Question: Hello Lyn, I had a question regarding West Africa, particularly the so-called civil war in Liberia right now. And, for all I know, 200,000 residents of the capital city have been forced to flee over the past two months. I don't know--when I see pictures of 14-year-olds wielding assault rifles, it pisses me off. And, at that moment, I kind of wish for a military intervention from the U.S., just to kind of end it. But, I see no hope in that, nor trust that. And I really don't see any hope or trust the current dictator of Liberia. I don't see any hope or trust a coalition of military forces from the West African states.

And so, in a sense, I want your specific policy-call for this situation, right now; but also, in general, what do you do, when you're presented with a twisted Catch-22, when what's currently happening is not acceptable, but neither is any of the alternatives.

LaRouche: All right. Yes, I do have a very specific policy on this; my Liberia policy is only an aspect of it.

The problem here goes back to the 1970s, in particular. Remember that there was the change in the U.S. government, which occurred after the assassination of Kennedy, and the launching of the Indochina War, was typified by Richard Nixon's meeting in Biloxi, Mississippi with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan. And, this meeting, between the Ku Klux Klan, which were then usually associated with the Southern, pro-racist Democrats, with the Republicans around Nixon, created what was called the "Southern Strategy."

So therefore, in the evolution of the U.S. government, from the Nixon campaign of '66-'68, on through the Brzezinski control of the Carter Administration, you had, in this whole span, you had the emergence of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski as controllers of the government, through the office, especially, of the National Security Adviser and the team around them. So the Presidents were, to a large degree, puppets of an apparatus, which was actually headed by a sort of a super-cargo, the National Security Advisor.

In this process, the policy adopted was a Malthusian one: That is, the idea was, we must stop technological progress; we must stop the process of developing the citizens' ideas to produce citizens who are more and more intellectually qualified to administer society; and push the development of the human mind backwards, into a more stupid state of mind, one less independent, one less capable of being an independent influence on the political process: In other words, to destroy the idea of a republic. In which the republic is developing the citizen, the member of society, to a higher and higher level, with the idea of achieving a society, in which there's greater freedom, because there's greater intellectual and moral development of the citizens--and the opportunity to have the development.

So, what they did is, decide to reverse it. This was typified by the introduction of the rock-drug-sex counterculture, in the middle of the 1960s; the '68er generation was a manifestation of this cultural shock.

But then, what Nixon set into motion, was something which was encapsulated in document issued by Henry Kissinger, which was, for a long time, secret: National Security Study Memorandum 200. And, in this, Kissinger pointed to areas such as Africa, and said, that in this area of Africa, there are vast resources, particularly in the southern shield, the vast mineral resources. And, we must make sure that we keep these resources in Africa for our future use. Therefore, we must prevent the African population from developing and using up these resources for their own use. Therefore, we must reduce the population of Africa, especially black Africa, and we must, above all, prevent them from taking control of these natural resources, for their own national interest.

Thus, since about that time, since about 1974-75, the policy of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel, toward Africa, has been one of systemic genocide. There were tendencies in this direction earlier, as we saw in the first case of the Lumumba killing, at that time. It was to stop this thing, then. But, it was in the 1970s, under Nixon and Kissinger, that this kind of evil was turned loose.

Now we have a situation today, in which you had, Clinton had some inclination to try to deal with this horror-show in Africa, but, in my view, he felt that he didn't have the courage to take it on; he didn't have the resources to deal with the forces which, even in the United States, were behind this genocide.

Liberia is just a case of this: I know a good deal about this. We have other people, our people, who are specialists in this; we know a good deal about this, collectively. This is all deliberate genocide. The Liberia situation is a result of deliberate genocide, by leading forces, especially financier and related forces, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. That's what's going on.

Now therefore, the question is: How do you stop this? How do you stop something, which is not something caused by the Africans, but is something caused by putting the Africans on a stage, in which the script-writer and director are producing genocide, of Africans, by Africans, but under the direction of the director and the script- writer. And the director and the script-writer are from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel--chiefly.

Therefore, the first step toward a solution in the Liberia case:  You must have a President of the United States, who is determined to end this policy of genocide, typified by Henry Kissinger's National Security Study Memorandum 200 of 1975. That's the first step.

Then, you have to have a commitment, by the President of the United States, to do whatever is necessary to bring this genocide to an end. This is not really impossible if you look at the comparable case of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The only agency on this planet, which could force the fascist government of Israel, presently, to stop the genocide against Palestinians, to stop the conflict, would be the United States. The United States would have the support of most of the world in doing that. But, the United States must take the responsibility, and the initiative, and the President of the United States, above all, must take that initiative. Otherwise, no peace--as we see with George Bush. He talks about the Road Map, but he has no personal commitment to put the lid on Sharon and what Sharon represents. Therefore, their bloodshed will continue, until some President of the United States has the guts to step on Sharon, or any successor like him.

That's the situation in Africa. We have the resources, as the United States, and they're largely moral and intellectual and historical resources, to say, "We are not going to bring to an end, this process in Sub-Saharan Africa." If we say that, and we become revolutionaries, in the sense, we become the leaders of a revolution, by the Africans themselves, to free themselves from this, we become the good friend, who backs them up in doing that. We are the good friend who encourages them to develop their resources; the good friend, who encourages them, to build up their basic economic infrastructure of the continent. That sort of thing.

Under those conditions, we can do it! It's going to be a mess; it's a mess already. It's going to be a mess to clean up. But, if the President of the United States, with backing, will attack directly the policies typified by Kissinger's National Security Study Memorandum 200, then we can solve the problem. The problem is, that all the weeping and moaning, about Liberia and other things, does not address the issue! They address the effect, or some aspect of the effect: They're not addressing the cause! And, the cause is, the pro-genocide policy against Africa, by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. That's the problem. And, if a President of the United States does not say, "This policy has existed. This policy of genocide has existed. It will now cease." Under those conditions, the United States government becomes an advocate of a revolution in Africa, that is backing the Africans, to take steps to free themselves, from what they themselves, in large degree, are doing to themselves, right now.

And, I think we will get the support of a lot of parts of the world, in doing that. I think we will get a commitment, from many parts of the world, to assist us, in assisting the Africans to free themselves. Under those conditions, if the United States President, tomorrow morning, said: "This genocide in Liberia is going to cease now," and lays out a couple of the ground rules, it will cease. Because, you have to go at, not the poor guy who's shooting another guy in Liberia. You have to go at guys behind the people who are being deployed to shoot one another. You've got to get the guy behind the crime, not the poor fellow who's out there doing it.

-30-