The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/larouche.lyndon/eir.081893

From oneb!!utcsri!utnut!torn!!!uunet!ccs!covici Mon Aug 23 00:53:26 PDT 1993
Article: 26324 of alt.activism
Path: oneb!!utcsri!utnut!torn!!!uunet!ccs!covici
From: (John Covici)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: EIR Talks 08/18/93
Message-ID: <>
Date: 22 Aug 93 23:31:37 GMT
Organization: Covici Computer Systems
Lines: 701


   The wider LaRouche's presence, the greater the pressure
to get him free. 
   Put LaRouche on radio, with a new interview each week. 
   The transcript below is from a weekly hour-long interview
formatted with news breaks and commercials. 
   To get LaRouche on radio, calls from people within 
stations' listening area can be most effective. Program
director and general managers are usually the ones to make
decisions about programming. 
   Get interested contacts with businesses or products to
advertise on the stations during the EIR Talks With LaRouche
hour. This provides greater incentive for the stations to carry
the program. 
   Any radio station on the planet can air the weekly
interviews with LaRouche. The EIR Press Staff can provide weekly
tapes for broadcast. Or stations can pull the program down from
satellite, using the coordinates below. The interviews are
broadcast Sundays on satellite from 6:06 PM to 7:00 PM Eastern.
For More Information: Frank Bell, Press Staff. 

   Galaxy 2, 74 Degrees W          
   Trans 3 74.9 mHz NB, SCPC                
   3:1 Companding, Flat           


   Satcom C-1, 137 Degrees W     
   Trans 2 7.5 mHz               
   Wide Band Video Subcarrier    
The LaRouche files are now available by automatic list service.  To 
get  an index of the files, you must subscribe to the LaRouche 
mailing list.  To do this, send a message to 
with a line saying
subscribe lar-lst

After that, to get an index, say
index lar-lst

   ``{EIR} Talks'' 
   August 18, 1993 
   Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky 

     MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to {Executive Intelligence
Review'}s Talks.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line with
Mr. Lyndon LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. 

     How Europe's Economic Crisis Could Become 
               the Worst Crisis in Six Centuries 

   Mr. LaRouche, before we discuss the crisis in the East,
Moscow's growing difficulties, I would like to have your
thoughts on the recent efforts to curb speculation that are
coming out of Europe, especially France, where Mitterrand and
Balladur have indicated that their country is in big
difficulty. We are now looking at a 150 billion franc
deficit, in terms of their efforts to curb George Soros and
his speculative efforts against the franc. They are saying
now that the only way to save the nation, is to have some
kind of controls on speculative markets. 
   Do you agree with this? 

   MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. Yes. 
   This is a long story which some people may recall from
my forecast of an October stock market crash, back in the
spring of 1987. One will recall, in that context, that there
is a Nobel Prize winner from France, Maurice Allais, who was
saying things which in part were the same things I was
saying: that the worst financial bubble in history is
building up around what we call today derivatives as a
category. And we now have come to the point that involves an
Anglo-American syndicate, centered around a fellow called
Hartman, who is the guiding genius, so to speak, or
coordinator of both BCCI and BNL. That is, remember the case
of Altman, who was just vindicated by a jury in connection
with the so-called BCCI banking case? BCCI was a British bank
run through Switzerland by Hartman. We have the Drogoul case
coming up in Atlanta, with all kinds of star witnesses being
requested by the defense, which is the case of the Banca
Nazionale del Lavoro, BNL. Both banks--BNL and BCCI--were run
out of the city of Zug, Switzerland, by this fellow Hartman,
for the Rothschild Continuation Trust, which is a front for
British intelligence and British finance. 
   So Soros, the big derivatives speculator operating in
central Europe, the man who ran the run against the pound,
the run against the franc, and so forth, is a creature of
this. This involved Gerald Corrigan of the New York Fed, now
retiring to join Soros's Russian operation; and this involved
R. Mark Palmer, a State Department official. So this is an
Anglo-American operation by those interests which ran BCCI,
BNL, to try to bankrupt European currencies. So the
Europeans, faced with the attack on their currencies by this
bunch of gangsters, are saying they are going to have to do
something about derivatives. They are going to have to
eliminate the weapon--derivatives--which is being used by
these scoundrels to attempt to bankrupt entire nations. And
thus you find more and more people in France beginning to
echo some of the things that I and others have said about
derivatives for that reason. And naturally, in that sense, I

   Q: It is indicated in {Figaro} magazine, that not just
France, but also Japan, has a certain interest in curbing
speculation, and there is a group in Japan which is calling
on industrial countries to do so. Do you think that there is
the possibility now, that the countries that have more of an
interest in industrial development rather than speculation
can come together at this point? 

   MR. LAROUCHE: Yes, it's possible. Remember, I am the
initial author of much of this. Remember also that when Jim
Wright from Texas proposed that, when he was the Speaker of
the House, they created a scandal and ran him out of
government for proposing a tax on derivatives, mainly. So the
powers behind this are great; and the question is: Do these
people have the guts to defend their own nations? 
   Now France is a somewhat nationalist nation, and so is
Japan. And there is likely to be a nationalist reaction
against this, and, as one sees from certain parts of the
British press, the proposal which I have revived for a sales
tax on derivatives, is very much in the wind. You will see
also in yesterday's {Wall Street Journal,} in a front-page
article, there is a tongue-in-cheek reference to this problem
of derivatives, one of the first times that the {Wall Street
Journal} has given any systematic attention to the danger to
the entire world system from derivatives. 
   But the sum-uppance is, either we put a tax on
derivatives and re-institute {some form} of exchange
controls, restore them, or else there is not going to be,
very soon, any world monetary system as we now know it. It
will blow up; it is in the process of blowing up now. It may
be almost too late to save the monetary system; but the only
thing that would save the world monetary system from a
complete collapse, would be some kind of exchange control and
tax measures against derivatives. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have previously discussed an
Anglo-American-French entente, and now we're looking at a
financial situation where it appears that Britain and the
United States, in terms of speculation and the speculative
operations, are moving against France. Do you think this is
going to break up that previous strategic alliance,
especially in terms of their efforts around Bosnia? 

   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know around the Bosnian
question. That's a little bit deeper. 
   This is going to affect the relations of France to
Britain, or at least to the Major government in Britain, as
President Mitterrand almost seemed to echo me, in some
respects. He is quite capable of this under certain
circumstances, in saying that Europe depends upon cooperation
between France and Germany. And one should recall, that the
reason that de Gaulle got himself nearly killed by
British-backed circles, the same circles that went after
Kennedy later (or in the same period, too), was that he moved
not only to establish French nuclear defense, which these
people couldn't stand; but he moved as the leader of Fifth
Republic France with Adenauer, to say that French political
backing for cooperation with Germany could profitably shape
Europe in such a way, that we would get a new continental
Europe, from the Atlantic to the Urals, which would be strong
enough to resist Anglo-American rapine against the continent. 
   What has happened is that Mitterrand, in a sense, has
definitely, but not spectacularly, reaffirmed that tradition
of Charles de Gaulle. And that can happen. 
   Look at the way politics works. To run politics of any
kind--I don't care what the policy is--you must have the
logistics, which means essentially economy. When you destroy
the economy of a nation, you destroy the nation, because you
take away the logistical capability of instituting any kind
of political program. 
   When the Anglo-American group, centered around the Major
government, and also the former Bush government in the United
States, attacks continental Europe in this way, attacks them
on logistics, continental Europe must react against the
Anglo-Americans, as the Japanese must too, in a sense, or
else they will lose their logistical capability of having any
politics at all, and they face, as Russia is facing now, the
threatened disintegration of their nation. 
   Therefore, will there be a reaction? Yes, there will be
a reaction. Will it increase? It will become intense--up
until the point that France, for example, might face the
condition of a Bosnia, where, out of sheer weight of the
collapse, it capitulates, for a later reaction to come. 
   But we are in a period of crisis and upheaval, unlike
anything previously in this century. We are in the most
critical months of the entire century's history. We could
possibly be in the worst crisis in European experience, in
more than five centuries, in about six centuries. That's how
bad it is. Unfortunately, the newspapers don't tell you much
about this, and television doesn't, so most people are being
caught unprepared for the earthquake-like developments which
will occur, not merely in France, but of course more
immediately in Russia right now. 

      The LaRouche Productive Triangle: The Only
     Alternative to World War and Depression 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, there is a supermarket magnate in
France whose name is LeClerc, who has a poster campaign, and
he is calling for dealing with the economic
recession/depression by building railroads. He's calling on
the population to build railroads from Paris to Moscow to
Beijing, from Paris to Johannesburg, South Africa. And he's
saying that there are literally tens of millions of jobs that
can be created with this. 
   Is this the same kind of approach that you have outlined
in your proposal for a European economic recovery triangle? 

   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know that. I think it
reflects the kind of thinking, the axiomatics of thinking
which I was addressing, particularly back at the end of 1989,
when I proposed the European Triangle program, which includes
the Brest or Paris to Vladivostok railroad project as an axis
for a new global political approach to the situation. And
LeClerc is obviously echoing publicly and usefully that kind
of thinking which I was trying to stir up back then, in 1989. 

   Q: Do you think that your Triangle proposal is still
applicable today? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's applicable in the sense that if
you don't do it, you're going to have a general world war and
depression, so you have a choice. you can turn it down; but I
don't think you'd like the aftertaste. 

   Q: We are coming up to a break in a moment. I would like
to just pose a question to you, in terms of the former East
bloc, especially Moscow, and the crisis that Yeltsin is now
facing, in terms of his fight with the Parliament. Is this
crisis going to come to the fore in the coming months ahead,
and what do we do about it? 
   [commercial break] 

        Russia: `There Is Already a Crisis in Moscow' 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, President Yeltsin in Russia is calling
for parliamentary elections with or without the approval of
Parliament. There is a huge crisis brewing between the
Parliament, Khasbulatov, and Yeltsin. And some say this is
going to lead to, perhaps, even civil war in Russia in
   What do you think? 

   MR. LAROUCHE: I think that's too simplistic. 
   First of all, we know from eyewitness accounts in
Russia, that Boris Yeltsin is generally considered to be
drunk. The press reports indicate that he has very poor
health, and that includes press reports coming out into the
   Today or yesterday, it is notable that {Nezavisimaya
Gazeta,} the daily newspaper which supported Yeltsin back in
the crisis two years ago, the putsch crisis, has now
abandoned its support for him. We are now hearing rumors of
very bad health of Mr. Yeltsin. On top of the general
commentary on his health and on his alleged drunkenness which
we have been hearing over the past couple of weeks, we know
there is a three-way standoff among principal institutions in
the Moscow government. 
   You have Yeltsin on the one hand, as a personality, the
President; you have attached to him, a staff which is running
the government, a presidential staff of radical reformers,
which is the main target of all the nationalist and other
related attacks on the Yeltsin government. You have a
parliamentary system under the political leadership, for the
moment, of Khasbulatov, which is challenging this. 
   You have within the parliamentary system some factions,
and the question is: Which faction will come to power? 
   In general, Moscow sources believe, that whenever
excessively and persistingly unpleasant notices are being
made of a leader's health, as in the case of, for example,
Chernenko, who was already living on life-support systems
when he was made General Secretary, that that is a bad sign
for the leader's political longevity. 
   So I think that all the signs are out, that Yeltsin
might go very soon, and the question is, what would succeed
him? Would it be civil war? 
   He might not go; they might make a deal with him, to get
rid of his associates and come to some kind of arrangement. 
   I think Russia is groping toward an attempt to create a
collective leadership for a while, since they have no one
leader around whom the combination of forces might be put
together for a new government. 
   But what is inevitable, is this. The system is presently
in a crisis. One of our problems in discussing it, is that
the U.S. news media and, to a large degree much of the
European, is not in any way reflecting the reality of what's
going on in that neck of the woods. In a sense, they're
lying, and also lying by omission, in the sense that the
picture that is being given of the world in the news media,
as I see it and hear about it, is out of all correspondence
to reality. 
   For example: CNN, the popular television news media;
what it reports in a package, is out of all correspondence to
reality. it has no correspondence to reality as it is going
on. So I think one of the big problems here in discussing the
Russian situation, is that the Russian situation itself, and
the significance of the Russian situation, and of the Balkan
situation, is totally unknown in any sense. It is not on the
horizon in any real sense. People are saying,
``anti-Yeltsin,'' ``pro-Yeltsin,'' this kind of nonsense,
it's a comic-strip or soap-opera type view of Russia. And
it's not like that at all. It's a very complicated, highly
explosive mixture, which could signal the slide of the world
into the worst crisis in more than six centuries of European
experience, at least. 
   That's what's on the table, not for the distant future.
We're talking about the next weeks and months. There is
already a crisis in Moscow, an unbelievable crisis in the
Russian system. This U.S.-sponsored economic reform system
cannot continue; it is gone, it is going to go. The U.S.
sticking with this free market, deregulation, all this
nonsense, is going. Washington is in Never-Never-Dreamland,
as far as I can see. 
   You have a little voice from Dole or a few other people
now and then who say something sensible on one question or
another question; but overall, Washington is living in a
fantasyland; and the U.S. population, by and large, dependent
upon our corrupt news media, which {completely} misrepresents
what's going on, are also in Never-Never-Land. So when we
talk about the Russian crisis, I don't think the average
American knows what's going on. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the Russian crisis.
Can you please continue? 

   MR.LAROUCHE: The problem here, as I say, is that when
you're talking to an American audience, you have to recognize
that the listener who is following the news media, so called,
in the United States, has absolutely no understanding of
what's going on; and therefore, if you talk about a crisis,
he or she tries to fit it into what they hear from the news
media, and it has no correspondence to that. 
   That is the first thing of which we have to be aware in
this kind of situation. 
   What we're talking about, is essentially the United
States move to break up, destroy, Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, from 1991 on. After the fall of
Gorbachov, the Anglo-Americans moved and continue to move
behind people like Soros, to loot Eastern European economies,
to the point that they are now 30% of what they were in 1989.
To do similar things in Russia and Ukraine and so forth. 
   So what they have done, is to create a situation where
the good relations between Moscow and the Anglo-Americans, or
between Warsaw and the Anglo-Americans or so forth, are all
based on submission to this Soros kind of free
trade/derivatives, speculative arrangement, which is a
looting arrangement. 
   On the other hand, none of these nations can survive, if
they do not reject this Anglo-American policy, which means a
break with the United States. 
   In other words, the United States is forcing these
nations to a break with it, as a price for their own
survival. The Eastern European, nations by and large, have
been occupied so many times, that they will tend to try to
find a way of living with submission to these kinds of
horrible circumstances, as we see in the case of Poland--up
to a point. 
   Russia, which has not been conquered since it came out
of the Mongol yoke in the early fifteenth century, will not
accept submission. That means that, no matter what happens,
as long as the Clinton and Major governments continue to
insist that Eastern Europe and Moscow go along with the
so-called democratic reform, they are insisting that an
explosion come in Russia, and they're insisting that we go
back to a combination of either the old Cold War
situation--this time not with the communists but with Great
Russians, bearing the double eagle. And they're insisting
that the alternative to cold war is absolute chaos, in which
the United States itself would disintegrate. 
   That is the reality of the Russian crisis, not some soap
opera story as the U.S. press is representing the Yeltsin

      `As Long As I Am a Pariah, The World Faces War and

   Q: You have indicated, in earlier shows, that the way to
deal with the crisis in Moscow, is through some kind of
combination of ruble reform and economic development. Is
there such a package that can be implemented at this point,
in terms of the emerging alliance in the West that we
discussed earlier, that's fighting speculation? 

   MR. LAROUCHE: Not exactly. There is and there isn't. 
   The problem is, I'm key to this. The only time such a
possibility arose, prior to 1989, was during 1983. It arose
around the back-channel discussions which I was conducting on
behalf of the Reagan administration with Moscow, discussions
which pertained largely to what I defined as a strategic
ballistic missile defense system cooperation--what Reagan
announced on March 23 as the SDI, the Strategic Defense
   Now, you have to remember that that five-minute segment
of the Reagan speech was drafted with the cooperation of a
collaborator of mine, and also with someone from the National
Security Council, to make sure that what Reagan said in that
segment, would conform {exactly} to what I'd been saying on
his behalf with the Moscow back channels. And it did. 
   Now, if Russia had accepted that proposal by Reagan, the
effect would have been to change the world. That is, if the
Russians had said, We go with what LaRouche is proposing, and
we reject what Kissinger and McNamara are proposing (the
so-called MAD doctrine)--that was what the issue was--if they
had, then the world would have changed. 
   Now, we face the same condition today. As long as I am
stuck off in a corner as a pariah, I guarantee you there is
no possibility of any such program working. As long as that
condition exists, I guarantee you we have only two
alternatives for this planet: Either go back to a cold war or
quasi-hot war situation between the superpowers, with a lot
of local wars around the world, or the kind of chaos in which
the United States, for example, might disintegrate for
economic and related reasons, over the coming three to four
   That is, in three to four years from now, we might be
standing in a United States--if we're standing at all--which
is in the process of breaking up. {That is already right now
in progress,} though some idiots in the news media and around
Washington refuse to admit that. 
   The time that we don't have the tax base to maintain a
local community, and we don't have resources from Washington
to bail it out, that local community goes out of business
politically. State governments and whole sections of the
federal government will disintegrate. As long as we continue
this lunatic balance-the-budget hysteria; as long as the
United States is cutting its tax revenue base more and more
and more, collapsing the economy, we will get to the point
where we don't have enough tax revenue base to maintain the
essential functions of government, we begin to disintegrate,
and then chaos takes over where government disappears. 
   That is tending to happen around the world, particularly
with the collapse of economy, and this is the reality we must
see, not looking for some pollsters' type of alternative.
There are no pollsters' alternatives. Either we shift away
from the McNamara, Kissinger, etc., line, the Bush-Thatcher
line, get away from that and go to what I proposed
philosophically first in 1982-83 in this back-channel
arrangement and again in 1989-90, go to what I specifically
have proposed, or else you get either war or chaos. 
   Those are the three alternatives. And everything that is
said about alternatives, falls under that. 

     The Balkan Crisis: `The United States Has Created 
                 a Vacuum in World Leadership' 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, the President of Bosnia, Alija
Izetbegovic, has indicated that he feels his back is against
the wall, and his only way out is to go with the partition
arrangements that have been proposed by Lord Owen. What will
happen if he does this? 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it's hard to say. 
   First of all, look at the larger situation. Bosnia is
being destroyed, and Bosnia was not destroyed by simply the
Bosnian Serbs, or even Milosevic's Serbs. Bosnia was
destroyed by a calculation set into motion by the Bush and
Thatcher administrations and run by the Anglo-French
alliance, and the United Nations under Boutros-Ghali. 
   What they have done, is to strip the Bosnians of arms,
let the Serbs have all the weapons they wanted. Every time
the Bosnians tried to resist, or the Croats tried to resist,
the United Nations, the United States, and Britain,
intervened to attack them--cut them off and assist the Serbs. 
   The UN troops in former Yugoslavia have acted
consistently to assist the Serbs militarily in continuing
their genocide against the Croats and Bosnians. 
   [commercial break] 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, you were discussing the Balkan crisis.
Please continue. 

   MR. LAROUCHE: Under these conditions, it's come to the
point that Bosnia seems to have no objective alternative, but
to come to some kind of a deal with its predators, the
Owen-Stoltenberg-United Nations rape operation. 
   Now the reason partly for this, is that the Clinton
administration has twice--three times actually, but twice
come up to the wire on this--threatened to use military force
unilaterally if necessary, under the relevant provisions of
its authority under the UN, to allow air assaults against the
Bosnian Serbs, against their logistics and artillery bases,
and to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian government. 
   Twice it has failed to do that. What has happened,
therefore, is that, although Bob Dole over on the Republican
side is obviously using this issue and is sticking to the
issue, that this is a crime, the Clinton administration has
essentially thrown away its ability to govern, its
credibility, by backing down twice in the way it has done on
this military issue. 
   That means that the United States has created a vacuum
in Washington, and a vacuum in world leadership, in which the
British-centered crowd is prevailing, and Izetbegovic and his
people are being thrown to the mercy of these predators. 
   However, it is also clear that the Parliament of Bosnia
and the military leaders of Bosnia, will not accept what is
being offered. So you have a continuing fight in which
Izetbegovic is being terrorized into backing down to the
predators; in which the United States as a result of this has
created a vacuum in which the Clinton administration's
credibility is all but gone for the future on domestic or
foreign issues, and in which Clinton himself has retreated
into non-starters, that is, non-starters as political
rallying points--the budget, which was necessary, but is
nothing to brag about in any respect. It's a failure, a
horrible failure. And then going back to the health package
which under these circumstances is going to be an even worse
   So Clinton is running into predetermined failures, away
from those issues. Now they're coming out with an attack on
Sudan, attempting again a Bush tactic of distracting from the
reality of the Balkan issue. 
   The Balkan issue is going to blow up some more; it is
not going to be quiet. The submission of Izetbegovic to these
predators, would not end the Balkan wars. The Balkan wars are
going to spread. And they're going to spread through other
parts of the world, outside the Balkans themselves. 
   So this is the worst, most catastrophic failure, and it
is an unbelievable crisis for the Clinton administration.
They have failed; and only by reversing course on these
issues, can Clinton get something accomplished. 
   Just to give you an example of this. The Clinton
administration backed off from the idea of incentives, on the
basis, as Hobart Rowen reported recently in the {Washington
Post,} that simply lower interest rates would be a stimulant
for the economy--which of course is not true. And that will
prove itself, if you try to carry that out. All it will do,
is to blow up the derivatives even worse. 
   Because what the Clinton administration has overlooked,
is the fact that the economy grows only if you put credit
into the right place, that is, into industrial and
agricultural and infrastructural jobs. 
   If the credit does not go to those areas, then it will
simply increase the rate of inflation. So unless you have
some kind of a dirigist approach, which keeps the credit from
flowing into certain areas which are speculative, and gets
the credit flowing into areas which create useful jobs, not
service jobs, not Wall Street jobs, then the U.S. economy is
just going to slide deeper and deeper into the trough. 
   So that program that Clinton relied upon, as an
alternative to his original, better program, is going to be a
catastrophic failure. His health plan under these
circumstances, will be a catastrophic failure. His foreign
policy so far, has been, in effect, because of these things
we have indicated, has also been a catastrophic failure. 
   So Clinton is now facing a crisis; and his crisis
happens to be not his personal crisis, but it is the crisis
of the United States, and also of the world. 
   That is the situation. 

      The Graham Case: How Immoral Educational Policies
     Have Caused Immorality in Government 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, I would like to move to another area. 
   Gary Graham is a convicted criminal who sits on Death
Row in Texas. He has been given a stay. His case has come to
national attention, especially given the fact that Texas has
a law that says you can't introduce new evidence after 30
days, especially in a capital case. 
   President Clinton has a new crime bill. The new crime
bill says that you must introduce a {habeas corpus} appeal in
the first six months after conviction. 
   What is happening to the United States judicial system?
Some people think that we're turning barbaric. 
   MR. LAROUCHE: Let's look at the crime rates of the
United States. I stated this thesis earlier, but let's look
at it. 
   Of course, the point is, all the evidence now is that
Gary Graham was innocent all along. And the Attorney General
Morales--or perhaps we prefer to call him Im-Morales--of
Texas has blocked every effort to hear that evidence. So this
is unspeakable. 
   Also remember, in connection with the earlier execution
in Texas, the Herrera case; the Supreme Court, in support of
Texas authorities, said in effect, that even provable
innocence of a convicted person, is not a reason to stop
their execution. 
   Think of that. Just think of that. Any citizen who would
vote for any law which would give these jokers in the federal
government or the state governments the authority to carry
out a death penalty, is actually a murderer. Because we
already know, that at least 10% of the Death Row cases
nationally are innocent of the crimes of which they are
   That's great, isn't it? 
   The point is, there is no longer any {truth-seeking} in
the U.S. judicial process. But look at the overall situation,
and let's get a real look at this crime issue. 
   First of all, the fact is, that as of 1991, when the
Soviet Union still existed, the United States had a higher
rate--that is, per 100,000 citizens--of incarceration of its
people in state and federal prisons, than any other nation on
this planet; a 50% higher rate than the Soviet Union,
   What does that say? 
   There are three hypotheses that can be presented to
explain the rate of incarceration of American citizens. 
   The first hypothesis is, that the typical American is
the most criminal citizen of any nation on this planet; the
second alternative, is that our criminal justice system is
the most corrupt of any nation's on this planet. The third
alternative, is that some combination of the two--corruption
of the citizen and corruption of our criminal justice
system--has combined to create this effect. 
   But in any case, since we are still a quasi-democracy at
least, and since public opinion still has a great effect on
the way our neighbors behave and the way our criminal justice
system and government work, then we have to say there's
something wrong in American culture which has caused this
situation. And we would say, well, it's not remarkable. Over
the past 30 years, we have taken God out of the schools and
we put Satan in, in the form of this OBE, or Outcome Based
Education; and when people look at that closely, they will
see that this was developed by professed Satanists. And
that's the dominant trend in education in the United States. 
   We have the rock-drug-sex counterculture, which has a
lot of Satanism in it, explicit Satanism. We have gone from
an industrial society which was committed to producing our
own wealth and meeting our own needs, to a post-industrial
society, which is throwing our jobs overseas some place,
leaving our towns without industries, and leaving our
citizens more and more without jobs, or with only coolie
   So we are destroying the nation; and this causes an
immorality both in the citizens and in our culture, and an
immorality in our government. And the thing to understand in
the case of Texas Attorney General Im-Morales, is that his
behavior exemplifies the chaos, the immorality, the moral
breakdown of government and the citizenry, which is pervading
the United States. And together with the economic crises
which are partly a result of this immorality, the United
States is headed rapidly toward the point, that we as a
nation {might} begin to break up within the next two to three

       OBE: `Bush Brought in Satan as the Schoolmaster' 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have a couple of minutes left. I'm
wondering if you can continue discussing the Satanic
influences in the Outcome Based Education programs in the
   MR. LAROUCHE: People have always been looking for the
maximum evil on this planet, and for a while, a lot of people
were convinced that communism was the maximum evil. But then,
if you look at communism more closely, you'll find out that
there's something worse. 
   The most horrible feature of the communist regime in
Russia, was the Anatole Lunacharsky educational reform, which
is the model for the kinds of educational reform of the Bush
educational reform. Remember, Bush was supposed to be the
Education President. Well, Bush brought in Satan as the
schoolmaster, under Lamar Alexander and these people. 
   What is going on, particularly in four states--Virginia,
Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania--but also in degrees in
40 other states, is a program which is based on pure
Satanism. That is, the authors of the program were--and
are--professed Satanists. 
   For example, you have Muller, who is the bigwig of this
stuff. Muller is a member of a cult called the Lucifer Trust,
that is, the worship of the Satan deity Lucifer, otherwise
known as the Lucis Trust. The ideology associated with that,
comes directly from the communist groups which were Satanic
in their character, as Lunacharsky was a Satanist, which
produced the Satanic educational reforms in Russia, and
briefly in Hungary. 
   Georg Lukacs, the Minister of Culture who introduced
these things in Hungary in 1919, which the people revolted
against, was the creator, the founder of the Frankfurt
School, the Institute for Social Research, of people like
Adorno, Horkheimer, and so forth; or Hannah Arendt and Martin
Heidegger. These evil people. 
   It is followers of the Frankfurt School, such as the
B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League, with its ``World of
Difference'' program, which continue the Hannah Arendt/Georg
Lukacs tradition. The Stanford Research Institute's Willis
Harman's group, with its Aquarian plot, which is documented
in a book by Marilyn Ferguson, a close cooperator of Harman,
is cited in these programs, as pushing this. 
   This stuff is outright Satanic, and is being pushed
around the country. 

   Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have run out of time. This is
``{EIR} Talks.'' If you want to send in questions or find out
more information about {Executive Intelligence Review,}
please write to ``{EIR} Talks,'' c/o EIR News service Inc.,
Attention: Mel Klenetsky, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C.,

                           - 30 -

         John Covici

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.