The John F. Kennedy Assassination DRAFT DOCUMENT FILING 'EUROPE 1992': BACK-TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY ==================================== Nov. 5, 1988 by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. ---------------------------------------------------------------- PRECIS: Recently, in France, the report resurfaced. ident- ifying circles allegedly implicated in the attempted assassin- ations of France's President Charles deGaulle as the tools of the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Whoever the hired assassins deployed against Kennedy might have been, all of the evidence obtained by examining and back-tracking the documentation assembled by the Warren Commission, points the finger to but one set of principal intellectual authors of both targettings for assassination. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The blood-smear of a murdered U.S. President's death covers the current utopian scheme known as "Europe 1992." The key to unravelling the mystery of gruesome events on Dealey Plaza back in November 1963, is the series of attempted ass- assinations of France's President Charles deGaulle during the same general time-frame. The processes bridging the events of great recession period of 1957-1958 to the relevant developments of 1963, is the role of deGaulle in frustrating the efforts of such ideo- logues as NATO's Henri Spaak, neo-feudalist Richard Couden- hove-Kalergi, Denis de Rougement, and Jean Monnet, to in- troduce the "Europe 1992" utopia during that period. De Gaulle ruined that project in Europe at that time. The pros- pect that a Catholic President. associated with pro-techno- logy measures such as the investment tax-credit program and the Moon aerospace mission, might establish a political dynasty in the U.S. presidency throughout most of the 1960s, threatened to make deGaulle's blocking of a "Europe 1992" effort a long- range prospect. This, those associated with the "New Yalta" doctrine of the 1958 Pugwash conferences could not tolerate. Hence, the targetting of DeGaulle and Kennedy for assassination, and, most indicative, the massive effort to cover up the conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination. Ironically, as in the case of the continuing suppression of crucial files in the matter of the assassination of Presid- ent Abraham Lincoln, it is the attempted cover-up which has provided conclusive evidence pointing to the authors of the as- sassination of President Kennedy. Indeed, if the investiga- tion of the assassination of Lincoln were reopened, and con- ducted with the vigor and insight it merits, we would have in hand the keys to the most crucial developments in U.S. history ever since, including the assassination of Kennedy. The Lincoln Assassination ------------------------- The immediate key to the assassination of President Lincoln is that President's last public address, of April 11, 1985. Although this occurred after Judah Benjamin and others had set the assassination itself afoot, the following excerpt, notable for its congruence with and amplification of the clos- ing remarks in his Second Inaugural, indicates the nature of the motives of the intellectual authors of the assassination. We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to these States, is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier, to do this, without deciding, ot even considering, whether these states have even been out of the Union, and with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had even been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. On the surface, the outrageous conduct of the Johnson administration, in tolerating the carpetbagging operations. suggests that Lincoln's assassination was immediately to the principal benefit of those northeastern financial interests, such as the circles of August Belmont, who had conspired to bring about the civil war, and then turned fattened jackal in looting those earlier deemed their own dupes and accomplices. However, the fact that British spy Judah Benjamin was a prin- cipal architect of the assassination-plot, and confederate of Belmont in the secession conspiracy, puts a different light on the matter. Something much bigger, and of longer duration than despicable carpetbaggers' greed was at issue. To find the motive for that assassination, we must begin actually with events in Europe during the reign of Queen Anne, when the allies of Leibniz in England and North America were temporarily defeated by what was called then the "venetian party" of the Duke of Marlborough and of Marlborough's crony, the Georg Ludwig enthroned as George I. More proximately to the Lincoln assassination, we must come forward to 1815 Vienna, and compare the statements on the subject of North America by the Holy Alliance's Clement Prince Metternich with the American secret intelligence service's documentation of the fact that the Holy Alliance's backers, including Castlereagh's circles in Britain, were the contin- uing adversary of the existence of the United States, from 1815 through, and beyond the period of the Lincoln assassina- tion. Immediately behind the assassination of Lincoln was the hand of Britain's Lord Palmerston and his circles. The cur- ious case of Karl Marx touches upon this. From his corruption by a satanist circle at the univer- sity of Bonn, Marx was a member of Guiseppe Mazzini's "Young Europe" cult, and was placed in the leadership of the Mazzini created International Working Men's Association by Mazzini personally. Although Marx's British intelligence controller, Frederick Engels, never confided this to Marx, Lord Palmer- ston was the controller of British operations of Mazzini's organization; Marx knew directly only Palmerston's agent at the British Library, Urquhart. The foolish Marx imagined himself an opponent of Palmerston, in fact. Although Engels succeeded in deploying Marx against U.S. economist Henry C. Carey, as he had directed Marx against Friedrich List earlier, the influence of of the image of Lincoln upon Marx, contrary to Engels' views, was among the contributing reasons Marx was thrown out of "Young Europe," on the included initiative of the Palmerston-Russell circles in Britain. Marx did not know, that the entirety of the South Carolina freemasonic conspiracy, which organized the Confed- eracy, had been the Carolina arm of the Mazzinian "Young America" conspiracy based at Harvard University, upon the Con- cord "transcendentalists" in the tradition of Thoreau and Emerson. The plotters' documented intent, from the time of the 1814 Hartford Convention plot, had been to destroy the Unit- ed States, by using the slavery issue to fragment the United States among several quarrelling petty tyrannies. Lincoln understood this, as most of the putatively scholarly efforts to assess and criticize Lincoln's policies have failed to take this central fact into account. Lincoln was obliged to contend with the white-liberal abolitionists' goal of creating a no-win war between the Union and the Confederacy, which would led to a peace-negotiation dividing the United States between respectively embittered slavery and anti-slavery confederations, and would then lead to the further partition of the Union, by secession of Cali- fornia, and transfer of large northern tracts to British Canada. The authors of abolition were by no means opposed to slavery in the slave states; excepting the founding of their fortunes upon the British East India Company's opium-trade, their principal source of domestic wealth from commerce, like that of Frederick Engels personally, was slave-picked cot- ton. Separation had been their stated goal since the period of the 1814 Hartford Convention plot. John Brown was not designed and unleashed as an instru- ment for ending black-chattel slavery, but was a Mazzinian adventurer of the "Young America" plotters, unleashed to provoke the war of separation which the northeastern liberals had been plotting for five decades before their deployment of Brown. Lincoln understood this, and it was for that reason he was assassinated. Coincident with the unleashing of that civil war inside the United States, the collection of interests earlier assoc- iated with the Holy Alliance, had shaped Britain, France, and Spain as instruments of Holy Alliance policy toward the Amer- icas. Indeed, the origin of usage of the very term was a concoction of France's Napoleon III, who needed a term other than to suggest license for establishing a Franco-Spanish empire among the old Hispanic dominions of Central and South America. Palmerston and Rus- sell used Napoleon III as an instrument of their policy against the United States, as they used Spain and France in their joint project for overthrowing the Mexico government of Benito Juarez, and imposing the Habsburg fool and butcher, Maximil- ian, as puppet-emperor. Until events at Gettysburg, in 1863, Britain and France were plotting to conduct war against the United States, to the purpose of imposing a peace which would leave the United States divided in the manner intended by August Belmont et al. With Appomatox, Lincoln and the United States had beaten the foreign powers and financier interests intent upon dismemb- ering the United States. British intelligence's John Wilkes Booth, was unleashed together with the Jesuit-covered plot associated with Mary Surrat et al., and the same conspirator- ial networks of the Knights of the Golden Circle, predecessor of the Judah Benjamin-created Ku Klux Klan, to attempt to rid the United States, in a single night, of all members of the Lincoln government deemed obstacles to the policies which the Johnson administration implemented. Lincoln, deGaulle & Kennedy ---------------------------- The plotters of what is termed now "Europe 1992" were so arrogantly shameless in specifying their objectives, that any reading of their statement of their goals suffices to show the congruence between their policies for the present post-war period, and the anti-U.S. policies of the european powers and financier interests behind the Lincoln assassination. In many cases, the connections are not only ideological, but also biological. Such is the case with the writings of the neo-feudalist fascism of Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi's Pan-Europa Union, the Anglo-American World Federalists following in Lord Lothian's footsteps, ex-Trotskyist NATO chief Spaak, Denis de Rouge- ment, and Jean Monnet. Granted, the central feature of the "Europa 1992" is to reorganize western Europe in a way which would make a "New Yalta" form of global power-sharing with Moscow more or less irreversible. Yet, how much does that differ from the agree- ments of Metternich and Castlereagh establishing the Russian hordes as the Holy Alliance's "policeman of Europe"? Only a bit more digging is required, to show how pas- sionately these utopian ideologues desired something like "Europe 1992" by 1958, and to show their rage of frustration at President deGaulle. In fact, President deGaulle ruined their prospects for approximately twenty years to come, at least until the relevant faction won its 1983-1984 fight for power inside the Reagan administration. Nor should there be any doubt, that the attempted assassination of President Reagan, in 1981, coincides with the Soviet-directed assassination-attack upon Pope John Paul II. There may have been other accomplices than the Soviet ones behind both assassination-attempts, but, much as in the case of the Warren Commission decisions, there was a massive cover-up in both these recent cases. What is difficult to sort out, among the perpetrators of such a cover-up, is which of those participating are witting accomplices of the agencies which sponsored the crime, and which are motivated by no other consideration that the cover-up should be tolerated for reasons taken from the book of Talley- rand: that from the vantage-point of "higher considerations of policy" the service of truth would be a political "mistake." So does the putative wisdom of Talleyrand bring upon his credulous admirers the tragic qualities of a Hamlet, a pract- ice so often the downfall of nations and movements. For, if we know that our cause is in correspondence with truth, how can the truth be contrary to our vital interests? Had we not connived at suppressing the truth of the Lincoln assassinat- ion, perhaps John F. Kennedy could not have been elected, but had he been elected nonetheless, he would have acquired the benefit, that none of these high-level plotters would ever have dared, again, to assassinate a President of the United States. Once we view the fact that the plot against Kennedy was interlinked with the plotting against deGaulle, and keep this consideration constantly in view, there is no mystery about the Kennedy assassination or the massive cover-up effort which ensued. Essentially, the principal political target of the Ken- nedy assassination was not Kennedy, but deGaulle. Granted, Kennedy was no ally of deGaulle; the connection remains none- theless. The crucial fact is, that to the degree the Kennedy administration's pro-technology policies, as a policy of the dominant power, coincided in effect with the policies of the weaker power, France, Kennedy's actions, wittingly or not, gave great substance to deGaulle's western policies vis-a-vis the utopian ideologues. We need consider nothing of the Ken- nedy policies excepting those crucial pro-technology policies typified by his aerospace commitments and the investment tax- credit policy. On the condition that we focus upon this single, strat- egically crucial feature of the Kennedy administration's acts, is pro-technology policies, the elimination of Kennedy, on condition that what proved to be, ironically, "the second Johnson administration" became what it became, the killing of Kennedy nullified the policies of deGaulle in a global way. For example, 1963 was the year of many events crucial for the twenty-five years which have followed. 1963 was the year in which long-standing Bertrand Russell confederate Margaret Mead, and others, launched the LSD-25- riddled rock-drug-sex countercultural insurgency as a wide- based youth movement inside the United States. 1963 was the year in which John J. McCloy acted to top- ple Konrad Adenauer and to begin the grooming of his protege, Willy Brandt, for acquiring the future post of Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. 1963 was the year in which the Paris office of the OECD organization, under the Dr. Alexander King later a co-founder of the Club of Rome and Soviet-sponsored International Instit- ute for Systems Analysis (IIASA), issued the OECD education report, which played a crucial role in the later toppling of deGaulle's government, and which was written into German law under Chancellor Willy Brandt. What did "the second Johnson administration" do? It committed the United States to a "no-win" war policy in Southeast Asia, a policy which was crucial in former Kennedy-Johnson National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy's launching of the radical-youth ferment, in concert with Bertrand Russell's networks, from his offices at the Ford Foundation. It carried the insanity of military procurement polic- ies laundered earlier through the Hoover Commission, into the "systems analysis" and "arms control" revolutions which Robert S McNamara and his "whiz kids" conducted inside the Department of Defense, and began the process of diverting U.S. military investments, away from strategic development, technological attrition, and logistical depth, into an orientation of practice toward looting U.S. military strategic depth and tech- nological attrition, in order to subsidize both reductions in those sectors of the procurement budget, and to convert strat- egic capabilities into capabilities for fighting counterprod- uctive no-win warfare, such as those enacted in Southeast Asia. Beginning the 1966-1967 budget, the Johnson administrat- ion introduced the utopian policies identified by Robert M. Hutchin's and the of the London Tavistock Institute. This took the form of such included features as: a) Introduction of neo-malthusian policy to the State Department and relevant National Security functions, b) A large-scale dismantling of the logical structure of aerospace research and development, and c) a set of social policies based on the model of the utopianism, called generally the "Great Society" program. These changes in U.S. monetary, fiscal, and related policies created the set of circumstances in which the crucial collapse of the British pound was orchestrated in November 1967, and the preparation for the "floating-exchange rate" system effected in the March 1968 Washington, D.C., emergency meeting of the major IMF members. Thus, in all matters relevant to a "New Yalta" perspect- ive in the policies of the circles behind today's "Europe 1992" project, the Johnson administration, during 1964-1968, re- versed every feature of the policies of the Eisenhower and Ken- nedy administration offensive to Jean Monnet et al. We have been on the self-destructive policy-shaping track established under "the second Johnson administration" ever since, with but a relative handful of exceptions, including the SDI, to this. Only on this level of long-range policy-considerations does the Warren Commission cover-up of the Kennedy assassinat- ion make sense. If any lesser circles of persons other than relevant forces at the highest political levels of internat- ional financier interest had the highest levels of motivation for covering up an assassination of a U.S. President, the crime would be explored to the remotest depths. There are only two conditions under which such a cover-up of the magni- tude of the Warren Commission's is possible: 1) That some of the highest, most powerful levels of the international financier establishment are among the intellect- ual authors of the assassination; 2) That a major power authored the act, and that a cover-up is deemed required, out of consideration for current and future relations with that power. The Warren Commission cover-up is itself the greater crime in this case, a crime whose principal victim was the United States itself, and offense against simple justice the secondary crime of the Commission's actions. It is the Warren Commission's actions which are the key to the intel- lectual authorship of the assassination. It need not be inferred that the members of the Commission were participants before the fact of the assassination, but that, for whatever reasons, pressures brought to bear prompted them to accept some explanation of "higher political considerations" as their adopted motive for doing as they did. The victim of the Commission's actions was the United States most immediately, and the cause of resistance to the utopianism of "New Yalta" oriented Jean Monnet et al. world- wide. There is no doubt that the Khrushchev government, not the low-ranking Fidel Castro, was in some way involved. Their motive would be the same as that of Jean Monnet et al. Despite Kennedy's repeated capitulations to Moscow, in the matter of the Berlin Wall, and in the resolution of the Cuba Missiles Crisis through the "good offices" of Bertrand Russell, Moscow had other compelling reasons to wish Kennedy promptly dead. The comparison of the doctrine of Marshall V. D. Sokolovskii with the import of the policies of deGaulle, and the aerospace and investment tax-credit policies of Kennedy in that light, illuminates most brightly the Soviet interest in the matter. However, Moscow did not commit the crime. It was done as an inside job by some among the highest-ranking, most powerful interests inside the West, and inside the United States in particular. ---30---