This transcript appears in the October 16, 2020 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Overthrow the British Empire, and Its Geopolitical and Economic Doctrines!
[Print version of this transcript]
This is the edited transcript of Harley Schlanger’s presentation to the LaRouche PAC’s Town Hall, October 11, 2020. Subheads and embedded links have been added.
Lyndon LaRouche’s Storm Over Asia video, an excerpt of which opened our meeting, is totally appropriate for the remarks I’m going to make tonight. LaRouche presents a vivid picture of the real enemy of the United States and how the British have connived to rule the world through using every kind of divisive tactic, including wars between tribes, between religious groups, between ethnic and racial groups, and between nations.
This ongoing coup against President Trump involves domestic enemies, who, however, are tied to the real enemy of America, the British Empire. Domestically, we are talking about a permanent bureaucracy that includes every institution connected to the Presidency. It’s not the Presidency itself, but the bureaucratic divisions, such as the State Department, the Justice Department, the intelligence community, and so on. The Congress at this point is completely controlled by the war party, by the British geopolitical strategic outlook that has had us in wars since 2001.
You have the broader non-governmental aspects of the military-industrial complex, as it’s sometimes called. These include the corporate cartels that are the globalists that represent interests in finance, insurance, energy companies, big Pharma, raw materials, and so on. It includes Hollywood and Silicon Valley. Today, I think we can say the media as well, which is largely being integrated into a Hollywood, Silicon Valley triumvirate with the media as the out-front aspect of what is causing the confusion and demoralization in the country. When you investigate this, you come to a very simple point, which is that no one is being told what’s actually happening, because we’re subject to psychological warfare 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
This week, President Trump called for that to end, saying we must finally have a full declassification of the documents involved in Russiagate—with no redactions. He went on to identify several people in his administration who are dragging their feet, let’s say, to be charitable. I think it’s more than that, but they’re dragging their feet in the declassification process. One person he mentioned is FBI Director Christopher Wray, who apparently believes that his mandate to clean up the mess in the FBI means to cover everything up. He mentioned Attorney General William Barr, who he said he’s been disappointed with in the fact that he’s not moved forward to openly bring to the public the full effects of the Durham investigation into the Russiagate coup.
He also mentioned, very importantly, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He went after him for not producing the Hillary Clinton emails that somehow disappeared. Pompeo obviously got the message; today he came out and said he’ll move on it right away. Maybe he should also give a report to the country on the interview he had with Bill Binney back in 2017, where Bill Binney—the former Technical Director of the NSA—laid out for him the fact that there was never a Russian hack or meddling in the U.S. election campaign. That was when Pompeo was CIA Director. You would think the CIA Director would find it important to bring out that one of the top cyber experts in the country gave him evidence that there never was a Russian hack.
As long as we’re talking about Pompeo, what about the fact that the President says no more wars, no more regime change. And yet, Pompeo has been on a world tour, promoting regime change and wars; whether it’s in Hong Kong against China, or against Russia. In doing so, he’s working with the very same networks that are involved in the coup against President Trump.
The British Game
This gets right to this question of the British. In July of this year when Pompeo went to London, he cavorted with members of the Henry Jackson Society, one of whose most prominent members is none other than Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, who helped to ensnare the United States initially in the Iraq War with a false dossier about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. And who also has continued to defend one of his subordinates—former MI6 operative Christopher Steele—who wrote the dirty dossier that was used by then FBI Director James Comey and others in their lying presentations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to get warrants to spy on the Trump administration. This was in July 2020 when Pompeo was meeting with them. And at that time, he spoke glowingly of the “special relationship” between the British and the United States.
While we’re talking about administration officials who are part of this British network, you have to mention Gina Haspel, the CIA Director who was the London station chief of the CIA from 2014 to 2017, when the shenanigans that led to Russiagate were being launched. She had to have been in some way at least aware of the set-up against General Michael Flynn that was run by Dearlove and Stefan Halper, who at times is an FBI, CIA, MI6 shared asset.
So, when you start to look at this question of a foreign enemy, you see the connections. I’ll get to, in a moment, Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which set up the Council on Foreign Relations as its American operation right after World War I.
When we talk about the British Empire, if you get the chance, please take some time to study LaRouche’s Storm Over Asia, because he goes through in great detail how we’ve been manipulated and suckered into these wars in the Middle East for the last 20 years. But we’re not talking about the people of England; we’re talking about the grouping in finance and in intelligence—and formerly in defense, because remember, until the 20th century, Britain was considered the foremost military power on the planet, except for the United States, as we defeated them in the American Revolution and the War of 1812, and then again to win our own Civil War.
The British Empire used to be based on military power, controlling the chokepoints of the sea, the ports, so they had a control of trade, and the whole monetary system was a British-based monetary system. They were beginning to fall apart at the end of the 19th century. They were threatened by developments around the world with resurgent economic policies in countries like Germany, France, Japan, Russia—countries that adopted the hated American System. That is, the Hamiltonian system that enabled our fledgling republic to stand up against the economic and trade warfare conducted against us in our early years by the British Empire. It was the Hamiltonian credit system, the development of infrastructure, the funding of productive enterprise that enabled the United States not only to eliminate the vulnerability of the debt, but to become a power. Initially a regional power, and eventually a world power.
Roped into World War I and its Sequelae
But the British roped us into World War I, using geopolitics—the British idea of geopolitics, which came from circles around Cecil Rhodes and Lord Alfred Milner. Halford Mackinder drafted the document that became the basis of their strategy. But it said you could never allow a unified connection power that would bring France, Germany, and Russia together, oriented towards Eurasia. That was the great threat to the British Empire. At that time, it was Sergei Witte of Russia, the Trans-Siberian Railway, and the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, which would have cut right through the areas the British were trying to control. It was at Versailles at the end of World War I that many of these British plans came into full fruition, but it was going on throughout World War I.
The Sykes-Picot Treaty in 1915-16, which divided up the Middle East, was a key part of it. The Balfour Declaration to establish a so-called Jewish state in the Middle East, which became another aggravation point for the people living in that region. The whole question of what would happen with India, and the African continent—the British were conniving with the Belgians, the French, the Portuguese, and others to suppress national movements.
But the most important element to discuss here, is the focus on Eurasia, and in particular that the British, at the end of World War I, were moving to supplant the Ottoman Empire, the Turkish empire that had been collapsing for the last 50 years. If you look at the parade of National Security Advisors in the United States in recent Presidencies, you see this influence of British geopolitics.
Take Henry Kissinger, for example, who in 1982 told Chatham House, the location of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, that as Secretary of State, he was working from British working papers. He admitted to being a British agent when it came to strategic policy.
Then you take Zbigniew Brzezinski, who replaced Kissinger in the Carter Administration, who developed the Arc of Crisis strategy, which was to use armed Islamic rebellion to undermine the Soviet Union and China. Brzezinski was a student of the work of Sir Bernard Lewis, the principal Middle East expert in the middle of the 20th century, operating out of British and American universities. Lewis wrote numerous books and studies on the Ottoman Empire, a key focus for the British. How to make sure the Ottoman Empire was brought down in precisely a way that British operatives could move into the lands of Southwest Asia or the Middle East and create a permanent zone of British influence. Madeleine Albright was a protégé of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Susan Rice was a Rhodes scholar, which goes back to Cecil Rhodes’ vision of how to subvert America.
Then you look at this, and what have we been fighting in recent years? The so-called Afghan terrorism, which was a Brzezinski and George H.W. Bush creation, but stems from 120 years of the Great Game of British intervention into Afghanistan to protect the Indian subcontinent as a British colony and to stop Russia from moving southward towards the Indian Ocean. Look at the Iraq War—that’s Sir Richard Dearlove. Tony Blair and President Nicholas Sarkozy of France got President Barack Obama to go in and destroy Libya and make it a center for subversion of the rest of the Middle East, including Syria. This is the one where Gen. Michael Flynn got in trouble, because he exposed how the Obama administration was using weapons provided to Libyan terrorists to then move those weapons into Syria and into the hands of ISIS and al-Nusra.
What was the other aspect of this strategy in the recent period? The expansion of NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Keep in mind that Donald Trump, just before he was inaugurated as President, called NATO obsolete, saying it hadn’t changed for years and it failed in its most important mission of that period, which was helping in the war on terror. What was NATO doing? It was expanding eastward, trying to get a foothold in the former Soviet republics. In Georgia, in Ukraine after the February 2014 coup. Now we see it again.
Today’s Targets of Geopolitical
Regime-Change Coups
If you have a few minutes after we’re done today, get a map and look at this area of the former Soviet republics. What are we seeing today? Look at Belarus. There’s a regime-change coup underway there, which connects to this whole NATO expansion policy of targetting Putin and targetting Russia as a supposedly aggressive imperial power. But what do you find? Chatham House. In 2017, there was a conference at Chatham House, after the Ukraine coup. What they said at this conference was that the European Union and NATO must be fully prepared to move into Belarus when they have to choose between East and West. The same thing that was said by Victoria Nuland and her neo-con friends and her George Soros allies about Ukraine: You have to choose between East and West.
There had been a series of conferences before the August 9 so-called disputed presidential election in Belarus. On July 30th, The Economist had an article titled, “The Right Way to Get Rid of Lukashenko.” The Economist is a long-time mouthpiece for the British banks and the City of London. On September 10th, one conference produced a paper, “The Seven Ways the West Can Help Belarus,” which included not recognizing Alexander Lukashenko, which is now the European Union policy, and that of the UK and Canada.
Put non-governmental organizations on the ground—that’s where Soros and his friends come in. Promise a Marshall Plan, which really means no aid to actually develop the country, but instead bring in the IMF to manage Belarus’s finances, to impose austerity, and otherwise reduce the standard of living, as they’ve done so effectively in Ukraine. And finally, sanctions. How do sanctions help people in a country that’s caught up in a chaotic situation where they don’t have funds, they don’t have food, they don’t have medicine? This is the City of London; this is the policy that’s being conducted to break up the potential of a Putin-Trump summit.
In the Caucasus, a war has broken out between Armenia and Azerbaijan; perhaps there’s a temporary ceasefire, but one of the things we see about Armenia-Azerbaijan is the Turkish role in Azerbaijan. In the midst of this, when it’s acknowledged that Turkey is helping Azerbaijan with their attacks on Armenia, the British Defense Minister shows up in Ankara to meet with the Turkish Defense Minister to discuss increased British military supplies to Turkey.
In each of these cases where you see regime change, the target is not Belarus or Armenia; the target is Russia and China. The Hong Kong operation against China, and the Belarus, Ukraine, and others against Russia. The Navalny affair against Russian President Vladimir Putin. What’s the reality here?
The British Hand Continues
The system that was set up by the British Empire at the end of World War II was aimed at President Franklin Roosevelt’s conception of how nations can work together for the common aims of mankind. That’s what Roosevelt wanted to be done with the Bretton Woods; that’s what he intended with his meetings with Stalin. Instead, unfortunately due to his death, Truman came in, completely surrounded by a Wall Street crowd, by a grouping in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) that was tied to the Special Operations Executive (SOE) in England. The Dulles family typified this. Armand Hammer. There’s a whole list of these people who were directly connected with British intelligence. Instead, they subverted this goal of Roosevelt’s, so that in spite of the overall success of Bretton Woods, full decolonization was postponed and kicked down the road.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, this was the opportunity. Helga Zepp-LaRouche went through this in some useful detail last week. You can go back and look at that. But instead of using that as an opportunity to have a great-power agreement to establish a multi-lateral series of arrangements for economic development in the former Soviet countries, extending that into China, into Asia, into Africa, British geopolitics prevailed. In the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, with the idea of a “new world economic order,” we were given the next phase of the British Empire—the globalized free trade system, backed up by U.S. military might, with NATO as an arm of that. That’s where we were. You go into the 21st century, and we’ve been at war every year of the 21st century.
When you understand that, you understand the strategy of the British Empire: keep the old system going—the looting system, the neo-colonial system, the neo-imperial system. And to enforce it, or to provide the muscle for it from the United States. That’s what the George W. Bush administration did, and that’s what Obama did. And that’s what Donald Trump attacked in his 2016 campaign, when he said no more endless wars, no more globalized free trade agreements that end up looting the American people. No more fake science with anti-growth Green policies. This was a profound and fundamental threat to the British Empire. What did they do? They doubled down on geopolitics. More wars, more regime change. Then, they brought the regime change to the United States with the coup against President Trump.
The Major-Power Summit
Let’s go to what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing all year throughout this very chaotic and unpredictable year, 2020. She said that we have to defeat the coup. This means Donald Trump has to be re-elected. But to do that, you have to realize, you’re not just fighting an American enemy. You have to defeat the big enemy, and the big enemy is this blob that is centered in the City of London, which includes extremely prominent Wall Street networks. It includes what we were talking about before—the military-industrial complex. That’s who runs the John Brennans and the James Clappers. That’s who gives the marching orders to the Obamas and the Bush family, and to Joe Biden.
The reason a summit is so important, and is so much on the minds of this British enemy, is that if President Trump were able to sit down with Vladimir Putin, sit down with Xi Jinping, bring in the Indian government, bring in a few others eventually, to talk about what the common interests of these countries are, there’s no way they would conclude that the common interest is regime change wars, so-called democracy building coming from Wall Street and George Soros. In fact, they would soon discover common interests in a new financial system that bankrupts the City of London.
In that sense, the allies of the American people right now are the hopes and desires of the people of Russia and China, who want to improve their nations, want to end poverty. And want to work together with the Americans. This is what President Trump saw in Putin, and what he saw when he developed a friendship with President Xi Jinping. This has been targetted brutally. If you think that Russiagate has anything to do with Russian interference, then I’m afraid you’ve been brainwashed by the mainstream media. But likewise, if you think the solution to this is for the United States to go it alone, you’ve also been subject to the geopolitical doctrines that define human beings as divided into distinct categories with distinct interests and desires.
Instead, we have to raise ourselves up to the level and standards of the Founding Fathers. That we as Americans have a mission in the world to show that the government of, by, and for the people, as Lincoln said, not only can work, but is good for every nation. That’s the way we have to fight this. And that’s why a summit, or a series of summits, that include minimally Presidents Trump, Putin, and Xi, represents the way that you’re going to overthrow, once and for all, the British Empire and its geopolitical doctrine, and its neo-liberal economic policies.
