This article appears in the January 20, 2017 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Foreign Power Corrupting
U.S. Politics Is London, Not Moscow

[PDF version of this article]

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the chairwoman of the German political party Civil Rights Movement Solidarity (BüSo)

Jan. 13—The unprecedented hysteria of the mainstream media and the neocons on both sides of the Atlantic over the election of Donald Trump is material for a first-class object lesson on the real dynamic now unfolding on the global strategic stage. It makes crystal clear, even for the most naïve adherent of political correctness, that what is happening has nothing to do with the interests of one party, or one state, against another. It has to do with the methods used by a collapsing empire against the emergence of a new paradigm, the precise content of which has not yet been clearly defined, but which nonetheless represents the rejection of the system of globalization.

Precisely on the eve of Trump’s first press conference as President-elect, the U.S. television network CNN, and Buzzfeed, an Internet media company, created a huge sensation by breaking the story of a 35-page dossier which, in addition to reporting unspeakable anecdotes about Trump’s alleged sexual habits, claimed that there is evidence that Trump is a de facto a Russian agent. After the campaign—long since refuted by cyber-experts—that Russia had hacked emails of the Democratic National Committee, systematically smeared Hillary Clinton, and thereby helped Trump get elected, this new action was intended to lay the groundwork—even before Trump occupies the White House—for a rapid impeachment.

New York Daily News/you tube Christopher Steele

The author of the dossier is Christopher Steele, a Russian expert from MI6, the British foreign intelligence service, who concocted the dossier in the summer of 2016. It circulated for months in U.S. media circles and was considered so dubious that no one was willing to publish it during the hot phase of the election campaign. It was given directly to FBI Director James Comey, and given to the FBI again by Senator John McCain, after he heard former British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood praise Steele and his “integrity” on the sidelines of a security conference in Canada.

cc/Chatham House Sir Andrew Wood

After the surge of propaganda about the Russians stealing the U.S. election, and after Trump’s declaration that he found Julian Assange of Wikileaks more credible than the U.S. intelligence services, the three U.S. intelligence chiefs—Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Director James Comey—briefed the U.S. Senate, as well as President Obama and President-elect Trump, on their version of the story. The 35-page dossier would have played no role, because it was not credible, had these three intelligence chiefs not appended a two-page summary of it to their documents. The dodgy dossier was thus given the status of serious intelligence information, and that was apparently the green light for CNN, Buzzfeed, and then the rest of the media to publish the whole 35-page dossier.

A day later Clapper telephoned Trump to stress, after the fact, that U.S. intelligence services were not the source of the dossier, and that he could not vouch for its accuracy or inaccuracy. In a highly unusual move, he then published a written declaration to this effect. Thus, after the three intelligence chiefs themselves had triggered the escalation, Clapper carried out a maneuver known in these circles as a CYA operation (cover your ass)—which in more polite German means they came up with a “diplomatic excuse.”

Whose World Is Disintegrating?

What then is the issue here? Eric Denécé, director of the French Center for Intelligence Research, an independent think tank, published the following analysis under the heading, “A Shocking Lack of Proof,” after he had read the report by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI on the alleged Russian intervention into the U.S. election campaign:

The Washington Establishment was taken totally by surprise by Trump’s victory and understood that a “great cleanup” would occur, in which many of its members would lose their political positions and economic spinoffs connected to their international alliances.¹

Eric Denécé

This assessment is accurate, but characterizes only one aspect of the situation. Apparently the trans-Atlantic neoliberal establishment is having a very hard time accepting the fact that Trump was democratically elected. Their “world is coming apart,” as German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it; they are “very shocked,” as her Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen expressed it. The world that is coming apart is the unipolar world which the neocons of the Bush Administration put into effect when the Soviet Union broke up. At that point the neocons proclaimed the “Project for a New American Century” to consolidate a world empire on the basis of the Anglo-American special relationship.

Governments that would not buckle under to this unipolar world would be eliminated over the course of time through a policy of regime change—for example, by color revolutions financed from the outside, as Victoria Nuland unblushingly admitted in the case of Ukraine. The U.S. State Department alone spent $5 million there on NGOs. But this policy also involved direct military intervention under the pretext of the defense of democracy and human rights, as in such cases as Iraq, Libya, and Syria. And naturally, Russia and China were the ultimate targets of this regime change policy.

The European Union bureaucracy was the unnamed junior partner in this arrangement, a beneficiary of the globalization system and itself eager for maximal imperial expansion, as British diplomat Robert Cooper openly admitted,² and only sporadically entering into competition with the dominance of the City of London and Wall Street.

A prerequisite for membership in the unipolar world’s Establishment Club was naturally the adoption of the official “narrative” that all these destabilizations of democratically elected governments and all of these wars were about “freedom,” “democracy,” and ”human rights,” while those targeted were always “dictators” and demons. And of course, all those who wore such unipolar glasses, when addressing the reasons refugees were fleeing, could not get beyond just repeating the term, because otherwise they would have had to condemn the illegitimate wars that have cost the lives of millions of people, and then they would have been thrown out of the Club.

And now, with Trump, a person has won the U.S. election who, as Obama said of Putin, does not belong to “the team”; who agrees with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and an array of conservative military figures that these regime-change wars must be stopped; and who even, as the ultimate desecration of taboos, wants to re-establish normal relations with Russia!

Russia Insider/you tube Robert Parry

Respected U.S. investigative reporter Robert Parry compared the methods being used by the American intelligence services against Trump to J. Edgar Hoover’s blackmail tactics. But the crude methods of Christopher Steele are also reminiscent of the “Troopergate” scandal against President Bill Clinton in the early days of his presidency, also inspired by British intelligence, which attempted, with a certain amount of success, to present Clinton as an unrestrained sex addict. This set the stage, so to speak, for the later Lewinsky affair, also launched by British intelligence, which aimed at destroying Clinton’s presidency.

Out in the Open

What is spectacular about the operation against Trump, however, is that British intelligence and its American counterparts, which have operated for decades as spooks in the shadows, have now been forced to expose themselves openly. The essentially dilettantish operation—conducted by Steele, the man in charge of exposing the corruption in Fifa and the principal MI6 agent in the affair of Litvinenko’s murder—revealed the direct intervention of the British Empire, for which the term “globalization” is only a synonym, into the internal affairs of the United States.

This empire is something other than the nations of the United States and Great Britain. It is the oligarchical forces exerting their power through the trans-Atlantic neoliberal financial system and the military defense of the unipolar world order, and they don’t care a whit about the general welfare of the populations in whose nations they happen to live. A global revolution is underway against this empire, which found expression in the Brexit, just as it did in Trump’s victory and the “no” to Renzi’s referendum in Italy.

The assertion that Putin stole the election from Hillary Clinton, or that he will meddle in the coming elections in several European countries, is the collapsing empire’s desperate attempt to somehow hold on to the authority to control the narrative.

Meanwhile, the new paradigm is developing in the form of a new world economic order, in which the BRICS countries and China’s New Silk Road policy are offering win-win cooperation to all of the world’s nations, in which all can only gain through the benefit of all—each through “the advantage of the other.” If Trump succeeds in working with this new combination—which will only become clear after he is in office—it could mean a new era for mankind, in which sovereign nations work together for the future of mankind as a community of common destiny, and the era of empires is finally buried.