- Rense: My guest for the first two hours tonight is Mr.
Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon is the first declared Democrat for President in
the year 2004, and he insists, he could win. Lyndon LaRouche, as many of
you know, founded the weekly Executive Intelligence Review sometime ago,
and it is a remarkable news publication. His economic forecasts have proven
more accurate than anybody else's. Lyndon was also correct, to put it mildly,
to warn that the New Economy in this country, was a bubble. A house of
cards, whatever you want to call it. And that the whole globalist system
is, in fact, bankrupt. Leaders of many nations have been asking Lyndon
LaRouche how they could survive an ongoing blowout of the United States
economy. They have also, in fact, been fascinated with his analysis, of
how the economic crisis is related to the drive for war with Iraq.
-
- This summer, Lyndon participated in major conferences
in the United Arab Emirates, in Italy, in Mexico, and one with the Chinese,
from the mainland, and, Taiwan, as well. In fact, the City Council of the
world's third largest city, Sao Paulo, Brazil, made him an honorary citizen,
in a unique ceremony, complete with the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.
-
- Lyndon LaRouche also leads a growing grass roots movement
here at home. During the last few weeks, in fact, his presidential campaign,
including many of you folks, distributed four million copies of a fascinating
leaflet entitled "<http://larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2002/020725electable.htm>The
Electable LaRouche." And another million copies are ready to go out
this very week.
-
- Lyndon, by the way, will turn 80 in about two weeks,
but from what we are hearing, his movement is getting younger, and younger
all the time. Yet another paradox we shall explore in our first two hours
tonight.
-
- Lyndon, welcome back to the program. You kept your last
engagement with me over two years ago already, by coming on the air from
Germany, at 4 AM. Let's hope you're in more comfortable surroundings now.
Where are you?
-
- LaRouche: I'm in the Leesburg area, Leesburg, Virginia.
-
- Rense: That's Leesburg, Southern Germany, right?
-
- LaRouche: No, this is Leesburg in Virginia.
-
- Rense: Just kidding...A little joke.
-
- LaRouche: We haven't taken it over yet!
-
- Rense: Well, that was a difficult thing to do -- 4 AM.
We do a lot of overseas broadcasts, amd it's great to have you back on
the program.
-
- There is so much going on, I hardly know where to begin.
Let me begin, perhaps, with the freshest news item at the top of the heap
today, leading off by mentioning to those of you who may not have heard
it, President Bush has made it clear that his legal counsel advises he
needs no authority from Congress, or anybody else, to start a war with
Iraq. Or should I say, a 'pre-emptive' strike? Today, in fact, Vice-President
Dick Cheney, or is he really the man pulling the strings here?, laid out
the White House's case for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, citing "mortal
danger to the United States," and labelling critics of the Bush policy
-- or is it the Cheney policy? -- as being guilty of "willful blindness,"
citing what he said was the danger that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
could fall into the hands of terrorists. Cheney said that America could
not afford to sit by idly, and it would, if necessary, fight a war of liberation,
not of conquest.
-
- Lyndon, as you travel around the world, and you are in
some of the most unique places on the globe, month in and month out, who
do most people, most world leaders that you talk to, identify as the real
terrorists on the planet? Do they have a problem identifying who's who
anymore?
-
- LaRouche: Well, they do, in a sense. But their sense
is, that Iraq is not the problem. That most countries will look at Saddam
Hussein as a problematic figure, but not the kind of case in which you
would consider a war necessary. In fact, what he did have, in terms of
weapons of mass destruction, apart from maybe some residual poison gas
left...
-
- Rense: And, by the way, a lot of those weapons of mass
destruction, materiel, came from this country, Britain, and Germany, among
other places.
-
- LaRouche: And from Vice-President George Bush, and his
crowd, in the days of what was called, romantically, Iran-Contra, when
the United States was backing Iraq to fight a war against Iran.
-
- Rense: Well, Saddam Hussein was our golden boy for years.
We gave him billions of dollars to kill Iranians, and that's the truth
of the matter.
-
- LaRouche: But he's not capable of producing an effective
war machine, that would constitute a real threat to the region. His infrastructure
has been destroyed. And you cannot simply whistle weapons out of your imagination
from blueprints. You must have the industrial and related capabilities
to do it, and he doesn't have it. So, there is no threat from Iraq.
-
- However, there is a perception in Washington -- two things.
First of all, they believe they need a war, in order to do a number of
things, but especially to control the fact that the economy is collapsing.
-
- Rense: They need to resuscitate what's left of it, and
they think a war will do it.
-
- LaRouche: Well, if they believe that, they're crazy.
Because we are at a point at which the attempt, as the generals, and many
of the generals have warned Washington, it doesn't work. There's probably
not a single nation abroad, in which there is support for Bush's apparent
ego commitment to launching an attack on Iraq. No nation in Europe, no
nation in Asia, no nation in the Americas, outside the United States, is
willing to support an attack on Iraq. So, the United States is all by its
lonesome, and most Americans don't want it either.
-
- Rense: Well, I'd rather say that the Bush Administration
is all by its lonesome, but we are along for the ride, like it or not,
folks. We have an electoral process here, and one way or the other, and
one way or another, we're looking at the elected official, even if the
Supreme Court did the electing.
-
- Dick Cheney. "Willful blindness." I think in
private he'd probably use stronger terminology, but "willful blindness"
is certainly first cousin to being a suspect terrorist. We have this alleged
Patriot Act, which was passed by our Ladies and Gentlemen of the Congress,
without so much as even having read it, an unprecedented shame in the history
of this nation, in my opinion. I don't know where we're going with this
issue, but the whole snitch culture is now being talked about with great
vigor, and concern, on the internet, as you well know. How do you see the
move against the Constitution, against the Bill of Rights? We seem to be
making a lot of progress...
-
- LaRouche: When I gave a webcast shortly before the inauguration
of George W. Bush, I warned against this. I warned against the economic
crisis. I warned that we were headed -- and particularly with the case
of Ashcroft -- that the designation of Ashcroft as the Attorney General,
meant that the government was inclined to launch police state measures
in the United States, against the American people.
-
- Rense: You were the first person that I remember being
quoted saying that. You were right in the forefront, again.
-
- LaRouche: Well, it was not a matter of predicting. It
was a matter of knowing the character of the creatures coming in there.
It's like, you know, if you've got a man-eating tiger in your living room,
it doesn't take a fortune-teller to tell you that what kind of problem
you have to deal with.
-
- Rense: Isn't that mentality a rather closely akin to
what the early colonists left England about? Lord Ashcroft's mentality?
-
- LaRouche: Some of that. Remember, England, under the
monarchy, was always a Venetian model, imperial maritime power. It's come
on bad straits now, but the character of the thing is still the same.
-
- Rense: Let me clarify that a little bit. I mean, the
heavy-handedness of it all. It's not so much that England had a snitch
culture, and a Patriot Act that was approved by the monarchy, but we have
the same kind of heavy-handedness that is stifling freedom here.
-
- LaRouche: Well, we have this tendency in the United States,
which has been called, since 1763, has been called the American Tory current.
Remember, 1763, the British were about to attack us, as we had been their
allies against the French in North America. Now they were about to attack
us. And the population of North America, of the colonies, was divided between
two groups: one of which became known as the patriots, led by Franklin,
and the other, Franklin's opponents, who were known, and to the present
day, as the American Tories.
-
- Now, this crowd -- the American Tories -- or a section
of it, has found itself in a position where the United States, emerging
from world War II, as the only world power at the time, and then after
1989, '91, with the collapse of the Soviet system, that many people in
the English-speaking world, who are of the same disposition, thought of
ending the nation state, globalizing the planet -- which is really a way
of saying, setting up a New Roman Empire under one dictator, the English-speaking
oligarchs, hmmm? So this thing... And you have a group within this American
Tory tradition -- because you see the division in it. I mean, people like
Scowcroft, and others, who are traditionally tied to the American Tory
Establishment, the Wall Street establishment -- they are warning against
this crazy war. But it is a group inside, a hard-core group, typified by
a bunch of draft-dodgers, who now have turned themselves into what some
people call "chicken-hawks," guys who ducked the draft, but want
a war -- typified by Perle and his supporters, and this crowd, is geared
toward war.
-
- They're crazy. It's the menace, and they seem to have
George by the tail.
-
- Rense: Is this a war to make the world safe for ... Unocal?
-
- LaRouche: No, not quite. It's not going to make the world
safe for anything.
-
- Rense: What is this war really about? We'll come back
and discuss that with Democratic Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche,
the electable LaRouche, in just a couple minutes.
-
- [commercial break]
-
- Rense: Okay, we're back, with Democratic Presidential
candidate Lyndon LaRouche. Do you prefer "Democrat," or "Democratic"?
You know...
-
- LaRouche: Well, I'm really a Roosevelt-style Democrat.
-
- Rense: Okay, "Democrat."
-
- LaRouche: And in former times, you might call me an Abraham
Lincoln Republican An Abraham Lincoln Republican and a Roosevelt Democrat,
are pretty much the same thing.
-
- Rense: Well, it's true. Times change and boy, look back
just a few decades at how labels have changed, even then.
-
- All right, the war is being fought. There are a lot of
theories about this issue. One of them, of course, is that the New World
Order, the globalist transnational cartel that seeks to run and dominate
most of the planet, sees that it has to knock off non-compliant states,
nation-states, in a hurry, or in a couple or three years, it'll be probably
too late in that they will have weapons of mass destruction, to the extent
that the price paid for knocking them off, will be too much. It'll be overly
exorbitant.
-
- There's that theory. Then there's the theory that this
is really a war for natural resources, and this is a war to make the world
safe for Unocal, and other favored oil companies. It's a complex issue,
Lyndon, but give us your view on it, please.
-
- LaRouche: Well, I think the essential motive for war
is insanity.
-
- Rense: Oh, I'll vote for that. Here, here.
-
- LaRouche: It's ... you have a group of people who are
desperate, who believe they should have world power, but they don't have
a clear idea of what they're doing. Their conception is, Roman Empire,
or Nazi international Waffen-SS. Remember, at the end of World War II,
the Nazi military was changed into an international Waffen SS. That is,
you had regiments and so forth from many countries, language groups, national
groups...
-
- Rense: Oh, the western front, I think 8 our of 10 soldiers
were non-German.
-
- LaRouche: Exactly. So, therefore, the idea is to have
a bunch of stone-killers, people like, poor kids who did the shooting at
Columbine, who are cranked up on point-and-shoot video-games and similar
kinds of training.
-
- Rense: Utterly beyond brainwashed, yes.
-
- LaRouche: They go out, and they kill, as we see what's
happening in Afghanistan. So, it's a kill operation. As opposed to what
some people remember from World War II, in which the United States did
not win war by killing. War is always a monster in terms of death. But
the purpose was not to kill. As, take MacArthur's operation in the Pacific.
The operation was essentially logistics, to control the territory, to control
movement, and thus to bring the opponent to a point of willingness to consider
peaceful surrender. And that's what real war is.
-
- Now, the idea is not to bring the world to a peaceful
order of agreement among states, which was our objective, essentially,
in World War II. But rather instead, to destroy states, that is, destroy
entire peoples, and to reduce the planet to a number of managed areas,
with particular emphasis on controlling natural resources.
-
- Rense: These will become vassal states, if they're still
states at all, with puppet governments. In fact, I want to dump this in,
while we're talking. Not only has the Bush Administration, of course, been
trying to pump up the alleged Iraqi opposition, the expatriate opposition,
but today the son of the former Shah of Iran is talking about returning
home, and re-establishing the monarchy in Iran. Do we see chapter II, after
chapter I, which is the war on Iraq? Do we see Iran, perhaps, being remade?
-
- LaRouche: They can't win the war. You see, winning a
war means that you can bring about the acceptance of peace, or peaceful
arrangement, with the nation you intend to defeat in war. Now, in this
kind of war, with these kinds of missions, and orientations, as in Afghanistan,
they will never win the war in Afghanistan! It could never be won. This
kind of war cannot be won.
-
- Rense: You can't buy everybody off, can you?
-
- LaRouche: Look, the country has no real infrastructure
for development. It has been reduced by a series of wars, to essentially
a bandit state, various bandit groups, called warlord groups, combatting
with each other. The existence of the state depends largely on a massive
export of drugs produced in Afghanistan, under warlord supervision, which
are coming...
-
- Rense: Now there's a record crop...
-
- LaRouche: ...into the West. So, you have a situation,
where you could go into Iraq, and destroy a lot of things in sight. You
could do the same thing in Iran, but you would never bring about peace.
And the objective of war is peace.
-
- What destroyed the Roman Empire was exactly that kind
of mistake. The legions were out there to control the world, by destruction,
but they found themselves in a perpetual war. They ran out of Italians
for fighting the war. They began to take other nationalities into these
various legions, and the legions themselves decayed, and the war -- Rome
and the West disintegrated. And a similar thing happened, in a somewhat
different fashion, with Byzantium.
-
- So the idiots, who have not studied, and the interesting
thing is that the people, in the United States, in the U.S. government,
and in the Democratic Party, who are most influential in pushing this war,
are people who, during time of military conflict, managed to avoid military
service. So you have bunch of idiots, who in a sense would be regarded
as draft dodgers by many people, and you've got the draft dodgers who are
yelling "War!" Now, you can imagine that competence is not that
good. And you find the generals, on the other side, saying that these former
draft dodger-warmongers are not competent. And they're right!
-
- So, the danger is, is this kind of insanity, where a
lunatic is holding a family hostage with a sawed-off shotgun, and that's
the kind of situation you face. There's no conception of war as something
that is done in order to preconditions for peace, but rather just killing.
-
- Rense: Well, as I said, all the labels, all the definitions,
have changed. Black is white, now. Up is down, many people say. Hence the
term "chicken-hawks," that Mr. LaRouche mentioned earlier, and
as I mentioned, the poppy-opium crop this year. A world record in Afghanistan!
And how many of you are surprised about that. We'll be right back.
-
- [commercial break]
-
- Rense: Okay, welcome back. Jeff Rense with Lyndon LaRouche,
talking about a whole number of things, many, many subjects to get into
here, but let's try to move on with the Iraq issue. All right, so the Bush
Administration, referred to by some, Lyndon, as an oil-soaked, drug-oriented,
natural resource-devouring monster administration, continues to ship, apparently,
vast amount of military hardware to the Middle East in preparation for
the preemptive strike on Iraq. So, how does it shape it to you? We have
a November election coming up. Is the window at hand? Are we looking toward
the effort, at least, to go in unilaterally, with the token support of
Tony Blair, Bush's pal, lap dog, some would say? Before the election? How
do you see the time on that?
-
- LaRouche: Well, we've got a couple things, a couple factors,
short-term factors. Obviously the Bush Administration is headed toward,
somewhere late August, right now, into October, of launching of what would
be called the war, the preventive action. There obviously are special
forces operations, or similar kind of things, assassination operations,
being deployed against Iraq, probably targetting Saddam Hussein and others.
-
- The thing we're looking at next is the likelihood, is
bombers. Now, the U.S. presently has some logistic agreement with Germany,
which is crucial for any logistical operations there, but nothing else
to speak of. Therefore, we're talking about B-2 bombers, flying from the
United States to Iraq, unloading and flying back to be retooled for the
next flight. And then of course, you have this naval capability, which
also can deliver some punch of that type. But as far as a ground war, a
regular war, the capability of launching that, is down the line someplace,
at the most.
-
- Rense: It is told to me that there are now, in the theatre,
at least 100,000 American troops. Another 150,000 are ready to be shipped
out on very short notice. Will that be enough to do it, in your estimation?
-
- LaRouche: No, I think -- I don't think it would do it
anyway, because you've got a certain point that you become tangled in the
feet of the guy next to you. This is not a good choice of war. But politically,
it seems that the President has got himself, his ego, talked into that.
-
- Rense: Did he actually, Lyndon, do you think the guy
actually did that out of just plain dumbness? Or is he being coached, pushed,
and directed along these lines, that make him look to be as you're describing.
-
- LaRouche: You can see very clearly that there's certainly
a lot of manipulation of him, in the media, by people around him, and so
forth. There's no question of that. But he's got himself talked into it.
-
- Remember, we've watched this guy, when he was Governor
of Texas. We've watched him as President now for a year and a half. He
has certain psychological weakness. Now, what do you do when you get a
President like this? Well, what you do is you count on the institutions
of government, especially the Federal executive, to try to get the President
to clear the fog from his mind, and rely upon some people to give him some
advice.
-
- Rense: And yet, every time he strays away from his speechwriters'
text, he seems to, if not stumble, he certainly does take rather teetery
step from time to time.
-
- LaRouche: Oh, I've thought about this, clearly. Because
2004, the next presidential election, is a long way down the road, relative
to the problems that are coming up fast now.
-
- Rense: That's right.
-
- LaRouche: So therefore, what do we do with this President,
... if he does nothing impeachable, and a declaration of war, without a
declaration of war with the Congress, would be, I think, grounds of impeachment
-- if the American people suddenly take a disliking to him, then if he
goes ahead with a war, without going to the Congress, he can be easily
impeached.
-
- Rense: Well, that's assuming a Congress who's willing
to be compliant and fall all over.
-
- LaRouche: Congress is a bunch of hounds, wolves, that
will turn on their own on a dime.
-
- Rense: So, how are we going to impeach him, with a Congress
...
-
- LaRouche: I don't particularly intend to impeach him.
My view is to rally people in the Democratic Party, away from... Lieberman
is just as bad, or worse, than Bush, and McCain is worse than Bush on these
issues, in the Republican Party. You have people, even like Dick Armey,
from Texas, he's even come to his senses on this thing. So, I would say
that if you get group of leading circles, in politics, and in private life,
of influence, and if they form a kind of coalition to say, look, let's
save the President from his own folly, and use him as a President, as an
instrument for those policies which he's told he should support.
-
- He's trying to make up his mind on things which are beyond
his comprehension.
-
- Rense: It seems almost, militarily, as if he has extended
himself to the point now, when to pull back, as someone was saying just
yesterday -- I've forgotten who exactly -- that it would a grave humiliation
to the ... not the honor, but the impression of strength that the United
States is seeking to extend and project around the world.
-
- LaRouche: There's no point. We're....
-
- Look, take the case of the real issue. Now, he had this
Waco, so-called economic summit, which was a real farce. Everything that
was coming out of there was nonsense, and poor Bush, who is not capable
of understanding any of these issues, actually understanding them, for
a working understanding, is popped in there for a few minutes on each of
the four sessions, and popped out saying he had confidence in the fundamentals.
He wouldn't know what a fundamental is!
-
- Rense: Well, that's why I raised the issue earlier, of
who's pulling his strings, who's directing him? It seems to me that Cheney,
quite clearly, is leading a...
-
- LaRouche: I don't think... I see that kind of thing.
I'm watching Rumsfeld, and Cheney both. I'm watching other things. I'm
watching Condoleezza Rice, who is a real H.G. Wells-geared person.
-
- Rense: She's a real strange duck.
-
- LaRouche: Oh boy, she is strange.
-
- Rense: Actually, judging by the e-mail I get, a lot of
bright observers are afraid of that woman. She's somewhat scary.
-
- LaRouche: She's Madeleine Albright's sort-of adoptive
step-sister.
-
- Rense: Very well said. All right, hold on right there.
We have a cast of characters, folks, playing with your destiny right now,
in our government, the likes of which I don't remember seeing. We'll see
if Lyndon has any parallels in his life, but this is a dangerous group,
that is seeking to stick your necks on the line. Remember Bush's statements
after 9-11, the so-called War on Terror, that he unilaterally declared
then and there, might not be over in our lifetimes, and, most importantly,
that Americans could expect that more people would die here at home, than
our men and women on foreign battlefields during this war on terror.
-
- Well, think about that, and we'll continue in just ....
-
[commercial break]
-
- Rense: My guest, I'm very proud to have him back tonight,
it's been two years, is Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., the first officially announced
presidential candidate for the next election, assuming we get there,
let's hope.
-
- Lyndon, is that the most dangerous, treacherous bunch
you have ever seen at the helm of government in America, and you've been
watching it for a long time?
-
- LaRouche: Well, actually, there's been pretty bad rascals
in our past, but the combination of the circumstances and the leadership
is probably potentially the most disastrous that we have had. In former
times the world was bigger in the sense that the U.S. was bigger, things
were slower, but we got ourselves into a mess where we are a virtual empire.
We have been surviving by sucking the blood of the world, especially since
1971. So things are now much more dangerous then ever before, and the penalties
and the mistakes are now coming quicker, than they have in the past. Therefore
this bunch of incompetents, and I will say (there may be a few competent
people) but overall this government is about as incompetent as you can
get. And it's dangerous. It's got strong opinions and weak brains.
-
- Rense: It's almost cowboy mentality, isn't it?
-
- LaRouche: Oh boy, the Texas image, bowlegged, six shootin'
guy. "I had to do it." [with Texan accent]
-
- Rense: That's right. We're going to kick their...and
take their gas.
-
- LaRouche: Exactly. What are you going to say? There's
no finesse.
-
- Rense: No "subtlety." What is that? A strange
foreign word. I think your point about America paying penalties quicker
than ever, is a very important one. I think we will see penalties from
whatever action is taken over there. I think that those people in Washington,
the president, or most of them all, in warning us that more Americans will
die at home in fact, will die at home than American man and women on foreign
battle fields, are more then prepared to sacrifice, I hate to say it, a
good number of Americans, to achieve their ends. Most Americans may not
agree with their ends.
-
- LaRouche: If they are in the above-fifty area of increasing
health care risk, they see it. If you look at the young guys I'm looking
at, eighteen to twenty-five, the so-called college age, university age
youth. That those who are sensitive realize two things. That the price
of tuition is in inverse proportion to the quality of education delivered.
-
- Rense: Ahuh! Brilliantly said.
-
- LaRouche: Secondly, that they have no future. So therefore
what we have done is we have created a situation in which you have two
large groups which do perceive that. You have baby-boomers, those under
fifty-five, who may have illusions that bad things can't happen to them.
Or that everything will turn out all right. Or like young Dracula's, that
the recovery is inevitable at mid-night. But there is no recovery in this
system right now. We can get one, but it would mean a change in our behavior.
The young people realize in different degrees and different forms that
they have no future as a youth generation, adolescents and young adults,
then people who are over fifty-five or sixty, know that people got them
on the skids for accelerated death and suffering. So this our national
situation and the impression is that no one in Washington cares. That's
the impression. There are a few people in Washington who do care, I know
that. But the overall impression that is projected to the American people
throughout the mass media, through government and so forth is that nobody
cares, about other countries, or else.
-
- Rense: There is no feeling that this Administration is
concerned. You're right. That it's non-responsive. There is no feeling
that this Administration has much of a heart. It's a machine and it seems
to be out to do the bidding of trans-national globalist elite.
-
- LaRouche: And the President says I own the ranch. The
world is my ranch and I own it.
-
- Rense: And if you don't like it, we're going to come
over and we're going to restructure you. Rehabilitate you.
-
- LaRouche: That's right. Regime change.
-
- Rense: Oh yes, just a little regime change. Never mind
that probably in the last ten years, probably over a million Iraqis, mostly
young people, have died because of the America-led boycott. Never mind
that we went over and dosed Iraq, especially southern Iraq around Basra,
with thousands of tons of dust called depleted uranium, and we are going
to go back and give them a second helping? What is this!
-
- LaRouche: This is a system which is in the terminal phase
of its existence. You might say that this is a poor imitation of Belshazzar's
feast. And the "Mene, Mene, Tekel" is written on the wall.
-
- Rense: It's the Wal-Mart edition.
-
- LaRouche: Yeah, (laughs) it's the Wal-Mart version of
Belshazzar.
-
- Rense: We should be more accurate and call it China-Mart
but that's another story.
-
- LaRouche: (Laughs) I'm not a pessimist. I'm just a realist...
-
- Rense: This really just reflects the last gasp of Rome
in so many ways. This is going to be the most ugly, the most blatant, if
this war happens, act of imperialist aggression, that the world has seen
for quite a long time. This is imperialism, there is no real other way
to phrase it.
-
- LaRouche: It's worse. It's like the Fourteenth Century
in Europe, where you had the collapse of the system. You had approximately
a hundred years of religious warfare run in the name of the Holy League,
against the threatened emergence of nation states. This whole operation
was run by a group of bankers called Lombard bankers, controlled by Venice,
but they were based on Florence, called Lombard bankers, such as the Bardi
and Peruzzi. They piled on debts the way we pile on debts, say in South
America, Mexico and other parts of the world. They piled these debts on,
and it got to the point, that as now with, say, Citibank and JP Morgan
Chase and other banks, American banks are on the verge of bankruptcy. This
is the situation. We have reached this point where we have to decide as
in the case of Brazil and Argentina. Are we going to insist on collecting
these inflated debts which are manufactured fraudulently by a floating
exchange rate system over the past period since 1971? Well if we are, we're
going to kill the people in those nations.
-
- In Europe when the decision was made and the bankruptcy
of that system in the Fourteenth Century, one third of the population of
Europe was wiped out as a result of people insisting in collecting full
nominal value from outstanding uncollectible debts. We are now in a situation,
we have to decide to either put this thing through bankruptcy reorganization
and start a new system or we are going to kill not only Argentina and
Brazil but we're going to kill the United States too. I'll give you an
example, just to give you an indication of how bad things are. The railway
system of the United States is collapsing. If we allow the collapse of
the railway system to continue, this nation will not be integrated economically.
We will have no way of getting guaranteed delivery by rail from one part
of the country to the other. We also have a crisis with the airlines. The
airlines are in danger right now.
-
- Rense: Yes, they are all foundering.
-
- LaRouche: So therefore we have to have a reorganization
of our transportation system. We have to have federal action to maintain
and improve the railroads which are running on tracks which date from 1926
or something like that.
-
- Rense: It's true, Amtrak has been bathing in red ink
since its inception.
-
- LaRouche: Well this is a swindle I have been involved
in fighting a long time. We have a rationalization. In general to rationalize
this system, we would say in the northeastern corridor for example, from
Boston Mass. to Washingtonm DC, along the main track which used to be the
old Pennsy track, that you would have a high-speed rail system and probably
put in magnetic-levitation rail. We can deliver from central location and
cities, the old so-called railroad terminal, we can deliver people, quicker,
more comfortably and cheaper by rail, then we can by intercity air.
-
- Rense: Absolutely, we should have had this up and running
years ago. The rights of way are all there and in many cities which have
been allegedly abandoned. There is so much that can be done. It's ridiculous.
Did you ever spend much time in Los Angeles, Lyndon?
-
- LaRouche: Yes, I spent a little time there.
-
- Rense: They had the world's most fabulous transportation
system in the Thirties and Forties that any city has ever had, called the
Redcar??? the old Pacific Electric. It went everywhere and it was electric-powered,
non-polluting and on and on. And, of course, General Motors Coach, Firestone
Tire and Rubber, Standard Oil of Ohio combined to form a dummy corporation
-- you know the story.
-
- LaRouche: Yeah, they bought it up and looted it.
-
|