What has caused an obscure French-based publication, Intelligence Online, to suddenly not only attack the Schiller Institute, but also to call for the U.S. Department of Justice to “shut Schiller up,” and down? (See item below.) Was it something Schiller said? Not exactly, but close.
The Schiller Institute’s Sept. 3 publication of Ambassador Jack Matlock’s truthful assessment of the absurdity of current United States foreign and (self-defeating) military policy toward Russia, China and Southwest Asia—which, as of March of this year, includes a commitment to a three-front nuclear war against Russia, China and North Korea—is now being picked up by other news outlets. This has caused a small earthquake among the once-competent “elites” of the trans-Atlantic, who, unlike the “children of Madeleine Albright”—Antony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power et al.,—know that what Jack Matlock has said, is true. Matlock was President Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, and a true witness to, participant in and shaper of our current history, a different breed than today’s “junior varsity” at the State Department.
“It seems to me that it is extremely dangerous to attempt what is, in effect, an undeclared war against a nuclear armed power, which perceives, rightly or wrongly, that its sovereignty and even its political existence are being threatened,” Sputnik reported Matlock saying from his Sept. 3 interview. Matlock remarked days later, at the Sept. 6 meeting of the International Peace Coalition, that “I think what we need to understand is that the expansion of NATO, and particularly the bases—and in this case, it was the bases that were planned in Poland and Romania for anti-ballistic missiles. It turned out that, although these were defensive weapons, they could easily be converted to offensive weapons. So, it was understandable that the Russian leader (Putin) would be quite opposed. And yet, we went ahead, and after progressively withdrawing from virtually every arms control agreement that we had negotiated in the 1980s and early ‘90s, we began to try to influence the Ukrainian government and offer NATO membership. So I think that this was a complete reversal of the diplomacy we used in the Cold War.…”
His Satanic Majesty’s NATO was, however, not pleased, either by Matlock’s candor, or his timing. After all, his remarks come just before the newly-selected British Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party will arrive in the United States. He is coming here in part to certify that Joe “Being There” Biden, through a July 29 letter sent to Congress, makes sure that American nuclear weapons capabilities become fully accessible, through an alteration in the British-U.S. Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958, to de facto deployment by “British brains.” Neither any future President, nor the Congress, in blatant violation of the United States Constitution, will be able to challenge this arrangement. Some call this the “special relationship.” Others tell the truth, and call it treason against the United States Constitution.
In London yesterday, Tony Blinken, speaking together with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy said, “We talk about the special relationship. I like to call it essential—essential for our nations, essential for our people, essential for people well beyond our shores.” Like the Babylonian priesthood’s supervisory “advisory” role to the Persian military state, it is in the City of London and Wall Street, that decisions are now being centralized. Washington, D.C. and its Presidency are becoming merely a pass-through. Will thermonuclear war, either through miscalculation or design, be the result?
What, however, if the whole chessboard is simply turned over? What if voices of reason, like that of Jack Matlock, or Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity co-founder Ray McGovern, or Col. Larry Wilkerson of the Eisenhower Media Network, are successfully amplified and heard in the United States, echoed by similar voices in Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and many other nations? That is the process that is now happening through the International Peace Coalition. It is the precondition for real Socratic dialogue about a new security and development architecture.
This is sorely needed, because the present diplomatic situation is at an impasse. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made clear yesterday that, in his view, “Once again, the problem is not about territories but people’s rights, which have been flouted—and all of the political initiatives floating around fail to mention them.”
It is Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the Schiller Institute’s proposed Ten Principles for a New International Strategic and Development Architecture that do, in fact, take the interests of all into account. The possibility that the Institute’s proposal might successfully catalyze a “Council of Reason” among trans-Atlantic nations, that would overthrow the “mad dogs and Englishmen” that are provoking nuclear war, has spooked the NATO thought-police. They have released, through the outfit called Intelligence Online, a story, “United States Washington-based non-profit continues spreading Kremlin message,” which begins, “The Schiller Institute has continued to cooperate with Russian media outlets, even while the U.S. cracks down on foreign influence.” While this is the same tactic used in the 1982 activation of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) against economist, statesman and Schiller Institute co-founder Lyndon LaRouche, there is a difference.
Now, in 2024, forty-two years later, this “dirty trick” is doomed to fail—like the attempts to dismember Russia, or contain China, or exterminate the Palestinians. Then, BRICS-Plus did not exist, the Belt and Road Initiative of China did not exist, the advanced space programs of India, China, even the U.A.E., did not exist. The growing wave of government-based censorship of journalists is a vain attempt to produce a chilling effect against a volcano of discontent, discontent which grows with every attempt to diminish its voice and power. Tulsi Gabbard, once the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, is placed (in her own words) “on a secret terror watch list…. Now the government calls me a terror threat.” Is that an awesome expression of power—or of weakness?
In a supersaturated environment, a single molecule, a “weak force,” can incite crystallization, the sudden appearance of well-defined, ordered structure, “as if from nowhere.” In that same way, an idea, based on a principle, dismissed as “impractical” only months before, can become the dominant intellectual currency in a time of crisis. That idea, representing a deeper, unseen, higher, “poetic” principle, can take the form of an effective policy, embraced by much, even all of humanity, such that imperfect people and leaders, “even whilst they deny and abjure, are yet compelled to serve, that power which is seated on the throne of their own soul.” That is why, despite all of our flaws and imperfections, Percy Shelley’s often-cited observation that “poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world” tells us by what method we, and humanity, can hope to prevail. It is by the light of that truth, spoken by Ambassador Matlock and others, that the false authority presently wielded by the vampires of total and perpetual war is evaporated, as a vampire self-destructs in sunlight.
