"EIR Talks" interviews Lyndon LaRouche.
October 23, 1997 Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky
Welcome to EIR Talks. I'm Mel Klenetsky. We're on the line
with Lyndon LaRouche from Virginia. How are you, today, Mr.
LaRouche?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, fairly frisky, with the summit
coming up between the Presidents of the United States and
China, a matter I'm sure we'll get to today.
MEL KLENETSKY: Yes, we definitely will get to that a little
later on. I'd like to begin with asking you about the 10th
anniversary of the October 1987 financial collpse. Of course,
you made one of your major predictions prior to that, and you
did call that one. What do you think of it at this point?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, it happened. "Black Monday"
happened. It happened in Asia. Now, there was, of course, a
great deal of effort, including the usual thing of spending money
to try to bail out markets on Monday and Tuesday of this week,
in the United States, Europe, and in Britain -- which I don't
really consider part of Europe [chuckle]. But, the bailout didn't
work -- it kept the figures high, but it didn't work -- because, as
is noted generally, the effect of globalization, particularly since
the so called "Great Event" in London some years ago, in the
1980s, is that markets have become globalized. And, so, that
what happens in one market will have effects on two or three
different other markets. The markets are so interlinked that, if
Japan and other Asian countries collapse, then it is inevitable
that Europe and the United States' financial system will
collapse. There is no longer, because of globalization, any
ability of any section of the world, to insulate itself, even in the
relatively short term, from crises that occur in other major
markets in the world. So, what happens to Japan and South
Asia, together, is what is happening to us. So, the fact that the
pages of the various newspapers were euphoric, that there
wasn't -- an apparent -- Black Friday on Wall Street this
Monday, or Tuesday, does not mean that everything is well.
Black Monday happened. It happened on schedule -- not
because it was the 10th anniversary, because it was an event
which was going to happen anyway. And it's not over, in any
case. This is not like '87. The 1987 collapse was essentially a
collapse of the junk bond period of U.S. and other speculation.
What is in process now, is an ongoing collapse, of various kinds
of things, but a collapse which is driven by the impending
collapse of a hundred-trillion-dollar-equivalent world derivatives
bubble, which represents entirely current obligations -- the same
year -- an amount which exceeds the total value of the product,
the annual product, of all world nations combined; which means
-- the United States carries about 30% of that risk; and, that's
not the limit of short-term obligations -- which means, that
every banking system in the world, with the exception of
China's, is presently bankrupt. And it's just a matter of -- you
know, there's the fellow that says when he shakes his head, it's
going to fall off? As long as the world doesn't shake its head,
well, the head may not fall off. But, when it has to shake his
head, or when it sneezes, the head is already disconnected, and
will fall off. So, there was nothing -- nothing good happened, as
far as markets were concerned. As a matter of fact, the money
that was poured in, to try to keep the markets from collapsing,
would have been better spent in other ways. Because, by what
was done, was, the tension in the bubble was increased, which
means that the bubble, when it explodes in the near future,
upon the United States, will explode with greater force and
more devastating consequences than if they hadn't tried to bail it
out.
EIR: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has a lead editorial
reporting that the pessimists are predicting an imminent financial
collapse, they're seeing parallels between '87 and today; but,
FAZ says, "Don't worry. Central bankers have learned how to
open up the monetary floodgates, to prevent a collapse."
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, this is all nonsense. You know,
there're two kinds of arguments -- apart from the sane
arguments. ( The sane people are saying, "The system is rotten,
its going to collapse. There's nothing you can do to prevent it." )
Now, you have two schools of thought outside of that: You
have the -- typified by Alan Greenspan -- you have the old-era
monetarist thinking. Now, these are people who say that people
and governments will have to suffer as much as is necessary to
keep the market alive, and we're in deep trouble. Then, you
have the idiots, the real gibbering idiots -- people who are better
equipped to sell vacuum cleaners than they are to run financial
markets. These are the new era people, who believe that
information theory, computers, and so forth, will somehow
keep this world going forever, and we cannot have these cycles
of crises of the past. These guys are the real idiots. And, it
happened on an unlucky day, that FAZ, the Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, got one of the editorial writers, who is one
of these new era freaks, so just don't pay any attention to it.
Just realize that this clown came out today, the new era freak.
Tomorrow you'll get an Alan Greenspan-type, old-era freak; in
the meantime, neither of them are telling the truth. Ignore both
of them, unless you want to run an insane asylum.
Don't Throw Money Down the Sewer Trying To Prop Up
the System
EIR: ... Mr. LaRouche, in an issue of the EIR which is hitting
the streets this week -- actually it hit the stands already -- you
have an introduction to a Feature package which is called,
"Where is U.S. Foreign Policy Going!" and in that introduction
you write about "three mutually contradictory policy thrusts" of
the Clinton Administration; specifically, these thrusts are in
China, South, and Central America. Can you explain?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, what the problem is, is that here
we are, we're facing the worst financial collapse in the 20th
Century. It potentially is the worst financial catastrophe to hit
European civilization since the so-called New Dark Age of the
14th Century, which hit when the entire banking system of
Europe ( the so-called Lombard banking system ) went belly up,
after a speculative bubble explosion, very much analogous in
some respects to what's happened on the world over the past 30
years, expecially in the past 17 years or so. So, this is the
reality.
Now, the question is, is how do we save the nations, and the
people in them from this financial collapse -- there's nothing that
can be done to stop this present financial system, and also the
monetary system that's associated with it, from collapsing.
Nothing can be done. Any money spent to try to save this
financial system, or, to save this present monetary system, is
money thrown down the sewer, is value thrown down the
sewer. To save this system, is not worth putting one single
human life, anywhere on this planet, to risk. Let it go. It's not
worth saving. It's a liability. It's like trying to save a fatal disease
that you've got.
Okay. Now, how do we do that? The problem here is that there
are powerful financial interests on this planet centered in places
like the Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, which dominates about
60-65% of the world's financial activity. Hmm? The most
powerful force in economics on this planet right now. And, with
adjuncts in Wall Street, for example, Alan Greenspan represents
largely an adjunct of the people in the United States centered
around Wall Street who are, in a sense, the little brothers of the
big swindlers in London and places like that. Now, we have to,
to save the system, we've got to create a new financial and
monetary system and put the old system into bankruptcy
reorganization, for the same reasons, and in much the same
way, that a government puts a bankrupt bank into bankruptcy
reorganization: that is, to prevent the collapse of the bank from
becoming a social and economic catastrophe for the community
in which the bank is located. So, you move in to protect the
depositors, to rearrange what will be settled, resolve the debts,
settle the payments, come up with a payments plan, or
whatever, either to keep the bank going or to shut it down after
paying off the depositors. And we have a similar thing with this
system; but, a group of governments will have to do it. One
government alone can't do it. Therefore, the United States
needs to find allies to do this.
That is, the President of the United States, if he has got any
guts at all, if he's worth anything at all, is, on a certain day in
the very near future, he's going to say that he has spoken and
discussed with several nations, and they've come to an
agreement that they're putting a bankrupt international financial
and monetary system into bankruptcy. That will probably come
like Franklin Roosevelt's announcement of the Japanese
bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, that the crisis will hit, the
people will be demanding action; the President will step forward
and say, "I've talked with other governments. A number of us
have agreed. We're declaring the present system in bankruptcy,
and we're working together both to put the old system into
bankruptcy reorganization to prevent chaos; and at the same
time we're acting to create a new monetary system, based on
sound principles, which we proved back in the post-war period,
expecially, in the 1950s, with the old Bretton Woods agreement.
We're going back to something like that, with some
modifications."
If the President does that, then he will save the United States,
and save a lot of other things as well. If the President does not
do that, than the President will go down in the halls of infamy
as the man who failed. He'll go down like, less than the Young
Moltke, who lost World War One to the British & Co., in
effect. So, but, for the President to do that, he must find
partners. The most important partner for the President at this
time is China. China is not a world power; it's a regional power.
It has regional thinking. It thinks from China outwards. It does
not think in global terms, even though it takes global factors into
consideration. But, the impulse of some of China's leaders, of
course, is to think globally, but the Chinese people, the Chinese
institutions think as a regional power, as part of, tied to what
people call "the Middle Kingdom" idea, as well, things like that.
But, if you have China and the United States agreed, on policies
like this; if the nations of Southeast Asia and Japan agree -- and
the nations of Southeast Asia essentially are already in
partnership with China now against the IMF, as Mahathir, of
Malaysia, merely reflects that. If you have the countries of
South and Central America who are close to the United States,
joining with the President of the United States, to join with
China and Asian nations on this issue, and so forth, and so on,
then the United States has a group of nations which represent
collectively under U.S. leadership, or U.S. partnership, enough
clout to do what the President must do.
What happens now, however, is, the President is stuck several
ways. President Clinton has a good policy toward China, in the
sense of seeking an active partnership on a state-to-state level.
That's good. the President has also a good policy in terms of his
relationship to Central and South America. Oh, we'll have to
continue this.
EIR: Do you have any further thoughts or updates on the death
of Princess Diana?
LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, it's becoming clear. We'll --
we're doing a feature, not in this week's issue, but in the next
week's issue, on where the investigation stands so far. There is
no question it was murder. It was, comes under the category of
vehicular homicide. We are not speculating on who did the
murder. I think, and I've recommended, and my associates
have agreed, that it its counterproductive to get into a premature
"whodunit." It is clearly a murder; it is clearly a vehicular
homicide. It is also clear that the French government -- officially
-- is complicit in a vehicular homicide after the fact; that is, in a
deliberate cover-up. We have some indications as to what the
nature of the act was, and we know what some of the missing
evidence is, that has to be sought for. One of them is the use of
blinding lasers or similar kinds of things, a technology with
which I'm familiar. That if, at the same time that the vehicle
was being rammed from one side by a vehicle, and the car
carrying the Princess was also being harrassed massively by two
or there motorcyclists, as well as this Fiat Uno which has been
identified by a paint stripe on the Mercedes 280-S, that, the
flashes were going on, but there's one other thing possible: Is,
that the way you would assure a death -- and that was
obviously an intentional hit against Princess Diana -- the way
you assure a hit is you blind the driver, while -- and, you
preferably stun him ( and there are various ways including laser
techniques, which were developed as anti-personnel lasers
against combat pilots, in aircraft, during the 1980s ) . These
hand-held weapons of this type, or similar types, that can
produce similar effects, abound.
Any major agency, particularly a government-related or
secret-government kind of agency of the type that George Bush
was running out of the United States during the 1080s, would
have access to such special weapons. Such special weapons
would assure an assassination. We're not drawing a final
conclusion on this, but we're going to indicate to the reader,
what these capabilities are, what kind of an investigations has to
be conducted to deal with the kind of vehicular homicide, very
sophisticated, which was run against Princess Diana and the
party in that vehicle.
EIR: Mr. LaRouche, our time is up, it's been very enjoyable
and informative; I hope that we can speak again in the future
weeks. |
