By Independent News Roundup
The LaRouche Organization and the Schiller Institute have released a document, included below, filling out the powerful revelations by US intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard, showing that the entire "Russiagate" hoax -- that the 2026 election of Donald Trump was orchestrated by Russia -- was knowingly fabricated by the Obama Administration, Hillary Clinton and the heads of the Obama Administration's intelligence community. What we show here is that behind that treasonous action was -- and still is today -- the British Empire, and the leading British intelligence agencies, to the purpose of dragging the U.S. into a war with Russia, which despite Trump's intention to establish constructive relations with Russia, is still a looming threat.
Ending the "special relationship" between the U.S. and its enemy the British Empire, which has been a focus of the LaRouche Movement historically, has never been so urgent.
Please circulate this document widely, and send me your comments.
On July 18, 2025, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a series of documents pertaining to the fake narrative that Russia had meddled in the 2016 U.S. presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump, leading to the defeat of Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton. Gabbard stated, “The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government. Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.”
The truth of the matter is far worse, and does involve a foreign government, but not Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba. This foreign government intended to undermine the first and second terms of President Donald Trump for the purpose of putting the United States on a deadly trajectory for nuclear war with Russia, which could end the existence of the human species. That government is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, supposedly our “special partner.” And that operation is still live today.
The LaRouche Organization has unique authority in this matter, as associates of the late Lyndon LaRouche know very well how the former U.S. Presidential candidate (LaRouche) was slandered and vilified over decades for identifying the British Empire, including the British Monarchy and the City of London for orchestrating numerous wars, coups, and assassinations, including of American presidents, for 250 years since the American Declaration of Independence.
What Americans need to know is that the British plan to pit the United States against Russia was launched by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, even before World War II had ended! On May 22, 1945, only 2 weeks after Victory in Europe Day, while the war was still raging in the Pacific, Sir Winston Churchill issued a report entitled “Operation Unthinkable,” whose purpose was clearly stated: “The overall or political object is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire.” Churchill proposed that an invasion of Russia be launched as early as July 1, 1945!
The decision to drop the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki exactly 80 years ago, killing hundreds of thousands of people when the Japanese surrender was already under negotiation through the Vatican and other channels, must be understood from the standpoint of Churchill’s agenda. The nuclear bombs did nothing to end the war, which was already ending, but heralded the first phase of Churchill’s desired preemptive nuclear war against Russia.
Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain Speech” in Fulton, Missouri in 1946 was to bring the Americans into his plan, and resulted in a Cold War which dragged on until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
Long after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the London Economist published in March 2007 an editorial entitled “The European Union at 100,” which called for “President Obama” (a full year before the Democratic primary elections had even taken place) to threaten Russian President Vladimir Putin with nuclear weapons to keep him from invading Ukraine. This remarkably prescient “imaginary” future scenario, reads, in retrospect, like a script for the events which unfolded starting in late 2013 when President Barack Obama’s Administration (in collusion with British intelligence) overthrew the elected government of Ukraine, and brought in a pro-Nazi regime complete with swastika tattoos and torchlit marches celebrating notorious mass-killer Stepan Bandera.
The reason for the British-orchestrated confrontation between the United States and Russia was so that the British could consolidate a global financial empire based on depopulation and looting of raw materials and labor. China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the BRICS New Development Bank, launched in 2013 and 2014, respectively, posed a great threat to what King Charles III has called “Global Britain.” The British set out to disrupt these developments at all costs. The fear of the British and their American counterparts was that President Donald Trump’s desire to have “good relations” with both Russia and China would disrupt their drive for financial dictatorship. This is why U.S.-Russian relations had to be sabotaged. The Russiagate narrative served that purpose nicely.
What DNI Gabbard has released thus far shows that in August, September, and early December of 2016, the intelligence community (IC) had determined that Russia was neither capable of, nor interested in hacking U.S. election infrastructure to affect the outcome of the presidential election. But in spite of that, on December 9, 2016, President Obama convened a White House meeting which included CIA Director r John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, DNI James Clapper, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and others. Orders were given to concoct a false narrative of Russian interference in the U.S. election, despite the fact that everyone knew the evidence did not substantiate their claims. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report of Sept 18, 2020, released by Gabbard on July 23 leaves no doubt that this was the case.
What has not yet been mentioned by Gabbard, other than limited reference to the “Steele Dossier” is the role of British intelligence in manufacturing the Russiagate story, and the role played by key individuals such as GCHQ Director Robert Hannigan, MI6 Director Richard Dearlove, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and others.
It is imperative that those working to get to the bottom of this operation understand that what was treasonous about “Russiagate,” was not simply the desire to undermine an incoming president, but that the Americans involved, from President Obama and CIA Director John Brennan, down to lower level bureaucrats like Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, were working, whether they knew it or not, on behalf of a foreign power—the British Empire—to drive the United States into a war with Russia which puts the lives of every man, woman, and child on this planet in jeopardy. That is a crime worse than treason.
The documents declassified thus far by the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard provide verifiable evidence of a collaborative effort—one might say “conspiracy”—of top officials in the U.S. Intelligence Community to manufacture a narrative to determine the outcome of the 2016 election. When they failed to defeat Donald Trump at the polls with their story of Russian meddling to elect him, they concocted an increasingly wild, and false, story of Russian operatives colluding with Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton.
This was steered not only by animus toward Trump, but by the intent to prevent him from reversing the post-Cold War policy of treating Russia as an adversary, to be isolated and surrounded by hostile neighbors integrated into NATO. The Maidan coup in Ukraine in February 2014, run by the Obama administration in league with neocons from both parties, was part of this strategy. As documented in the March 29, 2025 New York Times article “The Secret History of the War in Ukraine,” the coup was followed immediately by a military buildup of Ukraine, conducted jointly by the U.S. military and CIA. The Times story reported that the planning for war against Russia was coordinated by U.S. officials in Wiesbaden, Germany.
The British also ran a military deployment, Operation Orbital, to train and support the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was initiated in 2015. From the time of the Maidan coup, to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's April 2022 delivery of the order to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to tear up the draft treaty negotiated with Russia, to the present-day preparations for war against Russia, the British have played a leading role.
Given the history of the British Empire’s obsession with countering Russian influence, it should not be surprising to find a British hand in the post-Maidan operations. This history includes the “Great Game” of British deployments against Russia beginning in the mid-19th century, producing the Crimean War and military campaigns in Afghanistan. The geopolitical doctrine of Halford Mackinder in the beginning of the 20th century, which targeted Russia's role in Eurasia, continued into this century. Mackinder’s outlook was incorporated into U.S. strategic doctrine after World War II, and further consolidated under Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both of whom coordinated U.S. policy with British intelligence, working closely with Chatham House. Brzezinski made it a central theme, with his anti-Soviet Afghan provocations and his identifying Ukraine as a pivot point of intervention against Russia at the end of the Cold War.
Yet the British role in undermining efforts by President Trump to normalize relations with Russia has been mostly overlooked.
Here, we present two main intertwined threads for investigation into the British role in shaping the attack on the United States and Russia before and after Trump's election in 2016.
1.The first thread involves warnings of Russian interference from Robert Hannigan, the head of Britain's cyber-intel agency, GCHQ. Hannigan, a cyber security expert who came into government service as a national security adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, became director of GCHQ in 2014. In June 2015, Hannigan reported “suspicious contacts” between “people we believe are Russian intelligence agents” and Trump associates. According to the Guardian, the British found their U.S. counterparts “asleep” on the job. A year later, Hannigan travelled to the United States and met with CIA Director John Brennan. This did not follow normal protocol, by which he would have briefed Admiral Mike Rogers, his counterpart as head of the NSA. Was Hannigan meeting with Brennan due to Roger's skepticism about the charges of Russian cyber meddling? The documents released by Gabbard show that his agency joined with the FBI in expressing “low confidence” in the assessments coming from the CIA and Clapper's Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) on Russian cyber ops against the election.
Cyber warfare was at the heart of Russiagate, with allegations of Russian hacking of Clinton campaign computers and leaking of documents to Wikileaks and Russia. The Gabbard declassification found that there was no evidence to back this up, yet it has remained a “talking point” until today! The Russian hacking story brings together two British threads, Hannigan's role and the deployment of a network of agents of various U.S. and British agencies, likely coordinated by the former chief of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove.
2.The role played by Sir Richard Dearlove deserves a deeper look. He operated through a network of agents with connections to the U.S. FBI and CIA, which interfaced with British intelligence and private corporate connections. This included Christopher Steele, a former underling of Dearlove at MI6; Stefan Halper, a long-time U.S. spook operating in UK academic circles; the shadowy Josef Mifsud; and Alexander Downer, formerly Australian High Commissioner in London. These four were involved in manufacturing the fabrications of the stories of hacking and cyber operations attributed to Russia, and were instrumental in the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
Dearlove has a long record of engaging in hybrid warfare ops on behalf of the Anglo-American provocations against Russia. In 2003, Dearlove, working with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, was at the center of the disinformation campaign which alleged that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” a false assessment instrumental in building support for the disastrous U.S. war in Iraq.
One other U.S. intelligence link influenced by London was former CIA Director Gina Haspel, who was CIA station chief in London from 2008-2011, then again from 2014 to 2017.
A look at the British role should include the activities of the daily press and think tanks which have been instrumental in shaping the anti-Russian narrative. The Economist, the Guardian, and the Financial Times were among the press which ran daily coverage embellishing the fake narrative. One extreme example of the anti-Trump bias of the British press was a feature story in the Spectator on Jan. 21, 2017, “Will Donald Trump be assassinated, ousted in a coup or just impeached?” The article was reprinted on Dec. 31 of that year.
Of special note is the report produced by the British House of Lords in December 2018, “UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order,” which warns that a Trump re-election might doom the “Special Relationship” by which the British manipulate U.S. policy.
These examples are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Within the space of a week in July, the British government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer signed a defense treaty with France, and then, a defense treaty with Germany. These treaties, taken together and combined with other steps the Starmer government has taken since the beginning of June, are an unmistakable indication that the United Kingdom, joined by Germany and France, is preparing for a major war against Russia, that would likely include the use of nuclear weapons.
Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in remarks during the July 18 meeting of the International Peace Coalition, noted that the British-German treaty is called the Kensington Treaty. “Kensington being a reference to a palace and the role of Queen Victoria,” she said. “[German Chancellor Friedrich] Merz actually named her, which shows you this Chancellor has no sense. Victoria's rule was the time when the British were actively planning World War I, mainly against Germany among others. To make that reference just shows you for sure that Chancellor Merz has a liking for the British Empire, which he is now gladly submitting to. But it also is an extremely worrisome development.”
The main target of the British is Russia, but, as with the Triple Entente of pre-World War I, things could turn out very badly, including for those who join the British in this march of folly. “Now, I think this will happen; because if the West is continuously upping the ante, as with the Malcolm Chalmers appointment to be strategic advisor to the British Defense Minister, this should get everybody alarmed. Because these people are in a Cuban-Missile-Crisis-on-steroids mindset; or (are) breaking the emergency glass—just break the rules, and go completely out of control. That will be the moment when we really have the existence of civilization at stake.”
In May 2022, Chalmers infamously proposed, in the Financial Times and the Royal United Services Institute, that a “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids” with Russia, over a Ukrainian attempt to seize Crimea, might be the best option to force Russia to capitulate. Chalmers admitted that “it would be a moment of extreme peril,” but he argued that “a nuclear crisis of this sort could make it easier for leaders to make difficult compromises.”
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron gleefully agree on their nuclear-armed March of Folly.
This past March 24, Chalmers told Shashank Joshi, Defense Editor of the imperial magazine The Economist, that he sees no problem with the UK firing a nuclear strike on Russia from one of its submarines. He dismissed Royal Navy objections that if the UK fired a nuclear strike at Russia, it would expose the positions of the UK strategic submarines, thus allowing Russia to neutralize the UK’s entire nuclear deterrent capability (so far, only submarine-based) in retaliation. That’s “ropey,” Chalmers argued. Not all missiles have to be fired at once; perhaps just one could be fired. Furthermore, the strike would not have to be on a large city; a “demonstration shot” at a Russian military base might avoid the larger casualties entailed in nuking a large city. He assented to Joshi’s statement that UK forces would not have to use a megaton nuke(s); one only the size of Hiroshima or Nagasaki could be fired!
In signing the Kensington Treaty, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz shows his “liking for the British Empire, which he is now gladly submitting to.”
The Royal United Services Institute, the British monarchy’s leading military policy institute and where Chalmers has served as deputy director for 17 years, announced his move to the Ministry of Defense on July 3, to take up his new positions as Strategic Advisor to Defense Secretary John Healey, and Head of Review and Challenge in the UK’s Ministry of Defense. The announcement was another signal that the United Kingdom is actively, methodically preparing for nuclear war with Russia, arguably the greatest nuclear power on the planet, with the criminally insane idea that a nuclear war can be fought and won. The latest sequence of documents and treaties began with the June 1 release of the Strategic Defense Review by the UK Ministry of Defense, composed by a panel co-chaired by former NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, General Sir Richard Barrons, and Fiona Hill, the British-American “Russia expert” who advised President Trump during his first term. “Russia is at war with Britain, the U.S. is no longer a reliable ally, and the U.K. has to respond by becoming more cohesive and more resilient,” Hill told The Guardian on June 6, 2025.
“Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn’t fully anticipated,” Hill claimed, arguing that Putin saw the Ukraine war as a starting point to Moscow becoming “a dominant military power in all of Europe.” As part of that long-term effort, Russia was already “menacing the UK in various different ways,” she said, citing alleged “poisonings, assassinations, sabotage operations, all kinds of cyber-attacks and influence operations. The sensors that we see that they’re putting down around critical pipelines, efforts to butcher undersea cables.”
The conclusion, Hill said, was that “Russia is at war with us.”
Moscow has taken a dim view of all this but Russian officials stress they are taking all of these developments into account in their own political and military planning…. More broadly, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a July 11 press conference in Kuala Lumpur, drew attention to what he described as the militarist policies of German Chancellor Merz and manifestations of Nazism in Europe. “If Europe is heading down this path again, it is regrettable. We will fully take this into account in all spheres of our planning,” Lavrov said.
Below is a chronology of the fabrication and deployment of the largely British-directed fake narrative about the Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Note CIA Director John Brennan’s June 2016 meeting with Robert Hannigan, the Director of GCHQ, and the role of Christopher Steele, formerly the head of the MI6 Russia Desk in London, who authored the salacious “Steele Dossier,” which was known to have been unreliable from the beginning.
June 16 - Donald Trump announces he is running for president.
Summer - According to Luke Harding of London’s The Guardian newspaper, Robert Hannigan's GCHQ cyber security team were the first to detect evidence of “suspicious contacts” between “people we believe are Russian intelligence agents” and Trump associates.
June 12 - Julian Assange announces that Wikileaks has Hillary Clinton emails and will publish them.
June 14 - Crowdstrike announces a cyber “intrusion” into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, with evidence conveniently left behind in Cyrillic characters.
June 20 - Christopher Steele's first memo on Trump–Russia connections, is sent to Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS. Steele then goes to Rome to brief an FBI contact.
Mid-June - GCHQ Director Hannigan comes to Washington, D.C., meets John Brennan.
July 22 - Three days before the Democratic Party convention, WikiLeaks releases the first batch of DNC emails.
July 26 - Hillary Clinton approves a proposal from one of her campaign foreign policy advisers to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services,” according to intelligence reviewed by Special counsel John Durham's investigation.
July 31 - Peter Strzok, an FBI deputy assistant director working in the counterintelligence division, writes the memo opening the Russian collusion investigation, Crossfire Hurricane. Strzok says he was directed to do this by then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Aug. 3 - CIA Director John Brennan briefs President Obama at the White House on Russian involvement in the U.S. election. FBI Director James Comey, DNI James Clapper, and Vice President Joe Biden are also present. Brennan tells Obama that Hillary Clinton is planning to create a scandal tying Trump to Russia.
Aug. 31* - Assessment from Department of Homeland Security official to DNI Clapper: “We are working with CIA on a PDB [President’s Daily Brief] submission on the threat. The thrust of the analysis is that there is no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count through cyber means…”
Sept. 2* - An FBI intelligence analyst emails the Office of the DNI that the FBI is “uncomfortable” saying that “Russia does intend to disrupt our elections” and is asking for language about Russia’s motivations to be “softened” in a draft document. The FBI analyst says the bureau does not want to “mislead the reader to believe that the IC currently has information indicating Russia has a known intent to influence the elections.”
Sept. 7 - CIA officials send a referral to the FBI’s Comey and Strzok regarding the Clinton campaign’s proposal to create a scandal tying Trump to Russia.
Sept. 9* - Lead author of the PDB: “We agree with: Russia probably is not (and will not) trying [sic] to influence the election by using cyber means to manipulate computer-enabled election infrastructure.”
Sept. 12 - Intel agencies circulate a draft intelligence community assessment (ICA) that does not find that Russia had any intent to help Trump in any way.
Sept. 22 - Steele meets in Washington, D.C. with a series of reporters, including from the New York Times, to plant stories about Trump and Russia.
Nov. 8 - Election Day: Trump defeats Clinton in a surprise upset.
Dec. 5 - The House Intelligence Committee’s first post-election briefing on Russian election “meddling” from a top DNI official. The briefing did not include the judgment that Putin aspired to help Trump win.
Dec. 7* - Talking points for DNI Clapper include “We assess that foreign adversaries did not use cyber attacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. Presidential outcome this year,” and “We have no evidence of cyber manipulation of election infrastructure intended to alter results.”
Dec. 8* - IC officials prepare an assessment for the President’s Daily Brief, finding that Russia “did not impact recent U.S. election results” by conducting cyber attacks on infrastructure. Before it could reach the President, it was abruptly pulled “based on new guidance.” This original intelligence assessment was never published.
Dec. 9* - President Obama convenes a meeting in the White House Situation Room attended by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Susan Rice, Victoria Nuland, Avril Haines, Loretta Lynch, Gen. Joseph Dunford, and others, where instructions are given to create a new intelligence assessment that Russia meddled in the 2016 election, despite contradictions with the previous intelligence assessments.
Dec. 9* - According to a newly-declassified (2020) House Intelligence Committee report, Brennan orders the five CIA analysts he selected to write up the first draft of the assessment “to support claims that Putin aspired to help Trump win,” despite disagreement from numerous intelligence officers.
Dec. 9* - The first leaks of the new assessment appear in the Washington Post: “The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.”
Dec. 28 - Based on the accusations of Moscow “meddling” in the election, President Obama imposes sanctions on Russia and expels 35 of its diplomats.
Dec. 29* - The CIA’s deputy director for analysis writes an email to Brennan warning that including information from the unreliable Steele dossier in the ICA risks “the credibility of the entire paper.” Contrary to his later denials, such as during a closed-door interview with the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2018, Brennan insisted on its inclusion.
Dec. 29 - Obama escalates, asserting that the GRU [Russian military intelligence] hacked the DNC and was therefore the source of the files released by WikiLeaks and other platforms.
Jan. 3 - Sen. Charles Schumer, appearing on Rachel Maddow’s show, warns Trump to get in line: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday, to get back at you.”
Jan. 5 - President Obama is briefed that Russian President Putin himself directly authorized the GRU hacking of the DNC.
Jan. 6* - The final versions of the new Obama/Brennan (and likely GCHQ)-directed ICA are published. Intel officials brief Trump on the findings. The briefing includes the Steele dossier, part of a classified appendix to the ICA.
* indicates information documented by DNI Gabbard’s releases
The ingenious American intelligence officer Edgar Poe (1809–1849) solved in 1842 the murder of a New York City woman by the name of Mary Rogers. He presented his conclusions in a story called “The Mystery of Marie Rogêt.” Poe reports that the work “was composed at a distance from the scene of the atrocity, and with no other means of investigation than the newspapers afforded.… It may not be improper to record, nevertheless, that the confessions of two persons, made, at different periods, long subsequent to the publication, confirmed in full, not only the general conclusion, but absolutely all the chief hypothetical details by which that conclusion was attained.” Had Poe been alive in the present era, he would have ignored the “too much information” plague of the internet-dominated present, and ridiculed the methods of inquiry, if they can be called that, that have been used to in effect hide the truth, both in the RussiaGate matter, and in “the Epstein case.” In our world and time, awash in the massive electronic trash dump of “too much information,” the “tales of ratiocination” of Edgar Poe, which reveal the true method by which crimes like Russia-Gate and “the mystery of Jeffrey Epstein” might be readily solved, are ignored, just as the great intellectual and political achievement known as the American Revolution, which produced Edgar Poe, is intentionally misunderstood.
The important revelations coming from DNI Tulsi Gabbard on the Russiagate hoax represent much more than a break from “business-as-usual” in Washington. She should be supported, in order not only to bring long-denied justice to the treasonous actors within the Obama (and Bush!) administrations, but to reveal the true enemy of the United States, and humanity as a whole—the British Empire, in May of 1945, in a document titled “Operation Unthinkable,” Britain drew up plans for an immediate preemptive war against the Soviet Union, to begin in July of 1945–two months after the end of the war in Europe, and a month before nuclear weapons would be dropped on Japan! In the words of that report, “The overall or political object is to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and British Empire.” This meant that nuclear weapons would be used against the Soviet Union, either in 1945, or as soon as possible thereafter. As reported elsewhere in this White Paper, that is the intent, now, in 2025, of British financial and intelligence forces—which are the same thing—toward both Russia and China, in pursuit of “final victory” in what the British have for centuries called “the Great Game.”
In October, 2008, the American Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan, Tatiana Gfoeller, found herself in Bishkek in a testy confrontation with Prince Andrew of Great Britain, now infamous and shunned because of “the mystery of Jeffrey Epstein.” When Ambassador Gfoeller protested against the idea that “Great Game” politics should be the template for policy in Central Asia, “Prince Andrew ... .stated baldly that the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans, too) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: ‘And this time we aim to win!’” Andrew is known to have been, until his disgrace, integral to the Empire’s international weapons trade.
One of Jeffrey Epstein’s earliest sponsors, in the mid-1980s was the late British “defense contractor,” Douglas Leese, a key architect of Al-Yamamah, one of the largest weapons deals in history. Leese is reported to have introduced Epstein to Robert Maxwell, and described Epstein to convicted swindler Steven Hoffenberg, once-owner of the New York Post, thus: “The guy’s a genius, he’s great at selling securities. And he has no moral compass.”
This is the face, and the soul, of the leaders and lackeys of the War Party. Both “The Mystery of Jeffrey Epstein” and “The Mystery of Russia-Gate,” in the way they have been reported, have, so far, been diversions from the truth. The truth is that the old colonial-imperial order has died, and can never be revived. The War Party does not accept that, however, and intends to impose its will upon humanity, either by subjugating it, or by destroying it in thermonuclear war. “Epstein” and “Russia-Gate” are one. Several of the actors in both are the same, in fact. “Imposing our will” upon humanity, whether that be the impassioned destruction of nations, or the remorseless destruction of innocent children, originate in the same Nietzschean view of humanity. If the two can be combined, as in Gaza, causing the victims of the Holocaust to commit that same ultimate crime upon Palestinians,“that is the most delicious corruption.” Of the War Party, Edgar Poe said it best: “They are neither man nor woman, they are neither brute nor human; they are pestilential carcasses, disparted from their souls.”
Documentation from DNI website
https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf
.svg){kind=logo}
