Connect with us

Americas

Time To Bring Lyndon LaRouche Out Of Exile

Published

on

Novel thinkers and those with original ideas, coupled with gifts of clairvoyance, are always initially challenged and ostracized by the masses, who are then used by corrupt political leadership to justify horrific actions of exclusion, persecution, and damnation of their enemies.

For more than 50 years, Lyndon LaRouche has been writing, lecturing, teaching, and warning Americans and the rest of the people of the world, about the exact same issues pertaining to economics, global governance, and the agenda of the Oligarch/ Plutocrat/ Deep State lunatic fringe who Donald Trump and the majority of America (and the world) are now fighting against.

To be sure, at the time Lyndon LaRouche was railing against these enemies of humanity in the 1970s and 80s, both before and during the Ronald Reagan administration, his enemies were so strong that they were able to character assassinate and marginalize him from political power, and they were also able to set him up for what he alleges was a false and contrived criminal case, sentencing this wise learned gentleman to prison for many years, where inside he was apparently attacked and attempts were made to murder him.

But Lyndon LaRouche, who is not only one of the world’s greatest thinkers/writers, is also one of its most resilient, and he survived this slow assassination plot hatched by his enemies, and is now living in Germany.

His enemies and betrayers were allegedly people like George H W Bush and the rest of the New World Order globalist/skull and bones secret societies, which were beholden to the City of London within the United Kingdom and its crown, rather than to the United States of America and its People.

To that end Lyndon LaRouche’s enemies have now been revealed, over the past few years especially, to be the enemies of the American People.

One recalls at a media press conference in the late 1990s, wherein James Woolsey, formerly head of the CIA, who is an open and avowed NWO globalist, openly castigated, humiliated, and verbally assaulted a member of the press corp asking a question that was both intelligent and insightful, as soon as Woolsey learned that this media representative was from the Executive Intelligence Review (“EIR”), funded, led and spearheaded by Lyndon LaRouche. James Woolsey has now been banished from the halls of power by the Donald Trump administration and the rest of America, for his political background/motivations have been revealed to the American public and the rest of the world, as have the rest of the rabid Neo-Cons, Neo-Liberals, and other Trotsky-ite communists and Stasi-like proponents of a technocratic global New World Order where the masses are considered cattle, and their ruling Oligarchs/Plutocrats are designed to be their sheep-herders.

Oscar Wilde wrote that “You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies” – well if that is the case then Lyndon LaLarouche may be the second coming of Christ.

Lyndon LaRouche has stated that the people who wanted him dead and gone were entities such as the Queen of the United Kingdom, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Justice Department, and the Mossad.

He further fingered the CIA and British intelligence, as well as Communists, extreme/militant Zionists, Narcotics Gangsters, the Rockefellers, powerful bankers, globalists, Henry Kissinger, Averell Harriman, international socialists and Nazis, and International Terrorists.

Whatever Lyndon LaRouche’s history and evolution throughout his life, much of which has been controversial and difficult to understand, one must admit that this list of enemies is truly impressive, and have now been established to be enemies of the American people and the rest of the world.

The problem is that 40-50 years ago, no one knew who these people were, or why they were motivated against him, as they had a complete and total stranglehold on the media and the power structure within the USA and the world, and so truly no one in the American masses knew about it.

Some of the issues and political agendas of Lyndon LaRouche that he has supported and espoused over the last 40-50 years resulted in his powerful enemies removing him from political power, forcing him away from his American podium, exiling him from the United States of America, and confining him to a prison for a dubious crime like Jean Valjean in Les Misérables:

(1) he is against rabid environmental protectionism, and instead opts for bolstering and growing the American and world economies through manufacturing, industry and great jobs;

(2) he has called out our corrupt political leadership who often engage in behavior/actions against the interests of the American people (and the world) because he has uncovered their allegiance to the City of London in the United Kingdom and British Crown, rather than the interests of the American people;

(3) he is a supporter of the international balance of power approach, against stupid foreign wars of intervention, as he discovered long ago that this was only in the interest of the international Oligarch/Plutocrat elite, while undermining and disenfranchising the American people (and the rest of the world);

(4) he is a supporter of better relations with all nations and countries of the world, trading honestly with all, entangling alliances with none, as was typified and instructed by Thomas Jefferson;

(5) he is a supporter of the BRICS banking paradigm, which seeks to challenge the bankster hegemony being foisted and perpetrated against the third and second world and its people, while simultaneously devaluing American currency and oppressing the citizens of the USA;

(6) he is 100% in favor of bringing high paying quality jobs in manufacturing, industry, and other hard employment with higher salaries and better longevity and working conditions back to the United States, after the awful carnage that was inflicted on the American people by the pro-NAFTA corporate/government fascist crowd, which sent tens of millions of American jobs and its corporations overseas (President Donald Trump has made this a cornerstone of his entire Presidential Administration, if not all of the above issues as well);

(7) he is for abolishing (or at least auditing) the Federal Reserve, which he views as the ultimate harbinger and source of evil, for which countless intellectual luminaries of the modern age have profoundly supported and espoused, but Lyndon LaRouche was talking about this 50 years ago;

(8) he is against wholesale and systematic corruption within all 3 branches of the US government, having traced its economic and financial fount to the City of London and its UK proponents;

(9) he is against a biased and corrupted media, speaking out against its rapid consolidation so that it could better brainwash and mind-control the American people and the rest of the world into accepting the long-term enslavement visions of the global Oligarchs and Plutocratic feudal masters who lurk in the shadows;

(10) He is completely against the doctrines of Neo-Conservatism in our foreign policy, against useless stupid foreign wars, and routinely calls out people like US State Department Chief Victoria Nuland for destroying and sabotaging other sovereign foreign nations in their bloodlust and thirst for global hegemony at the expense of the world’s people, and only beneficial to its Oligarch masters;

(11) A return to the Bretton Woods system, including a gold-based national and world monetary system, fixed exchange rates, and ending the IMF;

(12) Replacement of the central bank system, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, with a national bank;

(13) A war on drug trafficking and prosecution of banks involved in money laundering;

(14) Building of nuclear power plants;

(15) Opposition to excessive environmentalism, deregulation, outcome-based education, and abortion;

(16) Immediate reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act which separated private mom and pop checking/savings accounts from the risky “casino-like” investment habits/tactics of the major banks, the repeal of which in 1998 by then President Bill Clinton under pressure from Goldman Sachs/Treasury Secretaries/Economic Advisors Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling and others within the Central Banker cabal led directly to the financial cataclysm of 2008 wherein the American People were forced to bail out these reckless banks with their taxpayer dollars;

These are only a few of Lyndon LaRouche’s original and greatest original contributions to humanity for the past 50 years.

In December 1980, LaRouche and his followers started what came to be known as the “October Surprise” allegation, namely that in October 1980 Ronald Reagan’s campaign staff conspired with the Iranian government during the Iran hostage crisis to delay the release of 52 American hostages held in Iran, with the aim of helping Reagan win the 1980 presidential election against Jimmy Carter. The Iranians had agreed to this, according to the theory, in exchange for future weapons sales from the Reagan administration. The first publication of the story was in LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review on December 2, 1980, followed by his New Solidarity on September 2, 1983, alleging that Henry Kissinger, one of LaRouche’s regular targets, had met Iran’s Ayatollah Beheshti in Paris, according to Iranian sources in Paris. The theory was later echoed by former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr and former Naval intelligence officer and National Security Council member Gary Sick. This of course all led to the famous “Iran Contra Affair,” which resulted in several prosecutions and congressional inquiry into the “hidden hands” of backroom black market clandestine operations at the expense of the American people.

In 2002 LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review argued that the September 11, 2001, attacks had been an “inside job” and “attempted coup d’etat,” and that Iran was the first country to question it. The article received wide coverage in Iran, and was cited by senior Iranian government officials, including Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Hassan Rowhani. Mahmoud Alinejad writes that, in a subsequent telephone interview with the Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, LaRouche said the attacks had been organized by rogue elements inside the U.S., aiming to use the incident to promote a war against Islam, and that Israel was a dictatorial regime prepared to commit Nazi-style crimes against the Palestinians.

There are countless thousands of anecdotes and pieces of essential and important trivia regarding this great man’s life, and it would be impossible to list them all here.

According to George Johnson, LaRouche sees history as a battle between Platonists (eg Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz) who believe in absolute truth, and Aristotelians (eg Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume) who rely on empirical data.

According to Lyndon LaRouche, industry, technology, and classical music should be used to enlighten the world, whereas psychotherapy, drugs, rock music, jazz, environmentalism, and quantum theory simply bring about a new dark age in which the world will be ruled by the oligarchs.

LaRouche and his ideas have been called anti-semitic since at least the mid-1970s by dozens of individuals and organizations in countries across Europe and North America. LaRouche and his followers have responded to these allegations by claiming that LaRouche has countless Jewish supporters in his inner circle, and has vociferously denied these allegations.

In 1977 LaRouche married his current wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is German and 27 years younger than him. Her 1984 book, “The Hitler Book” argues that “We need a movement that can finally free Germany from the control of the Versailles and Yalta treaties, thanks to which we have staggered from one catastrophe to another for an entire century.” Helga founded the Schiller Institute, which has been accused of antisemitism by the Berliner Zeitung and Political Research Associates, a non-profit research group that studies right wing, white supremacist, and militia groups.

LaRouche maintains that he is anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic. When the Anti-Defamation League accused LaRouche of anti-semitism in 1979, he filed a $26-million libel suit.

Lyndon LaRouche said in 2006 wrote that “religious and racial hatred, such as antisemitism, or hatred against Islam, or, hatred of Christians, is, on record of known history, the most evil expression of criminality to be seen on the planet today.”

Now that Donald Trump is President of the United States, perhaps Lyndon LaRouche will be allowed to emerge from forced exile, as his enemies have now been outed and routed, and he should take his rightful place amongst one of America’s greatest heroes, thinkers, philosophers, writers, lovers of humanity and the United States of America.

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Will Geneva Be Any Different Than Helsinki?

Published

on

Joe Biden
Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz

Any meeting between the leaders of Russia and the U.S. is inevitably an important international event. At some point in history, such summits decided the fate of the entire world, and the world held its collective breath as it followed Kremlin-White House talks on strategic arms or the two sides seeking agreements on urgent regional problems or any political signals coming from the superpower capitals prior to another round of negotiations.

The bipolar era has long been gone, and the Russia-U.S. relations are no longer the principal axis of international politics, although the suspense over bilateral summits remains. As before, the two countries are engaged in “top-down” interaction. Summits give the initial impetus to Moscow and Washington’s cumbersome bureaucratic machines, then diplomats, military personnel and officials start their assiduous work on specific issues, collaboration between the two countries’ private sectors and civil society perks up, the media gradually soften their rhetoric, bilateral projects in culture, education and science are gradually resumed.

Still, there are annoying exceptions to this general rule. In particular, the latest full-fledged Russia–U.S. summit in Helsinki in July 2018 failed to trigger improvements in bilateral relations. On the contrary, Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Finland’s capital aroused massive resentment among the anti-Russian Washington establishment. Ultimately, on returning home, the U.S. President had to offer awkward apologies to his supporters and opponents alike, and relations between the two countries continued to rapidly deteriorate after the summit.

Surely, nobody is willing to see another Helsinki scenario in June 2021, this time in Geneva. Yet, do we have good reason to hope for a different outcome this time? To answer this question, let us compare Donald Trump and Joseph Biden’s approaches to Russia-U.S. summits and to bilateral relations at large.

First of all, in Helsinki, Trump very much wanted the Russian leader to like him. The Republican President avoided publicly criticizing his Russian counterpart and was quite generous with his compliments to him, which inevitably caused not only annoyance but pure outrage in Washington and in Trump’s own Administration. Joe Biden has known Vladimir Putin for many years; he does not set himself the task of getting the Russian leader to like him. As far as one can tell, the two politicians do not have any special liking for each other, with this more than reserved attitude unlikely to change following their meeting in Geneva.

Additionally, in Helsinki, Trump wanted, as was his wont, to score an impressive foreign policy victory of his own. He believed he was quite capable of doing better than Barack Obama with his “reset” and of somehow “hitting it off” with Putin, thereby transforming Russia if not into a U.S. ally, then at least into its strategic partner. Apparently, Biden has no such plans. The new American President clearly sees that Moscow-Washington relations will remain those of rivalry in the near future and will involve direct confrontation in some instances. The Kremlin and the White House have widely diverging ideas about today’s world: about what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, what is fair and what is unfair, where the world is heading and what the impending world order should be like. So, we are not talking about a transition from strategic confrontation to strategic partnership, we are talking about a possible reduction in the risks and costs of this necessarily costly and lengthy confrontation.

Finally, Trump simply had much more time to prepare for the Helsinki summit than Biden has had to prepare for Geneva. Trump travelled to Finland eighteen months after coming to power. Biden is planning to meet with Putin in less than five months since his inauguration. Preparations for the Geneva summit have to be made in haste, so the expectations concerning the impending summit’s outcome are less.

These differences between Biden and Trump suggest that there is no reason to expect a particularly successful summit. Even so, we should not forget the entire spectrum of other special features of the Biden Administration’s current style of foreign policy. They allow us to be cautiously optimistic about the June summit.

First, Donald Trump never put too much store by arms control, since he arrogantly believed the U.S. capable of winning any race with either Moscow or Beijing. So, his presidential tenure saw nearly total destruction of this crucial dimension of the bilateral relations, with all its attendant negative consequences for other aspects of Russia-U.S. interaction and for global strategic stability.

In contrast, Biden remains a staunch supporter of arms control, as he has already confirmed by his decision to prolong the bilateral New START. There are grounds for hoping that Geneva will see the two leaders to at least start discussing a new agenda in this area, including militarization of outer space, cyberspace, hypersonic weapons, prompt global strike potential, lethal autonomous weapons etc. The dialogue on arms control beyond the New START does not promise any quick solutions, as it will be difficult for both parties. Yet, the sooner it starts, the better it is going to be for both countries and for the international community as a whole.

Second, Trump never liked multilateral formats, believing them to be unproductive. Apparently, he sincerely believed that he could single-handedly resolve any burning international problems, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to North Korea’s nuclear missile programme.

Biden does not seem to harbor such illusions. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of multilateralism, and he clearly understands that collaboration with Russia is necessary on many regional conflicts and crises. Consequently, Geneva talks may see the two leaders engage in a dialogue on Afghanistan, on the Iranian nuclear deal, on North Korea, or even on Syria. It is not at all obvious that Biden will succeed in reaching agreement with Putin immediately on all or any of these issues, but the very possibility of them discussed at the summit should be welcomed.

Third, Trump was not particularly fond of career diplomats and, apparently, attached little value to the diplomatic dimension of foreign policy. The Russia-U.S. “embassy war” had started before Trump—but not only did Trump fail to stop it, he boosted it to an unprecedented scale and urgency.

Sadly, the “embassy war” continues after Trump, too. Yet President Biden, with his tremendous foreign policy experience, understands diplomatic work better and appreciates it. Practical results of the Geneva summit could include a restoration of the diplomatic missions in Washington and Moscow to their full-fledged status and a rebuilding of the networks of consular offices, which have been completely destroyed in recent years. Amid the problems of big politics, consular services may not seem crucial but, for most ordinary Russians and Americans, regaining the opportunity for recourse to rapid and efficient consular services would outweigh many other potential achievements of the Geneva summit.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Americas

“Choose sides” is practically a bogus idea for US military partners

Published

on

“Choosing sides” is practically a non-starter for US military allies such as Japan and South Korea. These nations, first and foremost military allies of the US, are forging cordial and productive ties with other countries based on military alliances with the US. The nature and level of partnerships varies greatly from those of allies, despite the fact that they appear to be quite heated at times.

Military concerns have been less important in the postwar period, but economic concerns have been extremely heated, social and cultural interactions have been close, and the qualitative differences between cooperative relations and allies have gotten confused, or have been covered and neglected.

Some unreasonable expectations and even mistakes were made. In general, in the game between the rising power and the hegemony, it is undesirable for the rising power to take the initiative and urge the hegemony’s supporters to select a side. Doing so will merely reinforce these countries’ preference for hegemony.

Not only that, but a developing country must contend with not only a dominant hegemony, but also a system of allies governed by the hegemony. In the event of a relative reduction in the power of the hegemony, the strength of the entire alliance system may be reinforced by removing restraints on allies, boosting allies’ capabilities, and allowing allies’ passion and initiative to shine.

Similarly, the allies of the hegemonic power are likely to be quite eager to improve their own strength and exert greater strength for the alliance, without necessarily responding to, much alone being pushed by, the leader. The “opening of a new chapter in the Korean-US partnership” was a key component of the joint statement issued by South Korea and the United States following the meeting of Moon Jae-in and Biden. What “new chapter” may a military alliance have in a situation of non-war?

There are at least three features that can be drawn from the series of encounters between South Korea and the United States during Moon Jae-visit in’s to the United States: First, the withdrawal of the “Korea-US Missile Guide” will place military constraints on South Korea’s missile development and serve as a deterrence to surrounding nations. The second point is that, in addition to the Korean Peninsula, military cooperation between the US and South Korea should be expanded to the regional level in order to respond to regional hotspots. The third point is that, in addition to military alliances, certain elements in vaccinations, chips, 5G, and even 6G are required. These types of coalitions will help to enhance economic cooperation.

Despite the fact that Vice President Harris wiped her hands after shaking hands with Moon Jae-in, and Biden called Moon Jae-in “Prime Minister” and other rude behaviors, the so-called “flaws” are not hidden, South Korea still believes that the visit’s results have exceeded expectations, and that Moon Jae-in’s approval rate will rise significantly as a result.

The joint statement issued by South Korea and the United States addresses delicate subjects such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Of course, China expresses its outrage. It is widely assumed that this is a “private cargo” delivered by Biden’s invitation to Moon Jae-in to visit the United States.

Moon Jae-in stated that he was not pressured by Biden. If this is correct, one option is that such specific concerns will not be handled at all at the summit level; second, South Korea is truly worried about the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea concerns and wishes to speak with the US jointly.

South Korea should be cognizant of China’s sensitivity to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea concerns. When it comes to China-related concerns, the phrasing in the ROK-US joint statement is far more mild than that in the ROK-Japan joint declaration. Nonetheless, the harm done to South Korea-China ties cannot be overlooked.

South Korea highlights the “openness” and “inclusiveness” of the four-party security dialogue system, which allows South Korea to engage to some extent. South Korea will assess the net gain between the “gain” on the US side and the “loss” on the Chinese side. China would strongly protest and fiercely respond to any country’s measures to intervene in China’s domestic affairs and restrict China’s rise.

Continue Reading

Americas

Political Violence and Elections: Should We Care?

Published

on

The next Sunday 6th of June, the Chamber of Deputies along with 15 out of the 32 governorships will be up for grabs in Mexico’s mid-term elections. These elections will be a crucial test for the popularity of the president and his party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA). They currently hold majority in the Lower Chamber of the national Congress, and these elections could challenge this.

Recent national polls indicate that the ruling party, MORENA, is still the most popular political force in Mexico, and they are poised to win not only several governorships, but also several municipalities. They are also expected to maintain control of the Lower  Chamber, although with a loss of a few seats. In order to ensure MORENA keeps its current majority in the Congress, they have decided to pursue an electoral alliance with the Green Party (PVEM) and the Labout Party (PT). It is expected that with this move, they will be able to ensure the majority in the Chamber of Deputies in the Congress.

There is, however, another aspect that is making the headlines in this current electoral process: The high levels of political and electoral violence, The current electoral process is the second most violent since 2000. The number of candidates that have been assassinated is close to 30% higher than the mid-term electoral process of 2015. More than 79 candidates have been killed so far all across the country.

Insecurity in Mexico has been an ongoing issue that has continued to deteriorate during the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO). AMLO has continually criticised his predecessors and the valid problems of their approaches to insecurity in Mexico along with the War on Drugs policy. However, to date, he has yet to offer a viable alternative to tackle the security problems he inherited. During his campaign, AMLO coined the phrase “abrazos no balazos” (hugs not bullets) to describe his approach toward improving security in Mexico. He believed that to successfully tackle the worsening crisis of insecurity, the structural conditions that forced people to commit crimes had to be addressed first: Namely inequality, poverty, low salaries, lack of access to employment etc. To date, insecurity in Mexico continues to worsen, and this had become evident during the current electoral process.

This nonsensical approach to insecurity has resulted in the first three years of his government reaching over 100,000 murders, along with the nearly 225,000 deaths as a result of the pandemic.

What should be particularly worrying in this spiral of violence, is the prevalence of political and electoral violence during the current process. Political violence represents not only a direct attack on democratic institutions and democracy itself, but it also compromises the independence, autonomy, and integrity of those currently in power, and those competing for positions of power. It affects democracy also because political violence offers a way for candidates to gain power through violent means against opposition, and this also allows organised crime to infiltrate the state apparatus.

Political violence is a phenomenon that hurts all citizens and actors in a democracy. It represents a breeding ground for authoritarianism, and impunity at all levels of government. This limits the freedoms and rights of citizens and other actors as it extinguishes any sort of democratic coexistence between those currently holding political power and those aspiring to achieve it. Political violence also obstructs the development of democracy as it discredits anyone with critical views to those in power. This is worrying when we consider that 49% of those assassinated belong to opposition parties. This increase in political violence has also highlighted AMLO´s inability to curtail organised crime and related violence.

Assassination of candidates is only the tip of the iceberg. Organised criminal groups have also infiltrated politics through financing of political campaigns. Most of electoral and political violence tends to happen an municipal levels, where it is easier for criminal groups to exert more pressure and influence in the hope of securing protection, and perpetuate impunity, or securing control over drug trafficking routes. This should be especially worrisome when there is close too government control in certain areas of the country, and there is a serious risk of state erosion at municipal level in several states.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending