This is a 1995 LaRouchian tract (with commentary by myself in brackets) that apparently was written to encourage the Mexican military and the PRI, Mexico's quasi-authoritarian ruling party at the time, to launch a bloodbath in Chiapas. The authors, Dennis and Gretchen Small--whose work appeared in LaRouche's Resumen Ejecutivo, a magazine widely circulated in Latin America, as well as in the U.S. published Executive Intelligence Review--cite a book on how to crush leftists by Friedrich von der Heydte (a Nazi war-hero friend of LaRouche's who fought on the Eastern Front in World War Two). They also complain about how the alleged U.S./British puppet governments of Argentina, Mexico, etc. are "purging from their ranks, and those of their armed forces, any officer or civilian who sees the danger and wishes to fight."
The Smalls depict the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Chiapas--a lightly armed non-communist group that during the years since 1995 has mostly used its forces to guard indigenous peoples against government-backed "paramilitaries"--as a giant threat that is being protected by an international network of "feminists, environmentalists, gays, indigenists, human rights activists" and, of course, the "liberal media." If it weren't for these groups, backed by London and Washington, "the Mexican government and military could have wiped out the EZLN long ago. The same hold true for every country of Ibero-America." Hmmm…wipe 'em all out? Just how many tens of thousands of lives were you talking about, Mr. and Mrs. Small?"--DK
You will read in the following pages, detailed reports of the murder, brutality, kidnapping, bombings, and terror, which have become daily life for many in the Americas. Study the profiles of the narco-terrorist forces which are the instruments of this destruction. See in the maps how much territory is now controlled, not by governments, but by the drug cartels and their terrorist partners. Note especially the total geographic overlap between the terrorist areas, and where drugs are grown. See how dramatically, in the case of Colombia, that destruction has advanced in little over a decade. Read how in Peru, where the government and military had succeeded in restoring peace by crushing the bloody Shining Path insurgency, British-run anthropologists and Fidel Castro's assets are working overtime to create a new narco-terrorist force, based on the area's coca-growers, to again sink that country in war.
[Didn't happen; only remnants of the guerrillas now are active. And the LaRouchians have never presented any real evidence that anthropologists had anything to do with the guerrillas or Castro. (Instead we have illogical cult-deductions: Anthropologists have expressed concern about indigenous rights; guerrillas claim to be for indigenous rights; guerrillas have an ideology that in some respects is close to that of Castro; anthropologists think empirically like certain British philosophers...therefore the British and Castro are in cahoots.) Meanwhile, the LaRouchians' old friend Alan Garcia was elected as President of Peru again in 2006, after years in the political wilderness. Hmmm...the world's second largest producer of coca leaf in the hands of a man idolized in LaRouche publications? If I accepted LaRouche's methods of deduction, I could make hay with that.--DK]
Work through this material, and judge for yourself how close to disintegration many of the nations of this hemisphere now stand. Consider how rapidly it has begun to spread into the United States itself.
[Neither the U.S. nor any of the Latin American nations have even come close to disintegrating in the 13 years since this prediction was made.]
The picture that comes into focus, perhaps slowly at first, is that this is a continent at war—irregular war. We use that term in the sense defined by Prof. Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, in his classic study, Modern Irregular Warfare: "Irregular warfare consists of individual acts," he explained in an interview prefacing the 1986 edition of his book. "These individual acts are linked to each other in the larger framework. But anyone who wants to wage irregular war will have to hide this larger framework. It is characteristic of modern irregular war, that the one who wages it disguises himself."
[The late Baron von der Heydte joined the Wehrmacht in 1934, shortly after Hitler came to power. Awarded two Iron Crosses and a Knight's Cross during World War Two, he was captured by the Allies in 1944 and was held as a prisoner of war in England until 1948 (I wonder why...). In the 1980s he became involved with the LaRouche organization, which published an English translation (1986) of his 1972 treatise on how to fight guerrillas, terrorists and student radicals (read it here). In an interview published in the LaRouchian edition, he urged changes to West Germany's Emergency Law, stating, "Neither regular criminal law, nor the Hague Convention on Land-War, nor the Geneva Conventions are appropriate to irregular war."]
Compare the reality we present in the pages that follow, to what you have read in your newspapers, or heard reported on what passes for television news anywhere in the world today. Have you not been told that "democracy" is sweeping the Americas, that terrorists are laying down their guns to join "civil society," and that only the military remains as an obstacle to peaceful coexistence?
[In fact, democracy HAS swept Latin American and most of the guerrillas HAVE lain down their guns everywhere except Colombia, where they're bottled up in the same mountainous area they've infested for decades with little support elsewhere in the country.]
More frightening still, consider the fact that many U.S. national security officials are retailing the same delusional reports as you hear in the press, in their briefings to the U.S. Congress and the Executive. The governments of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and so on, repeat the same lies, and are even purging from their ranks, and those of their armed forces, any officer or civilian who sees the danger and wishes to fight.
[Meaning, it's coup d'etat time, folks...but no coups actually took place. Read here a recent example of how the people of a relatively democratic Colombia (the only country on the above list with an ongoing guerrilla problem) are rejecting the FARC rebels without the help of a dictatorship, death squads...or Lyndon LaRouche.]
Those government officials and advisers have available to them, the same essential array of facts which you are about to read—some with more detail, some less. Why, then, is policy based on such patent unreality?
Presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. addresses precisely that question, in a major campaign statement, The Blunder in U.S. National Security Policy, released on Oct. 11. LaRouche's policy paper, issued in the form of a rebuttal of the U.S. Department of Defense's September 1995 report, United States Security Strategy for the Americas, exposes the absurdity of the claim that democracy and economic well-being are spreading across the Americas, and that the danger of terrorism is receding.
[See? LaRouche was spreading this drivel under his own name--he can't blame it on the alleged synarchist fascism of his former top aide Fernando Quijano.]
LaRouche explains that it is the underlying historical and philosophical axioms which are at fault, axioms permeating the thinking of not only official Washington, but of you, the citizen, as well. These axioms have blinded many to the stark reality: that the world financial system is at the edge of disintegration;[another wrong prediction--DK] and that its masters, the London-centered financial oligarchy, seek to retain political control at all costs. It is they who have deployed narco-terrorist, irregular warfare, to annihilate the nation-state as the only institution capable of mobilizing a sane alternative to their policies.
[Is the oligarchy operating on Mars, as in Howard Chaitkin's LaRouche-spoofing American Flagg comic books? Because on Planet Earth not a single nation state has disappeared since 1995.]
"Will the oligarchy outlive the obliteration of its own present, worldwide monetary and financial system?" LaRouche wrote recently. "The oligarchy is at the extremes of hysteria, in its determination to destroy existing nation-states, especially the United States of America, before the point is reached that such recovery measures might be forced onto the table for immediate action.
[More scare-mongering; none of this has happened.]
"That hysteria is key to the way in which London-centered forces are pushing for Quebec separatism now: to use that as the first of a series of chain-reaction developments intended to bring about the weakening and de-centralizing, and early dissolution of the U.S.A.—among other existing nation-states."
[Again, never happened. The Grits are back in power in Quebec, and the United States are still united and still engaging in their usual family squabbles.]
The above quote is taken from LaRouche's introductory article to the Oct. 13 EIR Special Report, "New Terror International Targets South Asia." That study was the first of a three-part EIR series on narco-terrorism, the second installment of which we present below.
Here, our story centers on the São Paulo Forum, created by Fidel Castro in 1990 as a unified narco-terrorist apparatus throughout the region. Castro's own goal in this is straightforward: He has privately told leaders of the SPF that the only way his regime can survive, after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, is if allied forces seize control of at least one of the major countries of Ibero-America. Brazil is thought to be his preferred target.
His own delusions of grandeur aside, Castro is still what he always was, even while tied to the Soviet regime: an instrument of destruction utilized as a useful pawn by British intelligence. Castro and his SPF are the stick of dynamite in the British hand.
[This is clearly a case of the kettle calling the pot black, and not just in relation to delusions of grandeur: LaRouche had in mind tossing his own "stick of dynamite." Remember the "debt bomb" strategy? And his urging of Brazil to build nuclear weapons in anticipation of the Ibero-American nations merging into a Bolivarian superpower that would crush the "British"?]
British control over the São Paulo Forum occurs on a number of levels. On the most obvious level, there are numerous cases of overt involvement with and support for different narco-terrorist groupings.
Venezuela's Lt. Col. Hugo Chávez (ret.) was wined and dined by British Embassy officials and even invited to visit London (the trip was stopped only when the Venezuelan government protested vehemently). Chávez's MBR-200 is a member of the São Paulo Forum. [Earlier the LaRouchians had supported Chavez, and today they support him again--make up your mind, Lyndon!]
Brazil's Luís Inacio "Lula" da Silva did visit London during his 1994 unsuccessful Presidential bid, and was well received by the heads of British banking and business. The Financial Times later called Lula's Workers Party (PT) the "only new blood in Congress," capable of forcing through the economic reforms London is demanding of Brazil. The PT is a founding member of the SPF. [For the absurdity of LaRouche's charges against Lula, read here.]
The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico, and their existentialist, hooded sub-Commander Marcos, have been repeatedly promoted by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the British Hollinger Corporation's hitman, who has also headed up London's campaign to topple the Clinton presidency. The EZLN was recently welcomed into the SPF. [After 18 years there is still no evidence that the EZLN or its alleged Jesuit allies are involved in any narcotics trafficking. According to several media and human rights reports, the use, sale, production and transporting of illegal drugs is banned in the autonomous municipalities in Chiapas. If the LaRouchians have any factual evidence to the contrary, why haven't they presented it?]
The support for the SPF by the Washington-based Inter-American Dialogue, the primary channel of British policy into U.S. policymaking toward Ibero-America, is so extensive that we have included a full article on this subject below. The Bush administration's Ibero-American policy, for example, was totally shaped by the Dialogue, and consisted of outright support for drug-running operations such as Ollie North's Nicaraguan Contras.
On the second, more decisive level, Britain created and runs the international support apparatus which is the true political muscle behind the continent's narco-terrorist insurgencies. In the case of Mexico's Zapatistas, for example, there are hundreds if not thousands of national and international non-governmental organizations—feminists, environmentalists, gays, indigenists, human rights activists, and so on—which, along with the liberal news media, are permanently mobilized to defend and strengthen the hand of the EZLN. In fact, it is safe to say that, were it not for the influence of this "Internet International," and their allies in official London and Washington, D.C., the Mexican government and military could have wiped out the EZLN long ago. The same holds true for every country of Ibero-America—as the success of Peru's Fujimori government against Shining Path proves.
[Wipe them out? In every country? How? why? What level of violence would LaRouche--the instigator of this mind-set--regard as acceptable? Does he have a ceiling on the number of deaths? And note how he tries to scare his reader by evoking the Shining Path--a special case of a crazed political cult (LaRouchians with Maoist rhetoric and lots of assault rifles). Other guerrilla groups in Latin America were not so irrational, and most of them had already agreed to peace terms and/or accepted amnesties by 1995. And by the way, the EZLN, unlike the Shining Path, never engaged in offensive military operations after its initial uprising in January 1994.]
But the third level of British control is the most important, and most insidious, since few even recognize that it exists. London has historically controlled the ideology guiding the narco-terrorist armies and their witting and unwitting supporters. It is the philosophical premises of indigenism and ethnicity that are at fault, with their evil idea that man is defined by his race and his bloodline, rather than his universal capacity to reason...
[So why do LaRouchian publications keep using buzz words like "zoo," "cannibal," and "subspecies" in discussing indigeous people? And why has LaRouche never repudiated his famous statement from The Case of Walter Lippmann (read it here) about the "miserable, relatively bestial culture of indigenous Americans"?]
...It is the Malthusian underpinnings of environmentalism that are criminal, and which lead to insisting that the earth only has a limited "carrying capacity," and that populations over that level have to be eliminated.
As LaRouche argues, it is the axioms underlying such belief structures that lead populations to their destruction, and it is that which must be identified and combatted wherever they appear—whether among the coca growers of Bolivia, in the congress of Colombia, or among the permanent bureaucracy of the U.S. Pentagon and State Department.
[If you look for people whose "belief structures" disagree with LaRouche's, you will certainly find them in all the above places--and in several billion other places as well. Furthermore, if you define having a non-LaRouche belief structure as evidence of participation in a conspiracy, then you will have instant "evidence" (with no research required) of a conspiracy of astronomical size.]
President William Clinton's address to the United Nations on Oct. 22, went a long way toward recognizing the real nature of the narco-terrorist beast, on two critical points:
1. that the key to the narcotics trade is drug-money laundering ("Criminal enterprises are moving vast sums of ill-gotten gains through the international financial system with absolute impunity"); and
2. that drugs and terrorism are inextricably linked ("Nowhere is cooperation more vital than in fighting the increasingly interconnected groups that traffic in terror, organized crime, drug smuggling, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction").
To underscore this second point, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics Matters Robert Gelbard explained to the press: "There are, indeed, cases where there are terrorist organizations which are engaged in drug trafficking, usually to finance their activities." Gelbard went on to cite as examples Colombia's FARC and ELN guerrillas—two cases which we document below.
These two points of emphasis of President Clinton's speech—coming on the heels of his administration's successful assault against the Cali Cartel capos, in coordination with Colombian law enforcement officials—mark a radical break with the British-run policies of his predecessor, George Bush. It was Bush, whose phony "war on drugs" was designed to cover up his banking friends' role in laundering billions of drug dollars. And it was then Vice President Bush, as anti-drug czar, who ruled out the existence of the term "narco-terrorism," adopting instead a policy of working with the drug mafia as alleged anti-communist allies.
[When deconstructed, the above paragraph really expresses (a) LaRouche's anger that President George Herbert Bush would not give him a pardon for his loan scams against the elderly; and (b) LaRouche's hope that President Clinton might provide such a pardon if buttered up sufficiently.]
For many in Washington, D.C. and across Ibero-America, Clinton's U.N. speech will bring to mind a widely circulated policy document on the same subject presented a decade earlier by Lyndon LaRouche. In a March 13, 1985 paper read to a conference in Mexico City, LaRouche had described the international drug trade as "a financial, political, and military power greater than that of entire nations within the Americas," and outlined a 15-point plan for a War on Drugs, to be conducted jointly by the United States and its Ibero-American allies, with full respect for each other's sovereignty. LaRouche's battle plan denounced the existence of "narco-terrorism," and emphasized the need to target "those banks, insurance enterprises, and other business institutions which are in fact elements of an international financial cartel coordinating the flow of hundreds of billions annually of revenues from the international drug-traffic."
[At the time LaRouche gave this speech, his followers were already cozying up to Panamanian cocaine dictator Manuel Noriega. And speaking of the international flow of narcotics money, let's not forget the cash smuggled into the United States by diplomatic pouch and delivered to the LaRouche organization by Panama's military attache in Washington (read the details here.]
That perspective remains as valid today as it was a decade ago. Only the urgency of its adoption has increased.
[This file was copied from the version posted on a non-LaRouche website here.]