Why Kissinger Cronies Released
Tiananmen Square Papers Now
By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Excecutive Intelligence Review
1-14-01
manipulated conflicts and "national security" pretexts at home and abroad.
The weekly Executive Intelligence Review, founded by Lyndon LaRouche, is
going all out to stop this. For a free copy of this week's 80-page issue,
please call 1-888-347-3258, and say you "saw it on Rense.com."] During the
past days, the New York Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), a bastion of such
notables as China specialists Henry A. Kissinger and Winston Lord, has
unleashed its efforts to manipulate the leadership succession of the
government of China. The featured element of this onslaught has been the
unveiling of what are alleged to be authentic records, which it calls "The
Tiananmen Papers," allegedly secret records from circles of the China
leadership from the period of the celebrated 1989 student demonstrations in
Tiananmen Square. This release, published in the January/February edition of
CFR's Foreign Affairs, has already been a featured subject of a major,
cold-war-style propaganda barrage in the U.S.A. By the nature of the
subject-matter, it is clear, that if the CFR's documents contain any new
truths at all, those facts were already known to the U.S.A., British and
other intelligence communities more than a decade ago, and could have been
published at any time during that interval, but were not. Whatever the degree
of truth and untruth in the CFR documents themselves, the publication of this
dubiously conveyed material, is clearly intended to signal war-like changes
in the policies of the incoming U.S. Administration of President-elect George
W. Bush. Thus, rather than be lured into a tiresome debate over what are,
at best, merely alleged to be top-secret documents which had been withheld
over about a decade or more, let us not be fools. Let us focus on the most
crucial fact about this CFR release; let us focus upon what is clearly not in
doubt, the circumstances under which CFR has munificently elected to bestow
these alleged pieces of learning upon us. In short, the question whether
there is any truth, or none, in any of this published CFR material, has no
relevance for the discussion of current strategic implications of CFR's
choice of conduct in this affair. I, too, have lately dredged up afresh
some well-documented past material on the relationship of Nazi dictator Adolf
Hitler to the grandfather of President-elect George W. Bush. The legitimate
question would be, why do I bring up such absolutely truthful facts about the
past now? As everyone should know, I have squarely met my obligation to meet
that challenge; in the case of the so-called "Tiananmen Papers," CFR and its
fellow-Confederates have not. Unfortunately, CFR being what it is, we would
be fools to expect a truthful response to that challenge from that quarter.
Fortunately, we have much other evidence which accounts for the present
circumstances of CFR's present actions in this matter. For those who know
the present world economic situation, the circumstances of the CFR actions
are well known. The incoming Bush administration is doomed even before it is
sworn in. It is doomed, by everything it has heretofore asserted to be its
economic and social principles, probably doomed, that by its own errant will,
to be cast up as wreckage on the shores of the presently onrushing, greatest
financial crash in modern history. By no stretch of the imagination, could
the already doomed Alan Greenspan provide a President Bush a "soft landing."
Were that incoming administration to come to its senses, abandon those
principles which would doom it, and accept a reasonable alternative, the new
administration could survive the coming crisis rather well. What if it
chooses not to make such imperative changes in its profile? Then, it is
doomed to a undergo a catastrophe of its own making, and that soon. In the
case that the new administration prefers to cling desperately to the
policy-anchors of its presently sinking policy-ship, what else might it carry
down, besides our United States, with that lost ship? This brings us directly
to the context in which the CFR's latest crisis-management stunt has been
staged. First, let us clear up the often hotly-debated issue of CFR itself.
Then, the relevant points of CFR's relationship to Kissinger and the Bush
Administration are clear. Then, we shall consider the kind of
crisis-management orientation which an unredeemed Bush administration would
find itself more or less inevitably doomed to follow, as a course of
strategic action over the period immediately ahead. Elliott, Kissinger &
Brzezinski In short, the New York Council on Foreign Relations is a product
of the aftermath of both the assassination of the patriotic U.S. President
William McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's leading the
U.S.A. into World War I. In short, the assassination of McKinley, turned the
U.S.A., whose principal historic adversary, until that time, had been the
British monarchy, into a virtual associate member of what was to become the
Queen's own British Commonwealth of today. One of the more notable figures
who bridges the period of the early 1920s, when CFR was formed to perform
such an agent-of-influence role, was the notorious neo-Confederate, Nashville
Agrarian, and Harvard Professor William Yandell Elliott, the "Dr.
Frankenstein" who created, among others, the monsters Henry A. Kissinger and
Zbigniew Brzezinski. It was Elliott, as an in-fact agent of influence of the
British intelligence community, who played a leading role in pushing for such
a British Commonwealth. It was through Elliott, that Kissinger rode, on a
Rockefeller checkbook, to training in the London Tavistock Institute, and
returned to the CFR to serve under George Franklin, and, more notably, ACDA's
John J. McCloy and McGeorge Bundy, as part of the team dedicated to
establishing world government through the threat of nuclear-missile barrages.
Typical of Kissinger, were Elliott's affinities to the proverbial "Lost
Cause" of the slaveholders' Confederacy, and Kissinger's repeatedly avowed
affinities for the anti-Americanism of the Holy Alliance's Prince Metternich,
Britain's Bloody Castlereagh, and Franklin Roosevelt's war-time ally and foe
Winston Churchill. Those features of the Kissinger profile have been
massively documented, by me and my associates, from overwhelming sources,
including Kissinger himself, over the course of more than a quarter-century.
Elliott's Confederates Kissinger and Brzezinski began to play the
significant role for which they are known today, in association with CFR
circles, in the aftermath of the assassination of President John F Kennedy
and Richard M. Nixon's 1966 launching of the same pro-racist Southern
Strategy which took top-down control over the Republican Party's national
machine, and which also took top-down control of the Democratic Party
machinery under CFR operative Brzezinski's choice, President Jimmy Carter.
Thus, like the Nixon, Carter, and George H.W. Bush, Sr. administrations,
Kissinger and Brzezinski typify the forces gathered around the mass political
base of the pro-racist Southern Strategy. They typify the "American Tory"
circles and the policies which have dominated U.S. domestic and foreign
policy, that increasingly, during the recent thirty-five years. Kissinger's
Allies The common outlook of both the New York side of the CFR circles and
the neo-Confederates, such as Senator Trent Lott and former Democratic
National Chairman Don Fowler, of the Southern Strategy's base, is their
hatred of precisely those social elements of national economic policy which
have repeatedly supplied the economic strength, and rise to world leadership
of our United States. Like Elliott and the rest of that mint-julep-propelled
pack of ultra-decadent Nashville Agrarians, they hate "Yankee" as they define
"Damn Yankees." They hate the technologically progressive independent family
farmer. They hate the industrial operative and entrepreneur. They hate
infrastructure. They hate the idea of devotion to fundamental scientific and
technological progress. Thus, through their power, rallied around such
themes as "free trade," "deregulation," and other attributes of Nashville
Agrarian utopianism, they, beginning with Nixon, continuing with Carter, set
into place a national matrix of economic policy- shaping which has
transformed the overall successful U.S. economy of the 1933-1965 revival of
our national prosperity, into the calamitous state of bankruptcy which
engulfs it more, each passing day. That once-great economy has been ruined
today. Under the influence of such a cabal of power, which has reigned over
our nation during the greater part of thirty-five years, and through the
unleashing of "globalization" during the period since 1989-1991 dissolution
of the former Soviet power, not only have the mismanagers of our national
economy, such as Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan,
wrecked the U.S. economy almost beyond repair, but a similar perilous state
of economic affairs prevails throughout most of the world. Thus, like the
pagan Caesars before them, those who are merely typified by Kissinger and
Brzezinski today, have brought their empire to its brink of self-imposed
economic doom. President "Miniver Cheevy" Bush President-elect George Bush,
as he stands, up to this moment, suggests a Broadway parody of the Classical
model for an emperor who enters office to bring the waiting doom upon his
empire. He assumes the office of President in a republic which, although
facing the greatest crisis in its history, and that rather immediately, could
be saved, unless George, like Shakespeare's Hamlet of the Third Act
soliloquy, refuses, out of intellectual cowardice, or a fair imitation
thereof, to choose to change his course of action in accord with the
requirements of the office he has come to occupy. In short, were Bush's
administration to react according to established profile, his administration
is soon doomed to collapse into a global catastrophe. So, the great empires
of the past collapsed, in fragments, into the dust of the destiny, like that
of the Biblical Nineveh, awaiting them. There is no possible way, in which
the combination of the economic policies, social policies, and strategic
outlooks which the new President carries into office, would not doom his
administration, and our nation, to early destruction, by its own hand. This
prospective spectacle has been savored in the British press. The Bush
administration, and its current choice of economic policy-outlooks, is a
something, like President Jimmy Carter before it, better suited to "Tobacco
Road" than Washington's Pennsylvania Avenue. Yet, the British, while
invidiously relishing the self-humiliation of the U.S.A., on the one hand,
know that the five-nation bloc of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and the U.S.A. could not survive to rule the world, if the U.S. were
simply to go down into the economic and social ruin which the incoming Bush
administration promises to bring about very quickly. Thus, in this
circumstance, the lessons of the Hitler administration are recommended, as
discreetly as might be mentioned, to the relevant hoary veterans of the
crisis-management circles from the Nixon, Ford, and Carter White House. Their
inclination will be, to use covert methods to create the "who me?" crises, to
which they will then respond vengefully, to keep the world off balance: that
is the rule for the kind of impossible situation which a President Bush's own
foolish policies will create for him. In such occasions for crisis-management
diplomacy, these were the methods followed by Hitler, and by such U.S.
circles, too. In other words, during a period in which the U.S.A.'s friends
in Europe and Asia are tending to seek an alternative to a U.S.-led financial
and economic collapse in Eurasian cooperation, how shall the Anglo-American
Five keep themselves together, and their former allies and satrapies in line?
Crisis-management. In the strict sense, such crisis-management alternatives
will do about as much good for the people of the U.S.A. as Hitler brought, in
the end, to Germany. In any case, the U.S. were doomed. If it simply follows
the Bush-Republican line, as presently given, the U.S. is soon finished as a
nation. If it resorts to global crisis-management as a way of trying to keep
a dying Anglo-American world-rule temporarily in place, then the entire
planet faces a prolonged new dark age for all humanity for perhaps decades
yet to come. The problem with a regime such as Bush's has set out to be, is
that they are so enamored of their fanciful self-image of the role they
intend to play on the mere stage of their historical fantasies, that they
will do nothing to avert the real-world doom which acting out that fantasy
imposes upon them. Thus, those who would play Olympian Zeus bring upon
themselves the awful twilight of such self-anointed gods. The dirty game by
CFR and others, with the current Tiananmen Papers," is a harbinger of the
early unleashing of but one among a wide-ranging series of Hitler-like
crisis-management operations abroad. If the members of the Congress,
notably of the Senate, continue to placate the recent trend, then we shall
all go virtually to Hell in this life, together, I to Heaven and heathen John
Ashcroft to his well-earned racist's cranny in Hell. These are the stakes
for which we, of all nations, are all playing, unless we change the game.
1. The author of this is a declared candidate for the Y2004 U.S. Presidential
nomination of the Democratic Party
