October 27, 1976

Malthusian Genocide and Nuclear War
Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

by Lyndon LaRouche

[Print version of this article]

This is Lyndon LaRouche, presidential candidate of the U.S. Labor Party, the third candidate in this election.

Tonight, I want to speak to you not only on behalf of the Labor Party, but on behalf of many concerned Republicans, many concerned Democrats, and many concerned European leaders. We are convinced—not only me, my party, but key Republicans, key Democrats, key leaders in Europe, key leaders of the Third World—that the election of Jimmy Carter to President of the United States on November 2 would mean that the United States was, to all intents and purposes, irreversibly committed to thermonuclear war, no later than the summer of 1977.

Tonight, I shall indicate to you the basic facts upon which we premise that conclusion, and I shall also, of course, tell you in some detail exactly how you can prevent this from occurring.

There are two dominant tendencies in present U.S. foreign policy. Carter represents one of those tendencies; or his advisers represent one of those tendencies. Because the world is in a monetary crisis, that is, because the monetary system constructed at the end of World War II is now collapsing—the case of Italy, the case of Britain, the collapse of the Eurobond market, of the euro dollar market, the fact that 17, perhaps 20 developing sector nations are now in default on their international debts, the fact that there is no confidence in the international monetary system—certain forces within the United States are committed to attempting to save this bankrupt monetary system.

The methods to which they are resorting are consciously modeled upon those used earlier by Hjalmar Schacht, the Nazi finance minister, particularly during the 1933-1936 period. That is, they are resorting to methods of extreme austerity, auto-cannibalistic austerity, in the effort to squeeze out of real income, out of essential social services and out of the capital of industry itself, sufficient wealth to roll over, for at least a time, some of the bankrupt debt holdings of certain financial interests.

These measures are bad enough in the advanced sector, they are bad enough in the United States. We see in New York City what this leads to. They are bad enough in Western Europe, in Japan. But in the developing sector these measures mean genocide.

George Ball’s ‘Triage’

George Ball is very explicit on this in his current book, Diplomacy for a Crowded World. Ball proposes that, because he sees certain things which could solve these problems as being unlikely, that we must resort to what he calls “triage.” That is, we must decide what portion of the present world population must die, and manage food supplies and development in such a way as to determine who dies and who lives. This is also the policy of William Paddock, who Ball cites as an authority in part for his point of view. Ball, of course, is a key Carter advisor, Carter’s shadow Secretary of State, the former Secretary of State with the Kennedy administration.

Now, Ball illustrates his policy, and Carter’s policy, by citing the case of Mexico. Ball endorses Paddock’s proposal to reduce the population of Mexico, our neighbor, from 58 million to 28 million. He proposes to do this, and Paddock is very explicit on it, by the methods used by Hitler in eliminating six million Jews and Slavs and others in Eastern Europe during the war: by a forced labor-intensive slave labor system, in which those who are no longer suitable for this process in slave labor, will be allowed to die. They use the word “triage” to describe this process of allowing the useless eaters to die.

Narrator: In an interview on January 6, William Paddock, the author of Famine 1975! said: “We are going to clamp the borders with Mexico down, then watch them scream. There is nothing really that can be done with them. Mexico cannot support its present population on a stable basis. The population will have to be cut to 30 million people.”

LaRouche: That’s the policy of Ball, that’s the policy behind Kissinger’s foreign policy. It’s the policy behind a dominant group in the United States. Now obviously, such a policy cannot be imposed upon the developing sector by the will of the people of that sector. People in New York City may put up with this sort of thing, but the people in the developing sector in general will not, in general, tolerate it. Therefore it’s obvious that what Ball proposes, what other Carter backers propose, what Kissinger also proposes, what Bill Simon, the Treasury Secretary proposes, cannot be imposed by the consent of the people in the developing sector.

Now we have the case of Chile, where we have a very bad government which is willing to impose dictatorship, a brutal dictatorship to impose economic austerity. That was the reason for the Chilean coup. But you cannot find any significant constituency in any part of the developing sector which is willing to impose genocide upon its own people.

Now, people like Ball and other Carter advisers know this. They know that the developing sector cannot be induced to accept genocide as a policy for its own people without external military force, military political control. What they propose to do is to put the developing sector under, effectively, NATO military and political control. That is, to place the developing sector under conditions of limited sovereignty, and the example of this is the proposed South Atlantic Treaty Organization, involving the racist, genocidal Union of South African government, and other governments of the region. That’s the key to the Kissinger policy for Africa.

Now, Kissinger and some others, recognize that such a policy, putting most of the developing sector under this kind of NATO sovereignty, means war with the Soviet Union. Kissinger believes, or at least he has espoused that such war can be avoided by forcing the Soviet Union to successively back down through bluffing. Now, the problem with Kissinger’s policy—and this is where the immediate war danger arises—is that Kissinger is like a poker player sitting with a dead hand of cards with mirrors behind his back, trying to bluff his opponent.

Everyone in NATO who I’ve spoken to, and the Soviets as well, know that, at this time, if the United States and NATO were to be involved in either a conventional war, a limited nuclear war, or a thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union, NATO would be defeated. That was the substance of [Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] General [George] Brown’s briefing some months ago. That was one of the reasons why certain people tried to get rid of Brown by Watergating him, because he represented a voice of sanity in this connection. He did not wish the United States to get involved in confrontations where the United States might be destroyed as a result of the recklessness of people like Kissinger.

Now some people, obviously, realizing that Henry Kissinger’s policy of bluff is not going to work, are thinking in terms of how to fight a thermonuclear war. That is, recognizing that the policy of imposed genocide upon the developing sector means world war, rather than give up the policy, they propose to discover how to fight war.

Paul Nitze’s Genocide & War

Then we have people like Paul Nitze, in this category. Paul Nitze is a man who was run out of the Eisenhower administration in 1954 because Eisenhower, a competent general, realized what this maniac was. Now Nitze in the January 1976 Foreign Affairs writes an article which, while it is a more or less popularized article, nonetheless represents the estimation of the strategic balance as seen by Nitze and many others. As a matter of fact, it’s rather optimistic by contrast with what many people think is the case.

Nitze states, in effect, that by the end of 1977 or the beginning of 1978, the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact, will be at such a decisive strategic advantage with respect to NATO and the United States, that the United States would be defeated in a war. There are some people who think that the United States would be defeated now, and that’s probably correct. Therefore, Nitze and others who accept the policy of genocide for the developing sector, say we must go to war before that change in strategic balance occurs. And that means going to war by the summer of 1977.

Narrator: In his Foreign Affairs article, Nitze stated: “If in 1970 the Soviets had attacked U.S. forces, their entire prewar advantage would have been eliminated, leaving the United States with substantial superiority at the end of the exchange. However, this situation began to be reversed in 1973, when the Soviets gained the military capability to end an exchange with an advantage in their favor. By 1977, after a Soviet-initiated counter-force strike against the United States to which the United States responded with a counter-force strike, the Soviet Union would have remaining forces sufficient to destroy Chinese and European NATO nuclear capability, attack the U.S. population and conventional U.S. military targets, and still have a remaining force throw-weight in excess of that of the United States. And after 1977, the Soviet advantage after the assumed attack mounts rapidly.”

Nitze underscored his point in a letter to the Washington Post two days ago, Nitze wrote: “A fundamental point in Henry Kissinger’s defense of the SALT agreement has been that in our time, war between major powers is unthinkable. It could be that war between major powers is thinkable. But if so, we should think about it carefully, consistently, and with all the foresight and prudence of which we are capable.”

LaRouche: That’s what these people are committed to. I’ve given it to you in brief, but what I said to you is the essential thinking of heads of European governments, heads of European parties, heads of parties and other forces in this country, who are rightly convinced that, if Carter were to be elected with this combination of advisers, Zumwalt, Nitze, Schlesinger, Rostow, men with long-standing records generally as maniacs for war, that with Carter—their boy, Jimmy-boy, the Jimmy-boy of the New York Council on Foreign Relations—this nation would be headed to war.

Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford

Now, the personality of Carter, of course, is somewhat minor in this respect. Carter is nothing but a pawn of the Rockefeller-dominated forces, together with some other forces, i.e., the New York Council on Foreign Relations. Carter was a protégé of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in the Trilateral Commission organized by David Rockefeller. He’s nothing but a Rockefeller pawn. However, his personality is significant.

We’ve seen how Gerald Ford, a man of known limitations, has attempted to grow into the job of President; he tried to grow into the White House. And Gerald Ford has, on a number of times, to my knowledge, acted to prevent the United States from moving toward a collision course with nuclear war. There’s no question that Gerald Ford is a man who, by intention and some degree of understanding, is committed to peace, particularly if he has the right advisers.

But Carter is not the kind of man who would grow into the White House. To give you an example, I cite the case of the advertisement which appeared last week in the Los Angeles Times and was re-printed in the New York Times today: “Can a man no longer trusted by the co-chairman of his national committee be trusted by you?” This is a statement by Herbert Hafif, who has been, and I presume no longer is, co-chairman of the Carter national steering committee. Now I’m not citing Hafif as an authority; I’m merely citing him because Hafif refers to things, understates things, which I know to be true.

Narrator: [quoting Hafif] “Man’s hardest act is to admit his mistakes. It is thus even harder for the co-chairman of the Carter national steering committee to publicly admit his mistake in supporting Jimmy Carter. I, together with so many of the friends who supported my 1974 campaign for the Democratic California gubernatorial nomination, gave up of our personal lives, our funds, and a good deal of our hearts in a successful effort to get the Democratic presidential nomination for a man we believed represented a decent new force in responsive government.

Our support was strong enough not to note the mounting evidence that the Carter record and promises did not quite match the image. We at the top, after all, were being personally reassured by the candidate himself, who spoke publicly of never lying, who promised to conduct a campaign of love and compassion. It was thus a great shock for us to see a slipping Jimmy Carter become a mean, vindictive man using language and tactics designed to destroy the integrity and person of Gerald Ford, when attacking Ford’s policies should have provided target enough.

But lost in the disgust over such tactics lies the real truth about Jimmy Carter and his campaign, a truth I now feel compelled to speak to, and is the real purpose of this open letter. I am a Democrat, and I would like to see a Democratic president. But I am now convinced that it would be a disaster if that Democratic president was Jimmy Carter. The reason, of course, is not because he has promised all things to all people. Nor is it because I witnessed such things as his private scheming to get farmers’ money in California during the primary, only to see his change of position to get the farm worker vote after the primary.

But rather the reason is because of one very important fact that most have ignored. Independent of character flaws, the man is simply not capable, by experience or ability, to be President of this country. Perhaps we have become conditioned to deviousness and deceit in politicians; perhaps we can now swallow lustful ambition for public office. Perhaps we can pragmatically countenance a hypocritical man who would be our savior, when all we are looking for is a president.

But can we accept the fact that this man and his small Nixon-like crew have neither the knowledge nor the background to run a broad-based, responsible presidency? It will not be the Democratic Party which runs this country, but rather a small clique of people, even more narrowly motivated and far less experienced than the Nixon crew. Hidden behind the smiles and hang-loose joking of the small Carter team, is the fact that it is a team experienced only in campaigning, with no higher goals save of getting their man the presidency.

In short, this country is not being asked to elect a Democratic president, but to elect another imperial president, who will promise anything to get elected, but whose words stand in stark contrast to his records and actions. This campaign threatens tragedy for the future of this country.

I now join with such lifelong Democrats as Mimi Harris, who is the chief fundraiser for Senator Cranston, and Governor Pat Brown, Sr. in saying no to Jimmy Carter.

I apologize to my many friends for my mistaken judgment. I hope this public statement at least partially undoes any damage my prior support may have caused.”

LaRouche: A party which would not tolerate Senator Eagleton in the position of Vice President, should by no means, by absolutely no means, tolerate a Jimmy Carter, with his known personality, and personality problems, in the position of President, right next to the red button during the greatest crisis in U.S. history.

Carter is irresponsible, and his getting into the White House on his track record as Governor of Georgia, his personality, his lying, his vacillations throughout the campaign, his totally irresponsible statements on strategic questions. That man is no impediment to war. He is not the kind of man who will turn to his advisers and say to them, as Ford in effect said, “No, I am President of the United States, I don’t care who helped me to get here. I am President and I have a responsibility to this nation. And I’ll try to save that nation.” Ford’s problem is it he is inadequate for the job, but nonetheless the comparison between him and Carter is obvious.

Vote LaRouche to Save the Nation

Now how can we stop this? How can we prevent this nation from being destroyed in thermonuclear war by the summer of 1977?

At this point, if one went by the polls—and by our knowledge of some of the facts pertinent to the polls—one could say that, in an honest election, at this time, there is no danger that Jimmy Carter could be honestly elected. However, we also know that the most massive vote fraud in American history is already in progress. Aliens in California will vote not only once but many times. They will march from one precinct to another, casting their ballots as they go. This is the result of the postcard registration drive.

There are 15 key states in the United States in which vote fraud as bad or almost as bad as that which is going to occur in California, is about to occur. So, do not rest and assume that, because Ford has the majority of the electoral college at this point in an honest election, that he is going to win. The danger is, that Ford might be defeated by Carter, which would commit us essentially to war, or although by virtue of a fraudulent election, or that the fraud itself would prevent a clear majority in the electoral college, and that it might take months to sort out many states’ votes, to determine who would win those states, the key states, and therefore we might not know by January 20 or even later who might be President of the United States.

Those two dangers are very grave. What can you do?

If you were, formerly, a loyal voter in the Democratic Party or an independent who formerly voted for the Democratic Party, and you wish to save this nation, vote for me.

Your vote for me will ensure two things. First of all, it will ensure that Carter does not get near the White House, that his advisers do not get near the White House. Secondly, it will force President Ford to get rid of Henry Kissinger, Edward Levy, and similar types. Because a large vote for the Labor Party—we have the potential for 7-10 million votes if you come out and vote for me—people who have already shown a preference for the Labor Party in this country. This will wake up a large segment of the Democratic Party, the regular Democratic Party machine. It will also encourage the kind of mainstream Republicans who are being blocked out from access to President Ford at this time. These combined forces—U.S. Labor Party, honest anti-Carter Democrats, and mainstream Republicans—represent 70 or more percent of the electorate in this country.

Now, although we have many disagreements among ourselves, these three forces, nonetheless we are agreed that Carter must not get into the White House because that would mean thermonuclear war and similar horrors. We are agreed that we must not go to war, we are agreed that this monetary crisis must be solved, we are agreed to the American tradition of technological progress, and industrial expansion, and agricultural development, on full employment through those policies.

Now, with 70% of the electorate mobilized, we can force Henry Kissinger out of the White House; it won’t take much effort, once Ford sees that he’s got that kind of backing for that purpose. We’ll get rid of Edward Levy, the man who’s tried to destroy the U.S. Constitution out of the U.S. Attorney General’s office; we’ll get a combination in the executive branch and in the Congress, which will get this nation safely through the coming period. That would be the effect of your voting for me.

The International Development Bank Proposal

I have other things to do besides this role. Through my efforts and those of my associates over the recent period, the recent months, key forces within the developing sector, governing forces or major political forces otherwise—industrialists, financiers in Western Europe, the United States, and the developing sector—have come to recognize a proposal which I developed, called the International Development Bank, as the only alternative proposal of competence now on the table to replace a bankrupt monetary system.

The situation is such, that if the President of the United States were to say on any Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, that this nation is committed to developing a new monetary system along the lines of the International Development Bank proposal, the overwhelming majority of the developing sector would immediately accept his proposal; that most of the governments of Europe, and I believe also the government of Japan, would accept that proposal immediately.

Under those conditions of such a statement from Ford, or from anyone in the White House, we would have a new monetary system. We would not have the depression, which is otherwise virtually inevitable—the economic collapse—otherwise virtually inevitable, to occur by about Christmas. We would enter the era of the greatest prosperity in modern history.

I’ll just give you a few facts about it to indicate what’s involved.

It is my estimation that the agreements which would be reached under my proposal among various nations—this would involve Comecon as well as western Europe, the United States and the developing sector—would involve about $300 billion a year of long-term credits, created by treaty agreement, to cause the flow of increased industrial production into viable development projects of agriculture, industry and infrastructure in the developing sector. Feasible projects to this end are already well defined. It is merely necessary to create and channel the credit required to expand our capacity, our utilization of capacity, in western Europe, the United States and Japan, and so forth, in order to make these things go.

Of this $300 billion I have estimated, approximately $100 billion of this long-term credit would be an increased annual output of industrial exports from the United States alone. Furthermore, putting in approximately $300 billion a year into this kind of long-term industrial and agricultural development, will have side effects, that is, that the increase in global industrial production will go up way ahead of $300 billion a year as a result of the secondary effects.

That would mean that in this nation we would turn around from industrial decay, and enter a period of high capital formation, with full utilization of our idle capacity, industrial capacity, with the expansion of that capacity, with the modernization of that capacity, and with jobs representing increasing skill levels available to a greater number of our population. And with the tax revenues available to the federal government on the basis of that expansion, we would be able to meet the needs of our population.

Without such a program, no one can meet those needs. We can not keep a population in prosperity by trying to re-carve a shrinking pie. Without a new monetary system, without major sources of new credit to revitalize industrial production, without credit to establish the markets in the developing sector necessary to revitalize that production, the United States is going into the worst depression of history. But, if we create those credits, then we are going to have the greatest prosperity in all history.

Furthermore, if we establish such a monetary system, then the basic cause of the danger of war is eliminated. Now, time is required in this country for people to fight this out. A new monetary system involves debt moratoria and other measures. People are very unhappy, very upset about this. They need time, perhaps, to straighten this out.

I think that if you vote for me, give me a large enough vote, enough leverage, that we can prevent Carter’s advisers from imposing their policies leading us towards war, and we will have the time and margin to fight it out about among mainstream Republicans, honest anti-Carter Democrats, and Labor Party supporters, to fight out rationally the measures to be taken to realize this new monetary system.

This is Lyndon LaRouche. Thank you.