Et dybt dyk ned i oprindelsen til
Russia-gate. LaRouche PAC
Internat. Webcast, 11/8 2017

Det, jeg vil gøre her i dag, er at fremlægge den dokumentation, der viser, at det, vi i realiteten har her, ikke er en russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender; men at det snarere er en særdeles dirigeret indblanding på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Dette er, hvad man burde efterforske, i modsætning til det såkaldte »aftalte spil« mellem præsident Trumps valgkampagneteam og så russerne. Det er meget vigtigt at dokumentere dette, og det er absolut afgørende, at dette kup stoppes; for, på dette tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, befinder vi os på randen af et nyt finanssammenbrud, langt større end i 2008. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor briterne, for at opretholde deres bankerotte finanssystem, der har hjemsted i City of London og på Wall Street, har helliget sig til at bringe den amerikanske præsident til fald for at forhindre, at alternativet til dette sammenbrud bliver realiseret. …

Lyndon LaRouches indtrængende budskab til USA’s præsident og befolkning: ’Opgiv det britiske system; red folket’

Vært Jason Ross: Det er den 11. aug., 2017 og dette er fredags-webcastet på at larouchepac.com. Jeg er Jason Ross og aftenens vært. Vi har en særlig gæst i dag; Will Wertz, medlem af EIR’s redaktion. Vi hører fra Will om et øjeblik.

I forbindelsen med aftenens show vil vi diskutere noget, vi har talt en hel del om på dette program og denne webside; og det er memorandaet fra VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der på en meget afgørende måde, baseret på computerteknisk efterforskning og Adam Carter, viser, at det russiske hack var et inside-job. Dette er forsiden af The Hamiltonian-avisen i denne uge, der kommer direkte til sagen; og denne historie udgives nu af store publikationer, inkl. The Nation ugemagasinet og Bloomberg News. Meget af den måde, dette er blevet præsenteret på, eller meget af den måde, hvorpå Russia-gate-kuppet mod Donald Trump opfattes af folk, der forstår, at det er et kup, er, at ’deep state’-apparatet kører en operation for at afsætte præsidenten og selv afgøre amerikansk politik.

Vi skal i dag høre fra Will Wertz, der vil dykke dybere ned i dette og hjælpe os til at forstå, at der ligger meget mere i dette end det, der kaldes ’deep state’. Roden til denne kup-operation går ud over USA’s grænser og går på fremtrædende vis til Storbritannien, til det endnu eksisterende Britiske Imperium. Lad os gå over til Will: Hvad kan du fortælle os om de dybere følgeslutninger, vi bør træffe ud fra dette kupforsøg mod præsidenten? Hvad betyder det; hvor kommer det fra?

Will Wertz: Lyndon LaRouche kom med følgende kommentar:

»Det amerikanske folk må kræve, at det igangværende, forræderiske, britiske kup mod det amerikanske præsidentskab og selve nationen må stoppes, og gerningsmændene retsforfølges og fængsles. Det britiske system må opgives, og præsidenten må intet middel sky for at redde dette lands befolkning, og resten af menneskeheden, fra yderligere britiskdirigerede afsavn mod deres liv. Opgiv det britiske system; red folket.«

Det, jeg vil gøre her i dag, er at fremlægge den dokumentation, der viser, at det, vi i realiteten har her, ikke er en russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender; men at det snarere er en særdeles dirigeret indblanding på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Dette er, hvad man burde efterforske, i modsætning til det såkaldte »aftalte spil« mellem præsident Trumps valgkampagneteam og så russerne. Det er meget vigtigt at dokumentere dette, og det er absolut afgørende, at dette kup stoppes; for, på dette tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, befinder vi os på randen af et nyt finanssammenbrud, langt større end i 2008. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor briterne, for at opretholde deres bankerotte finanssystem, der har hjemsted i City of London og på Wall Street, har helliget sig til at bringe den amerikanske præsident til fald for at forhindre, at alternativet til dette sammenbrud bliver realiseret. Alternativet til dette sammenbrud er det, Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt Firemagts-konceptet; en alliance mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og potentielt Indien, og som repræsenterer den industrielle magt på denne planet og det overvældende flertal af verdens befolkning. Denne kombination kan løse bogstavelig talt ethvert problem, vi konfronteres med på planeten Jord, og hinsides. For eksempel kræver krisen over Koreahalvøen et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland; hvor de to sidstnævnte er naboer til Nord- og Sydkorea. Kampen mod terrorisme i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, som strækker sig endnu længere end dette, kræver et sådant samarbejde. Genopbygningen af verdensøkonomien kræver et sådant samarbejde – især gennem, at USA slutter sig til bestræbelserne, som Kina har initieret – den såkaldte Silkevej eller Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i årtier har kæmpet for og refereret til som Verdenslandbroen.

Alle disse problemer kan løses med dette samarbejde; og dette samarbejde ville ødelægge Det britiske Imperium én gang for alle. Det er, hvad der i øjeblikket står på spil. Jeg vil også påpege, at Det britiske Imperium rent historisk har været helliget massiv befolkningsreduktion, folkemord, og en reducering af verdens befolkning fra de nuværende mere end 6 mia. og til 1 mia. mennesker. Dette imperium er villigt til at bringe verden til randen af atomkrig med sin geopolitiske strategi mod Rusland og Kina. Det er det underliggende spørgsmål, der ligger bag det aktuelle forsøg på at gennemføre et kup mod USA’s præsident.

Beviserne for den britiske involvering er gennemskuelige. Donald Trump annoncerede sin præsidentkampagne den 16. juni, 2015. Der var en artikel i The Guardian af 13. april, 2017. Her siger de, at »britisk efterretning blev først i slutningen af 2015« – dvs. få måneder efter, at Donald Trump annoncerede sin præsidentvalgkampagne – »opmærksom på det, det kaldte ’mistænkelige interaktioner’ mellem personer med tilknytning til Trump og kendte eller mistænkte russiske agenter«. Artiklens titel lyder, ’British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia’. I artiklen siger de, at disse såkaldte ’interaktioner’ først blev afdækket af noget, der hedder Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ, hvilket svarer til NSA. De gør meget ud af at pointere, at, »det er klart, at GCHQ på intet tidspunkt udførte en operation rettet mod Trump eller hans team, eller proaktivt søgte information. De angivelige samtaler blev opsnappet ved et tilfælde.«

De siger også, at GCHQ spillede en fremtrædende rolle på et tidligt tidspunkt, hvor de kickstartede FBI’s efterforskning af Trump-Rusland, og som begyndte i slutningen af juli, 2016. Husk, at det Republikanske Konvent, der nominerede Donald Trump, fandt sted fra 18.-21. juli, 2016. Så GCHQ følger Donald Trump få måneder efter hans annoncering af Republikanernes nominering til præsidentkandidat; og GCHQ kickstarter FBI’s efterforskning af Donald Trump, sandsynligvis få dage efter hans nominering i juli 2016. Artiklen siger, »FBI og CIA forstod kun langsomt arten af de angivelige kontakter mellem Trumps associerede folk og russere. Dette skyldtes til dels amerikansk lov, der forbyder amerikanske tjenester at undersøge amerikanske borgeres private kommunikationer uden en retskendelse. De var uddannede til ikke at gøre dette.« Den lov, de henviser til, er selvfølgelig USA’s Forfatning; som amerikanske efterretningstjenester desværre ikke har overholdt så nøje, som Edward Snowden afslørede.

De rapporterer dernæst, at Robert Hannigan, chef for GCHQ, i sommeren 2016 videregav materiale til CIA-chef John Brennan; og at Brennan brugte denne information til at lancere en stor efterforskning på tværs af tjenesterne, af et internt anliggende. Så det er et spørgsmål, om det er en overtrædelse af CIA’s charter, at en sådan efterforskning overhovedet lanceres; og dernæst at briefe lederskabet i de Demokratiske og Republikanske formandsskaber og højtplacerede medlemmer af Husets og Senatets Efterretningskomiteer om denne information, som endnu i dag ikke er blevet bekræftet.

Dette er altså britisk efterretnings indblanding i valgene. Føj hertil dossieret, der blev udarbejdet af den såkaldte »tidligere« MI6-agent Christopher Steele. Dette har fungeret som køreplanen for FBI’s efterforskning. Kopier af det blev givet direkte til FBI, hvis ikke af GCHQ, så af MI-6. Vi ved, at John McCain gav FBI en kopi, da han fik en sådan kopi. Hvad har vi så her mht. Christopher Steele? Han er en tidligere MI-6-agent; han arbejde under dække af det Britiske Udenrigsministerium i ambassaden i Moskva, men var en efterretningsagent. Tilbage i 2009 dannede han et selskab ved navn Orbis Business Executives. Fra mindst 2010 og frem havde han arbejdet med FBI’s Enhed for Eurasisk Organiseret Kriminalitet, med hjemsted i New York City. Samme år, som Orbis Business Executives blev lanceret – 2009 – blev et andet selskab lanceret i USA, ved navn Fusion GPS; samme år. Så tidligt som i 2010, iflg. retslige dokumenter, havde disse to såkaldte selskaber en fortrolighedsaftale. Så selv om den officielle historie er, at Fusion GPS hyrede Orbis Business Executives til at udføre efterforskning af politiske modstandere imod Donald Trump på vegne af Hillary Clinton, så er kendsgerningen den, at disse to selskaber har arbejdet sammen siden deres oprettelse i 2009; og deres fortrolighedsaftale går tilbage til året efter, 2010. Denne fortrolighedsaftale bruges af Fusion GPS som en grund til ikke at overgive information til Senatets Retsudvalg, som har krævet det i forbindelse med dette dossier.

Så hvad har vi her? Vi har GCHQ, der kickstarter en efterforskning gennem international overvågning; vi har tidligere MI-6-agent Christopher Steele, der får information fra russere, som i dette tilfælde ikke er særlig pålideligt; og bruger dette som en køreplan til at lancere en efterforskning af USA’s præsident efter, han var valgt. Det bør påpeges, at en af hovedpersonerne i FBI, der har været involveret i dette, er den tidligere, fungerende direktør for FBI. Han var fungerende direktør efter Comey gik, og han er nu erstattet af Christopher Wray. Men Andrew McCabe var i sin tidligere karriere chef for FBI’s Enhed for Eurasisk Organiseret Kriminalitet i New York City. Senator Grassley har sendt en hel række spørgsmål til vicejustitsminister Rod Rosenstein om Andrew McCabe; for mistanken går ud på, at Andrew McCabe var direkte involveret som Christopher Steeles manager. Det bør ligeledes påpeges, at, på et vist tidspunkt, havde FBI i tankerne at betale Christopher Steele for at fortsætte sin såkaldte efterforskning. Det spørgsmål, som Grassley stiller, er, var McCabe involveret specifikt i denne situation? Man må her forstå, at Andrew McCabe aktuelt er under efterforskning, fordi han var involveret i en beslutning om, at hans kone, Jill McCabe, skulle stille op til delstats-senator for staten Virginia mod senator Dick Black. Dette blev arrangeret gennem guvernør McAuliffe, en nær tilhænger af Hillary Clinton; som på det tidspunkt blev efterforsket af FBI. McCabe menes også at have været involveret i efterforskningen af Hillary Clintons e-mails. Der er her tale om en total interessekonflikt på vegne af McCabe; som måske var hovedpersonen, der arbejde hos FBI med Christopher Steele.

Dette er forbindelsesleddet til Det britiske Imperium, som er direkte involveret i operationen imod USA’s præsident. Dens formål er at ødelægge USA’s præsidentskab, så præsident Trump ikke kan udvikle samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland og Kina i særdeleshed, i kampen mod terrorisme; og ikke kan arbejde på at bringe USA ind i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina omkring perspektivet for Bælte & Vej, som ville være afgørende for at udvikle USA’s økonomi ved hjælp af det amerikanske systems metoder.

Jeg tror, vi slutter her og hører, hvilke spørgsmål, I har.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

ROSS:  I think you really pulled together the British origin
of the whole Russia story around Trump; and it’s sort of shocking
thing that this dossier of material that was compiled by Steele,
who as you note is a “former” MI-6 agent.  If it’s dirt on Trump
coming from Russians, apparently that’s fine to launch an
investigation about using the CIA and the FBI.  But the mere
suspicion that Donald Trump might have gotten dirt on Hillary
from Russians by any means — regardless of a hack or just
getting information — is considered to be proof of some
nefarious act.
Let me ask you; you had discussed the difference in
orientation between what the motivation would be behind a British
outlook versus what America might do.  Just as a reminder for our
viewers, we’re now four years into a process that was launched in
September 2013 when President Xi Jinping of China, in a speech in
Kazakhstan, announced the One Belt, One Road Initiative; which
has now come to encompass dozens of countries around the world
and hundreds of billions of dollars towards infrastructure and
other cooperative investments.  So there’s really a new game in
town taking shape on the planet.  Could you describe for us or
help us understand how the British view this; or understand the
difference in outlook between British geopolitics compared to
what the United States could adopt as a national policy
orientation?

WERTZ:  Yes.  May I have photo 1?  Now, the British policy
is a policy of geopolitics; and this is a longstanding policy.
In 1919, Halford Mackinder wrote a paper entitled “The
Geographical Pivot of History”.  What he wrote there in summary
is as follows:  Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.
Who rules the Heartland commands the world island.  Who rules the
world island commands the world.  As you can see from this
graphic, Russia is the pivot area; the heartland.  Surrounding it
is an area which is called the Inner Crescent; which today would
be called the Arc of Crisis, as defined by another geopolitician,
Bernard Lewis.  Who was born in Britain, but later became an
American citizen.  That’s the policy that we’ve been carrying
out.  Who rules East Europe?  Think about the move eastward by
NATO to the very borders of Russia.  Think about the policy of
regime change in the entire Arc of Crisis area indicated here as
the Inner Crescent surrounding Russia.  This is the policy that
was also implemented under Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter
administration.  We see it today; it’s continuing today with the
regime change policies in Libya, in Egypt before it was reversed
by el-Sisi against Morsi.  We see it in Iraq beginning in 2003;
we see it today in the attempt in Syria.  Before that, we saw it
in Afghanistan, and that’s still a crisis today.  We see it in
Ukraine today.  This is the geopolitical policy of the British
which led to World War II by the way, because this was the policy
of Hitler.  The Mackinder policy was picked up Haushofer, who was
instrumental in defining Hitler’s policy of marching East to
Russia — the Soviet Union at that time.  So this is the
geopolitical policy which is operative today.
Contrast that now to the World Land-Bridge policy — photo
2, please.  This is the policy proposed by Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche.  As you see, the world island is essentially Asia,
Europe, and Africa.  This policy is not limited to the so-called
world island; this is a policy for all of humanity, extending
into the Western Hemisphere.  The policy is one of economic
development.  As the Chinese say, a “win-win” strategy; peace
based upon economic development.  That is the central conception,
so as to realize the actual potential of humanity for further
improvements in its standard of living, its quality of mentation,
and its ability not only to develop the planet Earth for man’s
benefit, but eventually to colonize outer space; which is man’s
fundamental mission.
So, these are the two contrasting views; and what Americans
and others throughout the world need to know is the British
Empire is alive, and it is carrying out the same policy which it
has carried out at least over the last 100 years, which has led
previously to world wars, and threatens to lead to world wars
today.  But there is an alternative, which is the World
Land-Bridge, the One Belt, One Road policy; the Silk Road, which
has been adopted by a vast majority of countries throughout the
world.

ROSS:  You talked about the British Empire and the
geopolitical objectives of Halford Mackinder.  This is sometime
in the past; you had mentioned its link to Adolf Hitler’s
orientation towards attacking to the East.  But today, I think
that most people believe that there is no British Empire; or that
the power of the British Empire has waned so dramatically from
its peak that it’s hardly a driving force in world affairs today.
Why do you speak about the importance of the British Empire?  How
important is it today?  What’s its power?  How does it exist?

WERTZ:  Please show photos 4 and 3.  Most people don’t
understand that the British Empire is really based upon the
Venetian system.  Venice was not big in terms of military forces,
or geography; it’s a city.  Yet, the Venetian system, as a
financial system, was an imperial system; and the British system
from its inception is modeled upon that financial imperial
system.  The goals of the British Empire are really totally
anti-human.  You could compare it to the Greek mythological
figure of Zeus, who did not want mankind to develop; did not want
mankind to have science; did not want mankind to have technology.
In opposition to that, you had Prometheus, who gave man fire;
science; the means of developing the human mind so as to further
the mission of humanity.  The British policy is fundamentally a
policy of financial imperialism, particularly after World War II;
and it is also a policy based upon a perspective of destroying
the notion of the sovereign nation-state; of reducing world
population from the current levels of over 6 billion to a level
of 1 billion or less, as I said earlier.
I want to just indicate two of the leading figures in
developing the British conception of empire.  One is H.G. Wells,
who wrote a piece called {The Open Conspiracy} in the year 1928.
What he said in that is the following:  “It lies within the power
of the Atlantic communities to impose a world state, a world
directorate upon the world.  The open conspiracy rests upon a
disrespect for national sovereignty.  Its main political idea,
its political strategy is to weaken, deface, incorporate, or
supersede existing governments.  It considers all existing
governments as entirely provisional in nature.”  At one point he
says, “There will be little need for a President.”  That’s the
policy of H.G. Wells.  As you can see, this is the policy of
so-called limited sovereignty; it’s the policy of super-national
institutions.  Like for instance, the European Union has become.
As you can see, the basic idea is to eliminate national
sovereignty, create super-national institutions in which you’d
have no need for a President.  Of course that’s the view that the
British take today.  They would just as soon there not be a
President who would assert the principle of national sovereignty
and develop the people through developing the economy of the
nation, and working with other nations to have the same effect in
respect to the world population.
Bertrand Russell.  Lyndon LaRouche at one point called
Bertrand Russell the most evil man of the 20th Century.  He’s
often known as an advocate of peace.  Well, H.G. Wells made the
same kind of argument for world peace; that was the justification
for dictatorial methods.  In the case of Bertrand Russell, after
World War II Bertrand Russell actually proposed — when he
thought the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons —
that the United States threaten to use nuclear weapons against
the then Soviet Union.  He was not able to act on that idea,
because as it turned out, the Soviet Union developed nuclear
weapons.  But let me just read an interchange with Bertrand
Russell on this subject.  He was asked, “Is it true or untrue
that in recent years you advocate that a preventive war might be
made against Communism, against Soviet Russia?”  Russell: “It’s
entirely true.  And I don’t repent of it now.  It was not
inconsistent with what I think now.  There was a time just after
the last war when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons
and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch
Proposal.  I thought this was an extremely generous proposal on
their part.  One which it would be very desirable that the world
should accept.  Not that I advocated a nuclear war; but I did
think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the
Baruch Proposal, and I did think that if they continued to
refuse, it might be necessary actually to go to war.  At that
time, nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the
odds were, the Russians would have given way.  I thought they
would.”  Question: “Suppose they hadn’t given way?”  Russell: “I
thought and hoped that the Russians would give way.  But of
course, you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your
bluff called.”
So, this is the policy of Bertrand Russell; to create a one
world directorate as in the case of H.G. Wells, and to threaten
preemptive nuclear war against the then-Soviet Union in order to
enforce such a perspective.  Now we are once again on the verge
of, in this case, thermonuclear war; and that is the policy of
the British Empire.  The British basically view war as one means
by which they can reduce world population.

ROSS:  In going after British policy, this seems to be
something that very clearly the U.S. has been opposed to since
its inception.  The American Revolution, the first of the
complaints in the Declaration of Independence wasn’t about
taxation without representation; it was that the King had refused
his assent to laws that were necessary for the common good.
I think the way that you posed things, in terms of Zeus and
Prometheus,
Between having power by preventing others from developing versus
causing and fostering development is a very good way to look at
the way at the relationship between the British Empire and the
U.S. over our history.
This must have shifted at some point given that there’s so
many factions in the U.S. now who are adopting policies that
sound very much like British policies — the “responsibility to
protect” doctrine, which was announced by Prime Minister Tony
Blair in Chicago a decade ago.  This has become sort of an
orthodoxy almost in Washington, D.C., where it’s considered
perfectly natural to intervene in nations that aren’t posing any
particular threat to the U.S., in order to prevent some internal
calamity, used as an excuse to cause the chaos that we’ve seen in
Libya, the mess that we’ve seen in Syria, etc.  So can you tell
us more about this shift?  Has this always been a fight inside
the United States, or when did the U.S. begin to adopt an almost
British outlook on foreign affairs?

WERTZ:  It’s important for people to maintain a perspective
involving a long arc of history.  People know in this country
that the United States fought, before it became officially the
United States and adopted a Constitution, fought a Revolution
against the British Empire.  In 1812, it was the British who
burned down the White House.  This has been an ongoing conflict
between the British and the United States.  And when I’m
referring to the British, I’m not referring to the British
people, that should be very clear;  I’m referring to the British
Monarchy, the British Empire as a system of government.  Now, the
British also supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.  And
Lincoln was assassinated at the end of that war by individuals
who it is believed were actually funded by the British,
specifically by one James Bulloch, the uncle of Theodore
Roosevelt, who was based in Great Britain during the entire Civil
War, and was essentially the foreign agent of Confederacy based
in Britain.
But the United States was able to proceed after the Civil
War, and I think it became clear to the British that they were
not going to be able to take over the United States by military
means, as in the Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War,
but rather they had to use other means; although those other
means continued to involve assassination.  One of the key
breaking points in the whole process was the assassination of
President McKinley in 1901, and of course the person who became
President at that point was Theodore Roosevelt.  This is in the
period leading into World War I, and under McKinley, and prior to
his assassination, the United States had very close relations
with Germany under Bismarck, with Russia, with Japan.  And this
was reversed by Teddy Roosevelt, who established the so-called
U.S.-British “special relationship.”  And undoubtedly his uncle
and the influence of his uncle on Teddy Roosevelt played a
critical role in his perspective.
Now, Franklin Roosevelt had a completely different
perspective.  He traced his heritage back to Isaac Roosevelt, who
worked closely with Alexander Hamilton, and Roosevelt’s entire
policy was based on the American System of economy, the same kind
of American System of economy which President Trump has, in
recent speeches in Kentucky, Detroit, and elsewhere, advocated,
including Glass-Steagall.
Now, during World War II, the British who had backed Hitler,
had backed Mussolini, had backed Franco, realized when Hitler
turned westward into France and threatened Great Britain, that
they needed the United States to defeat Hitler at that point.
And what you have from that point on, is a situation where the
British operated in the United States to help bring the United
States into that war.  But when Roosevelt died, what happened, is
that the British took over, once again.  Not fully, but you had a
situation where the British began a process of trying to reverse
what Roosevelt had done.  And during World War II there was a
famous meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill.  Do you have
photo 5? [Stalin, FDR, Churchill at Tehran 1943]  There was a
famous meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill [April 1941] reported by Roosevelt’s son, Elliot Roosevelt, in which Franklin
Roosevelt said, we’re not fighting World War II in order to
preserve the British Empire, but rather, after this war we’re
going to use American System methods of economic development to
develop the entire world and to end colonialism altogether.
When Roosevelt died, the British, through Churchill, through
their intelligence agencies, and through Harry Truman, moved to
begin the process of attempting to bring the United States into
this British Empire orbit, and that has been the ongoing conflict
that we’ve had over the last 70 years or more.  And it’s not
resolved to this day and it has to be resolved by defeating the
British Empire.
During World War II, the British set up intelligence
operations in the United States,  — can I have pictures, 6, 7,
and 8.  There was an individual by the name of Sir William S.
Stephenson, you see him there, Canadian born.  He set up
something called the British covert operations which operated
under the cover of the British Security Coordination, which was
located in Rockefeller Center.  And they ran covert operations in
the United States during this whole period, basically from 1939
through 1944, and he represented both MI6 and MI5; he worked
directly with Allen Dulles who had an office in the same
building, on the same floor as Stephenson.  Dulles, of course,
later became head of the CIA, until he was relieved of duty by
John F. Kennedy.  Stephenson also worked very closely with the
FBI, with J. Edgar Hoover.
So, in a certain sense, this apparatus, from that period,
consolidated after Roosevelt’s death, and for instance, in 1946,
there was something signed called the “U.K.-U.S.A. Agreement” and
it was an agreement to have intelligence collaboration between
the U.S. and the U.K. in respect to the Soviet Union and the East
bloc countries.  This later was transformed into the “Five Eyes,”
which was the United States, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and
Canada.  So in a very real sense, the United States became a part
of the British Empire intelligence apparatus.  And what we see
today with GCHQ/MI6, their work with Brennan at the CIA, with
Comey and McCabe at the FBI, and Clapper [as DNI], is a
continuation of that U.S.-U.K. Agreement.  The surveillance was
done under the codename “Echelon” and it’s still being done under
that name; even after the Soviet Union collapsed, it’s directed
against the former Soviet Union and East bloc countries.  And
that is what we see today, as I said.  As Snowden, in describing
this relationship said, the Five Eyes are a “supranational
intelligence organization that doesn’t answer to the known laws
of its own countries.”  So that’s the picture I can give you.

ROSS:  This is a you might say chilling picture, a very
scary picture.  What is it that we ought to do?  This is much
bigger I think than people, even those who understand that a coup
is in process or that Russia-gate is a whole bunch of baloney,
this is a lot deeper than what most people believe they’re up
against.  I think you put out a very good picture of what we’re
up against, what the mission is; could you lay out for our
viewers what ought to be done:  How do we fight against this? and
what do we create in its stead?  What’s our objective here?

WERTZ:  Lyndon LaRouche yesterday said that we have to “pour
it on.”  We have to really escalate the mobilization to get a
breakthrough in respect to the VIPS memorandum which we discussed
at the very beginning.  The whole edifice of the lie that the
Russians interfered in the elections, that the Trump campaign
colluded with the Russians, is about to fall.  And we have to
make sure that it falls.  As you indicated in the beginning, the
VIPS memo was produced in July, it was sent to the President,
it’s been sent to the Justice Department, it’s been widely
circulated.  We, in our movement, got out something like 100
copies of the VIPS memo in offices in Washington, D.C. two weeks
ago, concentrating on the Intelligence Committees of both the
House and Senate, as well as the Judiciary Committee.  We also
got this out, this week, at the Old Executive Office Building in
Washington, D.C. and at the Justice Department.
And the story is beginning to break:  You mentioned the
article in {The Nation}.  This is a very powerful article that
just appeared, and what the author, Patrick Lawrence, says is the
following: “Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the
relevant authoritiesthe National Security Agency, the Justice
Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the
Central Intelligence Agencyleave these new findings without
reply.”
[https://www.thenation.com/article/unverified-russiagate-
allegations-promoted-by-an-irresponsible-congress-and-media-
have-become-a-grave-threat-to-american-national-security/] Now, the company that the DNC hired, CrowdStrike, the one
that claimed that they had evidence that the Russians had hacked
the DNC computers, they just said, “we continue to stand by our
report,” arguing that by July 5th, all malware had been removed
from the DNC’s computers.  But as Patrick Lawrence points out,
“But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely
immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a
leak and not a hack.”
The point here is, you have {The Nation} article, you have
Newsmax, which gave coverage to this; Bloomberg had an article
yesterday on the VIPS and their conclusions.  What’s required is
for the American people to take back their country and ensure
that the Constitution survives, that the republic of the United
States survives.  We have to mobilize to force a situation where,
instead of investigating Trump, what should be investigated is
the British role in all of this and the role of members of U.S.
intelligence in participating in this attempt at a coup against
the United States of America and against the President of the
United States of America. John Brennan recently argued that if
President Trump were to fire Mueller as Special Counsel, that
members of the Executive should refuse to obey his orders:
That’s a call for a coup by the ex-CIA director.
So as Lyndon LaRouche said at the beginning, we’ve got to
cancel the British system, we’ve got to save our people.  What’s
being run in this country is the equivalent of the British Opium
War against China, from 1800s in the opioid and more widespread
drug addiction that’s destroying this country.  We have to free
the President, to be able to carry out the policies which he at
least has indicated he has an intention to implement, to the
benefit of this country and the benefit of the world.  That’s the
issue that’s before us right now.
So what I would encourage every American citizen to do, is
to contact the President:  Tell him, that he has their support to
move on this issue.  It was not a hack, it was a leak.  A lie has
been used as a pretext for overthrowing the President of the
United States, and it’s being conducted by a foreign government,
in collusion with traitors in the United States like Brennan and
others.  So those people should be investigated; and here you
have a situation where a crime was allegedly committed at the
DNC.  The DNC hired its own private investigator; the private
investigator announced what the conclusion of its investigation
was.  The police were never invited to the scene.  They never
secured the crime scene, they never investigated the crime scene,
the computers have never been seen by the FBI.  This is
completely preposterous!
And the entire country has been put in jeopardy as a result
of something which is unheard of!  Have you ever heard of a crime
where the police were not allowed to secure the crime scene and
investigate the crime?  And the alleged victim of the crime,
who’s now carrying out a campaign against the President of the
United States, is allowed to determine how the investigation is
conducted and also what the conclusion of the investigation is.
So this is intolerable!  And as Patrick Lawrence said, it
cannot stand that there is not a reply.  The forensic evidence is
solid.  It is presented by experts from the NSA itself, who know
how this is done.
So we have to ensure that this lie collapses immediately,
that the people involved in this coup against the President are
investigated and imprisoned if found guilty.  That is what’s
required.  So contact the President, tell him that you support
him, and go in public with this.  Demand that the representatives
of the VIPS be allowed to testify before the various committees
of Congress, to get at the bottom of this crime which has been
committed against our President and against our country.
And if we do that, then we create the basis for
collaboration between the United States, Russia, China, and
India, which, as Lyndon LaRouche said in his four powers concept,
is the necessary means for dismantling the British Empire once
and for all.  What we need to do, is destroy Zeus and free
Prometheus.

ROSS:  Great.  Our viewers have got an opportunity to join
in on this. You’ve mentioned many of the ways that this can
occur, and there’s many things that supporters and activists are
doing — holding rallies at their town hall, going to
congressional meetings or on congressional teleconferences and
bringing up the VIPS memo, bringing up the Russia-gate fraud.
We’re urging people to take pictures of their activities about
this, take pictures of getting out the material about the
Russia-gate fraud, and mark it “#Russia-gate fraud”; let
everybody know and spread the word about this.
We have a petition to the President, where we’re asking
Donald Trump not to try to hope that this Russia thing goes away,
but to take it on directly, to “investigate this British
subversion of the United States.  And as you can see on the
bottom of your screen, you can sign that petition [President
Trump, Investigate British Subversion of the U.S.A.”] and spread
it to others at the link, http://lpac.co/yt17.  We’ll have that
link on the webpage for this week’s webcast as well.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170811/larouchepac-friday-webcast
-will-wertz].
So spread the word.  We’ve got to defeat this coup; it’s
absolutely urgent to free up the United States to have a
functioning Presidency, so we can take on matters that are
actually important to our future, like implementing
Glass-Steagall, putting in place the economic proposals of
LaRouche, the Four Laws, to make it possible to finance an
economic recovery and to do so in conjunction with China, with
Russia, to put the world on a path towards development and
progress.  Help make that happen: Please contribute to the
LaRouchePAC.
Will, I’d like to thank you for being on the show today, I
think you really put together a very comprehensive picture on
this, and we’ll see everybody again, next week.