|
|
This article appeared in the
June 11, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence
Review.
May 26, 1999
The recent, brief appearance of the republication of a list of names from
other Internet sources on EIR's own Internet site, prompts the
following, clarifying reaffirmation of our general editorial policy. The
contrast between our policy and that of the disreputable London
Telegraph, makes the relevant points.
That Telegraph is the flagship propaganda organ of the British
Commonwealth's Hollinger Corporation. As we have documented the evidence many
times during more than six years to date, much of what the
Telegraph publishes, is both willfully fraudulent and done with
bald-faced malicious, and usually strategic intent.
The Telegraph's professed ownership, the Hollinger
Corporation, which was founded as a Canada-based offshoot of a World War
II-vintage British intelligence agency, has been the leading enemy of President
Bill Clinton since no later than 1993, and, through such of its agents as
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, played a directing role in the fabricating of the
so-called Paula Jones case, and of many other attempts to destroy not only the
person and family of President Clinton, but also the functioning of the U.S.
Presidency, from that time to the present date. It is fairly described as, like
Adolf Hitler's Josef Goebbels, a leading enemy of the United States.
We of EIR know the Hollinger Corporation's despicable
character very well. In its leading international role in the malicious
targetting of U.S. President Clinton, all of its notable U.S. accomplices in
that dirty operation have been institutions and persons very well known to us
at EIR as prominent accomplices in dirty political operations
against me personally since the 1968-1973 interval.
Together with the other leading British Commonwealth press oligopoly, that
of roguish press baron Rupert Murdoch, the scurrilous Telegraph
has been among the leading anti-American voices of the British monarchy's
efforts to wreck and ruin the U.S. during this recent period to date. In
addition to these scurrilous habits, Hollinger's thuggish
Telegraph has played a leading role in the effort to bring about
a cover-up of the facts bearing upon the wrongful death, in Paris, of the
former presumptive next Queen of England, Princess Diana.
Now, expressing the Telegraph's customary reckless disregard
for truth, it has launched a currently escalating, international campaign of
defamation against me, over an EIR Internet site's brief
republication, on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, of certain listings of alleged
British MI6 agents which appeared on other Internet sites earlier. This action
has been launched by Her Majesty's Blair government itself, with a leading role
as de facto monarchy propaganda agent by the Telegraph, in
conducting its fraud-reeking campaign of defamation against me.
The
principal victim in the affair of the so-called "MI6 list," is the
often-wronged former pretender to the office of Queen of England, Princess
Diana. It will be recalled that Lady Diana and two fellow-passengers died
wrongful deaths, in consequence of injuries incurred during a time their
vehicle was being harassed most aggressively and maliciously by so-called
photographers and others. To make matters worse, her injuries were of such a
nature, that she would probably be alive still today, had she been brought, as
she easily might, to a relevant hospital in a timely fashion.
Since that time, the case of the death of Lady Diana has been a matter of
one massive cover-up attempt after another. Granted, that the practice of such
injustice is not only typical of the British monarchy and its Commonwealth
press, but also of what is often justly best described as a lying U.S.
Department of Injustice, and even of all too many fraud-reeking occupants of
Federal Court benches. The case of Princess Diana, the mother of putative heirs
to the British throne, is of exceptional importance for the cause of justice in
the world at large today.
First of all, if a person as popular as Princess Diana can not be assured
justice, who can? As was made clear in the moments following her wrongful
death, she was for many Britons like the fabulous Snow White of the fairy-tale,
victim of the vengeful wrath of a witch-like, jealous old Queen. If we do not
deliver justice for a person of such popularity, who can believe that justice
is assured for them? Indeed, if the British monarchy and its accomplices can
treat the case of Princess Diana so, who, in any such nations, can believe that
the actual right to justice exists for them?
Second, Princess Diana deserved special consideration by reason of her
status as a friend of Mother Teresa. Here was Diana, in torment over the
circumstances into which she had been cast by a jealous old Queen and the
Queen's dishonorable son, Prince Charles. In her torment, Diana turned to
Mother Teresa, and sought to make her own life more meaningful by using her
celebrity for the cause of justice. On this account, for reasons I need not
explain here, I have some personal obligation to the late Mother Teresa, an
obligation which EIR gladly shares with me.
Third, the British monarchy, Princess Diana's persecutor, is evil. Perhaps,
in the course of time, the inhabitants of the so-called British Isles will make
certain suitable changes in those islands' political affairs. Meanwhile, the
stench of genocide against an estimated six millions African victims of the
British monarchy's meddling in Central Africa, perhaps the most massive case of
ongoing genocide of this century, demands a cordon sanitaire containing
such a monarchy's polluting influence in international affairs.
Fourth, it is necessary to make the nature of the British monarchy's role in
world affairs clear to those many, childishly simple-minded babblers who babble
the nonsensical assertion, that the British monarchy is only a ceremonial
fixture, denying the actual, most dictatorial power it wields over most of the
British Isles and much of the Commonwealth besides.
The British Queen is the actual head of state of not only the United
Kingdom, but also the British Commonwealth. She is to that vast empire as the
old Doge of Venice was to the far-flung financial-oligarchical power then
centered at the north of the Adriatic. Relative to the Queen, the British
parliamentary government is more a side-show than an actually ruling power. The
state apparatus--the military and so on--exists "On Her Majesty's Service;" the
parliament can be turned over almost on a whim, through a readily orchestrated
parliamentary coup d'état of the sort which the Telegraph
and its accomplices attempted, with their fraudulent impeachment efforts,
against the Presidency and Constitution of the U.S.A.
The Empire over which the Queen presides, is the greatest financial and
political power in the world today. Only if a group of nations, preferably led
by the U.S. President, were to make a Franklin Roosevelt-like effort to rid the
world of the pestilence of "free trade" and other relics of colonialism, would
it be possible to summon sufficient political power to defeat the presently
world-dominating role of the British monarchy over not only NATO, but also the
IMF, and so on.
Thus, the case of the wrongful death of Princess Diana continues to be of
leading importance to the world as a whole today, especially when this
injustice is seen against the background of the evil represented by today's
British monarchy, the worst English monarchy since, perhaps, Richard III.
Therefore, we address the issue of that wrongful death as we have done, and
will continue to do until true justice is finally done. Justice for the
wrongfully deceased Princess Diana, is a leading matter of continuing concern
for every intelligent and honest government, and news media, in the world
today. If Diana can not secure justice, can you, can any nation victim of a
British-directed NATO or other atrocity?
We
are also obliged to defend justice for Princess Diana out of true patriotism
for a U.S.A. in which we are, unfortunately, one of the few remaining
relatively influential and patriotic periodicals. As Cotton Mather said of the
ruined Massachusetts Bay Colony, the U.S.A. today is "shrunk . . .
almost to nothing," by the disgusting, corrupting and sometimes outrightly
treasonous spread of the Anglophile fungus over the mental life of our leading
public institutions and mass media.
One of the things which ought to appear on the front pages of every
newspaper in the U.S., if those publications were moral ones, would be a
cartoon, showing an ugly, mean-spirited Queen Elizabeth II pushing a
baby-carriage, the latter conveying a big-eared Prince Charles. The cartoon's
caption would be: "Sometimes, Queen Elizabeth did push dope!"
Think of the number of times, from 1984 through 1986 and beyond, virtually
all leading print and electronic media in the U.S.A. said, repeatedly: "He
[Lyndon LaRouche] says the Queen pushes dope." I never said that, and every
mass-medium in the U.S. which published that false report knew it to be false.
The question, "Do you say that the Queen pushes dope?" was asked of me, on
camera, by an NBC-TV interviewer from NBC's Chicago flagship. The question was
asked, in Washington, D.C., during 1982. I replied to that question by stating
I did not say such a thing: on camera. But, nonetheless, every national TV
medium which referenced that recorded interview lied by cutting out the
reporter's question and my response. Instead, the announcer supplied the ritual
assertion: "He says the Queen pushes dope!"
Several important facts are demonstrated by that case:
First, if you take into account the number of times that false statement is
repeated today, you should be forced to realize how politically degenerate most
of the U.S. mass media and its journalists are today.
Second, if you take into account the number of foolishly credulous
individuals who believe "what I have heard" on that and related issues, you
wonder if the typical U.S. citizen is literate, or even honest enough, to
deserve the right to vote.
Third, perhaps even more important, the widespread acceptance of that false
report, points to the affection which so many less than truly patriotic U.S.
citizens have for the worst mass-murderer on this planet today, the present
British monarchy.
Fourth, most important of all, is the issue of truth, as this occupies the
entirety of Plato's largest written work, his Republic. This
issue of truthfulness, as Plato defines it there and elsewhere, goes to the
heart of our editorial policy.
Contrary to most opinion in any place, at any time, there are certain kinds
of opinion which can be considered truthful, in contrast to the majority of
opinion, customary or other, prevailing at any time.
In physical science, for example, truthful opinion depends upon certain
experimentally validatable universal physical principles. In science, truthful
opinion depends upon consistency with such validatable principles. Opinions
which either violate known such principles, or which ignore relevant principles
yet to be discovered, are wrong opinions on that account alone. Although the
progress of science shows that we never know the complete truth, we can be
truthful nonetheless. We are truthful, in this sense, on two conditions: that
we do not put mere opinion above known universal physical principles, and that
we keep an open mind toward the existence of added principles yet to be
discovered.
The evidence of physical science itself, points our attention to a still
deeper meaning of truthfulness. The faculty by means of which validated
discoveries of universal principles are made, is a faculty which Immanuel Kant,
for example, falsely denied to exist, as did the British empiricists and the
Cartesians before him. This creative faculty, most usefully named "cognition,"
is the means by which new discoveries of validatable universal physical
principles are accomplished, either by the original discoverer, or by a
student, for example, re-experiencing that act of discovery later. Man's
increasing physical power over the universe, as measurable per capita and per
square kilometer, occurs solely as a result of such discoveries of universal
physical principle, by means of that faculty of cognition which Kant and the
empiricists denied to exist.
This function of individual cognition, which no animal species can
replicate, is the distinction which, as Biblical Genesis 1
is written, sets each human individual absolutely apart and above every animal
species. This shows each man and woman as made in the image of the Creator of
this universe, thus empowered to exert increasing dominion within that
universe.
On account of this evidence, we can not treat relations among people as we
treat the relations of people to animals, or relations among animals. Human
individuals' relations to other human individuals, must be premised upon the
fact that it is the faculty of cognition, which atheist Kant denied to exist,
which shows the competent scientist that each man and woman is each and all
made in the image of the Creator.
This points to the following leading consequences for defining a general
policy of truthfulness in editorial work.
Man's physical relationship to man is located more narrowly in the increase
of per capita power in the universe through fundamental scientific progress, as
I have described that above. This progress is made possible through the
assimilation of those validatable original discoveries of principle, of one
mind, by a second mind which repeats that experience of cognition. It is the
sharing of such fruits of cognition in this way, which thus constitutes the
essence of human cooperation, and the essence of the moral relationship of one
human being to another, or one nation to another.
This fact is the foundation for a science-based notion of universal natural
law. That is the standpoint of the figure Socrates, in Plato's
Republic, in contrast to the opposing misconceptions of law and
justice by not only the characters Thrasymachus and Glaucon, but also today's
advocates of "customary law," or of empiricism and positivism generally. This
Platonic view, is the notion of the general welfare, the anti-Locke,
fundamental principle of U.S. constitutional law.
The task of bringing about cooperation in both the knowledgeable development
and the application of universal physical principles, forces us to recognize
that universal principles are not limited in definition to physical principles
alone. The greatest Classical forms of poetry, tragedy, music, and related
political-science arts of historiography, show us principles of individual
behavior and social relations beyond the conventional sense of universal
physical principles.
The combination, and interdependency of such universal physical and
Classical-artistic principles, defines the domain of ideas, as distinct
from mere popular, or other opinion.
Now to sum up the point of reference to the matter of the so-called "MI6
list."
EIR is a journal devoted to ideas, rather than opinion. Our
editorial standpoint is that of truthfulness, not opinion.
However, this policy requires that we deal truthfully--or, one might say
also "clinically"--with the notable, or what might be termed "newsworthy"
occurrences of mere opinion. The latter obligation arises wherever the opinion
being addressed is a factor in the shaping of history.
This policy carries a certain special kind of editorial burden with it. The
case of the "MI6 list" typifies the challenge. In the case of the matter of
delayed justice for Princess Diana, the leading issue was that of defending a
known truth. The reporting of a newsworthy development, the appearance of the
alleged "MI6 list" on several Internet sites, was a matter of reporting
opinions bearing upon a truthfully defined choice of subject, the wrongful
death of Princess Diana. Strictly speaking, the two subjects should have been
separated in the manner in which they were presented. Apparently, for reasons
of economy in print, they were not.
To restate the point. The truthful newsworthy event was the continuing
investigation of the wrongful death of Princess Diana. The fact that this was a
wrongful death, has been demonstrated beyond scientific doubt of the evidence
in hand, in earlier investigations. Justice remains delayed, nonetheless. The
factual development in the case was the submission of an affidavit to the
French authorities by one Tomlinson, formerly an employee of Her Majesty's MI6.
The names which the affidavit contained, were and are part of the relevant
newsworthy developments to be reported.
The issue of the "MI6 list" was a horse of a different color, a reportable
matter of opinion, and fairly represented as merely some other persons'
opinion, but which should not have been featured within the piece reporting on
new developments in the case of the wrongful death of Princess Diana. Our
policy is always to attempt to ensure that the distinction between mere opinion
and actual ideas is made clear to the literate reader.
I trust the point is now clear, and need not be rehashed further.
|
|
