Subject: LaRouche on the British Parasite, or "Why Won't Anyone Listen to Me?"
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.revisionism,soc.history,soc.culture.australian,soc.culture.british

File: belzec belzec.11 
Last-modified: 1993/03/01 
XRef: belzec index
Lines: 564

Archive/File: larouche larouche.017
Last-modified: 1993/05/07
XRef: index larouche, larouche larouche.ihr

Before providing you with specific examples of LaRoucheThink, I'd like to
offer some background material provided by Dennis King's "Lyndon LaRouche
and the New American Fascism." 

(Having reviewed all this stuff, I think LaRouche is right - he _shouldn't_
be in prison - he belongs in a mental hospital.)

King:

   Essentially, LaRouche regards the British as having a relationship to
   the human race similar to that of parasite to host. In his own words:
   "The ruling British elite are like animals - not only in their
   moriality, but in their outlook on knowledge. They are clever
   animals, who are masters of the wicked nature of their own species,
   and recognize ferally the distinctions of the hated human species."
   He has returned to this idea again and again: "I know the British
   mind very well - it is a lower order of mentality, which I can study
   as I watch the fish in an aquarium." It is the "mind of a species
   inferior to myself." The British are "a pack of animals" and "a
   different, alien species." The are the "avowed enemies of the entire
   human species." As for their Zionist philosophy, it emphasizes the
   "sensual appetites of impulsions of a racial group, making that
   racial group self-defined as in moral likeness to a lower beast."

   LaRouche desciple Chris White echoes these sentiments. The British
   are a "specific form of lower life," "not human," "the end product of
   a specialized process of genetic engineering" that produced
   "congenital deficiencies and brain damage" as early as the 17th
   century.

   In "The Elite That Can't Think Straight" LaRouche portrays the
   biological struggle as a relentless personal contest between himself
   and the top oligarchs. Their "inner circles," he says, recognize him
   as "the ancient and feared adversary of their own evil species" and
   as their "potential destroyer." When they see the influence of his
   work, "they tense, growling with such phrases as 'potential danger,'
   'more dangerous than Hitler,' 'kill it before it succeeds in getting
   a real foothold in shaping events.'" Whether or  not LaRouche
   actually believes himself to be the new Hitler as implied, he
   approved the publicatioin of Chris White's 'The Noble Family' (1978),
   which said just about everything left to be said: "Let us speedily
   expedite the urgently necessary task of freeing humanity from the
   grasp of that specific form of lower life before we are destroyed by
   them or enslaved by them. Let us joyfully ensure that the
   representatives of the British system are destroyed so that humanity
   might live..." And White concluded: "Those of us who should know
   better have been tolerant of such creatures for far longer than has
   been good for the rest of us. Let us, with ruthlessness, ensure that
   the job is done correctly now."

   LaRouche's racialism, like Hitler's, doesn't just target the British.
   In a softer form it applies to most of the human race, whom LaRouche
   accuses of being mired in sheeplike bestiality and thus requiring
   close surveillance by LaRouchian shephers. He professes great
   compassion for the sheep. Their subhuman state is the fault of the
   British. Once the latter are removed from the scene, the sheep's
   heredity can be changed, raising future generations to the level of
   true humanity. (King, 288-289)

   Thanks to John Covici (EIR Talks to Lyndon LaRouche 02/01/93), we
   have had a grand opportunity to see LaRouche's paranoia regarding the
   British as it exists today. Consider these snippets, from message-id
   <[email-masked]>, which John published on February
   7, 1993 (Request larouche EIR.020193 for the entire "interview")

   -> LaRouche explains how the British were responsible for the (US) 
      Civil War... 
     
      There have been movements throughout history which are
      against what the United States represented, movements such as the
      1815-1816 conferences at Vienna and Paris which established the
      Holy Alliance.  The policy of Castlereagh was part of that in
      England, and the continuation of that by people like Palmerston.
      You had the attempt to drive the United States, under British
      direction, from the kind of republic that Alexander Hamilton and
      George Washington and so forth conceived, into a Confederate-style
      slave society, in which the poor whites and even the planters were
      culturally little more elevated in their cultural conditions of
      life than the chattel slaves.

   -> LaRouche explains how the British are behind the Balkan problem..

      Now, a competitor of Marx, by the name of Bakunin, who was also a
      buddy of that Nazi, the composer Richard Wagner, and also in a
      sense a buddy of that other Nazi Friedrich Nietzsche, the
      deconstructionist; these people were simply assets of Palmerston's
      Mazzini operation, the Young Europe operation, the radicals.  And
      they spread this Pan-Slavic garbage into Russia and into
      southeastern Europe through these Freemasonic lodges which were
      the Mazzini-type lodges run by the British.  We had this Serbian
      Black Hand society, all these kinds of things that started the
      Balkan Wars ultimately of the late 19th century and the early 20th
      century.  The same people are up to the same thing all over agian.
      This is not something that was cooked up yesterday in somebody's
      kitchen or somebody's spook think-tank; these are movements and
      tendencies and operations and brainwashings, which have been
      kicking around for hundreds of years. 

   -> In case we didn't get it, LaRouche adds the following on
      February 18th (Message-ID: <[email-masked]>)
      (Request larouche EIR.021893 for the complete "interview")

      What is being done in former Yugoslavia, is that from the
      beginning, from 1989-1990, the British and U.S.  governments not
      only supported but helped to direct the aggression of the Serbian
      fascist formation around Milosevic, the present president of
      Serbia, to commit genocidal crimes, first against Croatians and
      then against the Bosnians, and they are now ready to go against
      Kosova and ready to go in Macedonia or, as it is called,
      Makedonija.

      The United States is fully supporting that, as is the British
      government.  There {is} an understanding with Moscow on this
      matter.  Moscow is making itself more vocal, but that is a part of
      Moscow making itself more vocal on many things, including, as we
      may note, Iraq.

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits run Israel...

      The Middle East is a mess because we want to have it a mess.  The
      Middle East is, to this day, despite the U.S.  bungling and
      interventions in the area, still run by the old British
      intleligence crowd.  And they wish to have it a mess.  Israel is
      to a large degree {controlled} by this crowd.  The Israelis would
      not want to admit it; but if you know how things work, you
      understand how it is controlled.  And they are making it a mess.
      I do not think that anyone could come up with a Middle East policy
      which is going to work by itself.  For example, I have worked on
      policies for years, and worked with Israelis and Arabs and others
      to try to get these into motion, which are economic development
      policies of mutual benefit to all in that region, and therefore,
      by having a common intererst in something of mutual benefit to
      all, particularly in economics, one can hope that you can build
      confidence and build peace.  Unfortunately, this has not worked so
      far because of this kind of British control I talked about. 

   -> LaRouche explains how the ADL is controlled by the British...

      First of all, the ADL is not an independent organization which
      makes its own policy.  The ADL is an offshoot of a Confederate
      organization, the B'nai B'rith, which was founded in 1842-1843 in
      Charleston, South Carolina, as a subsidiary of Palmerston's
      organization, and actually that branch of the Southern Freemasonry
      was working with Lord Palmerston, was under his direction, and
      called itself, as the case of Albert Pike exemplifies in this,
      ``Young America,'' which was the offshoot of Mazzini's ``Young
      Europe.'' 

      This organization has always worked for a faction of British
      intelligence.  As a shorthand, call it the Castlereagh-Palmerston
      faction.  It has never served an independent Jewish interest,
      contrary to its own publicity.  It has not. 

      For example, the deployment against us, against me in particular,
      {was ordered} from New York City by British intelligence through a
      British intelligence agent, Canon Edward West of the New York
      Cathedral of St.  John the Divine.  Canon West was also a
      coordinator for British intelligence's Hospitaller of St.  John
      organization, the Knights of Jerusalem.  And that is the way it
      has been run. 

   -> LaRouche now tells us that the British don't completely control
      the ADL - the KGB is in there pitching! 
      <[email-masked]>

      And the ADL, which is partly a Soviet KGB asset, was also involved
      in that--the Anti-Defamation League.  But that was on the ground,
      not on the higher level.

      ...the difference between my being in prison and being harassed on
      the street, so to speak, was essentially this agreement between
      Moscow and Washington, with London consulting.  And that is the
      way it has stood up to the present time.

    -> In <[email-masked]>, LaRouche explains 
       how the Brits destroyed the Soviet economy...

      What Bush did and what the British and others did, beginning 1989
      or 1990 with the fall of the [Berlin] Wall, was the worst possible
      thing.  It was the thing I warned against in 1988 in the rather
      widely celebrated Berlin address I made on this subject about the
      imminent collapse of the Wall, the imminent reunification of
      Germany with Berlin as the prospective capital and the problems
      inside the Soviet economy.

      What they did, was they said: Okay, the Russians are weak, they
      have to accept our diktat to some degree.  We are going to destroy
      Eastern Europe and its economy.  We are going to destroy the
      former Soviet economy by these kinds of pressures.

      What they should have done--which they thought was being too
      generous--was to cooperate in developing Eastern Europe,
      especially Poland, which they wrecked.  The United States and
      Britain have {wrecked} Poland, almost to an irrecoverable level.
      They have wrecked eastern Germany by putting pressure on Germany
      to do so; and they tried to wreck the former Soviet Union.

      What this did--instead of following the development policy which I
      had proposed, the so-called ``food for peace'' policy--was to put
      the Russians into an {adversarial} mood against the United States
      in particular.  And what is building up now there in the so-called
      return of the hard-liners, is that a bunch of people are saying,
      ``Okay.  The United States and Britain are going to
      collapse''--and they are right.  They are going to collapse at the
      present time.  They say, ``We have to wait.  And we are going to
      be a superpower again.'' That is the strategic threat.

   -> LaRouche explains how the British are destabilizing Italy, in
      conjunction with the Russians and the Yanks, and attempting to
      deliberately start a war (Request larouche EIR.030893 for the
      complete "interview")

      First of all, as we have discussed in previous broadcasts, the
      crisis in Italy is engineered from the outside by a network which
      is Anglo-American in character and Freemasonic in flavor, that is,
      the British Freemasons, together with the Southern Jurisdiction
      types in our own country, are key in orchestrating this
      destabilization in Italy.  This is being done as a part of the
      operation which London orchestrated, together with Gorbachov, in
      launching the Serbians, partly through London, partly through
      Gorbachov, partly through people like Brent Scowcroft and
      [Lawrence] Eagleburger, who are close collaborators of these
      Serbians, to start a war on the Southern Flank of Germany.
      Because suddenly, at that point, in 1989-1990, Mrs.  Thatcher
      announced that Germany was the major danger; and therefore, Bush
      and Thatcher blew the greatest opportunity in 20th century history
      by turning away from the opportunity to develop Eastern Europe and
      Russia along new lines, through economic cooperation, and instead
      used Russia, in part--that is, Gorbachov and Marshal [Dmitri]
      Yazov--to launch the Serbians in this hideous war against other
      peoples of former Yugoslavia, the Milosevic group.  [...]

      They are simply trying to destroy and discredit all the parties.
      That is being done through a law which was imposed by the
      occupying powers, the Anglo-Americans, at the end of World War II,
      in which, under pressure, Italy passed this law, under which there
      can be no competent financing of parties without resorting to
      things which are considered illegal or quasi-illegal; and that is
      being used just to pull down the system at this point. 

   -> LaRouche continues to explain how the Brits and Yanks have
      started the Balkan war...(EIR.030893)

      What has happened, because the United States and Britain, under
      Bush and Thatcher, unleashed various regional wars, such as the
      Balkan war, which they sponsored with Gorbachov, is that we have
      gone back to a new version of the kind of conflict which existed
      prior to 1989. 

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits and Russians "Unleashed the
      Serbian Fascists," and takes a shot at the Israelis at the same
      time (EIR.030893):

      Ridley was nothing but the bark of the Margaret Thatcher dog.  He
      was her minister and even though she was a rather nasty person,
      she as head of government in Britain, could not say openly,
      diplomatically, the kinds of things she could have some of her
      ministers say. 

      So she had this scoundrel, Conor Cruise O'Brien and Nicholas
      Ridley, one of her ministers, spew out this venom, talking about a
      Fourth Reich.  Many people will recall, if they look back at the
      newspaper files, they will find that it was this Fourth Reich
      formulation and the negotiations between Thatcher and Gorbachov to
      unleash the Serbian fascists and the kind of genocide and other
      war crimes being committed in Yugoslavia today.  This was all the
      same package.  You will find certain Israelis who were supporting
      the Serbian fascists in this genocide, were using the same
      formulation: ``Fourth Reich,'' ``Fourth Reich.'' 

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits bombed the World Trade Center
      (EIR.030893)

      But certainly, that bombing could not have been done by a bunch of
      Arabs.  This is a highly sophisticated operation.  There are a few
      people, a few teams in the world, that could have done
      that--relatively few.  Most of them are known; this was not simply
      done by that blind, 80-year-old sheikh.  That sheikh is a British
      intelligence asset.  We have his pedigree; he is British
      intelligence.  He was brought into the United States in 1991 by
      the State Department and protected by the State Department, up
      until these recent events, up until a few days ago.  So the man
      was a protected State Department asset actually owned by British
      intelligence out of the old Arab Bureau network. 

      -> and blames the Aussies for Waco while he's at it...

      Somebody else has done it; it is done against the Clinton
      administration, just as that dirty operation that was done down in
      Waco, which was run out of Australia, of all places, in order to
      set that thing up--out of Australia.  And used a convicted a felon
      as the complainant to get the thing moving. 

      [...]

      The case in particular starts {in Australia.} A fellow called Isi
      Leibler in Australia who is an ADL asset, who has recently been
      disowned by the Mossad, and his circle, have control over certain
      sections of the Australian government.  Through a department of
      the Australian government, a misinformational report was
      sent--very alarming and very electrifying--to the U.S.  State
      Department.  The U.S.  State Department, because it involved
      weapons, turned the case over to ATF.  ..

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits put Khomeini in power...

      We should have to recognize that the trigger point, the detonator
      point, for this lunacy, was that the United States and Britain put
      a British asset, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. 

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits are destabilizing Clinton and
      complaining about the administration "not having the right Jews."

      We have heard Lord Owen, the British ambassador, screaming the
      most undiplomatic screaming against the United States on the
      territory of the United States over this policy, not just the
      Bosnian policy, but over the British policy of creating this
      one-world order.  And [President] Clinton, who may not be the most
      profound in his thinking, is going on the basis of saying he would
      like to be re-elected; and he is thinking about being re-elected,
      at least instinctively, while he is President.  And he is trying
      to respond to this, and that in a way which seems to him to be the
      response of a guy who wants to be re-elected.  So he is doing
      things--he is backing off like a weathervane, often.  But he is
      doing things; and he represents a destabilization factor from the
      standpoint of certain Anglo-American [Establishment] and other
      circles, and they are not particularly happy with him. 

      They have made that very clear, particularly from some of the
      neo-con[servative] attacks on Clinton for not having the right
      Jew.  He had enough Jews in the administration, but they said he
      did not have the right Jews, and that kind of stuff. 

   -> LaRouche reiterates how the Brits and Bush unleashed the Serbs:

      The problem today, which comes to Clinton's doorstep, is the fact
      that Thatcher and Bush, principally, as the responsible heads of
      government and state, respectively, destroyed all of the good work
      that Reagan did in this connection, by their crazy policy toward
      attacking Germany by unleashing Serbia against the southern flank
      of Europe and by imposing insane conditions upon Russia and
      Eastern European countries which are pushing Russia today into an
      adversarial emotional posture against the United States and
      Britain, with Russia still having the world's largest and
      second-largest naval- and land-based rocket arsenal. 

   -> LaRouche explains how Clinton and the Brits are forcing the
      Russians into a hostile position...(EIR.032493)

      As I said before, he can go my way, or it will be totally
      ineffective.  As long as Clinton and the Thatcherites in Britain
      succeed in continuing to impose the so-called reform reform
      program of IMF conditionalities upon Russia under the present
      policy guidelines, which were set into motion under Thatcher and
      Bush, which are called the Project Democracy guidelines, the
      situation in Russia will deteriorate and we will very rapidly have
      the emergence of Russia as a thermonuclear power--which it already
      is--with a {resolve} and a {hostile emotional projection} against
      the United States and Britain, particularly, for what the Russians
      will say and feel that the West has done to them, in the sense of
      betrayal. 

   -> LaRouche explains how Thatcher and "British interests" murdered
      a German banker (EIR.032493)

      What happened is that Thatcher and Bush, as the policy carriers of
      that period, went in the opposite direction.  Deutsche Bank banker
      Alfred Herrhausen, who proposed a policy similar to mine, was
      killed, assassinated, by British interests because they did not
      like what he was offering.  They did not like mine, either. 

   -> LaRouche explains that Thatcher is an idiot and an criminal, and
      that Yeltsin is an "agent of the Anglo-American policies" (EIR.032493)

      Q: As you are talking, I hear Margaret Thatcher and I hear the
      gurus of the Heritage Foundation and others saying, ``Isn't it
      better that we now have the former Soviet Union in a weakened
      condition, and wouldn't the policies that you're proposing,
      strengthen the former Soviet Union, an adversary, and create more
      difficulties for the United States?'' 

      MR.  LAROUCHE: Beginning 1983, I warned these idiots--and I use
      the term idiots because the criminality of what they have done is
      beyond belief when we consider the dangerous world we live in
      today--I warned them that if they went with that kind of policy
      toward Russia, that what they would do, is they would see the fall
      of communism. 

      That is exactly what the Yeltsin crisis is.  The Yeltsin crisis is
      not caused by something inside Russia.  The Yeltsin crisis is
      caused by the fact that Mr.  Yeltsin has been seen, by the
      Russians, {as the agent of the Anglo-American policies which the
      Russian people and leading institutions have grown to hate.}

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits have been plotting agains the
      Germans, and caused the Balkan Wars, and explains how the Serbs
      are really agents of the British...

      From 1880 on, the British became very excited about what they saw
      as the threat that German economic development, which was vastly
      surpassing anything in Britain, would again ``infect'' Russia with
      industrial and agricultural development.  So in order to prevent
      that, they developed the doctrine of geopolitics. 

      What they used was pan-Slavism and French revenge-ism[sic] after
      the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War, as motivations
      for building an alliance against Germany while also carving up the
      Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  This was
      triggered, by British agents and their friends in Venice and in
      Salonika, as the Balkan Wars of the nineteenth century and the
      Balkan Wars of the twentieth century. 

      So you had Russians drawn into the Balkans by an affinity with
      Serbians, which is called pan-Slavism.  So the Russians were
      taking the side of the Serbs against the Austro-Hungarian Empire
      and the Ottomans.  Then you had the French, who were also in deep
      through the Freemasonic connections with the Serbian terrorists of
      that period, the Black Hand Society and so forth; and all this all
      became a division of Europe against itself, which Britain saw as
      preventing Europe from engaging in the kind of economic
      development, which would make Eurasia a successful competitor to
      the worldwide power of the British Empire. 

      When Germany was reunified, we heard from Margaret Thatcher's
      circle, from Conor Cruise O'Brien and from the now recently
      deceased Nicholas Ridley, the cry of ``Fourth Reich,'' the
      argument that Germany was now going back to take over all of
      Europe, and therefore Britain had to get the Russians and the
      Balkans, the Serbs in particular, to go at Germany.  They got Bush
      into support of this policy; and so Milosevic, who is essentially
      a British Intelligence asset, and some Serbs who were also Russian
      assets, were co-deployed by an agreement between the Thatcher
      government and Gorbachov to launch this war in the Balkans--in the
      same way that British Intelligence had launched the Balkan Wars
      preceding World War I to ignite World War I. 

   -> LaRouche explains how the British are responsible for nearly
      everything (EIR.033093)

      The problem is this.  Because of the mess which Mrs.  Thatcher and
      George Bush led in making of the great opportunity which opened up
      at the end of 1989, with the crumbling of the so-called Iron
      Curtain, we have a situation in which governments around the world
      have deteriorated to the point that no one really is on top of the
      situation.  They have the power to command, but they do not have
      the power to address any problems. 

      This is the case in Britain, which is essentially a disgusting
      mess from the standpoint of government.  Germany: Chancellor Kohl
      is trying to hold on to his seat, but there is not much else going
      on around him.  Italy: the government is crumbling because of an
      Anglo-American, essentially British but Anglo-American,
      destabilization of the whole political system of Italy, through
      covert operations.  A similar process is being launched in Germany
      now, though not as intensively or extensively as in Italy. 

   -> LaRouche explains how stupid Americans are, how they have been
      brainwashed into thinking incorrect thoughts...and how the Brits
      and Yanks put Hitler into power...how the Brits started WWI...

      For the American citizen to understand this issue, we have to look
      into some of the brainwashing, and I think that term has to be
      used, of the majority of American citizens themselves. 

      For example, most American citizens still believe that Germany
      caused World War I and World War II.  Of course, in the case of
      World War II, Hitler was a terrible problem and did take the
      actions which actually led to the general warfare.  But the causes
      of World War II go back to about 1932-33, when a group around
      Averell Harriman and company in the United States, and similar
      people in Britain allied to Harriman, actually put Hitler into
      power, to overthrow the von Schleicher government.  Had they not
      overthrown the von Schleicher government, there would have been no
      World War II in that form; there would have been no Hitler. 

      So in that sense, the fact is, that the United States and Britain
      caused World Wars I and II.  Britain is primarily responsible for
      World War I, and was a co-author, and probably the initiating
      co-author, of the design for what became World War II. 

      {This is directly contrary to all typical American belief.} They
      are taught in school, they are taught by the news media, etc.,
      etc., etc.; and when you tell a typical American and show him even
      the facts which show that George Bush's father, Prescott Bush, as
      the general manager, chief executive officer, for Averell
      Harriman, {moved the money into the Nazi Party to put Hitler into
      power,} he'll say, ``No, that can't be true.  I couldn't believe
      that.'' But it's true. 

   -> LaRouche explains how the Brits are destabilizing _everyone_ 

      The same thing that happened then, is happening now.  {Before} the
      unification of Germany occurred, you had Mrs.  Thatcher, with her
      Conor Cruise O'Brien and her minister, now recently deceased,
      Nicholas Ridley, insisting that the great danger to world peace
      was the reunification of Germany; and the term used was Fourth
      Reich.  That was a signal for both U.S.  intelligence services and
      British intelligence services to do a number of things to
      destabilize all of Europe, which they did.  And at the same time,
      the British and some of the Americans worked with Gorbachov; and
      Gorbachov, partly through Minister [Dmitri] Yazov, the defense
      minister, set loose certain U.S.  and British assets in former
      Yugoslavia--that is, the fascist faction of Milosevic in Serbia. 

      They launched the war on what is called strategically the southern
      flank of Central Europe.  The purpose of this war and these other
      measures was to weaken the governments and economies of western
      Europe, while weakening the economies, and actually ruining the
      economies, of the former communist states of eastern Europe,
      including Poland, which they have done.  Poland is down to about
      30 percent of the level of economy it was at the time that it came
      out from under Soviet domination; and to collapse also of the
      former Soviet Union. 

      This has produced this dangerous war-threatening situation, and
      that is where we stand: that is where the problem lies. 

      One has to understand that; and somebody is going to have to take
      the American people by the ears and say, ``cut out this nonsense,
      take your fairy tales about German war guilt, throw them away;
      yes, the Germans under the Kaiser were a bunch of fools, and fell
      into the trap; Hitler was an American creation, who did provoke
      the war, who did horrible things, no question about it.  But let's
      look at how these things are set up, and not just look at what
      happens once they are set up.'' 

   -> LaRouche once again expounds on British guilt regarding Serbia...
      The point is, we cannot tolerate this mess.  There are war crimes.
      Genocide is going on in the Balkans.  Eagleburger and Scowcroft
      and the other Bush leaguers, the Kissinger-Bush league types,
      together with Carrington's crowd and Lord Owen's crowd, and
      Britain, are responsible for this mess.  We have to recognize that
      the Europeans and the Americans committed a great crime in
      tolerating this situation for as long as we have.  We are going to
      have to take various kinds of measures. 

                             Work Cited

   LaRouche, Lyndon.  EIR Talks With LaRouche.  UseNet: alt.activism,
      Message-ID's and archived filenames as cited above.

   King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York:
      Doubleday, 1989