EIR Talks with Lyndon LaRouche Feb. 22, 1993 Interviewer: Mel Klenetsky MEL KLENETSKY: Welcome to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' I'm Mel Klenetsky, and we are on the line with Mr. LaRouche from Rochester, Minnesota. Mr. LaRouche, before we begin discussing the former Soviet Union, I would like to ask you about a particular civil disobedience action that some of your associates have been involved in. Tony Chaitkin and your former vice-presidential candidate Jim Bevel are coming up in a trial where they are accused of statue-climbing, involving the statue of Albert Pike in Washington, D.C. - ``The Pike Statue Exemplifies What Is Rotten in America'' - What is the significance of Albert Pike, and why are your associates involved in bringing attention to the removal of this statue? MR. LAROUCHE: I was responsible for the campaign against Pike. Pike was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan in 1865, and was formally the chief judicial officer of the Klan. These facts were not contested until a very recent time, until we mentioned this sort of thing. All the histories of the Klan show that. Also, if you look at Pike's writings, as reflected, for example, in the Mother Lodge in Washington, D.C., where there is a chapel dedicated to him (the Freemasonic Mother Lodge), and read his correspondence with Giuseppe Mazzini, the man is an utterly evil Satanist. As a matter of fact, calling him the leader of the Klan should offend no one except the Ku Klux Klan. He is really evil. The fact is, that this statue is posted on government property, has been for the greater part of this century; and to have the founder of the Ku Klux Klan with his statue on the brink of one of the largest black ghettoes in the United States--and in our nation's capital, as practically the only Civil War figure so represented, seemed to us a horrible obscenity, particularly at a time when people are talking about racism and all these kinds of things. Here is the penultimate racist, which he was beyond any doubt, and a Satanist to boot, and his statue is there on Labor Department property. We asked that this be removed; and a number of meetings, rallies, were held, filing in the usual manner, with legal rallies and meetings held. Then at one point, the Park Police, at the behest of someone--that is, the Federal Park Police, on behest of someone, came around seeking a pretext to do something to harass the rallies and found that speakers Anton Chaitkin and the Reverend Jim Bevel, the civil rights leader, were standing on the foot of the statue and presumably on a property that was part of the statue itself. Therefore they were arrested and were charged with an offense which can mean up to six months in prison and a $500 fine each on that basis, as an obvious effort by the Park Police, at someone's behest, to protect this racist Ku Klux Klan founder, General Pike. At first, the Freemasons, the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, who are the donors of the statue and for whom Pike was Supreme Commander from the late 1850s until the 1890s, said that they were going to have the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith run interference and defend the statue. After a while, it became obvious that the ADL was not succeeding in that, that the issue of the statue was spreading around the country, as seems quite logical, so that the Commander of the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction, Kleinknecht, issued a statement which surfaced then in Iowa, but which was issued by him in a publication to all Freemasonic Lodges and officers for public distribution. The pamphlet itself focusses its attack on me personally, mentioning my name repeatedly throughout the little pamphlet that the Scottish Rite put out, to which I have responded. That will be published soon, I understand. I indicated the fact that not only is there no basis for denying that Pike was the founder of the original Klan, that is, the 1865-1867 Klan, but that Pike's writings on every subject, including his {Morals and Dogma,} are utterly consistent with what we find abhorrent in the Ku Klux Klan, either in the original form under [Nathan] Bedford Forrest, or the revival of the Klan that was sponsored in 1915 by the ADL and Hollywood, with the blessing of the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, that both the Klan's and Pike's philosophy, as represented by things in the library of the Scottish Rite, are completely consistent with the kind of evil which we Americans attribute to the Klan. - A Short History of the Scottish Rite Freemasons - Q: You mentioned that there is a connection between the Scottish Rite Freemasons, the Ku Klux Klan, and the ADL. Of course, the Scottish Rite Freemasons are now contesting your claim that pike was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan. What is that connection? I am laying this question out now, because we are coming up to a break, and I would like you to come back to that question as soon as we return. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, what is the connection between the Scottish Rite Freemasons--what is the Scottish Rite Freemasons--and the Anti-Defamation League, the ADL, and the Ku Klux Klan? MR. LAROUCHE: The Scottish Rite Freemasons is a branch of something which was initially founded in England during the time of King Charles I, a Stuart, by a group of Rosicrucians who were closely associated with Francis Bacon, his secretary Thomas Hobbes, and Ashmole, of course, as well as others. Originally it was a Rosicrucian order, and then it was consummated as the Scottish Rite of Speculative Freemasonry, essentially. It was mythologically aligned to the Templars, because the Bruce family's position as a monarchical family, the royal family of Scotland (Bruce being an ancestor of the Stuarts, Bruce had come to power in Scotland with the help of the Templar Order), and therefore, because of this association with the Stuarts and what had become the British monarchy in effect at that time, the Templar Order was made crucial for that founding of the Scottish Rite. It went through other evolutions later, but essentially the Scottish Rite is that. It's a kind of religion, actually, a non-Christian religion which is somewhat syncretic in terms of multi-religion, various kinds of paganism, and so forth. In the United States, the Scottish Rite was essentially an organization of the Tories. There were other kinds of Freemasonry in the United States, as a matter of fact [Benjamin] Franklin was part of it, so was [George] Washington. But that was not the Scottish Rite, in which Washington was a part. The Scottish Rite was the organization of the Tory opposition to the American War of Independence. They were not kicked out at the end of the war, even though they had fought against the American Revolution, because of the condition in the Paris Treaty of 1783. They became an organization based largely and originally in and around Boston and New York, as the Scottish Rite up there. These became the slave traders and opium pushers together with the British East India Company. They became a powerful faction. Aaron Burr, for example, was a key figure of this. They always tended toward treason, as the case of Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, and the so-called Hartford Convention of 1814, illustrate. At about the beginning of the nineteenth century, they were formally based in Charleston, South Carolina. They were banned for a while under the leadership of people such as President John Quincy Adams. The treasonous aspect of the Scottish Rite in the early nineteenth century, was recognized, and they were virtually banned. They came back in the 1840s. Relevant to your question, is that one of the organizations founded in the early 1840s as an offshoot of the Charleston or the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, was B'nai B'rith. B'nai B'rith was essentially not a Jewish organization as such, but rather the Jewish branch of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, and it was the faction of American Jews which were engaged largely in the slave trade, and which were pro-slavery. The B'nai B'rith became later the key intelligence organization for the Confederacy and was banned for a while because it was the Confederate intelligence organization. They were generally given freedom and pardons after the end of the Civil War. So they always had that tradition. Later, the ADL was founded early in the nineteenth century, shortly before the re-launching of the Ku Klux Klan; and the ADL played a key part, together with Hollywood people like Louis B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn, who were part of this in the mass recruiting to organize the revival of the Klan in 1915. What most people in this century know as the Klan, is the Klan which was organized with the sponsorship of President Woodrow Wilson, by the way, actively, around a film called initially {The Klansman,} otherwise known as D.W. Griffith's {The Birth of a Nation,} which was a recruiting film for the Klan, and which resulted in the mass launching of the Klan with the sponsorship of figures associated with the ADL in large part. That is the general connection; and therefore, on the pro-slavery faction, of which Pike was a leading figure--as a matter of fact he was Supreme Commander of the pro-slavery faction of the Scottish Rite at that time. The ADL, which came later, was an adjunct or inheritor of that relationship to Pike and to slavery. So it is essentially the racist branch of the so-called Jewish community in the United States, and was a minority, because most Jewish people in the United States supported Lincoln at that time, and the ADL was, shall we say, the lower end of the community. - How To Rebuild the Civil Rights Movement - Q: Rev. James Bevel, who was your vice presidential candidate in the 1992 elections, was a civil rights leader with Martin Luther King. He was one of his top lieutenants and the architect of the Birmingham campaign. Does he see this Pike campaign as the centerpiece of the revival of the civil rights movement, of a new civil rights movement? MR. LAROUCHE: No. We have to look at what destroyed the civil rights movement, because it was destroyed largely after the assassination of Martin Luther King. People were frightened. Various people went various ways, some people became opportunists. Jim himself was pushed out of the civil rights movement because of his insistence on a fair trial for [James Earl] Ray, who he did not believe to be and they did not believe actually to be the shooter of Martin Luther King but only a patsy involved, complicit in the operation, but not the shooter. And they believed that justice was necessary, or Rev. Bevel did; that the civil rights movement must take the position of justice for all, due process for all, even the most deadly enemies of civil rights. But in this case also, the fact that due process would probably mean that Ray would be put in proper perspective, and the government would be forced to seek out the true shooters and the architects of the conspiracy to kill Dr. King. For that reason, he was pushed aside, and people who were not sympathetic to the purposes of the original civil rights movement, began to roam free. Some people became discouraged. Only by staging the fight at this time for clarifying these aspects of our history--the Pike aspect--could you have an honest civil rights movement. I do not think that the civil rights movement's rebirth in any way depends upon the issue of the Pike statue, but the Pike statue exemplifies what is rotten in America, and the kind of rottenness that still pervades the United Sstates at the highest level, i.e., the Pike statue in Washington is supported by the U.S. government, which has to be brought to the surface as part of the fight. - How My SDI Policy Came About: - - Back-Channel Negotiations With the Soviets in 1982-83 - Q: Last week you indicated that you were in back-channel negotiations with the Soviet Union, with Moscow in the early 1980s around the issue of ballistic missile defense. Today, we are looking at 33,000 warheads in the former Soviet Union, and a lot of people are beginning to worry about these 33,000 warheads. What were your negotiations, what was the policy you were trying to develop, why was it opposed in such a strong sense, and could that policy be revived or some form of that policy be revived today? MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, I was not {trying} to establish [a policy]; it was established. What I proposed, on behalf of the U.S. government to the Soviets in those back-channel negotiations, became in 1983 the official policy of the United States: the Strategic Defense Initiative. That is clarified when one sees the televised speech which President Reagan made on March 23, 1983. The offer of the SDI which is in that speech, is exactly what I had indicated to Soviet representatives at the highest level would be the policy of the United States, if President Reagan accepted it, as I hoped he would. Essentially, the negotiations, for about 13 months, which I conducted through back channels with Moscow for the National Security Council and others here, was an exploratory operation. Many people in the United States were committed to supporting my proposal. This was a trial balloon, to try it out on the highest level of the Soviets, at a time initially when [Leonid] Brezhnev was still in, in order to avoid the kinds of dangerous situation which would come if this were announced unilaterally without exploratory discussion beforehand. The Soviets were fully aware of this. The crucial feature of this was something which was not much discussed, however, in the major media. That is, I pointed out to the Soviets that there was a long history of a relationship between the United States and Russia prior to the Bolshevik phenomenon, and that at various times in our history, especially during the middle of the nineteenth century, Russia, under, say, Alexander II, the Tsar of Russia, had been an ally of the United States and had intervened on behalf of the United States during a crucial part of our history, the Civil War, to prevent Britain and France from invading the United States. That is what Russia did for us at that time. Tsar Alexander II stopped the British plan to invade the United States on behalf of the Confederacy or if not invade at least to break the naval blockade of the Confederacy and to use British and French combined naval power to crush the United States. [I told the Russians that] we had to look at things from a higher standpoint of national interest, not these ideological questions; that the Russian economy was in deep trouble, that is, the Soviet economy at that time, 1982-1983; and that the U.S. economy was in trouble--not as acute but in trouble. Unless something was done, on the one hand we had the danger of first-strike thermonuclear war almost by accident, that is, where short-range missiles were so close to each other that a U.S. President, for example, had about 2-3 minutes' warning time before he had to push the button for full-scale nuclear war in case the missiles started coming at us. A very dangerous situation; as a matter of fact, the first-strike condition was maintained on the Soviet side into 1989. There was always a continuing danger of a first strike from the Soviet side into 1989, just before the collapse of East Germany occurred. So I proposed that, first of all, since an effective ballistic missile defense system could only be accomplished by aid of what are called new physical principles in the diplomatic language, and since those principles were now at the point of readiness or near-readiness of development to be deployed, I proposed that both the Soviets and the United States, with others, agree to ballistic missile defense based on new physical principles as a counterweight to the danger of first strike, and secondly, that we agree to share this technology for peaceful purposes, and to foster a general global economic development based on these new technologies. At the same time, I warned the Soviets that because of problems known to them--known to them empirically at least, according to their own literature--that within about five years from 1982-1983, the likelihood would be, that on the present course, with the present Soviet arms buildup and problems of the economy, that the Soviet economy would collapse, beginning with a collapse of Eastern Europe about 1988, approximately then, unless some change of this type were introduced. That is the relevant aspect of these negotiations. Today, the [Berlin] Wall did come down, approximately 1988, actually 1989, as I forecast in 1982 and 1983 and then again in 1988. It came down beginning in Eastern Europe for exactly the reasons I had indicated. It continued to blow up the Soviet economy for the reasons I had indicated; and now, we are sitting today with eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in a demolition mess. Things are {worse than ever}-- [commercial break] - The Current Political Strategic Crisis - Q: Mr. LaRouche, we have been discussing the Strategic Defense Initiative of Ronald Reagan and some of your involvement in that particular program. Let's pick up where we left off. MR. LAROUCHE: First of all, let me correct that. It is not Ronald Reagan's and my involvement in it. {This was my policy.} The policy which the President adopted was entirely of my design, and that was the policy of the United States for a period of time after the President's enunciation of it. Actually a little bit before then. The relevance of it today, is that we are now at a point where-- Remember, I am taken out of the box in 1986. The Soviets demand that I be imprisoned, or that the U.S. government show a commitment to imprison me--this is 1986, and this is public repeatedly from the highest level, as a condition of negotiations with Moscow. As a result of the agreements with Gorbachov, Gorbachov and the West {failed} entirely to prevent what I forecast would happen, if they did not follow the lines that I had indicated, which had, at one point been U.S. policy. It failed. Bush failed utterly. Gorbachov failed utterly. 1989: the Wall came down, despite efforts to prevent that. And so forth and so on. The entire former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact are crumbling today, precisely for reasons I indicated back then in 1982 and 1983. Now we have come to the point, where, in the coming weeks, into April, there will be some kind of upheaval or convulsion in Moscow. Things are getting much worse. The ability to hold the line, continue the present policy of relations between East and West under the Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachov agreements with Mrs. Thatcher and others involved--{that is no longer working.} It is going to blow up for just exactly the kinds of reasons I indicated, back through the early 1980s. We are now back to a potential strategic crisis. The U.S. economy is collapsing. The British economy is collapsing. We are spiralling deeper and deeper into a depression--pay no attention to these lies about recovery. It never happened. We are into a worldwide depression and are spiralling downward {rapidly.} Under these conditions, the war in the Balkans, the war in the Transcaucasus, the threats of explosion in the Middle East, and so forth and so on, are putting us into a global strategic conflict, in which if people do not wake up rapidly and finally learn their lesson, to accept that of which I warned them back in 1982, 1983, and thereafter, then I fear that we are headed for the worst. - The Soviet Adversarial Position Toward LaRouche - Q: You indicated that the leadership of the former Soviet Union on the highest level was responsible for putting you in prison. Did this come out in any kind of way during the trial proceedings against you? MR. LAROUCHE: It was presented, but it was suppressed. It was presented both times. It was presented in Boston where they dropped the trial because the jury was against them; and it came out in Alexandria [Virginia] in the pretrial proceedings. The judge ruled that this could not be presented. The judge acted at the prosecution's behest as it did in many other areas, completely fraudulent. Biggest bunch of liars I ever heard were the government prosecutors and their perjured witnesses. The judge willingly suppressed this information and as a matter of fact made arguments-- The judge was lying, literally, because he had the evidence presented that the Soviet attacks on me and the attacks by others in conjunction with the Soviets, was presented as part of the defense during the pretrial proceedings and the judge suppressed that as he suppressed the entirety of the defense. That is, we went in-- We had a month or so to prepare for trial up to the 10th of November [1988]. As of the 10th of November, we had our defense, which was a defense which would have been a winning defense: We are not guilty of anything, the charges were fraudulent, this should never have been brought in the first place. On the 10th and 11th of November, just 10 days before trial, the judge, at the government's behest, suppressed all of our defense, and refused to allow us to bring any of our prepared defense into the trial. So we went actually into a trial hacking our way as we could, without being allowed to present a defense. The key part of this was, of course, the Soviet adversarial situation. When the Soviet government demanded of the U.S. government--through its press, as well as through other channels--demanded repeatedly that the U.S. government show a commitment to imprisoning me as a price of superpower negotiation, obviously that had something to do with reasons why these clowns were allowed to get by with these fraudulent charges against me. And the judge went along with it. Q: You started to indicate that we are basically in a strategic countdown toward global conflict/possible war. The economic policies that you indicated, with your Strategic Defense Initiative, plays upon a science-driver policy as the means for economic development. How does that compare with the economic policy which is currently being followed in the former Soviet Union and creating this political conflict? MR. LAROUCHE: Currently, in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, I sometimes am stunned, although not really surprised, by the folly which prevails in leading circles in eastern European countries such as Poland, for example, or in the former Soviet Union. What has happened, because of because of the failures of Gorbachov, they have turned around and said, well, we are going to take the American system. In Poland, the Polish leadership, despite the fact that what the United States has demanded of them has wrecked the Polish economy (the Poles today are under far worse economic conditions than they ever suffered under communism), the Poles are clinging to the idea that the United States is their friend against the big Russian monster, and therefore, they must follow faithfully and with full belief whatever the Americans suggest to them on economic policy. That is causing a lot of Poles to starve. In Russia, there is a different attitude. Only a few people, most of whom are making money on swindles involving the U.S., Britain, and so forth, actually believe any of the hogwash which is coming by way of people like Jeffrey Sachs or the International Monetary Fund [IMF] or Washington. But the Russians believe, that in order to maintain a political-strategic balance, they must at least appear to accept the so-called free trade, deregulation reforms which Washington and London demand. The Russians actually do not believe in these reforms. They think the Polish model is lunatic. They think it is insane. But they do not want to have a confrontation with the United States at this point, at least some of them. That is what Yeltsin represents. At the same time, other forces and most of the forces inside the Russian government--not just the military--are saying Yeltsin, if you continue this policy, you have got to go. Because we have reached the point--speaking of Russia--that Russia will begin to disintegrate unless we dump these policies which your American friends have induced you to accept. That is the breaking point. So instead of going into the post-Wall Europe and saying, let's go ahead with a science-driver/infrastructure development program, which would have opened the whole area up to a peaceful cooperation with the West for decades or longer to come, what we did was to go in with a short-term program, which was very destructive, and turned what had become a nation willing to cooperate with us--i.e., the former Soviet Union--into what is now becoming a bitter adversary again. It is one of the greatest follies in human history, this particular nonsense which was put into effect under the influence of the leadership of Bush and Thatcher. Q: Is the real agenda of the Jeffrey Sachs program, the Gaidar program in the former Soviet Union, the basic deindustrialization of the former Soviet Union, much like the Morgenthau Plan after World War II [which was designed to de-industrialize Germany after World War II]? MR. LAROUCHE: Absolutely. But there are two aspects to it Remember, there are two aspects to it. Remember, the Morgenthau Plan has been brought home. We are pretty much deindustrialized. The U.S. industrial economy is wrecked. We are an importing nation, we are becoming a Third World nation. All industries are being shipped out of the United States into places like Asia, China, Southeast Asia--countries where cheap labor and unskilled labor exist. We are becoming a has-been nation, because of these policies. To understand how Jeffrey Sachs behaves, or people like him, you have to understand two things. You have to understand, the principles of, say, geometry as an analogy. In geometry, you have a system of theorems which are based on consistency with an underlying set of axiomatic assumptions. And you have different geometries, which have different theorems, which are totally inconsistent with the theorems of any other geometry, because the axioms are different. What Jeffrey Sachs is, is {axiomatically incompetent.} Whatever he proposes, because of the very nature of his belief, the axioms on which his mind functions, would produce this result whether he had malice intended or not. That is what he is doing; but I think he is doing it more out of stupidity because of his axiomatic beliefs than he is out of any other reason. But that is a general problem in and around Washington today: that the generation of people under 45 who are coming into leading positions in corporate life and in government and in universities, are people who I have watched, from the time they were virtually in diapers in the 1960s or 1970s, and saw their beliefs then as a disaster, but these people with these idiotic, disastrous beliefs have now by one reason or another, come into dominant positions in universities, in certain aspects of government, even in NASA, and in corporate life. And we have a disaster. I think that, while it is a disaster and there is malice by people like Colby, and the Webster Doctrine has made it clear, there is malice toward the former nations of the Soviet Empire; it is not just malice, it is the fact that some people unfortunately sincerely believe that nonsense they are peddling. - Russian Thinking About the Current Geopolitical Conflict - Q: You are listening to ``{Executive Intelligence Review'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche.'' If people want to write in questions to Mr. LaRouche, they can reach us at ``{EIR} Talks With Lyndon LaRouche,'' P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C., 20041-0390. Mr. LaRouche, some of the scholars and economists in the former Soviet Union are talking about several different theories. You have those who support [former Prime Minister Yegor] Gaidar and the free market economic deregulation policy. You have others who are looking toward the China model. What is the China model, and will it work for the former Soviet Union? Will it work for China? MR. LAROUCHE: No. First of all, let me say that the people who support Gaidar, are very, very few in the Moscow government today, or anywhere in Russia. They hate him. The only thing that keeps Gaidar or his philosophy in place, is the fact that that is part of the bargaining arrangement of Moscow with the Anglo-Americans. That is the combination. It is not what any of them really believe. Nor do any of them believe in the China model. That is not what they believe. There may be a few of them around who believe that. But that is not what they believe. What they believe is, they have to get back to some system of protectionism--which is not the China model--to rebuild the industries of Russia under protectionism and that state credit has to be directed. In other words, they are thinking more along the lines of President [Charles] de Gaulle's dirigist model for France, or at least in that direction, than they are in the direction of Gaidar or China. In the case of China, what you have emerging is a kind of Eurasian geopolitics among Russians. The Russians are very concerned to try to keep China in their corner strategically. They would also like to get Central Europe in their corner strategically. So they are thinking in terms of a conflict--a geopolitical conflict almost--between Eurasian forces of Europe and Asia against the Atlantic forces, whom they see as the adversary. That is the way the strategic conflict is shaping up. You will hear much talk about the China model, you will hear talk about Gaidar. This is mostly press hype and what is understood by this press hype by most people, is directly contrary to all reality. - How Organized Crime Was Created in America - Q: Earlier on, we discussed the Anti-Defamation League and we discussed its involvement with the Pike statue and Freemasonry. Your associates have come out with a book on {The Ugly Face of the ADL,} which goes through the ADL's involvement with organized crime. Can you go through that a bit, can you elucidate on what is the ADL's involvement with organized crime? MR. LAROUCHE: Organized crime is an interesting phenomenon. Organized crime was created by the Establishment. There was no organized crime in the ordinary sense until the end of World War I and the introduction of the Volstead Act [Prohibition of the sale and consumption of alcohol]. That happened at the same time, very significantly, that a Rockefeller friend, Mackenzie King, had played a key part in ending alcoholic prohibition in wartime Canada. The Rockefellers, who controlled the top of the Baptist Church at that time, and also controlled pretty much the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the WCTU, which was the organizing force for the Volstead Act, had a fellow called Abe Schoenfeld. He was an investigator. Abe Schoenfeld investigated Jewish organized crime. That is, the organized crime then headed up by people like Arnold Rothstein. This was mostly the kind of thing that is attributed to people like the Lubavitchers today, who run rackets. There were also labor rackets and street crime and ghetto crime, like the Bugsy [Siegel]-Meyer [Lansky] gang. They were nothing but assassins. They were killers, the core of what later became known as Murder, Inc., was nothing but Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel, who took over organized crime of course when Arnold Rothstein was killed. But organized crime was created top-down because the Rockefellers and others, people like Vincent Astor, who was a friend of Arnold Rothstein, people in Britain like Churchill, who was in charge of the alcoholic beverage business at that time, cut a deal, in which they decided that Jewish organized crime, or Jewish crime, typified by Arnold Rothstein and the people who had been investigated by Abe Schoenfeld, ran the best organized criminal society available. So organized crime, that is, Jewish organized crime, under Arnold Rothstein's leadership, received the contracts from the British government, i.e., from Winston Churchill's department, to bring the British hooch to U.S. shores and to the Canadian border. This included some of that poisonous stuff produced by the Bronfman brothers. Then Arnold Rothstein would hire various kinds of people who were involved in labor rackets and other kinds of things of all ethnic distinctions to go up there as muscle to grab the hooch at the border, haul it and distribute it, collect the money, and then Jewish organized crime would launder the money to pay off the British. So the ADL became an integral part of that operation through personalities. For example, through Hollywood. Hollywood itself was, as is well known, of people like Louis B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn, who were part of the recruiting drive for the Ku Klux Klan in 1915. So the ADL's connection to organized crime, to the Ku Klux Klan, and to certain parts of the Establishment that were running this stuff, was pretty much congealed over the process from the period of about 1915 through the 1930s. [commercial break] Q: Mr. LaRouche, the ADL presents itself as some kind of civil rights organization, protecting civil rights. Yet the Anti-Defamation League was involved in a major attack against you. Why were they involved in an attack against you? MR. LAROUCHE: There were two reasons. This went through two general phases. First of all, the ADL launched itself against me in 1978, and did so because I sponsored a book called {Dope., Inc.,} which exposed the methods of drug-money laundering. It happens that the ADL leadership was heavily involved with the importation of cocaine and of drug-money laundering in the United States. Therefore, they were simply defending their interest in the drug traffic, at the time they launched this attack in May of 1978. Q: Could you be more specific on that? MR. LAROUCHE: I could, but I don't want to lose my thread on this question. The head of the ADL was a partner with Robert Vesco. They were involved with drug trafficking. They were involved with the Medellin [Colombia] cartel deeply, and with Hapaolim Bank in Florida was a major conduit for the pivoting of money involved in drug trafficking from this kind of stuff. But they continued this attack. They were involved with Roy Cohn, naturally, and a person now known as Gay Edgar Hoover since the Anthony Summers book has hit the streets, who was a lover and intimate of Roy Cohn--which I knew of my own knowledge independently of any recent book. But then, in 1986, when the Soviets demanded that the U.S. government commit itself to imprisoning me, one of the major assets used by the Soviet KGB was the ADL and associated networks. This is direct; the ADL has had a longstanding connection with former East German intelligence, the Stasi, and to the Soviet KGB and the Soviet KGB has a standing connection to the ADL. An example, of course, is the case of the [Jonathan Jay] Pollard conviction, that Pollard was running information, in conjunction with ADL figures, was spying against the United States and providing sensitive information to the Soviet government's military intelligence, via Israel, via Shamir at that time. So the Soviet government {used} the ADL, as did others on this side; picked it up and used it when the United States government was pushing to accept the Soviet demand that I be imprisoned because of the SDI which of course was later than the 1978 issues. MEL KLENETSKY: This has been ``{EIR'}s Talks With Lyndon LaRouche. Thank you. - 30 -