LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles?

November 23, 2008
Dateline California, 11/23/2008.
I'd like to know why abolishing the “money as debt” paradigm that is legally implemented by the Federal Reserve System, isn't Lyndon LaRouche's overarching, coherent, and very first-order solution?
His prescription, as reproduced below, is only useful as a bandaid – or more accurately, as a topical treatment – of the current financial crisis, and by keeping the systemic illness intact, undiagnosed, latent, it leaves wide open the monetary conspiracy for world government under control of the private central banks:
' “This is the big explosion, detonating right now,” LaRouche warned. “And so far, I am offering the only coherent solution--bankruptcy reorganization of the entire global financial system--starting with the cancellation of all derivatives obligations. My solution poses an existential threat to the entire Anglo-Dutch financial system of globalization. I know it, many leading bankers and government officials around the world know it, and, of course, the British know it. This is why the fear has turned to outright panic. We are nearing the showdown moment.” ' ( LaRouche: From Fear To Panic As Derivatives Crash Hits, Nov. 21, 2008. )
Indeed, if one examines Larouche's documentary film “1932” about President FDR's New Deal presented in the backdrop of a broad swipe of Anglo-American history, one notices, amidst the excellent explanation of the British Empire and its organized global free trade, amidst accurate analysis of Lincoln's stance against the British imperialists, and amidst the insightful exposition of post Civil War miracle of industrialization of the American continent and the lead up to FDR, the bizarre praise of Alexander Hamilton.
Hamilton was the first Secretary of Treasury of the newly founded United States of America, the man behind the Bank of North America, and the First Bank of the United States, America's own private central 'Bank of England'. Please visit the U.S. Treasury website, referenced in the letter below, which quotes Alexander Hamilton: “The United States debt, foreign and domestic, was the price of liberty.” The documentary “1932” at minute 63, in praise of FDR, narrates: “Hamilton lived in Roosevelt”!
The documentary talks of Hamilton's assassination by Burr, the Vice President of the United States, but not of Hamilton's association with Robert Morris, Thomas Wiling, and other banksters affiliated with the Bank of England and the Rothschild money who contrived the construction of private central banking in the newly independent nation. It does not mention Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's staunch opposition to private central banking, nor Jefferson's famous missive:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wakeup homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
The documentary stays silent on Lincoln's famous Greenback currency, even as it speaks of his amazing transcontinental rail project, envisioned to unite the world's land masses which surely must have posed an existential threat to the English domination of sea based world trade. The documentary movie, in all its praise of President Lincoln, attempts to wipe away from memory, Lincoln's most famous stance against the central banksters, and his most significant contribution to national finance and economics – money coined by the state in the service of its peoples without paying gratuitous interest to private bankers:
“The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of the consumers.”
“The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity.”
“By the adoption of these principles ... the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity.”
It is not clear to this scribe, if the very learned Mr. Larouche is a nuanced and expert disinformationist, a rational spokesperson for private central banking keeping their axioms alive and well hidden from public view amidst his other accurate rehearsals and analysis of history, or simply beyond ordinary people's ordinary ken. Mr. Larouche does claim to have a superfluity of intelligence, and claims, in one of his narratives on his websites, to be among the handful – four or five – peoples on the planet who solely understand macro economics. His prolific work is a minefield of information, but also of critical omissions which lead to strategic misdiagnosing of problems, and hence advocacy of faulty solutions.
While it is appropriate to say that LaRouche's analysis of history on many points remains accurate, even insightful, it is also accurate to say that his errors of omission and subtle distortions make him an unreliable source of accurately comprehending history, economics, and everything else, because, how can one trust a source that makes such blatant errors of omission?
Here are a few more examples of omission in “1932” that require explanation. LaRouche caters to the paranoia of world government in the documentary, which is indeed a very real and non-immanent threat today, but lays the blame on everyone else, except the key banksters! The bad guy is the British imperialist, but not those who have ruled the British empire for over 300 years, the private central bank, the Bank of England and those who control it.
The documentary mentions J.P. Morgan banking interests on Wall Street as the British empire's front, and projects Morgan interests solely working for the British imperialists – but does not mention J.P. Morgan being a front for the Rothschild banking family who financed not only Morgan and controlled the Bank of England, but many of Britain's and America's monopolist industrialists, from Herriman to Rockefeller, Cecil Rhodes to Alfred Milner. The latter founded the Round Tables, precursor to the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in the UK. None of this early history of the twentieth century is revealed in “1932” amidst its other history lessons pre and post World War I.
The documentary talks of the financial collapse on Wall Street during the Great Depression, but does not mention its key root cause – the control of money supply in the hands of a private central banking cartel owned and controlled by a few powerful men! Just as Mr. LaRouche also does not mention the same root cause once again for the present financial collapse when he advocates “the only coherent solution--bankruptcy reorganization of the entire global financial system--starting with the cancellation of all derivatives obligations”.
And reaching its climax, the documentary lauds FDR's stance against the eastern establishment, mentions Wall Street's attempted fascist takeover of the White House, mentions the role of Hjalmar Schacht in creatively financing Nazi Germany aided and abetted by Wall Street including Prescott Bush, but does not mention FDR's confiscation of American people's gold by autocratic fiat, nor FDR's affiliation with the Reichsbank's president – a Harvard co-alumni – nor how the notorious Nazi bankster went scot-free at Nuremberg at the behest of the powerful governor of Bank of England, Sir Montagu Norman (see Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat? ).
To a mere student of history, it appears that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and his team of narrators rewrite history very very sophisticatedly with the apparent goal of obfuscating the key role of “money”, its monopolistic control by private central banksters, and the immense power and influence that is derived from the control of a nation's money supply. There is a complete absence of this Rothschild maxim from the documentary “Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who makes its laws”. LaRouche and the various narrators who appear in the documentary instead focus on its effects, the evil empire, and not the cause, the interest paid on “money as debt” to private central banks by a public. The documentary ignores Benjamin Franklin's observations in his autobiography on the real prime-mover cause for the Revolutionary War:
“The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the PRIME reason for the Revolutionary War.”
And Ben Franklin was specifically referring to the “inability of the colonists” to return to those prosperous years that existed a few decades prior to the Revolutionary War when the colonies had printed their own money, debt-free, called 'colonial scrip', and had learnt of its enormous benefits towards self-sufficiency and prosperity for all:
“In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”
This was precisely what Lincoln repeated with the Greenbacks during the Civil War. Neither historical fact made it into “1932”, the documentary!
This tendency, of carefully masking the controlling role of whoever coins money in the affairs and travails of a nation, and the world today, appears to be a common trait among many a prominent leader and scholar of West's famed dissent-space.
It is never easy to catch the errors of subtle omission and subtle distortion of perspective. Like minor quantum-mechanical perturbation, or the flapping of butterfly wings in non-linear systems, they can lead to entirely different conclusion-spaces, and make great red herrings. Which is why, such disinformation is so sophisticated, and indeed priceless! It could also of course be merely the misperception of limited acumen unable to appreciate genius.
Therefore, in order to adjudicate fairly, please review Project Humanbeingsfirst's report dated November 23, 2008: The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government
and compare to LaRouche documentary “1932”:
[ MP4 ] and make up your own mind.
If Project Humanbeingsfirst has made an unfortunate error of judgement, or misperception, and can be shown it convincingly with evidence rather than mere assertions, it would be of great benefit to be able to revise one's understanding of history. To that end, we make a plea – please study the cited works, and either write a letter to editor Project Humanbeingsfirst, or to Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, providing your opinion. Similarly, find those who omit “money as debt”, and central-banking, from their learned discourses as they vociferously rile against the sins of empire, and write them asking the reason for this omission!
It may arguably be useful that in the combined interest of dissent against tyranny and servitude, one ought to come together on common ground towards creating critical mass – even while disagreeing – and hence some measure of efficacy. But it is most assuredly in the interest of dissent, without question, to expose the latent and the un-apparent in order to not be led astray. Price of dissent, as that of democracy – and perhaps the twain are indeed the same thing – is “eternal vigilance”, tous azimuth!
And therefore – at the risk of sounding platitudinous – asking questions, and seeking resolutions, is the sine qua non of informed democracy, which in turn, that of any form of genuine Republic. And in such a non-oligarchic governance system, control of money appears to be the sine qua non of both liberty and justice. Those who ignore this question, cannot possibly be the friends of any plebes who entirely pay for it in life-long servitude to debt.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Send letter to editor :

First Published on 11/23/2008 23:59:15 2075
Links Fixed Sunday, October 14, 2018 2086

December 03, 2008
Dateline California, 12/03/2008
A reader critiqued the Project Humanbeingsfirst analysis “LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles?
“Read MR. LaRouche's works before you judge him. ... he [Zahir] misses the fact that LaRouche is the number one advocate of a National Bank controlled by the US Treasury and funded by Act of Congress. Please read Mr. LaRouche's works in greater detail and you will see this.” AFP
Another reader sent the following interesting feedback:
“It seems to me that LaRouche does comprehend the "money as debt" or "Web of Debt" money reform proposals. His total global bankruptcy reorganization seems to be his solution on how to achieve a more just and equitable money and credit system. [Excerpts from 'A Statement of True Franklin Roosevelt Policy'] The rest of the article is worth reading, I think, as it goes into what he considers "global bankruptcy reorganization". I still have trouble comprehending exactly how this GBR would come about, who would be the "receiver" and how it would all take place. What I seem to be hearing from LaRouche is that he should be made the "Reorganization Czar".” CPHBF
Below are some additional Lyndon LaRouche conundrums for inclusion in the original analysis.
1) “That our system is a credit system, not a monetary system. ... whereas under the U.S. Constitution the creation of currency, or related credit, can only be done by consent of Congress, and by action of the Executive branch. Therefore, our currency--when our law is enforced--is entirely a credit currency; it's a currency of the U.S. government, the currency of the U.S. People” (LaRouche, A Statement of True Franklin Roosevelt Policy )
In that passage, LaRouche retains the axiom of “money as debt” conjured out of thin-air (credit system) amidst truthfully describing some of the symptoms, and spins much gibberish about how European banking is different from its American counterpart. Only as recently as earlier this year, before I had embarked on my research into macro economics (which I had incidentally always held as gibberish since having taken 14.02 at MIT some three decades past, and having fully understood for quite sometime the role of WB-IMF in raping poor nations through inextricable debt-traps and concomitant structural-lendings into legally stealing their public-commons), before I had begun looking at modern banking, and before I had thought to ask the simple question 'what is money and where does it come from', I might not have known any better and taken that erudite description, carefully wrapped that it is in what appears to be a challenge to the oppression of the ruling-elite, as something useful. But actual forensic research over the course of this past year indicates that the monetary systems are exactly the same, and these central-banks operate under the same banking principle in all G7 countries managed through the private Bank of International Settlements (BIS). That principle is the exact same principle which the Bank of England operated under when William of Orange chartered it in 1694 into private hands. And that is the same principle upon which Alexander Hamilton founded America's first private central bank, and upon which the Federal Reserve System – a cartel of private banks in partnership with the government to legally create the cartel – is today founded. A bit of serious study, but not through university text books and prescribed economics curriculums, and not through parroting others, makes this abundantly clear. Please refer to the Monetary Reform Bibliography.
The control of money supply effectively in private hands (however it may be legally and public-relations wise camouflaged), and the paying of compound-interest to unpayable principal coined out of thin air, is the root of the deliberately manufactured problems. Even though the Bank of England was nationalized in 1946, and just as the Federal Reserve System is legally sanctioned by Congress, the effective control of money supply remains in independent, private, and largely opaque hands throughout the industrialized developed nations. The poor nations of the Global South are anchored in debt by other means, through the tag team duo of WB-IMF. In fact, the nationalization of the Bank of England did not affect the puppetmasters at all, and private merchant bankers remained at its helm.
And LaRouche's projected cure mantra is exactly what the private central-bankers in effect want. They seek a global central banking solution so that the entire world would be in their uniform control.
The afore-cited article of LaRouche is entirely gibberish in its solution-space for it retains the bankers' axioms, unless it is very cleverly calculated to seed the global solution space that the bankers themselves want. The bankers created the problem of derivatives deliberately, and now as a solution, they propose creating global central-banks, and within that solution-space, they will shortly say the same thing as LaRouche advocates, that we will wipe out the derivatives induced toxic debt as a solution to the global financial problem through global bankruptcy proceedings, provided we can have a global central-banking solution with “new regulations and a New World Governance model” as the French President Sarkozy put it. See the speech at the European Union by Sarkozy and Barroso et. al., “EU Calls For 'New World Governance'” ( ). Its transcription can be found in the Monetary Reform Bibliography. The European Commission President sees this crisis as “very special moments” where “the crisis calls into question all certainties, and minds are more open to change!”.
It is important to minimally read Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, or G. E. Griffin's and Eustace Mullins' much easier to digest narratives on the founding of the Federal Reserve System at Jekyll Island – deceptively put into law by banksters backing both the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates with the same proposal for 'monetary reform' but packaged according to what would later become an Edward Bernays special – in order to understand the banksters' devilish games of deception and modus operandi. Ex post facto, years later, they all come clean – when nothing can be done about it, including President Woodrow Wilson who was the chosen banksters' patsy for the job. All the afore-stated authors, including W. Cleon Skousen in the Naked Capitalist, quote from the autobiographies and works of the banksters themselves! Woodrow Wilson's autobiography 'The New Freedom' is particularly worth reading. He belatedly observes in chapter 8, titled Monopoly, or Opportunity? :
“Shall we try to get the grip of monopoly away from our lives, or shall we not? Shall we withhold our hand and say monopoly is inevitable, that all that we can do is to regulate it? Shall we say that all that we can do is to put government in competition with monopoly and try its strength against it? Shall we admit that the creature of our own hands is stronger than we are? We have been dreading all along the time when the combined power of high finance would be greater than the power of the government. Have we come to a time when the President of the United States or any man who wishes to be the President must doff his cap in the presence of this high finance, and say, “You are our inevitable master, but we will see how we can make the best of it?”
We are at the parting of the ways. We have, not one or two or three, but many, established and formidable monopolies in the United States. We have, not one or two, but many, fields of endeavor into which it is difficult, if not impossible, for the independent man to enter. We have restricted credit, we have restricted opportunity, we have controlled development, and we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men. ...
However it has come about, it is more important still that the control of credit also has become dangerously centralized. It is the mere truth to say that the financial resources of the country are not at the command of those who do not submit to the direction and domination of small groups of capitalists who wish to keep the economic development of the country under their own eye and guidance. The great monopoly in this country is the monopoly of big credits. So long as that exists, our old variety and freedom and individual energy of development are out of the question. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. This is the greatest question of all, and to this statesmen must address themselves with an earnest determination to serve the long future and the true liberties of men.
This money trust, or, as it should be more properly called, this credit trust, of which Congress has begun an investigation, is no myth; it is no imaginary thing. It is not an ordinary trust like another.”
Unless I am profoundly mistaken, Mr. LaRouche, it seems to me, is cleverly herding the sheep to exactly the same pastures that the banksters want to slaughter them at, but through a circuitous route. This is a game which apparently many dissenting chiefs play as was previously uncovered here and here. That is why LaRouche retains Alexander Hamilton's axioms, and holds him up as the 'saint' along with FDR. Both were the banksters' best friends. But people who don't know their own history, or only learnt it by parroting from prescribed university and high-school AP text books, won't know that! In his documentary “1932”, Mr. LaRouche has counted on that massive public ignorance. His egregious omission of blatant facts of history to suit his particular narrative has already been highlighted in the initial essay “LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles?” That question still stands however, because after all, this scribe is merely a plebeian.
2) “However, from my standpoint, as an economist who adheres to that American System of political-economy which Nixon's crowd violated, there is still a potential escape-hatch which could open the way to recovery, if we seize that option now. That means applying the same principles to the different world situation, today, which were used by President Franklin Roosevelt to get us successfully out of that sudden, deep depression of 1929-1933, the depression which the policies of Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover had hung around our nation's neck. ... Furthermore, despite the hostility between the Soviet and "western" Anglo-Dutch varieties of monetary systems, the two were closely interrelated, especially so since the Soviet system's bringing within its borders the virtual "Trojan Horse" of the Bertrand Russellite, pro-Malthusian dogmas of Cambridge systems analysis.” (LaRouche, The Rules for Survival )
Appealing buzzwords surround the same unstated axioms. The examination of this FDR's miracle New Deal is in the Project Humanbeingsfirst analysis “Obama's New Deal December 01, 2008.” Since this scribe is merely a plebeian – certainly not among the 4 or 5 learned peoples on the planet who understand macro economics – with his plebeian imagination he can only conclude that macro economics is erudite gibberish for the game that is “as old as mankind”. It is called hegemony! See “Monetary Reform: Who will bell the cat?
3) “This phenomenon is suggestively similar to the number of Saudis or people with Saudi pedigrees who were involved in the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. In 2001.” (LaRouche, British Authorship of Mumbai Terror Spilling Out )
I won't even ask what happened to Pentagon's Black-ops in this LaRouche narrative – for they could of course merely be working for the British and the Anglo-Dutch establishment – because in that passage, Mr. LaRouche retains the U.S. Government's core-axiom of 911, that it was an invasion from abroad, just like Noam Chomsky does, just like Howard Zinn does, just like Ron Paul does, just like all the famous dissent-space chiefs do! What erudite punditry one might spin upon that core-axiom becomes largely irrelevant except for dazzling the dissenting “crowd of simpletons and the credulous” who have lost faith in the rulers and have come over to the dissent-space!
Project Humanbeingsfirst has already written much about this. For instance, see Ron Paul, see Noam Chomsky, see Howard Zinn - footnote [a11], and see the manufacturing of dissent.
4) “The British Empire is on the loose. Anyone who denies this should take his head out of his posterior. It is dark and obscure in there. Reject deconstructionist tendencies, including on the part of some of our own backward associates, who say "Please explain that." LaRouche said he will explain: You're an idiot. The idiots will say: I have not seen gravity moving recently. They are like the meteorologist who rather than looking at the storm pattern, interviews each drop. You have to pay attention to dynamics.” (LaRouche, British Empire on the Loose in Mumbai )
What can one say to that? Except to suggest that yes indeed, “You have to pay attention to dynamics.” And doing so leads to the conclusion that Mr. LaRouche might heed his own advice.
Yes it is manufactured terror – but its purpose has already been delineated many times by Project Humanbeingsfirst – the war on terror is a fiction, 911 was self-inflicted, and with the antithesis of these blatant obviousness as Mr. LaRouche's axioms, he can spin any enemy, real or immanent. What does it matter? See for instance the collection of analyses in the report The WAR on TERROR 2008 Omnibus Collection (PDF).
5) “Lyndon LaRouche's November 22nd Warning: The British Will Attempt To Assassinate President-Elect Obama” ( Larouche, title )
However, Mr. Obama is indeed the establishment's own candidate. See here, here, and here. And if “they” assassinate him, it would be for the same purpose that Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto was assassinated – to seed “revolutionary times” and the “strategy of tension” in the United States. The ultimate purpose? To surely finally enact Martial Law, or destabilize the United States further enroute to the North American Union (if the time is ready for it). See Project Humanbeingsfirst's unique Benazir Bhutto's assassination analysis, as well as why, in its opinion, it's not yet time for Martial Law in the United States despite its persistent talk, legal and logistics preparedness, and on-going psy-ops bluff over the past seven years.
If that unfortunate travesty does come to pass as LaRouche ominously predicts, likely the same 'Islamic militants' would be officially blamed, as in the case of the grotesquely shocking terrorism this past week in Mumbai, and as in the case of the Marriott hotel blast in Pakistan in September. But LaRouche would rush to blame the Brits as the hidden hand, I am sure, for they did indeed conspire to kill Abraham Lincoln, and succeeded! See the Press Release: WHAT'S TO BE DONE – Massive Bomb Blast in Islamabad Marriott September 20, 2008.
Overall, what is gleaned in most of Larouche's writings, as in the above passage, is that even for this predictable financial crisis, it is an invasion from abroad. The well-worn Anglo-Dutch establishment, the British Empire connection!
Whereas, in reality, it is once again an invasion from within – from the Rockefellers to CFR – certainly in conjunction with the International banking cartel rooted in the Rothschilds craftsmanship which seeded not just the Rockefellers' Standard Oil empire, but also J.P. Morgan's banking empire as well as the passage of the Federal Reserve System. Its executors are right at home in the USA, living legally among the many foundations, from Ford to Rockefeller to Carnegie Endowment for Peace! See Norman Dodd in the Monetary Reform Bibliography cited above. Also see a complete tie-in of all manufactured terror events, 911 to financial, in the detailed report The Enduring Capitalist Conspiracy For World Government.
In addition, it is instructive to examine the following passages. It is an excerpt from the first page of W. Cleon Skousen's book “The Naked Capitalist”. This book is a commentary on Prof. Carroll Quigley's 1398 pages thick book “Tragedy and Hope”. The latter can be read online (see url in Monetary Reform Bibliography). Mr. LaRouche apparently either remains unaware of this particular aspect of the global agenda by the home-grown financial oligarchs as he keeps harping upon the Anglo-Dutch guys overseas, or he has a particular reason not to promulgate what's in either book, as well as what's in “money as debt” and “the money masters”, all of which point to the first enemy within. If the United States Congress, with a stroke of a pen, puts them all behind bars, or lines them up before the people's firing squad for being “part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States,” any Anglo-Dutch connections, if they exist, would be neutralized without further ado. Begin right at home Mr. LaRouche.
Begin Excerpt “The Naked Capitalist”, pgs 1-2:
I think the Communist conspiracy is merely a branch of a much bigger conspiracy!”
The above statement was made to this reviewer several years ago by Dr. Bella Dodd, a former member of the National Committee of the U.S. Communist Party.
Perhaps this is an appropriate introduction to a review of Dr. Carroll Quigley's book, Tragedy and Hope.
Dr. Dodd said she first became aware of some mysterious super-leadership right after World War II when the U.S. Communist Party had difficulty getting instructions from Moscow on several vital matters requiring immediate attention. The American Communist hierarchy was told that any time they had an emergency of this kind they should contact any one of three designated persons at the Waldorf Towers. Dr. Dodd noted that whenever the Party obtained instructions from any of these three men, Moscow always ratified them.
What puzzled Dr. Dodd was the fact that none one of these three contacts was a Russian. Nor were any of them Communists. In fact, all three were extremely wealthy American capitalists!
Dr. Dodd said, “I would certainly like to find out who is really running things.”
This reviewer had also observed a number of strange developments which seemed to point to a conspiratorial control center higher and stronger than either Moscow or Peiping. For example, when Harry Dexter White (Under-Secretary of the U.S. Treasury during World War II was discovered by the FBI to be a Soviet agent, the White House was immediately informed. But instead of being fired or arrested, Harry Dexter White was appointed as the new Executive Director of the U.S. Mission to the International Monetary Fund of the United Nations. He was also given a substantial increase in salary. J. Edgar Hoover was amazed. Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. stated publicly that President Truman knew White was a Soviet spy when he made the appointment (Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 991)
Why would men in charge of the world's massive financial problems want an exposed Soviet agent such as Harry Dexter White to occupy a highly important position in the World Bank? And why in the name of common sense would the President of the United States approve of such a thing? I heard both Congressmen and intelligence officers quizzically exclaiming, “what's going on?”
It was not long after this that the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board began advocating economic aid and comfort to China ... ”
End Excerpt
Indeed, “what's going on?”
Easy to understand when one comprehends that the Rockefellers have effectively owned the United Nations since its inception. See the UN segment in the video clip “EU Calls For 'New World Governance'” in the Monetary Reform Bibliography. Also see Mr. Norman Dodd's interview by G. Edward Griffin, and read about Jekyll Island. The culprits, their progeny, and their enormous wealth, hides in plain-sight, under legal cover, right here in the USA! The United States Congress dutifully bows before them right here in the USA, as they did once again for the passage of the various bailout packages, for the passage of various police-state legislation, for the passage of various war funding bills, and indeed, for not recognizing the very first prime-mover crime for what it was, a Reichstag fire from which, “all the evil which followed” now belongs right at their doorsteps. Why is Mr. LaRouche looking for boogiemen overseas? And one is supposed to be impressed by his magnificent self-proclaimed acumen?
David Rockefeller's own words from his 2002 autobiography, 'Memoirs', are very telling of his own role in the destruction of the United States for a globalist agenda. Here is the complete passage, very cleverly put together with double entendres by a graduate of Harvard, London School of Economics, Ph.D. in economics from University of Chicago, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a dozen foundations on the Americas, and Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank before whom even the present Vice President of the United States bows with modest courtesy and over-politeness.
Section titled Populous Paranoia, page 405, 'Memoirs':
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
All of this analysis, derived from painstaking first-hand research and not merely hearsay or parroting other dissenting-chiefs, leads me to the unfortunate conclusion which my mind is actually repelled by: that the West is not just financially and morally bankrupt – as all and sundry now know – but also intellectually bankrupt in its much lauded dissent-space!!
Many of its famous intellectuals mainly end up working for empire in their effect, despite their much lauded brouhaha of dissent. And that empire is seeking world-government. It appears that some very smart high IQ people, like LaRouche to Chomsky to Zinn, are expert at constructing "red herrings" – 'a smelly fish that a fugitive drags across the path in order to put the pursuing dogs off the trail'.
They retain some key axioms, un-stated, often un-examined, and then craft a compelling, almost believable world view upon it. Almost akin to the 'dialectics of deception', or the 'technique of infamy', sometimes partial truth telling within the confined boundaries carved by unexamined axioms. All of which persistently lead to misdiagnosing the problems, or cleverly misidentifying the 'highest order bit' of the matter.
A useful touchstone to tell disinformationists apart is to examine their unexamined axioms. They are usually so prolific in their work and their output, that it is easy to be deceived by the various corollaries and trees they voluminously carve out of the pernicious DNA. So instead of getting lost in the leaves and branches, and ending up eating the rotten fruit by which time it is too late to do anything, examine the DNA – the axioms.
Sometimes, the forensic recognition of these axioms as being the same as those of the ruling-elite they presumably oppose, is sufficient to discredit the entire intellectual mumbo-jumbo craftily built upon it without wasting precious time examining all the leaves, or, to put it more aptly, chasing down red herrings to faits accomplis! Ex post facto, “oops” don't cut it for those who have finally seen the end of 'war on terror', and for those still living through its horrors.
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Send letter to editor :

Part-2 Written on 12/03/2008 15:30:41 4178 (Draft, unpublished)
Part-2 draft appended to main article for preservation with links fixed from, on Sunday, October 14, 2018
Links fixed October 15, 2018 6258

LaRouche: A nuanced and expert Disinformationist or merely Uber Alles? 17 / 17