Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky May 19, 1993

Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. Mr. LaRouche, before we begin to talk about Bosnia, there was an article last week in an Argentinian newspaper called {Clarin} which mentioned you. The article discussed Morton Rosenthal, the international director of the Anti-Defamation League, and it involved certain allegations. Are you familiar with the article? MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, I am.

The ADL Is Being Exposed As a Criminal Organization

What is the significance of the ADL and Morton Rosenthal running around Ibero-America and talking about Lyndon LaRouche? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it wasn't just done on the part of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. This was done in conjunction with the U.S. Information Agency, and with the Project Democracy, a faction inside the U.S. government. It was done as an official U.S. government operation against me and my influence in South America, with Argentina being up front. But it's not just Argentina, it's all of South America. There is a restive mood throughout the continent against the current policies of the United States, especially against the policies of B'nai B'rith and its agents, who are controlling agents inside Project Democracy and that section of the so-called CIA. Despite the fact of my imprisonment, intellectually I'm still a major influence throughout the continent, at the highest levels in these countries. And so {Clarin,} which is controlled by interests which are close to B'nai B'rith's ADL and therefore close to Project Democracy, published this as a follow-on in a series of very paranoid attacks on me. However, this attack was based on a press event featuring Morton Rosenthal at a dinner sponsored by the U.S. government there in Buenos Aires. So this had a highly official ring from the U.S. government, not just from B'nai B'rith by itself, and the fact that {Clarin,} of course, is controlled by interests very close to B'nai B'rith. It's a very significant strategic attack and has to do also with the fact that the ADL of B'nai B'rith is under heavy legal attack in the United States, because it has been caught red-handed violating the law in stealing secrets which it is not allowed to possess, and then being involved in conduiting those secrets and selling those secrets not only to Israel, but also selling information against black activists to the Republic of South Africa; and that has stirred up quite a fuss not only in San Francisco, but in other parts of the country. It's a national case, the ADL is being exposed for what it is, a rather criminal organization, actually.

What types of secrets is the ADL stealing? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the simplest one is the one they got the ADL in California. There is Department of Motor Vehicles information, part of which is confidential. The DMV has personal information which people give to get their motor licenses in California. This is confidential, and it is given by citizens under a promise of confidentiality. Through the San Francisco Police Department and also many other channels, the ADL would pick up Motor Vehicle license information--not the license number, but the secret and confidential information given--and they had hundreds of these things, I think Bullock had 1200 names in one place and this guy Gerard had 600-800 names. All kinds of information. The ADL has corrupted many of the police departments of the country. It is a major corrupting factor inside the Justice Department; it has planted its agents over the past quarter century in there, a great number of them, such as Mark Richard, for example, who is a very problematic creature over there. The ADL was also responsible, in part, together with the American Family Foundation, for setting up that crisis in Waco, Texas. They created the whole thing; it was not done by poor, now-deceased Davidians. It was done by the ADL, the American Family Foundation, CAN, and so forth. So it is a very nasty operation. People are getting tired of this outlaw, private organization, which was very close to Gay Edgar Hoover for years, doing the kind of dirty tricks it does, and they want to be rid of it.Q: You mentioned that there are a number of other police departments involved. Are there any other investigations into the ADL? MR. LAROUCHE: In Portland, Oregon, there is a major investigation of the police department, which does involve, of course, the ADL, though the criminal charges against the ADL in Portland, Oregon, are not yet in sight. But the irregularities by the ADL's friends in the Police Department are now under official investigation up there as an unlawful operation being run there, a highly irregular, if not unlawful, but probably unlawful actions too. Take the example of Chicago, which was a major center of ADL corruption of law enforcement agencies, including the police department. And all over the country. We have, of course, Leesburg, Virginia; the ADL was very much in there, and set up the whole operation. The ADL has assets in the form of Mary Sue Terry, the former Attorney General, now running for Governor. She is one of their assets. I don't know whether they own her totally, but they own a very large part of her. The Democratic Party organization of the Commonwealth of Virginia is owned, top down, by ADL and related interests. [commercial break]

I am a Major Rallying Point -- Against the ADL's Terrorist Operations

Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing an article in the Argentinian daily {Clarin} concerning the activities of Morton Rosenthal, the international director of the ADL. You mentioned earlier, that the ADL is all over Ibero-America, discussing your policy, attacking you for that policy, because that policy is acceptable to many, and many factions at this point are fed up with the kind of policies that they are seeing in Ibero-America. What are your policies and what are the policies in Ibero-America at this point that are causing so much unrest? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's not just that. Rosenthal's leak, which was done through {Clarin,} essentially continues the charge, that I am the major intellectual influence throughout most of the countries of South America and possibly he means also Central America, with major forces which are opposed to the policies being imposed upon those countries by Project Democracy, this arm, which is partly run by and is close to the B'nai B'rith and the ADL. And that was the charge. The second charge they made is quite interesting, because it does show what the policy line-up is. Rosenthal, who by the way was a supporter of the organization that assassinated Mrs. Indira Gandhi back in 1984, (and he knew that they were out to assassinate her, so he essentially is a terrorist, and the ADL are naturally terrorists also); made the charge that I said, or my friends said, that the Jewish community killed Lincoln. Well of course, that was never said. What was reported, was that the B'nai B'rith, which was, at that time, the intelligence arm of the Confederacy--in other words, B'nai B'rith represented the racist, treasonous, pro-Confederacy elements among those Jews in the South who were either in or supported the African slave trade; and they and their views were rejected by most of the Jews in the United States who supported freedom for the slaves. But in point of fact, Judah Benjamin, the head of the Confederate secret service, and Simon Wolf, the latter being head of the B'nai B'rith Washington office at that time, were close confederates and directors of the activity of John Wilkes Booth, the assassin. In his autobiography, Simon Wolf, who was a Washington, D.C. agent for the Confederate spy service--which was the B'nai B'rith--said he had alcoholic drinks with John Wilkes Booth as John Wilkes Booth was on his way to assassinate the President, just a short time before the assassination of President Lincoln. They were against Lincoln; they were involved in the assassination of Lincoln. Not the Jewish community; in fact, the majority of the Jewish community was on the other side, they were pro-Lincoln. But the B'nai B'rith is a treasonous, racist organization. This is a hot point, because B'nai B'rith today is the same thing, at least the leadership. It is an agent of certain factions close to Henry Kissinger or parallel to Henry Kissinger in British Intelligence. It works often against the interests of the United States, as it does in South Africa, as it does in leaking secrets to Israel, some of which used to go back to the Soviet Union, and that sort of thing; in the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi, in its support for that, or at least its spiritual support for that, and that sort of thing. So it's a very dirty organization, and is up front in many of the crimes which are committed in the name of the United States in many places, including their support for the Serbian fascists who are doing the killing in the Balkans, and in their support of policies which are very contrary to the interests of the people of the nations of South America. So because B'nai B'rith makes itself my enemy in these areas, and because I'm one of the few prominent Americans who stands up to this kind of stuff, many people in high places throughout South American countries, in and outside of government, regard me as a rallying point against these thugs.

Before we get back to this Project Democracy policy for Ibero-America, exactly what was the involvement of Rosenthal and the ADL with the assassination of Indira Gandhi? MR. LAROUCHE: There was a Khalistan front, which was the front which killed and claimed credit for killing Mrs. Gandhi, which announced they were out to kill her and commit such terrorist acts prior to the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi in October of 1984. Rabbi Rosenthal was a campaigner on behalf of Khalistan, a campaigner in conscious support of this effort to rally assassinations against Mrs. Gandhi and others in India. They were directly involved in this. There was a book written, called {Derivative Assassination,} which documents a good deal of the connection, how certain sections of British Intelligence, the B'nai B'rith, was deployed in the United States to assist that faction of British Intelligence in rallying support or sympathy for the project to assassinate Mrs. Gandhi.

What is the Project Democracy policy for Ibero-America, and how does it compare to yours? MR. LAROUCHE: Project Democracy partly is a thug operation, but Project Democracy has been and is run by the ADL-B'nai Brith. Look at Gershman, the president of the National Endowment for Democracy, who has assisted `Project Democracy' from the beginning. Take this section of the U.S. Information Agency or Information Service, which sponsored Rosenthal down there in Argentina. This arm of the State Department--officially an arm of the State Department, and sometimes called an arm of the CIA--is officially ADL. It's B'nai B'rith; it's all over the place. [commercial break]

Project Democracy Has Adopted - - the Policies of Adolf Hitler

Mr. LaRouche, what is the Project Democracy policy for Ibero-America, and how does it compare to yours? MR. LAROUCHE: My policy, of course, is human. I'm for the sovereignty of nation states, I'm for the right of economic development of these states. I'm against the support of terrorism, which certain sections of our State Department and other (particularly under Bush) have begun to support very openly, as in the case of Sendero Luminoso in Peru; and, until Clinton gets the State Department cleaned up a bit with a few appointments, still supports. The Inter-American Dialogue, for example, are actually supporting the terrorist Sendero Luminoso organization, and they're supporting terrorists in other countries. They don't necessarily want to go to bed with the terrorists, but they see the terrorists as useful in bringing down governments and military institutions and others, which are for the national sovereignty of those countries. The objective of the Project Democracy crowd is to destroy the sovereignties of the nations of South America--all of them. That is their policy, the policy that they serve. And they are also for the implementation of free trade, which means nothing but turning every country in Central and South America into a gigantic slave-labor Auschwitz. These guys have essentially adopted the policies of Adolf Hitler toward the people of eastern Europe. Take the case of Lane Kirkland, who is head of the AFL-CIO. Lane Kirkland is proud of the fact, that his ancestor started the Civil War with the firing on Fort Sumter. He may be exaggerating somewhat, but the ancestor was there; and he {to this day} defends the Confederacy. {The head of the AFL-CIO defends slavery, chattel slavery.} Now many members of the AFL-CIO will say well, that's what their experience has been lately with Lane Kirkland's leadership in trade union matters. But these people are on the wrong side. They do not belong to the tradition of the United States. They belong to the tradition of the Confederacy, who were not a bunch of rebels but a bunch of {traitors} working under the direction of Lord Palmerston to destroy the United States for the greater glory of the British Empire by the act of splitting the U.S. into two parts or more. And of course there are the letters of August Belmont, the New York banker, who was one of the supporters of the Confederacy, who was a traitor; Belmont says that that was the policy behind the Confederacy. Other letters say the same thing from the same period. That is what B'nai B'rith was: B'nai B'rith was a British agency dedicated to using the Confederacy to destroy the United States for the greater glory of the British Empire. That is what they did, that is what they are. And that is the kind of policy and the kind of mentality, which those who admire the Confederacy, such as B'nai B'rith, such as Lane Kirkland, represent in South America today.

Bosnia: ``President Clinton Must Have the Will Power to - - Break the British-French Entente Cordiale

Let's move on for a minute to another part of the world: Bosnia. There have been a number of developments. We have the French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe talking about ``sanctuaries,'' we have Clinton's policies put on hold because of the French and British entente cordiale against that policy. What is going to happen at this point in that part of the world? What can Clinton do to get his policy implemented? How would you approach these matters? MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, one must always remember that it was British Intelligence working partly through Freemasonic lodges--the old story, the same way the first Balkan war was started back at the beginning of the century here--which unleashed the Serbian fascists who were British assets in large part, or assets of the Frankfurt School types, through the Praxis organization, in concert with Mikhail Gorbachov in Russia and in concert with George Bush's State Department, and with Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger, who were big specialists in Yugoslavia, who were backers and closely intimate with this fascist group of Serbs who have committed these atrocities. They, during 1991, unleashed this horror in the Balkans. And they did it for what they said were geopolitical reasons. The policy of this Anglo-American faction, of which Henry Kissinger is merely a part, is to destroy all of the nations of continental Europe, to destroy Germany, to destroy Italy, which they are trying to do now; to destroy France, to destroy all the countries of eastern Europe which have been formerly part of the Warsaw Pact, which they're doing. Poland, for example, is almost destroyed, as a result of these economic shock therapy actions. Poland is down to 30 percent of its 1989 level of production. People are hungry. Things are getting worse, no bottom is in sight. They are trying to destroy the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia, and this has produced a rage inside the Russian population. We are in danger of getting a flashback not toward a communist regime, but a Great Russian regime which deems itself the adversary of the United States in fairly short order. [commercial break]

Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing a very difficult crisis area of the world: Bosnia and the Balkans, and U.S. and European policy toward it. You were just developing the various aspects of that problem when we had our break, so please continue. MR. LAROUCHE: The policy which is coming through the Clinton administration, which is supported by many in Europe, contrary to what the U.S. press is saying; the policy essentially is: All right. Recognize the sovereignty of the various states of former Yugoslavia, essentially as of some point in 1990, 1991, something of that sort, at the time that the sovereignty [of the Balkan states] was recognized as independent states. Put down the Serbs, in the sense of taking every measure for reprisal against them, and containment, because of their crimes against humanity. They are just like Hitler in terms of crimes against humanity; if you support the Serb offensive, you are supporting the Adolf Hitler of this period. It's the same thing as supporting Hitler back in 1938 to 1940. Then give air support to assist the nations which are the victims in turning back the Serbs, by neutralizing the logistics and the heavy artillery which is used by the Serbian fascist forces. Let the nations have weapons to defend themselves; perhaps provide some military-technical cooperation on the ground, particularly to coordinate the air arm in its activities in the region. That is the general military policy which I know of, from both the United States side among the specialists, and from the European side, such as NATO headquarters in Italy, in Germany, in Austria, those in Britain who are encouraging this kind of thing. That is the policy. It is the only policy that will stop a spreading war in the Balkans which could become a world war. That is, if you do nothing--if you do what the British and the ADL and others are demanding that the United States government do--then you are going to have a spreading war in the Balkans which can become World War III, not all at once, but gradually. And that will come home to the United States. So anyone who says that the United States does not have an interest in stopping this war in the Balkans, is crazy, or is just completely ignorant of the facts, and have learned nothing from the lessons of two world wars in this century. Why isn't this policy being implemented? The problem is that the British have found some people in France, in certain Freemasonic lodges, the same way the Young Turk rebellion was organized back in 1908, the same way the Balkan wars were organized before World War I; and they have set up what the British call an entente cordiale. Now the {Entente Cordiale} established between Lord Gray of Britain and Theophile Delcasse of France, between 1898 and 1904, was the thing which actually caused World War I; and it is the same crowd, the British crowd, which was behind the Versailles Treaty, the part of the Versailles Treaty that the United States refused to accept and has {never} accepted to the present day. That Versailles crowd, with its balance-of-power management operations such as Kissinger talks about, is determined to keep the United States from interfering with the war which it sponsored in the Balkans. Now the U.S. government, the Clinton administration, must have the will power to break that opposition, for the sake of the interests of not only the United States but of every nation of Europe, really, and say, ``We are going to lift the embargo on the Bosnians and Croats. We are going to take, if necessary, air action against the Serbian fascist forces with a limited, specific purpose; and we are going to foresee peace as being a restoration of the borders of, say, 1991, before the Serbian fascist offensive against Croatia and Slovenia. That has got to be the policy; and if that policy is not established, I don't think the Clinton administration will last. I think it will disintegrate. Because if the United States, which calls itself the world's number one superpower, demonstrates an inability to deal with this problem, particularly after the unnecessary war we had in the desert in 1991 for the sake of that crazy bunch of Kuwaitis; if the United States lacks the will power to make this decision and make it stick, despite the opposition from the so-called entente cordiale and the ADL, then people are going to laugh at the United States in effect and say the United States is {incapable} of governing itself any more. So Clinton's entire administration now hangs on his ability to force through that decision and to say to the British and French: ``We are going to have this policy and you will stop this nonsense.

Russian Patriots' Hatred for Western Gangsters and Thieves

As we are thinking about the `why' of the British and French policy at this point, I want to bring in another factor. The vice president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoy, wrote an article which was printed in the {Los Angeles Times} and the London {Guardian,} a statement which indicated the problems that he is seeing. He said, ``As a result of the mishandling of political- economic reforms by the pseudo-democrats, Russia today is in a state of absolutely wild instability.... The bungled approach to reforms ... has caused vast and rapidly widening discrepancies in wealth, feeding corruption and crime. It is the catalyst of the criminal underworld,'' and so on and so forth. Rutskoy is talking about an instability in Russia at this point, that threatens the entirety of Europe. Why are the French and the British following policies at this point, that can only contribute to that instability? MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's not entirely all the British. Fortunately, we have some contacts in high circles in Britain who have greater sense than this. But unfortunately, around the Major government--we call it the Major catastrophe government--this entente cordiale/geopolitical idiocy is dominant. These idiots don't know what they're doing. Of course, as you know, we know the Russian situation now very well. Not only did I call the shot on this rightly, over a decade ago (everyone who opposed me a decade ago on this, looks like an idiot today, in terms of the developments which have occurred), but what we're getting to, is we are actually forcing the Russians into a state of rage, where they are likely to turn against the United States again. Let me give you an example of this. There are three names which stand out as {objects of hatred} among people who consider themselves Russian patriots and others in eastern Europe. One is George Soros, the king of the derivatives, who is the king of the thieves. He is the old Fagan--remember Charles Dickens' {Oliver Twist} and {David Copperfield}. Remember old Fagan, the guy who organized crime, who organized the Artful Dodger and so forth. Well, George Soros is pretty much looked at as the old Fagan of organized crime in the former communist areas of Europe, where the gangsters, the thieves, the black marketeers, are taking over in part. He is hated. The Russians just kicked out of Kazakhstan (not just the Russians but other parts of the Kazakhstan government) Shaul Eisenberg, who is Israeli and therefore is not as well protected. [commercial break]

Mr. LaRouche, we have just been discussing the three most hated people in Russia. You had mentioned George Soros, and you were just beginning to discuss Shaul Eisenberg. MR. LAROUCHE: Shaul Eisenberg is the big arms dealer, who is all over the place. If you want to talk about Ollie North and other arms dealers, they are pikers compared to Shaul Eisenberg, who is one of the biggest arms dealers in the world. And he is in the middle of Kazakhstan and elsewhere. He has been kicked out of Kazakhstan as {persona non grata.} Now there is another fellow who is targeted by the Russians, who should be familiar to most Americans. His name is Ted Shackley. He was formerly close to Mondale as an official of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was the author of the dirty war in Laos. This is where a lot of the POWs ``Missing in Action comes up, people who were disappeared in Laos under Shackley's provision, where the United States was conducting a privately funded war using drugs--Chinese Communist drugs, for example--as a source of revenue to fund a dirty war. The characteristics of the operation under Secord and Oliver North, which involved Shackley and so forth, was part of that dirty war, using drugs and drug revenues, drugs sold on the streets of the United States, for example, to fund a war. Or drugs sold on the streets of the United States not only for the Contra operation--that's minor--but the big Hekmatyar-backed operation in Pakistan, into Afghanistan, that sort of thing. Now what is happening, is that the same Ted Shackley is now in the middle of Kazakhstan, of Central Asia; and to the Russians, that means this kind of crap, that is, of starting a drug-trafficking-funded military destabilization of Central Asia, is in progress. {That is deadly stuff;} and I think they may be about to kick Ted Shackley out, and if they don't, if the Russian (Moscow) government doesn't kick Ted Shackley out of Central Asia, the government is not going to last very long. That is the kind of situation we have, and we're getting real hatred against the shock therapy. Nobody in Russia believes this myth about the ``great success of shock therapy in Poland; everyone in Russia knows that Poland is in absolute crisis, an absolute disaster, caused by shock therapy. Everyone in Russia hates Jeffrey Sachs, except the few people in Russia who are trying to live off the table of the United States and Britain. But for the Russian people and Russian institutions, this is coming to the breaking point. It is extremely dangerous.

President Clinton Must Take On the Federal Reserve - - and the International Monetary Fund

Denmark just recently passed a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. Europe, as well as Clinton and the United States, are also looking for some kind of policy to bail themselves out in this current economic crisis period. Will Maastricht give us any relief? Is Clinton's approach going to give us any relief? MR. LAROUCHE: No, neither one is going to work. Clinton's tax policy cannot work. It is a policy of desperation. Remember, Clinton tried to get a toe-in-the-water kind of stimulus package through. There really wasn't much to it, but it was a testing of the waters; and Clinton backed down to blackmail by a Republican faction which was rallied around that duckbilled platypus from Texas, Sen. Phil Gramm--I call him ``Landfill Gramm because he's all rubbish in terms of his ideas, a man who pretends to be a mammal, but lays eggs. When Clinton capitulated to this disaster, we then got this tax business, which cannot work. The health package as designed cannot work; there's no saving involved, in the way the thing is shaping up now. And there can't be. We have to get 6-8 million people off the unemployed rolls into useful production. That can be done with credit. A similar situation exists in Europe. Europe is going into a deep depression now. Britain is already in a depression, and various parts of continental Europe are going into a depression. The United States is in a depression. Stop this hokey pokey about ``recovery; there never was a recovery. We have 18 million people or more unemployed {officially,} according to Labor Department figures. We've got the homeless, we have the whole can of worms. We have infrastructure collapsing. All we have, is this funny paper on Wall Street, and similar cases. But in terms of the real economy, we are collapsing. We are shipping abroad what few jobs we have left, to things like these Chinese enterprise zones, the {maquiladoras} in Mexico and so forth. We're tearing our economy apart, we're tearing our country apart. And none of this stuff is going to work. But the problem is, when Clinton capitulates on the Balkan crisis--or he hasn't capitulated, but at least he's backed down, temporarily, to this British, French, etc., ADL entente--and he doesn't have the guts to back up his own policies against Phil Gramm and company, if he backs down on that; if he continues to do that, he is not going to accomplish anything in his entire administration. He's going to become a laughing stock, if he doesn't reverse his policy on these things. President Clinton cannot run Washington the way he ran the governor's office in Arkansas. He's got to get tougher on these issues where they are important. Otherwise, nobody is going to respect him, which is what's happening in Washington now, to a large degree. The tax policy won't work, Maastricht is a bad joke, it's an ugly joke, it will make no contribution. We have to take on the people behind George Soros; and the people behind George Soros are the people in the New York Federal Reserve System, the big banks, who are putting out up to a part of a trillion dollars a day a derivatives speculative market which is ruining the world economy. You have to take on the central bankers and say, ``You guys can no longer control our money. We're going to have the credit to go out to get the economies moving again. We're going to have job-crediting credit in useful categories such as infrastructure, of getting the economy moving again. Until that decision is made--and the signal is taking on the Fed in the United States, taking on the IMF; saying that the United States will have no part of shock therapy--when that kind of decision is made, you then know that the government in Washington is beginning to do something which will turn the situation around. But I see that the turning point for Clinton, is that he has to break the will of the British and French governments, of the entente cordiale, on this issue of the Balkans, and get going with this Balkan operation--now, the next week or so. If he doesn't do that, I don't think he's going to have the political combination, the capability, of doing anything else. And I don't see anybody around the world right now, in terms of the so-called transatlantic alliance powers; I don't see anybody who, if Clinton doesn't do it, is going to do it. There is no government, whether in western Europe in the former NATO countries, which will act if Clinton will not act now. And I think the breaking point is that Clinton goes ahead and busts the chops of Major and the Mitterrand-Balladur combination in France on this Balkan issue, and says, ``We're going to lift the embargo, we're going to have the air strikes. Now get at it. If he says that, then it is possible we can expect some attack on other problems such as the economic problem.

The World Cannot Be Explained by Lockean Ideology

We come to the question of {cui bono?} on a number of the areas that you have raised. The British and French factions that are pushing for this geopolitical destabilization of the Balkans, the central bankers, who seem to have a policy which is leading down the road to financial and economic crisis; what do they think they are accomplishing by these policies? MR. LAROUCHE: You have two factors here. When the average American is taught about human nature, he is taught this Lockean ideology, this Lockean mythology, that everybody is motivated by greed and sex and a few other things, individual motives. And they try to explain history in these terms, and I'm sorry, that doesn't work; it never worked anyway. But you can't explain anything important in terms of this so-called factor of greed as such or individual sexual desires or whatnot as such. What you are dealing with, is ideologies. If you look at the heads of many of our corporations, heads of large institutions in Europe and the United States, particularly in the United States, you know, some of the people who are heads of corporations, 20 years ago, would not have been let any closer to the plant than sweeping out the parking lot. And today, the same kinds of mentalities, are heads of corporations. They don't know anything about industry. And the same thing is true in our universities. Look in our universities. Stanford University: formerly a prestigious university, which has this deconstruction policy, where they are turning people out who are {less} educated, {less} sane, {less} rational, than when they went in. And people are paying $10-20,000 a year for tuition, to send their child out of a high school where he's somewhat ignorant, and send him to Stanford, and they're going to turn him into an idiot. Or the University of Pennsylvania: look at the case which was certified in the pages of the {Wall Street Journal} recently, about this squabble there. Somebody referred to a bunch of rampaging sorority girls as a bunch of water buffalo, which is a perfectly acceptable thing, and somebody decide that that was racist or anti-feminist or something, and they are going to kick the kid off the campus. {That's idiocy!} That kind of thing going on, on campuses. And look at the people on the campuses--the university presidents and the department heads, the Modern Language Association groups on various campuses, which are running this deconstruction. {These idiots}--these dangerous idiots who are running the university--are typical of the stratum which has moved into power in many of our corporations and other institutions of public life, including government. Then you look at Europe and you find a phenomenon which, in the content, is not quite as bad as in the United States, but it's similar. Take one concrete example of this. Take the so-called ozone hole. There never was one piece of scientific evidence ever presented, to show that the chlorfluorocarbons had any effect at all on the concentrations of ozone in the upper stratosphere. {None.} As a matter of fact, all the scientific evidence goes the other way. What was presented, was a computer model which was based on ``if this, ``if that, ``if this,'' none of which was true. The evidence now is in to show that the ozone hole hoax is nothing but a hoax; there was no ozone hole. Yet the ozone hole hoax is the policy of the United States, which means that most Americans are going to lose their refrigerators, and will not be able to buy the high-priced replacement which is now allowed. It means that the food chain, which depends upon refrigeration's buildup over the past 30-40 years, is not going to be there any more. People are going to start eating more rotten food and getting sick and some dying as a result of it. All totally unnecessarily, all totally insane. But you have the kind of people in power, who, not for reasons of motive of profit or anything else, but ideology and in some cases outright lunatic stupidity, are dictating policies. In Britain, you have the same thing, the Entente Cordiale. That is like a lunatic religious belief which is motivating the politicians in London and Paris who believe in the myth of the Entente Cordiale which is the revival of a corpse from the beginning of this century. People are starting to be motivated by lunacy of that sort, a real cult lunacy; and that kind of cult lunacy seems to be running a lot of high places of power, including major campuses, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, and many others in the United States. Many corporations are being run by similar kinds of lunatics from that generation. And that is our problem. The way we have to look at this, is don't worry about counting the varieties of lunacy. They're there, there are lots of them. It's like counting sheep; that could go on until you fall asleep. What we have to do, is to recognize what sane policies are, as in the case of the Balkans, as Clinton must do, and I think he does recognize what a sane policy is.

MEL KLENETSKY: Mr. LaRouche, we have to conclude at this point. We will see you next week. Thank you very much. For those who want to write to Mr. LaRouche, you can write us at ``{EIR} Talks With LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390.

- 30 -

Retrieved from
Page last modified on January 11, 2011, at 10:39 AM