Executive Intelligence Review, Volume 46, Number 20, May 24, 2019

- Cover

- Masthead

- EDITORIAL Trump Deploys Pompeo for Peace and Cooperation with Russia and the World, While Bolton Stumps for War by Michael O. Billington

- EDITORIAL Prosecutors Zero In on British-Obama-Clinton Networks Behind Anti-Trump Coup by Harley Schlanger

- PDF edition Table of Contents — Volume 46, Number 20, May 24, 2019

- I. The Potential for Profound Victories

- Expose the Big Lie of Russiagate: NSA and CIA Experts Can Prove All the ‘Secret Intelligence’ Was False

- INTERVIEW WITH GBTIMES Zepp-LaRouche Discusses China’s Belt and Road Initiative

- II. LaRouche’s Curriculum for Presidents

- So You Wish To Educate the President? LaRouche’s Unfinished War for a New World Economic Order by Dennis Small

- U.S.A. vs. Lyndon LaRouche ‘He’s a Bad Guy But We Can’t Say Why’ by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (February 15, 2000)

The President’s Flanking Mission to Russia

Editor-in-Chief and Founder:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Editorial Board: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. , Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert, Gerald Rose, Dennis Small, William Wertz

Co-Editors: Robert Ingraham, Tony Papert

Technology: Marsha Freeman

Transcriptions: Katherine Notley

Ebooks: Richard Burden

Graphics: Alan Yue

Photos: Stuart Lewis

Circulation Manager: Stanley Ezrol

INTELLIGENCE DIRECTORS

Economics: Marcia Merry Baker, Paul Gallagher

History: Anton Chaitkin

Ibero-America: Dennis Small

United States: Debra Freeman

INTERNATIONAL BUREAUS

Berlin: Rainer Apel

Copenhagen: Tom Gillesberg

Lima: Sara Madueño

Melbourne: Robert Barwick

Mexico City: Gerardo Castilleja Chávez

New Delhi: Ramtanu Maitra

Paris: Christine Bierre

Stockholm: Ulf Sandmark

United Nations, N.Y.C.: Leni Rubinstein

Washington, D.C.: William Jones

Wiesbaden: Göran Haglund

ON THE WEB

e-mail: eirns@larouchepub.com

www.larouchepub.com

www.executiveintelligencereview.com

www.larouchepub.com/eiw

Webmaster: John Sigerson

Assistant Webmaster: George Hollis

Editor, Arabic-language edition: Hussein Askary

EIR (ISSN 0273-6314) is published weekly

(50 issues), by EIR News Service, Inc.,

P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

(571) 293-0935

European Headquarters: E.I.R. GmbH, Postfach Bahnstrasse 9a, D-65205, Wiesbaden, Germany

Tel: 49-611-73650

Homepage: http://www.eir.de

e-mail: info@eir.de

Director: Georg Neudecker

Montreal, Canada: 514-461-1557

eir@eircanada.ca

Denmark: EIR - Danmark, Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, DK-1903 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 35 43 60 40, Fax: +45 35 43 87 57. e-mail: eirdk@hotmail.com.

Mexico City: EIR, Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz 242-2

Col. Agricultura C.P. 11360

Delegación M. Hidalgo, México D.F.

Tel. (5525) 5318-2301

eirmexico@gmail.com

Copyright: ©2019 EIR News Service. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission strictly prohibited.

Canada Post Publication Sales Agreement #40683579

Postmaster: Send all address changes to EIR, P.O. Box 17390, Washington, D.C. 20041-0390.

Signed articles in EIR represent the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Editorial Board.

EDITORIAL

Trump Deploys Pompeo for Peace and Cooperation with Russia and the World, While Bolton Stumps for War

by Michael O. Billington

DoS/Ron Przysucha

President Trump deployed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to meet with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Minister Sergey Lavrov in Sochi, Russia on May 14, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

May 15—U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in his press conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov following his May 14 meetings with Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin, said: “President Trump has made clear that his expectation is that we will have an improved relationship between our two countries. This will benefit each of our peoples, and I think that our talks here today were a good step in that direction.” He added elsewhere: “President Trump wants to do everything we can—I think there are truly overlapping interests that we can build on, and most importantly, President Trump very much wants to do that.”

Pompeo was making clear that he represents the President, not himself, in these negotiations.

That has not always been true of Mike Pompeo, and certainly not of National Security Adviser John Bolton. In fact, a growing chorus of voices, from the so-called “right” and the so-called “left” are demanding that Bolton be fired, especially when it comes to the threat of war with Iran. “Right-wing” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Tuesday night:

More than anything in the world, national security adviser John Bolton would love to have a war with Iran. It will be like Christmas, Thanksgiving, his birthday—wrapped into one. Mercifully, John Bolton does not control the military, President Trump does. The question is, just how influential is Bolton in the White House?

Carlson recalls the 2015 New York Times op-ed by Bolton titled: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.”

But “left-wing” CNN host Peter Bergen’s message is essentially the same:

John Bolton, President Trump’s national security adviser, seemingly hasn’t met a war he doesn’t love. Bolton was a prominent proponent of the Iraq War and he has never evinced any doubt about the wisdom of that decision. . . . By contrast, last year President Trump said the Iraq War was “the single worst decision ever made.” Just before he was installed a little over a year ago as Trump’s national security adviser, Bolton advocated for a preemptive war against North Korea in the Wall Street Journal.

With Trump now publicly committed to meeting with both Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the June 28-29 G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan, the British Empire and its assets in the United States are increasingly panicked that they will lose their carefully structured division of the world into warring blocs, East vs. West. Further terrifying these lords of war and chaos is the incredible “Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations” taking place today in Beijing, China. In addition to the 47 Asian nations attending, another 50 countries from around the world are participating, in what could better be called a “celebration of the New Paradigm,” by those willing to participate. Xi, in his opening speech, noted that “there would be no clash of civilizations as long as people were able to appreciate the beauty of all civilizations.”

kremlin.ru

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia on May 13, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Indeed, that is precisely what is taking place under the auspices of the New Silk Road, a concept launched by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche after the fall of the Soviet Union, a “peace through development” policy embracing the common aims of mankind.

In an interview on May 10 with GBTimes (available in this issue of EIR), Helga Zepp-LaRouche concluded:

I think we are probably the generation on whom later generations will look back to, and say, “Oh! This was really a fascinating time, because it was a change from one epoch to another one.” I have an image of that, which is: this change that we are experiencing right now, is probably going to be bigger than the change in Europe between the Middle Ages and modern times. In the Middle Ages you had people believing in a whole bunch of axioms—scholasticism, Aristotelianism, witchcraft, all kinds of strange beliefs—and then, because of the influx of such thinkers as Nicholas of Cusa, and the Italian Renaissance, the modern image of man, of science and technology, of the sovereign nation-state, all these changes happened, and they created a completely different view of the image of man and of nature, and the universe, and everything we call ‘modern society’ was the result of this change.

Now, I think we are in front, or the middle, of such an epochal change, where the next era of mankind will be much, much more creative than the present one, and that’s something to look forward to, because we can actually shape it, and we can bring our own creative input into it. And there are not many periods in history when that is the case: So we are actually lucky!

EDITORIAL

Prosecutors Zero In on

British-Obama-Clinton Networks

Behind Anti-Trump Coup

by Harley Schlanger

May 17—Though President Donald Trump has declared that the “Collusion Delusion” is dead—killed off by the report released on March 22 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that exonerates him of charges that he “colluded” with Russian President Putin to rig the 2016 election—rabid anti-Trumpers continue their desperate search for phantom leads, in multiple Congressional committees and in the Fake News rooms of major media across the U.S. and in western Europe.

Their flailing has become all the more hysterical in the last weeks, as a veritable tsunami of new leads is emerging. Unfortunately for the anti-Trampers, these leads are providing new evidence of the criminal actions of those who launched the Russiagate coup attempt, and in particular, and evidence of the significance of the role of British intelligence operative, Christopher Steele. Leading the investigation is U.S. Attorney General William Barr, who this week appointed a new prosecutor to investigate the origins of the anti-Trump, anti-Putin regime-change coup, which was designed to prevent Trump’s election, then to contain him, or remove him from office, after he won the 2016 election.

The central feature of the new investigations is the homing in on the role of the “dodgy dossier” fabricated by former British spy Christopher Steele, which was used by the FBI to obtain surveillance warrants issued by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. Although Steele, who had been a top Russia hand in MI6, has been doing his best to disappear, his dossier, and its use in shaping the anti-Trump narrative, has now been forced into the open. From the beginning, investigators from the LaRouche movement have pointed to the Steele dossier and its backers from the highest levels of British intelligence, including both MI6 and GCHQ, as key to grasp who was behind the attacks on Donald Trump, and why.

Barr Takes the Point

In a Senate hearing on April 10, Attorney General Barr described the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign—which was officially launched in July 2016, but had origins as early as 2015—as “spying on a political campaign.” When outraged Democrats on the committee demanded that he clarify the statement, he repeated, “I think spying did occur.” Current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in full damage-control mode, tried to push back. To say there was spying, he said, that’s “a loaded word. . . . That’s not the term I would use.”

But several reports released since have shown that is exactly what the FBI and its allies were doing. The two such reports most damaging for the nexus of British operatives and their U.S. allies in the Obama intelligence leadership and the Clinton campaign are a New York Times report and an article by John Solomon in The Hill.

Wikipedia Commons

Stefan Halper

---------------------------------------------

On May 2, the Times reported that the FBI had deployed an “informant” to a meeting in London in September 2016 with Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos. The informant, a “Ms. Azure Turk” flirted with Papadopoulos, while pumping him for information on what he knew about ties between the Trump campaign and Russia. She was working with Stefan Halper, who has been identified as a shared asset of British intelligence and the CIA. Halper’s role in targeting Papadopoulos was coordinated by the FBI. While the New York Times may have run the story to pre-empt a fuller investigation—as the paper has been a leader from the beginning in the witch hunt against the President—the story is in conformity with the bigger picture emerging, which is what prompted Barr’s charge that “spying” is a key feature of Russiagate.

On May 9, The Hill published John Solomon’s report under the title, “FBI’s Steele Story Falls Apart.” Solomon reports on a memo written by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kathleen Kavalec detailing a meeting she had with Steele on Oct. 11, 2016. In her memo, she wrote that Steele’s account was unreliable, and had a political purpose, to defeat then candidate Donald Trump, and that Steele was desperate to get it out before the election. She sent her memo directly to an FBI official, Stephen Laycock, who forwarded it immediately to the team headed by Peter Strzok that was allegedly examining whether Trump was acting in “collusion” with Russian subversion of the U.S. election.

What Solomon reveals is that—in spite of Kavalec’s memo confirming similar concerns about Steele’s lack of veracity and his political agenda, voiced by senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr in August 2016—the FBI used the Steele dossier as the lead document in its application to the FISA Court for a warrant to surveil minor Trump operative Carter Page. That warrant was then used as an opening for broader surveillance of the Trump campaign. In their filing, ten days after Kavalec’s meeting with Steele and eight days after the delivery of her memo, the FBI nevertheless vouched for Steele as credible and reliable, and his report as verifiable. The FBI did not mention that it had been paid for by the campaign of Trump’s opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Solomon’s report on the Kavalec memo did not go unnoticed by President Trump, who has begun targeting the British role in the attacks against him. On May 8, he tweeted, “The British Spy, Christopher Steele, tries so hard to get this (the Fake Dossier) out before Election Day. Why?”

Like Classic FBI Sting Operations

These two major revelations are backed up by commentary on the use of “informants” by the FBI in targeting Trump and his campaign, from such sources as former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson and former U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C., Joseph E. diGenova.

In addition to identifying Halper, another exposed asset shared by the Brits and U.S. intelligence was Joseph Mifsud, who planted the story with Papadopoulos of “Russian hacking” of the emails of the Clinton campaign, John Podesta, and the Democratic National Committee. These shared assets acted in the manner of classic FBI sting and entrapment operations.

On May 13, Attorney General Barr appointed a U.S. Attorney from Connecticut, John Durham, to investigate who was behind the launching of Russiagate. Durham, who will have subpoena power and can bring witnesses before a grand jury, has already been investigating leaks to the media by former FBI General Counsel James Baker. His investigation, with full support from Barr, means there are now three official investigations underway into the actions of the coup plotters.

U.S. Attorney’s Office/Dist. of Connecticut

John H. Durham

---------------------------------------------

A report is expected soon from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is investigating charges of FBI abuse of the FISA process, as well as its handling of the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Horowitz previously was responsible for the release of the thousands of text messages between Peter Strzok, the leading FBI official on both the Clinton email case and the initial Russiagate investigation, and FBI attorney Lisa Page. The texts demonstrated the high degree of hostility among leading FBI officials toward Trump, as the two proposed using the FBI’s Russiagate investigation as an “insurance policy,” to get rid of Trump if he were elected.

The third investigation is that of a U.S. Attorney from Utah, John Huber, who is looking into FISA Court abuses in the applications for warrants to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign operatives.

DoD/Adrian Cadiz

Senator Lindsey Graham

---------------------------------------------

In addition, there is a Senate investigation underway, under the direction of Sen. Lindsey Graham, with full backing from Senators Ron Johnson and Charles Grassley. While Graham said they will defer to Durham’s investigation for the moment, he added that they are prepared to proceed with their own independent probe.

The Spies Are in Trouble

Reactions from some of the perpetrators behind Russiagate show they know they are in deep trouble. John Brennan, who was the director of the CIA from 2013 to 2017, lied in an interview about the use of the Steele dossier in the FISA filing, saying “it went through a rigorous due process within the Justice Department and the FBI.” The Kavalec memo proves that Brennan has again been caught in a blatant lie. When the former Director of the FBI, James Comey, tried to defend himself from charges that he violated the law and FBI/DOJ protocol, saying that Brennan played the major role in pushing the Steele dossier for the FISA Court application, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, joined his co-plotter Brennan in pointing their fingers at Comey, saying he alone pushed it.

Comey was the subject of an op-ed by Kevin Brock, the former Assistant Director of Intelligence for the FBI, who wrote in The Hill on May 7 that, with the investigations underway, “Comey’s mishandling of the FBI and legal processes likely will be fully exposed.”

On May 10, attorneys for Roger Stone filed now-critical motions which challenge the fake story at the heart of Russiagate, that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the documents to WikiLeaks. The filing includes an affidavit from former NSA Technical Adviser William Binney, who says he’s prepared to testify on his forensic evaluations which show that there was no external hack.

This news service has reported from the outset that the cause of the attacks on Trump and Putin was the fear gripping British imperial networks that the two would move to overturn their geopolitical design of maintaining a confrontational relationship between the United States and Russia. The most recent revelations of the anti-Trump, anti-Putin campaign run by the British-Obama “spy” ring confirm that defense of this geopolitical design—which has produced endless wars, regime-change coups, huge military/defense budgets, and deadly austerity against the real economy of the vast majority of the people—is the actual origin of Russiagate.

EIR Contents

www.larouchepub.com — Volume 46, Number 20, May 24, 2019

Cover This Week

Painting by John Trumbull, 1820

The forces of British Major General Charles Cornwallis surrender to American and French forces after their defeat in the Battle of Yorktown, Virginia in 1781.

---------------------------------------------

THE PRESIDENT’S FLANKING MISSION TO RUSSIA

2 EDITORIALS

Trump Deploys Pompeo for Peace and Cooperation with Russia and the World, While Bolton Stumps for War

by Michael O. Billington

4 Prosecutors Zero In on British-Obama-Clinton Networks Behind Anti-Trump Coup

by Harley Schlanger

I. THE POTENTIAL FOR PROFOUND VICTORIES

8 Expose the Big Lie of Russiagate: NSA and CIA Experts Can Prove All the ‘Secret Intelligence’ Was False

15 GBTIMES INTERVIEW

Zepp-LaRouche Discusses China’s Belt and Road Initiative

II. LAROUCHE’S CURRICULUM FOR PRESIDENTS

22 SO YOU WISH TO EDUCATE THE PRESIDENT?

LaRouche’s Unfinished War for a New World Economic Order

by Dennis Small

39 U.S.A. VS. LYNDON LAROUCHE

‘He’s a Bad Guy, But We Can’t Say Why’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

February 15, 2000

The Jan. 27, 1989 Jailing of Lyndon LaRouche

Defined an Era, Which Now Must End

Sign the Petition to Exonerate LaRouche at lpac.co/exonerate

I. The Potential for Profound Victories

Expose the Big Lie of Russiagate: NSA and CIA Experts Can Prove

All the ‘Secret Intelligence’ Was False

LPAC-TV

Left to right: William Binney, Larry Johnson, Barbara Boyd.

---------------------------------------------

We present here edited selections from two critically important discussions among William Binney, former Technical Director of the National Security Agency; Larry C. Johnson, CIA analyst who also worked in the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism; and LaRouche PAC’s Barbara Boyd, author of a series of ground-breaking reports on the fraud of Russiagate, beginning with her analysis, “Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him,” first published on September 29, 2017, in EIR.

All three participated in LaRouche PAC’s May 16 Fireside Chat, moderated by Dennis Speed, and in the LaRouche PAC Weekly Webcast on May 17, joined by host Matthew Ogden.

From the Fireside Chat, May 16

Dennis Speed: We’re going to start first with William Binney. Mr. Binney has been involved in something rather important recently, and it involves the case of Roger Stone. I’m going to let him get us started tonight.

William Binney: I just recently submitted an affidavit in the Roger Stone criminal case, and I expect to be testifying in court to introduce the forensic facts that everybody in the government is ignoring. Special Counsel Robert Mueller ignored it; the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Judiciary Committees have ignored it. They’ve all been shying away from it, and nobody wants to hear the forensics of the data that we actually looked at. What we looked at was the posted WikiLeaks Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails, also the John Podesta emails, but also the Guccifer 2.0 material. In both cases, we could show that they weren’t hacks. We could also show that Guccifer 2.0 was probably just a straightforward fabrication.

No matter how you look at it, the forensics is very clear. In both cases, neither were hacks from Russia. Nobody wants to hear that; they want to ignore it. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ignored it with his indictments; Mueller with his report ignored it; the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Judiciary Committees ignored it. Everybody wants to shy away from these simple forensic facts.

Barbara Boyd: You have to let that sink in. Then, think about how much of everything you’ve heard over the last three years has been based on this idea. Remember back in December of 2016 and early 2017, when Sen. John McCain and a few other people got up and said, because the Russians hacked the DNC, Article 5 of NATO should be invoked, and we should take action against Russia. This is very serious business. The center of the coup, the center of the whole thing we’ve been through for the last three years—Bill Binney just told you the science supports none of it.

Binney: Well, in fact, it contradicts it. It basically says it’s false.

Boyd: Right.

Larry Johnson: I’m just struck by how weak the evidence that’s presented in the Mueller report is, with respect to “Russian involvement.” They basically accuse Russia of engaging in a social media campaign, spending $10-15 million. That sounds like a lot of money until you look at what Hillary actually spent; she spent close to $1.2 billion. Donald Trump spent $600 million. So, we’re being asked to believe that the Russians are so effective, so clever, so smart that they can, with just a minimal investment of $10-15 million, turn an entire U.S. election. This occurs at the same time that none of the intelligence chiefs—John Brennan [CIA], James Clapper as Director of National Intelligence, or Mike Rogers at the NSA—takes responsibility as to the truth of what they are saying. This was a complete and utter failure on their part to do their jobs.

CC/Gates Skidmore

Hillary Clinton

---------------------------------------------

Everybody But Hillary Clinton Was Surveilled

Boyd: I’m struck by a couple of things which have popped up over the last two weeks. One of which is Mr. Johnson’s contribution, when he says that British intelligence was monitoring not just the Donald Trump campaign, but just about everybody who was running, other than, apparently, Hillary Clinton. That they were building up surveillance packages and actual dirt on every other candidate in the 2016 election.

I’m also thinking about the thing which has been very destructive in the course of this entire “Russian” myth, which is the war on any form of independent thinking inside the United States or elsewhere by calling anybody who actually has an alternative viewpoint a Russian propaganda agent. This is an unprecedented drive to suppress or censor, censoring Facebook and all these social media platforms; all of which is still going on full-blown, as one of the big casualties of the entire coup.

Think of the effect of the intelligence community of the United States coming out and saying, “The President, according to this guy Christopher Steele, according to British intelligence, has been captured by the Russians.” It really was an overt coup attempt.

But, today, people are digging in the right places. Larry has got a piece out on all of the informants and what the operations were on British soil, and how this stuff worked with this firm called Hakluyt, which is very important and is part of how intelligence is actually done at this point. We’re getting closer; people are probing.

So, all of these things potentially are going to come out if we defeat the first lie and follow through on the implications of it and really press for the broadest possible investigation of this thing. How wide was this, and why did it occur? I think that the major thing was that they did not want any kind of maverick in the Presidency of the United States at this particular point in history.

Johnson: There is, I think, a shift in public opinion. People are recognizing that—after being told repeatedly that Trump was in bed with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and that he was acting as a puppet of Putin—that that’s a lie. And I think the documents that will be released in coming weeks will further expose that. And those who are responsible for pushing that, I pray that they are literally brought to justice, in handcuffs, standing before a judge, and convicted for their crimes.

Binney: Well, my objective is to basically bust this out in court, because I’ve been trying in different ways, through publications—you know, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, Larry and I, and a number of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) members and associate members have been trying to argue this out in the open, so that people will begin to understand what the basic facts really are behind this. And we’ve been stymied and stopped at every turn, by the mainstream media and the government in general. They won’t hear what we have to say!

That’s one of the reasons why I quite readily agreed to put in an affidavit for Roger Stone, because this is in a criminal court. They can’t keep me out of this court. They’ve been doing it in the Third Circuit and in the Ninth, and also the Second, when they were working there, so they’ve been effective at saying, “You don’t have standing”—that was the big argument at first. Then, “you’re not cleared,” and then, all those national security arguments, and so on.

Get the truth out so that everybody knows what is really true.

CC

John Podesta

---------------------------------------------

From the Webcast, May 17

Boyd: The essential thing here is exactly what the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity have focused on. What they’ve done is a scientific analysis of what we will call the biggest lie which has been told about so-called “Russiagate,”—that is, that Russian military intelligence hacked the computers of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, and then provided the files to WikiLeaks for a staged publication to actually influence the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor. What VIPS has focused on, is proof that this, indeed, did not happen—the scientific evidence, forensic evidence, that this, indeed, did not happen. People have been told a massive and Big Lie. Bill Binney has pioneered this, by conducting experiments with a group of people, to demonstrate that this just did not happen.

He’s recently submitted an affidavit in Roger Stone’s criminal case, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. You can expect some fireworks, which have already started around that. The government itself is going to have to take a stand.

I’d like to start out with Bill, the former Technical Director of the NSA, the guy who wrote all the programs which actually are at issue here.

Forensics Show There Was No Hack

Binney: I would first address the DNC data that was posted by WikiLeaks. And that clearly showed evidence of a property called a FAT format file. That’s the “File Allocation Table” format. Its software used to read data to a storage device, either a thumb drive or a CD-ROM, something like that, and as it does that, it changes the last modified time on each file to the nearest even second. When that occurs, all the times of “last modified” are changed on all the files. So, when we looked at all the DNC emails from 23rd, 25th, and 26th of May, all of them ended in evens. This was a factor that proved that the data was downloaded to a physical device—either a thumb drive or CD-ROM, and then transported physically before WikiLeaks could publish it or put it on the Web.

That said to us that it wasn’t a hack from Russia—it was an inside job, that somebody close in downloaded the data to a storage device and then took it physically. So this whole business about saying that the DNC data was a hack by Russia, was just a fabrication.

And then, when it came to Guccifer 2.0, we looked at all that data, and we looked at what was posted by Guccifer 2.0, saying “here’s what I hacked from Russia” in the DNC, and we looked at that, and each file that was posted had a timestamp at the end of it. If you look at the data, the filename, the amount of data in the file, and the timestamp at the end, you could calculate the rate of transfer of data. And that’s what we did for all the files: the highest rate we got was 49.1 MB/second. That told us that the files could not have been transmitted across the international Web, to Russia from the U.S. And we said that.

We got some pushback, from even some of our own VIPS members, who thought that that could, in fact, happen. So we said, OK, we’ll test this, and we tested it from Albania, Serbia, the Netherlands and the U.K., and found the fastest rate of transfer we got was 12.0 MB/second, which is less than one-fourth the necessary capacity to transfer just the data on that high-rate file.

‘Show Me the Trace Routes!’

So, we could clearly show that we couldn’t get it across at that rate, and if you think you know, or if anybody thinks they know, where you can do that, let us know, and we’ll try it and test it. So far, no one has pointed to any path that we can use to get that data across at that rate. The only way that transfer rate can be achieved is in a local high-speed network. And that’s basically what we said we thought it was—a local download off the high-speed network that was connected to those servers. So again, that looked like very clear proof of a transfer via physical means, either a thumb drive or a CD-ROM.

Boyd: If I were President of the United States right now, and I went to the NSA and I said, show me the proof that Russia did this, what would you be asking the NSA for?

Binney: I would ask them for the trace routes of the packets from the DNC to Russia. The NSA has embedded in hundreds and hundreds of switches all around the United States and around the world, trace route programs. That means that they can trace the routes of all the packets of any message being sent across the internet. This is one of the main reasons why I said that this whole thing, in the very beginning, is obviously a lie; because NSA never came out and said where the packets went to, or where they came from.

They can trace route packets with the Treasure Map program, the objective of which is to monitor and know where every device is in the world, all the time, every minute of the day. The whole idea with the trace route program, is you can follow the packets as they move through the network. And you can keep that as a record, and that’s what they’re doing.

All you need is just one packet from the DNC data, and in the TCP/IP format, it gives you all the addressing, where it’s going from, where it originates from, where it’s ending up. You can see how it gets through the network, you can see the timing for the different segments of the network, and so on. So I would ask them, very simply, “OK you’re saying the Russians hacked this? Where are the trace route packets, showing the packets going to the Russians?” And then again, “Where are the trace route programs showing the packets going from the Russians to WikiLeaks?” That’s what I’d say.

CC/Gates Skidmore

Sen. John McCain

---------------------------------------------

Fake Intelligence ‘Assessment’ or Truth?

Boyd: When the intelligence community announced this, in December 2016 and January 2017, the American public was told that an act of war had occurred, by Russia, against the United States. Sen. McCain said that Article 5 of NATO should be invoked, which would have caused us to go to war with Russia; that’s what’s involved in that.

Then, on top of that, they brought out this CIA Assessment in January 2017, again, with no evidence, and at the same time, you had this spurious, discredited and completely fabricated dossier, by MI6 agent Christopher Steele. Now there’s kind of a firing squad going on between the various culprits in Washington, D.C. right now as to who did this—it was either FBI Director Comey or CIA Director John Brennan—but one of them was arguing that the Steele dossier should be put verbatim into that Intelligence Assessment.

What that would have done is to tell the American people that, “we in the American intelligence community believe that Donald Trump, the President-elect, who’s about to be inaugurated, is a puppet of Putin.” In my view that’s about as close to a coup d’état as we’ve ever come in the United States.

There’s a lot more to this story than we even know, and it looks like Attorney General William Barr is going to go forward and expose it all. Our part here is to get Binney and his evidence before the American public, and the most effective way to do that is with congressional hearings, and with the Justice Department exploring it in an adversarial setting, where the people who say “Russia hacked the DNC” have to come forward and give their proof. And we can see it all come out—it’s not going to be “assessments,” it’s not going to be “we guess,” it’s not going to be “believe us.” It has to be proved, because this almost led us into total, complete world disaster.

Larry, you’ve been very prominent in sounding the alarm bells—the President tweeted about your interview, concerning the British role in all of this. What would you like to tell the President and our viewers that needs to be explored here?

UN/Manuel Elias

Samantha Power

---------------------------------------------

The Whole Thing Was Staged

Johnson: This entire effort to go after Donald Trump didn’t start initially as a targeting of just Trump. It was in fact targeting all of the political candidates that Hillary Clinton anticipated facing. What I am told, by someone who’s in a position to know, is that this initiative to enlist the British and other foreign intelligence agencies in election campaigns to produce intelligence that could be of benefit to the Clinton campaign, started in the summer of 2015, and initially it was not just against Donald Trump; it included Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, and it included Bernie Sanders. We now know, and there were reports back in 2017, for example, that [then UN Ambassador] Samantha Power was accused of having unmasked more than 260 people, affiliated with just the Trump campaign.

Now, to your average viewer, that doesn’t mean anything. Well, what does “unmasking” mean? Unmasking means that the names of 260 people appeared in either an intelligence report prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency, or an intelligence report prepared by the National Security Agency. Neither the CIA nor the NSA is permitted to name U.S. citizens by name in these reports, so they have a generic description like “Person A,” or “Subject 1,” etc.

But when you want to know their identity, you have to go through a process and fill out some paperwork, so there is a paper trail, and that process is called “unmasking,” where you take the mask, the false name put there, and reveal the true name of the person.

So when you’re talking about 260 different names unmasked, you’re talking about a lot of intelligence reports! The entire process, though, was designed to create a pretext. Because, the relationships that were being described were in fact, created by other intelligence operations.

Take the case of George Papadopoulos. The British used their own intelligence assets, one of whom is Joseph Mifsud, to make an approach to George, to offer to get George information about the Russians and dirt that they had on the Clinton campaign. George Papadopoulos is in London, at the time, when he’s getting this information. He communicates that, via an email back to the United States—well, that communication is intercepted both by the National Security Agency and by British intelligence. It’s then produced in a report, that “Subject A” in Britain communicated to “Subject B” on Candidate 1’s campaign about having dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Well, all of a sudden, that’s intelligence, that’s proof! So you can go to the FBI and say, “we’ve got intelligence that shows that there’s some smoke here, and we’ve got to investigate.” And yet, they don’t admit that the entire thing was staged! But by staging that kind of thing, you can plant information that appears to be true, even though it’s a lie. And so that’s how this thing started.

Educated Adults Believe This Crap?

And then, as the campaign progresses, from the summer of 2015, getting into late winter of 2015/early spring 2016, it became clear that Donald Trump was the frontrunner, and it was at that point that this covert action was used, involving both British and American intelligence assets, as well as U.S. law enforcement assets in the FBI, to create the impression, to feed the meme that Donald Trump was acting with, and at the behest of Vladimir Putin. That whole plot began to be unfolded in earnest in March and April of 2016.

And what we’ve also learned is that throughout this process, there were FBI informants, confidential human sources, that were being targeted against the Trump campaign. Christopher Steele, for example: We know without a doubt, that as of February 2016, perhaps even earlier, he was a fully signed-up, confidential human source for the FBI. And, as was later admitted, he was the one who alerted his FBI handler to this “nefarious activity” by the Russians that he was picking up from his intelligence sources.

We know that Felix Sater,—it was actually in the news today—was an FBI confidential human source. He was the one to propose to the Trump campaign that they go do something in Russia, build a Trump Tower in Moscow. He was the one that initiated that. It wasn’t Donald Trump Jr., it wasn’t Donald Trump, it wasn’t Ivanka Trump. None of the Trumps said, “Ya know what? We oughta do something in Moscow. Let’s get a hold of Felix and ask him to help us.” It was just the opposite.

Finally, you had a character by the name of Henry Greenberg—he’s actually got 10 different names. He was signed up 17 years ago by the FBI as a confidential human source. And he approaches, first, Michael Caputo, who then puts him in touch with Roger Stone, and offers to sell dirt on Hillary Clinton. They declined the offer.

UN/Paulo Filgueiras

Alexander Downer

---------------------------------------------

So, when you’re seeing that kind of effort by the FBI, this totally explodes the lie that the FBI is telling—that they didn’t start looking at this hard, until Alexander Downer shows up two months later. Downer is an Australian diplomat who has ties to MI6 and was a key member in a firm comprised of former MI6 officers, known as Hakluyt. Downer shows up two months after allegedly having this conversation with George Papadopoulos, to suddenly report an alarming thing that he heard two months ago. I mean, it’s so ludicrous. The fact that you have educated adults believing this crap, and repeating it, just makes you want to scratch your head and recognize that this has nothing to do with reality. This is all a contrived fantasy.

This Was a Coup Attempt!

Boyd: You said, Bill, that you told then CIA director Mike Pompeo, that both he and the President were being lied to consistently and persistently, by the intelligence community. What steps have you guys thought about, if you were going to talk to the President right now, to clean this mess up? To make sure, as the President said, that this never happens again in the United States of America?

Binney: What President Trump has to do, and what Attorney General Barr especially has to do—and I think he’s on that path—is focus on finding out who did what, when; and was it illegal? If so, he’s got to issue referrals to a grand jury to do indictments. And then we have to indict those people, put them in court, and let them tell us in open court why they did what they did. And hold them accountable. If they violated the law, they need to go to jail.

And so, from my point of view, the start is to go at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court warrants that they got against somebody in the Trump campaign. Then trace that back as to who was involved in it, all the way through to the British, MI6, and so on, to see who actually did what. What part other intelligence agencies, foreign intelligence agencies, had in helping that effort. And then trace it back to all the people in the United States government who were participating in that process.

This was a coup attempt. At a minimum it was sedition, trying to subvert the entire process of the U.S. government and the agencies of the government; and fundamentally, it was treason against the founding principles of this nation. That’s my view of it.

Thomas J. O’Halloran

President Gerald Ford

---------------------------------------------

So, he’s got to look back, he’s got to hold these people accountable; they’ve got to go to jail—if they don’t go to jail, this can always happen again! I blame this fundamentally on President Gerry Ford, because he pardoned Nixon. Nixon was about to be tried for the crimes he committed as President, and the crimes they did in Watergate and so on, the break-ins and so on. So, by pardoning him, that told every succeeding President that they had a “get out of jail free” card.

Attorney General Barr needs to keep focusing on the law, and go straight forward with factual evidence and put it together, and try these people!

Investigate & Prosecute: Who Did What, When, and Was It Legal?

Johnson: The first thing he needs to do is identify all of the intelligence that was collected and disseminated within the U.S. government, within classified channels, most of it was probably top secret, some of it was likely special access programs—and identify who originated that intelligence. Where did it come from? Did it originate with the British? Or did it originate with an NSA collection directive, or did it come from a CIA directive?

And then identify the individuals that were involved with working on those reports, putting them out, and who their chain of command and supervisors were. He needs to demand that the FBI identify all human assets and informants, that were working on political campaigns, not just against Trump, but again other campaigns. And to ask for the declassification of all what are called the FD 1023 reports, the reports where the FBI meets with the confidential human source and writes up what they talked about and what directions they were given for future action.

The same needs to be done with the Central Intelligence Agency, to identify any individuals or contractors, that are paid or enlisted and producing such information.

Those are some immediate things, and then, along with what Bill said, declassify the FISA warrant, declassify all FD-302s [FBI summary reports of information gained in interviews] that were produced; and then, as that information comes out, it’s going to expose just how corrupt the FBI and the CIA were.

Boyd: Many people voted for President Trump because they wanted an economic and political revival of the United States, and they wanted him to do what he said he was going to do, which is, drain the swamp. This is the way to do it. We have the opportunity to do it right now: Getting Bill Binney in front of the Congress, getting an adversarial testing of the Big Lie which has dominated the whole thing, is the key to waking people up.

INTERVIEW WITH GBTIMES

Zepp-LaRouche Discusses

China’s Belt and Road Initiative

Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave a video interview to GBTimes Senior Editor Asa Butcher on May 10. The Europe-based GBTimes publishes across a network of radio, TV and digital platforms to “contribute to greater understanding between China and the West,” and to act as “a bridge between China and the rest of the world.” The interview has been edited for publication in EIR.

GBTimes noted, in its introduction to the video: “While the [Belt and Road] initiative has received a mixed welcome in Europe, the Schiller Institute, a Germany-based think tank, has been an active supporter for the past several years. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the institute’s founder and president, talked to gbtimes.com about the recent [Belt and Road] forum, the growing criticism, and the importance of Italy and Switzerland joining the Belt and Road Initiative.”

GBTimes: I’m going to focus on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) today, following on from the Forum in Beijing last week. If you could describe your feelings on the outcome of that Forum.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think it was very important progress as compared to the first Belt and Road Forum. The first Forum was filled with optimism and the knowledge of all the participants that we were experiencing the birth of a new system of international relations. That was already extremely important. But I think the Second Belt and Road Forum saw a consolidation of that, so you have actually a new system of international relations which is overcoming geopolitics, and I think this is one of the most important outcomes, apart from, naturally, the enormous economic development which was presented. The idea that you have a system which has a win-win possibility for everybody to cooperate, is the way to overcome geopolitics, which after all, caused two world wars in the last century. So this is a real breakthrough for humanity.

GBTimes: There’s been a growing criticism and backlash against the BRI. Do you think this is misunderstanding, suspicion toward this new system? What are your thoughts on that?

Zepp-LaRouche: It’s actually a temporary phenomenon, because the funny thing was, here you had the largest infrastructure program in history, with enormous changes for Africa, for Latin America, for Asia, even for European countries—and the Western media and think-tanks pretended it did not exist for almost four years! And then, all of a sudden, they realized, “Oh, this is really growing so rapidly; it is including more than 100 countries.” So they started what I think was a coordinated attack, slandering the Belt and Road Initiative, with arguments which I think can all individually be proven to be a lie. It comes from the old geopolitical effort to control the world by manipulating countries against each other, and with the Belt and Road Initiative, I think that possibility is vanishing, and that’s why they’re so angry and hysterical.

The Values We Once Had

GBTimes: What could China do to reduce this demonization of the BRI?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think China is already doing a lot. For example, even Handelsblatt, which was very negative towards the Belt and Road Initiative in the past, was forced to publish an article which brought out the fact that the whole argument that China is putting countries of the third world into a “debt trap” is not holding. For example, the IMF just released figures that there are 17 African countries which may not be able to pay their debt, but China is only engaged in 3 of them, and all of the others have huge debts to the Paris Club and to other big Western banks—so, who’s putting whom into a debt trap?

All of these arguments will be very easy to counter, and the more China makes known its beautiful culture, people will be won over. Because the beauty of Chinese painting, of Classical music—it will win over the hearts. The more people understand what China is actually doing, the less these attacks will be possible to maintain.

GBTimes: China has made a dramatic entrance onto the world stage—the speed of its arrival, the size of the investments—it can scare a lot of people. Even family and friends who don’t know much about China, they want to know about my job where I’m introducing China to the West. There are a lot of a misunderstandings. Do you think some of it comes from this ignorance? And how could that be changed?

governo.it

Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte arriving in China for the 2nd Belt and Road Forum on April 26, 2019.

---------------------------------------------

Zepp-LaRouche: I have the feeling that everybody who has been in China, either as a tourist or as a business person, they all come back and have a very, very positive view. People are impressed about what they see, such as the really incredible fast train system. Then, if you go in the region of Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Guangdong, Macao, Hong Kong, this is the powerhouse of the world economy, not just the Belt and Road Initiative.

Compare that with the decrepit infrastructure in the United States or many parts of Western Europe, for example. Less than two years ago, I was in Zhuhai at a conference, and we visited this bridge between Hong Kong and Zhuhai and Macao, linking this entire triangular area. This bridge was built, I think, in six years or eight years, including planning! Now, in Germany, we have a famous bridge between Mainz and Wiesbaden, which has been in repair for almost six to eight years, and it’s still not ready!

So, I think if people go to China, they are completely impressed, because they see that in China, people have now virtues, like industriousness, ingenuity, creativity—these are all values we used to have in the West, like when the Germany economic miracle was made in the postwar reconstruction. But now, no longer. Now, we have all kinds of other crazy ideas, and therefore China is taking the lead.

Disconnect in Western Media Coverage

GBTimes: I’ve seen a disconnect between Chinese society and the role of the Chinese government, the more negative side that gets covered in the Western media. Do you think, for instance, with the BRI, this is just a way to legitimize the Chinese leadership in the world, and to raise it up to the same level that is given to the other countries? Do you think that’s acceptable?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, it is a challenge. Some of the Western institutions are saying that there is now a competition of the systems, meaning the Chinese state model and the Western free market model. In one specific sense this is true. The problem is that you have the neo-liberal system, which especially after the crisis of 2008, is only favoring monetarist interests—banks and speculators—and now the gap between the rich and the poor becomes ever wider. But during this same period in China you see a policy which is oriented toward the common good, an increasing, well-to-do middle class of 300 million people, which in 5-10 years will be 600 million people, and obviously the vector of development is upward. Naturally that is regarded as a threat by the neo-liberal establishment, which only takes care of its own privileges.

So in a certain sense, the challenge does exist, but I think there is the possibility of a learning process, so one can be hopeful that even some elements of the Western elites will recognize that China is doing something right.

GBTimes: What do you think China could learn from the Western model? And vice versa, what do you think the two could learn from one another?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think China can learn a lot from the West, but I’m afraid to say, not from the present contemporaries, or, there is very little to learn. The European Space Agency is cooperating with the Chinese space agency, and a lot of exchange is possible there, but in terms of general, cultural outlook, I think China has to go back about 200 years to find positive things in Europe, or the United States, for that matter. You know, European Classical culture can be an enormous enrichment for China—composers such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, or great poets. But these are all things which unfortunately are not dominating the cultural outlook of most Europeans and Americans today. So there has to be a dialogue across the centuries, and then both sides can profit from each other.

GBTimes: In a sense, you’re very pessimistic about the West. Do you think China is the only option available to the West at the moment?

Zepp-LaRouche: No, I’m not pessimistic, I’m just saying that some of the elites, or so-called elites, are hardened in their view. You have others who are absolutely recognizing that the whole of mankind needs to cooperate together in new ways. The President of Switzerland, who participated in the Belt and Road Forum, just signed a memorandum of understanding, not only for Switzerland, but for a whole group of Central and Eastern European countries, which Switzerland is representing in the international organizations.

Swiss Federal Chancellery

Ulrich “Ueli” Maurer, President of Switzerland.

---------------------------------------------

So there is a big motion. You have Italy signing a Memorandum of Understanding with China, on the development of Africa. Greece wants to be the gateway for trade from Asia, through the Suez Canal all the way into Europe. Portugal and Spain want to be the hub for the Portuguese and Spanish-speaking people around the world.

There are a lot of dynamics and motions. I’m just referring to some of the monetarist views and those people who talk about the “rules-based order” all the time, but what they really mean is austerity.

I’m not talking about the West in general. I’m an optimist about the potential of all human beings; I’m only talking about certain parts of the establishment in the West.

The BRI and Europe

GBTimes: You mentioned Italy and Switzerland. How significant is it that they signed up to the BRI?

Zepp-LaRouche: This is extremely important. First of all, Italy, as you know, is the third largest economy in Europe. The north of Italy is highly industrialized and has a lot of capability; many hidden champions actually are in northern Italy. If such a country is now, as the first G7 country, officially joining with a Memorandum of Understanding, this can become the model for all of Europe. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte who just participated in the Belt and Road Forum came back and said exactly that: Italy plans to be the leader in bringing about a better relation between China and Europe. I think this is extremely important.

And Switzerland, even if it may be a small country, they are independent, they are sovereign, they are not part of the European Union. And President Maurer just declared, or his spokesman, that they do not need advice from the European Union because they can make their own policy. I think this is all a new, healthy spirit of self-consciousness and self-assertion, which is very good, and can be a sign of hope for everybody else.

GBTimes: How do you see all of this impacting Europe, in both the short term, and perhaps in the longer term?

U.S. Embassy/Berlin

Peter Altmeier, German Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy.

---------------------------------------------

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, there are different learning curves: Some are quicker, others are slower. For example, the so-called four big [European] countries—that does not include Italy—did not send heads of state or government to Beijing, but only ministers: Spain, France, Germany, and Great Britain. By not sending their heads of state, they expressed their reservation, but then even the German Economic Minister Altmaier, who on the first day of the Belt and Road Forum basically said, “we have to have transparency and rules,” with the usual kind of arguments, on the next day, he said: Oh, this was much better than I expected; the Chinese are actually trying to solve problems, and I will come back in June with a large delegation of businessmen.

I find this quite good. It shows that eventually, I think, I hope, reason will prevail.

GBTimes: Some of the obstacles for Western countries are problems like Turkey refusing to participate because of the Uighur problem, and there are other issues that aren’t related to the Belt and Road that China has to overcome first.

Zepp-LaRouche: All of these problems will eventually be solved, because the key to solving any regional, ethnic, historical cultural problem is development. If people actually see the advantage of turning non-developed countries or areas into prosperous ones, into having more youth exchange, people-to-people exchange, dialogue of cultures, bringing forth the best tradition of each culture; plus, naturally, real improvement of living standards, longevity—I think then that even if not all develop with the same speed, we are at a tremendous change of an epoch of human civilization. These local and regional conflicts will eventually not be there anymore.

If I just can point to the fact of the eight radio-telescopes working together, being able to make, for the first time, images of the black hole in a galaxy which is 55 million light-years away, proving that Einstein’s theory of general relativity was actually correct—now, that, for me is the sign of the future, because this image could not have been made by one country alone. It needed telescopes sited in Chile, in Spain, in the United States, in the Antarctic, and you needed the whole world actually working together to make such a technological breakthrough possible. That that will be the kind of relationship people will have to each other in the future, and I think this is what Xi Jinping means when he says, “a shared community for the one future of humanity.” The common interest will eventually come first, and then everything else will fall into place.

The BRI Lifts All Nations

GBTimes: Another one of the criticisms is that “all roads lead back to Beijing,” rather than a multilateral approach to BRI. Do you think that is a problem?

Zepp-LaRouche: I don’t know. First of all, I think Russia has a big influence, I think the African countries are becoming much more knowledgeable and confident about their own role. There are many Africans who speak that, in the future, Africa will be the new China with African characteristics. So, I think it’s all changing very quickly, and those people who complain that there is too much Chinese influence, well, then they should bring in their active, creative contribution, and define what the new platform of humanity should be.

China has said many times, and I have every confidence that that is the case, that they’re not trying to export their social model, but that they’re just offering the experience of the incredible success of the last 40 years. They are telling developing countries, “Here, if you want to have our help in accomplishing the same thing, we are willing to provide it.” And naturally, the countries of the developing sector, which had been neglected, or even treated negatively by colonialism, by the IMF conditionalities, when they now have a concrete offer to overcome poverty and underdevelopment, why should they not take it?

All these criticisms are really badly covered efforts to hide their own motives. I really think China is doing the best thing which has happened to humanity for a very long time, and I think the Belt and Road Initiative is the only long-term plan for how to transform the world into a peaceful place. That should be applauded.

The Chinese economic model is close to the American System as developed by Alexander Hamilton. Shown here is the First National Bank of the United States in Philadelphia in 1797.

---------------------------------------------

GBTimes: Why do you think the Belt and Road Initiative is needed, when there’s the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, now? Do you think the two are mutually exclusive, or do they work together?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the Belt and Road Initiative has many financing mechanisms. You have the AIIB, you have the New Silk Road Fund, you have a lot of the Chinese banks that are doing investments. I have been advocating for a very long time, that the West should modify its own credit institutions to work on a similar principle. That would actually be very possible, because the American System of economy as it was developed by Alexander Hamilton, who created the first National Bank as an institution for issuing credit, is actually very close to what China is doing. I would even go so far as to say, that the Chinese economic model is much closer to the American System, as it was developed by Alexander Hamilton, and then revived by Lincoln, Henry C. Carey, and Franklin Roosevelt.

If the United States would say, “we create our own national bank,” and Germany, for example, would say, “we go back to the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau,” the Credit Institution for Reconstruction, then you could have a new credit system, whereby each country would have their own national bank; you would have clearing houses in between them to compensate for duration of investment, or the differences between small and large countries with lots of raw materials, or not so much—you need these clearinghouses. But you could create a new credit system, a New Bretton Woods system with fixed exchange rates, having a stability which the Western system presently does not have.

I think that the more countries go to these kinds of credit financing of projects the more stable this new system will become.

Will the U.S. Ever Join the BRI?

GBTimes: Do you think the United States will ever become part of the Belt and Road Initiative, under the Presidency of Donald Trump, or perhaps whoever is voted in next?

Zepp-LaRouche: That’s actually the big question. Will the rise of China lead the United States into a Thucydides trap, which some people have mentioned as a danger? There were in history twelve cases where a rising power overtook the dominant power and it led to war, and there were four cases where it happened in a peaceful way. Now, China, first of all, has stated that neither of these two options should occur. Instead, they have offered a great power special relationship model, based on the acceptance of the other social model’s sovereignty, non-interference. And I think Trump is more inclined to respond to such a model than the previous administrations of Obama and Bush, who had these interventionist wars in the Middle East and everywhere else for exporting their system of so-called “democracy” and human rights.

President Trump has said very clearly that he wants to have a good relationship with China. He calls President Xi Jinping his friend. I think the present trade negotiations actually, in my view, demonstrate that the United States would suffer tremendously, if they would try to decouple from the Chinese economy. They probably would suffer more than China, because China is much more capable of compensating for the losses in the trading relationship with the United States.

The reasonable way would be to say, “OK, let’s use the foreign exchange reserves of China which they have in terms of U.S. Treasuries; let’s invest them through an infrastructure bank in the United States, to help to modernize American infrastructure.” This is urgently required, because if you look at U.S. infrastructure, it’s really in a terrible condition. President Trump is talking with the leading Democrats Pelosi and Schumer on new infrastructure legislation, but the sums which are discussed, from what I have heard, are so small!

What is lacking in these discussions is a grand design, where you would take the approach China has taken for the modernization of infrastructure—to have fast train systems among all the major cities, to have slow-speed maglev trains for intra-urban transport. You could take that same approach and modernize the entire infrastructure of the United States. And, in turn, if U.S. companies would integrate more into the projects of the Belt and Road around the world, it would be beneficial for everyone. Some American companies are already doing that, like Caterpillar, General Electric, and Honeywell.

Hopefully it will happen that way, because if not, I think a clash between the two largest economies would be a catastrophe for the whole world: So, let’s hope that the forces of good will all work together to get to this positive end.

The Role of the Schiller Institute

GBTimes: Let’s talk about the Schiller Institute itself. What is your day-to-day role in the promotion of the Belt and Road Initiative? How do you work to support it?

Zepp-LaRouche: This all goes back to the life’s work of my husband, who died recently, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, who spent the last 50 years working on very concrete development projects. The first such project we presented in 1976 in Paris. This was a comprehensive plan for the infrastructure development of all of Africa. Then we worked together with the President of Mexico, José López Portillo, on a Latin American development plan—this was in 1982. We worked with Indira Gandhi on a 40-year development plan, and also in the beginning of the 1980s, we developed a 50-year development plan for the Pacific Basin. Then, when the Berlin Wall came down, and the Soviet Union disintegrated, we proposed to connect the European and Asian population and industrial centers through development corridors, and we called that the Eurasian Land-Bridge.

So we have been engaged in these kinds of big projects for the transformation of the world economy for decades, and naturally, we proposed it to China in the beginning of the 1990s. I attended a big conference in 1996 in Beijing, which had the title, “The Development of the Regions along the Eurasian Land-Bridge.” And China, at that time, declared the building of the Eurasian Land-Bridge to be its long-term strategic aim by 2010. Then came the Asia crisis in 1997, so the whole thing got interrupted.

We were very happy when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in 2013, because, in the meantime, we had kept working for this. We had many conferences, actually hundreds of conferences and seminars all over the world. We are very happy that now, what was only planning on our side is now being realized by the second largest economy in the world, and therefore, it becomes reality.

The Great Change Is Now

The New Silk Road, or the Belt and Road Initiative, it’s not just about economics and infrastructure. Equally important, if not more important in my view, is the cultural side of it—that it could lead and will hopefully lead to an exchange of the best traditions of all cultures of this world. And by reviving the best traditions, like Confucianism in China, Beethoven and Schiller in Germany, Verdi in Italy, and so forth, this will ennoble the souls of the people, and I think that that is the most important question right now, because I agree with Friedrich Schiller, for whom this institute is named, that any improvement in the political realm can only come from the moral improvement of the people.

Therefore, it is very interesting to me that President Xi Jinping has emphasized aesthetical education as extremely important, because the goal of this is the beautiful mind of the pupil, of the student.

Public Domain

Cai Yuanpei (1868-1940), President of Peking University and founder of the Academia Sinica.

---------------------------------------------

That is exactly what Friedrich Schiller said, who in the response to the Jacobin Terror in the French Revolution, wrote his Aesthetical Letters, in which he develops his aesthetical theory, which I find is in great coherence with what Xi Jinping is saying. The first education minister of the Chinese Republic studied in Germany, and he studied Schiller and Humboldt. His name was Cai Yuanpei. He was the first president of Beijing University, and I think there is a great affinity between the idea of aesthetical education as it is discussed by Xi Jinping and as it exists in the Schiller-Humboldt tradition in Germany. I would just hope that that kind of a dialogue could be intensified, because then a lot of the prejudices and insecurities about the other culture would disappear, and you would bring back and bring forth the best of all sides.

GBTimes: Do you have any closing words on the Belt and Road you’d like to share with our readers?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think we are probably the generation on whom later generations will look back, and say, “Oh! This was really a fascinating time, because it was a change from one epoch to another one.” I have an image of that. This change that we are experiencing right now is probably going to be bigger than the change in Europe between the Middle Ages and modern times. In the Middle Ages you had people believing in a whole bunch of axioms—scholasticism, Aristotelianism, witchcraft—all kinds of strange beliefs—and then, because of the influx of such thinkers as Nicholas of Cusa, or the Italian Renaissance, the modern image of man, of science and technology, of the sovereign nation-state, all these changes happened, and they created a completely different view of the image of man, nature, and the universe.

I think we are in front, or the middle, of such an epochal change, where the next era of mankind will be much, much more creative than the present one, and that’s something to look forward to, because we can actually shape it, and we can bring our own creative input into it. There are not many periods in history when that is the case: So we are actually lucky.

II. LaRouche’s Curriculum for Presidents

So You Wish To Educate the President?

LaRouche’s Unfinished War for a

New World Economic Order

by Dennis Small

The following is an edited transcription of a class delivered by the author to a LaRouche PAC audience in New York City on May 4, 2019.

This class is part of a six-part class series, which is an integral part of our drive towards the Memorial for Lyndon LaRouche, which will be held on June 8th, and of our ongoing campaign for the exoneration of LaRouche. The connection is fairly straightforward. Exoneration, in fact, means to free up the population of the United States and the world to be able to consider for themselves, and judge and analyze the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche. Justice for the man, as we have said, means justice for his ideas; and that’s what exoneration means.

The London Times, the voice as close to the heart of the enemy as one can imagine, being a spokesman for the British Empire, got around to writing about Mr. LaRouche six weeks after he passed away. I think that was for a variety of reasons. First, they were hoping that LaRouche’s ideas and his movement would have disappeared and that they wouldn’t have to be burdened with the obligation of having to write something to once again slander him and tell people why they shouldn’t pay any attention whatsoever to this extremely unimportant man who threatened their very existence. But I think the timing was also dictated in part by developments at that time inside the United States around President Trump and the fact that the whole Mueller-gate or Russia-gate scam was falling apart.

The British know very well that the issue of the thinking around LaRouche’s ideas, especially as it relates to the Presidency of the United States, is a matter of existential concern for them. It’s a matter of life and death, with the United States as part of a global concert of forces which jointly is capable of destroying the British Empire. Not separately; not even the United States alone can do that, as LaRouche made this point himself repeatedly.

So, what the London Times wrote, six weeks after the fact, was:

LaRouche’s influence, such as it was, peaked during the first half of the 1980s after Ronald Reagan moved into the White House. LaRouche [became] . . . a vociferous supporter of the President’s Star Wars defense program. . . . In 1982 he secured a meeting with Mexico’s president, José López Portillo, although López Portillo apparently believed LaRouche represented the Democratic Party.

EIRNS/Ruben Cota Meza

Ex-President of Mexico, López Portillo with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics in Mexico City on December 1, 1998: “I congratulate Doña Helga for showing me the staircase . . . to the promised land.... It is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche.”

---------------------------------------------

The London Times Was Not Amused

Now, it’s very interesting that the Times chose to mention those two supposed highlights of LaRouche’s influence in the world. They’re looking at the present situation through the eyes of what nearly happened to them back then, when LaRouche nearly succeeded on these two inter-related issues—the SDI issue and the New World Economic Order issue—both of which centered on LaRouche’s relationship, not just with López Portillo, but also with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of India, and emphatically, President Ronald Reagan of the United States.

In a document he wrote on February 15, 2000 [reprinted in this issue of EIR—ed.] about the reasons he was incarcerated, called “He’s a Bad Guy, But We Can’t Say Why,” LaRouche wrote the following:

There were five publicly well-known issues behind [Henry] Kissinger’s personal motives for targeting me for Justice Department dirty operations. . . . First, was the continuing political controversy between Kissinger and me over the issue of urgent reforms in the post-1971 international monetary system. . . . Second, was my launching of a public campaign, in February 1982, to overturn Kissinger’s arms-control policies . . . which led to the March 23, 1983 announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) proposal to the Soviet government, by President Ronald Reagan. . . . The fifth issue was my authorship of a special report, Operation Juárez.

Now, what’s the deal with LaRouche and López Portillo and Operation Juárez? Well, the two men met on May 27, 1982. Lyndon LaRouche met with then-sitting President José López Portillo on May 27, 1982 in the Presidential palace in Mexico, Los Pinos. What LaRouche laid out to him in that meeting was a political scenario and economic scenario and a philosophical outlook, in which LaRouche talked about the fact that a Dark Age was coming unless certain global policies were reversed. He urged López Portillo’s government, then under attack by Wall Street and the City of London, to join with other countries in Ibero-America to form a debtors’ cartel, or a debt club, to use the “debt bomb” to sink the British Empire. He urged López Portillo to take protective measures for the Mexican economy, such as establishing exchange controls, and to defend the peso in that way by not allowing free convertibility of the peso to the dollar. And he went on to say that the banks would have be nationalized in Mexico, because otherwise they were in the hands of the same Wall Street and City of London enemies of Mexico. And he then laid out a perspective of the kind of great development projects in Mexico and among other allied nations of the area needed to build their way out of the economic crisis.

López Portillo Shocked the World

Now that was May 27, 1982. On Sept. 1, 1982, in his annual State of the Union address, José López Portillo nationalized the banks. The way he did it was, there were only four or five people in his entire government who knew he was going to do that, which we were told afterwards—we weren’t among those four or five people, but we were working very closely with one or two of those who were. López Portillo told them that he decided to do it. He sat down with them to implement it. The night before, he deployed the Mexican Army to take control of the banks; because he knew that this was a war measure that had to be implemented.

EIRNS/Philip Ulanowsky

Mexican President José López Portillo speaking to the UN General Assembly in New York City, October 1, 1982.

---------------------------------------------

That was Sept. 1st. On Oct. 1st, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, José López Portillo gave a speech which was probably as close as we have come, until current developments around the Belt and Road Initiative, to actually establishing a New World Economic Order. What a number of people told us afterwards was, “Oh my God! That was the ghost of Lyndon LaRouche speaking before the United Nations General Assembly.” You’ll see why shortly.

The relationship between LaRouche and López Portillo did not end there. This is the López Portillo who, as the London Times would have it, didn’t really know whom he was meeting with, of course! Years later, after he was out of the Presidency, as an ex-President, on Sept. 17, 1998, López Portillo gave an interview to EIR magazine in which he talked about his relationship with Lyndon LaRouche and how that had come about. He said:

As President, I had a relationship with Mr. L.H. LaRouche of respect for his solidly independent and tenacious ideological position, which I share in large measure, largely because of the adherence he had achieved from a group of young Mexicans, whom I equally respect and admire, who even had to endure accusations of belonging to the CIA, which turned out to be false.

What López Portillo is saying is that he started paying attention to LaRouche’s ideas because LaRouche had a youth movement. LaRouche was recruiting the best and the most nationalist and the most world citizens of Mexico’s brightest minds; and he was recruiting them to his ideas. López Portillo, after getting angry at first—which he did—said: “What the hell is going on here? Who is this guy who’s recruiting my best youth?” So, first lesson: If you wish to educate a President, build a youth movement.

LaRouche for President

That wasn’t the end, by any means, of the relationship between LaRouche and López Portillo. In December 1999, López Portillo actually endorsed Lyndon LaRouche for President of the United States:

In the battle for such a [New World Economic] Order, I would like to recognize the tireless and generous efforts carried out by Lyndon H. LaRouche, for whom I hope for the best as a pre-candidate for the Presidency of the U.S.A. I wish that his voice be listened to and followed by those in the world who have the grave responsibility of stopping this situation from continuing on its calamitous course, and I hope that his fellow U.S. citizens, who will elect their President in the coming elections, will give him their timely recognition and support.

I don’t know of any other case of an ex-President or an ex-Prime Minister—and there were many whom Lyn and Helga met, endorsing Lyndon LaRouche for President in that explicit way.

But then there was something additional; which was that on December 1, 1998, a little before López Portillo made the above statement, he actually met and spoke in public with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Lyn was unable to travel at that time, but Helga certainly did; and she spoke at a public event in Mexico City with the ex-President of Mexico—who, incidentally, hardly ever spoke in public at all, anywhere, for any reason. But he agreed to come out to do that, and spoke publicly along with Helga. López Portillo said:

I congratulate Doña Helga for these words which impressed me especially because first, they trapped me in the apocalypse, but then she showed me the staircase by which we can get to a promised land. Many thanks, Doña Helga. . . . and it is now necessary for the world to listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche. Now it is through the voice of his wife, as we have had the privilege of hearing.

This type of relationship and demonstration of support for LaRouche’s ideas may strike us today as being quite extraordinary. But it really should not be.

This is what would be happening planet-wide were it not for the railroad of Lyndon LaRouche and a few others of us who went along for the ride. This was done to try to get LaRouche out of the way, get his ideas out of the way; and the fact that a cloud was hung around him and his ideas—it’s more than that, it was a straitjacket put around the minds of the population so that they would not be allowed to think the way López Portillo did think.

A Grand Design

We’re now going to look at the way LaRouche had a grand design, a strategic grand design that he was working on. This involved not just López Portillo; it also involved Indira Gandhi, and it also involved Ronald Reagan. It was a grand design LaRouche was orchestrating, not simply a relationship among those people and himself, with these three as heads of state, who therefore had certain powers in the existing political world. He was organizing and orchestrating this as it was intersecting a developing physical economic crisis, a strategic crisis that was going on at that time.

And he was going about it with the most advanced ideas imaginable.

What I’m going to use to give you an insight into the way LaRouche was thinking about the strategic situation, are three documents—a kind of trilogy of fundamental writings of Lyndon LaRouche from this period. The first, dated July 26, 1981, is called “The Principles of Statecraft for Defining a New North-South Order.” The second, written June 13, 1982, is “A Conceptual Outline of Modern Economic Science.” The last one, from August 1982, is Operation Juárez. Mind you, what I’m going to describe is only one part of the world where Lyn was acting. This story can and should be told for Africa, for the Middle East, for Asia, and so on. This is part of the history of the last 50 years of LaRouche’s ideas, which is what we have to use to define the Earth’s next 50 years.

I. The Paddock Plan

Let’s begin by setting the stage for what was going on politically at the time of this major intervention of LaRouche’s. There was a paradigm shift in the United States and globally, after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. This was a paradigm shift away from an orientation towards physical economic growth, and towards Malthusianism, towards environmentalism, towards the idea that you cannot continue to have ongoing economic growth.

Two of the earliest organized spokesmen for this outlook were two brothers by the name of Paul and William Paddock. Paul Paddock was a State Department hack, who was deployed to Mexico, interestingly enough, during the 1930s and 1940s. His brother William became a little bit better known; he was an agronomist tied into the Rockefeller crowd. In 1967, Paul and William Paddock wrote a book called Famine: 1975! What that book said is that the world is running out of food; the population is growing too rapidly; and we’re going to have famine in eight years, by 1975. The message is: Everybody tighten your belts. Anyone who wants to volunteer for suicide, line up on the right; and those who want to volunteer for being murdered, line up on the left. That way, we’ll deal with the problem of lack of sufficient food.

Then in 1968, this thesis was popularized in a book by Paul Ehrlich called The Population Bomb. His argument is: “Many apparently brutal and heartless decisions will have to be made,” to deal with the so-called overpopulation problem.

Shortly after that, in 1969, the Club of Rome was founded, which published a book written by Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester called The Limits to Growth. It said what its title indicates: You cannot keep growing, so you better figure out how to cut back. Otherwise, you are going to use up all the planet’s resources.

Then, in 1975, William Paddock went on a public campaign to argue in favor of what this Malthusian approach meant for Third World countries and their populations: Just kill ’em off. Paddock said: “The Mexican population must be reduced by half.” Asked how to do that, he stated: “Seal the border and watch them scream.” Asked how population would fall so drastically, he confided: “By the usual means—famine, war, and pestilence.”

Paddock, mind you, was among the people guiding policy for the likes of Wall Street banker and State Department insider George Ball, and others, in and around the Carter Administration.

USAID/Ben Zinne

Norman Borlaug, in 2004.

FIGURE 1

---------------------------------------------

Ironically, directly contradicting all these Malthusian arguments, Norman Borlaug, the American agronomist who received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his incredible work in developing strains of wheat, potatoes, and rice, was working largely in Mexico (also in India). He developed yields in wheat which in themselves completely dispel and destroy all of these Malthusian arguments. As Figure 1 shows, there was a four-fold increase in yield in Mexico, India and Pakistan from 1950-2000, as a result of Borlaug’s “Green Revolution.” It is estimated that a billion people who otherwise would have died, were able to be fed. A billion!

This is the stage onto which LaRouche jumped into action. In 1975, Lyndon LaRouche was invited to Iraq by the Ba’ath Party, and upon his return he presented a study on how to reorganize the world financial system, called How the International Development Bank Will Work. Then in 1976, with Carter in the Presidency totally implementing the Malthusian policies which I have just described, LaRouche acted. He went on national TV as part of his Presidential campaign, and on November 1 he delivered a half-hour TV address which had an estimated viewership of 20 million people in the United States. What LaRouche did was, he took off the gloves against Paddock, against the Malthusians like George Ball. He charged that Ball was proposing to reduce our neighbor’s population “by the methods used by Hitler in eliminating six million Jews, Slavs, and others in Europe during the war; by a forced, labor-intensive, slave labor system in which those who are no longer suitable for this process of slave labor will be allowed to die.”

In 1978, the Malthusian genocidalists memorialized their policy in a document of the United States government called Presidential Review Memorandum 41, Review of U.S. Policies Toward Mexico, dated August 14, 1978. It was prepared by Zbigniew Brzezinski as National Security Advisor. This was, and remains, a secret document, but from media leaks we know that PRM-41 pushed Brzezinski’s oft-repeated line that “we will not tolerate another Japan south of the border,” i.e., no advanced industrial development for Mexico, and that options to “seal the border” were under review—the Paddock Plan.

II. The Oil Giant Next Door

What happened next is that José López Portillo entered the Mexican Presidency on December 1, 1976 and his term ended six years later in 1982. Once in office, he quickly moved against IMF policies that he had previously supported as Finance Minister. And then on November 10, 1978, he made an announcement that shocked the world: He said that Mexico had just found oil which increased its oil reserves from 200 billion barrels to 380 billion barrels, almost a doubling in one announcement, thus making Mexico potentially the largest oil producer in the world. He also said that Mexico would “sow” its oil in order to “harvest” industrial and technological growth. We are going to use oil revenues, we are going to develop a capital goods industry, we are going to build infrastructure, and especially we are going to build 20 nuclear plants in Mexico by the year 2000 which will produce 70% of Mexico’s electricity, López Portillo announced.

Almost the second LaRouche heard about this, he jumped on the situation and acted. He saw something that I don’t know that anybody else saw. I can speak for myself and say that I certainly didn’t see what he saw. But I do remember that I briefed him on this over the telephone at the time the news was reported, noting that it was an amazing announcement. And on the spot he said, “No! It’s bigger than that. Here is what we’re going do.” And he then laid out an entire idea, a full strategic perspective, which he may well have developed before he even knew of the oil finds, for all I knew.

Immediately, LaRouche said: Mexico is the oil giant next door. This is now the basis for establishing a model “North-South” relationship. We’re going to go all out with this idea of oil for technology. This is the way the United States will get out of this crisis. This is the way we destroy Malthusianism. This is the way we take over the Presidency of the United States, for the right policies.

And so, on Nov. 28, 1978, we published an EIR cover feature, “The Oil Giant Next Door,” which laid out LaRouche’s policy. By March 9, 1979, LaRouche was down in Mexico—his first of many visits to Mexico—invited for the celebration of the founding of the governing PRI party. What LaRouche presented publicly in Mexico was that the current policy in the United States of Jimmy Carter was a policy of genocide, and that this had to be changed. He said the United States had to support what the Mexican President was doing and go for this oil-for-technology type of approach.

National TV Address

After that visit to Mexico, LaRouche returned to the United States, and three weeks later, on March 20, he gave another nationally televised TV address in which he laid out this policy of exchanging oil for technology, and said Mexico was a potential $100 billion market for U.S. capital goods exports:

This means for the United States a potential of billions of dollars a year in new high-technology capital goods exports. But our government to date has refused to accept the Mexican offer. In fact, some representatives of our government have threatened the government of Mexico with destabilizing the country, and have held up the example of Iran, saying: . . . We want to keep you poor. We want to keep you backward. We want your oil, but we don’t want to permit you to use your oil sales as a way of developing your agriculture, of developing your own industry. That is the Brzezinski policy. That is the Schlesinger policy. That is the Carter policy.

As you can well imagine, this was listened to, and listened to very carefully, in Mexico, and in fact, in every country around the world who heard this coming from the United States—and heard the voice of George Washington, the voice of Abraham Lincoln, the voice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

On July 10th, LaRouche introduced a whole new flank into this developing situation. He figured that the City of London and Wall Street would come up with a way to deal with the Mexico-U.S. question if he stuck only to that. So, in comes the voice of India—or, if you prefer, the voice of LaRouche through India.

EIR interviewed Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on July 10, 1979, and then did another interview with her a little less than a year later on June 5, 1980. In the first interview, what Gandhi laid out was the following:

The fact that in a country like India, without industry, you cannot have agriculture. And without industry, you cannot face the competition in the world or really remain truly independent, you are not economically independent, so you can’t be politically independent. . . . I believe very strongly in modernizing the country. . . . What it really needs is for the whole country to have a more scientific and rational outlook.

So, all of sudden the British had to contend not just with Mexico, not just with the United States, but something coming in from a side that they didn’t expect, from India.

That was 1980. We still had Carter in the White House. He was not exactly open to these ideas from LaRouche. But Ronald Reagan was elected President in November 1980, and he was.

III. Memo to Reagan

Reagan was not perfect: he did not understand the whole strategic picture, by any means. But he had had, in the period of his campaign, early contact with representatives of the LaRouche movement. And in fact, Reagan sat next to LaRouche on the dais at a 1980 candidates’ debate in Concord, New Hampshire, and they had the opportunity for a brief exchange.

So again, LaRouche acted. He moved on a situation where others did not see the potential, but he did. On Dec. 18, within weeks of Reagan’s election, and before the president was inaugurated, LaRouche wrote a private memorandum to Ronald Reagan and to his closest advisors where he laid out his idea for Reagan:

Forging an “oil for technology” partnership with Mexico is only the first step in linking the advanced sector and the underdeveloped nations in a policy of global industrialization. Such a principled U.S.-Mexican accord would set a precedent which virtually every developing nation will want to replicate. . . . The crisis-wracked Central American region could be stabilized in the only way possible—by U.S.-Mexican collaboration to set in motion economic development projects in the region.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche (left) and Ronald Reagan confer at a candidates’ forum in Concord, New Hampshire during the 1980 Presidential Campaign.

---------------------------------------------

Then on Jan. 5, less than three weeks later, a meeting was held between Mexican President López Portillo and U.S. President-elect Ronald Reagan. As was traditional at the time, the two heads of state met on the border. We learned from people inside the Mexican government and people inside the Reagan camp, that the two heads of state talked about the need for establishing between them the principles of broader North-South cooperation. And in particular, López Portillo offered to Reagan the idea of pulling India on board to this project as a way of broadening the coalition, but also as a way of providing a solution to the international crisis which did not involve the kind of Jacobin radicalism of the Cubans, that otherwise had appeal in the South—and which the British themselves had orchestrated from the outset. That is what was proposed, and that is what the two leaders agreed upon.

On Jan. 19, two weeks later, López Portillo travelled to India for a previously scheduled state visit. And once again, LaRouche acted. We didn’t just hope for the best for what might happen there. Rather, LaRouche commissioned the publication of a special report by EIR, which was called “The India that José López Portillo Will Find,” that laid out the shared interest of the two countries in the industrial development of nations of the South, and the basis for a radical reform of the world financial system. We published it in English and in Spanish, before the trip, in time to get out both in India and to the entire Mexican government before they left for India.

Mexico’s India Outreach

That report was then handed out by the Mexican government to all the media traveling with them to India, and it then served as the basis for virtually all the press coverage coming from the Mexican media about that trip.

With this LaRouche orchestration going on in the wings, López Portillo toured India’s advanced scientific and especially nuclear capabilities, and what he told the press there was this: “[We need] the creation of a financial system that will allow real transfer of resources and technology to developing countries.” And he added: “We are very optimistic at the attitude of friendship and respect expressed by Reagan towards Mexico.”

Presidencia de la republica

President López Portillo on January 9, 1980 in Mexico City. Three days later, he meets with President Ronald Reagan, proposing broader North-South cooperation, and proposes bringing India on board to broaden the coalition.

---------------------------------------------

So what was starting to come together was a combination that was working—against the British Empire’s policy of Malthusianism and financial looting—among the United States Presidency, and two of the leading forces in the South, the governments of Mexico and India, all of whom were in dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche, who was providing the idea-content for the only way this political and economic war strategy could work. Any resemblance to current events is purely intentional.

After this López Portillo trip to India, LaRouche again went down to Mexico, and was invited to speak to the prestigious Monterrey Institute of Technology. And the speech he gave there on March 9 made direct reference to the upcoming heads of state meeting that Reagan and López Portillo had scheduled for April 27:

Shaping the outcome of the upcoming Reagan-López Portillo summit is precisely one of my objectives in coming here. An oil-for-technology agreement between the U.S. and Mexico would represent in principle the model for a new economic order in North-South relations. . . . There would be a change in the global strategic geometry resulting chain-reaction fashion from the establishment of such a relationship.

Once back in the U.S., he repeated the same point to an all-day EIR seminar in Washington, D.C., which was attended by prominent figures around the Reagan administration, diplomats and others.

President Reagan Was Shot

The British got the memo—and on March 30th, Ronald Reagan was shot. He was meant to be assassinated, but fortunately he survived. One thing that it definitely accomplished, is that it postponed the planned summit meeting between Ronald Reagan and José López Portillo that was scheduled to occur on April 27.

What else happened on April 27th? An attempted assassination of Indira Gandhi failed on that day, when a plot to sabotage her plane was caught in time. They managed to assassinate her years later; and although they didn’t kill López Portillo, they did engage in vicious character assassination to try to destroy his legacy, as of course, they did with Lyndon LaRouche.

Now, here’s where we get into the meat of the issue. How did LaRouche address this strategic process? He presented to all sides the most advanced concepts required to actually forge, to cement, a lasting, working, new world economic order. He was going to destroy the British Empire, and you’re not going to do that, unless you actually understand the underlying issues.

IV. The Road to Cancún

On June 2, 1981, LaRouche had the opportunity to meet with John Gavin, who had just been named by Reagan as Ambassador to Mexico. Gavin was a personal friend of Reagan’s; people may have heard that Reagan worked through his “kitchen cabinet,” people who were close to him. He really didn’t like the Eastern liberal Establishment, the inside-the-Beltway people. He tried to govern without them as best he could; they kept throwing people into his cabinet, and he kept throwing them out. They tried to get Kissinger in from the very beginning, but Reagan wouldn’t have Kissinger until he was pressured and forced to do so in 1983, with the express purpose of countering LaRouche’s influence in Washington.

John Gavin was an interesting fellow. His mother was Mexican, so he was fluent in Spanish. And he was a Hollywood actor—like Reagan. Before he went to Mexico to take up his assignment, Gavin had a lengthy sit-down with LaRouche for two-three hours to discuss the situation.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Mexican President López Portillo is welcomed to Washington, D.C. on June 9, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan for a bilateral summit.

---------------------------------------------

What happened after that, on June 8, is that Ronald Reagan and José López Portillo finally did have their summit meeting, in Washington, D.C. on June 8. The British had tried to kill Reagan, but it didn’t work. They tried, but failed, to stop the summit.

At the same time that LaRouche was working on the Mexico-India-U.S. economic angle, he had also presented his policy for global strategic cooperation of the United States and Soviet Union, a policy which later became known as Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). That, however, is the subject of another class; but it actually runs parallel to this. I would argue that the SDI and this North-South policy, which later was discussed in LaRouche’s Operation Juárez paper, are actually the same underlying policy: the SDI and Operation Juárez are, in essence, the same policy.

The Reagan-López Portillo summit was held in Washington, D.C., and what López Portillo proposed to Reagan was the idea of holding the first ever North-South meeting, to discuss a solution to the global economic crisis. López Portillo offered to host the event in Cancún, Mexico. Ronald Reagan accepted.

The toasts that the two heads of state made to each other at their Washington summit are quite interesting. López Portillo’s said: “Ours is the most significant relationship between the North and the South. I believe that in Cancún, we shall have the ability to say that it is possible, we have discussed the philosophy and theory of economic development.”

White House/Mary Anne Fackelman

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico John Gavin (center left), with First Ladies Paloma Cordero of Mexico (left) and Nancy Reagan of the United States, surveying the damage done by the 1985 Mexico City earthquake.

---------------------------------------------

Reagan and López Portillo

Ronald Reagan’s toast to López Portillo included: “We need to strengthen the economies of the lesser developed nations to bring about social and economic developments of their peoples.”

Again, Wall Street and the City of London got the message. They launched all-out economic warfare on Mexico. Interest rates were raised to 22%; Mexico’s foreign debt became absolutely unpayable (talk about a “debt trap”); there was massive capital flight leaving the country. López Portillo responded with a famous speech for which he was later ridiculed—a lot like the way President Trump today gets ridiculed for some of the more insightful things he says. López Portillo denounced the existence of “an international conspiracy” to destroy the Mexican economy, by stampeding massive capital flight out of the country. He stated he would not submit to the blackmail, and that would “fight like a dog to maintain a stable peso.”

Lyndon LaRouche intervened, writing an article outlining the necessary defensive steps that Mexico had to take:

The actions of the Federal Reserve leave nations wishing to avoid the looming new depression no alternative but to institute exchange controls . . . Therefore, nations which choose not to join Federal Reserve Chairman Paul A. Volcker’s pack of Friedmanite lemmings over the cliff, are obliged to take virtual economic-warfare measures to defend their nations from the consequences of Federal Reserve System madness . . . Exchange controls . . . permit nations to provide credit at lower borrowing costs, probably between 6 and 8 percent, for essential domestic borrowing, but to ensure that funds borrowed in this way do not flow out, directly or indirectly, to high-priced money markets such as those of London or New York City.

Granted, such procedures incur bureaucratic measures. It requires that no money transfers can leave a nation in excess of small personal amounts, except that that transfer bear a number identifying a license for such transfer. . . . It requires that all incoming deposits be registered and controlled. . . . To make such controls efficient, various degrees of painful penalties, including substantial presumptive prison sentences and fines, are imposed for violators. . . . There is no other choice. Bureaucratic, painful, “repressive,” or not, such measures are demanded under the conditions created by the madmen of the Fed.

To make clear the needed positive—rather than merely defensive—measures, LaRouche wrote a document on July 26th, 1981, called “The Principles of Statecraft for Defining a New ‘North-South’ Order.” His foreword stated his intention: “This report has been prepared chiefly to provide needed background knowledge for members and advisors of governments participating in the scheduled October 1981 ‘North-South’ conference in Cancún, Mexico.”

His conclusion of the document was a program to be adopted by the 22 heads of state meeting in Cancún. It was a detailed program of action: Hamiltonian economics, the American System, exchange controls, debtors’ cartel, joint development.

Cancún North-South Conference

The other 70 pages were filled with an in-depth conceptual discussion addressed to the 22 heads of state and their advisers who met in Cancún, including López Portillo, Indira Gandhi, Ronald Reagan, Chadli Bendjedid of Algeria, Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines), Zhao Zhiyang (China), Forbes Burnham (Guyana), Margaret Thatcher (United Kingdom), François Mitterrand (France), and others.

He first presented one of the central concepts of his breakthrough in physical economy:

The relative power of a culture to provide the development of its individual members is delimited by what we shall explain as its potential relative population-density. . . . If the population exceeds the potential relative population-density of such a fixed culture, there must be periodic genocidal catastrophes resulting from refusal to change the culture from a “traditional mode.”

He then turned to discuss the moral basis of economic science:

Let us now embark upon what may be to some the most exciting mental excursion of exploration they have experienced to date. Let us show not only from whence economic science actually originates, a far different origin than they might have presumed, but show also that a scientific knowledge is efficiently and usefully subsumed by the authority of an economic science defined in this way.

The beginning of morality for any person is a reflection upon the certainty that his or her life is but an ephemeral moment of mortal existence, a tiny speck in the width and duration of even the course of human existence, and smaller yet with respect to the universe as a whole. . . .

To impart to an ephemeral, mortal existence some worth beyond the grave, it is indispensable that the practical consequences of that life’s self-development and practice be efficient in a width and duration of existence far extended beyond the width and duration of that mortal existence in and of itself. There must be a shift in the individual’s definition of self-interest, away from the infantile, hedonistic standards of gratification of the individual mortal self, to a self-interested defense of the higher worth of the individual life, the defense of the good which that life leaves behind it.

Each act by the individual is an act upon a lawfully ordered universe. That universe, by virtue of its lawful composition, reacts to the action upon it, generating ripples of consequence throughout the width and duration of present and time to come. Each act is defined not merely by its most immediate and narrowly defined consequences. Each act generates a long chain of successive consequences, in the same sense as laws enacted by legislatures, or by the shaping of a nation’s character for a period by election of a prince, a president, or a prime minister. Each act is characterized, therefore, by an associated generative principle, a principle which, as a notion, defines the ordered succession of chain-reaction ripples extended outward from the action itself. Each act by an individual is in that way akin to the act of a legislature, in that it “legislates” a definite chain of consequences. The character of that chain of consequences, in respect to the cumulative effects in width and duration of present and time to come, is the true character of the individual action.

An Immortal Purpose

Keep in mind the individual actions taken by Lyndon LaRouche at specific points in this unfolding, global strategic grand design. This, he stated, is the moral basis for the development of economic science.

The Cancún summit was held on Oct. 5th. They did not come to any resolution. No final communiqué was issued. Following it, the financial warfare against Mexico continued, and escalated dramatically in early 1982. There was huge capital flight, $64 billion was sucked out of the country within weeks; and the government of López Portillo had to implement a 28% devaluation. In March 1982, Lyndon LaRouche issued a warning to Mexico and Mexicans about this, which proved truly prescient:

With the developments of recent weeks, all the preconditions for a 1983 destruction of the Republic of Mexico have been successfully emplaced. . . . What must be tested is whether the institutional system of Mexico, centered in the election-reform-undermined PRI, still has the subjective capacity to undertake the kind of leadership required?. . . . My warning and recommendations have been correct on every critical point. . . . Monstrous strategic crises [are] now scheduled to begin to erupt by no later than the April-May period of this present year.

On April 2, the British triggered a war with Argentina over the Malvinas Islands. This had nothing to do with Argentina, or the Malvinas, per se; it was to establish—as LaRouche, and LaRouche alone, said at the time—the precedent for NATO out-of-area deployments to collect debt. At that point, through LaRouche’s intervention, we came very close to getting the Reagan Administration, on the basis of the Monroe Doctrine, to throw the British out of our hemisphere and allow a sovereign nation-state to defend itself. Unfortunately, LaRouche’s ideas, although very much considered by Reagan, did not prevail, and those of then Secretary of State Al Haig and others did.

PTI/Courtesy DPR Defence

In April 1982, Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met for the first time with Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India. Shown here, Indira Gandhi with folk dancers during Republic Day, 1968.

---------------------------------------------

Indira Gandhi

Later that month, on April 23, LaRouche acted again, traveling to India where he met with Indira Gandhi. This was his and his wife Helga’s first of two meetings with Gandhi, and he gave a very important speech there on North-South relations. One month later, the LaRouches traveled to Mexico, where they met with López Portillo on May 27. In other words, LaRouche met with the heads of state of India and Mexico within a period of a month, to discuss how to replace the bankrupt international financial system with a just New World Economic Order.

After his 40-minute meeting with the Mexican President, LaRouche was invited to address the gathered media at the Presidential palace, where he told them:

Were Mexico to collapse, the next country to be destroyed would be mine. . . . [This is] a problem which cannot be resolved by each nation alone, but requires that there be a unity among all, providing external support from those countries who are friends. . . . This alliance should also embrace India, the countries of Europe, and the non-aligned, since only a bloc of forces of that size could succeed.

LaRouche acted again, and on June 13, scarcely two weeks after meeting with López Portillo, he wrote a document called, “A Conceptual Outline of Modern Economic Science.” I want to emphasize that LaRouche was not only a profound writer, he was not only a prolific writer, he was also a fast writer. He would often write his documents, two, three, four, five, six times over again, till he got them right. His concentration span was unbelievable. And I think that is because he was a man on a mission, who knew what he had to do. He had the sense of identity which he described in his Principles of Statecraft piece: You have to view yourself, your mortality as a mere speck in the universe; but your actual existence is as someone that is unleashing a chain of events that is affecting the entirety of the universe after you.

LaRouche’s Preface explained the purpose of this “Conceptual Outline of Modern Economic Science”:

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. wrote the enclosed pages in “gratitude for the hospitality” he enjoyed during a recent fortnight’s trip to India and a somewhat shorter visit to Mexico. “This seemed the best choice of something in written form which would be useful both to patriotic circles of economists in those nations as well as usefully informative for persons in governmental and managerial positions. . . . It is my intent to help to foster in those countries nationalist institutions in work of economic science.”

LaRouche first explained the branching point facing humanity:

The transformation in general policy . . . which appears to be in ascendancy at this moment, is the unleashing of Hobbesian man, the irrational hedonist, each in war against all. Such cultivation of the basest potentialities of the human individual is leading civilization into lunatic irrationalism and into a state of chaos creating chaos. This is the development impelling civilization to the brink of thermonuclear war.

The other is the demand for a return to rationalism of the sort exemplified by the work of Leibniz . . . the current which created the Federal constitutional republic of the U.S. under President George Washington. . . . We have no acceptable moral choice but to create new institutions, new policies in accord with the best to which rational study of the lessons of our species’ historical existence can guide us.

EIRNS/Uwe Parpart

In their second visit to India, the LaRouches met with Dr. H.K. Jain, director of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute on July 15, 1982.

---------------------------------------------

Potential Relative Population Density

LaRouche then took up the central concept of Potential Relative Population Density:

The metric we require is, in first approximation, the potential relative population density of society; given the relative quality of man-improved and man-depleted terrain, how many average persons can be sustained per square mile by means of solely the labor of the population inhabiting all of the land occupied by a definite society? . . .

Increases in potential relative population density and injections of more advanced technologies to effect advances in the productive powers of labor, are two facets of the same action. This progress is not merely available, it is obligatory. . . . If, therefore, a society continues in any fixed mode of range of technology, it must deplete the natural resources available for cheaper exploitation in that mode, and so lower the potential relative population-density of society.

He explained the consequences of adopting the Malthusian view of man and the universe:

As the potential relative population-density reaches the point of decline this potential falls below the existing level of population, the genocidal logic of famine, epidemic disease, pestilences, and homicidal squabbling over crusts of food brings the culture into collapse. Technological progress is mandatory, not optional. Technological progress overcomes the apparent limits of natural resources. . . .

If we follow this line of investigation through adequately, we quickly demonstrate in that way, the monstrous consequences of any of the currently popularized versions of Malthusian policies. We are forewarned what hideous consequences await civilization unless all Malthusian thinking is immediately extirpated form policy-influencing.

And LaRouche then presented the contrary, conceptual core of economic science:

It is only by increasing willfully man’s power to increase society’s potential relative population density, that man demonstrates a willful increase in mankind’s per capita power over the lawful ordering of the universe. . . .

Mankind masters the universe by technological advances in society’s power which replicate such negentropy. This power is obtained by applying the hypothesis-generating powers of the human mind to discovery of the lawful ordering of nature, situating that inquiry in terms of reference of increasing man’s potential relative population density. . . . Man becomes thus, implicitly, the higher form of organization within the universe through which the universe as a whole transforms itself, by transforming thus the mode in which it changes itself.

V. Operation Juárez

After this “Conceptual Outline” piece, on July 7, 1982 LaRouche was invited back to Mexico. He had just been there in May, speaking to López Portillo. But he was invited back, and although he did not meet with López Portillo again, he did speak with people very close to the Mexican President. They asked him to express his approach to the situation in writing, evidently wanting it accurately conveyed for the President.

LaRouche responded with Operation Juárez, published on Aug. 2, 1982. The document was circulated in private first, for consideration of the López Portillo Administration, and we then got it out generally. I will not review the full content of Operation Juárez, which, again, is all about potential relative population density, the role of man’s creativity in bringing about the leaps in potential relative population density. LaRouche also laid out a detailed program of action: use the “debt bomb”; develop a common market; create a new world economic order.

He wrote that he was sending the document for consideration, along with two other companion documents that must be studied in conjunction with it: “A Conceptual Outline of Modern Economic Science”; and a study on history, “The Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy.”

That was Aug. 2. What happened next? On Sept. 1, 1982, López Portillo delivered his last State of the Union address. In it he announced that he had just nationalized the private banks of Mexico, done the same with the central bank, and imposed exchange controls. He sent the military to the banks the night before to make sure none of the old owners were able to enter and destroy evidence, having told only a handful of his closest collaborators about his plan, because he didn’t want any leaks. The next morning when the bankers arrived, they were told, “Sorry, you don’t own these banks anymore. They belong to the nation.” In other words, in his Sept. 1 speech, López Portillo announced part of Operation Juárez. It should not be overstated: He didn’t go with the whole thing; he went with part.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Henry Kissinger

---------------------------------------------

One of the reasons for that, is that he had done what LaRouche had suggested. LaRouche urged López Portillo to get India on board, and to also talk to the governments of Argentina and Brazil about forming a debtors’ cartel, because they were going through the same thing. We learned afterward that the Mexican President did just that. He talked to the Argentines, and he talked to the Brazilians. And the Argentines told him, “No. Sorry. We think that we’ll be better off by not joining you”—and what they got in response, was the aftermath of the Malvinas War, for which the British never forgave them. (So much for striking a deal with the Devil.) The Brazilians—because their guiding geopolitical light was Henry Kissinger—were seduced by the mellifluous tones of Kissinger and the British, and said: “No, no. We’ve been assured that we can strike a better separate deal bilaterally. So we’re not going to join you.”

George Shultz

So, López Portillo was left alone, to either do it, or not. And he did it. He announced the nationalization of the banks, he announced exchange controls, he announced that Mexico was taking control of its central bank.

On September 30, later that month U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz spoke before the United Nations General Assembly, and perhaps fearing what was about to happen next and aware of what was afoot around the world, Shultz said:

Immediate debt problems are manageable if we use good sense and avoid destabilizing actions, but the magnitude of external debt will almost inevitably reduce resources available for future lending for development purposes. Economic adjustment is imperative, and the International Monetary Fund can provide critical help and guidance.

In other words: Don’t even think of trying to break out of the system!

The next day, Oct. 1, José López Portillo took to the podium at the UN General Assembly, and delivered a speech that is quite historic, which included the following excerpts:

But the most constant concern and activity of Mexico in the international arena, is the transition to a New Economic Order. . . . We have insisted that the entire gamut of economic and social relations of the developing countries and the industrialized world, must be transformed. The reduction of available credit for developing countries has serious consequences, not only for them, but also for production and employment in the industrial world. Let us not continue in this vicious circle. It could be the beginning of a new medieval dark age, without the possibility of a Renaissance.

A third threat thus takes shape. I am referring to the grave problem of the collapse of the international financial system. As everyone knows, recently, various highly indebted countries, among them Mexico, have had to initiate a process of renegotiation of their foreign debt. We countries of the South are about to run out of playing chips, and were we not able to stay in the game, it would end in defeat for everyone!

I want to be emphatic: We countries of the South have not sinned against the world economy. Our efforts to grow, in order to conquer hunger, disease, ignorance, and dependency, have not caused the international crisis.

After major corrective efforts in economic affairs, my government decided to attack the evil at its root and to extirpate it once and for all. There was obviously an inconsistency between internal development policies and an erratic and restrictive international financial structure. A reasonable growth policy was irreconcilable with freedom to speculate in foreign exchange. That is why we established exchange controls.

Given our 3,000 km border with the United States, exchange controls can only function through a banking system that follows the policies of its country and government, and not its own speculative interests and the fluctuations of international financial chaos. That is why we nationalized the banks.

We have been a living example of what occurs when an enormous, volatile, and speculative mass of capital goes all over the world in search of high interest rates, tax havens, and supposed political and exchange stability. It decapitalizes entire countries and leaves destruction in its wake. The world should be able to control this; it is inconceivable that we cannot find a formula that, without limiting necessary movements and flows, would permit regulation of a phenomenon that damages everyone. It is imperative that the New International Economic Order establish a link between refinancing the development of the developing countries that suffer capital flight, and the capital that has fled. At least they should get the crumbs from their own bread. . . .

These are cases of legitimate defense. Never has the principle of sovereignty over natural resources and over economic processes had more validity than today. The terms of the perverse relations we suffer could lead to the dissolution of sovereignty itself. . . .

We cannot fail. There is cause to be alarmist. Not only the heritage of civilization is at stake, but also the very survival of our children, of future generations and of the human species.

Let us make what is reasonable possible. Let us recall the tragic conditions in which we created this Organization, and the hopes that were placed in it. The place is here, and the time is now.

The Force of LaRouche

You can see from this speech why there was absolute panic from the British Empire, and why they viewed this as the ghost of Lyndon LaRouche speaking before the United Nations.

After López Portillo was out of the Presidency at the end of 1982, his enemies engaged in character assassination of a sort which we are seeing today, and have seen against LaRouche. Indira Gandhi suffered a more bloody fate, felled by an assassin on October 31, 1984. Lyndon and Helga LaRouche had met with her for a second time a little over a year earlier, on July 13, 1983. Lyndon LaRouche reflected back on that meeting, and his relationship with the Indian Prime Minister, in eulogizing her after her death:

CC

Indira Gandhi

---------------------------------------------

Helga and I met with her in her office during both of our visits to India, in 1982 and in 1983. On both these occasions, I encouraged her to concentrate on developing her personal contact with President Reagan. When I brought this up with her the first time, she nodded. She had met the President briefly during the Cancún summit and had liked him; but, she complained, those bureaucratic watch-dogs had broken up their discussion barely as it started. She said she wished an opportunity to discuss matters privately with him at greater length; I promised I would do my best to impart her view to relevant circles in Washington.

Quite naturally, we returned to the same subject during our 1983 meeting. . . We concentrated on serious matters. Mrs. Gandhi was a true friend of the United States, as her father, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, had been before her. This was her policy, despite the numerous abuses India [suffered?]

I have met numerous influential figures, many of whom I have liked personally, but Mrs. Gandhi was in a class of her own. I say this not merely out of my great sorrow; this was my stated estimation of her, in private and in print, while she was alive.

VI. Postscript

LaRouche’s war for a just New World Economic Order did not achieve victory in the early 1980s; it is an unfinished war that must still be won. In writing about this years later, in his Feb. 15, 2000 piece, “He’s a Bad Guy But We Can’t Say Why,” LaRouche reported:

Operation Juárez set forth a proposed U.S. policy for dealing with what I had foreseen, since Spring 1982, as an impending Mexico debt-crisis, to be expected no later than September 1982. The crisis exploded mere days following the initial publication of that report. During the period immediately following, Kissinger was heavily deployed into Mexico, with U.S. government backing, in the effort to prevent Mexico’s government of President López Portillo from continuing to respond to the crisis in the manner outlined in Operation Juárez.

President López Portillo’s courage and commitment to LaRouche’s ideas remained intact over decades, even after he was out of office. On Nov. 2, 2002, on the occasion of LaRouche’s visit to Saltillo, Mexico to speak to a new generation of Mexican youth being schooled in his ideas, ex-President López Portillo and Lyndon LaRouche spoke by phone and revived their old friendship.

López Portillo not only retained his courage; his sense of humor was also intact. In a Sept. 9, 2002, interview with Excélsior on the anniversary of his nationalization of the banks, he had the following exchange with the reporter:

Reporter: Is it difficult to recover the banks?

López Portillo: Of course.

Reporter: But, how can they be recovered?

López Portillo: With a new expropriation.

Reporter: But we don’t have a nationalist President, as when you expropriated the banks in 1982. How can it be done now?

López Portillo: With balls, my friend. From that standpoint, I believe I was [a nationalist].

EIRNS/Fabiola Ramirez

Mexican youth in dialogue with Lyndon LaRouche during a March 2004 visit to Monterrey, Mexico.

---------------------------------------------

February 15, 2000

U.S.A. vs. Lyndon LaRouche

‘He’s a Bad Guy

But We Can’t Say Why’

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

For a later (2004) evaluation by Mr. LaRouche, see “The Night They Came to Kill Me.”

The record shows, that for nearly thirty years, elements of the U.S. Department of Justice have been engaged in world-wide political targetting of me and my associates. This includes early 1970s operations run in conjunction with Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s U.S. State Department.[fn_1] During the last ten years or so of that period, some U.S. officials, and others, have challenged the relevant agencies with some of the evidence which shows, that those prosecutions and correlated harassment of me and my associates, had been clearly fraudulent, politically motivated targetting.

The Justice Department has responded to that evidence, repeatedly, in judicial proceedings and elsewhere, with statements to the effect: “You have to understand why we had to do it that way. We couldn’t use our secret files in court; so, we had to get him in other ways. Believe us; we can’t tell you why, but, he is a very bad guy.” What is the evidence that I am that alleged “bad guy”? The answer has been, repeatedly, to the effect: “We can’t tell you. The evidence is secret.” The Department refuses to submit the putative evidence to scrutiny. It is usually withheld, either on the pretext of national security, or simply that of protecting the authorship of what both known circumstances and other evidence have often shown to have been false reports.

In brief, these attacks on me and my associates, which have been virtually continuous over nearly thirty years, have been modelled on the government’s, and a corrupt mass news media’s resort to those fraudulent, Star-Chamber methods, which are notorious from the history of the practice of Seventeenth-Century English law. These are the methods of ruling by aid of the enforcement of official lies. Today, in that practice of tendentious sophistry common to today’s U.S. government and its legal practice, lies are not called “lies”; instead, they are called, “matters of policy.”

Crucial has been a barrage of ex parte, in camera, and similar sessions, in which arguments based upon such fraudulently alleged evidence have been used, to induce some Federal judges to ignore the law selectively in cases involving me and my associates as “a matter of policy.”[fn_2] Prosecutions and libels based upon the alleged authority of so-called secret evidence are intrinsically fraudulent uses of the word “secrecy”; but, these continue to be the principal tactics still used by corrupt U.S. Justice Department officials, and their accomplices, to cover up a massive, decades-long “get LaRouche” hoax, run jointly through the U.S. Department of Justice and the mass media.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Lyndon LaRouche is led off in handcuffs on Jan. 27, 1989, after having been sentenced to 15 years in Federal prison. He was released on parole in 1994.

---------------------------------------------

Despite that reliance upon so-called secret evidence, out of an approximately thirty-year record of the Justice Department’s wrong-doing against me and my associates, some crucial kinds of public evidence of the nature of those so-called secret files has leaked out through the cracks in process and procedure. What is known from the public record, is more than sufficient to expose those elements of government, and their accomplices, as engaged in the most massive, most long-running, shocking story of known politically motivated corruption, by and in those and other niches of the Justice Department and other agencies.[fn_3]

Perhaps the most common question posed by those who have walked through some of the crucial features of this decades-long government operation, is, “What do you suggest as a plausible motive for the operation which you describe?” The question has been posed repeatedly to me personally, as it has also been reported to me by others, “What explanation do you have for why anyone would have the motive for doing what you report they are continuing to do?”

The best short reply to the latter question is: “Do you remember Edgar Allan Poe’s ‘The Purloined Letter’?” As I shall show here, the answer to such questions lies, so to speak, right under your noses; the evidence is already in plain sight, and it is simple, clear, and conclusive.

First, review the highlights of the case itself, and then turn your attention to the evidence of the nature of those high-ranking, government perpetrators’ motives, the crucial political evidence which is sitting there in plain sight.

1. A Case of Prosecutorial and Judicial Fraud

Some who remember the richly documented account of the case published under the title of Railroad!, in 1989, will recall a significant number of the relevant facts reported there.[fn_4] Indeed, more than ten years later, Railroad! remains a rich lode of relevant documentation, mandatory study for anyone seriously studying the thirty-odd-year history of “the LaRouche case.” This present report, apart from being much more compact than that earlier one, has two notable distinctions in respect to the nature of its content. First, during the recent ten years, much new, crucially relevant information has come to light, dispelling some of those distracting, secondary topics, which had been viewed previously as unresolved, murky, debatable issues of prosecutorial and related conduct, arising around the edges of what had been an otherwise clear array of the preponderance of the evidence in these cases.[fn_5]

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

Henry Kissinger’s operations against LaRouche date back to the early 1970s. His motives were always purely political in nature, but were carried out secretly, under the cover of “national security.”

---------------------------------------------

The second, and much more important reason for preparing and issuing this new report on the matter, is the need to restate the matter in ways which make clear to the reader why this continuing, fraudulent targetting of me and my associates still continues, after more than thirty years to date. At bottom, as I shall show here, there is but one underlying motive behind it all. As one of the observers of this case closest to it all along, I understand that no one could really understand the motives for the extremely convoluted deviousness of the Justice Department and its accomplices, unless and until the legal side of the case is situated where the truth in all matters lies, within its real-life setting, within the relevant, clear historical and political perspective. The setting of the case within that historical perspective, is the special task of this present report.

For example: among those crucially relevant matters, no one could understand why the son of the Justice Department’s John Keeney would have been involved, since the Summer of 1996, in a desperate effort to use the Democratic Party’s National Committee (DNC) as a tool for bringing about a nullification of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That action, unless turned back soon, presently threatens to bring about, chain-reaction fashion, the already visible signs of a threatened, early virtual extinction of the Democratic Party, during and following the coming general election.

As DNC attorney Keeney argued, in August 1999, in moving for the nullification of the 1965 act before Judge Sentelle, the nullification of that act by the Federal Court was already in progress.[fn_6] However, that acknowledged, the truth of that particular case, is the way in which former National Chairman Fowler and the DNC’s Keeney acted to move for accelerating such a nullification, in the past August 1999 proceedings.

Looking at that matter in that way, shows the political character of those forces in both the Justice Department and Federal Court who have been behind the targetting of me and my associates during a period of approximately thirty years to date.

This is the kind of connection you must examine, if you are to understand the crucial factors shaping U.S. politics and government as a whole during the recent thirty years, especially the most recent quarter-century, since the 1976 national election-campaign. Indeed, to find the root of the thirty-year-long “LaRouche case,” the case itself must be situated within the setting of the profound political changes in the direction of national policy-shaping since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, especially since those changes which began to erupt during the 1968-1972 interval.

It is fully consistent with the observation I have just made, that the principal features of a largely secret, and still presently ongoing government targetting of me by the U.S. Department of Justice, date from an operation set into motion on January 12, 1983, at the urging of former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and his cronies. Indeed, the fact that this has been, and still is an operation involving institutions of secret governmental agencies, is unarguable; every attempt to bring the evidence into court is resisted by the government’s own, usually successful pleading, that that evidence can not be revealed, because it is officially secret. This is a still-continuing operation, which ultimately sent me, and others, to prison in January 1989, an operation which continues, under cover provided by the permanent bureaucracy of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, to the present day.[fn_7]

This presently continuing operation was set into motion under Executive Order 12333’s provisions pertaining to secret foreign intelligence operations of the U.S. government, run in concert with private, non-governmental agencies.[fn_8] That fact notwithstanding, to understand competently this 1983-2000 aspect of the ongoing “Get LaRouche” operation, one must go to the root of those operations; one must take into account the political setting of four earlier, pre-1983 phases of the same operation, a series of Justice Department, and related operations, beginning no later than 1973.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis

FBI agents with sledgehammers in Leesburg, Virginia during the 400-agent raid of Oct. 6-7, 1986.

---------------------------------------------

The Four Earlier Phases

Typical of the evidence on the public record, is an official Nov. 23, 1973 document, an official record of both the New York City office of the FBI and also the higher authorities in the FBI’s Washington, D.C. headquarters, stating, that the FBI was orchestrating its assets in the leadership of the Communist Party U.S.A., to bring about my personal “elimination.” That FBI document, first released in full in January 1992, coincides with evidence of an ongoing operation which my associates and I had published in March 1973, and of an “elimination” operation, targetting me personally, which we exposed publicly during January 1974. Although those government-related secret operations of 1973 against me are officially dated by that evidence to November 1973, the admissions contained within the document referencing my prospective “elimination,” show the true flavor of the operations conducted by the FBI and others, internationally, during the earlier months that same year,[fn_9] and for several more years thereafter.[fn_10]

There is another political feature of that same, 1973 FBI targetting of me for “elimination,” which is also a very significant part of nearly thirty-year record of corrupt complicity by government and mass-media. The evidence against the mass media includes the role of the New York Times, in January and February of 1974, in producing a massive, fraudulent campaign of public defamation of me, in the Times’ effort to provide a diversionary cover-up for that FBI “elimination” operation.[fn_11] During the entirety of the nearly three decades since that lying concoction by the Times, virtually the entirety of the U.S. major news media has become a wittingly complicit part of that same, continuing dirty political operations centered in the U.S. Department of Justice. Typical of this, are a celebrated policy-statement which appeared on the editorial page of the Washington Post, on Sept. 24, 1976,[fn_12] and the fact of later expressions of precisely that policy, in operations by both the Post, Times, and others, up to the present time.

The FBI Airtel of November 1973 which proposes to use the Communist Party USA “for the purpose of ultimately eliminating” LaRouche.

---------------------------------------------

Then, beginning no later than that documented, abortive “elimination” attempt of November-December 1973, the FBI unleashed a second phase of the 1973 COINTELPRO operations against me and my associates. Despite the exposure of the FBI’s role behind its Communist Party assets, the FBI not only continued, but intensified and broadened the same general operation which had been conducted through at least most of 1973. This continued into no later than September 1977.[fn_13]

The third of the four, pre-1983 phases of the presently documented operations came to the surface in May 1978.

In later, related developments of 1978-1983, the evidence showed, that behind the Justice Department’s dirty glove in these matters, in addition to complicit actions by a corrupt mass news media, there was another, private hand, the hand of very powerful, but so-called unofficial private intelligence organizations, organizations which have become an integral part of corrupt operations conducted by official agencies.

The array of these private intelligence organizations, is typified by the cases of the American Family Foundation (AFF)[fn_14] and Anti-Defamation League.[fn_15] Such private intelligence capabilities, well connected in official Washington, D.C., and also in Europe, are only typified by the late John J. McCloy’s circles, and similar, government-like capabilities, whose home-base inside the U.S.A. is certain powerful circles of “Wall Street” financial houses and the law firms with which those financial houses are associated, as typified by study of the biography of the late McCloy.[fn_16]

Following the Congress’s mid-1970s exposure of some shocking examples of the Justice Department’s other operations operating under “internal security” covers,[fn_17] there was a greater emphasis on running these same kinds of operations under nominally private covers.[fn_18] So, during the period of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s official reign inside the Carter Administration, 1978-1980, two private international organizations were key in launching the continuation of former Justice Department operations. These were a private branch of British intelligence, known as Friedrich von Hayek’s and Professor Milton Friedman’s Mont Pelerin Society, and such operations of the London-created New York Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), as the Zbigniew Brzezinski-led Trilateral Commission.[fn_19]

The Mont Pelerin Society was deployed for this purpose under the cover of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, which Mont Pelerin had recently taken over. It deployed in this action in tandem with a private auxiliary of the Justice Department’s permanent bureaucracy, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In May 1978, both the Heritage Foundation and ADL issued defamatory, widely circulated, lying reports.[fn_20] This defamatory campaign laid the political groundwork for a later, new wave of corrupt Justice Department operations launched at, once again, the instigation of Henry Kissinger, beginning no later than the second half of 1982.[fn_21]

The ground for a new wave of post-1982 prosecutorial operations as such was prepared during the second half of 1979, by the same New York Times which had run the 1974 cover-up for the FBI’s aborted “elimination” operation.[fn_22] This Times operation represents the fourth in the series of four well-documented phases leading up to the January 1983 launching of operations under title of Executive Orders 12331, 12333, and 12334.[fn_23] The Times’ operation was an escalation of the world-wide defamation operations launched under joint sponsorship of the Mont Pelerin Society/Heritage Foundation and Anti-Defamation League during May 1978. That 1979 case is a crucial link in pinning down the nature of the 1973-2000 “Get LaRouche” operation as a whole.

That operation of 1979-1980, centered around the Times and the ADL, is hereinafter to be viewed, thus, as the fourth and final of the known series of trials and related operations which preceded the presently ongoing, 1983-2000 phase of the Justice Department’s role. That 1979-1980 role of the Times and ADL, which I have just identified as the fourth phase of pre-1983 operations, is summarized as follows.

On the basis of information received from multiple sources, several of my associates, under my direction, went up the back-trail of evidence leading to discovery of hard proof, that the Times was organizing a public defamation, a defamation intended, according to the voluntary statement of the Times’ agents themselves, to set me, personally, up for imprisonment, through widespread and persisting waves of defamation with charges which the Times then knew to be false.

In the course of this investigation, we were able to document the existence of precisely such an operation and intent. This included our investigators’ secretly tape-recorded restaurant interview with the relevant two Times reporters, Paul Montgomery and Howard Blum.[fn_24] That tape-recording was then promptly presented, at press conferences called for this purpose, in New York City and in Washington, D.C.[fn_25]

That public exposure of that operation resulted in the Times’ resort to a detour. New York’s most notorious attorney, Roy Marcus Cohn, former crony of both J. Edgar Hoover and Senator Joseph McCarthy, was used to plant a prior published version of the defamation which the Times itself had intended to publish, and did publish, in a featured series dated Oct. 7 and 8, 1979.[fn_26]

Among Cohn’s stable of assets used for this operation, was a former convict and client, Ed Kayatt, who published an advertiser throwaway, Our Town, on New York City’s East Side. Using a local gutter type, Dennis King, as a diversionary putative author, Kayatt’s Cohn-controlled Our Town published a series of wild-eyed defamations, which then supplied the Times’ Montgomery and Blum the “prior publication” cover for their previously planned libel. This operation was coordinated, massively, with the ADL. That same King was to appear later, during 1983-1984, together with NBC-TV’s Pat Lynch, as an asset of the U.S. government’s secret, Executive Order 12333 operations, most notably in a 1989 book which he and his publisher, a Kissinger crony, acknowledged then to have been the funded activities of well-known quasi-non-governmental organizations (“quangos”) and other private fronts, such as Walter Raymond’s Project Democracy operations, for the U.S. official intelligence community.[fn_27]

This series of four successive operations prepared the ground for the 1982-1983 launching of the presently continuing, 1983-2000, 12333 operation.

Kissinger and the 12333 File

The 1983-2000 12333 operation against me and my associates, was set into motion on the initiative of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Kissinger’s Washington, D.C. law firm, Arnold and Porter.

Formally, Kissinger’s and Arnold and Porter’s operation went into effect beginning Kissinger’s August 19, 1982 “Dear Bill” letter to then FBI Director William Webster. Through repeated efforts in this same campaign by Kissinger and his attorneys,[fn_28] and with support from Edward Bennett Williams, an attorney for the Katharine Meyer Graham of the LaRouche-hating Washington Post, the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), on January 12, 1983, adopted the proposal of Kissinger and of Kissinger’s attorneys, Arnold and Porter. On that same day, FBI Director Webster ordered the FBI’s Oliver “Buck” Revell to carry out the FBI’s own implementation of the PFIAB order of David Abshire, Edward Bennett Williams, et al. On December 13, 1982, the head of the permanent bureaucracy of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney, assigned his old Internal Security office, now veiled under the name of General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS), to handle the matter.[fn_29] GLLAS remained on that assignment, through the 1988 Alexandria Federal indictment and trial.[fn_30]

As of August 19, 1982, the date of Kissinger’s letter to FBI Director Webster, there were five publicly well known issues behind Kissinger’s personal motives for targetting of me for Justice Department dirty operations. All five were both political in nature, and involved my associates’ ongoing journalistic investigations into matters of notable public interest, respecting corrupt activities in which Kissinger was personally involved.

First, was the continuing political controversy between Kissinger and me over the issue of urgent reforms in the post-1971 international monetary system. This personal controversy dated from the 1974-1976 interval, involving Kissinger’s actions in his various capacities as U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor.[fn_31] Merely typical of Kissinger’s relevant state of mind during that period, is his 1974 crafting, in his capacity as National Security Advisor, of the subsequently declassified, pro-genocidal National Security [Council] Study Memorandum 200.[fn_32]

Second, was my launching of a public campaign, in February 1982, to overturn Kissinger’s arms-control policies.[fn_33] This attack on existing, Kissingerian arms-control policies, reflected my ongoing back-channel discussions with the Soviet Government, discussions which led to the March 23, 1983 announcement of a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) proposal to the Soviet government, by President Ronald Reagan.[fn_34] This ongoing work was well known to Kissinger’s circles at that time.

Henry Kissinger’s “Dear Bill” letter of August 1982, asking William Webster, then Director of the FBI, for his help in going after LaRouche.

---------------------------------------------

Third, was our published attention to the contents of a public address which Kissinger himself had delivered to a London Chatham House audience on May 10, 1982, in which Kissinger bragged that he had worked behind the back of his President, under British direction, during the period he served as U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. In that address, Kissinger described himself as a follower of Winston Churchill and opponent of the “American intellectual tradition” represented by Churchill’s political opponent and war-time ally President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The report we published was based on the transcript of that address issued by Kissinger’s representatives themselves, including persons associated with the same PFIAB organization which, in January 1983, set into motion the secret-intelligence operations conducted under provisions of Executive Order 12333.[fn_35]

The fourth issue was our news organization’s investigation of information indicating Kissinger’s personal involvement, with Israel’s Ariel Sharon and others, in a disgusting “West Bank land-scam” operation, which was one of the world’s most notable, scurrilous, and profitable real estate swindles occurring at that time.[fn_36] The fifth issue was my authorship of a special report, Operation Juárez, published just a short time before Kissinger’s now-notorious “Dear Bill” letter to FBI Director Webster.[fn_37] Operation Juárez set forth a proposed U.S. policy for dealing with what I had foreseen, since Spring 1982, as an impending Mexico debt-crisis, to be expected no later than September 1982. The crisis exploded mere days following the initial publication of that report. During the period immediately following, Kissinger was heavily deployed into Mexico, with U.S. government backing, in the effort to prevent Mexico’s government of President López Portillo from continuing to respond to the crisis in the manner outlined in Operation Juárez.[fn_38]

On each and all of these particular five issues, the underlying philosophical differences between Kissinger and me, were, and remain exactly the same. In all five cases, our journalistic investigations of Kissinger and his activities were no more abrasive, indeed less personally intrusive, than what subjects of investigation customarily enjoy at the hands of any endeavor in contemporary investigative journalism by major-media agencies. Kissinger’s repeated, typically cowardly demand of both the Justice Department and PFIAB, was that the ability of my associates to continue to engage in these journalistic activities must be shut down by any and all means available. Kissinger’s political cronies in PFIAB, and the Justice Department, complied.

In direct response to that PFIAB action, FBI Director William Webster set an anti-LaRouche operation into motion within the FBI, while John Keeney of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division assigned the old Internal Security Division of the Justice Department, the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS) of that Division, to conduct an Executive Order 12333 operation, under “national security,” foreign intelligence, cover, against me, and also my associates. The circles of Vice-President Bush, including Col. Oliver North, and National Security Council advisors such as Roy Godson, came to play a leading party in the dirty operations targetting me and my associates. This has continued since January 1983 to the present day.

Chief Deputy Assistant Attorney General John (“Jack”) Keeney, Sr.

---------------------------------------------

The known figure of the Justice Department central to this continuing operation, since January 1983 to the present day, has been the same Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney who made the GLLAS assignment on Kissinger’s behalf, possibly the dirtiest man in the Justice Department from then to the present day. Such is the morality of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the other mass media which have cooperated in this dirty Justice Department, political operation, through either all or a great part of the 1973-2000 interval to date.

The outcome of that secret-intelligence-directed operation launched on Kissinger’s behalf, is best summarized by focussing attention on the crucially relevant features of three trials, and a most extraordinary additional action of October 1986. Those elements and their interconnections are chiefly as follows.

A. A prolonged (1984-1988) set of grand-jury proceedings, and subsequent mass-trial, held in Federal Court in Boston, Massachusetts, a trial which the prosecution implicitly lost, in a Spring 1988 mistrial.

In that case, which ended as a result of a drawing-down of an exhausted jury, the jurors’ expressed their unanimous opinion, that they would exonerate the defendants on all charges, and qualified that by observing that the issue of the case was government wrong-doing.[fn_39] A more elegant, judicial opinion to similar effect was later supplied by the trial judge in that case.[fn_40]

At that point, the prosecution had the option of retrying that case, one they were virtually assured of losing. So, although a retrial date of January 1989 was tentatively set, the Federal prosecutors conspired to avoid defeat in Boston, by trying the defendants, first, on different, specially pre-concocted charges, in a less scrupulous jurisdiction, in Alexandria, Virginia. Thus, they rushed to bring a new case to trial in Virginia, before the January date tentatively arranged for retrial in Boston. By early 1987, the Justice Department’s multi-jurisdictional, State-Federal prosecutorial task-force had crafted the option used in the later, railroad-style trial in Federal Court in Alexandria. As was to be expected all along, after the Alexandria conviction, the prosecution abandoned the Boston retrial.

This introduction of a new trial, while a retrial of another Federal case was pending, was worse than merely highly irregular. However, at the urging of GLLAS, and the pleasure of a former CIA official, Judge Sporkin, the Alexandria travesty of justice was ordered to proceed forthwith.[fn_41]

B. Meanwhile, on October 6-7, 1986, an armed force of more than four hundred, including the equivalent of several military companies of heavily armed members of a combined Federal, State, and local task-force, invaded and occupied the town of Leesburg, Virginia. The included intention of at least some elements of this task-force, was to use the cover of that operation as the occasion for what would be later described as a “Waco-style” operation, designed for assassinating me, my wife, and others, at my place of residence, a few miles distant from Leesburg. This intention was subsequently admitted by agents of the Justice Department Criminal Division’s task-force itself, and was otherwise confirmed, objectively, by the way in which military teams were deployed at the place of residence, from dawn of October 6th through early morning of October 7th. Higher authorities in Washington prevented this shoot-out, by going over the head of strike-force director, and Criminal Division head William Weld, to order that the waiting Special Forces-style attack on my location be disbanded.

This October 6-7, 1986 armed occupation of Leesburg, occurred on the eve of President Ronald Reagan’s meeting with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland. The issue of that latter meeting was the same SDI, of which the Gorbachev government and press described me, in most violent language, as its hated original author and spokesman. Since I was well known as the initiator of the SDI, as that had been introduced officially by President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983, the assassination of me at that juncture would have appeared to the world as a Justice Department killing on Soviet orders, and thus an implied personal threat, with William Weld’s complicity, against the President of the U.S. himself!

This brings us to the matter of a second trial, a Federal bankruptcy in Virginia.

C. A 1987 Federal seizure and shut-down, later ruled to have been unlawful, under pretext of Federal bankruptcy law, of several organizations in Virginia. This was later decided, in successive Federal bankruptcy proceedings, to have been a case of constructive fraud upon the court by the relevant U.S. Attorney, Henry Hudson. All income-generating and loan-repayment operations of these entities, were permanently shut down at that point, by the court. The relevant Federal judge, Albert V. Bryan, Jr., refused to allow the seized organizations opportunity to conduct a timely challenge to this unlawful, indeed fraudulent government action bankrupting and seizing those firms. It is to be stressed, that, in proceedings which occurred following the Alexandria trial and conviction of me and my fellow-defendants, the Federal courts ruled that the bringing of the bankruptcy itself had been an act of fraud upon the court by the U.S. Department of Justice. Nonetheless, despite those rulings, I remained in Federal prison for more than four more years; so, the “Get LaRouche” task-force was permitted to continue to enjoy the ill-gotten ends, which had been secured by aid of Justice Department fraud on the Federal bankruptcy court.

As an accompanying, and preceding element of this same operation, corrupt, February 1987 actions by authorities within the Commonwealth of Virginia, induced a relevant official to reverse herself, by fraudulently redefining the loans later jeopardized by the impending bankruptcy action to have been regular business loans, when most of them were in fact of the “soft,” political loans classification, like the election-campaign loans of leading Commonwealth figures at that time. These loans were often zero-interest rate, and were customarily rolled over until finally retired. Shortly after her shocking turnabout, that Virginia official was rewarded for her good behavior, by her appointment as a judge of the state’s Supreme Court.

This combination of actions, the Federal government’s fraudulent actions in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the preparatory actions of February, taken by corrupt Commonwealth officials, were among the most crucial preparatory steps for crafting the prosecutor’s orchestration of the perjury-ridden Federal mail-fraud and “Klein conspiracy” indictments of October 14, 1988.[fn_42]

Memorandum from William Webster to the FBI’s Oliver “Buck” Revell, citing the PFIAB discussion of targetting LaRouche and the LaRouche organization.

---------------------------------------------

D. A railroad-style prosecution, by the U.S. Department of Justice, was launched out of the Eastern District of Virginia, during October 1988, using the Federal Bankruptcy case, together with the fraudulent charges placed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the sole pretext for twelve counts of alleged mail-fraud and one count, also based on the loan issue, charging me personally with a “Klein conspiracy.” The latter, arcane charge, otherwise stated, was intent “to obstruct and impede the functions of the Internal Revenue Service.”

The mail fraud charges were predicated upon the outstanding loans of the entities which had been unlawfully bankrupted by the prosecutorial task-force itself. The indictment was launched by the same U.S. Attorney Henry Hudson who had launched the fraud on the court which shut down continued payments, including payments on some of the same instances for which the charges at trial were heard before the same, fully-witting Federal Judge Bryan, who had previously stopped any action to allow those entities to continue repayment of those loans. However, the issue of the bankruptcy, and of the actual character of those loans themselves, was kept out of court by pre-trial and in-trial rulings by savagely enforced, repeated order of the same Judge Bryan who had acted to prevent the subject entities from continuing their ongoing programs of loan retirement.

Most crucial was that judge’s Rule 403 in limine ruling, pre-trial, disallowing the introduction of what the court admitted to be relevant evidence bearing upon the bankruptcy and other relevant matters. That and related pretrial exclusions of relevant evidence by Bryan, were designed to ensure that the Alexandria indictment was not rejected by the jury as the Boston indictment had been. Although the mail fraud charges featured in the Alexandria indictment were new, and involved legally complex new issues not considered in Boston, the included umbrella charge of conspiracy in the Alexandria case was a virtual copy, axiomatically, of that in the Boston case; the prosecution’s wild-eyed theory of an alleged conspiracy by me, was the same in both cases. The multi-jurisdictional prosecutorial team was determined to exclude any hearing of those facts, common to both cases, which had been decisive in the jury’s reactions in Boston. Judge Bryan also excluded from the trial any hearing on evidence on the complex new legal questions posed by the mail fraud charges. That and related pretrial rulings by that Judge Bryan, ensured that the subsequent trial was assuredly a fraud by the court, in and of itself.

Crucial Issues of the Trial

It has been established, on the record, that the unlawful Federal bankrupting of those entities had been undertaken for the aforethought purpose, of crafting otherwise untenable Federal indictments on loan-fraud charges. That had been the opinion shared among the members of the multi-jurisdictional prosecutorial team, that loan-fraud charges could not be brought against target LaRouche, unless the relevant entities were not only put into bankruptcy, but forced to cease ongoing repayments of loans, by the task-force’s shutting down the fraudulently bankrupted entities. That evidence demonstrates that the bankruptcy-action was taken as an intended, as well as merely objective fraud upon the bankruptcy court. Moreover, the systematic recruitment of prospective trial witnesses for a loan-fraud case, was not begun until after the bankruptcy proceeding launched fraudulently by the Department of Justice.[fn_43] The pretext for the charge of loan-fraud, was the use of the mails, by these firms, to send letters of confirmation of loan-status to the lenders, both as a matter of good accounting practice, and to reduce likelihood of misunderstanding in these matters. Hence, the prosecution’s irrational logic argued, this was “mail fraud.”[fn_44] The indictment, trial, and convictions in this case, hung entirely on the convoluted sophistry used to craft a mail-fraud charge in that fashion.

The indictment in the latter case was handed down on October 14, 1988, two days after I had delivered an historic, and also prophetic Presidential candidate’s address in Berlin, Germany.[fn_45] The trial began on November 21, 1988; conviction was handed down on December 16, 1988.

In fact, as distinct from sophistries of mere legal fiction, the only reason such a short trial on such complex issues could be arranged, was that none among the defendants was able, in fact, to testify in his own defense, although I, from the time of the indictment, had repeatedly instructed all relevant parties, including all of the defense attorneys, of my intention to do so. One of the co-defendants was also personally committed to testify, but was effectively prevented from doing so by his attorney’s failure to prepare him for trial. Since I was the person most frequently mentioned by the prosecution, the one principally accused by the indictment and in other ways, in a trial in which I was in fact innocent, but not permitted to respond to the mass of charges presented in the indictment and prosecution’s proceeding, that trial was, necessarily a farce in fact in its entirety. Indeed, it would be fairly estimated that my testimony alone, taking into account direct, cross, and redirect, would have required about two to three additional weeks in itself.

The problems were, first of all, the fact that many of the defendants were not given sufficient time, at arraignment, to obtain attorneys to represent them at trial before the trial date was set. Second, more significant, was the fact that those attorneys, many hastily secured, were not in collective agreement on having me testify in my own defense, lest, in their opinion, that might pose an element of risk for some among the other defendants. Since most among those attorneys refused to agree on preparing themselves effectively for my testimony, I was, in point of fact, effectively denied the right to testify. Motions for severance, although made, were summarily denied. Otherwise, the trial would have had a different ultimate outcome. Later, it turned out, this denial of the effective possibility of testifying there, was largely the work of a relevant snake working from inside the defense’s preparation of the case, who exposed his true role most blatantly, on this and other counts, both during trial, and in post-trial developments.

Legal sophistries put aside, in reality, the importance of my testimony in that case, is that there were numerous instances of crucial, blatantly false statements made, under oath, by certain key witnesses for the prosecution. These included many matters of which I had not only first-hand, but fully corroboratable knowledge. These were of crucial relevance for the jury’s hearing in that trial.

Admittedly, as a practical matter, some of these issues, even the most important ones, were willfully, and wrongly precluded from trial by the judge’s pre-trial in limine rulings. Nonetheless, there were many matters which had been raised by the prosecution’s case, on which the facts, if presented, would expose the massive degree of lying by many prosecution witnesses, and willful fraud, in fact, in argument of the prosecutors. Unless those issues were forced into consideration by my personal direct and cross examination in court, those crucial issues would not be, in fact, considered by the jury panel, even though a significant number of them were either addressed or alluded to in the closing summaries of defense attorneys.

The importance of this is underlined if one considers the sheer mass of false testimony, delivered under oath, by what existing evidence proves to have been corrupted witnesses, and if one takes into account, from the verbatim record, the additional mass of what was in fact false testimony, which was introduced as argument from the mouths of the, factually, culpably witting prosecuting attorneys.

The most crucial fact, which attorneys secured on such short notice, were often poorly qualified to address, is that any politically motivated prosecution is, first and foremost, a political trial by definition, whatever the proper or fraudulent pretexts for the indictment which have been crafted by the prosecution.[fn_46]

Such trials are designed, either by prosecutor’s intentions, or by unavoidable implications of bringing a prominent political figure to trial, to bring about what are inevitably political ends by means of the criminal charges. In all cases, when the political implications of such a case are kept out of trial, the trial itself is a fraud, by virtue of fallacy of composition of the facts addressed. A person on trial is who they are; a notable political figure on trial is, by definition, a figure of political controversy. In this case, even the charges themselves alleged political motivation as the characteristic feature of the alleged mail fraud. I was a figure whose character had been subjected to a massive political attack, over a preceding period of years, by all of the leading mass media in that area affecting the selection of the jury pool. The mind of the population represented by the jury pool had been polluted over at least twelve preceding years, and most intensively during the preceding four years, by this politically motivated mass-media campaign. Judge Bryan’s pre-trial rulings, and his survey of the prospective jurors was not only wrongful, but clearly fraudulent, in light of these facts well known to him.

Apart from that pollution of the jury selection-process, neither the jury, nor the court in general could cut through the chaff clouding any such case, unless the implicit issue of the political motivation behind the prosecution were brought clearly into view, thus to be judged, on related evidence, as relevant to the charges, or not. Sometimes, the indictment and trial of a political figure is justified in fact. Sometimes the charges against such a figure might involve a pure and simple offense under the criminal code; even in such cases, the issue of the possibility of reasonable separation of the charges from the political associations, must be fairly presented to the court and its jurors.

In any variant, as in the Boston trial, or what would have been an honest trial in the Alexandria case, sorting out a case in which the criminal charges are fabricated for political purposes, from one in which the honestly charged defendant is a prominent political figure, is precisely the most important problem which the jury, and the jury alone, must be equipped to decide in any trial by jury of a political figure. In this case, the prosecution and also the trial judge applied their greatest efforts, including the judge’s in-fact fraudulent use of a Rule 403 exclusion of admittedly relevant evidence, to prevent the jury from hearing the actual case which was, in fact, being set before them. Thus, Judge Bryan perpetrated willful fraud on the court by virtue of fallacy of composition.

This rule is most emphatically applied in the instance of a well-known political figure, especially one as violently and fraudulently vilified as the Washington Post and other scalawag mass-press had deliberately saturated the area of the jury-pool for that trial. The jury could not help but reach a trial decision highly colored by political considerations brought into the jury-room by a corrupt mass-media, over many years, prior to and during the time of trial.[fn_47] If the relevant political figure, as defendant, is fraudulently charged, as I was in that case, and if the court is rigged, as Judge Bryan rigged this trial, and if the mass-media has attempted to whip the jury-pool into a lynch-spirit, as in this case, and if that political figure does not take the stand in his own defense, under direct and cross-examination, he is fairly certain of conviction, no matter how innocent he may be in fact, or how much the other evidence presented should have persuaded an honest jury[fn_48] of the defendant’s innocence of the charges.

On consideration of this trial and conviction, a leading international legal authority, Professor Friedrich-August von der Heydte, made two sets of observations. First, he compared the Alexandria LaRouche case to that of the celebrated Captain Alfred Dreyfus.[fn_49] It took five days longer to obtain a fraudulent conviction of Dreyfus, than in a far more complex case of trial of both me and my six co-defendants.

The Issue of Law

Professor von der Heydte made a second, separate point, which I endorsed publicly at that time. The conduct of the trial judge in that case, reflected, and that most plainly, a specific, and rapidly worsening corruption of U.S. law, today, which is more ominous than even the horrid Nazi law associated with the legacy of Germany’s Carl Schmitt and Roland Freisler. This corruption, typified by the tendency of Federal courts to adopt the Lockean principle of shareholder value, is to be recognized as a combination of radical positivism and the specific, interchangeable conceptions of slaveholder or shareholder value, associated with both the doctrine of the Confederate States of America, and the current doctrine among a leading element of the U.S. Supreme Court, as typified by the frequent resort to sophistry by Justice Scalia, today. The result of such a union of Locke and radical positivist law, is to be compared with the standpoint in law represented by the most notorious fictionalized figure of Plato’s Republic, Thrasymachus, or with the perverted notions of law of real-life Roman Emperors such as Tiberius, Nero, Caligula, and Diocletian.

In summary, under such positivist mode of sophistry in law, the table of justice is rigged, like a crooked gambling table, before the victim is seated. Then, the rules by which the trial is rigged, are invoked apologetically by such corrupt legal authorities, to purport to show that the trial was according to “the rule of law”: according to the “rules”; in this case, as corrupt Judge Bryan’s corrupt in limine rulings attest, the rules were the special, Kafkaesque rules which those sophists and their fellow-travellers had made up for that occasion. The apologists, affecting a pose of self-righteousness, and lacking any other kind of righteousness, insist that since the trial followed their rules, the proceedings were, in the mouth of one later-exposed mole inside the defense team, therefore “fair.”

Under the conditions defined by those two observations of Professor von der Heydte, as in the conditions of the infamous trial of Socrates, the very name of justice is a contradiction in terms. Only fools will say, under such circumstances, “But didn’t he get a fair trial according to the rules?” Who sets the rules, and how are they set? How are the rules, and the rule-makers to be judged? Can judges be considered persons privileged to be acting as the members of an autonomous private club; or, must they be accountable to some higher, less capricious standard of rule-making? If the rules exclude relevant truth, then, as in the lynch-trial of Socrates, it is the members of the court, not the accused, who should be condemned, like England’s Chief Justice Lord George Jeffreys before them, and, perhaps, like him, imprisoned for what are in fact crimes representing the greatest danger to both the republic and the general welfare of its people.

In fairness, on this point, the following qualifying observation should be included here.

Admittedly, the U.S. Congress has enacted many bad statutes. Presidents have promoted legislation, or condoned it, which, by every moral standard conceivable, they should have opposed. Under our Constitutional form of self-government, the immediate functional remedy for such errors, is to be sought in the Federal Court, which must rule on such matters out of an informed and cultivated conscience, even in defiance of the contrary prevailing opinion of the other Federal branches. However, when the Federal Courts go sour, as their decadence has unfolded during the recent quarter-century to date, only the combined forces of the other two branches have the immediate authority to correct this.

What if all three branches fail to resolve an error? Then, there are only two higher authorities to which to appeal. One is the carefully deliberated expression of the people’s own interest in promoting the national defense and general welfare, the expression of the general welfare from whose moral and other political authority of our Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution were derived. If that fails, there is but one higher authority to which to appeal for justice. That latter is sometimes referred to as the judgment of history, according to which history punishes, or even weeds out nations and cultures which suffer a manifestly incurable want of the moral fitness to survive. The ultimate authority of the principle of the general welfare of the people on this account, is revolutionary, as the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence affirm this. The power of the still higher authority, history itself, is of a more awesome quality.

In the final analysis, the only true authority for man-made law is reason. The authority of government, even its right to exist, lies solely in the duty of government to effect the efficient promotion of the general welfare of all its population and their posterity, as this is echoed in the first four paragraphs of our Declaration of Independence, and also the Preamble of our Federal Constitution.

The judgment to be passed upon either a system of law, or the willfully persisting maladministration of that system, must be considered on two successively higher levels.

In its simpler aspect, is it to be compared, in first approximation, to the deductive model of a Euclidean classroom geometry, as the derivation of proofs according to a cultivated knowledge of an underlying set of both stated and implied definitions, axioms, and postulates.

However, on a higher level, the process of lawmaking and judicial procedure must recognize that, in statecraft, as in physical science, all previously existing sets of definitions, axioms, and postulates are subject to change, that in the same manner that validated new universal physical principles are discovered in science. If what was rightly validated as true beforehand remains true, not only must false assumptions be purged, but previously omitted, newly validated principles incorporated within a multiply-connected manifold of verifiable universal principles.

The most important consideration to bear in mind, is to distinguish what is subject to such change, from that which is not. What can never change, under a sane rule of law, is the definition of the human being as being of a different nature than all the lower species. The adherence to that enduring principle, defines absolutely the distinction between civilized forms of society and the bestiality of slavery, cannibalism, serfdom, and other forms of inhuman barbarism.[fn_50]

We human beings are each unique, relative to all other species, in our power, not merely to learn, but to discover new validated universal physical and other principles, by means of which our species is enabled to increase its per-capita power in and over the universe. In this respect, we are all made equally distinct from the beasts, and, in this respect and degree, made equally in the image of the Creator of this universe. It is upon the recognition of, and service to this principle, that all decent law-making proceeds. This principle, as the Declaration of Independence and Preamble of our Constitution variously acknowledge, and otherwise reflect it, this principle of the promotion of the general welfare represents the only legitimate basis in law for the existence of government, and is the underlying, unchanging cornerstone of all good law and justice.

Thus, in honest law, the issues posed by the existence of this, and also certain additional underlying axiomatic assumptions, are always lurking. Conclusions must not only be proven, but we must always keep those underlying axiomatic considerations in mind. In each matter before us, the always lurking issue is: what is the axiomatic standpoint of the respective parties, and of the court itself?

Are any among these axiomatic assumptions false, relative to the matters at issue? In a positivist doctrine of law, these crucial considerations are excluded axiomatically; rather, the case is tried as Rabelais’ famous justices Kissbreech and Suckfist would prefer, or in some equally scurrilous, irrational mode. In an honest trial, the underlying axiomatic assumptions of contending parties, and of the court itself, are always issues implicitly to be considered, and to be treated actively as axiomatic issues whenever the evidence relevant to that point of axiomatic controversy, might be a manifest issue of the matters actively at trial.

Therefore, according to that single, supreme principle of natural law, the cognitive power of reason, through which mankind discovers those true universal principles, by means of which mankind increases our species’ power within and over the universe, is in itself the highest authority in making and application of law of, and among nations. Thus, in those means by which we discover how to cooperate in increasing mankind’s power in and over nature, we find the proof of what we rightly call reason. It is from those powers of reason, so cultivated, that we may adduce those rules of law by which we ought to be governed, and also govern ourselves.

If our notion of “rule of law” becomes as perverted in practice as it has tended to become, especially in the degree we have experienced during the recent thirty years or so, and if the people do not change this, then the higher power of reason will act in response to the fact, that we have shown ourselves a people which has mislain, or perhaps even lost the moral fitness of a nation efficiently to survive.

I mention that very important, and relevant point here. I shall return to it at an appropriate point, in the concluding section of this report. At this point, the immediately following point, bearing upon that, is to be considered.

In contrast, the fact that much of the legislation, judicial practice, and public opinion encountered today, is essentially irrational, represents a special quality of lunacy from which our nation must free itself, if this nation itself is to survive. Among such lunacies, the worst is the violation, or neglect of our government’s duty to promote the general welfare efficiently; on that, the very legitimacy of government and courts depends absolutely. The submission of President Clinton to the pressure of Vice-President Al Gore, in adapting to the bestial so-called “welfare reform” proposed by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, or the actions of the Democratic National Committee, in supporting the racist motion which attorney John Keeney continues to argue on its behalf,[fn_51] typify those kinds of actions, by which a government, a political party, or even an entire nation, undermines its moral authority to continue to rule and exist.

The “LaRouche case,” thus, has the associated special importance, of showing what sorts of disoriented persons, even often lunatics, or worse, rule so many of the institutions of power and great influence in our nation today. The naked and persisting travesty of justice in this case, should be taken as an ominous warning to us, of what we must change, if this nation itself is even merely to survive.

2. The Historical Setting of the Case

Since the final, 1848 stage of the fall from power of the decaying Habsburg Empire’s Clement Prince Metternich, the conflict between two mutually exclusive principles of government, has dominated the entirety of the principal affairs of each and all nations of globally extended European civilization. The LaRouche case, as summarized above, is no exception to that rule. The presently leading conflict within the morally crisis-stricken U.S. Democratic Party, is also no exception to that rule.

The early Nineteenth-Century decline and fall of the power of the old, princely, feudal landed aristocracy, left European civilization under the domination of a conflict between two contending social forces. On the one side, there was the triumphant modern form of ruling financial oligarchy, a form of society and state brought forth in the Netherlands and England under the direct influence of those ruling sets of Venice’s financial-oligarchical families which had been led, successively by figures such as Paolo Sarpi and Abbot Antonio Conti. This was the financier oligarchy against which our patriots opposed both the bloody tyranny of William of Orange and the new British monarchy established with the accession of George I.

Our republic, created in such circumstances, was of a new form. It had its ancient roots in such precedents as Solon’s reforms at Athens, in the Classical Greek struggle for the establishment of republics, and in the ecumenical conception of man brought to Classical Greek culture by such Apostles of Jesus Christ as Peter, John, and Paul. The founders of our constitutional republic followed the Fifteenth-Century precedents of statecraft of France’s King Louis XI and England’s Henry VII.

When, during the course of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, the conditions in Europe, became an insuitable political climate for establishing true republics consistent with the commonwealth principles of Louis XI and Henry VII, Europeans committed to that cause, established colonies in the Americas. These colonies, at least the best among them, such as the Massachusetts Bay Colony of the Winthrops and Mathers, sought to build up true commonwealths, otherwise to be known as republics, in the Americas. It was their desire, that not only should these nascent republics prosper, but that they become, in the later words of our friend the Marquis de Lafayette, temples of liberty and beacons of hope, in the eyes of our strife-ridden friends and political allies among the peoples of Europe and elsewhere. That role and mission, the fostering of a community of principle among perfectly sovereign such republics, has been crucial to the very continued existence of our republic, a fact which has been recognized by all great patriots of our republic as our nation’s true manifest destiny.

Unfortunately, even up to the present date, Europe has not yet succeeded in establishing durable forms of true constitutional republics. Great reforms, especially reforms inspired by our successful struggle for liberty against our own British oligarchical oppressor, have occurred. For a time, some among us had good reason to be hopeful that President Charles de Gaulle would lead his nation into becoming a true republic. Unfortunately, despite the great democratizing reforms which have occurred in the old world, the constitutions of Europe are still but the reformed relics of feudal institutions of government, under an arrangement in which parliaments are as often the victims of a reigning financier oligarchy, operating like a puppet-master from behind the scenes, as master of the nation’s affairs. Such was the nature of the way in which Anglo-American oligarchical interest destroyed the sovereign political system of Italy, beginning 1992, and the way in which Anglo-American oligarchical agencies have prompted the eruption of a similar destabilization of the representative political institutions of Germany, and potentially also France, most recently.

Unfortunately, since the establishment of our own constitutional republic, we as a people have often been betrayed by ourselves. Today, as often during the past, our nation has been more often the victim of inherently wicked, powerful forces living among us, than of any foreign power. Among us, there are chiefly two powerful enemies, and yet a third powerful cause for our recurring, self-inflicted sorrows.

Our republic’s two explicit internal enemies of note, are, first, a financier oligarchy, which came to be centered in New York City’s Wall Street, around the circles of British Foreign Office agent Aaron Burr; and, second, the tradition of the slaveholding planter oligarchy, the tradition we associate with the Confederacy. The third enemy, is the persisting folly among the ordinary people of our nation, those whom President Abraham Lincoln described by observing that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and most of the people, as today, all of the time. The persisting propensity of the majority among our people to be fooled, is the third, and most important source of all those afflictions we have suffered since our republic was established. The wicked minority, the concerts of Wall Street financial-oligarchical interest which follow in the footsteps of Aaron Burr’s Bank of Manhattan, and of the slaveholder tradition, are the minority which has been able to rule during so many intervals of our history, solely through the recurring disposition of the majority of our people to behave as political fools.

Thus, it came to be the case, that the financier-oligarchical legacy, jointly represented by the Wall Street financier interest and its law firms, and the Lockean legacy of the slaveowners’ tradition, have been my only significant political enemies here, within the United States. The others among my opponents, are simply people, of sundry stations, behaving, not uncommonly, as fools. To understand that conflict between me and those significant political enemies, and such among their lackeys as the Justice Department’s John Keeney, is to understand each and all of the leading issues expressed in thirty-odd years of the “Get LaRouche” operation.

The political issue which underlies the continuing de facto criminality of the Justice Department’s permanent bureaucracy, is exactly the same as what Henry Kissinger identified, in his Chatham House address, as the conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. That, for example, has been the only essential conflict between me and Kissinger, throughout the recent approximately thirty years to date.

However, like the infinitely corrupt Fouché and Talleyrand of their own time, today’s creatures such as John Keeney and Kissinger, or the Trilateral Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, are but liveried lackeys disguised in mufti. To locate the political issues of our time, one must first address them according to the famous prescription of England’s Alexander Pope: “Pray, Sir, and whose dog are you?” One must identify the mere lackeys by their masters.

The proximate origin of that political conflict today, can be efficiently traced from the successful assassination of President William McKinley, in 1901. That assassination, arranged through the Henry Street Settlement House of Emma Goldman, made a scion of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt, President.[fn_52] It was that Roosevelt, and the man he made President, Woodrow Wilson, who introduced those sweeping disastrous changes in our institutions, which have brought us repeatedly to the verge of ruin during today’s preceding hundred years. The Criminal Division of the Justice Department, as typified by John Keeney and J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, is an exemplary, Wall Street-controlled, creation of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidency, and one of the key puppets of Wall Street inside the permanent bureaucracy of our government, to the present date. The satanic figure of bureaucrat Keeney, typifies such mere puppets of the bidding of Wall Street financier interest and its attached law firms.

Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (shown here) and Woodrow Wilson introduced “those sweeping disastrous changes in our institutions, which have brought us repeatedly to the verge of ruin during today’s preceding hundred years.”

---------------------------------------------

Typical: specifically, the FBI was first established, as the National Bureau of Investigation, by Theodore Roosevelt’s Attorney General, Charles Bonaparte, a Fouché of his time, and an authentic member of the Bonaparte family, who plainly stated his intent to create a Bonapartist style of political police agency in the United States. He proposed a secret political police, like that under the Emperor Napoleon, and under the latter’s nephew and Lord Palmerston appointee as ruler of France, Napoleon III.[fn_53] This secret political police became known, chiefly, as the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover notoriety.

Typically, Theodore Roosevelt’s mentor was a famous traitor to the United States, his uncle, the rabid Anglophile Captain James Bulloch, a notorious filibusterer and head of the foreign intelligence service for the Confederate States of America. “Teddy” represented, as his adopted patron, the notoriously tainted, rabidly Anglophile, Wall Street faction of the national Republican Party, the bitter enemies of such Lincoln Republicans as Garfield, Blaine, and McKinley.

Typically, the man whom Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose theatrics made President, Woodrow Wilson, was a fanatical admirer of the Ku Klux Klan, who launched the mass-organizing for a revived Klan, openly, from that Executive Mansion which “Teddy” had renamed “The White House.”

In that time, New York Republicans and New York Democrats were interchangeable parts. Tilden’s campaign had ended Reconstruction, and Cleveland’s Presidency had installed both the establishment of a Wall Street-controlled permanent Federal bureaucracy, in the abused name of “reform,” and also the Jim Crow doctrine enshrined by “separate but equal.” The Sons of the Confederacy and Wall Street were as one in their determination to uproot and eradicate the legacy of Presidents such as Washington, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley.

Typical of wretches of his pedigree, Theodore Roosevelt rewarded those who had brought him into the Presidency by unleashing, in the name of “trust-busting,” an onrushing takeover of American productive entrepreneurship’s interests, by the interlinked Wall Street and London financier oligarchies. The design of the Federal Reserve System, on the initiative of King Edward VII’s chief financial agent inside the U.S., Jacob Schiff, and the establishment of that Federal Reserve System by a Roosevelt-backed racist, President Woodrow Wilson, typify the counterrevolutionary character of the changes introduced to the U.S. and its economy, under the successive Presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge. Except for the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, the United States as a republic could not have survived what the Presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge wrought.

In the setting of the years following the assassination of the President John F. Kennedy who had made a knowledgeable commitment to revive the Franklin Roosevelt legacy, I found myself moving into a new way of personal life. My principles were not altered; they remained, axiomatically, those which defined my entire development over the first thirty years of my life. What changed, during the middle of the 1960s, was an emerging new sense of personal responsibility, and mission, in defense of this nation from the greatest dangers which I recognized as emergent at that time. There were either very few individuals who accepted that responsibility at that time, or, if they existed, they have vanished, unheralded, from the scene. Thus, my own emerging role in our national political life has been a unique one, both within our nation, and, increasingly, in the world at large. As a correlative, this relative uniqueness of my qualifications on this account has produced, as reaction, the relative uniqueness of the campaigns of assassination, defamation, and prosecution, which the Justice Department and its Wall Street masters have conducted against me, around the world, during these recent thirty years.

Thus, in that time, especially after the assassination of the Reverend Martin Luther King, I found myself amid a growing political vacuum of national leadership, a general lack of those specific qualities of leadership needed to pull the nation back to at least the level of quality of outlook characteristic of the best features of the Lincoln tradition and the Franklin Roosevelt legacy.[fn_54]

At first, my role in our political life was that of a gadfly, a critic of the prevailing absurdities of that time. After the follies of President Richard Nixon’s decisions of mid-August 1971, my situation changed rapidly. Because of my exceptional combination of qualifications as a cultivated original thinker and economist, and also my temperament, I began to emerge rather rapidly as a significant new political figure in our nation, and among nations abroad. It was to this that the herders of the political sheep pens and slaughterhouses reacted early on; by late 1973, they had decided to orchestrate my assassination by the FBI’s puppets within the National Committee of the Communist Party U.S.A. As the behavior of the leading mass-media since 1973 attests, and as the three decades of the still-ongoing Justice Department operations against me attest, the oligarchical managers of our nation’s political sheep-pens are still at their bloody work.

Think of the way in which cattle-breeders manage their herds. The fat, milky, and manageable critters, they breed; those difficult to control, or ill-suited to menial labor, or those which are simply deemed too numerous to suit their master’s pleasure, they cull. That is the way the slave-catchers culled their captives. That is the way in which oligarchies, throughout the ages of known history, have managed the political herds over which they ruled. Traditionally, as the case of the assassination of a J. Edgar Hoover-targetted Martin Luther King attests,[fn_55] oligarchies and their menial lackeys do not wait until an insolent specimen becomes a serious threat to the oligarchy’s arrangements, as Presidential pre-candidate Robert Kennedy did; the oligarchs tend to order them killed before they might have the chance to develop, to become a serious threat. With the oligarchs and their lackeys, that is partly a matter of instinct: the instinct to kill what they dislike. Among cleverer managers of the political herd, there is a more cultivated motive for such killings and kindred enterprises in culling the popular herd.

It is in the nature of any sort of oligarchical society to descend into self-inflicted crises of existential implications. In such crises, there tends to be a quickly spreading, popular receptivity, born in desperation, to consider new ideas. I have referred to this as a “Pearl Harbor Effect”: the often sudden changes in the temper and outlook of even the majority of the population in the moment “the bomb drops.” If there are voices which might qualify as new leaders, under such circumstances, important changes may be introduced to society. If such leaders are wanting, or have been culled beforehand, the old oligarchy will either retain power, or soon regain it, and “the same old crap goes on all over again.”

Since human nature itself is alien to the state of being human cattle, the impulse within the population, especially among the young, to establish new institutions consistent with actual human nature, is relatively strong, especially during shocking crises, then at least for a relatively short time. Great changes for the better may occur under such circumstances. The adopted self-interest of the oligarchy is either to prevent such changes, or to adapt to them with the intent to recapture their old, customary power, if perhaps in a slightly modified form, once the population has settled into preoccupation with the banality of narrowly defined personal and local self-interests.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was bitterly opposed by Wall Street and the U.S. Supreme Court, on the issue of Roosevelt’s advocacy of the constitutional principle of the General Welfare.

---------------------------------------------

If one views the case of President Franklin Roosevelt, and of President John Kennedy, from this historical vantage-point, the oligarchy’s continuing hatred of Roosevelt, and of Kennedy, to the present day, is easily recognized. Then, and now, the oligarchy and its lackeys think: Prevent that from ever happening again! That reaction is virtually a matter of instinct.

This reaction operates not only against mavericks who might become President. The oligarch’s rule is to weed out potentially troublesome persons of republican impulse at all levels. Either to kill them, imprison them, defame them, or neutralize them in other ways, including such tactics as the pure and simple personal, financial, or other corruption used to manufacture the prosecution witnesses for the Boston and Alexandria trials.

Essentially, the culpable characters in the Justice Department, the FBI, the Democratic National Committee’s bureaucracy, and the mass media, are simply lackeys; but, as one might recall from the study of feudal and other history, it is the lackeys who usually do their masters’ dirty work, and who seem, like Nazi SS men, to enjoy it the most.

So, in 1973, Wall Street’s Justice Department lackeys said: “Kill him!” When I began to play a marginal role internationally, and then run for President, the oligarchy reacted, by judging me to be potentially even much more dangerous than in 1973. By 1982, my influence internationally had reached the level at which the oligarchs decided to eradicate me and everything associated with me. They did so because they were frightened, because they fear that someone might do as I was committed to doing: utilize the impending global crisis to bring back the American system and its legacy. That, indeed, I will do, if I am allowed.

That, in short, is the one and only true reason for the prosecutorial and other dirty operations against me and my friends, to which I have referred here. The concern of the oligarchy and its lackeys is to be rid of me in any way possible. Only countervailing considerations of factitious advantage and related notions of political expediency deter them from simply killing me at any early moment. I fear what will become of all of you who survive me, if I am taken from you in that or similar ways.

The Historical Issue of Those Trials

The leading issue, which set Wall Street and the Supreme Court into bitter opposition to President Franklin Roosevelt then, was Roosevelt’s advocacy of the cause for which our nation’s founders had established our independence and our Federal Constitutional republic. That advocacy is stated, as I have already emphasized here, in the first three paragraphs of the 1776 Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the Federal Constitution. In that Preamble, the most distinguishing, fundamental principle of law, upon which the distinguishing features of the remainder of that Constitution are premised axiomatically, is the principle of the general welfare. That was always the issue between President Franklin Roosevelt on the one side, and oligarchical forces of Wall Street and the Supreme Court on the opposite side.

That bitter, axiomatic issue, is the pivotal motive for our oligarchs’ hatred of Franklin Roosevelt then, and of me today. It is also the key to understanding the moral issue which rots out the political and other character of even most professing Christians, and similar hypocrites, in the U.S.A. today.

Thus, the political history of the Twentieth-Century U.S.A. became the tale of the two President Roosevelts: Teddy the louse, versus Franklin the patriot. Thus, the root of the same issue, is the issue of two mutually exclusive conceptions of individual human nature: the one the notion of man as endowed with that power of cognition, which defines all persons as made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, and the opposite, oligarchical assumption, an assumption expressed in the axiomatically bestial, empiricist notions of human nature, the conception of man expressed by both Bernard de Mandeville’s satanic fable, The Fable of the Bees,[fn_56] and the related, oligarchical notions of slaveholder or shareholder “values,” the latter considered as axiomatically supreme in law-making.

The willingness of the Federal Court to condone the mass-murder of citizens through application of shareholder value to HMO practices, welfare reform, Social Security, and other domains, puts these issues of contending legal principle into sharper focus. Implicitly, whenever the courts, for one, uphold the premise of shareholder value, or kindred premises, for decisions disfavorable to the principle of the general welfare, that court’s majority is urinating upon the Declaration of Independence and Federal Constitution, acts which are rightly considered as impeachable. Consider, as a most relevant example of this point, the landmark decisions associated with the regimes of the currently reigning, and ruining Governors of the Federal states of Texas, Florida, and Virginia. Consider the recent history of relevant majority decisions by the Supreme Court in that light. Keep in mind, as you consider this matter, the phrase “culling the popular herd.”

Consider the case in which a convict, sitting on death row, has the prospective benefit of evidence showing either that he, or she is probably innocent, or simply that the relevant trial was so polluted in character, that the case must be returned to fresh trial. Consider the number of such extreme cases of death-row inmates which have been rushed to execution in defiance of reasonable evidence of such flaws in the judgment at trial. Consider, then, the instances in which the relevant state and Federal judicial and other authorities have argued that the desire to establish the perfect “finality” of death-sentences overrides the considerations of truth and justice. Consider the number of such cases in which decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have either ordered executions to proceed, in effect, or in which model such decisions by that Court have cleared the way for termination at the lower levels of decision-making. Consider the relevant, perverted state of mind expressed by both of the relevant sons of former President George Bush in such and related matters.

What does the mere existence of such a condition say of the entire system of Federal justice today? It says that the Federal system of justice has become a prosecutorial crap-game, and a rigged one at that. It says, that truth is no longer axiomatically a consideration in our Federal system of justice. It says that the Federal courts have tended to become the mere rubber stamps for such Fouchés of the Federal prosecutorial bureaucracy as John Keeney.

Ah! But there is something else of great importance to be considered. The role of mass-media-orchestrated “popular opinion,” that popular opinion which is the last resort of appeal by the common scoundrel of today.

This modern cult of media-orchestrated popular opinion, so defined by Woodrow Wilson’s Walter Lippmann, is to be recognized as nothing other than an echo of the same cult of vox populi, under whose reign ancient Rome guided itself into that moral degeneracy which brought about the great Dark Age of the First Millennium A.D. Thus, through the cult of popular opinion, Rome acquired its fatal loss of the moral fitness of its culture to survive. We as a nation, have been following that same road to Hell, during no less than the recent three decades.

The leading, characteristic pathology of that self-doomed Roman culture was the corruption of the mass of the population by the methods of “bread and circuses.” There is virtually no moral difference between the form of entertainment which the Romans enjoyed in the Coliseum under the worst of the Caesars, and popular mass-entertainment today, both TV entertainment, and such forms as mass-spectator stadium and related sports events. If one compares the pornography and blood-and-gore in mass entertainment, with what usually passes for mass-media news broadcasts, one should recognize, with a sense of horror, the systemic likeness of the moral depravity of ancient Roman culture and our own. Worst of all, perhaps, is that such orchestrated depravity has been the principal influence shaping the conduct and outcome of our recent national and other election-campaigns.

The only remedy for such an imminently fatal moral sickness as that disease of popular opinion, is a combined sense of reality and truthfulness, as Plato, for example, supplied modern civilization its method for defining truthfulness and justice. We can only hope, that the impending, massive shock, of the now-looming, chain-reaction collapse of the world’s present financial system, will drive the population out of the delusions of current, presently doomed financial markets, into a sense of a real world, in which what we will be able to consume, will be simply what our nation is able to produce: a sudden return to reality, prompted by a shock akin in its effects to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

When reality-shock brings your neighbor to his senses, at last, remember what I have told you about the great questions of history, justice, and the battle between oligarchs and real human beings.

Now, spectators, I have given you the score-card. Choose your sides accordingly. Now, recognize that it is increasingly often the case, that only those who speak honestly of their convictions, these days, are telling the truth. Thus, I have told the truth you urgently need to know.

[fn_1]. During 1974-76, the State Department circulated internationally, the January 1974 New York Times attack on LaRouche, and other vilifications drawn from both the FBI and private sources. For example, on March 18, 1976, a cable was sent “To All American Diplomatic and Consular Posts,” describing the National Caucus of Labor Committees (the philosophical association founded by Lyndon LaRouche) as “a small, fanatical . . . violence-oriented” organization, and repeating other derogatory characterizations taken from the FBI. After a Bangladesh government newspaper published an article by an EIR correspondent, a March 24, 1976 cable was sent to the U.S. Embassy in Dacca, over Kissinger’s signature, also quoting from the New York Times. Declassified State Department documents also point to the involvement of Kissinger’s State Department in the expulsion of EIR correspondents from the Foreign Press Association in Germany in 1975, and in the arrest and detention of an EIR correspondent in Lima, Peru in 1976. [back to text for fn_1]

[fn_2]. Boston’s Federal Judge Keeton is among the notable exceptions. See his review of the abortive trial over which he had presided: See Memorandum and Order, August 10, 1988, U.S.A. v. The LaRouche Campaign, et al., United States District Court District of Massachusetts CR. No. 86-323-K. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. A fair, if incomplete view of the reasons why this characterization is required, is to be obtained through study of the documentation supplied in the 1989 publication, Railroad! See below. [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. Commission to Investigate Human Rights Violations (Washington, D.C.: 1989). [back to text for fn_4]

[fn_5]. The belated release, in January 1992, of the official FBI document exposing the FBI’s 1973 intent to bring about what the FBI described as the “elimination” of Lyndon LaRouche, is typical of the way in which crucially clarifying elements of evidence have turned up, sometimes decades after the fact of the matter. See references to that “elimination” document, below. [back to text for fn_5]

[fn_6]. In the August 16, 1999 oral argument before a three-judge panel in D.C.’s Federal District Court, Keeney stated, “. . . The Dissent is going to put into question the Constitutionality of the Act [the 1965 Voting Rights Act]. And that’s a different question than the statutory interpretation of the act itself.” The Dissent to which Keeney referred was authored by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia and endorsed by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas in the 1996 case Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 116 S. CT.1186 (1996). [back to text for fn_6]

[fn_7]. The principal relevant U.S. Justice Department official, back in 1983, and still today, is a top official of the permanent bureaucracy of the Department, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney, the father of the same John Keeney, Jr., who, as attorney for the Democratic National Committee, moved in Federal Court for the nullification of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. See “John Keeney, John Richard, and the DOJ Permanent Bureaucracy,” EIR, June 30, 1995; “Justice Department: The Corruption Is in the Permanent Bureaucracy,” EIR, April 25, 1997; and, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Lying and Racism inside the Democratic Party,” EIR, Dec. 17, 1999. [back to text for fn_7]

[fn_8]. E.O. 12333 Section 2.7 reads, “Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. . . .” [back to text for fn_8]

[fn_9]. On March 27, 1973, various Philadelphia media, including Channel 3 TV’s 6 p.m. news and the Philadelphia Tribune, gave wide coverage to an announcement by the FBI’s surrogate Communist Party U.S.A.-linked Ed Schwartz, head of the Philadelphia Campaign for Adequate Welfare Reform (CAWRN), which demanded a halt to the holding of the founding conference of the National Unemployed and Welfare Rights Organization (NUWRO), an organization catalyzed by Lyndon LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). Schwartz’s statement also called for the Left to stop the NUWRO conference, and following its airing by the media, Communist Party hooligans deployed to mobilize riotous assembly to prevent the conference from occurring. [back to text for fn_9]

[fn_10]. The release of this document essentially did no more than confirm what we knew and stated at various points during the course of December 1973 and early January 1974. We had conclusive evidence of collaboration between certain U.S. and foreign official agencies, including the United Kingdom and the State Security agencies of East Germany, during the second half of 1973. We also had repeated evidence of activity by known hit-squad capabilities imported into New York City, and directly targetting me during December 1973. The FBI document confirms the facts we reported to the press during early January 1974. The fact that the FBI was orchestrating the affairs within the Communist Party’s National Committee in this way, has global strategic implications for the U.S. government at that time. Two facts from the middle 1970s illustrate the point in a crucial way. First, in early 1974, a top official of the Soviet diplomatic service emphasized that CPUSA National Chairman Gus Hall was “a personal friend of Leonid Brezhnev,” then Soviet General Secretary. This discussion, in New York City, was initiated by a Soviet diplomat, in the immediate aftermath of the abortive elimination operation conducted with FBI coordination, during December 1973. Second, as corroborated by crucial documentary evidence secured during that same period, the East Germany Ministry of State Security was conducting an operation against me, run, in part, through West Germany, from about February 1974 through no later than June 1974, during part of the same period of operations referenced by the FBI “elimination” document dating from November 1973. [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11]. New York Times, January 20, 1974. [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12]. September 24, 1976, Stephen Rosenfeld writes an op-ed in the Washington Post titled “NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace,” in which he sets out a media policy for dealing with LaRouche: “We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms. . . . The government should be encouraged to take all legal steps to keep the NCLC from violating the political rights of other Americans.” [back to text for fn_12]

[fn_13]. Letter from FBI Director Clarence Kelly to Warren Hamerman dated September 13, 1977. This letter ostensibly closed the case then being used as a pretext for continuing the ongoing FBI COINTELPRO and related operations. However, the operations actually continued internationally until about the same time that the Mont Pelerin Society and Anti-Defamation League were launching their 1978 “COINTELPRO”-style operations under nominally private covers. [back to text for fn_13]

[fn_14]. The American Family Foundation (AFF) created the fable that LaRouche was the mastermind of a destructive and dangerous cult. This became attached to most media portrayals of LaRouche, and laid the groundwork for the infamous 1986 raid by a joint Federal-state task-force of 400 armed agents led by the FBI on offices related to LaRouche’s activities in Leesburg, Virginia. An armed task-force also surrounded LaRouche’s Leesburg residence, and according to statements by law enforcement operatives involved, plans also called for an attack which would have murdered LaRouche.

The wanton killing of innocent children and others at Waco by a similar task-force, had the crucial involvement of AFF-linked “experts” such as Rick Ross of the Cult Awareness Network.

The AFF was established in the early 1980s as a private counterintelligence and special operations group modelled on the “Watson Plan” of IBM’s Thomas Watson, Jr. At the close of World War II, Watson drew up operational plans to “privatize” the function of the Office of Strategic Services on behalf of some of Wall Street’s most powerful families, who normally avoid the spotlight, using a network of private corporations and law firms for operational and financial support.

An operational war chest of more than a million dollars was amassed for AFF’s early projects, and its largest donors included the Bodman Foundation and various foundations of Richard Mellon Scaife. Watson’s nephew, John N. Irwin III, was a member of Bodman’s board of directors. Scaife funded John Train’s “Get LaRouche” Salon. Bodman was housed in the law offices of Morris and McVeigh, who provided support to the intelligence operation known as the Process Church, a satanic cult, whose active supporters included John Markham, the lead Federal prosecutor in the Boston trial of LaRouche.

The AFF launched the early-1980s operations in Europe against LaRouche’s associates there. Father Haack, AFF’s International Education director, coordinated operations in Germany and France, exporting the cult slander with a 1980 article in the German publication PDI. PDI was later documented to have been funded by the East German intelligence service, the STASI. [back to text for fn_14]

[fn_15]. The ADL has always maintained a close relationship with the DOJ’s permanent bureaucracy. For example, a February 4, 1985 FBI memo to all field offices in the United States, contains a list of ADL regional telephone numbers and the FBI’s speed dial codes for these numbers. [back to text for fn_15]

[fn_16]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “How Our World Was Nearly Destroyed,” and Stuart Rosenblatt, “How Mr. Fixit Nearly Wrecked the World,” a book review of Kai Bird’s biography of John J. McCloy, The Chairman, in EIR, Oct. 23, 1998. [back to text for fn_16]

[fn_17]. United States Senate, Hearings before the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities; Vol. 6, Federal Bureau of Investigation. 94th Congress, Second Session, 1975. [back to text for fn_17]

[fn_18]. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was adopted by Congress in November 21, 1974 as a by-product of the Church Committee and related proceedings. This is a crucial development, as bearing upon the post-September 1977 shift to the attack launched jointly by Heritage, ADL, et al. [back to text for fn_18]

[fn_19]. Founding of CFR during 1920s under direction of British Intelligence’s John Wheeler-Bennet, the sponsor of Henry A. Kissinger’s Professor William Yandell Elliot. [back to text for fn_19]

[fn_20]. The June 1978 Heritage Foundation “Institution Analysis” Report authored by Francis Watson entitled “U.S. Labor Party,” utilizing a bizarre set of formulations gathered from such “sources” as the hard-line Maoist October League newspaper, and the Socialist Workers Party newspaper, The Militant. Branding LaRouche a violent extremist, it was distributed to hundreds of U.S. corporate heads and institutional leaders. In March 1978, the ADL began a systematic harassment and defamation campaign, working through the Jewish Community Relations Council to demand that LaRouche’s views be banned from public locations, and publishing the lie in various press outlets that LaRouche was the most dangerous and violent right-wing extremist around. See, e.g., the Berkeley Barb, August 1978, “Who Are the Terrorists,” where ADL Western Coordinator David Lehrer spread this defamation against LaRouche. Finally, in 1979, the ADL put these defamations out in its own name in an ADL Fact-Finding report. [back to text for fn_20]

[fn_21]. Letter from Henry A. Kissinger to FBI Director William Webster, August 19, 1982. [back to text for fn_21]

[fn_22]. On October 7 and 8, 1979, the New York Times published the Blum and Montgomery slander piece under the titles, “U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy,” and “One Man Leads U.S. Labor Party on Its Erratic Path.” Then, an editorial titled “The Cult of LaRouche,” was published on October 10, 1979. [back to text for fn_22]

[fn_23]. The three relevant Executive Orders are:

E.O. 12331, Oct. 20, 1981, which reestablished the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB). PFIAB was originally established in 1956 under Eisenhower; it was dissolved by Carter, and reestablished in the Reagan-Bush Administration. Members of PFIAB in 1982-1983 included: Anne Armstrong (chairman), Leo Cherne (vice-chairman), David Abshire, Edward Bennett Williams, Adm. Thomas Moorer, Bobby Ray Inman, H. Ross Perot, and Claire Booth Luce.

E.O. 12333, Dec. 4, 1981, “United States Intelligence Activities,” a revision of E.O. 12036 (1978); it established the National Security Council as the “highest Executive Branch entity” for review, guidance, and direction of all foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and covert operations, and it permitted U.S. intelligence agencies to enter into secret contracts for services with “private companies or institutions.”

E.O. 12334, also Dec. 4, 1981, reestablished the Intelligence Oversight Board, a three-member board which provided legal “cover” to covert operations. [back to text for fn_23]

[fn_24]. The meeting took place at Charley O’s restaurant in New York City on July 23, 1979. [back to text for fn_24]

[fn_25]. In the July 23, 1979 meeting, reporter Blum stated that the proposed New York Times article was intended to start a government investigation of LaRouche and his associates and he needed an “eye catcher.” Blum stated that, “The article does not have to be especially true.” Blum went on to say, “A government investigation is what you and I want, isn’t it?” and, “. . . while it might sound cynical, it is more important for the government that something appears in the New York Times than whether or not it is true.” [back to text for fn_25]

[fn_26]. Ibid, see footnote 22. [back to text for fn_26]

[fn_27]. During a period including May 1983, NBC-TV reporter Pat Lynch participated in planning sessions hosted by New York private banker John Train. These meetings featured Train’s coordinating role, using agents of NBC-TV, the Wall Street Journal, Readers’ Digest, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and members of the intelligence community then linked to Vice President George Bush and Lt. Col. Oliver North, to orchestrate a coordinated campaign of mass-media defamation against the 12333-targetted LaRouche. Pittsburgh multi-millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, of Ted Olson Salon notoriety, was a key backer of the operation which brought King and drug-use promoter John Foster “Chip” Berlet into the Train cabal’s operations. As ADL operative Myra Boland’s later testimony showed, NBC-TV’s Lynch had lied under oath in deposition hearings, respecting Train’s role in shaping her libelous frauds of March 1984. Train and members of his circle such as Pat Lynch, served as a cover for conducting controlled witnesses, called “defectors,” into the witness pool of perjured witnesses for Federal prosecutors’ use in both the Boston and Alexandria trials. The methods of brainwashing used to create such witnesses have been documented in legal discovery of government and related evidence. All of the witnesses among so-called former associates of the defendants, were part of that witness pool maintained under private cover, thus providing prosecutors the pretext for evading their accountability for use of what they knew or suspected to be perjured witnesses. The core of this prepared pack of perjurers was the group identified at both the Boston and Alexandria trials as the “Hallowe’en Party” group, the group which NBC-TV’s Pat Lynch conduited to the Federal prosecutors. [back to text for fn_27]

[fn_28]. On August 19, 1982, Henry Kissinger wrote a “Dear Bill” letter to FBI Director William Webster thanking him for an earlier note, and to put him on notice that Kissinger’s attorney, Bill Rogers of Arnold and Porter law firm, would be contacting him “about LaRouche.” Four days later, Rogers sent a letter to Webster asking for the FBI to look into the LaRouche “group,” thanking the Director for his “interest in the matter,” and relating that Kissinger hopes “the Bureau takes appropriate action.” On September 16, Webster replied that the FBI is “limited” in what it can do “since the data we have [don’t] justify an inquiry,” at this time. Eight days later, the FBI’s Security Chief of Intelligence Division, James Nolan, issued a report on “LaRouche and the EIR,” concocting a pretext for launching a foreign counterintelligence investigation of LaRouche and EIR by claiming that their activities and publications are “propitious to Soviet disinformation and propaganda interests” even though “there is no firm evidence that Soviets are directing or funding LaRouche or his organization.”

Then on November 25, Kissinger again writes to Webster demanding an investigation of LaRouche and his associates, but this time he uses the buzzwords “disinformation campaign supported by foreign intelligence services,” and insists that the FBI must find out “who finances this network.” This November 25 letter is hand-delivered to Webster by PFIAB member Edward Bennett Williams. In December, various divisions of the FBI look into it, but conclude there are no violations of law. But then, on January 12, 1983, Webster reports that at a PFIAB meeting the subject of whether the FBI had a basis for investigating “under the guidelines or otherwise,” the “U.S. Labor Party and . . . LaRouche,” is discussed. Edward Bennett Williams raised the question of “sources of funding,” and “whether hostile foreign intelligence agencies” were involved. The tripwire had been crossed, and on the same day the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS) of the DOJ filed a formal request for the FBI to open an investigation. [back to text for fn_28]

[fn_29]. John C. Keeney, Sr. joined the Justice Department in 1951, during the heyday of J. Edgar Hoover and McCarthyism, and was assigned to the Internal Security Division; Keeney was put in charge of anti-communist Smith Act cases until 1960, when he transferred to the Criminal Division. Since 1973, he has been the senior career prosecutor in the Criminal Division—where he has far more power than the temporary political appointees who nominally head the Criminal Division.

Senator Edward Kennedy in 1973 said that “the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department represents the Second Coming of Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee.” The Internal Security Division was disbanded after the Congressional investigations of the 1970s, and its functions and personnel were divided up between the new Internal Security Section of the Criminal Division (espionage cases and the Foreign Agents Registration Act), and the newly created General Litigation and Legal Advice Section (GLLAS) of the Criminal Division.

The most notorious figure from the old Internal Security Division was Guy Goodwin, who ran over 100 grand juries in the early 1970s targetting radicals, anti-war activists, unions, and others. Goodwin went into GLLAS as a special advisor in 1979.

Much of the “LaRouche” portfolio also went into GLLAS, under the direction of Benjamin Flannagan, who had been in the old Internal Security Division with Keeney starting in 1955. Flannagan headed the unit in GLLAS called “special civil matters,” which included the defense of civil actions which could “interfere with . . . national security operations.”

It was the GLLAS section, which ordered the FBI to investigate Henry Kissinger’s complaints against LaRouche. Five days after the January 12, 1983 meeting of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a Justice Department memorandum from D. Lowell Jensen, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division, instructed the FBI to report the results of its investigation directly in writing to Lawrence Lippe, the chief of the GLLAS section. Kissinger’s law firm, Arnold and Porter, in Washington, communicated directly with Lippe and the GLLAS section, according to FBI documents. [back to text for fn_29]

[fn_30]. Beyond the Kissinger matter, GLLAS was involved in virtually every aspect of the LaRouche case in the 1980s. In 1984, GLLAS defended the Secret Service’s denial of security protection to Presidential candidate LaRouche. The litigation was handled by GLLAS senior legal advisors Benjamin Flannagan and Victor Stone.

In 1986, GLLAS was assigned by then-Criminal Division head William Weld to coordinate collection of the Boston contempt fines against organizations identified with Lyndon LaRouche—which led to the illegal bankruptcy seizure of three publishing and distributing companies. In March 1987, Weld contacted James Reynolds of GLLAS, to ask if there would be any problem for prosecutors in the LaRouche criminal case, if the government were to initiate an involuntary bankruptcy action. Shortly after this, four senior GLLAS attorneys, including Flannagan and Stone, held a conference call with DOJ bankruptcy specialist David Schiller. Documents later released under the FOIA contain handwritten notes made by Reynolds during the call, in which Reynolds wrote: “Benefit is that a trustee is immediately appointed. They are ordered to shut down the business immediately.” A marginal note next to this reads: “Trustee’s role is to shut down the entities.” (This totally contradicted the prosecutors’ official denials, that they did not intend to shut down the publishing companies.)

When the judge in the 1988 Boston trial of LaRouche ordered an “all-agency search” of Federal agencies, including the office of Vice President George Bush, for any exculpatory documents concerning LaRouche, it was Benjamin Flannagan of GLLAS who coordinated the search—and, of course, found nothing.

After the collapse of the Boston case, the Justice Department prepared to move the case to the Eastern District of Virginia, where they could be certain of having a rigged judge and jury. However, to bring a second indictment while the first was still pending was highly questionable, even by Justice Department standards. Prosecutors went to Mark Richard for formal approval to bring the second prosecution against Lyndon LaRouche, and then Keeney signed the official authorization.

On October 14, LaRouche and the other targets of the Alexandria prosecution went into Federal court in Washington, D.C., to attempt to enjoin the pending indictment. Because the action involved a pending grand jury indictment, the courtroom, presided over by Judge Stanley Sporkin (the former CIA general counsel), was closed. Just as the proceeding got under way, two attorneys from GLLAS, Flannagan and Stone, came running breathlessly up to the courtroom and demanded entrance. In an affidavit submitted in a later case, Flannagan stated that he had been “personally directed by . . . John Keeney to go to Judge Sporkin’s courtroom” to assist Alexandria prosecutor Henry Hudson in opposing LaRouche’s request for an injunction. Sporkin quickly denied the injunction, and within a few hours, LaRouche and six co-defendants were indicted. [back to text for fn_30]

[fn_31]. This included an official, fraudulent, and defamatory letter, dated March 18, 1976, issued against me internationally over Kissinger’s personal signature. The issue was my ongoing campaigning for monetary reforms consistent with the proposal for a just new world economic order adopted at the August 1976 Colombo, Sri Lanka conference of the Non-Aligned Nations organization. [back to text for fn_31]

[fn_32]. Excerpts from Kissinger’s 1974 “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests,” Dec. 10, 1974, were published in EIR, June 9, 1995. [back to text for fn_32]

[fn_33]. This was a two-day EIR seminar in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 18-19, 1982, on ballistic missile defense based on new physical principles. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Only Beam-Weapons Could Bring to an End the Kissingerian Age of Mutual Thermonuclear Terror: A Proposed Modern Military Policy of the United States,” a National Democratic Policy Committee pamphlet (New York City: 1982). [back to text for fn_33]

[fn_34]. In all its principal features, the relevant, concluding five-minute segment of the President’s March 23, 1983 address, followed the outline I had presented as a tentative option, to the Soviet Government, at a Washington hotel back-channel meeting of 1982. This coincidence was not accidental. Notably, however, Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Daniel Graham’s Heritage Foundation, which had been a savage opponent of SDI during the latter part of 1982 and early 1983, intervened quickly, through certain Republican Party channels, to force a radical modification of the policy, modifications which led into the intrinsically incompetent notion of ballistic missile defense being popularized in some circles today. [back to text for fn_34]

[fn_35]. The transcript of Kissinger’s Chatham House address was obtained by EIR from Kissinger’s office at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The chairman of CSIS was David Abshire, who was one of those who pressed Kissinger’s demand for an FBI investigation of LaRouche upon the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in January 1983. [back to text for fn_35]

[fn_36]. “Moscow’s Secret Weapon: Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Mafia,” EIR Special Report, March 1, 1986, Chapters I and II. [back to text for fn_36]

[fn_37]. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Mexico/Ibero-America Policy Study: Operation Juárez,” EIR Special Report, Aug. 2, 1982. [back to text for fn_37]

[fn_38]. During this period, Kissinger received a series of appointments to official posts within the Reagan Administration, including to PFIAB itself. These appointments of Kissinger correlate precisely, in form and intent, with the establishment of both Project Democracy and its twin, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to the board of which latter Kissinger was appointed. The latter two Orwellian concoctions in the art of Doublespeak and Newspeak, Project Democracy and NED, played a pivotal role in aspects of the “Get LaRouche” task-force’s operations then, and that role continues to the present day. [back to text for fn_38]

[fn_39]. After the mistrial in Boston, several jurors were interviewed by the Boston Herald. The May 5, 1988 issue carried a headline, “LaRouche Jury Would Have Voted ‘Not Guilty.’ ” The article reported that jurors would have “unanimously decided they would find LaRouche, six aides and five organizations innocent of all charges based on evidence presented since the trial began on Dec. 7.” One of the jurors interviewed cited government misconduct as a compelling factor in his vote: “It seemed some of the government’s people caused the problem [for LaRouche] . . . adding that evidence showed people working on behalf of the government may have been involved in some of this fraud to discredit the campaign.” See Railroad! [back to text for fn_39]

[fn_40]. In an August 10, 1988 Memorandum and Order, Judge Keeton found “institutional and systemic prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during the first trial.” [back to text for fn_40]

[fn_41]. See footnote 30. It is instructive to note how many of the same Justice Department and GLLAS personnel, who were involved in the targetting and frame-up of LaRouche, are also implicated in the filing of false testimony in the case of renegade CIA officer Edwin Wilson in the early 1980s, and then covering up this prosecutorial misconduct. [back to text for fn_41]

[fn_42]. As post-trial evidence showed beyond doubt, in that trial, not only most of the key prosecution witnesses, but even members of the jury gave false testimony under oath! The prosecution was fully witting that those witnesses’ testimony was false. [back to text for fn_42]

[fn_43]. The FBI waited until the very day that the illegal bankruptcy was filed, April 20, 1987, to begin interviewing lenders. On that date, an FBI telex was sent to every FBI office in the United States and internationally, with instructions to begin interviewing LaRouche’s political supporters who had made loans to the publishing companies that the Government had just bankrupted. The telex included instructions that agents should persist in their efforts to interview lenders, to the point of undermining those individuals political support for LaRouche. [back to text for fn_43]

[fn_44]. The record shows, that the entirety of the charge of loan fraud was a concoction of a joint prosecutorial task-force of Boston and Alexandria Federal and Commonwealth of Virginia prosecutors. The record shows, that it was the intent of Federal prosecutors to fabricate a loan-fraud case by these combined operations of February and April 1987. It was decided to hold these charges back, held in reserve for the contingency that the Federal prosecution might fail in Boston. As related trial proceedings in other locations proved, the characterization of the loans in these cases, by both Virginia and Federal prosecutors, was a willfully fraudulent one. [back to text for fn_44]

[fn_45]. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Oct. 12, 1988 Berlin address forecasting the imminent collapse of the Comecon system, and the early emergence of Berlin as the capital of a reunified Germany. See Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Presidential candidate’s nationwide TV broadcast, “The Winter of Our Discontent,” Oct. 31, 1988. The full transcript appeared in EIR, Nov. 4, 1994. [back to text for fn_45]

[fn_46]. This was indeed pointed out to Judge Bryan, who would not permit fact or considerations of truthfulness to interfere with his determination to keep his railroad running on his arbitrary schedule. [back to text for fn_46]

[fn_47]. Take into account the months of saturation of the Virginia population from which the jury pool was drawn, with the heavy propaganda of defamation against me from the Washington Post, and virtually all of the mass print and electronic media of the area. Then, consider the trial judge’s pre-trial and in-trial rulings on relevant matters, and the perfunctory and, in fact, corrupted voir dire of the jury selection itself. Judge Bryan was fully witting in his fanatical rigging of this, as in other features of pre-trial and in-trial rulings. [back to text for fn_47]

[fn_48]. Which, as post-trial investigations showed, this jury was not. See Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, Correct Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255, U.S.A. v. LaRouche, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals, (4th Cir.) Docket No. 92-6701. [back to text for fn_48]

[fn_49]. “LaRouche Was Innocent, as Dreyfus Was,” Washington Post, March 1, 1989. “LaRouche Case Like Dreyfus Affair,” International Commission for Human Rights, Washington Post, March 3, 1989. [back to text for fn_49]

[fn_50]. As a matter of provable principle, empiricism and positivism must be included with slavery, cannibalism, and serfdom as bestial misconceptions of the nature of man. [back to text for fn_50]

[fn_51]. See “Motion to Affirm” [99-1212], submitted to the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. by DNC General Counsel Joseph M. Sandler and attorney of record John C. Keeney, Jr. [back to text for fn_51]

[fn_52]. “Why the British Kill American Presidents,” New Federalist pamphlet, December 1994, pp. 24-31; and Anton Chaitkin, “Why the British Kill American Presidents,” unpublished book manuscript, 1995. [back to text for fn_52]

[fn_53]. See Appendix C, “The FBI: An American Okhrana,” in Dope, Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy (Washington, D.C.: Executive Intelligence Review, 1992). [back to text for fn_53]

[fn_54]. In 1976, I was already the best qualified among the visible candidates to become President. For the sake of our nation, I should have become President in 1980 and 1988. I am the only candidate actually qualified to be President at the present crisis-juncture. Think of the flip side of that point; why have no other qualified candidates appeared at this juncture? There should be dozens of qualified candidates contending at open party nominating conventions. The culling-process has reduced our citizens’ actual choices to but the one candidate the oligarchical interest is most fanatically determine to crush and eradicate. [back to text for fn_54]

[fn_55]. If you think seriously about the matter, Martin Luther King was the person best qualified, personally, to become President in 1968, and should have become President, had he lived, in 1972 or 1976. He had proven his capability of pulling most of the nation together for the purpose of justice for all of the people, a rare quality among candidates of the recent three decades. [back to text for fn_55]

[fn_56]. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits (London: 1714). Mandeville argued for legalization of all vices, with the argument that the mysterious processes of percussive interaction among individuals’ impulses, must automatically produce a result consistent with public interest. This same satanic doctrine of Mandeville’s was explicitly adopted by the late Friedrich von Hayek as the religious premise of his and Professor Milton Friedman’s Mont Pelerin Society, the hand behind the Washington, D.C. Heritage Foundation and numerous other rabidly “free trade” cult-organizations polluting the political scene today. Lord Shelburne’s puppet, Adam Smith, adopted the satanic doctrine of Mandeville as the central feature of his 1759 Theory of the Moral Sentiments, and adopted the implicitly Frondist dogma of pro-feudalist Dr. François Quesnay’s laissez-faire as one of the many features of the Physiocratic dogma plagiarized for Smith’s own Wealth of Nations. One might often wonder, whether the sly Justice Scalia recognizes the satanic origins of his own response to the dogma of shareholder value. [back to text for fn_56]

To order back issues of Fidelio, do not use the online order form. Email the Schiller Institute at schiller@schillerinstitute.org or call 1-703-297-8368 (United States).

Visit the Fidelio archive

---------------------------------------------