Author: David

An interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche by Jason Ross from LaRouchePAC

View full online interview from the Friday, August 5, 2017 Webcast here.

ROSS: So, for the show today, as a brief bit of set up before we get into Helga, this week we saw Donald Trump sign the sanctions bill that had been passed by the House and the Senate — HR3364 — which targets Iran, North Korea, and Russia with sanction. Part of this bill claims as a given that Russia interfered with the US election; part of this bill says that the United States will never recognize Crimea as part of Russia; and it ties the President’s hands in many ways regarding sanctions with Russia and making a large number of diplomatic priorities, diplomatic requirements passed by the House and the Senate rather than through the Executive Branch. Donald Trump signed the bill this week, issuing a signing statement about the parts of the bill that he finds to be unconstitutional. Trump tweeted just yesterday that “Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time and dangerous low. A very dangerous low. You can thank Congress for this,” he says.

Russia responded by calling for the expulsion of a certain number of US diplomats to reach the level of Russian diplomats in the United States; something similar to what President Obama had done with Russian diplomats and Russian diplomatic property, etc. What this means overall, is that it’s really increasing the pressure on US-Russian relations and making it very difficult for Trump to follow through on one of his campaign promises, which was the potential reaching of a détente with Russia. As he had famously said, “It’s not bad to get along with Russia; that’s a good thing.”

Helga, I’d like to bring you on to address your view of this. I know that your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has said that if this coup against Trump succeeds, this makes the threat of nuclear war very much on the table. Could you tell us your view of the situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. I think this is not just a Senate vote, or a Congress vote; but this is about the President in American history since its founding. Because what this does, is it completely overturns the American Constitution, which gives the power to define foreign policy to the President, and which has the separation of powers. Now, according to the present situation, after the Congress and the Senate voted with this overwhelming majority to impose sanctions, if President Trump would want to undo that, he would have to send a letter to the Congress; and the Congress would have to respond in 30 days to either approve it or oppose it. That is Congress hijacking the power to define policy from the President. I think the American people better wake up to the fact that what is being taken away is the American Constitution. I would think that every American patriot who loves America, and I know the American people are generally very patriotic; they have to understand this moment. Because this can not go and let go. This has so many implications.

My husband, Lyndon LaRouche, said that if this is going to remain, then we are back to the immediate confrontation against Russia — and also China — as we were with the Obama administration and the control of the neo-cons; who have controlled United States policy for two terms of George W Bush, two terms of Obama. It was these neo-cons who were completely upset that a systemic outsider, or somebody not belonging to the system — like Donald Trump — won the election. I remember very well that on the 21st of January, already the British paper {The Spectator} had a headline where they said, it’s just a question if Trump will be gotten out of office by impeachment, by a coup, or by assassination. The motion towards impeachment is fully underway, as you know. The special counsel Robert Mueller, it was just revealed that he has already a grand jury, which is supposed to be secret; but a leak again leaked it to {The Guardian} and other media. So the aim of that clearly is to advocate some story showing ties of Trump or his team to Russia.

Now, let me just be very emphatic. The truth about this matter has to be gotten out. It is historically of the highest significance that the organization of the VIPS — the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — former high-ranking intelligence officials from various intelligence of the United States, about a week ago addressed a memorandum to President Trump; where they established, based on their indisputable expertise, forensic evidence that there was no Russian hack. Instead, there was insider leaking; someone just downloaded the data from the DNC computers, and then masqueraded the whole affair as if it would have been done by the Russians. To investigate this and to not discuss these findings of the VIPS memorandum, that is the most important way to derail this coup. Fortunately, one of the Congressmen who had the courage to vote against this complete atrocity — Dana Rohrabacher — already commented on the VIPS memorandum. I think we must mobilize the American population to demand that the Congress invite the VIPS representatives to testify, to present their evidence, and indeed that the efforts of such people like Congressman Nunes, who is investigating who did the unmasking, who are the leakers. The efforts by Senator Grassley to do likewise; that must be supported. In general otherwise, I think this Congress has completely discredited itself. The approval rate of the Congress right now, according to the latest polls, is just 10%; I think this is also an historic low.

But I think it now depends on the American people; and you should find all kinds of organizations and institutions representing the people backing up President Trump. Justice has to be done; the leakers have to be investigated; and the truth has to be re-established. This is of the highest strategic importance. This is not only an inner American affair, I think the Russian characterizations that this is an internal fight are not correct. I think this is something much more sinister. The former weapons inspector of Iraq, Scott Ritter, who used to be the weapons inspector during the Iraq War, made a very profound characterization. He said, the fact that you had this complete uni-zonal voice by the US media, the FBI, other US intelligence agencies, and almost unilaterally both houses of Congress; how do you get such complete — in German you would say “gleichzeiten”[ph] — how do you get such a complete uni-zonal performance? Scott Ritter points to the question that this points to a much broader conspiracy going on in the American society. I know that people normally completely get unnerved when you mention the word “conspiracy”, but I don’t think there is another word to characterize what is going on. You have what people nowadays call “Deep State” trying to undo the election of an American President; but you have the British role in all of this. I think that there is an effort by the British Empire, having re-established control over US institutions, to go back to what we had once with the neo-cons in 1992 — the Wolfowitz Doctrine; which was the idea that the United States should never allow another country or another group of countries to bypass the military-political or military power of the United States. Now, that was the coup of the neo-cons after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and they proceeded to try to establish an unipolar world. I think that is exactly expressed in what the Congress did with the sanctions, and by implication it means back to the confrontation with Russia, and naturally the repeated stress in the relationship with China.

So, this is a warpath. This has incredible implications. I just want to mention a couple of them. First of all, Prime Minister Medvedev reacted much more sharply than President Putin. He said this ends the hope for an improvement between the United States and Russia. Then, you had various commentary by Chinese publications which offered to help Russia against the effects of the sanctions; and also said this will just mean a much closer relationship between Russia and China, and together we have a deterrence against the United States. Now that is not what the Chinese want; they have offered the cooperation to the United States to join the Belt and Road Initiative, but that is what it leads to.

Let me just point to two other side effects of this. That is the relationship with Europe, because the sanctions primarily target the Russian natural gas delivery and the idea of building another pipeline — the Northstream II; which Germany needs, because the oil supply from Saudi Arabia, the Middle East is very tricky because of the unstable situation there. The oil reserves in the North Sea are emptying out. Obviously the sanctions would, because the United States insists that they have an extraterritorial command, that it would all firms which produce materials, construction service to any energy project with the Russians. This is completely impossible. It would also target, for example, European investors in the United States if they do business with Russia, they could be expropriated in the United States, or their capital frozen, or things like that. This is causing havoc. The European Union, the German government, already have said that they will consider countermeasures; that this may lead to trade war. Amazingly, a leading think tank which is close to the German government, one spokesman just said this will backfire, because why should countries which are targetted by the sanctions help to implement them? So, he predicts that this will be a boomerang for the Americans; but naturally, a very dangerous one. Also, various German industry associations came out and said this is completely unacceptable.

More fundamentally, it brings up the question of international law. Why would the United States think that their US law can be applied all over the world? This is a violation of international law, and therefore this is an unprecedented crisis. It has, as I said, implications for the American Constitution, for international law, for the relationship with Russia and China; it can break apart the alliance with Europe for the first time. So, I think people really much understand, this must be Undone.

ROSS: Great! Now, I think that really sets the stage very well. If I could ask you to elaborate on a certain point of that. You had brought up the idea that people have a “Deep State” running the United States. Where it isn’t just this single bill, but for a long time there’s been a growing power of certain agencies within the US. Let me ask you a question about a couple of ways that people interpret these things. One is that there is simply a Cold War mentality that hasn’t been overcome; people are living in the past and still see Russia as a threat, comparing it to the Soviet Union in their minds. Another is the idea of the “Deep State”; that the intelligence agencies have developed a sort of lust for power on their own. Take the image of J Edgar Hoover for example; and that these agencies want to run the United States for a certain reason. You brought up something that most commentators don’t, which is the British; or that there’s something outside of US domestic policy that’s shaping this opposition to cooperation with Russia. And you’ve also in your many trips to China and your work on the World Land-Bridge — the Belt and Road Initiative, have a very deep appreciation of another paradigm that’s increasingly taking hold in the world.

Could you say more for our viewers about what you see as the shortcomings with the “Deep State” or Cold War idea? In other words, what is really pushing this opposition to cooperation with Russia? What can we do about it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is a remnant of geopolitics, and geopolitics is the idea that you have a group of nations or one nation which has a fundamental interest against another nation or another group of nations; and if need be, can also fight for this with wars. It was that thinking which led to two World Wars in the 20th Century, and obviously if we don’t overcome this in the age of thermonuclear weapons, what we are talking about is the danger of extinction of the human race if it would come to war. We are much closer to this than most people even wish to recognize. When the Soviet Union disintegrated between ’89 and ’91, there would have been the possibility to have a lasting peace order. Communism had been defeated, and we proposed at that time the Eurasian Land-Bridge; we called it already then the New Silk Road. It was the idea to establish a new paradigm of cooperation in the interest of all participating countries. That would have been a policy very much changing the course of history, but at that time you had Margaret Thatcher, you had Bush, Sr., you had Mitterand; and they decided that to prevent Russia from ever coming up again from reducing the Soviet Union which was a superpower into a Russia which would just be a raw material-producing Third World country. They decided instead of having a peace order, let’s go the old Anglo-American policy of running the world as an empire; and let’s impose a unipolar world. That was the policy of the ’90s, of the early 2000s; this was the idea of regime change, this was the idea of color revolution. This has been the policy of the wars based on lies in Afghanistan, Iraq, the murder of Qaddafi; these policies have destroyed the Middle East. They have caused the refugee crisis; they almost triggered the collapse of the European Union, because there is no Union as it was becoming clear in the course of the refugee crisis.

So, this policy is now about to explode. Alan Greenspan, of all people — the person who again and again warned of irrational exuberance — just came out and said there is another bond bubble blow-out coming, and this will trigger a collapse of the stock market. This empire is collapsing, and that is why I think there is such a desperation to prevent the rise of China; even if China has offered a completely different model, not based on geopolitics but based on a “win-win” cooperation; where all nations cooperating with the New Silk Road Belt and Road Initiative would profit.

I think what’s really at stake here, is do we go back to the British Empire? And people who know American history, know very well that the British Empire never gave up the idea of re-conquering the United States. George III lost his marbles at the time of the American Revolution, and they tried to win America back; first in the War of 1812, then in the Civil War; where the British Empire was allied with the Confederacy. They financed the Confederacy through the East Coast banks. Then after that, they realized it cannot be done militarily, so then the British tried to subvert the American establishment and convince them to run the world as an empire based on the Anglo-American special relationship.

If you look at the whole operation against Trump, which really started long before Trump had won the election; it was British Intelligence which started the dossiers which fabricated intelligence. But it was then helped naturally by the US intelligence agencies, where the structure still came from the Obama period. So, you have really, “Deep State” is too short a formulation, because it does not include the fact that this is a British coup. The collusion is not with Russia; the collusion is with this British Empire. Americans have to understand that their entire revolution is at stake; the Constitution — which is still one of the most fantastic documents in terms of constitutions in the world — this is in total danger. It is already taken over, and the American people must undo that.

ROSS: Strong words. Thank you very much. I think that the mission that we’ve got ahead of us is pretty clear at this point then. We see some opportunities of what can occur if we throw off this world conflict mentality. Just one example would be President Trump’s ending of the Obama program to arm Syrian “rebel” groups, so-called. That act alone is a real change in direction from the past decade and a half of regime change wars that we’ve had. Saying we’re not going to do this anymore. You say, OK, we could have things like if we give up on this push for conflict.

I’d like to end the show here with some ideas about things that people can do, and some reports on what people have been doing. One thing is the VIPS memo that we’ve discussed and that we’ve covered on this website a fair amount. We’ve had a lot of activity around the country; we can show you a few pictures of this in a moment, of the kinds of activity that we’ve been engaged in — rallies on the street here in New York City. You can see one more. This is very important that we get this story out, because it’s absolutely explosive; and it is working, it is getting out. This is something that, as was mentioned, Congressman Rohrabacher has brought up; this is something that’s being brought up by many of the alternative news sources. Oliver Stone brought it up again recently, and it’s something that people around the country are bringing up in places like meetings held by Congressmen. For example, Ted Lew recently had a town hall meeting in his district, and he was asked by a LaRouche PAC activist, “Hey! If the DNC computers were hacked, why has the FBI never investigated them?” Just take this story apart. We’ve had letters to the editor written in decent numbers getting into papers across the country. We’ve had people taking out advertisements in local newspapers, saying you need to know about this story about the Russian hack being an inside job. Read the VIPS Memo; go to the LaRouche PAC website.

We’ve got a supporter holding a yard sale to raise funds for the LaRouche PAC. We’ve got people holding rallies in their hometowns. One example in Connecticut, where a LaRouche supporter said “I’m going to have a rally in front of my town hall.” He pulled it together, we had a good successful rally there covered by the town press and everything. City councils, radio interviews. There’s a lot of activity going on. We were outside Chuck Schumer’s office, for example, in New York; asking people where they thought we ought to chuck Schumer, which would be a wonderful idea. There’s very much to do. This word absolutely must be spread in conjunction with what that alternative can be.

So, I’d like to thank Helga Zepp-LaRouche for being on with us today. I’d like to ask if you do have any further comments to wrap up the show with?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s one of these moments in history where it is individual which counts. I know many people have become depressed because they think there is nothing one can do anyway; but I think we are as close to World War III right now as we are to a completely new paradigm. Just envision a future where America would be friends of other countries again. Most people like Americans; they don’t like the present coup, and they didn’t like the British policies coming from the American government for the last 16 years. But the American people have expressed something very important with the election of President Trump. If the people of America right now would seize the opportunity to back up this President, Trump has started to improve the relationship with Xi Jinping; he has found a good conversation level with Putin at the G-20 in Hamburg. China has offered to help rebuild the infrastructure in the United States, to invite the United States to join the Belt and Road Initiative around the world. Why can’t the United States, Russia, and China, as the three most important nations, work together? If that can be accomplished, can you imagine that we have a secure peace in the world? That we can work together to eliminate poverty not just in the United States, but everywhere? I think these are the questions we should talk about, and I have a tremendous confidence that there is something very good in the American people that will prevail.

On July 25, in a flagrantly unconstitutional action, the United States House of Representatives voted 419 to 3 to impose harsh sanctions against the nation of Russia. This action was followed two days later when the United States Senate voted 98 to 2 for the sanctions bill. This legislation imposes new sanctions, codifies existing penalties into law—including the harsh sanctions imposed by Barack Obama in 2016—and gives Congress veto power over any attempt by President Trump to remove or relax them. With these votes, the Congress has acted to effect an illegal seizure of the direction of foreign policy from the duly elected President. The primary argument that was utilized in justifying these anti-Russia measures was the lie that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election, through “hacking” and other means.

The combined vote, in both houses, was 517 to 5. Such folly and lemming-like uniform cowardice has probably not been seen in the United States Congress since the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, a resolution which passed the Congress by a vote of 504 to 2. That vote, from fifty-three years ago, ushered in a decade of war, which killed tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese, and plunged the United States into a deep cultural and political despair. Today, the stakes for the United States—and for all of humanity—are much, much higher. The U.S. Congress, backed by the establishment media, has now acted to wreck the peace initiatives of the Trump administration and put the world back on a trajectory toward war.

There were five heroes who opposed this madness. They are: Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Representatives Justin Amash (R-Mich.), John Duncan (R-Tenn.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Not a single Democrat voted against the sanctions bill!

This vote for a policy of war is the result of the decades-long penetration of the United States government by allies and servants of the British Empire. Recall that it was Tony Blair and his fake Dodgy Dossier which set the stage for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Recall that it was Britain which partnered with the Bush and Obama administrations in effecting a massive NATO military expansion, in the overthrow and murder of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, in the 2014 Nazi coup d’état in the Ukraine, and in continuing military confrontation with China in East Asia. It is the British System, and its legacy of geopolitics, which is behind all of this, and it is their corruption of U.S. intelligence agencies, the establishment news media and the leadership of both major political parties which has brought us to this moment of crisis.

Under Barack Obama, the United States, in alliance with Britain, implemented a policy of aggressive military confrontation with both Russia and China—this, accompanied by a parallel policy of illegal global “regime changes,” as well as support for ISIS terrorists. Donald Trump, in his election campaign, vowed to reverse these policies, and as President, he has taken steps to correct the worst of these crimes. These steps include, but are not limited to, his personal discussions with both Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, as well as his decision to end the CIA’s covert program to arm and train Syrian rebels now battling the government of Bashar al-Assad.

The insane and cowardly U.S. Congress has now voted to sabotage these peace initiatives by the President and to revive the war drive of the Obama administration, a war drive fully endorsed by Hillary Clinton. This is not what the people of the United States voted for in 2016. Forty-three percent of Democratic Party voters cast their ballots for Bernie Sanders, stating emphatically their desire to overturn the neocon policies of the Obama regime. In the general election, Donald Trump won thirty states and defeated Hillary Clinton by almost eighty electoral votes. Congress has now acted, not only against the peace initiatives of President Trump, but in flagrant defiance of the wishes of the American people.

At the same time, this action occurs as Lyndon LaRouche and other economists are warning of a near-term eruption of a financial and banking crisis worse than 2007-2008. Such a monetary blow-out will unleash chaos in the United States and Europe, the repercussions of which can only heighten the strategic danger. The stakes for humanity have never been this high.

Lies, Lies, and More Lies

During the past week, three interventions have been made which utterly demolish all claims that the Russian government “hacked” Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers in an effort to influence the 2016 U.S. elections. The evidence presented in these interventions utterly demolishes the rationale put forward to justify the new anti-Russia sanctions.

On July 24, the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (an organization comprised of former FBI, NSA, CIA and other intelligence experts) released a Memorandum for President Trump, wherein they demonstrate that the release of DNC files far more likely came from a “leak,” not a “hack,” and they also document, conclusively, that the allegations of Russian involvement are a fairy tale, a created narrative which has no evidence to support it. On July 27, Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, published his own review of the VIPS findings, titled “Time to Reassess the Roles Played by Guccifer 2.0 and Russia in the DNC ‘Hack.’” Although Ritter takes exception to a few of the details contained in the Memorandum, he emphatically states, “To date there has been no examination worthy of the name regarding the facts that underpin the accusations at the center of the American argument against Russia—that the GRU hacked the DNC server and used Guccifer 2.0 as a conduit for the release of stolen documents in a manner designed to influence the American presidential election. The VIPS memorandum of July 24, 2017, questions the veracity of these claims. I believe these doubts are well founded.” Then, on July 28, LaRouche PAC conducted a live interview with Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and former Chair of the National Intelligence Estimates, who was one of the signers of the VIPS Memorandum. In that interview, McGovern details the VIPS findings, including the computer forensic investigation of independent analyst Skip Folden, a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology. McGovern presents both the fraudulent nature of the Guccifer 2.0/Russian hacking narrative as well as the political motivations behind the lies. Further details of the evidence in this case will not be presented here. It is all available in the Internet links cited above.

It is important to recall that all of the current furor was kicked off with an announcement by Julian Assange on June 12, 2016, when he stated in a mass-circulation interview on Britain’s ITV, that “we have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are awaiting publication.” It is also important to emphasize that Assange has stated repeatedly that the documents he released came from a “leak,” not a “hack.” The documents posted by Assange proved conclusively that the DNC was covertly working with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to run dirty tricks against then Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. No one in the DNC or the Clinton entourage has ever denied the validity of the documents released by Assange; and the proof of DNC intervention into the primary process on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and against Bernie Sanders, was so strong that DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign. The subsequent, alleged Guccifer 2.0 “hacks” were all designed to both discredit Assange and to create the false flag allegations of “Russian interference.” It is precisely the fraudulent nature of the Guccifer 2.0 narrative that the VIPS Memorandum addresses.

The Coup d’État Means War

Lyndon LaRouche has stated that if the coup d’etat against President Trump succeeds, we will have nuclear war.

With certainty, it can be stated that both Russia and China are paying very close attention to developments in the United States. And they are taking steps to protect themselves. In Russia, on July 30, a Main Naval Parade was held for the first time in modern Russia’s history—on Navy Day, in celebration of the creation of the Russian Navy by Peter the Great in 1696. For the first time it brought together ships from Russia’s Baltic, Black Sea, Northern, and Pacific Fleets, with its Caspian Flotilla, for a total of 5,000 sailors—and for the first time in modern Russian history, it was inspected by Russia’s President. Putin’s short address began by affirming that “Russia’s history is inseparable from the victories of its courageous and fearless Navy. Our country’s status as a strong marine power has been achieved through the brave acts of sailors and officers, the inventive talent of our shipbuilders and the daring exploits of sea explorers.”

At the same time, in China, the 90th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army was celebrated by a military parade, for the first time since the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949. It was held at Zhurihe, in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, at China’s biggest military base, which specializes in training in advanced technology. The Wall Street Journal reports that new, more-capable ICBMs were displayed with other new weapons, and 12,000 mechanized troops.

China’s official news agency Xinhua reports that this was the first time President Xi Jinping has overseen such a large parade at a military base. It noted that “Late leaders Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping also inspected troops in the field at key moments in history.”

In his address, Xi said, “The world is not all at peace, and peace must be safeguarded.”

At this point, the members of Congress who voted for the sanctions bill against Russia can only be described as—witting or unwitting — accomplices in this war drive. And those members of Congress who continue to retail the line that the “Russians hacked the election,” or that the “Trump is in bed with the Russians,” stand exposed as imbeciles, liars, or cowards. There is no fourth choice. The political establishment—including leading elements of both major parties—wishes to overturn the election and to return the country to a policy of financial looting and a build-up for war.

It is clear that many members of Congress are terrified of the FBI, the CIA, and other parts of the Intelligence establishment, including such unofficial bodies as AIPAC. What many fail to see, is that behind these spook apparatchiks, lies the guiding hand of British geopolitics. We are dealing with a corrupted American political establishment. Last November, the American people did not vote for a policy of NATO expansion, nuclear weapons modernization, violent regime changes, military confrontation with China in Asia, and strategic confrontation with Russia.

The American people did not vote for war. Why did your Congressman?

The following is an excerpt from a presentation made by Will Wertz from the editorial board of EIR Magazine at the LaRouche PAC Manhattan Project Meeting on August 5,2017. It was a master class on the British system and the British role in instigating the ongoing coup against President Trump. The full presentation, including a question and answer session, is available here.

WILL WERTZ: Thank you. I’m going to start out with a comment that Lyndon LaRouche made earlier this week, which is embedded in what Helga just said. Lyn said, “The American people must demand that the ongoing treasonous British coup against the U.S. Presidency and the nation itself, must be stopped and its perpetrators prosecuted and imprisoned. The British system must be cancelled, and the President must make every effort to save the people of this country and the rest of humanity from further British-directed deprivations against their lives. Cancel the British; save the people!”

Now what I want to do today is to address the role of the British in the current coup against the Presidency and in a general policy of subversion of the United States as a nation, of its Constitution, going back any number of years.

The way I’ll begin is just by addressing the coup against the Presidency. We have the VIPS statement which Helga referenced; and this is put out by the steering committee of their organization, and these are all top-level former intelligence officials. We did an interview with Ray McGovern who is on that steering committee, on our website just recently. What they did is the first forensic analysis of the so-called “Russian hack”. What they established, based on the postings of the data — they did not have access to the actual computer of the DNC; what they established is that it could not physically have been carried out over the internet, because the internet is physically incapable of downloading the volume of data in the time that it took. So therefore, as Wikileaks has maintained and others have maintained, this was an inside job in which the emails were downloaded onto some sort of data carrier — thumb drive, or what have you. The second point is that this second intervention into the DNC computer system deliberately left footprints were left which would direct the investigation towards a Russian hack. As Wikileaks recently exposed in releasing information called Vault VII, the CIA under Brennan developed a capability of falsely attributing a hack to another country — specifically Russia. They name a number of others that they had the capability of doing that with.

Let me just go back to the British role in this entire attack on the Presidency. Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the Presidency on June 16, 2015. There’s an article which appeared in the Guardian — this was April 13, 2017. But the Guardian came out on this date, April 13, 2017, with an article which is entitled “British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia”. What this article says is that GCHQ, the British spy agency monitoring all the world’s communications , first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious interactions between figures connected to Trump and known or suspected Russian agents. So, this surveillance of Trump begins really within a matter of months after he announced his candidacy for the Presidency — by British Intelligence.

Then what’s reported is that — the Guardian article is very funny; they say, “It is understood that GCHQ was at no point carrying out a targetted operation against Trump or his team, or proactively seeking information. The alleged conversations were picked up by chance.” Now, what’s reported is that in 2016, Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, went directly to Brennan of the CIA, and informed him of so-called “intelligence” that had been gathered by GCHQ and most likely by MI-6, the British foreign intelligence agency — the equivalent of the CIA. What’s reported is that as a result of Hannigan coming and speaking to Brennan, Brennan initiated a multi-agency U.S. intelligence investigation of Trump. This is in August of 2016 in the middle of the Presidential campaign. Brennan also went and briefed the “Gang of 8”, which are the [leading] members of the [House and Senate] Intelligence Committees, and [the Congressional] leadership of both parties. So, the Republicans and Democrats are being briefed by Brennan on the basis of intelligence gathered by a foreign intelligence agency — GCHQ — against a Presidential campaign in the middle of the campaign. And of course the investigation which was launched by Brennan involved the FBI, the NSA, and CIA. One wonders whether it’s within the charter of the CIA to be launching investigations domestically against a U.S. Presidential candidate..

Both GCHQ and MI-6 were involved in this operation; which is why the real collusion is between the Obama administration and their intelligence agency stooges like Brennan, Comey, and Clapper, and British Intelligence. Let me just say in terms of the British concern for the U.S. Constitution; what they point out is that the Guardian was told that the FBI and CIA were slow to appreciate the intelligence being provided to them by MI-6 and GCHQ. Then they write, “This was in part due to U.S. law that prohibits U.S. agencies from examining the private communications of U.S. citizens without warrants” — otherwise called the Constitution. “They are trained not to do this.”

Now, we have an additional aspect to this, which is Christopher Steele, a so-called “former” agent of MI-6. But we know from this report that MI-6 was also providing intelligence to the FBI and the CIA. Christopher Steele produced a dossier. He has a company called Orbis Business Intelligence, based in London. He was hired by Fusion GPS, a U.S.-based company, allegedly the report that he was commissioned to write was paid for by supporters of Hillary Clinton. So, he put together this dossier, and then the dossier was given to the FBI; given to Brennan of the CIA with unverified, slanderous material. But that report, to this day, remains the roadmap for the investigation being carried out by Mueller, the special counsel; and prior to that, by Comey.

The other figure in all this is the former acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe. When he began in the FBI, he was the head of the Eurasian organized crime unit in New York City, from 2003-2006. Christopher Steele has admitted publicly that he was working with that unit, at least from the time period of 2010. Many believe that McCabe was Steele’s FBI handler in the treason unleashed against President Trump.

This is all the result of the U.S.-British special relationship, so called. It should be noted that after World War II, in 1946, there was something called the U.S.-U.K. Agreement, which set up to monitor the then-Soviet Union; but this agreement continues to this day, and is designed to monitor the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations. It eventually morphed into what’s called the Five Eyes. Initially, it was just Britain and the United States; but then it included Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. It’s this apparatus which is involved in the surveillance of Trump. GCHQ is the centerpiece of this. GCHQ has about 5500 employees; that’s the kind of operation you’re talking about. Snowden, for instance, I think it was in 2013 perhaps, exposed one of the programs of the Five Eyes, which is called Echelon. The basic thing about this is, as he put it, it is a “supranational intelligence organization that doesn’t answer to the known laws of its own countries.” So, they can use the excuse that the CIA or the NSA is not doing it, GCHQ is doing it, or other members of the Five Eyes; when in fact, the U.S. is directly involved in the entire surveillance operation.

I’m going to use one other example of the British operation; and that’s the chemical weapons case in Syria. Because what you have is, two of the biggest alleged crimes in modern history, the so-called hacking of the DNC computer and chemical attack at Idlib Province in Syria, which became the basis for the U.S. launching a military attack on the Syrian airbase. In both of these cases, the crime scene was never secured. In both of these cases, the crime scene was never investigated. The DNC refused to allow the FBI to investigate their computers. So, we have an entire story about how the Russians hacked the DNC, but we’ve never examined the computer. Similarly, the OPCW, which is the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, has never gone to the site of the alleged sarin attack, allegedly by the Syrian Air Force–never been there.

I’m raising this chemical attack because it’s further evidence of the British involvement in operations against the United States. Steven Wallace, citizen of the U.K., is the head of one of the fact-finding missions that is responsible for working with the Syrian government. Leonard Phillips is a citizen of the U.K. who works with the Syrian rebels. So, the investigation to extent which it occurred, took place under the responsibility of two U.K. citizens; and it should be pointed out that not only was the site of the attack never investigated, but also the Syrians offered to bring investigators to the airfield so that that could be investigated. If chemical weapons had been used from that site, it would have been evident; it couldn’t have been hidden from the investigators, and neither of these things was done.

We have also pointed out that the doctor from Idlib Province and remember Idlib Province is controlled by al-Nusra, which is al-Qaeda; that’s the excuse for not sending a UN delegation there to investigate–it’s unsafe. The doctor who was featured in all the news accounts, is a Dr. Shajul Islam, who happens to be a British doctor from the National Health Service. In 2012, he was in Syria fighting with the jihadists against the Syrian government, and when he returned to Britain, he was arrested because he was involved in the abduction of two journalists, one a British journalist and the other a Dutch journalist. But he was released without a trial going forward, and sent back to Syria, and he then became the spokesman in the press, CNN and so forth, saying that this was a Syrian chemical attack. Also, the group, the NGO on the ground in all of these areas controlled by al-Nusra, is called the “White Helmets.” They received $123 million from 2013 to 2016 to build them up as an organization; and they were found by a British military agent by the name of James Le Mesurier, who was a graduate of the Royal Military Academy and a recipient of the Queen’s Medal.

If you look at the OPCW report, what they say is the following: “At the time of handover” of so-called evidence, “the team was informed that all samples were taken by nongovernmental organizations. A representative of an NGO was also interviewed and provided photographs and videos from the scene of the alleged incident.” So, all the evidence is by the White Helmets, which is the NGO that they’re talking about.

It is known from UN investigations in 2013 that the rebels have access to sarin gas. It’s also reported from the OPCW itself that when Syria allowed its chemical weapons facilities to be dismantled and removed from the country, there were 12 chemical weapons facilities; 10 of those were removed, the other 2 were controlled by the rebels, so those were never removed.

The reason I’m going through this is because this is typical British operation. There’s a very interesting book called, Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the U.S. 1939-1944, which is by a person named Thomas Mahl. What it demonstrates, and this has been indicated in other publications as well, is that the British starting in 1939 set up intelligence operations in the United States. Of course, this is a period in which Winston Churchill knew he needed the United States to defeat the Nazis at the point that the Nazis had actually turned against Britain, after the British had helped create the Nazis in the first place. They had an intelligence operation in the United States; it was centered here in New York at Rockefeller Center and it was called British Security Corporation. It was located on the 38th floor of the International Building of the Rockefeller Center. [william] Stephenson represented MI6; he represented MI5, and he ran Special Operations Executive. He worked closely with what later became the CIA and the person that he worked with was Allen Dulles. Allen Dulles operated out of Room 3663, 630 Fifth Avenue. The British Security Corporation operated out of 3603, 630 Fifth Avenue.

Let me just read you a couple of things. First of all, what they did is they set up a forgery factory in Toronto, Canada for their efforts, and there was a memorandum which was released November 26, 1941, called, “Atrocity Photographs,” and what it says is that “they could quite easily provide a regular supply of atrocity pictures manufactured by us in Canada, the buying and hiring of costumes, the manufacture of small pieces of scenery and of dummies, a first class make-up man–all of which could be carried out under some sort of cover.” I just mention that because all of these videos they produce in Syria are such atrocity photos. In this case, they were trying to generate atrocity photos of atrocities carried out by the Nazis. But the problem here is that, Roosevelt worked with Churchill but Roosevelt, as reported by his son Elliott Roosevelt, told Churchill: We’re not fighting this war to preserve the British Empire. After this war, we want to develop the world with American System methods and dismantle your imperial system. But after Roosevelt’s death, this is the apparatus that took over. And as I said, the U.S.-U.K. agreement was signed in 1946 under Truman. In a certain way, I would say the environment in the United States after Churchill launched the Cold War, with Trumanism and McCarthyism is precisely the kind of state of mind–pure terror–that you see today with the lemming-like groupthink action on the part of the U.S. Congress and Senate in behalf of the sanctions bill–even though they should know that this is something that can lead to thermonuclear war.

I’m using those as two examples: The failure to investigate the DNC computer and the way the British operated in terms of this chemical incident in Syria–I’m using those to demonstrate the nature of the British operation, which should be transparent to everybody, except for the way that they’ve been led to think.

Obviously, we fought a revolution against the British. It’s the British who burned down the White House. It’s the British who were involved in the assassination of Hamilton and the assassination of Lincoln. One of the biggest shifts in U.S. policy orientation was after the assassination of McKinley. Before that, the United States was working with Russia, working with Germany; after that, you had this Anglophile Teddy Roosevelt, who came in and shifted the entire policy. Really, over the past century and into this century what you’ve had, is a shift toward the U.S.-British special relationship, as opposed to a more traditional U.S. policy of really working with other nations for economic development; that is, the American System of economics which is coherent with what President Trump announced in a number of speeches in Kentucky and Detroit a month or two ago, and also coherent with his advocacy of Glass-Steagall.

So, the British at this point know we are on the verge of a financial collapse. There was a very interesting interview with Alan Greenspan, who otherwise is not quotable, but Helga mentioned him and he pointed to a real danger of a bond bubble that could blow out very soon. Others have made similar types of warnings. We are on the verge of that. The British are still committed to maintaining their bankrupt imperial system. You know the British system is based on the Venetian system, which was a financial system. So those who argue “well, the British Empire doesn’t exist anymore because they’re not militarily occupying this and that country,” miss the point. It is fundamentally a financial form of imperialism. You see the way in which, as Helga says, they have attempted to pull the United States into this British Empire, “Commonwealth”–the other countries in the Five Eyes are all members of the British Commonwealth — so they tried to pull the United States into this arrangement. It is that arrangement that has to be destroyed; it has to be cancelled, as Lyndon LaRouche said.

I would just point out that the whole policy against Russia and China is a remake of the geopolitical doctrine of Harold Mackinder. I have a quote from him; this is a British geopolitical thinker who also worked with Haushofer of Germany, who was instrumental in designing Hitler’s policy. What Halford Mackinder said in 1919 is the following, “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland. Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island. Who rules the World-Island commands the world.”

This is precisely the policy which was advocated by Bernard Lewis, another Brit. It was advocated by Brzezinski under Carter. The whole idea was to create an Arc of Crisis surrounding the Soviet Union at the time of Carter and Brzezinski, but later the former Soviet Union, and that’s what we’re dealing with right now with the regime change policies.

The Russians and Chinese have posed a coherent alternative to that with the intervention in Syria, the proposal for collaboration to fight terrorism, and with China’s adoption of the policy which Lyn and Helga LaRouche have fought for for decades of the World Land-Bridge or the One Belt, One Road, which is a win-win policy as opposed to a geopolitical policy. But the British are committed to preventing this so-called Heartland from being developed. That is the policy that led to two world wars. The whole area of Russia is called the pivot point in Mackinder’s theory.

This is what we’re up against. This is what leads us–if the British are successful in the effort to impeach, carry out a coup, assassinate the President–we’re heading toward a Third World War, which would be thermonuclear. That’s the reality of the situation. That’s what is at stake. As I said, part of the problem here, is the way in which the British have operated to control the way people think, including Americans, but not limited to Americans. For instance, Bertrand Russell was a key figure. Lyndon LaRouche has called him the most evil man of the 20th century. This is a guy who many regard as a peacenik, but who advocated carrying out nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union before he thought that they had nuclear weapons. But more fundamentally what he did was he pushed a philosophy that denied creativity, the actual source of scientific development and economic development. He put forward a mathematical form of thinking and that’s the way the British have always operated.

There are certain ideas which have become hegemonic in society and in academia, including the idea that the Universe is ruled by entropy, that is basically the Universe is winding down and there are limits to growth, and if you use up the limited resources then there will be a catastrophe; therefore, we have to reduce population, we cannot industrialize because it will use up limited resources; and that man is the cause of climate change because he industrializes. This is a fundamental conception which is scientifically fraudulent, which has taken over.

The point I’m make here, is that this was the British approach–to control the way in which people think, by reducing their thinking to mathematics, to what’s called induction: You go from sense-perception to a conclusion which is actually derived from a fixed assumption. Take the chemical bombings. You see a video on television–that’s your sense-perception; an atrocity, a child was injured. It could be completely staged and most likely was. But you see that and then what happens? From a deductive standpoint, the Russians–it’s always the Russians, or Assad, they demonize him. They had to do it. But where’s the evidence? They never went to the scene but people accept this kind of thing.

Or the so-called hack of the DNC computers–you’re told from CrowdStrike, which is the company owned by the DNC, two of whose leading figures used to work at the FBI with Mueller, the Special Counsel now, that this was the Russians. Then you are manipulated into this entire operation, which is destroying this country and the world. The point is to break out of this kind of mental control, and recognize that the actual nature of man is to be creative, not to just operate on the basis of induction and deduction. But that’s the philosophy of the British System, empiricism. Francis Bacon, John Locke, all of these so-called philosophers who were just agents of a British Empire.

And remember that the goal of the royal family, the Nazi-loving royal family is to reduce the world’s population from its current level to 1 billion at most. That is real genocide. That’s the policy of Zeus from the Greek mythology, as opposed to the policy of Prometheus which was to develop mankind–give him science, give him technology, give him fire. That is the more fundamental issue that people have to actually think about how they think and not be afraid. You’ve got to actually break through this environment, which has been created, and mobilize: That is what we’ve got to do at this point, mobilize to make sure that the truth comes out with respect of this whole issue of the DNC so-called hacking; mobilize to ensure that this sanctions bill is reversed. But more fundamentally to mobilize for the collaboration between the United States, Russia, and China, and potentially India, to dismantle the British Empire once and for all, before it destroys humanity. That is the fundamental issue before us right now.

There are economic policies which Lyndon LaRouche has outlined — the Four Laws, which are crucial. That’s what has to move forward. That would move us in to coherence with Russia and China, as opposed to these sanctions.

That is I think the crux of what I wanted to develop, so I’ll end at this point.