LaRouche in Salt Lake City
'If I'm Part of the Process, We Survive'
Lyndon LaRouche gave this press conference in Salt Lake City on Feb. 24. A selection from the question-and-answer period follows LaRouche's opening remarks.
I'll just summarize two issues: First the state of the campaign in general, that is, the national campaign; and secondly, the implications of the attempted exclusion of me from the [Utah] ballot. Because, the second has to come in the context of the first.
All right, we've now reached a new stage, in the overall campaign. Heretofore, even though there's been a tendency for a larger vote participation, as witnessed in New Hampshire, for example, than in previous campaigns, the voters are still spectators, sitting in the grandstand and voting for their favorite gladiators in the Arena. The gladiators are dropping, one after the other. We don't when Edwards is going to drop, but he has the capacity to drop, which he exercised recently: He's about to fold. And he's holding onto last breath.
The issue now becomes, essentiallythe other candidates are out of the picture, really, in the long run. On the Democratic sideit's between John Kerry and me. John Kerry is a serious candidate, with certain shortcomings. Whereas, I'm key on the issue.
The issue is this: We have two issues, one which I've been raising, especially since August of 2002, demanding that Cheney be ousted from the government now, on the basis of his commitment of impeachable offenses, in pushing the Congress toward an Iraq war, which has deeper implications. At this point, Cheney is on the ropes. The President is still supporting him, but Cheney's on the ropes, and he's facing very serious investigations, which lead toward possible criminal action against him or his associates, and impeachable offenses, which would tell George Bush two things: that he can not win if Cheney is his Vice Presidential candidate; and maybe he couldn't win if George Bush is the leading candidate. These are the situations now.
The other issue, apart from the issue of military and related policybut they're interrelatedis the economic crisis. We are now at the point, that the present world monetary-financial system is in the process of disintegrating. We don't know what day the disintegration will occur, but we know the situation is overripe: There is no possibility of a recovery of the U.S. economy, under present policies and conditions. It could not happen. Only a reform of the international monetary system, along the lines that a Franklin Roosevelt would have done, would prevent a catastrophe from this present crisis.
The problem is thisthe problem which involves my exclusion by certain forces of the Democratic Party, is: I have been on the "not-wanted list" as a political figure, since 1971, when I defeated a professor of economics, Abba Lerner, in a debate in New York City. After that, I was marked as No. 1 Enemy, of all of the major, relevant financial circles in the United States. Then, at the beginning of the 1980s, because of an acquaintance with Ronald Reagan, I was instrumental in inducing Reagan to adopt a policy, in which I conducted a back-channel exploration for the Reagan Administration with the Soviet government. This policy became known as SDI.
After March of 1983, the policy underwent modification in a disastrous direction. The policy was a good one, but as a result of that, I became Public Enemy No. 1 in the Soviet Union; I became, also, Public Enemy No. 1, of right-wing Republicans, and also of many Democrats.
So, today, those issues are the reason why there's an attempt to exclude me from the Democratic process. What was done was illegal, that is, in effect. The Democratic National Committeecertain circles, including the circles associated with Al Goremoved to have an overturn of the Voting Rights Act, through the judicial system. They succeeded in getting the Voting Rights Act repealed, under the pretext of so-called "shareholder value," which is a doctrine famous from the Confederacy, when it was called sometimes "slaveholder value," and under the aegis of Associate U.S. Justice Antonin Scalia.
So, what you have now, in effect: The Democratic Party has marked itself as racist, by overturning the second of the most important civil rights acts of the past 30 years, and they're sticking to it. Why are they sticking to it? Because the bankers know what's happening: This system is coming down. And you have bankers like Felix Rohatyn, who is associated with Lazard Frèresthese bankers are determined, that when the crisis comes, they're going to have an office-boy in the Presidency, not a President in the FDR direction.
Therefore, the issue nowwith Kerry as a front-running Democratic candidateis for me to engage, especially, in public debate, in effect, with John Kerry, not for the purpose of demolishing him, but for the purpose of seeing to it, that we don't nominate an office-boy in Boston, to become the Democratic Presidential candidate, this summer. I'm not an office-boy. And, maybe by my educating the Democrats, they'll either, at least, vote me in, or at least will have a Kerry who will not be an office-boy.
That's the situation. So, shoot.
An FDR Democrat
Q: The Democratic Party says that your positions aren't in line with their principles, according to the DNC. How do you respond to that?
LAROUCHE: They don't have any principles! How can I be against them? [laughing]
The issue is, that what they're really opposed to me on, is these two issues: Bankers, number one. That's where Felix Rohatyn and Lazard Frères and others come in, in terms of excluding me, even on the Kerry coalition side. There are many people inside the Kerry coalition, that want me in the process. There are some people in the Kerry coalition, who don't want me in the process. Those people are tied to Felix Rohatyn and this crowd. That's the issue. It's the most important issue right now.
There's other quarrels I've had, as I said, on the SDI, on economics questions, and so forth, in the past. But the basic thing is, I'm targetted as an FDR Democrat. Not a copy-cat for FDR, but an FDR Democrat. They don't want an FDR Democrat, in the White House, at the time of crisis; they don't even want someone in the Presidency, who's influenced by an FDR Democratthat's what the real issue is.
Q: Have you been in some primaries, already?
LAROUCHE: Yeah.
Q: How many votes have you gotten?
LAROUCHE: Well, the Democratic Party is not counting the votes. These are Democratic primaries. In any case, some people in the Democratic Party who are election officials, bucked the partyjust on a morals basis. They say, "If the citizen cast a vote, the citizen has a right to have his vote represented." Other party officials ... say, "No! The vote is not legitimate. And if a voter makes the vote, the vote will simply be ignored." And that happened. So, you have a division. Nobody knows what the vote is. And it's complicated by the fact of the widespread use of computer-based voting, which is inherently fraudulent.
There's now a major fight in the United States, especially from Democrats, to overturn touch-screen voting and similar kinds of computerized voting. It's one of the biggest issues in Washington, right now.
So, right now, it doesn't make any difference. What's important is the American people. Going into a convention, in Boston, in July, after a crisis has exploded, after people have come out of the grandstands and they now know they are gladiators, down in the Arena. So, they're no longer voting for their favorite competitor: They are now competitors. And when they have to think seriously about their future, their family's future; when reality strikes, it can not be denied. See how the Democrats vote their conscience at the convention. That's what I'm shooting for.
Q: I haven't had a chance to read your pamphlet yet, but the cover implies that Vice President Cheney is a "child of Satan." Is that what you believe?
LAROUCHE: No. He is in a sense a child of Satan, historically. The Beast-Man concept was introduced into modern politics, actually by Torquemada of Spain, with the Inquisition. This was revived in connection with the French Revolution by Joseph de Maistre, who was the leader of a Martinist cult. Napoleon Bonaparte was trained, and educated, and steered, by Joseph de Maistre. Napoleon, as the conqueror and looter of Europe, is the image of the Beast-Man. Hitler was a Beast-Man. Mussolini was a Beast-Man. Laval was a Beast-Man. Francisco Franco was a Beast-Man. Cheney is in that tradition. And his people around him are in that tradition.
This is a Beast-Man: that you rule by terror, the idea of rule by terror. The way Hitler killed the Jews, is an example of a Beast-Man. There was no reason, there was no motive, for Germans to kill Jews. The German Jewish population had been one of the most essential parts of Germany's rise to importance in the 19th Century. The Jews of Eastern Europe, the so-called "Yiddish Renaissance" Jews, were an essential part of the culture of Europe. If you wanted to develop an economy, in Europe, why do you kill off some of the best people, who make a contribution to the economy of the nation in which they live? There's no motive for it.
But, the motive was to terrify the world, by committing an act so horrible, that the world would fear the beast. And that's what Cheney's policy is: to intimidate people by beastly actions, as they did in Iraq. There was no need for that warabsolutely none whatsoever.
The Democratic Convention
Q: What about going to the Democratic Convention?
LAROUCHE: I'll be there.
Q: Will you be allowed in?
LAROUCHE: Who knows? To me, it's not relevant. To me, the question is now: Now, we're in the process now. This is the end of February. We're in a process, between now and the summer: During this time, the biggest financial crisis in history is going to hit the United States. You're going to have a phase-change in politics.
In the meantime, people in the Congress and elsewhere, are moving for the impeachment of Cheney, for the outing of all of these characters, who were behind the Iraq war. This is dead serious, now. So, these changes: Bush is going to have to change. Republicans are turning against Bush, saying, we can not vote for such a dumb President a second time. This guy is too dumb to be elected.
Q: Will you demand to be included?
LAROUCHE: Oh, I'll do all that, but that's irrelevant. Now, the process between now, which is the end of February, and Boston, in July, is going to be a decisive period in U.S. history. Nobody can predict exactly what will happen. I have my principles. I will act according to the principles I've stated here. That's my course of action. And what I do, may surprise me. But, it will be within those parameters.
Q: Since you have so many concerns about the Democratic Party, why not run as an independent? Why not go on your own, instead of fighting the.
LAROUCHE: See, that's what people get on to. They don't understand our system of government. People look at our system of government as if it were some kind of European parliamentary democracy. And many people in government, or in the parties, think that way.
See, the President of the United States is not an individual who just gets elected in there. The President of the United States has to have a base. I have a base, in the Presidential system. By virtue of having taken the oath, I'm part of the Presidential system. In other words, the President makes a decision. How's it carried out? It's carried out by people who are professionals; people who are in the system, whether serving, or maybe Professor So-and-So out in this university. These are the people who are the advice, the strength, the gut, the muscle, including retired officials, who will jump in and make a President effective.
See, the President is not an individual, like a chief of a parliament. The President is the head of an executive branch of government. Our system of government is unique.
Therefore, you have to work, to become a Presidentunless you're running for the long term for 20 years from now, as I have done in the past; unless you are in the system, you can not become a President. I am in the system. That's the reason why some people want to get me out of it. Do you think they would bother trying to run Al Sharpton, that joker? He's not a serious candidate. He's a joke! A bad joke. But, he's not a serious candidate.
The reason they want to exclude me, and not just ignore me, is because they are afraid of me. Why are they afraid of me? Because I'm in the system. And because I've done the job I've done, over the past nearly two years, in bringing down Cheney and his crowd. They're afraid of me.
If they were not afraid of me, if I were not in the system, I would not say, "I can become President." I might say, I would run for President, as an educational effort, which I would have a right to do. But I'm in this for real. I have the backing. I have the potential support, among institutions of government; I have relations with foreign governments, in terms of knowledge of me on policy. I can walk into the White Houseif I walked in today, I could assume the function of President. I would be capable of doing it, and I would have the roster of people, from inside the government, from inside the Presidential system, from among certain circles in the Congress: I would have the ability to run this country, as President. That's why I'm running.
Q: We have a new individual in the Presidential process. What are the likely effects of Nader's efforts?
LAROUCHE: I think it has two effectsinteresting: I don't know what Nader thinks he's doing. That, I don't know. But I can tell you what the two effects are: First of all, it scares the Democratic leadership, the Democratic National Committee. What it meanshow does it scare them? The estimate has been, among leading Democrats, the Democrats can not win the Presidency, if they continue to exclude me. Now, what this means, it puts them up against the wallMcAuliffe and company. They're up against the wall.
With what I represent, which may be only a margin of vote, but if I'm in the process, if people out there say, "Okay, they've let him in. He's now in the process," you will find a very significant10 to 20% of the votewill tend to come back in, because of me, for various reasons. They need my participation in the process, to overwhelm fringe operations, such as Nader's.
That's where the problem was last time. You know, Clinton was the biggest vote-getter we've had in a long time. And if he hadn't had Al Gore, as his proposed successor, there would have been a shoo-in. Al Gore blew it. And, he blew it, because he was out to exclude me and others. And the people he excluded from the process, were the margin by which he lost.
And what he lost to, was, partly, Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader and the Green Party took fringe vote away from the Democratic Party, because he [Gore] was so disgusting, that people voted a protest vote for Nader in several states, including Florida. And that margin of the Nader vote sank Gore, in those electoral contests.
And so, the point is, the Nader thing, today, means: Either they bring me in, or the Democratic Party's campaign this year, is a dead duck.
The Principle of Tragedy
Q: What will happen if you're not elected President?
LAROUCHE: Well, that's getting atwhat is going to happen if the right measures are not taken? And who is around who understands the issues adequately, and is willing to take them? It's a matter of leadership.
In other words, you have two things: You have a reality. You have a possible solution for the crisisthere always is a possible solution, except in certain natural forces which are beyond, presently, man's control. But, in political processes, political-economic processes, there are always solutions. Can you define the solution? Yes. Are you going to solve it? Not necessarily. If you don't have the leadership: This is the principle of tragedy. In every case, a tragedy of a society, a self-inflicted tragedy of any society, comes in a case, in which the issue is clearly definedlike the Peloponnesian War. When Athens started the process of the Peloponnesian War, which led to the destruction of Athens over a period of almost 30 years.
All right. Was the solution there? Yes, it did exist. Don't butcher the people of Melos! That would have saved it. But, the Sophists prevailed, and the war went on, including in Magna Graecia. And Athens was virtually destroyed, as Plato describes this in some detail in his dialogues. And others, as well.
The point was, there was not a man, there was not a leader on the scene, except Socrates, who resisted this process, who could have led Greece out of this crisis. So, they kill off the one available leader, and the thing goes down.
So, the problem is often in history, that you have a limited number of people who could be leaders. If you kill off, or eliminate them in other ways, then the tragedy will probably happen. Because tragedy comes from the people, it does not come from mis-leaders, as such. The people accept corruption. The moral corruption leads them to their own self-destruction. And if a time comes, that you don't have leaders, who say to the people, "You behave like fools. Change your ways." And if they stick to it, then the people are doomed.
Q: I'm looking for a more specific answer: Is there anyone else in the field who you think would do a good job, right now?
LAROUCHE: I don't know. I don't think so. I don't think so. I know things, pretty much, worldwide. For example, in Russia, Germany, France, Italy, other parts of the worldSouth and Central Americaand our own country: I know most of the people who would be considered leaders, potential leaders. And what I know of them all, they're none of them could cut it.
Q: So, then, what will happen, if you're not elected?
LAROUCHE: Well, the alternative is, can I make a tough man out of John Kerry? I mean, that's why I said, what I said today: Yes, I should be the President, right now. But, I'm 81 years of age. I'm in prime condition, for an 81-year-older. And I expect to be, for another 10 years or so, because of my genetic background and so forth. I'm fortunate in that respect, and I'm tough.
But, the point is, I'm concerned about what I do now, for the future of the United States. My job, is to do my job, now. Now, this goes all the way through. If I'm not the President, what should happen? What is the possible alternative? Can I take a group of Democrats, and others, and what I know about people in the Presidential system: Can I pull them together, through a discussion process, over the coming four months, which produces a Presidential candidate for the Democratic Party, with a group of people around him, who can prevail over the bankers? Yes, then we can survive.
If I'm part of the process, we survive.
We reprint here excerpts from the question period with Lyndon LaRouche, after his keynote speech Feb. 14 to the annual ICLC/Schiller Institute Presidents' Day conference.
FREEMAN: We going to take a question, now, from the West Coast....
HARLEY SCHLANGER (West Coast LaRouche spokesman: Hello! Well, first, let me belatedly send the greetings from Thousand Oaks, California to the East Coast conference....
And so, we'll start the questions from Brendan Barnett, here, and I will then be turning this over to Limari Navarette from the LaRouche Youth Movement, to preside as the moderator from here.
The Essence of Tragedy
QUESTION: I'm Brendan from Los Angeles. We've been in discussion with the youth movementa couple individualsabout how it's going to take a crisis, for the population to react. But, Lyn, you've been stating over and over, that with Ashcroft and these figures, that they're willing to lock the country down in a police-state. So, how do we deal with this problem, if both of these situations are coming into existence at the same point?
LAROUCHE: Really, it's another aspect of the same question, that's been asked several times before today. The question is a question of power: Now, I knew what John Ashcroft was, and I tried to stop Ashcroft from being chosen as Attorney General. Some other people in the system, Democrats, supported my proposal, and tried to act on it.
Al Gore, and people in the Democratic National Committee, intervened to prevent that protest from being registered at the appropriate time.
On the basis of that policy, by Al Gore, I was able to foresee an event, such as that which occurred on Sept. 11, 2001: That someone was going to play a Hermann Goering, because our system was incompetently led by a bum, the President, who was incapable of doing anything right on his own. And therefore, somebody's going to try to create a dictatorship, by creating a Reichstag Fire, or the equivalent, in the United Statesand that was done, on Sept. 11, 2001. And there's been a jam-up on any serious investigation of that event, since.
Why don't they want it investigated? Because, if the investigation were honest, it would lead to discoveries, which would be very embarrassing to friends of Mr. Dick Cheney.
It's a question of power: It's a question, will the American people choose to support a power, which is a counterforce, to what's coming down on them? Now, I have the power, in the sense of knowing what to do. But, if the American people don't choose me to use that power, which they can give to me, I can't do it. And apparently, there's nobody else around who could. That's the reality.
This is the essence of tragedy! I mean, if people had actually understood the Classical Greek tragedy, especially as this question was addressed by Plato, in the Socratic dialogues; if they had understood Shakespeare; if they had understood Lessing; if they had understood Schiller, they would understand this. Tragedy occurs! Tragedy is the common destiny of most of mankind's history! Most societies have failed! Most people in society have failed. Most democracies have failed. The will of the people has failed, repeatedly.
You have to understand this. These are questions of power. And, it's a question, a test, as I said 20 years ago: I said, the question posed to me then1982-83I said, the question posed, "Do the American people have the moral fitness to survive?" And I said then, in the fall of 1983, that I doubted they did. And the reason I doubted they had the moral fitness to survive, was the reasons which involve the Baby Boomer syndrome: That the United States had gone so deep into cultural decadence, that I did not think it was necessarily the case, that they still had the moral ability to come out of it. That's still the case.
So, what we're engaged inand the Classical tragedy, especially with the Sublime element that was introduced in the case of Aeschylos by the "Prometheus Bound," implicitly; by the dialogues of Plato; and by some of the aspects of Shakespeare's plays, and the plays of Lessing and Schillerthe idea of the Sublime: That mankind can step outside the limitations he has imposed upon himself, and do things which are unthinkable! But, which nonetheless lead society to a solution, to what seems to be an impossible crisis.
We're in such a situation. There is no master-plan. There's no scheme which can guarantee the survival of this society, of this civilization. We have gone too far down in our corruption. There's no automatic reflex. There's no court, which will give you justice, these days. It doesn't exist on this planet. It will have to be created.
The question is: Can we persuade, under the stress of crisis, can we? We're not going to make a frontal victory. But, we might make one helluva good flanking attack. And by exploiting a flanking situation, which presents itself to us, and having the will to seize that situation, we can, then, survive. That is the chance we have. We have nothing but that chance. Otherwise, doom were inevitable.
I'm confident. I'm optimistic. I see the flanking situations being developed. I focus much of my attention on what precisely I know to be the flanking opportunities. Don't waste your efforts on useless things: Define the flanking opportunity; prepare for it; and move on it. That's all we can do. Don't try to assume that there's something in the system, that's going to make this system work for you. The system is against you. The system is against the continued existence of the United States. It will require a miracle to save the United States and civilization: We have to provide the miracle, that's all.
FREEMAN: Okay. We'll right now take a question from the audience here. We're going to alternate back and forth, between the East Coast and the West.
The next question is from a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement from Lyons, France: Christophe.
Finding the Flanks
QUESTION: I'm Christophe Pequien from the French youth movement, from the European youth movement. And first of all, I want to say that we have fun, in Europe, by helping our American cousins. The thing is that the situation in Europe is becoming more and more tense, and the institutions don't want to act.
My question is, what can we do, to give them the courage to do what they know they have to do?
LAROUCHE: Well, two things you can do. One thing is specific: Flank the situation. Always look for the flanks. Don't waste your time on things that are not flanking opportunities. They will fail. Frontal assaults against bastions of power, will fail. Flank 'em. We're doing very well at that. Continue to do it.
The other thing, the other side, lies within ourselves. It lies within our moral and intellectual development: The capability for executing a flanking operation, lies in our ability to carry through. And that lies in our moral development.
The issue, which is implicitly what I addressed today, but only implicitly, is, we have to have a sense of ourselves which is rooted in history, of actual history. We have to see ourselves in terms of the actual history of mankind. We have to see ourselves as an instrument of history.
And the problem that I tried to address in Talladega, the problem, where the solution is exemplified by the case of Martin Luther King: If you see yourself, as a mortal instrument, deployed for an immortal purpose, then your motivation and your self-interests are defined by your immortal purpose, not your mortal resources. Under those conditions, you have the capability to mobilize your will for the immortal purpose, and even to spend your mortal existence for the immortal purpose.
To do that, you can't do that out of blind faith. Blind faith is not a very durable quality. You can only accomplish that, if you have a deep sense of history, of actual history. And therefore, a senseyou know, look: A sense of European civilization, for example: Most people don't know, in Europe, what European civilization is. They don't know how you would define what became known as "European civilization," emerging in Greece, in the shadow of the Great Pyramids of Giza. That's the beginning! The beginning of our knowledge, in European civilization, of the idea, of universality. Universality: Universal principles discovered in the universe, through astronomy, as demonstrated by the Pyramids of Giza. Universality. There are universalities in the universe, but it's not a fixed universality. It's a developing one. In which man discovers new principles, and changes the universe, by man's will, through discovering the principles which man's will must apply to the situation. Called "science."
It began there. With the Pythagoreans, and Thales, and so forththis is the beginning, of a conception of man: That man, by his nature, as a person, is something distinct from the animals. That man is an immortal creature, by virtue of transmitting ideas and development, which are transmitted to future generations, and which realize the intention of previous generations.
When you see yourself in those historic terms, and know the actual history, know many of the crucial battles, which mankind has fought, within the context of European civilization, to bring about this idea which was unleashed by the 15th-century Renaissance; unleashed in a sense, by the mobilization around the American Revolution. When you see yourself as a person, a mortal person, embedded in that immortal mission, spanning past and future, and looking to all mankind, you have tremendous strength. You have moral strength. You must have the knowledge to match that.
You must understand history; you must relive history. The study of tragedy is extremely important, for that reason. The study of Classical Greek tragedyextremely important. You must relive it! You must study Shakespearerelive it! As real history.
And sothese kinds of things. Study science, from a standpoint of the history of science. Relive it!
Then, you have the strength inside yourself, because you say, "I know!" Not, "I guess"; not, "I believe"but, "I know." And, when you know what it is, to be immortal, in that sense, you have tremendous strength. And when you have that kind of strength, you are able to utilize the opportunities presented to you.
I mean, this is. You know, old Moltke would probably give a different version of this, and so would Scharnhorst and so forth, but, this is the principle of strategic defense. This is the principle of the flank. Always, the principle of the flank. Look at what the other people overlook. Don't be in the fishbowl of popular opinionnot a goldfish in a bowl that's being carried to the toiletbut, be free of the fishbowl. Get outside the fishbowl, into the real ocean, and change the course of history in a real ocean. And outflank the fishbowl.
LAROUCHE ON "FOCUS ON LOUDOUN" Taped Feb. 17, shown Feb. 19.
PATTI MORRISSEY: Hi, Mr. LaRouche.
LAROUCHE: Hi.
PATTI MORRISSEY: Well, we welcome you tonight, and want to give you a chance to kind of give some background on yourself, and we'll get to some more questions, but why don't we start with just an overview of where you come from, where you were born, how you ended up in Loudoun County, because I know you're a Loudoun resident.
LAROUCHE: I was born in Rochester, New Hampshire. Lived for a number of years in the Greater Boston area. Was a New York resident for a long period of time.
MORRISSEY: New York City?
LAROUCHE; ... and then I was involved with President Reagan's administration, in initiating what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. At that point, there was a request that I move to Northern Virginia, to be more convenient to the Administration, for informal, or quasi-formal consulting on science matters. So, that's how I ended up down here.
MORRISSEY: So, your education is... you've got a science background?
LAROUCHE: Well, I'm actually one of the world's leading economists. That's on my notable achievement side. Long-range forecasting. I've always been right, at last for about 35-40 years, and that has made me somewhat of a celebrity, and a very controversial figure.
MORRISSEY: Give us an example. So, you have a degree from...
LAROUCHE: No, I was one of these wonder-children sort of things, and so I have a very checkered, and very complicated career. But I became, during the 1940s, I became a specialist in the science of physical economy.
MORRISSEY: Physical economy?
LAROUCHE: Physical economy, as opposed to financial economy.
MORRISSEY: Okay.
LAROUCHE: And I became an opponent of the policies of people like Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, in this area, which was then the so-called coming area of economics. I became a management consultant, which I was for a long period of time.
MORRISSEY: Who did you work for then?
LAROUCHE: Oh, I worked with various companies, and I worked as an independent. Actually, I was in consulting, off and on, from boyhood. My father was a consultant, and I became associated with him, and then my father and I always didn't work the same way, so I worked more independently.
MORRISSEY: And that was as far as your economic expertise, that was based on that...
LAROUCHE: Essentially. I got into forecasting because I was an economist. Then the forecasting, in connection with managing consulting in the 1950s. Which, the time came in which I was concerned about where the U.S. economy was going. So, in '57, when I was an executive with a firm, I just took on this question of estimating. Ah, we're headed for a nice delightful recession in 1957, early 1957, and it came on on schedule. And my success in making that forecast, and what was involved in it, got me making much longer range forecasts about where things would go, if... And in economic forecasting, there's always a big if. You cannot forecast what is going to happen, against free will.
MORRISSEY: Got different variables.
LAROUCHE: You have to know what the alternatives are. This policy track will take you in this direction, this policy track will take in this direction.
WEBER: How would the... where is the jump between forecasting and economics, to the strategic defense initiative, and the SDI program? Obviously, they are two very different, very distinct areas. Unless, of course, you were working to try to outspend the former Soviet Union...
LAROUCHE: Not outspend. We had ... Actually, of course, I've always been opposed to the so-called utopian military policy. That is, at the end of the war, people like Bertrand Russell, and his followers, believed in preventive nuclear warfare. And that was U.S. policy until the Korean war, until the Soviet Union developed a thermonuclear device. At that point, we dropped Truman and brought in Eisenhower, to get rid of this insanity.
I was quite content when Eisenhower came in, I thought things were going along nicely, and had my nice consulting career, and things like that. But then, with the missile crisis, the assassination of Kennedy, with the attempted assassination of DeGaulle, the entry into the Indochina war, I was concerned, that we were headed in a very bad direction.
In the course of this, I began to look at, very seriously, what the alternatives were. I did not believe in mutual and assured destruction, that sort of thing.
WEBER: But you did believe in detente?
LAROUCHE: Well, not really. Detente is a funny word, it can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people. What I believed was, and this was particularly in the middle of 1970s, where I knew what some people were up to, in the United States side, and I said, they're lunatics. What I did was propose that we go in a new direction, and look at a new proposal to the Soviet Union, on how to try to get us out from under this threat of thermonuclear destruction. Not by the things that Kissinger was doing, but a different track. I began to be involved with scientific work, with scientists, on what we could do, and came up with a proposal, because I had a friendly exchange with Reagan, while he was campaigning, on one occasion. Then I was invited to go to Washington to meet with his team, after he'd been elected. And I gave them -
WEBER: At this point we're up to 1980-81.
LAROUCHE: Actually, 80-81. But in this period, I made a wish list. The question is, what would you want us to do? That kind of thing. I'm a Democrat, therefore, what do you as a Democrat want this Republican President to do? And Reagan...
MORRISSEY: Did you always call yourself a Democrat?
LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. I always ran as a Democrat. I had a little thing in 1975-76 which was different, but that was a special operation. But I ran in 1979-80 as a Democrat, and I've run as a Democrat ever since.
But in this case, remember a lot of people, a lot of Democrats, went with Reagan in the 1980-81, and I didn't go with Reagan, but this is the President of the United States. He's a new President. Our country's in trouble, always is in trouble, and therefore you cooperate with the government, with the Presidency on a non-partisan basis, on whatever you think is good for the country.
So, I made the proposal and his people liked it.
MORRISSEY; What was the proposal?
LAROUCHE: Well, the proposal was, that we could develop new technologies, which were available. These technologies would be the alternative to thermonuclear ballistic missile attack. They wouldn't work immediatelyit would take time to do it. But my view was that if we could get the Soviet Union, and other countries, to accept the idea of going in this direction, rather than continuing with mutual and assured destruction, that we could orchestrate world politics in a new way, and get out of this knot.
MORRISSEY: Were you trying to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether?
LAROUCHE: No. That wouldn't work. What you have to do is manage...
See, it's not weapons. It's a question of military and strategic policy. How do you deal with other...
MORRISSEY: I have a Master's degree in it, that's why I'm asking. I did my Master's thesis on how eliminating certain nuclear weapons would change our whole deterrent policy, with UFMs, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, and actually the average viewer has no idea what we're talking about, right now?
WEBER: We can talk about the North and South Korea, where I've worked on the deliberation issues, there, but maybe we should move on with regards to some more...
Mr. LaRouche, there were some issues that had come forth in the mid-1980s, in which there was a ... in regards to your political campaign, and you were here in Loudoun County, and the ... I was wondering if you elaborate on that.
LAROUCHE: It's very simple. It all goes back to this SDI business.
Two things I did. When I had a debate in 1971 with Abba Lerner, and some economists, I really became... certain financial interests were very upset with me, because of what I had said about what had happened in '71. The second issue, which involved me, was this issue of SDI. All the hot issues about me, during the 1980s, involved the SDI. It was well known internationally that I was the author of what Reagan had called the SDI.
WEBER: You were the father of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
LAROUCHE: Absolutely. It worked this way. I made the proposal, I, on behalf of the government, conducted a back channel discussion with the Soviet government on this, to probe it. Reagan decided to adopt it. He named it SDI, and he broadcast it as SDI. But it's what I negotiated.
MORRISSEY; How did you have links to Soviets that really were influential? I mean, how did you get inroads with Soviets?
LAROUCHE: We had a walk-in from a top Soviet official in New York, in the United Nations, who came up to one of my associates, and dropped some words in my direction.
WEBER: A walk-in, in other words, for the viewers, would be an individual who was seeking asylum, or...
LAROUCHE: No, this guy was an official, but he was walking in to try to drop some messages in my direction. The idea was, your man has now got close relations with the new incoming President. We would like to know what his policies were on certain things.
So, I sent a memo, into the Presidency on the contact, and they came back, saying, we would like to have you set up a back-channel with the Soviet government. So I proceeded to set up a back-channel with a representative of the Soviet government, in Washington.
MORRISSEY: Who was your UN associate?
LAROUCHE: Well, it was a fellow Dan Sneider, who was a correspondent, press correspondent. He was covering the UN at the time. And he was the one that received the drop-in.
WEBER: During your run in the mid-80s... let's get back.
LAROUCHE: So, what happened was, was I conducted this discussion, and proposed this development, which you can say was a technological development. What it was... if we develop technologies that would potentially defeat a thermonuclear missile attack, then the very fact that we agree with the Soviet Union and others, to develop in this direction, moves us off this dead-end business of "we bomb you, you bomb us." And this would open the way because I knew the Soviet Union was in serious financial, economic problems, and therefore I said, Okay, the debate on this is, this will solve some economic problems for them. It will solve it for us too, because we too had economic problems at that time.
Therefore, let's go in this direction, a science-driver program, which will build up the world economy, help solve some of these problems, and with this bait, that it's going to solve some problems for a lot of nations, maybe we can make this thing work. That was the idea.
What this did, I became, on this basis, the enemy of Yuri Andropov, who wanted me dead. I also became the enemy of Gorbachov, who also wanted me dead, and said so publicly, over this issue. So, this was the issue.
All the issues.. The Democratic Party was down on me, because I made this proposal.
WEBER: And this why, in a 1985 Washington Post article, they talked about your area, where you lived in Loudoun County, was turned into a security compound of sorts.
LAROUCHE: That's nonsense. But the Washington Post has a different policy...
WEBER: Remember, the Washington Post is predominantly a Democratic newspaper?
LAROUCHE: Not exactly. It's really... it maybe Democratic, but it's not. It's a rightwing...
WEBER: Rightwing?
LAROUCHE: It is, the ownership is.
MORRISSEY: You guys are totally losing me here. All right, let's get back...
WEBER: I don't think Mrs. Graham...
MORRISSEY; Here's what I'd like to ask. I'd like to ask, rather than going through all these details, how would you characterize your political philosophy? Because what we've seen sort of, just knowing a little bit about you, is that you were allied in the 50s with some Marxist-communist related causes, and then you kind of went the other way, and now people call you rightwing. And I was reading some writings by you, and I want you to tell us how would you describe your political philosophy?
LAROUCHE: From the standpoint of U.S. politics, I'm a follower of Franklin Roosevelt, and I believe that his policies, as expressed then, as an orientation... We came out of a great crisis, the 1920s. Roosevelt saved the United States in more ways than one. The methods he used, while they may not precisely what we would do today, is the way of thinking, the orientation, which is required today. That's my view.
The Democratic Party has moved in a different direction, though there are many people in the Democratic Party, who would like to return to a Franklin Roosevelt viewpoint.
I think, for example, John Kerry, in some respects, has an instinct in that direction. He doesn't know economics at all, but he has an instinct in going in this kindly direction, sort of thing.
MORRISSEY: So, do you... you kind of consider yourself a New Deal type of Democrat? Cause, what I'm trying to do is understand, how you're approaching the role of government in society, and what it sounds like is, that you believe that government needs to do a lot to fix things. Is that why you consider yourself a ...
LAROUCHE: Not exactly. I believe that our Constitution is right. Ours is a Presidential system, not a parliamentary system. Fifty percent of the U.S. economy should be, and is, basic economic infrastructure, which is either done by the Federal government, the state government, or is done by private utilities with the backing and regulation of state and federal authorities.
MORRISSEY: Fifty percent of the economy?
LAROUCHE: Really, it's 50 percent of the economy. And this is the way we can get out of the mess.
For example, we have a 4 trillion dollar deficit, capital investment deficit, in things like power generation and distribution. We have a tremendous collapse. We have a worse situation, relatively speaking, in basic economic infrastructure than we had in 1933. This is the problem. Therefore, we need a recovery program.
But this involves all kinds of things. I wouldn't say I'm a New Dealer. I'd say that I came out, as a young, with the experience of the New Deal, the experience of the 1930s and the war, and I look back to the influence on me of what I saw in Roosevelt's leadership then, up through the war. That made a very strong impression on all of us. I say, today, if you want to make a policy change, back in that direction, you have to use precedents which will be acceptable to the American people, because they're recognized as successful precedents, from a former comparable period of time.
WEBER: Mr. LaRouche, we're going to have to take a break right now. We'll be back with Focus Loudoun in just a moment.
[commercial]
MORRISSEY: Welcome back to Focus Loudoun. We're here having a very interesting discussion with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. A Loudoun resident, and candidate for President, correct?
We'll let Ben have the first question this time, and try to bring it back to kind of more local, and right here and now politics.
WEBER: I'm obviously not going to put you on the spot, sir, and ask you, as a resident of the Round Hill area, who you voted for in the Supervisor elections, so we'll let that thing slide.
MORRISSEY: Just say you voted for Ben.
WEBER: But I am curious to know, with the Virginia primary, I'd like to get your readout on what recently happened. You had achieved 1.28 percent of the vote, which is approximately came out to be about 130 votes, just slightly ahead of Dick Gephardt and Joe LiebermanI had to think of the others.
MORRISSEY: They had dropped out.
WEBER: They had already dropped out, but they still received votes in Loudoun County.
LAROUCHE: I thought Joe Lieberman joined the Republican Party. (laughter)
WEBER; You know, again, I'm being cornered by two registered Democrats, here.
MORRISSEY: I'm ... a retired colonel friend in the Pentagon told me he was going to write me in.
WEBER: That's very nice, something to write home about. But I was wondering if you could comment on that, and what you feel... I know you're working very hard to get on a number of ballots throughout the United States.
LAROUCHE: I'm on 30 odd ballots in the United States. Virginia... the election so far, even though they mean something, on the other hand they don't mean much. What has happened, we're going through a phase change in this election process.
WEBER: What do you mean, we're going through a phase change?
LAROUCHE: The country is going through a phase change. Up to now, even though there's an increased interest in the vote, as the New Hampshire primary demonstrated, there was a larger turnout than before in New Hampshire, which indicated more voter activation on the question of the Presidential elections than before. Compared with the falloff in local election heretofore.
Now, what's happened, though, is the voters so far are still behaving like spectators in the bleachers, watching a gladiator contest. They're voting for their favorite character; they have not put themselves yet, in the arena. What is going to happen, with the financial crisis hitting now, and once the dollar goes down to 1.30 dollars for the euro, that level is going to produce a crisis, a major crisis.
At that point, the American voter is going to see himself in the arena, not in the grandstand. His voting behavior will tend to change. Exactly when that shift will come, is uncertain, but people have a lot of things on their mind, but they're still in a wishful state, of hoping that the financial crisis is not actually happening.
MORRISSEY; Who are they going to blame that on?
LAROUCHE: I don't we can blame...
MORRISSEY: I think they should blame it themselves, because the financial crisis of this type, did not come around because of any one administration. It came because we went through a cultural paradigm shift.
WEBER: Well, that's interesting, because John Kerry would blame that Bush had everything to do with the economic downturn.
LAROUCHE: John's a good guy, but John's being advised on how to run. I think that if I were talking to him privately, I would get a completely different kind of discussion, than what he feels he has to say in public.
WEBER: What do you think about him? He indicates and his representative here in Loudoun County, John Flannery, I believe, indicate that they aren't taking any particular type, the Kerry campaign's not taking any special interest money, it's not taking any PAC money, but then George Soros is funneling money into this campaign.
LAROUCHE: I know Mr. Flannery. I think that I wouldn't take his views on what John Kerry think.
MORRISSEY: Okay, let's stick to that special interest thing. Because we decided last time, that everyone's got a special interest. And the way our campaign finance system is set up, anybody can weigh in with their resources, and one person's special interest is another person's, you know...
WEBER: But that reminds me, that the way the Kerry campaign seems like they're doing it, it's very interesting. What is the listing of some of your contributors? Who are the...
LAROUCHE: I have twice as many financial contributors as John Kerry.
WEBER: But are they obviously...
LAROUCHE: Not the big bucks.
MORRISSEY: And where are they mostly come from? Where is your network?
LAROUCHE: All over the United States.
MORRISSEY: And what's your unifying principle? What is it that makes people see you as the person who has the answer to...
LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, I'm known by a lot of people in the United States. I have a very broad base of recognition, higher than most of the so-called major candidates, who are known only as media figures, not as issue figures.
MORRISSEY: I'll debate that.
LAROUCHE: No, they don't know them as gut issues. For example, on me, it's on economics, civil rights. I'm a leading figure on civil rights, on these issues...
MORRISSEY: Did you work on... were you a civil rights leader in the 1960s?
LAROUCHE: No, I was a civil rights supporter in that period. Always have been. My civil rights record goes back about 200 years in the family.
WEBER: You had indicated that issues was one of the things that helped separate you from the media figures of the other Democrats. You know, a few years ago, after the Oklahoma bombing, you were interviewed, and indicated that England was actually behind that..
LAROUCHE: No, that's a misquotation. That was a misrepresentation by some of the press. What happened...
WEBER: The gentleman that interviewed you, had also interviewed you about 8 other times, within the last 5 years.
LAROUCHE: I know, this is what happens in these things. What had happened is that Rees-Mogg, who had been chief editor of the London Times, had made a comment on the Oklahoma bombing, of the foreknowledge of what was going to happen, like this, in the United States. I made a comment on that, and said that this was something that we had to take seriously that some one was planning something of this type.
I also, of course, was familiar with some of the counterintelligence problems involved in that area. There were certain things I was looking at, as potential problems from certain kinds of groups and so forth...
WEBER: Because you had actually gotten very specific, in indicating that the individuals in the Oklahoma, the gentlemen that were convicted, were not capable of creating a shaped charge...
LAROUCHE: No, not a shaped charge. This was a very sophisticated operation, and an operation is not just putting a charge of a certain shape in place. It's knowing and doing a lot of other things to make it work. It was a very complicated operation, very thoroughly planned. And these two guys may have been part of the operation, but they were not capable of doing the overall operation.
WEBER: So, you believe there were some other...
LAROUCHE: It wasn't that, it was a matter of policy. When you get to be in politics, as I am, you think of these things not as matters of scandal, but as matters of what has to be done about something. Which doesn't mean you jump to a conclusion.
My conclusion was, that everything we had to do, had to concentrate on the investigation, a thorough investigation. And I was opposed to the shutting off the investigation, on the basis of, "we got the guy, let's hang him!" I don't want to hang the guy, I want to find out what's behind it, because maybe there's something more that we have to be concerned about in national security. And therefore, I don't believe in executing the guy you've got. I want to squeeze that thing for everything you can know, possibly, that might point either to a connection, or might point our attention to a similar danger, coming from some completely different quality.
WEBER: Let me just ask another question, not about that. You just talked about, to squeeze as much information possibly out of that individual. As a presidential candidate, what is your view on capital punishment?
LAROUCHE: I'm against it.
WEBER: You are against it.
LAROUCHE: Counterproductive.
MORRISSEY: Let me ask you this, because I've read a few things that had been written, I guess, in the last few decades, by either you, or your supporters.
WEBER: Isn't EIR your newspaper?
LAROUCHE: Yes, EIR.
MORRISSEY: Yes, Executive Intelligence Review.
LAROUCHE: Precisely.
MORRISSEY: What I want to know, is what is your connection to your intelligence community, because in your writing, it kind of portrays some kind of official capacity for collecting intelligence, and passing it along to the CIA. And, is that a formal relationship, or is that kind of open source intelligence that you guys bring, and offer up? Or how does that work?
LAROUCHE: It's no secret. I mean, there are certain things, I don't cross the border.
I've had, at a certain point, as in the SDI period, I did have some intelligence, had taken the oath, so to speak, for that purpose, in that period.
MORRISSEY; What clearance were you granted?
LAROUCHE: This was this operation, qualified thing, National Security Council. It's that simply.
But obviously, people know me in the intelligence community. Top officials, Casey, for example, people like that, I knew, knew me, and so forth. So, I'm known for what I am in these circles, and internationally.
The SDI was a very large intelligence operation. I was involved with the top-ranking people there. French military services, German military services, Italian military services, and others, as well as our own [ ] operation. The magazine...
MORRISSEY: SDIO was the organization that was purely research and development, for technologies to support the capability to basically take Soviet ICBMs, or SLBMs, out of the sky. So, obviously intelligence and threat and understanding of the actual technical intelligence that it takes to be able to project Soviet technical capability it sounds like you're characterizing it as a whole different...
LAROUCHE: Well, it is. I was in the middle of it. That's what I was in the middle of.
WEBER: You know, with
LAROUCHE: With people in various countries. And we were doing that as a joint project. We had the closest relations between the United States, Germany, France, and Italy, that we've had in the postwar period, during that period. This was very close relations.
The Germans, for example, the German military said to me, that what I had done, had put strategy back on the table, and gave them hope that we could do something about the world situation.
MORRISSEY; Were you on the National Security Council?
LAROUCHE: No, I just served as a private citizen, who was seconded to report to certain people in the National Security Council.
MORRISSEY: As a consultant?
LAROUCHE: As a private citizen.
MORRISSEY: Okay. But they didn't pay you to do it?
LAROUCHE: No. But my intelligence capabilities, our private intelligence capabilities, are international, and quite significant, and therefore, for example, in the case of my attack on Cheney, which I launched in August of 2002....
MORRISSEY: Yeah, what's that all about? Calling him Beast-Man Cheney, or something? (laughs)
LAROUCHE: Oh, he is.
MORRISSEY: What's up with that?
LAROUCHE: Oh, this is a long story. This goes into the question of the history...
MORRISSEY: I like Cheney.
LAROUCHE: This goes into the question of synarchism, which goes way back to the 18th century, and some things there. But there is along continuation of a certain policy in Anglo-American-European policy. It's called the Synarchist International. This was the organization...
MORRISSEY: What does that mean?
LAROUCHE: It's actually, it's a complicated thing. It's a long story, I've published on this.
WEBER: Let's try to keep it somewhat in the 21st century, because I know if you're running for President, talking about euro-centrism back in the 1800s....
LAROUCHE: This is the party that created Hitler, the Synarchist International. Mussolini in 1922, through Adolf Hitler out in 1945. This was the Synarchist International This was the enemy we actually fought, which we called fascism, during World War II.
After the war, this same tradition continued. Some of the same people they're still around.
MORRISSEY: What is the political philosophy that characterizes that movement?
LAROUCHE: Well, it's a movement which is based on the tradition of the Spanish inquisition, which applied that in the period of the French Revolution. Believes that methods of terror, as a method of controlling populations, are acceptable. And this is generally thought, as the most extreme rightwing tendencies. They have leftwing aspects, but generally you think of this as ultra-extreme rightwing.
WEBER: So, you think that Cheney is doing this type of fear-factor...
LAROUCHE: He is. He is. I don't know how intelligent he is, but as a spokesman, as a member of government, with his associates, like Wolfowitz and so forth, are all part of this crew. And very nasty...
WEBER: I had a wonderful opportunity to work with Paul Wolfowitz. He's a very good man, so, be careful here.
LAROUCHE; I know the man. The key thing, this is the Strauss network. This is a network which is part of this.
MORRISSEY: Robert Strauss?
LAROUCHE: No, Leo Strauss.
MORRISSEY: Okay.
LAROUCHE; A professor at Chicago University. He was sort of the grandmother of a lot of these people. Wolfowitz was a student of his. That's how he got into the business.
So, this is all one network which we call neo
MORRISSEY: So, Wolfowitz, for people who don't know, is the deputy secretary of Defense, former dean of the Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, very well respected national security analyst. He is considered a conservative, a hawk in the sense that he wants to take basically pro-active steps to prevent... with regard to Iraq, to prevent Saddam Hussein from emerging again as a power. We could go on forever on that. What I want to make sure we don't do, is talk about people, like they've got all these hidden agendas, because I was in the Pentagon, I see what they do everyday, I see how many hours people, like Rumsfelds' deputies, work, and they went into that field because they care about the country.
WEBER: Are you saying that Rumsfeld, you respect Secretary Rumsfeld?
MORRISSEY: Um-hum.
WEBER: You sure you're not a Republican?
MORRISSEY: He believes in transformation, and he's actually put the hammer down to make it happen.
LAROUCHE: The policy issue is, of course...
[ cross talk]
LAROUCHE: The policy issue in this form goes back to Cheney as Secretary of Defense in the first Bush Administration, when he presented this policy of preventive nuclear warfare. He continued with that. He was the one that wanted to continue with the Iraq war at that time. At that point, people like James Baker III, who was secretary of state, and others, quashed him on that. But he continued the policy.
He then went, in a deal with Israel, and came up with the Clean Break policy, of Netanyahu, about 1996. This policy then became, after September 11, of 2001, Cheney marched in on this thing and said, "Okay, I was right," and began pushing it, and by the time of the ...
MORRISSEY: Pushing it, as in "Let's go after Iraq, and make sure Saddam is...
LAROUCHE: ... "let's go with the nukes. Let's take out North Korea, let's take out Syria, let's take out Iran. Let's take out another..."
MORRISSEY: You know, I think to have any record of statements like that, you would have to have access to some highly classified conversations.
LAROUCHE: Not really, they talk a lot. They've got big mouths, and they talk about it. And it's in the international field. It's out everywhere. It's well known.
WEBER: We'll have to go, and read our FBIS reports, and find out what.. we're going to have to take a break, but Mr. LaRouche, we want to thank you for joining us.
MORRISSEY: It was a very interesting conversation. All over the place. Hopefully the audience could follow it.
|