LAROUCHE IN ROME:
Thirty Years After the Moro Assassination
Lyndon LaRouche addressed an event in Rome June 19 commemorating Aldo Moro, the former Italian prime minister and leader of the Christian Democratic Party, who 30 years ago was kidnapped on March 16, 1978 and murdered on May 9, 1978, by the Red Brigades terrorists. The event was organized as a discussion of Giovanni Galloni's new book, on Moro, 30 Anni con Moro (30 Years with Moro).
Galloni was a Resistance fighter against Fascism during World War II, and became a leader of the Christian Democracy, where he was Moro's close collaborator; he has served as a Member of Parliament, and as Minister of Education. In 1995, he was deputy chairman of the Consigliore Superiore della Magistratura, the self-governing body of the judiciary in Italy. Today, he is a jurist and university professor; EIR published interviews with Galloni in 2003 and 2005.
Here is a transcript of LaRouche's remarks, followed by a brief question-and-answer period.
I shall deal with the implications of the Kissinger aspect of the killing of Moro. Much too much importance is attributed to Kissinger. In the old days, he would have had a lackey's uniform, and he might have had some gold braid on it as a promotion—but he's still a lackey!
You have to look at certain other circumstances of the 1970s. Nixon was President: He was already a British agent of George Shultz. Remember, this is the same Shultz that created the fascist regime in Chile, that ran the mass assassinations of Operation Condor in the Southern Cone of South America. The George Shultz that created the present President of the United States out of mud. Out of the discards of the Bush family.
This is the George Shultz who, today, is behind many of the events in the United States, which he does in consultation with Britain. And in Italy, I should think when you talk about these kinds of people, you should be thinking about Venice, and the Venice of Paolo Sarpi, that tradition, because that's what you're dealing with: You're dealing with the Anglo-Dutch Liberal faction, which is the creation of Paolo Sarpi. That is what controls a certain faction in the United States, a very powerful faction, inside the United States, which is the same thing as the British faction. Like the families of the Lombard League of the 14th Century: They organize wars, they kill each other, but they also work together for the same evil ends.
And the importance of understanding what happened to Aldo Moro, is its significance for the situation today in the world. I don't think any little issue caused the assassination of Moro. Aldo Moro was becoming very inconvenient for the people who run the Anglo-American Establishment. He was working for the resolution, at a time when the other side was working for chaos.
Mussolini and Churchill
Just take the basic, immediate situation—and I got some insight into this, because at the end of the 1970s, I was approached by Max Corvo, who had been the head of OSS in the field in Italy, during some of the relevant period. Let me just mention one thing about what Max was involved in, apart from chasing Mussolini up to the border where the British killed him: Mussolini was fleeing with his mistress in a car, with a trailer, up toward the border to meet with the famous British gentleman, Winston Churchill. And Winston Churchill had been long a Fascist sympathizer of Mussolini, and had supported him up until the invasion of France. So Mussolini was going up with his mistress, to try to negotiate with Winston Churchill, who was sitting on the other side of the Swiss border. But he didn't get there, and the papers disappeared for a long time. And the most important papers never showed up. And then things changed in Italy. Max left Italy, because Roosevelt was dead, and a new crowd had taken over in control of the politics in Italy.
One event in that period, that Max reported in detail, and we confirmed later, was that Max was involved with a famous cardinal, later Pope Paul VI, who was then the Representative for Extraordinary Affairs for the Vatican, and the particular issue that involved, was that the Japanese diplomatic service was going to the Papacy, through the Extraordinary Affairs office, to seek to negotiate the surrender of Japan on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, Hirohito. But then, President Roosevelt died, and the peace negotiation was held up by Truman and by Churchill, in order to have the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan. At the end of which, immediately, the terms of negotiation, negotiated through the Extraordinary Affairs office of the Vatican, were accepted.
This is typical of what I want to convey to you about the circumstances of the Moro assassination. Kissinger is a lackey. He is a sadist. He would deliver a death message, and gloat over doing it. He does not make the decision. The decisions are usually made in London, or between consultation between Washington and London.
The 1970s and Today
Now, take the period of the 1970s as a whole, and compare it with the situation today, to get a feeling of this: What had happened is that you had had a wave of assassinations in the United States during the course of the 1960s; many assassination attempts against Charles de Gaulle; you had the overthrow of the Macmillan government in England, to make way for something very nasty later on; you had the killing of Kennedy, the ouster of the German chancellor. There was a wave of assassinations and similar kind of events, which continued up through the 1968 events, and got worse after that. And this was all orchestrated.
The fight has been, since the death of Roosevelt, between the Anglo-American faction, which is generally associated with high-powered finance, and against Roosevelt, and what Roosevelt stood for in the world of the post-war period. Most important of these assassinations was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The assassination of Kennedy was a change in world policy: Because Kennedy had been committed to the revival of the Roosevelt policy of economy and world relations. And because he opposed what they wanted to do, they killed him!
He wasn't killed by some lone assassin! Three other people did the job. A professional job, done with some French connections, the same French interests which were opposed and trying to kill de Gaulle.
So you had a change in policy, from the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy's policy was one of hard negotiation with the Soviet Union, but one which would aim at a certain result. And the basic thing was to get back to a Franklin Roosevelt policy on the world economy. The totally unjustified war on Indo-China was launched as a part of this destruction of the United States. You had the 68er revolt in the spring of '68, in Europe as well as in the United States.
These were times of tumult.
Then, as a result of this tumult, Nixon became President. Nixon was a very low-grade personality. He was not an emperor. He had no other qualities of being an emperor. He was a figure of a committee, an Anglo-American committee, of finance. What did he do? In 1971, he sank the Bretton Woods system, which started chaos in the world.
Creation of the Petrodollar
Now, you're getting close to the Moro assassination, the circumstances of it.
Now, that meant that the dollar was now in jeopardy. Then, you had the oil crisis of the 1970s. Now, there was no shortage of oil, except an artificial one. Every tanker in the world was sitting off the U.S. coast ready to deliver oil, and couldn't get it delivered. There was never a shortage of petroleum: It was sitting on the U.S. borders, begging to get it! But, what was the significance of this—you're getting close to the Moro assassination.
Before that event, the spot market, based in Amsterdam, had been a very minor part of the world petroleum marketing. Now, suddenly, the British, who are the key factors in this thing, made a new arrangement with the King of Saudi Arabia. And the organization, which is called today, the BAE, was set up, as a Saudi-British secret intelligence-military operation. So, what happens as a result, there was out of this, an agreement under which the Saudis did a corrupt operation with the British intelligence services, using the spot market. So vast amounts of unrecorded money and profits were deposited to the British BAE, and related services. You look at the Saudi-British military goods transfers, and you see a lot of the thing, right there. The effect of this, was to make the dollar, which was still being used, no longer really a U.S. dollar internationally: It became an Anglo-American dollar, a "petrodollar."
Now, there was also something afoot at the time, which had not happened while Nixon or Ford were President. A gentleman from Bellagio, called David Rockefeller, had an interest here. He also had an interest, called the Trilateral Commission, which was headed up by a gentleman of Polish origin, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is an idiot, a madman. What they engaged in, under President Carter, through the Trilateral Commission (because Carter didn't know what he was doing; about 30 years later, he began to understand what had happened to him, and became a good President as an ex-President, but not a perfect one): What happened is, the United States' economy was destroyed, systematically, by the Trilateral Commission! And this continued under Reagan. And once the Soviet Union had collapsed, then Europe began to be destroyed, also, Western Europe.
Now, you see the effect of this, in the importance of Italy, because of the bearing on the Church—Italy, and the Church, you know, there's a relationship. What was being done with this negotiation with the Communist Party, on this reconciliation, or accommodation, was actually a threat to the whole process, because the problem was, the Italian economy had begun to slump from its slight recovery at the end of the 1960s. As today, you have this situation in Italy, which is still a loose end in this whole process the British are trying to orchestrate throughout Western and Central Europe.
A Revolt of the Lower-Income 80%
Look at the Irish vote: The Irish vote has destroyed one attempt to set up a fascist dictatorship over all Europe. Under the Lisbon Treaty, no nation in Western or Central Europe would have any freedom to govern itself, and the plan is to have military conflict with China, India, Russia, and so forth. But the Irish made a nice mess of it, didn't they? It was a revolt of the lower 80% of the family-income brackets in Ireland, and we're getting a similar thing in the United States, revolting against these kinds of tendencies.
Look at the rate of inflation in the world today: We are presently in hyperinflation, and it is accelerating. In such a condition, what do you do, as government, as a people? You try to unify the political forces of the people of the country, to make a change, to use the sovereignty of the country to defend the interests of its people and its future. What did the British do to Italy, in terms of its political parties in the recent period? Where are the great parties of Italy, that used to be here? Fragments. What's the governability of Italy, as a result? How can we deal with the greatest inflation, since 1923, which is now ongoing, in the world?
There's only one thing that can happen to stop this mess. A group of sovereign governments agree, "We're going to stop it." And that is when the people who Kissinger works for start killing. The very idea of increasing the sovereignty of a nation, is a threat to this sort of process.
If you look around the world, as I look inside the United States, in the recent primary election campaigns and elsewhere, examine the details of the vote which rejected the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland, look at the wave of strikes throughout continental Europe, which is spreading, from France, somewhat from Spain, from other countries: There is a revolt of the lower 80% of family-income brackets spreading throughout the world.
Now, look at the state of governments under these conditions: Since February of 2006, the U.S. Congress has not passed one piece of legislation and gotten it through, one important piece. You find that in leading circles in Europe, the same thing, the inability to rule, not to be able to get anything done that's important, instability increasing. At the same time, you have the lower 80% of family-income brackets are beginning to put pressure on the process.
I'll give you one good example of this, which I think makes the thing clearest: The case of Hillary Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton, in the recent primary elections, won the largest vote of any candidate. She is being denied the nomination by her own party. Look at the difference: What is the basis for her support in the population? We've analyzed it in detail: It's the lower 80% of the family-income brackets.
I can tell you here, what I know about something which is not just for general broadcast, but I think it makes the point clear for you. There was a communication, and the communication was that Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton are not wanted anywhere near the Executive Mansion. She would not be allowed to take the nomination; if she did take the nomination, she would not be allowed to be elected; if she were elected, she would not be allowed to serve. And that's the way decisions are made, under these circumstances.
The Lesson of the Moro Assassination
And that's the lesson, to be learned from the assassination of Moro: Is you have leaders who try to do something, and they are killed before they can do it. So someone in the press says, "Kissinger's to blame for it." Kissinger does not have the authority to do such a thing—he never did. But he works for the people who do. And these are always very powerful interests. In France, they come under the mask of the synarchists. And various kinds of things.
But these are covers, these are masked forces which are used as tools. The basic power, still in the world today, comes from the descendants of Paolo Sarpi's organization, international finance, which is attempting to organize the world today, the way Venice in the 14th Century organized the Lombard League and the greatest crash that Europe has ever known.
And the lesson to be learned from all this, is that we don't understand history, because we're too attached to our own mortality. Even my 85 years of life—that's small in the course of history. When I look at what I know today, I have to look back many generations, to find a process which determines what is happening today. The individual in history becomes significant, when he or she begins to understand the longer process of multiple generations which mobilize the forces which actually shape history. And when we try to educate the people of the lower income brackets, the lower 80% of income brackets, not to be cattle any more, not to be serfs, not to be slaves, but to stand up and think of themselves as historical figures, taking responsibility for generations to come of their own people, taking pride in that mission, rather than being consumed with the small matters of immediate concern.
You have to believe in immortality to do that. You have to see yourself as participating in the future, as well as in the past. The human body passes, but the human mind does not.
The 1973 Oil Crisis
Question: [from an Egyptian] I have one question for Galloni, and one for LaRouche. First, a question to you [to LaRouche] on the '70s and Kissinger. You spoke about the 1973 oil crisis, but you gave a different version from what I know historically. The crisis was started by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, using oil as a weapon for the Arab world, when the United States tackled the Arab countries in the 1973 Mideast war. Because Egypt was winning the war, but the United States intervened, with weapons and assistance to Israel, etc. We cannot fight the United States in that moment. The only weapon we had, the Arabs had at that point was oil, and it was in a position to use oil, to cut off oil to the Western world.
LaRouche: Well, I know that, but that is not the truth of the story. That is what was reported. The truth was, it was done by the British. And the oil was not in the hands of the Saudis; the Saudis dropped their oil at the port. There was Arab oil all over the coast of the United States, sitting in ships off coast, all that time. The story that this was an operation—yes, Faisal was fully witting. But Faisal was acting in concert with the British monarchy and the Anglo-Dutch interests. And that's what started the spot market, and that's what started BAE, which is a very nasty organization. And the British generally orchestrate these things anyway.
The Empire vs. the Principle of Westphalia
Question: One question and one comment. It seems clear that in history, "bipolarism" has dominated history. It's not important which side—but to keep a conflict between two sides—because this tumult or conflict, this is something constant in history. It goes back, as LaRouche said correctly, to the time of the Renaissance, to the Copernican Revolution, and great discoveries which cast a lot of doubts and the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun. Because there is no center. It's up to you to decide where the center is....
The secret services have an interest in maintaining the conflict, and feeding the conflict. So it was not only Kissinger behind this assassination. There is a game which in my opinion, it's a long game....
LaRouche: Well, actually the problem as I define it in history, is one of empire. We can start from the ancient Babylon, which is the first empire of importance for Europe, and you had the priests of Babylon who ran the Persian Empire, and ran other things. Then you had a split, which starts with Alexander the Great [356-323 B.C.], for some period of time, until the end of the Second Punic War in Rome [218-201 B.C.]. And Rome struggles to form an empire. But you had three empires: You had the East, you had Egypt, and Rome. And then, finally, with a meeting of the priests of Mithra, on the famous of Isle of Capri, that the agreement was made to make the Romans the empire.
Since that time, we've had a continuity in European civilization of empire. The latest empire is the Anglo-Dutch Empire, and that empire is the dominant one which rules through financial power, Venetian power, Paolo Sarpi power today. It's not a division of people, it's the empire.
That's the empire today. There's been a continuity of empire in Europe, of various forms. So it's a rule from the top, and yes, the rule from the top does use divisions among people.
If you want to understand that, take the Balkans. The only remedy we have for this, is the European remedy: It was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, that every nation and every people must care for the others. If we each care for the other, as nations and peoples, we do not have problems that can't be solved. And that's supposed to be the Christian principle, which has been violated lately.