Guest
To participate in the discussion period, RSVP here: 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? 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.…” 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. 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.
