June 9, 2025 (EIRNS)—There is an increasing realization—sometimes happily excited, sometimes perplexed, even chagrined—among a growing number of researchers, former international government analysts, professional writers and political advisors, that American thinker and physical economist Lyndon LaRouche was “right about the British.” What is meant by that phrase—“LaRouche was right about the British”—has, in the past two weeks, and particularly since the May 24-25 international conference of the Schiller Institute, “A Beautiful Vision for Humanity in Times of Great Turbulence!” come more clearly into view.
Since last week’s “September 11-like” attack, Sunday, June 1, on Russia’s air wing of its nuclear triad, and civilian bridges and rail systems—not by “Ukraine,” but by what one might better refer to, as a “NATO Allgemeine SS” capability—it has become positively urgent to know what is meant by “being right about the British.” If U.S. President Donald Trump speaks truthfully, that he was not “in the loop” on the June 1 attacks, then who was? If the insane plan for this attack, as some claim, was hatched 18 months ago, who hatched it? What was the significance of the Ukraine visits and activities of Senators Lindsey Graham and Richard Blumenthal, as well as former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, clearly not in favor of the Administration’s ongoing discussions with Russia, in the days before the June 1 actions? Were any of them made aware by Ukrainian or other parties of something that was not conveyed to the U.S. President?
Journalist Max Blumenthal and analyst Alex Krainer each had their own words about the British. Blumenthal joked that “The Five Eyes have rendered Trump blind.” Alex Krainer described the present British policy in Russia as the latest iteration of their decades-long intent, going back to the May 1945 “Operation Unthinkable” plan to nuke the Soviet Union with American-made bombs, to “impose the will of the United States and the British Empire,” in the plan’s actual words.
An unexpected surprise came from Pepe Escobar yesterday, in his interview with “Dialogue Works with Nima Alkhorshid”: “I was on the phone for almost an hour with our friend Alastair Crooke … and his main point is he’s also very fearful that Trump was not in the loop…. But this is immensely dangerous, because if this is the case, and the Russians need to know—more or less—they have to find the culprits. And this is going to be very, very hard because it will be diffused among silos of the CIA, silos of MI6. Who was running this project inside the CIA or connected to the CIA, and then inside MI6 or connected to MI6, and making the connections with the gangsters in Kiev? So I think this is more or less what I can give you, Nima, and our audience, on the gravity of the situation.”
Question: Is there a multi-agency, terroristic, trans-national “assassination bureau,” operating in the vicinity of the City of London, presently deployed, not only for war, but also for the assassinations of both Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, in the short term, and others, if possible and necessary? Are the “NATO 9/11 Boys” back in town? In such a situation, one must both be responsible and unafraid to raise the question: The only mistake worse than rushing to mistaken judgment on any such questions, is to not ask them at all.
Competent intelligence analysts should at this moment view any and all Presidential or Presidential candidate “lethal” events that may occur, such as yesterday’s attempted assassination in Colombia of the pPresidential contender Senator Miguel Uribe Turbay, who remains in critical condition, not as strictly internal to that particular country, or even region of the world. Rather, view each and any series of such events, from the standpoint of “non-linear” destabilization potentials that can be “set off” to contribute to global objectives sought by the assassins. Columbia’s President Gustavo Petro, for example, May 14, less than a month ago, joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative, signing a memorandum of understanding on a visit to Beijing, to the great displeasure of the American Department of State.
Consider: It is not merely the three leaders,—Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and the President of the United States—as individuals, that are being targeted. It is not the three Presidential systems that they each represent, or even the policy interaction of those systems. It is the unique possibilities that could result from the deliberative process in which these three leaders, physically placed in a room together, at some time in the very near future, not for a few hours, but days, could engage, that could change the world. It is, more importantly, the response of the rest of the world’s leaders, particularly in the Global South, to the mere fact of that meeting occurring, which could not be contained by colonialism. The hope that would spontaneously occur, would itself transform the world.
The LaRouche Oasis program, and policies contained in the several World Land-Bridge reports issued over the past decade and a half, are “the physical economy of hope.” The Ten Principles for a New Security and Development Architecture of Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and the sessions of the just-concluded Schiller Institute conference, are the embodiment of the same deliberative process that must occur among the world’s leaders. We may not lead nations, but we in one sense, can do exactly that, by acting to spread that physical economy of hope, to Gaza, and to the World. Good Ideas, rather than war, must change the world.
