'Convict Him Or Kill
Him'
The Night They Came To Kill Me
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 2, 2004
On Oct. 6, 1986, a virtual army of more than 400
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 longstanding, 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, worldwide, 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 1922-45. The common feature of
those international
financier interests, then, back during 1922-45, 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 bankers'
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
40 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 Aug. 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, <cf2>hors de
combat<cf1>,
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 1966-68 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 Aug. 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 Frères-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) opponents 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.
- 30 -
|