PJ 100
CHAPTER 9
MOSCOW PRESS CONFERENCE SPEECH
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
April 28, 1994

ANNO HELLENBROICH: Good afternoon, ladies and gentle-men. My name is Anno Hellenbroich from Germany. I would like to welcome you to this afternoon press conference and I'm very happy that today with us is Mr. LaRouche, who has been having private meetings in Moscow for the last few days. We thought that it is probably appropriate to have discussion with people from the media, to have a chance to put some questions about physical economy and on those aspects of the work of Mr. LaRouche.

Mr. LaRouche will begin with short, introductory remarks and then we'll take questions.

Opening Statement

LYNDON LAROUCHE: I of course have come here primarily on matters of scientific interest, to discuss with not only members of the Universal Ecological Academy, but also with branches of the Russian Academy of Sciences and others.

The principal subject of these meetings is the principles of physical economy as they are applicable to today's situation. The particular point of my general emphasis has been the fact that the so-called free market system is about to collapse. To seek relief in the so-called free enterprise system is like a young egg trying to find its future underneath a dead hen.

Thus, here, as in other countries, one must not talk about how to survive under the free market system, but how to survive after its death, which will be very soon. Thus we have to talk about (physical economy); that is, the kind of economic principles which must guide us to maintain economic life under conditions of (general global collapse) of the present dominant financial and monetary systems around the world.

I have warned, of course, that there is a certain degree of un-certainty as to (timing) of the collapse. We have already seen, in the past six or seven weeks, on international markets, a great degree of financial collapse. This has so far hit publicly both the major speculators--the wildest speculators--and banking and private financial institutions which have been heavily involved in such speculation. And we have the prospect of the spectacle of a group of gangsters going to their banker to collect their money with their guns drawn, and finding that he has no money--which means that we are no longer discussing the question of the rela-tive virtues of the former Communist or the so-called free trade system, but looking for the third system which will survive this collapse.

I have emphasized that, under conditions of a global financial collapse, one of the greatest assets of Russia is the scientific community, especially that which, of course, was involved in economic activities such as aerospace and military; and of course the protection of the machine-tool sector inside the Russian economy. This scientific potential of Russia is its greatest economic asset internationally, which, to my dismay, has been somewhat dissipated under the present financial and economic conditions.

At the same time, we have been discussing with the scientists some of the more advanced and profound implications in mathematics in particular, and in mathematical analysis (as by com-puter methods), of my discoveries in the field.

In conclusion, I can only say that I have so far enjoyed this visit very much.

Questions and Answers

VIKTOR KUZIN, Bureau for Human Rights Defense Without Borders: It is now obvious for the whole world that the free market policy is no way out for Russia, because this system pro­ceeds from the principle of freedom taken to the absurd.

What, however, indicates to you that the collapse can take place in the near future? What are the concrete indications of this?

MR. LAROUCHE: One has to look at the structure of the fi­nancial speculation. The structure is based on a number of fac­tors which are new to "bubbles" in history. We have had finan­cial bubbles in history before, but this one has certain new fea­tures. One is the very significant role of (radical deregulation) in the international financial system. People are engaging in forms of so-called "legal" transactions for which one would have been shot in the former civilized nations. These formerly illegal things, which would be considered almost high treason, are being perpetrated by leading financial institutions. Never before has there been in modern history such (unregulated) speculation.

Secondly, the (method of thinking) by the speculators is derived from the work of John Von Neumann in economic systems, who is one of the greatest and most successful criminals in the history of mathematics: a man utterly without the slightest shred of morality about anything, including science. The popularity of Von Neumann's system depends upon the popularity of comput­ers, especially the widespread, increasing use of computers in the Western European, Japanese and North American markets.

The result is the introduction of so-called "program trading," which is automatic trading, using sophisticated communications links.

It is difficult to state precisely what the total physical product of the planet Earth is. But it is in the order of magnitude of a cou­ple tens of trillions of dollars. The current turnover in admitted speculative instruments on various financial markets which are exposed, is {over $16 trillion}. There is in addition to that, an unexposed, very large amount, maybe almost as large, in hidden markets. The total transaction of turnover in these speculative markets, is probably in excess of $300 trillion a year.

This bubble exists by {sucking the blood,} in the form of various kinds of profit and yield from the real economy at the base. The principal method of growth, is what is called asset-stripping.

Take a situation in Russia as an example of asset stripping. The value of the Ruble is artificially low. This is done by managed speculative exchange markets which tell the Russians, "Your ruble is worth only so much in dollars." So if the Russian wishes to buy, the Russian must have hard currency--not only to buy foreign products, but now, to buy many of the internal products. The result is a vast {looting} of the Russian economy through the exchange process.

Take, for example, Russian flats [apartments, which are now being privatized--ed.]. Look at the value of those flats in 1989; and you must compare the income of the average Russian household with the price they paid for the flat. Take the same flats today. Compare them with the average Russian income of the flat holder. The flats are taken; people are killed to get their flats. What happens? Somebody sells the flat, for profit--or for desperation.

When they sell the flat, somebody buys the flat. Someone then goes to the bank, to get money to buy the flat. The Russian banking system is therefore full of mortgages on flats. These flats are priced at prices on the mortgage, {way above} any price in London or Berlin or New York, and so forth; which means the price of the flat on the bank's books is {fraudulent}.

The Russian banking system now uses this as a capital base in international hard-currency exchange markets. So therefore, Russian gangsters and others now deliver the blood of the Rus­sian people to these foreign speculators. This is what's hap­pening inside Germany; less severe, but the same thing. The collapse of Credit Lyonnais, one of the great banks of France, is the result of the same process. This is going on inside the United States.

So to sustain this bubble, this flow of looting must come out of the economy. Also, as a result of this, there is no credit for industry or farms. The employment base of the economy shrinks. The tax revenue base of the state shrinks. The bubble gets bigger.

This is like a cancer in the final stage. The cancer eats the living, good tissue of the human being. One day the cancer dies because the human being has died. The cancer has eaten up its food supply. So the international financial system--the so-called "free market system"--is nothing bat a giant parasite sucking the blood out of the world economy. {What happens when it can no longer squeeze a sufficient additional amount out of the real economy?) It collapses at a geometric speed. Very slight fluctuations in borrowing can cause tens or hundreds of billion of dollars of fluctuation in this market; very slight disturbances can cause financial explosions. George Soros has already lost a great amount of money, in the billions magnitude. That's only typical.

Now, what we've seen in the past six to seven weeks in international bond markets, and in the collapse of derivatives speculation, is like the first echo of a coming major earthquake. Since financial markets, particularly speculative markets, are depen-dent upon purely political considerations otherwise, it is impossible to say on what day the whole thing will totally collapse. Maybe next week, maybe next month, maybe the fall; maybe next year.

It's like predicting the day on which a cancer victim will die. You don't know when the person will die. But the person knows, the doctors know, he's going to die, but can't say when. And so, with the unpredictable factors, they know he's going to die soon.

In the same sense, this thing is {finished). It {cannot} survive. And when it collapses, it will collapse the political power of those who are {owned) by it. So you say this is not a {cyclical} financial crisis, it is a {systemic} one.

MR. KUZIN: It is important for us in Russia to understand pre-cisely who and what institutions personify the threat to Russia from this type of activity. And the other, sub-question: What institutions or organizations represent the most serious opposi-tion to this course of events, and thus danger to it?

MR. LAROUCHE: Well, it is centered in the system that the British set up.

The bubble began in 1971-75, with the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold reserve agreements. Then you had the oil price cri-sis of 1973-75, which established a floating-exchange rate inter-national financial system. That was consolidated by the Ram-bouillet agreements in 1975 in France, the international monetary agreements.

The center of the bubble has the London market. The vehicle is now become the United Nations, particularly the International Monetary Fund, which is a subsidiary of the United Nations; and the World Bank and so forth and so on. This goes together with an international policy which has two aspects, which are centered in the economic and social council of the United Nations Organization, which is a completely ideological collection of witches. What would you call it in Russian--the Baba Yaga Memorial Society?

These are the people who ideologically were responsible for trying to turn the world toward population reduction, toward ending scientific and technological progress, toward eliminating all systems of education that develop the cognitive power of students. These are the fanatics of the New Age.

So in addition to the {sickness) itself of speculation, it has a running dog in the form of these {New Age ideologues).

For example: If you say "IMF policies are killing more people in Africa than Hitler killed during World War II," they will say "Yes, that's true; that is very fortunate. Because Africa is overpopulated."

These are the people who, if you talk to them about the effect of shock therapy on Russia, and you ask, "What are you doing to Russia? If they become desperate, they have thermonuclear weapons." And the Russians will say, "We have thermonuclear weapons, why should we be hungry?" They will say, "No, it is {necessary} to administer shock therapy, to destroy Russia's potential as an economy. Besides, the looting of Russia is helping to prop up the bubble."

In Poland, the situation is an absolute catastrophe; they're down to about 30 percent of their 1989 production per capita; and it's become a graveyard in which the United Nations people are happy to invest. In Moscow, they say the Polish model is a great success which we must imitate. In London, their ideo­logues will say, as will some in the United States, "We must establish a one-world empire."

If you look at what is being done to the countries of Central and South America and Africa, the attempts to start wars among In­dia, Pakistan, Kashmir, and so forth, you see that the same peo­ple are trying to destroy every nation on this planet.

You have to go back to the 1930s to understand these people. Hitler, contrary to rumor, was not put into power by Germans. Germany at the time was under Anglo-American occupation. The entire banking system of Germany was controlled by the Anglo-American bankers. In 1932, when the von Schleicher government was being developed and installed, people in Lon­don and in New York decided to overthrow the government and to put Hitler into power. At that time, they were afraid that von Schleicher would introduce economic cooperation with Russia, as a certain section of the German military had done already, with the so-called Black Reichswehr projects.

So they used the Social Democrats to help them overthrow the von Schleicher government. Then, George Bush's father, who was an official of Harriman and Company, moved the money from the banks into Hitler's party coffers to make the coup.

From 1932 to 1938, the leading circles in London and in New York supported Adolf Hitler's regime--because they wished a war between Germany and Russia, hoping that this would ac­complish the mutual destruction of the two countries.

We are dealing with the same kind of mentality today. The only difference between Thatcher and George Bush and their prede­cessors of the 1920s and 1930s, is that George Bush is much stupider than his father.

We are dealing with {ideologues}; not with men who calculate profit, but ideologues who have certain utopian impulses: to re­duce the people of the world in numbers and in intelligence. If you wish to rule over the cows, you breed them for stupidity, which is the way the British attempted to perpetuate their rule over their colonies: not with guns, but by inculcating stupidity in the people selected to be leaders. Destroy everybody who is a leading force who represents national interest impulses and who has intelligence and courage. And put dumb cows in power! And then come and milk the cow.

And that's what they're doing. They're doing it deliberately, out of a desire that somehow their families will rule the world forever in some kind of crazy utopia. And they recognize--as anyone who studied history should recognize--the thing that pre­vented the Babylonian Empire from conquering Greece, that a small Greek population that the Persian Empire (which is merely a name for the Babylonian Empire) could not conquer from 600 B.C. until Alexander destroyed the Persian Empire in the middle of the fourth century.

These ideologues recognize three enemies: the nation-state as an institution; scientific and technological progress; and the mass education of the people to be able to generate and to use scientific and technological progress. That's the mean­ing of their ideology.

LEONID LEVIN, {Oppositsiya} newspaper: It has become the practice here in Russia for one person to combine two jobs, one as a government official, especially the executive branch, and the other in some business structure.

My question is does this happen in other countries; and how in your opinion would this affect the economic situation in Russia?

MR. LAROUCHE: In the United States, even today, it would be considered corruption. Of course, the United States, not the present President, but the former President, would encourage that.

When Bush picked a man known to me, Robert Strauss, to become the U.S. ambassador in Moscow my reaction was the United States has sent the prince of thieves to organize crime.

One of the ways in which you induce a country to destroy itself, is by organizing crime within it.

For example, in the case of Italy, the charge was that all the political parties were corrupt. The basis for the charge of corruption, was that the Italian industries or businesses financed the parties. In 1943-45, the American and British occupying authorities set up a system of political parties in Italy and arranged that all the parties would exist on the basis of financing by industry.

Here, the same thing is going on. Certain influences are trying to foster, in Russia, the kinds of corruption which will prevent a solid national government from determining an independent policy.

I could show you--it would be a longer story--documents to show that it is a policy of a certain section of the U.S. Government to foster organized crime within countries as the way to create a free market, and to destroy the possibility that the nation will be able to govern itself by creating a system in which the political parties are financed by gangsters. If a nation is conscious that these dangers exist, of course, it doesn't work.

FELIKS BELELYUBSKY, {Pravda): How do you see the pro-cess that has occurred, of Russia being transformed into a semi-colonial status as part of, if you will, the periphery of the rest of the world?

MR. LAROUCHE: Well, the objective always was--you've seen it, therefore you know these things, you've been around.

In 1955, you had four representatives of Khrushchev who went to meet in London, at a public conference, with Bertrand Russell. The basis for the meeting was a program which Russell had laid out many times, but especially in the October 1946 edi-tion of the {Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists). Russell stated that the purpose of his faction in Britain was to establish world government. He proposed that the U.S. use its monopoly in nu-clear weapons (which the U.S. did not have at that moment, they'd run out of them), to blackmail Stalin into coming back into the {British) interpretation of the Yalta agreements. He said this must be done before Russia develops nuclear weapons; and he said privately he hoped that Stalin would die soon in order to facilitate the agreement with Stalin's successors.

Stalin may have had many faults, but he was a complete Russian Third Romer; and the British understood that they had misunderstood Stalin; so they then wanted to kill him. And maybe they did--or who knows what?

As soon as Stalin was dead, there was a scramble for a new regime in Moscow. You had the Beria succession and so forth and so on, and finally Khrushchev managed to edge out Bulganin, which consolidated a new regime.

At that point, Khrushchev sent an offer to 'Bertrand Russell: You can probably find, in some of the old pages of {Pravda,) what was said about Bertrand Russell while Stalin was still alive. I think the Russian vocabulary for invective was used up.

So Khrushchev made the agreement. It was uneven; but the Pugwash policy of Leo Szilard of 1958 was finally adopted. The United States and Britain, those behind this agreement, believed that they had established a global condominium between two adversaries. The next step, they hoped, in the long term, was to eliminate the adversary and have only the Empire.

The same logic persists today from the same quarters: to use the remaining power of Russia as a subordinated force to London. And if you watch what the British fellows do here whenever a conflict comes between London and Washington, you see exactly how it's being played.

What they're trying to do today is destroy Russia by the same means as the Morgenthau Plan for occupied Germany. One of the things that worries me, is that these fellows in London would like to have a {civil war) occur within the territory of the former Soviet Union to induce Russia to accept a "Blue Helmet" [UN Forces] arrangement within the territory of the former Soviet Union. These forces wish to have a war of some kind between Ukraine and Russia; an aggravation of the Transcaucasus crisis; a civil war in Kazakhstan; and so forth. In the process, they believe that they can use Russia's remaining power and loot it and conquer it, and create the basis for a world empire.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: I have another question. How do you view the analysis of our internal political strife that's circulating now, according to which, the pro-American Yeltsin group would be battling against a pro-European comprador bourgeoisie layer?

MR. LAROUCHE: That's a false picture of the situation. I , have some knowledge of the Clinton Administration. The forces which are behind the attempt to destroy Russia as such, are the British and their friends. Not all the British; there are factions in Britain which say that what their government is doing, is in-sane. And this includes some British intelligence circles which have long been specialists in Russian affairs. We know, because we talk to them.

But the conflict between London and the Clinton administration is the key to understanding how to look at this business; and to recognize that George Bush is {essentially) the same as Mrs. Thatcher.

The Clinton Administration is a small group of people--even within the Democratic Party--which is not distinguished for its boldness. I'm considered very tough in comparison with Clinton, for example.

But certain warnings, including those we transmitted, about what they were doing to Russia were received by the Clinton administration--the only warning that they received from any intelligence sources in the United States, where we said you cannot do this to Russia, we indicated what would happen if they continued the policy. You observed how Clinton reacted to the events of very late September and early October. You probably noticed a small insertion in a speech made by Clinton on the Russia business. You probably noticed the statements here by the Vice President, the statements by Strobe Talbott, that there had been too much shock therapy on Russia.

The Clinton Administration has a policy of trying to develop a policy toward Russia, a Russia policy. There are some people in the Congress and other circles who share that concern. The result of Clinton's concern was an attack upon the Clinton Administration and Clinton himself by British intelligence, by the Hollinger Corporation, which is associated with the {Daily Telegraph). This was entirely straight British intelligence; Hollinger Corporation {is} British intelligence. This is Lord Carrington, this is Henry Kissinger--the whole crowd.

The chief ally of the Hollinger-Thatcher and so forth crowd, was what is called the Bush crowd in the United States. For the present time, since I'm a tough old fox, I was able to intervene with some information to expose the structure of this operation. So temporarily at least the problem that Clinton faced, has been stopped.

What I'm fighting for, is a change in policy by the U.S. Government--not the Clinton policy, which is to be {lenient) with Russia, but to understand what positive steps must be taken for cooperation.

The problem with the Clinton Administration is twofold. They're weak and somewhat vacillating, because first of all, they have not decided exactly what they think they should do; and the inertia is to play the game (I'll come back to what the game is) which was established under Bush.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: Excuse me, what do you mean by con­structive cooperation?

MR. LAROUCHE: Well, my view is the two things I indi­cated. First, we're heading into the greatest financial collapse globally in history. The financial system globally will collapse. I don't think that we're going to be able to change fundamen­tally the policies which are looting the world until that collapse comes, because of a cowardice or weakness among political forces that would want to change it.

My view is that we must have clear objectives and work to see to it that the capabilities of those who will make the changes, will survive until the time comes.

For example, the scientific-military-aerospace technology of the former Soviet Union as it is in Russian hands in particular, {must be kept alive}. So anything that can be done in the form of cooperation to stabilize that situation for the time being, I be­lieve should be done. The Russian Machine-tool sector must be kept intact for the future. Any cooperation which would assist in that effect should be considered.

There should be informational exchanges on analysis of the na­ture of the crisis and the measures which must be eventually taken. This must involve countries such as Japan, such as Ger­many, and so forth. We must have a group of countries which are prepared to cooperate at the moment of a financial break­down to set up a new system.

My concern is to educate the Clinton Administration and certain people around it on these considerations. I'm not in a position to {tell) them what to do, but I'm in a position to present to them a picture.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: Does George' Soros have a correct evaluation of these realities?

MR. LAROUCHE: No. He's British. He's an American citi­zen, but he's a British property. He's owned through the Roth­schilds, by the British royal family, who set up this operation. That's easily traced. It's obvious. There are complications with George Soros, but essentially, when you come down to the peo­ple who can pull the strings that make him live or die, that's where they are.

MR. BELELYUBSKY: My last question would be: How do you evaluate the foreign policy of Germany today? I don't have quite the breadth of information that you have.

MR. LAROUCHE: Vacillating [laughs]. Vacillating. There is no clear government of Germany. The German Government is in trouble. People inside Germany as well as outside, are trying to destabilize the Kohl regime. The elites of Germany no longer have the strength of will and understanding that they had, say, in the 1970s. The last leading German banker of any imagina­tion was Herrhausen, and he was shot.

However, if the United States, or even a section of the Estab­lishment of the United States around the presidency, were to adopt a policy, this would strongly influence the position of Germany. And I'm very hopeful that will occur.

ANDREI MIRONOV: I specialize in human rights. I'm inter­ested in your remark about the parallels with the Italian devel­opment, especially insofar as it is quite apparent to anybody who knows even a little bit about the Italian political system that the way the political electoral practices line up in Russia, they are a rather exact replica of the Italian postwar system.

In that connection, do you believe that the accession of the Berlusconi Government has adequately now shifted the situation in Italy; and if so, in what direction?

MR. LAROUCHE: No. What it's done, is gone to a new phase of instability. Let me give you an example.

Shift your attention briefly to South Africa. I saw broadcasts on the subject of the coming election in South Africa, while I was here in Moscow (I was watching CNN and some German TV broadcasts). Since I know the situation in South Africa rather well from behind the scenes, I would say, the great danger in South Africa today, is that after Mandela Is elected, someone will kill him.

This is consistent with the purpose of people such as Tiny Row­land and the Oppenheimer/DeBeers crowd, which orchestrated the whole thing in the beginning.

Now, in Italy, you have a somewhat different thing. I don't think anybody will shoot Berluscon. I think the difficulty would be finding a vital organ to hit.

But there are two ways to destroy a nation. One is to shoot the head of state; the other is to put a complete clown into the presi­dency or the prime ministership.

What you have in Italy is not politics any more, but a circus. Until this is reversed, you have a government which is totally detached from the people, from the reality of the Italian situa­tion.

Remember this whole operation was put into place by a meeting on the British royal family's yacht off the coast of Italy, in which all the actors planned the whole operation. And they destabilized Italy for the purpose of destroying its government. They have now created, in Italian politics, not a government, but a clown show. Virtually all the old parties, corrupt as some of them were, have disappeared.

You have a totally British operation, which is the Lega Nord. A public relations airhead--Berlusconi--who has no understanding of politics, no concern about it, until recently. He's a com­mentator on politics, not a maker of politics. You have a cap­tive fascist party, which is openly, completely, Benito Mussolini restored. You have the remains of the former Communist Party of Italy, or part of the remains of it, offstage.

This is not capable of governing the country; and this was put together--orchestrated--with the intent that it wouldn't govern the country. It's horrible. The old corruption was better.

MR. MIRONOV: Two questions then, if I may. First of all, in the past, it was also quite typical in Italy to run into people who would say, "Ah, the government's completely corrupt, it's no good. But it doesn't interfere with our lives, so God be with them. We'll live our lives and the government can do what it wants."

MR. LAROUCHE: This is like an Italian wife saying, "My husband plays around with a lot of other women. I wish he'd come home."

MR. MIRONOV: Respecting what you're saying about Britain, it's clear even to the man in the street, you don't have to be an expert to see that the quality of life, the standard of living in Britain, is significantly lower than, say, in Italy.

This is not a place that's rich or better off.

MR. LAROUCHE: But the British people have nothing to do with British imperialism. It was never run for their interests.

Today, of course obviously, the British Empire, the flag, is gone. But if you think of Britain and its empire as a breeder of cows, of turning human beings into cows, the British Empire exists in a system of cows.

For example, what they've done, is {British ideology} dominates the world, and therefore British intelligence operates today on the basis of cultural-ideological influences which through the course of developments of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, has made the acceptance of British ideology dominant.

For example, let's take the case of Adam Smith:"

Modern economic science was developed beginning the fifteenth century. The founder of modern economic science in that sense was a Greek by the name of Plethon, otherwise known as " George Gemisthos Plethon, who lived about 100 years, from the middle of the fourteenth century to the middle of the fifteen century. He wrote a series of reports for the Byzantine Empire, the Paleologues, on a strategy for defending the Empire after the 1401 defeat of the Seljuk Turks by Tamerlane.

He presented an updated version of this report to Cosimo de Medici in Florence in the fifteenth century. In the middle of the fifteenth century, he became one of the most influential minds in the Italian Renaissance, and was responsible for the renewed circulation of Classical Greek knowledge throughout Western Europe.

Out of this came a movement in France, Italy, elsewhere, which is known as {cameralism). Then Colbert established economics almost as a science. Economics as a science was established by Leibniz--as anyone who looks at the history of the St. Peters-burg Academy would understand. Sound economics existed in Russia {long before} Adam Smith existed. It went down the ' drain here in Russia for political reasons, but nonetheless it existed.

In 1763, a student of Giammaria Ortes (a Venetian writer), called Adam Smith was picked up by a guy called the Earl of Shelburne, William Petty, the Second Earl of Shelburne, and as-signed to write a book that was completely traudulent, had no correlation with any economic reality, to be used as a design for destroying the economies of the English colonies in North America, and the economy of France.

Adam Smith's (Wealth of Nations) is a complete fraud. It has no basis in economics. But {Britain was able to establish an empire and to establish the London market as the dominant financial agency in the world.)

Take free trade in Russia today. Does anything happen, in the terms of free trade, to put the Russian physical economy back info production?

Quite the contrary: it's used to loot Russia.

{There is not a single case of a nation which actually accepted a free trade policy, which did not become bankrupt in the matter of less than a decade.)

The first application of free trade was by the Treaty of Paris in 1783, in which Lord Shelburne dictated the policy to France and the United States as a condition of peace. By 1789, both France and the United States were bankrupt. The 'United States recovered, because we had a Constitution which outlawed free trade. The King of France did riot use his head, so he lost it.

{Every time a free trade policy was introduced in the United States' history, the United States nearly went bankrupt.) Every success of the U.S. economy and every success in the German economy in particular, was based on what was called protectionism, which was a rejection of free trade.

Admittedly, the United States today, particularly since the 1970s, has been totally free trade in its tendencies. But for the political power of the United States to exact concessions, the United States today would be absolutely bankrupt economically. So it never worked.

But why do people believe in free trade? Because the British won the war in 1763 against France. The British prevailed over France and other countries in the Treaty of Vienna, 1814/1815. The British designed the policies of Versailles. It was the British, not the Americans, who designed the essential postwar policies of the IMF.

If you trace the history of ideas, you'll find, as in the case of free trade, ideas of British empiricism and related ideas {dominate} education in the world today.

The analogy one can use, is the case of a goldfish. You have a pet goldfish you keep in a small bowl in your house. Now you take the goldfish and you fill your bathtub with water. You put the goldfish in the bathtub; he swims in small circles. To the degree that the gold fish has a mind, you may say the goldfish's problem is not a physical one, it's a mental one.
If you can induce people to accept certain intellectual axioms, you can manipulate them forever. And the world is manipulated by the acceptance of the words "free" trade. Someone says, "Free trade; ah! we like freedom, so we'll have free trade."

The only way we free ourselves from that, is to look at reality and say, "These ideas are foolish from the standpoint of reality."

The hero of such a story is the little boy in the famous fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen under the title "The Emperor's New Suit of Clothes."

Sometimes you get the great professors and the great ideologues and all the authentic dispensers of public attitudes and public opinions, who are absurd. But a little boy stands up arid says of the Emperor's new clothes: "But daddy, he has nothing on!"

I think many Russian people today, are saying that of free trade. But it's obvious sometimes, that until we stand up like the little boy, and say, "But he has nothing on," that we tend to become prisoners of these kinds of false ideas. In that sense, there is a British Empire of institutions and ideas which lives in the after-math of the collapse of the British Empire as a British Empire.

And only two British, imperialist institutions of any importance exist: the objective power of the British Empire lies in the City of London and associated financial institutions.' The second thing is in the intelligence service, which does not serve the people of Britain, but serves the financial interests of the City of London.

If you go back to the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century history of Venice, and look at Venice's power and read the reports of the Venetian ambassadors, which are published, you will see how the Venetian intelligence service, together with the Venetian financial system, had dominated the world (or at least of the Mediterranean) for a long time. And the British Empire can be thought of, in that sense, today, as only a ghost; but the Venice of the North.
CHAPTER 10
SECRET MILITARY MANEUVERS
THE SPOTLIGHT
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with
all thy getting, get understanding."--Proverbs 4:7
VOLUME XX NUMBER 26 June 27, 1994

SECRET MILITARY MANEUVERS
CONCERNAL AMERICANS
Foreign Combat Vehicles Spotted Across the U.S.
You haven't been seeing things. There have been, a number of strange military-related maneuvers around the country lately.
EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT
by Mike Blair
The SPOTLIGHT has obtained irrefutable evidence that hun­dreds--perhaps thousands--of foreign military vehicles and ar­mor are in the United States, including vehicles intended for use by the UN.

At the same time, President Bill Clinton has signed new Execu­tive Orders, giving wide-ranging new powers to the UN to command U.S. military forces and delegating new powers to the National Security Council and the office of National Security Adviser to the President, a post currently held by Anthony Lake.

Hundreds of railroad flatcars bearing Russian military vehicles and armor and some UN vehicles and armor have been spotted in several states, including Montana, Colorado and Wyoming in the West and Pennsylvania in the East.

In addition, in Mississippi, hundreds of Russian-built vehicles, obtained from what was formerly East Germany and apparently being refurbished for the UN, are located in a massive depot. Many of the vehicles were designed for chemical and biological warfare purposes.

PHOTOS OBTAINED
The SPOTLIGHT has obtained photographs of railroad flat­cars filled with Russian and UN trucks and armor spotted in the Western states, along with others taken of the massive depot in Mississippi.

The SPOTLIGHT has also obtained copies of bills of lading for Russian vehicles obtained for UN purposes from what was for­merly East Germany, which have been shipped to the United States, landing at Gulfport dock facilities in Mississippi and driven to the depot, located three miles south of Saucier, and 45 miles north of Biloxi, along Mississippi Highway 49.

The depot is surrounded with a chain-link fence, topped with barbed wire, and guard dogs are reported to be used to protect the area from intruders.

A videotape taken of the area and obtained by The SPOTLIGHT shows dozens of the vehicles, including several chemical and bi­ological warfare decontamination trucks that have been painted white, presumably for UN use.

The bill of lading, indicating that the vehicles were obtained through a West German firm s operating under the name of Beesch Merkator, lists dozens of Russian-built military trucks intended for UN purposes.

The vehicles include several varieties of Russian ZIL-131 heavy trucks, including some listed to be of the ARS-14 type, which are chemical and biological warfare decontamination vehicles, and two varieties of ZIL-157 heavy trucks.

OTHERS AT DEPOT
However, photographs obtained by The SPOTLIGHT of the truck depot near Saucier also include other Russian-built trucks, including some of what appear to be the MAZ-500 series.

A detailed report has been obtained that confirms a large road, about 35 feet in width, has been built to connect the truck depot with the Stennis NASA Space Center, located about 20 miles southeast of the depot near the Mississippi-Louisiana border.

There have also been reports that the vehicles are being shipped by barges on the Pearl River, which runs along the border of the two states, north to some unknown destination.

Late last March, a train with 100 flatbed cars bearing Russian-type jeeps, trucks and U.S. armored personnel carriers, some painted white with UN markings on their sides, were seen and photographed at a railroad crossing at Rye Gate, Montana, about 10 miles north of interstate Route 12, south of the east­ernmost section of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, and about 60 miles northeast of Bozeman.

RUSSIAN ARMOR
On the train were Russian BMP-40 armored cars, loaded four to a flatcar. The BMP-40 was designed for urban warfare and as a rapid-assault offensive vehicle. Protruding from the vehicles' turrets could be seen short-barreled 75 millimeter cannons. The Soviets also equipped the vehicles with Sagger anti-tank mis­siles. The armored cars are built for amphibious use.

Also on the train were Russian UAZ-469B light, jeep-like vehi­cles, what appears to be more ZIL-131 trucks and KamAZ 5320 Russian trucks.

Some of the flatcars were loaded with American-built M113 ar­mored personnel carriers, some of which were painted white and bore the letters "UN" on the sides.

On May 29 at about 6 pm, a long train of 100 flat cars loaded with tanks and armored vehicles, some of which were believed to be of foreign manufacture, was spotted heading from the northeast toward the west along Horseshoe Curve at Altoona, Pennsylvania.

Then, on May 31 at about 2 am, what may have been the same train was seen by an Air Force police officer returning to Mal­strom Air Force Base at Great Falls, Montana, while he was driving through Wheatland, Wyoming, about 60 miles north of Cheyenne.

TRAINS GUARDED
At the crossing in Wheatland, according to the airman, three trains were stopped, two heading north and one heading south, to allow an eastbound train to pass.

While the three trains, all of which carried military vehicles, were stopped, they were guarded, according to the airman, by soldiers in black field uniforms. The three trains were carrying what he said were armored vehicles, some of which attracted his attention. Due to the darkness, he could not identify the vehi­cles as to type or origin.

Two days later, what was thought to have been one of the northbound trains was spotted on a siding at Sun Prairie, north of Great Falls, Montana.

Another reported sighting of a long train loaded with military vehicles was reported in Colorado at about the same time.

Meanwhile, five train-loads of armored vehicles have been re­ported to have arrived at Fort Chafee, Arkansas, where ob­servers have spotted large stockpiles of barbed wire and the re­cent arrival of some 5,000 mattresses.

Sources estimate that there are currently from 2,000 to 3,000 armored vehicles at Fort Chafee.

After thousands of supposed Cuban refugees were allowed into the United States by President Jimmy Carter in 1978, many who were found to be mental patients and criminals were confined at Fort Chafee, which is, along with Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, and Fort Drum, New York, among locations that have been secretly selected as detention centers for dissidents during some future declared "national emergency," according to persistent rumors

NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS
SMACK OF TOTALITARIANISM
Is President Clinton preparing to assume dictatorial powers? The machinery is in place, thanks to new Executive Orders signed during his term.

EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT
bv Mike Blair
The SPOTLIGHT has learned that President Clinton has signed at least two new so-called Executive Orders dealing with nation security matters since taking office.

Executive Orders, signed by previous presidents going back to at least Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, allow for martial law to be declared in the United States with a simple stroke of the pen by the president.

President Carter, as an example, signed Executive Order 12148, which delegated the power to run the country under martial law to the shadowy Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the event of a declared "national emergency."

Even presidential powers were put in the hands of the director of FEMA, which included the power to suspend all rights guar-anteed Americans under the Constitution.

Clinton on June 3 signed an Executive Order dealing with "National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness," which now subordinates the power of FEMA to deal with industrial and natural resources, labor, and matters dealing with energy to the National Security Council and the National Security Advisor.

In the complex order, various matters dealing with resources are delegated under the National Security Council and National Security Advisor to, among others, the Secretaries of Defense, Treasury, Commerce, etc.

The order closes with the ominous note:

"Judicial Review: This order is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or any person."

BEYOND COURTS
It would appear that the order exempts federal agencies and officials operating under the order from review by the federal judiciary.

Earlier, on May 5, President Clinton signed what is known as Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), which deals with placing U.S. military forces under UN command.

Rep. Jim Lightfoot (R-Iowa) is attempting to have the directive declassified, either by inserting it into the official records of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations or the Congressional Record, the compilation of daily activities on Capitol Hill.

A Lightfoot aide told The SPOTLIGHT the congressman was awaiting an opinion of the House counsel regarding the declassification process.

"With this administration, actions speak louder than words," Lightfoot said. "And when [UM Secretary General [Boutros] Boutros-Ghali says 'jump,' it appears President Clinton asks 'how high?' "

Apparently, according to Lightfoot, the directive was originally written as Presidential Review Directive 13 (PRD 13) and included language inserted by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Colin Powell, which "allowed U.S. commanders under UN command to not comply with orders which they believe are: (1) outside the mandate of the mission, (2) illegal under U.S. law, or (3) militarily imprudent or unsound."

"After Gen. Powell retired," Lightfoot said, "that language was changed to read that commanders of U.S. Forces, instead of acting on their training and initiative, would refer the matter to higher U.S. authorities. Sen. Strom Thurmond [R-S.C.] has de-risively referred to this as the 'phone home' clause."

Two points about PDD-25 should be noted:

First, it does not specify where U.S. Forces might be serving under UN command, which could mean either on foreign soil or domestically.

Secondly, it appears that deployment of "less that 100 troops" would be exempt from any restrictions against obeying UN commands.

This, as one military expert advised The SPOTLIGHT, would mean that so-called Special Operations deployments, which are nearly always in forces of less than 100 men and include such highly-specialized units as Army Special Forces, Navy SEALs, Marines Force Recon Etc., could be ordered by the president to be undertaken under UN command without restrictions by U.S. military authority.

Working with Rep. Lightfoot in attempting to force the classified PDD-25 to be made public is Rep. Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.).

WHO 'S WHO ATTENDEES AT
BILDERBERG MEETING
During the first week of June, the movers and shakers of the world met in Finland to decide your future.

Following are the participants at the Bilderberg meeting in Helsinki, Finland June 2.5.

Chairman: Peter Carrington, former chairman of the board, Christie's International plc; former secretary general, NATO.

Honorary Secretary-General for Europe and Canada: Victor Halberstadt, professor of public economics, Leiden University, Netherlands.

Honorary Secretary-General for U.S.: Casimir A. Yost, director, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington.

* * *
Preceding the name of each of the following participants is the code for his/her country.

Key: (A) Austria; (B) Belgium; (CDN) Canada; (CH) Switzerland; (D) Germany; (DK) Denmark; (E) Spain; (F) France; (FIN) Finland; (GB) Great Britain; (GR) Greece; (I) Italy; (ICE) Iceland; (INT) International; (IRL) Ireland; (L) Luxemburg; (N) Norway; (NL) Netherlands; (P) Portugal; (PL) Poland; (S) Sweden; (TR) Turkey and (US) United States.
(I) Giovanni Agnelli, chairman, Fiat SpA.
(I) Umberto Agnelli, chairman IFIL.
(FIN) Krister Ahlstrom, president and CEO, Ahlstrom Group.
(FIN) Esko Aho, prime minister.
(FIN) Martti Ahtisaari, president of the Republic of Finland.
(US) Paul A. Allaire, chairman, Xerox Corp.
(TR) Ali Hikmet Alp, ambassador, permanent representative of Turkey to the CSCE.
(I) Alfredo Ambrosetti, chairman, Ambrosetti Group.
(US) Dwayne O. Andreas, chairman, Archer-Daniels-Mid­land Co. Inc.
(GR) Gerasimos Arsenis, minister of defense.
(P) Francisco Pinto Balsemao, professor of mass communica­tions, New University, Lisbon; chairman, Sojornal sari; former prime minister.
(S) Percy Barnevik, president and CEO, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.
(P) Jose Manuel Durao Barrosso, minister for foreign affairs.
(US) Douglas J. Bennet, assistant secretary of state for in­ternational organizations.
(S) Hans Bergstrom, political editor, Dagens Nyheter.
(I) Franco Bernabe, managing director, Ente Nazionale Idrocar­buri (ENI).
(D) Christoph Bertram, diplomatic correspondent, Die Zeit; former director, International Institute for Strategic Studies.
(NL) Ernst H. van der Beugel, emeritus professor international relations, Leiden University; former honorary secretary general of Bilderberg meetings for Europe and Canada.
(TR) Selahattin Beyazit, director of companies.
(CDN) Conrad M. Black, chairman, The Telegraph plc.
(D) Birgit Breuel, chairman, Treuhandanstalt.
(GR) Costa Carras, director of companies.
(E) Jaime Carvajal Urquijo, chairman and general manager, Iberfomento.
(I) Innocenzo Cipolletta, director general, Confindustria. (B) Willy Claes, minister of foreign affairs.
(US) E. Gerald Corrigan, former president, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
(US) Ramon C. Cortines, chancellor, New York City Board of Education.
(CH) Flavio Cotti, federal councilor and minister for foreign af­fairs.
(GB) Percy Cradock, former ambassador to China; former for­eign policy adviser to the prime minister.
(US) Kenneth W. Dam, Max Pam Professor of American and Foreign Law, University of Chicago Law School; former deputy secretary of state.
(B) Etienne Davignon, chairman, Societe Generale de Belgique; former vice chairman of the Commission of the European Communities.
(I) Mario Draghi, director general, Ministry of the Treasury.
(CDN) Marie-Josee Drouin, executive director, Hunson Institute of Canada.
(FIN) Georg Ehrnrooth, president and CEO, Metra Corp.
(DK) Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, member of parliament; former minister for foreign affairs.
(US) Mike Espy, secretary of agriculture.
(F) Laurent Fabius, member of parliament, former prime min­ister, former chairman of parliament.
(US) James J. Florio, former governor of New Jersey.
(US) Stephen Freedman, chairman, Goldman Sachs & Co.
(US) Louis V. Gerstner Jr., chairman, IBM Corp.
(US) Katharine Graham, chairman of the executive commit­tee, the Washington Post Co.
(FIN) Sirkka Hamalainen, chairman of the board, Bank of Fin­land.
(GB) Nicholas Henderson, former ambassador to Poland, Ger­many, France and the U.S.
(NL) Cor A.J. Herkstroter, chairman, Royal Dutch Shell.
(N) Westye Hoegh, chairman of the board, Leif Hoegh & Co. AS; president, Norwegian Shipowners' Association.
(US) Robert E. Hunter, U.S. representative to NATO. (B) Jan Huyghebaert, chairman, Almanij-Krediebank Group.
(FIN) Jaako Ihamuotila, chairman of the board and CEO, Neste Corp.
(FIN) Jaako Iloniemi, managing director, Centre for Finnish Business and Policy Studies, former ambassador to the U.S.
(L) Pierre Jaans, general manager, Institut Monetaire Luxem­bourgeois.
(F) Philippe Jaffre, chairman and CEO, Elf Aquitaine.
(FIN) Max Jakobson, consultant; former ambassador to the UN and Sweden.
(A) Peter Jankowitsch, ambassador to the OECD; former fed­eral minister for foreign affairs.
(US) Vernon E. Jordan Jr., senior partner, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, attorneys at law.
(US) Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state; chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
(GB) Andrew Knight, chairman, News International plc.
(TR) Rahmi M. Koc, chairman of the board of directors, Koc Holding A.S.
(FIN) Jan Kohler, president, Finnish Forest Industries Federa­tion.
(INT) Max Kohnstamm, former secretary general, Action Committee for Europe; former president, European University Institute.
(D) Hilmar Kopper, spokesman of the board of managing di­rectors, Deutsch Bank A.G.
(NL) Pieter Korteweg, president and CEO, Robeco Group; honorary treasurer of Bilderberg meetings.
(A) Max Kothbauer, deputy chairman, Creditanstalt­Bankverein.
(US) Peter F. Krogh, dean, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
(S) Stig Larsson, president and director general, Swedish Rail­ways.
(F) Andre Levy-Lang, chairman, Banque Paribas.
(NL) Ruud F.M. Lubbers, prime minister.
(CDN) Roy MacLaren, minister for international trade.
(US) Charles W. Maynes, editor, Foreign Policy.
(CDN) Frank McKenna, premier of New Brunswick.
(US) David McLaughlin, president, the Aspen Institute.
(F) Thierry de Montbrial, director, French Institute of Interna­tional Relations, professor of Economics, Ecole Polytechinique.
(I) Mario Monti, rector and professor of economics, Bocconi University, Milan.
(NL) Her Majesty Queen Beatrix.
(US) Joseph S. Nye Jr., chairman, National Intelligence Council.
(ICE) David Oddsson, prime minister.
(PL) Andrzej Olechowski, minister of foreign affairs.
(FIN) Jorma 01lila, president and CEO, Nokia Corp.
(US) Thomas R. Pickering, U.S. ambassador to Russia.
(CH) David de Pury, chairman, BBC Brown Boveri Ltd. and co-chairman, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Group.
(F) Jean-Bernard Raimond, member of parliament; former min­ister of foreign affairs.
(E) Rodrigo de Rato Figaredo, parliamentary leader of the Mi­nority Group (Partido Popular).
(US) Rozanne L. Ridgway, co-chair, Atlantic Council of the United States.
(US) David Rockefeller, chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank International Advisory Committee.
(GB) Eric Roll, president, S.G. Warburg Group plc.
(I) Renato Ruggiero, executive vice-chairman, International Ad­visory Board, Fiat SpA; former minister of trade.
(D) Volker Ruhe, minister of defense.
(US) Robert A. Scalapino, Robson Research Professor of Government emeritus, University of California, Berkeley.
(CH) Stephan Schmidheiny, chairman, ANOVA Holdings Ltd.; former chairman, Business Council for Sustainable Develop­ment.
(D) Jurgen E. Schrempp, CEO, Daimler-Benz-Luft-und-Raum­fahrt Holding AG.
(CH) Wolfgang Schurer, chairman, MS Management Service AG.
(US) Brent Scowcroft, former assistant to the president for national security affairs.
(DK) Toger Scidenfaden, editor-in-chief, Politiken.
(US) Jack Sheinkman, president, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO-CLC.
(US) George Soros, president, Soros Fund Management.
(E) Her Majesty Queen Sofia.
(US) James B. Steinberg, director for policy planning, State Department.
(N) Thorvald Stoltenberg, co-chairman, International Confer­ence on the Former Yugoslavia; former minister for foreign af­fairs; former minister of defense.
(D) Jurgen Strube, chairman of the board of executive director, BASF AG.
(IRL) Peter D. Sutherland, director general, GATT; former member, Commission of the European Community; former chairman, Allied Irish Banks plc.
(GB) J. Martin Taylor, chief executive, Barclays Bank plc.
(CDN) William Thorsell, editor, The Globe and Mail.
(P) Miguel Veiga, lawyer.
(FIN) Gerhard M.H. Wendt, president, Kone Corp.
(CDN) Peter G. White, chairman of Unimedia; former head of the prime minister's office.
(US) John C. Whitehead, former deputy secretary of state.
(US) Frank G. Wisner, under-secretary for policy, Department of Defense.
(US) James D. Wolfensohn, president and CEO, James D. Wolfensohn, Inc.
(D) Otto Wolff von Amerongen, chairman and CEO, Otto Wolff GmbH.
(US) Paul D. Wolfowitz, dean, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University.
(US) Mortimer B. Zuckerman, editor, U.S. News and World Report.
Rapporteurs:
(US) Grant F. Winthrop, partner, Milbank, Winthrop & Co.
(US) Alice Victor, executive assistant, Rockefeller Financial Services, Inc.
In Attendance:
(NL) Maja Banck, executive secretary, Bilderberg meeting.
(SF) Mirja Jarimo-Lehtinen, local organizer, 1994.(CH) Margrit Markstaller.
(US) Charles W. Muller, president, Murden & Co.; adviser, American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc.