Subscribe to EIR Online

This article appears in the January 4, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.


Let Us Free Ourselves
From British Influence

[Print version of this article]

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I. – Great Britain Is Not Our Ally

Jan. 1—In the wake of President Trump’s December 19th decision to begin the withdrawal of all U.S. military forces from Syria, followed 24 hours later by the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, hysteria has descended upon the rulers of Great Britain and their subservient allies within the United States. Contrary to almost all media reports, there is not “chaos” within the Trump administration; that chaos describes the collective mental state among the Anglo-American elites who oppose this Presidency.

As a nation, we have now reached a moment in which it becomes possible to achieve a goal Lyndon LaRouche has insisted upon for more than 40 years; that is, to free America from British influence and, through the creation of a “Community of Principle” with other sovereign nation-states, to put a permanent end to British imperial designs worldwide.

U.S. Air Force/B.N. Brantley
Secretary of Defense James Mattis addressing a press conference, Baghdad International Airport, Feb. 2017.

For almost two decades the American people had been led by an insider elite, one fanatically determined to keep the United States in a continuing and dangerously escalating partnership with British geopolitical policy. Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, James Mattis, the late John McCain, and many others have demanded that the “Special Relationship” with Britain remain the cornerstone of all U.S. strategic thinking.

Just look at Defense Secretary Mattis’ December 20th Letter of Resignation, where he asserts a fundamental disagreement with President Trump over the way that Trump has treated our “allies,” i.e., Great Britain and the member states of NATO. In that same brief letter, Mattis goes out his way to identify China and Russia as “malign actors” who wish “to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model.” Look also at the op-ed authored by Obama’s National Security Advisor and Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, which appeared in the New York Times three days after Mattis’ resignation. In that op-ed, Ms. Rice unashamedly screams, “We are walking away from our British and French allies.”

The cat is out of the bag, and 2019 portends even greater and more welcome change. Those individuals and Anglophile special interests who today denounce President Trump are the same people who brought us war, economic ruin and suffering over the last full score years. They are now on the defensive. It is time to finish them off politically and to drive their diseased ways of thinking from American public discourse.

Much work will need to be accomplished in this new year. For that reason, it is of critical importance that those who enlist in this effort are crystal clear in their own minds on what we might call the “British Question.” Now is the time to face the truth that everything that Lyndon LaRouche has been saying about the British Empire for the last 40 years is true. There is simply no other way to defend this Presidency and to secure global peace and economic development without eliminating British influence over U.S. policy making.

Fortunately, the now irrefutable evidence that the entirety of “Russia-gate” and the impeachment efforts against Donald Trump originated at the highest level of British Intelligence is a matter of record. The role of Christopher Steele and his controllers has placed this beyond doubt. The question that Americans need to answer is, “Why?” Why is the British oligarchy so fiercely determined to destroy this President? In examining that question, certain—perhaps surprising and uncomfortable—truths begin to reveal themselves.

It is impossible to win a war if you don’t know who your enemy is. Our enemy is the British Empire and the global financial elites associated with it. In this article we shall look at this, but our focus will not primarily be on the structures of this oligarchical entity, but rather on how the American people have been suckered into identifying with the interests and outlook of this empire—how our culture, our minds and our identity have been manipulated into support for policies which are both historically un-American and outright evil.

In a book-length paper written in 1982, Lyndon LaRouche states:

This report introduces many readers (but not all) to a new, and perhaps frightening dimensionality of our nation’s strategic and foreign-policy problems. The suitable name for this might be The Manipulation of Culture as A Method of Warfare. That could have been an alternative title. We have judged that our adopted title draws attention to the more urgent implications.[fn_1]

This current article, and its focus on the great cultural change that is now required, is very much derived from, and informed by, that argument which LaRouche presented in 1982.

Library of Congress
Immigrants arriving at Ellis Island in New York City in 1907.

II. – The Great Turning Point

Prior to the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, the British Empire was always viewed as the foremost enemy of the American Republic. For the first 125 years of her existence, America was a steadfast anti-colonial nation, and her national character was correctly embedded in the mission of becoming a “Temple of Hope,” and a “Beacon of Liberty.” It was the example of Washington, and particularly Lincoln, which shone throughout the world and gave hope to millions. Americans wanted nothing to do with the system of empires of the European nations; and the murderous oligarchical nature of the British Empire was universally recognized.

Without question, the British Empire has killed more human beings than any other entity in the history of the human species. The British Victorian Age was one of mass murder, horrible oppression, forced drug addiction, ongoing savage warfare, and disgusting cultural degeneracy. Genocide against—usually darker skinned—non-British populations was a matter of course. Everyone knew it.

Throughout those decades, European immigrants fled to America to escape imperial oppression, and national leaders, such as Sun Yat-sen, looked to the lives of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as the hopeful models for their own nations. Then, two bullets fired by Leon Czolgosz at Buffalo, New York in 1901 catapulted the Anglophile Teddy Roosevelt into the White House, and the nation began to come loose from its mooring. Despite Teddy Roosevelt’s pro-British views, and despite the increasing presence of traitors in high places, the moral and political subversion of the American people did not occur all at once. The key wrenching transformation began with America’s entry into World War I.

In 1916, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson was not expected to win re-election. He had only sneaked into the White House in 1912 because Teddy Roosevelt had split the Republican vote with his “Bull Moose” campaign. No Democratic Party President had served two consecutive terms since Andrew Jackson. Wilson and his advisors decided upon a unique national campaign strategy. Wilson would seek re-election, almost exclusively, as the “peace candidate,” and his campaign adopted as its national slogan, “He kept us out of war.”

At that time, from coast to coast, the American people were overwhelmingly opposed to U.S. involvement in the European war. Despite the pro-war tirades of Teddy Roosevelt and others, Americans, en masse, wanted no part of the war. Promising peace and neutrality, Wilson won re-election. And then . . . and then . . ., only five months after the election and a mere one month after being sworn in for his second term, Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. By late 1917, tens of millions of Americans were swept up in the war fever. Soon, the proposition that America and Great Britain were joined together in a sacred cause to “make the world safe for democracy” became an ironclad cultural axiom.

How did this happen? How did an America which, up to the eve of the 1916 election correctly viewed the British Empire as the historic and mortal enemy of the American Republic, suddenly enlist in a military alliance in defense of that empire?

Foreground, from left to right: D.W. Griffith, Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin (seated) and Douglas Fairbanks at the contract signing ceremony establishing the United Artists motion-picture studio on Dec. 31, 1918.

It is true that German government stupidity and strategic miscalculation didn’t help. Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1917 and the subsequent revelation of the infamous Zimmermann Telegram two months later, were utilized to the hilt by Anglophile American newspapers to whip up anti-German sentiment. But this does not explain the pro-war frenzy, the hysteria, which gripped the minds of the American citizenry in 1917 and 1918. This was a great cultural change, a seismic upheaval, that took place within the American populace.

This is where Lyndon LaRouche’s concept of “The Manipulation of Culture as a Method of Warfare” enters the picture. And it should not be surprising that, in 1917, the vehicle chosen to manipulate the morality and thinking of the American people was Hollywood.

Star Struck

The United States spent $30 billion to wage World War I. Of that amount, $22 billion was raised through the sale of “Liberty Bonds” directly to the American people. There was only one problem. When the Liberty Bonds were first introduced in the spring of 1917, almost no one purchased them. Sales were listless, and within weeks the bonds were being resold at a discount, with no buyers. At that point, the Wilson administration enlisted top echelon stars of the new film industry to spearhead the drive. National tours were organized for Douglas Fairbanks, Mary Pickford, and Charlie Chaplin. Bear in mind that these individuals—the “King of Hollywood,” “America’s Sweetheart,” and “The Little Tramp”—were the nation’s very top film stars, and this at a time when the fledgling film industry had endowed them with an aura of awe and wonderment.

U.S. Army/Paul Thompson
Movie star Douglas Fairbanks speaking in front of the Sub-Treasury building in New York City, on behalf of the third Liberty Loan, April 1918.

Crisscrossing the country by rail, Fairbanks, Pickford and Chaplin traveled to dozens of cities. Everywhere they went they were greeted by frenzied mobs. Millions turned out for mammoth outdoor rallies to bask in the presence of the Hollywood royalty. Being an American, being loyal and patriotic, became synonymous with backing the war and buying a Liberty Bond. America and Britain were joined in a holy crusade against “the Hun.” Any type of dissent or non-conformity was silenced, as the Hollywood stars called on every American to join the war effort.

By the time it was all over, 15 million Americans had purchased liberty bonds, out of a total population of 103 million. This figure is even more remarkable when you consider that fewer than 50 million Americans were adults, and those 50 million included tens of millions of non-voting women and millions of non-citizen immigrants.

At the same time, a national force of thousands was recruited, at the direction of President Wilson, to become “Four Minute Men.” In movie theaters, at that time, it took four minutes to change reels, during the showing of a film. During those four minutes, an individual would walk out onto the stage and deliver an oration on the glories of America’s war effort. Everything German became an object of rage, while the British war effort was portrayed with near-adoration. Between 1917 and 1918, almost 8 million such four-minute speeches were delivered at movie houses in over 5,000 communities across the United States.[fn_2]

At the conclusion of the war, Fairbanks, Chaplin and Pickford, together with the pro-Confederacy D.W. Griffith, would form United Artists, and when Fairbanks and Pickford traveled to London on their honeymoon in 1920, they were greeted by huge, adoring crowds. Later, their home in Hollywood, Pickfair, became the social center for the Hollywood elite, and visiting guests to Pickfair included the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Lord Louis Mountbatten, Noel Coward and Arthur Conan Doyle. As for the British-born Chaplin, he would later be knighted by Queen Elizabeth.[fn_3]

There was no reasoned debate or in-depth strategic discussion prior to America’s entry into World War I. There was no consideration of legitimate war aims, nor any reflection concerning the required Constitutional principles involved in this decision. Instead, it was a rush to war, an unreasoned stampede. In reality, the war had actually begun for the American people in 1914, for from that date through 1918, the British Crown had waged concerted cultural warfare inside America, to sever the American citizen’s moral link to the historic principles of the nation. This was done through the manipulation of people’s base emotions, their fears, their fantasies, and their appetites. This was the British method for recruiting America to save the British Empire.

III. – The Adult Personality

Forget the history books you have read, or what you were taught in school. Recognize that in understanding the extended modern-day British Empire, you are dealing with an “Empire of the Mind.”

The great supporter of the American Revolution, Friedrich Schiller, is famous for stating that the tragedy of the French Revolution was that “a great moment had found a little people.” Schiller’s life work was a continuous effort to make “little people” bigger. Through his dramas, his historical works and his writings on Aesthetical Education, Schiller’s concern was always to educate the feelings, the souls and the minds of his readers—to provide people with the means to improve and uplift themselves morally and intellectually.

Consider the motives and method of the British oligarchy. Their intention has always been the opposite of Schiller. Their intention has always been to make people “littler.” Britain’s oligarchical elites have always believed that within their own degenerate, bestial impulses the method was to be found to control and demean subject populations. The intention has always been to sabotage any sustained effort to awaken the higher creative moral and intellectual impulses within the minds of the greater population—to, in effect, impose an “oligarchical culture” upon the population at large. In this sense, one might say that the extended British oligarchy has learned from the dangerous—for them—precedent of the Renaissance. The word from Buckingham Palace, when viewing the heritage of Leonardo da Vinci, Nicholas of Cusa or Filippo Brunelleschi, is “Never Again!”

This has always been the cultural strategy of the British oligarchy. One might trace its origins to the 1616-1623 correspondence between Francis Bacon and the Venetian Paolo Sarpi; or to the writings of John Locke and Jeremy Bentham. Certainly by the late 19th century, the British had become masters in cultural warfare and the subjugation of colonial peoples. And this is precisely the type of warfare that they have waged against the people of the United States.

Consider the progressive downward spiral of the American people since the assassination of John F. Kennedy. What we have been witnessing, what we have been living through—at least up to the 2016 national election—has been the escalating infantilization of the adult American population. This, of course, is also true of Western Europe. In almost every way, adults today are stunted—emotionally, morally and intellectually. Their personality development has been arrested and halted at the age of 16, or perhaps younger. Simple instincts, simple fears, simple appetites and gratifications determine, in an unthinking and automatic manner, much of their day-to-day behavior.

A CounterStrike video gamer.

This did not just “happen.” It has been deliberate. Video games, pornography, “entertainment” that desensitizes the emotions to suffering and violence—this is all an oligarchical culture of infantile gratification. These are not “cultural trends.” This is British strategic warfare at the highest level. It is a type of warfare which the British oligarchy has spent more than one hundred years perfecting, and one they believe that Americans are too dumb to resist. It is precisely this type of “higher” warfare that the Tavistock Institute’s William Walters Sargant identified in his 1957 Battle for the Mind. And it is through these methods that they have nearly destroyed our American republic.

A British Empire franchise entices its victims into a world devoid of reality, a world governed entirely by magic.

Americans are no longer able to sustain a serious concentrated attention span. Although 20th century American novelists were never much to write home about, there were more praiseworthy efforts in the field of drama, and there was a time, not so long ago, when audiences would sit with rapt attention through a performance of Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman or Lillian Hellman’s The Children’s Hour. This was American art, and it had a broad audience. No more. Today, we find tens of millions of adult Americans spending billions of dollars to wallow in the nonsense of the “Lord of the Rings” film trilogy—drivel designed to titillate, shock, scare and excite the lower emotions.

Today, among the most popular and profitable of movie and television franchises is a plethora of productions featuring comic book figures, drawn from the pantheon of Marvel and DC comics. In earlier times, this type of fare was directed toward ten-year olds. Today, it is devoured by adults. Similarly, we find the massive popularity of the writings of Britain’s J.R.R. Tolkien and Britain’s J.K. Rowling, whose works draw the reader—or the film-goer—into a world entirely devoid of reality, a realm governed entirely by magic.

This is all the unleashing of the irrational self-obsessed infant. You even see it in the way people dress, with 40- and 50-year-old men daily donning the unofficial uniform—t-shirt, blue jeans, and sneakers—of an 8-year-old boy. This is a population which simply lacks the rudiments of a mature adult self-identity.

EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
Lyndon LaRouche in a LaRouche PAC webcast of July 26, 2013.

IV. – An Intervention by LaRouche

Lest one think that what is stated in the section immediately above is exaggerated, too negative, or too harsh, we interpose here the words of Lyndon LaRouche, in the form of several lengthy excerpts from his Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy. Long quotations are not usually desirable, but in this instance, the sharpness and insight of the argument as presented by LaRouche is essential to further clarify the point at issue:

We have become a hedonistic counterculture, rejecting all higher purposes and morality for sake of an anarchistic philosophy which argues that the function of society is to gratify irrationally defined individual “inner psychological needs.” We have become degraded into such a Hobbesian morality, into the immoral, irrationalist radical hedonism of such 19th-century British philosophical radicalism as that of Jeremy Bentham, and such followers of Bentham as John Stuart Mill, William Jevons, Alfred Marshall, Aleister Crowley and our own existentialist pragmatists such as William James, John Dewey, and the intellectual elite orbited around the Socialist Party of America. The burgeoning of that “Age of Aquarius” proposed at the beginning of this century by such arch-fascists as Friedrich Nietzsche and theosophist Dionysus-worshiper Aleister Crowley, is presently reflected by the growing degradation of our youth into the hedonistic rock-drug-sex counterculture of that modern court of the Emperor Nero known as our “jet set.”

In other words, we are destroyed by a Hobbesian every-man-for-his-own-pleasure degeneracy, steeped with that same reek of dionysiac cultural pessimism which earlier produced such phenomena as Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, a culture whose Nietzschean principle is that “everything is permitted” according to the individual’s “inner psychological needs.”

Driven deeper into cultural decay in that direction, over the past hundred years our national institutions have undergone a succession of phase-changes, an ordered succession of descent into hedonistic philistinism reminding us properly of the descent into the Pit in Dante’s Inferno. So, beyond the banal philistinism of our own turn-of-the-century “Edwardian” period, we plunged into the dionysiac “Roaring Twenties.” At the end of the war [World War II —ed.], most veterans quickly lost that firm moral resolve never again to allow the world to degenerate so, and too many among them occupied themselves with seducing their neighbor’s wives in the new real-estate developers’ “earthly paradise” called corporate suburbia. The pretty children stuffed with toys by adulterous parents of the 1950s became the infantilism rampant in the emergence of the “New Left counterculture” of the 1960s and 1970s. So, step by step, we have marched toward the Pit.

Our people have lost their moral moorings. They have lost a sense of their individual connection to an historical process, lost all sense of the connection between one’s own individual practice and the consequent good or evil bequeathed to subsequent generations. They stir in narrow mental circles, in a society whose benefits were bequeathed to them by the work of our Founding Fathers . . . Of the good they enjoy, that chiefly because of our Constitution and its ordering of our affairs, they speak as if they, individually, or their little family, had accomplished everything for themselves, as if to argue that the world had been created with the founding of the family fortune by a grandfather, or simply the day they were born into the undeveloped primeval forest they improved entirely by their own efforts. They may not assert such things in those exact words, but what they do say and believe implies nothing but such an ungrateful, arrogant assumption. . . .

They have lost the distinguishing moral and intellectual qualities of true citizens of a republic; they have renounced our constitutional commitment to shape the consequences of all of our present policies of national practice as those consequences impinge upon our posterity. Me, mine, and now become in the main part, the outer limits of their “practicality,” and immediate, tangible relations to family, neighbors and local community become, in the main part, the outer limits of application of their morality. We as a people have neither an historical sense of the existence of either the nation or ourselves, nor a sense that there are higher, universal principles of lawfulness which determine whether entire nations rise or destroy themselves.

This defect in our transformed national character defines the prevailing political ideology of our nation. It is that ideology which governs our national credulity in such matters as the delusion that Britain is our dearest ally, or the delusion that second-hand horse-manure delivered as foreign intelligence by putatively friendly sources is the ingathering of actually competent policy-shaping intelligence. . . .


The immediate general effect of shifting a sense of reality from the real world into ever-narrower circles converging on the interior of the walls of the house or apartment, is to mystify the real world, and so make the problems of the real world relatively more frightening to the victim. This generates what is to be defined quite literally as a condition of dependency upon the soap opera and associated acting-out of soap opera-like fantasy-life, a form of addiction.

Not political, one argues? Very much to the contrary, it is the essence of the political process within the electorate which is shaped by such methods.

. . . [T]he general effect is infantile regression in the mental life of the addicted viewer. This correlates with not only a fear of any change in the outside world which might affect the home, but a growing unwillingness to recognize such changes as they occur. Second, the persons and objects of the real world, except as they are members also of the artifacts and persons within the range of soap opera fantasy-versions of personal life, lose their quality of sensuous reality. Like the physician, lawyer and so forth within the soap opera as such, what he or she is in the real world is merely what he is reputed to be within the non-real world of the soap-opera setting. What the television screen, the household’s daily newspaper, or the visiting gossip say to be the significance and value of objects and persons in the real world, becomes for the victim of psychological conditioning by soap opera the values which the victim will attribute to those objects and persons in real practice.

The political behavior of the electorate is changed to reflect this kind of brainwashing-effect, this behavioral modification.


To the extent our citizens are estranged from mankind, from the notion of our higher national purpose to advance civilization as a whole, and, worse, narrowed in their consciousness in the way illustrated by the behavioral-modification effects of soap opera, they cut themselves off from the Good, and stultify that very attribute of themselves which reflects the divine. To employ the appropriate image of Dante’s Commedia they fall lower in moral condition within the “Purgatory,” to that cross-over-point at which they fall into the company of the Washington Post’s editorial staff, into the “Inferno.”

As the scope of reality is narrowed for them, drawing in upon immediate community and family circles, the impulse for Goodness within those citizens approaches the point it is snuffed out of existence. At that latter point, hedonistic and irrationalist perceptions of individual and small-group “inner psychological needs” take command of their judgments, and a succession of phases of degeneration of their personalities proceeds, in the direction of the “Inferno’s” Pit. . . .

As the shift into the “Inferno” becomes predominant, then we begin to see popular toleration for such emulations of Nazi genocidal policies as the Global 2000 Report or promotion of medical policies representing in practice a re-enactment of Nazi euthanasia policies against our aged, on grounds of “cost-benefit analysis” of insurance-cost and similar considerations.


It is we who are being hoodwinked, and it is we who suffer those flaws of judgment which render us easy prey of the hoodwinkers. We shall cease to be sorrily hoodwinked people and a woefully hoodwinked nation, only on condition that we permit no passion of misguided pride to prevent us from discovering and remedying such a flaw in ourselves.

It has been, and continues to be the style of this present report, to see the workings of our own minds, and to gauge the connection between certain characteristic ways in which we so think, against the demonstrable consequences of a practice informed by such thinking. We must see such matters as the unfolding of a process. We must see that process as if it were a drama unfolding to our observation on a stage, and we for a moment here, reading this report, are directing our consciousness to see our own consciousness elaborated on that stage.

As the tragedy of the drama manifests itself to us, we must sense the wish that the self we see on stage might avoid the tragedy by the obvious means. “No,” we in the audience wish to cry out to our self on that stage. “Don’t you see to what you are leading yourself?” At first, it is our impulse to shout out to the character on stage. “Don’t do it—Please, don’t do that!” Then, we become more anguished, and without one color of sacrilegious oath-making, we wish to cry out: “For God’s sake, stop doing that before it is too late!” Then, our frenzy sinks into a moment of depression; we cannot stop the drama from unfolding so. The script has been written; Fate can not be altered in this matter.

Can this not be altered? Can the tragedy be turned? Why could we not change the consciousness of that character, our selves, on that stage? Of course it could be changed. Whence our depression, then? We reached a moment in which we passionately desired to change the ordering of our own processes of conscious judgment. At that precise moment, we lost the power to act. We lacked precisely, in that moment, the quality of strategic command which Clausewitz’s On War attempts to circumscribe with the German term Entschlossenheit. Even seeing our own consciousness as a character apart from our selves, we could not bring ourselves to change what we recognized as our own consciousness. That is the tragedy of the characters on the stage; that is our own tragedy in real life.

We have in each of us the power not only to view our own conscious processes as an object to willful consciousness. We have the power to change our consciousness in such ways as are most celebrated as fundamental scientific discoveries. We do this more or less unwittingly in the transformation of our first bawling hour as a hedonistic, irrational infant through childhood, adolescence into that state some of us finally attain, called maturity. This is a reflection of that aspect of our nature which we associate with the divine potentiality of every individual person, on which grounds we are obliged to regard each life as sacred. It is sacred not because it is living, not because of that which it shares with a cow, but because that quality, that power so reflected is a reflection of the divine. So, we must appreciate the grandeur of Dante Alighieri’s Commedia, perhaps the greatest exposition of the fundamental principles of statecraft ever composed. . . .

V. – Strategic Implications

Beginning with the 1944 national election, and then escalating dramatically after the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the British Empire engineered a great transformation in American strategic outlook. This is sometimes referred to as the post-Roosevelt “right-wing” turn in U.S. politics, but that pragmatic formulation misses the axiomatic essence of the nature of the shift.

This was first, and foremost, a profound cultural manipulation, much as had occurred in 1917, but far more powerful and deeper in its effects. Beginning in 1945, everything Russian or Soviet became the subject of fear, of mistrust, even hatred. Earlier, FDR had attempted to calm people’s fears; now, the friends of Britain used fear to effect a wrenching moral downturn among the population. At the same time, everything British became safe and amicable. The 1953 coronation of the 26-year-old Elizabeth II, the first major international event to be broadcast on television, was viewed by millions of Americans, almost simultaneous with the national broadcasts of the witch-hunt conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy.

The intended target of this cultural warfare was only secondarily the Soviet Union. Britain’s premier enemy was America and American culture. American belief in progress, science, fairness and a “community of principle among nations” was to be eradicated. As red spies were hunted under every bed, and the execution of the Rosenbergs was used to terrorize the population, the American people were instructed to “stop thinking” about such matters and, as LaRouche points out, to confine their sphere of concern to enjoying the earthly pleasures of corporate suburbia—to play house while the very essence of what it meant to be an American was disfigured beyond recognition. Fear of the “outside world,” combined with the lure of the “home with the white picket fence,” was used to make people “small.”

Gradually, over time, and particularly with the arrival of the Baby Boomer generation to adulthood, the moral and mental anchor which connected Americans to an historical process of upward human progress, that which had previously characterized American culture, was severed.

Library of Congress
The Beatles arriving at JFK Airport in New York City, Feb. 7, 1964.

Not unimportant in this dynamic of degeneration, was the 1964 “British Invasion” of the Beatles, et al., simultaneous with the release of the first James Bond films. Together, they created a great affinity among the young Baby Boomers for “all things British.”

On the world stage, the World War II creation of the “Five Eyes” intelligence apparatus (Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), combined with the 1949 founding of NATO, pulled the United States directly into a strategic global alliance and increasing integration with the British Empire. The role of the 1948-founded RAND Corporation, and similar entities, is notable as to how this process developed.

At the same time, the gradual post-War transformation of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other international financial institutions into vehicles of financial exploitation and oppression signaled the success of British interests in creating a global Anglo-American financial and economic order, one fully subservient to the imperial interests of the City of London. FDR’s plan for post-War economic development was tossed in the trash can, and the centuries-long nightmare of British colonial looting would continue, under a new guise and now with U.S. backing—yet axiomatically unchanged.

President Eisenhower resisted this trend. President Kennedy resisted this trend. In 1983, as a result of Lyndon LaRouche’s intervention around what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative, President Reagan threatened to break with this arrangement. Yet, all of these efforts failed. In recent decades, Republican neo-cons and Democrat neo-liberals have allied to demand that this un-American “Special Relationship” with Britain must remain as the sacred cornerstone of U.S. strategic policy. Thankfully, since 2016, these voices have become a minority view within the U.S. electorate. Yet, as we see with Gen. James Mattis, Robert Mueller, and others, this pro-British faction will fight to the bitter end. London-authored screeds proclaiming that “Russia is our enemy, China is our enemy” still ooze out of the mouths of elected U.S. officials and appear in editorials of the New York Times and Washington Post.

Breaking Out of the Cage

What defines the pathway to permanent victory for our cause? Can success be measured merely in practical political terms? Would not a battle, defined by such limited parameters, almost certainly result in defeat?

British cultural warfare has thus far been near-triumphant, because the British oligarchy has succeeded in infecting the culture and minds of the American people with key oligarchical axioms, axioms which have become almost unquestioned and part of our organic identity. These core beliefs—such as “geopolitics,” “environmentalism,” and “monetarism”—are now deeply entrenched within American culture, and this process has worsened with the ongoing increase in drug consumption. These are foreign bacilli, satanic infections of the worst kind, and they have done far more damage than any particular piece of legislation adopted by the U.S. Congress or other legislative body.

For example, look at the ludicrous proposal now circulating among certain layers within the Democratic Party for a “Green New Deal.” Look at the abandonment of nuclear energy in Germany, Spain, and now even beginning in France—not for scientific or economic reasons, but out of fear of “nuclear radiation.” Look at the howling which arose from the throats of the delegates at the recent COP24 Climate Change Conference when President Trump refused to go along with the fraud of man-made “climate change.” On a more simple level, look at the insane phenomenon of “recycling” to “protect the environment,” which is now a daily universal ritual throughout the trans-Atlantic world. Everything is Green. If you live Green you are rewarded with societal approval. You can feel good about yourself. Mommy loves you. You are helping to “Save the Planet.”

This study pioneered the widespread delusion that drastic reduction of the human population is necessary.

This is not science. It is an irrational hysterical British-imposed pathology. It flies in the face of all evidence of upward human progress. It is simply the Malthusian agenda of the British oligarchy, as that agenda was publicly stated by Prince Philip Mountbatten in his desire to reduce the world’s population to fewer than one billion souls. It was the British oligarchy, through the Club of Rome, the World Wildlife Fund, and related institutions which launched the environmentalist movement in the wake of the murder of John F. Kennedy for the purpose, as stated in the Tavistock Institute’s “Rapoport Report,” to wean the American people away from their belief in scientific and industrial progress—to begin the process of killing off the Kennedy-era policies of the space program, nuclear energy development, infrastructure building, and industrial modernization and expansion.[fn_4]

Recognize the Pathology

A similar irrational pathology is seen in all matters related to money and finance. British monetarist ideology—whether of the Keynes or Von Hayek flavor—is now hegemonic within our culture. The American people have been cut off from any understanding of how nation-states developed in the past, of how succeeding generations lawfully reproduced themselves into higher, more prosperous and more scientifically powerful cultures. The irreplaceable historic role of science, invention and human creativity has been obscured. Alexander Hamilton’s brilliant invention of national Public Credit—the most successful banking and economic system in human history—has been written out of the history books.

Think of the 1903-1904 success of the Wright brothers in developing powered human flight or the experiments on rocketry in the 1920s by Robert Goddard, and then consider those endeavors within the context of Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures. This defines the historic American approach to both science and economics, and this was understood as such prior to World War II. Today, that indispensable relationship of economics to human invention and scientific progress—what LaRouche defines as Physical Economics—has been erased from the minds of most Americans. It has been replaced by a belief in the magical properties of money as a means to achieve security, happiness and perhaps personal wealth. In essence, the get-rich-quick schemes of the once humorous Rev. Ike now define the mental map of how people think about banking, finance, government expenditures and their own personal budgets.

In all of this, we see the success of the British Empire in entering our very minds, as if some invading colonial army, killing off that which is most precious in our heritage, in our souls, and replacing it with oligarchical axioms—giving birth to an oligarchical outlook within ourselves. This is precisely what H.G. Wells hypothesized when he spoke of controlling populations through fear, while offering them the outlet of infantile gratifications, particularly sexual gratifications.

Irrational fear has been perhaps the British oligarchy’s most effective weapon, and it continues to reap success. Fear of poisoning the Earth, fear of Carbon Dioxide, fear of nuclear energy, fear of economic insecurity, and—most important of all—infantile fear of the outside world, of processes which we can not control and which ultimately we do not understand. What has been done is that people have been made afraid, like a child’s fear of the dark, of monsters under the bed.

Cultural axioms are not simply external. They become internalized as “who we are.” They define how individuals react to almost any issue or event. They are inseparable from our most basic sense of personal identity. Create and manipulate those axioms and you control the people. This is essence of British Cultural Warfare—behavioral modification on a grand scale. In all of this, the enduring intention is to make people “smaller,” “littler,” and to shrink the moral and intellectual capabilities of the individual citizen.

VI. – The Order of Battle

For more than 70 years, the United States has existed as a living re-enactment of the ancient image of “Laocoön and His Sons,” struggling within the serpentine grip of British tentacles. We have now arrived at a moment where freeing ourselves as a nation has once again become possible. It is a moment of stupendous opportunity. The decision by President Trump to withdraw U.S. military forces from Syria is unprecedented in the last half century, and the consequences of his action define a potential turning point in all of human history.

JFK Library
From left to right: Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Maxwell Taylor confront President John Kennedy after he ordered a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam. The White House, Washington, D.C., Jan. 25, 1963.

No U.S. President has attempted a comparable action since October 11, 1963, when John F. Kennedy issued NSAM 263, ordering the beginning of a withdrawal of U.S. military advisors from South Vietnam. Forty-two days later Kennedy was assassinated, and four days after his murder, Lyndon Johnson signed the McGeorge Bundy-authored NSAM 273, cancelling the planned military withdrawal.

We should expect no less danger, nor weaker response, from the desperate British today. The future of the human species is now being decided.

In this war, we have many prospective allies, beginning with China, Russia and India. Yes, there are differences and areas of disagreement both among these nations as well as with the United States, but these Four Powers, as Lyndon LaRouche has called them, also have one great shared interest in common. All of these nations, and numerous others in Africa, South America and elsewhere desire peace and economic development. From that common shared vision, agreements can be reached, and work can be accomplished which will make the world a far, far better place.

The British are desperate and blood-thirsty. They are demanding an end to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which is now uplifting poor nations throughout the world. They are demanding obedience to their genocidal “Climate Change” agenda. They state, “This is non-negotiable. Disobey and we will bomb you, kill your leaders or overthrow your government.” It is the arrogance of the British Raj.

But the British are no longer calling the shots. The potential loss of their American ally is a death blow to their interests. And if we free ourselves from British geopolitics, is it not then possible to free ourselves from British monetarism? Under these conditions, where economic development and scientific progress are desired by the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations, does not a New Bretton Woods agreement and a Hamiltonian policy of credit for in-depth economic development become realizable?

There remains, however, great work to be done. The British cultural warfare that has been waged against the American people has produced enormous damage, and the effects of this damage are by no means gone from the scene. Our message to our fellow Americans must be clear: “Almost everything that has been wrong in America throughout your lifetime has come from Britain.” Free your minds. Learn the difference between an empire and a Republic. Begin to think like Hamilton or Lincoln. If you do so, the war is already half won.

[fn_2]. Amidst this anti-German hysteria, all of the previously popular works of Frederick Schiller were removed from the nation’s stages and written out of school curricula. [back to text for fn_2]

[fn_3]. An historically different, yet similar, role was performed by Hollywood during World War II. After 1945, certain individuals in Hollywood came under attack by the House Un-American Affairs Committee (HUAC) for producing “pro-Soviet” films during the war. In reality, these usually poorly-funded “B’’ movies were minuscule in number. On the other hand, beginning in the mid-30s, and then escalating after 1939, Hollywood turned out a near avalanche of lavish pro-British films, many of which were given Academy Awards. Many of these films rewrote history, casting past British imperial figures in a positive light. These included The Charge of the Light Brigade, Gunga Din, Kim, Suez, A Yank in the RAF, and many, many more. During the war, films such as Mrs. Miniver were typical of the attempt to create a deep cultural affinity of Americans for their “British cousins.” [back to text for fn_3]

[fn_4]. For a more in-depth presentation of the matters discussed here, see: There Are No Limits to Growth, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., 1983. [back to text for fn_4]

Back to top