BOO!!!
Posted on 03/11/2002 12:55:37 PM PST by vannrox
TEHRAN TIMES POLITICAL DESK
TEHRAN -- A U.S. presidential candidate in the 2000 election, Lyndon H. LaRouche, who is also a Democractic presidential pre-candidate in 2004, recently made some revelations about the September 11 incidents.
Following those revelations, an associate of LaRouche's political movement for the past 30 years, Muriel Mirak-Weissbach, talked to the TEHRAN TIMES in an exclusive interview about the September 11 incidents.
Mirak-Weissbach is a member of the editorial board of Executive Intelligence Review (E.I.R.), a weekly published in Washington, D.C., and distributed internationally.
The following is the second part of her statements about who was behind the attacks on New York and Washington on September 11.
Who is the coup faction? This is not easy to define; we do not know the names of the military and intelligence officers involved. It is like hunting an unknown animal: We may not know the name of the animal, but we can identify his tracks, and follow his spoor. We can identify his habitat, and his characteristic behavior. In the case of the coup faction, we know what its political-strategy outlook, or ideology is: This is the clash of civilizations. Furthermore, we know the ideology of that part of the military which shares this ideology: It is what is referred to as the "utopian" military outlook. Finally, we know who some leading personalities of the first group are, and we know what financial and political institutions have supported both the ideologues and the military.
The clash of civilizations idea is generally attributed to Samuel Huntington, whose 1993 article in **Foreign Affairs** magazine, the publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, launched the idea. Huntington later presented his concept in expanded form, in a 1996 book of the same name. With the end of the Cold War, in Huntington's view, there would be protracted religious wars, which he calls the clash of civilizations, a war of the West versus Islam, or, as he is fond of saying, "the West against the rest." Conflict, Huntington said, will inevitably rise between peoples and civilization based on different religious traditions: Islam versus Christianity, versus Confucianism, versus Judaism, versus Hinduism, and so forth.
What is less known about Huntington, is an earlier work, on which Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who created the Afghantsin and later Taleban, collaborated. This is a 1957 book called "The Soldier and The State", published under Huntington's name. The book outlined their vision of a global new Roman empire, a new one-wordlist, fascist dictatorship. This idea was not actually original; it had already been elaborated in 1928, in a book called "The Open Conspiracy" by H.G. Wells, an agent of British intelligence, and one of the intellectual fathers of Huntington and Brzezinski. The idea was that a one-worldist dictatorship should be established, which meant that sovereign nation-states had to be crushed. How? Through the clash of civilizations, religious warfare on a worldwide scale. If one could mobilize ethnic and religious groups, the Chechens against Russia, the Kurds against Iraq, Syria and Turkey, Hindus in India against Muslims in India and Pakistan, and so forth, then one could break up the nation-states and allow ethnic, religious minority entities to spring up in their place. And controlling the whole collection of entities from the top is the one-worldist imperial dictatorship, the universal fascist order.
Now, let us consider the question of timing: If there has existed a clash of civilizations lobby in the U.S. for decades, if the "utopian" thinking inside the military has been gaining ground over decades, why did the financial-political interests behind them decide to launch this bold attack on September 11? Why then, and not at some other time?
To answer this, we have to go back a few years. In the summer and fall of 1998, the world economic and financial breakdown crisis, which Mr. LaRouche had forecast, was reaching a climax, as the so-called Asia Crisis had become the Russia Crisis, and Russia went into sovereign default. Panic seized the financial markets and the leading circles of the financial oligarchy, who saw the writing on the wall. The collapse of the Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) hedge fund threatened to trigger a chain-reaction collapse of the world financial system, so a group of twelve banks in the Federal Reserve moved swiftly to pool billions of dollars, to bail it out.
At the same time, serious alternatives were being discussed, to replace the bankrupt system. President Clinton in September 1998 spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York of the need for constructing a "new financial architecture," and, although no concrete reform program was known, there had been broad discussion in the U.S. and internationally of the need for a return to a Bretton Woods-style stable monetary system, along the lines of that proposed by LaRouche. Clinton could not make good on his promises, as the scandal against him immediately escalated, leading to his near impeachment.
In Russia, Yevgeni Primakov, who had become Prime Minister, was moving aggressively to consolidate his vision of a "strategic triangle," of economic and strategic cooperation among Russia, China and India. At the same time, leading figures in Asia, like Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir, were considering drastic measures to protect their economies from the ravages of speculation and crisis. Malaysia introduced capital controls, exchange controls and other measures, while several governments in Asia began to discuss regional monetary arrangements, which led to the Chaing Mai meeting, and to later discussion among the ASEAN-plus-Three, of regional monetary and economic cooperation.
In short, while the bankrupt IMF-based system was nearing a terminal crisis, powerful forces in Eurasia were moving towards the kind of cooperative arrangements that could not only protect their economies, but constitute the basis for a new world economic order.
It was at that time that leading Anglo-American think-tanks, like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), began a series of studies. They posed the question, for example: What would happen, if, in the course of a general financial breakdown crisis, a major terrorist attack were to be launched against the United States? In fact, the CFR issued a study in July 2000, entitled, "The Next Financial Crisis: Warning Signs, Damage Control and Impact." What they presented was a scenario, in which a massive terrorist attack was launched against the U.S., in the midst of financial breakdown. What happened in their scenario? A coup d'etat: the U.S. president would be removed, and the country would be placed under a crisis management dictatorship.
It is our estimation that the planning for the events of Sept.11, 2001 actually was started around autumn 1998. In the interim period, between autumn 1998 and summer 2001, the financial oligarchy succeeded in staving off disaster, by launching a massive liquidity pumping process, with the low interest rate policy of Alan Greenspan, and with the low yen policy, whereby huge amounts of capital were channeled from Japan into the United States, to prop up the stock market bubble. A further means of postponing the crash was the creation of the technology sector, or IT, bubble. This was generated by the propaganda campaign, in 1999, which claimed that the entry into 2000, the new millennium, would create a worldwide crisis in all computer systems. This, the Y2K problem, was used to generate sales of computer hardware and new software in extraordinary amounts, which jacked up the stock ratings of this sector - at least until March 2000.
By summer 2001, despite these and other tricks like falsifying statistics related to the U.S. economy in all sectors, reality asserted itself, and again the entire system was teetering on the brink of total blowout.
At the same time, and largely in response to the depression collapse in the U.S., Eurasian cooperation was again making marked progress. Despite the ouster of Primakov, Russia under the new Putin presidency consolidated the strategic partnership with China and outlined far-reaching economic cooperation projects. The same was in process with India and other Asian nations, as well as with Germany, the key economic partner in Europe.
It was at this juncture that the forces behind the coup decided to act.
Why?
You really shouldn't go around admitting that.....
Yeh, she was Jane Doe II.
Lyndon LaRouche thinks that Queen Elizabeth is behind the human stomach's ability to digest food.
"What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.