-Caveat Lector- http://www.larouchepub.com/eir_talks/eir_talks_990810.html August 10, 1999 EIR Talks Host: Tony Papert Guests: Jeffrey Steinberg, Debra Hanania Freeman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- "EIR Talks" airs on Sundays on shortwave radio station WWCR at 5:00 p.m. Eastern, on frequency 12.160 MHz. It also airs on many public access television stations in the United States; see local listings. Tony Papert: Welcome to "EIR Talks." It's Tuesday, August 10th, 1999. Today's show is entitled "Death Threat to Presidential Candidate LaRouche," or alternately, "Off With His Head!" My name is Tony Papert, and with me in the studio is EIR counterintelligence director Jeff Steinberg. The August 5th issue of the mass-circulation British women's magazine Take a Break, features a violent attack on Lyndon LaRouche under the inch-high headline: "Shut This Man's Mouth!" Four sentences which give the character of the article: It begins, "The Queen is the target of a remarkable campaign being waged by a man who will shortly stand for the Presidency of the United States. Although she's trying to laugh it off, Buckingham Palace has grown increasingly alarmed at the way the stories are being spread around the globe. They are being used to seriously discredit Her Majesty's carefully nurtured reputation. This is the biggest threat ever to the reputation of the Queen worldwide, especially when combined with the stories about Princess Diana." Speaking of LaRouche, it says, "This is the language of a dangerous man. In the end, if the claims continue to gain currency, the matter will become wholly political, and action will have to be taken by Prime Minister Tony Blair. One commentator told Take a Break, "It is vital to protect the Queen as a symbol of honesty and decency in a sometimes wicked world. She is a figurehead who stands for all that is good about Britain. That must be protected at all costs." And the article ends with a single sentence: "Take a Break says it's time that Lyndon LaRouche was told to shut his evil mouth, once and for all." So, this is very threatening and violent language. But can it be taken seriously? It's a semi-literate, semi-pornographic magazine for obviously ill-educated or uneducated women. Jeff Steinberg: Right. And for precisely that reason, it should be taken extremely seriously. We've spoken to security specialists in Britain and here in the United States, and they say there's a good reason why it was initially floated in this Take a Break magazine, which goes out to about one and a half million housewives, young teenage girls, and, you're right--it's a semi-pornographic, women's kind of magazine. But the fact is that it's going out to a certain constituency that does represent the hard-core base of support for Queen Elizabeth and for the British monarchy. The fact is that it was from the monarchy that this message was delivered, and it was decided to deliver it through this kind of boulevard publication. Bear in mind, number one, that this crowd--the British Establishment, the City of London, and their friends in the United States--have a previous track record of both threatening and carrying out violent attacks against Lyndon LaRouche. Remember, it was Henry Kissinger, the self-confessed British agent, who sought the persecution of LaRouche in the 1980s. And at one point, you had 400 federal, state, and local police, backed up by military units, conducting a full-scale raid against LaRouche's residence in northern Virginia. This was before Waco, before Ruby Ridge. But there was an attempt to stage the circumstances for a violent murder. So, it's in that context, for one thing, that we've got to say, "Yes, any time this sort of blatant, murderous threat to the life of Lyndon LaRouche comes forward, you've got to take it seriously." Tony Papert: Where does the threat come from? Jeff Steinberg: Well, I think it's credible to say that it does come from the British monarchy, but not as the royal household or Buckingham Palace per se. It comes from the City of London and allied financial oligarchs, who are increasingly becoming desperate over the fact that their system--this globalized financial bubble--is rapidly reaching the point of explosion. And under those circumstances, their concern is that, while they understand and anticipate this explosion--in fact, they've been preparing for their own political ascent in the post-crash world--it worries them that Lyndon LaRouche, uniquely among statesmen and economists, is also looking at the post-crash reality with a very different sense of what should be done. His idea--LaRouche's concept--is: Bankrupt the financial oligarchy, once and for all. Go back to a global system that represents the best elements of the Bretton Woods System of 1944-57, but with the added feature of a reinforcement of national sovereignty, national banking, the kinds of policies that were instrumental in the successful American Revolution against the British monarchy back 200 years ago. So, LaRouche represents, in their mind, the most credible threat, in terms of the realm of ideas, of anybody on this planet. And it's an end-game moment. Tony Papert: Why this particular time--in early August? Jeff Steinberg: Well, we are, as I say, getting to the point where increasingly, voices of the international financial oligarchy are acknowledging that we are close to the end. The bubble could break tomorrow. You could have another LTCM crash which brings down the entire financial system. It could be prolonged for days, weeks, months--we don't know that. But clearly, it's recognized that the situation is so fragile. Most of the world's central bankers today preoccupy themselves around the clock with preventing this or that crisis from erupting that blows out the whole system. It's becoming increasingly public. We had, just this past week, the International Monetary Fund issued their country study on the U.S. And they said the U.S. asset bubble--i.e., this 10,000-plus stock market--represents the gravest threat to blow out the entire international monetary and financial system. Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, now called the HSBC, issued a report a few weeks back, saying that the global financial bubble is set to blow. Over the past weekend, the London Independent had a terrified article that we're days away from a new blowout of a major hedge fund that brings the system down. Whether it's LTCM all over again, or it's Julian Robertson's Tiger Fund, or it's Chase Manhattan or Goldman Sachs, something big is going to blow, it's in the air, they're terrified. And they are not confident that they've got the control over all of the sovereign governmental decision-making agencies that will decide which way the world goes when the crash hits. And in the midst of that, LaRouche is their gravest threat, because he has very clear ideas that are spreading in governments all over the world, as to how to deal with this crisis in a way that wipes out the power of the oligarchy. *** Tony Papert: The article makes a big deal out of the fact that LaRouche's words are being spread all over the world by the Internet. Is that true? Can you tell us anything about it? Debra Freeman: Well, it is true. I think, when the article was written, they were more concerned about the fact that many of Mr. LaRouche's supporters have distributed his material on the Internet. But just as that article was released, we are tremendously excited, because we finally were able to launch Mr. LaRouche's campaign website. And if I can take a moment, to just give that a little plug, I really want to invite viewers to log on to that site, which they can do by just typing in www.larouchecampaign.org. *** But this time around--and again, you know, you look at the way this is shaping up. You knock Gore out of the equation, and it really does--it completely opens up everything on the Democratic side, and for, you know, for many people in the United States, for people who are associated with the civil rights movement, for minorities in general, for working people, the depth of LaRouche's support has consistently grown and deepened--on the one hand. And on the other hand, you know, you look at the rest of the field. Well, you know, Bill Bradley is Bill Bradley, and--look, I'm an old New Yorker. You know, I'd support Bill Bradley for the Basketball Hall of Fame any day of the week. But when it comes down to policy, he's not--I don't want to get into a point-by-point refutation of Bill's policies, but he's not a President for a time of crisis. And the only thing that he has going for him right now, is that he's not Al Gore. We have this very funny--we had a very funny incident occur at the National Caucus of State Legislators Convention that recently took place in the Midwest. These are legislators from all over the country, and Mr. LaRouche has tremendous support among state legislators, largely because state legislators are very close to their constituents, and their constituents like Lyn, so they like Lyn. But we were out there with the campaign. And we were lining up endorsements among legislators. And, you know, the funny refrain that you would get from everyone was, "Well, I'm not ready to endorse Mr. LaRouche, but I'm taking a close look at Bill Bradley." And of course, Bradley was scheduled to address the meeting, and there was tremendous excitement around the fact that he was speaking, because most of the people out there had never heard him speak before. And everyone was saying, "Well, you know, this is interesting, because I don't really like Al Gore, and I'm going to take a close look at Bradley." I mean, the short end of the story, is that one fellow who we had had coffee with that morning, and who knows Mr. LaRouche, and who we had really urged to take the early step of endorsing him, came out of the--and he was really excited about wanting to hear what Bradley had to say. I don't think he seriously thought that Bradley was going to have a better policy than LaRouche, but it's certainly easier to support Bill Bradley, than it is to s upport Lyndon LaRouche. And he came out, and he just looked totally depressed, and he came up to one of the campaign organizers, and he said, "God," he said. "That was the worst speech I ever heard in my life." And he ended up endorsing LaRouche. That's one case. LaRouche right now has close to 100 current and former state legislators and other elected officials who have formally endorsed him. And you know, that's interesting, when you think about it, because I know that Bill Bradley has made a very big deal about the fact that 124 state legislators have endorsed him. Now, given the fact that he's been--I mean, he's been all over the country, he's raised about 10 times as much money as Mr. LaRouche, and he's got 24 more endorsements than Lyn has--much of them, by the way, and I don't--I mean, I love New Hampshire. It's a wonderful place. It's where Mr. LaRouche was born, so I don't want to cast any aspersions on the state of New Hampshire. But the vast majority of Bradley's endorsements are New Hampshire state legislators. Now, you know, New Hampshire has the smallest population, and the largest state legislature in the United States. So, you know, having 100 New Hampshire legislators endorsing you, is kind of like having your extended family endorse you. It's just not--it's not much. So, I think that once we take care of this Gore problem, as we are committed to do, it opens up everything, and it puts us in a position--and when I say "us," I don't mean those of us who work with Mr. LaRouche. When I say "us," I mean the American people. Tony Papert: We're just about running out of time. Just clarify for us one thing. I understand that you have reported the Take a Break article as a death threat against a Presidential candidate to the appropriate authorities in Washington. Debra Freeman: Oh, absolutely. I actually assumed that you guys had covered that before. Tony Papert: No, we were leaving it to you, actually. Debra Freeman: The estimation of security experts that we have consulted is that this is absolutely a threat to Mr. LaRouche's life. It should be treated as such. We have contacted the appropriate authorities. And I would add, parenthetically, that we do consider this also something of a threat to the security of President Clinton. And I believe people in Washington do also. *** Now, the article makes five charges against Lyndon LaRouche, to justify, as they say, that his mouth "must be shut for once and for all." That's a quote from the article. The first of the charges is probably familiar to many of our listeners, that LaRouche says the Queen pushes drugs. You have had to deal with this over a long period, Jeff. Why don't you tell us about it? Jeff Steinberg: Well, on the one hand, it's laughable and preposterous. On the other hand, there's a great deal of truth to it. The fact is that in 1978, when Lyndon LaRouche was beginning his first run for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination--he had run in 1976 as a third party candidate--he was very concerned about the fact that, for example, President Carter was aggressively pushing for legalization of drugs, both marijuana and cocaine, in the U.S. And he commissioned a number of the editors of Executive Intelligence Review magazine, myself included, to do a comprehensive, in-depth study of the international drug trade: How does it work, how big a problem is it? Because his view as that drugs represented a far greater threat to U.S. national security than the unlikely prospect of a Soviet thermonuclear weapons attack against the United States. And he said, if we can't lick the drug problem, then to discuss national security in other terms is a joke. We did a comprehensive study. We went back to the historical records. Of course, naturally, we studied the history of the two British Opium Wars, in which the British Navy, on behalf of the East India Company, was dispatched to enforce the addiction of opium by the Chinese population. The opium was being grown in India, and it was a cash crop of the British Empire. Major financial institutions, trading companies, shipping lines, were all set up in order to create the drug trade. And this was done through royal chartered companies--i.e., under the authorization of the British monarchy. So-- Tony Papert: The Emperor of China wrote a letter, you may know, to Queen Victoria about the evil effects of opium on the Chinese people, which she never answered. Jeff Steinberg: Right. And in fact, you could go back to the American Revolution, when, in his famous anti-American tract, Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith said drugs are a perfectly legitimate crop, let's go for it. So, we are not simply coming out with a one-liner, "The Queen pushes dope." Now, the fact is that well over a half-million copies of the book-length study that LaRouche commissioned, called Dope, Inc., have circulated around the world. It's still to this day an underground bestseller. And that's the crux of the allegations--not that the Queen goes out on the street corner in front of Buckingham Palace with bags of crack cocaine, but that she represents the highest level of a structure that has been responsible for the drug trade for the past 150 or more years, and that that still continues to be the case today, with other elements incorporated in. It's a very well-documented, very cogent argument. Now, let's just take a quick look at a clip from a slander broadcast against LaRouche during his 1980 campaign, and you'll see that this formulation that shows up again in this Take a Break article is simply a rehash of a kind slander version of the substance of Dope, Inc. Let's look at that for a second. [Videoclip.] First news announcer: Linda, what would you think if your children were taught that the Queen of England was a major force behind international drug smuggling? Second news announcer: He alleges that, for instance, the drug trade in the United States is controlled by the British intelligence, the Queen of England. Third news announcer: He said the Queen of England is behind most of the world's illegal drug trade. Lyndon LaRouche: ... of course she's pushing drugs ... [End videoclip.] Jeff Steinberg: So there you have it. I mean, this is, as I say, nothing new. That was interview material from 1979-1980. It re-aired when LaRouche was again running for the Democratic Party nomination in 1984. So, it's no surprise that today, when it's far more well-known that the British offshore financial havens--the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas--that these areas are the laundromats for what's now pushing up to $1 trillion a year in illegal drug-trafficking, that this should be coming out. In fact, the Clinton White House, about a year and a half ago, reported that it was the banks under the control of the City of London that account for about $400 to $500 billion a year in drug-money laundering. So, we're telling the truth. As Debbie said earlier, we have this nasty habit, LaRouche in particular, of telling the truth about these issues. And so, in the attempt to cover that up, an in-depth documentation is turned into a nasty little, smug one-liner, that "The Queen runs Dope, Inc." Well, on a certain level, it's totally true. And that's why they're rather upset about this. Tony Papert: Now, Take a Break--in further trying to substantiate the threat of the LaRouche movement against the British monarchy, Take a Break says that you, Jeff Steinberg, entered the political mainstream when you appeared on a prime-time ITV program alleging Princess Diana may have been murdered by the British Secret Services, a theory also spread by Mohamed al Fayed. Why don't we just turn to that British ITV television sequence. [Videoclip:] Moderator: Now, Rosemary Bourne there was talking about conspiracy theories. There are a lot of conspiracy theories; many people find them very offensive. Now, you're a noted conspiracy theorist yourself. Why can't you get out of 007-land, come into the realms of reality, and acknowledge that this woman, Diana, Princess of Wales, was killed by a drunken driver? Jeff Steinberg: Let me start out by saying-- Moderator: No, start out by answering the question. Jeff Steinberg: Well, because, number one, I dispute the fact that it was drunk driving. Number two, nine months after the fact, the chief investigating magistrate, who's got access to presumably every bit of the investigation, is not yet satisfied, and is not yet prepared to close the investigation. In fact, Friday, he's calling many of the eyewitnesses that have been trashed by Martin and the woman from Channel Four, who by the way-- Moderator: Okay. I want Michael Cole to answer this point, and I want you to, as well. Give me a motive. Jeff Steinberg: Okay, very simple. In 1995, November, Princess Diana went on national television--it was probably the most widely watched show in Britain--saying that Prince Charles was unqualified to be King, launching an attack against the House of Windsor that struck a very strong chord in the minds of many people in Britain--and this is not soap opera. Moderator: Okay. So, are you pointing your finger at the heart--the sinister heart of a British Establishment? Jeff Steinberg: I'm answering your question. You said-- Moderator: Where are you pointing a finger? Jeff Steinberg: I'm saying that after Princess Diana launched that attack, I read the English press. I read the commentaries from the City establishment news commentators, and they basically said, "Off with her head!" So,to say that there's absolutely no conceivable motive in the world-- Moderator: What do you say to Jeffrey Steinberg. Sir Bernard ______: I think I'm living in a lunatic asylum here! Frankly, I think that's all this is. The fact is that conspiracy theory--and I'm sorry that Nick Arner has lent himself out buying fantasies--but the fact is that conspiracy theory is highly commercial. And that program that we've seen proved nothing at all. It's very useful, though, in hanging adverts every 20 minutes. Moderator: But surely--but surely, to be fair to our representative of the ITV program--indeed, to those from Channel Four--that is how we pay the bills--but-- Sir Bernard ______: Well, you should not pay the bills if-- Moderator: But she had her enemies, did she not, Sir Bernard? Did she have her enemies? Sir Bernard ______: Not--I don't think they were lethal enemies at all. She had her serious critics, and I was one of them. Jeff Steinberg: Ah-ha! (Silence, then laughter, and applause.) What about Tiny Rowland? Let me just say a very important point. The criticism that the ITV show was somehow an Al Fayed put-up--I've got a question of whether tomorrow night's show is going to be a Tiny Rowland put-up. Because seeing that Bob Loftus, who's under Scotland Yard investigation, is going to be trotted forward as apparently a major source of information explaining why it is that there's no conspiracy, is rather bothersome to me. Moderator: Alright. You've got an interesting point. [End videoclip.] Jeff Steinberg: Well, I think at that time I said that we were nine months after the wrongful death of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed in that car crash in Paris. Well, I can say now that we are coming up on the second anniversary, and the fact is that all of those unanswered questions of nine months ago, remain unanswered today. There's even further evidence suggesting a hand of the royal family in those events. For example, there have been allegations that have never been refuted by Tony Blair or Queen Elizabeth II or MI6, that there were high-ranking MI6 officers in Paris in the days leading up to the crash, and that there were others left behind to clean up the mess afterwards, and make sure that a kind of a cover-up was in place. So, you've got the attack against Mr. LaRouche and me for spreading the word worldwide on the Internet that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip ordered the death of Princess Diana. And ironically, just as this Take a Break magazine was hitting the newsstands in England, it happened that Mohamed al Fayed, whose son Dodi was killed in the crash, gave an interview to another magazine, called Talk. It was the inaugural issue, it's Tina Brown, this sort of British Labour Party jet-setter who launched this with Hollywood money. But in that inaugural issue, Mr. Al Fayed comes out openly, and says, "Prince Philip ordered the assassination of my son and Princess Diana." Now, talk about bad timing here! Because what happened is that the Take a Break article comes out with this nasty attack on Lyndon LaRouche, referencing Al Fayed. And in this Talk magazine, Al Fayed comes out openly naming Prince Philip. Once that magazine hit the newsstands--and of course the circulation was probably greatly boosted because the First Lady, Hillary Clinton, gave a lengthy interview in that same issue, and there was a lot of news coverage building up and trumpeting the arrival on the newsstands--the fact is that the British tabloid press picked up massively on Fayed's allegations, and basically said, "Al Fayed Accuses Prince Philip of Ordering the Murder," "Al Fayed Said Prince Philip is a Nazi." *** Tony Papert: Now, what more do we know about Take a Break magazine? Jeff Steinberg: Well, it's true that it's a kind of a trashy, housewives' magazine. And in fact, a few months back, before the big attack on LaRouche, they ran a succession of articles purporting to be written by a psychic who claimed to be in contact with Princess Diana from beyond the grave. And the psychic claimed to be delivering a message from Princess Diana that the death in Paris was an accident, people should tear up their conspiracy files, forget about it, let her rest in peace, and don't worry, because it was really just the way the British royal family wants you to believe it--drunk driving by Henri Paul, the driver. So, it's that kind of trash publication. But the editor-in-chief, John Dale, is someone who is known to have very longstanding, serious connections into the British monarchy, into the mainstream Fleet Street press. He started out as a bureau chief for the Daily Mail in the Leeds area, back in the late sixties and seventies, and then was promoted up into being an editor of a number of different publications. But the fact is, in 1986, he wrote a book which talked about the occult powers of the House of Windsor. And he went on at great length about Prince Charles being a proponent of the world-view of the psychiatrist--in fact, the Nazi psychiatrist--Carl Jung. But it purported that the British royal family had these supernatural powers, and that they were really above the average human being. Now, it's ironic, but at the time, we reviewed the book in the EIR. In fact, we were talking with Dale at the time. And we had the mistaken presumption that the book was a criticism. I mean, we were looking at it from the rather sane standpoint that if the British royal family is being exposed as a bunch of stark, raving occult lunatics, that this is somehow or other an exposé. Well, in fact, the book actually had the opposite effect, as we learned subsequently. And we've talked to some leading British psychological warfare specialists, who sort of set us straight on this. What they said is, "Well, part of the propaganda that keeps the monarchy in power, is the purveying of this idea that they have these supernatural powers." And in fact, the British monarchy and the City of London financial oligarchy, has made it a longstanding habit of looking for these kinds of occult ideas, in order to maintain social control over their subjects. It goes all the way back to the days of the East India Company, when James Mill cut his teeth on what was called the history of India. He went over there and wrote a seven-volume history. You read that history, and it has nothing to do with India, never mentions the great Sanskrit culture of thousands of years ago, but instead is just simply a catalogue of religious superstitions and occult beliefs, almost village to village. And that was then taken from local belief into a revival of various occult doctrines, all of which were used by the British monarchy, by the East India Company establishment (the equivalent then of the City of London crowd today) to maintain social control. So, Dale's book was a tremendous puff piece for the monarchy. It was done on their behalf, and it betrays a very close level of collaboration between Dale and inner circles within the courtiers of the King and Queen--to present them as this. Tony Papert: So it's reminiscent of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, trying to portray the monarchy as having magical powers. Jeff Steinberg: Exactly, exactly. Right. the Holy Blood, Holy Grail doctrine basically said that the Hapsburgs were direct descendants of Jesus Christ. And in this case, Dale's book attributes these supernatural powers to the House of Windsor. Tony Papert: Right. Now, the other charge you've alluded to, in part--the other charge in the magazine is that EIR has accused Prince Philip of wanting to reduce the world's population by over half, especially darker-skinned peoples. Jeff Steinberg: Well, the fact is that Prince Philip's own words confirm the accuracy of that. Back in 1994-1995, we published a series of very extensive cover stories exposing the fact that to this day, the sun still never sets on the British Empire. And included within that, we published pages and pages of excerpts from Prince Philip's own writing. He's written an entire book which was in fact then copied, more or less, by Al Gore in his Earth in the Balance, in which he openly talked about this. He gave an interview in 1986--Prince Philip, now--to the German state news agency, in which he said, "I wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus, so I can rid the world of its problem of overpopulation." So, in his own words, it's provable that the guy is a genocidal maniac. And one can not rule out that his rage carried all the way through to ordering the assassination of Princess Diana. We sent a copy of that EIR Special Report with the documentation of Prince Philip, to Princess Diana, and she wrote back to us on several occasions, expressing her great appreciation for the fact that we were setting the historical record straight about the nature of her in-laws. Tony Papert: So, there was an important political aspect to the disagreement between Princess Diana and the royal family of her ex-husband. It wasn't simply personalities. Jeff Steinberg: It was high politics of the highest level, affecting the very fate of the monarchy. Absolutely. Tony Papert: You've been listening to "EIR Talks." DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
