re posted from                            LAROUCHEPAC


By  ·  April 13, 2019

After more than two years of fueling expectations that special counsel Robert Mueller would produce evidence from the “Russiagate” investigation which would lead to the impeachment of President Trump, Democrats were stunned when the report was finally released last month.  The vindication of Trump took away what they foolishly believed to be their ticket to the White House in 2020, if not sooner. This left them with only two main issues: an anti-Russia, anti-China strategic policy, allying them with anti-Trump Republicans, in a repeat of Hillary Clinton’s pro-war stance, which was rejected by voters in 2016; and an anti-growth message tailored to fit the fraudulent claims of “man-made climate change,” an issue which continues to register little voter support, according to polling data.

While some, such as Committee chairs Schiff and Nadler, continue a fishing expedition against Trump, a group of Congressional Democrats concluded that a fight against climate change should be the lead for the 2020 campaign.  Led by insurgent freshmen centered around Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they rallied behind the adoption of a “Green New Deal” (GND), attempting to link a radical escalation against the physical economy of the U.S., by shutting down nuclear power plants and eliminating the use of fossil fuels, to the still resonant memories of Franklin Roosevelt’s anti-Depression New Deal.

In truth, it is not FDR who is their model.  Instead, the prescriptions of the “Green New Deal” may be found in the Malthusian agenda of Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, combined with the anti-American monetarism of John Maynard Keynes.

For this Democratic game-plan to succeed, they are relying on the acceptance of Fake Science by the American population, a phony narrative which reduces the factors which define the earth’s climate to the effects of human activity.  Further, following the lead of Green parties in Europe, and the anti-science “environmental” policies of governments there, such as those of Merkel in Germany and Macron in France, they would commit the United States to an austerity regime, including massive deindustrialization.  The idea that a transformation to “clean” energy, and “infrastructure” jobs derived from that would lead to economic justice, which Ocasio Cortez asserts, is an insane fantasy, which is derided by some members of her own party, as well as labor union officials, already reeling from the massive loss of manufacturing jobs since 2000.

By putting all their eggs in the GND basket, not only are these Democrats disgracing the FDR tradition, but they are adopting a policy which requires acceptance of an apocalyptic-style cult message, one insisting that if their policy – as ill-defined as it is – is not implemented immediately, the world will end in twelve years!

The Example of John F. Kennedy

If there are still Democrats serious about dealing with economic inequality and supporting a sound energy policy based on real science, it would serve them well to study a book published twenty-five years ago, “Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency.” (1.)  The author, Donald Gibson, drew many of the same conclusions from looking at the Kennedy presidency that Lyndon LaRouche reached, which are at the heart of LaRouche’s life-long battle to restore the American system, and which were inspired by FDR’s New Deal. Gibson easily dispenses with the mythology spawned by Kennedy’s enemies in the “eastern Establishment,” about him being a “Keynsian,” who had a mixed and often confusing approach to economic policy.  Instead, he provides compelling evidence that Kennedy (JFK) was a committed Hamiltonian, whose policies “were in spirit and even in detail thoroughly Hamiltonian.” Throughout his lamentably short presidency, JFK was engaged in restoring what Gibson identifies as Alexander Hamilton’s “one overriding goal – to develop the United States as a productive, manufacturing economy,” and to extend this system to the newly-independent former colonial nations in Africa and Asia. (2.)

With the U.S. slowly emerging from a serious recession, Kennedy entered the White House with the intention “to shift the U.S. away from the path it had taken during much of the twentieth century, that of becoming the successor to England and other colonial powers in the domination of weaker nations.” (3.)  To accomplish this, he “went against the prevailing economic doctrine with the definite purpose of increasing the nation’s productive powers,” with an emphasis on achieving scientific and technological breakthroughs. During the campaign, JFK promised “to expand the Nation’s investment in physical and human resources, and in science and technology.” (4.)

Gibson then details how this commitment by JFK provoked fierce opposition to him, coming from Wall Street bankers and law firms, and the media they controlled, but also within his administration.  The whole fourth chapter of his book details the role of those whom he identifies as the Eastern Establishment, which he correctly describes as U.S. financial firms tied to the Rockefellers and the Morgan interests, making clear the connection of these interests to Great Britain.  The Morgan banking house, for example, has links to the Royal family, Barings Bank, the Astors and others, and was basically a British institution operating on U.S. soil. Henry Luce, a Yale University Skull and Bonesman with close ties to the British and Dutch royal families, and multiple links to the Morgan interests, deployed his media empire against JFK’s policies, attacking him in Fortune magazine for his “dirigist” policies (that is, Hamiltonian credit policies, which favored production over speculation), while decrying his failure to push “economic freedom” (that is, the British free market/free trade model).

Most significant in this section is Gibson’s precise and detailed identification of the anti-JFK financial and media establishment with the British Empire.  For example, he writes of the role the British Royal Institute of International Affairs played in creating the New York Council on Foreign Relations, “as part of an effort to link England’s upper class and its foreign policy interests to those of the U.S.”  He adds that many in the eastern establishment hierarchy, “most emphatically those in and around Morgan interests, were – and still are – involved in a special relationship with the British establishment.” (5.)

Unable to prevent JFK from unleashing waves of scientific and cultural optimism through his program, both within the United States and worldwide, it is highly probable that his assassins were deployed by the Murder, Inc. run by British intelligence, which had killed American presidents before.

Green New Deal = British Genocide

The most fascinating section of this book, and most relevant for dissecting the origin of today’s GND, is his chapter on Long-Term Changes, in which he focuses on the relationship between those Anglo-American interests which opposed JFK’s anti-colonial, American system economic policies, and the launching of the Malthusian population control movement following his assassination.  The sponsors of this pro-genocide movement came from the same financial institutions and think tanks which opposed Kennedy’s successful pro-growth economic policies. The familiar names are all there: the Rockefellers, their associates, such as John J. McCloy, Morgan bankers, their funds and organizations, such as the Population Council, the 1965 Population Crisis Committee and the Aspen Institute, all of which promoted the hoax of an overpopulated world squabbling over scarce raw materials.

The networks identified by Gibson are the same as those operating today, pitching the same lies which underlie the GND.  For example, the 1972 study “Limits to Growth,” commissioned by the oligarchical Club of Rome, used computer simulations – which have all proven to be wrong – to reach the conclusion, “The world has cancer and the cancer is man.”  Along with Paul Ehrlich’s earlier “Population Bomb,” these now-disproven “studies” were used to frighten college students to accept the idea that scientific and technological progress were evil. An attack on Kennedy for his anti-colonial, pro-development foreign policy as one which “fed the universal lust for industrialization and growth” was echoed by former President Obama, who told young people in Kenya that their desire for an American-style standard of living is unattainable, as it would cause the planet to boil over!  It is in this spirit that Ocasio Cortez and her allies suggest, without recognizing the logical absurdity in this, that the human race should stop procreating in order to survive!

In his critique of those who fall for the lies of the phony environmentalists, Gibson writes that the revival of Malthusianism “takes what might be reasonable concerns over issues such as air and water quality and embeds them in an ideology deeply hostile to economic progress.” (6.)  Those who fall for those lies then become the cheerleaders for the anti-science policies which result in an escalating increase in the death rate, blaming that increase on overpopulation.

The portrait of JFK which emerges in Gibson’s book is that of a staunch anti-Malthusian, who believed that advances in science and technology, applied to the physical economy, are the keys to the future.  Directly refuting Malthus, JFK said, in a speech delivered to the National Academy of Sciences exactly one month before his assassination, “Malthus argued…that man, by using up all his available resources, would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty.  We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature. The truth or falsity of his prediction will depend now, with the tools we have, on our own actions, now and in the years to come.”

Kennedy had an optimistic assessment about the future of nuclear power, which he expressed when visiting the Hanford, Washington nuclear site in September 1963.  In attacking the idea of scarce resources, he said that through scientific and technological progress, as in the use of nuclear power, and new technologies to develop new kinds of coal and oil from shale, “we put science to work in improving our environment and making this country a better place in which to live.”  This optimism was also expressed in a 1961 message to Congress: “The history of our economy has been one of rising productivity, based on improvement in skills, advances in technology, and a growing supply of more efficient tools and equipment. This rise has been reflected in rising wages and standard of living for our workers, as well as a healthy rate of growth for the economy as a whole.”

The JFK presented by Professor Gibson would be completely comfortable with the advanced scientific and economic views of Lyndon LaRouche, as expressed in his explication of his anti-Malthusian conception of Potential Relative Population Density, and in his use of the concept of energy flux density, which explains how the rising productivity he desired can be achieved.  As LaRouche repeatedly emphasized, the enemy of progress since the time of the American Revolution has been the British Empire. As a fellow veteran of World War II, who had been profoundly influenced by President Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy shared with LaRouche a contempt for the methods by which that Empire maintained its control, at the expense of not only its colonial subjects, but its own population.  Gibson points out that Kennedy said his own opposition to colonialism came from his identification with “Ireland’s long subjugation to England.” (7.)

It is this American outlook, shared by JFK and LaRouche, and not the pessimistic submission to false theories promoted by oligarchic financiers, desperately trying to prop up their collapsing empire, which provides a basis for bipartisan cooperation today.  It is one of the great ironies of present history that President Trump, who has espoused support for the American system, is moving in the tradition of JFK, through his rejection of the climate cult theories, as well as his embrace of a new Moon-Mars mission, while his Democratic opponents are being led around by the nose by the historic enemies of the nation.


1.) BATTLING WALL STREET: THE KENNEDY PRESIDENCY, by Donald Gibson (New York, Sheridan Square Press, 1994).

2.) Gibson, p. 103-4.

3.) Gibson, p. 42.

4.) Gibson, p. 6.

5.) Gibson, pp. 73-6.

6.) Gibson, p. 87.

7.) Gibson, p. 39

Source: Harley Schlanger/ LaRouchepac

Leave a Reply