Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the January 19, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Why Kissinger's Cronies
Have Pulled Their China Ploy Now!

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. [1]

January 8, 2001

[PDF version of this article]

During the past days, the New York Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), a bastion of such notables as China specialists Henry A. Kissinger and Winston Lord, has unleashed its efforts to manipulate the leadership succession of the government of China. The featured element of this onslaught has been the unveiling of what are alleged to be authentic records, which it calls "The Tiananmen Papers," allegedly secret records from circles of the China leadership from the period of the celebrated 1989 student demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. This release, published in the January/February edition of CFR's Foreign Affairs, has already been a featured subject of a major, cold-war-style propaganda barrage in the U.S.A.

By the nature of the subject-matter, it is clear, that if the CFR's documents contain any new truths at all, those facts were already known to the U.S.A., British and other intelligence communities more than a decade ago, and could have been published at any time during that interval, but were not. Whatever the degree of truth and untruth in the CFR documents themselves, the publication of this dubiously conveyed material, is clearly intended to signal war-like changes in the policies of the incoming U.S. Administration of President-elect George W. Bush.

Thus, rather than be lured into a tiresome debate over what are, at best, merely alleged to be top-secret documents which had been withheld over about a decade or more, let us not be fools. Let us focus on the most crucial fact about this CFR release; let us focus upon what is clearly not in doubt, the circumstances under which CFR has munificently elected to bestow these alleged pieces of learning upon us.

In short, the question whether there is any truth, or none, in any of this published CFR material, has no relevance for the discussion of current strategic implications of CFR's choice of conduct in this affair.

I, too, have lately dredged up afresh some well-documented past material on the relationship of Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler to the grandfather of President-elect George W. Bush. The legitimate question would be, why do I bring up such absolutely truthful facts about the past now? As everyone should know, I have squarely met my obligation to meet that challenge; in the case of the so-called "Tiananmen Papers," CFR and its fellow-Confederates have not.

Unfortunately, CFR being what it is, we would be fools to expect a truthful response to that challenge from that quarter. Fortunately, we have much other evidence which accounts for the present circumstances of CFR's present actions in this matter.

For those who know the present world economic situation, the circumstances of the CFR actions are well known. The incoming Bush administration is doomed even before it is sworn in. It is doomed, by everything it has heretofore asserted to be its economic and social principles, probably doomed, that by its own errant will, to be cast up as wreckage on the shores of the presently onrushing, greatest financial crash in modern history.

By no stretch of the imagination, could the already doomed Alan Greenspan provide a President Bush a "soft landing."

Were that incoming administration to come to its senses, abandon those principles which would doom it, and accept a reasonable alternative, the new administration could survive the coming crisis rather well. What if it chooses not to make such imperative changes in its profile? Then, it is doomed to a undergo a catastrophe of its own making, and that soon.

In the case that the new administration prefers to cling desperately to the policy-anchors of its presently sinking policy-ship, what else might it carry down, besides our United States, with that lost ship? This brings us directly to the context in which the CFR's latest crisis-management stunt has been staged.

First, let us clear up the often hotly-debated issue of CFR itself. Then, the relevant points of CFR's relationship to Kissinger and the Bush Administration are clear. Then, we shall consider the kind of crisis-management orientation which an unredeemed Bush administration would find itself more or less inevitably doomed to follow, as a course of strategic action over the period immediately ahead.

Elliott, Kissinger & Brzezinski

In short, the New York Council on Foreign Relations is a product of the aftermath of both the assassination of the patriotic U.S. President William McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's leading the U.S.A. into World War I. In short, the assassination of McKinley, turned the U.S.A., whose principal historic adversary, until that time, had been the British monarchy, into a virtual associate member of what was to become the Queen's own British Commonwealth of today.

One of the more notable figures who bridges the period of the early 1920s, when CFR was formed to perform such an agent-of-influence role, was the notorious neo-Confederate, Nashville Agrarian, and Harvard Professor William Yandell Elliott, the "Dr. Frankenstein" who created, among others, the monsters Henry A. Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It was Elliott, as an in-fact agent of influence of the British intelligence community, who played a leading role in pushing for such a British Commonwealth. It was through Elliott, that Kissinger rode, on a Rockefeller checkbook, to training in the London Tavistock Institute, and returned to the CFR to serve under George Franklin, and, more notably, ACDA's John J. McCloy and McGeorge Bundy, as part of the team dedicated to establishing world government through the threat of nuclear-missile barrages.

Typical of Kissinger, were Elliott's affinities to the proverbial "Lost Cause" of the slaveholders' Confederacy, and Kissinger's repeatedly avowed affinities for the anti-Americanism of the Holy Alliance's Prince Metternich, Britain's Bloody Castlereagh, and Franklin Roosevelt's war-time ally and foe Winston Churchill. Those features of the Kissinger profile have been massively documented, by me and my associates, from overwhelming sources, including Kissinger himself, over the course of more than a quarter-century.

Elliott's Confederates Kissinger and Brzezinski began to play the significant role for which they are known today, in association with CFR circles, in the aftermath of the assassination of President John F Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon's 1966 launching of the same pro-racist Southern Strategy which took top-down control over the Republican Party's national machine, and which also took top-down control of the Democratic Party machinery under CFR operative Brzezinski's choice, President Jimmy Carter.

Thus, like the Nixon, Carter, and George H.W. Bush, Sr. administrations, Kissinger and Brzezinski typify the forces gathered around the mass political base of the pro-racist Southern Strategy. They typify the "American Tory" circles and the policies which have dominated U.S. domestic and foreign policy, that increasingly, during the recent thirty-five years.

Kissinger's Allies

The common outlook of both the New York side of the CFR circles and the neo-Confederates, such as Senator Trent Lott and former Democratic National Chairman Don Fowler, of the Southern Strategy's base, is their hatred of precisely those social elements of national economic policy which have repeatedly supplied the economic strength, and rise to world leadership of our United States. Like Elliott and the rest of that mint-julep-propelled pack of ultra-decadent Nashville Agrarians, they hate "Yankee" as they define "Damn Yankees." They hate the technologically progressive independent family farmer. They hate the industrial operative and entrepreneur. They hate infrastructure. They hate the idea of devotion to fundamental scientific and technological progress.

Thus, through their power, rallied around such themes as "free trade," "deregulation," and other attributes of Nashville Agrarian utopianism, they, beginning with Nixon, continuing with Carter, set into place a national matrix of economic policy- shaping which has transformed the overall successful U.S. economy of the 1933-1965 revival of our national prosperity, into the calamitous state of bankruptcy which engulfs it more, each passing day. That once-great economy has been ruined today.

Under the influence of such a cabal of power, which has reigned over our nation during the greater part of thirty-five years, and through the unleashing of "globalization" during the period since 1989-1991 dissolution of the former Soviet power, not only have the mismanagers of our national economy, such as Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, wrecked the U.S. economy almost beyond repair, but a similar perilous state of economic affairs prevails throughout most of the world.

Thus, like the pagan Caesars before them, those who are merely typified by Kissinger and Brzezinski today, have brought their empire to its brink of self-imposed economic doom.

President "Miniver Cheevy" Bush

President-elect George Bush, as he stands, up to this moment, suggests a Broadway parody of the Classical model for an emperor who enters office to bring the waiting doom upon his empire. He assumes the office of President in a republic which, although facing the greatest crisis in its history, and that rather immediately, could be saved, unless George, like Shakespeare's Hamlet of the Third Act soliloquy, refuses, out of intellectual cowardice, or a fair imitation thereof, to choose to change his course of action in accord with the requirements of the office he has come to occupy.

In short, were Bush's administration to react according to established profile, his administration is soon doomed to collapse into a global catastrophe. So, the great empires of the past collapsed, in fragments, into the dust of the destiny, like that of the Biblical Nineveh, awaiting them. There is no possible way, in which the combination of the economic policies, social policies, and strategic outlooks which the new President carries into office, would not doom his administration, and our nation, to early destruction, by its own hand.

This prospective spectacle has been savored in the British press. The Bush administration, and its current choice of economic policy-outlooks, is a something, like President Jimmy Carter before it, better suited to "Tobacco Road" than Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet, the British, while invidiously relishing the self-humiliation of the U.S.A., on the one hand, know that the five-nation bloc of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S.A. could not survive to rule the world, if the U.S. were simply to go down into the economic and social ruin which the incoming Bush administration promises to bring about very quickly.

Thus, in this circumstance, the lessons of the Hitler administration are recommended, as discreetly as might be mentioned, to the relevant hoary veterans of the crisis-management circles from the Nixon, Ford, and Carter White House. Their inclination will be, to use covert methods to create the "who me?" crises, to which they will then respond vengefully, to keep the world off balance: that is the rule for the kind of impossible situation which a President Bush's own foolish policies will create for him. In such occasions for crisis-management diplomacy, these were the methods followed by Hitler, and by such U.S. circles, too.

In other words, during a period in which the U.S.A.'s friends in Europe and Asia are tending to seek an alternative to a U.S.-led financial and economic collapse in Eurasian cooperation, how shall the Anglo-American Five keep themselves together, and their former allies and satrapies in line? Crisis-management.

In the strict sense, such crisis-management alternatives will do about as much good for the people of the U.S.A. as Hitler brought, in the end, to Germany. In any case, the U.S. were doomed. If it simply follows the Bush-Republican line, as presently given, the U.S. is soon finished as a nation. If it resorts to global crisis-management as a way of trying to keep a dying Anglo-American world-rule temporarily in place, then the entire planet faces a prolonged new dark age for all humanity for perhaps decades yet to come.

The problem with a regime such as Bush's has set out to be, is that they are so enamored of their fanciful self-image of the role they intend to play on the mere stage of their historical fantasies, that they will do nothing to avert the real-world doom which acting out that fantasy imposes upon them. Thus, those who would play Olympian Zeus bring upon themselves the awful twilight of such self-anointed gods.

The dirty game by CFR and others, with the current Tiananmen Papers," is a harbinger of the early unleashing of but one among a wide-ranging series of Hitler-like crisis-management operations abroad.

If the members of the Congress, notably of the Senate, continue to placate the recent trend, then we shall all go virtually to Hell in this life, together, I to Heaven and heathen John Ashcroft to his well-earned racist's cranny in Hell.

These are the stakes for which we, of all nations, are all playing, unless we change the game.


[1] The author of this is a declared candidate for the Y2004 U.S. Presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.

Subscribe to EIR