|This article appears in the June 17, 2016 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA IN MANHATTAN!
‘Murder, Though It Have No Tongue,
CC BY-SA 2.0/Vargas2040
Then there is the matter of Obama’s infamous “kill sessions,” held for months every Tuesday in the White House, where Obama, personally, picks the names of those individuals, including American citizens, to be assassinated through U.S. drone strikes. If innocents die, that is simply acceptable collateral damage. As Bush CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said about Obama’s assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki, “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him, but we [i.e., Obama] didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?”
Whether the Tuesday White House killing sessions still go on formally or not, everyone in the United States government knows that Obama is in the practice of regularly ordering the execution of various “enemies of the state”—on Tuesdays, and other days of the week. This includes Americans. Former Obama supporters have been more terrified because of this, than perhaps any other manifestation of the true Obama that is made known to them.
Obama is a murderer. He is also insane. The fact that he is not identified, or certified, as insane, does not change the truth of the nation’s predicament. The Obama campaign to shut down the manned space flight program, as well as the space program as a whole, is the potential “point of no return” for the United States. Obama objected to a continuation of manned exploration of the Moon with the deranged assertion, “we’ve already done that.”
American author and lawyer Glenn Greenwald, in his afterword to Jeremy Scahill’s recently published book, The Assassination Complex, states:
Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential campaign is, for many, a distant memory. For that reason it is easy to forget that his vows to reverse the core strategy of the Bush-Cheney war on terror were central, not ancillary, to his electoral victory . . . It is hard to overstate the conflict between Obama’s statements before he became president and his presidential actions.
Slightly later, however, Greenwald brings up the matter upon which our attention and reflection are immediately focussed: the unseemly adoption in recent decades by Americans of a slave mentality of “go along to get along,” even of going along with murder and madness. (“One must be practical in these matters, you know.”) Greenwald writes:
Obama did not navigate this transformation alone. As is to be expected in the highly partisan and polarized political climate that prevails in the United States, large numbers of Democrats and progressives transformed with him from virulent critics of these policies to vocal supporters once they became Obama policies rather than Bush policies.
If we accept what Greenwald writes to be true, we must conclude that much of the American 2008 electoral base either never had any morality at all to inform their purported “principled” choice for Obama as President, or they gave away, or were corrupted away, from whatever that morality was. The only difference between the earlier Bush and later Obama administrations, is that under Obama, the killing became more efficient, widespread, and routine than it had been earlier. The American people tolerate it, not because they agree with it, but because of fear—“nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror, which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”—the condition against which Franklin Roosevelt warned the nation on March 4, 1933, in his First Inaugural Address.
Fear itself is a powerful self-brainwashing force. British subject and Tavistock Institute brainwasher R.D. Laing codified “the politics of fear” in the beginning of a short book he entitled Knots. It accurately describes the distilled thought process of the British subject’s slave mentality:
They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
This is the essence of what is called “game theory,” the game theory of people such as Bertrand Russell, who from no later than 1900 were working overtime to break the American revolutionary spirit that Alexander Hamilton exemplified in his, Franklin’s, Washington’s, and others’ refusal to play the game of bowing to the mad King of England. Their Declaration of Independence was a non-negotiable fight for the sovereignty of the creativity of the human mind as the highest authority in the world—not the arbitrary “divine right” of not-so-divine Kings, Emperors, and Obamas, over life and death.
If you are trying to implement the American Presidency, the American Constitution, and the American economy designed and defended by Alexander Hamilton in the American Revolution, it doesn’t much help to have the moral direct descendant of “Mad King George the Third” in the White House. There is no need to search for Barack Obama’s birth certificate when you face the fact that, in his commitment to upholding British Crown interests, he is more directly a descendant of the Bush family than, for example, his hapless would-be sibling Jeb. “For Ernst Cassell begat E.H. Harriman, who begat Prescott Bush, who begat George Herbert Walker, who begat G.W. and begat Barack Obama.”
At this point the credulous would begin to tremble with fear. Visions of Skull and Bones, Freemasonry, and various Satanic cults dance in their heads, and with good reason. When one says, “FBI,” one has pronounced the name of Bush, the name of Wall Street, and the name of Her Satanic Majesty. But these forces only rule the night through fear, and Alexander Hamilton’s Presidential system was designed to expose them to the light, and remove them from wielding power over the American people.
The Obama killing machine that, so far as anyone knows, still meets every Tuesday, could be dismantled “on any Wednesday” by American citizens who would join forces to act to remove Obama from power. True, impeachment and removal from office should have been visited upon the preceding Cheney-Bush Administration—but it was not. The notion that impeachment, or the removal of Obama, would now be adequately accomplished “through the normal electoral process” is also untrue. A comparison of Cheney/Bush’s military policies with those of Obama, demonstrates why. Without removing Obama,no part of the human race knows for sure that it will even see tomorrow.
Organizers for Lyndon LaRouche’s Manhattan Project in New York City have considerable contact every day with tens of thousands of Americans and non-Americans. They have face-to-face conversations with hundreds of people on street corners and in shopping districts. Organizers report that, once one gets below the surface response, the stark truth becomes evident—the American people are gripped precisely by that fear of which FDR spoke in 1933. The fear is not merely for their material situation—rent payments and the rest. The fear is that the nation is completely adrift, that its future mission is unclear or unknown, and that “I’m too small to do anything about it, because the current tyrant”—Obama—“is too powerful” or “too popular.”
What might be the antidote to this sorry condition?
Public domain/Herman Hiller/Library of Congress
There is an old lesson, learned “the hard way,” in the streets of 1960s America. It was taught in particular by Malcolm X to many, including the late Muhammad Ali. (Lyndon LaRouche personally witnessed Malcolm X teach this lesson to those that came to hear him in places like the Audubon Ballroom on Broadway and 165th Street in Harlem.) The principle was, “If you wish to end slavery, you must first end the slave mentality.” And what is the typical expression of slave mentality? Harriet Tubman, who will shortly replace Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill, put it this way: “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more, if they had known they were slaves.”
Tubman’s expression, however, more precisely defines the mentality of the “British subject” than of the slave more generally. Obama is a puppet of the British Queen, and it is the mentality of a subject that he exudes, which is imitated by those either silly enough or terrified enough to pretend that he is much more than a “stage presence.”
S.H. Bradford, Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman
Some are intelligent enough to understand that in 2016 America, slavery is no longer “legally” confined, as it was in the Nineteenth Century, to African-Americans, but is, rather, the pervasive condition of the majority of American citizens—as a current, British Empire-imposed, but reversible mental condition. Most, however, refuse to admit that they are scared to death of Barack Obama, who murders people through an imperial prerogative called “special presidential powers” of the “unitary executive.” These assassinations of Americans and non-Americans can be ordered regularly every Tuesday. People are afraid of Obama’s predecessors, who were never punished for the crime of the illegal and unjust war of 2003 in Iraq, and they are afraid of—and even “pre-disgusted” by—whoever their successors are likely to be. That is why participation rates in American elections, particularly primaries, are inevitably dismally low.
There is a way to break through this contemporary “British subject/slave” mentality. Three examples illustrate what this way is.
Invited to participate in a Bronx Sunday Puerto Rican Day Parade, LaRouche associates made a banner which read, “Dispierta y Lucha por La Humanidad” (Stand Up and Fight for Humanity). It featured a large picture of the world’s largest single-dish radio telescope, located in the city of Arecibo in Puerto Rico, and a picture of the famous cellist, Pablo Casals. Casals’ mother and wife were born in Puerto Rico. In 1957, he founded one of the world’s great Classical music festivals there. There was no reference to the much-discussed “Puerto Rican debt crisis”—because there is no Puerto Rican debt crisis. The entire financial system is bankrupt, and only if people “look up, and stand up,” can they win. This is the moral opposite of Obama, who does not believe the space program would, or should ever, solve the problems of the very poor people who mistakenly voted for him.
Recently, a LaRouche PAC squad deployed in an overwhelmingly African-American and Hispanic section of the Bronx. Its report included an account of a confrontation with a man who was so incensed at a sign depicting Obama behind bars—captioned, “Jail Obama For 9/11 Coverup”—that he wanted to overturn the organizers’ table,— but changed his mind:
We were on Tremont Avenue in the South Bronx (the neighborhood made famous by Tom Wolfe’s novel Bonfire of the Vanities) at the Post Office. People saw the sign as they walked toward us. Several people were asking why we would say such a thing about Obama. This was largely asked as a curious, not hostile question, though several people were inclined to support Obama. When the censoring of the [Congressional Joint Inquiry’s] 28 pages on 9/11 was gone thorough, starting with the Bush Administration, and that Obama had continued the same practice, especially in not releasing the pages, and was still using 9/11 to justify every form of new war, NSA spying, the drone killings and other matters, people, even if they did not agree fully, would acknowledge the truth of what we were saying.
The leading edge of what we were doing was warning them that there was a war being planned against the Russians, and the Chinese, and that this could not be allowed. We told them that the reason behind the war tensions, was that the U.S. now produces only drug addicts, unemployment, and despair—and they knew this was true.
This did not dissuade the individual who objected to the “Jail Obama” sign. He organized two other people to help remove us from the area. An organizer, however, showed him a picture of Trump morphing into Hillary Clinton with the caption: “What Difference Does It Make?” He burst out laughing when he saw the picture, and he totally changed. He ended up signing the anti-NATO petition, giving $5, and taking the picture down to the corner copy shop so that he could make copies. He took our picture from the table, went to make copies, and then brought our original back.
Finally, on Manhattan’s Columbus Circle—a far cry from the South Bronx—an LPAC rally took the form of an amplified Socratic dialogue. The 18 members of the organizing squad were constantly engaged in conversations, distributing literature and organizing people to sign a petition—the petition that the Schiller Institute is circulating in Europe, calling on governments to stop the confrontation being instigated at this moment by NATO on the border of Russia, and orient toward the win-win cooperation proposed by the BRICS. “More foreign troops are massed on the Russian border now than at any time since the Second World War, and you don’t even know it!” Scores of people signed the petition, but, more important, 200 people took the petition to circulate it themselves, or to consider it despite their initial doubts about what the organizers were saying.
In this way, LaRouche organizers have attacked and sought to remove the slave mentality that paralyzes Americans in the face of their fear of the Obama killing machine.
In day-to-day organizing by members of the LaRouche Political Action Committee—and in particular since the commencement of the 2015-2016 electoral season and Presidential campaign—obsessive-compulsive statements purporting to have something to do with politics had for months been epidemic in encounters with the citizen on the street, that is, until recently. Several factors, including the recent, merciful ending of the “primary season” have changed that. The persistence of Vladimir Putin in Russia, in fighting against terrorism, and in inviting Obama and the United States to join him and work with him, is one such factor. The compelling initiatives of China in space exploration and China’s win-win policy for global economic development is another. For the people of the United States, the path toward sanity has been demonstrated by the Manhattan Project.
Twenty years ago Lyndon LaRouche said of Obama’s ancestors, George Herbert Walker Bush and Margaret Thatcher, the originator of the 1979 Afghanistan War with Russia:
Shakespeare’s Hamlet said: “Murder, though it have no tongue, will speak . . .” Let Thatcher, Bush, and their accomplices now tremble: Truth appears, and no more weapon than truth itself, will render to the memories of these pirates, the dramatic justice of which William Shakespeare wrote.
The 28 pages suppressed by Obama, and Bush-Cheney before him, shall speak, though murder have no tongue.