I want to speak about the subject that universal history must not end in a tragedy. Who wants to deny the fact that we are faced with the most dangerous moment in history, ever? Let me say this forcefully from the beginning: This multi-faceted, unprecedented crisis is entirely the result of wrong policies, and therefore it can be corrected. That is, if the political will to do so exists. To mobilize that political will is what this conference, which commemorates the 100th birthday of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, is all about.
We face the acute danger of the strategic situation spinning out of control, leading to a thermonuclear World War III. A situation which is more dangerous than at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, if it comes to that, would lead to the annihilation of mankind, a nuclear winter, and there would not even be an historian left to study the reasons why it occurred. Despite the fact that there is no question that that danger is very real, there are still some politicians saying that no scenario can be excluded. The tabloid Bild Zeitung today is bragging that the present Ukrainian offensive in Kharkiv is helped massively by NATO, armored vehicles from the U.S. and Turkey, tanks from Poland, intelligence from NATO, the U.S. altogether giving $10 billion in weapons to Ukraine. Well, are all these countries and NATO not already war parties? The question is, when is the red line crossed, and when will we have a full-fledged war between Russia and NATO?
Then, in addition, the financial system of the trans-Atlantic world is hopelessly bankrupt. It’s about to go through either a hyperinflationary blow-out like Weimar Germany in 1923, only this time it would be not one country but the entire so-called West. Or, we could experience very shortly ahead, a chain-reaction crash, triggered by the belated increase of the interest rates through the central banks. The European Central Bank just increased 0.75%, the highest in its history. Jerome Powell from the Fed evokes the “pain” of the Paul Volcker high-interest rate policy, which at the end of the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s, was over 20%. If you imposed that now in the already completely bankrupt situation of many over-indebted firms, already capital flight out of the emerging markets, this could trigger a prolonged plunge into a dark age, in every country dependent on the trans-Atlantic financial system.
If we would have such a collapse, it would naturally increase the war danger instantly. We already have a world famine. Already now there are 1.7 billion people in danger of starvation. According to the United Nations, each day 25,000 people die of hunger completely unnecessarily! Obviously, if there would be a crash, it would lead to the death of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
The pandemic is not defeated. New ones are looming for the same reason COVID-19 erupted, because you have in a completely under-developed world, in large parts of entire continents you have the suppression of the immune system of entire populations.
In Europe, and in Germany in particular, we are right now, with the policies of the present government, going to crash against the wall this winter. There will be mass bankruptcies, mass unemployment, emergencies, blackouts. Banks like JPMorgan Chase are already preparing to leave Germany for London or other capitals in case of a black-out, which they expect.
Officially, we have a strategic situation, where the rules-based order of the “democracies” of the West are against the nefarious “autocracies” and dictatorships of Russia and China. In reality, the situation is a mirror image. The countries of Asia, led by the rise of China, the BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and much of the Global South, are building a new economic system with the aim to overcome poverty and have real economic development. There is a renaissance of the Bandung spirit, the revival of the Non-Aligned Movement. What these countries are absolutely determined to do this time is to end colonialism for sure: the colonialism which officially does not exist, but which came along in new clothes. They want to implement this time for sure the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.
Let’s take a look. What is actually the state of affairs in the so-called West? There is no democracy anymore. The possibility that the West could move towards a system of “fascism with a democratic face” was already discussed in the mid-1970s by the Trilateral Commission and think tanks, that openly discussed that in the case of an economic collapse, it could be necessary to impose such draconian austerity, that one has to do away with the basic Constitutional rights. Samuel Huntington, of The Clash of Civilizations fame, which was a blueprint for the North-South conflict to replace the East-West conflict, and the author of the horrible book The Soldier and the State, which is an entire argument of mercenary armies to defend the Empire, he wrote for the Trilateral Commission in 1975 The Crisis of Democracy: Which was the idea that zero-growth would make it necessary to limit democracy; that if governments are too democratic, then only a cataclysmic crisis would be sufficient to impose on the people the sacrifices which may be necessary.
Well, that is the policy of Carl Schmitt, that the sovereign is the one who decides on the state of emergency. [Fig.1] This brings us back to the point when Abba Lerner was telling LaRouche in the famous debate [December 1971] at Queens College, that if people had accepted Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler would not have been necessary. Forty-seven years later, democracy—which a while ago, one would assume includes the right of free speech—in which a democratic multitude of viewpoints could be exchanged, that idea is completely gone. There is no more knowable truth, which one can find out, at least in approximation for example through Socratic dialogue; instead, one can only accept the one narrative. And much of so-called politics going on these days is the absolute attempt to have dictatorial control over that narrative.
Part of that narrative is that the Ukraine war was the result of “an unprovoked Russian aggression.” Even mentioning that history didn’t start on February 23rd, even if you say that there was a history before that, makes you a Putin agent, a follower or proponent of Russian propaganda. And if you propose to try to end the war as soon as possible, which is what the opinion is also of leading military experts, such as retired German General Kujat, former General Inspector of the Bundeswehr and head of the Military Committee of NATO (a very high position), says in a recent article that the war cannot be won by either side, that the sanctions may cause irreversible damage to the German economy; that our freedom was neither defended at the Hindu Kush, nor is it defended in Ukraine right now; that this escalation risks the escalation to a nuclear war. All of these are obviously very good reasons to negotiate a peace settlement. If you say all of that, you are being put on a death list on Ukrainian websites which are financed by the U.S. State Department: Now, obviously, that is real democracy. And European governments participate regularly in meetings of the Ukrainian institutions, which run these websites, such as the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation.
You have right now in most of the Western European and American countries—Britain for sure—a Gleichschaltung, a lockstep in the mainstream media, which would make Goebbels turn pale with envy. You have an atmosphere of McCarthyism; you have a digitalized Gestapo. And during the last months, dozens of people told me privately that they are afraid to speak their mind, even in private circles, because otherwise they fear to be ostracized.
And I want to say this for the record: We don’t need Russian analysis to come to our conclusions. We have an international private news service, Executive Intelligence Review, which was created by Lyndon LaRouche in 1974. The National Security Council Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, Norman Bailey, in 1984, in the position as a White House advisor of the Reagan administration, told us that he considered EIR the best private intelligence service in the world. More importantly, we are not gathering intelligence by reading newspaper clips, but by educating our own policies, and then we evaluate the reactions and come to the conclusions and analyze what that means.
We know the prehistory of the 23rd of February, because we are part of it. Even before the Berlin Wall came down, LaRouche had forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union, absolutely correctly in 1984, when he said that if the Soviet Union would continue their then-existing policies of rejecting cooperation with Reagan on the SDI, of sticking to the Ogarkov Plan, then they would collapse in five years. That is exactly what happened. We put out the answer to that—the Paris-Berlin-Vienna Productive Triangle. And when the Soviet Union collapsed, we proposed to connect Europe and Asia through economic development corridors, and we called that the Eurasian Land-Bridge. It was our idea of a peace order for the 21st Century. [Fig. 2] Please show the picture of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which then became the World Land-Bridge, which is still our present policy.
It would have been in the self-interest of all countries to realize that proposal. We know that it was rejected for geopolitical reasons by Thatcher, Bush, Sr., and Mitterrand, because at that point it was the policy of these countries to have the former superpower Soviet Union, turn into a Russia, which would just be degraded into being a raw material-exporting, Third World country. This was the idea in 1991 to eliminate a potential competitor on the world market, because it was considered that Russia would have more educated scientists and more raw materials, so, if you would allow economic development, it would become stronger than the United States at that time.
But despite the fact that this policy was rejected at that time, we kept organizing for the Eurasian Land-Bridge on five continents. We held hundreds of conferences and seminars, and from that standpoint we experienced and observed firsthand how the historic chance of 1989 [Fig. 3] was lost. We published a book about that. And how the promises not to expand NATO to the East were broken. We observed firsthand, by organizing for the Productive Triangle and the Eurasian Land-Bridge, how in the Yeltsin years, the shock therapy reduced Russia’s industrial potential between 1991 and 1994 to only 30%. The intention to ruin Russia was already there, and Yeltsin was the willing instrument of such policies.
Now, after Putin came to power, the policies of color revolutions were implemented: the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004; the Rose Revolution in Georgia; the White Revolution attempted in Russia; Yellow Revolution attempted in Hong Kong against China. In 1999, Blair instigated the policy of the “right to protect,” which was the idea to replace the Peace of Westphalia order and the UN Charter with the rules-based order, to create the basis for interventionist wars in Southwest Asia and Libya.
No, we are not repeating Russian propaganda. We are attempting to give history a better direction, and we saw who supported this proposal and who opposed it. Most importantly, we are not the Flat Earth people. We have a different method of thinking, which relates to the real physical universe of ideas, not opinions based on sense perception. That’s why we cannot be “nudged”—in the term of Cass Sunstein—into believing what is the allowed narrative.
I said in the beginning, we have the worst crisis in history as the result of wrong policies, and therefore, they can be corrected. Now, LaRouche forecast in 1971, and this is probably the most important forecast ever made in history, that when Nixon introduced the floating exchange rates and cut the dollar from the gold standard, if the countries would continue with these monetarist policies, it would lead to a new depression, fascism, and a new world war. Or, we would have to have a completely new economic system. This was 51 years ago. LaRouche made in the meantime nine major forecasts, and many, many more at each branching point.
When the Trilateral Commission introduced the “controlled disintegration of the world economy,” and the authors of that then all became members of the Carter administration, this was the evil idea to never allow the emergence of mercantilist economies in the developing sector. Never allow “another Japan” in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning that Japan, after being undeveloped for many centuries, then in the Meiji Restoration suddenly made an industrial revolution in a few years, which obviously could be replicated by every developing country. That was supposed to be outlawed. That was followed by the Volcker high interest rate policy, a brutal austerity policy, Reaganomics, Thatcherism, mergers and acquisitions, outsourcing to cheap labor markets, just-in-time production, shareholder value society, going public of middle-level industries, market deregulation, derivative speculation, quantitative easing, negative interest rates, etc.
At each step, LaRouche not only made a brilliant analysis, but presented policy initiatives [Fig. 4]. He proposed the IDB in 1975, which was the idea to replace the IMF with a development bank which would allow the massive development of the developing sector. He proposed together with and for Mexican President José López Portillo Operation Juárez in 1982. He proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was implemented by President Reagan on March 23, 1983. We developed in all of time, programs for Africa, Latin America, Eurasia, the Middle East, the U.S. LaRouche was always working on the idea, that to avoid plunging into a prolonged Dark Age, one had to get the institutions to reject and overturn the wrong assumptions of monetarism.
What is involved here is a fundamental difference in the methodology of thinking. If one looks at the long arc of universal history, mankind has made enormous progress. From the hunter and gatherer society where the population did not surpass 10 million on the planet, alone during the last 10,000 years, there was an enormous population growth to about 8 billion people today. We see in that history a recurring phenomenon: Actual leaps forward occurred through renaissance periods. For example, I can name the Classical Greeks, the Abbasid Dynasty, the Song Dynasty in China, the Italian Renaissance, the German Classical period; all of these are high phases of history, and they were always catalyzed by a relatively small number of individuals, who contributed original discoveries as the result of adequate hypothesis in science and art, leading to new levels of understanding concerning valid principles of the physical universe. So far, each time these upturns were subsequently interrupted by the enemies of progress, who were able to induce society from the leading layers down to the credulous majority of the population to adopt views which ignored the realm of ideas just discovered, and replaced them with ideologies suiting the interest of those enemies—i.e., the ruling oligarchy.
The secret of why LaRouche has been the most successful forecaster of economic and social tendencies, and all his critics have been utter failures, lies in the fact that he acquired throughout his life an unparalleled knowledge of those ideas which over the course of millennia led to the qualitative advancement of human history, in contrast to those ideas that would fold the universe down, from what Gauss would call later the complex domain, to a reductionist Euclidean conception of things and events. Plato describes that difference in the paradox of the cave: Where the real world of ideas exists outside the cave, while those people who rely on their biological sense-perceptual apparatus, only perceive reality as shadows, as if upon the walls of a dimly fire-lit cave. A crucial example of that difference is highlighted by the paradoxes in geometry that do not allow reductionist solutions, such as the construction of the five Platonic solids and the doubling of the line, the square, and the cube. It is these paradoxes which laid the foundation of thinking for a whole class of thinkers, who were thinking and subsequently making discoveries in the realm of the complex domain and the Platonic tradition: such as Brunelleschi, Nicolaus of Cusa, Pacioli, Leonardo da Vinci, Kepler, Gilbert, Fermat, Huyghens, Leibniz, Bernoulli, Kästner, Gauss, Lazare Carnot, Dirichlet, and Riemann. And naturally Einstein and Vernadsky. All progress in human history has come from that tradition, as LaRouche has demonstrated in numerous treatises.
On the contrary, the ideologues of the reductionist tradition have done absolutely nothing to contribute, but a lot to obscure, the insight into real knowledge, such as the Aristotelian tradition of Descartes, Newton—remember his famous “hypotheses non fingo,” you don’t need hypothesis, or you don’t assume hypothesis—Boyle, Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Lindeman, Felix Klein, Bertrand Russell, and the students of those.
The same is essentially true for ideas in art, where you have the fundamental, axiomatic difference in the Classical art aimed at the elevation of the creative power of the audience, and those forms of art which dwell on the banalizing, or even worse, brutalizing the senses—the preferred method of the oligarchy for the control of the population. In this respect, there is no difference between the Roman Empire making the audiences of the amphitheater complicit in the killing of the gladiator, where the audience has to put thumbs up or down, to decide if the gladiator dies or lives, and the cult of violence portrayed in the entertainment industry of today. LaRouche had a profound knowledge about the different axiomatic outlook of these opposite traditions, and provided ample proof that the physical universe does not follow the pathway of Euclidean geometry, such as the difference between the shortest distance and the actual principle of the Leibnizian least action. [Fig. 5]
In the same way, the physical economy cannot be described adequately by mathematical and statistical methods. LaRouche developed his whole economic scientific method, explicitly with a polemic against information theory and the systems analysis of Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann. Or, algorithms don’t fit the real economy either, but only by the methods of a Riemannian space-time of general relativity. It is only that thinking in terms of the complex domain, which can conceptualize the impact of a never-ending series of discoveries of qualitative new principles of the physical universe, which each defines an entirely new economic platform, where the newly-discovered principle redefines the relative productivity of each aspect of the entire economy. Out of that methodological approach, LaRouche arrived at the unique concept of relative potential population density and the related concept of energy-flux density in the production process, both of which must continuously increase per square kilometer and per capita, because of the relatively finite character of resources at each level of development. At each level, the cost of development of the resources tends to increase and thus lower the productivity of labor. With the stagnation of the technological level, the effort and cost to maintain the same number of people increases, and the relative potential population density decreases. But the conclusion of that fact, as LaRouche concludes, is exactly the opposite of what the evil Club of Rome concluded in its oligarchical propaganda pamphlet, Limits to Growth, namely, from now on, one needs zero growth and even negative growth.
And LaRouche wrote against that [Fig. 6] in his book There Are No Limits to Growth, with which Lyn wrote one of his most important books, and demonstrated that continuous scientific and technological progress are necessary, and that higher degrees of anti-entropy are arrived at by the continuous application of human creativity. This is corresponding to the laws of the real physical universe, and this is therefore the precondition for the durable survival of humanity.
The relative population potential in primitive society was approximately 0.06 to 0.1 persons per kilometer, and the total potential of the world did not exceed 10 million people. Today, with 8 billion people, there are more than two orders of magnitude more, and with the commercial use of fusion technology within reach, and the existing technologies to produce essentially limitless amounts of new fresh and clean water, the population potential can double, and beyond, in a very short period of time and create a living standard for each human being comparable to the average family living in Switzerland today [Fig. 7].
From solar and wind energy, with a very low energy flux density, to fossil fuels, to nuclear energy, this measurement increased from 0.2 kilowatts per square mile to 70,000 kilowatts per square mile, and has the potential to increase to 1015 kw/sq mile with the second generation of fusion power. In light of this reality, the exit from nuclear energy in Germany, and the EU policies of the Green Deal, not only means the end of Germany as an industrial state—and that is the intention of the Greens—it also means the reduction of the relative potential population density of the world, because the productive capacity of the fourth largest economy of the world, Germany, will be subtracted, and this will absolutely lead to an increase in famine, epidemics, and social unrest. And that is the intention of the Malthusian oligarchy as well.
LaRouche knew all the essential representatives of the two opposing outlooks, and he made it absolutely transparent for anybody who wanted to know, why the elimination of creativity and the potential for genius was so absolutely essential for the oligarchical class, for whom the evil Malthus was only a paid scribbler. So, it was clear that the common denominator between the outlook of the British East India Company, the controlled disintegration of the world economy of the Trilateral Commission, the Great Transformation of Hans Joachim Schellnhuber and the Great Reset of the World Economic Forum, is the same reductionist, empiricist, Malthusian ideology.
When China recognized its error that the assumption of limited resources of the planet was wrong, they changed the one-child policy, because they recognized that each additional child would contribute the potential of new creative discoveries, and they emphasized from there on the continuous need for innovation in the economy. Thus, the Chinese economy made a miracle, which did not suffer economic cycles, because the continued increase in productivity eliminated the reasons for that.
So, the rise of China is the result of a correct economic policy which echoes the theory of LaRouche, and the United States and Europe are collapsing because they prefer Malthus over LaRouche. The crisis in the West is entirely self-inflicted, and not the result of evil policies of Russia or China.
The BRICS countries, the SCO which have their big summit on the 15th and 16th of September—just in a few days from now—in the ancient Silk Road city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan, many organizations of the Global South working on a new world economic order, reviving the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement, all of these are aiming to end colonialism, overcome poverty and underdevelopment. And the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Security Initiative which are proposed by China, these are all concepts to overcome the geopolitical confrontation and create a platform for a shared future of mankind.
The United States and Europe, rather than trying to contain these developments, should rethink the reasons why we are in the mess we are, and we should join with these countries in a new paradigm of international relations based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence and the UN Charter. We are not only going into a hot autumn and winter, but what in all likelihood will be the collapse of the entire system. This is why the Schiller Institute has put the need for a new paradigm, a new security and development architecture, on the table.
So, with Friedrich Schiller, we can say, “Man is greater than his destiny,” provided, however, if we follow the advice of López Portillo and “Listen to the wise words of Lyndon LaRouche.” Thank you.
Dr. Clifford Kiracofe (U.S.), Former Senior Staff Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; President, Washington Institute for Peace and Development
Ray McGovern (U.S.), former Senior Analyst, U.S. Central intelligence Agency (CIA); Founding Member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Panel 2 — 2pm EDT, 8pm CET
Defend the Right to Deliberate! Speak Out Against Blacklists and the Suppression of the Search for Truth
Moderator: Harley Schlanger, The Schiller Institute
Speakers include:
Diane Sare (U.S.), Candidate for United States Senate, 2022 (N.Y.), LaRouche Party
Sept. 9—The international press conference Sept. 7 hosted (online) by Executive Intelligence Review gathered a powerful group of former military and intelligence professionals, political leaders and candidates, journalists and peace advocates from the U.S. and other countries, documenting the criminal and evil “hit list” compiled by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), founded March, 2021) and the “kill list” compiled by the Myrotvorets (Peacemaker, founded in 2014) website in Ukraine. They demanded these operations be shut down, and that all U.S. funding be immediately stopped.
The five opening speakers—whose remarks are summarized below, and many of the other participants in the event, are on the Kiev CCD list, and several are on the Peacemaker death list as well.
The 2.5-hour event, with in-depth exchanges, was action-oriented. Several of the speakers are among the 16 CCD-targetted Americans, who contacted Congress in August, to move against the murder threat and assault on free speech.
New initiatives came from the meeting. There is a proposal to find Constitutional attorneys to take legal action to force U.S. agencies to desist their funding and collaborating with the Kiev kill list threats to Americans and citizens of other nations. There are rights of free speech, association and other fundamentals involved.
There is a proposal to take this deadly scandal to the international community, through the mission offices in New York of every member nation of the United Nations, whose General Assembly convenes Sept. 13.
EIR will follow up its Sept. 2 report with more investigative reports in the coming days, and other media are planning publicity. It is notable that within 12 hours of the EIR event, the Washington Post ran an apologetic article for the occurrence of hit list targets and killings in Ukraine, chalking it up the excesses of war, and simply lying that it was strictly limited to Ukraine. (“Ukrainian Hit Squads Target Russian Occupiers and Collaborators,” Sept. 8).
Opening Speakers
Col Richard Black (ret.), a former Marine officer and the head of Criminal Law Division for the Army, as well as a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate, described his patriotism and extensive military experience, but insisted on his absolute opposition to the U.S. proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, which “risks triggering a global nuclear war.” The CCD, which has accused him and 70 other prominent international citizens as “war criminals” and “information terrorists,” had a parallel operation at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the U.S., the Disinformation Governance Board, whose director was the “outrageous narcissist Nina Jankowicz,” so outrageous that the popular outcry against her forced the closing of the Board, at least officially. But it is continuing the operation by running the CCD in Ukraine, he said, with representatives of the U.S. government co-sponsoring CCD events.
Col. Black reported that it is unlawful for the U.S. government to fund other institutions, foreign or domestic, to do things which are illegal for them to do themselves. Congress, he said, must stop all funding to the CCD.
Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector in the Soviet Union and in Iraq, described his exposure of the lie that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction: “If they had listened, we could have prevented that terrible war and those that followed, killing millions of Americans and civilians of the Mideast.” Now, being called a “Russian propagandist” by an organization sponsored by our government, “has a chilling effect. If you disagree, debate me, but don’t sentence me. Don’t mark me for death for telling the truth.”
Ritter galvanized the discussion saying: “We need a constitutional lawyer to take a hard look at the First Amendment issues that are accrued when Congress funds an appropriation bill that empowers a foreign entity to do that which is prohibited by Congress! Namely, the suppression of free speech! We also need to focus on terrorism laws, and is Congress complicit with political terrorism? These are important issues, and I believe if we frame them right and we target the right people, we can actually get a federal judge—and I can tell you right now, in the State of New York, they exist! We can say, the justice system doesn’t work. It works here in New York! And if I, as a New York citizen filed an injunction in a federal court in the State of New York, they will freeze the funding! If it’s a legally sound injunction.”
Diane Sare, an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate from the State of New York, said that the principles of the nation are under assault. “The most patriotic thing to do is to stop the perversion of our founding fathers’ principles which have left us on the side of the Nazis.” She thanked Scott Ritter for his letter to Senator Schumer, her opponent in the November election, who is implementing a “roundabout way of targeting his opponent”—namely herself—by funding the CCD in Ukraine and setting her up for possible physical attack.
Sare ridiculed the U.S. and European representatives claiming to defend “democracy” in Ukraine, where 13 opposition parties have been banned, Russian-language newspapers shut down, trade unions stripped of their rights, and anyone voting in a referendum is threatened with 13 years in prison.
She particularly cited the ugly irony of a Canadian official who said: “Canada understands the threat of propaganda to the freedom of speech!” Sare added, “It is astonishing, that 77 years after defeating the Nazis, people don’t find a problem with siding with Nazis today. Why has the U.S. refused to vote in the UN to condemn the revival of Nazism?”
Ray McGovern, former CIA officer and cofounder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), noted the hypocrisy of the sudden and total denunciation and sanctioning of Russia by the Obama Administration after that Administration had run the 2014 coup, overthrowing the elected government, and inserting puppet officials with extensive Nazi supporters, then blaming Russia for “annexing Crimea without provocation.” He quoted Vladimir Putin’s response: “Americans appear to conduct experiments with people and nations as if they were rats, without understanding what they were doing.”
The mantra today that the Russian military operation in Ukraine was “unprovoked,” McGovern said, brings to mind a quote by Will Rogers: “The problem is not what people know—it’s what people know that ain’t so.” He then quoted the George Bush gaffe in Texas recently when he denounced the fact that: “One man, on his own, launched a brutal, destructive war in Iraq—I mean, Ukraine!” He took note that Bush was never tried for his open support for genocidal wars based on lies, or for his promotion of torture. Asked why the Schiller Institute was singled out on the CCD hit list, he replied: “Where is any other unfettered discussion of the truth in the Ukraine/Russia war? It doesn’t exist!’
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, who is number two on the CCD hit list announced July 14, as well as being on the Myrotvorets “kill list,” said that the Schiller Institute conferences, 31 of whose speakers were placed on the hit list, were not about Ukraine per se, but about how to avoid World War III, calling for a new architecture for global security and development for all nations. She stressed that political assassinations were always aimed at those challenging empire, which is true about the Schiller Institute today. The fact that the neo-liberal system is bankrupt, with economies in the West in hyper-inflationary free fall, while famine is sweeping the Global South, can only be resolved by the U.S., Russia, China, and others sitting down together rather than going to war. The West must join the new paradigm being forged by the BRICS, the SCO, and others, not try to destroy them.
Zepp-LaRouche said that after the assassination of JFK, a deep pessimism took over the U.S., nearly as severe as in Germany, which is a “colony of the Empire.” If the U.S. would return to being the Beacon of Hope and Temple of Liberty of its best traditions, the world would admire it once again.
She closed the EIR press conference praising all who had participated in this powerful call to arms, to non-violent direct action, contributing substantially to the exposure of the approved “narrative” by Western governments and media, which has covered for this overtly fascist censorship and threats to free speech and the personal safety of leading Americans and international figures. She called for wide distribution of the event, to expand momentum for the creation of a new security and development architecture for mankind.
The five opening speakers were joined by journalists and other individuals also were on the Ukrainian “kill list” as well as a former analyst from the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Among other speakers were Sonja van den Ende, a Dutch journalist, Alessia Ruggieri, a trade unionist from Italy, and Dragana Trifkovic, the head of the Center for Geostrategic Studies in Serbia.
Mira Terada, the head of the human rights organization Foundation To Battle Injustice, based in Moscow, addressed a question and a proposal for joint action to Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Terada’s personal data were also published by the Myrotvorets database as a result of her efforts to get it shut down as a terrorist organization. Her Foundation, she said, “held two press conferences in Moscow, the main purpose of which was to attract the attention of world community to the illegal publication of personal data of underage children and of journalists” by Myrotvorets. There are 326 children and minors named on that death list.
She continued, “Moreover the human rights defenders of the Foundation To Battle Injustice have transferred the collected materials to the United Nations through the First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Dmitry Polyanskiy, and to the UN Children’s Fund minister. I was happy to see today Sonja van den Ende on this video. She was talking about the press conference that took place yesterday and was arranged by my Foundation.
“I would also like to inform you that just yesterday the Foundation To Battle Injustice submitted documents to the Federal Security Service of Russia to investigate the activities of the Myrotvorets website and recognize those involved in the creation of this resource as a terrorist organization. We have prepared, also, an open letter to the UN that has been signed by many journalists and we came to the conclusion that the database of the Ukrainian nationalist resource contained the personal data of at least 341 journalists from 31 countries of the world. We ask all participants and viewers of today’s press conference to sign it. I will send it any mail to the organizers of the conference, with the open letter. And as the head of the Foundation To Battle Injustice, I’m convinced that only through the joint efforts of human rights organizations, law enforcement agencies and international intergovernmental organizations, is it possible to achieve a concrete blocking of the Myrotvorets resource and complete deletion of person data collected and posted illegally.
“I have a proposal to sign the petition, to sign an open letter that I will email to the Schiller Institute. Thank you.”
Bradley Blankenship, who writes for Xinhua and RT, described himself as “the youngest person on the list” at the event, adding that he has been attacked for what he writes in several parts of the world—in Syria, in Ecuador, and now in the Czech Republic, where he has been summoned to the Interior Ministry. He said he has become so disillusioned by the situation in his native U.S., that “I don’t feel like a patriot any longer.” He pointed out, however, that “70,000 people marched against the government’s anti-Russia policies in Prague last week.”
Jens Jørgen Nielsen, a former Moscow correspondent for the major Danish daily Politiken, and author of several books about Russia, is one of three Danes on the hit list. He reported that a courageous member of Denmark’s Parliament challenged the Foreign Minister to denounce the CCD, threatening attack on his right to free speech, but the Foreign Minister refused to do so. Instead, the Foreign Minister just spoke of the necessity for victory over Putin. “This is a scary thing,” Nielsen said. “Our rights are apparently not inalienable, as we believed.”
Geoff Young, who won the Democratic primary as the candidate for U.S. Congress in Kentucky’s 6th district, said Ukraine had not been a democracy since 2014 when the CIA, State Department and Pentagon overthrew the elected government, placing their puppets in power. That government proceeded to bombard their own citizens who had rejected the foreign coup, killing over 10,000 citizens in the Donbas, “three times more than the deaths on 9/11.” He said that if elected, he would correct the impeachment laws so that presidents would be impeached not for trivial things such as political burglaries, sexual picadilloes and false charges as foreign agents, but for the genocidal and illegal wars, such of those waged by George Bush, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden.
David Pyne, Deputy Director of National Operations for the EMP Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a private grouping, said that he earned a place on the hit list by, first, offering a means to avoid war before the February Russian move into Ukraine, requiring simply a U.S. pledge that Ukraine would not join NATO; and, after the war started, proposing an agreement similar to the Minsk accord. “My intention was to save the world from a nuclear holocaust,” he added, and blasted Boris Johnson and Joe Biden for sabotaging the peace negotiations in April. He offered his thanks and support to EIR for leading this campaign.
Kirk Wiebe is a former National Security Agency expert who exposed the NSA sabotage of systems which could have targeted terrorists and prevented the 9/11 disaster. The system, he said, has instead been used for mass surveillance of Americans and others. Wiebe emphasized that “we are all under attack,” and that there “must be no spectators, but a full-court press” working with the Schiller Institute to counter “this cabal of fascists.”
The new EIR Investigative Reports: “Kiev’s ‘Info Terrorist’ List: ‘Global NATO’ Orders a Hit on Advocates of Peace;’” and “Ukraine’s Deahtlist Database: myrotvorets.center” are available in EIR, Volume 49, Number 34, September 2, 2022 on line at https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2022/eirv49n34-20220902/index.html .
The Schiller Institute is very happy to release today, September 8, 2022, the First Edition of the “Festschrift for Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., September 8, 1922 – February 12, 2019 on the Centennial of His Birth.” Contributions continue to come in to commemorate Mr. LaRouche and we expect to have a Second Edition soon available.
Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern, Col. Richard Black (ret.), Diane Sare, candidate for U.S. Senate, and other Americans targeted by Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), who have also demanded Congressional action to stop the U.S. funding of the CCD, will be available to speak to the media. Simultaneous interpretation will be available for several languages (for more information concerning interpretation, contact us by email).
The EIR report states that, “Rapid, decisive international action is required to force the closure of the Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), which operates under and answers to Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council. A blacklist issued by the CCD July 14, 2022, naming more than 70 leading journalists, academics, politicians, military, and other professionals from 22 countries, as ‘Kremlin propagandists,’ is a hitlist, posing a grave threat to the personal security of those named therein.”
And that EIR report further states that it has now confirmed that at least five of those fingered by the CCD are included in the list of “criminals to be eliminated” published by the avowedly fascist “Myrotvorets” gang in Ukraine: Schiller Institute founder and leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche; Schiller Institute spokesman Harley Schlanger; former CIA officer and active anti-war activist Ray McGovern, the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), who has participated in Schiller Institute conferences; former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter; and former U.S. Congresswoman and Democratic presidential pre-candidate Tulsi Gabbard. The Myrotvorets list is reported to have accumulated nearly 200,000 names since it was started in 2014 and, given the difficulties in using its search engine, others from the CCD blacklist may also be on the Myrotvorets hitlist.
The report documents that, “Although the CCD operates under the Office of the Presidency, it is not Ukraine’s “Ministry of Truth”; it is, rather, Global NATO’s. It is funded and closely advised by the U.S. State Department, British intelligence, and NATO in every step it takes.”
Responsibility for the CCD/Myrotvorets hits, both those which have occurred and those threatened, will rest squarely on those international sponsors—including members of the U.S. Congress who vote in support of continued funding for the CCD operation.
One hundred years ago, on September 8, Lyndon LaRouche was born, a person whom many people throughout the world, including myself, consider the greatest thinker of our era. For the Trans-Atlantic Establishment, on the other hand, he is the most hated, feared and slandered person and that, in the time of Donald Trump, Vladmir Putin and Xi Jinping, speaks volumes. As I was fortunate enough to be married to him for 41 years, and to have worked with him for half a century in building up an international movement, I can add my personal judgment that he was the most beautiful soul, in the sense of Friedrich Schiller, that I have ever met. That means that, for him, freedom and necessity, passion and duty were one, and he was precisely the type of individual that corresponds to the characterization Schiller gave of a genius. And what is truly excellent, is that his ideas are alive today and influential in many countries of the world.
Lyndon LaRouche had unparalleled knowledge and an unfailing sense of the coherence of philosophical, epistemological, cultural, and scientific concepts, which allowed him to be at home in the history of such ideas, and to immediately recognize their essential nature. Based on this ability, he rejected in the early 1950s the information theory and systems analysis of people such as Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann as inadequate for describing economic processes, and developed his own scientific method of physical economy, which built upon Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Friedrich List, Henry C. Carey and Bernhard Riemann, among others.
From this point of view and with the benefit of his vast knowledge of two thousand five hundred years of the history of European culture and science and of universal history in general, he recognized, much more clearly than anyone else, the potentially catastrophic effects of the drug-sex-rock counter-culture of the 1960s on the cognitive potential and, thus, on the long-term productivity of the population. What is likely his most significant forecast, however, was his assessment of President Nixon’s abolition of the Bretton Woods System through the introduction of flexible exchange rates and the decoupling of the dollar from the gold standard on August 15, 1971. He warned at that time that if the change in course that assumed—toward a purely monetarist financial system aimed at profit maximization—were to be maintained, the world would necessarily head toward a new depression, a new fascism, and the danger of a new world war, unless a totally new and just world economic order were established.
Unfortunately, the Trans-Atlantic Establishment did not listen to LaRouche. That is why, 50 years later, the world is now precisely at the point he had forecast. Over the course of the ensuing decades, every time the Wall Street and City of London financial oligarchy promoted the process of market deregulation to the detriment of the real economy, he put his finger on the wound, and analyzed the consequences of this policy. The Carter Administration’s policy of “controlled dis-integration of the economy,” Volker’s high interest rates, outsourcing to cheap labor markets, just-in-time production, the policy of mergers and acquisitions, Reaganomics and Thatcherism, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the shareholder-value society, derivatives speculation, the fatal consequences of the miraculous monetary expansion of QE and the zero-interest policy—he denounced all of these milestones of the neoliberal financial system as fundamental errors that were ultimately just stations on the way to the systemic crash.
Rather than using his analyses to correct their mistakes, the financial oligarchy regarded LaRouche from the beginning as a deadly danger for their system, and launched a decades-long international crusade to suppress his ideas and thereby his influence. A veritable army of agents of influence in the media and all kinds of institutions, including diplomats around the world, was deployed internationally to pressure anyone who showed interest in whatever form in his proposals.
The hundreds, if not thousands, of razor sharp analyses and assessments that LaRouche provided over the years would have absolutely sufficed to prevent the current strategic catastrophe. But at the same time, he also used his warnings to present concepts for a solution. When several heads of state began in the early 1980s to take up his ideas and implement them, the financial oligarchy basically decided that LaRouche had to be eliminated. Mexico’s then President, José López Portillo, had asked LaRouche to write for him a program in defense of the peso and the economy, which he began to implement on September 1, 1982. India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi began at the same time to implement LaRouche’s proposed 40-year program for the economic development of India. And on March 23, 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that LaRouche had proposed, which was the most extensive proposal for a new global security architecture that anyone had designed up to that time, which would have overcome the NATO and Warsaw Pact blocs and initiated a large-scale development perspective for the developing sector. President Reagan was ready to change the strategic constellation at the time, while the Arbatov-Ogarkov-Gorbachov faction in the Soviet Union rejected this proposal, and thereby chose a path that significantly contributed to the early demise of the Soviet Union.
LaRouche ran for President of the United States eight times, seven of them in Democratic Party primaries. Just reporting on the sabotage operations run against him by the party leadership apparatus associated with Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the current leadership would fill an entire book. When LaRouche candidates began to win elections in 1986—taking the second and third highest positions for state office in primaries in Illinois—the decision was made to attack him for good. On October 6, 1986, the FBI staged a raid on LaRouche’s home and offices, deploying 400 heavily armed law enforcement officials, armored vehicles, and helicopters, an operation that makes the recent raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate by 40 FBI agents look like a child’s birthday party. The objective of the raid on LaRouche and myself was nothing less than to eliminate us physically, which was only prevented by an intervention from the White House.
What followed were trumped-up charges, the illegal use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), rigged trials, and finally the incarceration of LaRouche and a number of his associates.
At an international tribunal initiated by civil rights activists and African-American state legislators after LaRouche was released from prison, the former U.S. Attorney General of the Johnson administration, Ramsey Clark, who took the initiative of intervening on his own, described the actions of the Administration as follows:
But in what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focussed on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one. There are some, where the government itself may have done more and more wrongfully over a period of time; but the very networking and combination of federal, state, and local agencies, of Executive and even some Legislative and Judicial branches, of major media and minor local media, and of influential lobbyist types, the ADL preeminently—this case takes the prize. The purpose can only be seen as destroying—more than a political movement, more than a political figure—it is those two; but it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the status quo, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost….
I participated in this tribunal. I insisted emphatically that the greatest crime against LaRouche was not to have unjustly condemned such a great and wonderful mind to prison, but rather that the massive slander campaign of his name and his ideas prevented to a large extent the American population, and beyond that, the international public, from grappling with his ideas and above all with the solutions he proposed.
Today, 27 years after that tribunal, on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lyndon LaRouche, we can study the result of the financial oligarchy’s attempted campaign to destroy him. The trans-Atlantic financial system is about to end in hyperinflation, the “rules-based order of values” and NATO are a colossus with feet of clay, and there is a transparent attempt to control the “narratives” by muzzling the entire population and immediately slandering anyone who voices an opinion of their own on the causes of the war or inflation as an “agent of Putin.” If the West continues like this, we will fail.
On the other hand, LaRouche’s ideas have had enormous success. His proposals for the development of infrastructure in developing countries, which he has presented since the early 1970s, and his program for the New Silk Road, which has become the World Land-Bridge and was his response to the collapse of the Soviet Union, are now being realized by China and its Belt and Road/Silk Road Initiative. The new economic and financial system being realized today by many countries and institutions in the Global South is based on his concept of physical economy, while economists in many countries, especially in Asia, are studying LaRouche’s writings and implementing them for the benefit of their countries.
LaRouche was a patriot of the America that fought the first successful war of independence against the British Empire, but he was also a world citizen, who always put the interest of mankind as a whole first. People could sense that, and when LaRouche traveled in developing countries or Europe, they often expressed their utmost trust in him, in a way that only true friendship would allow.
In rejecting LaRouche’s ideas, the West did itself no favor. That the United States treated its greatest son so ignobly will remain a stain on its history forever. The countries that apply his ideas are already economically successful, and will be even more so in the future. Although official success was denied to him by Western countries during his long and incomparably productive life, he led a rich, extraordinarily fulfilling and happy life, because he was inwardly the most free and most creative person on Earth. Was Socrates successful, even though he was murdered? He certainly is, while his murderers are forgotten dust.
Lyndon LaRouche is the Nemesis of his enemies and the joy and pride of a future, better era for mankind. He is immortal.
Aug. 16—The following statement was issued this month, to crossfire international support, after farm and ranch leaders from four countries met on the crisis.
We stand together with the German farmers in their protest demonstrations in August. They are on the front lines, alongside the Dutch farmers, in protesting to stop the dictates that will shut down farms, and cause mass food shortages, ordered by their governments, and by the European Union in Brussels.
Dutch farmers face mandates to cut livestock by as much as 30%. The excuse for this is to reduce emissions and run-off of nitrous oxide and ammonia. German farmers face mandates to drastically cut use of fertilizer, pesticides and cropland itself. Similar mandates are coming down in the Americas, and other targeted agriculture regions. The year 2030, and earlier are the deadlines.
The originators of these deadly mandates operate through an international constellation of globally powerful, private banks, NGOs, transnational corporations, and captive government offices. They must be stopped. They know full well their directives mean depopulation.
We must expand, not cut, food production. We have a world food shortage emergency. Over 800 million people go hungry, and millions of them are headed to death by starvation. These numbers could double in a year. The world grains harvest is going down.
Our support for the German and Dutch farmers is a call to action among our fellow citizens, in whichever country we may be, to restore national sovereignty, and stop the destructive dictates and the trans-national finance and cartel powers behind them.
We need sovereign government action, and collaboration among nations, to expand independent food producers everywhere, and mobilize emergency and long- term measures to vastly increase food production. Double it! We need mutual-interest trade and foreign relations, and cancellation of economic sanctions. Use anti-trust to bust up the monopolies. Re-regulate banking on the Glass-Steagall principle. Build infrastructure (water, power, public health, transport) to protect from drought, floods, and all disasters.
Food is not a “farmer’s issue.” We call on people from all walks of life to join with us, in supporting the farmers everywhere.
Add your signature and/or send a message to the farmer organizers of the Aug. 31 demonstrations in Germany, via email: contact@schillerinstitute.org
Mike Billington interviews Col. Richard H. Black (ret.) on the Ukraine Center for Countering Disinformation board hit list, the Ukraine war and his thoughts about the Schiller Institute’s role in today’s crisis.
Mike Billington: Hello. This is Mike Billington. I’m the co-editor of the Executive Intelligence Review representing the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Organization. I’m here today, August 23, 2022, with Colonel Richard A. Black—Senator Richard Black—who, after serving for 31 years in the U.S. Marines and in the Army, then served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1998 to 2006, and in the Virginia Senate from 2012 to 2020, I’ll allow Colonel Black to describe his military service himself.
Colonel Black, my interview with you April 26, which focused on the difference between the U.S. and the Russian military operations in Syria and also in Ukraine, now has had nearly 3 million views, a million in English, over half a million in Russia with Russian subtitles, and many, many other languages. The thousands of comments, have been mostly of the nature of high praise for a military veteran telling the truth about the extreme danger of the failed U.S. leadership, which is driving the world towards global war, perhaps even nuclear war. So, you have a very large following around the world!
For Ministries of ‘Truth,’ Truth Is the Danger’
Perhaps that is one of the reasons that you are one of the 72 people who were placed on the blacklist published July 14 by the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD), which of course means Censorship Board, or Ministry of Truth, you could say. The CCD was set up by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. and British intelligence in Kiev to label any challenge to the approved narrative about military operations in Ukraine as “Russian propaganda,” even calling the people on the list, i.e., you, “information terrorists” and “war criminals. What is your view of this?
Col. Richard Black: Well, let me start, if I could, by just giving our listeners a little bit of my background. I want to make it very clear that I love my country. I’ve risked my life for it hundreds of times. I volunteered to fight in Vietnam. I was a helicopter pilot, flew 269 combat missions. My helicopter was hit by enemy ground fire on four of those flights. In one case, bullets that were aimed directly at me tore through the cowling of the cockpit just behind my head. They very nearly hit me.
I was flying off the carrier Iwo Jima in the South China Sea off the coast of the Philippines, when the flight operations officer who briefed us in the morning, told us our squadron has been tasked with providing a volunteer to fight on the ground with the 1st Marine Division, which was at the time heavily engaged in combat. I immediately volunteered, went to work with the 1st Marine Division, and fought in 70 bloody combat patrols. During my final patrol, I was wounded. Both my radiomen were killed next to me after we had launched a rubber boat assault and crossed a river under enemy fire.
I served a total of 32 years in uniform, first as a marine pilot, then as an Army lawyer, I ran legal offices at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, Fort Ord, California, and at Fort Lewis, Washington. In each of those I supervised 25-40 Army lawyers. Finally, I retired as Chief of the Criminal Law Division at the Pentagon, where I testified before Congress. I advised the Senate Armed Services Committee and prepared executive orders that were signed by the President.
That said, I am adamantly opposed to our current wars and especially the very dangerous war that we’ve engaged in in Ukraine. I believe the U.S., the U.K., and the European Union have embarked on an imprudent course of action that has carried a significant risk of triggering an all-out nuclear war.
Moving on to the issue of the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation. It’s very interesting—this woman, Nina Jankewitz, created quite a media frenzy when it was discovered that the Department of Homeland Security was going to set up a disinformation board, a “Ministry of Truth,” to decide which versions of facts would be permissible and which ones would be censored. This was censorship at the very highest levels of the federal government.
Nina Jankewitz is a rather bizarre, young, narcissistic woman with an extensive background of working within the Ukrainian system and informing those people about how to control so-called “disinformation.” Now, she was President Biden’s pick to be the Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s new Disinformation Governance Board. Literally, the sole purpose of that board was to censor critics of government policies. This is a woman who supposedly is going to make things more truthful by suppressing voices like yours and mine. It’s interesting that she issued some tweets that implied that reports about Hunter Biden’s laptops were somehow Russian disinformation.
Well, I think practically everyone in the country, Democrat and Republican, understands that there is something gravely wrong with Hunter Biden’s laptops and the information revealed on them. Jankewitz has said that she shudders to think of what free speech abolitionists would do if Elon Musk loosens the restrictions on free speech imposed by Twitter. In other words, if there is somehow an explosion of freedom in America, she just doesn’t know how the world would deal with the truth.
You know, the truth is quite a danger. We do know that she has very close connections with the Ukrainian government, and the Ukrainian government has set up a Disinformation Board, which issued essentially a blacklist which contains 72 names, 30 of whom were speakers at a conference of the Schiller Institute, which has done some excellent work in keeping people informed about what’s going on. This blacklist is clearly intended to instill fear and to silence critics, to censor critics.
Here we have a situation where the Department of Homeland Security is giving guidance to the Ukrainian government, to the SBU, which is sort of a terroristic secret police in in Ukraine, telling them how to suppress the voices of American citizens. Not only American. There is an Italian General, a lot of prominent people. We’ve got a very real problem where we have American taxpayer dollars being spent by the Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of silencing free speech. That’s where we stand right now.
The Targetting of the Schiller Institute
Billington: As you mentioned, 30 of the people on that list were either leaders or friends of the Schiller Institute, who spoke at one of the Schiller Institute conferences. You spoke at several Schiller Institute conferences with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. What is your sense of why there’s this extreme targeting of the Schiller Institute by these Ukrainian forces?
Col. Black: I think if you look at the people who have appeared at these various conferences and interviews that have been done by Schiller Institute—the Schiller Institute and the Executive Intelligence Review publish highly accurate, very balanced foreign policy assessments, and also raw intelligence from which people can simply look and see what the media from all different nations is saying. You have this aggregation of open source intelligence, which allows people to sift through and to some extent, to arrive at their own conclusions. And I think that the Schiller Institute is viewed as a genuine threat to the new world order, the globalist, the deep state, whatever you want to call them. For them, truth is the ultimate disinformation.
Billington: You were one of 16 Americans on that hit list who this past week signed a letter to six congressional committees—the Intelligence, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees in both the House and the Senate—a letter which demands an investigation of, as you said, the use of taxpayer money to finance a foreign entity in Ukraine, which is threatening the right to constitutionally guaranteed free speech of Americans, as well as threatening the personal safety of American citizens, given that people are accused of being propagandists for Russia with whom Ukraine is at war, and therefore to call these people war criminals and terrorists, is clearly a threat that something might be done physically. Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer who’s also on the list, made the point that when you’re dealing with the Ukraine regime, such a list is a “kill list.”
As both a former military officer who headed the Army’s Criminal Law Division and a political leader who served in the Virginia House and Senate, what is the impact of this U.S.-sponsored and -funded threat on you and others? And what must the Congress do?
Col. Black: You know, it’s interesting. At the at the height of the Islamic caliphate that was set up by the terror group ISIS, I was among three Americans who were named as enemies of ISIS. ISIS called me “The American Crusader,” and that was certainly a hit list. And so it’s ironic, but here we are and we now have not the infamous terror group ISIS, but we have the Ukrainian government operating, probably under the specific direction of the Department of Homeland Security, to put me on a target list, which frankly, today I think is far more dangerous. I think ISIS ended up having much more to worry about than whether I liked them or didn’t like them. But I think today the hit list published by the Ukrainian government is probably a more deadly hit list.
Just this week, Daria Dugina, the daughter of an activist, a pro-Russian activist, was murdered in Moscow, apparently by a Ukrainian assassin who killed her using a bomb that exploded under her car, ripping her body to pieces and burning her to death. Since the United States has admitted being involved in targeting 13 Russian Generals for assassination in Ukraine, it is possible that the CIA provided the targeting information to go after this young woman.
Apparently, they were actually targeting her father. He’s an established pro-Russian pro-war journalist. And they wanted to show that they have the ability to go right into Moscow and to carry out a mafia style hit. So, they did it. I would not be surprised if the CIA provided the targeting information to go after her. It was just a last-minute switch of automobiles that caused the daughter to die instead of the father.
I would agree with Scott Ritter to this extent. The CIA and the Department of Homeland Security have a common interest in blocking access to the truth about the Ukrainian war. The SBU, the secret intelligence agency of Ukraine, is being molded through a series of rather violent purges by Zelensky into one of the most ruthless intelligence agencies in history. It is possible that the SBU could view the Ukraine/Department of Homeland Security’s joint list as some sort of a kill signal authorizing them to go after individuals, to attempt to assassinate them.
The Case of Senate Candidate Diane Sare
Billington: Another person on the CCD list is Diane Sare, the independent LaRouche candidate from New York State for U.S. Senate against Chuck Schumer. Chuck Schumer was one of the leading members of the Congress pushing the massive funding of the Ukraine government and war, including their Security and Defense Council, which set up this hit list. She’s on the hit list, and running against Chuck Schumer. So, Chuck Schumer is financing a foreign entity which is threatening a candidate against him. This would appear to be a quite virulent intervention into an American election. Do you have some thoughts on that?
Col. Black: I do know that Diane Sare is on the hit list. I’ve listened to her discuss this issue in an interview with Scott Ritter. She is an amazingly bright, informed, articulate, appealing candidate. I can’t imagine anyone being a better representative of the American people than Diane Sare. She would certainly have my vote if I were in New York. She makes clear what’s going on.
Here we have a senatorial candidate, a prominent woman in New York, and you’ve got Chuck Schumer in a position where he’s funding Homeland Security. I’m sure that he’s quite comfortable with the idea of a Disinformation Board, because there’s a lot of “disinformation” about him that he’d like to suppress! It shows the darkness and the challenge that the American Disinformation Board, and the Ukrainian Disinformation Board—the threat that they pose to freedom. These are not instruments of the people. They’re not instruments of liberty and freedom. They are instruments of tyranny. These are the kinds of things that the Gestapo, that the Bolsheviks, that the great tyrannies of the world imposed—some sort of preclearance on what you can say and what you can’t. I think it’s a very, very bad sign.
The FBI Raid on Donald Trump’s Home
Billington: U.S. taxpayers are also funding our Department of Justice, and the FBI, and that means they are also financing the raid against the former President’s home. In February 2020, Donald Trump, as everybody knows, was impeached for allegedly trying to influence President Volodymyr Zelensky in Ukraine to investigate alleged criminal behavior by President Trump’s opponent, Joe Biden, and especially his son, Hunter, as you mentioned. And yet here’s Joe Biden raiding the home of his possible opponent in the 2024 presidential election. What are your thoughts on this raid?
Col. Black: The raid is absolutely outrageous. It is amazing. If you look at what happened here, this is an election year stunt. There’s no justification for it. It is clearly designed as a Hail Mary pass by the Democrats to say, “Look, let’s do a raid and play it up with publicity, and hopefully it’ll somehow taint the Trump campaign for President.” As a practical matter, what has happened since the raid occurred, the American people are waking up. They’ve said, “Hey, wait a minute, we just don’t go for this idea of raiding your political opponent.”
Think about this. When Richard Nixon was in the White House, he was overthrown over a third-rate political prank at the Watergate. It was like Republicans vs. Democrats. In the election prior to Watergate, the Democrats had broken in and burglarized the Republican headquarters. Here we were, and the Republicans burglarizing the Democratic headquarters, and yet they managed to overthrow the Presidency over this. Think of how trivial that event was relative to conducting an all-out FBI raid on the residence of the President of the United States or the former President.
Now, if you look at the way that the FBI did it, of course, you know, they’ve got a very dark history of this. They did it in a way that was designed for maximum publicity. The FBI tipped off the news media to when they were going to be there so that the news media would be able to be on the scene. They chose to maximize the visual setting so that they had emergency lights flashing. They had 30 FBI agents swarming all over the place carrying fully automatic submachine guns in full view. Democrats hate the AR-15, except when their agents are descending on their political opponents, and then they don’t care whether they use machine guns or mortars or whatever. This was set up. They may have had Hollywood directors telling them how to do it—I’m not saying that for a fact—but they thought it through. They thought, “How can we play this out in the media?” It was deliberately designed as a media circus.
Let’s look at their justification for this. They say that President Trump had some classified papers in some cartons that he took when he left the White House.
I have old documents that I’m going through for the first time now, that date back to 1963, and they’ve sat in dusty containers ever since. The idea that somehow President Trump, in between his incredible schedule of making appearances, is going through all these old dusty boxes—I don’t find that too convincing.
But here’s something that I think will interest your listeners. Seymour Hersh is probably the finest investigative journalist of our times. He won the Pulitzer Prize over the My Lai massacre in Vietnam. He exposed the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. He’s a magnificently talented individual. He has spent many, many years, while he’s writing other books and doing other investigative things. He has been, for over 30 years now, preparing a book called The Dark Side of Camelot. It’s a book about President Kennedy and his administration and so forth.
In that book, Hersh interviews a woman named Suzanne K. Forbes, a national security archivist at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. She’s responsible for maintaining the National Security Archives that are held by the Kennedy family, essentially, at the Kennedy Library. She told Hersh, referring to the Eisenhower administration, that the Eisenhower administration left virtually none of its national security files behind when it vacated the White House, and that this typically is the case with outgoing presidential administrations.
Reflect on that. You have national classified holdings today at the Kennedy Library, just as you have in other Presidential libraries. You have the national security archivist at the Kennedy Library saying that this is a typical thing that’s done by different outgoing administrations, specifically the Eisenhower administration, which had some very dark secrets in its time.
If all other Presidents take archives when they leave office, and later on release them at their pleasure from their Presidential archives, why does that suddenly become a crime because Donald Trump does it and the deep state doesn’t like Donald Trump? This whole thing is a total fabrication. We’ve got the Attorney General of the United States, working hand-in-glove with the Biden administration to suddenly create something criminal out of thin air. It’s just a total hoax. It was an attempt to try to influence the midterm elections and nothing else.
No Peace in Ukraine Before Mid-Term Elections
Billington: Let me switch to the global strategic crisis. In our April 26 interview, you warned very stringently that we’re facing the threat of global war and even a nuclear war, and that continues today. The U.S. continues to pour billions of dollars in heavy military hardware into Ukraine. Just last Friday, the Pentagon announced another $775 million in arms shipments, including additional ammunition for the HIMARS system, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, which the spokesman claimed has “really changed the dynamic on the battlefield.”
What is your professional opinion of that claim and the military situation in general in this ongoing conflict?
Col. Black: HIMARS appears to be a very effective system. The HIMARS fires rockets that are GPS guided, so it’s extraordinarily accurate. However, they talk about the HIMARS as though it is somehow going to turn the tide of battle. There is never a particular single weapon that turns the tide of battle. The HIMARS does make a difference, but it will not be decisive.
What we have seen, if you’ve been watching the war from the beginning, the Ukrainians have fought a very fine defensive war, very tenacious. But at the same time, here we are at the six-month point, and they have never once launched a significant counteroffensive. They’ve had limited counterattacks. You know, you can have a single company that launches a counterattack and goes back and forth. But I’m talking about a counteroffensive where they actually make a drive to seize territory somewhere. Not a single time have they done that. At the same time, NATO, the United States had a flood of weapons pouring in to Ukraine. A great many of those have been destroyed. Many of them are being sold on the black market.
Just recently, a very, very good friend of mine, the former military attaché of the Pakistani embassy, Lieutenant General Sarfraz Ali, one of the corps commanders in Pakistan, died in a tragic helicopter accident. There are very strong rumors that he was shot down. Now, the United States has been so loose with control over its anti-aircraft weapons that those things are literally being sold on the dark web. So it’s quite possible that he was shot down either by one of these weapons that was lost in Afghanistan, or perhaps one that’s being sold by the Ukrainians.
In any event, there’s a tremendous bleed-off of weapons that are being sent to Ukraine, and then sold off by oligarchs, diverted in different ways to terror groups and so forth. The flow of weapons to the Ukrainian army has slowed very dramatically since the beginning of the war, and yet the flow of weapons on the Russian side continues. It’s very steady.
People looking at the Ukraine Russian war are somehow saying, “Well, look, the Russians haven’t staged an enormous blitzkrieg.” But you have to realize that the eastern part of Ukraine is heavily industrialized. What the Russians are really doing is fighting urbanized combat on a very massive regional scale. You don’t do that with some sudden rush. It’s not as though you’re going off across empty planes, rolling your tanks, like might have happened sometimes in the Second World War. It is urban combat. It’s very, very difficult, very brutal. And yet the Russians continuously move forward and they are inflicting enormous, just a terrible number of casualties on the Ukrainians.
I’m confident that nothing will be done to achieve peace before the mid-terms, because there’s no way that the United States is going to allow Zelensky to talk peace with the Russians. But I hope that they will do it, because I hate to see these young Ukrainian men being slaughtered, they’re just being used as cannon fodder for the Russians and also that the West can achieve certain political gains and sell weapons and so forth.
‘The Effort to Destroy Russia Has Failed’
Billington: In particular, Secretary of Defense, Gen. Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Tony Blinken were in Kiev at the same time as our previous interview in April. Austin said at that point, “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kind of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” Now, this is not a military policy. This is a geopolitical mission to destroy Russia and its people through the massive sanction policy, as well as the proxy war in Ukraine. What do you think about this? And is the effort to destroy Russia working?
Col. Black: When we first went in there, there was all sorts of excited talk, from the President on down, about how we were going to turn the ruble into dust. We would destroy it. We would impose sanctions like nobody had ever seen. We would just cut off Russia and they would all starve or whatever. And we have moved to do everything that we claimed we would do. But the fact of the matter is that there was an initial sort of a shock wave in Russia. The ruble initially declined. There was a sudden outflow of capital, a momentary outflow.
But then, the Russian Central Bank moved quite aggressively, very effectively to limit capital outflows, to devise ways to work around the sanctions. The ruble today is at a seven-year high, during the time since the invasion. The ruble has become the world’s strongest single currency in terms of its appreciation against other currencies. Instead of being turned to dust, it has become much stronger than any other currency. Part of this comes from the fact that Russia has heavy gold reserves and very low debt, unlike the United States, which prints money on a whim. Russia has to follow budgets and they don’t spend money that they don’t have. So it’s given them tremendous financial resiliency. As far as the sanctions were concerned, the Russian balance of trade is now triple what it was before the war. The reason for this is that they have found alternative markets for their oil.
Russia’s selling to China. They’re selling to India. They’re selling to Japan. They’re even selling to Turkey, which is one of the NATO countries! They’re selling oil all around the world. They’re selling all of their commodities. They do it at a heavily discounted price, but they produce them at a low price; they’re making lots of profits. It’s interesting how the media talks about, “Well, there’s a recession going to hit them,” and they call Putin a dictator, even though he’s elected, in fairly fair elections relative to our own. I guess he’s an elected dictator! But then they always acknowledge that he is reluctant to declare full mobilization because the people might not like it. So he is far more responsive to the Russian people than our government is to our people. I don’t think he’s a dictator. I think he is a duly elected government representative of the people.
In any event, the effort to destroy Russia has failed. And now, as we approach the Winter, there is a growing sense of panic in Europe. Russia didn’t impose sanctions, the U.S. imposed sanctions, and the U.S. forced the European Union to impose sanctions. Who did the sanctions hurt? They hurt Europe more than anybody else. They hurt the United States somewhat. But we have really just thrown Europe under the bus because they depend on the Russian gas, oil, and other commodities. So, no, it has not worked.
Flaunting the ‘One China’ Policy
Billington: We have a parallel situation now developing in Asia. As you know, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who’s third in line to the presidency, recently visited Taiwan, even though President Biden had a phone call with President Xi Jinping just days before the trip, during which President Xi Jinping called on Biden to stop it, saying “those who play with fire will perish by fire.” Biden even said publicly that the U.S. military was advising Pelosi not to go, although that might have been just him saying it. But it appears that the same military-industrial forces who launched the surrogate war against Russia in Ukraine want to do the same thing with Taiwan, that they’re trying to force China to act militarily to defend their sovereignty, and then blame them and impose massive sanctions and decoupling on China as they have with Russia. What is your view of the Asia ploy?
Col. Black: This whole thing about Taiwan has been a concoction of the U.S. State Department. If the United States were not constantly putting a sharp stick in the eye of the Chinese, things would be quiet around the Taiwan issue. The United States recognized long ago that there was One China and that Beijing was the seat of government for One China. But we did it in a very delicate way that sort of preserved some autonomy for Taiwan. We didn’t officially recognize their government, but unofficially, there was sort of an acknowledgement that we saw some legitimacy to it. There’s a very delicate balance.
Henry Kissinger has recently spoken about it—I know he’s not one of your favorites. He’s not one of mine. But as he grows old, he said a few things that were accurate. And one is, he’s been rather distraught about how cavalier we have been in upsetting this very delicate balance. As he said, and I agree with him, that the One China policy established by Richard Nixon—I think generally acknowledged as one of his great achievements—has preserved peace in that region for 50 years. It’s enhanced trade enormously.
I tended to agree with President Trump that we needed to renegotiate some things on the trade scene, but it didn’t mean that we had to become hostile, and I don’t think President Trump intended any hostility toward China. I think he just intended to try to gain a little bit of advantage for American firms. And I didn’t disagree with that.
President Biden has not been good on China, but at the same time, he at least had the sense to recognize that what Pelosi was doing was her swan song—I don’t know what she gets out of it personally, but she obviously hopes for something because, she’s going to be out of office after November because she will almost certainly step down when the Republicans take over.
So, what is it? What motivated her to make this extremely provocative visit? She was forcing the Chinese to react in some way. Fortunately, they’ve done it in a balanced way that was probably the minimum of what they could have reasonably done. They’ve done a little bit of a show of force, flying aircraft and ships and that kind of thing. But we always run the risk that something like what Pelosi’s done, or one of these very provocative movements of ships, something that we do, triggers an inordinate response. Somehow, we’re relying on the maturity and the good judgment of people in China to prevent some catastrophe from happening. At the same time, we’re allowing ourselves to take the most reckless, provocative steps, totally in reliance on their good judgment over on the other side. It’s not wise.
Contempt of Military and Civilian Officials for Americans
Billington: You may have seen that Susan Glasser and Peter Baker, two leading journalistic promoters of the regime-change wars around the world—they’ve never seen a war they didn’t like—recently published an article in The New Yorker about Gen. Mark Milley, who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump and still is so today. The article is called “Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals.” They report that Milley opposed Donald Trump, his Commander-in-Chief, on many fronts, but especially on Trump’s orders to end the “endless wars” in Afghanistan and in Syria. Glasser and Baker, of course, support Milley in rejecting those orders, to therefore continue the wars.
Milley is still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. You’ve strongly criticized him in the past. In your professional view, what do you think about what is going on there with the top military officers of our country?
Col. Black: First of all, the article is a very, very interesting article. You have to read it understanding the enormous bias and prejudice of the two people who wrote the article. They obviously have no concept of self-governance, of the right of the people to govern themselves. They seem to think of the American public as a bunch of buffoons who need to be governed by an unaccountable elite, which, unfortunately, is the case now. When President Trump was elected, he had no governmental experience. His greatest single failing was that he selected a cabinet and he selected general officers who literally despised him and disagreed with every policy that he had campaigned on and promised the American people.
Keep in mind, the American people elected Trump because of those policies, not because they liked his style—well, some of them did probably like his style—but they liked his policies. They liked his foreign policy, among other things. But unfortunately, Trump was sort of enamored by people with Ivy League degrees, with Generals who have lots of stars on their shoulders. He didn’t realize the cultural change that took place under Clinton. Obama, now continues under Biden, where we no longer have the great American patriots in the Pentagon and the State Department. We now have people who are very disdainful of the American people. They have sort of a contempt and a hatred for the people that they govern.
As you read the Glasser and Baker article, you see that within the national security establishment, Department of State, the CIA, the FBI, there was quite a contempt for a government of the people. A comment by one of the authors reflects this: “Yet the Constitution offered no practical guide for a General faced with a rogue President.” Now, if that doesn’t tell you something about the way the elites look at our system of government — how can the President be a “rogue President? He’s the highest elected official in the land. He is the person who is entrusted by the public with carrying out their will. How can he be a “rogue President?”
I think all of the people who were opposing him were rogue Generals, rogue cabinet officials. This Mark Milley’s made some rather bizarre statements. One of them was after Jan. 6, when we had the demonstrations at the at the Capitol. He calls together the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he makes this bizarre statement. He says: “This is a Reichstag moment, the moment of the Führer!” This man is a histrionic buffoon. He is a dangerous individual who truly is a threat to the Constitution. That kind of bizarre type of reaction—we’ve seen the same thing when he’s testified before the U.S. Senate in June 2021, defending the teaching of Critical Race Theory in our service academies.
Gen. Milley made this angry statement: he said, “I want to read Critical Race Theory,” or something like that. “I want to read this Critical Race Theory so that I’ll understand white rage.” Well, if you hate white soldiers, then get out of the uniform. Get the heck out of there. You have no business there. White rage. This isn’t white rage.
The Jan. 6, 2021 demonstrations had about 900,000 people in the nation’s capital, and they were a cut of Americana. They were black, they were white, they were Asian, they were Hispanic, almost in the same proportions as the entire country. There were plenty of all of these. It wasn’t a token here and there. There were lots of blacks, lots of Asians, lots of Hispanic, lots of whites. It was a mix of America rising up not to overthrow the Constitution, but to ensure that the Constitution was followed and was not overthrown. And it was not a violent revolution. There wasn’t a single person caught in the Capitol with a weapon. The only person who was killed, who was deliberately killed that Jan. 6, was killed by an officer, an agent working for Nancy Pelosi, who gunned down an unarmed woman who had no arms, had nothing. Without warning, he just shot her through the neck and killed her. That was the only killing that took place on that day.
Three times, the President ordered that we remove U.S. troops from Syria. When he ordered it done, he just gave a blank, no nonsense order, “You will withdraw by a date certain,” Gen. James Mattis, who was Secretary of Defense at the time, resigned in order to throw some chaos into the chain of command. John Bolton, who was National Security Adviser, flew over to Tel Aviv and announced over there that we were not withdrawing, simply countermanding the order of the President of the United States. Later on, after the President had totally reshuffled his cabinet to try to get some loyal people in, he again ordered that American troops withdraw from Syria. Again, they simply refused to obey the order.
There is a danger that when you have a military establishment that is not responsive to the President of the United States, we begin to set ourselves up for a military coup and the imposition of a military dictatorship. I think the leadership in the Pentagon today is inclined in that direction, and I think it’s a very dangerous thing. I’m hoping that whether it’s Trump or whether it’s someone else, whoever takes over in January 2025 must conduct an organized, orderly purge of the general officers and replace them with people who are loyal to the Constitution of the United States. That is absolutely imperative.
Today’s Global Crises Require Global Cooperation
Billington: If there is any chance of preventing the danger that you’ve indicated now for months of heading into a global war, a global nuclear war, perhaps, it would require that the U.S. and Russia and China sit down together, not go to war, but sit down to resolve all of the global issues that are now confronting mankind in this perfect storm: the rush to war; the hyperinflationary collapse of the dollar-based global financial system; famine, which is now reaching “biblical proportions,” according to the head of the UN World Food Program; the continuing pandemic; and more. The Schiller Institute has announced a conference for Sept. 10-11 under the title “Inspiring Humanity to Survive the Greatest Crisis in World History.”
What, in your view, is required to move the U.S. off of its suicide course and to join in the necessary deliberations of all nations to find solutions based on the dignity of all nations and all people?
Col. Black: I do think that over the years, there’s always a tendency towards hyperbole, that this and that is the worst thing that we’ve ever faced, and so forth. However, I do believe we have reached a point, particularly during the Biden administration, where the foundations of democracy have been severely weakened and undermined. We have had an election which was highly questionable at best and transparently fraudulent by another viewpoint. We’re in a posture where if we continue in this direction, we can see the emergence of a of a censorship state, a state that no longer recognizes the right to free speech. We see it where government uses private companies like Facebook, Twitter, all of the Internet, social media companies. There is undoubtedly some coordination and a tremendous amount of censorship is emerging. There is beginning to be a certain level of acceptance of censorship.
We are at a turning point, because right now, through the Schiller Institute, through various other outlets, there still is the means of communicating to sort of a policy elite, a group of people who are sufficiently intellectual and sufficiently educated to understand the gravity of where we are. Whether those voices will be silenced if the elections do not go in the right way, I think is certainly a very genuine question.
Now, I don’t say this as some kind of a hardcore Republican. I’ve always voted Republican, always very, very Republican. But at the same time, I have some very grave concerns about elements of the Republican Party that I’m not sure that all of the Republican Party is that devoted to freedom and liberty. But we’ve got to win the next two elections, and we’ve got to do it in the face of what will undoubtedly be widespread voter fraud. Watch the polls.
People must not sit this out and say, “Well, it’s a crooked election. I can’t do it.” There’s always been a certain level of fraud in our elections. We have a long and storied history of voter fraud. Many major elections have been decided by voter fraud and Presidential elections certainly have. We know that the Kennedy-Nixon election was rigged. I think that’s fairly widely acknowledged today. So, we’ve got to watch the polls, but we’ve got to get out. We’ve got to vote.
The new President, whether it’s Trump, whether it’s someone else, has got to nominate and have confirmed a cabinet that is loyal to the American people. Loyal to the things that the president campaigned on. If they don’t believe in what the President campaigned on, they have no business being there. Why does he want voices of dissent? It’s one thing to have people say, “Mr. President, I don’t think it’d be wise to implement your policy this way. I think we should do it in another way.” That’s the kind of dissent that’s positive. But we have people who simply hate what the President stands for and despises the man personally. Those people had no business in government. It’s not supposed to work that way.
The President’s got to confirm people who are representative of the American people and not simply beholden to the globalist elites. We’ve got to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, which is a tragic war. We’ve got to get out of Ukraine. We’ve got to get out of Somalia. We sent troops into Somalia to start a war in Somalia, intervene in a war in Somalia. They didn’t even bother to explain to people why, it’s just some little one paragraph: “We’re sending troops.” We’re going to war in countries without even bothering to inform the American people, to concoct some kind of a justification. It’s just we’re going to send them off to war. We’re in Somalia.
Why are we occupying Germany 75 years after the war? Why do we still have an occupation force in Germany? Why do we still have an occupation force in Japan? I mean, for goodness sake, these have been our strongest allies. There’s no excuse for that. And it certainly doesn’t benefit the American people in any way.
Now, I do think one of the one of the most hopeful signs I have seen is that if you look at the Supreme Court decisions from the last term, not just singling out this one or that one, but as a whole, there is at least a genuine hope that the Supreme Court, as it’s constituted today, is moving towards a restoration of Constitutional governance with the separation of powers, with the recognition of the rights of states, with a withdrawal of authority from the faceless, unelected bureaucrats.
I think there’s a great deal of hope, and I think that should inspire Americans, because up until now, really, since the 1950s, Americans would have some enormous drive to change the law, and then the Supreme Court would wrap them on the knuckles with a hickory stick and say, “Get back in line. You’re not going to have your will through the ballot box. You’re going to shut up and be in your place.” The new Supreme Court, I think, offers some help.
We’ve got to build and enforce a wall on our southern border and stop tinkering around with it, saying, “Let’s do a little of this and a little of that.” I think we need to be prepared to use military force against the cartels, which are killing 100,000 people a year.
My goodness! In the 10 years of the Vietnam War, we only lost 60,000. And that was the last truly bloody war we fought. 60,000 and the cartels kill 100,000 every year! And then when President Trump suggested, I think it was to his Chief of Staff, “We know where these cartel leaders are. Why don’t we just take them out, you know, use missiles, take them out,” apparently the Chief of Staff was just aghast: “Oh, my goodness, you would hurt the cartel? The cartels are wired in with all these politicians, they’re where all the money comes from!”
Well, the United States needs to be prepared to take action and not to fly some FBI clowns down and arrest these guys. We have a war going on with these cartels across the southern border. We need to take them out. We need to kill them. There is no excuse for these cartels murdering 100,000 people a year in the United States while we sit back and our so-called Department of Defense has all of its troops all over the world, and they’re not defending the southern border. They’re not defending us against the death of 100,000 people a year in the United States. What the heck use are they if they cannot defend the United States border?
Billington: Well. I thank you. We will be circulating this widely. It’s a moment of crisis for mankind as a whole. I’ll repeat that we’re organizing for a conference on September 10-11. I encourage all of our listeners to prepare to register for that. I, again, thank you for working with the Schiller Institute, for making your voice heard.
Col. Black: I very much appreciate what you’re doing personally and what the Schiller Institute is doing. I’m not sure what we would be doing if you were not disseminating the information that you do. So, thank you very much for it.
