Subscribe to EIR Online

Subscribe to EIR

This article appeared in the June 11, 1999 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

What EIR Knows
and What Hollinger Says

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

May 26, 1999

The recent, brief appearance of the republication of a list of names from other Internet sources on EIR's own Internet site, prompts the following, clarifying reaffirmation of our general editorial policy. The contrast between our policy and that of the disreputable London Telegraph, makes the relevant points.

That Telegraph is the flagship propaganda organ of the British Commonwealth's Hollinger Corporation. As we have documented the evidence many times during more than six years to date, much of what the Telegraph publishes, is both willfully fraudulent and done with bald-faced malicious, and usually strategic intent.

The Telegraph's professed ownership, the Hollinger Corporation, which was founded as a Canada-based offshoot of a World War II-vintage British intelligence agency, has been the leading enemy of President Bill Clinton since no later than 1993, and, through such of its agents as Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, played a directing role in the fabricating of the so-called Paula Jones case, and of many other attempts to destroy not only the person and family of President Clinton, but also the functioning of the U.S. Presidency, from that time to the present date. It is fairly described as, like Adolf Hitler's Josef Goebbels, a leading enemy of the United States.

We of EIR know the Hollinger Corporation's despicable character very well. In its leading international role in the malicious targetting of U.S. President Clinton, all of its notable U.S. accomplices in that dirty operation have been institutions and persons very well known to us at EIR as prominent accomplices in dirty political operations against me personally since the 1968-1973 interval.

Together with the other leading British Commonwealth press oligopoly, that of roguish press baron Rupert Murdoch, the scurrilous Telegraph has been among the leading anti-American voices of the British monarchy's efforts to wreck and ruin the U.S. during this recent period to date. In addition to these scurrilous habits, Hollinger's thuggish Telegraph has played a leading role in the effort to bring about a cover-up of the facts bearing upon the wrongful death, in Paris, of the former presumptive next Queen of England, Princess Diana.

Now, expressing the Telegraph's customary reckless disregard for truth, it has launched a currently escalating, international campaign of defamation against me, over an EIR Internet site's brief republication, on Wednesday, May 12, 1999, of certain listings of alleged British MI6 agents which appeared on other Internet sites earlier. This action has been launched by Her Majesty's Blair government itself, with a leading role as de facto monarchy propaganda agent by the Telegraph, in conducting its fraud-reeking campaign of defamation against me.

Justice for the victim

The principal victim in the affair of the so-called "MI6 list," is the often-wronged former pretender to the office of Queen of England, Princess Diana. It will be recalled that Lady Diana and two fellow-passengers died wrongful deaths, in consequence of injuries incurred during a time their vehicle was being harassed most aggressively and maliciously by so-called photographers and others. To make matters worse, her injuries were of such a nature, that she would probably be alive still today, had she been brought, as she easily might, to a relevant hospital in a timely fashion.

Since that time, the case of the death of Lady Diana has been a matter of one massive cover-up attempt after another. Granted, that the practice of such injustice is not only typical of the British monarchy and its Commonwealth press, but also of what is often justly best described as a lying U.S. Department of Injustice, and even of all too many fraud-reeking occupants of Federal Court benches. The case of Princess Diana, the mother of putative heirs to the British throne, is of exceptional importance for the cause of justice in the world at large today.

First of all, if a person as popular as Princess Diana can not be assured justice, who can? As was made clear in the moments following her wrongful death, she was for many Britons like the fabulous Snow White of the fairy-tale, victim of the vengeful wrath of a witch-like, jealous old Queen. If we do not deliver justice for a person of such popularity, who can believe that justice is assured for them? Indeed, if the British monarchy and its accomplices can treat the case of Princess Diana so, who, in any such nations, can believe that the actual right to justice exists for them?

Second, Princess Diana deserved special consideration by reason of her status as a friend of Mother Teresa. Here was Diana, in torment over the circumstances into which she had been cast by a jealous old Queen and the Queen's dishonorable son, Prince Charles. In her torment, Diana turned to Mother Teresa, and sought to make her own life more meaningful by using her celebrity for the cause of justice. On this account, for reasons I need not explain here, I have some personal obligation to the late Mother Teresa, an obligation which EIR gladly shares with me.

Third, the British monarchy, Princess Diana's persecutor, is evil. Perhaps, in the course of time, the inhabitants of the so-called British Isles will make certain suitable changes in those islands' political affairs. Meanwhile, the stench of genocide against an estimated six millions African victims of the British monarchy's meddling in Central Africa, perhaps the most massive case of ongoing genocide of this century, demands a cordon sanitaire containing such a monarchy's polluting influence in international affairs.

Fourth, it is necessary to make the nature of the British monarchy's role in world affairs clear to those many, childishly simple-minded babblers who babble the nonsensical assertion, that the British monarchy is only a ceremonial fixture, denying the actual, most dictatorial power it wields over most of the British Isles and much of the Commonwealth besides.

The British Queen is the actual head of state of not only the United Kingdom, but also the British Commonwealth. She is to that vast empire as the old Doge of Venice was to the far-flung financial-oligarchical power then centered at the north of the Adriatic. Relative to the Queen, the British parliamentary government is more a side-show than an actually ruling power. The state apparatus--the military and so on--exists "On Her Majesty's Service;" the parliament can be turned over almost on a whim, through a readily orchestrated parliamentary coup d'état of the sort which the Telegraph and its accomplices attempted, with their fraudulent impeachment efforts, against the Presidency and Constitution of the U.S.A.

The Empire over which the Queen presides, is the greatest financial and political power in the world today. Only if a group of nations, preferably led by the U.S. President, were to make a Franklin Roosevelt-like effort to rid the world of the pestilence of "free trade" and other relics of colonialism, would it be possible to summon sufficient political power to defeat the presently world-dominating role of the British monarchy over not only NATO, but also the IMF, and so on.

Thus, the case of the wrongful death of Princess Diana continues to be of leading importance to the world as a whole today, especially when this injustice is seen against the background of the evil represented by today's British monarchy, the worst English monarchy since, perhaps, Richard III.

Therefore, we address the issue of that wrongful death as we have done, and will continue to do until true justice is finally done. Justice for the wrongfully deceased Princess Diana, is a leading matter of continuing concern for every intelligent and honest government, and news media, in the world today. If Diana can not secure justice, can you, can any nation victim of a British-directed NATO or other atrocity?

The issue of truth

We are also obliged to defend justice for Princess Diana out of true patriotism for a U.S.A. in which we are, unfortunately, one of the few remaining relatively influential and patriotic periodicals. As Cotton Mather said of the ruined Massachusetts Bay Colony, the U.S.A. today is "shrunk . . . almost to nothing," by the disgusting, corrupting and sometimes outrightly treasonous spread of the Anglophile fungus over the mental life of our leading public institutions and mass media.

One of the things which ought to appear on the front pages of every newspaper in the U.S., if those publications were moral ones, would be a cartoon, showing an ugly, mean-spirited Queen Elizabeth II pushing a baby-carriage, the latter conveying a big-eared Prince Charles. The cartoon's caption would be: "Sometimes, Queen Elizabeth did push dope!"

Think of the number of times, from 1984 through 1986 and beyond, virtually all leading print and electronic media in the U.S.A. said, repeatedly: "He [Lyndon LaRouche] says the Queen pushes dope." I never said that, and every mass-medium in the U.S. which published that false report knew it to be false. The question, "Do you say that the Queen pushes dope?" was asked of me, on camera, by an NBC-TV interviewer from NBC's Chicago flagship. The question was asked, in Washington, D.C., during 1982. I replied to that question by stating I did not say such a thing: on camera. But, nonetheless, every national TV medium which referenced that recorded interview lied by cutting out the reporter's question and my response. Instead, the announcer supplied the ritual assertion: "He says the Queen pushes dope!"

Several important facts are demonstrated by that case:

First, if you take into account the number of times that false statement is repeated today, you should be forced to realize how politically degenerate most of the U.S. mass media and its journalists are today.

Second, if you take into account the number of foolishly credulous individuals who believe "what I have heard" on that and related issues, you wonder if the typical U.S. citizen is literate, or even honest enough, to deserve the right to vote.

Third, perhaps even more important, the widespread acceptance of that false report, points to the affection which so many less than truly patriotic U.S. citizens have for the worst mass-murderer on this planet today, the present British monarchy.

Fourth, most important of all, is the issue of truth, as this occupies the entirety of Plato's largest written work, his Republic. This issue of truthfulness, as Plato defines it there and elsewhere, goes to the heart of our editorial policy.

Contrary to most opinion in any place, at any time, there are certain kinds of opinion which can be considered truthful, in contrast to the majority of opinion, customary or other, prevailing at any time.

In physical science, for example, truthful opinion depends upon certain experimentally validatable universal physical principles. In science, truthful opinion depends upon consistency with such validatable principles. Opinions which either violate known such principles, or which ignore relevant principles yet to be discovered, are wrong opinions on that account alone. Although the progress of science shows that we never know the complete truth, we can be truthful nonetheless. We are truthful, in this sense, on two conditions: that we do not put mere opinion above known universal physical principles, and that we keep an open mind toward the existence of added principles yet to be discovered.

The evidence of physical science itself, points our attention to a still deeper meaning of truthfulness. The faculty by means of which validated discoveries of universal principles are made, is a faculty which Immanuel Kant, for example, falsely denied to exist, as did the British empiricists and the Cartesians before him. This creative faculty, most usefully named "cognition," is the means by which new discoveries of validatable universal physical principles are accomplished, either by the original discoverer, or by a student, for example, re-experiencing that act of discovery later. Man's increasing physical power over the universe, as measurable per capita and per square kilometer, occurs solely as a result of such discoveries of universal physical principle, by means of that faculty of cognition which Kant and the empiricists denied to exist.

This function of individual cognition, which no animal species can replicate, is the distinction which, as Biblical Genesis 1 is written, sets each human individual absolutely apart and above every animal species. This shows each man and woman as made in the image of the Creator of this universe, thus empowered to exert increasing dominion within that universe.

On account of this evidence, we can not treat relations among people as we treat the relations of people to animals, or relations among animals. Human individuals' relations to other human individuals, must be premised upon the fact that it is the faculty of cognition, which atheist Kant denied to exist, which shows the competent scientist that each man and woman is each and all made in the image of the Creator.

This points to the following leading consequences for defining a general policy of truthfulness in editorial work.

Man's physical relationship to man is located more narrowly in the increase of per capita power in the universe through fundamental scientific progress, as I have described that above. This progress is made possible through the assimilation of those validatable original discoveries of principle, of one mind, by a second mind which repeats that experience of cognition. It is the sharing of such fruits of cognition in this way, which thus constitutes the essence of human cooperation, and the essence of the moral relationship of one human being to another, or one nation to another.

This fact is the foundation for a science-based notion of universal natural law. That is the standpoint of the figure Socrates, in Plato's Republic, in contrast to the opposing misconceptions of law and justice by not only the characters Thrasymachus and Glaucon, but also today's advocates of "customary law," or of empiricism and positivism generally. This Platonic view, is the notion of the general welfare, the anti-Locke, fundamental principle of U.S. constitutional law.

The task of bringing about cooperation in both the knowledgeable development and the application of universal physical principles, forces us to recognize that universal principles are not limited in definition to physical principles alone. The greatest Classical forms of poetry, tragedy, music, and related political-science arts of historiography, show us principles of individual behavior and social relations beyond the conventional sense of universal physical principles.

The combination, and interdependency of such universal physical and Classical-artistic principles, defines the domain of ideas, as distinct from mere popular, or other opinion.

Now to sum up the point of reference to the matter of the so-called "MI6 list."

EIR is a journal devoted to ideas, rather than opinion. Our editorial standpoint is that of truthfulness, not opinion.

However, this policy requires that we deal truthfully--or, one might say also "clinically"--with the notable, or what might be termed "newsworthy" occurrences of mere opinion. The latter obligation arises wherever the opinion being addressed is a factor in the shaping of history.

This policy carries a certain special kind of editorial burden with it. The case of the "MI6 list" typifies the challenge. In the case of the matter of delayed justice for Princess Diana, the leading issue was that of defending a known truth. The reporting of a newsworthy development, the appearance of the alleged "MI6 list" on several Internet sites, was a matter of reporting opinions bearing upon a truthfully defined choice of subject, the wrongful death of Princess Diana. Strictly speaking, the two subjects should have been separated in the manner in which they were presented. Apparently, for reasons of economy in print, they were not.

To restate the point. The truthful newsworthy event was the continuing investigation of the wrongful death of Princess Diana. The fact that this was a wrongful death, has been demonstrated beyond scientific doubt of the evidence in hand, in earlier investigations. Justice remains delayed, nonetheless. The factual development in the case was the submission of an affidavit to the French authorities by one Tomlinson, formerly an employee of Her Majesty's MI6. The names which the affidavit contained, were and are part of the relevant newsworthy developments to be reported.

The issue of the "MI6 list" was a horse of a different color, a reportable matter of opinion, and fairly represented as merely some other persons' opinion, but which should not have been featured within the piece reporting on new developments in the case of the wrongful death of Princess Diana. Our policy is always to attempt to ensure that the distinction between mere opinion and actual ideas is made clear to the literate reader.

I trust the point is now clear, and need not be rehashed further.

Back to top