June 23, 2020 in News by RBN Staff

Source:  harley.larouchepac

By all that is reasonable, events which began with former special counsel Robert Mueller’s much-hyped-but-frightfully-disappointing testimony before Congress on July 24, 2019, should have put an inglorious end to the regime change coup against President Donald Trump, which was launched nearly a year before his election.  Mueller’s halting presentation and his confused demeanor, which made him appear clueless about what he had investigated, combined with the lack of actual evidence to prove a case against either Trump or Russia, demonstrated that Russiagate had, in fact, been from the start a big “Nothing-burger.”

The acquittal in the Senate on February 5, 2020, of Trump over the fraudulent case of Ukrainegate, brought by desperate Democrats following the fizzling out of Russiagate, demonstrated that the attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election by impeachment lacked the popular support needed for the removal of a president, whose fate instead should be left to the voters in November 2020.

But those committed to ousting Trump are not only still pushing ahead, but are threatening the future of the U.S. as a constitutional republic, in their zealous campaign. The kind of intelligence warfare and psychological operations underway represent an escalation of their efforts. However, when put together as a whole picture, the present actions lays bare their original intent, that this was never about illegal interference by Russia, or impeachable actions by Trump. His entire presidency has been sabotaged by a futile defense of a world order undergoing a systemic collapse, an order which Trump pledged to overturn during his campaign.

A review of the ongoing escalation, who is behind it and why, makes this unmistakably clear. The attempt to use the spread of the Coronavirus pandemic as a cover for an unprecedented bailout of an increasingly bankrupt casino economy, has been employed as an opening for the globalist forces arrayed against Trump to escalate their attacks on China, and its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which they see as an existential threat to their collapsing system. They blame China for the spread of the disease, instead of acknowledging that the austerity measures against public health they implemented, through previous administrations, left the U.S. and many European nations unprepared for the pandemic.

As the economic and financial misery spread in the U.S. following the pandemic lockdown, the angry, yet originally peaceful protests over the murder of George Floyd, were turned violent by the deployment of provocateurs, of Antifa and other left-right countergangs, which in many cases are funded by the same financial networks, such as George Soros and the Ford Foundation, which are behind the coup against Trump. As they burned down cities and confronted police, the reaction by Trump to their lawless actions was used to revive charges that Trump is a racist, an authoritarian, even a Nazi, further polarizing a nation at a moment of explosive discontent.


The first explicit threat against Trump was an article in the London Spectator on January 21, 2017—the day after his inauguration—which stated that the question posed by presidency was whether he would be “assassinated, ousted in a coup, or just impeached.” A sample of recent direct attacks on Trump, which continue the theme of that article, include:

1. An article by MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal, in the Nation magazine, June 2, which contains an explicit threat. Mystal writes of Trump, “He won’t just leave. He won’t leave unless the men with guns—the armed agents of the federal government—make him leave…. Trump is beyond the rule of law now…. The only way to stop a brutish demagogue like Trump, the only way men like that have ever been stopped, is by people who are willing to lay down their lives to do so.”

2. An endorsement of Trump’s likely opponent, Joe Biden, by the discredited former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who charged that Trump “lies all the time”, and has “drifted away from the U.S. Constitution.” This is the height of hypocrisy, coming from one who now admits he lied when he presented to the U.N. General Assembly on February 5, 2003 the fabricated British dossier on Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, paving the way for the invasion of Iraq. Powell was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1993, in “recognition of his contributions to British-U.S. relations and his role in the first Gulf War.” Powell’s statement coincided with a letter published in the Washington Post on June 6 from 89 former Secretaries of Defense and other Defense Department officials, including such luminaries, war-mongers, and liars as Leon Panetta, Ash Carter, Elliot A. Cohen, James Clapper, and Michael Hayden. They write that President Trump has “betrayed his oath of office” by threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy U.S. military forces to stop the wanton looting and arson taking place in cities across the country, under cover of the mass demonstrations sparked by the murder of George Floyd by a racist cop. The letter invoked the names of the current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley in support of their complaint. They do not mention that past presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act to deal with public disorder.

3. An article in the mouthpiece of the British Empire, The Economist on June 7, entitled “No Longer His Generals: America’s Top Brass Break with Donald Trump,” which gleefully claims there is “unease and alarm up and down the chain of command” in the military. It includes a link to an article published in the Economist on November 9, 2017, which complains that “Donald Trump’s Generals Cannot Control him,” which focused on the fear that Trump will break with the geopolitical doctrine of unilateralism, in pursuit of cooperative relations with Russia and President Putin.

4. An open call for a “Color Revolution” in the June 6 issue of The Atlantic, which acknowledges that the current chaos in the U.S. is a replay of the February 2014 coup against Ukraine, run by the same Obama administration intelligence and U.S. press running the coup against Trump today. The author, Franklin Foer, credits Gene Sharp, the author of the strategy of color revolutions, citing his handbook, “From Dictatorship to Democracy,” which is a how-to guide for toppling governments. Foer writes, “It is astonishing how events in the U.S., despite all the obvious imperfections of the analogy, have traced the early phases of this history. This is observable in the images of the crowds on successive nights, as Trump’s violent suppression of the protests in Lafayette Square has only caused their ranks to swell. And its possible to see how elites, in the course of just a few days, have begun to withhold cooperation….”

5. A similar piece in the German magazine, Der Spiegel, which is an outpost of British propaganda. The piece says that “The current chaos on the streets of America isn’t just the product of the country’s economic and societal tensions. The president himself has repeatedly exacerbated those conflicts with his rhetoric. Trump, it seems, needs the chaos. He feeds off it…. He harbors deep admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and once voiced his support for the violent crushing of the pro-democracy protests on Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, saying it was a sign of strength.” It ends with a familiar line, that if Trump loses in November, he won’t accept the defeat, and the “Secret Service would have to escort him” out of the White House.

6. Then there is this from the Royal Institute of International Affairs—Chatham House—written by the director of the Queen Elizabeth II Academy for Leadership in International Affairs, Leslie Vinjamuri, titled “President’s Tactics Pose Grave Leadership Threats to America’s Democracy.” Vinjamuri concludes, in lockstep with the above examples, that “race and pandemic issues”, and the collapsing economy, will sink Trump in the election, thus preserving the “Special Relationship.”


Given that Trump’s most vociferous opponents are defenders of the British Empire, and its lackeys among U.S. war hawks from the two previous administrations, it is no surprise that defenders of the Special Relationship are leading the charge for geopolitical confrontation with both Russia and China. Taking the point on this are two past chiefs of the U.K. foreign intelligence agency MI6, John Sawers and one of his predecessors, Sir Richard Dearlove.

Speaking at Cambridge University’s Center for Geopolitics, Sawers stated,

“There is no doubt President Trump is the most difficult President for us to deal with. He does not really feel that sense of being part of that trans-Atlantic community; he does not really believe in alliances. He does not really believe in American leadership in the world. We are seeing in this pandemic for the first time what a crisis is like without American leadership. It is the first time in our lifetime we have experienced that.”

He then gets to the punchline, the threat to the Special Relationship, under which U.S. central banking is tied to the City of London, and U.S. military force is deployed globally to protect the tottering empire: “If he gets elected for a second time, some of the changes we have seen in the past few years will become embedded and entrenched and then, absolutely Britain will not be so much a bridge between the U.S. and Europe. We will need to be bounding closely together with our European partners.”

Sawers has also expounded on the danger posed by a rising China, a theme often evoked by Dearlove. On a June 3 podcast of the Daily Telegraph, “Planet Normal,” Dearlove stated that the Coronavirus pandemic “started as an accident” when it escaped a lab in China, and its spread means that China must be charged reparations by every nation which has suffered because of it. Typical of the quality of the “intelligence” work of Sir Richard—for example, his dossier on Iraq’s WMDs and his vouching for the Steele dossier used to launch Russiagate—one of the authors of the study he cites has withdrawn his name, and no scientific journal will publish it.

Two other statements deserve mention in looking at the intent of those moving against Trump. Ian Brzezinski, son of the geopolitician Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose “Arc of Crisis” doctrine initiated the process of U.S. involvement in “endless wars” in Southwest Asia, wrote in the Atlantic Council’s journal a plan to turn the Trans-Atlantic NATO Alliance into a Trans-Pacific one, shifting the target from Cold War Russia to a new Cold War against China. Under the title, “NATO’s role in a transatlantic strategy on China,” he argues that China has become the leading threat to the world order. He proposes a five-point plan, which demonstrates the intent. First, “the Alliance should offer to establish a NATO-China Council.” Second, NATO “should deepen its engagement with its Pacific partners,” in a move toward integrating the new partners into an Indo-Pacific “Alliance Command Structure,” designed to counter the threat of Chinese “imperial interests.” Note that this is directly at odds with President Trump’s view of NATO, as he has repeatedly questioned whether NATO has outlived its purpose.

The same Atlantic Council which ran Brzezinki’s piece, and has been involved in Russiagate operations against Trump, sponsored a conference on June 8, which was keynoted by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who spoke of his “NATO 2030” Vision. He called for NATO to adopt a “global vision”, to include Australia, New Zealand (partners in the U.K.-U.S. Five Eyes network), Japan and South Korea. Such an expanded alliance is necessary to deal with what he called a more intransigent Russia, ISIS and other terror groups, and the power of a “rising China.” Warning of the “temptation of national solutions,” he said that to live up to “our values: freedom, democracy and the rule of law,” we must “stay strong militarily, be more united politically and take a broader approach globally.”

As all of the above examples demonstrate, the defense of “our values” is not a reference to the principles embedded in the U.S. Constitution, but continuing a military defense of the predatory looting policies which have deindustrialized western nations, and impoverished developing sector nations. The language of escalation against China is designed to force Trump to drop his intention of achieving peaceful cooperation with that nation, and instead adopt a policy of military containment, or be removed from office.

And that is the real intent of this present escalation, to end the threat posed by President Trump, with support from an insurgent U.S. population, as well as from angry citizens of virtually every nation, to their bankrupt system.