- Here is the transcript of Lyndon LaRouche's interview
with Jeff Rense, on July 12, 2004. [unproofed]
-
- RENSE: And, welcome back.... We are almost in the middle
of July already, the year 2004. It is a Presidential campaign year. The
campaign is in full swing, and it is a great honor to have back with us,
for this first hour tonight, one of - in my humble estimation - one of
the finest American politicians, and I mean that in the {human} sense.
This man is a true American. And when he talks, you can hear him think.
And when he thinks, you can hear wonderful things in his words. Agree or
disagree, this man does not spew forth recorded messages.
-
- He is an icon of many who think independently. He has
been through an awful lot of duress in his life. He is an extremely strong
individual, who is praised and held in extremely strong regard around the
world by many foreign governments and officials, industrial and political
leaders.
-
- He is with us for the first hour tonight: He is, of course,
Lyndon LaRouche.
-
- Welcome back, Lyndon.
-
- LAROUCHE: Thank you! Good to be with you.
-
- RENSE: Well, it's nice to have you with us, too. You
are extremely busy. And I guess we should start off by saying nothing has
changed since the last time we talked...except that things are much worse.
-
- LAROUCHE: That's a fair way of putting it. [Rense laughs]
-
- RENSE: All right. First of all, America is bankrupt.
The economy is finished - kaput, it's over. Most city, most county, most
state governments are so far in the red now, they can no longer see daylight.
It's a joke. And yet, this government of ours - well, excuse me - this
government continues to print and spend money as if there is no end in
sight to it. And, in fact, they can probably do it as long as they want
to. But sooner or later, the chickens are coming home.
-
- LAROUCHE: Yes, fair. Fair. It's worse than that.
-
- We're in a state, where we have two batches of putative
candidates, leading candidates, for the Presidency: George Bush and whatever
becomes attached to him; and Kerry, with Edwards, now. That's not settled,
but it's presumptive, shall we say.
-
- The problem is, that, it's a race to the bottom. Bush
is declining. He might get an uptick, by dumping Cheney, because Cheney
is such a big drag on his reputation--
-
- RENSE: Oh, huge!
-
- LAROUCHE: That simply dumping him, would give him, maybe,
some people say, 10% improvement, due to the fact of getting rid of a loss
factor.
-
- On the case of Kerry, Kerry seems to be racing to the
bottom faster than Bush is.
-
- RENSE: "A race to the bottom." Wow, that really
is another brilliant way to sum it up. I agree.
-
- By the way, a quick note, if I might, Lyn - an aside
about the polls?
-
- LAROUCHE: Yeah.
-
- RENSE: Nobody over on this end of the microphone, and
in the listening audience that I know, takes them very seriously. Are there
any that you watch with any kind of credibility at all?
-
- LAROUCHE: No. I look at them, but I don't follow them.
Because I know they're faked. That is, there are polls that are more serious,
but those are privileged polls which are run, not for advertising, but
for the information of policy planners and campaign planners. But, what's
published, today, is largely fakery, which is done to pull the suckers
in, and try to convince them that they've got a winner in this guy or that
guy. So, it's a panic mode. You know, it's like trying to say, "Our
product is selling faster than the other product. Come buy it, therefore,
whether it's any good or not."
-
- RENSE: All right. So, here we are, sitting, as you say,
on the sidelines, watching this "race to the bottom." We've got
two Skull and Bonesmen, allegedly leading their parties--allegedly. In
fact, Fox News reported last week (if you can believe anything Fox News
says), that Kerry and Edwards, individually, have more money, individually,
than, allegedly Bush and Cheney have together. This is not a joke! This
is beyond super-elite. This is a closed issue. The American people no longer
have a true voice when it comes to the leaders of the two major parties.
-
- And, that brings us to many other issues, of course,
but, what about this Skull and Bones things?
-
- LAROUCHE: This is significant. It's not significant,
in the way that some people might think it is. But, it is significant:
Club relationships, intimate club relationships--
-
- RENSE: They are intimate, I've heard.
-
- LAROUCHE: And this is, of course, the Harriman firm operation.
The Skull and Bones was set up by--it became a partnership of, or trusteeship,
of the Harriman interests. And, it is a club, it does have special features;
it does {influence} people who join it, as any closed freemasonic association
will tend to influence its fellow members.
-
- But, the problem here is, it's worse--is the fact, that,
we're in a depression now. And, what you have, is, you have Kerry, in particular,
promising this and that, and this and that, and there's no money for it.
He's promising this and that, and there's no possibility it will be delivered.
-
- RENSE: Correct.
-
- LAROUCHE: What you've got, is, you've got the American
people, especially the lower 80% of the family-income brackets, who consider
themselves as underdogs. Their voting behavior is, they don't consider
themselves as actually citizens, who are determining what the selection
of the candidates will be. They consider themselves as underdogs, who have
to take what's put on the table. And therefore, they sit back and say,
"We have to vote for one of these guys. They're the leaders. {We}
can not choose a different choice, than {they} prefer."
-
- So, what we have is, we're in a depression. The typical
citizen feels he or she is absolutely impotent. They know there's a depression
on, but they deny it. They pretend, "Oh, well, maybe it's not true.
Maybe tomorrow things'll be better. Maybe there'll be an upturn."
It hasn't reached the point, which will come soon, at which they realize
that there {is} no upturn.
-
- RENSE: There is no upturn. There is no historical economic
precedent for an economy slipped this far down, and spiraling so far out
of control, to ever come back. It doesn't happen.
-
- LAROUCHE: What you've got, is, you've got a financial
system, which is loaded with {hundreds of quadrillions} of financial derivatives,
counting the regular and the irregular ones.
-
- RENSE: Explain "derivatives" for our listeners,
please, Lyn.
-
- LAROUCHE: Well, it's a side-bet, a gambling side-bet.
Remember, in 1987, when Volcker was on the way out, and Greenspan was coming
in, and Greenspan said, "Don't do anything, anybody!" Here we
were, in the October 1987 stock market crash. And Greenspan came up with
this thing about derivatives: That you could have gambling side-bets, on
financial markets and all kinds of financial markets. And you would treat
these, not as side-bets, but as part of the game! That is, the profits
or losses from financial derivatives, which are side-bets, like gambling
side-bets, will now be considered as part of the proceeds of the main gambling
table.
-
- RENSE: Assets.
-
- LAROUCHE: So, this is what's happened. The so-called
hedge funds, you make a side-bet. You hedge a side-bet, against your actual
operations.
-
- Now, the financial markets, are largely based on counting
in, one way or the other, the effect of these side-bets. We're talking
about {hundreds of quadrillions of dollars} a year turnover of this, as
against a world economy, which is estimated in the order of magnitude of
{$40 trillion} a year. So therefore, we are in a hyperinflationary bubble.
A collapsing economy, it's global, it's coming down.
-
- We can get out of this. But, the way we come out of this,
is the way it was done before, in similar cases, including the 1930s: Take
the old system, which is bankrupt. You put it into bankruptcy reorganization,
preferably by governments. Governments now freeze what has to be frozen,
which is out of control. Make sure that what must be paid to keep the economy
going, is paid. Make sure that we don't have a drop. Get some more cash
in to projects which are fungible: That is, especially things, which will
have value 10, 15, 20 years from now--so, that's your security. And, try
to get employment going, and production going, again, largely with government
stimulus {leading} a recovery.
-
- RENSE: Not a chance!
-
- LAROUCHE: We've done that before, we should do it again.
But! If you say, the other way: The banking system, or the financial system,
which is the creditor of this system, that is, the people who represent
the large amounts of money, are going to collect, and the people are not,
then, you've got a situation like Argentina, where the vulture funds are
saying: The people have to die, in order to pay the debts, which are unpayable.
-
- So, we're at a point, where, if we say: Yes, we made
a mistake. The turn we made 40 years ago, toward a post-industrial society--away
from being the most productive society in the world--that was a mistake.
The mistake we made under Nixon, 1971-72, changing the monetary system
to a floating-exchange-rate system--that was a {terrible} mistake. Deregulation
under Carter, which was actually done by Brzezinski: A {terrible} mistake.
You see it, in the collapse of the airlines industry. It can be traced
precisely to that. The slavery of the trucking industry, is traced precisely
to that. The collapse of agriculture, traced to that.
-
- So, these were terrible mistakes. Greenspan was the biggest
mistake of them all.
-
- All we have to do is say, "This enterprise is bankrupt,
the world economy. But, we are people, and governments exist to protect
the people. If the system makes a mistake, the government must intervene,
to protect the people against the mistakes made by the bankers, {and} by
government itself."
-
- RENSE: Unfortunately, that's not happening. Be right
back with Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, candidate for President of the United States....
[station break]
-
- Hi, we're back talking to Lyndon LaRouche, candidate
for President, this remarkable campaign season--remarkable in many ways.
But not remarkable in terms of being inspiring. It's rather like watching
an automobile accident: It's shocking.
-
- Lyndon, the economy, again, as you've summed up brilliantly,
is a mess. It's headed down the wrong road. The solutions being offered
are no solutions at all, there is no money for it.
-
- What has bothered me for a long time, are the lies, in
terms of the employment. We keep seeing these rotten, bogus figures and
projections about employment in the United States, which bear very little
relationship to reality. How do you view employment and unemployment?
-
- LAROUCHE: Well, we're in a vast unemployment sea. But,
the problem is this: You see it--I'll speak frankly--say, the case of the
two candidacies, the two presumptive, leading candidacy, Bush and Kerry.
These candidacies are disasters, not only for themselves, but for the nation.
What you have is, you have two candidacies, Democratic and Republican,
candidacy (the rest of it doesn't count, as far as this is concerned),
and the people are tolerating it! They're walking away from it, which is
why the declining figures for both sets of candidacies. But, they're not
doing anything about it. And, Nader, of course, he's a cure worse than
disease.
-
- So, therefore, you say, why? Why is it, that two parties--and
I know a lot of the people in the Congress, and the Executive professional
ranks, and formerly serving and presently serving. These are very intelligent
people. They're as good, or better, than the leading of government, in
any part of the world. Then, you get to the Democratic Party, in particular,
and you say: We've got the {worst possible leadership imaginable}, in the
leadership of the Democratic Party, when many of the Democrats, as members
of Congress, or as traditional people in the Executive branch, or as outsiders
who are just involved in this process--that these people are thinking;
the party leadership is not thinking. The {candidates} are not thinking.
-
- So, we're going into a period, which requires Franklin
Roosevelt, or someone of that stature and intellect, to deal with a great
depression. It can be dealt with. But, we have a bunch of {dummies} up
there! Now, Kerry personally is not that bad, personally. He's not a dummy.
But, as a candidate, he's a dummy. And the party demands that he be a dummy;
he's not as bad as his party leadership is. People like Shrum, for example.
Terry McAuliffe is a-- he's an intellectual disaster area.
-
- But, what they're doing, they're acting like fools. And
the population: Why does it support them? Because the population wishes
to believe, that what Kerry is saying, is true. That he's a got a few lists
of "fixit things," which might make things less bad. They are
not paying attention to business. They {don't} want to believe in reality,
because reality is awesomely frightening.
-
- RENSE: Sure is!
-
- LAROUCHE: So therefore, they believe in this illusion
of this man. And the problem is, is this is how the German people got Adolf
Hitler, by that kind of thinking: Of say, well, they have to go along with
this stuff. They have to pick the man who's approved by the institutions.
We have to believe what we're being told by our leadership. And it's all
bunk! Whereas, the people in the Congress, as you see on the decision by
many Congress on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee operation, you
see, otherwise, they're very intelligent people. They know what's going
on. But, there's no {reflection} of this among the candidates, as candidates;
no reflection in the party leaderships. And, that's because the people
themselves, have not been willing to give up the delusion, that "things
aren't as bad as they seem."
-
- RENSE: This is a delusional society. It's also, tragically,
a "dumbed down" and ever more so, society. Were the Germans,
in the early '30s dumbed down and delusional? I can see the delusional
aspect of it, but were they really that dumb, Lyn?
-
- LAROUCHE: They got, in a sense, dumb. What happened is,
you had people in power--and it wasn't just Germans, remember, the whole
system stunk.
-
- And, I'll tell you, frankly, it may sound exaggerated
to some people, but it's not exaggerated in fact: Except for Franklin Roosevelt,
we'd be living under Hitler's successor today, worldwide. So, the problem
was, that, in Europe, in general, where the other power was--and in the
United States: For example, Herbert Hoover was not a potential Hitler.
But, he was a potential Bruening. If Hoover had been reelected, we would
have had fascism in the United States, by '34-'35. Roosevelt saved us,
from a depression, not the full effects of it, but from the depression.
He rescued us from the depression that had happened. He saved us, essentially,
by providing a margin in world affairs, where Churchill, at a certain point--and
his crowd--decided to break with the Hitler they'd helped to put into;
break with the New York banking crowd, which had put Hitler into power;
and join with Roosevelt, whom he {hated}. Because, from Churchill's standpoint,
he was not going to give up the British Empire, which going with Hitler
meant. Therefore, he came, in desperation, and said, "yes, I will
work with Roosevelt, whom I hate." And, when Roosevelt died, Churchill,
in a sense with Truman, took over.
-
- But, nonetheless, Roosevelt saved us. The problem is,
in a crisis like this, if you don't have leadership, you don't get out.
The problem is, worldwide, is, the only country that has a constitutional
system, which is capable of dealing with a crisis like that, from a standpoint
of leadership, is our own constitutional system. We have the best constitutional
system of any nation. No other nation on this planet, has had a Constitution,
which has lasted since 1789. Ours only.
-
- RENSE: Even as tattered, and under attack, as it is,
by the Patriot Act and others, who would see it consigned to a museum,
sooner rather than later. We'll be right back, with Lyndon LaRouche, in
just a couple of minutes. I'm Jeff Rense.... [station break]
-
- Okay, we rejoin you. Lyndon LaRouche here, this first
hour tonight. Lyn, there's a big story running, now. {Newsweek} reported
on it, and some others. MSNBC ran it. What had been a rumor, for a long
time, is now fact: The Bush Administration has asked for legislation, enabling
it to postpone the November election, as a result of an expected terror
attack. And it will allow the Department of Homeland Security to decide
when, or if, postponed elections would be reinstituted. {This} is utterly
unprecedented.
-
- And, we know the expression "false-flag operations";
we know there are lots of different things that can happen to create an
alleged terror event, which might result in - well, this would almost be
martial law - it's very close to it. What are your thoughts?
-
- LAROUCHE: Dangerous. This is not new, in history. This
is called "emergency government." This is otherwise called "dictatorship."
-
- RENSE: You're right.
-
- LAROUCHE: And, the problem here, is, it came up with
the 9/11 problem: Is, people would try to assume that there was someone
who is a particularly known individual, who necessarily had conspired to
cause that to happen, from among the spectrum of people they would talk
about. They didn't realize that there are agencies, which are operating
internationally, like those which put Hitler, and Mussolini, and Franco,
and so forth, into power in Europe. But, these kinds of agencies, {do}
have the capability, from outside government, through control over people
who are {in} governmental, or other, similar positions, to orchestrate
events, without the complete knowledge of what these events are, on the
part of their accomplices in government.
-
- Now, we have, now, a very live danger, which is a relic
of what the Nazis were running, through Spain, in Mexico and South America--but
especially Mexico--back in the 1930s and the very early 1940s. In 1941,
we shut it down in Mexico. But, there was a plan with Japan and Germany,
through Spain, through Francisco Franco, to actually run the kind of thing
{against} the United States, across the borders in Mexico, that people
like Huntington are talking about today.
-
- So, we have a number of situations, which are being orchestrated
by people who are the kinds of behind-the-scenes people that I know, and
they control people in government. And what happens when you get something
like 9/11, somebody looks for somebody {in} government, to have planned
it. They don't look for what is typical in history--for example, look at
the way Hitler became a dictator. Hitler was stuck into power in Jan. 30,
1933, by a group of bankers, headed by the head of the Bank of England,
and backed by Averell Harriman.
-
- RENSE: Very few people know this. Thank you for mentioning
it.
-
- LAROUCHE: All right. So. But, this was not done by politicians
in the ordinary sense. It was done by a network of bankers, which was known
as the Synarchist International. They ran it. The way they got a dictatorship
in Germany, is, Hermann Goering, who was actually an insider--Hitler was
just the dummy; not entirely just a dummy, but, he was the idiot, who was
used to manipulate the population, as a theatrical figure. Hermann Goering
represented the people behind the scenes. Goering organized the burning
of the Reichstag, which then was used, as a pretext for establishing a
dictatorship. And thus, by the end of February of 1933, before Roosevelt,
who had been elected, was actually {inaugurated} President, we were on
the road to World War II.
-
- Now, the conspirophile, the typical guy, will try to
say: This guy must have done it with this guy, and so forth. It doesn't
work that way.
-
- So, we are actually in danger: From the Synarchist International,
which still exists today--same type of people, the grandchildren of those
who ran Hitler. These guys {do} intend, to create a world dictatorship.
And they're playing all kinds of games internationally.
-
- RENSE: And they'll do anything they deem necessary.
-
- LAROUCHE: Exactly. They treat us, as pieces on a chessboard.
And, we often react--
-
- RENSE: Piece *under* a chessboard, in some cases.
-
- LAROUCHE: Yeah, yeah--well, a crooked chessboard.
-
- RENSE: There you go.
-
- LAROUCHE: But, so, there {is} a danger. But, the point
is: Why would they do it? Well, the reason they would do it, is not to
kill people (although they enjoy doing that, I think, sometimes). The reason
they would do it, {is to orchestrate events}. When you hear these guys
talking--like the people who came up with the idiotic idea about postponing
the election. {We would, under no circumstances, postpone the election.}
Not if we're sane. Because, there goes our system of government.
-
- Now, there are people who are watching this operation,
you talked about. It's real, what they're talking about. But, they're idiots.
And they're overlooking something. They're overlooking the fact, which
they themselves are ignoring: This system is coming down. And {they} don't
know, that they will be in charge, on the day they expect to pull something
like this off. Because events, that is, a collapse of the world financial
system, which we're on the edge of happening right now, would change the
whole order of events, immediately.
-
- So, that there's a factor of incalculability, in this
situation, which these guys are ignoring. So, it's not quite so simple
as they think it might be.
-
- RENSE: I agree.
-
- Have you seen Michael Moore's film?
-
- LAROUCHE: Pardon me?
-
- RENSE: Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11."
-
- LAROUCHE: No, I haven't.
-
- HOST: Well, you need to go see that. It's a very powerful
piece of filmmaking, and it'll give you, I think, a real interesting--
-
- LAROUCHE: I know of it. I haven't seen it, but--
-
- RENSE: It'll give you a real interesting pulse on what
all this is doing to America. And the next time you see a poll, with Bush
in the lead, I think you'll laugh--
-
- LAROUCHE: That's one of the fun things! That part, I
know about. That is a fun thing in a sense. It's a little bit crazy, but,
I enjoy watching it.
-
- RENSE: You need to go see that film.
-
- Okay: Iraq. One of the biggest debacles, certainly in
the last century, for America. It is not a question of American foreign
policy, it's a question of American big business/oil policy. And it's killing
Americans. It's slaughtering Iraqis. It has Palestinianized much of Iraq.
It's an {absolute} disgrace on the books of history - I don't care who
writes the story, it's going to come out that way.
-
- Your thoughts on Iraq: What we should do? How we get
out? What do we do to make amends to these people?
-
- LAROUCHE: [laughing] Well, first of all, tell Kerry to
shut up: He's not helping them one bit!
-
- By the way, Bill Clinton was travelling, and was in Germany,
now. He may have moved on from there. But, on this weekend, he was interviewed
on a prime interview program, as the sole subject, on German TV. It was
the "Christianson Show" [ph] on the featured program on Sunday.
And, you know, Bill is doing quite a job: He is extremely popular. He's
the most popular American politician, in the world! [laughs]
-
- RENSE: I think you're right. I agree. And wherever he
goes, he gets the red carpet by everybody.
-
- LAROUCHE: Well, he's actually the most intelligent President
we've had in a long time!
-
- RENSE: That's what that one rundown on IQ said. Standby
if you would please, Lyn, we'll come right back. Lyndon LaRouche, candidate
for President. We would ask you think very carefully about who you vote
for: This man is a very worthy American patriot. We will continue after
this.... [station break]
-
- Welcome back. We're talking with Lyndon LaRouche, this
first hour tonight.
-
- Lyn, if you were President, what would you do about Iraq,
immediately?
-
- LAROUCHE: Well, I have put out a proposal, called the
LaRouche Doctrine. It has been endorsed by a number of people from various
parts of the Arab world, in particular. I presented this to people in Europe,
and in the United States, people who are in the diplomatic, and the intelligence,
and so forth, field. And, they concur that this is probably the only solution
for it.
-
- Now, since I put it out, there has been, admittedly,
some adaptation to things I proposed, by the U.S. government in dealing
with Iraq. What they're doing is not going to work, by itself. But, admittedly,
by putting this kind of pressure on, from me, and from the number of people,
who, in influential positions have endorsed what I've said, there has been
some tendency to move in the direction of a sovereign Iraq, a {unified}
Iraq, with no divisions among it, with the problems to be worked out by
themselves.
-
- My proposal, of course, would return to the 1957 Constitution.
Let them take it from there; we cooperate with them, hopefully with the
UN and others, to rebuild their country, and to make it, to put it on a
self-standing basis again.
-
- RENSE: Do we pull 150,000 troops out, as soon as possible?
-
- LAROUCHE: I would pull them back. What I would do, is
actually have an agreement, under which we would detach our military forces
from occupation functions--which is what we're supposed to do, anyway,
now. Then, I would have a--. But, it would be done by an agreement with
the government.
-
- RENSE: That's hardly a legitimate government, what's
in place, now, Lyn.
-
- LAROUCHE: No, what you try to do, is you try to get to
a legitimate government. And, if you're flexible, and if you get the kind
of cooperation which we should be having--that is, we should be giving--it
can happen. The will to do that--. Remember, because Southwest Asia, which
is this area, which includes Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and the
Arab states, this area is {vitally important} to us, as a security area.
It's also vitally important to Israelis and Palestinians. Therefore, we
have to have a security policy for this region of the world; which, among
other things, prevents the prime oil supplies of the world from going up
in flames! So therefore, we do have a common interest, in a peaceful order,
and cooperation in the area.
-
- We should adopt such a policy. We should use our muscle,
to assure Palestinians and Israelis, that an agreement on two separate
states, with sovereignty of each, with cooperative arrangements, {can}
be accepted, {must} be accepted now. We must end this cycle of violence
in this region, and start to build the region up as a secure area--.
-
- RENSE: But, what we're seeing now, is the beginning of
"ethnic cleansing," if you will, of Palestinians. I mean, there's
no question about it.
-
- LAROUCHE: Absolutely! Absolutely. But, see, this is the
{idiocy} of the thing! And, this is largely coming from the British and
the United States.
-
- RENSE: Well, yes, it is.
-
- LAROUCHE: And these guys have been playing the game--it's
a British game primarily. You know: Bernard Lewis, for example. Bernard
Lewis, who was the head of the British Arab Bureau, that is the actual
head, under Glubb Pasha, has been in the United States since the early
'70s. He was the advisor, and controller, effectively, on this policy,
of Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski, Huntington, and so forth! And he's come
up with this British policy!
-
- We, as the United States, had the ability, if our government's
"on the ball" (shall we say), we have the ability to straighten
this mess out, in the sense of being a {factor}, that gets people, in the
region, together, to make the kinds of decisions that'll bring this nonsense
to an end.
-
- Yes, we {do} have to have security for the Palestinians,
security for the Israelis. {We can provide that}, with an agreement.
-
- RENSE: How are the Israelis, the world's fifth-ranking
thermonuclear power, going to allow us to step in and 'provide security'
for them? I don't see it.
-
- LAROUCHE: Well, you don't it. But, the point is, the
danger is, you've got a policy among some idiots there, who believe in
using an Israeli nuclear arsenal--and there are those in the United States
and Britain, who sit back and laugh at the idea of having the world try
to figure out, what to do about a nuclear war started from Israel.
-
- RENSE: Well, if you have read, the U.S. Air Force white
paper on the Zionist Israeli thermonuclear blackmail, used against the
United States, for at least two decades now, you and everyone listening
will understand some of the dynamic involved here. These people are ruthless,
in search of their goals. And, they'll use anything.
-
- LAROUCHE: See--. This involves some things, that people
really--
-
- RENSE: That's the Air Force talking!
-
- LAROUCHE: That people really haven't paid attention to:
After 1967, there was a generational shift--. I was involved in trying
to get the peace negotiations going in the Middle East, in 1975-76. At
that time, the people I was talking with--both Israelis and Palestinians--were
saying to me, "You better succeed now, because, we're about to run
out of steam." And they were right. With the passing of the Labor
Zionist government, at that time, and the emergence of the Likud, there
was a change. And the change occurred, also, in the United States: It occurred
between 1967 and the early 1970s. With this kind of {fanaticism}, which
was not characteristic of Jews or Palestinians, as such, {prior} to 1967,
a new kind of fanaticism came in, where my generation sat back, and said,
"This is unthinkable." And the unthinkable, of this generation
that came in, is now running the area.
-
- But, my view is, that, if we, in the United States, with
the support of people in Europe, and the cooperation of people in Southwest
Asia, say, "This thing is coming to an end. And we say, we're going
to insist, absolutely--and we have the power to do it--that this nonsense
in the Middle East {stops}": It will stop. And, there are people,
in Israel, there are people among the Palestinians, who will make that
work.
-
- But, we have to do what {we} have not had the guts to
do, since 1957: We have to have the guts to intervene, and say, "We
are not going to let you set fire to the world."
-
- RENSE: How's it going to happen? Look at the neo-cons
in the administration; look at the control, in this country, of Zionist
influence...
-
- LAROUCHE: I think we are successfully scattering them.
I started, as you know, a campaign to get these guys out of there.
-
- RENSE: You were the first!
-
- LAROUCHE: Yeah, but we succeeded! We're about to get
Cheney out! And what he represents.
-
- RENSE: [You put more] pressure on those people than anyone
else - I agree.
-
|