Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the May 25, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
TERRA AMERICA:

Russian Website Features LaRouche's
Influence in Post-Soviet Russia

[PDF version of this article]

May 19—The Russian website Terra Americas has posted a five-part series on Lyndon LaRouche, under the title, "The Last Rosicrucian" [http://terra-america.ru/posledniy-rozenkreicer-part-3.aspx]. The series is composed of a two-part interview and an article in three parts. We publish here the final installment (Two previous installments can be found in the April 20 and April 27 EIRs.) The articles have been translated by EIR.

Terra America is a project of a group of Russian analysts and journalists, specializing in U.S. cultural issues, as well as strategy and politics. Some of its authors are well-known from their writings for the Russia Journal and the Rosbalt news agency.

From the Editors. Kirill Benediktov and Mikhail Diunov complete their intellectual investigation of one of the most enigmatic politicians in the USA and the West as a whole today, the businessman and economist Lyndon LaRouche. Part 1 dealt primarily with LaRouche's role in authoring the SDI program. Part 2 of the investigation was an attempt to reconstruct what may be called LaRouche's "philosophy of history." This final installment looks at how LaRouchism was received in post-Soviet Russia.

Casting a bit of shadow on the authors' positive evaluation of the influence of LaRouchism on Russian politics and public affairs, we would like to note that large-scale industrial projects, attractive as they may be, in and of themselves, often serve as justification for the banal embezzlement of state funds. Indeed, the point of creating a Big Government[1] in Russia is precisely to prevent the slogans about an industrial revitalization of the country, correct as they might be, from turning into a means for nourishing the bureaucracy.

A Prophet in a Foreign Country

The main purveyor of LaRouche's ideas in Russia was the outstanding philosopher and economist of Ukrainian extraction, Taras Vasilyevich Muranivsky (1935-2000).

Despite the difficulties of Muranivsky's own scientific career (in his youth he had been expelled from the [Communist] Party for participation in the so-called Krasnopevtsev group, an experience that later caused him employment problems), he succeeded in establishing a stable channel of communications between the LaRouche organization and Russian intellectual circles. Muranivsky was a convinced and active opponent of globalism. He researched and popularized options for development and economic reform, which represented an alternative to the liberal models.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, when liberal projects for the transformation of the economies of Central and Eastern Europe were virtually free from any mainstream criticism, such views practically amounted to "dissidence."

In 1991-1992, Taras Vasilyevich Muranivsky was working on a project called the Ukrainian University in Moscow. In the framework of this project, while attending an economics conference in Kiev, he made the acquaintance of German members of the Schiller Institute, who were debating Harvard University defenders of the concept of "transition to a free market" that was the usual fare at that time. The position of the LaRouche representatives was close to Muranivsky's own, and in November 1991, he spoke for the first time at a Schiller Institute conference in Berlin.[2]

The years-long labor of Taras Vasilyevich Muranivsky to popularize the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche in Russia dated from that time. In the early 1990s, the Schiller Institute became active in Russia with Muranivsky's support. Its target audience was Russia's ruling circles and the political and intellectual elite, i.e., parliamentarians and government officials, as well as university intellectuals. The work was done in several areas, the most important of which was the distribution of the aforementioned EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) magazine.

Beginning in 1992, EIR magazine was received by various Russia libraries, including ones under the Academy of Sciences. According to LaRouche's longtime associate Rachel Douglas, a representative of one Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) institute replied to an inquiry about whether or not they would like to continue receiving EIR: "We have over 150 scholars at our institute, many of whom are familiar with the journal and greatly interested in it."

One of the authors of this investigative report was, in former times, a graduate student at the RAS Institute of Europe, and can also confirm that these materials were in demand among that institute's staff in the early 1990s. The VINITI [All-Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information] database regularly included abstracts of EIR articles, until the print edition stopped coming out in 2008. For a number of years, 100 copies of the magazine were sent to Russia weekly. Its subscribers included political figures, as well as scholars working on alternative approaches to economic policy-shaping, the establishment of an anti-monetarist financial and economic system, the launching of projects based on new technologies, and so forth.

The coordinator of contacts with the Russian group was Karl-Michael Vitt, a representative of the German Schiller Institute. The Institute invited Russian scientists and politicians to conferences and seminars abroad, where they were given detailed briefings on Lyndon LaRouche's conceptions. The idea that the developing countries should stop servicing their debts to the IMF and other international lending institutions could not fail to find support in the difficult crisis period of the early 1990s. And the notion that international finance capital was speculative in nature and had no connection with real production, but, rather, destroyed it, found many supporters in a Russia being lacerated by "wild capitalism."

Even given everything mentioned above, it would be incorrect to exaggerate the influence of LaRouche's organizations in Russia. The so-called "office" of the Russian Schiller Institute was a small, one-room apartment on the outskirts of the capital, filled with piles of EIR magazines, and its entire technical base was one old computer, on which Muranivsky wrote his articles.

Muranivsky viewed EIR as an alternative to information services defending the interests of the IMF, such as Reuters, the Associated Press, etc. In complete accordance with LaRouche's ideas, Muranivsky began to talk about creating a conceptual methodology for resistance to the new totalitarianism and market fundamentalism.[3]

A number of Muranivsky's articles were published in Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta and the journal Trade Unions and the Economy. According to people who knew him, "these were scathing blows against our own and foreign maniacal market fundamentalists."[4] From time to time, EIR published Muranivsky's presentations at conferences and round tables on economics, held in Russia. In May 1993, Muranivsky made a trip to the USA, where he met with Lyndon LaRouche himself in the Federal prison in Rochester, Minnesota.

Muranivsky's activity bore fruit. In 1993 deputies of the Moscow City Council and the Supreme Sovet of the Russian Federation supported the campaign in defense of Lyndon LaRouche.[5] A petition to [President] Bill Clinton, signed by these deputies and by human rights defenders from the Memorial organization, was delivered to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Nonetheless, not everybody in Russia saw the activity of LaRouche's supporters in the same way. Some people in academic circles viewed LaRouche's projects for global reorganization of the world situation with skepticism (see, for example, the intervention by I.S. Korolyov, deputy director of IMEMO[6] RAS, at the roundtable "Russia, the USA, and the Global Financial Crisis").

Also cautious in his attitude toward the LaRouche organization's activity was the "democratic" activist Sergei Mitrofanov, who took part in a few Schiller Institute events. In a 1999 article he wrote:

"It soon became clear that the Schiller Institute leaders, who had assembled weirdoes around them, were far from being weirdoes themselves. First of all, they managed to bring decent-sized delegations to Germany from many countries (which costs money), although they selected them by very strange criteria.... Secondly, they have established a network of representative offices worldwide. And although there wasn't any single international Institute, there were divisions, all of them informationally and ideologically interconnected, in Germany, America, Australia, India, and Russia.... [Moscow City Council] Deputy [Victor] Kuzin was enamored of the hosts and hung on their every word (our expenses were covered not badly), but I was interested to know: Where did these fighters against the IMF get so much money? One of the minders, thinking I was on their side, shared the 'secrets.' It turned out that the Institute's financing was something like that of the White Brotherhood or the Bolsheviks: In one instance they kidnapped the son of a billionaire, who then gave his money to the Institute; in another, they convinced a retired woman to contribute the interest on her investments; after all, that was unjustified capital gains! And so forth. But, besides such funding, there were clearly enormous, unaccounted-for funds involved."

It is clear why the democrat Mitrofanov would mistrust the LaRouche people, but of course, the LaRouche organization was not involved in any kidnapping. Most likely, Mitrofanov was briefed on the case of the young American millionaire Lewis DuPont Smith, who really almost was kidnapped, only the ones who were going to kidnap him were not agents of LaRouche, but his own father, who didn't like the fact that his son was spending his inheritance on generous contributions to the LaRouche organization. Evidently there was either some misunderstanding, or else Mitrofanov's political preferences made him consciously want to present a distorted interpretation of these events.

Few paid attention to such criticism of the LaRouche people, while interest in LaRouche continued to grow. Muranivsky wrote about LaRouche:

"LaRouche is a true friend of Russia." For a research and practice conference titled "On Protection of the Russian Domestic Market" and parliamentary hearings on the same topic, LaRouche drafted a comprehensive memorandum, "Prospects for Russian Economic Recovery" [1995], which was translated and published in Russian. Furthermore, Russian translations of two of his books, So, You Wish To Learn All About Economics? (1992) and Physical Economy (1997) were widely distributed in Russia and the CIS countries, as were a number of his scientific articles and reports, published in the [Russian] Bulletin of the Schiller Institute of Science and Culture.

After LaRouche was released [from Federal prison] in 1994, Muranivsky succeeded in organizing a number of visits to Moscow for him, during which LaRouche had meetings at the RAS and the State Duma with a small circle of anti-monetarist economists. As a result, such well-known opposition economists as Sergei Yuryevich Glazyev and Tatyana Ivanovna Koryagina became supporters of LaRouche. The latter, in particular, made use of many of LaRouche's ideas when she was working on Gennadi Zyuganov's program, "From Destruction to Creation. Russia's Pathway into the 21st Century" (the sections on "monetary circulation and finances," "banks," etc.).

Tatyana Ivanovna Koryagina's famous statement that "Clinton, in promoting his electoral program, is borrowing some words from Zyuganov's," sounds less like a joke, if one remembers that LaRouche sympathized with Clinton not least because he saw in him a politician who would be capable of withstanding pressure from the international financial oligarchy (which was an even more serious problem for vintage-1990s Russia).

But while the influence of LaRouche's ideas on political practice in Russia may have still been limited (in particular, within the CPRF his opponents would have included such influentials as Valentin Afanasyevich Koptyug, whose views may be defined as Malthusianism),[7] he enjoyed greater success in Ukraine: According to the analyst and journalist Konstantin Anatolyevich Cheremnykh, who worked closely with the LaRouche movement for a long time, Natalia Vitrenko's Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine "was completely, from scratch, built on the ideas of LaRouche."[8]

As for Russian scientists and politicians who picked up Lyndon LaRouche's ideas, the influence of LaRouchism may be traced in such economists as Mikhail Leonidovich Khazin, Andrei Borisovich Kobyakov; and in the psychologists Yuri Vyacheslavovich Gromyko and Konstantin Anatolyevich Cheremnykh; the popular journalists Alexander Andreyevich Prokhanov and Maxim Kalashnikov (Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kucherenko), and other personalities of note in the media. It should be mentioned that the explicit developers of LaRouche's ideas included such major scientists as Pobisk Georgiyevich Kuznetsov, an ardent advocate of a physical approach in economics as an alternative to monetarism, and the father of the theory of conceptual planning, Spartak Petrovich Nikanorov.

Of particular interest is the open sympathy for LaRouche and his ideas on the part of such influential scholars as Stanislav Mikhailovich Menshikov and RAS Academicians Dmitri Semyonovich Lvov and Alexander Grigoryevich Granberg, under whom one of the authors of this investigation had the good fortune to work, at the Russian Supreme Sovet Committee on Inter-Republican Relations, Regional Policy, and Cooperation.

Alexander Grigoryevich Granberg, in particular, was a leading Russian specialist in the area of comprehensive economic development of the regions of Siberia and the Far East, and he headed the Council for the Study of Productive Forces (SOPS) under the Ministry of Economics of the Russian Federation. One of the top-priority projects Alexander Grigoryevich Granberg worked on was the construction of a tunnel under the Bering Strait, which would connect the railroad systems of Russia and the USA (Figure 1). This idea is a key one in LaRouche's program for global economic recovery, and it is no surprise that at the conference Megaprojects of the Russian East (April 2007), LaRouche's report was presented by his scientific advisor Jonathan Tennenbaum; a month later, LaRouche himself took part in Professor Menshikov's 80th birthday celebration in Moscow. At that celebration Academician Granberg, in particular, offered a toast to the prospect that in 2027, when the tunnel would unite the two shores of the Bering Strait, the railroad station on the Russian coast would be named after Professor Menshikov, and the one on the American side for Lyndon LaRouche.[9]

The topic of the trans-Bering tunnel, and the related idea of building a global intercontinental railway network, is one of the most important ones in LaRouche's relations with Russian intellectual and political circles. In particular, Russian Railways chief Vladimir Yakunin is sympathetic to LaRouche's projects. In a recent interview with Interfax, Yakunin stated the necessity of developing the Far East and Kamchatka through railroads, and put forward the idea that a decision on building the trans-Bering tunnel should be taken within the next three to five years. To a question about whether this were not a futuristic vision, Yakunin gave a characteristic reply: "This is not dreaming. I first spoke about this when I began to work at this job.... And I am not the one who thought up this theory."[10]

According to Yakunin, during one of his business trips, some American businessmen approached him with a proposal to study the construction of this transport connection.

It is not entirely clear who these businessmen were, but it is known for certain that the first meeting of the Russian Railways CEO with Lyndon LaRouche took place in 2004, at which time LaRouche warned the Russian politician about the oncoming financial crisis. Subsequently Yakunin has repeatedly referred to LaRouche in his speeches, including citations of his views on the geopolitical significance of the British Empire.[11]

It is worth mentioning that officially in Russia the project to link Russia and the USA by railway across the Bering Strait was incorporated in 2007 in the "Strategy for the Development of Rail Transport in the RF [Russian Federation] to 2030," adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation. This resulted to a significant degree from the efforts of such Russian scientists as Professor Menshikov and Academician Granberg, who sympathized with LaRouche's ideas. There is no specific description of the project in this document, but the "Strategy" says that its implementation is planned for after 2030. It follows from Vladimir Yakunin's interview, that the project might come to life earlier, during the next 12-15 years.

On the whole, the LaRouche ideology encompasses other such ambitious Russian projects, like Industrial Urals—Arctic Urals, which was first presented in 2005, although the implementation of this large-scale program for development of the wealth of the Northern Urals has been complicated by poor expert feasibility studies and a lack of the needed investments.

Nonetheless, it can be stated that in the time since Taras Vasilyevich Muranivsky began to popularize LaRouche's ideology in Russia and Ukraine, it has become not some oddity, but a truly effective factor in the political and economic life of the country. LaRouche's influence and that of his followers should not be exaggerated, but it would also be wrong to pretend that there is absolutely no demand for their ideas in Russia. With a certain amount of caution, we may say that LaRouche's ideology is attractive for those circles of the Russian political and financial elite who place their hopes in the industrial development of the country, as against the raw materials- and speculation-based economy that predominates today.

The Last Rosicrucian

One of the most interesting questions to confront investigators of Lyndon LaRouche's activity is why his ideology was so attractive for Russia in the 1990s and why, nonetheless, no "LaRouche" school, as such, has taken shape.

One possible answer, or at least a direction in which to seek an answer, would be the following: that the lively interest in LaRouche's theories (especially his economic theories) resulted from the crisis of Marxist ideology. The mistrust in Marxism that had ripened in the last Soviet years, and intensified as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, drove people to seek alternative ideologies. One of these, which seized the dominant position, was aggressive liberalism, which, however, was repulsive to many independent thinkers and patriotically inclined intellectuals. Another alternative was the gloomy Germanicism of Alexander Gelyevich Dugin and the geopoliticians around him. This had a strong metaphysical component, but almost nothing by way of a coherent economic program. A third path was the nostalgic socialism of Sergei Yervandovich Kurginyan, which attracted a significant number of followers or, at least, sympathizers, but was almost wholly based on what today's young people would call the epic failure of the Soviet experiment.

In this situation, those intellectuals who were not inclined to throw the entire Soviet experience into the dustbin of history, but understood that relying on the historically traumatized broad masses of the population was a doomed effort; those who saw much that was rational in the Marxist economic model, but did not accept it, not least because of its militant materialism and extreme lack of any spiritual component—such intellectuals sought a coherent, scientifically grounded alternative, but one that did not lack a metaphysical foundation.

The ideology of Lyndon LaRouche, uniting economic analysis, a non-trivial approach to solutions for the classic problems of economics, and an attractive philosophy of history, became just such an alternative. It was extremely important that this body of thought made a fundamental emphasis on industrial development, as against speculative capital that produces nothing, whose dominance in Russia of the 1990s seemed limitless.

Yet another reason for the positive reception LaRouche received from Russian intellectuals, in the opinion of Konstantin Anatolyevich Cheremnykh, who was well acquainted with him, is his manner of expounding his ideas.

"He speaks and writes like a Russian polemical journalist of the 19th or early 20th Century, with amplifying reiterations, inversions, and cyclical turns of phrase (with age, unfortunately, this has begun to fade from his written language). One had but to ask him a provocative question, to receive an aesthetically delightful response."

And yet, all of that was insufficient to make the ideology of a new industrialization at least the equal, in influence, of the monetarist, or even to create a Russian school that would develop Lyndon LaRouche's ideas (the way one can talk about, for example, the Higher Economic School or INSOR as schools of liberal ideology).

According to Cheremnykh, "In the mid-1990s there were many decent people [who shared LaRouche's views—KB], although in the sense of LaRouche people such as there are in the USA, Germany, Sweden, Latin America, and Australia, we probably had only a handful. That was not his fault, nor was it so terrible: in part, what he was telling the Russians, especially professionals, they already knew without him, and they had their own authorities. Essentially, his messages were needed not so much for Russia or China, as for the degenerating societies of the West and, for different reasons, the Third World."

Nonetheless, we may state with certainty that LaRouche is far less of a marginal figure in Russia, than in the West, where the coordinated efforts of academic and political circles have pushed him outside the circle of salonfähig intellectuals. The reason for this lies largely in the detachment of Russian intellectual life from that of the West, a circumstance that, on the one hand, inhibits the exchange of information between them, while, on the other, it constitutes a certain guaranteed protection against aggressive ideological influences.

It seems to us that Russian scholars' evaluation of the strong and weak sides of the movement and the ideology of Lyndon LaRouche is rather more objective than that of their Western colleagues. None of them hangs political labels on LaRouche, although one cannot accuse them of being apologists for their American colleague, either. On the contrary, the Russian experts we surveyed spoke openly about the organizational crisis experienced by the LaRouche movement in 2007-2008, when, as Yuri Gromyko put it, LaRouche carried out "a Maoist revolution, firing on headquarters." Relying on young people, he rid himself of many old comrades, among whom were Jonathan Tennenbaum, the Liebig couple, Anno Hellenbroich, Lothar Komp, Uwe Friesecke, and Michael Vitt.

"And these were top-class experts," says Yuri Gromyko. "The same thing happened in the Swedish and Italian sections of the organization. It was indecent toward the older comrades; they had no savings. LaRouche essentially threw them out on the street."

(In fairness, it must be noted that other participants in these events point to the role of substantial political and organizational disagreements in the departure of this German group from the LaRouche movement.)

It was a serious blow for the organization as a whole. One might have expected the LaRouche people's influence to decline significantly after such purges, but this did not happen. The new team assembled by LaRouche turned out to be no less effective than those who had left. The German newspaper Neue Solidarität continued to be published. In September 2007, just nine months after the German group quit the organization, the German Schiller Institute organized a big conference, which brought together 400 participants from many countries of Europe and Asia, including Russia.

The headquarters of the movement in Leesburg, Virginia continues to process an enormous volume of information, and the weekly issues of EIR still offer readers high-quality analysis of the most burning problems of contemporary politics.[12]

In the opinion of Konstantin Anatolyevich Cheremnykh, who collaborated with EIR magazine for a long time, the most valuable thing in LaRouche's legacy is "his theory of the development of science and his (unfinished) philosophy of mathematics and art, both of which await their continuers. He has laid the foundations for an entire area of epistemology, which will develop when the misanthropy of the current period has passed."

Those words contain the answer to a question readers of the first two installments of our investigation have frequently put to the authors. Even LaRouche's own people responded with some surprise to the provocative title "The Last Rosicrucian," not understanding how it might be related to their leader. Of course, in some degree it is a metaphor. Lyndon LaRouche has nothing to do with those who called themselves Rosicrucians in the late Middle Ages and early modern history, especially such figures as John Dee or the founders of the society of the Golden Dawn. But it should be borne in mind that, from the standpoint of the legendary founder of the Order of the Rose and the Cross, Christian Rosenkreutz, the magician and alchemist Dee, and, even more so, the British esotericists of the Golden Dawn have only a highly mediated relation to the true Rosicrucians.

The essence and the soul of what was called the Rosicrucian devotion, a comprehensive transformation of art, science, religion, and the intellectual domain in Europe of that time, which faced a global crisis (the Thirty Years War), in our view has been reborn in the activity of Lyndon LaRouche and his supporters. This is the reason why we see LaRouche as a sort of last Rosicrucian—an intellectual who battles for the harmonic combination of spirituality and science.

[1] The "Big Government" project is an expanded committee of experts advising on policy, initiated by Dmitri Medvedev during his Presidency [translator's note].

[2] "The Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna—Cornerstone of a Eurasian Infrastructure Development Program." Subsequently, the idea of the Eurasian continental bridge was developed on the basis of the materials of this conference. EIR articles about this New Silk Road were used by Russian scholars in their publications (in particular, see S. Rogov, "The Contours of a New Russian Strategy," Nezavisimaya Gazeta—Scenarios, 1993, #3).

[3] Muranivsky employed this method in specific "precision" operations. For example, in the Summer of 1998 he organized informational resistance to the attempts by certain Russian politicians (B. Fyodorov and others) to shift to an external currency board system, for which purpose it was proposed to return V. Chernomyrdin to power, with former Argentinean Minister of Finance Domingo Cavallo as his expert advisor. Muranivsky compiled a dossier containing detailed analysis of the real impact of Cavallo's activity as Argentina's finance minister. Excerpts of this dossier were published in Ekonomicheskaya Gazeta in October 1998, but it had circulated earlier among Russian politicians and economists.

[4] Professor S.N. Nekrasov, "Taras Vasilyevich Muranivsky."

[5] One of the active defenders of LaRouche was Moscow City Council Deputy Victor Kuzin.

[6] The Institute of the World Economy and International Relations [translator's note].

[7] "If we raise the living standard of the poorest part of the population of the planet, there will not be enough resources for everybody. Then it will be necessary to reduce the consumption of resources in the developed countries by a factor of 30 in order for mankind as a whole to live decently. In brief, it's quite a puzzle."

[8] The PSPU was formed in 1996. It should be emphasized that the evolution of Vitrenko's views was influenced by her contact with T.V. Muranivsky, and her personal acquaintance with L. LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche, which followed from that.

[9] See article here.

[10] Terra America cited Vladimir Yakunin's remarks from a report in the Russian business daily Vzglyad.

[11] "The World British Empire, and not Russia, as many believe, was the greatest power on Earth in its heyday. The United States of America essentially inherited its geopolitical functions, political style, and imperial ambitions. It is indicative that the collapse of the British Empire exactly coincided with the advance of the USA to the forefront of world geopolitics. The view that the British Empire de facto continues to exist in a new, modified configuration is held by many thinkers today—for example, by Lyndon LaRouche."

[12] A new surge of interest in LaRouche was connected with the events in the Arab East, where the Arab Spring of 2011 led to regime change in several countries, although analysts had assumed that the dictatorial Arab regimes were quite stable and would last for a long time to come. Immediately after the outbreak of popular unrest in Tunisia (which triggered the entire Arab Spring), LaRouche issued a warning about the danger of radical Islamism: "... in a number of countries in the Maghreb and the Near East, secular reform factions have been successfully suppressed, and only the Saudi-funded Islamist movements, like Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, have the resources to challenge the prevailing regimes." [This statement was actually contained in a Jan. 17, 2011 LPAC release (http://larouchepac.com/node/17219), where it was attributed to "a senior U.S. intelligence official"—translator's note.] LaRouche said about the outbreak of the events in Tunisia, "This is an existential crisis for the whole Muslim and African world." In his view, the events in the Arab countries could not be reduced to "socioeconomic" problems alone (such as inflation and unemployment), nor to "outside interference" alone (like the Soros color revolutions). In other words, according to LaRouche, the events of the Arab Spring fit into his forecasts of a global crisis, and the Arab countries were the weak link in the world community.

A year later, in January 2012, LaRouche reported that the destabilization process in the Middle East was being supported by the USA and Great Britain, for which purpose the Obama Administration had established a special secret committee to prepare "options" for aiding the Syrian opposition, bypassing normal inter-agency channels. The outline of a military attack on Syria, in turn, was written by Michael Weiss, communications director of the Jackson Society, which is closely linked with American neocons like those who ran the policy of George Bush, Sr. [sic; the original LPAC release, dated Jan. 4, 2012, specified the George W. Bush Administration—translator's note], such as James Woolsey, Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Josh Muravchik, as well as "Project Democracy" veterans like Obama's choice as Ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. Senior figures at the Henry Jackson Society are the Rt. Hon. Michael Ancram, 13th Marquess of Lothian and Sir Richard Dearlove, Tony Blair's choice to head the British Secret Intelligence Service MI6 in 1999-2004. "Weiss's blueprint was adopted, with slight editing, by Monajed, who is executive director of the London-based Strategic Research and Communication Centre, as well as spokesman for the SNC," LaRouche [PAC] reported. Thus the picture of a conspiracy comes together, wherein the Arab revolutions are being manipulated by British quasi-governmental organizations, while the USA acts as the "moneybags" of the revolutions.

Subscribe to EIW