Subscribe to EIR Online

Subscribe to EIR

This article appeared in the April 23, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Blair Makes Case for NATO Bombing of Buckingham Palace

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

April 13, 1999

Curiously, if, but only if the British monarchy's government were to be taken to mean literally what Prime Minister Blair says should be done as a matter of principle, we would assume that Blair is demanding that NATO promptly bomb Buckingham Palace. A literal reading of the April 12 edition of the London Times cites Blair's op-ed in the April 19 edition of Newsweek magazine to precisely such an effect. Not so curiously, we must doubt the sincerity of both Blair and the London Times.

The Times, which traditionally reports current changes in British foreign policy, sometimes before the Foreign Office itself is informed, endorses and emphasizes the indicated following portion from that op-ed.

The Times paraphrase "suggests that NATO's action in Kosovo could be a model for future international relations." We should not doubt that that much of the statement states precisely the Times' and the British monarchy's intention. That fact we shall come to here, in due course.

In support of its paraphrase, the Times quotes Blair from that Newsweek article: "This is a conflict we are fighting not for territory, but for values, for a new internationalism where the brutal repression of whole ethnic groups will no longer be tolerated, for a world where those responsible for such crimes have nowhere to hide. . . . We are fighting for a world where dictators are no longer able to visit horrific punishments on their own peoples in order to stay in power."

The Times supplies its own interpretation of the British policy to be adduced from Blair's quoted remarks: "Establishing the principle that outside countries can intervene in a sovereign state to halt `ethnic cleansing' would mark a radical shift in the basic norms of international relations, and Mr. Blair's remarks will provoke unease among many countries. . . ." Perhaps in Buckingham Palace itself? Perhaps not.

Case proven: If we read the Times' report literally, Blair is arguing for a NATO bombing of Buckingham Palace, or, in the alternative, perhaps the House of Lords. In the whole wide world today, especially in respect to the British monarchy's currently ongoing Africa policy, these British institutions are, one as much as the other, the most monstrous example of precisely the sort of bad conduct which Blair says should be punished as Yugoslavia is being punished. Therefore, considering the vigor of Blair's formulation, if we did not know in advance what a pervert Blair is, we might presume that NATO's implied bombing action should occur more or less immediately.

The most extensive and horrid violations of human rights of the present decade, have been the intentionally racialist British monarchy's willful, continuing genocide against the Hutu and other relevant ethnic groups of Central Africa. The British use of its Museveni puppet-dictator for orchestrating currently the long-standing Rhodes Plan, a Holocaust now reaching beyond six millions African victims, is certainly the leading case, from any part of the world, demanding most urgently the kind of prompt remedial action which Blair proposes--action against the British monarchy and its most shameless accomplices, such as Lady Caroline Cox--the "Museveni of London," perhaps--in the House of Lords, for example, or Cox's flunkey, U.S. Representative Frank Wolf, in the U.S.A.

This Africa case is directly applicable for judging the British monarchy's current Balkan policy. Blair's most conspicuous accomplice, in using Rambouillet to set up the present situation in Kosovo--including the trapping of innocent Kosovars, was U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. She, a former sorcerer's apprentice to a homicidally mad Zbigniew Brzezinski, has a record of several uninterrupted years as an accomplice of the British monarchy in covering for the massive, British-directed genocide against Hutus and others now still ongoing in central Africa.

It should be emphasized that Ms. Albright's accomplices in Africa genocide, include not only Israelis operating in that region of Africa, but also some relevant elements of the U.S. military establishment. When a Ms. Albright, or Tony Blair moans like a stage-actor in extremis, about "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo, British genocide in Africa enables us to estimate fairly the absolute sincerity of very-late-comers Blair and Albright to the cause of suffering humanity.[FIGURE 1]

Alas, lest we might cherish the irony of NATO's prospective bombing of Buckingham Palace, we must fear that Mr. Blair is once again up to his customary sort of swinish insincerity. If the world is to be rid of that British royal house, the remedy must be supplied by more suitable means than the wretched Mr. Blair's Thatcher-like propensity for monstrous acts of violence. The nasty little twerp's consummate insincerities aside, his blurt to Newsweek has a certain clinical value which should be noted by all relevant strategic planners.

We acknowledge that, even though Blair's statement must be read by honest, but naive grammarians as proposing, literally, an implicit commitment to a NATO bombing of Buckingham Palace, Blair's customary utterances are never truthful, but of the Alice-in-Wonderland variety, delivered in the style of either a music-hall version of the "Mad Hatter," or, perhaps, you might prefer to suggest, a mad queen.

The prudent mind will read Blair's utterances as an intelligent farmer reads the sounds and gestures of barnyard animals. Blair's rhetoric is about as rational as that of a gander in sexual hot pursuit of a stuffed owl; his intent, at least, is not in doubt. To be specific, Blair's behavior, like those who share his views on the present Balkans war, expresses a deeply embedded, Hobbesian sort of swinishness. More important than Blair's swinishness, is that shown by the poor dupes now rallying to the British monarchy's Balkan efforts to spark a global, possibly nuclear war.

All said, a real, diabolical meaning lurks behind that wretch's utterances. We shall turn your attention to that, his actual policy, after we have shown you the way in which many political figures and ordinary citizens of various nations have been corrupted by Blair's and Madeleine Albright's current torrent of lies.

1. `Letting the sow loose'

The character of Blair's cabinet might point one's thoughts to the New Testament's account of the celebrated Gadarene swine. So, devout members of the Protestant sect of British Israelites might speculate: "Perhaps this is where those swine wandered, to London, after being driven from Palestine." Epithets against such degenerates as Blair and Cook come easily, sometimes too easily, to the lips of honest people. Unfortunately, there is something of the same swinishness now reverberating in significant portions of the general population, in Europe, and not only among the cronies of Vice-President Al Gore inside the U.S.A.

In Germany, one speaks of the inner Schweinhund, or of a person who "lets his inner sow loose." This is not only a German type; the same qualities are often to be recognized among high officials and others in the U.S.A., and elsewhere.

For ordinary citizens, and others, whom we must describe in such terms, the daily din of reports of genocide against the Kosovars, supplies a sly pretext for giving lip-service or other support to the presently spreading Balkan war. The real motives of these erring war-lovers, is not a passion for justice. Their most tolerant reaction to the British monarchy's years-long genocide in Central Africa, is a true measure of their present sincerity of feeling for the Kosovars. In truth, they are more like the actors whom Hamlet employed to stage a play, performing with as much show of sincerity as might be expected of them. For the veterinarian who knows his barnyard animals, these creatures are exhibiting the unleashing of the sow within themselves.

Let me hold up the mirror to such folk. I show those who support the launching of this foolish war, proof of the disgusting nature of their own actual motives.

Return to study a warning I wrote this past October 12, 1998, in which I warned of an ongoing psychological phase-change in the populations and government circles of the U.S.A. and western Europe, predicting the eruption of that kind of mass hysteria which underlies and controls the pro-war moods in the U.S.A. and western Europe today: "The Roots of Today's Mass Hysteria."[1] See the present strategic situation against the background of my October 1998 warning.

Focus upon a recent pattern of shifts in behavior among members of Congress and others in the U.S.A. Compare typical patterns of behavior from mid-May 1998 into October, with a marked shift which came fully to the surface during the mid-November to January interval.

Mass insanity--however temporary--had erupted within much of the Congress and other strata of the population, following certain developments within the August 17-October 15, 1998 interval. A similar pattern erupted within much of the institutions and population of western Europe, including newly inducted NATO member Poland, for one notable example. Here, in the mass-insanity which erupted in the course of these August-October developments, lies the source of that kind of swinishness commonly motivating present currents of political sympathy for NATO's present Balkan war.

The root of the widespread, post-October outbreak of that lunatic, "Gadarene" quality of swinishness to which I have referred, can be summed up simply, in two words: "my money." Focus upon the series of August-September financial and monetary crises, which threatened the largely illusory financial security of the many U.S. households which have come to rely upon spill-overs, directly or indirectly, into their personal accounts from short-term, soon to vanish, speculative gains in the mutual-funds bubble.

As the post-August 1971 self-destruction of the world economy has destroyed, step by step, the former, rational kinds of relations between the population and the physical economy, there has been a desperation-, fear-driven flight of more and more layers of the population into wishful fantasies. These fantasies represent, in effect, irrational hope in miracles to rescue them from an increasingly hopeless plight. This pattern is typified by the increase of belief in strange religious sects, or in outrightly paganist forms of magic, such as reliance upon horoscopes and plunges into gambling psychosis. Lunatic faith in the magic of the "marketplace," such as the mutual funds market, is among the most popular expressions of such a drift into mass psychosis. Thus, the individuals have been increasingly de-socialized, driven more and more into a Hobbesian, "little me"-centered fantasy-life. The principal expression of this flight into lunatic forms of mass hysteria, is the popular obsession with "my money," a state in which parents will use economic measures for accelerating the deaths of their own aging parents, ostensibly for "our children's benefit," but, more frankly, simply for the sake of the cult of "my money."

It was this concern for "my money," which lured much of the U.S. population, into the waves of insanity which overtook many citizens, as well as formerly sane members of the U.S. Congress, during the November 1998-January 1999 interval.

The essence of the current, post-October 1998 phase of the mass-insanity in today's U.S.A., is the virtually psychotic delusion, that the financial crisis has been magically solved by the empyreal genius Alan Greenspan. The post-October 1998 delusion was, that an agreement between Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan ("The Three Marketeers"[2]) had miraculously rescued the world from the brink of what would otherwise have become a widespread financial collapse. This form of mass-hysteria, is the root of the rather widespread, hysterical insistence, contrary to all fact and reason, that the currently collapsing U.S. economy is actually growing!

It is the desire of many, a deluded wish to believe that "my money is now safe," which is the most important factor in fostering support for the launching of a Balkan war which could readily spread rapidly to becoming World War III. Especially in Europe, and somewhat less so in the U.S.A., there is a great and growing unease about the Balkan war being directed by the British monarchy's Blair government. Nonetheless, there is also reluctance to oppose those official governmental and party institutions which are supporting Blair's Balkan war. The reluctance is rooted largely in the form the "my money" hysteria has assumed, increasingly, since mid-October 1998. The connection, in the scrambled mental processes of those supporting that strategic folly, is that "we must stick with the system," the system which they associate with the protection of "my money."

If this Balkan war becomes World War III, as it probably could, it would not be the first time a world war was made possible by financial considerations, which had much more to do with British manipulation of simultaneous mass hysteria in the U.S.A. and continental European populations, than with any rational notion of putative military issues of that war as such.[3]

2. A delusory recovery

Look more carefully at the measures taken by the G-7 nations, during early through middle October. The fact is, that no rational adult person, in western Europe or the Americas, could believe that these measures actually solved the problem. Rather, the apparent crisis was postponed, in order to make it quickly much worse than had Greenspan et al. done nothing at all.

Greenspan made no miracle. He made everything worse. What Greenspan et al. actually did, was a carbon copy, but on a much grander, global scale, of the same idiocy practiced by the 1923 government of Weimar Germany. Greenspan has been playing the same hyperinflationary tricks with "printing press" money which turned the German Reichsmark into toilet-paper that Autumn. What he did, was also an echo of some famous earlier follies of the same type: Seventeenth-Century Netherlands' Turkish tulip-bulb hysteria, or those ill-fated John Law-style bubbles of early Eighteenth-Century England and France, upon which Greenspan has modelled his present "miracle."

That is precisely what these central bankers and G-7 governments are doing to all of the currencies of the Americas, western Europe, and other places at the moment we now speak. If you believe this is a financial miracle, think of yourself as the man falling past the thirtieth story of a sixty-story skyscraper, gloating defiantly as he says to his grinning fellow-traveller, "Who are those bums who warned us a new crash was coming!"

So, in Autumn 1923, the Weimar Reichsmark crashed.

Think back. Remember how it happened. Go back to mid-August 1998. On August 17, 1998, the Prime Minister of Russia announced that Russia had run out of money to pay its foreign debts. As the world discovered, a few weeks later, this announcement threatened to bankrupt many of the leading banks of the G-7 and other nations.

The problem was not what Russia owed; the problem was that these banks, such as those operating through an entity called Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), had risked what was in net effect, trillions of U.S. dollars' worth of gambling side-bets on highly exotic forms of financial paper, such as those called GKOs.

Vice-President Al Gore, whose cronies were deeply (and corruptly) involved in this wild gamble, tried to put his Russian crony Viktor Chernomyrdin into the position of Russia's Prime Minister, as a way of assuring the bailing out of LTCM at Russia's expense. Gore's effort failed, and in September, when the failure of Gore-asset Chernomyrdin's candidacy became obvious, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan announced he had been engaged in a rescue mission to save the banks tied up in the LTCM portion of the derivatives gamble.

After the announcement of the LTCM bailout, the Clinton Administration, like other non-British G-7 governments, utterly lost its nerve. Between early and middle October, the G-7 nations and their central banks cut a deal to unleash the greatest hyperinflationary money-printing orgy in history. The orgy is still ongoing, and accelerating. Greenspan and his cronies have slashed borrowing costs, repeatedly. It has come near to the point that if the central banks cut borrowing costs much more, they would be paying the speculators to borrow. By papering the financial markets with what was doomed to become about as negotiable as play-money, the looming collapse of financial markets was, admittedly postponed for a few months; but, behind the financial press headlines which only poor fools believe, the world's economy is collapsing at an accelerating rate, every week.

However, as long as the nominal financial assets associated with mutual-funds accounts continue to increase in index-rigged values, a flow of fictitious wealth, monetized as cash, flows into the pores of the economy's weekly payments accounts, as it pours more massively into the accounts of the (actually superbankrupt) super-rich. The desperate, frightened citizen (and others) react with a lustful, greedy obsession with "my money."

Our population, generally speaking, has become a terribly immoral one. The young join with the super-rich Wall Street speculators in looting pensions, health funds, and even Social Security, so that the young might profit at the expense of even accelerated death-rates among their parents, grandparents, and uncles. "After all, it is my money!" they excuse their swinish behavior. We see this in the Congress; we see it everywhere: the man-eat-man, dog-eat-dog swinishness of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Friedrich von Hayek's Bernard Mandeville, and Adam Smith, spreads its noxious stink everywhere the cry of "my money" is to be heard. Such is the moral depravity of a nation which supports a magazine named Money.

Look at the immorality of the society which elevated a Newt Gingrich to the rank of Speaker of the House. Do not look at Newt; look at the depravity of the people who supported his candidacy for that position. Look at the depravity of those who supported his policies. Look at the poor, desperate retirees, throwing the money they can not afford to lose at gambling tables. Look at the numbers of the ghetto poor, gambling what pitiful little they have on the same kind of swinish folly. Younger workers: if you bargain away the health benefits and retirement funds of older workers, the employers might reward you with a bit more in your pay-check. Eat your cousin, bury your aged dependents as quickly as possible, sell your kid sister into prostitution. It is all for the sake of "my money!" Such is the character of a people which has, at least for the moment, lost the moral fitness to survive. A Balkan war was waiting, to usher such a depraved people into the war which could soon lead the entire planet into a prolonged, global, new dark age. The moving finger writes the ominous four words on the wall where the swinish money-changers are celebrating their latest depredations against their fellow-man.

3. A worldwide British Empire?

The present NATO military policy is not a creation of the U.S.A., nor of NATO's continental-European member-nations. It was entirely a concoction of the British monarchy's Blair government, and is being directed solely by that British government, albeit with complicity of British stooges in the U.S. Principals' Committee and kindred locations within continental Europe. This British policy has four primary objectives:

  1. Isolate and destroy Russia, once and for all. Destroy China later, down the line.

  2. Reduce continental western Europe to economically looted and ruined, virtual puppets, mere vassal-states of a new form of global British world empire.

  3. Destroy the last vestiges of sovereignty of the United States, using the Wall Street-centered B-A-C (British-American-Canadian) faction within U.S. institutions to reduce the U.S.A., "under a world of law" so-called, to the status of merely another member of the British Commonwealth.

  4. Thus, establish the foundations of a new world-wide empire of the British monarchy, to rule the world as the Babylonian, Persian, and Roman empires sought to do in ancient times.

Review the highlights of the way in which this British strategy evolved into its present form.

This strategic policy of the present ("Hanoverian" or so-called "Liberal") British monarchy is based on an ancient model. The idea of developing the British Empire as a new Roman-style world empire "on which the Sun never sets," was institutionalized by Lord Shelburne and his circles, during the late Eighteenth Century. Shelburne's assignment to Gibbon, was part of this legacy.

This policy was continued by the political heirs of Shelburne, notably the so-called British "free trade" economists, such as Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, et al. of the British East India Company's Haileybury School, and the legacy of the British Foreign Office whose development, from 1782 on, was shaped by the long succession of Shelburne's Jeremy Bentham and Bentham's protégé Lord Palmerston.

The present form of the British monarchy's long-term strategy, began, after the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, most emphatically as a reaction to the 1865-1866 defeat, by President Abraham Lincoln's U.S.A., of two British puppet-regimes, the Confederate States of America, and the Nazi-like Maximilian occupation of Mexico.

The fear which struck the British monarchy with Lincoln's victory, became white-hot desperation and fury, when Germany, Russia, Japan, and post-Napoleon III France, among other nations, adopted the 1861-1876 model of rise of the U.S.A. to become the world's leader in productivity and technology.

Worse still, when France, Germany, Russia, and other nations, not only imitated the U.S. industrial model, but also took steps to collaborate with one another in a revival of Friedrich List's proposal for trans-Eurasian railway development, the Prince of Wales' (Edward VII's) monarchy developed and unleashed its efforts to bring the nations of continental Europe to common ruin, through what became known in Britain as "The Great War," or otherwise named "The War to End War," and "World War I."

The turning-point in Britain's favor came with a British terrorist agent's deployment into the U.S.A., where, under the sponsorship of terrorist Emma Goldman, he successfully assassinated U.S. President William McKinley, bringing a British asset, Vice-President and raving pro-Confederacy fanatic Theodore Roosevelt, into the Presidency. Theodore Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's combined, treasonous grip on the U.S. Executive branch, enabled the British to consolidate the supremacy of their Wall Street faction in the U.S. economy, through Edward VII's success in launching the U.S. Federal Reserve System through his agents Cassel and Schiff, through such key departments of the Executive branch as the Department of Justice, and through large sections of the U.S. military and present-day intelligence community. It was this change, effected by means of the McKinley assassination, which made the British launching of World War I possible.

The untimely death of a President Franklin Roosevelt, who intended to end "free trade" and break up all colonial empires, at the end of the 1939-1945 war, allowed the British monarchy to re-establish much of its former grip over the leading U.S. government and economic institutions. President Kennedy threatened to revive Franklin Roosevelt's policy, and was removed as "a security risk" to combined British-American-Canadian (B-A-C) interests. Since the failed George Bush election-campaign of 1992, the B-A-C crowd has targetted President Bill Clinton pretty much as they targetted Jack Kennedy and Charles de Gaulle back during the early 1960s. It is that same B-A-C, merely typified by the legacy of John J. McCloy, which has been mustered to launch the British monarchy's present drive in the direction of securing the worldwide British Empire at last, even at the risk of a nuclear-enriched form of World War III.

It was this B-A-C, and its history, which made possible the influence of those British agents inside the Washington Principals' Committee, and elsewhere, through which the British monarchy's Blair government proceeded, from mid-October 1998, to launch a quick-step march toward World War III against such presently intended targets as Russia.

Therein lies the presently looming danger of a rapid slide into what could become a nuclear World War III.

Under such conditions, one must speak plainly about plain, important matters.

Granted, Prime Minister Blair's government is a pack of silly, but dangerous fools. The U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen, whom I observed as a Senator from the 1980s, was, and remains a shallow mind, a moral and intellectual light-weight, with no business in the domain of serious military affairs. JCS Chairman Henry Shelton is a bad joke. The U.S. does have some military professionals of flag-rank quality, but they are not running the planning or execution of this lunatic strategic adventure. Secretary Madeleine Albright is a very sick puppy.

You ask why I should regard these as a pack of silly fools? Why should it not be so? As some prominent Britons are saying of the Blair government's failing Balkans bluff now: If you wish to deploy a policy fit only for idiots, hire idiots to do it.

Don't assume that any of these characters, including Vice-President Gore, has the slightest comprehension of the nature of the game they are playing. When one sends a missile to destroy itself on target, don't make the missile smart enough to understand too clearly the ultimate outcome of its mission; it might change its mind in mid-flight.

At the same time that the October 1988 hyper-inflationary bailout was being set into motion, London and Wall Street acted, under the direction of the British monarchy's Blair government, to move the world into a new global warfare scenario. The unleashing of what could grow rapidly into World War III, began with the October-November 1988 drive to launch a new war against Iraq. The war against Iraq was then escalated into the present Balkan war.

Do not tolerate for an instant, the lie--i.e., the war-propaganda line--that this Balkan war was launched over Kosovo. It was launched to break the ties of collaboration between Russia and China, on the one side, and the U.S.A. and continental western Europe on the other. The actual strategic target is the target which lies beyond a spreading Balkan war. The goal, is the crushing of Russia and its people, and a thermonuclear-armed Russia knows this very clearly. The forces behind Blair will not stop until either the Russians, or the forces behind Blair, or both, are destroyed. Like Adolf Hitler before him, Blair's military objectives have no bounds within the planet as a whole.

The one speech of Adolf Hitler's which I remember from a radio broadcast I heard then, was Hitler's declaration, that his quarrel was not with Czechoslovakia, but its then President Benes. If you believed Hitler then, you will probably believe Tony Blair and Madeleine Albright today, when they say they are fighting only for justice for the victims of ethnic cleansing. Hitler's targets then included Russia; so do the targets of Blair's and Albright's "new NATO" policy in the present Balkan war. As Hitler said then, the only issue is "Benes," so today's Hitler-followers say, the issue is only "Saddam Hussein," or "Slobodan Milosevic." Are you old enough to have been fooled by Hitler back then? Are you fool enough to believe them now?

I say "fool" advisedly. It is sufficient to point out three crucial pieces of evidence.

The most essential implications of the British monarchy's present Balkan war are sufficiently demonstrated by focussing upon three tell-tale facts of the matter.

  1. When Blair and his Principals' Committee cronies pushed President Clinton into allowing the renewed bombing of Iraq, Russia and China objected, stating that this matter must be resolved within the UNO Security Council. The U.S. and British governments declared that they had taken the authority out of the hands of the UNO Security Council.

That stated decision of the British and U.S. governments was the first step in the direction of World War III.

Since the death of Soviet General Secretary Josef Stalin, every major diplomatic agreement of war-avoidance has been institutionalized through the UNO, and the UNO Security Council most emphatically. The abrogation of those agreements, bilaterally, by the British and U.S. governments, in the case of the use of the fraudulent Butler report, implicitly nullified every actual and implicit treaty agreement on matters of détente outstanding at that time.

  1. The same assertion of veto-free authority of the British and U.S.A. to make war as they choose, even using NATO forces for actions in any part of the world they might choose to act, however capriciously, was introduced as a stipulated feature of Anglo-American policy for use of NATO forces for the present Balkan war.

  2. The drive toward this succession of actions against Iraq and deployment of NATO into the present Balkan war, was launched during the same period that forces inside the U.S.A. launched their efforts to create a "Cold War" type of cordon sanitaire against newly defined adversaries Russia and China.

One could say, fairly, that World War III was put on greased launching-ways, on the day that a lunatic (and also personally corrupt) Vice-President Al Gore, flanked by silly Secretary Madeleine Albright, launched an obscene and fraudulent personal attack publicly, at a Kuala Lumpur APEC meeting, upon Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, a Gore rant designed to be heard in Beijing as a warning of a coming attack on China. Although Gore did not start the launching of what could become World War III all by himself--after all he is really only a stalking-horse for the George W. Bush, Jr. Republican Presidential candidacy, he reflects and typifies the same policy as Gore's Republican as well as Democratic Wall Street cronies, the pack of rabid Anglophiles arrayed in support of the British monarchy's obscene strategic lurch toward worldwide empire.

A brief postlude

Why does an astonishing ratio of credulous people, in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere, line up in support of such a lunatic strategic adventure as this one? Patriotism? Benjamin Franklin ridicules you: "Don't be ridiculous!" As I have emphasized, the issue which musters most of the U.S. citizen's support for Blair's Balkan war is "my money;" it is the fantasy-ridden state of mind, which believes that the invincible NATO war-machine will force the world to pay up enough to guarantee the safety of "my money." Just like the younger Americans who propose to cut the health-insurance protection of their own parents, for the sake of their own greed, the typical mutual-fund investor would support almost any measure by his government, if he believed that would be good--not for his nation--but for his or her personal "my money."

Since the world-economy began to be ruined, by the 1971 conversion to a "floating-exchange-rate monetary system," public morality in the U.S.A. and elsewhere has been rotted out by a growing disdain for that principle of law and morality, the principle of the general welfare, upon which the U.S. republic was founded in several successive wars against the British monarchy. A truly Hobbesian, every-man-for-himself, beggar-my-neighbor attitude, has replaced those notions of public and personal morality formerly associated with the notion of general welfare.

This war, which could become World War III, could destroy our nation, among many others. How could such a thing happen? How could God let it happen? Perhaps, it happened because the U.S.A., among other peoples, like Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah, willfully abandoned the moral fitness to survive. All for the sake of "my money!"

"Our population, generally speaking, has become a terribly immoral one. The young join with the super-rich Wall Street speculators in looting pensions, health funds, and even Social Security, so that the young might profit at the expense of even accelerated death-rates among their parents, grandparents, and uncles," LaRouche writes. "Such is the moral depravity of a nation which supports a magazine named Money."

[1] Executive Intelligence Review, Nov. 6, 1998. See also, a related report anticipating the October 1998 re-eruption of global financial crisis, Richard Freeman's "Gambling Psychosis Propels Stock Market Toward Implosion," Executive Intelligence Review, May 28, 1998.

[2] "The Committee to Save the World: The Inside Story of How the Three Marketeers Have Prevented a Global Meltdown--So Far," Joshua Cooper Ramo, Time, Feb. 25, 1999.

[3] In the case of World War I, the only nation which conducted justified war in its own defense, was Germany. All contrary versions of World War I, such as U.S. Secretary Lansing's, are simply a lie. It was the combined threat, chiefly from the British monarchy, but also from a France and Russia duped into allying in support of Britain's totally unjustified war, which unleashed that hell. It was the folly of Russia's Czarist state, in allowing itself to be duped into joining Britain and France for aggression against Germany, which enabled Britain to lure Russia into starting Edward VII's intended World War I. A British-French orchestration of a Balkan war, abetted by the stubborn follies of an Austro-Hungary Emperor, heated up the Russian Pan-Slavists to the point the Czar felt helpless (as President Clinton must feel pressured by Blair et al. today) to resist issuing the order for the attack against Germany which automatically caused World War I--and the subsequent destruction of the Czar and his regime. In fact, the motives of the British monarchy's Blair government, in launching today's Balkan war, are virtually as much a carbon copy as the unfolding of history allows, of the Edwardian policy by means of which the British monarchy, alone, caused World War I.

Back to top