| This interview transcript appears in the October 5, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2001/2838_dominican_rep_intv.html LaRouche On Dominican Radio: `Hysteria Is the Worst Possible Thing' Lyndon LaRouche was interviewed on Sept. 25 on the "Revista 110," a popular morning news and commentary TV program hosted by Dr. Julio Hazim in the Dominican Republic. The interview was scheduled to air again on Channel 56 that same evening, and again on Channel 13 and 53 the following weekend. Q: Mr. LaRuche, I want to quote something you said in a statement you issued on Sept. 15: "The trouble is, there are too few people on this planet today, especially in my own country, who have both the knowledge and the guts to tell the truth about such matters. That is why I am a leader among my nation's celebrities, and some others who pretend, or are even elected to be leaders, are not. "As for the current global monetary and financial crisis, which defines the environment of what happened on Tuesday, I have warned you about it. Many of you rejected my warnings, including the leading candidates for the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. You were wrong; they were terribly wrong. Now the devil against which I warned you then is here. I know how to get us safely out of this monetary and financial crisis. I do not know who the treasonous rogues are, who did what happened on Tuesday, but I know we can defeat them if we come to our senses soon enough. Have courage. Stop looking for retribution against those who have been proven guilty of no crime. Face up to what you have lacked the courage to face up to now. Then, together, we shall build this nation out of this horrible nightmare. "I can propose; what you do about what I propose, is up to you. You can reject my warnings, but you can not escape the consequences of your own folly. "For a start, turn off CNN!" Could you please comment? LaRouche: We're at a point of the collapse of a world system, a system which developed especially in the past 30-odd years. We have reached the end-point of that, and at this particular time, we have not only the crash of a financial system, but we have from inside the United States, someone, some powerful agency, trying to run a coup d'état. It's not an ordinary coup d'état, nor is it over. What happened on Sept. 11 was the first blow of what is obviously intended to be a series of blows. The first attack was on the mentality of the population. In that sense, it was a terror attack, but so far, we recognize that, unlike many terror attacks, the author of the attack has not come forward in any way. Nor has he been detected. He is not, of course, an Arab terrorist country, or something of that sort. Because some of the personnel involved may have been recruited from such sources as the former Iran-Contra operation, and as we know, these people came from many countries. But it could not be done without the direction of a powerful organization, a secret organization, working inside the United States. Therefore, there will be a second attack, and probably a third. Exactly when, we don't know, but it could be fairly soon. Q: Do you believe it's possible for there to be such an alliance, as has been proposed, of such different clashing cultures. You have the Taliban on the one side, which has already given some indication of its culpability. The cultures are so different. Also, are these people... really capable of conceiving such a plot that they can hit this financial center, the Twin Towers, and the military center, the Pentagon, and a fourth plane which, to this day, we don't really know where it was headed for, do you think this is possible? LaRouche: No, it is not. Not from such sources. Remember, we've had, over the period of over a quarter-century, actually since 1968, we've had the buildup of a phenomenon of international irregular warfare, including terrorism. But this was never—with a few exceptions here and there—really an individual or group phenomenon. I've been investigating this thing for over 30 years, and this is never done without the participation of governments or similar agencies. The Iran-Contra operation, as it came to be called, is an example of this. This was run by special warfare units and commands inside the United States, Britain, and Israel. And it had involved assets who had been recruited for this operation from many countries. The case of Italian terrorism, the case of German terrorism, the French terrorism, all of these things were run by agencies like governments, or by governments. This is a phenomenon of the age of nuclear weapons, where governments no longer feel free to start wars in regular warfare. So they go back to another form of warfare, of semi-anonymous guerrilla warfare, by people under false flags. Now, what you have out there is you have a tremendous potential of mercenary, and mercenary-like forces, which have been trained and used for these kinds of operations. So, if someone wants, from inside the U.S. government, the British government, the Israeli government, or some combination of these, to run an operation of this type, they can pick up veterans of this kind of past experience the way you pull tissues out of a box. In a case like this, it's like hunting an animal that you don't know. You study the spoor and behavior of the animal. Q: You referred to a mercenary operation, but mercenaries work for money. Here we had people who actually gave up their lives. How do you get people to give up their lives? You had four planes, they didn't use nuclear weapons. Why use four airplanes filled with fuel as missiles? Within a year, or ten years, they'll probably come up with a scenario, such as the "Warren Commission," saying that the Oklahoma thing was carried out by an all-American guy all by himself, just like the magic bullet from Dallas killed four people, and that the Iran-Contra business was people independently trading drugs for weapons, and that Jimmy Carter lost the election because a political party was conducting negotiations on its own. So, what are the chances that we will get a different version than the simplistic tale they're telling us, that it was bin Laden by himself who did it? LaRouche: First of all, you have to recognize that we're looking at an operation like that started by Brzezinski during the late 1970s, and continued under Vice President George Bush, in which they went to organizations like Islamic Jihad, then based in Egypt, to organize the forces for what became known as the Afghansi. Now, this operation that ran the Afghansi, under Brzezinski, is the same operation which continued the Afghansi operation under George Bush, and also included other things, including things in Central America, like in Guatemala, the drug trafficking, the Iran-Iraq War, things like that. Although these people may be paid to do what they're doing, that is, for the logistics, they are not actually mercenaries in the ordinary sense. But they are the same people, like the Anglo-American-Israeli combination, who are recruiting mercenary armies inside Africa, the same command structure. So, it's a large assortment of capabilities, which are recruited and deployed in various ways. What we're looking at here is an attempt to terrify the United States into undergoing a change in its government, to conduct a geopolitical war in Central Asia. Although the operation was done from inside the United States, the brainwashing that's being done to the American people, is to cause them to believe that it came from someplace in the Arab world. There is a connection to the Islamic world, because the purpose of the operation is to have what Brzezinski has called a geopolitical "Clash of Civilizations" in Central Asia. And the idea, the motive for this operation, is that given by Brzezinski, Kissinger, and people like that. So, therefore, they're trying to terrify the United States, to bring about a change in government, which will run this kind of geopolitical war in Central Asia. Q: Mr. LaRouche, you have said in the past, "Ask me, I know what to do." So, we have a situation where they have now said they are going to declare war on all terrorist organizations and countries that harbor them. We have 18 such organizations in Latin America. We have the Tupamaros, Cuba, the Chávez regime, the Peruvian terrorists, Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc. This could devolve into a Third World War. Do you see a situation where, because of the economic situation in the United States, somebody says, "Look, we need a war to get the economy going again"? LaRouche: No, though some people may say that. On the subject of economics, they are blind, wishful-thinking idiots. The financial crash that is occurring now, is the end of the present world financial and monetary system. It is like the crash of the banking system of Europe, the Lombard banking system, in the 14th Century. Now, in this situation, you have all these local kinds of things you are talking about, but to my knowledge, none of them are autonomous. They're all run by governments, especially with Anglo-American-Israel connections. What the guys behind this are afraid of, is that cooperation in Eurasia, among Russia, China, India, Japan, Western Europe, and so forth, will start an economic recovery of a new system, and that that will defeat the power of the Anglo-American financier lobby. And the question of oil in Central Asia is one of the key fulcrums of their objective, in the so-called Caspian region. And other natural resources in Central Asia, as well. So, what they've done is that they've launched this operation. Now, obviously, the solution is that the United States should dump this nonsense, recognize the need to replace the presently bankrupt system with a new monetary and financial system, and enter into cooperation, principally, with combinations of nations in Eurasia, in cooperation with nations in South America and Africa, to create a new system, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt planned to create a new kind of world system, a more just system, when World War II had ended. And while we work to expose and defeat this coup plot inside the United States, and in Israel and elsewhere, we must offer the people of the world a sense of hope that there is a positive solution to the present world financial and monetary crisis. We have to operate on the principle that if the overwhelming majority of the people understand what the threat is to them and their future, and to coming generations, nobody can conquer that people. It's only when the people are confused and don't know what they're fighting against, that the people surrender to things like a coup d'état. When the people are aroused—and remember, soldiers are people and are influenced by the population—if we give political leadership and inspiration to the people, they will not allow any such tyrant to triumph. Under that condition, the tyrant is defeated before he strikes. Therefore, while I consider all the military and related problems, I concentrate on my specialty, the political and economic dimension, where the solution lies. The solution never lies in winning the war. The solution lies in winning the peace, a durable peace. Q: What's the importance of Afghanistan from the standpoint of politics and economics? The Soviets invaded it, the United States armed the opposition, now the United States is moving to attack it again. It doesn't seem to have any apparent wealth or natural resources. What is its importance? LaRouche: It has mountains, and it has a geographical position. If you have a war among several powers, involving Afghanistan, you have involved China, India, Pakistan, Russia, the nations of Central Asia. In fact, you have involved the entire Eurasian continent in one big war. And since it's impossible to win a war in Afghanistan, in the ordinary sense—it's a desert area with no infrastructure—it becomes like a Thirty Years' War, but worse. The armies of the world, the mercenaries of the world, are all moving into that area, fighting each other in a perpetual war. The effect is to spread a war from Central Asia, which will destroy the nations, as well as the economy, of all Eurasia. It's the ultimate geopolitical war. Q: We must end now, but there is one thing we cannot close without dealing with. Lyndon LaRouche is attacked, he is a patriot, a leader, a man respected by some, and considered by others a controversial figure. What do he and his political organization think of this attack [of Sept. 11] which has been deemed inhuman, atrocious, a provocation, arrogant, and even an insult to the "Establishment," and the government and the people of the United States. They cannot respond by doing nothing, and he knows it. It was an attack against the two capitals of the United States: the economic capital, and the political capital. It was also an attack against the people of the United States, because the Twin Towers were full of workers. It was an attack on the commercial center of the world, on the military center of the world, and perhaps that fourth plane was intended for the political center of the world. How does LaRouche view that, and what kind of response do you think would be reasonable, to this kind of attack? LaRouche: The first thing you have to do is recognize who the enemy is, who you're going to respond to. The enemy, the command structure, lies inside the United States. Therefore, any attack on places or nations outside the United States, virtually has the same effect as an act of treason, because you are attacking your friends, when you should be looking to your enemies. Most of these Arab countries are, implicitly, friends of the United States. Russia is presently a friend of the United States. China wishes to be a friend of the United States. Tajikistan, where the Pope has just made a major appearance, is a friend of the United States. India would like to be a friend of the United States. The nations of Southeast Asia, many of the nations of Africa, wish to be friends of the United States. Most of continental Europe wishes to be friends with the United States. Why should we make war against these friends, or involve them in great troubles unnecessarily, when the enemy is within our own country? We don't know the exact identity of the perpetrators who commanded this operation. But they were a group of people with the highest degree of military skills and experience on the flag-officer level of command. Things of the nature of a planned military coup, run with special warfare capabilities. The "activists," shall we call them, who did this—and I'm talking about people of flag-officer rank and higher—of the United States, are in sympathy with people like Brzezinski and Kissinger. Q: Unfortunately, Mr. LaRouche, our time has run out. I want to leave you one more minute, to give you the opportunity to say something to the people of the Dominican Republic, through our program "Revista Ciento Diez." LaRouche: At the time that the attack occurred on New York and Washington, I was on the radio, and I told the people who were listening to this interview at that time, not to panic, that leadership must speak with a calm voice and speak relevant things, on the real issues and their solutions, like a great commander would in a major war, and as Franklin Roosevelt did in facing the Great Depression. That's what is needed. Panic and screaming from the mass media of the United States and elsewhere, is the worst thing you can do under these kinds of conditions. Hysteria in many parts of the U.S. government is the worst possible thing. |
