12-31-2007, 02:48 PM
LAROUCHE ASSAILS BRITISH ROLE IN BHUTTO MURDER
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3501lar_...hutto.html
Within hours of the Dec. 27 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Lyndon LaRouche offered the following blunt assessment.
LaRouche characterized the assassination as a "chaos operation," and emphasized that he sees the British intelligence hand all over it, citing, for example, recent revelations of MI6 operators negotiating with Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, behind the backs of the U.S. and the Karzai government. The British, LaRouche elaborated, are operating within many groups—in all factions, on all sides of the conflict. They work towards both parallel and contradictory objectives, to maintain maximum leverage.
LaRouche emphasized that the motives behind the Bhutto assassination are global, not regional. There are factions of the British oligarchy who are out to make the entire global situation into an unwholesome mess. This has more to do with the global financial crash than anything internal to the politics of Southwest or South Asia. There are factions in the City of London and allied financial oligarchy, who understand that the present financial system is doomed—is already collapsing at an accelerating rate. They see this as endgame, and are committed to determining who survives, and who goes down. They are using terrorism as a weapon of chaos, to secure their survival through the collapse, and to pave the way for dictatorship in many regions.
LaRouche explained that he is not referring to the House of Windsor. The issue is the London-centered Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, which is out to consolidate its imperial control over the world, under conditions of a total breakdown crisis. The issue is: Who will come out of the crash intact?
To unearth the specific British assets behind the Bhutto assassination, the appropriate question is: Which British assets in the South Asia region hate the prospect of any rational outcome to the situation? That is the starting point. As early evidence indicates, the Bhutto assassination was an "inside job," run through British and allied operatives within the inner circle of Mrs. Bhutto, including within her security entourage.
"THIS WHOLE OPERATION[Pakistan] IS KEYED TO THE FACT OF JANUARY 3RD"
What LaRouche said yesterday, stands up. None of the other speaking voices have any idea what the Hell's going on. The fact that they're saying something, means it's wrong.
"Look," he emphasized today, "the issue here, is not candidates, it's not issues, it's not personalities in Pakistan or associated with Pakistan. That has nothing to do with the situation. Those are only the frictional aspects of it.
"The point is," he continued, "this whole operation is keyed to the fact of January 3rd. This pertains to the financial crisis, period. Don't try to interpret this by deduction. Avoid any deductive thing. This involves personalities?-- it has nothing to do with personalities! It's a threat to certain things,-- but what? It's a threat of destabilization of the world system. Response to the fact that the financial system, after the third of January, is going to disintegrate. That's what this is about!
"We should not get into any interpretation of this stuff in terms of personalities, or gossip, or so forth," LaRouche warned. "This has to do with the financial crisis. It's going into the next phase. And what this does, it creates a situation of potential chaos, which is responsive to a financial crisis. This is the detonator for the charge, which is the financial crisis. This is someone, as we said yesterday, in the British system, who is playing against the rest of the system. So, don't go by anything which would seem a normal interpretation. Just scrap it! If it sounds like it's a normal interpretation, scrap it! This is a totally abnormal situation, and there's only an abnormal explanation. And the point is, this is the financial crisis. It's the global financial crisis, and it's nothing else. Who is going to survive the breakdown of the system? That's what the issue is. It is global; it is not southwest Asia.
"The essential thing," he stressed, "is, the decision has been made: the system is coming down! The system is going to disintegrate. The global international financial system is going to disintegrate. It's going to disintegrate very soon,-- and somebody is planning to be the top dog! This is end-game! This is not rivalry; this is not competition. This is end-game! And someone is orchestrating the end-game! The British, the British at the top level at least, do not play this on 'sides.' They play for the game-master, not the contestant. They're playing for the game-master, trying to survive. But the game-master has designated himself to be the game-master. And it can only be somebody inside the British and related system, that's pulling this off.
"You've got to go with those kinds of considerations, and forget all the so-called evidence," he insisted, "because the evidence is worthless under these conditions, that is, the evidence which points in one direction or the other,-- forget it! Scrap it!
"Don't try to interpret it." LaRouche admonished. "Don't try to be credible. Because, if most people would believe it, it's not true! If most people would feel it was plausible, it's not true. The nature of the game is that.
"You see, this thing has a chaos factor in it. And you have to say,-- Wait a minute! You don't know who's doing it, because you have so many competing people. Each is doing something different. Therefore, which of them is doing it? NONE of them! The person who's orchestrating the chaos, is doing it.
"How do you screw up the world?", he asked. "Look, we've seen this before. You have, for example, the assassination of Kennedy. You get the war in Indo-China, which was impossible at that point, if Kennedy had not been shot. So that's the kind of thing. You're going to get one after the other! It's going to saturate the system with one blow after the other! People will come up with an interpretation,-- it's wrong! They'll find out it's the wrong interpretation, because the next one will be different. Then they've come up with two things; they'll try to explain it, then the third one happens,-- they'll be wrong! So, we should not, in any sense, try to make a deductive conclusion, from evidence. Because we don't have the evidence. The evidence is the full game, with all the parts,-- and you don't have them yet! So, therefore, you have to say, `What is the full-game characteristic of this period of history?' That tells you what it is. That's what I'm talking about. Everybody else is wrong on this kind of thing; this is my baby!
"No deductive conclusions! Pakistan is not the only place that will be broken up; the whole damn world will be broken up. That's the game!"
"People are being idiots," he said, "because they say, well, `You can't say that! Let's concentrate on the facts. Let's concentrate on the facts,' is what they'll say. Now here you have, the fact is, we're in the point of a total breakdown of the international financial and monetary system. This is not a collapse; this is not a depression. It's a disintegration of the very integument upon which the whole civilization has now come to depend. That's the game. And, any developments which don't fit the game, don't explain this kind of thing. It's one thing after the other; it's a chaos operation. The tendency is to create chaos; it's a chaos operation. So, therefore, in a chaos operation,-- don't try to attribute chaos, to some individual who's not chaos.
"We don't know who the culprit is; we don't know which faction, who is the faction," LaRouche concluded. "We can identify the faction by the nature of the faction. But the identity of the faction, we don't have. The guy who's doing this, is doing something. We know what they're doing; we know what the effect is they're playing for. That's clear. WHO that someone is, we don't have."
The Coming Eurasian World
THE HAND BEHIND THE TRAGEDY
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr
http://larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/29/d...agedy.html
On the subject of the Dec. 27 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: The least that the victim of a murder deserves, is that the name of the murderer be truly spoken. That my associates and I have termed Friedrich Schiller's "Ibykus Principle."
During past times, I had been concerned directly, and in a relatively significant way, with justice for four of the members of Benazir Bhutto's family: her father, her mother, and her two brothers. Now, all five of them are gone, as if the attempt had been made to wipe their existence from the memories of the surface of our planet.
That Bhutto family is among the heritages which was thus bestowed upon me in the aftermath of the 1976 Non- Aligned Nations conference held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, a cause with which I continue to be associated from the time of the preparations for that conference until the present moment. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi became a person to whose cause I was most closely attached on this same account, as was my late friend and collaborator Foreign Minister Fred Wills who was the sole official voice to speak on behalf of the resolution which had been adopted by the Colombo conference.
Although I was not close to Minister Benazir Bhutto herself personally, or politically, a cry for justice binds together all who have been, or will become victims in the passions of a common cause, especially an historic cause. I am specially concerned, for the sake of all of us, that the evil-doer not triumph through the foolishness of those foolish, perennial blame-fixers who search for a scape- goat.
As ancient Homer's Iliad and Odyssey were understood by sane and intelligent representatives of ancient Greece, the principle of evil, otherwise identified in real life as typified by the Delphic cult of Apollo- Dionysos, is represented in the personified forms of Zeus's Olympus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. A seemingly invisible hand, beyond the reach of mortal men and women, appears to be a mysterious force compelling those mortals, such as many among our own U.S. citizens, to torment and even destroy themselves, and even destroy their society, by actions which are contrary to all sane judgment of thoughtful, mortal human beings. Read the Iliad; it is all there! Or, read the fables of Harry Potter; the same evil is also reigning there.
So, a mystical hand, like the hand of Zeus's own party among the Olympian gods of the Iliad, seems to grip the prevailing will of reigning popular opinion in the U.S.A., in western and central Europe, and other places, today. The spread of economic ruin by currently reigning popular opinion in those places, has impelled the reigning popular opinion of these past decades to destroy the civilization on which the very existence of those nations depends.
In short, the common names for Satan in Greek include, chiefly, Zeus, Apollo, and Dionysus.
All that drama which is validly termed Classical tragedy on the stage, as by Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Schiller, reflects recognition of this same principle.
What I have just summarized in this way, is, unfortunately, rarely understood by even most influential and highly educated people today. I say, "rarely"! There are those, some good, some very bad, who will, more or less readily, understand and agree with the point I have just introduced in these preceding paragraphs. Those who understand that point, and only persons such as that, persons who are the very rare cases of individuals who are exceptionally well-informed in the principles of goodness, or, a relatively more numerous type, but who are essentially evil, will be met as presently capable of understanding the nature of the international agency, the body of the "geopolitical playwrights," centered in London, which is responsible for the pre-calculated and arranged murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
With that said, I explain the points to be considered.
The Good Prometheus
The essential distinction of the human individual from the beasts, is that the human mind has a defining quality which does not exist as known among any species of beast. In the practice of physical science, this is the quality which distinguishes the Noosphere (mankind) from the Biosphere (lower forms of life). This quality is expressed typically by the centrally underlying principle of physical scientific knowledge, a principle defined for modern science by Nicholas of Cusa's recognition of that scientifically fatal error of Archimedes' mistaken argument in proposing that the principle of the circle could be located in the method of Euclidean quadrature. It was from that point of reference, by Cusa, that followers of Cusa such as Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz, and Bernhard Riemann identified the underlying principle of all competent notions of physical science.
The same human faculty is expressed in a developed form only in those methods of Classical poetry, music, and drama which modern European culture associates with the work of such as Shakespeare, Bach, Schiller, Mozart, Beethoven, Keats, and Shelley. I have identified and explained these crucial elements of civilized human behavior in sundry published locations.
It is sufficient, in this location, to point an accusing forefinger at the evil of the character of the Olympian Zeus from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. The same principle of evil was represented by the modern Malthusians, and the dupes and other followers of the viciously perverted, lying former Vice-President Al Gore today.
This elementary distinction of man from both beasts and bestialized people, is the key to understanding the root of the difference between good and evil. For example, the love for human beings, which Cardinal Mazarin summoned on behalf of the great principle of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, is rooted in the passion appropriately evoked from recognizing that the person living next door contains that "spark" of humanity which is uniquely specific to the appropriate fostering of the development of the human individual, a potential lacking in the beasts. This is the "spark" which is recognized as the expression of that human soul which distinguishes man from beast; it is the "spark" which generates progress in physical science as physical economy, and produces what is to be recognized as beauty in Classical forms of artistic expression.
It is this quality which distinguishes decent people from such degenerates as Malthusians and the current dupes of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. It is the suppression of what we should recognize as both scientific and technological progress in physical economy, and beauty in Classical modalities for art, which is the expression of evil.
In the known aspects of the history and pre-history of societies, forms of evil comparable to the dogma of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus, and to the Apollo-Dionysus modalities of Nietzscheans and other existentialists (such as Brecht, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al.), are expressed chiefly as the degradation of large portions of a society's population as virtually the "human cattle" to which the Olympian Zeus assigns people, as do the Malthusians and followers of Al Gore today.
It is this view of society, which is often referenced in history as "the oligarchical model" of "master versus slave," or the like, which is the common social expression of the principle of evil in practice.
"When Adam delved, and Eve span, who, then, was nobleman?"
If you submit to the doctrines of Malthus, or the Prince of Wales' crony Al Gore, you are either a slave-master, or a slave.
The Force of Tragedy
The conflict between good and evil, which I have just illustrated summarily, is the basis for recognizing the principle of tragedy.
Human nature requires a form of society in which the fostering of the specifically human quality of the individual is the constitutional motive of that society. This is, for example, Gottfried Leibniz's use of the term "the pursuit of happiness" as that denunciation of the essential inhumanity of John Locke's English philosophical Liberalism which Benjamin Franklin et al. supplied as the central principle of natural law in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the same principle expressed by the fundamental principle of constitutional law of the U.S. Federal Constitution, as the Preamble of that Constitution.
The difficulty is that society as far back as we know it, was dominated by the same oligarchical principle as the ancient Asian empires and their European expression, as typified by the Roman, Byzantine, medieval Venetian- Norman, and modern Anglo-Dutch Liberal system and that Liberal (e.g. Lockean) system's use of a system of chattel slavery, or earlier European serfdom.
President Franklin Roosevelt's intention to shut down the British empire's system once Hitler were gone, as compared to President Harry Truman's support for Britain on this issue, typifies the principle of tragedy.
Had Roosevelt lived out his fourth term, that change would have occurred. So, according to my friend's eyewitness account, as OSS head General William Donovan left the office of the visibly dying President Franklin Roosevelt, he exclaimed to my friend: "It's over!" Without President Franklin Roosevelt, there was no one capable of filling his Presidential shoes, even among the President's loyal associates.
Since that moment, even some months earlier, once the Normandy breakthrough had occurred, the same British and other circles which had originally put both Mussolini and Hitler into power, and had backed off only because of U.S. pressure by Franklin Roosevelt, were determined, as frankly fascist Felix Rohatyn has expressed this view, that another FDR shall not exist! Already, as Churchill's hack, Field Marshall Montgomery, wasted the Allied First Army in a venture of incompetence beyond belief, Churchill & company were determined that "Hitler should not be defeated too soon." From the Summer and Autumn of 1944 onwards, the relevant elements of the British empire and its U.S. accomplices have been dedicated to eradicating the sovereign nation-state institution, that for motives coinciding to all practical ends, with the doctrine of the Olympian Zeus.
It is the crafting, under the direction of Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier forces, that the trends in the molding of international culture shall be toward a destruction of science-driven economic progress, and an accompanying, radically-neo-malthusian, Al Gore-like reduction of the world's population shall occur, through induced famines and disease of the type Gore is fostering. The aim is world population-levels reduced from over six billions persons, to less than one, as quickly as manageable.
This is the force of tragedy, a form worse than Hitler's, and globally.
You see it in the instances of the poor fools who are shameless, or simply stupid enough to avow themselves co-thinkers of the genocidal policies of Al Gore et al.
The War Risk
Nonetheless, the victory of such fellow-travelers of Al Gore's policies as Felix Rohatyn is not assured. The cultural impetus for a desired economic recovery through technological progress is strong in the world's population. The enemies of mankind must therefore fear that a reaction like that which President Franklin Roosevelt's election produced would spoil the Anglo-Dutch Liberal fanatics' plans today as during the middle to late 1930s.
At this moment, and as early as sometime after January 3, 2008, the fact of the presently ongoing world monetary-financial breakdown crisis, that the present Anglo-Dutch Liberal policies are insane, will sweep through the world's population.
The plan for a London-steered, Dick Cheney bombing of Iran is in trouble. A certain part of the Liberal financial-political elite is desperate. What has just occurred during recent weeks, in Pakistan and nearby, reflects the actions of a faction within the Anglo-Dutch Liberal apparatus which is now lurching into forms of desperate action not seen up to the present time.
The obvious character of this desperate action is an impulsion to shatter existing nation-state institutions throughout crucial areas of the world at large. The most recent actions against Pakistan, actions obviously run by some distinct factional element within the Anglo-Dutch Liberal establishment is the only circumstance under which what happened to Benazir Bhutto would have been risked in the specific location (Rawalpindi) where that operation occurred. The only relevant capability for that is British assets deployed throughout the Southwest Asia/South Asia theaters of operations.
THE PLANNED KILLING OF BENAZIR BHUTTO
Ramtanu Maitra
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3501bh...lling.html
The gruesome killing of Benazir Bhutto in the evening hours of Dec. 27 in Pakistan's garrison town of Rawalpindi is yet another step in the process of weakening, and eventual break-up, of Pakistan.
Despite the crocodile tears shed in Washington and London over Bhutto's assassination, it was a disaster waiting to happen and therefore, was altogether expected. Those who believed, naively, that Bhutto's mission was to reinstate democracy in Pakistan and put its usurpers, the Pakistani military, in the background, do not realize why she was inserted into the scene, which was already rife with violence. The truth is that the British imperial circles, with their stooges in Washington, set up Bhutto's execution, to advance their scheme to break up Pakistan, and create chaos throughout this strategic region.
Bhutto, no doubt, was a mass-based political leader, but she was a woman (an excuse used by the puppet Islamic jihadists to commit violence against a person), and she was goaded into the scene by the United States—perhaps now the most hated nation among Muslims in general—to serve Washington's purpose, which was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and force it to share power with a democratic politician. According to the master strategists in Washington, that is the best of both worlds—the Pakistani military stays friendly, while the United States shakes off its guilt of backing a military dictator.
It is not known what transpired in the telephone call between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Benazir Bhutto that led to Bhutto's decision to return. What promises were made will not be known unless Rice can shake off the national security garb and tell the truth. The one who knew, and could tell others, is gone.
The 9/11 event had enticed a weak-in-the-head Bush Administration to embark on a journey, the path of which was paved by the British colonialists. The vestiges of British colonial aspirations exist not only at Buckingham Palace, but even more so in the power of the intrigue and secrecy-ridden City of London.
Britain and the Muslims
The partition of India, and the formation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation, by the British Raj, was not done because the British liked Muslims. They had slaughtered them by the thousands in 1856, when the Hindus and Muslims joined hands under the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to drive out the firenghee (white-skinned foreigners). Those who remember that untold part of the history of the Indian independence movement, talk of the piles of bodies lying in the streets of Delhi slaughtered by British soldiers. Most of them, like Benazir Bhutto and her colleagues who died on Dec. 27, were Muslims. The Muslims were "traitors" aspiring to reinstate the "despicable" and "corrupt" Mughal dynasty, London screamed.
The key to the British Empire's financial success was its ability to manipulate Islam. The British Empire-builders eliminated the Islamic Caliphate, created nations out of deserts, eliminated some nations, and partitioned others to create Islamic nations. Britain was aware that the oil fields of Arabia would be a source of great power in the post-World War II decades. The western part of British India bordered Muslim Central Asia, another major source of oil and gas, bordering Russia and Muslim Afghanistan. British India also bordered Islamic Iran and the Persian Gulf—the doorway to the oil fields of Arabia. In order to keep its future options open, Balochistan, bordering northeastern Iran, and the tribal Pushtun-dominated areas bordering Afghanistan, remained as British protectorates.
So, when the break-up of British India was planned by Churchill and others, Balochistan was not a problem. The problem was the Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which was led by a pro-Congress Party leadership, and had voted in the last referendum before partition, to join Hindu-majority India.
What London wanted was that the large Hindu-dominated India must not have common borders with Russia, or Central Asia. That could make it too powerful and, worst of all, energy independent. Pakistan was created by the gamesmen in London because they wanted a weak Muslim state that would depend heavily on the mighty British military. The Cold War period held this arrangement in place, to the satisfaction of the British. The Kashmir dispute, triggered from London to cut off Indian access to Afghanistan, served the British policy-makers well.
But the post-Cold War days are different. China is rising in the north and seeking entry into the Persian Gulf and Central Asia through the western part of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. China has a long-term plan to build, and build, and build, infrastructure in this area, to bring resources into its vast but thinly populated western sector that extends from bordering areas of Kazakstan under the shadows of the Tien Shan mountains in the West, to the Shaanxi province deep inside China.
What is the connection of this history to the gruesome incident that happened in the darkening shadows of Liaquat Ali Bagh in Rawalpindi? It is important for the Pakistanis, as well for the other citizens of the Indian subcontinent, to know and assimilate.
Britain wants another partition of Pakistan. Whether Washington wants it, or not, it is playing second fiddle to this absurd policy. This time, a new nation is supposed to emerge—a weak and disoriented nation, born out of violence, just like the partition of British India. This nation will consist of Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and Balochistan—all situated west of the Indus River and bordering he British-drawn disputed Durand Line that allegedly separates Afghanistan from Pakistan.
Why Bhutto?
The purpose of inserting Benazir Bhutto into the scene, after eight years of self-imposed exile, at a time when law and order had completely broken down, and even the Pakistani military was coming under serious attacks from the Islamic militants, was two-fold. The first objective, which Bhutto achieved in no time, was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and generate demands in the street for the military to get back to barracks.
It is understood by the majority of Pakistanis, that despite the corruption that envelops the military, it is the only force in the nation that could, in the short term, maintain law and order, and fight the secessionists.
Once she put the Pakistani military on the defensive, Benazir did not become irrelevant. She became the designated qurbani (sacrifice). The killing of Benazir Bhutto has already unleashed domestic violence. In the midst of grieving Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) activists and workers, who feel betrayed and orphaned, will be the killers whose objective is to challenge the military and postpone the Jan. 8 elections. They would provoke the military to shoot at the people.
It is to be noted that the international Islamic radicals, who dip heavily into the British and other foreign intelligence sources, have infiltrated over the years into the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the lower echelons of Pakistan's military. That makes the task of keeping Pakistan together even more challenging.
The death of Bhutto was a step to breaking up Pakistan. She, however, wanted to unify the country. The Pakistani people must see to it that her death was not in vain.
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3501lar_...hutto.html
Within hours of the Dec. 27 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Lyndon LaRouche offered the following blunt assessment.
LaRouche characterized the assassination as a "chaos operation," and emphasized that he sees the British intelligence hand all over it, citing, for example, recent revelations of MI6 operators negotiating with Taliban leaders in Afghanistan, behind the backs of the U.S. and the Karzai government. The British, LaRouche elaborated, are operating within many groups—in all factions, on all sides of the conflict. They work towards both parallel and contradictory objectives, to maintain maximum leverage.
LaRouche emphasized that the motives behind the Bhutto assassination are global, not regional. There are factions of the British oligarchy who are out to make the entire global situation into an unwholesome mess. This has more to do with the global financial crash than anything internal to the politics of Southwest or South Asia. There are factions in the City of London and allied financial oligarchy, who understand that the present financial system is doomed—is already collapsing at an accelerating rate. They see this as endgame, and are committed to determining who survives, and who goes down. They are using terrorism as a weapon of chaos, to secure their survival through the collapse, and to pave the way for dictatorship in many regions.
LaRouche explained that he is not referring to the House of Windsor. The issue is the London-centered Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, which is out to consolidate its imperial control over the world, under conditions of a total breakdown crisis. The issue is: Who will come out of the crash intact?
To unearth the specific British assets behind the Bhutto assassination, the appropriate question is: Which British assets in the South Asia region hate the prospect of any rational outcome to the situation? That is the starting point. As early evidence indicates, the Bhutto assassination was an "inside job," run through British and allied operatives within the inner circle of Mrs. Bhutto, including within her security entourage.
"THIS WHOLE OPERATION[Pakistan] IS KEYED TO THE FACT OF JANUARY 3RD"
What LaRouche said yesterday, stands up. None of the other speaking voices have any idea what the Hell's going on. The fact that they're saying something, means it's wrong.
"Look," he emphasized today, "the issue here, is not candidates, it's not issues, it's not personalities in Pakistan or associated with Pakistan. That has nothing to do with the situation. Those are only the frictional aspects of it.
"The point is," he continued, "this whole operation is keyed to the fact of January 3rd. This pertains to the financial crisis, period. Don't try to interpret this by deduction. Avoid any deductive thing. This involves personalities?-- it has nothing to do with personalities! It's a threat to certain things,-- but what? It's a threat of destabilization of the world system. Response to the fact that the financial system, after the third of January, is going to disintegrate. That's what this is about!
"We should not get into any interpretation of this stuff in terms of personalities, or gossip, or so forth," LaRouche warned. "This has to do with the financial crisis. It's going into the next phase. And what this does, it creates a situation of potential chaos, which is responsive to a financial crisis. This is the detonator for the charge, which is the financial crisis. This is someone, as we said yesterday, in the British system, who is playing against the rest of the system. So, don't go by anything which would seem a normal interpretation. Just scrap it! If it sounds like it's a normal interpretation, scrap it! This is a totally abnormal situation, and there's only an abnormal explanation. And the point is, this is the financial crisis. It's the global financial crisis, and it's nothing else. Who is going to survive the breakdown of the system? That's what the issue is. It is global; it is not southwest Asia.
"The essential thing," he stressed, "is, the decision has been made: the system is coming down! The system is going to disintegrate. The global international financial system is going to disintegrate. It's going to disintegrate very soon,-- and somebody is planning to be the top dog! This is end-game! This is not rivalry; this is not competition. This is end-game! And someone is orchestrating the end-game! The British, the British at the top level at least, do not play this on 'sides.' They play for the game-master, not the contestant. They're playing for the game-master, trying to survive. But the game-master has designated himself to be the game-master. And it can only be somebody inside the British and related system, that's pulling this off.
"You've got to go with those kinds of considerations, and forget all the so-called evidence," he insisted, "because the evidence is worthless under these conditions, that is, the evidence which points in one direction or the other,-- forget it! Scrap it!
"Don't try to interpret it." LaRouche admonished. "Don't try to be credible. Because, if most people would believe it, it's not true! If most people would feel it was plausible, it's not true. The nature of the game is that.
"You see, this thing has a chaos factor in it. And you have to say,-- Wait a minute! You don't know who's doing it, because you have so many competing people. Each is doing something different. Therefore, which of them is doing it? NONE of them! The person who's orchestrating the chaos, is doing it.
"How do you screw up the world?", he asked. "Look, we've seen this before. You have, for example, the assassination of Kennedy. You get the war in Indo-China, which was impossible at that point, if Kennedy had not been shot. So that's the kind of thing. You're going to get one after the other! It's going to saturate the system with one blow after the other! People will come up with an interpretation,-- it's wrong! They'll find out it's the wrong interpretation, because the next one will be different. Then they've come up with two things; they'll try to explain it, then the third one happens,-- they'll be wrong! So, we should not, in any sense, try to make a deductive conclusion, from evidence. Because we don't have the evidence. The evidence is the full game, with all the parts,-- and you don't have them yet! So, therefore, you have to say, `What is the full-game characteristic of this period of history?' That tells you what it is. That's what I'm talking about. Everybody else is wrong on this kind of thing; this is my baby!
"No deductive conclusions! Pakistan is not the only place that will be broken up; the whole damn world will be broken up. That's the game!"
"People are being idiots," he said, "because they say, well, `You can't say that! Let's concentrate on the facts. Let's concentrate on the facts,' is what they'll say. Now here you have, the fact is, we're in the point of a total breakdown of the international financial and monetary system. This is not a collapse; this is not a depression. It's a disintegration of the very integument upon which the whole civilization has now come to depend. That's the game. And, any developments which don't fit the game, don't explain this kind of thing. It's one thing after the other; it's a chaos operation. The tendency is to create chaos; it's a chaos operation. So, therefore, in a chaos operation,-- don't try to attribute chaos, to some individual who's not chaos.
"We don't know who the culprit is; we don't know which faction, who is the faction," LaRouche concluded. "We can identify the faction by the nature of the faction. But the identity of the faction, we don't have. The guy who's doing this, is doing something. We know what they're doing; we know what the effect is they're playing for. That's clear. WHO that someone is, we don't have."
The Coming Eurasian World
THE HAND BEHIND THE TRAGEDY
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr
http://larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/29/d...agedy.html
On the subject of the Dec. 27 assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: The least that the victim of a murder deserves, is that the name of the murderer be truly spoken. That my associates and I have termed Friedrich Schiller's "Ibykus Principle."
During past times, I had been concerned directly, and in a relatively significant way, with justice for four of the members of Benazir Bhutto's family: her father, her mother, and her two brothers. Now, all five of them are gone, as if the attempt had been made to wipe their existence from the memories of the surface of our planet.
That Bhutto family is among the heritages which was thus bestowed upon me in the aftermath of the 1976 Non- Aligned Nations conference held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, a cause with which I continue to be associated from the time of the preparations for that conference until the present moment. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi became a person to whose cause I was most closely attached on this same account, as was my late friend and collaborator Foreign Minister Fred Wills who was the sole official voice to speak on behalf of the resolution which had been adopted by the Colombo conference.
Although I was not close to Minister Benazir Bhutto herself personally, or politically, a cry for justice binds together all who have been, or will become victims in the passions of a common cause, especially an historic cause. I am specially concerned, for the sake of all of us, that the evil-doer not triumph through the foolishness of those foolish, perennial blame-fixers who search for a scape- goat.
As ancient Homer's Iliad and Odyssey were understood by sane and intelligent representatives of ancient Greece, the principle of evil, otherwise identified in real life as typified by the Delphic cult of Apollo- Dionysos, is represented in the personified forms of Zeus's Olympus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. A seemingly invisible hand, beyond the reach of mortal men and women, appears to be a mysterious force compelling those mortals, such as many among our own U.S. citizens, to torment and even destroy themselves, and even destroy their society, by actions which are contrary to all sane judgment of thoughtful, mortal human beings. Read the Iliad; it is all there! Or, read the fables of Harry Potter; the same evil is also reigning there.
So, a mystical hand, like the hand of Zeus's own party among the Olympian gods of the Iliad, seems to grip the prevailing will of reigning popular opinion in the U.S.A., in western and central Europe, and other places, today. The spread of economic ruin by currently reigning popular opinion in those places, has impelled the reigning popular opinion of these past decades to destroy the civilization on which the very existence of those nations depends.
In short, the common names for Satan in Greek include, chiefly, Zeus, Apollo, and Dionysus.
All that drama which is validly termed Classical tragedy on the stage, as by Aeschylus, Shakespeare, and Schiller, reflects recognition of this same principle.
What I have just summarized in this way, is, unfortunately, rarely understood by even most influential and highly educated people today. I say, "rarely"! There are those, some good, some very bad, who will, more or less readily, understand and agree with the point I have just introduced in these preceding paragraphs. Those who understand that point, and only persons such as that, persons who are the very rare cases of individuals who are exceptionally well-informed in the principles of goodness, or, a relatively more numerous type, but who are essentially evil, will be met as presently capable of understanding the nature of the international agency, the body of the "geopolitical playwrights," centered in London, which is responsible for the pre-calculated and arranged murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
With that said, I explain the points to be considered.
The Good Prometheus
The essential distinction of the human individual from the beasts, is that the human mind has a defining quality which does not exist as known among any species of beast. In the practice of physical science, this is the quality which distinguishes the Noosphere (mankind) from the Biosphere (lower forms of life). This quality is expressed typically by the centrally underlying principle of physical scientific knowledge, a principle defined for modern science by Nicholas of Cusa's recognition of that scientifically fatal error of Archimedes' mistaken argument in proposing that the principle of the circle could be located in the method of Euclidean quadrature. It was from that point of reference, by Cusa, that followers of Cusa such as Leonardo da Vinci, Johannes Kepler, Fermat, Gottfried Leibniz, and Bernhard Riemann identified the underlying principle of all competent notions of physical science.
The same human faculty is expressed in a developed form only in those methods of Classical poetry, music, and drama which modern European culture associates with the work of such as Shakespeare, Bach, Schiller, Mozart, Beethoven, Keats, and Shelley. I have identified and explained these crucial elements of civilized human behavior in sundry published locations.
It is sufficient, in this location, to point an accusing forefinger at the evil of the character of the Olympian Zeus from Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. The same principle of evil was represented by the modern Malthusians, and the dupes and other followers of the viciously perverted, lying former Vice-President Al Gore today.
This elementary distinction of man from both beasts and bestialized people, is the key to understanding the root of the difference between good and evil. For example, the love for human beings, which Cardinal Mazarin summoned on behalf of the great principle of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, is rooted in the passion appropriately evoked from recognizing that the person living next door contains that "spark" of humanity which is uniquely specific to the appropriate fostering of the development of the human individual, a potential lacking in the beasts. This is the "spark" which is recognized as the expression of that human soul which distinguishes man from beast; it is the "spark" which generates progress in physical science as physical economy, and produces what is to be recognized as beauty in Classical forms of artistic expression.
It is this quality which distinguishes decent people from such degenerates as Malthusians and the current dupes of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. It is the suppression of what we should recognize as both scientific and technological progress in physical economy, and beauty in Classical modalities for art, which is the expression of evil.
In the known aspects of the history and pre-history of societies, forms of evil comparable to the dogma of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus, and to the Apollo-Dionysus modalities of Nietzscheans and other existentialists (such as Brecht, Theodor Adorno, Hannah Arendt, et al.), are expressed chiefly as the degradation of large portions of a society's population as virtually the "human cattle" to which the Olympian Zeus assigns people, as do the Malthusians and followers of Al Gore today.
It is this view of society, which is often referenced in history as "the oligarchical model" of "master versus slave," or the like, which is the common social expression of the principle of evil in practice.
"When Adam delved, and Eve span, who, then, was nobleman?"
If you submit to the doctrines of Malthus, or the Prince of Wales' crony Al Gore, you are either a slave-master, or a slave.
The Force of Tragedy
The conflict between good and evil, which I have just illustrated summarily, is the basis for recognizing the principle of tragedy.
Human nature requires a form of society in which the fostering of the specifically human quality of the individual is the constitutional motive of that society. This is, for example, Gottfried Leibniz's use of the term "the pursuit of happiness" as that denunciation of the essential inhumanity of John Locke's English philosophical Liberalism which Benjamin Franklin et al. supplied as the central principle of natural law in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the same principle expressed by the fundamental principle of constitutional law of the U.S. Federal Constitution, as the Preamble of that Constitution.
The difficulty is that society as far back as we know it, was dominated by the same oligarchical principle as the ancient Asian empires and their European expression, as typified by the Roman, Byzantine, medieval Venetian- Norman, and modern Anglo-Dutch Liberal system and that Liberal (e.g. Lockean) system's use of a system of chattel slavery, or earlier European serfdom.
President Franklin Roosevelt's intention to shut down the British empire's system once Hitler were gone, as compared to President Harry Truman's support for Britain on this issue, typifies the principle of tragedy.
Had Roosevelt lived out his fourth term, that change would have occurred. So, according to my friend's eyewitness account, as OSS head General William Donovan left the office of the visibly dying President Franklin Roosevelt, he exclaimed to my friend: "It's over!" Without President Franklin Roosevelt, there was no one capable of filling his Presidential shoes, even among the President's loyal associates.
Since that moment, even some months earlier, once the Normandy breakthrough had occurred, the same British and other circles which had originally put both Mussolini and Hitler into power, and had backed off only because of U.S. pressure by Franklin Roosevelt, were determined, as frankly fascist Felix Rohatyn has expressed this view, that another FDR shall not exist! Already, as Churchill's hack, Field Marshall Montgomery, wasted the Allied First Army in a venture of incompetence beyond belief, Churchill & company were determined that "Hitler should not be defeated too soon." From the Summer and Autumn of 1944 onwards, the relevant elements of the British empire and its U.S. accomplices have been dedicated to eradicating the sovereign nation-state institution, that for motives coinciding to all practical ends, with the doctrine of the Olympian Zeus.
It is the crafting, under the direction of Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier forces, that the trends in the molding of international culture shall be toward a destruction of science-driven economic progress, and an accompanying, radically-neo-malthusian, Al Gore-like reduction of the world's population shall occur, through induced famines and disease of the type Gore is fostering. The aim is world population-levels reduced from over six billions persons, to less than one, as quickly as manageable.
This is the force of tragedy, a form worse than Hitler's, and globally.
You see it in the instances of the poor fools who are shameless, or simply stupid enough to avow themselves co-thinkers of the genocidal policies of Al Gore et al.
The War Risk
Nonetheless, the victory of such fellow-travelers of Al Gore's policies as Felix Rohatyn is not assured. The cultural impetus for a desired economic recovery through technological progress is strong in the world's population. The enemies of mankind must therefore fear that a reaction like that which President Franklin Roosevelt's election produced would spoil the Anglo-Dutch Liberal fanatics' plans today as during the middle to late 1930s.
At this moment, and as early as sometime after January 3, 2008, the fact of the presently ongoing world monetary-financial breakdown crisis, that the present Anglo-Dutch Liberal policies are insane, will sweep through the world's population.
The plan for a London-steered, Dick Cheney bombing of Iran is in trouble. A certain part of the Liberal financial-political elite is desperate. What has just occurred during recent weeks, in Pakistan and nearby, reflects the actions of a faction within the Anglo-Dutch Liberal apparatus which is now lurching into forms of desperate action not seen up to the present time.
The obvious character of this desperate action is an impulsion to shatter existing nation-state institutions throughout crucial areas of the world at large. The most recent actions against Pakistan, actions obviously run by some distinct factional element within the Anglo-Dutch Liberal establishment is the only circumstance under which what happened to Benazir Bhutto would have been risked in the specific location (Rawalpindi) where that operation occurred. The only relevant capability for that is British assets deployed throughout the Southwest Asia/South Asia theaters of operations.
THE PLANNED KILLING OF BENAZIR BHUTTO
Ramtanu Maitra
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3501bh...lling.html
The gruesome killing of Benazir Bhutto in the evening hours of Dec. 27 in Pakistan's garrison town of Rawalpindi is yet another step in the process of weakening, and eventual break-up, of Pakistan.
Despite the crocodile tears shed in Washington and London over Bhutto's assassination, it was a disaster waiting to happen and therefore, was altogether expected. Those who believed, naively, that Bhutto's mission was to reinstate democracy in Pakistan and put its usurpers, the Pakistani military, in the background, do not realize why she was inserted into the scene, which was already rife with violence. The truth is that the British imperial circles, with their stooges in Washington, set up Bhutto's execution, to advance their scheme to break up Pakistan, and create chaos throughout this strategic region.
Bhutto, no doubt, was a mass-based political leader, but she was a woman (an excuse used by the puppet Islamic jihadists to commit violence against a person), and she was goaded into the scene by the United States—perhaps now the most hated nation among Muslims in general—to serve Washington's purpose, which was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and force it to share power with a democratic politician. According to the master strategists in Washington, that is the best of both worlds—the Pakistani military stays friendly, while the United States shakes off its guilt of backing a military dictator.
It is not known what transpired in the telephone call between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Benazir Bhutto that led to Bhutto's decision to return. What promises were made will not be known unless Rice can shake off the national security garb and tell the truth. The one who knew, and could tell others, is gone.
The 9/11 event had enticed a weak-in-the-head Bush Administration to embark on a journey, the path of which was paved by the British colonialists. The vestiges of British colonial aspirations exist not only at Buckingham Palace, but even more so in the power of the intrigue and secrecy-ridden City of London.
Britain and the Muslims
The partition of India, and the formation of Pakistan, a Muslim nation, by the British Raj, was not done because the British liked Muslims. They had slaughtered them by the thousands in 1856, when the Hindus and Muslims joined hands under the last Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, to drive out the firenghee (white-skinned foreigners). Those who remember that untold part of the history of the Indian independence movement, talk of the piles of bodies lying in the streets of Delhi slaughtered by British soldiers. Most of them, like Benazir Bhutto and her colleagues who died on Dec. 27, were Muslims. The Muslims were "traitors" aspiring to reinstate the "despicable" and "corrupt" Mughal dynasty, London screamed.
The key to the British Empire's financial success was its ability to manipulate Islam. The British Empire-builders eliminated the Islamic Caliphate, created nations out of deserts, eliminated some nations, and partitioned others to create Islamic nations. Britain was aware that the oil fields of Arabia would be a source of great power in the post-World War II decades. The western part of British India bordered Muslim Central Asia, another major source of oil and gas, bordering Russia and Muslim Afghanistan. British India also bordered Islamic Iran and the Persian Gulf—the doorway to the oil fields of Arabia. In order to keep its future options open, Balochistan, bordering northeastern Iran, and the tribal Pushtun-dominated areas bordering Afghanistan, remained as British protectorates.
So, when the break-up of British India was planned by Churchill and others, Balochistan was not a problem. The problem was the Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), which was led by a pro-Congress Party leadership, and had voted in the last referendum before partition, to join Hindu-majority India.
What London wanted was that the large Hindu-dominated India must not have common borders with Russia, or Central Asia. That could make it too powerful and, worst of all, energy independent. Pakistan was created by the gamesmen in London because they wanted a weak Muslim state that would depend heavily on the mighty British military. The Cold War period held this arrangement in place, to the satisfaction of the British. The Kashmir dispute, triggered from London to cut off Indian access to Afghanistan, served the British policy-makers well.
But the post-Cold War days are different. China is rising in the north and seeking entry into the Persian Gulf and Central Asia through the western part of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan. China has a long-term plan to build, and build, and build, infrastructure in this area, to bring resources into its vast but thinly populated western sector that extends from bordering areas of Kazakstan under the shadows of the Tien Shan mountains in the West, to the Shaanxi province deep inside China.
What is the connection of this history to the gruesome incident that happened in the darkening shadows of Liaquat Ali Bagh in Rawalpindi? It is important for the Pakistanis, as well for the other citizens of the Indian subcontinent, to know and assimilate.
Britain wants another partition of Pakistan. Whether Washington wants it, or not, it is playing second fiddle to this absurd policy. This time, a new nation is supposed to emerge—a weak and disoriented nation, born out of violence, just like the partition of British India. This nation will consist of Pushtun-dominated North West Frontier Province (NWFP), Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and Balochistan—all situated west of the Indus River and bordering he British-drawn disputed Durand Line that allegedly separates Afghanistan from Pakistan.
Why Bhutto?
The purpose of inserting Benazir Bhutto into the scene, after eight years of self-imposed exile, at a time when law and order had completely broken down, and even the Pakistani military was coming under serious attacks from the Islamic militants, was two-fold. The first objective, which Bhutto achieved in no time, was to put the Pakistani military on the defensive and generate demands in the street for the military to get back to barracks.
It is understood by the majority of Pakistanis, that despite the corruption that envelops the military, it is the only force in the nation that could, in the short term, maintain law and order, and fight the secessionists.
Once she put the Pakistani military on the defensive, Benazir did not become irrelevant. She became the designated qurbani (sacrifice). The killing of Benazir Bhutto has already unleashed domestic violence. In the midst of grieving Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) activists and workers, who feel betrayed and orphaned, will be the killers whose objective is to challenge the military and postpone the Jan. 8 elections. They would provoke the military to shoot at the people.
It is to be noted that the international Islamic radicals, who dip heavily into the British and other foreign intelligence sources, have infiltrated over the years into the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the lower echelons of Pakistan's military. That makes the task of keeping Pakistan together even more challenging.
The death of Bhutto was a step to breaking up Pakistan. She, however, wanted to unify the country. The Pakistani people must see to it that her death was not in vain.