The 1996 Presidential committee of Democrat Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., released the following statement by the candidate July 31.
The United States of America, and its vital policies in every part of the globe, are presently under attack by international terrorism. That terrorism is an instrument of policy, akin to the methods of general war, deployed under the cover of organizations which are headquartered, chiefly, in London. Although many will object to this statement, what we have stated is the hard fact, on which not only your welfare, but even your life, and also that of your family might depend. There is nothing actually mysterious concerning Britain's strategic motives in fostering this terrorist targetting of President Clinton's U.S.A.
Since President Clinton was inaugurated, in January 1993, the United States, and its overseas interests have been hit by successive waves of international terrorism. Nothing like this occurred on U.S. territory, during the time the Soviet Union was the principal opposing stategic power. All of these attacks on U.S.A. territory, occurred after the 1993 inauguration replaced London's asset, George Bush, with a President educated in the patriotic school of Georgetown University's famous Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton.
As many readers must agree immediately, the problem is: most Americans have their opinions on such matters shaped axiomatically by the fanatically pro-British bias of Hollywood movies, beginning with Goldwyn and Mayer's Ku Klux Klan recruiting film, The Birth of a Nation, and continuing through, and beyond its sequel, Gone With The Wind. Also, make a list of the major news media, including television and radio networks, and newspaper and magazine chains, which are owned by British interests: Include the Hollinger and Murdoch chains at the top of the list. Include the Newhouse chain, closely connected, like Senator Alphonse D'Amato, and White House Republican mole Dick Morris, to the Roy M. Cohn of McCarthy-Cohn-Schine-Hoover notoriety. Check the history of the radio and TV networks' evolution out of the British Marconi company. Check into the truth which the New York Times would never print about itself. Discover for yourself why the Associated Press can also be called "Associated Prostitutes." Then, consider periodicals such as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Report, Forbes, and The American Spectator. Look into Turner Broadcasting. The list goes on, and on.
When they have considered that list, many Americans, who have been brainwashed by Hollywood movies and a corrupt, sometimes virtually treasonous mass news-media, will be honest enough to end their hysterical, pro-British rant. No longer will honest men and women protest: "That's crazy! Everyone knows...!" They will shake their heads sadly, and say, "You know, that LaRouche might be telling the truth. We know the mass media lies. I guess these guys do control American opinion most of the time."
It is relevant to point to one relevant example of mass-media brainwashing. Most readers have heard the news-media babbling: "He [LaRouche] says, 'The Queen pushes drugs.' " In fact, I did not say that; that quote was a fraud, manufactured, in 1982, by the Chicago division of NBC-TV News. Later, beginning an NBC-TV broadcast of March 1984, that fraudulent quote was repeated, over and over again, by all of the mass media, through 1988, until millions of American TV viewers became so thoroughly brainwashed, that many of them said, even to my face, that they, personally, heard me say exactly those words, on TV: it simply never happened.
I have said a great deal about the British Empire and its monarchy. What I said was pretty much the same thing said by Benjamin Franklin, and by a long list of Presidents, including James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. My views on the British Empire and its monarchy are, as Henry A. Kissinger concedes, the traditional policy of all American patriots, as opposed to U.S. citizens of the treasonous "American Tory" tradition of Aaron Burr, and evil occupants of the U.S. Presidency, such as the treasonous Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, and shamelessly overt British agents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fan Woodrow Wilson.
I would also refer attention of the "Doubting Thomases," to the wars we fought against the British Empire: 1776-1783, 1812-1815, and the Civil War against Lord Palmerston's Confederacy puppet, of 1861-1865. At the end of the Civil War, President Lincoln's strategic policy was to prepare for a U.S. occupation of Canada (from which London had deployed repeated efforts to destroy the U.S.A.), and to dispatch a fleet of Ericsson's design for ocean-going monitors, to blockade Britain's ports, and bring the British Empire to its knees before a U.S. military might which was, as of 1865-1866, the greatest in the world. For that reason, British intelligence, via Canada, organized the Booth-Surrat circle's assassination of President Lincoln.
Britain was never our enemy? Until the mid-1930s, the patriotic military of the United States maintained war-plans for a war against the British Empire. These plans included provisions for an attack upon Pearl Harbor by Britain's ally Japan. "Doubting Thomases" could look up U.S. war-plans "Red" and "Orange" from the 1920s and 1930s. It was President Franklin Roosevelt's intention, that, at the end of World War II, the British, French, and Dutch colonial empires would be liquidated, and that London's domination of the world's economy, by the "Eighteenth-Century methods" of the British East India Company's Adam Smith, be ended. Therefore, Churchill rejoiced when Roosevelt died, and, so, Henry A. Kissinger later, also rejoiced over what Kissinger represented as Roosevelt's timely death.
You could read about that in my Democratic Presidential-nomination campaign's foreign-policy paper, Now, Rid NATO of the Entente Cordiale!, as published in the EIR of June 28, 1996. Consider that the relevant background piece for what is reported here, on the London-centered terrorist threat against the United States.
London's motive today, as in every strategic commitment of the British Empire since Lord Kitchener's Sudan campaign of 1898, is, as the British themselves insist, "geopolitical."
The world history of the Twentieth Century, has been the history of Britain's geopolitical dogma: that the Eurasian mainland must never be permitted to enter into economic cooperation, based upon transcontinental railway links, as envisaged for it by the circles of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Britain's effort to prevent such a project, is called "geopolitics." The leading results of that "geopolitical" dogma, so far in this century, have included Two World Wars, more than thirty years--until 1989--of threat of global nuclear war, and the presently ongoing spiral of collapse of the world's banking systems.
Consider those leading results, one by one.
To understand the terrorist threat to the United States today, we must focus upon the issues of the last period, 1989-1996, and, understand, in that context, what London views as its grounds for at least as great a degree of mortal hatred against President Clinton as that which it exhibited toward Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, earlier. In other words, we must answer the question: "Why the London whose Margaret Thatcher loved President George Bush so tenderly, hates President Clinton with such openly stated, murderous vehemence."
Before we get into that, we should forewarn the reader to keep in mind one very important, if secondary consideration.
The only important reservations which might be appended to the fact, that London is presently the center of coordination for international terrorism, is, that we do not always know that each and every incident of international terrorism is part of the terrorist campaign authored by state agencies centered around London, London's Entente Cordiale allies in Paris and Damascus, and the Netherlands. We know, however, that most of the terrorist acts, including those which Britain's secret services do in the name of the "IRA," are done on the initiative of agencies under the control of the Anglo-Dutch and Britain's lackey, the France of the late Francois Mitterrand, Jacques Chirac, and relevant elements of French freemasonry.
We also concede, that we know, that there are complicit, very influential circles inside the United States itself, which give propagandistic assistance to London's terrorist warfare against President Clinton's U.S.A. These connections are typified by the influence of the Hollinger Corporation's press empire upon many U.S. mass media, and within the George Bush-linked "Asteroid" groups gathered under the Republican Party's tent. The Murdoch press is a complementary alien influence on the U.S. mass media. The trail of slime, leading from Lord William Rees-Mogg's London Times, via the American Spectator, the Washington Times, and Yuppiedom's Wall Street Journal, into George Bush's Special Prosecutor Starr, is typical of this corruption.
Above all, we know, that unless the authors of this terrorist targetting of the U.S.A. are named--not Iran or Libya, but Britain, Syria and France, the United States will be defeated and crushed by these London-directed terrorist attacks.
In what we say hereinafter, those three points of caution should be taken for granted.
The facts supporting the case set forth here, are provided in a series of documentary studies presented, or otherwise identified, in the Executive Intelligence Review, during the recent several years. The following are exemplary summaries of some among those detailed reports.
The 1989 assassination of Deutsche Bank's Alfred Herrhausen. Approximately a week prior to his scheduled presentation of an epoch-making report to a New York City influential audience, Deutsche Bank's Herrhausen was assassinated, on Nov. 29, 1989. The perpetrators were officially alleged to have been an already defunct terrorist organization, the "Baader-Meinhof Gang" Red Army Fraction. Informed U.S. military and intelligence circles knew at that time, that the killing had been an action taken on behalf of the British government's lately announced "Fourth Reich" doctrine. However, George Bush had just been elected President, and he was a London stooge, by heredity, if there ever were one.
As the prospect of a break-up of the Warsaw Pact loomed, in 1988, the forces of the revived Entente Cordiale--Thatcher's London and Mitterrand's France--voiced concern that, under such conditions, Germany's historically-determined impulse would be to extend development credit to the states to its east, as had been Germany's policy prior to the Russian general mobilization which started World War I, and had been the policy of Germany's leading industrial and banking circles, again, during the pre-Hitler, Weimar period, 1919-1932.
It should be remembered, that this was the subject of a major campaign statement issued by me, in a Berlin press-conference of Oct. 12, 1988, a televised statement broadcast in full, on a U.S. network that same month. The report which Herrhausen would have delivered to the New York audience was already written at the time he was assassinated. It proposed a U.S.A.-Germany policy toward eastern Europe and the Soviet Union along the same lines I had proposed, approximately a year earlier, in my Berlin conference of Oct. 12, 1988. There were numerous impulses in a direction like that of my own and Herrhausen's proposal.
However, prior to the time Herrhausen's prepared address was written, Britain, supported by France's President Mitterrand, was already committed to preventing both the reunification of Germany, and preventing Germany's economic cooperation with the states of eastern Europe otherwise. The relevant British policy had been uttered by a particularly notorious British agent, Conor Cruise O'Brien, and by Thatcher's Minister Nicholas Ridley, among others. The slogan used by O'Brien and Ridley to present Thatcher's and Mitterrand's Entente Cordiale policy was "Germany represents the threat of a 'Fourth Reich.' " Off-stage, in speaking to EIR, leading British officials were more sober in their expression; their explanation of the policy is summed up in one word, "geopolitics." It was the same term which the same stratum of leading British officials used to identify the motive for London's deployment of its Serbia puppets for the bloody aggression which became the 1992-1996 Balkan war, a Balkan war which Britain, with Entente Cordiale backing, launched, once again, as during 1912-1914, to draw the suggestible strata of influentials among Russians into a pro-Serbia "pan-Slav" trap, a trap aimed to assist in bringing about the destruction of Russia itself, just as the Romanov dynasty arranged its own doom in the general mobilization of 1914.
"Fourth Reich" was also a slogan used by the propaganda machine of fascist Slobodan Milosevic, the British-, and Kissinger Associates-created dictator of Serbia, in launching war against Slovenia and Croatia. In this, Serbia was supported by the fascist tradition of Mussolini follower Vladimir Jabotinsky in Israel, and, another assassination later, this time in Greece, by the British assets, and Serbia sympathizers, who came into power as the fruit of that assassination.
Sometimes, even Harvard Professors are right! It is indeed the case, among Russians, like many Americans, today, that those who refuse to learn the truth about history of the past, will be condemned to repeat that history's disasters.
For reasons which are not relevant to this discussion, President George Bush did not support the hysterical efforts of Thatcher and Mitterrand to prevent the reunification of Germany. However, measured in physical terms, the level of economy in the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, including East Germany, is down to about a mere 30 percent of what it was as recently as 1989, and the rate of collapse is currently accelerating, with no bottom in sight. The situation throughout the former Comecon is desperate, and explosive, especially inside Russia itself.
The crucial point is: We must treat the Herrhausen assassination, the Anglo-French sponsorship of Serbian aggression and crimes against humanity in the Balkan wars, and IMF conditionalities imposed upon Eastern Europe, including Russia and Ukraine, as the bench-mark against which to trace out the evolving deployment of international terrorism during the period since the January 1993 inauguration of President Clinton.
As of mid-1996, the United States, China, and, marginally, Japan, are the only remaining sovereign states on this planet. (Britain is not a nation-state, but a financier-oligarchical "republic" on the model of Venice.) That is to say, no other nation-states are presently capable of asserting sovereignty independently against the mushrooming proliferation and growth in power of supranational institutions. Only to the degree that either the U.S.A. or China, or both, intervene, to support another nation's efforts to exert sovereignty (as against the mass-murderous IMF, for example), can another nation actually exert sovereignty. Thus, for reasons developed in the referenced NATO policy-paper, the destruction of the sovereignty of the U.S.A. and China, is the present principal strategic objective of the Entente Cordiale.
No nation of western Europe is still sovereign, Russia included. All continue to exist by permission of imperial supranational authorities which regulate even the minutiae of national life. No nation of sub-Sahara Africa, excepting Sudan, Nigeria, and the Republic of South Africa, have even a semblance of sovereignty. No nation below the U.S.A. border has the means to deal, sovereignly and independently, with imperialistic supranational authorities such as the UNO, IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, Organization of American States, Club of Paris, and so on. Without the actual, or possible intervention in their behalf by the U.S.A., possibly in combination with China, no other nation on this planet has a prayer of regaining national sovereignty at any time, deep into the coming century.
Since the assassination of President William McKinley, which was organized by Emma Goldman of New York City's (Roosevelt-linked) Henry Street Settlement House, only three U.S. Presidents have had a relatively consistent commitment to using U.S. strategic preeminence as a lever for promoting the sovereignty of nation states generally: Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Bill Clinton. That is why the Brits hate President Clinton, and why they have continued to escalate their efforts to destabilize the Clinton administration, both by operations, such as the "Whitewater hoax," directed from London into the internal affairs of the U.S.A., and in strategic operations against the U.S. policy and interests outside the U.S.A.
For those who follow closely the relevant leading British press, and explicitly British-controlled news-media outlets in the U.S.A., Germany, etc., there is not the slightest degree of "mere speculation" in this account. The British press, and its echoes in continental Europe, responded to the recent terrorist incident in Atlanta on cue: "See, the United States is now discovering how helpless it is," they argue. "Now," their argument of the British and Paris press went, "the U.S. will have to submit to our proposal for an international supervision of anti-terrorist measures." Similarly, at the recent Lyons "G-7" conference, the British Empire's French satrap, took the lead in attempting to sandbag President Clinton into precommitting the U.S.A. to looting U.S. Social Security during the post-election period! The most recent Paris meeting, nominally on the subject of international terrorism, had the same purpose. One might say that the Atlanta bombing occurred as if it had been staged to prepare the U.S. psychologically for British and French bullying at the Paris conference on terrorism.
Consider a few of the leading, deadly quarrels between President Clinton and the British (a.k.a. "Brutish") Empire.
The Clinton administration had a commitment to resolution of the bloody mess in northern Ireland. The British state reacted, with terrorist incidents, arranged, in the customary way, by British secret services, up through the horror-show which the British staged in Enniskillen. Why? To stop the peace in Northern Ireland.
The Clinton administration was committed, since the 1992 election-campaign, to just peace in the Balkans. The British and French, using London's stooge, UNO Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali, drowned the U.S. peace-making efforts in Entente Cordiale-sponsored crimes against humanity.
The Clinton administration was committed to Middle East peace. London-based terrorists, aided by the atrocities against Israel launched by Syria's Hafez al-Assad (whom, not Libya, the actual evidence implicated in the Pan Am 103 bombing), gave us the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin, and the election of a London-controlled, Netanyahu-Sharon, government in Israel. It was the assassination of Rabin, with the encouragement of neo-conservative Jewish fanatics in the U.S.A., which began the current wave of international terrorism.
The Clinton administration has been committed to a constructive resolution of the division of Korea. London has been deploying massive efforts to wreck that effort.
The Clinton administration has been committed to a constructive policy for
cooperation with China, and a friendly non-intervention, to both parties, in the
search for constructive resolutions between Beijing and Taipei. The British
government is openly committed to fomenting the break-up of mainland China, and
is using that long-standing (and disgusting) British property, the Dalai Lama,
Sinkiang Islamicist assets, the Asia sub-continent generally, and the Singapore-
The Clinton administration has been committed to working with Germany to develop a constructive relationship with Russia. This has been sabotaged through massive, persisting, anti-U.S.A. interventions by the British and French governments at the highest levels, all assisted by a pack of certifiable "Aaron Burrs" deployed into Moscow and St. Petersburg under the cover of the U.S. Republican Party's "International Republican Institute."
The Clinton administration has shown its awareness that the sundry "human rights" campaigns against both the most populous nation of Africa (Nigeria) and the largest (Sudan), are utter frauds. The British intelligence services and state agencies deploy regularly into the U.S.A., suborning elected U.S. and State Department officials into attempted sabotage of the U.S. government's desire to alleviate the oppression which the racist interests of British and French colonialism continue to deploy against African nations.
Those are but some of the outstanding items on a long list. The United States today has only one significant enemy in the world, the Entente Cordiale and its accomplices. Yet, some lunkheads believe, none the less, that Britain is the U.S.A.'s closest ally!
The concept of terrorism as a strategic weapon of warfare between major powers is not new. It has been the strategic policy of the British Empire since Jeremy Bentham took over British foreign intelligence in 1782. It was the cornerstone of the foreign policy of Bentham's understudy, Lord Palmerston, who used the rag-tag assets of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte's extended family, Giuseppe Mazzini's revolutionary "Young Europe" and "Young America" networks, and the Balkan and Caucasus networks of Karl Marx's British-intelligence controller, David Urquhart, to topple Britain's outlived ally, Metternich's (un)Holy Alliance, and to generally mutilate the world's political maps.
Nonetheless, terrorism and related methods of "special warfare" assumed a new role in the post-August 1945 world of nuclear weapons. Warfare, between major powers, below the threshold of actual nuclear warfighting, was increasingly the watchword of NATO and Warsaw Pact policies, up to the end of 1989. Although terrorist forms of action by individuals and small groups do occur, most of the terrorism which has occurred during recent decades was deployed as a covert form of special warfare by one major power against another. The covert war which Margaret Thatcher and George Bush conducted during the 1980s, as surrogate war, against the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan, was among the lallapaloozas of covert special warfare. It is the special warfare organizations built up under British and U.S.A. direction, during the 1980s, which provide the principal axis for the organization and deployment of international terrorism today. Since it is the George Bush side of that mid-1980s organization of international terrorism which we know best, it is to that we shall refer, in supplying the reader with a sense of the complementary capabilities built up and now deployed against the U.S. interests, from London.
Exemplary is the case of the Afghansi Mujahideen, recruited from many countries, to fight a largely drug-trafficking funded war against Communism in Afghanistan. Most Americans have smelled a stinking waft of the dirty business in which the wretched Lt.-Col. Oliver North was deployed, in Mena, Arkansas, and elsewhere, at the direction of U.S. special-warfare czar George Bush: people know of it as the "Iran-Contra" cover-up.
The key to understanding the U.S. side of this nasty business goes back to the relevant patrons of the late Roy M. Cohn, the notorious Dulles brothers. To conduct dirty operations not suited to the CIA, etc., Allen Dulles created a special facility under the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the "focal point." This, buried under the nominal direction of a Lt.-Col. in the logistics section of Special Warfare, became the most massive enterprise, and the most poorly controlled, in the intelligence "business." It was often referred to cautiously, as "the knuckle-draggers." During the 1980s, under a special mandate conceded to chief knuckle-dragger George Bush, things went wild. A vast array of special organizations was spawned, using the Israeli intelligence (and British intelligence) mode of special operations run with secret government sanction, under private cover.
The result was a proliferation of organizations, which came wholly under the direction of Vice-President Bush, at the point of the terminal incapacitation of Director of Intelligence Bill Casey. With time, and the election of President Clinton, this apparatus was thrown upon the mercies of the "private sector," although still enjoying important political and related connections, in London and elsewhere. This noxious proliferation is referred to, in today's tradecraft, as "the Asteroids." This is the organization through which the dirty "Get Clinton" operations have been deployed in the joint interests of London and Bush's old crowd. As the 1989-1996 operations of the Republican Party's "International Republican Institute's" deployment into Moscow and St. Petersburg, by way of Oxford University, shows, the "Asteroids" are a nasty U.S. national security problem both inside and outside the U.S.A. today.
Where the "Asteroids" are not directly involved in dirty operations against the United States, through their long-standing affinities with their old British intelligence associates, and with those right-wing Israeli elements tied to the Jonathan Pollard case, they represent an influential force which, for reason of its own perceived self-interests, will cloud over the areas of legitimate U.S. security investigations. They are also a resource which is cultivated by their old British, right-wing Israeli, and French cronies, to assist in providing opportunities and cover for Entente Cordiale and related operations against the United States. At the minimum, these "Asteroids" left over from former Bush days, represent a major U.S. national security risk, especially as a complicating factor in efforts to combat London-coordinated terrorism against both the U.S.A. and against U.S. vital overseas interests.
One must understand the mind of the "Asteroid," such as Ollie North and cronies. These are feral types, as Henry Kissinger has publicly professed himself to be: true Hobbesians, without morals, for whom current policy of the "Asteroid" to which they are attached, is absolute positive law. No lie is too strained, no act too obscene, to be deployed in the imagined policy-interest of that "Asteroid" at that time. The fierce and often fatal discipline of highly compartmentalized deep-cover operations, produces the character of the ultimate rogue, especially of special operations, run by persons of "knuckle dragger" propensities, under largely private "deep cover." In such a milieu, British-style intelligence operations thrive. An "Asteroid" grouping may not be quite certain, for whom it is actually doing what; it may not really care.
We had such a case some years back. A deep-cover sleeper organization was established in western Europe during the immediate post-war period. Its existence was premised on the considered possibility of those early post-war days, that Soviet forces might overrun parts of western Europe, against which contingency, a secret stay-behind, deep-cover network would be desirable. This, like other things, was misused during Kissinger's reign at NSC, and later, with consequences which this writer encountered in Italy and elsewhere during the 1970s and 1980s. In any case, this operation had been penetrated by Britain's "Kim" Philby et al. from the get-go, which made it easier for London's Chatham House asset, Henry Kissinger, to play his brand of nasty games against his U.S. employer.
With the end of the Soviet military operations in Afghanistan, Thatcher's and Bush's mujahideen "mountain warfare" volunteers were left substantially unemployed, and chiefly unwanted in the native countries from which they had been recruited. This became London's opportunity to build up a large-scale, new international terrorist capability, operating, with utter shamelessness, out of London offices!
These two examples should provide an inkling of the nature of the problem which London-directed terrorism represents for U.S. counterintelligence agencies. Fortunately, the screen of covert operations is by no means impervious; the United States is by no means as helpless as the London press gloatingly suggests. We can win that war, as we could win any other form of warfare. It requires counterintelligence agencies with special kinds of mental skills, but it can be done.
The principal problem in defeating such forms of terrorism deployed covertly by major powers (not Iran, Libya, etc., but major powers), is political. The population of the targetted nation must support its government in the way this kind of warfare demands. That is the reason I have written this report for this kind of circulation. The greatest problem the U.S. government could face, in confronting terrorism deployed against us, would be a tendency of the population to slip into a paranoid state of panic, in which it was generally assumed that covert terrorism is undetectable until it has happened, or that terrorism is done only by mysterious small terrorist groups, which either have no backing from any governments, or only Arab ones.
Like any other beast, the terrorist depends upon his own style of eco-system. Those who understand covert operations, know how to track the terrorist in his own special eco-system. The foremost consideration in such tracking operations, is to concentrate, first, on defining the agency which deployed the terrorist as a delivery-boy, and not to be trapped into limiting oneself to tracking down delivery-boys. For example: A good beginning, would be to take this approach to the Oklahoma bombing, rather than emphasizing the "politically correct" approach of closing the case with a pair of convictions of persons who, if guilty of anything, are no more than delivery boys.
One does not win a war, by capturing and convicting a few enemy soldiers. The same is true in war against terrorism. Nor, does one win a war against terrorism, by blaming Libya for something actually done through channels of George Bush's connections into the Paris-based, Syrian intelligence organization of the Syrian President's brother, Rifaad Assad. If the United States is afraid to call London to account for maintaining the facilities through which terrorist operations are coordinated, and goes seeking to blame some Arab nation, instead, we would lose the war against terrorism.
Your willingness, as a citizen, to support the U.S. government in putting London in number one position on the list of suspected forces behind terrorist operations against U.S. interest, will be the test of your willingness to win the war against terrorism. If you are not willing to go that far, you have no right to complain if the war is lost.