Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

Lyndon Larouche

“The Bush administration was looking for an Iraq war the day it entered office (…) The purpose for this— there is no legitimate purpose for it. There were problems with Saddam Hussein. But, there were no problems that we couldn’t deal with by other means. It was not necessary. But, they wanted the war! They wanted the Afghanistan operation. They want a war with Syria. They want a war with Iran. They want a war with China, down the line. They’re already making preparations to get a war with China involving Japan and Taiwan and so forth, down the line. They are now moving, with terrorism, against Russia, which is proposing some pretty nasty reactions down the line; because Russia is still, though much weakened, a thermonuclear power. And, you don’t want to start a war with Russia. This is really insane.”
Lyndon Larouche (2004)

LAROUCHEPAC: From Larouche

Interview with LaRouche on Florida News Network

September 29th, 2004 • 8:00pm •


Transcript source: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/131

WDCF-1350, WWPR-1490, http://www.AmericanAM.com

Host Henry Raines: Our next guest is someone I’ve been looking forward to speaking to ever since I was approached about the possibility of an interview. We’ve had some guests recently from the Lyndon LaRouche organization, Jeff Steinberg, Michele Steinberg, Anton Chaitkin, and they’ve been really fascinating and well informed, but now we have the man himself, Lyndon LaRouche on the air. Lyndon LaRouche, thank you for joining us on American A.M.

LaRouche: Thank you Henry.

Raines: You know, I have heard the name, Lyndon LaRouche, for years and years, and there seems, almost, to be a blackout in the corporate media about what you’re about. But, now we’ve spoken to some individuals in your organization. They’ve been fascinating. I ask this question, not in any flip way, because there are a lot of people in the listening audience that are like me— and they’ve heard the name, but they’re really asking themselves, “Who is Lyndon LaRouche?”

LaRouche: It’s rather simple. I am a long-range forecaster and I’ve never made any mistake in over 35 years in long range economic forecasts. And, this has gotten me into trouble with some people in the corporate sector and their friends. And so you’d have things such as the Washington Post back in the middle of the 1970’s, saying that, “We will never cover him except to defame him.” And, with one or two odd exceptions, they kept up that policy. So, that’s the policy.

I’m a contentious character, maybe a friend of the ordinary person, but there are some powerful interests that don’t like me one bit. But, there are also a few powerful circles which do like me, or think that what I say and do has some merit.

Raines: Well, you said that you’ve been right on target with your economic forecasts, and from what I’ve been reading you aren’t very optimistic about the future.

LaRouche: I can be optimistic about the future if we change our Presidents. I think that, under the right conditions, that John Kerry, properly advised, will know how to approach this crisis we’re entering into now. And, it’s coming on fast. The point is, if Bush were to remain as President, I wouldn’t give you two cents for the U.S. economy. It’s coming down fast. And, it’s coming down worldwide, not just in the U.S. itself.

Raines: Well, yeah, it’s interesting that you brought that up, because we’ve recently added a regular Friday feature to our show, a gentleman named Al Martin, and he is much of the same opinion about the global economy. And, he puts the problem right at the deficits that we are running up, that the world is going to be unable, in the not too distant future, to be able to finance the U.S. Budget deficits any more. Is that part of your analysis?

LaRouche: Well, it’s a minor part. The basic thing, if you look around, and you see it right now in Florida in the— trying to clean up from the storms that went through there, that the problem is the physical economy, not just the money economy. We don’t have the industry. We don’t have the capacity. We don’t have the ability to deal with physical emergencies the way we used to. We have our water systems collapsing. Our power systems are collapsing. They’re 50 years, or more, old, and they’re breaking down now. And, the problem is, is that the physical economy and the physical employment in agriculture, industry, and basic economic infrastructure, such as the— take the airline system. The airline system is collapsing. It has to go back into reregulation to save it. We have oil prices now, floating at about $50 a barrell and that’s going to start to cutting in at the pump and at the consumption level very soon.

So, we have major problems which are largely physical problems. We have to redo our financial system, reorganize our banking system, and so forth, to get through it. But, the basic problems are physical — lack of jobs, lack of agriculture, zooming prices now already, and that sort of thing.

Raines: Well, you mentioned that the budget deficits were just a portion of the problem. What are some of the other policies that have caused these problems to come upon us?

LaRouche: Well, just go back about 40 years. About forty years ago the United States began to make a change. We had been from the time that Roosevelt pulled us out of the Depression through the end of the war, we had emerged as the world’s leading producer society. No one could match us for production, agricultural goods, high-tech goods and so forth. In the middle of the 1940’s we began to change. About the same time, we went into the Indochina war. And, since that time, especially since 1971-72, we have been going downhill in the United States, and globally, we have become a post-industrial society which lives on the product of the cheap labor from countries abroad, while shutting down our employment here at home.

Raines: How do we go about changing that?

LaRouche: Just change the policy. Go back to it the way Roosevelt did. The Federal government of the United States is unique in the world, because our Constitution says that in any time of crisis, the general welfare of the entire population, and our posterity, comes first, and everything else comes second. Therfore, as Roosevelt did, we can put a banking system into reorganization. We can keep bank doors from closing. We can keep things functioning. And, we can actually go to a program of rebuilding the economy, starting with large infrastructure projects, such as the TVA was back then. We have the capability to do that. We can put this back in shape, not with sudden miraculous effects, but we can go upward, rather than downward as we are going now.

Raines: I’m going to play devil’s advocate here for a moment, because a lot of our listeners are going to be too young, including myself, to remember the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But, we only have the filtered version of that period of time, either through our eduction, or more recently, probably through right-wing talk radio and their propaganda machine. So, many people might be saying, “Well, he’s talking about big government control.” Is that part of this?

LaRouche: No. In any healthy modern economy, that is, a modern agro-industrial economy, about half of the total economy has to go into, regularly, into what we call, basic economic infrastructure. Now, that’s either government done, or government regulated. In our system, we tend to go with: government does things and then tries to pass the things on to, say, state utilities to manage, under regulation. That was our system. So, we do have to have big government, because half of our economy depends upon the direct or indirect functions of government at the federal, state, and community level. So that complaint against big government is nonsense.

What we do require, however, is the promotion of, especially, independent, entrepreneurial businesses in the other part of the economy. That includes farmers, high-tech firms and that sort of thing. It means science-driver programs by government, like the space program, which tend to spill over their benefits into technology in the private sector. So, the idea about big government, against no government, we sometimes think we have less than no government. That’s my view of George Bush’s government today— that he is less than nothing.

Raines: Let me just follow this up a little bit. Accepting the point that you were making about that, let’s contrast that with what we have with the Bush administration. Because, people that are concerned about big government; is there really much difference when you have crony capitalism around President Bush where you just transfer the big government services into a sort of annointed monopoly in the private sector?

LaRouche: Well, that’s exactly the danger, is that the function of government is to defend the general welfare. That means to promote those things which are beneficial to our people and to discourage those things which are not beneficial, without actually disallowing them in every case. But, that’s the way it works, so that those things which help us and help our people, they should be favored. We used to have the idea of putting less taxation on people who reinvested in developing their firms as opposed to those who took the profits and ran. That sort of thing. So, this idea of big government being the issue; it’s not the issue. The issue is, do we have a government which has a conscience. And, I’m afraid, right now we don’t.

Raines: Now, are these global trade agreements part of the economic problem? Because, it seems to me like, we have created institutions that have a higher level of sovereignty than our own national government.

LaRouche: Absolutely. Take this Halliburton scandal. Cheney, the Vice President may be in serious trouble. Because, the entities he was involved in, in private practice, are now highly questionable, you know. In France and in other countries, there are prosecutions underway. And, Cheney is involved, even as Vice President, through various connections, in favoring those interests with which he was associated, corporately, before he was Vice President. So, there are a lot of problems in this area, and there are tremendous abuses. I mean, the swindle that is a part of the whole Iraq War problem, the swindle that Halliburton, or Cheney and company, have done over there against the U.S. government, against the lack of care for our injured soldiers and so forth. And this is really a scandal.

Raines: Well, you mentioned Halliburton, and you have to follow that up with the situation in Iraq, the war profiteering, the dismal prospects we seem to have there. What is your take on why the administration went into Iraq, and what do you see as a forecast there?

LaRouche: They went into Iraq because, in the 1990’s, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, he tried to push through a war policy against Iraq at the point that the Bush administration at that time said, “No”; Scowcroft, and others, particularly. But, he kept on that policy. Cheney has been committed to a series of wars of this type on any pretext he can get, for more than a dozen years. So, the minute that Bush was inaugurated, or inducted, as President, Cheney was at it again! The Bush administration was looking for an Iraq war the day it entered office, that is this Bush administration.

The purpose for this— there is no legitimate purpose for it. There were problems with Saddam Hussein. But, there were no problems that we couldn’t deal with by other means. It was not necessary. But, they wanted the war! They wanted the Afghanistan operation. They want a war with Syria. They want a war with Iran. They want a war with China, down the line. They’re already making preparations to get a war with China involving Japan and Taiwan and so forth, down the line. They are now moving, with terrorism, against Russia, which is proposing some pretty nasty reactions down the line; because Russia is still, though much weakened, a thermonuclear power. And, you don’t want to start a war with Russia.

This is really insane. Our senior military, that I know and respect, many retired, all oppose this war on this basis. Shinseki, for example, had indicated that if you are going to go into Iraq that you have to go in with something like a half-million people to do the job properly. We didn’t. We made a horrible mess of it. Totally mismanaged. Now, people want to pull out totally, and that would just create chaos. Other people want to steal the oil. Other people want to carve Iraq up into a bunch of small nations, microstates. That would just create terrorism and chaos throughout the region.

So, I would say the present administration qualifies for being called insane!

Raines: Well, we are speaking with Lyndon LaRouche. The website that you can get more opinions and commentary is http://www.larouchepac.com. You are listening to American AM. We’re going to go to a break in just a moment, but I have to follow up on your last statement. You said they want the conflict with Syria, Iran, China, and I don’t disagree with you by any means at all. I’ve been saying the same things on the air here. But, the question’s always: why do they want these conflicts?

LaRouche: You got people who have got crazy, imperial ideas. We call them, generally, utopians, as the general category we’ve used for the past 60 years in describing these people. They came into power influentially as one faction in the U.S. government at the end of the war. These were the people who adopted a lot of Nazis and said, “Well, they’re Nazis, but they’re good anti-communist fighters.”

So, we’ve had these characters around, and they’ve become what we call utopians. That is, that they think of global plans. They think of world government. They think of empires, different kinds of empires. And, our traditional people in the military, intelligence, so forth, diplomacy, frown on these characters. But, you’ve got a Bush administration, and they start crawling in, as they did under Nixon. Clinton was different. Actually, Reagan was essentially different. Reagan is much more complicated than most people think. But, he had some very good sides to him, as well as his rather screwball economic side.

So, we’ve had this division in our country in the leading institutions since the end of the war, between those who we call traditionalists and those we call utopians. And these guys have got wild ideas of world government or new world systems, this or that. And, they also have wild ideas about what to do about the American people to take their freedoms away. That’s also on the agenda. And, I’m afraid that if this government were reelected, we would have dictatorship in this country real fast.

Raines: Well, you’re not the first person to say that on this show. We’re speaking with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche. The website is triple-w, larouchepac.com. And, when we come back we will be asking Mr. LaRouche to handicap the debates and to give us his own personal analysis of the psyche of George Bush. But, we have a little song we want to dedicate to George Bush, a little family advice for him here. You’re listening to American AM and we’ll be right back. (…)

CNL editor’s note:

Here is the latest video from Larouchepac

World in Review – August 27, 2011
August 27th 2011 • 10:35PM

Review of the week’s developments in light of Mr. LaRouche’s Urgent Address to the American Population from earlier today. In this context, we feature Step Two: the Division of Fictitious from Real Liabilities according to Glass-Steagall Standard

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CanadaNewsLibre. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). CanadaNewsLibre will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

The CNL grants permission to cross-post original CanadaNewsLibre articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed.

https://canadanewslibre contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

ↄ⃝ Copyleft CanadaNewsLibre 2011

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s