This article appears in the October 5, 2018 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Concerning the Fate of the Nation
Address to the LaRouche PAC Town Hall in Detroit
This is the address of LaRouche PAC Treasurer Barbara Boyd to a LaRouche PAC meeting in Detroit, Michigan, on Sept. 29, 2018. Her prepared remarks have been edited.
In Augustine’s Confessions, he tells the story of his student’s addiction to the killing games of Rome. Alypius, Augustine’s student, protested to his friends:
‘Though you drag my body to that place and set me down there, you cannot force me to give my mind or lend my eyes to these shows. Thus I will be absent while present, and so overcome both you and them.’ . . . But when one of the combatants fell in the fight, a mighty cry from the whole audience stirred him so strongly that, overcome by curiosity and still prepared (as he thought) to despise and rise superior to it no matter what it was, he opened his eyes and was struck with a deeper wound in his soul than the victim whom he desired to see had been in his body. . . . For, as soon as he saw the blood, he drank it in with it a savage temper, and he did not turn away, but fixed his eyes on the bloody pastime, unwittingly drinking in the madness—delighted with the wicked contest and drunk with blood lust. He was now no longer the same man who came in, but was one of the mob he came into, a true companion of those who had brought him thither.
We are, as a nation, involved in a color revolution, a cold coup against the President, and, I will argue here, against reason and truth and this nation itself. Many of us, for the past few days, found ourselves, as in Augustine’s account of Alypius and the Roman killing games, glued to a televised spectacle in the United States Senate, involving the President’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. To slay this nomination, Democrats and their media allies tossed aside the most fundamental legal principles of this Republic: the presumption of innocence; the necessity of evidence and corroboration to establish and prove accusations; due process; actual cross-examination of the accuser; and the deliberate search for truth.
These principles were replaced by Gladiator Senators, pretending to defend all who have been abused and raped, if not all womanhood besides. The first half of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem, “The Mask of Anarchy,” is a fitting reference for the horror, fraud, and hypocrisy which we are all witnessing. Tell me, does anyone even remember or know what kind of judge Brett Kavanaugh is, or what his judicial philosophy is? Think about that as the Coliseum crowd, our national news media, demands that you opine about things they say he did at the ripe old age of 17. Thumbs up! Thumbs down! In this new Roman world we have inhabited since the 2016 election, that’s all you have to do to claim your title as citizen.
But I will argue to you today that the Kavanaugh hearing of Sept. 27 was actually a turning point, and the color revolution and “Resist” have made a fatal error in overreach, even if an error whose magnitude will not at first be apparent.
The past two weeks have seen key events in reversing this coup: (1) There is increasing recognition that the British instigated the coup. (2) The President has ordered a rapid declassification review of key documents in the coup which will expose the British hand. That is why the British had a hissy fit about President Trump’s order to declassify the Carter Page FISA Warrant, the Bruce Ohr 302s, and key text messages among the top echelons of the FBI. It is said that this declassification will also be highly embarrassing and legally challenging for the CIA and John Brennan. (3) A New York Times leak on September 21 revealed that at meetings involving Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has been quarterbacking the Russiagate investigation against Trump, there was discussion of using the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to oust the President, and of Rosenstein wearing wires to record his conversations with the President. These meetings occurred shortly after Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May of 2017.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary and Government Oversight Committees, which are jointly investigating illegalities associated with the coup, worked out a deal for Rosenstein to appear imminently to tell them about this treasonous May meeting—who was there and what was said—and they are subpoenaing the memos of fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe about this meeting and others. McCabe’s memos were the source of the Times story.
Rosenstein, of course, had a better idea than the very faulty 25th Amendment gambit. He almost immediately appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller to execute the intent to take down the sitting President.
So, on the one hand, I will give you an update on developments in the coup, in which the Kavanaugh hearings are an integral part. And I will again tell you, that a key determining point in the coup is the upcoming midterm elections on November 6. How we portray these journalists and Democrats between now and then, the people who have become nothing but anarchists and madmen, slick peddlers of sick lies—how we ridicule their ignorance of the most fundamental principles of our Constitutional Republic, and whether we make that ridicule stick, may very well determine the future of this Republic.
But my second topic is an even more important one. In her Schiller Institute webcast of Sept. 27, Helga Zepp-LaRouche referenced the means by which the entire mess actually gets outflanked and defeated. With Trump’s speech at the United Nations, and his allusion to each nation’s developing what Lyndon LaRouche would call “full set economies” for themselves, and the President’s intent to make that the basis of international relations, the door is wide open, if we recognize it, for the needed new monetary system. Only under that new system, can mankind actually advance to a higher stage of development.
You see, there is a pervasive error in the analysis of the relations between nations involving trade, which this organization is uniquely positioned to correct. That is because China and certain other nations, as they developed following the 1971 decoupling of the dollar from the gold reserve standard, were the recipients of thousands of manufacturing jobs from the United States—not because China sought to steal these jobs, but because of deliberate policies developed and implemented by Anglo-Dutch imperial entities, such as the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations right here in the United States.
These imperial bodies called for “controlled disintegration” of advanced sector economies in projects spanning the period of the late 1970s into the early 1980s, and for a form of governance they called “fascism with a democratic face.” They even exported advanced technologies and defense systems to China, under their geopolitical theory that China would act as a fatal check on the Soviet Union.
It is one of the great ironies of the present situation that one of the architects of this policy, as it was applied to China, was Michael Pillsbury, the man who, right now, is attempting to destroy Donald Trump’s relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, and with it the very possibility of the new monetary system necessary for the full set economic development which can secure all of our futures.
The Status of the Coup and Kavanaugh
In the middle of Shelley’s poem, “The Mask of Anarchy,” after he shows how anarchy appears in the wake of political murder, fraud, hypocrisy, and a sleeping and initially fearful populace—hope appears, first as nothing but a weak vapor in the air, and then as follows:
And the prostrate multitude
Looked—and ankle-deep in blood,
Hope, that maiden most serene,
Was walking with a quiet mien:
And Anarchy, the ghastly birth,
Lay dead earth upon the earth;
The Horse of Death tameless as wind
Fled, and with his hoofs did grind
To dust the murderers thronged behind.
I think we are now at such a moment, in the coup which has enveloped this country since Election Day, 2016. We have just witnessed a Judge, smeared and pilloried before the public for an incident which allegedly occurred in high school, in 1982, more than 36 years ago. We are being told that justice and all of the history of Western civilization requires accepting the word of his accuser, without question, without any doubt, with elaborate sympathetic rituals praising her courage, and without ever questioning her character, motives, or background. By her own account, she was a 15-year-old girl, a product of the rich and elite suburbs of Washington, D.C., who appeared at a party, as if out of the air, drank some beer, and was assaulted—not raped, but groped—by two drunken prep school boys, one of whom, she says, was Brett Kavanaugh. Both her parents and Kavanaugh’s parents belonged to the same exclusive country club, a place notorious for its elite and segregated policies. She then disappeared into the air once more, not remembering where she had been, or how she got either to this incident or back to her home.
She emphatically remembers the boys laughing at her. She gave different accounts, first saying she feared that Kavanaugh was going to rape her, and then in her televised testimony, that she thought Kavanaugh was going to kill her. She told no one about this incident until a therapy session years later with her husband, in which she had to explain to the therapist and her husband why she wanted two front doors on her house. Conveniently for the woman and the propaganda artists waging the campaign on her behalf, the other boy she claimed was in the room was addicted to alcohol as a young man and has been throughout most of his life. He wrote a book about a rambunctious youth and the prep school both he and Brett Kavanaugh attended.
She went on to become a clinical psychologist, studying and becoming thoroughly familiar with the professional literature about the impacts of youthful trauma on the brain; she participated in women’s marches against Trump. By her account, she sent a letter to her Congresswoman in California recounting this incident. The letter got to Senator Dianne Feinstein and the national news media, despite her apparent claim that she wanted to remain hidden. Feinstein recommended lawyers for her, who are warriors for the “Resist” movement. The woman had a polygraph and was scrubbed and prepped for combat. This college professor who teaches authoritatively most days, was rendered a trembling mass of vulnerability.
No one told the Judge about any of this throughout an otherwise grueling confirmation process, until the last minute—when they sprang it on him, and upon his wife and young daughters—calling him an unhinged sexual predator, a girls’ basketball coach waiting to pounce on them, a gang-rapist, and every evil smear imaginable.
The Judge testified to defend himself, telling the truth, emotionally, angry in his innocence: This is a political witch-hunt, not advise and consent, but search and destroy. It is because Donald Trump appointed him; it was revenge by the Clintons because he had worked for Ken Starr; and it is all about power and the midterm elections. He pulled out a calendar documenting every day of his summer in 1982, accounting for every day when Ms. Ford said the incident might have occurred. He endured grueling prosecution from the Democrats about entries in his high school yearbook. Sheldon Whitehouse, a dirtbag Senator from Rhode Island, claimed the Judge’s yearbook entries somehow implied anal sex, but the Judge deflated him by noting that the term in question was the normal adolescent joke about flatulence.
No one corroborated the accuser’s account. Of the four other people she said were there, all denied that they were there or that any such incident had occurred. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) railed at the hysteria and the attempt to crucify the Judge on national television, defending the presumption of innocence, due process, and the requirement for actual facts and evidence—without which, there is, as I said, pure anarchy.
For a moment, the Grand Inquisitors stood there stunned, briefly reminded of their Constitutional duties, looking every bit the way the national media looked as the returns rolled in on November 8, 2016. Then, they returned to gathering the weapons for Kavanaugh’s assassination, calling him intemperate and belligerent because he defended himself and his family—an angry personification of the male patriarchy itself.
Oh, by the way, as of this writing, Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser, has raised $550,000 on her “Go Fund Me” page. Purely in appreciation for what she has done, as her lawyers are working for free.
The scientific literature about how completely believable but false memories are created, so that they are believed with 100% certainty, has been developed and demonstrated repeatedly in criminal cases. That is why exoneration occurs so often because of DNA evidence, which contradicts eyewitnesses. I refer you to the work of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who has saved many lives by looking into this.
Now there is yet another FBI investigation of the Judge. While it may help the Judge ultimately, it will never look at his accuser critically, or the information war which has been ginned up and sent out to destroy what appears to be a good man. We have to do that, not in some major new campaign, but by reference to what we already know, and by a ruthless campaign of jokes, irony, and ridicule. And doing so, we will win, because, as I said, I believe that their hand has now been badly overplayed, into a fraud which resonates on very significant levels of human identity.
All of this, as Sen. Lindsey Graham said, is about political power, about control of the Senate. It is an evil sham which seeks to destroy an honorable man and his family. As most know, if the Democrats win the House and the President is impeached, the Senate is the body, under the Constitution, which will determine his fate. If the Democrats, who you just saw go to war on behalf of anarchy, take the Senate, Donald Trump and the will of the voters in the 2016 election are, as we say in the vernacular, “toast.”
With respect to the other major developments in the coup, the national news media went wild last Monday reporting that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was on his way to the White House to meet with Chief of Staff John Kelly, either to resign or be fired. The drama unfolded over a New York Times story leaked September 21, which portrayed Rosenstein, the man in charge of the illicit Robert Mueller Special Counsel investigation against Trump, arguing that the 25th Amendment should be invoked to remove Trump from office, and offering to wear a wire to gather dirt on the President.
The meetings in which these statements were made, occurred shortly after the May 2017 firing of FBI Director James Comey by the President. While it is a very short distance from the Justice Department on Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House, media reports about Rosenstein being on his way to a dramatic confrontation lasted for some hours. Finally, White House Press Secretary Sara Sanders read an official statement, saying that, “At the request of the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, he and President Trump had an extended conversation to discuss the recent news stories. Because the President is at the United Nations General Assembly and has a full schedule with leaders from around the world, they will meet on Thursday when the President returns to Washington, D.C.”
This did not prevent Democrats from going wild and declaring that Trump was engaged in a “slow moving” Saturday night massacre like President Richard Nixon’s firings of DOJ officials.
There are several overlapping dynamics at work here:
1. It is clear that Rosenstein attended a meeting of top FBI and DOJ officials in May 2017, in which invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Donald Trump from office and wearing wires to set the President up was discussed. The Times story asserts that Rosenstein advocated this course of action. Rosenstein denies it. His denial, however, really does not matter, because he never reported these treasonous conversations, acting instead, in the wake of the firing FBI Director James Comey by Donald Trump, to appoint Robert Mueller to conduct an unprecedented and ultra vires counterintelligence investigation of the President of the United States.
As constitutional scholar and lawyer Alan Dershowitz has repeatedly pointed out, invoking the 25th Amendment in these circumstances amounts to declaring a coup d’état in the United States. Nothing less is implicated by the New York Times story. According to several reports, Rosenstein concluded after the New York Times story came out, that he could not testify to Congress about these meetings and keep his job, offering his resignation on Friday.
There is now a widespread recognition that there is an ongoing coup against the President, which threatens the governability of the United States itself. Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking on multiple media channels on Sunday, September 23, called it a “bureaucratic coup d’état.” Many Republican stalwarts and the President’s attorneys also recognize that Robert Mueller is a legal assassin, not the embodiment of legal rectitude as portrayed by Washington, D.C.’s best public relations shops.
2. The British are screaming about Trump’s September 17 declassification order regarding several foundational documents central to the coup and exposing the British hand in the matter. Trump’s declassification order came in the week when George Papadopoulos began talking about the CIA and British efforts to entrap him and fabricate evidence against the Trump campaign, efforts which provided the pretext for the FBI’s unprecedented and completely unfounded counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign.
The stages of this operation have become very apparent.
There was an initial stage, like the LaRouche case, in which evidence was fabricated by intelligence agencies to be fed to law enforcement. This stage went forward during the Presidential campaign itself, from roughly February-July of 2016 and involved multiple entrapment efforts—many of which occurred on British soil—to paint Donald Trump as a dupe of President Putin and Russia.
The second stage also occurred during the campaign, from roughly July 2016, when a completely unprecedented and legally ungrounded FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened on the Presidential nominee of a major political party. This stage involved the unleashing of the hoax that the Democratic National Committee had been hacked by the Russians through the November 2016 election. This stage also was completely reliant on the British, including GCHQ, and the dirty dossier authored and weaponized by former MI6 Russia desk chief Christopher Steele. Steele’s allegations were given credence for purposes of the British information warfare operation against Trump, by the fact that the dirty unverified Steele dossier was being investigated by the FBI.
This stage involved an all-out effort to defeat the Trump candidacy using every tool of British intelligence, with funding by the Clinton campaign and direction from Obama and the White House, all of which focused again on the fake account of Trump’s ties to Russia and his compromise by prostitutes there, coupled with claims that Russia was stealing information about Clinton via hacking and handing it to Trump.
Finally, there was the stage which went from roughly November 2016 through Comey’s firing in May, an all-out effort to dismantle the Trump presidency and, by blackmail, tame the President away from his vow to end perpetual warfare on this planet and establish sane relationships with Russia and China, a vow which threatens the British Empire existentially.
Comey has already testified to numerous efforts to set the President up for charges of obstruction of justice, conducting “murder boards” at the Justice Department with his close friends throughout his contacts with the President, writing endless memos about these contacts, and engaging in a “J. Edgar Hoover moment” when he confronted the President with the dirty British MI6 product called the Christopher Steele dossier.
Rod Rosenstein went to the White House on September 21 to urge the President to hold off from immediate declassification of key coup documents based on objections from Britain and Australia. The President agreed to have Michael Horowitz, the Department of Justice Inspector General, review the documents, but stated that he expected that review to be expedited, and that speed was very important to him.
In an interview on WMAL radio September 24, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Joseph DiGenova said, “The UK is at the center of a conspiracy to frame Donald Trump and Carter Page, and George Papadopoulos. This is all about [Joseph] Mifsud, and protecting [Stefan] Halper, and Alexander Downer. Downer is a big fish. And all of the work that all of them did with GCHQ. . . . This is a huge, huge problem for the UK. They may ultimately say, ‘Look, you can talk about Steele, but please don’t talk about Alexander Downer.’ They are very worried about the role that Downer played in this.”
Pat Buchanan noted yesterday that the integrity of the American Republic is far more important than the embarrassment of the British in this affair. Buchanan cited a Wall Street Journal piece to the same effect.
3. There is a sitting grand jury in Washington, D.C. which has begun to hear evidence about the crimes implicit in the coup against Donald Trump. The initial focus is on former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation for lying about media leaks. McCabe’s memos are the source of the New York Times leak about Rosenstein’s perfidies. It is clear that McCabe is intent on bringing down his co-conspirators and those he thinks hung him out to dry, in order to save himself.
The remedies lie, as Alan Dershowitz has said, in getting everyone involved in the May 2017 meetings involving Rosenstein, under oath about what happened there, and doing so, in whatever forum, urgently and quickly. A first step in that direction was announced by Republicans in the House of Representatives yesterday. They have secured Rosenstein’s appearance to testify before them about the May meetings, and they have also subpoenaed Andrew McCabe’s notes on these meetings, which were the source of the New York Times story.
In addition, Rosenstein is scheduled to discuss those May meetings with the President some time this next week. Presumably, in this context, the President is not going to sit still concerning Justice Department delay of his declassification order of the documents now being reviewed by the Inspector General.
This brings me to the elections and what you can do about all of this.
There’s something I’m going to repeat like a mantra, and invite you to really discuss here. It’s simple: Turn out and vote and get others to do so! Demand that the candidates endorse LaRouche PAC’s “Campaign to Secure the Future.” Organize the major supporters of those candidates to do the same. Build, through these elections, a political movement based on these principles. But, as they often say on late night television, there is more—something which you urgently need to consider as you organize for this.
Making America Great Again: the Missing Ingredient
In March 2017 I wrote a major article for Executive Intelligence Review documenting the British role in the coup against the President, with the subhead, “Who Really is George Soros, Anyway?” In that article I said that to defeat the coup, we Americans need to learn our own revolutionary history, which has been suppressed, particularly the principles of the Public Credit System enunciated by Alexander Hamilton and the modern scientific enrichment of those principles as developed by Lyndon LaRouche over the last forty-five years.
These are the proven principles which have served America for more than two centuries. These ideas drove the sustained economic and scientific progress found in Hamilton’s early United States, during the Abraham Lincoln Administration, and during the recovery and World War II mobilization led by Franklin Roosevelt. They were fundamentally advanced by LaRouche’s breakthrough discoveries providing the scientific metrics for sustained economic and social progress. They are encapsulated in LaRouche’s “Four New Laws to Save the USA Now.”
I also cited two glaring vulnerabilities of the decadent post-World War II “New World Order” created by the British and their American friends after Franklin Roosevelt’s death.
The chief vulnerability of that Order is its complete disregard for the fundamental laws of physical economic science. Addicted to monetary gambling, it simply does not know how to build an economy capable of sustained social and economic progress. It banks its survival on continued enslavement of subject populations through propaganda, dumbed-down education, entertainment, drugs, and perpetual wars. Like Rome—the imperial model for this modern day British Empire—it is doomed to fail. The issue is whether the entire human race vanishes with it in a nuclear catastrophe.
The second vulnerability is found in the criminal, anti-human history of the New World Order itself. If this is understood fully, if the smoke-and-mirrors magic show stops, the British are doomed.
In 1956, after Stalin had died, amidst challenges from Third World countries seeking economic development, and foreseeing the emergence of a new generation on the horizon, Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) sociologist Daniel Bell took leave from his post as labor editor of Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine to become the director of CCF’s Seminar Planning Committee. In April 1957, the first seminar was held in Tokyo, entitled, “Problems of Economic Growth.” According to British journalist and historian, Frances Stonor Saunders, “The [CCF] Conference was the precursor of the impending shift by development economists from an emphasis on growth of per capita income to one of the quality of social justice and freedom as the true measure of development.” Bell would later author The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, formally ushering in the so-called consumer and information society.
One might add a final irony concerning the Kavanaugh matter. Here you are, in a society in which pornography has become the most popular entertainment, an ascendancy which has gone on and on unchecked, protected by the so-called sexual revolution which made women the equal of males in all forms of debauchery—what is called “social freedom.” The Democratic Party senators, who, it could be very readily shown, were largely complicit in flooding our country with this junk, now stand firm against a Catholic who they allege drank too much in high school, seeking to tar and feather him.
The Post-Industrial Society
The New Left and the counterculture which emerged in the 1960s were the synthetic ideological products of this shift.
Not surprisingly, workers who still identified with economic progress, the nation state, and the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, became primary targets of New Left students. They were castigated for their psychologically “repressed” and “backward” identities. Teachers, white and black, inclined to emphasize universal values, became the targets of black activists demanding “community control” of schools.
As Lyndon LaRouche emphasized in founding documents of his organization, these “new left” ideas were drawn from the syndicalism of Benito Mussolini’s fascist state and the national bolshevism of Gregor Strasser, ideas identical with what FDR’s intelligence services labeled, “Synarchism/Nazi-Communist.” Their “community control” social structures were derived directly from the Tavistock Institute’s Kurt Lewin and his studies of the dynamics of small groups. Their smallness precludes attempts to exert major influence on actual existential issues. Setting numerous such groups into competitive contiguity, where gains by one group are at the expense of another, creates the basis for a self-policing fascist order. Atomize the subject population, set race against race, language group against language group, women against men, etc.—and then mobilize these groups together against mass political and trade union organizations, all under the banner of anti-authoritarianism and local community control. There you have fascism with a democratic face.
Similarly, the “environmentalism” so central to the counterculture, was a critical idea in Adolph Hitler’s Malthusian arsenal—oneness with an overpowering and arbitrary nature that man’s reason has repeatedly and criminally violated, in an illegitimate search for non-existent scientific truth. Prince Philip, who has wished to be reincarnated as a virus capable of wiping out whole swaths of humanity in order to control population, has been demonstrated to be the intellectual godfather of this movement.
Thus the post-industrial consumer and service-economy society emerged from a generation which had been psychologically “shocked” repeatedly by the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy, all potential advocates for advancing Roosevelt’s vision. The nation was mired for years in the senseless genocide of the war in Viet Nam, creating a cultural pessimism which persists to this day. Widespread use of drugs, sexual hedonism, and blaring, atonal Rock music produced mental oblivion in large swaths of the American population.
The revelations that the entirety of post-war American culture was one intelligence community-manufactured mess should have sparked a popular revolt, to return America to its republican roots in the Constitution’s model of an educated and engaged citizenry, through its representative institutions, deliberating national and international issues. Instead, as a result of the counterculture, featuring the likes of Herbert Marcuse and others, these revelations became the cynical rationale for the edict: “tune in, turn on, drop out.”
In May 1975, the David Rockefeller-dominated Trilateral Commission issued a report entitled The Crisis of Democracy at a conference in Kyoto, Japan. The report, authored by Samuel Huntington, Michel Crozier, and Joji Watanuki, under Zbiginiew Brzezinski’s direction, recognized that the Anglo-Americans faced a governance problem in the transition to a post-industrial society.
The collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 (presaged by the 1965-67 recessions), resulted in a decade in which Wall Street’s elite were only barely able to hold off total economic collapse through the oil shocks of the 70s and the savage wage and price austerity measures imposed by the Nixon Administration. At the same time, third world nations were calling for real development of their economies in a new just economic order that would turn their economies from colonial raw material satrapies into modern nation states. Lyndon and Helga LaRouche played an extremely significant role leading this fight, setting forth an agenda of great projects, debt moratoria, and an International Development Bank.
Huntington warned about a “democratic surge” afflicting the United States and other nations. Too many people wanting too many things from government—and, ultimately, too much participation in government—was making governance too difficult. Expectations had to be thwarted, and new counterinsurgency institutions needed to be forged. The crisis demanded corporatist solutions, through what one Trilateral apologist openly called “fascism with a democratic face.” One of the key proposals was a new institute for the “cooperative promotion of democracy.” This proposal would come to fruition under Ronald Reagan in the form of the National Endowment for Democracy.
In lockstep with these developments, in 1975 the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), headquartered in New York City, embarked on a set of studies to modernize the forms of the Anglo-American Empire—the “1980s Project” prospectus of the CFR. The studies were also overseen by Brzezinski and future cabinet members of the Carter Administration, including Cyrus Vance, Leslie Gelb, Richard Cooper, Marshall D. Shulman, and W. Michael Blumenthal. The focus of this project was countering the “Hamiltonian” pro-development perspective and demands of the developing world. The CFR proposed “controlled disintegration” of the world’s industrial economies, ruralization and destruction of cities in the developing sector, and a strategic approach to Russia which would force it to limit the growth of science and technology or face general thermonuclear war. It proposed to develop and police a series of alternate paths, or “critical choices,” for arriving at the specified objectives. The mandate of Anglo-American foreign policy was to compel other nations to choose among these pre-selected alternate paths. The fact that the nations got to choose their own path to self-destruction constituted “democracy.”
The most succinct presentation of the CFR’s concerns was that of Fred Hirsch, editor of the London Economist, in his book, Alternatives to Monetary Disorder (1977). In that book for the 1980s Project, Hirsch asserts that the central conflict in economic theory is between the American System (Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, et al.) and the British liberal system (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, et al.), and he ascribes the developing world’s demand for a new economic order to the taint of the “mercantilist” American System. He claims that Russia and China also suffer from this American taint in their development proposals. He attacks Hamilton and List by name.
EIR rightly labeled the incompetence inherent in “controlled disintegration” of the world’s economy as “A Conspiracy of Morons” at the time. However, these morons were also murderers, bent on the genocidal goal of reducing the world’s population through famines, wars, or by whatever means. That policy had already been formalized by Henry Kissinger in National Security Study Memorandum 200 (1974).
In the meantime, under the Trilateral Commission-sponsored Presidency of Jimmy Carter, Wall Street’s Paul Volcker continued the relentless war on U.S. living standards through the high interest rate policies he set as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Working Democrats and farmers, decimated by this economic warfare and faced with a Democratic Platform which embraced the cultural priorities of the New Left, began leaving the Democratic Party in droves. The British and their Trilateral friends went to work building a new homogenous political culture, which featured an anti-Soviet Democratic Party occupying the left and center, and an anti-Soviet conservative and neo-conservative Republican Party on the right. Each would endorse the free market, post-industrial society nostrums of Wall Street, and counterinsurgency operations against pro-Soviet, nationalist or neutral regimes.
It was under these auspices that the huge outsourcing of American manufacturing jobs to China was undertaken. It also had a geopolitical component. China was sold advanced U.S. technologies and defense technologies on the theory that China would act as a chess piece in America’s war on the Soviet Union. One of the authors of this geopolitical strategy, in addition to Henry Kissinger, was Michael Pillsbury.
In his United Nations speech this week, President Trump blew up this entire post-war order. He declared, as he had before, that America was returning to the foreign policies wisely enunciated by John Quincy Adams. We would no longer engage in regime-change wars. We view the world not through globalist institutions, but through developing relations between sovereign nation states. Both implicit and enunciated in his speech was the idea that every nation and every people is entitled to what Lyndon LaRouche would call a “full set” economy, rather than outsourcing supply chains and jobs under the rubric of British-designed “free trade.” This speech was a very big deal. But the transformation is, as with everything with Trump, incomplete. It is, after all, a transformation in which our enemies still hold substantial bases of power.
When Donald Trump came into office, he had, unexpectedly, to assemble a government—and the only wheels around were the decadent shards of the extant Republican Party. That is why you often see the President saying one thing, which appears revolutionary, and his entire government appearing to move in the opposite direction, based on the old order the President repeatedly says he wants to blow up. Most recently, the old guard has focused on ramping up tensions between the United States and Russia, and the United States and China.
It is these traitors, really, who should be our biggest targets. If each nation in the world is entitled to a “full set” economy, that can’t happen under the present, post-1971 monetary regime emanating from Wall Street and the City of London. There is no escaping this fact. If Russia, China, and other nations attempt to survive the hideous regime of sanctions—imposed by the current wild Congress and Obama ringers left over in the Trump Administration—by developing alternative currency arrangements, without attacking the center of the evil, they will, at this point, probably bring the world to the edge of war.
The alternative to this is exactly the one Lyndon LaRouche has proposed: Take the strongest and most populous economies of the world—Russia, China, India, and the United States—and have them sit down together to set up a new monetary system—cancelling the unpayable debts and fictitious financial paper, and creating a credit institution that will fund worldwide development—not horizontally, in the present modes of technology, but going for breakthroughs like fusion power, which can take the human race to the next level of development. Start with President Trump, President Putin, President Xi, and Prime Minister Modi discussing this topic, one on one, and together.
Which brings me to Michael Pillsbury. President Trump mentioned him last week at the UN as a key advisor on China, and Vice-President Pence praises him to the skies. Pillsbury claims, falsely, that China is on a long march to become the world’s new hegemon and is playing the West for suckers. He demands an all-out confrontation and a substantial scaling back of the Belt and Road. He is really the major saboteur, right now, of our march to a new just economic order and the ending of wars. We have a lot of work to do on him but I’ll just give you his basic biographical outline. This is what he says about himself online:
[Quoting Raymond Garthoff:] “Michael Pillsbury first floated the idea of arms sales and broad range of American military security relationships with China in a much-discussed article in Foreign Policy in the fall of 1975. Not known then was that Pillsbury had been conducting secret talks with Chinese officials. . . . [H]is reports were circulated to a dozen or so top officials of the NSC, Department of Defense and Department of State as secret documents.”
[According to an article in the book, U.S.-China Cold War Collaboration, 1971-1989, by S. Mahmud Ali:] “The man spearheading the effort was not a public official, and enjoyed deniability. Michael Pillsbury, a China analyst at the RAND Corporation . . . spent the summer of 1973 secretly meeting PLA officers stationed under diplomatic cover at China’s UN mission. . . . The DoD managed Pillsbury. Pillsbury filed a report, L-32, in March 1974. . . . L-32 was a seminal paper on which subsequent US-PRC military cooperation blossomed.”
Journalist James Mann wrote,
Outward appearances indicate that Pillsbury may have been working with American intelligence agencies from the very start of his relationship with General Zhang. . . . In the fall of 1973, Pillsbury submitted a classified memo suggesting the novel idea that the United States might establish a military relationship with China. . . . This was the genesis of the idea of a ‘China card,’ the notion that the United States might use China to gain Cold War advantage over the Soviet Union. The idea would eventually come to dominate American thinking about the new relationship with China.
Pillsbury participated in President Reagan’s decision in 1986 to order the CIA to arm the Afghan resistance with Stinger missiles. According to the UN Undersecretary General who negotiated the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, “Initially, the Stinger campaign was spearheaded by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Fred Iklé and his aggressive Coordinator for Afghan Affairs, Michael Pillsbury. . . . The Stinger proponents won their victory in the face of overwhelming bureaucratic resistance that persisted until the very end of the struggle.” Mann wrote, “For Michael Pillsbury, the covert operations in Afghanistan represented the fulfillment of the decade-old dream of American military cooperation with China . . . To help him win the argument, Pillsbury made use of his China connections.”
George Crile stated in the 2007 film drama, Charlie Wilson’s War, that “Ironically, neither [Gust] Avrakotos nor [Charlie] Wilson was directly involved in the decision and claims any credit.”
Among the people that most say were supplied with these weapons was Osama Bin Laden, although Pillsbury is at pains to distance himself from this.
Pillsbury also played a leading role in the founding of the Institute for Peace and the National Endowment for Democracy, both critical components in the regime-change wars that Donald Trump has condemned.
Conclusion: An architect of the outsourcing of U.S. jobs and technology, not on behalf of China, but on behalf of British geopolitical goals; an architect of the Afghan war and the sale of U.S military technology to terrorists; an architect of the key institutions for conducting disastrous regime-change operations throughout the world.
I’ll end with the words of my friend, the poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley. As you look back upon the last week and its attack on our Republic, take back that wonder and hope—now armed with a future vision and an educated serenity, ready to laugh at those you thought could drive you to rage and impotent cynicism by their slaughter, last week, of the bedrock values we hold dear:
“And that slaughter to the Nation
Shall steam up like inspiration,
A volcano heard afar.
“And these words shall then become
Like Oppression’s thundered doom
Ringing through each heart and brain,
“Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number—
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you—
Ye are many—they are few.”