|
`Convict Him
or Kill Him!'
- THE
NIGHT THEY CAME TO KILL ME -
- by Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr. -
- March 2,
2004 -
On October
6, 1986, a virtual army of more than four hundred armed personnel
descended upon the town of Leesburg, Virginia, for a raid on the
offices of {EIR} and its associates, and also deployed for
another, darker mission. The premises at which I was residing at
that time were surrounded by an armed force, while aircraft,
armored vehicles, and other personnel waited for the order to move
in shooting. Fortunately, the killing did not happen, because
someone with higher authority than the Justice Department Criminal
Division head William Weld, ordered the attack on me called off.
The forces readied to move in on me, my wife, and a number of my
associates, were pulled back in the morning.
That was
the second fully documented case of a U.S. Justice Department
involvement in operations aimed at my personal elimination from
politics. The first was documented in an FBI internal document
dated late 1973. The first was an internal U.S. operation; the
second, of Oct. 6-7, 1986, was international, including the
involvement of the Soviet government of General Secretary Mikhail
Gorbachev. To understand the higher level of command behind the
way in which the Democratic National Committee bureaucrats have
used the Party's nullification of the Voting Rights Act to attempt
to exclude me from this election, we must point to the crucial
features of the 1973 and 1986 attempts at my personal elimination.
This is not
only my cause for complaint. The great majority of Americans are
as much the intended victim as I am. They have a right to know
what is being done to them in this connection. I explain.
Those
events of Oct. 6-7, 1986 began in Sweden, when someone killed that
nation's Prime Minister, Olof Palme, and immediately,
fraudulently, assigned blame for the killing action to me. That
libel was promptly adopted by my long-standing, usually lying
enemies at the {Washington Post}, and copied by other well-known
news-media cesspools. This killing occurred in the context of a
massive outpouring of preparatory hate-propaganda against me,
world-wide, from the government of Armand Hammer-associate
Gorbachev. The issue behind the Soviet participation in the
attack, was Soviet inside knowledge of my role in introducing what
President Ronald Reagan had named publicly the "Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI)." Gorbachev, like his former
sponsor, Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, hated me on
account of my international, as well as U.S. role in the
development of the SDI proposal.
It became
clear in the course of that year, that the killing of expendable
target Palme was used, and therefore probably intended, to set
into motion an environment for what would later pass as a
"justified, retaliatory" killing of me; no other
plausible motive for the killing of Palme has been presented to
the public, up to the present day. Tracing all the relevant
developments, over both the interval from that shooting, to the
Leesburg events of Oct. 6-7, later that same year, all of the
relevant events in the pattern of action, including the
preparatory steps taken by Boston's William Weld, represent a
systemically functional connection between the killing of Palme
and the referenced events of Oct. 6-7.
When those
two Justice Department "elimination" operations against
me are considered, the obvious question is: "Are the two
actions, those of 1973 and 1986, related?" They are, in fact,
closely related, and are key to understanding why the financial
powers behind Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry
McAuliffe's actions against me, have been so hysterically
determined to exclude the one Democratic Presidential candidate
who now represents, presently, officially, the broadest popular
base of financial support of all current Democratic contenders.
Why do the forces behind these actions fear me so much that they
would take such extraordinarily high political risks in running
these kinds of efforts to bring about my personal and political
elimination?
In the
second case, Oct. 6-7, 1986, the obvious motive for the projected
official killing of me, my wife, and others on that occasion, was
my role in the development of the SDI. Ironically, but not
accidentally, this operation was unleashed at the time President
Reagan was meeting Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, where the
President, once again, firmly restated his commitment to SDI.
However,
there is a direct connection to the earlier 1973 FBI operation.
The 1973 campaign for my "elimination," the
near-slaughter of Oct. 6-7, 1986, and the stubborn effort to
exclude me from the debates now, are each and all products of the
same issue of my fight against the effort of certain liberal
economists, and others, to put the world as a whole under the
thumb of the policies of former Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar
Schacht.
The
ultimate origin of these and related actions is not the U.S.
Department of Justice, but a much higher authority than the U.S.
government, the same assortment of Venetian-style international
financier-oligarchical interests, and their associated law firms,
which unleashed the wave of fascist dictatorships in continental
Europe over the interval 1922-1945. The common feature of those
international financier interests, then, back during 1922-1945,
and today, is their present commitment to imposing Schachtian
economics upon both the U.S.A. itself, and also on the world at
large, as the presently ongoing looting of Argentina typifies such
fascist practices in action.
The
intention of those financiers behind the demand for my exclusion
from the Democratic Party proceedings, is to attempt to ensure
that the next President of the U.S.A. is nothing but a pro-fascist
banker's office boy in matters of national economic and social
policy. A notable number of these pro-Schachtian financier
interests are the proverbial "big bucks" behind the
Democratic Party.
- Three
Linked Issues -
Behind all
of the operations against me, from 1973 through the present day,
is a reflection of the common characteristic of three tightly
linked issues. The first, my pro-FDR opposition to Schachtian
economics. The second, my opposition to the so-called
"utopian" military doctrines currently associated with
"beast-man" Dick Cheney. Third, my intention to reverse
the folly of the past forty years' downward drift of the U.S.A.,
from the world's leading producer nation, to today's predatory
mess of Roman Empire-style "post-industrial" bread and
circuses.
Go back to
the late Summer and Fall of 1971. When the breakdown of the
Bretton Woods system was ordered by President Richard Nixon, on
August 15-16, 1971, I responded, denouncing the incompetence of
those leading economists who had insisted that such an event could
never happen under the so-called "built-in stabilizers."
Since the mid-1960s, I had warned repeatedly, publicly, against
such a highly probable trend, of a series of international
monetary crises leading toward the consequent breakdown of the
present world monetary system. It had happened. Once again, I had
been proven right as a long-range economic forecaster; virtually
every university economics textbook, virtually every professor or
similar type had been proven totally wrong on this issue.
Therefore,
my associates and I launched a campaign against "Quackademic"
economics professors. The turmoil this campaign produced on the
campuses, and elsewhere, impelled the pained economists and their
owners to select a champion of their cause, to defeat me in open
debate. What soon proved to be the luckless Professor Abba Lerner,
reputedly the leading resident Keynesian economist in the U.S.A.,
was selected for the contest.
We faced
off on the premises of New York's Queens College campus.
Professors and comparable notables chiefly gathered in the front
rows, and students and others chiefly behind them. My challenge to
Lerner was that his current proposals for Brazil were an echo of
the doctrines of Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht. I warned
that his policy toward Brazil was typical of the kinds of
fascist-like austerity policies which would be pushed under the
new conditions created by Nixon's action. For the alloted time,
and more, Lerner squirmed and wriggled, seeking to change the
subject from the concrete issue I had posed as the test question
of the time: Brazil policy. Then, the debate closed when Lerner
whimpered, "But if Germany had accepted Schacht's policies,
Hitler would not have been necessary." The assembled body
reacted to this whimpered utterance as if stunned. Lerner was,
figuratively, carried, {hors de combat}, from that day's field of
battle.
Since that
occasion, no leading economist in any part of the world has found
the courage to challenge me in a debate on these crucial issues of
Schachtian economic policy being pushed by the U.S. since that
time. As Lerner's friend Professor Sidney Hook stated the point:
"LaRouche won the debate, but"--he will lose much more
as a result of that. It was his way of saying that the
"establishment" would unite against me; it did.
There was
no coincidence in any of this. The shift of the U.S. and British
economies away from the U.S.'s leading role as the world's
greatest producer nation, toward a pro-Schachtian,
"post-industrial" utopianism, was the hallmark of the
1966-1968 Nixon campaign for the Presidency. The follies of this
"post-industrial" shift into wild-eyed monetarism, led
the U.S. government to the point, that it must abandon its foolish
post-Kennedy economic and cultural policies, or make exactly the
choice I had warned that I feared they would make. Nixon's
decision of August 15, 1971 made the march in the direction of
ruin and fascist-like dictatorship inevitable. Nixon's mid-August
decision thus made the issue of the 1971 LaRouche-Lerner debate
the inevitable continuing, leading issue of U.S. economic policy,
from that date to the present neo-Schachtian days of Lazard Freres-associated
Felix Rohatyn.
Nixon's
decision put the leading institutions and voters of the U.S. into
a virtual ideological-economic fishbowl. That is to say: The poor
fish might think he can rule the universe by choosing that part of
the interior of the fishbowl to which he might wish to swim, but
the bowl itself was being moved without his consciousness of the
direction into which the bowl was being carried. Such are the
sometimes tragic, utopian delusions of Cartesian and other true
believers in what they define as "self-evident"
definitions, axioms, and postulates. The universe in which they
believe, is only a fishbowl filled with those fools who believe
that their own free choice, according to such beliefs, controls
their destiny.
Most
ordinary people today have little appreciation of the fierceness
with which pro-Schachtian liberal financiers hate the memory of
President Franklin Roosevelt. Most corporate and kindred Baby
Boomers, such as my rivals for the Presidency, do not even know
what a Schachtian tactic is. Nonetheless, the defeat, chiefly by
Roosevelt's U.S.A., of those pro-Synarchist, pro-Schachtian
financiers' effort to create a fascist internationalism during the
post-Versailles decades, has prompted the financiers of today to
seek every possible means to uproot and destroy the kind of
agro-industrial constitutional republic which Roosevelt's victory
over Hitler et al. represented. So, in August 1944, as soon as the
U.S.-led breakthrough in Normandy had sealed the early doom of
Hitler, those financier circles which had temporarily supported
Roosevelt's war-effort, launched the right turn represented by
Bertrand Russell's leading role in putting forward a utopian
strategic doctrine of imperial world government through preventive
nuclear war.
During his
two terms in office, military traditionalist President Dwight
Eisenhower defended our constitutional order from the rampaging
utopians he labelled a "military-industrial complex."
President John F. Kennedy's assassination broke the back of the
resistance to those utopians; the U.S. official plunge into the
quicksands of asymmetric warfare in Indo-China, and the parallel,
mid-1960s "post-industrial" shift, were the concomitant
of that victory of the utopians. The murders of Martin Luther King
and Bobby Kennedy, were crucial elements of the march toward ruin
of our economic culture, and worse, beyond.
The
mid-1960s' cultural-paradigm down-shift, merely typified by the
dionysiac rock-drug-sex counterculture, was the destruction of the
mind and gut of what had been the world's greatest economy, the
U.S. economy. The purpose of that induced cultural-paradigm shift
was to uproot everything about the U.S. which was reflected in
FDR's achievements as President.
My proposal
for what President Reagan was later to name his "Strategic
Defense Initiative" was prompted by a recognition of the
growing actual risk of general thermonuclear war, in the doctrines
of James R. Schlesinger's cabal, around the theme of the
"present danger." I reacted out of my conviction that
the nuclear madness of Trilateral Brzezinski's cronies,
Schlesinger et al., showed that the U.S. must find ways to engage
the Soviet Union in a long-term alternative to the thermonuclear
war implicit in a continuation of the Russell-like, so-called
"detente" policies of the 1970s. Thus, when the Reagan
National Security Council entertained my back-channel discussions
with the Soviet government, to explore what I proposed as the
relevant alternative, I became a grave danger to the policies of
the utopians inside and outside our defense establishment. At the
close of the President's televised address of March 23, 1983, they
decided I was too capable a political force of opposition to their
schemes to be allowed to live. It is the same issue I represent
against Cheney and his pack of neo-conservative lunatics today.
That was the principal motive behind the indicated events of 1986.
In this
way, the issue of my opposition to Schachtian economics, to
utopian military madness, and to the past four decades'
cultural-paradigm down-shift of the economy, mind, and morals of
our nation, are three aspects of the same issue. For that, they
wished me "eliminated" in 1973, sought to eliminate me
by shameless open actions in 1986, and wish to eliminate all
traces of my international influence today.
- `Prison,
Anyone?' -
The
abortion of the shooting assault intended for Oct. 6-7, 1986, led
to a subsequent, high-level, intense debate in relevant circles.
"Shall we kill him, or imprison him?" was the tenor of
that debate. The threat from the utopian faction was, "If you
allow him to beat the legal frame-up we are conducting, you will
not stop us from killing him this time!"
That
decision was in debate from no later than the evening of President
Reagan's televised address of March 23, 1983. After a few days,
the utopians had regrouped their forces around circles including
the right-wing utopian, and fervent SDI (and LaRouche and Edward
Teller) opponent Daniel P. Graham and the utopians of the Heritage
Foundation. So, the name of SDI was continued, but, under the
influence of circles backing Graham, the content was changed
radically to emphasize obsolete, chiefly "off-the-shelf"
technologies of no use for the indicated type of
mission-assignment.
On Oct. 12,
1988, I delivered a memorable address in Berlin, which was taped
there for later broadcast, that same month, on a nationwide TV
campaign feature. I forecast the imminent collapse of the Soviet
alliance, beginning probably soon in Poland, and spreading into
other parts of Eastern Europe and the Soviet economy itself. I
proposed a course of U.S. action to deal, through affirmative
economic action, with the opportunity to uproot the embedded
institutions of major military conflict throughout the world.
I was soon
hustled off to the hoosegow by the fastest, if perhaps the most
crooked railroad in the U.S.A., the Alexandria Federal Courthouse
in the Eastern District of Virginia. So, in effect, the newly
sworn President George Bush put me into prison, and, a little more
than five years later, Bill Clinton pulled me out. Now, the world
makes a new turn around the circle of crisis. This time, those
bankers who wish to put a Democrat who would be a virtual office
boy for their Schachtian policies into the White House, are at it
again. They are terrified at the thought that I, no office boy in
these matters, would come even close to the White House.
Some
leaders of nations are elected, others are either killed, or sent
to prison to be defamed. So, powerful financier cabals have often
ordered the fate of nations and the people, if the people let that
happen. Thus, in today's world, the ultimate feat of importance
for a republic, is to get competent leaders elected, and keep them
from being killed at a sign from the hand of a pro-Synarchist
financier mafioso.
|
