by Lyndon H.
Emperor's New Clothes, written and directed by Alan Taylor, starring Ian
Holm, Iben Hjejle, Tim McInnerny, Tom Watson, Nigel Terry
Tyranny, by Leo Strauss
The Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis and Misraim, Extracts from "A New Encyclopaedia
of Freemasonry," by Arthur Edward Waite
Manifestations of the Martinist Order, by Milko Bogaard
Prostitution Inquiry Ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush, by Paul M.
The Franklin Cover-Up --
Child Abuse, Satanism and Murder in Nebraska, by John W. DeCamp
The False Memory Hoax, by
Beyond the Dutroux
Affair: The Reality of Protected Child Abuse and Snuff Networks, by Joel
van der Reijden
Through a Glass, Very
Darkly -- Cops, Spies and a Very Odd Investigation
a Mother Goddess, presented by David Icke
Nihilism, by Tara Carreon
Griggs on How the Government Works, directed by Eric Hufschmid
Operation Gladio, by David
The Scented Garden of Abdullah the Satirist
of Shiraz, by Ordo Templi Orientis
The OTO & the CIA -- Ordis Templis
Intelligentis, by Alex Constantine
Le Cercle and the Struggle
for the European Continent: Private Bridge Between Vatican-Paneuropean
and Anglo-American Intelligence, by Joel van der Reijden
The Open Conspiracy, by H. G.
appears in the August 8, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. See
the companion article, "My Unique Role in the Americas," and also "Synarchism,
the Spanish Falange, and the Nazis."
"Synarchism" is a name adopted during the Twentieth Century for an occult
freemasonic sect, known as the Martinists, based on worship of the
tradition of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. During the interval from the
early 1920s through 1945, it was officially classed by U.S.A. and other
nations' intelligence services under the file name of "Synarchism:
Nazi/Communist," so defined because of its deploying simultaneously both
ostensibly opposing pro-communist and extreme right-wing forces for
encirclement of a targeted government. Twentieth-Century and later fascist
movements, like most terrorist movements, are all Synarchist creations.
Synarchism was the
central feature of the organization of the fascist governments of Italy,
Germany, Spain, and Vichy and Laval France, during that period, and was
also spread as a Spanish channel of the Nazi Party, through Mexico,
throughout Central and South America. The PAN party of Mexico was born as
an outgrowth of this infiltration. It is typified by the followers of the
Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojève today.
freemasonic conspiracy, is found among both nominally left-wing and also
extreme right-wing factions such as the editorial board of the Wall Street
Journal, the Mont Pelerin Society, and American Enterprise Institute and
Hudson Institute, and the so-called integrist far right inside the
Catholic clergy. The underlying authority behind these cults is a
contemporary network of private banks of that medieval Venetian model
known as fondi. The Synarchist Banque Worms conspiracy of the wartime
1940s, is merely typical of the role of such banking interests operating
behind sundry fascist governments of that period.
originated in fact among the immediate circles of
veteran officers of Napoleon's campaigns spread the cult's practice around
the world. G.W.F. Hegel, a passionate admirer of Bonaparte's image as
Emperor, was the first to supply a fascist historical doctrine of the
state. Nietzsche's writings supplied Hegel's theory the added doctrine
of the beast-man-created Dionysiac terror of Twentieth-Century fascist
movements and regimes. The most notable fascist ideologues of
post-World War II academia are Chicago University's
Leo Strauss, who was
the inspiration of today's U.S. neo-conservative ideologues, and Strauss's
Paris co-thinker Alexandre Kojève.
Martinism, and Satanism
significance of Synarchism in relation to the fake "apocalypse" became
clear to me when EIR published
Synarchism: The Fascist Roots Of the
Wolfowitz Cabal. A wide variety of factors, including the Establishment's
hysteria over its exposure, struck me as evidence that it is very close to
the core of the dirtiest faction of the oligarchy. However, it was nothing
new to EIR, which had been studying related subjects since 1983.
The occult aspects
of Synarchism were made abundantly clear in the aforementioned article
under the heading The Cult of Napoleon:
The first "Synarchist"
text was written in the 1860s by Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre
(1842-1909), an occultist and follower of Napoleon Bonaparte's own
mystical advisor, Antoine Fabre d'Olivet (1767-1825). Fabre d'Olivet had
started out as a leading member of the Jacobins, participating personally
in the foiled assassination plot against King Louis XVI in 1789. He later
served as a top official of the Interior and War Ministries under Napoleon
Bonaparte. His occult writings about "purgative violence" and the "will to
power" antecedents of the works of Nietzsche were adopted by Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, who launched the idea of Synarchism as a counter to the
anarchy that had destabilized all of Europe, from 1648. 
for violence: Hallmark of a smokescreen for Satanists
In this case, the
term "occultists" refers to black magicians and their underlings and dupes
(as opposed to occultists of the white path such as Rudolf Steiner [?]), and
it's these scum that give occultism a bad name. The outermost layers of
such orders are fairy tales, like a Harry Potter fantasy, but the
innermost layer is the complete opposite. Note that as the Potter series
advances, it becomes darker, and the protagonists are learning that they
must commit evil "to do good." According to another EIR article, the
occult order behind Synarchism, known as Martinism, has an outer veneer of
Catholicism, and a rotten core:
Martinism, a mocking perversion of Catholicism, considers Fallen Man to be
in exile in this earthly existence, deprived of his powers. Man can only
restore his original condition by initiation to the inner ranks of a
secret society, through purgative violence -- sado-masochistic rituals,
torture, and human sacrifices. As a candidate learns to tolerate injury to
others, he gives up his human identity, the sympathy which was celebrated
in the Peace of Westphalia as the "Advantage of the Other." He loses the
Platonic and Christian truth that men prosper by seeking to benefit others
rather than themselves.
This pagan ritualism
breeds heartless imperial soldiers and fanatic gang leaders, as Mithraic
Stoicism did for the Roman Caesars. After Martinism guided successive
French coups, its banker-proprietors spun it into Synarchy and fascism
while labeling it Conservatism or fundamentalist Christianity. 
Anyone familiar with
my ramblings on Satanism will recognize "purgative violence" as its core
activity. Its purpose is to break down the spiritual barrier between the
lowest levels of the human soul and the underlying demonic forces, thus
allowing the demonic forces to take possession of the soul. As usual, the
ugly truth is hidden, and the activity is "justified" with lofty-sounding
cover stories. The "initiate" in search of "magical powers" is gradually
led to the point of believing that killing is INHERENTLY beneficial, and
it is the act of killing people (especially ones with whom the killer has
had a positive relationship) "up close and personal" with this attitude
which breaks down this barrier. Thus, Martinism and its front "Sin"archism
are exposed as Satanism. The fact that the outward activities of its
spin-offs are all oriented toward staging the fake apocalypse and pursuing
the Eight-Sphere agenda are also signs of this connection.
Synarchism: The Fascist Roots Of the Wolfowitz Cabal
by Jeffrey Steinberg
appears in the May 30, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
In 1922, Count
Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi launched the Pan European Union, at a
founding convention in Vienna, attended by more than 6,000 delegates.
Railing against the "Bolshevist menace" in Russia, the Venetian Count
called for the dissolution of all the nation-states of Western Europe
and the erection of a single, European feudal state, modeled on the
Roman and Napoleonic empires. "There are Europeans," Coudenhove-Kalergi
warned, who are "naïve enough to believe that the opposition between the
Soviet Union and Europe can be bridged by the inclusion of the Soviet
Union in the United States of Europe. These Europeans need only to
glance at the map to persuade themselves that the Soviet Union in its
immensity can, with the help of the [Communist] Third International,
very quickly prevail over little Europe. To receive this Trojan horse
into the European union would lead to perpetual civil war and the
extermination of European culture. So long, therefore, as there is any
will to survive subsisting in Europe, the idea of linking the Soviet
Union with Pan Europe must be rejected. It would be nothing less than
the suicide of Europe."
Coudenhove-Kalergi echoed the contemporaneous writings of British Fabian
Roundtable devotees H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell, declaring:
"This eternal war can end only with the constitution of a world
republic.... The only way left to save the peace seems to be a politic
of peaceful strength, on the model of the Roman Empire, that succeeded
in having the longest period of peace in the west thanks to the
supremacy of his legions."
The launching of
the Pan European Union was bankrolled by the Venetian-rooted European
banking family, the Warburgs. Max Warburg, scion of the German branch of
the family, gave Coudenhove-Kalergi 60,000 gold marks to hold the
founding convention. Even more revealing, the first mass rally of the
Pan European Union in Berlin, at the Reichstag, was addressed by Hjalmar
Schacht, later the Reichsbank head, Economics Minister and chief
architect of the Hitler coup. A decade later, in October 1932, Schacht
delivered a major address before another PanEuropa event, in which he
assured Coudenhove-Kalergi and the others, "In three months, Hitler will
be in power.... Hitler will create PanEuropa. Only Hitler can create
historical documents, Italy's Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was
initially skeptical about the PanEuropa idea, but was "won over" to the
scheme, following a meeting with Coudenhove-Kalergi, during which, in
the Count's words, "I gave him a complete harvest of
for the United States of Europe.... My visit represented a shift in the
behavior of Mussolini towards PanEuropa. His opposition disappeared."
At the founding
congress of the Pan European Union in Vienna, the backdrop behind the
podium was adorned with portraits of the movement's leading intellectual
icons: Immanuel Kant,
Giuseppe Mazzini, and
The pivotal role
of Schacht in the Hitler coup and in the Pan European Union, highlights
a critical dimension of the universal fascist scheme: the top-down role
of the financial "overworld" and its banking technocrats. By all
historical accounts, Schacht was the architect, in 1930, of the Bank for
International Settlements (BIS), along with the Bank of England's
Montagu Norman. Historian Carroll Quigley, in his epic book, Tragedy and
Hope—A History of the World in Our Time (New York: MacMillan Company,
1966), described the BIS scheme to establish a dictatorship over world
"The powers of
financial capital had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to
create a world system of financial control in private hands able to
dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the
world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist
fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret
agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The
apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in
Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's
central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central
bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England,
Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of
the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to
dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to
manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic
activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by
subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
highlighted the role of Schacht's closest ally in the BIS scheme, Bank
of England Governor Norman, who headed the privately owned British
institution for an unprecedented 24 years (1920-44). "Norman was a
strange man," Quigley reported, "whose mental outlook was one of
successfully suppressed hysteria or even paranoia. He had no use for
governments and feared democracy. Both of these seemed to him to be
threats to private banking, and thus to all that was proper and precious
in human life. Strong-willed, tireless, and ruthless, he viewed his life
as a kind of cloak-and-dagger struggle with the forces of unsound money
which were in league with anarchy and Communism."
Montagu Norman and
Hjalmar Schacht personified the banking overworld, that bankrolled and
installed Hitler and the Nazis in power, in pursuit of their larger,
universal fascist scheme.
Even more damning
were the profiles of Schacht and Norman and their role in the Hitler
project, in The Hitler Book, by a Schiller Institute research team,
headed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House,
nominally set up after the breakdown of 'normal' international financial
relations in order to prevent a downward spiraling of international
payments, in fact finished off the hapless Weimar Republic by its stern
refusal to come to the help of a virtually bankrupt Germany in the
crucial summer of 1931, after the Danat Bank collapse had brought the
whole nation to its knees. Schacht, who had been a member of the
original BIS team and was to return to its board from 1933 through 1938,
had been campaigning since his 1930 resignation as head of the
Reichsbank, for Anglo-American support for a takeover by the NSDAP [Nazi
Party] and its leader, Herr Hitler. He had resigned on March 7, 1930 and
the BIS was formally established in June. In September, he was off to
London and the United States, to 'sell' the Nazi option to the
Anglo-American leadership, notably Bank of England governor and BIS
director Montagu Norman, and the already influential Dulles brothers of
Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, one of America's most influential—and the
attorneys for IG Farben, and many other large German companies and
provincial governments. Schacht's Hamburg friend and colleague,
patrician Nazi Gerhard Westrick, ran the correspondent law firm to
Dulles's in Germany."
On March 16, 1933,
a grateful Hitler brought Schacht back as head of the Reichsbank,
explained The Hitler Book. A year later, Schacht was made Economics
Minister. "Now, the BIS was going to help the Third Reich—by 1939 it had
no less than several hundred million Swiss gold francs invested in
Germany. On the BIS board were Baron Kurt von Schröder, by now a general
in the SS Death's Head Brigade; Dr. Hermann Schmitz of IG Farben—whom
Schacht had trained at the imperial economics ministry from 1915 on—and,
later, Hitler's two personal appointees, Walter Funk and Emil Puhl of
universal fascist schema, into which the Norman-Schacht "Hitler project"
fit, was well known to leading American intelligence, military, and
diplomatic figures of the Franklin Roosevelt era, who maintained
exhaustive files under such headings as "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist."
archives from the FDR era, which were made available to EIR researchers,
feature extensive intelligence reports on the international fascist
plots, from the files of the U.S. State Department; U.S. Army
Intelligence and Navy Intelligence; and the Coordinator of Information (COI),
and its successor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). These files
are of immediate relevance today, given the ongoing coup d'état in
Washington by the disciples of Leo Strauss, Alexandre Kojève, and Carl
Schmitt inside the George W. Bush Administration. Kojève and Schmitt
were leading figures in the wartime "Synarchist" conspiracy, and they
personified the perpetuation of that universal fascist plan and
apparatus into the postwar period.
EIR's lead, major American and European newspapers have identified such
putschists as Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky, William Kristol, John
Ashcroft, Steve Cambone, and Gary Schmitt as the offspring of the late
University of Chicago Prof. Leo
Strauss; Strauss, in turn, was the
life-long collaborator and promoter of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt,
official Nazi philosopher and Nietzsche revivalist Martin Heidegger, and
French Synarchist Alexandre Kojève—all unabashed advocates of tyranny as
the only appropriate form of government. Although the May 4 Sunday New
York Times feature off-handedly mentions Kojève as Strauss's colleague,
without further identification, all of the major media coverage has been
sanitized of any discussion of the overtly fascist/Synarchist roots of
the Straussian creed.
there are growing indications that some elements within the U.S.
political institutions—particularly the military and intelligence
communities, which comprise an important element of what Lyndon LaRouche
refers to as "the institution of the U.S. Presidency"—are waking up to
the cruel reality that a small group of universal fascists has seized
the reins of power and is steering an ill-equipped President George W.
Bush, the United States, and the rest of the world into a maelstrom of
perpetual war and chaos.
A timely review of
the history of the 20th-Century Synarchists is, therefore, in order, to
enable those political circles already shocked into action, to
understand the nature of the enemy, and exploit the greatest weakness of
these Straussian would-be putschists—their open embrace of universal
fascism, otherwise known as "Synarchism."
As EIR reported on
May 9 ("Dick Cheney Has a French Connection—To Fascism"), in 1947, OSS
veteran and Harvard Prof. William L. Langer assembled the official
history of the Roosevelt Administration's dealings with Vichy France.
Our Vichy Gamble was based on an exhaustive review of wartime archives,
buttressed by interviews with top American officials, including OSS head
Gen. William Donovan and President Franklin Roosevelt himself.
Langer minced no
words in discussing the Synarchist circles in Vichy France. Referring to
Adm. Jean François Darlan, who, along with Pierre Laval, was among the
most notorious of the Vichy collaborationists with the Nazis, Langer
wrote: "Darlan's henchmen were not confined to the fleet. His policy of
collaboration with Germany could count on more than enough eager
supporters among French industrial and banking interests—in short, among
those who even before the war, had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked
to Hitler as the savior of Europe from Communism.... These people were
as good fascists as any in Europe.... Many of them had long had
extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were
still dreaming of a new system of 'synarchy,' which meant government of
Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of
financiers and industrialists."
EIR is in
possession of many of the documents that Langer reviewed, in preparing
Our Vichy Gamble. They offer an in-depth study of a fascist apparatus,
whose European-wide tentacles extended into France, Germany, Britain,
Spain, Italy, the Netherlands—and, across the Atlantic, inside the
United States. One particularly revealing document, prepared by the
Coordinator of Information in November 1940, focussed on the Synarchist
strategy towards England and America. The document was called, "Synarchie
and the Policy of the Banque Worms Group."
The unnamed author
began, "In recent reports there have been several references to the
growing political power of the Banque Worms group in France, which
includes amongst its members such ardent collaborationists as Pucheu,
Benoist-Mechin, Leroy-Ladurie, Bouthillier, and representatives of big
French industrial organizations." Under the subtitle, "Similarity of
aims of 'Synarchie' and Banque Worms," the report continued, "The
reactionary movement known as 'Synarchie' has been in existence in
France for nearly a century. Its aim has always been to carry out a
bloodless revolution, inspired by the upper classes, aimed at producing
a form of government by 'technicians,' under which home and foreign
policy would be subordinated to international economy. The aims of the
Banque Worms group are the same as those of 'Synarchie,' and the leaders
of the two groups are, in most cases, identical."
The "Banque Worms
group" was closely allied with the Lazard banking interests in Paris,
London, and New York, and with Royal Dutch Shell's Henri Deterding.
Hippolyte Worms, the bank's founder, was one of 12 initial Synarchist
Movement of Empire (SME) members, according to other French police and
itemized the aims of the Synarchists, as of August 1940: "to check any
new social schemes which might tend to weaken the power of the
international financiers and industrialists; to work for the ultimate
complete control of all industry by international finance and industry;
to protect Jewish and Anglo-Saxon interests; ... to take advantage of
Franco-German collaboration to conclude a series of agreements with
German industries, thereby establishing a solid community of interests
between French and German industrialists, which will tend to strengthen
the hands of international finance and industry; ... to effect a fusion
with Anglo-Saxon industry after the war."
The author of the
COI study reported, "There is reason to believe that both [Hermann]
Göring and Dr. [Walther] Funk are in sympathy with these aspirations,"
and that "Some headway is claimed to have been made in securing the
adhesion of big U.S. industry to the movement."
The COI study's
segment regarding "Policy in regard to Great Britain," elaborated the
following Synarchist plan: "To bring about the fall of the Churchill
Government by creating the belief in the country that a more energetic
government is needed to prosecute the war; it is recognized that an
effective means of creating suspicion of the Government's efficiency
would be to induce the resignation of Lord Beaverbrook; to bring about
the formation of a new Government including Sir Samuel Hoare, Lord
Beaverbrook and Mr. Hore-Belisha. (Note. The source has added that in
the Worms group it is believed that those circles in Great Britain who
are favorably disposed to their plan, are most critical of Mr.
Churchill, Lord Halifax and Captain Margesson.); through the medium of
Sir Samuel Hoare to bring about an agreement between British industry
and the Franco-German 'bloc'; to protect Anglo-Saxon interests on the
continent; to reach an agreement for the cessation of the reciprocal
bombing of industrial centers. (Note. The source has added that Göring
is reputed to have signified his entire approval of this project.)"
The naming of Lord
Beaverbrook and Sir Samuel Hoare, two leading figures in the British
Roundtable group, as Synarchist collaborators is of great significance,
indicating that American intelligence, from no later than 1940, was
tracking the high-level British involvement in the scheme for a postwar
universal fascist "Europe of the oligarchs," along precisely the lines
spelled out in Count Coudenhove-Kalergi's "Synarchist" manifesto,
founding the Pan European Union. Indeed, other U.S. intelligence wartime
documents identified the PEU as a project of the European Synarchist
secret brotherhood. The Synarchist Movement of Empire (SME), according
to various accounts in the wartime U.S. files, was founded in 1917 or
1922, and the first two major "projects" of the Synarchists were
Mussolini's March on Rome and the launching of the Pan Europa movement.
Back on the
British front: Sir Samuel Hoare was a leading figure in British
intelligence, having been posted to Russia during the period of the
Bolshevik Revolution, where he had a personal hand in the assassination
of Grigori Rasputin, after Rasputin had warned that Russian
participation in World War I would surely lead to the fall of the
Romanovs. Hoare was the leading British military intelligence
case-officer for instigating the overthrow of the Tsar and the Russian
Revolution. He personified the upper echelons of what U.S. intelligence
files characterized as the "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist" group. In his
capacity as Foreign Secretary in 1935, he had negotiated the Hoare-Laval
agreement, by which Great Britain and France mutually accepted
Mussolini's conquest by invasion of Abyssinia, a major act of
appeasement. He later served as British ambassador to Francisco Franco's
Spain, and, according to several biographical accounts, remained
secretly on Lord Beaverbrook's payroll as a policy advisor. Hoare, later
"Lord Templewood," was also a leading British promoter of Frank Buchman
and the Moral Rearmament Movement, the antecedent to Rev. Sun Myung
Moon's Unification Church (see EIR, Dec. 20, 2002).
The case of Lord
Beaverbrook (Max Aitken) has even more profound and enduring
implications, given that two of the leading financial-political
propagandists for today's neo-conservative revolution in
Washington—press magnates Lord Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch—are
Beaverbrook protégés. The Australian Murdoch, on graduating Oxford, did
an apprenticeship at Beaverbrook's London Daily Express, which Murdoch
referred affectionately to as "Beaverbrook's brothel."
For Black, the connection ran deeper—through the wartime British secret
intelligence high command. Conrad Black's father, George Montagu Black,
worked directly under the Beaverbrook chain of command during World War
II, when Beaverbrook was Minister of Aircraft Production, and when Black
and Edward Plunkett Taylor ran the Canadian front company War Supplies,
Ltd. out of the Willard Hotel in Washington, coordinating all
British-American-Canadian military procurement arrangements. The $1.3
billion garnered by Taylor and Black from their wartime "private" arms
deals provided the seed money for G.M. Black's postwar launching of the
Argus Corp., which, today, is the Hollinger Corp. media cartel of Conrad
transformation, from a leading promoter of an Anglo-German alliance
following Hitler's takeover, to a leading war cabinet official,
following Hitler's attack on Britain, was nothing short of miraculous.
In 1935, when Hoare had conducted the secret negotiations with Laval,
Beaverbrook had accompanied the Foreign Secretary on the trip and
conducted his own back-channel work to assure positive media coverage of
the deal in both England and France. That year, Beaverbrook traveled to
Rome and Berlin for personal meetings with Mussolini and Hitler. A year
later, Beaverbrook was the guest of Hitler's Foreign Minister Joachim
von Ribbentrop, at the Munich Olympic Games.
But the most
famous part that Beaverbrook played in the Hitler saga, had to do with
the 1933 Reichstag fire—the arson attack on the Weimar Republic's
parliament—which consolidated Hitler's death grip on absolute power.
Beaverbrook had posted a trusted aide, Sefton Delmer, in charge of his
Daily Express press bureau in Berlin, and Delmer had become a confidant
of Hitler, traveling with him on the campaign trail during the 1933
elections. Delmer was one of the first "journalists" to arrive as the
Reichstag burned, and his dispatch from the scene—complete with
exclusive interviews with Hitler, Göring, and others—established the
cover for the actual Nazi authors of the terror attack, which sealed
Hitler's dictatorship. Delmer, in a 1939 article recounting the
incident, stuck to his story, which countered the majority of the world
media coverage, and blamed the fire on a communist—not on the Nazis.
after his "Damascus road conversion" to war cabinet minister—retained
his ties to the Nazi machine. When Nazi leader Rudolph Hess parachuted
into Scotland, in a final vain effort to maintain the Anglo-Nazi
alliance against the Soviet Union, Beaverbrook arranged a private prison
interview with Hess. Details of the session are still sketchy, but one
quote to emerge from the meeting, was Hess telling Beaverbrook: "Hitler
likes you a great deal."
thousands of documents that EIR obtained from the U.S. wartime archives
was an 18-page French military intelligence report, summarizing a
100-page dossier on the French Synarchist groups, dated July 1941. The
report dealt with the Synarchist Movement of Empire (SME), the
Synarchist Revolutionary Convention (SRC) and the Secret Committee of
Revolutionary Action (SCRA), the military leadership arm of the SME,
also known as the "Cagoulards" (the "hooded ones").
provided a brief history: "The Synarchist movement is an international
movement born after the Versailles Treaty, which was financed and
directed by certain financial groups belonging to the top international
banking community. Its aim is essentially to overthrow in every country,
where they exist, the parliamentary regimes which are considered
insufficiently devoted to the interests of these groups and therefore,
too difficult to control because of the number of persons required to
therefore to substitute them by authoritarian regimes more docile and
more easily manueverable. Power would be concentrated in the hands of
the CEOs of industry and in designated representatives of chosen banking
groups for each country. In a word, the idea is to give to each country
a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure
organized for the following purposes:
"1. Place the
political power directly into the hands of chosen people and eliminate
all intermediaries. 2. Establish a maximum concentration of industries
and suppress all unwarranted competition. 3. Establish an absolute
control of prices of all goods (raw materials, semi-finished or finished
goods). 4. Create judicial and social institutions that would prevent
all extremes of action."
reported that, following failed Cagoulard insurrections in 1934 and
1937, the SME infiltrated all the economic and related ministries of the
French government, conducted sabotage from within the regime, and set
the basis for the Vichy government of 1940, which was dominated, from
top to bottom, by Synarchist secret society members. The report named 40
top officials of the government of Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain, who
were all SME members.
repeatedly emphasized that the French SME was but one component of an
international Synarchist apparatus, "organized and financed in all
countries by certain elements of industrial CEOs and high banking
circles. Its objective on the international level is to subvert all of
the democratic regimes in the world, and substitute them with stronger
governments, more docile and whose leaders of command in each nation are
centralized in the hands of a number of affiliates belonging to big
business and international banking interests which coordinate their
activities around the world." In France, under the Vichy regime, noted
the dossier, "the main administrations of the country, have become the
arms of Bank Worms whose administrative council controls all of the top
administrators of the state."
did not concentrate all their efforts on infiltrating and controlling
the Vichy regime. A U.S. military intelligence report, dated July 27,
1944, from the military attaché in Algiers, warned of Synarchist
penetration of the upper echelons of the Free French government of Gen.
Charles de Gaulle, headquartered in Algeria. "Some of the oldest and
formerly most faithful supporters of General de Gaulle are worried by
what they call a tendency to let 'Synarchism' penetrate even the highest
brackets of the Algiers Administration," the report began. "It is
believed that General de Gaulle up to recently, opposed Synarchism,
which is a strongly reactionary movement, financed by the Haute Banque.
He has even ordered a confidential study to be made on the subject, a
copy of which has been seen by American officers." The report concluded,
"If it is a fact that many individuals who are holding positions of
importance in the cabinet and the immediate entourage of General de
Gaulle, are also closely associated with political ideas alien to the
program which de Gaulle and his government publicly endorse, then
far-reaching political inferences may be drawn." Of course, a decade
later, leading wartime "Gaullist" Jacques Soustelle would launch the
Secret Army Organization (OAS), which would be responsible for repeated
assassination attempts against de Gaulle, and would be implicated in the
Permindex assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
While it is not
certain that Soustelle was a wartime member of the Synarchist plot, it
is certain, from French and American government records, that one
leading Synarchist operative infiltrated into the de Gaulle Free French
camp was Robert Marjolin, one of Alexandre Kojève's prize
student/protégés of his 1933-39 courses on Hegel, Nietzsche, and the
"end of history." Marjolin became Minister of Economy in the first de
Gaulle postwar government, and he immediately brought Kojève into the
The Cult of Napoleon
At its core, the
Synarchist international—like its front group Pan European Union—sought
to create a one-world tyranny, modeled on the reign of Napoleon
Bonaparte. The first "Synarchist" text was written in the 1860s by
Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842-1909), an occultist and
follower of Napoleon Bonaparte's own mystical advisor, Antoine Fabre
d'Olivet (1767-1825). Fabre d'Olivet had started out as a leading member
of the Jacobins, participating personally in the foiled assassination
plot against King Louis XVI in 1789. He later served as a top official
of the Interior and War Ministries under Napoleon Bonaparte. His occult
writings about "purgative violence" and the "will to power"—antecedents
of the works of Nietzsche—were adopted by Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, who
launched the idea of Synarchism as a counter to the anarchy that had
destabilized all of Europe, from 1648.
successor, Gerard Vincent Encausse ("Papus"), founded the Saint-Yves
School of Occult Sciences, and began a recruiting drive for a secret
society, which he called the Synarchy Government. In his 1894 book
Anarchie, Indolence & Synarchie, Papus spelled out an ambitious scheme
to recruit all of the leaders of industry, commerce, finance, the
military, and academia, to a single power scheme, aimed at destroying
the "internal microbe" of society, anarchy.
and Papus envisioned a global Synarchist empire, divided into five
geographic areas: 1. the British Empire; 2. Euro-Africa; 3. Eurasia; 4.
Pan-America; 5. Asia. Indeed, Alexandre Kojève is identified in Russian
sources as a leader of the so-called "Eurasians," a group of Russian
emigrés in the 1920s Berlin and Paris, led by Sir Samuel Hoare's Guchkov
and tied into the Soviet secret service project called "the Trust." The
"Eurasians" welcomed the Russian Revolution as a purgative force to wipe
out corrupt Western civilization. Kojève's own cosmology of great
tyrants counted Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler as second only to
Napoleon, in achieving the "end of history" goal of a true global
Schmitt, and Schacht
While none of the
American archive documents reviewed to date by EIR identify Nazi jurist
Carl Schmitt as a Synarchist, circumstantial evidence points to that
conclusion. Schmitt was an emissary to Spain, Portugal, France, and
Italy, during the height of fascism, turning out a series of juridical
documents, justifying the jackboot tyrannies. Schmitt was a protected
asset of Göring, the leading Synarchist figure in Nazi Germany. Like the
banker Hjalmar Schacht, Schmitt was cleared of war crimes by the
In effect, as
documented in The Hitler Book, Schacht blackmailed the Tribunal, by
aggressively asserting that he was only acting on behalf of the
international financial establishment, represented by the Bank for
International Settlements, in his incarnation as a top Nazi official. If
backed against a wall, he threatened, he would provide evidence of the
international financial cabal behind the "Hitler project." Schacht was
acquitted, over the strenuous objections of both the American and Soviet
In effect, the
perpetrators of the Nazi Holocaust were brought to justice at Nuremberg,
while the architects of the larger Synarchist scheme, like Schacht and
Leo Strauss' mentor Carl Schmitt, were given a safe conduct, and,
through the efforts of postwar occupation figures like John J. McCloy
and Gen. William Draper, were vetted for future service.
A final note: In
1955, Schmitt was corresponding with Kojève, arranging for the
Paris-based Russian emigré to address the Düsseldorf industrialists'
association—which had been a focal point of Franco-German "Synarchist"
collaboration between the Nazi and Vichy governments—and meet, during
that visit, with Schmitt's close friend Schacht.
It was this Kojève
who maintained the closest collaboration with
Leo Strauss, and who
promoted his theories of purgative violence and universal tyranny with
such leading Strauss disciples as Allan Bloom (the mentor of Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz) and Francis Fukuyama. This Synarchist
stew remains Vice President Dick Cheney's gang's "French Connection."
—Al and Rachel
Douglas, Katherine Kantor, Pierre and Irene Beaudry, Anton Chaitkin,
Stephanie Ezrol, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and Barbara Boyd contributed vital
research to this article.
This article appears in the
September 2, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
by Anton Chaitkin
This article is the product
of a task force of EIR historians studying the history of
Synarchism for the past half year. Together with Lyndon LaRouche's
treatment of the current strategic threat of Synarchism ("World
Nuclear War When?" EIR, Aug. 29, 2003), and other material,
it will be published in September in a LaRouche in 2004 campaign report.
More articles are forthcoming.
Contributing to this article
were Pierre Beaudry, Irene Beaudry, Jeffrey Steinberg, Antony Papert,
and the late H. Graham Lowry.
Introduction: The Adversaries
The menace now confronting
humanity from Washington's Cheney-Rumsfeld regime is a usurpation of
power by financier terror leaders; the final, mad phase of a
two-centuries-long project—to counteract the stunning success of the
American Revolution and America's intervention in world affairs. This
enemy totalitarian project came to be self-named, about a century ago,
To defeat it requires
historical understanding, which can never consist merely of stupid lists
of crimes and plots, however complex. It must instead be the story of
the central fight for man's mind—and for the strategic direction of
nations—over the question: Does the Creator give man Reason to shape
scientific and social progress, or must "authority" manage men, as
indistinguishable from beasts?
This is the persistent, nagging
problem in intelligence analysis generally: Here are perpetrators,
associated for such and such a purpose; here are those we judge good, in
their earnest projects; yes, but how have those, with the power to shape
large events, intervened to fuel or stall these actors, in line with the
global, paradigmatic ideas guiding the power of those strategy-shapers?
The creation of the American
republic was projected and built for by Europe's republican philosophers
and statesmen, from Plato's humanism through and beyond the revival of
knowledge in the 15th-Century Golden Renaissance. The American
settlements of the 1600s were designed to make a renewed Renaissance
base, safe from the tyranny of Europe's Venice-centered imperial rulers
and their manipulated wars of religion and revenge. The 1648 Peace of
Westphalia gave Europe a respite and a direction for survival. But the
world's real hope was in America. Increase and Cotton Mather, John
Winthrop, Alexander Spotswood, and at length, the scientist Benjamin
Franklin—allied in ideas and action with the greatest minds of Europe,
Gottfried Leibniz, Jonathan Swift, and their friends—all together
contesting with Europe's feudal-minded financial powers over the fate of
the human race.
world-famous scientific inquiries were informed by Plato's teaching, and
by Franklin's participation in the trans-Atlantic war for the mind,
led by Leibniz, against the British empiricist "dead universe" advocates
Isaac Newton and John Locke.
Franklin was already to be
seen, in the early 1770s, leading a world movement for self-government
and scientific progress. Then living in England as the agent of the
colonies, Franklin frequently visited the Earl of Shelburne at his
Bowood estate. Shelburne chaired the all-powerful three-man "Secret
Committee" of the East India Company, which also included Francis Baring
of the banking house that bore his name. Shelburne was the most
sophisticated representative of the frankly Satanic financier powers
behind the British throne.
The East India Company, a
Royal-chartered private joint-stock company, represented the pinnacle of
mid-18th-Century power, of what was known as the "Venetian Party" of
rentier-financier oligarchs, who derived their global power from near
monopoly control over key raw materials and commodities, insurance,
banking, and shipping routes. The East India Company of Shelburne's
"Secret Committee" deployed a more modern and large-scale military force
than did the British Crown, maintaining control over their private
fiefdoms in India and other parts of the world. The Company represented
the gradual merger of British and Dutch financier factions, and, thus,
operated above any notion of individual national loyalties. In effect,
Shelburne was the "doge" of the combined British and continental
European financier oligarchy.
The two wary, urbane, chief
opponents—Franklin and Shelburne—constantly took each others' measure.
Shelburne had to be the negotiating partner: Franklin knew Shelburne
favored some concessions to the Americans, fearing that simple, brutal
British repression would lead to an uncontrolled colonial revolt.
Their overlapping international
circles often met and mingled at Bowood for liberal colloquy and
friendly, tense, mutual intelligence-gathering. One might see there, for
example, Shelburne's pagan French priest, Abbé Morellet, jousting with
Franklin over magic and reason; while Franklin's scientific protégé and
agent, Joseph Priestley, arranged his employer Shelburne's library.
Soon the U.S. declared
independence, and Franklin won the kingdom of France as its
Revolutionary ally. He inspired, at England's back door, the
anti-British freedom struggle in Ireland, now emboldened by Britain's
united enemies. America's cause was increasingly popular, praised as
just and rational, esteemed as mankind's future, from Russia, to Joseph
II's Austria, to Charles III's Spain, to South America.
For the threatened
imperialists, Shelburne raised a positively hellish counterattack
against the increasing American momentum. Shelburne's cadres and
occultist agents threw France into bloody confusion and terror, then
"solved" the chaos with Napoleon's tyranny that plundered Europe,
leaving France ruined and America isolated.
This criminal initiative echoed
down through the 19th and 20th Centuries, the model for the Synarchist
movement of leading bankers, who opposed the persisting American power
by spawning fascism and fundamentalist terror.
The world saw in Franklin's
America the resurgent principles of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, that
had ended Europe's Thirty Years' War: national sovereignty, coupled with
renunciation of revenge, the banning of religious crusades and similar
pretexts for eternal war. This orderly framework, with government
protection for industry, and public credit, would lead to educated
citizens, truth-seekers, inventors, who could increase their productive
power and prosperity—man in the Divine image.
The British rulers and their
Continental European factional allies went to total war to reverse the
gears of mankind's progress, to obliterate the Peace of Westphalia they
hated, and its American incarnation. Shelburne acted for the imperial
looters, adventurers, and speculators who gained absolute power behind
Britain's Kings George I, II, and III.
This oligarchy had spoken most
bluntly through the shameless Mephistophelian writer, Bernard Mandeville
(1670-1733). He demanded absolute "free market" lawlessness to satisfy
man's alleged inherent evil, all his criminal appetites. He said the
safety of the powerful depends on the maximum cheapness and
brutalization of their subjects. "The surest wealth consists in a
multitude of Laborious Poor.... To make the Society Happy ... it is
requisite that great numbers ... should be Ignorant as well as Poor....
Going to School in comparison to Working is Idleness.... Men who are to
remain and end their Days in a Laborious, tiresome and Painful Station
of Life, the sooner they are put upon it at first, the more patiently
they'll submit to it for ever after."
Mandeville argued that "the
best policy is to preserve men in their native simplicity, strive not to
increase their numbers; let them never be acquainted with strangers or
superfluities, but remove and keep from them everything that might raise
their desires or improve their understanding."
Lord Shelburne's English estate
housed the agents of influence for those financier powers, literary
justifiers of their dominion over men, script-writers for managed
insurrection. And Shelburne maintained Continental bases for his allies
and subversive agents within French-speaking Switzerland, Geneva and its
environs, and inside France proper, as will be described below.
Shelburne assigned two projects
to East India Company propagandist Adam Smith. First, to prepare the
research outline for a study of the Roman Empire, needed to aid
conceptually in erecting a new such pagan empire with London as its
headquarters. (This assignment was later turned over to another East
India Company researcher, Edward Gibbon, and completed as The Decline
and Fall of the Roman Empire, which blamed the intrusion of
Christianity, the religion of the weak, for the collapse of the mighty.)
Shelburne also commissioned
Smith's work on an apologia for Free Trade. This, Smith completed in
1776 as The Wealth of Nations. He claimed that the power of an
"invisible hand," and each man's pursuit of his selfish interest rather
than anyone's desire to do good, causes economic well-being. (Wise men
have since asked, is this invisible hand, financiers who rig stock
bubbles, or Shelburnes who rig insurrections?) Smith warned Americans
and Frenchmen not to dare the "artificial," government-promoted change
from agrarian to industrial society; he attacked specifically the
protectionist tradition of Jean Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for
France's Louis XIV.
In the 1780s, Shelburne
installed as his agent the Nero-imitating writer Jeremy Bentham, in an
apartment at Bowood. Bentham had written with contempt in October 1776,
against the defense of human rights in America's July 4, 1776
Declaration of Independence: "This they 'hold to be' a 'truth
self-evident.' At the same time, to secure these rights they are
satisfied that Government should be instituted. They see not ... that
nothing that was ever called Government ever was or ever could be
exercised but at the expense of one or another of those rights, that ...
some one or other of those pretended unalienable rights is alienated ...
In these tenets they have outdone the extravagance of all former
Bentham was to write speeches,
translated by the Genevan Etienne Dumont, which went by diplomatic pouch
and through other means to Paris, to be spoken by the street leaders of
the Jacobin Terror: Marat, Danton, and Robespierre.
In preparation for this work,
Bentham wrote a 1785 essay defending "Paederasty," arguing that
penalties against men's sex with children stem from society's
"irrational antipathy" to pleasure, especially sexual pleasure; and a
1787 pamphlet, In Defense of Usury, attacking all restrictions on
the lenders' right to take the highest interest rates they could get
collaboration from this period is reliably considered the beginning of
the modern British Secret Intelligence Service.
England, Switzerland, France
On the shores of Switzerland's
Lake Geneva there were assembled, by the 1700s, a most peculiar set of
banker-nobles. Some of these families descended from the Cathar
chieftains, pagan buggerers who gravitated up the Rhône river. Some were
well-to-do Protestant (Huguenot) emigrés from French religious strife.
Most adhered to the sect of the earlier French emigré Genevan, John
Calvin; this gave them ties to the Dutch financiers, and religious
denominational affiliation with those Scots who served London's empire.
They were joined later by embittered aristocratic refugees from the
Terror in France. Thus for the corrupted Anglo-Dutch monarchies, French
Switzerland became a knife pointed at the heart of France.
The misnamed 18th-Century
Enlightenment stank from Geneva to Paris, from Amsterdam to London. The
undead Cathar pagan reverence for possessed objects—such as gold, land,
piles of grain, the bodies of serfs—yielded the doctrine of
physiocracy: that wealth is simply transferred from natural earth
and the treasure under it, so man's creative discoveries and scientific
advancements have no economic value. Adam Smith formed his Free Trade
notions from the physiocrats while in France and Switzerland in the
1760s. He only chided their assertion that manufacturing is not equally
necessary (e.g., no cannons, uniforms, or ships; no empire), while
adhering to the mania that conscious Reason, by its nature benevolent,
must never be permitted to intrude in economics.
Geneva was ruled through the
Council of 200, whose leading families intermarried and engaged jointly
in espionage, covert propaganda, grain monopoly, colonial slave
management, and foreign imperial military careers. Their life work often
emulated the strategic tradition of Venice's higher aristocracy.
Among Geneva family names
notable in the late-18th-Century political storms, were Necker, André,
Gallatin, Mallet, de Saussure, du Pan, and Prevost.
The massively wealthy
Geneva-born banker Jacques Necker was appointed the ambassador of Geneva
to the court of France in 1764, and became French finance minister in
1777. Necker worked secretly with the British against the
American-French alliance, and to wreck the French government. Necker's
wife was formerly the fianceé of British imperial historian Edward
Gibbon. Necker and his famous daughter, Germaine Necker de Staël,
intrigued for both the "left" and "right" phases of the French turmoil.
British army officer John
André, son of a Geneva merchant banker, returned to Geneva University to
be militarily trained before going to America as a master spy. Gen.
George Washington hanged André for procuring Benedict Arnold's treason.
The André family merged into the de Neuflizes and joined with
Schlumberger and Mallet, forming a politically powerful financier
grouping to be of great influence in the project known as Synarchism.
These combined interests also appeared in Schlumberger, the huge oil
services and covert operations specialists paralleling Dick Cheney's
Albert Gallatin, raised on the
knee of Geneva corruptionist writer Voltaire, hid out in the Maine woods
during the American Revolution, then led the political attack, within
Pennsylvania, against adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Later a U.S.
Treasury Secretary, Gallatin led the Free Trade faction against American
Banker Jacques Mallet du Pan
founded the British branch of the Mallet family. An intimate of
Voltaire, and Britain's main French-speaking intelligence officer,
Mallet du Pan teamed with Necker and Joseph de Maistre in leading the
opposition to an American-style constitution in Europe.
Gen. Augustin Prevost, very
close to Voltaire, commanded Britain's invasion of South Carolina
against the American Revolution. General Prevost introduced Britain's
Scottish Rite Freemasonry onto American soil. His brother James Mark's
widow married Aaron Burr and familiarized Burr with top British
intelligence circles. Augustin's son Gen. George Prevost, the British
Governor General of Canada, invaded New York state during the War of
1812. When Aaron Burr was in exile in England following his U.S. treason
trial, the Mallet-Prevosts and Jeremy Bentham were Burr's co-hosts.
Geneva's de Saussure family,
emigrating to become leaders of the South Carolina plantation owners,
coordinated the Massachusetts Tories and southern secession agitators,
for British intelligence. Their Swiss castle, Frontenex, remained a
mecca for visiting British noblemen, and they would later boast of
intimacy with Britain's statesman and spymaster Lord Palmerston.
In the lower social ranks,
Jean-Paul Marat, from Neuchatel and Geneva, was trained for ten years by
British intelligence in England before going on to murder thousands of
France's intellectuals in the Reign of Terror. Geneva's Etienne Dumont
was intimate with Gallatin, was the worldwide promoter and translator
for Jeremy Bentham, and tutored Lord Shelburne's sons.
The Shelburne machine owned
France's Philippe Duke of Orleans, cousin and enemy to Louis XVI, and
opponent of the French nation-building tradition which was now being
applied to the American cause. Shelburne and the Duke of Orleans
employed creatures from the swamp of mystics and charlatans centered in
the freemasonic lodges of Lyons, France, in particular the Martinist
Order. Among the Martinists who performed in the staged 1780s-1790s
French destabilizations were Franz Anton Mesmer, Count Cagliostro (real
name Giuseppe Balsamo), Jacques Cazotte, Fabré d'Olivet, and Joseph de
Martinism, a mocking perversion
of Catholicism, considers Fallen Man to be in exile in this earthly
existence, deprived of his powers. Man can only restore his original
condition by initiation to the inner ranks of a secret society, through
purgative violence—sado-masochistic rituals, torture, and human
sacrifices. As a candidate learns to tolerate injury to others, he gives
up his human identity, the sympathy which was celebrated in the Peace of
Westphalia as the "Advantage of the Other." He loses the Platonic and
Christian truth that men prosper by seeking to benefit others rather
This pagan ritualism breeds
heartless imperial soldiers and fanatic gang leaders, as Mithraic
Stoicism did for the Roman Caesars. After Martinism guided successive
French coups, its banker-proprietors spun it into Synarchy and
fascism—while labeling it Conservatism or fundamentalist Christianity.
The Shelburne Revolution
France announced in the Spring
of 1778 that it was joining America's war for independence. Franklin and
his friends acted quickly to strike a winning blow.
Franklin's open letter to the
Irish people, printed November 1778 in Dublin's Hibernian Journal,
pleaded the common cause of America and Ireland against the British.
The following Spring, 1779,
France and Spain agreed to send a joint fleet carrying 60,000 soldiers
to invade England and decide the war. Elements of the fleet set sail
into the English Channel. An invasion of Ireland was also contemplated.
Lafayette, back from his first North American fighting, planned to lead
that invasion. He told the pro-American foreign minister, Count
Vergennes, "the thought of seeing England humiliated, crushed, makes me
thrill with joy." Indecision, smallpox, and faulty
intelligence combined to wreck the plan, but the fleet's presence in the
Channel, coupled with events to the west, cast a dark shadow over
Irish Protestant "Volunteers"
began arming themselves, ostensibly to repel an expected American-French
invasion. By late 1779, one hundred thousand Irishmen were drilling, and
overtures for Catholic-Protestant solidarity were circulating. Thousands
of handbills were distributed in Ireland: The American Congress offered
Irish emigrants free land and full religious toleration.
Lord Shelburne wrote from
Ireland that he found "all classes more animated about America than in
England. In every Protestant or Dissenter's house the established toast
is success to the Americans." His spies informed
Shelburne that Franklin personally coordinated Ireland's alliance with
the American rebels.
Meanwhile Shelburne acted
through former East India Company director Thomas Walpole, to coordinate
the treason of Walpole's close friend and banking colleague, Jacques
Necker, the French finance minister. Necker and Walpole intrigued in
France against Vergennes, to stop the "wasteful spending" for the
French-American alliance. Another British spy, Geneva professor
Paul-Henri Mallet, on King George III's payroll, "spent a good part" of
Spring 1780 in the company of his cousin, Necker. He soon divulged
Necker's views "under solemn oath of secrecy" to Lord Mountstuart,
Mallet's intermediary to King George III and Lord Shelburne. " 'Were
these talks to be disclosed,' he cautioned, they might 'greatly
prejudice M. Necker,' who was now winning the support of the King [Louis
XVI] ... Necker had been frank with the Swiss historian, according to
the latter's own account. To introduce fiscal reforms, the court of
France had to have peace [i.e., stop France's aid to the American
Revolution, which was] a war he had never had nor could approve....
Necker ... was quoted by Mallet as expressing the fervent hope 'in God
the English would be able to maintain their ground a little better this
Mountstuart reported to London
that "Necker was prepared to go behind [French Foreign Minister]
Vergennes' back and effect a peace without satisfying even the minimum
goals of France's ... allies and without regard to Louis XVI's own
honored commitments. On December 1st, Necker, in the full assurance of
his growing power, dispatched a secret message to [British Prime
Minister] Lord North.... 'You desire peace,' Necker wrote. 'I wish it
Paul-Henri Mallet and Necker
also proposed to the British government strategems to split the
rebelling American colonies against each other, North versus South, in
order to weaken their fight for independence.
But Necker was soon forced out
of his cabinet post.
In the face of the tightening
American-Irish-French-Spanish noose, Shelburne's protégé, British Col.
Isaac Barré, wrote to Shelburne attacking the weakness and inept policy
of the government: "We cannot stand aside and permit the country to take
a cowardly course." The opposition should "by some bold and daring
measure stun the Court, awake the people, and then take the reins of
government into their hands."
Weary of the failed prosecution
of the war in North America, and convinced that the Ministry of Lord
George North would ruin his dreams of permanent empire, Lord Shelburne,
through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, bankrolled a
Jacobin mob to descend on London in June of 1780. The pretext was the
nervous North government's granting of extremely limited "reforms" of
the longstanding legal oppression of Catholics.
Led by Lord George Gordon, the
Protestant rabble stormed Westminster, sending parliamentarians and
Lords alike down flights of stairs, out windows, and to the hospitals.
For eight days, London was ransacked, culminating in the storming of the
Newgate Prison and the freeing of all the prisoners, who joined in the
assault on the Parliament. Eight hundred people died, with terrible
Lord Shelburne, as head of the
interior committee of the House of Lords, personally assured the maximum
terror by delaying the reading of the Riot Act which called out the Home
Guard until violence had spread to every corner of the City. When the
rioting began, Shelburne "was one of the few peers to reach the House of
Lords without molestation. He was conspicuous in opposing the calling
out of the military. 'I will ever resist and prevent such a matter if
possible,' he [told the Lords]. The next day ... he defended the
assemblages of the people, and felt that their shouts of 'No Popery!'
... came from sincere, if misguided, conviction."
The Lord Mayor of London was a spectator of the smashing and burning,
declining to intervene on the grounds that "there are very great people
at the bottom of the riot."
After a brief incarceration in
the Tower of London, foreshortened by Shelburne's personal intervention
with the Crown, the useful Lord Gordon went off to friendlier ground in
the Netherlands. There, to the astonishment of his Scottish Presbyterian
cronies, he became a convert to Jewish Cabalism, taking the name Israel
bar Abraham. He shortly thereafter surfaced in Paris, working with the
magician Cagliostro as a provocateur against Queen Marie-Antoinette,
while situated as an occult advisor of hers; and from that position
participated in Shelburne's intrigues against the French state. Later,
the Jacobin insurrection in Paris would replay on a grander scale the
earlier Shelburne-instigated Gordon Riots, down to the storming of the
Bastille Prison and the unleashing of the criminals.
When the London flames died,
the Ministry of Lord North was in ashes as well. North held on to
office, paralyzed and frightened, until the victory of the Washington's
and Lafayette's American and French forces at Yorktown in October 1781,
ushered him out.
Shelburne went into the new
Rockingham cabinet (March-July 1782) as Foreign Secretary for the
Northern District, subsuming the North American colonies. Shelburne
became Prime Minister upon Rockingham's death. His brief personal
command of the British government (July 1782 to April 1783) gave him
imperial-overlord factional policy control at this decisive turning
point. Shelburne set up parallel, separate peace negotiations with the
U.S.A. and France, through which arrangement the seeds of the death of
France were planted. Suspicions between the American and French allies
were fanned; the pro-American faction, the intelligent inheritors of
Colbertism, were weakened, as Shelburne prepared a new war within the
By this time, King George III
had declared himself wholly subservient to the Shelburne-led East India
Company faction, the Venetian Party. As the result of these events, the
shadow government formally took charge of the official state apparatus.
The intelligence operations formerly housed at the East India Company
were henceforth run out of the newly formed Foreign Office and the
British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS).
The Company and its financiers
reigned supreme in Britain. The new British Empire would focus on
subduing India under the Company's private army of 300,000, far
exceeding the regular British government's forces; conquering China with
Indian opium; and looting the world through uneven trade relations.
Shelburne's imperial bankers permanently controlled British strategy,
even after the East India Company per se was phased out in the 19th
Six months after Yorktown,
General Washington's chief aide, Alexander Hamilton, who coordinated
military intelligence for the alliance, described publicly the economic
tradition which the American leaders would use to develop their country,
when they had the necessary energetic government:
Rapid progress ... is in a
great measure to be ascribed to the fostering care of government....
The trade of] France ... [would not] have been at this time in so
prosperous a condition had it not been for the abilities and
indefatigable endeavors of the great COLBERT. He laid the foundation
of the French commerce, and taught the way to his successors to
enlarge and improve it. The establishment of the woolen manufacture,
in a kingdom, where nature seemed to have denied the means, is one
among many proofs, how much may be effected in favour of commerce by
the attention and patronage of a wise administration. The number of
useful edicts passed by Louis the 14th, and since his time, in spite
of frequent interruptions from the jealous enmity of Great Britain,
has advanced that of France to a degree which has excited the envy
and astonishment of its neighbors.
In 1783, as Shelburne's new
government signed a peace treaty, Adam Smith issued an updated version
of the Wealth of Nations, complaining that "Mr. Colbert, the
famous minister of Lewis XIV ... [endeavored to regulate] the industry
and commerce of a great country upon the same model as the departments
of a public office; and instead of allowing every man to pursue his own
interest in his own way ... he bestowed upon certain branches of
industry extraordinary privileges, while he laid others under as
extraordinary restraints ... [Colbert preferred] the industry of the
towns above that of the country."
This unfair policy—by which
France had become a greater manufacturing power than England—said Smith,
was responsible for provoking cycles of retaliation between France and
England, and peace could only be secured on the basis of "free trade"
Prime Minister Shelburne made
his own public demand for unbridled free trade and usury on Jan. 27,
1783, while arguing in the House of Lords for ratification of the Treaty
of Paris formally ending the American Revolution. Shelburne warned,
"Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between
southern and northern Europe, all we ought to covet on earth is free
trade.... With more industry, with more capital, with more enterprise
than any trading nation on earth, it ought to be our constant cry: Let
every market be open."
After the 1783 Peace treaty,
before the Americans had a strong Federal government to protect their
industry, British ships deluged U.S. ports with cheap goods, their
brashly public purpose being to stifle America's infant manufacturing.
In France, Adam Smith's theory
of free trade was popularized by Swiss banker Jacques Mallet du Pan, who
called Smith "the most profound and philosophic of all the metaphysical
writers who have dealt with economic questions." Mallet du Pan's cousin
Pierre Prevost, professor at the University of Geneva, would translate
the works of Adam Smith and East India Company professor Thomas Malthus.
Attacking Colbert's policies in
1786, Mallet du Pan lobbied strenuously with France's King Louis XVI to
accept British Prime Minister William Pitt's offer of a treaty that
would force France to give up all protective measures, and put the
country at the mercy of Britain's "free trade" policies. At the same
time the international banking houses, led by the Swiss, suddenly
refused credit to the French government, and Louis XVI was forced to
sign Pitt's Eden Treaty. The British trade war began immediately; they
dumped cheap British manufactures on the French market and cut off the
supply to France of vital Spanish wool.
Within France, employment,
agriculture, and trade quickly collapsed and starvation followed. In
1789, credit was again withdrawn from the French government. King Louis
XVI was forced to reinstall Genevan banker Jacques Necker as minister of
finance—after having fired him several times before—in order to "regain
the confidence" of the banking community. Necker proposed austerity as
the only solution to the crisis. He told the people of France that their
troubles stemmed from "wasteful spending" by the King and Queen. A
But in the years leading up to
this decisive moment, the American faction had been battling the spooks
swarming all about the Royal and wealthy circles of Paris.
King Louis had appointed
Benjamin Franklin head of a nine-member commission to probe the
pretenses of the Martinist, Franz Mesmer, whose hypnotism ("mesmerism")
was attributed to Animal Magnetism flowing from his hands. Astronomer
Jean Sylvain Bailly, secretary of the Academy of Sciences, wrote the
report for Franklin's group, demolishing Mesmer's claims.
Lyons Martinist Jacques Cazotte
made a chilling and self-fulfilling "prophecy" at a 1788 dinner of the
Academy of Sciences. Cazotte declared that the pro-Americans sitting at
the table, including Jean Sylvain Bailly, were going to be executed
within the next few years—that Bailly would die on the scaffold.
Cagliostro had already
published a Letter to the French (June 20, 1786) prophesying that
"The Bastille shall be completely destroyed, and the land upon which it
had been erected shall become a promenade area." The "Count" made this
pronouncement after his meetings with the Scottish Rite Mother Lodge in
Queen Marie-Antoinette was the
particular target of Shelburne's Martinists. The Queen's brother,
Austrian Emperor Joseph II, sponsored Wolfgang Mozart, whose music
illuminated Joseph's Vienna and his sister Marie-Antoinette's Paris.
Marie personally acted in a performance of The Marriage of Figaro,
a play by Franklin's arms supplier Caron de Beaumarchais, satirizing the
pornographic, still-feudal oligarchy (Mozart's opera was based on the
play). The enraged Orleanists repeatedly interfered, trying to stop the
play's performance at the Royal court, just as the Duke of
Orleans—"Philippe Égalité" as he called himself for the Jacobins—had
forced Mozart himself out of Paris in 1778.
The gossip roiling Parisian
streets against Marie-Antoinette came from the assassination warmup
known as the Affair of the Necklace. Cagliostro and his occultist
brothers enabled a designing countess, down on her luck, to embroil a
Cardinal in a scam involving the purchase, for the Queen, of an
exorbitantly expensive necklace she explicitly did not want. The arrest
of the countess and Cardinal was played into a scandal vilifying
Marie-Antoinette as extravagant, unfeeling, and foreign, amidst
starvation. The Countess who stole the necklace escaped prison and fled
to England where she was falsely celebrated as a poor victim of tyranny.
The French King and Queen would be executed.
Terror Against a U.S.-Style
France, impoverished by British
Free Trade, Necker's speculators, and ruinous debts, could only be
prosperous again under the dignity of self-government and laws promoting
productive economic growth. There had to be a written constitution,
establishing the government's purpose and power to so promote the
The American example presented
itself. Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had met at
Franklin's home to hear the program for the projected Constitutional
government—nationally promoted industry and public credit. Gen. George
Washington was duly inaugurated the first President on April 30, 1789,
and brought in Hamilton as Treasury Secretary to implement the Franklin
On June 17, 1789, seven weeks
after America's national government began, a French "national assembly"
was put into action, with Jean Sylvain Bailly as its president. Bailly
and General Lafayette, spokesmen for the republican alliance with
America, proposed the necessity of a written constitution to place the
king and the entire nation under law, allowing for publicly controlled
credit to finance national development. This would be a leap far beyond
the British "constitutional" monarchy, since Britain had no written
constitution, and no real law other than the mere will of its private
bankers, who dictated to the government and to the state church.
On June 20, the King having
shut the assembly out of their hall, the members met on a tennis court.
All but one signed an oath, as a revolutionary act, asserting that
political authority derived from the people and their representatives,
and vowing to continue meeting at all costs until a national
constitution would be written, ratified, and put in force. This was
France's day of glory. The Tennis Court Oath launched what should have
become known as the French Revolution.
On July 11, Necker secretly
left France on the King's advice. Savagely ignorant mobs were put into
the streets protesting Necker's downfall—though he had not really been
dismissed, and was himself manipulating the King. The mob carried busts
of Necker and Orleans as heroes who should be in power.
Rumor management (including
lies of murder screamed by the Marquis de Sade out of his Bastille cell
window, leading to his transfer to a lunatic asylum) steered a mob to
storm the Bastille prison, freeing its remaining prisoners—an assassin,
two mental cases, and four forgers. The attacking mob paraded through
the streets with sticks bearing the heads of the prison's governor and
several guards, whom they had murdered. Necker returned to his office 18
days after leaving.
A struggle ensued. Lafayette
was elected head of the national guard, and Bailly was chosen as Mayor
of Paris. The "Jacobins" soon began meeting, haranguing the populace
with bloodthirsty speeches crafted at Bowood. Though a Lafayette-Bailly
constitution was adopted in 1791, by 1792 the terrorists had won the
contest. All pretense of law was abolished, even as a Republic was
declared. The republican Lazare Carnot led a brilliant military campaign
to defend France from the kingdoms attacking it, but the Revolution's
military defense was changed to outward imperial conquest.
The word "republic" was an
abuse, as those in power mass-executed their rivals, and were themselves
executed in turn. Bailly and Lavoisier (Priestley's co-discoverer of
oxygen and Franklin's gunpowder supplier), scientists who were the
treasure and strength of France, were decapitated. American friends of
the Revolution such as Tom Paine pleaded unsuccessfully for the lives of
the King and Queen, and an end to the butchery.
British historians adopted the
lie that the French Revolution was a fight won by Left radicals over
Thomas Jefferson wrote to
Lafayette in 1815, that the British ran the (traditionally called
"left-wing") anarchists in the French Revolution, and were running the
Boston ("right-wing") banker-insurrectionists in the period of the War
The foreigner gained time
to anarchise by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms,
to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans, by the
fraternal embraces of exaggerated and hired pretenders, and to turn
the machine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of
order; and in the end, the limited monarchy [that Lafayette and
Bailly] had secured was exchanged for the unprincipled and bloody
tyranny of Robespierre.... The British ... fears of republican
France being now done away, they are directed to republican
America.... The Marats, the Dantons, and Robespierres of
Massachusetts are in the same pay, under the same orders, and making
the same efforts to anarchise us, that their prototypes in France
John Quincy Adams later told
the U.S. Congress, in his eulogy for Lafayette, "The movements of the
insurgent Power were ... guided by secret springs, prompted by
vindictive and sanguinary ambition, directed by hands unseen to objects
of individual agrandizement."
During early 1789, Jacques
Mallet du Pan wrote articles "On the British Constitution" and "On the
Declaration of Rights," demanding France adopt the British parliamentary
system, with a balance of power among the people, the nobles, and
the crown, and an intermediary body of advisors such as the Privy
Council, which must assure that authority over the issuance of
credit would be kept strictly in the hands of central bankers,
independent of the control of an elected government.
Necker and Mallet du Pan had
long worked together against the spread of Franklin's American economics
and constitutional ideas. Mallet complained that the American Revolution
had spawned a "swarm of fanatics" in Europe.
Mallet du Pan's ultimate
political theory may be summed up in his outburst in a letter he had
written to his teacher Voltaire in 1772: "I shall exhaust all the feeble
enlightenment that I owe to you in eradicating the work of St.
Boniface." The Eighth-Century missionary
Boniface Christianized Germany. Thus, what Mallet means is, "I work to
overturn Christianity's original takeover of Europe—this was a
catastrophe which hindered the rightful unlimited rule of barbarian
So Mallet du Pan and Necker
diligently collaborated with an "expert" enemy of the nation-state,
Joseph de Maistre, a satanic Martinist deep in the lodge circle of
Lyons. A Savoy nobleman, de Maistre in 1792 fled upon the advance into
Savoy of the French Revolutionary armies. When Mallet du Pan and Necker
and their families consulted with him, in Geneva and Lausanne 1792-1793,
Necker was "retired" from French office, but deeply involved in managing
events within the Revolutionary turmoil, and Mallet du Pan was the
principal director of Continental intelligence for the British crown.
They put de Maistre onto the world stage as the spokesman for the
darkest feudal reaction within the modern era, directing the role he was
to play in the creation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
The Beast Project, Napoleon
What did Necker and Mallet du
Pan want from de Maistre?
Listen to Mallet spin out his
scenario, published in January 1789, as Franklin's friends prepared to
export the American Constitution to France. Mallet wrote of England's
past, to suggest a future to be imposed on France:
The blood of Charles I and ten
battles only submitted Parliament and the nation to their own army,
which was soon enthralled to its cleverest chiefs. Democracy had
destroyed the constitution; this democracy led to an oligarchy of
generals; the Protectorate beat down everything, Parliament, army,
sects, factions, and Cromwell reigned alone over a people whom frenzy
had deprived of its vigor and its reason.
Then, Mallet went on to say,
the monarchy was restored and few states have been as free of political
troubles as has England since then.
The discussions in the salon of
Necker and his daughter, Mme. de Staël, led directly to de Maistre's
writing his 1796 Considerations on France. Published the
following year, the book transported the imagination of the upstart
general Napoleon Bonaparte, who was a ready actor in the horrible order
of events foreshadowed in Mallet's scenario.
Most of the themes in de
Maistre's book, the evil nature of fallen man, the role of Providence,
why the innocent victim must pay for the guilty, are taken from the work
of Claude Louis Saint-Martin, high priest of the Martinist order of
which de Maistre became the most prominent representative following his
two decades of freemasonic work.
It will be seen below, what
Napoleon got from de Maistre, and where he went with it.
Corsican-born army officer
Napoleon Bonaparte was known as a Jacobin and Robespierrist, a murderer
and a bandit, a revolutionary executioner. Thus in 1795, when Paris
rebels rose against yet another intended change of regimes, the
then-head of the government, Paul Barras, appointed Napoleon to block
the rebels' advance. The Corsican directed cannon grapeshot fire, and
mowed down the rebellious people in the streets. Barras, who now
advanced Napoleon upward in the army, was himself an extravagant
corruptionist who took his orders from banker Jacques Necker.
Barras shared his mistress,
Josephine de Beauharnais, with Napoleon. She was one of a set of
political prostitutes along with Mme. de Staël (known as the "ugly
beauty"), ladies on the lookout for available executioner-generals to
take charge of French affairs. Napoleon married Josephine and became
commander in chief of the French Army in Italy, under the Barras-led
French regime called the Directory. The loot from his foreign conquests
were shared among the Directory and its banker sponsors. In a notorious
1797 scene of staged female hysteria, recorded in Barras's memoires,
Mme. de Staël compelled Barras to make her dissolute plaything, Charles
Maurice Talleyrand-Perigord, the foreign minister. Napoleon came back
from abroad in 1799 and made himself a dictator. Necker's Talleyrand was
Napoleon's intermediary to obtain Barras's resignation, and Napoleon
kept Talleyrand as foreign minister.
Talleyrand helped Napoleon
conquer Germany and Italy, helped him become Emperor, helped him subdue
the Pope, and held him off from invading England. Talleyrand's enormous
wealth from bribes and theft was deposited in England. As the slaughter
exhausted France and Europe, Talleyrand began moving to the next phase
of things, betraying Napoleon—who accurately called him "shit in a silk
stocking." The British and European nobility who finally crushed France
and restored the monarchy, rewarded Talleyrand by reinstalling him as
Devil de Maistre Whispers to
Joseph de Maistre's book
Considerations on France appeared in 1797, giving Napoleon some two
years to reflect on its message for him, before he seized power. British
historian Isaiah Berlin reports, "Napoleon ... was impressed by the
brilliance of de Maistre's writings, which he was said to find
politically sympathetic." And de Maistre admired Napoleon, whose "clear
grasp of the realities of power, his open contempt for democrats,
liberals and intellectuals ... but above all the contrast between the
stupidity and weakness of the Bourbons [royal line] and the military and
the administrative genius of a man who once again lifted France to a
pinnacle of glory, could not but appeal powerfully to the apostle of
realism and authority."
Through his book, at first
published anonymously, de Maistre whispered in Napoleon's ear: I speak
for the invisible ruling powers: Providence will adopt you, if you are
bold enough to make yourself the Man of Destiny. You may commit all
crimes, make limitless war on the world. God himself wants you to commit
as many crimes as possible—through them you will become God on Earth.
Let us listen to de Maistre's
own words—keeping in mind that the author is regarded today as a
Christian authority by Dick Cheney's conservative supporters:
Unhappily, history proves
that war is, in a certain sense, the habitual state of mankind,
which is to say that human blood must flow without interruption
somewhere or other on the globe, and that for every nation, peace is
only a respite.... If you ... examine people in all possible
conditions from the state of barbarism to the most advanced
civilization, you always find war....
Yet there is room to doubt
whether this violent destruction is, in general, such a great evil
as is believed.... First, when the human soul has lost its strength
through laziness, incredulity, and the gangrenous vices that follow
an excess of civilization, it can be retempered only in blood....
Mankind may be considered as a tree which an invisible hand is
continually pruning and which often profits from the operation. In
truth the tree may perish if the trunk is cut or if the tree is
overpruned; but who knows the limits of the human tree? What we
do know is that excessive carnage is often allied with excessive
population.... Now the real fruits of human nature—the arts,
sciences, great enterprises, lofty conceptions, manly virtues—are
due especially to the state of war. We know that nations have never
achieved the highest point of the greatness of which they are
capable except after long and bloody wars. [emphasis in the
Pagan or Christian, God
loves human sacrifices! He protects the guilty, not the innocent!
We are continuously
troubled by the wearisome sight of the innocent who perish with the
guilty. But ... we can consider [this] solely in the light of the
age-old dogma that the innocent suffer for the benefit of the
It was from this dogma ...
that the ancients derived the custom of sacrifices that was
practiced everywhere.... Christianity came to consecrate this dogma,
which is perfectly natural to man although appearing difficult to
arrive at by reason. [emphasis in original]
In telling Napoleon that
destiny explains his success, and that the hand of God is guiding
him, de Maistre wrote, "[It is] neither paper money nor the
advantage of numbers [that] allows the French to invade Italy
(De Maistre's editors explain
that "Napoleon in his first Italian campaign in April 1796 was short of
artillery because of a lack of horses to move his cannon.")
You can destroy any
opposition, de Maistre implied, if you are not squeamish!
Tyrants succeeded one
another and the people always obeyed.... Their masters have gone so
far as to crush them by mocking them. They told the people, ... 'If
you dare to refuse [our law], we will shoot you down with grapeshot
to punish you for not wanting what you want.' And they did."
(De Maistre's editors explain
that this referred to "the uprising ... which young General Bonaparte
put down with grapeshot.")
Does Destiny call your
When Providence decrees the
more rapid formation of a political constitution, there appears a
man invested with an indefinable power: he speaks and makes himself
obeyed. But these marvelous men belong perhaps only to the world of
antiquity and to the youth of nations.
Take it! Only the Unseen
Powers decide who rules.
This is how
counter-revolutions are made. God warns us that he has reserved to
Himself the establishment of sovereignties by never confiding to the
masses the choice of their masters.... Thus the Roman people gave
themselves masters while believing they were opposing the
aristocracy by following Caesar."
Despite your lowly birth,
all History has been waiting for you!
There has never existed a
sovereign family to which one can assign a plebeian origin; if this
phenomenon should appear it would be epoch-making.... We often hear
it said, 'If Richard Cromwell [son of Oliver Cromwell, who seized
England—remember Mallet's scenario] had had his father's genius, he
would have made the Protectorate hereditary in his family.' How
Napoleon took the advice, to
see himself as such a Man of Destiny. By insane wars throughout Europe,
and a series of coups, he made himself Emperor, his rule secured by a
pervasive secret police, censorship, arrest of dissenters. And though he
was short, he made himself God. The Pope was forced to sign a treaty
putting Napoleon in charge of the Church in the French Empire. Bishops
and priests had to teach as he said, swear loyalty to him, take their
pay from him, report political conspiracies to his spies. And he did as
Cromwell did not, creating Kings and nobility out of his heirs, family
and friends (a Mallet became a French Baron).
'America Is Not Possible!'
The fourth chapter of de
Maistre's Considerations, entitled "Can the French Republic
Last?", was, according to de Maistre's editors, "apparently a direct
response to Benjamin Constant's 'Objections Drawn from Experience
Against the Possibility of a Republic in a Large State.'"
Benjamin Constant was the lover
of Germaine Necker de Staël from 1794 until 1806. When de Maistre's book
was published, Constant and de Staël were in Paris sponsoring Barras,
and Constant took part in the 1799 coup establishing Napoleon's rule.
In this fourth chapter, de
Maistre insisted that "nature and history together prove that a large
indivisible republic is an impossibility ... a large and free nation
cannot exist under a republican government." He "proves" this assertion:
"If we are told that a die thrown a billion times had never turned up
anything but five numbers—1, 2, 3, 4, and 5—could we believe that there
was a 6 on one of the faces? NO ... one of the faces is blank or ... one
of the numbers is repeated.... Fortune tirelessly throwing the
die for over four thousand years. Has LARGE REPUBLIC ever been rolled?
No. Therefore that number is not on the die." [emphasis in the
Note the queerly hysterical
cheapness of this argument. He first hints at the real problem: "There
is nothing but violence in the universe; but we are spoiled by a modern
philosophy that tells us all is good, whereas evil has tainted
everything, and in a very real sense, all is evil..." [emphasis
in the original].
His editors explain, "de
Maistre is castigating the 'best of all possible worlds' optimism that
seemed to characterize some Eighteenth-Century thinkers. Of course de
Maistre was not alone in this reaction; Voltaire's Candide, for
example, included a brilliant satire on philosophical optimism."
"This is the best of all
possible worlds," is the loving idea Gottfried Leibniz gave the modern
world from Plato and Christ, for which Voltaire mocked him in Candide.
This Platonic, Leibnizian heritage, carried through the America of
Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin, is the central issue.
De Maistre lets the underlying
rage of his faction spill out in a way that shocks us across the
Not only do I doubt the
stability of the American government, but the particular
establishments of English America inspire no confidence in me. The
cities, for example, animated by a hardly respectable jealousy, have
not been able to agree as to where the Congress should meet; none of
them wanted to concede the honour to another. In consequence they
have decided to build a new city to be the capital. They have chosen
a very favourable location on the banks of a great river and decreed
that the city should be called Washington. The sites of all
the public buildings have been marked out, the work has begun, and
the plan of this queen city has already made the rounds in Europe.
Essentially these is nothing in all this that surpasses human power;
a city may easily be built. Nevertheless, there is too much
deliberation, too much humanity in this business, and one
could bet a thousand to one that the city will not be built, that it
will not be called Washington, and that the Congress will not
meet there. [emphasis in the original]
The madness and wreckage that
the defeated Napoleon left behind, kept the American model out of Europe
for the time being. But de Maistre was not an accurate forecaster on the
destiny of nations. The United States survived a Civil War, 1861-1865,
despite sponsorship of the insurgent slaveowners by the British and
their French junior partner under Bonaparte's nephew, Napoleon III.
Not only survived: Did the
impossible! Abraham Lincoln's radically nationalist economics
transformed America into the world's greatest industrial power within 20
years. The example of America's Promethean success, under high tariffs
and huge public investments, was deliberately placed before Bismarck's
Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Meiji Japan, Sun Yat-sen's China, Arthur
Griffith's Ireland, M.G. Ranade's India, Carlos de Olagíbel's Mexico,
Rafael Nuñez's Colombia. The impending end of peasant backwardness, the
age of electricity, steel mills, and powered transport, under explicitly
anti-imperial politics, meant the coming end of world power for the old
In this global showdown, three
U.S. Presidents were shot down: Lincoln, James Garfield, and William
McKinley. And America's European enemies assembled a new version of the
assault weapon earlier employed in France. Joseph de de Maistre's work
was the glue for the imperial bankers' politics—including his insistence
that the executioner (or assassin) is all that holds society together;
and his demand for the Church to rule a world from which Reason and
Progress have been banished—a world under Higher Powers which are,
candidly, the opposite of God.
The new imperial techniques of
that era were built upon the array of manipulation that had gone into
the beast-project, Napoleon. A Martinist magician cohort of de Maistre's
named Fabré d'Olivet had been hired as a top official of Napoleon's war
department. As occult advisor, he too whispered to Bonaparte on
Providence and the Triumph of the Will.
As the influence of America's
sovereign-nation success began transforming Germany, in 1878, the
students of d'Olivet and de Maistre were formed into the distinctive
movement which was to become known as Synarchism. Saint-Yves d'Alveydre,
in his book, Mission des Souverains, continued de Maistre's
attack, calling the 1648 Peace of Westphalia "an anarchistic Republic of
powers armed against each other, ... that the fundamental law of the
sovereignty of force obliges, under penalty of death, to function in
this fashion, until the abrogation and replacement of this law by a
better one." The "better law", Synarchism, is
the dissolution of nations in the night of bankers' dictatorship.
George W.F. Hegel put his
admiration for Bonaparte's evil at the center of his concept of the "end
Robespierre set up ...
Virtue and Terror [as] the order of the day.... This tyranny could
not last; for ... all interests ... revolted against this terribly
consistent Liberty ... [in] so fanatical a shape. An organized
government is introduced, analogous to the one that had been
displaced; [further coups] proved ... the necessity of a
governmental power. Napoleon restored it as a military
power, ... establishing himself as an individual will at the head of
State: he knew how to rule, and soon settled the internal affairs of
France.... But the antithesis of [Good Feeling] and Mistrust made
its appearance.... Thus agitation and unrest are perpetuated."
[emphasis in the original]
For Hegel, the cycle—witless
Jacobin mobs, tyrants, and again, when necessary, new mobs—was now to be
the permanent form of governing powerless mankind. (The pathetic Francis
Fukuyama directly revived Hegel's end-of-history filth for today's
Friedrich Nietzsche called the
one whom de Maistre, d'Olivet, and Hegel summoned to bring order out of
the chaos, the Superman. By acting without any humanity, the absolute,
brilliant Beast soars above the contemptible ant-like rabble, in
Nietzsche's nightmare fantasy.
These were the wells of
experience and craft for the architects of Hitler and Mussolini: Bank of
England Governor Montagu Norman; Lord Halifax; Lord Beaverbrook; the
Warburgs; Lazard Frères; the French-Swiss banking axis; J.P. Morgan;
Brown Brothers Harriman; Hjalmar Schacht; Richard Koudenhove-Kalergi.
This was the personal tradition
of University of Chicago fascist
Leo Strauss; his mentor, Hitler's
jurist Carl Schmitt; and the Parisian Synarchist Alexandre Kojève. And
it is the life model for Strauss, Schmitt, and Kojeve's
followers—today's Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Ashcroft berserkers—and the
guide for their religious fundamentalist, actually pagan supporters.
Unless they are removed from power, the city of Washington will be
unbuilt, and the devil will win his bet.
Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story,
Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: EIRNS, 1988).
Mandeville, essay added into the 1723 re-issue of his Fable of the
B. Morris, The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American
Independence (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 28.
Shelburne to Richard Price, Sept. 5, 1779, quoted in Maurice R.
O'Connell, Irish Politics and Social Conflict in the Age of the
American Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1965), p. 124.
O'Connell, op. cit., p. 191.
op. cit., pp. 100-104.
op. cit. p. 35.
op. cit., pp. 85-86.
op. cit., p. 80.
8, 1782, New-York Packet, No. 5 in Hamilton's series called "The
14, 1815, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D.C.:
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903-1904), Vol. XIV, pp.
Oration, Dec. 31, 1834 (Washington, D.C.: Duff & Green, 1835).
21, 1772; quoted in Frances Acomb, Mallet du Pan (Durham: Duke
University Press, 1973), p. 23.
Mallet du Pan, in the Mercure, 1789, no 3. (Jan. 17), pp. 119,
122; quoted in Acomb, op. cit., p. 201.
sources could have included Saint-Martin's documentation later published
in The Ministry of the Man-Spirit, 1801; Saint-Martin's Letter
on the French Revolution, 1794; Saint-Martin's Man of Desire,
1790: and Saint-Martin's theme, the "desire for recognition" which
became the favorite theme of 20th-Century Synarchist Alexandre Kojève.
Isaiah Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," in The
Crooked Timber of Humanity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf), 1991, pp.
Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France, translated by
Richard Lebrun (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 23-29.
Maistre, Considerations, op. cit. p. 30.
Editorial note in de Maistre, Considerations on France, op. cit.,
Considerations, op. cit. p. 33.
Saint-Yves, Mission des Souverains, Paris: Nord-Sud, 1948, p.
The Philosophy of History, translated by J. Sibree (New York: Dover
Publications, 1956), pp. 450-452.
WORLD NUCLEAR WAR WHEN?
McAuliffe's Deadly Delusions: or,
How Harry Truman Defeated Himself
Aug. 17, 2003 (EIRNS)—The
following is the text of a Democratic campaign policy paper released
today by the LaRouche in 2004 Presidential campaign committee.
On Today's Failed Candidates:
At this moment of history, a
virtually bankrupt U.S. government is challenged by a deadly complex of
economic and other crises which neither the Bush Administration nor the
Democratic National Committee is willing, so far, to acknowledge. The
pivotal feature of this situation, is the reality, that the world has
reached the terminal phase of existence of the International Monetary
Fund (IMF)'s 1972-2003 "floating exchange-rate" monetary-financial
system. Official Bush Administration Snow-jobs aside, the economic
collapse in progress now, is, as a matter of fact, neither a recession,
nor a mere cyclical depression, but the terminal phase of a general
breakdown-crisis of that financial-monetary system. It is the failure to
face the present reality of that economic breakdown crisis, which, as
during 1928-1933, generates the explosive potential for spreading of
wars and terrorist attacks around the world.
As I emphasize in the following
pages, Vice President Cheney and his company of neo-conservative rascals
have been committed, for more than a decade, to the use of nuclear
weapons for so-called "preventive wars," against even minor-power
targets. The impulse to begin using such weapons "early and often," is
coming toward a boil with that crew, even while we are speaking. That is
already bad enough. The additional danger, which I shall address here,
is that the U.S. government's current tolerance for Cheney's virtual
criminality, is producing a qualitative reaction around the world. His
antics are provoking other nations to craft the near-to-medium-term
potential for a new quality of nuclear-armed warfare beyond the
implications of such elements of the current strategic nuclear Triad as
carriers and today's nuclear-powered submarines. Unless we stop Cheney's
antics soon, this development, which is now in progress, would confront
the President of the U.S.A. elected in 2004 with problems beyond the
present comprehension of most of our political leaders today.
It happens that I was engaged
in studies of such new capabilities back during the early through middle
1980s, when I ran across them while I was in the middle of work with
some relevant professional military and scientific circles. I must point
out in that connection, that, sometimes, as in the past, when the brush
is too wide, small things which could change history, such as atoms and
nuclei, were not painted into the picture of what passes for
conventional strategic assessments. Such changes, to a state of affairs
beyond today's operating military doctrines, are already haunting the
future, at least among those who know how to look for small anomalies
which have a featured potential for production of strategic surprise.
However, once their existence
is acknowledged, the technical nuts and bolts of this matter become of
relatively secondary significance when compared with the economic and
cultural strategic factors which will decide whether the threatened type
of warfare is used, or not. Those economic and cultural factors are the
principal object of this report; the rest is a matter of taking into
account unavoidable related technical details.
From where I sit as a
Presidential candidate, today, I begin this report by situating the way
those strategic considerations intersect the current shaping of U.S.
policy, as follows.
Under these conditions, at a
time when the Democratic Party's presently sitting political opponent,
President Bush, lacks the intellectual and emotional capacities to see
either that world economic crisis, or rational solutions for even much
lesser challenges, my putative rivals for the 2004 Democratic
Presidential nomination have responded to Bush's blunders, by producing
a statistical miracle of political folly as bad, or worse than his own.
When 2004 victory over an
economic-crisis wracked, Bush re-election campaign should be almost a
walk-in, these Democratic pre-candidates have, so far, flunked each and
all of even the most elementary of those test-questions of today which
would measure those Democrats' qualifications as candidates for their
party's nomination. Statistically speaking, their collective, consistent
failure to get right any question involving an actually needed
policy-change, even by accident, must be seen as virtually miraculous,
unless you knew what is going on in the Party's backroom, behind the
If this trend continues, the
slaughter of the Democratic party in the next election could be not only
certain, but awesome. Already, that slaughter might seem to be virtually
inevitable, unless my candidacy reaches the floor of nominating
convention next Summer. Even so, today's threatened virtual
disintegration of the Democratic Party under its present leadership, is,
unfortunately, not the worst part of our nation's situation.
I take a few moments here to
preface the body of this report with some relevant observations on the
effects of that failure of leadership currently rampant in the back
rooms of the Democratic Party organization. Start with the following
sketched images of some of those candidacies whose existence has been
approved by the National Committee so far.
At first blink, the failure of
each and all of those nine candidates—certainly eight of them (that is,
excepting the worst, Lieberman)—might appear to have been the result of
a set of coincidences. A closer look at all of the evidence says, "This
was no coincidence."
To visualize the collective
problem of the party now, compare the instinctive expertise with which a
real-life, professional jackass herds cows or sheep (see the Figure).
Compare that image with the way in which the Democratic National
Committee sheep-herder, Chairman McAuliffe, supervises his bleating
flock of selected, eminently cullable Presidential contenders. No policy
which the National Committee would presently allow those candidates to
utter, nor any debate which that Committee would even permit them to
enter, has any beneficial relevance for the grave problems actually
menacing our republic and its people today. The appearance is: these
candidates are to be seen behaving less as men or women, than as
McAuliffe's flock of dutifully doomed political sheep lining up for
business at the slaughter-house gate! Some might even wonder, if that
line-up was not, at bottom, a Karl Rove trick; it certainly appears to
be the bottom of something.
For example, so far, at any
meeting called for discussion of those points on which any candidates
for U.S. President should show himself as one fit to assume leadership
of this nation, those party-certified candidates now rival one another,
chiefly, in their intellectual distance from the crucial issues of
today's real world. As I have just said, these candidates not only lack
the answers; so far, except for some isolated occasions, such as a
particular action by Dennis Kucinich, they have failed, so far, as
candidates, even to recognize any of the leading dangers.
Kucinich, for example, was
functioning on that relatively exceptional, exculpatory occasion, as a
member of Congress, rather than in his other capacity as a candidate.
There is a growing show of spunk and sense among some members of the
Congress, some of this truly admirable, but not when the members are
acting as part of the approved list of candidates allowed under the
present control of party boss McAuliffe's National Committee machine. It
is as if McAuliffe refuses to permit any Democrat who could win the next
Presidential election, to campaign for that office.
Take, for example, the case of
one of the candidates with a convincing record of conservative
predilections, banker-bred Howard Dean. At a time when increasing
rations of entire categories of our people are threatened with increased
death-rates through the impact of the HMO law, Dean shows his liberal
enthusiasm for the practice of a law which must be urgently repealed and
its murderous underlying "triage" policies expunged. Maybe, the voters
sensitive to health-care problems would wish to put the "shareholder
value" candidacy of Howard "toothpaste" Dean back into his tube, while
they are still able to do so.
Don't be fooled by Dean's
supposed anti-war position. On the matter of Cheney's wars, Dean has
been the sincerely duplicitous self to which his record attests.
Ask Dean, "Hey, Howard, where's
the beef?" Confidence-man Dean pretends to bake for the edification and
nourishment of the young anti-war suckers, but, even as those suckers
drool admiration at Howard's figurative bake-in, his figurative hot oven
is scrupulously empty. He has slithered around the practical challenge
of working to actually pull the lead nuclear warrior, the President's
current controller Cheney, out of government, now, when new Cheney wars
could have been actually prevented, but for lack of a little more help
from the Democratic Party's National Committee.
In the smoking ruin of a
post-nuclear-war Hell, Dean would doubtless insist, throughout eternity
(wherever he might spend it), "Look at my record. I am on the record as
having been a critic of that war." However the wind might spin
weathercock Dean, that born-and-bred sly banker implies promises which
he does not oblige himself to fulfill. Before you pay his penny, read
the fine print. What seems to some people to be his anti-war rhetoric,
is only the rustle of the political wrapping-paper inside an empty box,
a box whose contents had therefore, prudently, cost him nothing. In HMO
booster Dean's political kitchen, love for humanity is all sizzle, no
I have referenced the cases of
Kucinich and Dean, and implicitly Senator Graham, in terms which make
mere passing reference to that fading candidate, rabid war-monger, and
the ipecac of the current slate, Joe Lieberman. Senator Kerry, from whom
I had hoped for better things, has, meanwhile, apparently sold his
political soul to Stephen Vincent Benet's "Scratch," when he moved from
evasive to awful, with his reach toward an arrangement to replace Joe
Lieberman's role in the alliance with Lieberman's emotionally unstable
Republican twin, Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain and Lieberman,
notably, were leading among the earliest cosponsors of the current
war-policies of Vice-President Cheney at Europe's Wehrkunde conference,
and both have been the choice of candidates for a 2004 Presidential
ticket of British war-hawk publisher Conrad Black's American Charenton,
the Hudson Institute. Meanwhile, Representative Gephardt is himself.
As for candidate Senator
Edwards, he is a man former President Clinton could safely endorse,
because the Senator is in no presently visible danger of winning
anything but a position as a just-in-case Vice-Presidential nominee.
Under some conceivable circumstances, he might be proffered to balance
the ticket with a Southerner. Edwards' current significance, is that the
former President's endorsement might tend, for the moment, to free
Clinton from pressures to endorse any other candidate.
As for the others, including
Carol Moseley-Braun and Al Sharpton: Had they wished to be serious
contenders, their only chance to gain national significance of
substance, was my invitation to them to participate as rivals in my July
2 campaign event. They ducked the opportunity, and more or less dropped
from sight for the time being.
So far, the snarling Democratic
dog continues to herd its cullable sheep. That National Committee, like
the dog in the story of "The Bone in the Brook," has organized what is,
in effect, political protection for the impeachable "yellowcake"
war-hawk Cheney's re-election chances, arguing that beating the
irresponsible Bush in 2004, were a bigger bone than preventing the
already culpable Cheney from unleashing more wars in 2003. The Committee
argues against stopping impeachable war-maker Cheney now, in the Summer
of 2003, on the pathetic pretext of pretending to save their ammunition
for damaging the November 2004 re-election prospects of President Bush.
As former President Nixon might have said it, that National Committee
makes it "perfectly clear" that the only thing it has actually been
doing recently, is running interference on behalf of Cheney's, or,
perhaps, McCain's 2004 candidacy.
So, while our nation sits on
the edge of Cheney's threatened new wars for the immediate future,
including nuclear wars, wars aimed against targets such as Syria, Iran,
and North Korea; and, while the United States' current policies are
pushing it toward early national bankruptcy, McAuliffe's National
Committee and its package of pre-selected candidates is aimed at the
prospect of a miraculous defeat of its own party, that by a President
Bush whose record on matters of the national interest is already,
objectively, far worse than Herbert Hoover's, and failing fast.
Thus, each and all of these
nine would-be rivals of mine, are already failed candidates from the
start. Despite the actual differences among them, they have continued,
in fact, to share one fatal flaw in common. That fact is, that the
existential quality of our present national crisis, reflects the fateful
outcome of certain changes in habits of national political behavior
which had come to dominate our nation's policy-shaping practice,
increasingly, since the fearful aftermath the 1962 Missiles Crisis and
the assassination of President Kennedy. Those habits are the anchor to
which these candidates cling, the anchor of a ship which is now rapidly
Those changes in habits since
the early 1960s, are the cause of our nation's degeneration from the
house that Franklin Roosevelt built, the world's leading producer
society, into a mass of self-inflicted, post-industrial, "consumer
society" wreckage today. Those accumulated habits of more than three
recent decades, have become the choice of fantasy which each of these
candidates regards today as that body of traditionally accepted popular
opinion to which he or she is appealing. Kissing the backside of that
recent forty years of U.S. cultural history, since the 1962 missiles
crisis, in this way, had blocked their view of the future.
Future historians will probably
write: "Refusing to see real world, those candidates acted like confused
fish flopping on the beach, left behind by the outgoing tide of recent
That present show of
indifference to reality by the Democratic National Committee brings our
attention back to a relevant focus upon the practical political
implications of that deadly topic announced at the beginning of this
report: the danger of some general outbreak of a new dimension in
nuclear warfare, now coming up as the relevant threat somewhere not too
far down the line. Put the matter of the Democratic National Committee's
diversionary defense of Cheney into the setting of that larger,
To see those issues of warfare
more clearly, begin the following report with of review of the story
which you must know in the context of today's nuclear-war dangers: of
how the President Truman who was first to unleash the monster of nuclear
war, was replaced by Dwight Eisenhower, and why both Truman and an
anguished post-war U.S.A. so richly deserved that change to Eisenhower
1. Cheney & Rumsfeld: `The
In August 1945, the U.S. air
and sea blockade had successfully cut off the island nation of Japan
from efficient access to the imported materials on which the continued
existence of its economy, and its war-making capability depended.
General MacArthur's leadership had brought the Japan military to its
knees, doing to the military forces on the main island what MacArthur's
strategy had done to Japan forces on many bypassed islands earlier.
Great commanders are sometimes forced to order ferocious battles—as
MacArthur had commanded in some during that war—but the object of modern
strategic defense is not the slaughter. The object of the policy of
strategic defense followed by all competent modern commanders since
Lazare Carnot and Gerhard Scharnhorst, must be, as MacArthur chose, to
win that peace which we must build upon the surviving foundations of
victory, without any avoidable destruction of the enemy nation and its
people, or our own.
In mid-1945, there was never
any rational military need, under a policy of strategic defense, for our
making a forced entry into the main island of Japan. The Emperor had
already sought peace through the channel of Monsignor Montini's Vatican
office; it was a matter of waiting out the Japan military's willingness
to submit to the Emperor's will. In August, the sweating-out time would
be in the order of weeks, perhaps between then and October.
Unfortunately, the fire-bombing of Tokyo had already prolonged Japan's
desire to fight, or peace might have already come. All the relevant
available reports indicate that former Captain Truman did not consult
General MacArthur, the relevant commander, on the matter of using
nuclear weapons; but, the military implications of the reports from
MacArthur's staff were clear. General Eisenhower, in Europe, was
consulted, and did warn against such a use of nuclear weapons; but
Truman went ahead, anyway.
That Truman decision was the
beginning of the official status of that same utopian tradition of
strategic lunacy which has seized the office of the President of the
U.S.A., under "Svengali" Cheney's poor "Trilby," Bush, today.
The wind-up for that 1945
nuclear bombing of explicitly civilian targets, had been test-run during
the last months of the war in Europe. Planned bombing of civilian
populations of targeted cities, under so-called Lindemann/"Bomber
Harris" doctrine, had, like Montgomery's "Market Garden" hoax, actually
prolonged the war—and, thus, also killed more U.S. soldiers—by
resuscitating what been Germany's fading willingness to continue to
fight. The fire-bombing of Tokyo had been a similar piece of strategic
folly. The needless use of the only existing nuclear weapons in the U.S.
arsenal, was not the beginning of what became known as the Rand
Corporation's post-war "utopian" revolution in military affairs. That
evil uncle Bertrand Russell whom confused children have adored as a
fighter for peace, was the actual inventor of that United State's
doctrine of "preventive nuclear war" which was the actual motivation for
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What that bombing accomplished,
for the long run, was to set the precedent needed to institutionalize
that utopian dogma of a U.S. nuclear revolution in military affairs,
which is Cheney's doctrine today.
Apart from his exculpatory act
of defeating Tom Dewey in the 1948 general election, Truman's actions,
and support for utopian policies, created what became known as
McCarthyism and led into the Korean war. The nation reacted to Truman's
record by electing his successor, the military traditionalist
Eisenhower, for two terms, rather than trying another Democrat, and
breathed a deep sigh of relief when that was done.
That bombing of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki thus divided the military and related factions of the U.S.
chiefly, between the supporters of the U.S. traditional doctrine of
strategic defense—as represented by those such as post-war Generals of
the Armies MacArthur and Eisenhower—and, their opponents, the utopian
followers of "preventive nuclear warrior" Bertrand Russell. Rumsfeld and
his crew typify the "military-industrial complex" utopians at their
worst, and most stupid today. A misguided President Truman had leaned
toward the side of the same utopians who gave us, later, the 1964-72
Indo-China War, and have also pushed that so-called revolution in
military affairs, which dumped us, by means of fraudulent pretexts, into
both the 1964-1972 Indo-China war and the presently suppurating folly of
rising bloody, irregular warfare attrition in Iraq.
That fact focuses attention on
the cases of rabid utopians Dick Cheney and his Bobbsey Twin, Donald
Rumsfeld. This pair represents a type known in the trade as what
organized-crime studies term "mechanics." Both of these not-so-merry
pranksters, a kind of contemporary Burke and Hare of the intelligence
craft, have been known for their coup-cooking specialty since the
mid-1970s, back during Ford Administration days. Either or both could be
dumped, the sooner the better, but as long as they and their pack of
"Chicken-hawk" neo-conservatives remain on the loose in key positions in
government, neither the United States nor the world at large is a safe
place in which to live.
The Case of Cheney
As the Washington legend has
it, in public, that taciturn parody of straight-man Bud Abbot, Dick
Cheney, is usually not a runaway babbler like his clownish,
motor-mouthed side-kick, "Lou" Rumsfeld. Contrasting that pair to Abbot
and Costello, is like emphasizing the difference between Hollywood's
"Three Stooges" and the Marx Brothers.
Cheney, for all his pure
meanness, is no mental giant, and Rumsfeld certainly is not a "lovable
Lou." Usually, it only by exception, especially when he is panicked, or
ordered to do do so, that Cheney chooses to risk exposing his
intrinsically hateful self to lengthy public speaking appearances.
Typical such imprudent exceptions were his recent appearances at
locations such as the friendly family setting of that neo-conservative
rats' nest known as the American Enterprise Institute. At other times,
when he has the choice, he has had the strength of nerve to keep his
mouth shut in public; then, his public appearances tend to be limited
more to a Dickens image of him sitting and scowling at the cameras,
seeming to knit ominously, while waiting for heads, even of entire
nations, fall from the knife of his Terror's guillotine into the waiting
basket. He is, in a word, essentially a "mechanic."
As I have said, Cheney is not
one we could describe as "excessively bright"; the twisted kind of
substitute for genius he harbors, definitely does not lie in the domain
of science or artistic cultivation, but in his Dracula-like predilection
for nasty actions which moral folks would have tended to abhor as
unspeakable. Adolf Hitler was of that Wagnerian type, although he did
talk a lot. When you say "Cheney," think "Freddie" Cheney, as like a
monster from the political zoo of Synarchist Alexander Kojève. He is, as
Kojève described such would-be tyrants, the type ruled by unstoppable
surges of Nietzschean-like rage, who would rather kill than speak, and,
like a succession of Liberia's post-1980 tyrants, will not shrink from
deeds so monstrous that they would astonish and disgust the imagination
of merely wicked men.
Although Dick is "no genius,"
one does not have to be a genius to share Cheney's record for pushing
"preventive nuclear warfare." That is the danger. However, being no
genius, he is also, at the same time, like his co-thinkers, a pathetic
fool in precisely the area of his greatest desire, strategic planning.
It is important to understand this Cheney. Therefore, compare "Bugsy"
Cheney with Murder, Incorporated's Abe "Kid Twist" Rellis, but a "Kid
Twist" using nuclear weapons instead of ice-picks. Always remind
yourself: the fact that he is vicious, does not mean that he is also
intelligent. In short, he is ultimately as much a major security risk to
the U.S.A. as to any of his choices of targets abroad.
As the continuing aftermath of
Cheney's war in Iraq shows, the fact that the Vice-President is evil,
does not mean that his desperado's schemes will actually work out as he
proposes. At bottom, he neither knows, nor cares whether his war plans
are competent or not; like a brutish professional killer who enjoys his
trade, it is doing the dirty deed which fascinates him. If one of his
crimes is a strategic failure, like the aftermath of the Iraq war, what
does he care? The failure of one of his crimes merely impels him, as we
have seen, to distract attention from that, by going ahead with a second
military atrocity, perhaps more ambitious than the first. Those of us
who are serious and responsible, must study the manifest stupidity of
Cheney's long-standing, since 1990-91, design for the now escalating,
ongoing phase of continuing war in Iraq. We are not looking for signs of
genius, or even competence. We are determined not to underestimate his
predilection for fatal miscalculations of even vast strategic
For that reason, we must
recognize that what he describes his intentions to be, are not exactly
the same intentions which motivate his behavior. His actions are chosen
as a means to an end. What end? Not what many of our citizens ae misled
to believe, so far.
This and other evidence warns
us, that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their neo-conservative crew are
essentially fantasists, playing with deadly toys. They are madmen like
one holding a sawed-off shotgun he has aimed against a captive family of
hostages, desperadoes far removed from competence in the axiomatic
features of strategic assessment and planning. Do not, do not, make the
potentially fatal blunder of assuming that their stated motives, or
those of any other follower of Nazi Carl Schmitt's protégé
are their true ones. That pack of perverts should remind us of some
immature, emotionally off-balance boys shooting down fellow-students,
for the sheer sport of real-life acting out of point-and-shoot video
games. They are true utopians; it is the recipe, not the meal, which is
their passion for cooking foul dishes. They are of the same type of
menace to public welfare as deadly homicidal lunatics, whose primary
motive is their existentialists' pleasure in their choice of act, not
their often almost accidental choice of target.
In the course of EIR's
report on Synarchism, the reader will come to recognize the apparently
psychopathic behavior-pattern of these so-called neo-conservatives, as
typical of the participants in an international association known since
the early Twentieth Century as the Synarchist International. That is the
association which produced dictators Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler,
Francisco Franco, the Laval and Vichy governments of France, Belgium's
Degrelle, Roumania's Iron Guard, and the German Nazi Party-directed
organizations of Mexico and South America during the course of the 1930s
and World War II. This is the same Synarchist International which U.S.
military intelligence and OSS classified as "Synarchist;
Nazi/Communist," operating in Europe and throughout South and Central
America during the 1930s and 1940s.
The reader will learn, that
that same Synarchist International, which figured in the terrorist waves
of the 1970s and 1980s in Europe, is one of the principal sources of
actual terrorist threats against the U.S.A. today. Go back to the 1780s,
when that occult freemasonic association of Cagliostro, Joseph de
Maistre, and others, which created Napoleon Bonaparte's career, was
organized: You find precisely that pro-terrorist mentality, sometimes
recognized as Nietzschean, which produced the Jacobin Terror, the
bandit-Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and
others. This was the association which become known, approximately a
century later, as the Synarchists.
It is that mentality which is
now known as Synarchism—not any ostensibly practical form of criminal
objective—which prompted Hitler's Nietzschean holocaust against the Jews
of Europe (Richard Wagner, Hitler's forerunner, did not say "the Jews;"
he wrote, repeatedly, "The Jew," designating not persons, but, instead,
a depersonalized collective object.) It was a crime typical of the
Synarchists since July 1789, and of the Jacobin Terror in general. It
was a crime, as described by Alexander Kojève, the Synarchist
collaborator of Chicago Professor
Leo Strauss, whose governing intent is
to perpetrate a crime of such unbelievable horror as to reduce all who
knew of it to terrified submission. What happened on Sept. 11, 2001
expresses that same quality of intent, the pleasure of committing a
horrible crime, which we recognize as typical of Torquemada's
Inquisition in the past, or of the contemporary Synarchist.
Only when you recognize that
Nazi holocaust as specifically Nietzschean in motive and character, do
you understand the danger to humanity in general, which it typifies, now
as then. It is that same method which is to be recognized as the
thermonuclear madness expressed by Synarchist accomplices Cheney,
Rumsfeld, and their neo-conservative accomplices today.
That Cheney and his pack are
currently impelling President Bush, a man of remarkably limited
intellectual qualities, toward a build-up to a situation of medium- to
long-term nuclear-warfare risks of a qualitatively new kind, risks of
which neither they, nor that President, have the slightest
comprehension. Nor, apparently, do any among those nine sheep being
herded by the jackass-like kicks of McAuliffe's Democratic National
The question so posed is: How
should we diagnose and cure the danger which that specific political
form of madness poses to the world at large? To define the answer, there
are several distinct elements which must now be considered, in
succession. First, a crucial lesson from the referenced case of
President Harry Truman.
The Trouble with Harry
To put these issues into a
relevant historical perspective, I point our attention to a set of
extended remarks by a relevant British military historian Correlli
Barnett, as to be found beginning page 13 of the fourth volume of his
series, his 2001 The Verdict of Peace. My purpose in referencing
his work, is to emphasize a relevant comparison between the present
logic of today's medium-term threat of major nuclear conflict, and the
strategic situation which existed in 1949-1950 East Asia. I identify the
character of the situation then, by reference to a quote which Barnett
excerpted from President Truman's Undersecretary of State George Kennan:
...the U.S. [Truman]
Administration did not consider that the Russians were preparing to
enter the war. There were signs that they intended to leave
themselves a way out and it was a reasonable assumption therefore
that the Russians were merely making an important probing. There was
no evidence that this adventure contained the seeds of a major war
and it was important to cope with it in such a manner as to restrict
it to minor proportions.
Thereafter, Barnett continues
to develop the case in that location; you should read and study his
argument, for its own sake, for yourselves. What I summarize is my own
view of the matter, keeping Barnett's argument in view as I am doing
now. With that reference in mind, look at those circumstances referenced
by him from a slightly different vantage-point than his, from my already
referenced view, above, of the situation inside the U.S. Government at
that time. After that, return to the relevance, to the Democratic
Party's way of choosing leading candidates, of Barnett's thesis, as it
might be applied to the circumstances implied by Cheney's policies
Cheney and his Synarchist
accomplices are fatally blinded by their bi-polar, brutishly egoistical,
orgasmic faith in the imagined cleverness of their pathological
impulses. They are also self-blinded, that to a most crucial strategic
effect, by that kind of self-inflicted utopian folly which Barnett
identifies with the Truman Administration's plunge into the setting of
the war in Korea. The Bush Administration's lunatic policy toward Korea
today, shows that Cheney's role in that administration is also an
historical irony, a policy impelling the current Bush Administration
toward an awful caricature of Truman's own earlier blunders.
Worse than the danger in their
Korea policy itself, Cheney and his crew are impelling the United States
toward a spread of the kind of nuclear warfare which no one, including
the United States, could actually win by standards acceptable to the
U.S. population. Nonetheless, such a new variety of doomsday war is,
most unfortunately, possible under appropriate circumstances; but, for
reasons I shall identify below, no side would win it in terms any sane
member of modern European culture would consider acceptable. Cheney's
continued presence in the Bush Administration now, could lead to such
awful results, because he cares not about the outcome, but cares only
for the evil satisfaction he derives from doing the deed.
As Barnett's account might
imply to you, the trouble we face with Cheney began for us with Harry:
President Harry Truman. Barnett's insights into those earlier British
and Anglo-American predicaments in economy and military affairs, has a
certain exceptional usefulness as background for studying the
economic-policy aspects of the present strategic situation of the
Americas and Europe today.
President Franklin Roosevelt
had rescued the U.S. economy from the wreckage which the disastrous
policies of the successive administrations of Presidents Calvin Coolidge
and Herbert Hoover had produced. Hoover had been technically competent
on numerous detailed accounts, but, as my associate Richard Freeman has
documented, was on the wrong side—the Morgan-Mellon-Dupont side—in his
choice of all turns in the forks of the economic road. What Hoover did
to the U.S. economy paralleled the destruction which ministerial
Chancellors Bruening and von Papen were doing to ruin Germany during
most of that same period.
The chief external enemy which
a recovering U.S. economy faced during the entire sweep of 1932-1945,
was a legacy of the French Revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte which
became notorious, during the period following the First World War, as
the Synarchist International. This was the same Synarchist
International, controlling important private banking houses on both
sides of the Atlantic, which had put Adolf Hitler into power in 1933.
Consequently, by the time of
the British flight from Dunkirk, in 1940, Roosevelt was faced with the
following global threat to the U.S.A. itself. That global threat came
from a organization known then as that same Synarchist International
which, as I have already indicated above, had not only created and
installed Hitler in Germany, but had put Mussolini in power in Italy
earlier, had created the fascist Franco regime in Spain, and had created
a network of smaller, but nonetheless incredibly nasty similar tyrannies
elsewhere. In 1940, these Synarchists were about to establish fascist
regimes in Laval's and Vichy France. This included a network, run from
Nazi Party headquarters in Berlin, through fascist channels in Spain,
directing the anti-U.S.A. Synarchist organizations of Mexico and South
America, the ones impatient to be rid of Pope John Paul II today.
On the occasion of the Dunkirk
incident, British minister Winston Churchill appealed to President
Franklin Roosevelt. He emphasized that the Nazi leadership in Germany
was at work with the Nazi sympathizers among the leading aristocratic
circles of Britain, to the purpose of bringing Britain into an alliance
with the fascists of Italy, Spain, and France. The Laval and Vichy
governments which emerged during that period, were products of the Nazi
coalition known as the Synarchist International. Such a development
would create a combined power in Europe exceeding any other, and
including the combined navies of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and
Japan. The conquest of the targeted Soviet Union would thus be the final
step toward consolidating a power capable of, and intent upon crushing
Franklin Roosevelt's U.S.A.
Roosevelt and Churchill acted
in time. As a typical, included immediate result, Germany's Admiral
Canaris—who represented one of the most significant, if usually discreet
elements of German military opposition to Hitler's rampage—warned
Spain's Franco of what were in store for him if he did not refrain from
the grab for Gibraltar which Hitler had demanded. The Hitler admirers in
Britain's high-ranking circles were herded into line, or shot. Roosevelt
and Churchill acted in concert, creating the extraordinarily difficult
military alliance, later incorporating the Soviet Union and China, which
won World War II. The unlikely allies, Roosevelt and Churchill, thus
turned the tide against the Synarchist dreams of Hitler's world
conquest. The war would continue, brutally, but what had seemed for a
moment the assured victory of the Nazi-led drive for world empire, had
already been snatched from the paws of Hitler and his Synarchist
But, the Synarchists had not
been rooted out.
Unfortunately, the included
effect of the successful Anglo-American Normandy breakthrough, was to
assure those pro-Synarchist right-wing circles in the United States
which had played a crucial role in putting Hitler into power, that the
defeat of Hitler was now virtually inevitable. These pro-Synarchist
circles of the U.S.A. and British Empire, which, for national-interest
reasons, had reluctantly tolerated, and even sometimes cooperated with
Roosevelt, especially during the early phases of that worldwide war, now
turned to bring the Roosevelt era to an end. The successful push by
them, to replace Wallace with Truman at the Summer 1944 Democratic Party
nominating convention, set the stage for both Hiroshima and for the
General Draper-led, post-war cover-up of that Synarchist financier
cartel, pivoted on institutions such as Banque Worms, which had been
part of the financing of Nazi Germany's war machine.
Truman's dropping the bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an effect, of the terrorist, Nietzschean type
prescribed by Professor
Leo Strauss's crony, Synarchist Alexander
Kojève. It typified the right-wing, pro-Synarchist turn of the
post-Roosevelt U.S.A. That expresses the essence of the trouble with
A dear friend's eyewitness
account of OSS chief General Donovan's emerging, deeply saddened, from a
visit at the failing President Roosevelt's office, reports Donovan sadly
murmuring to the effect: "It's over." Many among the accomplishments of
the U.S.A. under FDR's leadership could not be rooted out by the Truman
Presidency, but Truman cleared the way for those who would ruin the FDR
legacy as early and often as possible, the right-wing which had used the
victory in Normandy as the signal to dump, as much as possible, the
policies of a Roosevelt they had always disliked, and who they no longer
considered indispensable. Truman cleared the way for an attempted,
top-down takeover of U.S. strategic domestic and foreign policy by those
utopians President Eisenhower later identified as a "military-industrial
complex," the followers of the "preventive nuclear war" doctrines of
Bertrand Russell. The other name for that crew of utopians was, and is
"The Synarchist International."
It is that Synarchist
International, again, which is behind what Cheney and his
neo-conservative rascals represent inside the Bush Administration today.
So, to understand the nature of the impetus driving the world toward a
new kind of nuclear warfare under the post-2004 U.S. Presidency, we must
first understand the present-day form of that Synarchist International
as its specific kinds of war-aims. In the course of supplying that
needed clarification, the story behind the story told by Correlli
Barnett's series of four books will be brought into focus. The bombing
of Hiroshima and the story of Truman's Korean war, then becomes
Now, consider the following
summary of the essential relevancies of the Synarchist International.
After that, I shall clarify the political-strategic developments,
already under way, which define the probability for a new quality of
warfare breaking out as early as under the next U.S. administration.
2. Economy and World-Wide Wars
"The Synarchist International"
became rather widely known by that name about the time of the Versailles
Treaty negotiations at the close of World War I. However, its existence
dates, most notably, from the 1789-1815 interval of the successive rises
of the "left-wing" Jacobin Terror and the "right- wing" tyranny of
veteran Jacobin Napoleon Bonaparte. The right-left characteristics of
the Synarchists, as illustrated by the case of Synarchist Jacques
Soustelle, date from no later than that interval of France's history, to
the present day. At first glance, the following picture might tend to
appear arcane to all but qualified historians and intelligence
specialists; but without this knowledge, no competent understanding of
the present and continuing threat to civilization could be competently
Both of those successive
developments were orchestrated by a concert of private merchant-banking
interests typified at that time by the like of the Schlumberger, de
Neuflize, and Mallet banking interests, as also Mallet du Pan, and also
Jacques Necker, the crony and asset of Britain's Lord Shelburne. These
private family bankers used a passionately occult freemasonic
association, known as the Martinists, as their adopted political
mechanism. The ideology of that continuing cult is typified,
symptomatically, to the present day, by the influence of extremely
eccentric Joseph de Maistre.
During the late Nineteenth
Century, this continued association adopted the term "synarchism" as
ostensibly a reaction to the British Foreign Office's launching of the
late Lord Palmerston's asset Bakunin as the founder of anarchism. It was
during the period following Versailles, that the term Synarchist
International came in its presently continuing use. The Synarchists of
Mexico and South America, still today, are an example of the present-day
continuation of the Nazi-directed, Martinist-style freemasonic forces,
with typical right-left characteristics, classified as "Synarchism:
Nazi/Communist" by U.S. intelligence services during the period of the
1930s and beyond.
The U.S. neo-conservatives
associated with Cheney and the legacy of the late, Nazi-like Professor
Leo Strauss today, are an active product of that Synarchist
International. Carl Schmitt, the so-called "Crown Jurist" of the Nazi
legal system and the original sponsor of
Leo Strauss's career in Britain
and the U.S.A., was a key figure of the Synarchist operations in Europe
prior to and during World War II. Cheney, his neo-conservative gang, and
their policies of practice can be understood competently only as an
expression of the U.S. Straussians' adherence to that Synarchist
tradition and its ideology.
Recently—over a period from
late 2002 until recent months—the Synarchist International held a series
of meetings, coordinated by veteran Franco fascist Blas Pinar, bringing
together fascists from Italy, France, Spain, and South and Central
America, for a campaign against the U.S.A. For those who know their
history, the creation of the U.S.A. as a Federal Constitutional
Republic, has been the chief target of Synarchism's enmity since July
14, 1789 France, to the present day. The two conflicting systems, our
constitutional form of republic and Synarchism, can not continue to
inhabit this planet together for much longer. The Synarchists are once
again on the march toward the goal of world empire, as they were,
earlier, in Hitler's time, in 1940. Cheney's crew are part of that
Synarchists' utopian package.
The key to that conflict is
expressed by that feudal relic of Venice's former status as a
financier-oligarchical form of imperial maritime power. That relic is
expressed today by what is known as the independent central banking
system. This kind of central banking system is key to understanding the
dynamic of the relationship between a more or less global form of
Anglo-Dutch form of general monetary-financial system and so-called
world wars such as those two of the 20th Century.
Under certain conditions, the
modern sovereign nation-state and modern echoes of Venice's imperial
system of usury tend toward a relatively stable, if uneasy peace. This
state of affairs has prevailed during some periods of globally extended
European civilization since the first emergence of the modern sovereign
nation-states, Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England, during the
period of Classical Greek revival, the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance.
This Renaissance became possible under the circumstances of Europe's
struggle to recover from that Fourteenth-Century "New Dark Age" which
had been detonated by the general collapse of Venice's bankrupt Lombard
banking system, a "Dark Age" in which one-third or more of Europe's
population had been wiped away by the consequences of
Venetian-orchestrated usury. Out of that chaos, the Augustinian
tradition in Christianity mustered what became the pro-Greek Classical
Renaissance, superseding the burdensome, ultramontane legacy of the
Emperors Diocletian, Constantine, and that "Julian the Apostate" who
figures as a model for British imperial utopia in Shelburne lackey
Gibbon's account of the history of the Roman Empire.
The Fifteenth-Century emergence
of modern European civilization was met by a resurgence of Venice's
power. Since approximately 1511, what is presently globally extended
modern European civilization, has been locked in recurring mortal
conflicts between the emerging modern nation-states of Europe and the
Americas, on the one side, and, on the other, the relics of that
Venetian-Norman tyranny which had formerly dominated the Mediterranean
region, and beyond, since the times of Malthilde of Tuscany and the
Norman conquest of England. The leading reactionary role of Hapsburg
Spain in the religious and related wars of 1511-1648, is typical of that
During the course of the
Eighteenth Century, many of those leading minds of Europe dedicated to
the cause of development of modern nation-states, came to view the
development of the English-speaking colonies in North America as the
best opportunity for establishing a new kind of true republic which
could become a model for similar reforms in Europe itself. As the U.S.
Declaration's principle of "the pursuit of happiness" attests, it was
the influence of the ideas expressed by Gottfried Leibniz's condemnation
of John Locke, as in Leibniz's New Essays on Human Understanding,
which typified that European republicans' initiative toward North
American intellectual leaders such as Cotton Mather and his most notable
successor, Benjamin Franklin. As early as the 1750s, but emphatically
the mid-1760s, the best minds of Europe—as only typified by England's
Priestly, France's Lavoisier, and Germany's Abraham kästner—worked to
assist Franklin in developing that youth movement, in North America,
which emerged as the intellectual political leadership of the young
At the time the 1787 draft of
the U.S. Federal Constitution was in the final stage of adoption, in
1789, France's monarchy was plunged into the bankruptcy brought on as a
consequence of France's 1783, pro-free-trade Peace Treaty with Britain.
Two leading patriots of France, Bailly and Lafayette, led in the
drafting of a constitution for the monarchy of France based on the
precedent of the U.S. design. It might appear that the American model of
republic already so popular among the national patriots of Europe, was
to fulfill its destiny, with a wave of true republics erupting there.
The intervention of the British
Foreign Office, through assets in France such as Louis "Egalité" and
Swiss banker Jacques Necker, organized the July 14 Bastille incident,
which began France's descent, aided by British Foreign Office agents
Danton and Marat, into the Jacobin Terror. Much of the core of those
influential French figures who had been associated with American cause,
including Lavoisier, died in that Terror.
Then came the rise of the
so-called turn to the right, Napoleon Bonaparte. By close of the
Congress of Vienna, our republic was isolated, endangered, caught
between the guile and threats from London, and the pure evil of the
Habsburg-orchestrated Holy Alliance. The "left-right" syndrome typified
by the succession of Jacobin Terror and ex-Jacobin Emperor Napoleon
Bonaparte, became the model of reference for not only blocking the
influence of the U.S. republican model in Europe, but seeking to crush
it in the Americas, as by the Anglo-French orchestration of the
Confederacy and the installation of the Habsburg butcher Maximilian in
Mexico. Since those developments of 1789-1815, the special, occult
freemasonic association known today as Synarchism, has been a leading
factor in globally extended European history in general.
That role of that Synarchist
pollution of modern society, has been fostered by the existence of a
crucial difference between today's typical, Anglo-Dutch Liberal model of
parliamentary democracy, and the Constitution of the U.S. republic. That
difference is key for understanding the connection between the past
hundred years economic crises and world wars.
Our constitutional system of
government is defined, as to principle, within the Preamble of our
Federal Constitution. This Preamble consists of three
multiply-connected, universal physical principles to which every other
feature of that Constitution, and all Federal law are properly subject
for their interpretation. These three principles are: 1) the perfect
sovereignty of the nation and its people over all their territory, in
all their internal and foreign affairs; 2) The general welfare of all of
its people; and, 3) Accountability for efficient care for our posterity.
This notion of "general
welfare," which rejects John Locke's and the Confederacy's notion of
"property," or "shareholder value," is derived from the concept of
agape which Plato's Republic presents through Socrates, and the same
concept as presented by the Christian Apostle Paul in I Corinthians
13. This notion of general welfare is sometimes stated as "the common
good," and is associated with the English usage of "commonwealth."
Another synonym for "general
welfare," is Leibniz's "pursuit of happiness," a concept taken by the
circles of Benjamin Franklin from Leibniz's denunciation of John Locke,
in their reading of the belated publication of Leibniz's New Essays
on Human Undertaking. "Pursuit of happiness" is a more
sophisticated, more scientifically precise way of expressing the concept
of agape or general welfare. It connotes the absolute distinction
of man from beast; that the essential human need is to be human, to
express that creativity, such as that of Classical science and art,
which exists only in the human individual, and not in the beast. The
efficient expression of that quality to the advantage of society, is
that righteous state of happiness which the 1776 Declaration
Independence commits our newborn republic to foster for each and all of
Take the case of slavery as an
example of the application of a constitutional form of natural law.
The recurring compromise
expressed in connection with the original 1776-1789 approach to the
intended process of eradicating slavery, was not a matter of principle,
but of a compromise dictated by global strategic considerations. The
restriction on elimination of slavery, was the need to defend the nation
against our adversary's, the British monarchy's intent to destroy us,
and to promote slavery, by playing among the heteronomic follies of the
slaveholder interest within certain of the Federal states.
In principle, slavery was
always an evil for us, from which our national economy never benefitted,
although the British monarchy, the slave-owners, Spanish
slave-traffickers, and the cotton manufacturers did. Indeed, the
principal slave-taking nation of the Nineteenth Century was the Spanish
monarchy. The British East India Company had abandoned its African
slave-trade as unprofitable, leaving the continuation of the trade to
Spain. Similarly, during the 1890s, our republic's principal treasonous
faction of that time, the Essex Junto, had abandoned the slave-trade, to
free their shipping for the role of partners in the more lucrative
British drug trade. Slavery was, however, increased within the U.S.A.,
for the profit of British interests and allies, including Essex Junto
textile manufacturers and the Spanish monarchy.
Our inability to make war on
our enemies in Europe, held us hostage to that legacy of Portuguese,
Spanish, Dutch, and British slave-trading interests, until President
Lincoln led the United States to defeat Britain's Confederacy asset, to
become the power which the combined pro-oligarchical powers of Britain,
the Napoleonic tradition, and the Habsburgs could no longer crush.
Under this Constitution, whose
principles are so defined, the sovereign, our government, has an
absolute monopoly, and exclusive will, to utter money and national
credit, or debt of the republic as a whole. Thus, as our first Treasury
Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, clarified this intent for practice, our
required system is based on national banking, not so-called "independent
central banking." This signifies that our form of government must be
what is called "protectionist," to the included leading purpose of
preventing the increase of the price of money from exceeding the
increase of the price of physical wealth produced.
Under our republic's
Constitution, we awarded to our Executive Branch those great powers
which were needed to defend us against the weaknesses and follies
customary among parliamentary government; but, we also created powerful
checks against abuses by that Executive, especially in the matter of
powers to make war.
Under the Anglo-Dutch Liberal
model of parliamentary government no efficient sovereignty is assured.
The permanent apparatus of government is not effectively controlled, and
the parliamentary institutions are vulnerable. The worst feature is the
existence of the so-called "independent central banking system," which
is a kind of franchise, donated to private banking interest, to control
the monetary and credit system of the nation. The interest embodied thus
in such "independent central banking systems" or their functional
equivalent, is the key to understanding the causes for two "world wars"
in the last century, and a new one, or its like, threatened as early as
sometime during the present decade.
The Factor of Financial Crisis
In the immediate post-war
period, the protectionist features of the original Bretton Woods system,
and the included provision of a gold-reserve—not gold standard—system of
fixed exchange-rates, provided a check against the abuses typical of
"independent central banking systems." The changes, in the Americas, in
western Europe, and Japan, from a producer-oriented set of economies
disciplined by a fixed-exchange-rate system, which were already under
way, in fact, even prior to the 1971-72 wrecking of the original Bretton
Woods design, was the origin of the "floating exchange-rate"
monetary-financial system which is crashing down upon us now, as the
Versailles system had done earlier. The anti-Constitutional corruption
of the United States by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System,
and the post-World War II monetarist lunacies introduced by Arthur Burns
and others, undermined those Constitutional provisions which made
possible the self-destruction of our economy over the recent several
The soaring of the nominal
prices of financial assets, relative to investment in technological
progressive development of basic economic infrastructure and
capital-intensive investment in technological progress of production of
goods, produced an accelerating general trend in financial and monetary
inflation. This, continued long enough, reaches the point of becoming a
systemic crisis, even a threatened breakdown crisis, of the system as a
whole. The question then posed is: "Who is going to eat the debt, the
nation, or the financier interest?"
To the degree that existing
governments are accountable for the welfare of the population as a
whole, it is the duty and natural impulse of those governments to defend
the sovereignty, general welfare, and posterity of the nation and its
people, to such a degree that a corresponding portion of the
responsibility for eliminating debt falls upon the class of financier
creditors. That is the juncture at which a mobilized financier interest
is impelled to crush governments which do not put financier interest
above even the lives of their populations.
The establishment of the first
true sovereign republic, the 1789 United States under its Federal
Constitution, represented a deadly threat to the combined feudalistic
and Liberal-financier interest of Europe. The risk that the U.S. model
might become the basis for a constitutional reform of France's monarchy,
was therefore a development which the leading private financier
interests were determined to crush at all costs. A leading circle of
such financier interests, composed of the rival but connected interests
of Lord Shelburne's British East India Company and a circle of chiefly
Protestant French-speaking Swiss private bankers, such as Jacques Necker
and Mallet du Pan, created in France then, what has become known as the
Synarchist International of the Twentieth Century and today.
This concoction, composed of a
process of "left-right" transition of Napoleon Bonaparte, from Jacobin
leftist to imperial fascist, is the model of left-right encirclement
which has become the world's principal organized, financier-deployed
force, used to crush republican forms of government, whenever a general,
systemic monetary-financial crisis threatens to compel them to eat their
share of that new general bankruptcy which their own practices had,
No one could produce immediate
prosperity. Roosevelt could not; I could not. Roosevelt offered recovery
from a depression which had halved the U.S. standard of living, or
worse, just as the standard of living of the lower eighty percent of our
family-income brackets has been approximately halved since 1977
(post-1962, hedonistic Federal Reserve "quality adjustment" statistical
swindles taken into account). I could lead an early entry into a
recovery process which would bring back prosperity within about a
generation. There is no magic involved; all that iis needed is the
competence in economics which my unique success as a long-range economic
The issue is, therefore,
essentially political, a political conflict inside the United States
between those who share the Constitutional general welfare commitment of
a Franklin Roosevelt, and those who share today the commitments of
Coolidge and Hoover. There is also a more deeply rooted institutional
resistance to such recovery measures in Europe.
To any informed American
patriot, who knows the actual history of both our national economy and
modern economy in general, the lesson of the economic recovery led by
President Franklin Roosevelt points toward a clear type of solution for
the general monetary-financial collapse ongoing today. From that
standpoint, the crucial question is: "Who is going to eat the bad
paper?" Will it be the financiers whose speculation has wrecked our
economy? Or will payment of those financier's highly inflated claims
come out of the living bodies of our own, and other people? We know
where our fascist U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
stands on this controversy; we strongly suspect, on the premise of
weighty evidence, where Howard Dean stands. We remember where Franklin
Roosevelt stood; but so do the political heirs of Roosevelt's
As a President, with the
precedent of Franklin Roosevelt's and other U.S. economic recoveries in
mind, I could lead our nation quickly into a long-term recovery phase
today. No other visible candidate for that office could; they might
learn, but, presently, left to their own devices, "they haven't a clue."
They never learned the lesson of past recoveries from follies such as
those of Coolidge, Hoover, Arthur Burns, Nixon, Brzezinski, and Volcker,
the follies carried to an extreme by "Greenspin" today.
In Europe and elsewhere, the
immediate source of resistance to any competent recovery program, is the
strongly embedded prejudice of Anglo-Dutch Liberal traditions of
parliamentary government, against any measures which violate the
imagined sanctity of "independent central banking systems." That
prejudice played into the hands of the Synarchists (fascists) in
post-Versailles Europe; it is a crucial lever in the hands of the
European and other Synarchist schemers today. It is desperate bankers,
such as those behind the Martinists of 1789-1815, and the Synarchist
International of the post-Versailles decades, or again today, who
exploit the pro-monetarist mental weaknesses of governments and others
today to bring dictatorships and wars upon the nations of modern
European civilization, as Venice's bankers orchestrated the horrors of
the medieval period from the launching of the Norman chivalry on.
These varieties of indicated
resistance to the urgently needed approaches to general
monetary-financial reform, are, therefore the principal factor pushing
the world to general wars and dictatorships today, as prior to World War
3. If The Next World War Comes
Suppose you were, for example,
Russia, China, or India. Suppose you knew that your nation was
pre-designated for a medium-term nuclear-warfare attack, or for
destruction by other means, if you failed to resist the attacker.
Suppose that other nations of Asia shared that concern. How might you
How did Russia, China, and
North Korea react, during the Korean War, to their conviction that they
faced similar threats from the U.S. Truman Administration? How did they
read a pattern of certain provocative moves from the Truman
Administration. What did these nations, which believed themselves
targets, read into the publication of the threat from the most evil
living person of the world at that time, Bertrand Russell, in Russell's
September 1946 publication of his argument for his doctrine of
"preventive nuclear warfare" against the Soviet Union?"
Compare that with Cheney's
repeated threats, since he was Secretary of Defense in the 1989-1993
Bush Administration, of nuclear warfare against, implicitly, post-Soviet
Russia and other targets? Compare that with the impact of Cheney's
escalating threats since the evening of Sept. 11, 2001. If you knew that
powerful enemy was intent upon crushing your nation, and also others,
out existence, and if you were such a targetted nation, which had the
potential means to wreak a terrible penalty upon that foe, would you
seek to define a defense, even at the risk of losing half of your
population? The history of land wars in Asia on this account, including
China's role in the Korean War, and the case of U.S. experience with its
war in Indo-China, should give the wary a hint of something to think
If, for example, you, from a
targetted nation, knew of ways to slip deadly devices into places where
their detection were very difficult, and their effect, if activated,
could be monumental, would you, as the military command of such a
threatened nation, be inclined to do it? Do you recall the ration of the
death tolls of German forces and the Soviet population, respectively,
during World War II? Or, do you recall a slightly different, but
relevant case, Lazare Carnot's successful defense of France up to the
victory he achieved in 1794? Under certain circumstances, people will
fight in a way which expresses a willingness to put the future existence
of their nation and its culture above their own lives. This is a quality
of human nature which inhuman tyrants like Hitler and the Synarchists
are prone to overlook. It is a feature of real-life strategy absent from
a Rand Corporation sand-box, or from game-theory calculations.
The solutions for all questions
of national strategy, will never be found on a sand-box, in a computer,
or even the human brain. They exist only in the creative potential of an
appropriately developed human mind.
The matter of the specific
combat systems is not our subject here. Our subject is preventing such
warfare from occurring. If we do not end what Cheney typifies, such
warfare will probably occur; and, probably, the next President of the
United States elected, will have to fight it. The principle is the same
which led into utopian Truman's Korea war, from which military
traditionalist, and Presidential candidate Eisenhower extracted us. With
Cheney allowed to run loose, the U.S.A. may not get off so cheaply, next
Take one relatively obvious
example of the kind of systems and their measures presently in the
making. Take relatively very small, very quiet submarines, much quieter
than today's nuclear-powered military submarines, smaller submarines
loaded with small objects to deposit in places relatively most difficult
for defenses to detect. Or, consider very, very deep-diving submarines
which can do special tricks. Meanwhile, nuclear and thermonuclear
devices can be produced in a wide range of effects, many of these
relatively small. Also, there are possibilities for producing global
effects, which we, then involved in the proposed SDI, had considered,
back during the mid-1980s, in our defining of the requirements to alter
the environment for short, but significant intervals of time; that, on a
relatively large scale.
The point being illustrated by
the references made, is that there are many ways in which the U.S.A.
nuclear Triad can be made relatively, assymmetrically obsolete; as by,
in effect, bypassing it with warfare in a different technological space
than it is designed to fight. This is not a matter of a particular
weapons-system, but it could be a matter of a threatened adversary's
dreaming up a feasible technological dimension which you, perhaps, had
simply not thought about.
When a group of scientists is
faced with what appear to be insuperable, technologically defined
barriers, the ordinary scientist sees a boundary, within which all
proposed solutions must be found; the other, true scientist, sees the
vast universe of opportunity beyond that boundary, where he, or she
knows all successful solutions to seemingly impossible barriers lie. The
great military scientist, told that the adversary has a perfect,
invincible weapons-system, smiles, and asks quietly: "Does he believe
If the answer from the military
experts is, "Yes," the scientist will smile, nodding: "Then, that is the
way we shall defeat him."
The rampant incompetence in
military and related matters shown by Bush Administration economists
generally, and by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's pack of neo-conservatives—and,
in that context, in events such as the recent, not really very secret
meeting in Nebraska—demonstrates that any notion of an assumed
invincible strategic doctrine in the intentions of these characters, is
such that any capable, otherwise weaker nation, is intrinsically capable
of discovering how to defeat, if they have not already defined such
The same stupidity on which the
Bush Administration and others premise their absurd doctrines respecting
the principles of economics, expresses precisely the kind of malady of
their minds which would make a incumbent government like their own go
down to self-inflicted defeat by its own blind faith in what it prizes
as its super-weapons. The military incompetence shown by Cheney,
Rumsfeld and their chicken-hawks in Afghanistan and Iraq, is an
illustration of this factor of general scientific-technological
incompetence permeating the Bush Administration, but not only that
In some of the preceding
paragraphs, I have listed a sampling of the directions in which some
technological approaches to outflanking the current thinking of the U.S.
utopians are already in progress. I know of the existence of others, but
think it both unnecessary and counterproductive, for several reasons, to
promote a spread of such possibilities in print on this present
occasion. On this matter of development and deployment of existing and
new strategic technologies, I return to the reference to Correlli
Barnett's treatment of the manner and effects of the systemic ruin of
the United Kingdom's once formidable capabilities, a process like that
the United States underwent since approximately the same time as the
official beginning of its Indo-China war.
The folly of Cheney and other
Bush Administration Synarchists today, should turn our attention to the
analogous kind of error, to be recognized in the way the pro-utopian
U.S. Truman Administration was taken by surprise in Korea, twice, first
by North Korea's forces, and then by China's. Truman refused to
understand, that by adopting the bullying policy of making an
existential quality of threat against both the Soviet Union and China,
Truman was walking the United States into a kind of war which it was not
prepared to expect.
The essential folly of the
Truman Administration was, that it did not understand the implications
of the fact that its threats were forcing both the Soviet Union and
China to choose to fight war against the forces of both the U.S.A. and
NATO, or be dismembered. The cited excerpt from Kennan points in that
direction. The same kind of fateful error of assumption prevails among
the neo-conservatives today.
The combination of Truman's
order for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bertrand
Russell's publication of his September 1946 declaration of a policy of
preventive nuclear warfare targeting the Soviet Union in particular, and
President Harry Truman's endorsement of Winston Churchill's widely
celebrated "Iron Curtain" address, had defined a situation in which both
Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao Tse Tung's China shared the belief that
the U.S.A. and Britain were determined to use nuclear weaponry to
threaten them with virtual extinction as states. Against that
background, the type of U.S. provocations conducted by the Truman
Administration in Asia, as identified in the chapter of Barnett which I
have referenced, brought matters to a threshold, in a way broadly
analogous to the kind of "pre-World War" tension which the continuing
antics of Svengali Cheney and the Trilbys of both the Bush
Administration and Democratic Party have combined to create today.
Now, as Truman did in 1949-50,
the Leo-Straussian neo-conservative bloc which still running its virtual
puppet-Presidency of George W. Bush, is successfully forcing the
deployment of operations which impel nations, including important powers
from around the world, to perceive an intent to destroy both China and
Russia; that, as the end-game phase of a process of piecemeal dividing
and destroying of the nations of Europe and Asia generally.
Since the circles around Cheney
are clinically insane and also strategic blunderers in the manner and
degree I have described up to this point in this report, their obsession
with their own schemes tends to blind them, as it might psychotic
terrorists, to any reality which might raise grave strategic doubts
about the characteristic features of their scheme itself. As happened
with Truman during a relatively saner time, in the cases of the Soviet
Union and China, these fools are driving an increasing number of the
targetted powers of Eurasia to think and pre-deploy in anticipation of
making the kinds of close-encounter and other end-game responses to U.S.
attacks which we must expect from among Asian cultures—Asian cultures of
today, with weighty modern scientific-technological capabilities.
So, in summary of that point:
what Cheney et al. are doing today, with the resonating and repeatedly
reenforced echo of President Bush's January 2002 "Axis of Evil" slogan,
has generated a mounting reaction around much of the world, a reaction
which poses the threat of more war than the Bush government dreams
possible; war which must be anticipated, under a continuation of present
trends, to confront the President elected in 2004. It appears that this
Administration remembers everything it has learned about history, all of
which is conveniently minimal, and that mostly false.
What is the world's political
The Synarchist Drive to
Presumably, the war-crimes
procedures at the close of World War II, and the formation of the United
Nations Organization, had outlawed "aggressive war." Since that time, we
have had reason to regret that we had not also discovered a means to
prevent actions, by means of which a stronger power might force a
weaker, such as the Soviet client North Korea, to attack, perhaps
"aggressively," in defense of plausible threats to the existence of its
nation, such as the threats of the Truman Administration to the Soviet
Union and China. On the latter account, since 1945, there are two
prominent challenges facing the power which seeks to avoid a war with
some foreign power. The first is to avoid threatening a war against that
nation. The other, is to avoid provoking that nation into a sense, as
Cheney et al. are doing, that the preservation of its existential
interests require it to attack. In August 1946, World War II had not yet
ended, when, for the sake of his utopian delusions, President Truman
began to violate both of those latter rules of prudence.
Today, the lessons of that
experience should compel us to redefine the policy to be accepted among
sovereign nation-states, a policy shaped to uproot the very real,
immediate threat of early wars whose ricocheting effects would be beyond
the imagination of most leaders of the world's governments today.
In presenting a case for the
alternative to such warfare here, we must begin by considering, at least
briefly, the present-day practice of relics of ancient and medieval
forms of imperialism. This must include some crucial highlights of that
history since the exemplary imperial follies of Athens in launching the
Today, Cheney et al. are
violating every such and related lesson of the principal experience of
ancient through modern European civilization. Duped President George
Bush, for his part, is contributing to that folly with his frequent and
foolish, schoolyard-bullying style in threatening "consequences." These
cases are worse than those mighty fools who perpetuated the 1618-1648
Thirty Years' War, a war which was done by leaders for the sake of
supposedly sacred, but evil oaths which had magically transformed the
leaders of the contending forces, from men into the kinds of beasts
which such as Cheney and his Chicken-hawks have shown themselves to be
today. What Cheney represents is the worst imaginable form of that
record of imperialism, one which, unless checked and uprooted, could
soon destroy any form of civilization on this planet for generations to
From the onset of the
Peloponnesian War until the Fifteenth-Century European Renaissance, the
prevalent tradition of all Middle Eastern and European culture had been
the kind of imperialism which had corrupted Pericles of Athens, had
dominated the Roman and Byzantine culture, and, also, ruled Europe for
nearly a thousand years since the Norman conquest of England, the latter
under the imperial hegemony of the Venetian financier oligarchy and
Venice's Norman partners. Today, the most poorly understood, but
presently most influential form of imperialism in European history, is
that inherited from a Europe under the boot of the Norman-enforced,
ultramontane law associated with the so-called Crusades.
It is the power to impose some
ultramontane form of law-making authority, which, as the experience of
feudalism proves, is the essential feature of imperialism. The example
of that Roman imperial doctrine of Pontifex Maximus traced from the
Caesars, is the relevant model of imperialism, since Augustus and
Tiberius, down to the present day. Today, ultramontane imperialism, akin
to that of feudalism, is expressed chiefly in the specific interest of a
specific, radically monetarist type of global financier-oligarchical
monetary-financial system, the presently bankrupt IMF system.
Today, the general principle of
civilized modern military and related strategy is, as I have emphasized
above, a doctrine of strategic defense consistent with the definitions
and practice of two great commanders, France's Lazare Carnot and
Germany's Gerhard Scharnhorst.
Unfortunately, the Martinist
(e.g., Synarchist) dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte revived the
institution and methods of empire in a new form. This was a radically
new form, later known as fascism, of an institution as imperial as the
British and Habsburg empires, an institution of imperialism which had
been the principal internal affliction of European civilization, since
the Peloponnesian War in which Greece virtually destroyed itself. This
was the affliction which modern Europe had momentarily banned with
Cardinal Mazarin's leading role in bringing about that stroke of genius
known as the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. Today, since Hitler, that new
form of imperialism introduced under Napoleon Bonaparte has often been
identified by its pro-Synarchist proponents, such as Michael Ledeen, as
As I have emphasized, earlier
in this report, the birth of modern fascism in 1789-1815 France, was
chiefly the ricocheted response of the combined forces of the both the
emerging British Empire and its rival, the Habsburg tradition, to the
mortal threat to those types of political systems which the American
Revolution of 1776-1789 represented.
The immediate focus of this
effort to crush the influence of U.S. Independence, was the 1781-1783
pre-orchestration of the French Revolution by the most powerful figure
of the emerging British world empire, Lord Shelburne. Shelburne, who was
the leading figure of both Barings bank and the British East India
Company, was the chief original sponsor of this process of intervention
leading into the French developments of 1789-1815. The most relevant
developments which are to be attributed directly and explicitly to
Shelburne, date from 1763. It was a network of private bankers and
others, allied to Shelburne, a network built up and directed by that
Shelburne, which operated through the Netherlands and down into the area
of French-speaking Switzerland, which orchestrated the crucial features
of the build-up toward and initiation of the French Revolution. This was
most emphatically the case from the period of Shelburne's 1782-1783 role
as British Prime Minister.
During the 1780s, Shelburne
and, chiefly, his French and Swiss collaborators, had built up a lurid
sort of occult freemasonic association, known as the Martinists, a cult
including such notable figures as Mesmer and Cagliostro, which were
among the key inside figures of both the Jacobin Terror and the rise to
power of Napoleon Bonaparte. The case of the Queen's Necklace typifies
the Martinists' role in preparing France for events including the
decapitation of the same Queen later. This Martinist cult, together with
Shelburne assets such as Philippe Egalité and Jacques Necker, set what
became the Jacobin Terror of the Martinists into motion with the
incident of the July 14, 1789 affair of the Bastille.
The historical point of
reference for this Shelburne-directed scheme, is that elaborated by one
of his numerous lackeys, Gibbon of The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire notoriety. Not coincidentally, Gibbon was an associate of the
circles of another Shelburne asset, Jacques Necker. The pivotal feature
of Gibbon's proposal in that mammoth work, was a clearly implied apology
for the notorious Emperor "Julian the Apostate." Gibbon's conclusion was
that it was Christianity which had destroyed the Roman Empire from
within, an empire which could be successfully restored by Shelburne's
British East India Company as the British Empire, if only Christianity
could be removed. The Martinist freemasonic cult was the chosen
French-speaking instrument for the operations against France. The
Martinists were well-suited to play that game assigned to them. Their
handiwork appeared first as the left-wing Jacobin Terror, and then, as
if by the hand of the Martinist Cagliostro, that Terror appeared in the
"right-wing" uniform of the ex-Jacobin bandit-Emperor Napoleon.
It was not the Martinist
freemasonic cult, with its Bavarian and other absorbed elements, which
produced the left-right sequence of both the Jacobin Terror and
Bonaparte's imperialism. The Martinists were selected by a network of
European private bankers expressing the Venetian tradition, a network
then led by Shelburne et al., and chosen, largely, by him personally, as
the kind of ideological instruments selected by the British East India
Company's intention to eradicate the influence of the American
Revolution. The Martinists, as their ideology is represented by such
authors as Joseph de Maistre, had the specific quality of being the kind
of instrument described by the obsessed admirer of Napoleon Bonaparte,
G.W.F. Hegel, and as the tyranny of the beast-man described by Friedrich
Nietzsche as his "Superman" assigned to destroy Christianity. The
terrorist controller Jeremy Bentham was the working head of Shelburne's
British East India Company "Secret Committee," which directed the
Jacobin Terror. Bentham, personally, reflects the same mentality as the
Martinists, as shown by his relevant published writings still rather
widely extant today.
The procession from the stormed
Bastille—bearing the bust of its hero, Shelburne's Jacques Necker, at
its head, babbling poor lunatics from the Bastille on the mob's
shoulders, and the heads of the victims on the procession's
pikes—typified the Martinist spirit of the event from which the Jacobin
Terror, and Napoleon's tyranny subsequently ensued. This was surfacing
of what was eventually to become what is known by the precise technical
term of Synarchism, in Hitler's time, and today.
Was that horror really France?
Lafayette who witnessed it, would say, "No." The French Revolution is a
complex of contradictions, featuring such virtues as the military and
scientific genius of Lazare Carnot as its "Organizer of Victory," and
the sublime Bailly martyred by the Jacobins. As to France itself, the
conclusion to be reached is, that human beings are naturally endowed
with goodness. This is shown in that time not only by the magnificent
Bailly, or Benjamin Franklin's collaborator, the great Lavoisier
butchered by the Terror, but also the scientific work of the circles of
Carnot and Monge. The proof is repeatedly delivered by that and other
history, that human evil, while commonplace, shows itself, in the end,
to be unnatural.
Which from that period, or any
period, was man, and which was the disease which afflicted him?
To sort out more thoroughly
than this summary of the evil done in that time; to separate more nicely
what was done to France by Shelburne and the Martinists in this way,
from what France accomplished; may be assigned to those, especially
France's patriots, who make a fresh assessment of its history; writers
who proceed in the light of crucial evidence which has been forced to
broader attention by our fresh scrutiny of the combined evil represented
by both Adolf Hitler's accomplices, and by Cheney and his accomplices
today. In that same spirit, let U.S. patriots today look at the evil
which Truman did after the death of President Franklin Roosevelt.
Apart from Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the most significantly tell-tale single piece of evidence
against Truman, is that Roosevelt had intended to conclude the war with
the liberation of the planet from colonialism and related practices.
Truman acted to support the British policy of restoration of colonialism
by military force, in places where it had been overthrown in the course
of the war. Truman's action thus tipped the balance, to restore the
institution of imperialism as a established feature of the United
Not long after Truman's
retirement, and the death of Josef Stalin, the most evil man of the
world at that time, Bertrand Russell, negotiated an accommodation with
the new Soviet leader Khrushchev, through the facility of a London
Conference of World Parliamentarians for World Government. Russell's
intention was, as usual for him, world government, and his own burning
hatred against the existence of, above all, the United States. His often
restated intent was to establish the kind of world government which he
and H.G. Wells had prescribed in Wells' 1928 The Open Conspiracy.
It was on behalf of world government, explicitly, that Russell had
explicitly proposed preventive nuclear warfare as the road to utopia and
peace, publically and repeatedly, from 1946 on.
Thus, after the succession of
the Russell-negotiations around the 1962 Missiles Crisis, and the
assassination of President Kennedy, the United Nations hosted an
approximation of imperial world government in the emerging "detente"
arrangements between the Anglo-American and Soviet nuclear superpowers.
Wars among the superpower blocs were permitted, such as the U.S.
Indo-China war, as long as they were "managed" according to the current
vogue in Rand Corporation-type sand-box notions of "rules of the game."
This arrangement continued until 1989, with the collapse of the Warsaw
Pact, and, soon after that, the Soviet Union itself.
The collapse of Soviet power
lured Anglo-American utopian madmen into the lust for immediate
consolidation of a single world superpower, an Anglo-American world
empire to rule the world forever, thus bringing history to an "end."
Cheney represented the most fanatical of the dumb jocks pushing that
policy within the 1989-1993 U.S. Bush Administration. In 1991-92, that
Bush, the father of the presently incumbent President, had turned Cheney
down; Cheney was more successful on and following Sept. 11, 2001. His
intention is to use preventive nuclear warfare, as either threat or
actual war, to bring about the imperial conquest of the world, including
Russia and China, within his own lifetime. He pushes new wars now; some
relatively cooler heads around that administration have proposed to
postpone new wars until after the 2004 election.
If such a utopian military
outlook as dumb jock Cheney's is not uprooted from the U.S. government
now, the world as a whole is perched at the brink of an unfolding
general state of warfare which will, rather soon, leave very little
resembling civilized life on this planet, for a rather long time to
come. That is, the prospect of a condition under which the elimination
of as much as half or more of the population of a nation is a
precalculated assumption of the kind of warfare which Cheney's impulses
imply under those present real circumstances which the present Bush
Administration stupidly refuses to take into account.
It is therefore urgent that the
alternative should be made clear.
The Resort to Strategic
Presuming that Cheney's plans
for both wars and U.S. dictatorship are prevented, the principal option
available to leading nations of the world, is a concerted decision to
take the hopelessly bankrupt present world monetary-financial system
into receivership. That is, the "floating-exchange-rate" IMF system. The
general intent must be to re-establish a new, fixed-exchange-rate,
protectionist form of monetary system, modelled upon the most successful
features of the original Bretton Woods system.
Provided that new long-term,
low-priced credit is generated, both by the combined means of government
right to utter currency and by long-term international treaty
agreements, the potential presently exists to expand productive
employment substantially, somewhat as President Franklin Roosevelt
combatted the Coolidge-Hoover-created U.S. economic depression, through
an included heavy emphasis on public forms of development of basic
economic infrastructure. Under those conditions, under the indicated
reform of the world's monetary-financial system, the preconditions
presently exist for a massive expansion of hard-commodity trade among
the nations of Eurasia.
Under a world affected by those
beneficial reforms, the common feature of interest among nations is the
fostering and preservation of such institutions of long-term
economic-development cooperation. Such a state of affairs is conducive
to the kind of order among peoples which was stipulated by the 1648
Treaty of Westphalia, an order subsumed by the treaty-principle of "the
advantage of the other." Under those conditions, the military relations
among nations assume the form of institutions and policies of strategic
Reflection on such excellent
long-term remedies for our planet's chief present peril, requires
attention chiefly to two distinct but interdependent problems: The need
to settle accounts with the systemic defects of any method of
superseding control over government by organized private financier
interest, and to affirm the principle of sovereignty of nation-state
republics. I conclude this report with my address to those two matters
in that order. The present circumstance of terminal bankruptcy of the
existing form of world monetary-financial system, should be used as the
health-giving opportunity to rid the planet, at last, of the vestiges of
that same Venetian system of banking practices which produced the
so-called New Dark Age of Europe's Fourteenth Century, and fostered the
launching of that monster known variously as Synarchism or fascism
The error so dramatically
demonstrated by the long term, now hyperinflationary degeneration of the
world's monetary-financial systems since the change of 1971-72, is that
the security of and among nations requires that sovereign governments
administer the issue of and circulation of currency, taxation, and
conditions of investment and trade, to such effect that the price of
money does not increase more rapidly than the intrinsic value of
produced goods and the socially most essential services. This requires a
fixed-exchange-rate monetary system, under which necessary forms of
well-considered changes in prices of currencies may occur, but under
which free-floating fluctuations, especially financial speculation, are
The experience of the recent
three decades should have warned us, that the system of independent
central banking should be abhorred and terminated, and replaced by
notions of national banking already implicit in the U.S. Federal
Constitution of 1789. The nation-state must be fully sovereign, and the
management of its vital national interests therefore made efficiently
transparent to its government and citizenry.
In such an arrangement, a gold
reserve system, as absolutely opposed to a gold standard system, is
uurivalled in its utility, at least for the duration of the visible
future. This is to be conceived by a concert of nations as President
Franklin Roosevelt, then, applied the relatively extraordinary power of
the U.S.A. to such effect at that time. There is no natural price of
gold other than its range of prices of production. For the case of the
monetary gold of a gold-reserve system, the price of such reserve gold
is determined by consideration of the amount of such gold required for
the pool, as compared with the price of current production, on that
scale, for investment and trade.
The proper function of banking
in general, is the administration of a secure and regulated system of
saving, directed toward investments in promotion of trade, production,
and accumulation of useful physical capital of government, production,
and households. The function of national banking is to coordinate the
functioning of that combined system as a whole, with emphasis on both
the monopoly of credit-creation authority exercised by government
through national banking, and the relationship of this function to
relevant matters of both the fostering of scientific and technological
progress, and foreign relations.
This action removes the abuses,
as by private banking in the Venice tradition, which have plagued
civilization for centuries, and checks that power to do evil which is
typified by the role of such banking in the Synarchist phenomenon.
The concluding topic to be
addressed here, the matter of national sovereignty, is a matter in which
law and other policy-shaping must be ruled by consideration of that
higher authority represented by the ecumenical principle—as defined, for
example, by biogeochemistry's V.I. Vernadsky—of the absolute physical
distinction of man from beast.
There are chiefly two distinct,
but interdependent principles at issue on this point. One, the need to
eradicate the long-traditional practice of societies, to hunt down the
relatively greater number of human beings as if they were wild or
domesticated cattle, as the wicked neo-Cathar dogma of France's Francois
Quesnay prescribes. The second, related consideration, is the essential
role of the ironies peculiar to a culture in enabling the members of
that society to participate in the conceptualization of such matters of
principle as discovery and application of discoverable principles of
physical science. The function of the sovereign nation in fostering the
continuing, upward evolutionary development of such a process of
national culture, is the prerequisite of the elevation of the individual
from both the formal and virtual status, as human cattle, which the
Physiocrats, and John Locke, projected for the families laboring on
behalf of the desires of the shareholders.
The function of government
which must be recognized as the purpose of the choice of the modern
sovereign nation-state republic, is to free the individual person from
subjection to those imposed conditions of life in which he, or she
thinks of the individual as a variety of existentialist beast. This
benefit is too be accomplished through fostering all persons' sense of
themselves as contributing willfully to the progress of successive
generations to increased degrees of mankind's mastery of the universe in
which we live. This role of the citizen within that republic must become
recognized as an essential, functional role of the republic, in
furthering the corresponding common aims of past, present, and future
mankind in general, each to the intended advantage of the other.
When we witness the resurgent
horrors of Synarchism today, we must be inspired to resolve, not only to
rid the world of policies such as those of Cheney and his Chicken-hawk
warriors; but to establish a durable order of cooperation among
sovereign nation-states, an order which not merely eradicates the
present crop of the evil which the Martinists reflect, but uproots that
evil by removing the preconditions under which such pestilences as those
might recur in the future. We shall maintain the capabilities for
strategic defense, but hope to employ this to prevent wars, rather than
be obliged to fight them.
Return to Table of Contents