Executive Intelligence Review
This interview appears in the July 25, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
LAROUCHE INTERVIEW

Halt, Bankers!
We Are the U.S. Government

Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed for one hour July 6 on host Khari Enaharo's "Straight Talk Live" Sunday morning broadcast in Columbus, Ohio. The program was also streamed live on the website of the radio station Magic 98.9 website, www.magic989.com. Here is an abridged transcript; subheads have been added.

[PDF version of this article]

Khari Enaharo: In a recent online article entitled, "For the Moment, There Are Only Two Candidates," posted on June 6, on your website www.larouchepac.com, you wrote the following statement: "The two current Presidential pre-candidates are Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Barack Obama, a Democrat. Both candidates have shown the temperament of a hand-grenade with a loose pin. With McCain, the problem is well known; with Obama, the problem of a flaky temperament is no longer hidden." You say, "It is doubtful that either will actually be nominated. Some people in the back room of politics have a different idea, people operating from behind the scenes at a very high level in the circles of world power. McCain and Obama are political chesspieces on the board; the fellows in the back room are chess players who know how a pawn becomes a queen."

Mr. LaRouche, this is quite a fascinating scenario and statement! Many would suggest, "Wait a minute, this is little bit over the top," especially when Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain are the presumptive Democratic and Republican nominees.... Do you stand by this statement, that was posted 30 days ago?

Lyndon LaRouche: Absolutely. That's the way things are going right now.

Enaharo: Okay. Give me some evidence to support that.

LaRouche: Well, first of all Obama is losing support rapidly, and that's not accidental. The people who backed him temporarily were only using him. And now that Hillary is technically aside from the race—she's still a candidate, of course, but, aside from the race—and now the advantage of using him is less. And he's made, of course, a lot of Democrats very angry, as well. And then, he's been changing his line. But all of this is orchestrated, I don't think he really knows what's happening to him.

McCain is known to be of a certain flakiness, that is, tending to go off wild.

We're now in a period in which ordinary politics doesn't work, anyway. We're now in the biggest financial crisis since the 1930s, since the early 1930s: This one is worldwide, and it's more serious now than anything then. And there is no attention, by either of the two putatively leading candidates now, to any of these issues! That is, what they're saying has no relevance to the cure of the problem which is crushing us, now. And that's where the problem lies.

And you can see it. I know from behind the scenes, as from London, certain forces that are operating in this case. I know about the consideration of the fight between chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the biggest funder—who is based in the Caribbean, actually, a Brit based in the Caribbean. I also know that most of the funding of most leading candidates in this campaign so far, has come from London, not from the United States. I also know, that the campaign organizations of the candidates, now, come chiefly from London, not from inside the United States.

Obama, the 'Throwaway'

Enaharo: Now, you said something in your other writings, that he [Obama] is a "throwaway." What do you mean by the term "throwaway"? Now, many black people would be insulted by that....

LaRouche: That he was brought in and boosted by some people from the Chicago Board of Trade and from Harvard University—that was his sponsorship. He came in with very little support, as a Senator of course, but very little support, very little recognition. And the people who funded him, were largely offshore: George Soros, for example, a multi-billionaire, who operates in the Caribbean, who's a British subject, and who's typical of the people behind the funding of both the Democratic National Committee—as Howard "Scream"—and the Obama campaign. The Chicago Board of Trade, which is a financial institution of some notability, and this crowd at Harvard, managed to get support from the establishment, that is, from the financial establishment. And thus, a candidate, who was considered an "also-ran" for the Presidency, for the nomination, suddenly became the leading candidate based on this kind of support, through the mass press and so forth.

So he was getting in a sense, a free ride, in terms of this kind of support, and a massive funding.... This guy is not coming from poor people.

Enaharo: He says he has more individual contributors than ever; he says that more people are giving him money!

LaRouche: You have to look at the money. Where's the money coming from, where's the quarter of a billion dollars coming from?

Enaharo: Let's follow the money: Where is it coming from?

LaRouche: Largely from the Caribbean, from the British Empire bases in the Caribbean, typified by George Soros. And George Soros operates out of the Cayman Islands, and he's a British agent. The money he has and gives is not really his own: He's an agent of a British financial interest. And he's deployed into the United States, to shape the policies of the United States. He coordinates with a guy who's the same guy that put this fascist Pinochet into power in Chile, some years ago, Felix Rohatyn. And they control part of the Congress, for example, Nancy Pelosi is controlled by these people. Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has been controlled by these people. Now there's a break between Howard Dean and Soros. And it's Soros, the former owner of MoveOn, who has been the key factor in this operation.

Enaharo: Now, what will this breakdown crisis look like? Give me some specific information to let me know when we've reached a breakdown crisis point?

LaRouche: We're already in it. All you have to do is look around you. Accept the reality, and just grasp the reality: Any citizen who just sits down and does that, knows it. Most people are complaining about it, most people are terrified by it. The price of food: Do you realize that over 40 to 50% of the world's population is on the verge of starvation? And do you realize that when inflation occurs, as it is occurring—it's hyperinflation, actually—that you have politicians from leading countries, saying that the problem is caused by poor people in China, India, and so forth—are eating too much! And they're down to one meal a day, if that! Most, about 40% of the world, is in danger of a food shortage on their tables. And this is a killer: It's becoming worse. That's typical.

The loss of jobs. We've lost the auto industry, since 2004-2005. We lost it! We don't have our own auto industry any more. We have some Japanese auto industry; we have some other foreign-owned auto industry. We don't have our own money any more, it comes from the international financial community.

And everything is becoming worse.... It's becoming worse, it's becoming terribly worse. This is worse, already, than the 1929 crash....

The Anglo-Dutch Oil War

Enaharo: Let me go to the gas prices for a second. Most people believe gas prices are high because of people in the Middle East, like Arabs, who control it. But you have said gas and oil is not controlled by Arabs, it's controlled by the British! What do you mean?

LaRouche: Well, the British have a pact with Saudi Arabia. This pact involves one of the wealthiest intelligence operations in the world, called BAE. BAE was set up by a British agent who's a Saudi national, and was, for a long time, an ambassador to the United States from Saudi Arabia. What happened was, back in the 1970s, we had an oil-price crisis. Now, there was no oil shortage at that time. We were told that there was an oil shortage, we were told that the Saudis set it up. Well, that was essentially bunk.

We had ships full of oil, sitting off the coast of the United States, waiting to unload; we had all the petroleum we needed. There never was an oil shortage, an objective oil shortage. There was a synthetic oil shortage arranged by certain people centered in London. Now, at that time, when the oil crisis occurred, the world was operating on the basis of generally fixed arrangements, on long-term contracts for oil prices. And they had a spot market operating out of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, which was dealing with a very small amount of the oil traded. Suddenly, through the oil crisis, the artificial oil crisis, orchestrated by London, you got this crisis, oil shortage: then you had a zooming of the spot market, which was jointly controlled between the Saudi Kingdom and London! And since that time, the petroleum policy, the power policy of the world, has been controlled by forces associated with this spot market.

Today, the price of petroleum is not determined by costs, not real costs. It's determined by a speculative agency, the spot market, which is Anglo-American and also Saudi. The Saudis are also part of British intelligence, one of the most important branches of British intelligence called BAE, and the Saudis are a big stockholder in BAE. So you have British-Saudi alliance of this type, centered on the spot market, which is controlling the price of petroleum inside the United States.

Enaharo: Mr. LaRouche, in a book published by Executive Intelligence Review, entitled Dope, Inc., your organization says the British are controlling the world's drug trade. Now this is something completely different than we have heard all over the media; because we always hear that it originates in the African-American community, the mafia, the Colombians, in Mexico. We never heard that it was the British!

LaRouche: Why don't you look back to the 18th Century, when we were still struggling for independence. And we were struggling against the British interests which already were engaged in two kinds of trade which are very nasty, but they were major traders: Slavery, the trade in African slaves, which was British controlled, Anglo-Dutch controlled, but largely British controlled. The British gave up the slave trade for themselves, in the 1790s, but what they did is, they transferred it to others, because it was not profitable for them. But they wanted the development of slavery inside the United States, as a weapon for splitting the United States, which is what became the Civil War. And they continued the control of this market.

In the 1790s, the British East India Company, which was running the slave trade, and was running the opium trade, used the opium which was being developed in Turkey and in India, to open up a market in China for opium! This led to the Opium Wars, up to the 1850s, where the British invaded, conducted a war against China, in order to enforce the traffic of opium.

The entire drug traffic, the international drug traffic today, is controlled out of London—still! But you don't read it in the press; you say, well, who's financing our major press? Who owns the New York Times? Who owns the Washington Post? Who owns the large major media? Who took over control of the broadcast media? With money—it gets very interesting. So, naturally we don't hear the truth about this stuff.

Right now, we had an interesting thing in Colombia, where the Colombians got some of the captives of this terrorist mob down there, and got them out to freedom. That was run by these guys: I've been dealing with that. What we wrote in Dope, Inc. was simply documentation of the truth. I've got a hands-on knowledge of this stuff. I was in a hands-on fight against the drug traffickers. This is not a domestic problem: It became a domestic problem, because somebody dumped it on us, from the outside.

Enaharo: Mr. LaRouche, what is the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy? I've heard you use that term, over and over again. What does it mean, who's involved, how is it constituted, and how does it operate?

LaRouche: Well, it's really an empire, but it has a special form. We're familiar with empires from Asia, and then we have the empires developed in Europe, the Roman Empire, its successor the Byzantine Empire; then you had the Crusader empire, which was run actually by the Venetian financial interests. You had the British Empire as such, which emerged in the process. We made a revolution against the British Empire, actually: It's when the British Empire was formed in 1763 that we began to revolt against the British, here in this country.

So, this is an old story. Admittedly, with our schools being what they are these days, and with what our newspapers are, the obvious, evident, massive truth, the most easily accessed truth from the standpoint of fact, is simply ignored! And you know, we are lied to—I think you probably have seen that, when you look at the mass media, and look at what you know yourself on the street, we're lied to, massively.

Bloomberg: Rockefeller Foundation Fascist

Enaharo: Mr. LaRouche, I want to circle back: You have stated that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain will not be left standing for their respective nominations. You've also said that Mr. Al Gore lurks somewhere in the background. If not Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, then who?

LaRouche: Well, you've got all kinds of problems here. You've got in the background, coming up fast, the Mayor of New York, Bloomberg; the man's a fascist. He's controlled, used, by the Rockefeller Foundation which has a policy essentially of shutting down the U.S. government, and having public infrastructure taken over by private finance. This is the same program which was used by Mussolini in taking power in Italy, back in the 1920s. You have Al Gore: Al Gore is a British agent, even though he was formally a Vice President of the United States, and I would prefer a possum to him, in the Presidency—

Enaharo: Let's go back to Michael Bloomberg. You said, "he's coming up fast"—as a Republican? As a Democrat? Which way is he going?

LaRouche: He's interchangeable. We're headed toward a nonpartisan dictatorship in the United States, unless we change things. That is, the scrambling of politics, so no longer do you have politics determined by people lining up on political issues and economic issues. You now have like a fascist system: Where it's agreed-upon that so-and-so is going to be the President, until we make a coup against him; that we're going to have a certain national policy, which is in the interests of the financiers of the United States, the same ones that are going bankrupt now, the banks and the financial institutions that are collapsing. They're going to take over and loot us!

It's already happening! We lost our auto industry. We're losing everything: We have no control over the price of petroleum, on which our life depends, our food is being taken away from us for biofuels, through government subsidies. People are starving, not really in the United States; they're really starving in 40% of the world! And Bloomberg represents an expression of a shift in politics, away from partisan politics, issue-based partisan politics. Look at the composition of the hard-core support for both the Obama campaign and the Hillary Clinton campaign: What was the support? The lower 80% of family-income brackets. People clamoring for something to end this nightmare, which is crawling up their back! And what happened to it? That issue is gone!

And what you have is a new kind of politics, the politics of, from the top down. Where big international financial interests, centered on London, control politics in the United States, and they're manipulating this like mad. There's no candidate who's "winning." There is a power, which is behind the scenes, which is playing chess, playing checkers with the candidates.

Enaharo: Now, for those people who heard the word "fascist," can you break that down, so people can get a better understanding of what it is, when you use this term?

LaRouche: Well, the term actually comes from France, from the middle of the 19th Century. Technically, it was called synarchism. It came up again, in the beginning of the 20th Century, for example, certain British interests were avowedly fascist, so fascist became a new word for "synarchism." The first fascist program was that of Italy. This was put in by the British—Mussolini was completely a British project. Churchill was one of his biggest supporters, up until the time that Italy invaded France during World War II.

So this crowd, which is centered in Europe, is the financial oligarchy of Europe, which centers on the British monarchy and the British Empire as its institution of reference. It actually controls the British system. It's represented by bankers, all kinds of bankers, who function like a mob, and their politics of the mob, this financial institution, becomes the politics reflected in government and so forth.

So you're dealing with an international financier gang, which is trying to orchestrate the world, according to its impulses. And that's why the thing sometimes seems so irrational, because there are impulses that make no sense to the average citizen on the street.

Will I Be Able To Cash My Paycheck?!

Enaharo: Mr. LaRouche, in your transcript reported on your website, from your webcast on July 25, 2007, you stated the following: "The present financial system can not continue to exist under any circumstances, under any Presidency, under any leadership, or any leadership of nations. Only a fundamental and sudden change in the world monetary-financial system will prevent a general, immediate chain-reaction type of collapse. At what speed we don't know, but it will go on, and it will be unstoppable! And the longer it goes on before coming to an end, the worse things will get."

Now, Mr. LaRouche, this is a very dynamic, and some say, controversial statement. Does this mean that I should take my money out of the bank? Does it mean that my pension may not be there? Does it mean that by the Fall of the year, I may not be able to cash my paycheck?! Is this what you're telling me?

LaRouche: Well, the latter two are true. That the control lies in the hands of people who may collapse the banks—the banks are collapsing: Practically every leading bank in the United States is already bankrupt, technically. The whole financial system is already bankrupt.

What I said back then, on July 25 of last year, I said, we've now made a change, we've now gone to "end-game"—what they call in chess, end-game.

We're now in an end-game, and like watching a chess player in a tournament, you don't know exactly what move is going to happen that's going to cause the game to be settled. But we're getting closer and closer to where the options are running out.

Now, the solution is, to go back to the concept of money which we last saw with Franklin Roosevelt: If the United States—even given the fact that the present President of the United States is crazy—but if we go back to Franklin Roosevelt's time, Roosevelt set up a fixed-exchange-rate system called the Bretton Woods system, and the United States was the only country really standing, at that time, financially. The whole world depended upon the U.S. and the U.S. dollar. We were the great powerhouse of production; we were the great powerhouse of economic and financial strength. Everybody depended upon us.

The system worked. But the system was subverted, first by Harry Truman, who went with the British against Roosevelt after Roosevelt died, and it decayed. We saw the assassination of Kennedy—things became worse; we saw the experience of the Vietnam War—things became worse; Nixon was elected—things became terrible. We saw the 1970s—we began to lose our farming industry, our power industry, manufacturing—we've been losing it all along. We have become consistently poorer, every year, over the years, since about the time of the Kennedy assassination; especially since 1968, we have become consistently poorer.

We've never had an improvement. Look at Cleveland, for example, which I know you're acquainted with. Remember Cleveland 30 years ago? What's it like today? Look around at Ohio: Look at industry, look at agriculture, look at Detroit, look at Indiana, look at western Pennsylvania, look at western and northern New York State. Compare the conditions as they existed in 1966-68, with what they are today. Look at the standard of living, look at the question of Social Security; look at everything. And we're losing it all! And we have been losing it.

But we sit wishfully, the ordinary people, saying, "What can we do about it? Let's hope it works it out. Let's hope it works out. Maybe some little thing will help us. Maybe something will rescue us." They have no sense—the lower 80% of family-income brackets in the United States, today, have no sense of the power of the people to determine the policy of the United States. And therefore, our people are weak. They accept things, and hope for things, they protest for things: But they don't take charge of our government.

Enaharo: Now, how would this Homeowners and Bank Protection Act turn this situation around?

LaRouche: All right, first of all, if you want to save the nation, you've got to make sure you don't have mass evictions of people from communities. You don't turn people from homeowners, or home occupiers, into destitute wanderers through the slums and gutters of the nation.

Now, to maintain that, first of all, you have to say the system is bankrupt. The entire financial banking system is bankrupt. Now, we can't have the bankruptcy proceed, because that means people will be evicted, industries will close, all kinds of social security will disappear, you will have a vast army of homelessness, worse conditions than you had in the 1929 Depression period. What're you going to do about it?

Well, first, I say: Government has the power, the United States government has power over money. That's one of the specific parts of our Constitution. If the United States government says that the real estate industry is bankrupt, the mortgage industry is bankrupt, and we're not going to have people evicted from their homes, we want them to stay there, we're going to put the thing into bankruptcy, and they will still be living in their homes under bankruptcy protection. It'll be sorted out later on.

Now, at the same time, you can not maintain a community, even if you protect people in their homes, in which there are no jobs. Now, the jobs generally involve things that involve local, regular banking systems—forget the high-flying banking type things—just the ordinary banking: deposits, loans, so forth. Local communities depend entirely on a stable supply of credit, and means of circulation in those communities. Without that, the businesses close, the community goes down—the nation goes down. So therefore, the first thing you have to do, in a situation like that, is what I proposed back in July of last year: The first thing you have to do, is have Federal bankruptcy protection over the regular banks, that is, the Federal and state-chartered banks, where people deposit money, get their loans, and so forth. And you must have stable communities, in which people live in their homes, and have a normal family life.

Therefore, the government must step in, to protect, the United States internally, by ensuring that the communities stay in business. Then we will work our way out of the problem, what you want to do in any bankruptcy proceeding.

Enaharo: But, Mr. LaRouche, you say we're broke! If we're broke, where's the money going to come from? You say the government is broke: How can we do this if we have no money?!

LaRouche: Because we have a Constitution. Under our Constitution, the power to create and circulate money lies with the Federal government. The Federal government has the power, but the power operates with the consent of the people, chiefly through the House of Representatives. When the House of Representatives utters a bill which authorizes the Federal government to issue credit which can be monetized, for purposes of national interest—including national security—that becomes money.

Now, we went away from that, in 1968 to 1973: We went to a floating-exchange-rate system, an anti-Roosevelt system, during the 1970s, under the succession of Nixon, Ford, and Carter—especially the Trilateral Commission, which turned Carter into somebody people didn't like any more. We destroyed the U.S. economy and its system. What we have to do, is, go back to the time of 1962-63, when President Kennedy was killed; since that time, we've been going, generally, with the aid of the Vietnam War, in the wrong direction. What we have to do, is say, "Halt! We are the U.S. government. We are a sovereign people." We are going to say: "Halt! You bankers, you screwed it up, you made a mess of it. We are going to fix it." And then we'll do some other things, such as large projects, infrastructure projects, and things which get the economy going again."

Subscribe to EIW