To anyone who has been paying attention to the exposure by this and other LaRouche publications of the lies spread in the media to support the fabricated narrative of Russiagate, and the anti-science fraud of man-made climate change, there were three very interesting stories in the last week which usefully put a spotlight on this process. The three stories covered different themes, but had a common thread: Lyndon LaRouche and his movement's long history of prescient analysis, which is why it remains a significant factor in shaping U.S. policy today, after LaRouche's passing on February 12, at 96 years old.
The first story appeared in the Washington Examiner on August 15, and provided a detailed report of comments made by the New York Times (NYT) executive editor, Dean Baquet, at an employee town meeting on August 12. His remarks were leaked to Slate, and provide an insight into the mentality of one of the leading forces in the ongoing regime change coup attempt against President Trump. The second involves articles which appeared in the Guardian, the Sunday Times, and the Washington Post, among other "mainstream" media, which identify the Green movement as an "eco-fascist" movement, whose anti-human ideology is shaping the identity of some of those engaged in mass shootings. The use of the term "eco-fascist" is unmistakably a reference to LaRouche's persistent efforts, going back to the late 1960s, to identify the roots of radical "environmentalism" in the murderous eugenics movement, which was promoted by imperial forces in the British Empire at the end of the 19th century.
The third, in the August 19 Washington Times, while presenting a slanderous characterization of Lyndon LaRouche, is a recognition of how LaRouche, and especially his presidential campaigns, and electoral campaigns by his allies, have played a significant role in shaping U.S. politics over the last 40-plus years.
THE ARROGANCE OF THE NYT
Baquet's remarks to employees of the NYT display the arrogance of anti-Trump corporate media circles. He acknowledges his paper's leadership in running the coup against Trump, laments that they have not succeeded yet, then, without any acknowledgement that their Phase 1 coverage exemplified what Trump lambasts as "Fake News", outlines an updated plan for "Phase 2" to undermine Trump's presidency, or remove him from office.
Under the headline "New York Times chief outlines coverage shift: From Trump-Russia to Trump Racism," author Byron York writes that, "In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. 'Chapter 1 of the story of Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers, was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians, and was there obstruction of justice?....We set ourselves up to cover that story." He then boasted, "We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.'"
York continues: "But then came the Mueller report, with special counsel Robert Mueller failing to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia to fix the 2016 election. 'The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, [Baquet said], two things happened....Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, 'Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.' And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically....And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we're talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We're a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that's what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?'"
Note that Baquet speaks with pride of the two Pulitzers won by his paper for articles which falsely asserted that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, Trump colluded with Russia, and then obstructed the investigation, none of which were proven by a two-year-plus witch-hunt run by special counsel Mueller. He then doubles down, saying they will continue to attack the President, building what York calls "the Trump-is-a-racist narrative."
It is useful to point out that in the weeks since Robert Mueller melted-down during testimony before Congressional Committees, demonstrating clearly that he had found nothing on which to impeach Trump, he and his report have virtually disappeared from the pages of the NYT! The true story of Russiagate and the fiasco of the Mueller investigation was never covered by the NYT—but it was fully covered by LaRouche publications. It is likely that the ongoing investigations by Department of Justice Inspector General Horowitz and U.S. Attorney Durham into the origins of Russiagate will further expose the serial fraud committed by the Times, and confirm LaRouchePAC's charge that it was a coup launched by British intelligence, in collusion with Obama intelligence figures and Bush holdovers, with full support from the NYT and the mainstream media sewers.
GREENIES IDENTIFIED AS "ECO-FASCISTS"
While the "Trump is a racist" line was ubiquitous in the media following mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, with reporters and his Democratic opponents accusing him of promoting "white supremacy", and thereby bearing responsibility for the tragic events, there was an attempt to cover-up the full content of the manifesto attributed to the El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius. The title of his manifesto itself, "The Inconvenient Truth", was an obvious reference to Al Gore's lying movie ("An Inconvenient Truth"), and Crusius echoed the radical environmentalist lunacy written by the shooter who launched a deadly attack on a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand. This was the subject of a mass leaflet distributed by the LaRouche organization, which broke through the attempted cover-up.
On August 16, the Guardian wrote that "recent mass shootings have been linked to 'eco-xenophobia'—part of a tradition that dates to America's first conservationists." The leftist rag, Mother Jones, republished the article under the accurate headline "Anti-Immigration White Supremacy Had Deep Roots in the Environmental Movement." On August 19, this theme surfaced again, this time in the Washington Post (WaPo) in an article headlined "Two Mass Killings a World Apart Share a Common Theme: 'Ecofascism.'" Using the killers' "manifestos", these articles confirm that the murderers were driven by the ideology of radical environmentalist groups, which claims that the human population is ruining the Earth, and that the planet has a "carrying capacity" of only 500 million to 1 billion people, not the current 7.5 billion. The LaRouche movement has, uniquely, for many years, branded this movement "ecofascist".
The WaPo article correctly notes that "ecofascism" mirrors Nazi "blood and soil"; that the environmentalist movement has a racist, anti-immigration, eugenical and social-Darwinist past; that "conservationists" developed the idea that population growth produces environmental crisis; that this idea has been adopted by extreme racists, with quotes from Christchurch killer Tarrant's manifesto, "It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates. It's the birthrates"; and that white supremacists frequently quote Paul Ehrlich's [wildly false and discredited] 1972 book The Population Bomb. The axioms asserted in Ehrlich's book, and incorporated in the campaign launched by the oligarchic genocidalists of the Club of Rome, were demolished in an influential pamphlet written by LaRouche in July 1972, "A Critique of the Zero Growth Movement: Blueprint for Extinction."
This WaPo article, coming from the flagship liberal publication which has consistently blamed President Trump for "white supremacist" violence and the mass killings, is highly significant, in that it demonstrates that the perpetrators of the killings in Christchurch and El Paso share an apocalyptic vision in line with the Extinction Rebellion and those promoting Greta Thunberg, a vision which is routinely featured favorably in WaPo articles on "man-mad climate change." It is also a de facto admission that Lyndon LaRouche's warnings that the demoralization of youth by the anti-science brainwashing of radical ecology has produced a broad cultural pessimism among young people, such that troubled youth in that milieu can be triggered to commit mass murder, as part of a demented belief that they are eliminating "excess eaters" from the planet.
THE SPECTRE OF LAROUCHE
On August 19, the Washington Times published an article, "Lyndon LaRouche Movement sets sights on 2020 despite quixotic candidate's death". While attempting to dismiss LaRouche's influence, the author admits that "he was hardly a nobody," citing as one example his presidential campaign in 2000, when he received more than 20% of the vote in the Arkansas Democratic primary. Further, "thousands of people saw him as a visionary. They believed his warnings about financial doom being around the corner and promoted his solutions of a complex restructuring of banking and monetary exchange rates, a system of maglev trains connecting the world's big economies and a global project to colonize Mars." The author neglected to mention that, over the years, going back to 1968, his economic forecasts have been the most accurate of any analyst, and that rather than attempting to personally profit from doom-and-gloom scenarios, he presented solutions.
His critiques of the monetarist, neo-liberal policies driving the world toward a super-crash today, have been proven to be scientifically precise and accurate. And his programmatic proposals for banking reform—return to Glass Steagall banking separation and Hamiltonian national credit policy—combined with his many writings on the need for developing new platforms of infrastructure, and investment in science driver programs—particularly nuclear fusion energy, and space exploration and colonization—are reflected in the emergence of a New Paradigm, centered around the Chinese Belt-and-Road Initiative, and in the debate emerging over the need for a New Bretton Woods monetary system, initiated by an alliance of Four Powers—the U.S., China, Russia and India. Unmentioned in the article is that many of these programmatic initiatives of LaRouche have been taken up by President Trump, including his call for sending a female astronaut to Mars, the subject of a 1988 campaign ad by LaRouche, "Woman on Mars," which has been ridiculed by LaRouche's enemies as farcical and absurd! During his 2016 campaign, Trump explicitly echoed LaRouche in his calls for a return to Glass Steagall, and major funding for building a modern infrastructure.
LaRouche's influence on the President has been the subject of much backroom speculation. One who is quite aware of this influence is Trump's long-time friend and architect of his election victory, Roger Stone, who told a reporter after LaRouche's death, that he was "very familiar with the extraordinary and prophetic thinking" of LaRouche, and that his ideas had an "important backstage role" in Trump's successful campaign in 2016.
With this in mind, it becomes clear that the intent of the Wash Times article is to serve as a warning to his enemies that the legacy of LaRouche is not only still a living presence in U.S. politics, but can play a decisive role in the 2020 election. It quotes LaRouchePAC Treasurer Barbara Boyd, who affirmed that the PAC "will be extremely active as we view 2020 as a real turning point in the history of the United States." She said the main focus of the PAC will be "on the policy front—namely, getting LaRouche's ideas implemented in the U.S.", in particular, organizing "a genuine economic recovery of the physical economy of the United States, modern industrialization, modern physical infrastructure and space exploration."
Spearheading this mobilization will be the candidacy of LaRouchePAC activist Daniel Burke, who will run against Democratic presidential candidate Cory Booker, for his Senate seat in New Jersey.
As this LPAC campaign will undoubtedly resonate with the "Trump base", the reactivation of his supporters on this programmatic basis will become a necessary factor in providing the impetus to push the Trump administration to fully embrace the New Paradigm. Such a mobilization will defeat, once and for all, the pro-war City of London-Wall Street imperial gang of financial swindlers which is responsible for the slanderous assaults against LaRouche and Trump.