Go to home page

This article appears in the January 15, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The Capitol Assault Was ‘Another 9/11’

[Print version of this article]

View full size
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021 to protest the vote fraud against President Trump.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, keynoting The LaRouche Organization webcast on Jan. 9, described how the orchestrated assault on the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington on Wednesday, Jan. 6, was another “9/11,” intended to justify fascist dictatorship in the United States by the incoming Biden Administration, turning power over to the central bankers’ Green finance destruction of industry and agriculture.

Of the many extraordinary things my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, will be remembered for by everyone who met him and had the privilege to work with him, is that he had one incredible ability, and that was to use this idea of incommensurables, to analyze events in the context of new historical developments. I remember many times when something new happened, some new incident, some murder, some clash, some mass strike, some phenomenon. And everybody would look puzzled, and say “What is this? This is totally unexpected,” and he would just give it a concept and a name, and then afterwards everyone would say, “Oh yeah, now I can see it. That’s exactly what it is.”

I think we are in such a situation. I think, with the Jan. 6 events, we have experienced one of those extraordinary turning points which, if we do not carefully examine it and interpret it, we cannot come up with the right conclusions for what to do.

So, we will try this evening to apply that method described in the briefing given by my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, in 1995 [available in this issue of EIR immediately following this presentation]. What happened is incredible: It’s a huge danger. The danger is truly much bigger than the ordinary citizen suspects. What happened on January 6th was the beginning of a new global fascist danger. It can lead to an incredible strategic escalation with Russia and China, but it can also open up something that can be defined as a solution. But first we have to identify exactly what happened.

View full size
Demonstrators inside the Capitol Building.

I was watching the Joint Session of Congress on YouTube, and as I was watching, shortly after 2 p.m., the camera shifted from the session inside the hall where the hearing was taking place, to the entrance of the Congress. I recognized it immediately because I went through there many times; I remembered the magnetometer. I saw many people with MAGA hats and others with pro-Trump T-shirts moving around relatively peaceful, quietly, almost joking. There were some policemen standing by, not doing anything—and it looked completely odd. And as the developments unfolded, some people were roaming around, and there was some ransacking. A few hundred people were roaming inside, and it lasted almost two hours. I was completely puzzled, as was everybody else who watched this. Why was there no security? How did these people get through in the first place? Why were they allowed to roam the hallways of the Congress for such a long time?

Then, as the coverage continued, we heard that the most important relevant government politicians were brought to safety, that gas masks were distributed, and that tear gas was used inside the building. Step by step, the enormity of this whole affair became quite clear. Then immediately, Chuck Schumer, the Senator from New York, began screaming that this is a desecration of the temple of democracy. He and others including Pelosi began demanding that we have to invoke the 25th Amendment, that Trump cannot stay one day longer in his position. Remember, Schumer was the person who had threatened President Trump at the beginning of his time in office, saying don’t mess with the intelligence community, because “they have six ways from Sunday to get back at you”; which was a clear threat.

What Has Putin To Do with This?

Immediately, you had Pelosi, Ben Rhodes, and Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, not only demanding the 25th Amendment or impeachment—if the 25th Amendment could not be implemented, then impeachment by Congress. But they also all started to say that all this benefits Putin, it is a gift by Trump to Putin. This is really extremely ominous. What has Putin to do with this affair? The fact that they all would say that, points to another dimension of this crisis, and I will come to discussing this in a second.

The first question one has to ask oneself is cui bono? Who benefits? Does the breaching of security at the Capitol help Trump in any way? Does it make any sense that the people who are Trump supporters would do that? Well, let’s look at January 6th. It was already clear that some major demonstrations and possibly also violence would happen. It was also clear that January 6th—and Trump had said this to his supporters many times: Look, come to Washington, this will be a big day. And January 6 was the only day on which there was a chance that the truth about the irregularities in the six swing states, possible vote fraud, could be presented before the two houses of Congress, the American population, and the world public. Because up to that point, any effort to create any kind of publicity about it was completely denied by the media, which said there is not one shred of evidence, this is all just made up by Trump, vote fraud did not exist.

Then, in alphabetical order by state, the different complaints against irregularities in the different states were supposed to be presented. And near the very beginning, when Arizona was being discussed, this breach of security occurred, and the whole process stopped. So immediately, naturally, the narrative went out that Trump was the author of it. It is true that Trump, at the rally before the hearings started, had made a speech in which he presented—one could say with a certain bitter tone—all the many incidents which had previously been discussed in Pennsylvania, in Georgia, in the other states. And it is true that he then said, after he was finished with his speech, “Let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue in the direction of the Capitol.” Then, the question is, did he incite his followers, or was the invasion of the Capitol actually a disruption of what would have been a peaceful, powerful demonstration of representatives of the 75 million voters who voted for Trump?

View full size
Brendan Gutenschwager
Media build the impression of an insurrectionary furor.

There are now many video clips circulated from cell phones, from other video cameras, there are eyewitness reports of people who participated in the rally. And they all report a whole pattern of events. Namely, there were, for example, at one part of the outer perimeters of the Capitol, men dressed in black, hammering away at a door or a window, and very clearly a group of other men blocking the people behind, preventing the latter from trying to stop the intruders, or from having any access to them. It was very clearly a pattern where you see a group of men blocking and giving protection to those who committed the violence. There are other reports that all of a sudden, in a relatively calm and peaceful demonstration, groups of men appeared, who started to shout slogans like, “Let’s burn down the place!” And they tried to incite some of the bystanders to follow them. There were also reports that some people were egged on, but many not. So, what is very clear is that there is a whole pattern of people reporting strange vans coming with people dressed in black, or people dressed in Trump shirts and MAGA hats. There clearly were outside elements coming into the demonstration, playing the role of provocateurs.

That is something which is being investigated. Five people died in the course of these events. Many people were arrested; many pictures were taken. This all points to the famous third force: What Nelson Mandela, in the context of South Africa, referred to as a “third force” that sought to discredit the ANC [African National Congress], and which created inter-tribal violence at the time [in the early 1990s], in order to impose the political will of British imperial forces.

View full size
Provocateurs overwhelmed understaffed security personnel and engaged in violence to discredit an otherwise peaceful demonstration at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. Below: fascist rioters clash with internal troops in Kiev, Ukraine, February 18, 2014.
View full size
UnFrame/Mstyslav Chernov

The same happened in the coup in Kiev in 2014. If you remember the demonstrations in the Maidan, which started at the end of November 2013, escalated into January, February. Then around Feb. 22, you had the coup all of a sudden, by the Nazis of the Bandera tradition. But it then turned out that there had been sharpshooters who had fired on both sides, on the demonstrators and on the police. There is a very high suspicion that something like that has just occurred, because one big question that many people are asking now, and which has to be investigated is, why was there no adequate security? It was clear that this would be the big day for Trump supporters. There were tons of articles on Jan. 4 and Jan. 5, all saying there will probably be violent demonstrations, that one could not exclude it.

Nothing was done. The police were not well-equipped; the National Guard were there, but they were only called in by the mayor for traffic control. Normally, when you have a major event in Washington, they close down everything—the museums, the public buildings. Nothing of this sort had occurred, and the Capitol Police were clearly under-equipped to deal with that.

European Communities/Philippe Sautier
Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union, remarked that the whole operation was clearly pre-planned and that the string-pullers will become obvious very soon.

Now that all needs to be investigated, and the chain of command must be clarified. But there are many comments. For example, Chinese and Russian media are saying—with a certain amount of schadenfreude one can say—that now the United States is getting a mild dose of the medicine it has administered to other countries, like Ukraine in 2004 and 2014, Serbia in 2000, other countries—Georgia, Belarus, the Arab Spring, all the color revolution efforts against Venezuela. But I think that is off. It does not make the necessary distinction between [Trump and] the people who have been involved in the coup against Trump from 2015 onward and their collusion with British intelligence, of which the evidence has been produced but unfortunately was not published in time. But it is also very clear that the evidence will be produced. The only person who said something quite in the right direction was, interestingly, Mikhail Gorbachev, who said that the whole operation was clearly preplanned, and that the string-pullers will become obvious very soon.

LaRouche’s Forecast of 9/11

If you think about this affair, it is not Trump trying to make a coup against Biden, or Trump being responsible for this violence, as if he were doing so by mentioning the fact that there was vote fraud—for which there are thousands of eyewitnesses; there are many state legislators who even spoke at our different events. So, there is no question that there was vote fraud. But the narrative which they are now trying to knit together is that the moment you speak the words “vote fraud,” then this is fake news, and this must be banned: And that is what happened. Twitter banned Trump’s account. All the other social media want to ban Trump.

So, something else is going on here.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
In a January 3, 2001 webcast, Lyndon LaRouche forecast some sort of “Reichstag Fire” event to divert attention away from a systemic crisis in the financial system for which the incoming Bush administration had no answers.

It very much calls to mind 9/11. I want to take it back to what Lyndon LaRouche said on Jan. 3, 2001, when he had a prescient, really prophetic recognition of what would happen.

He said—this was three weeks before the George W. Bush Administration came into office—he said that he was convinced that they would go for some form of a Reichstagsbrand, a Reichstag Fire, because they would be confronted with difficulties in the financial system that they would not have an answer for, and therefore they would instigate a Reichstag Fire.

That was three weeks before Bush came into the White House, and nine months before September 11. It just happened to be that on Sept. 11, my husband was giving a live radio interview to a program in Utah—this was around nine in the morning—and when the attack on the World Trade Center happened, somebody put a piece of paper in front of him and said, this just happened. And without access to any books or files or other resources, he immediately said, “This could not have happened without the complicity of rogue elements of the U.S. security apparatus.” And he said that with the full authority of being the author of the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was implemented—if people remember—by President Reagan on March 23, 1983.

He had done extensive studies on NORAD [the North American Aerospace Defense Command], about security measures. So, he immediately said, you can not do that—especially when it became clear that it was four planes, including an attack on the Pentagon—without such complicity, simply because the security apparatus and measures in place would not allow that. So, he also immediately said—later elaborating it in writings—it’s not just the incident as such, but it has a strategic dimension, including the fact that this was an attack on the Pentagon, with some danger of thermonuclear war. He even praised President Bush to a certain extent because he did get on the phone with Putin at the time, and that obviously helped to get a certain amount of control in the situation.

View full size
Hitler arranged an arson attack on the Reichstag (parliament) in Feb. 1933, weeks after his appointment as Chancellor, as a pretext for mass arrests and suspending civil liberties. Similarly, the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington were carried out to ensure passage of the so-called Patriot Act.

I think the 9/11 attack gave the pretext for the Patriot Act. And I think many Americans remember the horror, the days of uncertainty, of what was the significance of this. People had all their yellow ribbons, and it was a period of shock. But it was the period when the Patriot Act was implemented, and the worldwide surveillance really got going by the NSA, of the GCHQ (the British equivalent of the NSA), and all the limitations on civil rights, which followed at that time.

And I think what happened on Jan. 6th is something like that, but in one sense much bigger: Because immediately you have the censorship of the President of the United States. That had already happened after Nov. 3rd, when Trump said that there was reason to believe that there was vote fraud. You remember that the CEOs of the main TV stations started to just cut in to the press conference of the President of the United States, as if he were some little dictator in a banana republic, and they said, “we disagree with what the President just said.” So, the censorship started there. But after this incident on Wednesday, all the Big Tech, mega-giant IT firms thought that they were more important than the elected President of the United States, who is still the sitting President. And now, they have imposed a banning of any access of Trump to social media.

Government of Mexico
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador warned on January 8 that the censorship taking place in the U.S. is a danger for the world.

This is enormous! People should think twice. I know there are some people who probably think, “Oh, that’s a good thing! We didn’t like Trump in the first place.” But look at what President López Obrador of Mexico said in a press conference, Friday. He said,

What they just did a few days ago in the U.S. is a bad sign, it’s a bad omen: that private companies decide to silence, to censor. That is an attack on freedom. So, let’s not be creating a world government with the power to control social networks, a world media power … a censorship court, like the Holy Inquisition, but in order to shape public opinion, that is really serious.

I think that what happened a few days ago is a turning point regarding social networks. Then I read the letter of the owner of Facebook, and I thought it was really high-handed, very arrogant, speaking about their rules. And what ever happened to freedom and the right to information? And the role of the legally and legitimately constituted authorities?

Gage Skidmore
Former First Lady Michelle Obama called on the Silicon Valley IT giants to shut President Trump out of the social media, permanently.

I think that is exactly what we are looking at, because if you think that of all people, Michelle Obama was calling on Silicon Valley to make sure that Trump would never again have access to social media—this is incredible.

One person who immediately understood the significance of what that means, is Edward Snowden, who said that people should be extremely wary of this, because if they can do this to Trump, the danger is they will do this to everybody. This is the beginning of a complete censorship. And I would add, they want to quiet down all opposition to the present policies of the establishment.

Systemic Financial Crisis

Why would they want to do that? Lyndon LaRouche, on Jan. 3, 2001, said that the Bush Administration would plan a Reichstag Fire kind of operation, because they would have to deal with problems of the financial system that they could not manage. I think this is exactly what is now at stake, just much, much bigger: Because we are sitting on the top of a systemic crisis, bankruptcy of the present trans-Atlantic financial system.

Remember that after the collapse of 2008, nothing of the fundamentals was changed; they just kept pouring money through quantitative easing, through the injection of trillions of dollars, which did only one thing: It increased the wealth of the speculators, of the upper 1% of the trans-Atlantic establishment. But it impoverished the middle class, it made the poor poorer. And this is the situation which has led, among other things, to the election of Trump; it has led to the Brexit; it has led to an increasing distrust of the so-called leadership on the part of the mass of the population.

What they have in store now, and this is what Biden is part of, is the Green Deal. They plan, and you will see it from Jan. 25th-29th—the World Economic Forum is planning a series of events to announce big-time the so-called “Great Reset.” And this is all about greening of the economy to impose a dictatorship by the central banks, whereby investment will only go into decarbonization, green energy, green industry. This will be done under the pretext of restructuring the economy in the post-pandemic era—which we are very far away from, as people may have noticed, because the pandemic is pretty much out of control in many places.

This will destroy the United States and European nations as industrial nations because it will lower the energy-flux density in the production process. It will destroy industry, and it will increase the war danger. Why? Because the present campaign against China, against Russia, is only because of geopolitical reasons, because the Western establishment is not willing to recognize that it is their policies which led to the present crisis. And they blame China, in particular, for everything. But the rise of China has nothing to do with the failure of the neoliberal system.

When the West is implementing policies that will lead to even more destruction of industry, and China is happily dealing with the COVID crisis, and did much better restarting the economy than the West did, it increases the war danger. Pelosi and all these other people were immediately screaming, “Putin! Putin!” The anti-China campaign also escalated, which means this is the danger of war. No one makes such unfounded accusations, other than to create an enemy image as a preparation for war.

So, that is the situation. I think we are looking at the danger of a new fascism. Fascism in the tradition of Hjalmar Schacht. That kind of austerity with the added Green element—Hitler was Green also, by the way. But it is a danger of a new fascism with total censorship, with Goebbels’s kind of total control of the media. Any person who loves freedom, who loves the Constitution, who thinks civil liberties and civil rights were something which mankind had to fight for in many fights over the centuries, this is a call for action. People have to be mobilized and recognize this for what it is.

What To Do

There is a solution. This solution was developed by Lyndon LaRouche over many years: The only way you can solve this problem is to address the fundamental reason why all of this is happening. That is the collapse of the present neoliberal financial system. It has to be replaced with a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as Franklin D. Roosevelt had intended it to be—it never became that, because Roosevelt died at a bad moment. Roosevelt had intended the Bretton Woods to be a system in which credit would be issued to overcome the under-development of the developing countries and increase the living standard of every living human being on the planet.

That still is the solution. The invitation to go for a New Bretton Woods credit system is absolutely on the table. The Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche are these: A Glass-Steagall global banking separation in the tradition of Roosevelt’s Glass-Steagall Act must be implemented now. There must be a new Hamiltonian national bank to issue massive amounts of credit for long-term economic projects. The new banking system must selectively fund projects that will raise national physical productivity and create high-paying jobs in productive sectors of the economy. Finally, you need especially an increase in productivity through international cooperation in a science-driver crash program for thermonuclear fusion energy, which has come much closer in the recent period, and also international cooperation in space research and travel.

Now that must be put on the agenda. President Putin has called for a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. That opportunity should still be addressed as long as President Trump can pick up the telephone, call up Xi Jinping, call up Macron, call up Putin. And this should be scheduled on an emergency basis. I know it sounds like a very unlikely thing this late in the day, but if you are in such a situation, you have to do unbelievable things as an answer.

I also think Putin’s call is a call for all the citizens around the world to understand what the danger is: To start to mobilize for such a solution. To cooperate with China on the Belt and Road Initiative for the industrialization of Africa, to fight the famine, which is gigantic. To fight the pandemic, to make sure that every single country on this planet has a modern health system, which can only be accomplished if Russia, China, India, the United States, Germany, Japan, South Korea, all the major industrial countries are working together. The requirements are so big that no country alone can do it, nor even a group of countries, but we have to put together all the industrial capacities of the entire world to solve the problems which are threatening all of humanity.

I am calling on you to help us in this mobilization, because this is a very serious moment, and we have no time to lose.

Back to top    Go to home page