Nashville Agrarians, including Professor William Yandell Elliott at Harvard, who generally bred the whole spawn of this type.

They're all for utopianism. They're all for war. But they're also people who try  to keep their position, keep their hand at the table in the game. And if you notice, most of the Establishment, including the old Bush establishment, led by Scowcroft, and people like that,  -- but there are others behind it -- these people have gone on and put their hands on the table, and said, "We're against this nonsense, stop it." But Kissinger came to the table. That's typical Kissinger. What Kissinger says he's for, and what he's for, may not be the same thing. He wants to keep his hand at the table. And that's about it.

Brzezinski is a real fanatic. Brzezinski is a killer. He's also a liar. But Brzezinski in a sense is more {dangerous} than Kissinger. Kissinger's opportunism, sometimes, prevents him from getting quite as wild as Brzezinski. If you wanted a dictator, a ruthless insane dictator, if you wanted what some people describe as Saddam Hussein, in the United States, put Brzezinski in charge of the government.

Stockwell: Well, we've had Brzezinski in charge of our government once before, from 1977 up to 1980. Let me get another traffic report here for a moment.

[traffic break]

Stockwell: Ladies and gentlemen, if you're just tuning in, Lyndon LaRouche is my guest from back in Northern Virginia. He'll be on for the whole two hours this morning. You can get a free copy of the magazine called EIR, usually around 80 or so pages long, one of the most in-depth, well-documented, well-researching news magazines that I've ever run across. You can get it ....

Now, we were just talking about the Vulcans, the mega group, who want desperately for this war to take place. I used to think, Lyn, that there was a rational reasoning going on here, for this push for this conflict with Iraq, in the sense that, well, they're after oil. Or, they're after revenge, for what happened 10 years. Or, they're trying to change one regime for another, or this man, Saddam Hussein, was our tool at one time -- back in the 1980s, we were supplying him with biological and chemical weapons ourselves. We were supplying them with rockets and missiles. As we were the other group in Teheran. And so, we keep this battle going on the southern borders of Russia, in our attempts to try to bring down the Soviet Union. He was our agent, every bit as much as Osama bin Laden was at one time, and I suspect, Abu Nidal at one time, as well. And, you know, you try to get some perspective, you try to get some understanding of what's going on here, in the sense of some rational explanation, and about the only thing I can come up with anymore, is that there must be some cloud of psychotic insanity that is passing among these people, because there doesn't seem to be any real objective to be gained. What would happen to the United States in the eyes of the rest of the world, I don't know if it could get any worse, but I suppose it could if we were to actually attack Iraq. We have nothing to gain, and everything in the world to lose.

LaRouche: But, that's the point. If you go back to long history of utopianism, in the 20th century, which came to the fore... H.G. Wells, in a sense, is his whole life, and Bertrand Russell, following him after Wells' death, typifies this process. you go back to Thomas Huxley in the 19th century. Thomas Huxley was the breeder, so to speak, of this guy Wells. He made Wells, He picked Wells as an operative of that section of the British Establishment. So, Wells, although he came from an obscure background, shall we say, was nonetheless picked and developed as a special kind of talent. He became the leader, spokesman, for the so-called Coefficients group, and in a sense, he was the head of British Intelligence, for foreign propaganda, in the period going into World War I. An apparatus which was created largely under King Edward II.

Wells in that time, in 1913, apart from being generally a utopian -- that is, get a world system that we can control, world government system -- he was the first guy to propose the use of nuclear weapons as a way of bringing about world government. That is, that they'd be so terrible, relative to other kinds of warfare, that people would surrender to world government, rather than fight a way facing nuclear weapons. At that time he was talking about radium. But Russell, in 1927-28, the two of them got back together again. Wells wrote this book called the Open Conspiracy, and Russell endorsed it publicly. From that time on, the whole crowd -- Julian Huxley, Aldous Huxley, the whole kit and caboodle -- and they went to work on the scientific community, through Russell. And they got a bunch of people around the idea of air power, and nuclear weapons -- Russell was the guy who started nuclear war. He actually drafted a letter, written by two of his stooges, Hungarian-origin stooges, in Princeton, to get Einstein to sign the letter to Franklin Roosevelt -- that's how they got the thing started. They used that letter, that authorization, to create an Anglo-American airpower, nuclear weapons combination, and at the end of the war, when MacArthur had already won the war, Truman did something which both MacArthur and Eisenhower opposed. You never attack a defeated enemy. The most stupid thing you can do. So we dropped the two nuclear weapons we had, the only ones we had at the time, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively, for {no military reason.} The war was won by the blockade, and everything else. It was just a matter of when they would surrender. There was no need to invade. The myth of a million lives being saved by the bombs is all false, it's all a fraud, developed by McGeorge Bundy, at that time, who was working with Stimson.

So, we got into this thing of the Nuclear Age. And even though the Soviet system had already  developed nuclear capabilities, they hadn't been able to deployment, because they didn't have the energy system under wartime conditions, to actually go through the work of processing and preparing uranium as a weapon. But, after the war, they were pushed into accelerating that program, under Stalin. And they did. They developed weapons, and they got ahead of us, in terms of the thermonuclear bomb.

So, we had this nuclear conflict. This nuclear conflict was used to try to--all the way through--to create world government. Eisenhower opposed this stuff, as well as MacArthur had. As long as Eisenhower was President, he would always put his foot down {against} these Utopians taking over. And once he was out of office, Kennedy did not have the influence on the military, that Eisenhower did, and didn't have the understanding of the military that Eisenhower had. So, these guys, on the so-called “special warfare” section, the Allen Dulles crowd, and so forth, they took off. And we went through a process.

And once they had the Soviet Union collapsed, then they went wild: They said, “Now we run the world! There's no opponent. We can run the world--with airpower and nuclear weapons,” and other so-called “super-weapons.”  This idea, that if you have the power to run the world, you're going to set up a system like the Roman Empire that's going to run the world forever, this is lunacy! So they have a systemic lunacy! I mean, they're outside real politics.

Real politics means you're responsive to the human race, to people; you're responsive to getting ideas accepted by people, by institutions; and therefore, you have to have some kind of scientific or equivalent {accountability} for the connection between your actions and some kind of purpose which corresponds to an idea that people presumably can understand.

Stockwell: Well, there is a very clear dichotomy, then, which is created in the thinking of Kissinger, and this crowd out of Harvard--Yandell [Elliott]'s crowd--that is typified by his Security Study Memorandum 200, which said that wherever there is developing population, or developing economic strength, we consider this to be a threat to United States security, and we will do whatever we can to stop it. There, you have that image, on one hand. You have the image, on the other hand, that was so well described by President John Quincy Adams, of having a community of separate, sovereign nation-states, that would come together economically, to trade with one another, to share culturally--but would maintain separate sovereignty. There would not be a unification of state identity.

Those kinds of thinking has continued. I haven't seen a third alternative to this.

LaRouche: There is none. We have a conflict, essentially, in European civilization, between the Classical Greek heritage, and the heritage of the contrary, Roman Empire culture. What we're looking at is the Romanticism. And you see a touch of Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, in these clowns. These are small-time clowns, essentially, with inflated positions of power. But the mentality reminds you, historically, of Caligula, of Tiberius, of Nero. They're thinking about how to maintain their power over the world, not how to deal with the problems of the world.

The problem here, in modern times, comes down to the question of technological progress. If you educate a population for technological progress, you must educate them fairly well. Otherwise, you can't have technological progress. You can not have a bunch of dumb peasants, uneducated, brutish, capable of running a modern society.

Therefore, since they don't want citizens; they don't want thinking people; they don't want a republic, where the government is accountable to the people as a political process; if you want to separate that--the government--from the people, you've got to stupify the people. Well, you can't stupify the people if you're trying to run a modern economy. And Russell's idea all along, and also that of Wells, was: They hated what they called the “morlocks,” what Wells called the “morlocks.” They hated people who were developing industry. They hated the development of technology. They tried to use it for destructive purposes, but they were against it in the schools. They wanted all kinds of Romantic nonsense, fantasy life--what you do with video games; fantasy life as a substitute for science.

The problem is a conflict between a modern economy, which can meet the requirements of a population, because we have the productive powers of labor enabled by technological progress and large-scale infrastructural development--that enables us to maintain a healthy, vigorous, intelligent population which can govern its own affairs. What they're trying to do, overall--the characteristic of the utopian--is to reduce people, most people at least, to the status of virtual human cattle, whom you herd, and cull, and exploit, all at the same time. That's what the issue is.

Stockwell: So they have this mandate laid upon them by God, the universe, whatever else, because of the natural selective process which has elevated them to this dictatorial position, to husband the human race as they would the cattle and the sheep.

LaRouche: Yes. This is what the Venetian financier oligarchy did for about 1000 years. The decline and fall of the Byzantine Empire. Venice came into power--at first in fact, and then nominally later--as the imperial maritime power which ran most of Europe's Mediterranean region. It continued that role, more or less effectively, until the last quarter of the 17th Century. And then they replicated themselves, in the meantime, in the financier oligarchies of the Netherlands and of the British--the British East India Company, for example.

Stockwell: What was the reason for the move, from Venice, there at the time of Henry VIII, up to the Netherlands.

LaRouche: Strategic. We started with Gasparo Contarini, the Cardinal, who's a key figure in this, in one form [of it], the so-called Aristotelian form. And then at a later point, there was another fellow who came up--Paolo Sarpi--who, in about 1580, became the lord of Venice, by a selection among the oligarchy. And he created people like--he put James I on the throne of England as a stooge. He created Francis Bacon. He created, indirectly, through Galileo, he created Thomas Hobbes, the lover of Francis Bacon. The same crowd created the entire so-called Enlightenment--the French and British Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th Century. And then, toward the end of the 17th Century, Venice began to fall apart as a power. And what happened, is that the Venetian influence, Venetian habits, moved to the North. Because in that period, with the development of modern warfare, it had been demonstrated during the course of the 17th Century, that you could not maintain world power from the head of the Adriatic Sea. You were too vulnerable physically. Someone would come in with an army and knock you off.

So therefore, the Venetian interests decided to go to an area, to create new imperial maritime states; and they used the oligarchy in the Netherlands as the first model they took over; and then they moved over to England, got rid of the Stuarts, who they thought were problematic, and brought in the British royal house, through the intervention of William of Orange and his successors.

Stockwell: And the Plantagenets.

LaRouche: Well, they were earlier, but the same. They came up in the form of the French Fronde.

Stockwell: Eventually the House of Hannover came in there. So when we look at British royalty today, what kind of British ancestry do they have?

LaRouche: Who knows? I prefer not to think about it!

Stockwell: So you know, we have kind of a royalty growing in this country. At least, they see themselves as such.

LaRouche: They see themselves as a Venetian-style financier oligarchy, with their lackeys, and everything else.

Stockwell: A name you mentioned earlier, Brent Scowcroft, has some relevance out here in Utah, because he's a Mormon. What do you know about him? What's he all about? What did he ever do for George, Sr., that he's still a player in the game?

LaRouche: Well, he was recruited by Kissinger at one point. You've got another one. Take General Zinni, retired, who gave a conference in the past two days [U.S.-Arab Relations Council]; and he was active making presentations and participating in the discussion.

Typical of this, of a lot of people I know, who are in that generation, slightly younger than I am, or of similar generation: They were sent to a hopeless, useless war in Indo-China. But they went as soldiers. They went, and they carried out their orders. They went out as junior officers, or field-grade officers. And they were chopped up. They went through a hellish experience. And came out of that hellish experience with battle stars, medals of honor, things like that; and went on to become flag officers, or colonels, at least. And they are now out, or going out, of service, having reached the top ranks, and now are in a retired status.

They've gone through an experience. And one has to look at people with that experience, because that's a very important experience. For those of us who went to World War II, for example, Roosevelt and World War II were the two most significant American experiences we had. And our attitudes--they way we would react to those two experiences--pretty much shaped the way we reacted to the rest of our lives. It didn't put a fixed stamp on it. It wasn't a stereotype. But it still, to this day--I know it, what I experienced during the ‘30s, what I experienced even earlier, and what I experienced during the War overseas--this left a lasting imprint in my life.

Therefore, I look at Scowcroft from that standpoint. He's first of all an American; the Mormon thing, I think that's not primary, even though it may be very important.

Stockwell: Well, it's seen that way out here, but only because of some kind of class identity, nothing more than that.

LaRouche: Exactly. Scowcroft is a soldier, who's gone through the horrible experience, for any soldier, of protracted, virtually perpetual, useless war. They come back. They're promoted. They go to Leavenworth school, Strategic Command School, other schools. They begin to reform, based on that experience, what they think about warfare and principles of statecraft. They think really strategically. And they think about it personally. When they're hit by something which goes against everything they believe it, they're likely to respond. Because apart from all other criticisms you make of him, a good professional soldier--a good one, a good officer--is a very special kind of person; and they have a special agenda built into them, of {being a good soldier}, good leader for the nation. They think of themselves as the people who have to advise the Presidents, of what Presidents should do in terms of military or related affairs.

So, I think that the big thing with Scowcroft, in this case in particular, is that he represents a generation of people who went through that kind of experience, who talk about it, who influence one another.

[TRAFFIC BREAK]

Stockwell: Lyn, when we talk about General Scowcroft, about these fellows who went to Vietnam, who tried to be a good soldier, from Westmoreland right down to the lowest recruit. And they go into this protracted, no-win war, that not only decimates their fellow soldiers, but their own morals and their own understanding of what is right and wrong. And they want to be a good soldier. They want to be a good leader. They went through whatever military training in order to do so.

But then there's this think hanging over every soldier's head, called the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Preamble, that probably was written by the finger of God Himself, every bit as much as what Moses experienced at Sinai. Out here, in Marlboro Man country, as I've called it before, we have the separatist notion of isolationism and everything else, away from the horrible liberality of California, and the almost godlessness of the Eastern Establishment--as though we were God's own chosen people, to some degree--though we haven't really demonstrated any of those characteristics, we like to talk about it!

And so, when we look at Scowcroft, when we look at other people who are left over from Vietnam--especially in the light of the “chicken hawks,” who want to go to war, who have no military experience--are we being naive out here, when we expect these people to give greater allegiance to the Constitution than they do to the imperialist designs of the Eastern Establishment?

LaRouche: This is a matter of leadership. I have a lot of experience with people, as you know. And I find that my concern is, often, I'm up against a situation, in which, “Can I bring out the best in this person.” That's the way I function. I'm essentially a philosopher and educator, who's got stuck out on a mission, with the talent I have. It's a mission-orientation. And the mission involves trying to recruit people to something good within them.

My view is, with what I've seen, that there are very few people, relatively speaking, in society today, who are actually leaders. Clinton was probably one of the most intelligent Presidents we had in this Century. But his propensity for flim-flam, to get by, out of a problem, contradicted what real leadership is. Real leadership is telling the truth; not misleading people. Even if you disagree with them, you try to evoke from within them, an understanding. Find something within them which will lead to understand the point that they have to recognize.

And what people depend upon, is leadership. If you have good leaders, you tend to bring out the best in people. If you have terrible leaders, and a pessimistic population, they will descend to their lowest level.

What's happened here: The challenge, in the case of Scowcroft and company, and that circle, that spoke out on this--they were challenged; and they responded to the challenge in the best way they could agree on responding. And they did a fairly good job. In that sense, they served the Constitution. How well they understood it--do they understand it the way I understand it?--probably not. But they respond to that which is embedded within them, partly, by our culture. They've got the best of the culture.

They also represent a generation which is pre-Baby Boomer; between the Baby Boomers and my generation. They represent that; and therefore, they do have embedded within it, from our previous educational policies and so forth, some of that. As to whether they responded explicitly to that or not, I don't know.

Stockwell: Do you suppose, if push came to shove, they [the people] would stand by America and the Constitution, rather than world government.

LaRouche: Absolutely. If they had adequate leadership. See, the problem that throws people, not only in the United States--taken Europe for example. Continental Europe looks at itself as having gone through two world wars. And typified by Germany, and to some degree, by Russia today, they're not going to get into a shooting war with the transatlantic maritime powers, and now also air powers, ever again. That's they're determination. Their attitude is, we do whatever we have to do, not to get in a war against these guys again.

Therefore, the Europeans generally do not really think independently. They do, up to a point, the best of them do; but they get to the point of this kind of conflict, and they back down. That's why Chancellor of Germany Schroeder's response on this is so exceptional. If you know Germany, it's absolutely exceptional. It's stunning.

But in any case, we in the United States have the advantage of thinking that we can deal with out own problems. We are a power. We think that our government, and our power can be an instrument of our interest in the world at large.

Therefore we, as individual American citizens, will tend to think of that. We'll say, look, we're Americans. We can think for ourselves. We don't have to be afraid of somebody else, really. We're independent.

You have that quality in the American. If you have good leadership as well, that justifies that quality, then I think you can bring--it's my experience--you can bring Americans to the best level of their abilities and their morality.

If, however, they see that the situation as hopeless; if they see everything is coming down on them, like this economic crisis; if they see silly, crazy wars that frighten them; if they become desperate, they will go their worst level.

And my point, my mission, is to try to stimulate people who should be leaders, into playing that role of leadership. And I have to take the number-one responsibility, as far as I'm concerned.

Stockwell: Well, your name is certainly being mentioned much more so now, than it has in the past. Historically, we've seen a situation where, because of the push from the Eastern Establishment to discredit you at every possible opportunity, or better yet, not even every mention your name, we have one or two generations that have been raised in this country, that have never heard of you, and don't know your ideas. But once they get a chance to listen to what you have to say, it's kind of like, well, I didn't realize that those kinds of things existed.

I can't tell you the number of people in my own clinical practice, that are my patients, who've come to me, and have said, “You know, you've been having Mr. LaRouche on your radio show for three years now, off and on, and somebody from EIR every six weeks or so; and we didn't realize that this kind of alternative was out there. We didn't know that this kind of leadership potential even existed in this country. The only thing we could ever see was what the two major political parties would deliver to us every two years in November, as our only possible alternatives.

You are a Democrat. You're the pre-candidate, in the sense that you're the only one who has definitely announced his candidacy for 2023. I want to talk more about that, probably during the next hour. I also want to get into the original discussion you and I had a year ago, on the day of the attack on the World Trade Center; and what your information, your intelligence and information-gathering processes around the world, have generated to substantiate the things that we talked about that day.

[TRAFFIC BREAK]

Stockwell: My guest is Lyndon LaRouche, from Loudoun County, Virginia. Back where I grew up. I grew up in Fairfax County, inside the Beltway, in fact, both my parents being civil servants working for the space program. [gives EIR number].

[COMMERCIALS BREAK]

[NEWS]

[TRAFFIC]

Stockwell: 8:08 in the morning in the Inter-mountain West on this beautiful Tuesday morning of Sept. 10, 2023. Lyndon LaRouche is my guest. We'll have him back in a few moments. I know that several of you called, wanting to talk. But I've got several other people who called in, saying, {don't take calls}, we just want to hear Mr. LaRouche, and we can talk about it later. We'll take a few calls, or so, in about half an hour. But I want him to spend some time now, on 9/11. Because it was just a year ago when we had Mr. LaRouche on here, that the 9/11 attack actually occurred {in broadcast}. We'll have him back on here with us in just a few moments, don't go away.

[COMMERCIALS]

Stockwell: My wife's birthday is today. Happy birthday, Mary. I know you're waiting for me to sing “Happy Birthday” on the air; but my guest is here, and Rob is shaking his head.

I've changed my mind. I'm not going to take any calls. There have been several people saying, don't interrupt Mr. LaRouche, please, with some of the inane callers that call in on a regular basis. I'm still debating that. We'll see what's going to happen before too much longer. Lyn, are you there?

LaRouche: I'm here.

Stockwell: [Gives 800 number for EIR]. A year ago, at this time, Mr. LaRouche was my guest. It was something we had scheduled a week or so in advance. Five minutes into the broadcast, we got our first indication that something horrible was happening in New York City. And Mr. LaRouche stayed on the air with us for the full two hours that morning. And as more and more information came in, especially with the second building being attacked, and also an attack on the Pentagon--there's still a lot of confusion in people's minds out there whether it was in fact an airplane or an explosion, because we have a very hard time finding people who actually saw the plane. Beside all that controversy that's still going on, Mr. LaRouche {then}, on the program, said, “You know, they're going to blame this on Osama bin Laden; but this is way out of bin Laden's league.”

There very well are Arab terrorists who are involved with something like this. Bin Laden is a terrorist. There's no issue about this. No one's trying to whitewash anything here. But it was Mr. LaRouche's assertion at the time, that this required aspects of American intelligence network operations, to have been able to pull this off. There are many considerations involved. We're not going to take the time to go into that today. We might do that tomorrow with Alex Jones, but we're not going to take the time to go into that today with Mr. LaRouche, because that's a matter of record.

What we want to know, Lyn, is since that time, a year ago, what have you been able to put together--the intelligence people at EIR--what have they been able to put together with their contacts, in the government, in foreign governments, as to what, in fact, actually occurred.

LaRouche: Well, it's very little, actually, very little that's new. The only thing we found is things which simply confirm the--for example: We had this thing from Egyptian military intelligence, who, early on in the game--following a statement by the President of Egypt, who is a combat pilot by training--indicated why, by the profile, it would be impossible for this operation to occur, just from a technical-military standpoint. While that's Egypt, not the United States, nonetheless, the technology is the same. What Mubarak was flying, when he was a combat pilot, was American-made planes; so he has some familiarity with this sort of thing. And he was right in that.

That kind of evidence. As to who did it, I've talked to a lot of people, directly and indirectly, on the question of the investigation. There is, to my knowledge, an investigation going on. It's a serious one. It's not being played at all in the public, not at all. And what my friends are getting, also involves secret intelligence. So it's sort of sacrosanct.

But there is actually an attempt to assess, from inside the United States, in its relevant institutions, to assess exactly what did happen. And they're probably not going to say anything about it, until the investigation ripens. But they're keeping all options open.

Meanwhile, we do know the same thing we knew at the beginning. From my work on SDI and other things, I knew enough about the U.S. security system, to know that what these three planes, that actually hit things, did, is impossible by any kind of amateur. It just couldn't happen. Someone would have to know, either that there was a breakdown in the system, and someone would have to know exactly where the loopholes were to pull it off; or, there was no breakdown, which is, in a sense, the worst.

I don't know which is worse: that somebody would plot to do this, with such sophistication, from the inside; or, that it could happen in that way, on the lower level, because the system had so broken down, that what we had thought out security system was, didn't exist.

Stockwell: Well, you say there is an investigative operation going on, that isn't all that public; I have no doubt that that's taking place.

LaRouche: A serious one.

Stockwell: Yes, a very serious one. But, you know they told us that with Earl Warren's investigation into the Kennedy assassination.

LaRouche: Yeah, but you had the case [then] that you had a known foul ball in there, John J. McCloy, who dictated to the Warren Commission what its results were going to be.

Stockwell: You don't think we have a McCloy on this investigation?

LaRouche: I don't think so. Because this goes deep. This is an attack on the United States. Not just a President of the United States; that's bad enough. But this is an attack on the United States as a whole. And anyone who's a military or intelligence professional, whether retired or active, is going to get very serious about this. I'm very serious about it.

But the investigation has two things. Get the facts. Do a critical evaluation of each of the facts. And don't talk about what you're investigating until you've come to a conclusion.

Stockwell: Well, we sure are talking about attacking Iraq, though, aren't we?

[transcribed to 75 minute-mark in 120-minute broadcast.]

Top