Banquo’s Ghost at MacBiden’s Banquet: Time To Put an End to British Regime Change

The following are remarks from Harley Schlanger during the Schiller Institute's Manhattan Project event, November 14, 2020.

My presentation today is titled "Banquo's Ghost at MacBiden’s Banquet: Time to Put an End to British Regime Change.” I want to start with a quote from Lyndon LaRouche, from an article he wrote in 2007, “Current History as Tragedy: Russia and Iran on Strategy.” In that article, he attacked what he called “simplistic parodies of so-called ‘strategic thinking,’” referring to the policies of the Bush Administration at the time, but also the Democratic Party's opposition to that, which was no opposition at all. He wrote, in terms of how to engage in competent intelligence work, that, “a prudent commander must always understand who the real enemy is. The real enemy is often the clever one, the one often disguised as an ally.” [Emphasis in original]

Now keep that in mind, as I go through this discussion, because I’m going to do it in two parts: One, is a review of where we stand on the vote fraud fight, and we’ll be hearing more on that from Kirk and Dennis later. But then, secondly, how a great historian and writer of tragic drama, William Shakespeare, exposed for his audience the frailty and follies of the way of thinking which made them susceptible to the kind of court intrigues and policies that kept them enslaved under the British monarchy.

So you start with the question of the two contradictory stories about the nature of the vote in 2020. The first one, which I think is obviously the correct and true one, is that Donald Trump won reelection. There’s significant evidence about vote fraud and the irregularities in the vote count in the main battleground or swing states. You’ve probably seen some of this, especially if you’ve been involved in fighting for a real vote count. But it’s related to such things as mail-in votes, the irregularities in that, the changes that were made, the question of how was it was counted, when did it come in, and so on, many open areas where fraud could occur. Secondly, determining who were eligible voters: In many states there was a large vote that came from people who were dead. And we do know that Biden is very popular with the demographic of dead voters, because he got almost 100% of the vote from dead voters! Also you have the problem of people who had moved and no longer live in the state or at the address at which they were registered. Further, there were huge, unexplainable swings — the 130,000 votes in Michigan, which came in after the counting had shown a very large lead for Donald Trump, all of a sudden, 130,000 votes — every single one for Joe Biden! A statistical impossibility! A similar thing happened in Pennsylvania. You have the question of “glitches,” as in Michigan, where 2,500-3,000 votes for Trump were turned over to Biden, which were only found because of hand counting of the ballots. And then, the refusal to allow poll-watchers.

These are just some of the things that have been brought up in the legal cases so far. But the bigger issue, which still has to be addressed, is that of cyber-corruption, the corruption of the computer counting, the role of the Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic, which were involved in at least some of the “glitches” that are already acknowledged. This is something that Sidney Powell, an attorney for Michael Flynn, who’s working for Trump on the vote fraud fight, has brought up publicly. That there were methods used in this election, which were used previously in overseas elections by the NSA and CIA to rig the outcome in so-called “adversary nations”, to bring in the person (or party) favored by the War Hawks in the intelligence community.

So these are things that are up for investigation, and these will show, I’m sure, if they’re fully explored and investigated, that Donald Trump was reelected on Nov. 3, and should be inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021.

Now, what’s the second narrative? “No fraud.” How do we know that? Because the media are telling us that. Because the spokespeople for the Democratic Party are telling us that. Because the anti-Trump people in the Republican Party are telling Trump, “concede, back off, don’t keep fighting.” There’s much more that can be said about this, but here’s the question to consider: Why do the media keep using the word “baseless,” when they describe the question of fraud? As I just identified, there are a number of areas of irregularities which are unmistakably true! So how could it be “baseless”? Well, they say, “it doesn’t add up.”

This is the problem that we have been alluding to: What happens when you try to prove something from the ground up? From the individual vote that was fraudulent, try to add them all up to prove a case of fraud, when the fraud was systemic within the system? Now, keep in mind the same media that say it’s “baseless,” for four years reported on the lies about Russiagate, which have now been proven to be fraudulent. Those lies were truly baseless; they were concocted, by intelligence operatives in the City of London tied to MI6 and GCHQ, laundered through liars such as John Brennan, the former CIA director, James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Comey and others, who insisted that they knew there was Russian meddling and Trump collusion, even though when they were questioned before the House Intelligence Committee, under oath, they admitted they had no such evidence. Why did the media keep reporting those stories, if they’re so committed to not having “baseless” stories?

And then you have Trump adversaries, like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. They’re saying, “Why won’t Trump accept defeat? Why will he not recognize that he lost?” Well, let me ask the two of them: “What was Russiagate about?” Russiagate was about the unwillingness of the Democratic Party and the anti-Trump Republicans, the mass media, the intelligence community, the so-called permanent bureaucracy, to accept the fact that the American people voted against Hillary Clinton in 2016. They didn’t accept the verdict! And they made up a whole story to try and justify it.

Well, here we have an investigation that must be fulfilled, must be carried out to its end — and they will not allow it! They’re going to try to stop it.

What I want to talk about, then, is what is the higher realm within which this has to be fought? And to look at that, you have to go to classical culture, which is the way we should be looking at what is technically contemporary history — not current events. Current events are subject to the lies of the corporate media, and a Silicon Valley control operation, a psychological warfare operation, which is designed not just to tell you lies, but to change the way you think so that you can’t register that you’re being lied to; to change your behavior, which is what’s done by social media. And as a result, when we have history as current events, we essentially choose opinions — we’re profiled, are we “liberal” are we conservative, Democrat, Republican, left, right? These are meaningless sociological terms that have been imposed on the political debate, diversions to render you susceptible to the bigger frauds that are being carried out.

Now, how can you understand that properly? You have to go to the realm of history as tragedy, which takes as its subject, how do you get to truth? And we’re going to borrow from a great historian tonight to look at this, from William Shakespeare. But I want to do it through the eyes of Lyndon LaRouche, the eyes and mind of Lyndon LaRouche. So, let me give you a couple of quotes from LaRouche to set the stage for this. LaRouche wrote an article at the end of September 2003, it’s in Executive Intelligence Review, called “Shakespeare as a Scholar: U.S. Politics as Tragedy.” And he says: For Shakespeare, “the subject of history is the nature of man” — not facts, not dates, not figures, statistics, algorithms, but what is the nature of man? He said Classical drama is properly “enacted on the stage of the imagination” of the audience, to bring you out of your day-to-day thinking into the realm of seeking truth. This, by the way, is very similar to what Friedrich Schiller wrote in his many essays on tragedy.

LaRouche went on to say that history must be “relived” in the mind of an audience as “an impassioned reality.” The purpose of tragedy, of Classical drama, he writes, “is to educate the people in real history.” And this means to see “the follies of monarchs and populations alike.” And then LaRouche continues, writing that the purpose of real Classical tragedy is “to lift …the member of the relevant audience upwards, away from the pathetically small-minded immoralities of so-called ‘morality plays,’ to pass judgment upon the impassioned, historical unfolding of processes of entire societies, … to direct focus upon the great forces of those histories as such.” We must move from sense-perception to adduce “experimentally demonstrable principles … as Socratic hypotheses.” And he says, the application of this principle of tragedy for statecraft, requires that you must focus on those axioms which shape popular opinion.

From that standpoint, let’s take a look very briefly at two plays in which Shakespeare applies this, and the lessons we can learn from that, in what I’m calling Banquo’s ghost coming to MacBiden’s feast. We start with this question of how are nations or empires, or governments destroyed? In Hamlet we have what’s mistakenly viewed by most people — and this is what you’re taught in college about it — that the tragedy is that of the tragic hero, the tragic figure. The “tragic flaw” in Hamlet was that he was vacillating, he couldn’t make up his mind, according to this theory. And what they say is, he’s a sympathetic figure, he figures out that his father was murdered, that he was murdered by his uncle, who then married his mother, and then took over the kingdom. And what does Hamlet do? He tries to concoct a scheme to prove that his uncle was the murderer, and all the while he’s plotting his revenge. And what happens at the end? He ends up dying, through enacting a macho, hare-brained scheme, that leaves the Kingdom without a King! Because he’s carrying out a plot that doesn’t take up the real problem that he faces — and what is that real problem? Shakespeare lets it out in the open! “There’s something rotten in Denmark”! It’s right there: He doesn’t say, “there’s something rotten in Hamlet,” he says, “there’s something rotten in Denmark.” It’s the society which is tragic! And that’s what you see unfold in the course of the play. The court and the society of the court accepted, without much ado, that Claudius, the uncle of Hamlet, who murdered Hamlet's father, would become king. Well, isn’t the case that when a king dies, the son becomes King? Right there, is a very clear signal that something is wrong in Denmark.

Now, how does this relate to what was going on in England at the time? There was a succession crisis: It was clear that Queen Elizabeth was about to die. This was written in 1601-1602; Elizabeth was dead by 1603. Who would replace her? What would be the process of choosing the replacement, because she had no heirs. This was a burning issue when Hamlet was written. So to someone in England at the time, if they were sharp, and many of them were, would realize that this was about a succession crisis, of a nation under siege by a foreign power, not about the so-called “tragic flaws” of Hamlet — except as those flaws reflect a problem in the whole society.

The point is that no one in the play is focused on the interests of the country. We know that from the very beginning, because there’s a report that’s delivered, that the army of Norway under Fortinbras is marching on Denmark, for their own intention to avenge the murder of Fortinbras’ father, by Hamlet’s father. So right at the beginning, you have the real story laid out. These two societies have been fighting, they’ve been at war; the policy between the two countries is that of revenge as opposed to seeking some kind of understanding for peace. And instead of having that be the topic for the leaders, of how to defend the kingdom, or prevent a destructive war, you have what are almost orgiastic parties going on with Claudius and Hamlet’s mother and the court, without even acknowledging the insanity of changing the policy of who was chosen to be the King. And what happens in the end? Well, Hamlet carries out his plot for revenge — and he dies! And as he’s being carried off the stage, with this beautiful statement from Horatio of “let the angels carry thee to thy rest,” we see Fortinbras marching into Denmark to take over the country.

So what’s the tragedy in Hamlet? It’s the axioms of the court! Of the society! Court politics; revenge; how do I stay in good with the King?; how can we keep these issues from coming out into the open? There’s no strategic thinking.

Now, keep that in mind while we look at a second play by Shakespeare, that of Macbeth, where the character Banquo emerges. And again, what do you see as the standard teaching of the play Macbeth? Well, in the opening, we know Macbeth is a hero, who fought bravely in the war to win a battle on behalf of the King, Duncan. He’s loyal, he’s a brave commander, he’s liked by the troops, but on the way back after the battle, he’s seduced by witches or soothsayers, who tell his fortune, and they say he will become King. And when Macbeth comes back to report this to his wife, they come up with a plan to murder the King Duncan, so that Macbeth can become King. Once again, you have the question of succession here. But how is this generally taught? That Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have “tragic flaws,” that they’re ambitious, and that their ambition overcomes them. In the case of Lady Macbeth, she’s murderously ambitious, totally evil, think Hillary Clinton, next time you see Macbeth.

One of the observers of this whole process is a lieutenant to Macbeth, a top commander in his division, named Banquo. And Banquo watches how Macbeth succumbs to the prophecy of the witches; and after Banquo hears the witches tell Macbeth that he’ll become King, and the witches also say that Banquo won’t become King but his ancestors, his progeny will become kings, Banquo sort of dismisses that part of it; but he says to Macbeth, “And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the Instruments of Darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray’s in deepest consequence,” to betray us (Act I, Scene III). That is a prophetic warning he gives to Macbeth.

When Macbeth arrives at his castle and greets his wife, they find out that King Duncan is going to stay at their house, and they plot the murder of Duncan, and Macbeth carries it out. Duncan’s son flees the country, and Macbeth becomes the King. Again, a succession crisis, they go beyond the ordinary process of succession. But more importantly, Banquo starts to figure this out; he doesn’t buy the cover story that the two guards that were guarding the room of Duncan were drunk, and in their drunken state killed the King; and then were killed by Macbeth — in other words the witnesses were killed. And Banquo in Act III, Scene 1 tells Macbeth, essentially that he knows that Macbeth was the one who killed the King. He says, “Thou hast it now, King, Cawdor, Glamis, all.” In other words, Macbeth have become King, he holds his other titles, he’s got everything he wants, and then Banquo says, “As the weird women promised, and I fear, thou played’st most foully for it.” Basically saying to Macbeth, “I know you did this.”

Now, what’s the problem? After knowing that, instead of fleeing and joining an opposition to make sure that Macbeth can be defeated, Banquo goes to a feast that’s organized by Macbeth, and on the way to the feast he’s murdered by three murderers whom Macbeth ordered to kill him, because Macbeth knew that Banquo was going to tell the truth. So he’s killed by these murderers.

But that night, as the feast goes on, Banquo’s ghost appears, seen only by Macbeth, who is terrified by what he sees. It’s at that point that you know Macbeth is figuring that either he’s got to increase his criminal spree of behavior, murder more people, or, his crimes will eventually be discovered and he will be overthrown. And so, he orders the murder of the family of McDuff, another leading commander, who has gone with King Duncan’s son, to build an army against Macbeth.

Eventually, of course, Macbeth is overthrown, and you have the tragedy of the murder of some of the best people in the Kingdom — Duncan, Banquo, the family of McDuff. One interesting fact here, and it is a fact, that it’s believed that James I, who is the one that became King after Elizabeth died, was related to Banquo. But that’s not the story Shakespeare is telling: Once again, he’s studying human nature. How do we become seduced, so even though we know something, we don’t act on it, as in the case of Banquo, and instead continue to "play the game." That’s the nature of tragedy.

Now, I’ll come back to that in a moment. But what’s the tragedy we face today, that we see in the vote fraud? Well, the implication is that half the country is oblivious to nature of the real systemic crisis, and goes along with the media line that Trump is bad and he lost, that he was implicated in some dirty dealings with Russia, that he’s authoritarian, he’s corrupt, he shouldn’t be President; and that Joe Biden, who’s given no one a reason to think that he can be President, should replace him. But what does that say about the population, including many of the people who supported Donald Trump? They’re dominated by the flaws of our present society, pragmatism. Many people supported President Trump without supporting him enough to make sure that the people who were attacking him were dealt with! We had four years of corrupt attacks against him with Russiagate! Four years in which LaRouchePAC was exposing, consistently, the fraud involved in the story of Russian hacking and Russian collusion, identifying the perpetrators and challenging the population to join him in defending the institution of the presidency.

Bill Binney, one of the most eminent cyber experts, technical experts from the NSA, did a forensic study that proved there was no hacking. This was put out by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), and yet, the media shot it down. And even though people know that the Russian hacking, Trump collusion story is a fraud, it continued to be repeated. It became a refrain for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said “with Trump, all roads lead to Putin.” The media to this day, even after it was reported that Mueller found no evidence of collusion, that we now know from the Intelligence Committee of the House that 53 witnesses, many of whom said there was collusion between Trump and Russia, that there was hacking and so on, they admitted that they had no evidence; that the company CrowdStrike, which allegedly did the forensic investigation and initially reported that there was hacking, their president admitted under oath, that they had “no evidence of exfiltration of files,” that is there was no proof the files were hacked. Yet we had this story continue, despite being totally discredited! And yet, it wasn’t taken off the agenda, it wasn’t rejected. People “lived with it.” Because people were trying to get on with their lives, seeking success, seeking popularity, obsessed with money and celebrity. “Don’t rock the boat. Go along with the story. Yes, I know this is a fraud, but I’ve got to worry about my career.” This is how people get corrupted!

And then, add one other factor — yes, yes, I know there’s fraud, but you can’t do anything about it. “They’re” too powerful. And then a belief structure comes out, that, “don’t worry about it, you don’t have to do anything — there are white hats on white horses who are going to do the work for us. We know it’s a plan, it’s going to take place. Just sit back and watch it, eat the popcorn, sit on your couch, and wait till all the bad guys are brought down.”

Well, the bad guys don’t always get brought down, and when the election took place, the bad guys rose up and stole the vote!

It’s this small-mindedness, this acceptance, that “well, maybe things are bad, but I’m still making some money, or I still have a career; I still have friends, I’m still getting likes on Facebook or Instagram”; those kinds of things and the preference for social media as opposed to reality, take people out of the fight, and leave us unprepared.

I want to just give you a quote from Roger Stone, from an article he just posted on Infowars. He said, how could they get away with this? How does the corruption succeed? And he says, “Undergirding all this is the arrogant presumption by corporate media and their Silicon Valley fellow travelers that they have the power to dictate the outcome of the election….” If we don’t win this fight, that will prove to be true.

Now let me give you another example of how this works, before I come back to Banquo’s ghost and how we can win this: Let’s take a perfect example that should have disqualified Biden from even running for President: The true story about his corruption in Ukraine. The hijacking of Ukraine. Now, this is somewhat complex, but basically what happened, is that the real story, the bigger story of Joe Biden’s role in the corruption related to Ukraine, is that he was the point person for the Obama Administration in the February 2014 bloody Maidan Square coup which overthrew a democratically elected government, and brought in a gang of oligarchs who became the new government in Ukraine, who were anti-Russia, and wanted to get into NATO and the European Union. Who were the allies of Biden in pulling off this coup? Well, the Obama Administration supported it, but their allies included the George Soros nongovernmental organizations network that’s involved in almost every regime-change coup; Neocons in the U.S. government, led by Victoria Nuland, whose husband Robert Kagan, despite being a so-called conservative and neocon, became a close friend of Barack Obama. So there’s the truth there, the neocons and Obama, the Democrats and Republicans, were all allied in this! It also included the International Monetary Fund, which wanted to put Ukraine under conditionalities — which they did after the coup — which has lowered the standard of living of Ukrainians by somewhere between 30 and 50%, according to Natalia Vitrenko, the excellent economist from Ukraine, who’s an opposition leader there. Who else was involved in the Ukraine coup? Christopher Steele! The author of the dirty dossier against President Trump, which was used to obtain FISA warrants to spy on his campaign. Steele in 2014 was sending memos to the Statement Department, giving his assessment of what was going on in Ukraine. And finally, Biden’s most nefarious allies in the coup, the neo-Nazi units — maybe not even neo-Nazi — the Nazi units of the Stepan Bandera group, and the Azov Battalion, who trace their so-called Ukrainian national roots, to the Ukrainians around Stepan Bandera who joined the Nazi SS when the Nazis took over Ukraine in 1943. Neo-Nazis, the ones who shot up Maidan Square, who now are in the defense forces and security forces of Ukraine.

Why was that not made the big story? Had that come out, and you can fully vet it; there’s ample evidence of this — had that come out, there’s no way Biden would have been able to stand as a candidate.

Instead, what happened? We got the “Ukraine-lite” story — Hunter Biden. That Hunter Biden was on the payroll of Burisma, which is true, that this is an act of corruption, because he basically was a stand-in for his father. We now know from the Hunter Biden laptop emails, that there was money going not just to Hunter but to his father; and that this is therefore a “big story.”

Why did this one play? Because in the small-mindedness of too many people, a corruption scandal involving money and sex and drugs is more damning, than working with the enemies of our country to pull off a coup as part of a geopolitical strategy to go for regime-change against Russia, at the risk of provoking a war! That’s what Biden, and Obama, and that crowd, Hillary Clinton would have done it also, that’s what they were aiming for. That’s the real corruption. Instead, we’re titillated with stories of Hunter Biden with prostitutes and underage girls, and with drugs and sex and money; and some of the money kicked back to his father. And then, the censorship of that story by Facebook and Twitter. That’s not insignificant; it’s part of the whole picture. But the big picture is, do you want as your President, someone who conspired with Nazis, with gangsters like George Soros, with the International Monetary Fund criminals who are destroying nations all over the world — is that who you want for your President? So instead of looking at the big picture, people got focussed on the corruption in the small.

Why is this relevant for the vote fraud case? Because part of the real issue is the role of the tech companies and the technical policies of the National Security Agency that were involved in a Russiagate story, as well as now involved in stealing the vote.

So: This brings us back to Banquo’s ghost. Who is Banquo’s ghost in this story? We know who the evil characters are. Maybe Biden or the people controlling him? I don’t know if Biden is mentally competent enough to declare him to be evil. But the policies he’s trying to bring will continue the destruction of this country that was launched under the Bush and Obama Administrations. He’s already said he’s going to put us back in the Paris Climate Agreement; he’s going to put us back in the free trade agreements. That means, no industry, no energy, no future for the United States. So we have an evil in terms of the policy.

But who is Banquo’s ghost in this?

Here’s what I would suggest as a flank: President Trump should pardon Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Bring them back to this country, protect them, defend them; let them tell the story they know, of the corruption that was brought in after 9/11, that includes the mass spying on the American people, the metadata collection of every phone call, every email, and the lying about it by people like James Clapper, who somehow went before the Congress and said “none of that’s taking place,” and then later admitted he lied — but he was never brought up on charges.

Secondly, with Assange, we would get the full story of the fraud of Russiagate, that from the beginning it was a fraud! So you could then flesh out who ran it and why. So people like Brennan and Clapper, Sally Yates, Comey, McCabe, not only wouldn’t have a free pass, but they would be brought up on charges. And it would raise the question, as well, of the lies Joe Biden told about it, and the role of Barack Obama in pursuing the case against Michael Flynn and ensuring that Crossfire Hurricane became a full-blown scandal, with the FISA court, with the Christopher Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was a fraud. By bringing in Snowden and Assange, you can bring this fully out, and then publicly release all the documents and unredact them! Unless there’s an absolute security concern, unredact them, so we can see everything that was said and done, in the attack against Donald Trump and the U.S. Constitution.

Now, additionally, we could then get deeper into this question of how does social media make us small-minded, so that we miss the big picture? How is it that this works? We could then also look at the media censorship and lying. Most people know — not most people, but I would say a majority of the population knows that CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, now, Fox News — well, we’ve known Fox News was corrupt for the beginning! Again, you have to know your enemies! The British always played both sides: Just as they have a liberal opposition, they have a conservative faction, that tells you lies. Fox News pushed the lie, repeatedly, that, “well, maybe Trump wasn’t colluding with Russia, but Russia’s our enemy; China’s our enemy. We need the military defense budgets because we’re going to have to go to war.”

Because the bigger picture, is that if we don’t overturn this vote fraud, we’re going to have a depression based on Biden’s economic policies; his move to use global digitalized currencies to establish an international top-down bankers’ dictatorship, and war, with the geopolitics, the regime-change policies, and so on.

And then, finally, we can get to the question with Snowden and with people like Kirk Wiebe and others: How could National Security Agency cyber capabilities be used to defraud the vote in the Presidency?

So this is how we can use the principle of Classical tragedy to get above the stories that are being told and the opinions that are being shaped. Look, the people that we’re talking about, the enemies of this country, they don’t really care if you think Trump won, and there was fraud. The question is, what are you going to do about it? How can you defeat it? And I think this is one flank that would give us an opportunity to rip the cover off the corruption, not just in this election, but in the wars we’ve been involved in; in the economic thievery that’s put hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in the pockets of a small number of people the Davos billionaires, the Silicon Valley/Hollywood/Wall Street elites; the role of the British in manipulating U.S. policy. The use of British assets such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, to keep us engaged in these endless wars in the Middle East, which have cost us many fine young men and women, and cost us trillions of dollars. This has to come out!

And President Trump is going to fight. He’s made it clear that he intends to fight. And that should be something to enable us to win this fight, if we fight it the right way: Go for the big enemy. As LaRouche said, “Know your real enemy.” And don’t let them cleverly convince you that you can’t win.

That’s what I wanted to present today, and I hope the Banquo’s ghost principle resonates with you.


Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.