LaRouche in BerlinExposes

Synarchist Enemies ofThe United States

A White Paper Based onThe Proceedings of a June 27, 2006

EIR Seminar in Berlin

P.O. Box 6157 Leesburg, Virginia 20178

www.larouchepac.com

LaRoucheP �A �C �

© July 2006 LLPPA-2006-14

The roles of Felix Rohatyn and his associates in the Paris-centered Synarchist International andBilderberg group, in wrecking and bankrupting the world monetary system, as well as the U.S. econo-my, was the leading topic discussed at a June 27 Berlin seminar, which drew approximately 70 guestsfrom 20 nations. The reports delivered give a crucial insight into the current threat to world civiliza-tion, for Americans determined to save their nation.

We provide transcripts of the key presentations here, starting with Lyndon LaRouche’s keynote,and including follow-up presentations by Dr. Cliff Kiracofe, Jeffrey Steinberg, and Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The final item is an article by Jacques Cheminade, a candidate in France’s current presi-dential race, which elaborates on the French synarchist networks which he discussed at shorterlength in his Berlin remarks.

HEAR Lyndon LaRouche LIVEINTERNATIONAL WEBCAST Thursday July 20, 2006 1:00 pm EASTERN TIME www.larouchepac.com

Here is the keynote address of Lyndon LaRouche to theJune 27 EIR seminar in Berlin.

In this period of time, we’re in a world crisis withoutparallel. There’s no comparison to this in Europeanhistory, since the 14th Century New Dark Age, to

what we’re facing now. All the things since then, interms of crises in European experience, have been lesscrucial than was the case in the 14th-Century New DarkAge.

But that New Dark Age is also a benchmark.Because, to understand the crisis we have today, and tounderstand how the solution must be designed, wemust understand why a New Dark Age struck Europe inthe 14th Century, to be prepared for the new dark agewhich is, right now, descending upon the entire world.There are solutions for this problem. But you have tounderstand the rules of the game, by which solutionswork out.

So that, when people talk about “New BrettonWoods”—many people talk about it. But even the gen-tleman from Iran who recently wrote on this subject,and then asked, “Well, what do you mean by ‘NewBretton Woods’?”—that is a very good question.Because, New Bretton Woods signifies that, at the endof World War II, the President of the United States,Franklin Roosevelt, established a monetary system, afixed-exchange-rate monetary system, without whichthe world would not have recovered from the effects ofWorld War II. This monetary system was crucial.

Now, the intention of the original Bretton Woodssystem, by Roosevelt, and the conduct of the BrettonWoods policy by his successor Truman, were two oppo-site conceptions, united by one common feature, a tem-porary, fixed-exchange-rate monetary system.

Roosevelt was an American; Truman was really not.He was born in the United States, but it was like a dis-ease that infected us—he was not really a goodAmerican.

Roosevelt was committed to overturning the policies

of the United States from the assassination of onePresident [McKinley]; the inauguration of TeddyRoosevelt; the inauguration of another fascist,Woodrow Wilson; the inauguration of fools—Coolidgewas an evil fool; Hoover who was not a fool, but whowas corrupt. So, the United States from 1901-1902 until1933 was run by a policy entirely contrary to theConstitutional prescription of the United States.

When Roosevelt became President, in March of1933, early March, Hitler had already become a dictatorin Germany. And it was known to Roosevelt that he hadtwo problems on his hands: First of all, the precedingPresidencies of the United States since McKinley—whowas shot in order to make Teddy Roosevelt President—until Roosevelt’s inauguration, was rotten. It was evil. Itwas run from Europe, not from the United States.Roosevelt had to eliminate the system which had creat-ed the Depression in order to have an economic recov-ery. He also had to prepare for what he knew was theninevitable: some form of what became known as WorldWar II.

The British Launched World War IBecause, it happened in the following way: You have

to go back to the close of the 19th Century. At that point,the British monarchy decided to launch a new worldwar, under the then-Prince of Wales, who subsequentlybecame King of England. By operations in France,including the assassination of a President of France,Sadi Carnot, the Dreyfus Affair, and other things,France became totally corrupted. The rot inside France,which had been there under Napoleon III, came to thefore. And the British struck an alliance with France, orcertain forces in France, which became the basis forWorld War I, through the establishment of the EntenteCordiale with the people who represented the traditionof Napoleon I and Napoleon III.

In order to get the war going, they took a foolishKaiser, Wilhelm II, who was a fool, a British fool, ofBritish descent; and another fool, who was a successor

2

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

We Need a NewBretton Woods To DefeatThe Evil of Globalization

3

of a great Russian Czar, and put in a fool, Nicholas II.And these three fools—Nicholas II of course was anephew of the King of England, just as Wilhelm II ofGermany was a nephew of the King of England—thesefools launched world war! Which Germany would havewon, except for the U.S. intervention to bail out theBritish and French.

They were not satisfied with that. So, immediately,they went into a plan, again from the British, which wasorganized around the naval power agreements andnegotiations of the early 1920s. These early power nego-tiations were essentially, crucially—with Britain andJapan—against the United States. Now, Japan had beenmade into a modern nation by the United States, by itsintervention. But Japan had been taken over by theBritish monarchy in the 1880s-1890s, and had launchedwhat became known as the first series of Japan-Chinawars, in 1894-1895. And at this point, it was an interven-tion of Japan, as a British puppet, a puppet of theBritish monarchy, which was out to work with theBritish to eliminate the influence of the United States inthe Pacific, especially in China.

So, the British sponsored the Japan wars againstChina, and other wars, as part of this policy in the1920s. As part of that policy, of course, there was theplan for Japan, and the British, together with otherEuropean naval powers, to conduct a naval attack onthe naval forces of the United States, to eliminate theU.S. naval power in the world, and to restore Britishhegemony in naval power. This was the basis for theplan, at that time, where Japan was supposed to attackPearl Harbor as part of its agreement—this is in the1920s, early 1920s—to attack the United States’ base atPearl Harbor. This was the issue.

Later, Japan ended up as the ally of Hitler, but for thesame reason. Japan had become the perpetual enemy of

the United States, from the 1890s, onthe issue of U.S. influence in Asia, infavor of British influence. But Britain,under the influence of Roosevelt, decid-ed not to support Hitler, whom they hadsupported up to that time—Hitler wasput into power by these guys, includingsome guys in New York; including thegrandfather of the present President ofthe United States, who was the guy whosigned the order to move the moneyfrom a German bank to support Hitler’sparty and keep it in place, so that Hitlercould be made dictator of Germany, onbehalf of the interests of the FrenchSynarchists and the British Bank ofEngland.

The Treason of theFrench SynarchistsBut then, at a certain point, at thetime—go back to 1940: The beaches at

Dunkirk were the turning point which leads up to mod-ern history. Hitler had held back the tanks, the tankunits at Dunkirk, to allow the British to escape. Now,why had Hitler done this favor for the British? Hitlerheld back the tanks, because he didn’t want to offendthe British so much that the British could not surrender,as the French were about to do, and were doing, toHitler.

The intention had been, which was the revised planof the Nazis—the original plan was to go East first. Thenthe German High Command said, “That’s idiocy. Younever go East and attack Russia, when you’ve got theBritish and French on your tail. Eliminate the Britishand French as a threat, first.” So, in the first case, withthe help of the French Synarchists, inside the govern-ment of France, Germany was allowed to conquerFrance. Germany did not have the military capability ofdestroying France. The door was opened by the Frenchgovernment!; by the Synarchist bankers, who we’ll cometo again, today, to understand what New Bretton Woodsmeans.

So therefore, France became what it wished to be! Apuppet of the Nazis! With some objections of someFrench, but France was essentially a puppet of the Naziregime, as so-called “Occupied France.” But it was will-ingly occupied. It was like the prostitute who says, “I’mbeing raped,” while taking the money—in this case, pay-ing for the privilege.

However, Roosevelt had intervened into Britishaffairs and this had induced the famous statement byChurchill, that if the German forces should attempt toinvade the United Kingdom, the British governmentwould order the British fleet, including the fleet of thecolonies, to go to the United States and operate underU.S. command. Now, this turning point in the warmeant that the British were allied with the United States

EIRNS/James Rea

In his keynote address on June 27, Lyndon LaRouche outlined the way out of “aworld crisis without parallel,” by returning to the nation-building policiesexemplified by President Franklin Roosevelt.

against Hitler, where up to that point the predominantleading forces in England had been for Hitler. And hadbeen for the idea of surrendering to Hitler, in order toattack the Soviet Union. That had been the plan.

So, what I’ve said is fact. But it’s contrary to what iscommonly taught, which indicates: Don’t believe thenewspapers! Don’t try to do intelligence by interpretingbreaking news in the newspapers, or on radio or televi-sion broadcasts. In a period of crisis, the newspapers arethe biggest liars of all. Never trust them, and never say,“We must respond, we must interpret this.” Anythingthe press tells you: Don’t believe it. Treat the newspaperreports as diseases, and think like a physician: You’vegot a disease on your hands. Don’t let the disease influ-ence you, but identify the disease and control it, whichmeans, control the newspaper editor, control the pub-lisher. Because they all lie.

And this is particularly true today: Most of the thingsyou get in the press, leading press today, are absolutelies. They’re not meaningless, because even a lie tells yousomething about the liar. But you have to know it’s a lie.Then you can identify the meaning, why did the liar lie?What is the purpose of the lie?

So, in intelligence—I’m pretty good at intelligence. Ican tell you, if you want to be a good intelligence officer,pay very little attention to the press. You have a clinicaldepartment, called the garbage department, to saywhat’s coming out in the garbage, to analyze that. It’slike you want to find out what’s going on in a plant, youlook at what they throw away in the backyard, and thenfigure out what was going on at the plant. So, this is thesituation.

FDR’s Plan: To Eliminate ColonialismNow, we come to a point, that at the end of the war,

Roosevelt died. Roosevelt had a plan, an intention—which is why the United Nations was proposed byhim—to eliminate colonialism and everything like it,internationally. And to use the power of the UnitedStates to break any government that tried to maintain acolonial system, by the power of the United States; tosupport struggles for independence by peoples ofoppressed nations; and to assist them, with a new sys-tem, in being able to develop their economies to truesovereignty. This is based largely on a three-way agree-ment, among certain forces in China, with the agree-ment of the Soviet Union, and the United States. Thesewere the three great powers at that time. China was notnominally a great power, but it’s a great nation, inher-ently. And therefore, Roosevelt’s conception was, that ifyou have the United States, China, and the Soviet Unionin agreement on this order for the post-war world, and aprogram of post-Hitler recovery for the world, that youwould create an order called the United Nations, underwhich these old nations and freed nations, would cometogether to establish a diplomatic vehicle for coopera-tion and economic development and other things.

Now, the day that Roosevelt died, that aspect of poli-

cy went out the window. And we had a virtual fascist,Truman, became President—and that’s a story in itself,as to how he became President. At that point, Trumanadopted a policy which was crafted by Bertrand Russell,from England, and the policy was called “preventivenuclear war.” Russell’s policy, which was fully adoptedby the United States under Truman—and it was adoptedvirtually the day that Roosevelt died!—was to launch apreventive, so-called, nuclear attack on the SovietUnion, to dictate to the Soviet Union submission toworld government—not a system of nations, but worldgovernment—as a price for not being bombed perpetu-ally by nuclear weapons.

This was the Bertrand Russell policy, as stated inSeptember of 1946, when it was published. But it wasthe Truman policy, from the beginning.

Now, at the point that the war had ended, Japan hadalready negotiated surrender to the United States. Thesurrender had occurred through the Vatican, throughthe Foreign Office of the Vatican, through theDepartment of Extraordinary Affairs. It was done by aMonsignor [Montini] at the point, who later becamePope Paul VI. So, the conditions of surrender hadalready been reached with the United States, whileRoosevelt was still President.

But when Truman became President, this wasstopped. Why? Because the United States had, at thatpoint, two remaining prototypes of a nuclear weapon,one uranium, one plutonium. These were laboratoryprototypes. They were not production-line weapons sys-tems. The United States dropped two, totally unneces-sary, nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, aspart of the policy of demonstrating nuclear weapons; aspart of the Bertrand Russell policy—the great pacifist:You know, if you kill everybody, you have peace—theRussell policy of permanent warfare, nuclear warfare, toestablish world government, to eliminate the nation-state. That is, to establish what’s called, today, “global-ization.” Elimination of the nation-state, world govern-ment under a concert of financier forces which elimi-nate sovereign government as is being done, today.

The Intention Is Called ‘Globalization’So that, many of the things that are happening, are

not inevitable events today, something that happenedbecause of a process, or some non-understandableprocess. Things that are happening today to nations, asto Germany, as to France, as to Italy, as to other parts ofthe world, these things are part of a long-term policywith an intention behind it! The intention is called glob-alization. The intention was first expressed in Europe,and in the United States, shortly after the death ofPresident Franklin Roosevelt.

The generation that went to war, my generation,would not put up with the kinds of things that are hap-pening today. It’s only because my generation has beenreplaced in power, that a younger generation, nowbetween 50 years of age and 65, or slightly older, is run-

4

ning the world. The generation comes from the upper20% of family-income brackets of Europe and theUnited States. This generation is called the BabyBoomers. Or, in France, the less-complimentary name,“BoBos.” A more accurate term: Bourgeois Bohèmes.

So this has been planned all along. At first, under theBretton Woods system, it was kept alive. The colonieswhich had been liberated, or were about to be liberated,were suppressed, or absorbed in a new way, by France,by Britain, by the Dutch. The Dutch were particularlynasty at this business in Indonesia. Everyone wasinvolved in the suppression of Indo-China, reconqueringof Indo-China, which had already declared its indepen-dence through Ho Chi Minh, who had been Roosevelt-sponsored at the time. So, Europe was totally corrupt.The United States was totally corrupt, on this issue.

And we had an anti-Communist movement, whichwas absolutely insane! There was no reason for it; it wasabsolute insanity. But under this program, what didthey do? They said, “You can not change the older gen-eration,” my generation, or the generation which wasstill older which was living then. “You can’t change theirways, they still believe in the modern nation-state. Theybelieve in scientific and technological progress. Theybelieve in agriculture. They have these Roosevelt ideas,about opportunities, like health insurance for every-one—that sort of thing. These ideas must go—and thisolder generation is embedded with these beliefs, andthese political and social values. We have to create a newgeneration to come to power, which will not go along tobelieve in these things.”

So, from the beginning, from 1946 on, with thelaunching of a right-wing campaign of terror inside theUnited States and inside Europe, you had the beginningof a mobilization for a change in direction of society,

which became the characteristic of theBaby-Boomer generation. Those who wereborn between 1945 and approximately1957—that generation. And this generationwas directed to go into the leading univer-sities, from which the leading layer of thenext generation’s leaders of society wouldcome, whether in government, in business,in universities.

And you had a takeover of the universi-ties, where the quality of the professorsbecame poorer and poorer and poorer—even before this generation took over.Then, you had the great explosion of 1968,in Europe and in North America, simulta-neously. And the values, the new values,the existentialist values expressed by cer-tain kinds of fascists, the Frankfurt Schoolfascists, the existentialists—they said,“Move over.” And the demonstration, asyou see in Germany, for example, the envi-ronmentalist movement, the Green move-ment was created as a result of this.

Absolute insanity, using a program which had beendeveloped by Hermann Göring in Germany as part of acultural program, in the 1920s on, this program tookover. And Germany was destroyed from within, largely,finally, in the 1960s already, was destroyed, in part, bythe Green movement against nuclear energy, andagainst technology generally.

Once the Soviet Union had collapsed, immediately,the next phase was, consolidate it. Who did it? TheBritish monarchy and the French, Mitterrand, otherwiseknown as Napoleon IV, a British agent like Napoleon III.

So this was the process. In the United States, thesame thing: the Kyoto demands, these reforms, so-calledenvironmentalist reforms. A complete fraud! To shutdown the world economy.

So, what you have, is you have a generation in power,which says you either support, or you have to go alongwith policies under which your own country is going tobe destroyed. And your objective is to submit to a newsystem of things, called “globalization”: You’re no longergoing to have industry. You’re no longer going to haveindependent farming. You’re now going to submit. Towhat? Or better said: To whom?

So, when you understand the crisis in the UnitedStates today, or attempt to understand the crisis inEurope, don’t look at what are called the “importantforces,” because they’re not important. No governmentof Europe is important. None! The former Comeconstates are worse off than they were under Soviet direc-tion. Every one of them, vastly worse! Germany hasbeen in worse, and worse, and worse condition, eversince about the middle of the 1960s. Not as collapsed,immediately, but the process leading toward eventualcollapse, was in progress. France became more andmore degenerate. De Gaulle made an effort to reverse

5

FDR and Churchill at Yalta, February 1945. When Britain was threatened byHitler, Churchill ordered the fleet to operate under U.S. command. “Now,” saidLaRouche, “this turning point in the war meant that the British were allied withthe United States against Hitler, where up to that point the predominant leadingforces in England had been for Hitler.”

that tendency. Again, it was taken away from him, after1963, after the assassination of Kennedy. With thelaunching of the Vietnam War by the United States—this was the beginning of the end.

So that, by 1971-72, after the monetary system hadalready been wrecked, first by the British, by the HaroldWilson government in 1957; and then under [Lyndon]Johnson in 1968. The system was gone. We had a float-ing-exchange-rate system. The Bretton Woods systemwas destroyed. You look at the 1970s, where 1971-72were the end of the Bretton Woods system, through1981, the point that poor President Carter, who didn’tknow what he was doing, left office. Brzezinski did it,not Carter. Carter didn’t understand a thing.

So, this group destroyed the United States, destroyedregulation. Destroyed everything in economic policy onwhich the achievement of Roosevelt had depended;destroyed everything which was in the Roosevelt policy,which is based on the U.S. Constitutional conception ofgovernment. And similar kinds of things reverberated inEurope—led by England, which was the worst of allthese places—by Britain.

The Origin of the ProblemSo, what we have today is this, is a culmination of

that process. We’ve come to the point that the UnitedStates is not the source of the problem. The UnitedStates is the key symptom of the problem. The origin ofthe problem, which you see in the United States, isinside Europe. And you have a couple of people visitingtoday, who will give some reports bearing on that, fromJeff Steinberg and from Cliff Kiracofe [see below, fortheir presentations].

The source of this problem is essentially a connectionbetween a phenomenon in France, called the SynarchistInternational, which essentially took over at theVersailles Treaty, in alliance with the British and Dutch.The alliance largely took the form, as you will heartoday—I won’t go into the details, but just to indicatethe nature of the problem—took the form of theSynarchists associated with Lazard Frères, and particu-larly, specifically with André Meyer of France; leadingSynarchist bankers who moved into an alliance withRoyal Dutch Shell, and the Dutch royal family and theBritish royal family. This is the phenomenon todaycalled the Bilderberg Society, which is not really a soci-ety, it’s just a meeting of people who reflect this. They’renot the controllers, there’s no Bilderberg conspiracy. It’sa completely different conspiracy. But the BilderbergSociety is one of the events which occurs periodically, asnow, which is a reflection of what the problem is, ofwho the problem is. It’s a problem centered in Europe,with strong tentacles inside the United States, which weknow in the United States as the “Party of Treason,”which is centered in bankers. Bankers such as thegrandfather of the present President of the UnitedStates, who financed Hitler’s coming back to power,together with the British and others. They’re out to

destroy the United States. And the immediate operationwas to focus on the machine-tool capacity of the UnitedStates, because, without the United States’ machine-toolcapacity, no recovery is possible.

There are two things to consider here: First of all, theobjective is globalization. Europe is absolutely incapableof defending itself now. There is no force in Europewhich will be willing to defend Europe, that is a capableforce. France is bankrupt. Italy is worse than bankrupt.Germany is condemned to bankruptcy, as you see inBerlin, the destruction of the industrial potential ofBerlin.

Germany could, you would say, survive. We’ve oftentalked about this. All you have to do, is have a system ofstate credit. You have a source of state credit, you canfind by the proper investments, you can increase theeconomic output of Germany more rapidly than the costof this credit. You just need the right program, largelybased in infrastructure: Rebuild the machine-tool indus-try and so forth. But, what’s not allowed, especially sinceMaastricht: Germany is not allowed to do that! Germanyis ordered to destroy the industrial potential of Berlin,much below the level it was at the time of 1989.

So, unless Europe is willing to break the politicalbonds of slavery, within Europe, led by the Anglo-French-Dutch alliance, then there’s no country inWestern Europe or Central Europe which has the abilityto survive. Poland is already virtually dead. The othercountries of the former Comecon countries are virtuallydead economically, or dying, rotted. Russia has beenlooted into weakness. It has some program for recovery,but it has no recovery yet. There’s no hope, in Eurasiagenerally, for this kind of recovery. Yes, you have arecovery in China—but, do you have a recovery inChina? No, you don’t really have a recovery in China.Economic growth is occurring in some parts of China.Economic growth based largely on using U.S. productdesigns, with U.S. credit to produce products for theworld market, especially the U.S. market. If the U.S.economy collapses, the Chinese economy collapses—and China has a social crisis as a result of it. Becauseyou have a disparity between the rich and the poor inChina, which is part of the foolish policy adopted byChina. You don’t have billionaires in a country with verypoor people: That is not intelligent policy. You don’t givetax-free bonuses to people who are just parasites, tobecome billionaires, while you have your countrysidefull of over a billion people who are extremely poor,with no real prospect for the future unless there’s achange in their condition of life. Hmm?

Then look at India. India has a better situation thanChina, because India has greater inherent stability andless dependence upon the world market. India also hasits own potential for growth. If India goes into the full-scale thorium high-temperature gas-cooled reactor pro-gram, which fits its requirement—which I’ve been rec-ommending for years, as have others—then India couldhave a very rapid internal improvement in the basic

6

infrastructure and power. So, India could undergo,under certain conditions, a significant recovery, andwould have greater resistance to the political effects of ageneral collapse of the economy than China. Chinawould be faced with an immediate social crisis, whichwould probably explode in some kind of violent crisis,under the present conditions.

So, there is no hope, looking at the rest of Asia; thereis no hope, if the United States’ economy were to col-lapse; there is no hope of rescue from Asia. Nor is therepresently any political hope of rescue of world civiliza-tion from Western Europe. None.

The United States Must ChangeIts Policy

Therefore, you can’t say, as many foolish people aresaying, that if the United States goes under as this greatimperial ogre, then we will be free of the United States’tyranny and we could find a solution, perhaps with ourfriends in Asia: Doesn’t exist. It’s a complete piece offoolishness. It’s absolute nonsense.

Yes, the cooperation between, for example, Germany,Russia, and the countries of the Shanghai CooperationOrganization, is a model of what must happen; as a fac-tor in a general economic recovery, it must happen. Butit will not work, unless the United States changes its poli-cy. And that’s what I’m concerned with: getting theUnited States to change its policy, because otherwise,the rest of the world doesn’t have a chance of escaping anew dark age. You find some government in Europe,which is prepared to overthrow these governments now,and establish a government committed to the kind ofpolicies that Roosevelt represented in 1945? Or, policiesthat Germany represented back before the middle of the1960s? And turn it back to those kinds of policies? No,none. None.

Because, Germany is controlled by something, also.It’s controlled by the evil, which is more resident here

than in the United States. In the United States, evil is aEuropean import, and always has been. In Europe, it’sthe oligarchy.

You know, Nicholas of Cusa, after the fall ofConstantinople, and after a defeat against the TurkishOttoman forces in the Balkans, made a policy, and said:The function of Europe must be to reach out across theoceans, to people living on the other side of the oceans,and establish alliances, in cooperation with them, torebuild civilization along the lines upon which the greatRenaissance had been launched.

As a result of Cusa’s efforts, specifically, for examplein the case of Christopher Columbus—ChristopherColumbus read a copy of the will of Nicholas of Cusa.On the basis of reading the will of Nicholas of Cusa,Christopher Columbus, who was an experienced naviga-tor, got in touch with the friends of Cusa in Italy, in anexchange in 1480, extensive correspondence, andplanned the trans-Atlantic voyage of discovery to findthe New World on the other side of the ocean, and knewit was there. He didn’t have the right location, thought itwas China and Japan, because the Venetians had liedabout how far it was to walk to China.

But nonetheless, the discovery of the Americas wasthe result of the influence of Nicholas of Cusa, in thelate part of the 15th Century, in prescribing these trans-Atlantic and other voyages, to meet the people on theother side of the world. And to establish collaborationwith them, to overcome the great problem which threat-ened the integrity of the Renaissance.

So what happened as a result of that, is that theEuropeans began to move, gradually, increasingly,across the ocean, into the Americas. We went through,from 1492, with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain,until 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia, you had a processof bloody, religious warfare throughout Europe. A policyof racism and murder, echoing the Crusades—the mostevil thing since the Crusades. And therefore, people,

7

EIRNS/Gene Schenk

Synarchist banker Felix Rohatyn, through LazardFrères, ordered the shutdown of U.S. industry, to destroythe nation. This Delphi plant in Sandusky, Ohio,now closed, is to be replaced by a Honda dealership.

EIRNS/Dan Sturman

more and more, left Europe, especially in the early 17thCentury, left Europe, into the Americas, and establishedbranches of European civilization in North and SouthAmerica—with complications. But, the result was, in the18th Century, the standard of living and productivity inthe young United States, at the time of its adoption of itsConstitution, was about twice the level of productivityand standard of living of people in England: twice. Why?Same culture. We were Europeans. We represented aEuropean culture. We embodied European culture. Butwe embodied it, free of the burden of an oligarchy!

The Issue Is LibertyAnd therefore, the idea was not democracy.

Democracy is trash. Look at what happened in Greece:the Peloponnesian War. What caused the PeloponnesianWar? Democracy! An evil philosophy called sophistry.Democracy is not the issue. The issue is liberty. Theissue is individual liberty, the right to liberty; the right toa society in which liberty is defended and promoted; theright of the liberty of the minority against the majority.Not democracy. So, the idea of liberty, which is the ideaon which the United States was founded, which itsConstitution represents: This was the issue.

So, what we’ve represented all along since that time,and we have been in battle with what became anempire; Europe has been dominated predominantly by arising empire, which is the Anglo-Dutch empire with aFrench connection, especially the Synarchist connec-tion. The corruption we suffer in the United States hasalways come from Europe. And it’s come from theBritish monarchy, the Dutch monarchy, and people likethat. The alliance of the Synarchy with Royal DutchShell, and with the British monarchy, is simply the mostrecent phase of this process. The goal has always been toestablish an empire, empire, EMPIRE. Globalization isnothing but an empire; it’s a new form of empire. It’s theelimination of the nation-state; it’s the elimination of lib-erty; it’s the elimination of the rights.

Now, who’s doing it in the United States? Who’s myenemy? Well, the most prominent, obvious enemy, is afellow called Felix Rohatyn. Felix Rohatyn is a fascist.He was a protégé of the André Meyer, who was part ofthe organization which set up the deal with Royal DutchShell, which set up what became the Bilderberg Society,so-called. This is the power bloc.

Now, these bankers are a special type: They investlargely in gaining property, not just in money, becausethey know the money system is vulnerable. They want tohave the property in their hand, under their control, atthe time things break down. Their method is to destroyindependent industries, which are not under their con-trol, and to grab control of assets which are presentlynot under their control. And they have orchestrated, thiscrowd—in the aftermath of ’71-72, the change in themonetary system—has orchestrated step by step, each ofthe developments inside the United States, which havedestroyed the U.S. political and economic system. And

they’re doing the same thing inside Europe, the samepeople. You look at André Meyer and his descendants,you look at the reports that Jeff [Steinberg] can refer toand others, on the question of exactly what the continu-ity of this is: It’s the same enemy.

An Old Enemy: The SophistsWhat is this enemy? It’s an old one. Nothing original

about it. It’s an enemy we know from the Sophists whowere responsible for the corruption of Athens, which ledto the destruction of Greek civilization through thePeloponnesian War. And the policy is like the policies ofCheney toward Iraq, is pretty much the same thing, asthe policies of Pericles and company, toward his vic-tims, starting the Peloponnesian War. No difference.The policies, today, in the United States—the social poli-cies, the so-called “liberal” policies today—are no differ-ent than the sophistry by which Greece destroyed itself,Athens destroyed itself, in the Peloponnesian War.

The heritage of ancient Rome, Imperial Rome:There’s nothing good about Imperial Rome! A complete-ly degenerate and evil culture, from the beginning!There’s nothing good about Byzantium, it was evil fromthe beginning. Charlemagne was an attempt to establisha civilization of the Augustinian tradition, in coopera-tion with Muslims represented by the Caliphate ofBaghdad, and with Jews who were a mediating portion,and playing a key role in the cooperation between Araband Christian, in the case of Charlemagne and hisimmediate successors.

That was a period of hope. It probably saved civiliza-tion, in the sense of creating an impetus which we couldturn to later to revive civilization.

But then, the Venetian crowd and the Crusaderscame in. They were nothing but butchers, with theirCrusades: Kill the Jews! Kill the Arabs! Great Crusades!Perpetual warfare! And they destroyed themselves in the14th Century, in the collapse of the monetary system,which is about to happen now.

We’re at a point, where the ratio of collapse of produc-tion per capita, the collapse of basic economic infrastruc-ture, in Europe and in the Americas, especially in theUnited States, is so great, that we can no longer sustainthe existing level of population, on the basis of the exist-ing level of financial debt. It can not be done. There’s noway that you can pay these debts, none. It is inevitablenow, that the present financial system will becomeextinct in a very near period of time. It’s finished.

However, from our experience with Roosevelt, theexperience we had in reconstruction in the United Statesearlier, and reconstruction in Europe in the post-warperiod—from the end of the war, approximately, untilthe middle of the 1960s—that these methods are anexample of what will work today. We simply have tofind, in the present situation, the method of applyingthese lessons of experience which are an immediate ref-erence point, and applying these lessons of experience tothe present situation.

8

We can put the entire international monetary systeminto bankruptcy! It’s only a paper organization. It’s onlya creation of governments. The Federal Reserve Systemin the United States is totally bankrupt! All these banksare hopelessly bankrupt! There’s nothing we can do withthem, except put them into bankruptcy. It only takesone act by the government: The President and theCongress agree to put the Federal Reserve System intobankruptcy, into receivership; take the Federal ReserveSystem in—the whole thing is under control! Then youhave to know how to manage the system that you’ve putinto bankruptcy.

How do you do that? Very simply: large-scale infra-structure projects, with state credit at low interest rates.So, you build up basic economic infrastructure, youbuild up the industry, the development of industry, bybuilding up the infrastructure. You build water systems,power systems, other kinds of systems which are in thepublic domain. And by building them up, you stimulatethe market for private enterprise. As rapidly as you candevelop the technology, you can expand. It was done inthe post-war here, it was done in part in France, it wasdone in the United States.

So there’s no problem, in putting a financial systemthrough bankruptcy: After all, it is, as John KennethGalbraith said at one point, “It’s only paper!” It is notreal, it’s only paper! It’s worth nothing, except what gov-ernment assigns to it as a value. So actually, the physicalvalues are the important ones. So, in a crisis like this,you don’t try to save the financial system. You try tohave an orderly reorganization of the financial system.Orderly, which can only be done by governments.

Then, what you do, is, you must create state credit,and credit which is a byproduct of that, to launch imme-diately, large-scale programs of basic economic infra-structure, which are aimed to support an expansion ofprivate production: agriculture, industry, and so forth.You change the orientation away from a greenie orienta-tion, to what we used to have, prior to ’68, back to a sci-ence-driven industrial-agricultural orientation. Changethe character of universities, back to a production-ori-ented, science-oriented, physical-science-oriented objec-tive, and start to produce, again, improved productswhich increase the productive powers of labor.

What Distinguishes Manfrom a Gorilla?

Now, one final point on this: The key reason whypeople don’t understand what is, for me obvious, isbecause they don’t understand, at least on the level ofpublic policy, they don’t understand the differencebetween man and a gorilla. All you have to do, is readany of these business reports and talk to any of the typi-cal managers: They don’t know the one factor that dis-tinguishes man from a gorilla. Because, if man were, asthe existentialists tell us he is—like the Frankfurt Schoolcrowd, hmm?—if man were as that, man could notmake a discovery of a scientific principle. No gorilla

could do that. No lower form of life can do that. Only ahuman being, the individual human mind, is capable ofdeveloping a discovery of principle, such as universalgravitation, for example, as Kepler did.

European civilization’s progress, above the level ofstagnation which had existed previously, was based onthe impact of the work of particularly Nicholas of Cusain the launching of modern experimental scientificmethod. It’s a result of the spread of that, and the devel-opment of culture, Classical culture and literature andso forth, on the same basis, in the ideas of Dante forexample, that Europe began to move as a civilizationwhich had a significantly higher standard of living thanAsia. That was the real beginning. The roots werealready there, but the number of people who hadexpressed these roots was limited, confined, by theprevalence of empires.

So, the key to economy, the key to the ability to risefrom a few million individuals living on this planet atone time, to over 6 billion today, is the creative powersof the human mind. What has happened, as Aeschyloswarned us in his famous Prometheus trilogy, particularlythe second part, the one that’s available, PrometheusBound: The crime for which Prometheus was con-demned to torture by the Olympian Zeus, otherwiseknown as Satan, was that man should not be allowed toknow how to use fire. Man should not be allowed to dis-cover universal physical principles and change the wayman behaves, based on the power of the individual mindto do something no gorilla can do: Is change its culture,change the character of its culture by technologicalprogress.

Everything that was done in the post-war period, forexample: In the U.S. today, the typical person comingout of a scientific education doesn’t know what a scien-tific principle is. And the problem is illustrated by thedebates in the correspondence between Albert Einsteinand his friend Max Born, in a book published of theseletters between them, on this subject. The typical trainedscientist today, does not know what a physical principleis; he knows a mathematical formula. The name of aphysical principle for him, is simply a mathematical for-mula. He does not understand, from an experimentalstandpoint, how you construct the experiment whichproves the principle, as a physical principle. And thatthe mathematics is never an accurate representation ofprinciple. It is simply a symbolic reflection of the princi-ple, the experimental principle itself. And it is the elabo-ration of that principle in its richer form, beyond themathematical formula, which expresses creativity.

The same thing is true of poetry. Most of today’s pop-ular poetry is garbage. Today’s popular music isgarbage. There is no creativity expressed in it. Yes,there’s innovation. But innovation, like pretendingyou’re having sex with a monkey, is not really creativity.

It’s the ability to discover a universal principle, to dis-cover something which lies beyond the formal, “logical,”so-called, form of expression, of description of things.

9

That is what drives society. That’s what the difference isbetween man and a beast.

Now, if you look at it from that standpoint, there’s amoral implication involved. Man is not evil. Man is notinherently wicked. Man is inherently good. But theinherent goodness of mankind, is expressed in thatwhich makes man different than an ape. And that differ-ence is the power of creativity, the power of the humanbeing to discover universal principles of the universe,and to apply those principles to changing man’s prac-tice. This applies not only to practice in terms of man’smastery of nature, physical nature; it also concernsman’s relationship to man, creative relationships ofman. The characteristic of a society which can do that,since every society has a language which is more thanjust a language, it’s a language-culture, it has to be donein terms of the language-culture. Because it’s in terms ofthe language-culture that we communicate with eachother. And it’s the ironies of communication, not the lit-eral statements, which define the meaning of a culture.It’s the ironies of music, which define music, not theexplicit notes of the score: How do you perform thething, to make it work? And you won’t get that, by read-ing the score. You have to know how to do that, as someof our young people have discovered, more and more.

So, the point is, man is essentially good. The idea thatman is necessarily evil, is primarily evil, and has to be

rescued from being man, is false! It’s a fraud! Man isintrinsically good. The best living thing in this universe:Man is good!

But! Man can be corrupted. And he’s corrupted, par-ticularly, by the Olympian Zeus, the prototype of Satan,who says, “Man shall not discover principles, and applythese principles to the improvement of mankind’s powerto exist in the universe.”

What we need as a driver, is not a system of account-ing. When you’re discussing economics, throw theaccountants out of the room, because you won’t get aneconomics discussion. When you want to discuss eco-nomics, you discuss creativity. You discuss how you bal-ance physical actions, and coordinate them, in order tocreate an increase in the power of man to live, and thepower of his ability to produce: creativity.

What is lost today, is, we’ve lost contact, especiallyunder the influence of the Baby-Boomer reign, we’velost contact with the idea of creativity. Creativity is nolonger a motive. The desire to get into a plant, and pro-duce and innovate, is no longer there. The idea to makemoney! How to take money, not how to earn it, and howto account for taking the money—or not accounting forit—is the standard of performance.

So, the point is, man is necessarily good. The prob-lem where we have evil, like the evil of Felix Rohatynand his friends, is because we tolerate, in society, a stan-dard of a conception of man which does not correspondto the natural goodness of man. And evil in humanity issimply a rejection, or flaunting, of the natural goodnessof the human being. We teach people how to behave,how to obey orders, how to get rich—by stealing, prefer-ably—not how to produce.

And the typical characteristic of the intrinsic evil ofthe Baby-Boomer generation, of the 68ers, is exactlythis. They said, “We hate blue-collar workers. We hatefarmers. We hate scientific and technological progress.”That was the 68ers. That’s what happened inGermany—it’s called the Greenie movement. That’swhat destroyed Germany from within, especially. Whatdestroys France from within. What is destroying theworld from within.

We reject the goodness, that man expresses, in termsof Classical musical composition, great Classical poetry,great Classical drama, great Classical science. We rejectthose things! These things express the goodness ofmankind, his natural goodness. And we introduce anartificial element of evil, and what might be called fairly,Satanic evil; of the idea of having a society in which peo-ple do not produce in factories and farms, do not createideas in laboratories, do not improve the power ofmankind over the universe. Do not progress withnuclear energy, immediately, on a mass scale, which isnecessary to save humanity, now! Do not proceed tocrash on thermonuclear fusion, which is desperatelyneeded for man in the next generation, now.

So, man is not evil. What is evil is the culture we’veimposed upon ourselves, as typified by the 68er culture.

10

The Olympian Zeus, who punished Prometheus for giving fire tomankind, is the model for today’s Synarchist oligarchy, whichbelieves that, “Man should not be allowed to discover universalphysical principles.” Painting of “Zeus and Thetis” (1811), byJean-Auguste-Dominque Ingres.

Here is the prepared address by Dr. Clifford A. Kiracofe,Jr. to the June 21 New Bretton Woods Seminar hosted byEIR in Berlin. Kiracofe is a former senior professionalstaff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on ForeignRelations. Extemporaneous comments Dr. Kiracofe madeas he delivered his address, are included.

Iwould like to try to give some historical context tothe current political situation we find ourselves in,in the United States, and also to try to establish

some linkages or relationships, in a historical context,between European Fascism, and fascism as it hasevolved in the United States this past century.

I thank our hosts for inviting me to speak today inour fifth meeting at this fine venue. Colleagues whoattended the last meeting in March will recall I spoke onthe theme of “U.S. Imperialism and the Rise of theNational Security State,” a project undertaken by theimperial faction in the United States for many decadesnow. Just as a quick aside, you might trace our imperialfaction, to the 1898 war with Spain, as maybe a first realflowering of the some of the imperial faction’s activities.Today, I will present some background on fascism pastand present in the United States.

In today’s political situation in the United States weare, in effect, confronting the same forces that attempt-ed to impose overt fascist rule in the United States dur-ing the 1930s. This is a story that is not widely known inEurope, or even in the United States. Back then, begin-ning in 1933, for example, a cabal of Wall Streetfinanciers and industrialists, who were enthusiastic sup-porters of Italian Fascism and the German NationalSocialism, plotted a coup d’état against PresidentFranklin Roosevelt and our constitutional form of gov-ernment.

My paper today considers briefly the followingmajor points: first, the current international situationand United States imperial policy; second, the rise offascism in United States politics; third, Wall Street’sattempted fascist coup d’état of 1934; fourth, WallStreet and European Fascism, particularly Synarchy;and fifth, contemporary American fascist ideologyand the post-World War II era, that is to say, the“Conservative Movement” and “New Right” in theUnited States.

U.S. Imperialism ConstrainedWhat is the current context of United States imperialism?At the international level, we see the emerging multipo-

lar environment developing. Russia is coming back fromthe trauma of the 1990s, China and India are rising, andEurope, despite its internal situation, remains nonethelessan international factor of undeniable importance.

We are not living in the so-called “unipolar world”fantasy of the American neo-conservatives and that partof the imperial faction influenced by such delusionalpolicy ideas. We are living in an emerging multipolarinternational environment which does now, and willincreasingly, place constraints on United States foreignpolicy, particularly as the extent of American internaleconomic and social weakness and vulnerability becomeapparent. External polling data, since 2003, shows a col-lapse of United States prestige worldwide as a result ofthe war on Iraq and other related factors.

The imperial faction has yet to adjust itself to interna-tional reality, and this impairs U.S. national security, inthe short, medium, and long term. The imperial factioncontinues to attempt to consolidate a transnational oli-garchy subservient to Washington, through such mecha-

11

EIRNS/James Rea

Dr. Kiracofe exposed the efforts to establish a fascist movementin the United States in the 1930s.

Clifford A. Kiracofe, Jr.

The U.S.A.: FascismPast and Present

nisms as the Bilderberg Group, the TrilateralCommission, and the Davos Group, among others.Dollar-based globalization is another mechanism. Butthere is resistance as, for example, the ShanghaiCooperation Organization indicates, and certainly, thereare additional calls for a New Bretton Woods to manageour international financial system.

Rather than orient United States diplomacy to play aconstructive role in organizing the emerging multipolarworld on Westphalian principles, the Bush WhiteHouse, since 2001, has sought to impose its concept ofunilateral global hegemony, with disastrous conse-quences.

Just this year alone, President Bush insulted China byhis gross mishandling of the state visit of ChinesePresident Hu Jintao. No official state dinner wasoffered, and the White House gave press credentials to awell-known Falun Gong activist, who then proceeded toinsult the Chinese President. Vice President Dick Cheneyfollowed up by insulting Russia during a major speechin Lithuania. As an additional follow-up, Secretary ofState Condi Rice proceeded to insult Russia on its inter-nal situation, and portrayed China as a “negative force”in Asia.

Given Iran’s powerful position inside Iraq and otherfactors, an orderly withdrawal of United States forceswill require a regional arrangement supported by themajor powers and the United Nations. The United Statesmust eventually make arrangements with Iran in orderto work out a regional settlement that would involveIraq’s neighbors, namely Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,and Kuwait. Such a regional solution necessarily mustbe coordinated with Russia, China, the EU, Japan, andthe United Nations.

Gen. William Odom, a respected former director ofthe National Security Agency (NSA), recently said thatthe war in Iraq is the greatest strategic mistake in thehistory of the United States. I certainly agree with thegeneral’s view, but would add that many of us were say-ing this publicly back in 2002, months before the UnitedStates launched the war. The ideologically driven imper-ial faction in control of United States policy would notlisten to reason.

When a nation makes a strategic mistake, it pays aheavy price over an extended period of time.

The Vietnam War had many associated costs in addi-tion to the unnecessary loss of blood and treasure. TheUnited States was alienated from world opinion andfrom our European allies. But more than that, condi-tions were created for severe domestic economic conse-quences. These negative consequences arose directlyfrom the massive costs of the war, added to the costs ofPresident Johnson’s simultaneous massive domestic“Great Society” spending program. Our society was tornapart for years by the stress of an unjust and unneces-sary war.

What were the negative economic consequences?In one word: “stagflation.” From the late 1960s until

the mid 1980s, the United States experienced inflationtogether with economic stagnation, or recession. TheNixon Administration did not solve the problem. TheFord Administration did not solve the problem. TheCarter Administration did not solve the problem. TheReagan Administration, through a massive militaryspending program—we can call this “militaryKeynesianism”—was able to alter the situation some-what by plunging the nation further into unnecessarydebt. Finally, during the Clinton Administration, theUnited States had a positive economic recovery and per-formance that would have left our country in goodshape, had not the Bush Administration undertaken acatastrophic foreign policy.

But, just in the last few weeks, we have started to seethat old word “stagflation” coming back into the publicdiscourse. We have increasing inflation together with aslowed economy, under the general condition of “twindeficits,” meaning the ever-increasing domestic budgetdeficit and current account deficit.

Perhaps you did not notice that, in March of thisyear, the White House stopped making public the “M3”monetary statistic. This political move was, of course,undertaken to make more opaque the disintegratingUnited States economic situation, with implications forthe dollar, by obscuring this significant measure ofmonetary inflation.

The Rise of Fascism in United StatesPolitics

What is fascism? As one succinct definition has it:“Fascism is the open terrorist dictatorship of the mostreactionary, most chauvinist, and most imperialist ele-ments of finance capital.”1

What are the main features of fascism? They include:the rise of a demagogic leader sponsored by a plutocrat-ic oligarchy, the curtailment of civil liberties, the elimi-nation of a free press, the emasculation of labor and thelabor movement, and the destruction of intellectual andpolitical opposition.2

How did this come about? Let’s take a look at the1930s in the United States, the political situation then,which involved the rise of an American form of fascism,unfortunately.

Prof. Gaetano Salvemini, a famous anti-Fascist intel-lectual and member of the Italian Socialist Party,warned of a “new brand of fascism” in the United States.While teaching in exile at Harvard, during the 1930s, hepointed to what he called “fascism of corporate businessenterprise in this country.”

Other voices in the 1930s, confronting the fascist

12

1. 13th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the CommunistInternational, Moscow 1933.

2. For background see, Hans Rogger and Eugen Weber eds., TheEuropean Right. A Historical Profile (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1966) and Ernst Nolte, Der Faschismus inseiner Epoche. Action française, italienischer Faschismus,Nationalsozialismus, (Munich: 1965).

challenge, were heard from members of PresidentRoosevelt’s own Cabinet.

Harold Ickes (1874-1952), a Progressive Republicanwho served in Franklin Roosevelt’s Cabinet during theNew Deal, forcefully condemned fascism in a speech tothe American Civil Liberties Union on Dec. 8, 1937.3 Hepointed to “the ability and willingness to turn the con-centrated wealth of America against the welfare ofAmerica.” He said,

Let no one sleepily believe that our democratic form ofgovernment is necessarily secure for all time to come.We have seen dictatorships in other lands reach out anddestroy constitutional democracies, states combine notfor protection but for aggression. We have discoveredthat Fascism has not been quarantined, but that it iscapable of leaping wide oceans.

Well, what happened back in the 1930s? I would justinterject, parenthetically, that this is a time when ourcurrent President’s grandfather was quite active on WallStreet—that family was quite active on Wall Street.

As I said at the outset, in today’s political situation inthe United States we are, in effect, confronting the sameforces that attempted to impose fascism in the UnitedStates during the 1930s. Back then, beginning in 1933, acabal of Wall Street financiers and industrialists, whowere enthusiastic supporters of International Fascism inItaly and Germany, and were well introduced to thehigher circles of Europe, supported various movementsof international Fascism in Germany, France, Italy, andEngland. Many of the American businessmen involved,were intimately involved in business arrangements withthese very European financial and industrial circles.This cabal plotted a coup d’état against PresidentFranklin Roosevelt and our Constitution. Let me recallthe words of Ambassador William E. Dodd, FranklinRoosevelt’s Ambassador to Germany. While here in ourembassy, he watched American businessmen, one afterthe other, come to Germany in support of the Hitlerregime. In 1937, he referred to the American section ofthe transnational fascist oligarchy of the era as follows:

A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring afascist state to supplant our democratic governmentand is working closely with the fascist regime inGermany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity inmy post in Berlin to witness how close some of ourAmerican ruling families are to the Nazi regime. Theyextended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power,and they are helping to keep it there.

Fortunately, the 1933-34 coup plot was foiled byPresident Roosevelt. But after Roosevelt’s death, thecabal was able to continue its program for a fascist andimperial America during the Truman Administration,through the Cold War era, and down to today’s White

House and Congress.Simply put, upon Franklin Roosevelt’s election in

1932, the Wall Street cabal took a decision to use strate-gies and methods that had been used by Fascist circlesin Europe, to gain influence and political power. TheWall Street cabal was well introduced into the highercircles in Europe that supported the various movementsof International Fascism, and the Nazi movement, inGermany, France, Italy, and England, because many ofthe American businessmen involved in the Wall Streetcabal were intimately involved in business arrangementswith these European financial and industrial circles.4

The strategies and methods of which I am speakinginclude the formation of action committees and massmovements, including violent organizations, whichinvolved political as well as religious appeals to the mid-dle and working classes. The elite circles involved in theWall Street cabal established their own higher-levelorganizations to coordinate their own activities and theactivities of the mass organizations which they causedto come into being.

Wall Street’s Fascist ‘Liberty League’But let me explain a little bit more about some of the

forces behind this business plot.Let me comment briefly on the activities of the so-

called “American Liberty League” (or simply “LibertyLeague”) organization, a powerful elite organizationthat the Wall Street cabal formed in 1933 and 1934, andwhich operated until 1940. I will place particularemphasis on the relationship between the fascist U.S.organizations and their counterparts in Europe.

The Liberty League was interfaced with a variety offascist organizations, specifically modelled on EuropeanFascist organizations such as the French Croix de Feu.5

The financial and big business interests behind theLiberty League in the United States paralleled andworked with the Confederazione dell’Industria—Olivetti,Agnelli, and that cabal—that put Mussolini into power,and the Thyssen-Krupp-Voegeler-Flick network that putHitler into power.

The formation of the “American Liberty League” wasannounced on Aug. 23, 1934. Its intent was to overturnthe New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt, and theConstitution. The leadership of the organization com-

13

3. For valuable insight into the New Deal, see, The Secret Diary ofHarold L. Ickes. The First Thousand Days 1933-1936 (New York:Simon & Schuster, 1953).

4. For background, see, Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy.The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 (New York: Barnesand Noble, 1983); William C. McNeill, American Money and theWeimar Republic. Economics and Politics on the Eve of theGreat Depression (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986);Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., German Big Business and the Rise ofHitler (New York: Oxford, 1985); Joseph Borkin, The Crime andPunishment of I.G. Farben (New York: The Free Press, 1978);Richard Sasuly, IG Farben (New York: Boni Gaer, 1947); L.Wulfsohn et G. Wernle, L’Evasion des Capitaux Alemands(Paris: Société Anonyme d’Editions, 1923; P.F. de Villemarest,Les Sources Financières du Nazisme (Cierrey, France: EditionsCEI, 1984).

5. For background on the French Right see, Eugen Weber,“France,” in Rogger and Weber, op. cit. pp. 71-127.

prised prominent members of the Wall Street plutocracyand a number of prominent politicians, Democrat andRepublican.

This American Liberty League was to impose a fascistform of government on the United States, by workingbehind the scenes to influence developments in highpolitics.

Among the key Wall Street and big business interestsbehind the Liberty League were the House of Morgan, theDuPonts, and the Kuhn Loeb investment-banking interests.Representatives of industrial interests such as GeneralMotors (controlled by DuPont interests), U.S. Steel (linkedto the Morgan interests), and Remington Arms (con-trolled by DuPont) were also deeply involved. The pub-lishing industry was represented by the Hearst interests.

Members of the Liberty League organization were partof the prior “Business Plot” of 1933-34 which had plannedan armed coup d’état against President Roosevelt. The plotwas exposed by the very U.S. Marine Corps general theWall Street cabal thought they had recruited to lead thecoup, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, the man they sought toimpose as dictator on the United States. He played alongwith the plot, and then immediately revealed the plot toPresident Roosevelt, whom he greatly admired, and thenexposed it publicly in newspaper interviews and duringtestimony before a special investigative committee in theUnited States House of Representatives, the McCormack-Dickstein Committee.6 The coup d’état was foiled.

Nonetheless, this organization continued to operate,publicly, and included very top leaders of both theDemocratic Party and the Republican Party.

So now we can see a picture developing in our inter-nal politics in the 1930s, involving top-level DemocraticParty persons, including the chairman of the NationalDemocratic Party himself, even Al Smith, formerDemocratic Party Presidential candidate, and topRepublican Congressmen and Senators, aligning againstthe New Deal, and aligning behind fascism. So this is apenetration of both political parties, which I would likeus to bear in mind.

The McCormack-Dickstein Committee was estab-lished to investigate the events of 1933-34 to determineto what extent an actual coup plot, had been in motion.The committee concluded there had been such a plotbut specific information and testimony as to the WallStreet connection was suppressed. According to theCommittee report:

In the last few weeks of the committee’s official life itreceived evidence showing that certain persons hadmade an attempt to establish a fascist government inthis country. There is no question that these attemptswere discussed, were planned, and might have beenplaced in execution when and if the financial backers

deemed it expedient. This committee received evidencefrom Maj. Gen. Smedley D. Butler (retired), twicedecorated by the Congress of the United States. Hetestified before the committee as to conversations withone Gerald C. MacGuire, in which the latter is alleged tohave suggested the formation of a fascist army underthe leadership of General Butler.

MacGuire denied these allega-tions under oath, but your com-mittee was able to verify all thepertinent statements made byGeneral Butler, with the exceptionof the direct statement suggestingthe creation of the organization.This, however, was corroboratedin the correspondence ofMacGuire with his princi-RobertSterling Clarkpal, Robert SterlingClark, of New York City, whileMacGuire was abroad studying the various forms of vet-erans organizations of Fascist character.7 The work ofthis committee later led to the formation of the U.S.House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)which was authorized to investigate subversiveCommunist and fascist activity in the United States.Congressman John McCormack later became Speakerof the House, 1961-71.

With respect to the Business Plot, certain featuresdeserve scrutiny. MacGuire, a Wall Street bond sales-man, was recruited by a circle of financiers to first col-lect information in Europe in 1933 about the methodsof Fascist organizations, and then to be the intermediarybetween the Wall Street cabal and General Butler.MacGuire was employed as a bond salesman by RobertSterling Clark (1877-1956), Yale graduate and heir to theSinger Sewing Machine fortune, and an art collectorwho lived in Paris. MacGuire had been active in theAmerican Legion, a World War I veterans’ organizationestablished by the Morgan inter-ests.

With Clark in the plot wasGrayson Mallet-Prevost Murphy,head of a Wall Street brokeragehouse and director of Morgan-aligned companies.8 Murphy, afounder of the American Legion,became the treasurer of theLiberty League. Murphy, who wasa graduate of West Point, had aprior record of international

14

6. The members of the committee were: John W. McCormack (D-Mass.), Samuel Dickstein (D-N. Y.), Carl May Weideman (D-Mich.), Charles Kramer (D-Calif.), Thomas A. Jenkins (R-Ohio), James Willis Taylor (R-Tenn.), Ulysses Samuel Guyer(R-Kan.), Thomas W. Hardwick, Counsel.

7. U.S. House of Representatives, 74th Congress, 1st Session, TheSpecial Committee on Un-American Activities Authorized toInvestigate Nazi Propaganda and Certain Other PropagandaActivities.

8. He was a director of the Guaranty Trust Company, AnacondaCopper, Chile Copper, Goodyear Tire, Bethlehem Steel, and theNew York Transportation Company. He was decorated withthe Crown of Italy by the Italian Fascist regime.

Robert Sterling Clark

GraysonMallet-Prevost Murphy

intrigue and was used byPresident Theodore Roosevelt forsecret missions, particularly inLatin America.

The American Legion war vet-erans’ organization was estab-lished in 1919. The NationalCommander of the AmericanLegion in 1922-23, Col. AlvinOwsley (1888-1967), put the mat-ter clearly when he said, “If everneeded, the American Legionstands ready to protect our country’s institutions andideals as the Fascisti dealt with the destructionists whomenaced Italy. Do not forget that the Fascisti are to Italywhat the American Legion isCol. Alvin Owsleyto theUnited States.”9 In 1931, the National Commander ofthe American Legion, Ralph T. O’Neill, gave the ItalianAmbassador to the United States, a copy of a resolutionof the American Legion Executive Committee praisingMussolini as a great leader.

The president of the LibertyLeague was Jouett Shouse (1879-1968), a former member of theU.S. Congress from Kansas (1915-19), and President WoodrowWilson’s Assistant Secretary ofthe Treasury (1919-20). Shouse,a former chairman of theDemocratic Party’s NationalExecutive Committee, was mar-ried to a daughter of the Bostonmerchant Filene family. The keymembers of the Liberty League itself were such busi-ness and fi-Jouett Shousenancial personalities as:William Knudson of General Motors; Nathan L. Miller,counsel of U.S. Steel; Irene, Pierre, and LammotDuPont10; Jacob Raskob of DuPont and GeneralMotors, and the Hearst interests. Political personalitiesincluded former Gov. Al Smith of New York, theDemocratic presidential candidate of 1928. Raskob wasa former chairman of the Democratic Party NationalCommittee.

Closely associated with the activities of the LibertyLeague, and its satellite action organizations such as the“Crusaders,” were influential members of the board ofthe American Jewish Committee: Irving Lehman, ofLehman Brothers; Lessing J. Rosenwald, chairman ofSears Roebuck; Roger W. Strauss, director of Revere

Copper and Brass; Louis Edward Kirstein, vice presi-dent of Filene’s; Joseph M. Proskauer, who was a direc-tor of the American Liberty League; Henry Ittleson, whowas president of the Commercial Investment Trust A.G.of Berlin; and Albert D. Lasker, who served on theCrusaders board.

The American Jewish Committee was founded in1906 as a foreign-policy lobby group that focussed onhuman rights in Russia. Its publication Commentary,edited from 1960-95 by Norman Podhoretz, has beenthe leading vector for decades promoting so-called “neo-conservative” foreign policy and the destabilization ofthe Middle East.11

As for the Crusaders organization I just mentioned, itwas an anti-labor organization opposed to New Dealpolicies whose board included Albert D. Lasker, as justnoted; James P. Warburg; and John W. Davis (1873-1955), legal counsel for the Morgan interests and U.S.Steel among others. Davis was the former DemocraticParty Presidential candidate in 1924, and lost toRepublican Calvin Coolidge. Prior to this he had servedas the U.S. Ambassador at London, 1918-21.

Additional satellites of the Liberty League were: theSouthern Committee to Uphold the Constitution, theFarmers’ Independence Council, and the Sentinels of theRepublic.

I want to give you a little flavor, just as an example, ofthe thinking of one of the participants in this businessgroup, Mr. William Randolf Hearst, a well-known pub-lishing magnate in our country, who owned hundreds ofnewspapers.

Hearst’s involvement with the Liberty League is sig-nificant. The Hearst interests interfaced with thefinancial interests of West Coast financier A.P.Giannini’s TransAmerica company, and Bank ofAmerica. This bank reportedly handled Mussolini’sfinancial interests in the United States. The Hearstinterests also interfaced with the British imperialinterests of Sir Henry Deterding and his Royal DutchShell group, as well as with Lord Rothermere’s inter-ests in Canada.12 Deterding and Rothermere providedfinancial support to Sir Oswald Moseley’s Fascistmovement in the United Kingdom. Deterding madeuse of the shipping company operated by HypoliteWorms to move Royal Dutch Shell oil around theworld. The Lazard Frères Paris office handled RoyalDutch Shell business in France. Furthermore, it wasthe Lazard group that organized the Banque Wormsin the late 1920s.

15

Col. Alvin Owsley

Jouett Shouse

9. As quoted in the Journal of the National Education Association.See the Owsley related website: http://www.library.unt.edu/archives/Owsley/openingpage/index.htm

10. Lammot (1880-1952), Irénée (1876-1963), and Pierre (1870-1954) DuPont were the sons of Lammot DuPont (1831-84)and Mary Belin (1839-1913), who was of Jewish ancestry. Forbackground see, Leonard Mosely, Blood Relations. The Riseand Fall of the duPonts of Delaware (New York: Atheneum,1980).

11. See President Bush’s speeches to the American JewishCommittee: “President Attends the American JewishCommittees Centennial Dinner,” May 4, 2006 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060504-15.htmland “Remarks By the President to the American JewishCommittee,” May 3, 2001 at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010504.html

12. On Deterding see, Glyn Roberts, The Most Powerful Man in theWorld. The Life of Sir Henry Deterding (New York: CoviciFriede, 1938).

The Hearst interestscontrolled an importantshare of the RemingtonArms Corporation ofwhich the DuPont inter-ests had the controllingshare. Remington smallarms were reportedly tohave been made availableto 500,000 para-militaryforces operating in theservice of the BusinessPlot which planned toseize Washington, D.C.,the nation’s capital, byforce.

For clarity, let me illus-trate press baron WilliamRandolph Hearst’s attitudetoward European Fascismand National Socialism, aperspective also promotedby the Time-Life-Fortunepublishing empire ofHenry Luce. Let me quote Hearst, speaking in the 1930s:

The fascist party of Italy was organized to quell thedisturbances and disorders of communism. The fascistparty of Germany was organized for the same purpose. Itwas intended to and very likely did prevent Germanyfrom going communist and cooperating with SovietRussia. This is the great policy, the great achievementthat makes the Hitler regime popular with the Germanpeople.13

That’s probably the major publishing magnate in theUnited States during the 1930s. And if you just take alook at Time magazine during the similar period, youwill note that Mr. Mussolini’s picture appeared on thecover of Time magazine five times.

The “Business Plot” conspirators of 1933, with addi-tional supporters, created the Liberty League in 1934.This time, the objective was to combat the New Dealand replace Roosevelt in the Presidential election of1936 by getting behind a Republican opponent, whichcame to be Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, a moderate, andironically, himself, a mild supporter of the New Deal.Publicly, Landon—and the Republican Party—rejectedLiberty League endorsement.

Moderate advisors of Landon, however, were pushedaside through Liberty League influence. One case inpoint was Prof. Andrew Cordier, who was advisingLandon on foreign policy and international relations. Afew years ago, a relative of mine, who was a friend ofCordier and one of his former students, told me thestory of how the Liberty League intrigued against the

professor. But Cordier went on to becomeUndersecretary of the United Nations in charge of theGeneral Assembly and Related Affairs from 1946 to1961. He then joined the faculty of Columbia Universityand rose to become its president.

As the 1936 election turned out, Roosevelt crushedLandon, although this did not stop the intrigues of theLiberty League network and its successors. For example,during the Truman Administration, Dean Acheson(1893-1971), an influential Washington, D.C. attorney,became Secretary of State under President Truman.14

Acheson had been a member of the American LibertyLeague.

Is it any coincidence today that Condi Rice praisesAcheson and President Bush praises Truman? Certainlynot. We can recall the close business connectionbetween the Bush family and pro-Nazi financial andindustrial circles in Germany, particularly the Thysseninterests.15

Wall Street and SynarchyHow did all this come about?I mentioned the matter of “Synarchy” briefly at one

of our earlier conferences here in Berlin. Let me justmake a few brief comments today in that regard.Synarchy provided ideological orientation for WallStreet circles with respect to economic, political, andsocial organization.

For example, the American Liberty League itself pro-moted the social ideas of Dr. Alexis Carrel, French biolo-gist and eugenicist associated with French Synarchistcircles.16 He had written a number of best-selling booksin the 1930s. Carrel’s controlling ideas were clearlyexpressed in his book Man, This Unknown (L’Hommecet Inconnu), in which he argued for mankind to followthe guidance of an elite class and to implement enforcedeugenics for population management. It was Carrel whohad first suggested the use of gas chambers for eugenicpurposes on a mass basis. Carrel, in 1937, joined a well-funded French research institute called the Centre d’É-tudes des Problèmes Humains (CEPH) operated by JeanCoutrot, an eminence of the French Synarchy who alsohad ties to the British Fabian Society via the Huxleysand others.

I would note in passing that Carrel’s ideas have influ-enced the ideology of contemporary Islamic terrorismvia Sayyed Qutb of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

16

14. Acheson’s father, Rev. Edward Campion Acheson, anEnglishman, was an Anglican priest who served in Canadabefore immigrating to the United States and later becomingBishop of Connecticut. His mother, Eleanor Gooderham, wasthe granddaughter of William Gooderham, a Canadian dis-tillery magnate.

15. See, Kevin Phillips, American Dynasty. Aristocracy, Fortune,and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush (New York:Viking, 2004), passim.

16. Frederick Rudolph, “The American Liberty League, 1934-1940,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Oct.1950), p. 28.13. As quoted in George Seldes, You Can’t Do That (1937), p. 222.

William Randolph Hearst waspart of the plot against PresidentFranklin Roosevelt in 1933-34.He was the major publishingmagnate in the United States inthe 1930s, and spoke approvinglyof the fascist parties in Italy andGermany.

and Maulana Maududi of the Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islaami.17

The word “Synarchy,” and its associated ideology,was invented by the 19th-Century French occultistAlexandre St. Yves d’Alveydre (1842-1909), who headedthe esoteric Martinist Order. Born in 1842, he adoptedthe outlook of leading European intellectuals of theextreme right, Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, andthe mystical occultism of Fabre d’Olivet (1767-1825),Napoleon’s personal occult advisor.

St. Yves created an extreme right ideology to opposewhat he perceived to be “anarchy,” particularly what heperceived to be anarchy among nations. He called hisnew ideology “Synarchy” and revealed it in quite somedetail in his book Mission des Souverains, first publishedin 1882.

The economic dimension of Synarchy influenced the“corporatist” political ideologies and movements of theearly 20th Century such as Fascism. Corporative ideolo-gy called for the organization of society with controlheld by the ruling oligarchic and plutocratic class. Laborwas to be crushed and parliamentary government wasto be eliminated.

St. Yves’ vision for Europe, as outlined in ChapterXII of his book, called for organizing Europethrough a regional (Europe-wide) council composedof corporative chambers of economists, financiers,and industrialists. At the national level, each countrywould have such a council of its own. Through thisprocess, finance and industry would be concentrated,and become the main political power governing soci-ety, a society in which labor was to be coerced intosubmission.

After World War I, we find in Europe the establish-ment of a number of Fascist movements beginning withMussolini in Italy in 1919, but then spreading toFrance, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and elsewhere. A remark-able feature of this political phenomenon was thespread of secret underground networks promotingSynarchy in order to create Fascist states and fiveFascist regional blocs such as Pan-Europe, Pan-America, Pan-Eurasia, Pan-Asia, and a Fascist BritishCommonwealth.

One significant vector in all this was the esotericMartinist Order, which penetrated many regularfreemasonic lodges, creating a certain dangerous dissi-dence. The French Synarchists formed their secret polit-ical society in 1922 which was called the MouvementSynarchique d’Empire, as the French police and intelli-gence services discovered over a decade later.18

This overall political phenomenon can be justlyviewed as a continuation of the well-organized 19th-Century reaction against progressive liberal fraternal

organizations and political movements that fought fornational unity, democracy, constitutionalism, and par-liamentary government.19 One significant feature of19th-Century European politics was the creation ofwhat we can characterize as police states based to alarge degree on the Napoleonic model. In the 20thCentury, police states reemerge under republican guise.

Fascist Ideology: The U.S. ‘ConservativeMovement’ and ‘New Right’

Since 9/11, we can see an incipient police-stateprocess developing more openly in the United Statesunder the framework of a so-called “National SecurityState.” But the foundations for this were prepared for anumber of decades.

After World War II, the so-called “ConservativeMovement” in the United States undertook the penetra-tion of the Republican Party.20 I would like to make itclear that the traditional Republican Party, as estab-lished by Abraham Lincoln, has nothing in commonwith the radical right-wing ideology of the pre-WorldWar II Liberty League or the post-World War II“Conservative Movement” and “New Right.”

Nonetheless, today’s Republican Party is in the gripof the Wall Street-backed “Conservative Movement” and“New Right” linked to a mass political base of religiousFundamentalists committed to theocracy.21

The post-World War II “Conservative Movement” and“New Right” are nothing more than the pre-war LibertyLeague operation in a more sophisticated form. ThePresidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1960opened the door to a penetration of the RepublicanParty by the “Conservative Movement.” As I pointed outin my paper here this March, the Nixon Administration,influenced in particular by George Shultz and his circle,took a dramatic turn toward the erection of an imperialPresidency and National Security State.22

Today, the Bush Administration, unfortunately, repli-cates the Nixon Administration, but is worse.23

Radical Right ideology is promoted through the orga-nized intellectual activity funded by a small group of pri-vate foundations backing a so-called “conservative” and“neo-conservative” ideology that is, in fact, similar to theEuropean Fascist ideology of the 1920s and 1930s.These foundations include: the Bradley Foundation, theKoch Foundations, the Smith Richardson Foundation,and the Olin Foundation. Associated “think tanks”

17

17. Rudolph Walter, “Die seltsamen Lehren des Doktor Carrel. Wieein katholischer Arzt aus Frankreich zum Vordenker derradikalen Islamisten wurde,” Die Zeit, 31.07.03, No. 32.

18. See, Geoffroy de Charnay [pseud.], Synarchie. Panorama de 25Ann´es d’Activité Occulte (Paris: Editions Médicis, 1946).

19. For background see, Frederick B. Artz, Reaction andRevolution 1814-1832 (New York: Harpers, 1934).

20. For background see, George H. Nash, The ConservativeIntellectual Movement in the United States Since 1945 (NewYork: Basic Books, 1976) and Shadia Drury, Leo Strauss andthe American Right (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999).

21. See, Kevin Phillips, American Theocracy (New York: Viking,2006).

22. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Imperial Presidency (Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 1973).

23. See, John W. Dean, Worse Than Watergate. The SecretPresidency of George W. Bush (New York: Little Brown, 2004).

would include the Heritage Foundation and theAmerican Enterprise Institute, both of Washington, D.C.These organizations are, in essence, continuing the workof the American Liberty League.24

The main intent, of either the American version offascism, or the European version, is to increase thepower and influence of international finance and bigbusiness in the internal politics of the United States,first by attacking state institutions and their proper roleof oversight and regulation and, secondly by coercinglabor. Promotion of the so-called “Chicago School” and“Austrian School” of economics is one method used inthis program to promote oligarchic and plutocratic eco-nomic and political power. A significant consequence ofthis process for external policy is, of course, the promo-tion of an imperial foreign policy in the service of inter-national finance and big business, and the promotion ofso-called “globalization” to empower a certain transna-tional oligarchy.

Key features of the contemporary “New Right” and“neo-conservative” ideology in the United States aredrawn from three main European sources: Italiannationalism and Fascism, French Integralism, andGerman National Socialism.

With respect to Italian nationalism and Fascism, wecan see the influence of Michael Ledeen, a specialist onItalian political thought, who is a major neo-conserva-tive thinker in the United States. neo-conservatives,who control our foreign policy, by the way, appear toincorporate elements of the nationalist thought ofEnrico Corradini (1865-1931) together with the Fascistprogram of Benito Mussolini.25 Most striking is theneo-conservative call for the United States to have a for-eign policy of “national greatness,” which is preciselythe formulation of Corradini that inspired two Italianimperial wars against Ethiopia. One can argue that, forthe neo-conservatives, Iraq is Mussolini’s Ethiopia policyrevisited.

The French integralism of Charles Maurras is paral-leled in the American “New Right,” in both Protestantand Catholic manifestations. Maurras himself waslinked to the Martinist Order through his friendshipwith its then Grand Master, Gérard Encausse (1865-1916), who was a follower of St. Yves d’Alveydre. TheChristian Coalition organization which emerged in1988, is but one example. In the last few years, we haveseen a revival of the ideas of the integralist Catholic,Jean Ousset, himself a vector of Synarchy, and once theprivate secretary of Charles Maurras, and, some Frenchcolleagues inform me, that Mr. Ousset’s operations afterWorld War II, were financed by the Banque Wormsgroup.

With respect to German Fascism, we can see in the

United States today the revival, over the last severaldecades, of the ideology of Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist.This ideology, many believe, is directly responsible forthe police-state stance taken by the neo-fascist“Federalist Society” of lawyers, established in the UnitedStates in 1982, who have worked inside and outside theBush Administration to erect what they call the “UnitaryExecutive.” In Berlin today, I think we should be frankand say the Federalist Society for over two decades hadbeen reviving the Führerprinzip.

I discussed the revival of Carl Schmitt’s foreign policyconcepts by Paul Nitze, and others, here in March.These concepts include the concept of permanent“enmity” and “enemies,” and the necessity for “states ofemergency.” Such ideas were derived in part from thewritings of the Gustav Ratzenhofer (1842-1904), anAustrian General and Social Darwinist sociologist.26

We can place the American Christian Right todaywithin the context of the Gleichschaltung [Nazificationof all institutions] of 1933 and the formation of theProtestant Reich Church. I would suggest that the 25million hard-core fundamentalists forming PresidentBush’s “political base” in the United States—the 16 mil-lion Southern Baptists, in particular, and another 9 mil-lion Adventists and Pentacostalists, for example—paral-lel, although in a different form and in a different time,the German Reich Church.27

In closing, I would like to suggest, with a sense ofsome urgency, that colleagues here make an effort intheir research and writing to focus on comparativestudy of contemporary United States internal politics,and external policy, with that of International Fascismof the 1920s and 1930s.

Let me again quote Harold Ickes, the man who orga-nized progressive Republican support for PresidentRoosevelt and the New Deal. Being a Republican, I liketo quote Mr. Ickes. In 1943, in the middle of World WarII, he said:

We should never forget that, in an era of unrest, ademagogue even as fantastic as Hitler first appeared tobe can develop at such a pace that, before we realize it,he is beyond our catching. There are men here, and inEngland and in France as well, who believe in theirhearts that a dictatorship is more desirable thandemocratic self-government. . . . That type of Americanbig business and concentrated wealth are not afraid of adictatorship, even such a one as Hitler’s, is attested byrecent shocking disclosures with respect to secret andintimate business alliances between them and Germanbig business-alliances that deliberately strike at thecommon man.28

18

26. For example, see, Gustav Ratzenhofer, Wesen und Zweck derPolitik (Leizig, 1893).

27. See the speech of Secretary of State Rice to the SouthernBaptist Convention Annual Meeting, June 14, 2006.http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/67896.htm

28. Harold Ickes, The Autobiography of a Curmudgeon, Reynal &Hitchcock, (1943).

24. For background information, see, RIGHT WEB at http://right-web.irc-online.org

25. For background on the Right in Italy see, Salvatore Saladino,“Italy,” in Rogger and Weber, op. cit., pp. 208-260.

Jeffrey Steinberg, EIR Counterintelligence Editor, gavethis speech to the Berlin seminar on June 27.

On July 27, 1944, the U.S. military attaché inAlgiers sent a report back to Washington, dis-cussing the fact that even though this Synarchist

apparatus that Cliff [Kiracofe] (see above) discussed afew moments ago, was known to be at the heart of themost actively pro-Hitler grouping within the Vichy gov-ernment, that, at the same time, there was growing evi-dence that the same Synarchist networks were alsoactively involved in penetrating the Free French move-ment of Charles de Gaulle, which had set up a govern-ment-in-exile in Algiers in North Africa. The report—I’lljust read a few brief excerpts from it:

“Some of the oldest and formerly most faithful sup-porters of General de Gaulle are worried by what theycall a tendency to let ‘Synarchism’ penetrate even thehighest brackets of the Algiers Administration. It isbelieved that General de Gaulle, up until recently,opposed Synarchism, which is a strongly reactionarymovement, financed by the Haute Banque. He has evenordered a confidential study to be made on the subject,a copy of which has been seen by American officers, butsince its dissemination is not known, it was again repro-duced. . . . Our source of information claims that whilethere is no direct evidence that General de Gaulle hashad a change of heart in regard to this movement, someof the people around him are known to have recentlybecome adherents to it. In this connection the Ministerof War Diethelm, Colonel Passey and CommandantPelabon are prominently mentioned.”

And it goes on to discuss further investigations thatde Gaulle had ordered into the Synarchist operations inNorth Africa.

Now, appended to this document, which we obtainedby special arrangement during the mid-1980s, from theU.S. National Archives in Washington, D.C., is a secretappendix, which gives the name of about 80 individualsand institutions that were known to be at the very heartof the Synarchist apparatus. And about halfway downthe first column, after going through the names of anumber of very well-known people, associated both withthe Vichy government and with the Banque Worms, we

come upon the name, “Banque Lazard” and a specificindividual, “André Meyer.”

There was an extensive network of cooperation thatexisted during the 1940s, between American intelligenceofficers from all of the major agencies: You had theOffice of Strategic Services, you had the various militaryintelligence branches, the State Department had a veryactive intelligence service. And in most cases, there wereclose contacts established with various Resistance net-works, including especially military Resistance networksthat existed, including within the Vichy governmentitself. And so, a number of U.S. reports actually reflectjoint efforts by American military and intelligence offi-cers working with French counterparts, who were work-ing at great risk. Because, they were obviously working,against, ostensibly, their own government.

Now, one of the reports that surfaced after the war,was a detailed study prepared by a French intelligenceofficial further elaborating on the role of André Meyerwithin this overall Synarchist apparatus. I’ll just, again,read a few quotes:

19

Jeffrey Steinberg

We Can Beat RohatynAnd the Synarchists

EIRNS/James Rea

Jeffrey Steinberg revealed the “smoking gun” in the case againstFelix Rohatyn: the evidence of his central role in the takedown ofU.S. industry.

“When Von Ribbentrop came to Paris on Dec. 6, 1938to sign a ‘good neighbor pact’ with Georges Bonnet,there was a dinner at the Quai d’Orsay that eveningattended by Daniel Serruys of Lazard Bank. At that timeMr. André Meyer, new associate manager of LazardFrères, had excellent relations with Georges Bonnet,Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Daladier government,and is said to have supported him at the time ofMunich.

“The Lazard managers did not want to burn all theirbridges with Germany because they still had friends inthe German world of finance. Furthermore, the Lazardhouse in France was the official bank of Royal Dutch, aDutch company with British capital. Furthermore, thepresident of Royal Dutch, Sir Henri Deterding, afterhaving served England for a long time, had shown a cer-tain sympathy for Hitler’s Germany, and provided fundsto the National Socialist Party without breaking with thebusiness world of the City of London. At the time ofMunich, Deterding contributed to ‘expediting’ Mr.Chamberlain before Hitler in Godesberg in September1938. Because of the position of Deterding, the directorsof Lazard and especially André Meyer, had to adopt anattitude of expectation vis-à-vis Hitler, regardless of hisanti-Semitism. It appears that they approved ofMunich.”

Now, many years later, towards the end of his life,André Meyer, who, for many years afterward, continuedto be the managing director of Lazard bank, in 1940, leftFrance and conveniently took up residence in New York,where Lazard also had a major banking operation. But,in an interview with the New York Times—I don’t havethe exact date of it, but shortly before he died—AndréMeyer was asked to characterize Felix Rohatyn.Rohatyn had been Meyer’s protégé and had actually suc-ceeded him as the managing director of LazardBrothers. And Meyer, the leading wartime Synarchist inFrance, described Rohatyn in the following terms: Hesaid, “In some respects, I consider him as my son.”

Synarchist Penetration of theDemocratic Party

Now, I started out by going through this particularelement, of this Synarchist dossier taken from wartimeU.S. military archives, because I know that for manypeople here in Europe, there’s been an enormousamount of confusion and anxiety over what’s been goingon in the United States, particularly inside theDemocratic Party, since particularly the beginning ofthis year. And there’s no way to really understand thatphenomenon, without understanding the role of FelixRohatyn, in that process of disruption of the DemocraticParty. And there’s no way to understand the motivesbehind Rohatyn’s activities, other than by understand-ing that he is the protégé of one of the leading figures inthe Synarchy during the wartime period. And that, whileRohatyn is ostensibly a major figure in the DemocraticParty and one of the major sources of Wall Street fund-

ing to Democratic candidates, whether for President orfor other high office, there is absolutely no distinctionbetween Rohatyn’s outlook, André Meyer’s outlook, andthe outlook of the people that Cliff Kiracofe justdescribed as being behind the fascist coup attemptsagainst Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

So what you’ve got, inside the Democratic Party inthe United States, is a degree of penetration by the sameSynarchist apparatus, that, while being actively involvedas the leading Nazi collaborators in France, were alsobusily infiltrating and establishing their presence insidethe leading anti-fascist movement in France, the FreeFrench movement of General de Gaulle. They weredoing all of these things, and at the time, U.S. intelli-gence had a spotlight on both, and there was not confu-sion about what this apparatus intended to do, who theywere, and what the methods were that they used inorder to penetrate every institution that was moving, inorder to subvert them all, in the interests of a particularinternational financial oligarchy.

Now, it’s interesting that this profile of André Meyerand Lazard, ostensibly a French institution, talked aboutthe fact that Lazard was in the middle of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy’s operations of the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s.In fact, the Lazard bank in Paris was the leading bank-ing representative of Royal Dutch Shell. And in thatcapacity in the late 1920s, leading figures from theLazard bank helped to establish another financial insti-tution, a very closely allied financial institution, calledthe Banque Worms.

Now, prior to the founding of the Banque Worms inthe 1920s, the Worms group was primarily involved inindustry, and especially involved in shipping. The ship-ping company of Hippolyte Worms handled much of theoil shipments for Royal Dutch Shell, so that you had avery tightly knit network of Synarchists, ultimatelyreporting to this Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, butworking through both Lazard and Banque Worms.

Now, the decision by the Roosevelt government, tomaintain diplomatic relations with Vichy France,despite the known close ties to many people in the Vichygovernment with the Hitler regime in Germany, was avery complicated affair. The decision was based on theknowledge that there were extensive Resistance net-works in France; it was based on the fact that there wasa desire to have a certain close intelligence access, to thesituation on the ground within continental Europe.

And in order to make this decision intelligible to theAmerican people and to the world at large, in 1943,President Roosevelt commissioned a man namedWilliam Langer, an American historian who at that timewas head of the Research and Analysis branch of theOSS, to prepare a study. He was given access to all ofthe American government files on Vichy France, on theSynarchy, and in 1947, he came out with a book calledOur Vichy Gamble. And in the book, he laid out, I thinkvery effectively, both the complexities of what the U.S.was trying to do, and a very detailed roadmap of all of

20

the different elements inside Vichy France. And he wasvery much attuned to the Synarchy problem, and to theparticular role of the Banque Worms group being at theheart of most of the pro-Hitler apparatus inside theVichy government.

I’ll just read you briefly from a couple of pages, wherehe discusses this. He’s referring to Admiral Darlan, whowas one of the top officials in Vichy France. He said:“Darlan’s henchmen were not confined to the fleet. Hispolicy of collaboration with Germany could count onmore than enough eager supporters among Frenchindustrial and banking interests—in short, among thosewho even before the war had turned to Nazi Germanyand had looked to Hitler as the savior of Europe fromCommunism. . . . These people were as good fascists asany in Europe. They dreaded the Popular Front like theplague and were convinced that they could prosper evenunder Hitler’s iron rod. Many of them had long hadextensive and intimate business relations with Germaninterests and were still dreaming of a new system of‘synarchy,’ which meant government of Europe on fas-cist principles by an international brotherhood offinanciers and industrialists.”

Then he quotes from a memo, dated Jan. 7, 1942,that was sent by U.S. Ambassador Biddle from London,again, describing the Synarchists: “This group should beregarded not as Frenchmen, any more than their corre-sponding members in Germany should be regarded asGermans, for the interests of both groups are so inter-mingled as to be indistinguishable; their whole interestis focused upon furtherance of their industrial andfinancial stakes.”

And then, going back to his own account, Langerspends several pages, literally giving name, rank, andserial number of all of the top officials of BanqueWorms who were brought into the Vichy government.And then, at the end he says, “From this list it appears atonce that practically every ministry or secretaryshiptouching economic affairs was in the hands of one oranother of the Worms clique.” And he goes on fromthere.

So, this apparatus was very well known, and in fact,at the end of the war, with the liberation of France in1944, almost all of the leading figures in Banque Wormswere arrested. A number of them were sentenced to longjail terms. But as Lyn[don LaRouche] has discussedrepeatedly, the world changed overnight, drastically forthe worse, in mid-April 1945, when Franklin Rooseveltdied. And with the death of Roosevelt and the accessionof Harry Truman into power in the United States, theentire Synarchist apparatus got a second life.

By 1948, all of the leading Synarchists had been freedfrom jail in France, and not only let go, but the entireapparatus was in the process of being reconstructedunder a renovated Anglo-American ownership. And, forexample, the Banque Worms began hiring back a num-ber of people who had been among the most visible pro-Nazis inside the Vichy government. A man named

Georges Albertini, who had been a top official of theLabor Ministry under Vichy, was released from jail afterfour years of hard labor, and was hired immediately totake charge of what was called the “Labor Department”at Banque Worms. This was simply a funding mecha-nism that was set up, so that Banque Worms in Franceafter the war became one of the major sources of fund-ing for people otherwise known as to be part of theCongress for Cultural Freedom. And Albertini, for exam-ple, set up an Institute for Historical Studies, whichbecame a major, Banque Worms-funded, Congress forCultural Freedom propaganda outlet, producing all sortsof anti-Communist tracts, to create the proper scare cli-mate, in the period of Trumanism and the emergence ofthe Cold War, after Roosevelt’s death.

The Case of Felix RohatynNow, the case of Felix Rohatyn: As I said, since the

beginning of this year, approximately February of 2006,we saw a very rapid and precipitous deterioration in theperformance of the Democratic Party, particularly in theSenate. It began with the fight to prevent the nomina-tion of Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court—and itwent downhill from there. People remember that,throughout 2005, the Democratic Party, particularly inthe Senate, following the November 2004 election, hadresponded forcefully: had defeated the BushAdministration in its drive to privatize Social Security,and had taken a number of other steps that were gener-ally speaking in a healthy direction, that reflected thegrowing influence of Lyn and our movement within theDemocratic Party.

But there was one, glaring exception to that, whichwe now understand fully, and are in the process of tak-ing care of, as a problem: People remember that inFebruary of 2005, towards the end of the month, an arti-cle appeared here in Germany, in the FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung, which reported on the fact that theGeneral Motors Corp. was facing in the range of $60 bil-lion in payouts in bonds that were going to be comingdue during the year 2005. And because of the deteriorat-ing situation within the company—General Motors usedto have about a 50% share of all automobile sales in theUnited States; that steadily collapsed down to about25%. It was clear, and the FAZ even made the point, thatthere would be very high-risk premiums for rolling overthose General Motors bonds. In other words, they wouldhave to be paying a much higher yield on those bonds,because people had less faith that the company wasgoing to survive.

As soon as Lyn saw that article, he put out a series ofwarnings about the imminent danger of the bankruptcyof General Motors, and with it, the collapse of the entireautomobile sector of the U.S. economy: Which weunderstood very well, Lyn understood perfectly well,was at the heart of the machine-tool design and produc-tion capacity, which is key to the industrial economy ofthe United States. In May of 2005, Lyn had written two

21

memos, one of which was one the question of “StrategicBankruptcy,” and he laid out a very clear perspective ofexactly what kind of action Congress had to take, inorder to assure that the U.S. did not lose this vitalmachine-tool capacity. Congress was inactive.

Democrats, whom we met with frequently, wouldacknowledge the problem, would occasionally even goout and give speeches paying lip service to the need torebuild the country’s infrastructure and the importanceof saving the automobile plants. Hillary Clinton, at onepoint, wrote a letter to George Bush, suggesting that thePresident convene a national emergency summit to savethe auto sector. Beyond publicizing the fact that shesent out that letter, she really did nothing else; and knewperfectly well that she would not even receive a postcardin the mail from the White House acknowledging thatthey had even received the letter.

And here we are, a year later, and we see exactly howright Lyn was about the total destruction of the auto sector.

The Smoking GunNow, about a month ago, the newly installed man-

agement at Delphi—what was formerly the automobile-parts department of General Motors—had admitted inBankruptcy Court that they intended to shut down theentirety of their auto-parts production in the UnitedStates, that they would leave a token force of about6,000 production workers in the U.S., but would haveabout 140,000 production workers scattered overseas—China, other parts of Asia—and that they would keep9,000 white-collar jobs, corporate headquarters jobs, inthe U.S.; and that was it.

We also found out that Delphi was actually auction-ing off entire plants! Selling off indispensable machine-tool capacities for pennies on the dollar. And we alsoknew that, since the company had filed for bankruptcyprotection of the courts, that this would be a completelyillegal act on their part, unless they had gotten approvalfrom the Bankruptcy Court to dispose of their physicalassets in the United States. And we thought that it wasabsolutely inconceivable that any bankruptcy judge whowas not literally bought-and-paid-for would be allowing,literally, Internet, eBay-type auctions of the entire plantsof Delphi!

And we went to the Bankruptcy Court files—and wefound a lot more than we bargained for: We not onlyfound out that, indeed, the Bankruptcy Court judge had,in fact, authorized the sell-off at auction prices of two ofthe Delphi plants, with the idea that many more wouldfollow after that; but the judge had basically said thatthese are considered to be “diminished assets,” because,in the corporate restructuring plan, Delphi said they’regoing to stop producing anything in the United States!

So, these are going to be empty plants. They’re goingto go completely underutilized. Why not sell them off,even if you only get pennies on the dollar?

Well, as we plunged deeper into the BankruptcyCourt files, literally going through thousands of pages of

some of the most boring material you could imagine, wecame upon something that really has transformed thepolitical situation inside the U.S. We found the docu-ments that showed that the entire scheme to outsourceand globalize Delphi, and to do it under abuse of theU.S. bankruptcy laws in order to basically abandon theobligations to make pension and health-care paymentsto all of the Delphi workers—the whole deal had beenstructured by a company called Rohatyn Associates! Thesmall consulting firm/brokerage house of Felix Rohatyn.And that the other companies that had been involved inthis, were Rothschild, Inc., which is the majorRothschild banking operation in the U.S.; JPMorganChase, the bank that Cliff spoke about a little earlier thisafternoon as being behind the fascist coup plot againstFranklin Roosevelt; and a law firm named Kirkland &Ellis.

So, here we have the smoking gun. We literally havethe document with Felix Rohatyn’s signature on it, indi-cating that he was the architect of the dismantling andoutsourcing of Delphi. And of the takedown, in fact, ofthe entire auto industry: There’s a guy named SteveMiller, who was installed by Rohatyn and company, asthe CEO of Delphi—and he already had a reputation forhaving destroyed the entirety of what was left of thesteel industry in the United States, through the exactsame methods.

Fundamental Change in theBankruptcy Law

All right. So now, we began peeling away further lay-ers of the story. We had a staff meeting about a weekand a half ago, back in Leesburg, and we pulled togethervarious people who’ve been working on this whole dein-dustrialization crisis in the United States, from ourEconomics sector and from other sectors of Intelligence.And we had, for example, one person who had beenclosely following the situation in the steel industry;another person who had been tracking the takedown ofthe airlines industry; another person who began lookinginto the overall changes in U.S. bankruptcy law. And itturns out, that back during the 1970s, in particular dur-ing the Carter Administration—the Brzezinski/TrilateralCommission Carter Administration—that there hadbeen a fundamental change in the bankruptcy law, thatsaid, basically: If you’re the banks and brokerage housesthat come in to finance a bankruptcy restructuring of acompany, then you get to define the reorganizationplan!

This was a major violation of what had been a bank-ruptcy law in the United States, that was consistent withthe General Welfare notion. Previously, you had bank-ruptcy judges appointing trustees, whose job it was toprotect the interest of the workers of the company, andto bring in new management to correct the policy mis-takes that had been made by the previous managers thatled them into the situation where they had to file forcourt protection. And companies were allowed to write

22

off certain debts, in order to allow them to keep theirdoors open, and under new management and underrestructuring, to protect whatever that business was, tokeep the people working in those firms, gainfullyemployed.

The new law was a 180-degree reversal of that. Andfrom 1978 on, beginning with the airline industry, thenextending into the steel industry, then into the aerospacesector, and now, finally, the auto sector, we’ve had a pat-tern of the exact same criminals, always involving eitherLazard Brothers, or Felix Rohatyn personally; alwaysinvolving JP Morgan, always involving one of three orfour major law firms; and usually the RothschildAmerican branch was also somehow or other involvedin there, as well, in setting up these restructurings.

The consequence is, just to give a few examples:The aerospace sector, which was at once both the

heart of the space program, research in advanced avia-tion, a big component of our military sector, as well asthe commercial airlines: Over the last 20 years, the aero-space sector went from having 900,000 production-lineworkers, to now having 550,000, a collapse of about40%; and 60 million square feet of production space andmachine-tool capacity have been literally shut down andsold off.

Steel sector: Fifty percent of the labor force laid off,factories not only shut down, but literally blown up, dis-mantled, so that they no longer even exist to be retooledand reopened. Steel production in the U.S. in 1975 was145 million tons; last year, it was 95 million, again, adrop of about 35% or so.

Auto: Since 2000—just in the last five and a halfyears—there have been 240,000 job losses, net job loss-es, in the U.S. auto sector. This is net losses, so it’s notGM workers going to work for Toyota or Nissan, or oneof the Japanese companies that’s built some plants inthe U.S. And by 2008, the number of auto jobs projectedto be lost in the U.S., on top of the 240,000 lost in thelast five and a half years, is an additional 300,000.

So: What does Felix Rohatyn represent? Is he aDemocrat? Does he have anything to do with theDemocratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt? Or is he morealigned with the Synarchist coup-plotters, who tried toassassinate and/or coup Roosevelt in the ’30s? I thinkthe answer’s pretty obvious.

The Shultz/Rohatyn CollaborationIn fact, if you look at the career of Felix Rohatyn, par-

ticularly over the last 30 or so years, you’ll find that theperson he most persistently shows up in collaborationwith, is George Shultz! The man who put together thecurrent abomination called the Bush-CheneyPresidency. The Shultz-Rohatyn collaboration, in fact,goes back to what was the major topic of discussion thismorning, during the keynote panel, namely, the take-down of the Bretton Woods system: It was Shultz, act-ing on behalf of the Anglo-Dutch financial interests, whowas the individual who went to the Treasury Secretary

under Richard Nixon, a man named John Connally,accompanied by Henry Kissinger and Paul Volcker, andannounced that the Bretton Woods system was over,and that the U.S. would discontinue the currencypegged to the monetized value of gold; created the open-ing for exactly the speculative system that’s followedfrom that.

The pilot projects that were designated, both in theUnited States and internationally, to demonstrate thatthe world was turning back towards Synarchist econom-ics and Synarchist/fascist politics, were the project thatFelix Rohatyn personally ran in New York City, underwhat was called the Municipal Assistance Corp., BigMAC, and the coup d’état in 1973 in Chile againstSalvador Allende, which brought the fascist dictatorshipof Pinochet into power.

The Shultz-Rohatyn team were deeply involvedtogether, in the Chile coup. Shultz was a leading figurein the Nixon Administration; by that time he hadbecome the Treasury Secretary, replacing Connally. AndFelix Rohatyn was the leading outside director of ITT,the International Telephone & Telegraph Co., whichbankrolled and put together the key elements of thecoup. And of course, George Shultz became famous forushering in the Chicago School of Economics into Chile.And if you go back and look at the descriptions thatwere provided by people like William Langer andAmbassador Biddle and others, who were closely track-ing the Synarchy in Europe in the 1930s and ’40s, you’llfind that the authoritarian regime in Chile, run by asmall group of bankers and industrialists, fit theSynarchist model to a “t.”

In New York City, Rohatyn presided over the destruc-tion of New York. Now, in the mid-1970s, New YorkCity still represented one of the largest concentrations ofindustrial workers in the United States. People thinkabout big Midwest cities like Detroit and Cleveland. Butif you actually toured around New York City, still in themid-1970s, although it was already beginning to slipaway, you would find in some of the outer-lying bor-oughs, the Bronx, Queens, parts of Brooklyn, factoriessurrounded by dozens of small machine shops. This wasthe heart of the American Mittelstand. When FelixRohatyn took over as the head of the MunicipalAssistance Corp., Big MAC, there were 1.3 million man-ufacturing jobs inside the City of New York. By the timehe was finished, that number was halved.

And along with that, some of New York City’s munic-ipal unions had been brought into a Synarchist pact:The AFSCME union, headed up by Victor Gotbaum, putbillions of dollars of workers’ pension money into BigMAC bonds. A number of other unions of municipalworkers strongly resisted.

Rohatyn oversaw the shutdown of hospitals, the shut-down of bus lines; subway stations were mothballed andshut, whole parts of the city were red-lined because thebankruptcy reorganization of New York City guaranteedthat the bondholders would be paid first, before any-

23

thing else. New York City was destroyed, throughvicious austerity presided over by Rohatyn. And hebrought Victor Gotbaum from the labor movementshamelessly in, as part of the operation.

This is a clinical case of what American intelligenceanalysts and their French collaborators referred to inthe 1940s as the “left” side of the Synarchy.

And that’s the problem in the Democratic Partytoday: You have a Democratic Party that had been tilt-ing back, under Lyn’s leadership, towards the FDR ori-entation. And at that point, Rohatyn went absolutelyberserk, and began personally deploying, continuously,up to Capitol Hill, to do everything in his power to dis-rupt the efforts of the Democratic Party to come up witha Rooseveltian-LaRouchian policy-agenda for these mid-term elections. Rohatyn, the close friend of Shultz, wascommitted to the idea that if the Democratic Party wasgoing to go in the direction that Lyn was leading it, thenit was going to have to be destroyed from the inside.

The Fight for the Democratic PartyNow, happily, this is not something that is necessarily

within Rohatyn’s power to pull off. And in fact, while hedoes have a certain kind of strength inside Washington,D.C., the Democratic Party—in fact—still remains thelargest grassroots party in the United States. And I canassure you, that Rohatyn has very few relationships withDemocrats at the county chairmen’s level, or at othergrassroots levels around the United States—whereas, wedo! When we began putting out the first pieces of theRohatyn dossier back a couple of weeks ago—and that iswithout the picture that I presented today, of the sys-tematic destruction of the entire industrial base of theUnited States, which is now at about a minute beforemidnight to being completed—even with the limitedmaterial that we had put together, Rohatyn’s signatureon the documents basically structuring the bankruptcyof Delphi, a lot of people became very uncomfortable:Because, the biggest flaw in the Democratic Party rightnow, is cowardice! There are a lot of people who knowbetter, and who were hoping that somehow or other,they could stick their heads in the sand, and avoid theshowdown between Lyn and Rohatyn.

Well, as of today, as of probably about an hour ago,the new issue of EIR [June 30], with Lyn’s lead editorial,scolding the Democrats in the harshest of terms, layingout this entire picture of Rohatyn and the Synarchy,both from the historical documents that I referencedand quoted from here, as well as the profile of what’sgone on under Rohatyn’s supervision in the last 30years, is already saturating Capitol Hill. By the end ofthis week, thousands of copies of that EIR will have got-ten into the hands of every member of Congress, and ofstate legislators and labor leaders all over the country.

And this is going to create a very difficult predica-ment for Mr. Rohatyn, because he’s going to have a veryhard time, explaining away U.S. government docu-ments, from the National Archive! “This André Meyer

name, do you know this guy? Listed as a leading inter-national Synarchist. By whom? Not by some Europeannetworks, but by the U.S. Army military attaché inAlgiers. How’re you going to explain that away?” We’renot going to let him get away with it: Rohatyn made onemistake, of making a public appearance in Washington,several months back. And not only was the LYM[LaRouche Youth Movement] there in force, but [EIREconomics Editor] Paul Gallagher confronted himdirectly, on the question of Lyn’s call for an FDR-styleapproach to put out billions of dollars, hundreds of bil-lions, trillions of dollars, in government credits for vital-ly needed infrastructure projects and job-creation. AndRohatyn’s comment was, “We’re not going to do it thatway, this time. That was all that Roosevelt had at hisdisposal. Now we have private banks, we have bondmarkets, we have all of these new mechanisms.”

And in a discussion with some other Democrats inwhich he was a little bit more blunt, when he was at themeeting, back in 1998 where President Clinton talkedabout the need for a new global financial architecture,up at the Council on Foreign Relations, in that meeting,Rohatyn got up and basically said: Look, back in 1944,governments controlled credit. Now, capital is in thehands of primarily private, and mostly offshore financialinstitutions—not even central banks. Therefore,Rohatyn announced on behalf of the Synarchy, that thistime around, if there’s going to be a new, reorganizedglobal financial system, then, the Synarchist bankers aregoing to control it. And it’s not going to have anything todo with government credit.

So, he’s even on record himself, putting himselfsquarely in the Synarchist camp. And we’re going to usethe historical record of this to finish him off.

I had a discussion with Lyn the other day, aboutsome of the developments around Lyn’s own legislativeproposal, which people have seen in the “U.S. EconomicRecovery Act of 2006,” and we were talking about whatthe next step was, in getting that legislation introducedand passed through the Congress. And Lyn’s commentwas, “The critical first step is getting out this material,and finishing off Rohatyn politically.” In other words,you’ve got to flush the poison out of the DemocraticParty as the necessary first step, to being able to get peo-ple to do what needs to be done. And in some cases,there are some people who, freed of the terror thatRohatyn represents, will do that.

So, that’s where we stand: We’re actually, today, at alaunching moment, a point of embarkation of a cam-paign which I expect very shortly will result in the com-plete political destruction of Rohatyn, and with that, amajor transformation in the political situation inside theUnited States, and thus, around the world, to put Lyn inthe driver’s seat in the Democratic Party, to move usback into the Roosevelt paradigm, but with a number ofcorrections and advances over even what Rooseveltaccomplished in the 1930s.

Thank you.

24

Here are Lyndon LaRouche’s remarks following JeffreySteinberg’s presentation, in the afternoon panel of EIR’sBerlin Seminar, June 27.

Iwould just add one theme, on this thing. What has tobe emphasized is something which I referred to earli-

er, and I’ll just pick up and put it into focus here, at thistime. Because we have some other interventions that aregoing to occur today, and Helga has something which isquite relevant to what has just been presented, from astandpoint, not, shall we say, local, but with particularemphasis on the Berlin campaign going on there now.

The problem with history is what you’re faced withhere. You’re looking at a typical case, in which what peo-ple think their experience and knowledge is, is one thing,and what they believe happened, is something completelydifferent. The only way you understand history is bybeginning to study it, not as a collection of facts, because acollection of facts is simply sophistry. You present thefacts; everybody glues the facts together with differentcement in a different organization, and comes to a differ-ent conclusion. The question—to avoid sophistry—is, notwhat are the facts? Because a dog, by sniffing at rear-endsknows what the facts are, but he doesn’t become anythingmore than a dog by doing so! Human beings have a simi-lar accomplishment when they try to imitate a dog.

The question is principle. You know, the great discov-ery, as an example of principle, the great discovery inmodern history, modern science, was: You had a case ofBrahe, Tycho Brahe, who demonstrated the importanceof collecting facts about astronomy . . . but he came upwith the wrong conclusion, because he didn’t knowwhat the principle was. Then, by working on the work ofBrahe, and going further as an astronomer, JohannesKepler, a more refined investigator, reorganized theentire approach, to discover what is the principle thatcaused the phenomenon. Now, idiots think that what hediscovered was the elliptical character of the orbits, andthat’s what the idiots believe. But an ellipse is simply athing you can draw on a blackboard. You can take it,with a couple of pins and string, and you can draw it.

Well, that’s not what moves the planets. The ellipticalorbit is a product of a principle of action. In otherwords, the action is not determined by an ellipse, theellipse is a product of the principle of action. What is theprinciple of action that forms this elliptical orbit, whichis not a regular orbit? There’s no way you could simulateit as a regular orbit with pins and string. It can not bedone. What is the action of principle in the universe? Aprinciple as big as the universe, which produces an actu-ally infinitesimal rate of change at every point of motion

in the orbit? A principle! A universal principle, thatdefines a universe which is finite—hmm? A finite uni-verse! Which is self-bounded, not externally bounded,but self-bounded.

That’s the difference. That’s what we mean by a principle.Now, all scientific method, and particularly in

European history since the time of the study of Sphaericsby the Pythagoreans, and people like Thales and Plato,has always been the same. Discover a principle.

The Orbit of European HistoryNow, we have a history. Let’s look at this orbit of

European history, and look at the events we’ve just beendiscussing, in the orbit of European history. What is thecomplete orbit of human history to date? The orbit startswith the emergence of Classical Greece, under Egyptianinfluence, about 700 B.C. Nobody knows anything, real-ly, about real history before that time. We know a lot offacts; we can determine from astronomical studies cer-tain other facts. But the principles of human behavior,known factually, determined as principles factually—weonly begin to understand that about 700 B.C. on, in theemergence under Egyptian influence of the Greeks, whowere pretty crude and stupid people then; in Ionia and insouthern Italy, Magna Graecia, in Athens.

From that time on, what is the motion of history, up tothe present time? Well, Greece was destroyed. How was itdestroyed? It was destroyed by the Congress for CulturalFreedom. It was destroyed by the Frankfurt School ofexistentialism—or, its predecessors, called sophistry. Itwas destroyed by the Cult of Delphi, the Apollo Cult, asexposed by Aeschylos in his Prometheus trilogy. Theywent to the people and they did the same thing that wasdone to people in Europe and the United States, today.They went to them and they said, “sophistry.”

They started with the little kiddies. And they tried toget rid of [Franklin] Roosevelt, by destroying the mindsof the members of the generation born between 1945and about 1957, by destroying their minds and theirmorals. How? By working on them, specifically on thelayer, which by economic and social circumstanceswould be going into universities in the 1960s, and wouldbe the 68ers! And the 68ers, after this conditioning—thedestruction of art, the destruction of Classical music, thedestruction of science, the destruction of morals—wasmanifest by the 68ers, who said: “Get rid of the workers!We don’t like blue-collar people! Get rid of the farmers.We don’t like science! Get rid of nuclear energy. Get ridof science! Get rid of Classical art.”

And others who didn’t agree with that, but becausethey were the same generation, said, “Well, we have to

25

The Key to History:Discover a Principle

respect the opinion of our peers.” The same thing thathappened in Athens, in the 50 years preceding thePeloponnesian War!

Now, what did we get as a result of that? We got theRoman Empire later! The Roman Empire contributedabsolutely nothing to European culture—except syphilisand similar kinds of things. It was succeeded by theByzantine Empire, which was the result of an abortion;it was a lousy birth.

You had the attempt to establish civilization again, byvarious forces, repeatedly, repeatedly. European culturedidn’t die. The legacy of Greece didn’t die. It kept surg-ing forth as a minority force, again and again, in unex-pected places in history. The Christian Church wasalmost destroyed by Constantine, who said, “You couldbecome legalized, if you let me appoint the bishops.” Inother words, he declared himself Pope.

So, you had the emergence of the Augustinian move-ment, as a reaction against this corruption underConstantine. And the Augustinian movement waschased. It went into Spain; Isidore of Seville. It wentinto, where? of all places, Ireland. Can you imagine aChristian in Ireland? It’s a very difficult thing to con-ceive of. They’re always killing each other, and beatingeach other up all the time—that’s not a good, Christiancivilization. But, from Ionia and so forth, they didanother miraculous thing: They Christianized Saxons!This is a very difficult thing—but they succeeded! Notonly that, but they helped to Christianize—Frenchmen:Now, that’s a miracle! When you see a Frenchman,today, you realize what a miracle that is! You can hardlyfind a Christian in the bishops of the Christian Churchin France. They usually are the Napoleonic Church orthe Church of Louis XIV, some foolish thing like that.

But then, you had this emergence in France aroundCharlemagne, through the Augustinian influence, of thisgreat effort to civilize humanity. And Charlemagnereached out—not only tried to build a system in Europe,which remained until approximately about the 800s, butreached out to the Baghdad Caliphate, and reached outto bring the Jews into a role in both Islamic society andin Augustinian Christian society. And after his death,this was crushed, step by step.

We had a new system. What was the new system?Well, whereas Charlemagne had worked with theBaghdad Caliphate, which was the leading area of cultureand science of that time, working with Jews between thetwo, to build an ecumenical peace among Christians,Jews, and Muslims, as a new order of peace. Again, theVenetians came in, and took power, took power from theByzantine Empire which had collapsed of its own rotten-ness. And they allied with a bunch of Danes and so forth,who were really terrible people! These were people whohad fled Saxony, and hated everybody, and they werebasically thieves. And they went around on ships of vari-ous kinds, and went out killing people, robbing, stealing.And somebody decided to make them an organized-crimeorganization, rather than this independent criminal orga-

nization, and they organized them and they becameknown as the Normans: the Norman chivalry.

The Norman chivalry was employed by the Venetianwhores, to conduct religious warfare: various Crusades.Every Crusade was a crime against humanity! TheCrusades were the prototype for fascism! The prototype forwhat is happening today. Integralism in so-called ChristianChurch and other things is a manifestation of fascism, thesame bestiality and degeneracy, in the name of Christianity!If you want to commit a crime, give it the name of God.God may not like it, but you do it anyway.

So, out of this, then we had a collapse of this crazycivilization, a collapse based on the ideas of banking andfinance which are popular in Europe today. The mone-tarist system. And Europe has never freed itself from themonetarist system. There have been some efforts to doso, but never, in net effect today, it has never been freed.

So then, you get another phase: You get religious war-fare coming out of the Renaissance, after the Renaissance.In 1648, that’s defeated, under the influence of Mazarin,and with the continued effort of Jean-Baptiste Colbert.That’s destroyed, by Louis XIV, with his crazy Frondefriends, who get him into quarrels with the Dutch, anddrown France in perpetual religious warfare.

And this system of religious warfare leads into 1763,when the British East India Company, as the Anglo-Dutch Liberal system establishes imperial power, takingover North America (that is, Canada), and taking overIndia and other things.

So, this corruption has never ended, except that theUnited States has been created. And what do they do?They try to corrupt that and destroy that.

The Principle of CreativitySo what you’re seeing here, is a principle involved, as I

said earlier this morning: The principle involved, is,mankind is inherently good, naturally good. But ifmankind denies the goodness within it, then it becomesbad, becomes evil. And denying the sacredness of mankindand the distinction of mankind from the beast, which isexplicitly creativity, creativity of the type that Plato defend-ed—and Aristotle tried to destroy, and Euclid tried todestroy; and the Romans tried to destroy! The idea ofkeeping a thing where you have an elite, an oligarchy incontrol, like the financier-oligarchy; and they use the doc-trine that “people are bad.” They use the doctrine of “origi-nal sin,” that, “People are bad; therefore they have to havepeople to control them”—called dictators, or kings, oremperors, especially emperors of that type. And that is evil!

When the great imperial authority comes on, to try tocontrol people, to prevent people, who are inherentlygood at birth, to prevent them from realizing the human-ity which is in them, and imposing obedience uponthem!—instead of a voluntary impulse to do good. Everychild is born with a voluntary impulse to be good. Well, Idon’t know—it probably happens before they’re born.Actually, because we know, when you’re a six-month-oldpreemie, you survive these days, medically. You realize

26

that the little thing in the womb is hearing all the gossipand yelling and so forth, the parents are making aroundthem. And so you have to wonder about what the badbehavior of the parents, and the hearing of the child sit-ting in the womb, has on the emotional life of the child,even before it’s born! I mean, pretty obviously, a six-month preemie is a fully functional personality, a humanpersonality. It’s been proven. Six-month preemies wholive, all turn out to be just about as good as those whoare born after full term at nine months. That means thatthis little creature in there is wise to you guys!

So, this creature is good. It’s born good. It is borninnocent, and good. And we allow society to corrupt it,and that’s what evil is.

And the essential corruption is to create a society inwhich you suppress the creativity, in the sense of a searchfor truth. And the greatest crime, is to lie, because youwant to keep on good terms with a circle of friends. Oryou want to keep on good terms with a lawyer, or, ongood terms with some authority. Or you want to apply fora job; or you want to be accepted in a certain circle. Youwant a professorship at a certain university. You lie! Youcommit a crime against yourself and against humanity!You lie! You don’t tell the truth, you say “it’s for a goodcause,” but you’re lying. And there’s your corruption.

And that’s what happens, when you say, “I am going tobe obedient, I’m going to submit.” Then you decide to besuccessful. You have to be one of the beaters, rather thanthe beaten. And when you try to be “successful” in thatway, which is called sophistry, you become a bastard—which no honest parent would want to acknowledge.

And that’s what the lesson is. That’s where these fas-cists and similar things come from. Where evil comesfrom: It’s denial of the difference between man and abeast. Man has a creative potential which no beast mani-fests. But I know—and Jonathan [Tennenbaum] hasalso discovered painfully, from his efforts in this direc-tion—I know, that what most people think they knowtoday about science: They know nothing about science.They know how to recite. They know how to perform,like a trained seal, but they don’t know what thinking is.

They don’t recognize what Kepler recognized: Thatthere are principles in the universe, universal principles,which are as extensive as the universe, and that onlymankind is capable of knowing those principles.

And therefore, just in the same way, violation of thoseprinciples has penalties. The history of mankind is, as faras we know it, for nearly 3,000 years, is, mankind had apotential but somehow lost it, by corruption. Corruptiontypified by sophistry. Typified by the typical way peoplebehave in Germany, as in the United States, today! Yougot a stinking collection of sophists! It’s hard to find anhonest man on any street, or in any precinct in the UnitedStates or Germany—not to even speak about France!

This is the problem. The problem is essentially corrup-tion. And the solution is, to do what? Is to affirm goodness.To affirm goodness is to worry about the next generation.It’s not only about our generation. Think about our grand-

children, and think about their grandchildren: And liveour lives, now, today, to bring about a future for our grand-children, and for their grandchildren. And bring about afuture which is based on the discovery of principles.

For today: What’s the great principle? We need twothings, most of all, in terms of science: We must have animmediate explosion—not of nuclear bombs, but ofnuclear power plants. Without that, we’re not going tobe able to deal with the water problems of the planet.We’re not going to deal with the pollution of the planet,none of these things.

If we don’t develop thermonuclear fusion power as ageneral source, within a quarter-century, the raw mate-rials crisis which we’re facing as you have a populationof over 6 billion people, is going to struggle to find theuse of the natural resources needed to bring their stan-dard of living, up to what ours is, at the best, in Europeand the United States today! They have a right to that!And we can’t give them that, because the raw materialsof a high quality, relative to our needs today, are beingused up! They’re finite resources which exist within theBiosphere. And they’re being used up.

We have to be able to replace these chemicalresources! We can, with thermonuclear fusion technolo-gy. We must, therefore, develop that technique, and wemust do it in the next quarter-century, because time isrunning out.

If we don’t have a mass use of nuclear power today,we won’t have fresh water for people! Drinkable freshwater. We’re running out of fresh-water resources, we’reusing them up. We can generate it.

So, when someone says you’ve got to show respect fora Greenie, you say, “Why?” If they are denying peoplethe nuclear power development for the human race,denying the development of thermonuclear fusionpower, they’re condemning people to death. They’re notgood people. They don’t have democratic rights. Peoplehave their liberties.

This is the kind of issue, the sense that there are princi-ples in nature, as they affect the human being, as theyaffect human society as we know it for the past 3,000years, approximately. There are certain principles in histo-ry. And what we have to do when we see a phenomenon,like the type just being described now, this phenomenonof fascism, modern fascism and where it comes from—there’s a principle involved here! It’s not a question of whois connected to whom, who whispered in whose ear. It’s aprinciple running through the current of history. Andtherefore, we have to do something now, which has notbeen done in schools or universities for a long time.

I know. I was at a university once; a couple times,actually. And the education was essentially incompetent!Immoral! Degraded! And I hated it. Because it wasimmoral, degraded, and false. And we have to give peo-ple a correct understanding of the processes of history,in terms of principles, extending back through at least allof European civilization, extending back for at least3,000 years.

27

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the chairwoman of the CivilRights Movement Solidarity (BüSo) party in Germany.Here is her speech to the Berlin seminar; it has beentranslated from German.

I want to address an observation by our Chancellor,which she made a couple of weeks ago, and whichhas created considerable excitement. Specifically,

she said that Germany is a readjustment-case. That isjust another way of saying that Germany is bankrupt.And therefore a huge torrent of voices arose, whichsaid, “No, you cannot say that!” The other positionwas then put forward: “Yes, yes, this is a case of insol-vency.” I would prefer to believe, that Mrs. Merkel,who is actually an “Ossie” [from former EastGermany] knows such insolvency cases quite well, andthat she has thus asserted what I have said manytimes, namely, that the global financial systemtoday is just as bankrupt as East Germany was inOctober/November 1989. And how true that is, hasbeen underscored once again this morning in the variouspresentations.

Now we must naturally ask: Why is Germany a read-justment-case? Why is Germany bankrupt? And so onecannot avoid the issue of who were in the governmentsof the last years. Who were the leading banking houses,the leading people, who are responsible for the weak-nesses in the financial system? And I want to briefly casta glance at just that.

The Lazard Frères RoleBut, first of all, there is the fact that we are here in

Berlin and are conducting a Berlin election campaign,with the goal of reindustrializing Berlin as the first stepin the reindustrialization of Germany. Thus, one comesto certain stumbling blocks: The first is, that there areseveral powers in this city, including not only themayor, but also the leading senior partner of Lazard

Frères in Germany, former U.S. Ambassador JohnKornblum, who, just as Rohatyn was Ambassador inParis, was the Ambassador in Berlin. Now, these twopeople are linked more closely than one might think atfirst.

We have begun to look carefully at Mr. Kornblum,because he had certain definite ideas for Berlin; hehad given an interview, a while ago, to the newsletterBerlin-Box, in which he proposed that Berlin followthe model of Boston from the last 30 years. Thatmodel is a kind of Boston version of New York’s BigMAC, and it then functioned under the idea of urbanrenewal. At that time there was a group of Bostonbankers called The Vault, which in German is calledDer Tresor. Yes, that’s what they’re called, those whoproposed to deindustrialize Boston, to revamp theworkers’ areas of the city, and instead erect banks,insurance companies, media companies, and univer-sities in Boston—which they have done, with theresult that many inexpensive houses for working peo-ple have been demolished, and in their place nowstand speculative properties for offices and serviceindustries.

If you look at the development of Boston, then youcan establish the fact that the same thing has happenedthere over the last 15 years, as in Berlin, where we alsohave about half a million unemployed, very poor people.And for them, Mr. Kornblum naturally has no sympa-thy. In another interview he said: “Therefore, the peoplewho criticize this development, who criticize globaliza-tion, they are the Losers—and we are with the Winners!”A sweetie pie of the first order.

Another project links Rohatyn and Kornblum. Theybegan in the year 2000 a Mayors’ Initiative, which aimedat creating a worldwide network of mayors—indeed,because they are of the opinion that in the globalizedworld the sovereign nation-state has lost its usefulness,and instead the role of the cities is much more impor-

28

Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Stop the SynarchistTakeover in Berlin

tant, and above all, the close collaboration of mayors inthe cities. Now we certainly have one such mayor inBerlin, and also top managers, who could work togetheron the privatization of infrastructure, the privatizationof industry, and then you wouldn’t need government anymore, the state could fall by the wayside, since the may-ors, the bankers, and the managers have taken care ofeverything!

We are really only at the beginning of the investiga-tion—I would like my observation to be understood asan inspiration for many more people, to cooperate inthese investigations, because this has an unbelievabledimension. But let’s take one case of what LazardFrères has previously done in Berlin. They are wellknown for their specialty in so-called mergers andacquisitions.

Our mayoral candidate Daniel Buchmann, in thecourse of his election campaign, recently visited strik-ing workers from Case and New Holland (CNH), whohave been striking here in Berlin already for a week.This firm, in the ’90s, had taken over the earlier, tradi-tional machine-tool firm Orenstein & Koppel, atakeover for which, naturally, Goldman Sachs, CréditSuisse, and Lazard Frères were the advisors. Now thisstory is interesting because in the year 2001, the BerlinSenate had supported this takeover with about 70 mil-lion euros annually, with the promise that CNH wouldkeep its production in Berlin. But then the managementof CNH decided in 2005, that it would now relocateproduction to Italy, at which point the workers began aweeks-long strike, until they soon accepted a settle-ment, because, as is known, striking workers do nothave unlimited financial means to be able to carrythrough such a strike.

Now, if you look at who is the international chairmanof CNH, it is a certain Jean-Pierre Rosseau, who sits on

the board of a company called Euraseo, where onceagain, the chairman of the advisory board is a certainMichel David-Weill, that is, the former head of LazardFrères. Euraseo is in practice the most important playerin the three combined banking houses of Lazard inParis, London, and New York. We have in view anunparalleled takeover—one could almost say robbery—of Germany by these locusts; for example, the Germanand French Telekoms are continually selling off parts ofthemselves, such as AWB, but also medium-sized indus-trial enterprises, villas, and social properties are beingactually dismantled in a flash in this way, so that practi-cally nothing of Germany will survive, if a halt is notcalled.

The Treuhand PrecedentBut naturally this development, which has now in a

certain way arrived at an end-phase, began much, muchearlier, if you look at the development after 1989, andespecially after 1991, when Berlin, above all, and thenew federal states, were taken apart. That is an interest-ing case study, which has contributed to this develop-ment. So let’s look back again to the 8th of March 1990.Then, the last People’s Assembly of the G.D.R. [EastGermany] decided on the establishment of theTreuhand, with the explicit purpose of preserving thepeople’s property.

But already under the government of Lothar deMaziere, there was no longer any talk about safe-guarding the people’s property, but privatization andreorganization were going ahead, as written in theLaw Sheet of June 22, 1990. Then the resistance with-in the population grew, since everything was in suchgreat chaos. Therefore, in August 1990, they appointedDetlev Karsten Rohwedder, who had a very good repu-tation, because he was the “savior” of Hoesch AG, and

29

EIRNS/Simon Jenson

Helga Zepp-LaRoucheand Lyndon LaRouchein Berlin on June 28.Mrs. LaRouche laid outthe importance of thefight to reindustrializeGermany’s capital city,after the Synarchisttakedown that followedreunification.

then had led Hoesch AG in the Ruhr region out of thered, into the black; he also had a reputation as some-one who understood something about physical econo-my, and was also sensible in respect to the socialeffects of such transformations. But he was, up untilthen, in a minority faction on the board of theTreuhand. The opposing position was held by BirgitBreuel, who stood for direct privatization, whileRohwedder came more and more to the idea that itwould not work to privatize the whole industry of theformer G.D.R., but that it was necessary first to reor-ganize, and then to privatize, with the idea of preserv-ing as many jobs as possible, and at the same time cre-ating new jobs.

Now, Birgit Breuel had acquired a certain reputationas Lower Saxony Economics Minister, where she hadput through an absolutely brutal campaign of de-statifi-cation and de-bureaucratization. And she immediatelyput Rohwedder under pressure, and also made her ownpress declarations, so that the Treuhand at that timespoke with two tongues.

Rohwedder not only came under pressure as a resultof this opposition on the Treuhand board, but throughinternational consulting firms, American and Britishinvestment bankers, who accused him of stopping for-eign investment. But criticism also came from the CDU[Christian Democratic Union]—Biedenkopf, for exam-ple, and also Geissler, who reproached him for his fail-ures. Then, as is known, Rohwedder was shot on April 1,1991.

“Just in time,” a week before, a huge campaign hadbeen started about a supposed connection between theStasi [East German secret service] and the RAF [RedArmy Faction, a terrorist gang], which was exposed ashort time later as a total media hoax, but which total-ly dominated the climate in the media during the peri-od of the Rohwedder murder. Everyone said that theStasi was behind it. And therefore, naturally, theinvestigation was guided onto a certain track. A shorttime later, this hoax disappeared from sight. It wasclear that it had been badly overblown by two Monitorjournalists.

But what remained was the idea that there was athird generation of the RAF. Now, the “third generationof the RAF” is a phantom. No one has ever seen it, thereis no proof of whether it exists or not, but it has beenheld responsible. Thus it happened, that in theRohwedder case there were unbelievable holes in hissecurity screen, and no results from the search for hiskillers.

Still, the notable thing about Rohwedder’s death isthat, if one considers cui bono?, one comes to thehypothesis which John Perkins wrote about in his bookThe Economic Hit Men: that is, that Rohwedder, just likeHerrhausen, was an advocate of the Third World, of theworkers’ interests, of social issues. This cui bono actual-ly leads to other areas, because the beneficiaries were,

without question, the international financial circles,who had the motive for doing away with this man. Atleast, that is a question which one could have, and it isreally remarkable that the investigative authorities havenever raised it.

In any case, the leaf turned for the internationalinvestors at the moment Birgit Breuel becameRohwedder’s successor. She began with an unparal-leled economic “clean sweep” in the new federalstates, but also in Berlin. One can argue whether, withthe downfall of the G.D.R., the claim of the citizens ofthe G.D.R. to their life’s achievements also was lost.But in my opinion—and that is open to debate—anunparalleled crime against humanity was carried outin the new federal states, where people were thrownout into the cold overnight, because basically the peo-ple had built up these enterprises. They were, it’s true,part of the system, but one cannot simply throw themaway!

The only ones who profited from that, were the inter-national financial sharks, who really made unbelievableprofits, since the Treuhand then was the largest industri-al holding company in the world. This was no smallthing.

Birgit Breuel and the SchrödersNow, just as a question—I don’t believe that this mat-

ter has now been fully clarified. But let us now look at,who was this Birgit Breuel? Her father was AlwinMünchmeyer, a private banker from Hamburg. In 1969,Münchmeyer merged with Schröder Bank and theHengst and Co. Bank, and in this way the SchröderMünchmeyer Hengst & Co. Bank came into existence,now suddenly united, but maintaining the historicalcontinuity of the Schröder Bank.

It is, so to speak, a very traditional bank, because thehead of Schröder Bank was a certain Baron Rudolf vonSchröder, who was also the vice president of theHamburg-America Line, which today is Hapag-Lloyd,and then came the daughter of the American invest-ment bank Brown Brothers Harriman. This was thebank of Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the currentU.S. President George W. (We have documented allthese things which I mentioned in George Bush: TheUnauthorized Biography [EIR, 1992]). We have not onlyreceived no complaints from George Bush (nor fromGeorge W. Bush) but, if you saw the election specialwhich President Clinton produced for his 1992 electioncampaign, a two-hour election special, then you sawthis Unauthorized Biography lying on the table. Weactually only researched and published this, in order tocatch the old Bush, and to substantially contribute sothat Clinton won in this way. And in a certain way itwas a thank-you, that he put the book on the table. Allthe “records” exist, all the documents exist, which wehave published, which was the reason why a complaintnever followed.

30

Now, to Rudolf von Schröder: He was an intimate ofAverell Harriman, the co-owner of the Hamburg-America Line, who played a leading role in theAmerican eugenics movement, had intensive relationswith the National Socialists, and very much admired, ofall things, the race theory of the Nazis, since eugenicsencompassed the idea of breeding men. And he alsofound the Aryan concepts very interesting—according todocuments from the time of the Second World War, andalso from the U.S. government, with a focus on theHamburg-America-Line, which was well known to havefinanced the National Socialists, and therefore, natural-ly, the enemy.

Another family member was Kurt von Schröder, theco-director of Thyssen-Huette, of whom it is knownthat he directly financed Hitler. And Kurt von Schröderwas, together with Hjalmar Schacht, actually instru-mental in helping Hitler come to power. It is thereforeinteresting, that Lazard Frères, when its Germanbranch was founded in 1999, took over a large part ofthe customer base of Schröder Münchmeyer Hengst &Co. Bank, which was taken over on their side by LloydsBank. And Lazard Frères then remained the chief coor-dinator for privatizations, and further mergers andacquisitions.

Now back to Breuel. After Breuel took over theTreuhand in 1991, more and more banks took over thebusiness of privatizations: Goldman Sachs, SGWarburg, Crédit Suisse First Boston, JP Morgan, MerrillLynch, etc. And through the Treuhand, this whole mar-ket of mergers and acquisitions, and therefore the merg-ers and acquisition business, was first opened inGermany, in a form which had never existed before. Andat the time, these banks made enormous profits, whilethe poor people became ever poorer.

The Danger of a New FascismNow, a new phase has been reached, with an unpar-

alleled “financial locust” attack on Germany. And thequestion is, naturally, why no one from the various par-ties in the Bundestag will do anything to prevent thetotal rip-off of Germany? We have defined, in the caseof the United States and the takedown of the auto sec-tor, the role of Rohatyn very clearly. It is totally clear:There are Senators, there are Congressmen, who lovemoney from Rohatyn more than the defense of theirconstituents. For that, there is a good word: namely,corruption!

And I really have the horrible suspicion, which isworth confirming, that we in Germany and Berlinhave a very similar situation. Presently, Germany isbeing destroyed. And what these people intend, is notonly to make profits, but they have an ideological ideaof neo-feudalism, to completely tear down the socialstate, as it has been crystallized since the 15thCentury, and originated in Germany through theBismarck reforms 130 years ago. And when the soccer

fever in Germany fades away on the 9th or 10th ofJuly, people will rub their eyes, and see that during thefour weeks they’ve been in fantasy-land, an unparal-leled attack has been under way on their living stan-dards, on the institutions of the social state, and on thehealth system, and that the rich have become richer inthe meantime, and the living standards of the poorhave been reduced.

Therefore, what stands before us, what we’re lookingat, is the danger of a new fascism. And these bankersand these interests are just the instruments. This is real-ly nothing new, because already in 1972, LyndonLaRouche conducted a debate with the economist AbbaLerner, and in this debate Abba Lerner was so chal-lenged that he said: If we get the people to accept thepolicies of Hjalmar Schacht—i.e., the most brutaldestruction of living standards, which finally led to con-centration camps and the destruction of labor in them—then we don’t need a Hitler any more. And as a result, aleading person in the Council of Cultural Freedom,Sidney Hook, who had followed this, dropped his maskand said: If LaRouche got Abba Lerner to say suchthings, which are taboo, then we must make sure thatwe never again conduct a debate with LaRouche onmatters of content—the discussion will be limited, it willbe confined to slanders—but a debate, that is too dan-gerous for us.

The Battle in BerlinThe reason these things are extremely important is:

We must know where the enemy lies. And we mustexpose the international proponents of this new fascistdanger. We will reach, within a very short period oftime, a turning-point in the financial crisis, at whichpoint the oligarchy, the Synarchist oligarchy, alreadyhas plans which they have made ready: They want thecentral banks, the European Central Bank, the Berlinbanks, and the businesses to take over in Berlin, thewhich will naturally be a massive attack on the livingstandards and lives of the population.

Over the next weeks and months, we must do every-thing to promote the alternative, which LyndonLaRouche has brought to the agenda, specifically aNew Bretton Woods. And I would like to ask all of younot only to sign this call for a New Bretton Woods, notonly to organize for it, but to help us to make an exam-ple here in Berlin, by chasing the anti-industrializationgrouping out of the temple. I would like to invite youto support the mayoral campaign of our candidateDaniel Buchmann, because Berlin must become thegateway to the Eurasian Land-Bridge. And it mustbecome a symbol of hope, so that we actually create,over the next 50 years, a totally different world order,in which each man and woman on this planet has theright and possibility for a life worthy of a humanbeing.

Therefore, support Daniel Buchmann!

31

Jacques Cheminade, the authorof the accompanying article, is

a brilliant leader of France, whois hated by the mediocrities,because they resent the competi-tion. He is also a candidate forPresident of France.

But it will be difficult for theEnglish-speaking reader to graspthe implications of Cheminade’suse of the French language. (TheFrench original may be found atwww.@cheminade2007.org.) Tobegin with, despite the ghastli-ness of the apparent subject,which is that yet another fascisttakeover of France is now inprocess, nevertheless, the French-educated reader will immediatelysense that the article and itsauthor alike are actually tremen-dous fun.

In his style and his viewpoint,Cheminade represents the legacyof France, going back to Louis XI and Rabelais.

Cheminade is working from the standpoint of theissue of Synarchy, and looking at France from the stand-point of Synarchy, whose history goes back to the for-mation of the Martinist Order in the 18th Century, whena series of forced-march reorganizations of EuropeanFreemasonry, pushed through from London, finallyhatched Martinism out of France as an elite, super-secret occult Freemasonry.

Early Martinist leaders included the Franz AntonMesmer exposed as a hoax by Benjamin Franklin andhis French ally Jean Sylvain Bailly; the conspiratorGiovanni Casanova who was the target of Mozart’sopera Don Giovanni; and bloodthirsty Savoyard noble-man Joseph de Maistre, the designer of the personalityand role of Napoleon Bonaparte, and thus of such laterknock-down imitations as Napoleon III, Mussolini, and

Hitler. It was thus with some justice that the late IsaiahBerlin of British Intelligence, dubbed Maistre the “firstfascist.”

Beethoven antagonist Johannes Maelzel, whose claimto have invented “artificial intelligence” was exposed asa fraud by Edgar Allan Poe in a famous 1836 news-paper article, belonged to a later Martinist/Synarchistgeneration.

It was the Martinist Order, including a personalrole by its then-nominal leader, Louis-Claude deSaint-Martin, which arranged the butchery and luna-cy of the French Revolution. This snuffed out thepossibility,—or rather, the immediate prospect,—that the just-won American Revolution would berepeated in Europe’s most advanced country, France.Then the Revolution’s sequel in the so-calledNapoleonic Wars, smashed all of Continental Europe

32

Nazi troops in Paris during World War II. The context for Cheminade’s article (p. 34) is“his understanding of France and its special history, located in the issue of Martinism from1785 to today” and the “role of the Paris-based Synarchy, as a top-level secret committee offinancier families, in bringing fascism to power throughout continental Europe from1922√45. . . .”

The Snake and the Rabbitsby Tony Papert

into a pulp from which it would not begin to recoverfor two generations. The new American republic wasisolated.

Thus, we have here a specifically, idiosyncraticallyFrench entity, Martinism/Synarchy, which, on theother hand, is also identical to the current, post-1763form of Anglo-Dutch Liberal world empire,—todaycalled “globalization.” We see this story repeated andconfirmed in the history of Martinism/Synarchy from1785,—when Martinist magician “Count Cagliostro”(Joseph Balsamo) rigged the “Queen’s Necklace Affair”to prepare the French Revolution,—right through tothe present.

Thus, the context for Cheminade’s article is hisunderstanding of France and its special history, locatedin the issue of Martinism from 1785 to today.

The role of the Paris-based Synarchy, as a top-levelsecret committee of financier families, in bringing fas-cism to power throughout continental Europe from1922-1945, is well-known and has been documentedbefore in these pages. We have also called attentionhere, to the repeated failure of the French Synarchy tooverthrow the Third Republic and put France underfascist dictatorship, through three failed coup attemptsbetween 1923 and 1938. It was this record of failurewhich led the French Synarchist Charles Maurras(1868-1952), to say of the Nazi invasion of 1940, whichled to the establishment of the French fascist “Vichy”government over the south of France, that it was a“divine surprise.” But it was in reality no surprise to theSynarchy, which had opened the gates to theReichswehr,—this is the answer to the “mystery” ofhow a great power like France could fall to Hitler afteronly six weeks of fighting.

Now, in a sense, we have come full circle, asCheminade indicates.

As Lyndon LaRouche said in a recent discussion,“The problem is, people make the Hitler Nazi movementas the problem of that period, rather than seeing theHitler Nazi movement as an instrument of the forces, anexpendable instrument of the forces who caused theproblem and were directing it. Hitler is dead. The Nazisare generally dead. But! The people who created them asan instrument are still alive, and are on the verge of tak-ing world power today.

I would add to that,” he continued. “People exagger-ate the significance of the Hitler Nazi movement, whichwas a terrible thing in its time, but it was a creation, apuppet of a much larger force, which was temporarilyembarrassed at the end of the war, when Hitler wasdefeated, but came back in the name of being our ‘nec-essary anti-Communist allies.’

“That’s the truth of the matter. There’s no differencebetween the people, of the financial group, which areAnglo-Dutch Liberal and French Synarchist, who creat-ed Hitler, and created that intention, and the crowdbehind Rohatyn today. That’s the concept. That’s the

truth of the matter.”As the long-time head of Lazard Frères for the United

States, Felix Rohatyn was, and still is, a topmost repre-sentative of the Synarchist International worldwide. Itwas Lazard Frères which was identified by U.S. intelli-gence, during World War II, as the center of the Paris-based Synarchist/fascist conspiracy, along with France’sBanque Worms, a Lazard creation. Rohatyn’s patronand virtual father, André Meyer, who brought him intothe bank and anointed him as his successor, had beennamed by U.S. intelligence as a Synarchist controller,from the days when he was a top leader of Lazard Paris,before 1940.

Now Rohatyn and the Synarchy are entering the lastphases of a new “trustification,” like that which pre-pared the way for Nazism earlier, in which they are seiz-ing and destroying the elements of physical economicinfrastructure and real-wealth production, on which thesovereign nation-state, their chosen enemy, depends forthe possibility of its existence.

As you will see in Cheminade’s report, most of theFrench elite is playing the part of the rabbit hypnotizedby the snake,—those, that is, who have not thought itsafer to join with the snake against the other rabbits.The majority of the U.S. Senate is doing the same thing.

Cheminade is not.

33

U.S. National Archives

Adolf Hilter in Paris, with Albert Speer (left), in 1940. Thefinancial group of Anglo-Dutch liberals and French Synarchistswho created Hitler, are the same crowd behind Felix Rohatyn etal. today.

LaRouche associate Cheminade is a candidate in the2007 French Presidential elections.

On presenting the European Green Book onEnergy, José Manuel Durão Barroso, chair-man of the European Commission, let the cat

out of the bag: “Once and for all, let there be an end toprotectionism and knee-jerk patriotic reactions,” hesaid. Claiming opposition to this, France’s PrimeMinister, Dominique de Villepin, puts forward his“economic patriotism.”

The truth lies elsewhere than in the nice words of thepoliticians. Beyond the facade, one must face reality: Atthe center of a French capitalism gone mad, which is tosay financial, there is a veritable invasion of our publicarena by an avalanche of multinational, “non-resident”interests. Their objective is to destroy what remains ofthe French nation state, and to impose the power of afinancial conglomerate—synarchistand oligarchical—without honor, law,or borders.

This financial fascism emerges bru-tally, as it did during the thirties, withthe same economic features and forthe same reasons. In the context of thebreakdown of the international mone-tary system, it intends to build anEmpire capable of crushing any resis-tance, and imposing the social austeri-ty needed to maintain its power, whilewriting off, if necessary, parts of itsown assets.

This passage to the political phaseof the financial derailing, began onAug. 15, 1971, when the U.S.Administration put an end to theBretton Woods system by unpeggingthe dollar from gold; it implies thedestruction of our republican order.Those leading that operation—ofwhich personalities such as the formerambassador of the United States toFrance, Felix Rohatyn, and the inter-ests nested in the Lazard Frères bank-

ing operations are emblematic—are aiming for nothingless than to impose the policies of Hjalmar Schachtand the pre-war Bank for International Settlements(BIS), without a Hitler, a Mussolini or a Franco, but thistime on a world scale. Today, it is called “globalization.”

History may stutter, but that is not a reason for us tobehave as it does. In June 1940, our gates were openedto the Nazi invasion, and it was a “divine surprise” ofthose who had long plotted to overthrow the Republic.The Pétainist’s “patriotism” of French capital consistedin supplying the German army with tires, and participat-ing in the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Today, wemust immediately resist, and this resistance, definingthe position of France, Germany, and of Europe towards“globalization,” must unite and catalyze the currents ofsocial Christianity, Republican socialism, and true patri-otic Gaullism, that is to say, those currents rooted eachin its own way, in the Common Good. This article, writ-

ten in the context of my Presidentialcampaign, aims to provoke my fellowcitizens to reassert their dignity and tolaunch a mobilization that will retrieve“la France combattante” (fightingFrance) as an idea, and not as a prod-uct sold at discount.

Mittal Steel-ArcelorWhile the “Europe of the Great

Projects” turns out to be a hoax, andwhile the euro operates as a tool fordismantling industry and agriculture,the offensive of the financial synarchyremains nearly unopposed. The proofis in the growing number of takeoversand privatizations of economic inter-ests critical to our political indepen-dence, and even to our mere economicexistence: Mittal Steel seizes control ofArcelor, Suez takes Gaz de France,and the New York Stock Exchange(NYSE) takes Euronext, slicing up ourpublic sector so that they can obtainhigher prices by selling bits andpieces, and recartelization framed by

34

Jacques Cheminade

Let’s Stop PuttingFrance on Sale

Library of Congress

Marshal Pétain, the French traitor,who extended a synarchist welcome tothe invading Nazis in 1940, and thenmobilized French capital to supply theGerman army with tires.

“European” legislation on the “liberalization of publicmonopolies.”

Another proof? The behavior of Mesdames ClaraGaymard and Anne Lauvergeon, eager to drop theirpolitical postures to shamelessly sell themselves to therising financial powers.

Mittal Steel-Arcelor is, without doubt, the mostrevealing case of the high treason of our“elites.” Jacques Chirac himself, earlierthis year, had denounced this “purelyfinancial operation, devoid of any indus-trial objective.” However, given the envi-ronment that Chirac has let grow, it hashappened, with ineluctable logic.

Indeed, it was a friend of JacquesChirac, François Pinault, who support-ed Lakshmi Mittal, to whom he hadbeen introduced by Anne Meaux, thepress relations chief for both . . . as wellas for parts of the official French right.

According to press reports, the“Indian group” managed to “win the shareholders overby waving fistfuls of cash,” when it jacked up its bid to40.4 euros a share from 28 euros, thus placing the valueof Arcelor at 25.4 billion euros, compared with 18.6 bil-lion in late January.

Greed has thus won the day, as the biggest and bestEuropean high-quality steel manufacturer falls prey to agroup that may wear an Indian mask, but is, in fact,London-based, and quoted on the Amsterdam stockexchange—a satellite of the financial synarchy. Mittal’scurrent shareholders will acquire “only” 49.4% of thenew Mittal-Arcelor Group, and Arcelor’s shareholders

will own 50.6%. But an Arcelor executive, close to itschairman Guy Dollé, has stated that “whatever hap-pens, Mittal will be the Group’s main shareholder,”while Arcelor’s shareholders, who do not form a homo-geneous bloc, “will easily be dominated at stockholdermeetings.” In our “shareholder society,” the sharehold-ers do lay down the law.

Two points can be underlined here to show the fullscope of this disastrous choice.

First, in his attempt to counter Mittal, Guy Dollé hadgone to the Russian firm Severstal, led by AlexeiMordachov, who is close to Russian President VladimirPutin. Dollé has not changed his view, and continues tobelieve that the alliance with Mittal makes no sense froman industrial standpoint. But, like the French authorities,he was persuaded to cave in. Result: the legitimate dis-content of the Russian authorities. The daily newspaperKommersant, reflecting an official standpoint, reviewsthe consequences of the choice: “The decision, taken onthe eve of the G-8 summit [to be held at St. Petersburg]by a major European company . . . can seriously compli-cate relations between Russia and the EU.”

In fact, rather than support Putin, who now quotesFranklin Roosevelt as a policy example to his nation,France has chosen sides with the financial interestsengaged in dismantling our own nation!

Greed was not the “shareholders’ ” sole motive, but itappears that there was an overall political strategy atstake. Some basic facts throw more light on this: Onefinds on the Board of Directors of Mittal Steel LewisKaden and Wilbur Ross, together with the NathanielRothschild, who co-chairs a hedge fund known as

Atticus Partners, which is in the Lazardorbit.

In 1984, Kaden, assisted by EugeneKeilin and Joshua Gotbaum of LazardFrères, led the team that drafted a reportsigned by Felix Rohatyn, LaneKirkland, and Irving Shapiro, “TheReturn to American Competitiveness:Proposals for an Industrial Policy.” Thatreport served as the intellectual founda-tion for the “rationalization” (that is,takedown) of the U.S. steel industry.Kaden became vice chairman ofCitigroup, after the ISG-Mittal merger

(as we shall shortly see). But today, it is Citigroup thatlent Mittal the $9.5 billion needed to take over Arcelor!

As for Wilbur Ross, he has made wrecking the U.S.steel industry a particular line of expertise. After the first(1986) and second (2000) bankruptcy of the giant steelcompany LTV, Ross took over its Chicago and Clevelandproduction units to form the International Steel Group(ISG). LTV and ISG then proceeded to institute massivelayoffs, cut pensions, and reduce production. In 2003,after Kaden had recruited Steve Miller to be the chair-man of Bethlehem Steel, the latter sold off most of itssteel business to Ross. Ross Financial then sold ISG to . .

35

EIRNS/Karel Vereycken

Author Jacques Cheminade launching his Presidential campaignin Clichy, France, on Feb. 25, 2006. Cheminade urges hiscountrymen not to give the country to the Nazi finaciers again,but, as fighting French, to sweep aside the traitorous elites andinstitute a new economic order.

Lakshmi Mittal

. Mittal Steel! Along the way, naturally, there were moredownsizings and more plant closures. Steve Millerbecame chairman of the Delphi automobile parts, whichhe is dismantling, following a scheme drafted by . . .Felix Rohatyn and Rothschild Inc.!

It is essential now to review the three levels at whichthe industrial dismantling operates: the overall plan(Rohatyn-Kaden), the enforcement of the plan by Ross-Mittal-Rothschild, and finally its extension into Europe(the Arcelor takeover). The shareholder greed is nothingless than the expression of an overall political strategy.

Now, who are Arcelor’s “shareholders,” and who hasused them? It is Goldman Sachs, which was advisingArcelor and which led the revolt against Severstal along-side Nathaniel Rothschild. The latter, through AtticusPartners, owns 1.3% of Arcelor and 1.2% of Mittal! Andwho was first to jump on board? Other hedge funds, aswell as U.S. and British pension funds that ownedaround 30% of Arcelor. Among those funds, accordingto John Plender, writing in the Financial Times, wehave The Children’s Fund, Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, Deka,Centaurus, Heyman Investment Associates, and so on.In a nutshell, the so-called “independent” shareholderswere carefully managed and then thrown into the frayby a brutal and well-organized conglomerate. So muchfor “free and unbridled” competition!

No matter the sweet nothings murmured into the earof the gullible: Behind the Mittal-Arcelor merger loommassive closures and downsizing, not only in the U.S.Abut also in France.

Already, the London Metal Exchange (LME) andNew York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) intend to setup a world derivatives market for steel products. TheIndian Multi-Commodity Exchange already conductssimilar operations, and the Shanghai Futures Exchangewill do so shortly. Steel, the very essence of any long-term economic development, is handed over to short-term financial speculation; its fate is sealed.

Those who do not grasp that the logic behind theMittal-Arcelor merger derives from this “global” context,are useful fools. To realize this fully, let us turn now tothe Suez-Gaz de France deal.

Suez-GDFAllowing Gaz de France, the state’s natural gas con-

cern, to be absorbed by Suez, the giant water company,is tantamount to handing over “the vital interest of thenation” to an international firm dominated by the sametype of interests that control Mittal Steel. In promotingthis deal, the government not only has gone back on itsword, but also asks the Parliament to follow it. In princi-ple, by Act of Parliament dated July 22, 2004, the State’sshare of GDF’s capital was not to fall below 70%. But inthe new entity, the State will control only 40%! From apurely formal standpoint, it is GDF that would take overSuez, but Suez shareholders will de facto controlbetween 55 and 60% of the whole, which will be run byGerard Mestrallet, Suez’s current chairman.

Suez itself is a firm whose main shareholders andBoard of Directors are the aforesaid Mestrallet, LordSimon of Highbury, Albert Frère, Paul Desmarais,Viscount Etienne Davignon, and Anne Lauvergeon.On its Ethics, Environment, and SustainableDevelopment Committee, and on its RemunerationCommittee, sit Lord Simon of Highbury, EtienneDavignon, and Paul Desmarais.

Between 2001 and 2004, Felix Rohatyn sat on theSuez Board of Directors. In 2002, Rohatyn demanded ofMestrallet—who promptly caved in—that he ramthrough an “Action Plan” that involved sweeping auster-ity measures, the halving of investment, and massivedisinvestment. Basically, the concept was to make Suezinto a company controlling water management, and tak-ing over the energy sector: in short, to become a full-blown cartel, enjoying a stranglehold over the two fun-damental resources of any state.

Rohatyn has been backed up especially by PaulDesmarais and Albert Frère, the group’s main share-holder. In April 2002, Rohatyn was appointed to thegroup’s Audit Committee.

In October 2004, Mestrallet and Rohatyn convened aEuroplace Group conference in New York, to “boosttransatlantic investment.” The chairman of theManagement Board of Société Générale of Belgium, andof Suez, along with the man who has been behind thestrategic mergers and acquisitions since the early sixties(the strategy of Lazard, led by André Meyer, forrecartellization of industry) thus joined forces to runfinancial “globalization,” they themselves being the“brains” of the operation. Included are:

• Etienne Davignon, a Bilderberg Society member,chairman of Suez-Tractebel, and former chairman ofSociété Générale of Belgium, who drafted the notorious“Davignon plan,” pursuant to which the steel industry

36

EIRNS/Dan Sturman

Felix Rohatyn, agent of the French synarchy, is in the middle ofmoves to take over French industry.

(where one runs into Arcelor), first in Europe and thenin the U.S.A., was to be dismantled.

• Albert Frère, who is one of the Paris Bourse’s top40 (CAC 40) largest investors. With shares in Total andSuez, he punched his way into the capital of Lafarge(8%) and Eiffage (6.1%), and now runs the Bruxelles-Lambert Group (GBL), the strong-arm of his “financialprofits first and foremost” approach. He is a dear friendof Bernard Arnault (LVMH), with whom he purchasedthe top Cheval Blanc vineyard in Bordelais; he frequent-ly meets Alain Minc and especially the Canadian PaulDesmarais—without whom he never makes a move.

• Paul Desmarais, a Bruxelles Lambert GroupDirector, chair of the Sagard Private Equity PartnersCommittee in France, who is typical of the Canadian“comprador” class, a go-between for the U.S. finance oli-garchs and the Anglo-French-European synarchy.

• Anne Lauvergeon, who was at the Elysée Palaceunder François Mitterrand, and is now a partner atLazard Frères and a director at Total. She runs Areva,the French nuclear giant (see below). Her presence indi-cates that an early move is on the table to concentratethe entire French energy sector under a single umbrella.

• Yves Thibault de Silguy, himself a Lazard oldboy, who sits on Suez’s Executive Committee, with hisdouble-folio address book: that of his French Cabinet-Ministerial posts and that of a former EuropeanCommissioner.

This short survey lets us see the real nature of theSuez grab of Gaz de France. The deal was “sold” to pub-lic opinion by puffing up a putative risk of takeover bythe Italian energy concern ENEL, a company for whichAlain Minc himself serves as an advisor. The fear ofBeelzebub opened the door of the tavern to Satan!

The next stage, if no opposition is raised, will be toprivatize Electricité de France (EDF), which will soon be

confronted with a newly created energy giant, licensedto sell to private households, businesses, and localauthorities, thanks to Gaz de France’s 14-million-strongclient list. EDF will then need a partner to diversify—and lumbering over the horizon, comes Total-Elf-Fina,more than 50% owned by “non-resident” investmentfunds; that is, by Anglo-Americans. This way, the wholefinancial takeover will be accomplished and France willbe run lock, stock, and barrel, through its energy sector.

Nothing has been done to oppose the creation of avast public energy pole uniting EDF and GDF. Theauthorities have accepted the progressive dismantling,while spouting purple patriotic prose.

EuronextSteel, energy: At the same time, while trying to con-

vince us that Paris will become Europe’s “future finan-cial capital,” the current financial operation targetsEuronext, the federation of European stock markets(Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and Lisbon). Its alliancewith the New York Stock Exchange has been presentedas a “merger between equals,” while in truth, U.S. finan-cial interests will control 59% of its capital. The latterinterests intend to get into Europe—and the world—bysurfing on Europe’s laxer regulations, and seizing holdboth of the London derivatives market (LondonInternational Financial Futures and Options Exchange,or Liffe) and of Euronext’s extraordinary computer tech-nologies. Writing in Le Monde June 27, we findFrançois Bujon de l’Estang, a former FrenchAmbassador to Washington, and now chairman ofCitigroup in France (sounds familiar. . .), who warmlyadvocates the deal. In the best of all possible worlds,“The rapprochement with New York is a unique oppor-tunity for Paris to become Europe’s financial capitalwithin the world’s largest financial organization, as Felix

37

PRNewsFoto

Wilbur Ross, Jr. is an expert steel-industry wrecker. Now,as a director of Mittal Steel, he is aiming at Arcelor.

EC/Jan Van de Vel

Viscount Etienne Davignon of Suez-Tractebel, a Bilderberger and one of theSuez vultures who intend to eat up Gaz de France.

Rohatyn, former Ambassador of the United States toParis [sounds again familiar] recently underlined. . . .

“This is France’s great chance to become the center offinancial gravity for the Euro zone . . . the new group-ing’s international Head Offices will remain at Paris andAmsterdam for the spot market, and at London, forderivatives.”

Shotgun weddings, all, and all it shows is that thefinancial synarchy intends to move in massively on con-tinental Europe, while moving out of the U.S.A the high-ly speculative instruments of the system (Liffe, deriva-tives), to really be in a position to take the gloves offeverywhere in the world.

Renault, EADS, Lagardère, Fogeard,Alcatel-Lucent . . .

Other operations are to be inserted into this samepicture.

Carlos Ghosn, Renault-Nissan’s chairman, has justreceived an offer from General Motors (GM), via theunsavory billionaire Kirk Kerkorian of Tracinda fundfame, who became General Motors’ major shareholder,with 9.5% of its capital. The agreement will apparentlycover GM and Nissan. As it happens, GM is currentlybeing picked to the bone for hard cash by the financialsharks, for whom Kerkorian is a pilot fish!

The proposal, scurvy as it is, has been most amiablyreceived by Renault, which intends to give the “opportu-nity” close study; Renault and Nissan form “an openalliance that was never restricted to two partners” and“could be broadened.”

Kirk Kerkorian has gone so far as to suggest to CarlosGhosn to undertake a “profound restructuring” of GM,as he did with Nissan in Japan—cost-cutting, slashingwages, shredding pension plans.

Two aspects have to be underlined:First, Nissan, as it happens, already operates at

Canton, Mississippi, paying its workers so meagerly thatoutsourcing was unnecessary. As a U.S. trade unionist put

it, “They want to turn Mississippi into a Manchukuo.”This implies that if Ghosn moves in, a policy of systemat-ic wage cuts for GM workers is to be expected.

Second, Renault-Nissan has increasingly been drawninto Lazard Frères strategies, for which the latest turn ofevents is a further indicator. Franck Riboud, onRenault’s Board of Directors, spent his entire career atDanone thanks to Michel-David Weill, chairman ofLazard Frères. Franck’s father and friend to Michel-David Weill, Antoine Riboud (part of the transatlanticmilitary milieu, whose leisure hours are agreeably filledwith esotericism and telekinesis), was brother to JeanRiboud. It was Jean who introduced Felix Rohatyn toFrançois Mitterrand.

Another Renault Board member, François deCombret, has long been associated with Lazard Frèresand was among those who brought Carlos Ghosn into theRenault management. We unavoidably unravel the samenetwork of influence, when we identify the same policy.

At the same time, the French Alcatel (the world’s sec-ond largest telecommunications equipment group) ispurchasing the U.S. firm Lucent; the French group’sshareholders will own 60% of the new entity’s capital.However, in respect to management and “business cul-ture,” the new entity will be far more American thanFrench, and far more financial than American. Theoperational boss will be Lucent’s Patricia Russo, anAmerican who lives in Paris. Most of the capital will begripped firmly in the fist of Anglo-Saxon investmentfunds. Just as we have seen with Euronext and Suez-GDF, the strategy is crystal clear: The financial interestsand head office will be based at Paris, to become theoperational center for a multinational synarchy.

Many of France’s traditional social benefits are nowthreatened as well. This is “a pirates’ raid,” protestedDaniel Lebègue, former chairman of the Caisse desDepots et Consignations (CDC), in speaking of themoves to merge Ixis (the merchant bank of the savingsbanks) with Natexis (the merchant bank for the so-

38

Nissan’s CEO CarlosGhosn (standing oncar) at the company’sCanton, Mississippiauto plant, where hehas shredded wagesand benefits. Now thislizard has his clawspointed at GeneralMotors.

Sir HenryDeterding, Royal

Dutch Shellchairman, whoadmired Hitler

and financed theNazi Party, via his

Lazard banker.

called Banques Populaires). Leading the merger attemptis Darius Milhaud, the boss of the Caisse Nationale desCaisses d’Epargne (CNCE), and Philippe Dupont,chairman of the Banques Populaires. The merger wouldbe the death-knell for the Livret A public savingsaccount, which would mean the end of the “Frenchexception,” which gave high rates to public savingsaccounts while using the funds to generate credit forpublic housing projects.

Philippe Dupont is most keen upon getting rid of theLivret A. Milhaud and Dupont suggest that the CDC,which manages the funds collected through the Livret A,withdraw from the CNCE’s capital, in this way forcingits privatization. A friend in need is a friend indeed: TheEuropean Commission has of course opened an enquiryinto the Livret A’s “monopoly” position, after a com-plaint was filed by the Crédit Agricole and other banks.

The game is to strip the nation-state of each andevery economic tool heretofore at its disposal, andreduce it to an enforcement agency for policies madeelsewhere.

It is in front of this dispossession of the wealth of thestate, that unbelievable profits of stock options andsalaries proliferate for the top brass of the companies.Before World War I, the banker J.P. Morgan, not exact-ly a philanthropist, stated that a company’s boss shouldnever earn more than 20 times the wage he pays a work-er. But Antoine Zacharias, the Vinci chairman, hasgrabbed 250 million euros since 2001—this represents5,770 years of average wage for one of his own employ-ees, and is 17,000 times the minimum wage.

Noël Forgeard at European Aeronautic Defence andSpace Company (EADS) sold his stock options in Marchat the key moment in time, raking in profits of morethan 3.7 million euros. He did this, although at thattime, he had to know—as the trade unions themselvesknew—of the fact that EADS production of the A-380had fallen behind schedule, and that the share price wasabout to go through the floor. Insider trading? Oh no,lisps Forgeard—like Arnaud Lagardère, who also bysome miracle, sold half the 15% of EADS shares held byhis group. No, it is a simple matter of “incompetence”for the first, and pure chance for the second!

Forget the idea that those were individual moves;these are nothing but symptoms of a global predatorystrategy for which corruption is but an instrument.

Clara Gaymard and Anne LauvergeonThe treason of our elites is manifest in two extreme

cases, those of Clara Gaymard and Anne Lauvergeon.Gaymard is the daughter of Professor Jerome Lejeuneand wife of Hervé Gaymard, the former EconomicsMinister who hastily left his post after a property scan-dal. She was the president of the French internationalinvestment agency (Agence Française desInvestissements Internationaux or AFII), and has nowresigned to head General Electric France (GE). Here wehave a high-ranking civil servant, responsible for promot-

ing foreign investment into France, elbowing her way upto the trough, by joining one of the very firms that sheearlier promoted! GE is the world’s second largest com-mercial enterprise, seventh-largest contractor to thePentagon, and one of the Republican Party’s maindonors. Now you begin to understand why Mrs. Lejeune-Gaymard, Mr. Gaymard, and their friend DominiquePerben so obsessively opposed me personally (cf. ClaraLejeune, La vie est un bonheur, Criterion, pp. 72-73).

In respect to Anne Lauvergeon, even if she supposed-ly belongs on the other side of the political spectrum,having been François Mitterrand’s little “sherpa,” thefact remains that she too is busy betraying the nationalinterest: She has arranged to have the neo-conservativeSpencer Abraham lead the U.S. subsidiary of Areva,thereby placing the keys of France’s nuclear industryinto the sweaty palm of a former U.S. Secretary ofEnergy and eminent member of the Federalist Society.That Society has defended the “unitary executive” theo-ry, one purporting to justify virtually unlimited powersfor the U.S. President in the event of conflict—such asthe alleged “War on Terror.” The men behind theFederalist Society are disciples of Carl Schmitt, the“crown-jurist” of Hitler’s Reich. Slightly embarrassing!

Stopping Today’s NazisWhat we face here, in all its shapes and sizes, and

what has to be stopped overnight if France wants toavoid being under the control of a financial synarchy, isa blatant return to the bad moral habits of the 1930s,after the crash of 1929. In 1954, a report published onLazard Frères reads: “When von Ribbentrop [Hitler’sForeign Minister] came to Paris on December 6, 1938 tosign a good-neighbor agreement with Georges Bonnet,Foreign Minister in the Daladier Government, a dinnerwas held at the Quai d’Orsay, attended by DanielSerruys of Lazard. At the time, André Meyer, the newmanaging partner of Lazard, entertained excellent rela-tions with Georges Bonnet, and supported him at thetime of Munich agreements.”

Lazard was the banker of Royal Dutch Shell, whosechairman, Sir Henry Deterding, had financed the NaziParty. Until France was actually invaded, André Meyersat on the sidelines observing Hitler, while weaving atight web with Banque Worms, the central pole of theAnglo-Franco-German synarchy, and the instrument ofFrance’s “strange defeat.” Meyer left for the U.S.A in1940, after France was occupied, and took over Lazardin New York. On July 27, 1944, the U.S. military attachéat Algiers reported back to Washington that financialcircles favorable to collaboration with the Nazis had, lit-tle by little, infiltrated Free France. In the appendix, thereport supplied a list of roughly 80 persons and institu-tions, the hard core of the synarchy. Among themappear Banque Lazard and one of its representatives—André Meyer. In the late 1950s, Meyer moved into merg-ers and acquisitions, recartellization. In undertaking there-creation of the cartels, Meyer’s friend and main asso-

39

ciate, whom he considered as a son, was Felix Rohatyn.Doesn’t the Arabic proverb say that “the dog alwaysreturns to its own vomit”?

We find Rohatyn again on our national scene, whenhe was U.S. Ambassador to Paris between 1997 and2001. He sat on the Suez Board of Directors, andremains to this day on the Board of LVMH (BernardArnault again), and the Board of the Lagardère Group(again) and of Publicis.

Since treachery seems to have become a bad habit ofour elites in times of crisis, isn’t it urgent this time toreplace them, and even to sweep them away, helped by a

fresh wind blowing from America?—not Bush, norCheney, nor the very opportunistic Hillary Clinton, butthe coalition of forces which Lyndon LaRouche isinspiring on that side of the Atlantic.

Time is overripe for a new economic and monetaryorder worldwide, to restore man’s labor, along with thespirit of discovery and improvement of nature, as anabsolute priority, at the expense of the financial para-sitism we have just described, which carries in its wombthe “universal fascism” shamelessly described by theunadorned words of the American neo-conservativeMichael Ledeen.

Paid for by the Lyndon LaRouche PAC, P.O. Box 6157, Leesburg, VA 20178.www.larouchepac.com and Not Authorized by Any Candidate or Candidate's Committee

LaRouche PAC On the Internet: www.larouchepac.com call toll-free: 1-800-929-7566For more information, call:

Northern Virginia 703-779-2150

Washington, D.C. 202-232-6004

Baltimore, MD 410-747-3817Boston, MA 617-350-0040

Chicago, IL 773-404-4848

Detroit, MI 313-592-3945

Hackensack, NJ 201-441-4888

Houston, TX 713-541-2907

Los Angeles, CA 323-259-1860

Norfolk, VA 757-587-3885

Oakland, CA 510-251-2518

Philadelphia, PA 610-734-7080

Seattle, WA 206-417-2363

Two of the World War II U.S. intelligence documents obtained by EIR researchers from the National Archives, which demonstrate thesophisticated understanding at the time of the role of the Synarchist International in directing the Nazi-Fascist axis.