Understanding the ferocity of the attacks on Donald Trump and our Constitution may seem to be a head scratcher. Is it really just due to Barack Obama and Hillary partisans at the top levels of the Justice Department, conspiring with a bunch of know-nothing, hot-headed, politically correct millennials and sour Deep State apparatchiks in the news media—the meme favored by Fox News?
by Barbara Boyd,

ba*****@lp*************.com












If so, why isn’t the President being more effectively defended? Is the Deep State simply the permanent American administrative bureaucracy which lives on, relentlessly, like a slime mold, in the swamps of Washington, D.C., regardless of who the voters elect? Or, has the whole of Washington, D.C., along with most of New York City, Massachusetts, and California, simply gone stark raving mad through an invasion of alien space creatures eating away at their brains? By space bugs which have been “weaponized,” no doubt, by Vladimir Putin, who, if you read the media, weaponizes everything in some secret Siberian laboratory, including, drumroll please, “jokes.”
Fortunately, two recent excretions from the British Isles, one of them stolen, the other, self-revealing, allow us to sketch something nearer to the real picture. On November 23, 2018, someone started publishing purloined documents from the British military’s Integrity Initiative, an international network of politicians, journalists, academics, foundations, and military officers engaged in a very dirty black propaganda campaign funded by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, NATO, Facebook, and such intelligence quangos as the Smith Richardson Foundation here in the United States, all while posing as a Scottish charity. Then, on December 18, the House of Lords released a report on the imperatives of current British policy, imperatives for which the Integrity Initiative’s information warriors and a host of similar outfits, have been tasked to engineer popular support.
The Integrity Initiative claims it focuses on Russian hybrid disinformation warfare, a form of irregular warfare they claim Russia is conducting. Its own purloined internal papers, however, expose the Initiative, rather than Putin, as the master propagandists, targeting and smearing those considered “subversives,” like British Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, other anti-war figures, and Donald Trump.
The liberated documents show that Sir Andrew Wood and Pablo Miller, Sergei Skripal’s MI6 handler, who are both players in Christopher Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence, also have significant relationships to the Initiative. Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury, England, in one of 2018’s more infamous intelligence hoaxes targeting Russia. Steele, of course, wrote the very dirty and obviously fake dossier on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin which has sustained the Russiagate scandal for almost two years in the United States, throwing this country into a McCarthyite hysteria in which former defenders of the Constitution now demonstrate on behalf of the FBI and CIA and demand that a Special Prosecutor become, effectively, a fourth branch of our government.
This Report has three parts. First, we examine what the House of Lords declared as the imperatives of present British strategic policy. We then examine the Integrity Initiative’s propaganda operations in support of these imperatives and their genesis in the renewed British regime change and war drive against Russia which followed the 2014 Ukraine coup. We then put the manufactured Russiagate hoax in the United States, in the appropriate strategic context, demonstrating how a completely obvious intelligence fraud, the dirty dossier about Trump attributed to MI6 agent Christopher Steele, could dominate political discussion in the United States for more than two years, creating popular insanity about Russia and China and paralyzing our government.
Hopefully, you will conclude after reading this Report, that this is the year in which we can and must end the decadent, desperate, and failing Anglo-Dutch Liberal Empire. Lyndon LaRouche specifies that there are four countries which have the combined economic, scientific, and cultural potential to do this, even in the face of the systemic financial collapse of the huge bubble the City of London and Wall Street have now built anew. These nations are the United States, Russia, China, and India. If these Four Powers come together to create a new fixed exchange rate monetary system and devote their credit and the energies of their populations to full-scale development of the world, to fundamental breakthroughs in science, and to the great human adventure of space exploration and habitation, then they can create a new Renaissance. The Lords fully understand this challenge. In their report, they target exactly these four nations as their primary foreign policy concern. With respect to Russia, they plan to continue their policies for containment, economic isolation, and political destabilization. They have plans for intellectually corrupting India and China, integrating these nations more fully into their globalist institutions and schemes. In the United States, they have one immediate goal: ending the “disruption” caused by Donald Trump by removing him, one way or the other.
Part I
The British Lords’ First Priority: No Second Term for Donald Trump
The British House of Lords report with accompanying papers and appendices, is entitled, “UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order.” The discussion which follows is drawn from the report itself, its accompanying papers and appendices, and other recent statements of the key participants in shaping the report’s conclusions.
In the report itself, the Lords huff that Donald Trump has completely imperiled the globalist “post-War rules based International order” as well as the “special relationship” between the United States and Britain. They say this while, at the same time, reveling in their success in infiltrating and controlling the United States following World War II. The covert defense and intelligence relationships flowing from the special relationship are sufficient, they argue, to survive one term of Trump. But, not two. Otherwise, they are terrified by the activation of the “people” in the Brexit vote in Britain and in the 2016 election in the United States. They cite the free ability of individuals to access information as the central threat to their ability to rule. To answer this, they intend to create censorship and propaganda regimes which would make George Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel, 1984, seem like child’s play.
Those with longer memories will recall that John McCain and others responded to Trump’s election with bellicose incitements to invoke NATO’s Article 5, claiming that alleged Russian election meddling in the 2016 presidential election was an act of war and that Trump was out to destroy the very same “post war, rules based international order.” John Brennan subsequently reported that the British, and their NATO satraps, like Estonia, began feeding him leads about Trump–Russia collusion in late 2015 because they feared Trump would destroy the special relationship. MI6’s Christopher Steele followed that up by telling his Justice Department collaborator Bruce Ohr, that he was absolutely desperate to prevent Trump’s election and would do just about anything on behalf of that mission. And then, after the election, the Senate Intelligence Committee kicked off its absurd investigation of Russian electoral dirty tricks which, it was claimed, elected Donald Trump. In their first public hearing, a parade of British experts or Americans, like Roy Godson, who, nonetheless, salute the flag of Empire, enthralled very stupid Senators with tales about super potent Russian “active measures” capable of inducing underclass Americans into voting for Trump based on racist Facebook memes, or cartoons which made fun of Hillary Clinton. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence viewing this stupid spectacle had to feel deep embarrassment on behalf of the United States.
To put things in perspective here, it’s useful to review, briefly, the history of this “rules based international order,” referred to over and over again in the House of Lords report. Promulgated by the Truman Presidency and Winston Churchill at the end of World War II, this “Order” preserved colonialism, albeit in modern institutionalized forms of debt slavery and deliberate genocidal underdevelopment for the bulk of the world’s population. This was against the intent of the American President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and much of the American population at the time. The IMF and World Bank, Bretton Woods institutions which Franklin Roosevelt wanted to use for world-wide economic development and to end British colonialism, became the overlords, instead, of an imperial financial system which enforced Malthusian population control and underdevelopment while securing vital mineral and other natural resources for the realm. This primary “alliance” also built a series of military bases throughout the world, “to project” imperial power, in their words, based upon British colonial policing and geopolitical stratagems.
For a period of time, following the War, the U.S. and other advanced sector nations enjoyed economic prosperity. This is the period to which President Trump refers as the era of American “greatness.” It was the result of then-extant and new capital-intensive investments in U.S. infrastructure building, in new plant and equipment, and building out further the machine tool capacities that had dominated the war mobilization. It included great technological, scientific, and technological horizon programs, such as Kennedy’s Moon mission. But such programs, reflecting the American system of political economy of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, all but ended by 1967, when London undertook its final offensive to once again control the world’s financial flows. The British chose the moment in which the U.S. was suffering from the financial and cultural impacts of the genocidal Vietnam War, to make their moves. On August 15, 1971, after a series of preliminary steps, they succeeded in taking down the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate currency system.
Video of Who Benefits from the Chaos of the Global Financial System?
LaRouchePAC’s mini-documentary on why FDR’s fixed exchange rate Bretton Woods system was taken down.

With the collapse of Bretton Woods, floating exchange rates, currency wars, and speculative financial gambling became the way of the world. Proposals for large-scale development were scrapped as too costly or financially unpredictable. The advanced sector’s economies were systematically deindustrialized and financialized with former industrial areas of whole countries turned into wastelands. Jobs were outsourced world-wide in pursuit of the cheapest labor possible. Food cartels replaced the agro-industrial units called family farms, and the U.S. rail grid was largely abandoned and consolidated, driving populations into urban areas and the coasts for mere sustenance. In place of productive jobs and a national mission, such as President Kennedy’s space program, the majority of citizens in the United States were offered the gig and service economy, drugs, pornography, sports, and Hollywood entertainment to fill their time on earth.
The new religion of “environmentalism” and its sub cult, anthropogenic climate change, were used to justify wholesale genocide through underdevelopment of the world, meeting the demands of Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands to reduce human population down to one to two billion people. “Science” became the land of statistics and information technologies, rather than the “science” which was the actual font of American greatness—the big ideas, bold experiments, and the constant discovery and creativity which characterized the harnessing of nuclear power and space travel to the Moon. Instead, the City of London, the private entity against which America fought a Revolution, became, once again, the center of all world finance. Its mantras, “free trade, free enterprise, and limited government,” were endlessly mouthed by anyone who wanted to become rich or famous.
Much of the success of this infiltration can be traced to British recognition of the simple fact that how individuals think about the world and whether their surrounding culture encourages or destroys human creativity, constitute the most important battlegrounds of strategic warfare and grand strategy. That is why Lyndon LaRouche starts just about every strategic analysis he makes by demonstrating that men and women are not animals, not beasts. The contrary assertion, that they are beasts, incapable of knowing any universal truth, is the central tenet of British liberalism. It is no accident that the House of Lords report lists British universities as a critical “soft power” resource and puts expansion of Marshall scholarships on the same level of importance as relations with major foreign states.
The “Order” was freshly updated following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, by George H.W. Bush and Margaret Thatcher, with France’s François Mitterrand playing a supporting role. The former Soviet Union was looted, devastating both its economy and the life span of its population, with major hauls of loot diverted to British offshore banks. Now, regional genocidal wars and regime change coups were run against any governments not agreeing to the terms of the “New World Order.” Britain, as is its tradition, contributed some troops, but mostly dictated strategy and targets, while allowing use of its world-wide bases for this effort. The American military bore the brunt of battle. The Balkans, the Middle East, and large parts of Africa were set on fire. Millions of people died. American fighters came home both mentally and physically devastated. Thousands of war refugees flooded Europe.
President Trump has called those supporting this Order, “the globalists.” Lyndon LaRouche more precisely locates their disease as the “Anglo-Dutch liberal system” or the New British Empire. Their stink thoroughly permeates major institutions of government in the United States on both sides of the aisle. In the House of Lords Report, they brag about this. They cite their “dense and complex set of relationships across many parts of policy, society, and economic and individual life.” The special relationship, they say, is like an “iceberg” in which most activity takes place out of public view. That “iceberg,” centered in defense and intelligence relationships below the surface, they brag, has so far been able to subvert the declared agenda of the duly elected American President, Donald Trump.
According to the delusional and paranoid “narrative” presented in the House of Lords report, the world-wide economic collapse resulting from their austerity and bailout policies in 2008, absolutely did not cause the revolt of their population in the June 2016 vote to leave the European Union. The collapse simply increased “economic anxieties” among the commoners. The problem, the Lords say, is “people’s access to information, boosted by instant connectivity on an unprecedented scale and speed. Governments are responding to short-term demands of their citizens, who have been empowered by their access to information and opinion.” This is the imperial line first promulgated by Samuel Huntington, author of the genocidal tract “Clash of Civilizations” and inventor of the term “Davos man” to celebrate globalization. In his 1975 Crisis of Democracy Report for the Trilateral Commission, Huntington proclaimed that democracies only work when large swaths of the population are apathetic, citing the empowerment of African-Americans by the civil rights movement as a clear and present danger to political stability.
The Lords pontificate that, due to the disturbingly overbroad access to information, many in the “base,” or population, have come to believe in “conspiracy theories” rather than the official accounts of government actions. This meme is widespread now in the trans-Atlantic elites and has been a frequent line used by Barack Obama. Conspiracy theorists, according to them, include those who say the Government’s explanation of 9/11 does not cut it, that the U.S. intervention in Syria and Libya openly supported terrorists, that the Ukraine coup, run by the British and the U.S. State Department, had a major neo-Nazi component, that Russia is not genetically predisposed to evil (both Sir Richard Dearlove and James Clapper have claimed Russians have evil in their genes), and other truths about very real Anglo-American genocides and foreign conspiracies. These offensive truths, which the Lords and Obama label “conspiracy theories,” have been readily accessible until now in the free-for-all of cyberspace, outside the control of major corporate media.
The 2016 U.S. election and the Brexit vote represented wholesale political activation by the people the elites disdain, Trump’s forgotten men and women, using, ironically, the technology invented for social control purposes by Facebook and Twitter as major organizing tools. These were actual exercises of democracy. The Lords and the antics of their Integrity Initiative make it clear that they intend now to kill this activation. Censorship and counter propaganda or “cognitive infiltration,” as Barack Obama’s friend Cass Sunstein dubbed the required action, are now being massively deployed in the U.S., Britain, and throughout Europe.
Actual experimental studies of the impact of propaganda conducted throughout the years demonstrate that it works when populations have no alternatives to look at, and are reacting constantly to the media bombardment of the 24-hour news cycle. It fails almost immediately when people are introduced to an alternative, such as the publicity surrounding the rapid economic development China is now producing throughout the world, or are presented with the sudden and shocking realization that China is now exploring the far side of the Moon, specifically with the idea of using the Moon’s helium-3 to create fusion power. The wonderful thing about human nature is that the imagination and desire for new frontiers and adventures, if provoked, can and will destroy years of tedious work in planning and implementing any fixed social control system, and that, as if in an instant.
Present Imperial Policy
The Lords began reviewing British Foreign policy in January of 2018, ahead of the anticipated withdrawal of Britain from the European Union in 2019 as the result of Brexit. Delegations were sent to the United States to speak with members of Congress, think tanks, and government officials, convening an open discussion at the Atlantic Council, the flagship British think tank in the United States. Participants in that discussion at the Atlantic Council, funded by the British government and NATO, included a representative from the Center for New American Security (a German Marshall Fund knockoff currently run by Victoria Nuland, the case officer for the Ukraine coup and major actor in the British inspired coup against Trump), an analyst from the Financial Systemic Analysis and Resilience Center (an information and surveillance collaboration between the eight largest banks and the U.S. Cyber Command), Franklin Kramer of the Center for Naval Analysis and the Atlantic Council, along with several other Atlantic Council toadies. Clinton Secretary of State and National Endowment for Democracy honcho Madeline Albright also played a significant role.
The primary concern of the Lords is the “disrupter,” U.S. President Donald Trump. According to them, they found that the Special Relationship was intact and revered in the U.S. intelligence and defense establishments and especially on both sides of the aisle in Congress. They conclude that the relationship is strong enough to withstand whatever the President does within a one-term Presidency. But, if the President succeeds in getting a second term, all bets are off. Sir Richard Dearlove, whose Henry Jackson Society played a leading role in formulating the House of Lords report, has gone even further in more recent statements. Dearlove, the former head of MI6 and mentor to Christopher Steele, is telling confidants that nothing Donald Trump does need be taken too seriously since Trump will only be a one-term President.
The Lords cite Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change agreement, the Iran nuclear deal, and the UN Human Rights Council, as well as his actions in the Middle East, his attacks on NATO, his support of the nation state and corresponding attacks on globalist institutions, and the imposition of trade tariffs as major beefs. But, they claim, Trump has been unable to fully implement anything he wants to do as the result of his own Cabinet and the Congress. As a result, Trump has been and dragged “kicking and screaming” to “behave better,” backing away from key stances and supporting British policies. But, the Lords emphasize, their networks have to now fully mobilize those who agree with them to contain Trump both in the United States and internationally.
The next changed circumstance for British foreign policy is the “rise of China.” The Lords readily acknowledge that China’s economy is rapidly outpacing the productivity of any economy in the West and that the Belt and Road infrastructure initiative is the largest such project ever undertaken by mankind. True to British form, they have publicly embraced China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and they participate in the China-launched Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. But they do this in order to bend these initiatives to their financial and geopolitical advantage. About this, they are explicit: “We welcome the UK’s engagement with new international institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The UK should use its membership to shape the lending terms and governance of these bodies.” They harp on: “The UK should be a vocal champion of reform to international institutions. It should support reforms both to make these institutions more efficient, and to give a greater voice to emerging powers—particularly China and India—to build their support for the rules-based international order.”
In the meantime, of course, British oriented and supported institutions in the U.S., like the Hudson Institute, persistently incite the Trump Administration and the Congress about the inevitability of near-term war with China. They aim to completely destroy the vast potentials of U.S.–China collaboration, embodied now in Trump’s relationship to President Xi Jinping, which would, ineluctably, leave the British elites sucking history’s dust. It is no accident that Michael Pillsbury, Vice President Pence’s hawk on China, is a fully accredited fellow of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the font of all British imperial policy, and that the Smith-Richardson Foundation heavily funds both the Integrity Initiative and the Hudson Institute. The same Smith-Richardson Foundation funded most of the extant fake news and defamations concerning Lyndon LaRouche.
According to the Henry Jackson Society, in their submission to the House of Lords, the British should confront “revisionist” tendencies in the United States, Russia, and China, by several modifications of focus. Post-Brexit, Britain must preserve its role as the strategic hegemon in NATO, preventing Germany, France, or Russia from becoming a major power on the Eurasian continent. This geopolitical dictum about Eurasia, created by Halford Mackinder and Nicholas John Spykman and cited as such in the Jackson Society submission, has been imperial strategy for some centuries now and resulted in two world wars. Second, the Jackson Society says, Britain must retain its primacy in the Middle East, the cockpit for War which Britain has dominated ever since the Sykes-Picot agreement. With respect to Russia, the Lords and the Jackson Society recommend continuing to attack its alleged “malign” activities (such as the Salisbury Skripal poisoning discussed below) while maintaining limited areas of potential cooperation. Russia is uniformly described as a failing economic power, which can be contained so long as NATO is strengthened to British specifications, Russia itself is strategically marginalized and financially isolated, and the portrait of Putin as the world’s bogeyman (created for regime change purposes), is fully embraced by Western populations.
Finally, the Lords recommend that Britain revitalize its relationship with India, creating a keystone role for that nation in the Commonwealth, which is the British entity through which the Queen presides over one-third of the world’s population. The Lords now want to highlight and build their security relationship to India, in addition to current commercial and trade relationships. They note, in passing, the historical strategic tensions between China and India, tensions which they obviously intend to exploit.

• https://larouchepac.com/20190110/part-i-british-role-coup-against-president-now-exposed-will-you-act-now-save-nation