By Nancy Spannaus, Editor of Executive Intelligence Review
At the conclusion of World War II, all people of conscience were horrified to learn of the full extent of the genocide which had been carried out by German dictator Adolf Hitler. While tens of millions were killed by all manner of means—from the war, to euthanasia, to death camps, and the like—Hitler’s attempt to wipe out the Jewish population by killing 6 million Jews, became an emblem for his more general extermination policy. “Never Again,” was the cry. “Never again” will we allow systematic mass murder to be carried out in order to exterminate populations.
Yet today, it is not 6 million, but 6 billion members of the human race who are threatened with deliberate mass murder. And it is an unresolved question as to whether patriots of the nations which can stop this extermination, will act to prevent it, in time.
Adolf Hitler was not representative of the German nation, of course, any more than cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer is representative of Americans, or Jack the Ripper of the English. Hitler was a puppet of ruling circles in Great Britain, who created the genocidal ideology he embraced, and deployed the funds and other resources to bring him to power. And while Hitler was defeated by a coalition largely dependent upon Franklin D. Roosevelt’s United States, those evil British circles, centered on the monarchy, did not die with him.
So today, as the British Empire again finds itself threatened with disintegration and bankruptcy, we find it steering another puppet: this time the President of the United States. Yes, Barack Obama is also a bought-and-paid for lunatic, like Hitler, and the Emperor Nero before him, who has been charged by the British Empire with the mission of implementing the policies that will lead to world depopulation, this time on almost-unfathomable scale.
In a statement issued today, Lyndon LaRouche again laid the issue on the line:
“If Barack Obama is not thrown out of office soon, civilization is in mortal danger,” LaRouche said. “The British monarchy is out to destroy the United States as we know it, and Obama is its puppet instrument for accomplishing exactly that. The overall objective of this London-centered oligarchy is to reduce the world’s present population from the current official level of 7 billion to fewer than 1 billion.
“That is the issue that can no longer be dodged, if mankind is to survive the coming weeks and months. The present drive for World War III, beginning with the targeting of Iran and Syria, is driven by the British commitment to wipe out more than 80% of the human race, just as Prince Philip has demanded on numerous public occasions. Those who try to deny this reality are endangering mankind by their failure to face the truth.”
In the pages that follow, I draw on the more than 40-year history of LaRouche and his movement’s war against the evil genocidalists centered in the British monarchy, to make it, once again, perfectly clear what the intent of this enemy of the human race is. The British are not the first empire to seek global depopulation; indeed such a policy is characteristic of imperial oligarchies going back as far as history is known. But, as today’s incarnation of the Roman Empire, the British royal family rules over a global financial imperium which now demands the culling of the human race, by the killing of up to 6 billion people.
If you think that’s irrational, you’re right. But face reality: It is just such genocidal irrationality that Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth, and President Barack Obama represent. And if you don’t act to stop them, you are as good as dead.”
I. The British Objective: Depopulation
Start with the most outspoken proponent of the British genocide policy, Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) president emeritus, His Royal Highness Prince Philip. The sadistic Philip, who founded the WWF in 1961, in collaboration with his dear Nazi friend Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, has no qualms about stating his objective for reducing the human population. He considers people to be just another kind of animal, which must be controlled in order to maintain the kind of world order over which the oligarchy wishes to exert unchallenged rule.
“In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation,” Philip told Deutsche Presse Agentur, during a trip to Germany in August 1988. In fact, Philip already behaves as a virus, spreading the people-hating and de-industrializing ideology which lies at the heart of the so-called environmentalist movement that has been taking over the world since President John F. Kennedy’s death. With the resources and power of the British monarchy at his disposal, he has done a hideously effective job.
Key to the poison which the WWF and representatives like Philip spread, is the insidious and anti-scientific idea of a limited “carrying capacity” for supporting the human population, in alleged parallel to such a carrying capacity for animal species. Ignoring the millennia-long history of human progress, Philip and his passel of acolytes who pollute universities, governments, and civic institutions internationally, assert that man must “compete” with “other animals” and nature for the resources to survive, and that even advances in technology—such as advances in agricultural productivity—only postpone the “inevitable” barrier to expansion.
Representative is the following statement by the Prince:
“You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realize this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world…. Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.”
Bunk, murderous bunk.
Optimum Population Trust
While the WWF itself has generally tried to keep a distance from outright calls for killing off populations—although its policies against high-technology development result in precisely that conclusion—it has spawned other organizations to do the job. Most prominent among them are the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) and the Global Footprint Network (GFN). Both of these institutions specialize in coming up with estimates of how many billion people must be eliminated, in order to “save the environment.”
The OPT, which works closely with the WWF and other related organizations, has “population reduction” as its main objective. Its outlook is well reflected by one of its main patrons, the genocidal maniac Paul Ehrlich, who kicked off a massive population control movement in the United States in 1968 with his book The Population Bomb. Ehrlich, who is still active, won a gold medal from the WWF in 1987, and established the Zero Population Growth organization in the U.S. As of 1994, he was calling for a reduction of human population from 6 billion to 1.5-2 billion.
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people,” Ehrlich wrote inThe Population Bomb. “We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
Under this “philosophy,” the OPT—which calls itself a “charity,” has declared that Great Britain has to cut its population in half, and that, as of 2009, the world population has to be cut by two-thirds. In a July 2007 report titled “Youthquake,” OPT compared the births of human beings to the devastation of earthquakes, and suggested the need for compulsory birth control. They asked:
“Might humanity have to suffer the kind of death-dictated control to achieve stabilisation, or reduction by a population crash—a mass cull through violence, diseases, starvation or natural disasters—which biology dictates for all other species when their numbers exceed the limits of their environment’s carrying capacity?” (emphasis added)
In a March 2009 press release, entitled “Earth Heading for 5 Billion Overpopulation?” the OPT estimated the world’s sustainable population at 5 billion—but didn’t stop at that. It projected that the addition of more people would mean that by 2050, “when the UN projects world population will be 9.1 billion, there will be an estimated 5 billion more people than the Earth can support.”
So, now the aim is to eliminate 5 billion people. You might consider that mass murder, but the UN Population Fund does not. It featured the OPT’s director, Roger Martin, as a presenter of its own “State of World Population 2009” report in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.
Global Footprint Network
Working with the OPT and the WWF is the Global Footprint Network, which, in cooperation with the Zoological Society of London, has taken up the job of setting up a Living Planet index, which determines how many people should live (and die) in every country. According to a report the GFN released on the occasion of the 2009 UN Copenhagen Summit, three-quarters of all nations on Earth are using up more resources than they claim the “Earth’s biocapacity” can sustain. They demanded immediate action by governments and international agencies to reduce population, starting with at least a third (2 billion).
How to do that? First, cut living standards, and “reward” nations for reducing population. More repulsive methods, such as war and disease, are left unstated.
But we have not yet come to the most extreme aim, that of calling for a reduction of human population to below 1 billion. The prize for that goes to John Schellnhuber, head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, who was made a Commander of the Most Excellent Order (CBE) of the British Empire in 2004, by Queen Elizabeth.
Schellnhuber—who is a longtime collaborator of President Obama’s Science and Technology Advisor, John P. Holdren—told a March 13, 2009 pre-meeting of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference that his studies had calculated “estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people,” if his policy of eliminating all modern energy sources (fossils fuels and nuclear) were not implemented. In fact, the world population would be reduced to that level—eliminating 6 billion people—through the implementation of that insane policy.
On March 10 of this year, Prince Philip chaired a meeting of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts (RSA), of which he is president. There, he cheered on one of the most anti-human presentations known to this author, by the knighted “naturalist” Sir David Attenborough.
Attenborough, who was receiving an RSA prize, proceeded to give a speech which was rallying cry against the “one element” he claimed was behind all the “disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world,” “the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on this planet.” Malthus was right, Attenborough said, but people are afraid today to talk about curbing population. This is “tragic,” he said.
Philip virtually beamed as Attenborough spoke. In the question-and-answer period, he took the occasion to brag a bit about how he was the one who recruited Prince Bernhard to be the first president of the WWF, and how he insisted, against opposition, that the point of “conservation” was not to please people, but for the animals’ sake.
He could have added, for the sake of the human animals who make up the British Royal family.
II. Dirty Bertie Russell Lives
As LaRouche elaborated in his book-length feature in the Fall 1994 Fidelio magazine, “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” (1) the evil that is the British Empire came into its own in 1688, when William of Orange invaded the island, and started the process that led to Britain becoming the “new Venice.” By the latter part of the 18th Century, the radical imperialist ideology of depopulation fanatic Thomas Malthus, free-trader Adam Smith, and liberal imperialist Jeremy Bentham had been put into place.
The Malthusian doctrine, imported whole cloth from the Venetian Gianmaria Ortes, took aim specifically at the recently established United States, which was expanding its population by leaps and bounds. Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798, wherein he declared that population growth had to outgrow the increase in the means of subsistence. Thus, punitive measures had to be taken to discourage population growth. No welfare, no support should go to poor children—they should be left to die (as in California and other U.S. states today).
Malthus was blunt:
“All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…. Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread this too frequent visitation of the Horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.
“Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”
Malthus, a demented parson, eventually was hired as a professor at Haileybury College, for the British East India Company, and his drivel became establishment “thought.” But it was not until the end of the 19th Century that the Malthusian outlook was popularized for the world at large by those arch-imperialists Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, whose evil went so far that they would not even shrink from the detonation of nuclear war.
Depopulation, by Any Means Necessary
Lord Bertrand Russell came by his degeneracy hereditarily, from a Brutish noble family in the late 19th Century. His sometime sidekick H.G. Wells had no such pedigree, but succeeded in attracting the attention of oligarchical circles with his bestial novels, and entering into the milieu of the imperialist elite, in particular, the Huxley family.
The LaRouche movement’s book, The New Dark Ages Conspiracy of 1978 provides the gory details on the outlook and activities of this crew, whose bestiality of outlook—against the “lesser races,” the “unfit,” industrial progress, and the American outlook in general—knows virtually no bounds. But it is in Russell and Wells that we see the most naked statement of intent for maintaining the global rule by the oligarchy by any means necessary, including nuclear war.
First, just to briefly establish Russell’s strictly Malthusian, people-hating outlook, I quote two documents. In his 1923 Prospects of Industrial Civilization, he writes:
“Socialism, especially international socialism, is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so. A slow increase might be coped with by improvements in agricultural methods, but a rapid increase must in the end reduce the whole population to penury … the white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence…. Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.”
Even more shameless was Russell’s discussion of population in his 1951 The Impact of Science on Society:
“But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars…. War … has hitherto been disappointing in this respect … but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full…. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people’s.”
You think it would be impossible for an elite to actually call for the mass destruction of human beings, in order to make Lebensraum for their desires? Indeed, Russell does not leave any doubt. And he becomes even more explicit about the potential “nuclear option” in the postwar period, when, in the Bulletin of Atomic Sciences and public radio interviews, he explicitly called for a “preventive war” with nuclear weapons against Soviet Russia, in order to enforce a world government. While he claimed that the proposal was intended as blackmail, to force the Russians into submission, he did not hesitate to add,
“Of course you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your bluff called.”
Yes, this is the same Bertrand Russell who has been acclaimed as the “pacifist” leader of the Ban the Bomb movement. Yet then, as now, there was no excuse for people not being horrified at the evil in Russell’s oligarchical policy.
Indeed, a whole grouping of what were popularly portrayed as “mad scientists,” such as Dr. Leo Szilard, took up the Russell vision as a mission, developing scenarios for “controlled” wars through nuclear exchanges. What would guarantee such wars remained “contained?” Absolutely nothing.
While operating more in the “cultural” field, novelist H.G. Wells was equally disgusting and vile in his promotion of bestialization, his attack on industrial progress, and his promotion of civilization-destroying war as a tool of the oligarchy’s determination to eliminate nation-states, and hold on to world power. This “vision” is elaborated most clearly in his The Shape of Things to Come, which was both a movie, and a seemingly endless academic book, in which the international oligarchy carries out a decades-long war of annihilation which bombs civilization back into the Stone Age, in order to then establish a globalized society based on eugenic, anti-human “science,” which rules by allegedly benevolent dictatorship of the peoples of the Earth, whose numbers would be regulated with precision.
‘People Are Cancer’
Don’t delude yourself that such perverts are Russell and Wells are restricted to British elite circles. Through infection of all areas of American society, in the wake of the British assassination of Abraham Lincoln, especially the world of academia, this British Malthusian outlook has polluted a huge section of the intellectual elite in the United States itself. Indeed, that was and is the British oligarchical plan: to destroy the major threat to their world domination, the republic of the United States of America.
In the wake of another British assassination of an American President, this time John F. Kennedy, the stage was set for an explosion of anti-human propaganda which insisted, like Russell and Malthus, that scientific progress itself led to more and healthier people, and therefore would push the world to become “too full.” Working in tandem with the explicitly British-run pro-genocide institutions, such as the World Wildlife Fund, a whole set of depopulation institutions and policymakers went into action in the United States.
I will highlight only a few. Start with Paul R. Ehrlich of “people are cancer” fame, whom we cited above. He produced his The Population Bomb in 1968, which became a “best-seller” in the milieu of the rampaging counterculture. Ehrlich forecast immediate mass death from the shortage of food, and, when asked what must be done, said, “We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously, we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production.”
Among Ehrlich’s proposals was forced sterilization, perhaps by putting sterilizants in the water supply. Obama’s current “science” advisor Holdren is notorious for having studied with Ehrlich, and collaborated with him in coming up with such hideous, and totally unscientific proposals.
Ehrlich was not simply speaking for himself, of course. He had the political support of the Malthusian lobby in the U.S., which had promoted these very genocidal policies before Hitler did, but had to tone them down in the course of the war. The Population Crisis Committee, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and many others were working behind the scenes to reintroduce their eugenicist vision—now “revised” to be a means of “saving the environment,” and improving the “quality of life” for fewer, and fewer, and fewer people.
Simultaneous with Ehrlich, came a huge international boost for the anti-population campaign, with the publication of Limits to Growth, which projected “inevitable” mass death if action was not taken to control population. In fact, as MIT-based authors Dennis Meadows and Donna Forester later admitted, their projections were a fraud, in that they were based on no improvements in existing technologies. But the book served the purpose of popularizing the zero-growth idea, and creating the climate in which the Club of Rome was established in 1972.
There was nothing American about the Club of Rome. Its founders, Britian’s Alexander King and Italy’s Aurelio Peccei, both veterans of NATO intelligence, were aggressive proponents of reducing population (on the order of 2 billion below what was projected as year-2000 levels), squelching industry, and eliminating the sovereign nation-state. They claimed that “limited resources” meant that population had to be contained, and that “blind human proliferation is the basic factor” in the major world’s problems.
For explicitness, it’s hard to beat this Club of Rome statement from its 1991 The First Global Revoltuion: “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
“American” academics did pick up on these ideas, in spades. Take Garrett James Hardin, an ecologist turned propagandist for cutting population, who came up with the famous “lifeboat” image for human survival. In the midst of the 1974 Ethiopian famine, Hardin came forward, in true Malthusian fashion, to say that providing food aid to the starving was ill-advised, because we just had too many people; to survive, we had to throw the weaker overboard.
State Department consultant and academic William Paddock prescribed a similar approach with Mexico’s crisis of the mid-1970s. In an interview with EIR in 1975, he said: “The Mexican population must be reduced by half. Seal the border and watch them scream.” When asked how the population reduction would be accomplished, Paddock said, “By the usual means: famine, war, and pestilence.”
War on Population
It may appear that the flamboyant calls for genocide, such as those of Paddock and Hardin, have been drummed out of public policymaking. Wrong. They have just become a part of the quiet institutional apparatuses which the British financial empire uses to maintain control, such as the World Bank, the IMF, and even the U.S. Department of State.
Take the case of the late Robert Strange McNamara, noted for his “body-count” approach as Defense Secretary to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and his emphasis on population control during his presidency at the World Bank. The following quote conveys his mentality, in that it starts with the objective of holding down population.
“There are only two possible ways in which a world of 10 billion people can be averted. Either the current birth rates must come down more quickly. Or the current death rates must go up.
“There is no other way.
“There are, of course, many ways in which the death rates can go up. In a themonuclear age, war can accomplish it very quickly and decisively. Famine and disease are nature’s ancient checks on population growth, and neither one has disappeared from the scene….”
The implications of such a mentality governing the World Bank (not to mention other UN institutions such as the UN Fund for Population Activities) are vast, of course. Enter the famous “conditionalities” for population control, in order to meet the alleged “carrying capacities” of various nations. Among the means used, forced sterilization is known to be one; can one rule out intentional wars?
Certainly not. During British agent Henry Kissinger’s tenure as National Security Advisor, he oversaw the drafting of National Security Study Memorandum 200, a policy statement making population reduction in the developing sector nations, especially those with raw materials the United States had determined it needed, U.S. policy. This document, which has never been repealed, was not declassified until 1989 but its message is chilling. Discussing the objective of maintaining a reliable flow of raw materials into the U.S., the relevant section of NSSM 200 reads:
“Concessions to foreign countries are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary intervention. Whether through government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, of civil disturbance, the smooth flow of needed materials will be jeopardized. Although population pressure is not the only factor involved, these types of frustrations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth. Consequently, reduction of population in these states is a matter of vital U.S. national security.” (emphasis added)
Subsequent memoranda, not to mention the actions, of the Kissinger era in foreign policy shaping make it clear that this was not merely an academic statement, but that the United States deliberately intervened to promote “population wars” to reduce such “pressures.” The Iran-Iraq War was one of which he famously bragged. George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War was identified by Lyndon LaRouche at the time as another. Then, of course, there is Africa, which the Malthusians constantly complain has the highest birth rate in the world—and, by aid of manipulation and impoverishment from British and other intelligence services and financial institutions, remains in a condition of almost constant fraticidal and genocidal warfare. Obama has jumped in to participate in this policy with all four feet.
The British Empire’s depopulation policy has one other major weapon: the “Green” movement. As I will elaborate in more detail in the next section of this report, denial of the fruits of scientific and technological progress may be a slow way to eliminate population, but it is an extremely reliable one. And under conditions of extreme weather conditions, to which our planet is being subjected due to galactic forces, it may also become an “efficient” means of wiping out large sections of mankind—as Russell and Wells might say.
Most relevant to our story here is the Green policy toward nuclear energy. There is no question but that the survival, and progress, of our human family of 7 billion people today, absolutely requires a massive expansion of nuclear power, combined with a crash program for reaching ignition for nuclear fusion plants and moving on to matter-anti-matter reactrs. Denial of electric power to a population is murder—and that’s what the Greens intend to do.
Formally, of course, the Obama Administration and the British government do not eschew nuclear power. The British are even contemplating a significant expansion of their nuclear power capacity, although Obama has not. But both governments, in contrast to China and Russia, in particular, are carrying out crippling budget cuts against the science required to expand and maintain nuclear power—including against the space program—virtually guaranteeing that there will be no skilled manpower available to maintain nuclear capacity. And, both governments have carried out a foreign policy toward nations aspiring to develop civilian nuclear energy, which reeks of the Malthusian agenda of denying this life-saving capability to poorer nations.
As Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have documented in-depth, today’s “green” is the new “brown”—brown as in fascist suppression of technologies required for a human standard of living, and prospect for development. That Obama would appoint John Holdren, who was not only notorious for his work with genocidalist Paul Ehrlich, but also for his work with Bertrand Russell’s world government Pugwash organization, as his Science and Technology Advisor, simply further establishes his credentials as a puppet of the British Malthusian oligarchy.
III. LaRouche Dared Call It Genocide
LaRouche’s breakthroughs in economic science, starting in the late 1940s/early 1950s, gave him a unique insight into the genocidal nature of the British oligarchy’s “economics.” Through denial of the specifically creative powers of the human mind, LaRouche understood, the British-school economists were ultimately committed to an outlook of zero growth, and collapse of civilization. The result, as in the case of previous empires, most notably the Roman Empire, would be genocide and depopulation, because the very nature of mankind and the universe in which we live requires constant qualitative progress, at constantly higher level of energy flux density, and idea density as well.
LaRouche took on the Russellites early on, in the form of anti-human systems analysis freaks like Norbert Wiener. Once he had established a political association, in the late 1960s, he directed that organization to go after the British Malthusian zero-growth movement, just as it was being launched en masse in 1968-172. Most importantly, LaRouche and his movement also presented the antidote to war and genocide—a program for scientific progress based on the highest ideals of the nation state. While the subject is vast, I shall touch some of the highlights.
One of the LaRouche movement’s early pamphlets on the issue, put out in 1972, asserted that the anti-science movement was nothing but a “Blueprint for Extinction.” By contrast, LaRouche advocated the crash development of nuclear power, and in 1974, participated in the founding of the Fusion Energy Foundation.
Also in 1974, Helga Zepp, leader of the newly established LaRouche movement in Europe, carried out a highly public intervention at the UN’s decennial Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania, confronting leading depopulator John D. Rockefeller III as pushing genocide on the Third World as a “Rockefeller baby.” At that point, the LaRouche movement became the international counterpole to the British Malthusian movement, a status which was further confirmed in 1982, when then Helga Zepp-LaRouche established the Club of Life, to counter the Club of Rome.
In his famous election-eve television appearance in 1976, U.S. Labor Party candidate LaRouche dramatically exposed the genocidal intent behind the Carter election campaign, controlled as it was by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and associated oligarchical institutions. LaRouche went after key Carter advisor George Ball, who, in his Diplomacy for a Crowded World, had called for triage against Mexico, including the reduction of the Mexican population from 58 million to 28 million. This is a war policy, LaRouche said—and Carter must be stopped to prevent World War III.
Carter’s election represented a chilling victory for the British Malthusians, and the newly elected President immediately pressed for both nuclear confrontation with the Soviets, and a takedown of the advanced technology basis for industrial progress. LaRouche responded in 1977 with the initiation of his Beam Weapon Defense program, which eventually became known as President Reagan’s SDI. The concept represented not only a means of war avoidance, by making nuclear missiles obsolete—directly countering the Bertrand Russell approach—but also a scientific revolution into a new plateau of economic development for the planet as a whole, all based on collaboration between the leading nuclear powers of the time, the United States and the Soviet Union.
In 1978, LaRouche commissioned The New Dark Ages Conspiracy, whose purpose, as he put it in his “How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man,” was to show the horrifying things that had happened in the 20th Century, which would not have happened without Russell’s role. The exposé was more than timely, as the Carter Administration moved to consolidate a depopulation agenda, by producing such government policy documents as the “Global 2000 Report,” which, like the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth,” mandated ultimately genocidal “conservation” and anti-technology measures.
Throughout the 1980s, the LaRouche movement continued the battle against the depopulators, and the green genocide movement, even as the British Malthusians consolidated their intellectual grip over the political and institutional policy apparatuses in the United States and internationally. That consolidation was independent of political party, as exemplified by the formation of a Futures caucus in the U.S. Congress in 1988, which included both Newt Gingrich and Al Gore.
The fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, represented a significant turning point for the British Malthusians, who, up to that point, had had to maintain some commitment to high technology in the face of potential Soviet competition. Now, finally, they thought they had a free path to the one-world, deindustrialized, depopulated dictatorship which Bertrand Russell had envisioned nearly 100 years before.
To carry that out, however, they would have to destroy the FDR/American System tradition in the United States, as well as crush any other potentially challenging nation-state, especially Russia and China. Over the course of three Bush terms in the Presidency, and three years of Barack Obama, they have made significant progress in destroying the United States—but, on the international front, there is significant resistance.
Which brings us to the current decisive crisis point. The British Empire is bankrupt, but determined to rule the planet, and they have a puppet as President of the United States whom they intend to use to that end. The U.S., along with British assets Israel and Saudi Arabia, are already moving toward accomplishing the British oligarchy’s goal, by pursuing a confrontation with Syria and Iran which would lead directly into thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and China. Knowledgeable members of Obama’s Administration, as well as public evidence, confirm that the President is in an uncontrolled Nero state-of-mind, determined to impose his will on any one who gets in his way. No one can assert that Obama would not carry out the ultimate “irrationality,” by detonating thermonuclear war.
There are many people, survivors of the war and the Holocaust, who said to themselves after World War II, that they wished they had moved to stop Hitler while they still had a chance. There will be very few, if any, survivors around to mourn that lost opportunity in stopping Barack Obama, if he goes ahead with the British monarchy’s planned war against Russia and China. There is no sane alternative, but to remove Obama from office now.
(1) Lyndon LaRouche, How Bertrand Russell Became an Evil Man, Fidelio, Fall 1994 Click here for whole article: