Visit the Active Site for U.S. Politics Online -- U.S. Politics Online . com

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 92

Thread: Is the USA fascist?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by liberal4
    There is NOTHING difficult about that concept. It is so blantly transparent even YOU should understand that Mussolini misused the term for his own means.
    If you read the definition I provided you, you would see that your assertion is not the case. In addition, even if Mussolini warped the word to his own uses thats besides the point! You have to go by what HE meant by corporation. I don't really understand what you are arguing. I don't think you read my posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by liberal4
    Thatcher was never considered "Liberal" in her actions or self deffinition. That is a flat out lie. As a matter of fact, during her reign of terror, it was a common statement made by Brits, that Thatcher was the most fascist of her day. They considered her the British Nixon.
    Will you please research things before calling someone a liar? And stop throwing the word fascist around so freely, its vulgar.

    From Wikipedia.org:

    Classical liberalism is a political ideology that originated in the 19th century. It is often seen as being the typical ideology of the industrial revolution and the subsequent capitalist system. Ideas such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of thought were first proposed by classical liberal thinkers, before they were also adopted by thinkers of other ideologies. The influence of classical liberalism has been so widespread that the majority of Western countries are considered to be liberal democracies.

    The key characteristics of classical liberalism:

    The importance of the individual
    Freedom
    Reason
    Justice
    Toleration and diversity
    [edit]
    Thinkers
    As the industrial revolution began in the United Kingdom, so did the first conceptions of liberalism. The first liberal philosopher was John Locke (1632-1704) who defended religious freedom in his important work A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). However, he would not extend his views on religious freedom to Catholics.

    Locke was responsible for the idea of "natural rights" which he saw as "life, liberty and property". Natural Rights theory was the forerunner of the modern conception of human rights. To Locke, property was a more compelling natural right than the right to participate in collective decision-making: he would not endorse democracy in government, as he feared that the "tyranny of the majority" would seek to deny people their rights to property. Nevertheless, the idea of natural rights played a key role in providing the ideological justification for the (at least moderately democratizing) American revolution and French revolution.

    The main economist of classical liberalism was the Scotsman Adam Smith (1723-1790), who broadly advocated the doctrine of "laissez-faire" or "let [it] act" -- minimal government or command intervention in the function of the economy. Adam Smith developed a theory of motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interestedness with unregulated social order (mainly done in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)). His most famous work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), tried to explain how an unregulated market would naturally regulate itself via the "invisible hand" of aggregated individual decisions.

    American thinkers were also heavily influenced by liberal ideas. Both the third and fourth Presidents of the United States, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and James Madison (1751-1836), put the Liberal movement's ideas into practice. Not only did they set up a liberal democracy, they also furthered liberal ideology's influence on the American system of government, by advocating a system of checks and balances, federal states' rights and a bicameral legislature (two-chambered, like the US Congress' Senate and House of Representatives.) The seminal exposition of Liberal values in American govenrment is The Federalist (1788), more commonly known as The Federalist Papers, by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.

    [edit]
    Classical liberalism today
    John Stuart Mill (J.S. Mill, 1806-1873) was influential in developing modern concepts of classical liberalism. He opposed collectivist tendencies but also placed emphasis on quality of life for the individual. He also had sympathy for female suffrage and (later in life) co-operatives -- positions which were, however, made somewhat unclear by his support of the British Raj, or British colonialism in India.

    Two groups, libertarians and neo-liberals (such as Margaret Thatcher), also claim the ideological inheritance of classical liberalism. These political philosophies are notable for focusing on the notion of "freedom" as it applies to the market. Some argue that this conflicts with classical liberal ideas and that even Adam Smith recognised the limitations of the free market as a sole means of social organization.

    Classical liberalism in its various interpretations remains one of the most pervasive ideologies in the world to this day.
    "quod nihil illi deerat ad regnandum praeter regnum"

  2. #82
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wounded Knee
    Posts
    506

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by phonographovich
    If you read the definition I provided you, you would see that your assertion is not the case. In addition, even if Mussolini warped the word to his own uses thats besides the point! You have to go by what HE meant by corporation. I don't really understand what you are arguing. I don't think you read my posts.




    Will you please research things before calling someone a liar? And stop throwing the word fascist around so freely, its vulgar.

    From Wikipedia.org:
    As I said before, one single word, and so many facets to it.

    "American capitalism, based as it is on exploitation of the poor, with its fundamental motivation in personal greed, simply cannot survive without force."
    Philip Agee, CIA Diary

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    From wikipedia.org


    In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. ...For the Fascist, everything is within the State and ... neither individuals or groups are outside the State. ...For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."
    Fascism also seems to have a degree of nihilism:
    Me ne frego, "I don't care,"
    "quod nihil illi deerat ad regnandum praeter regnum"

  4. #84
    liberal4 is offline Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    dallas
    Posts
    1,878

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by phonographovich
    If you read the definition I provided you, you would see that your assertion is not the case. In addition, even if Mussolini warped the word to his own uses thats besides the point! You have to go by what HE meant by corporation. I don't really understand what you are arguing. I don't think you read my posts.




    Will you please research things before calling someone a liar? And stop throwing the word fascist around so freely, its vulgar.

    From Wikipedia.org:
    I have read every single of your post word for word. I never called you a liar, I said you were lying.

    You are short sighted about the term liberalism, how it began, and even where it came from.

    I don't have the time to give you a complete history lesson but in short: Liberalism came from Greek Hero theory which defied the birth station idea. It has manefested in the opposition of religious or devine monarchal ruling class oppressing the freedoms of humankind. In every step of history the conservatives have used "Devine Right" as the basis of actions against humankind. They misuse terms like ethics and morallity, free enterprize, and patriotism, as monikers andfalse reasoning for their dominance.

    I don't oppose or take exception for you restating what Mussolini said, I oppose you dictating to me and others that it was an accepted definition of the term (corporation), it was not and was merely a propagandous perversion.

    I did take exception of your condesention and dictates, both are unwarranted. Just because Mussolini said and meant something doesn't change the meaning of something.

    Corporation as a term has always meant an arrangement of ownership and nothing else.

    So you keep giving me grief just because I took you to task of fact. I even read your condesention toward me in your post to other posters. You are completely out of bounds in these actions.

    If indeed you define yourself as a liberal then you would be vigilant in making sure that truths and facts are not polluted by propaganda and false statements which includes perversions of the truth. Misrepresentation of terms or false definition is just such a perversion. You know as well as I that Hitler, GWB, Mussolini and all fascist misuse, misdefine, and even make up words of nonsense to confuse for their own means.

    You have by eihter ignorance or stupidity furthered this effort by participaction. You should have pointed out that Mussolinis statements and beliefs were propaganda and perversions that have nothing to do with truth.

    Do the words of advice "consider the source" ring a bell. If Rush Limbaugh told you that he was a liberal would you require that we all accept it as truth, furthermore would you ask, NO DEMAND, us to accept his new definition of liberal? If we do not would you say that we do not know history?

    These are the falacies of your statements.

  5. #85
    liberal4 is offline Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    dallas
    Posts
    1,878

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by phonographovich
    From wikipedia.org



    Fascism also seems to have a degree of nihilism:
    Me ne frego, "I don't care,"

    Well this post has NO relevance WHAT SO EVER!!!!

  6. #86
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wounded Knee
    Posts
    506

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by liberal4
    I have read every single of your post word for word. I never called you a liar, I said you were lying.

    You are short sighted about the term liberalism, how it began, and even where it came from.

    I don't have the time to give you a complete history lesson but in short: Liberalism came from Greek Hero theory which defied the birth station idea. It has manefested in the opposition of religious or devine monarchal ruling class oppressing the freedoms of humankind. In every step of history the conservatives have used "Devine Right" as the basis of actions against humankind. They misuse terms like ethics and morallity, free enterprize, and patriotism, as monikers andfalse reasoning for their dominance.

    I don't oppose or take exception for you restating what Mussolini said, I oppose you dictating to me and others that it was an accepted definition of the term (corporation), it was not and was merely a propagandous perversion.

    I did take exception of your condesention and dictates, both are unwarranted. Just because Mussolini said and meant something doesn't change the meaning of something.

    Corporation as a term has always meant an arrangement of ownership and nothing else.

    So you keep giving me grief just because I took you to task of fact. I even read your condesention toward me in your post to other posters. You are completely out of bounds in these actions.

    If indeed you define yourself as a liberal then you would be vigilant in making sure that truths and facts are not polluted by propaganda and false statements which includes perversions of the truth. Misrepresentation of terms or false definition is just such a perversion. You know as well as I that Hitler, GWB, Mussolini and all fascist misuse, misdefine, and even make up words of nonsense to confuse for their own means.

    You have by eihter ignorance or stupidity furthered this effort by participaction. You should have pointed out that Mussolinis statements and beliefs were propaganda and perversions that have nothing to do with truth.

    Do the words of advice "consider the source" ring a bell. If Rush Limbaugh told you that he was a liberal would you require that we all accept it as truth, furthermore would you ask, NO DEMAND, us to accept his new definition of liberal? If we do not would you say that we do not know history?

    These are the falacies of your statements.
    Strong reply to me.

  7. #87
    liberal4 is offline Joint Chiefs of Staff Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    dallas
    Posts
    1,878

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by dharma4all
    Strong reply to me.
    I don't understand your post here. To whom and what are you responding to?

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    314

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    Quote Originally Posted by liberal4
    I have read every single of your post word for word. I never called you a liar, I said you were lying.
    Stupid semantics. It means the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by liberal4
    You are short sighted about the term liberalism, how it began, and even where it came from.

    I don't have the time to give you a complete history lesson but in short: Liberalism came from Greek Hero theory which defied the birth station idea. It has manefested in the opposition of religious or devine monarchal ruling class oppressing the freedoms of humankind. In every step of history the conservatives have used "Devine Right" as the basis of actions against humankind. They misuse terms like ethics and morallity, free enterprize, and patriotism, as monikers andfalse reasoning for their dominance.
    Fine! This doesn't disprove what I said about "liberalism" meaning different things. It is a FACT that the liberal party in Australia is Right Wing and a FACT that Margaret Thatcher was called a "neo-liberal".

    On the main point, this has nothing to with considering sources. I was asking dharma4all to consider the context of the quote as proof of a point. As you will see in the encyclopedia definition of corporatism that I will post AGAIN, corporatism had a different meaning than the modern sense and in the context of the time and what Mussolini was referring to it is this, a political movement and philsophical concept, with roots prior to fascism entirely. The word corporation comes from the latin word, corpus for body. The corporatist doctrine called for the organization of society by such bodies. The fascists adopted this as a replacement for civil societ. Please read the defintion I am appending here before you call me a fascist dupe and a perverter of words:


    Corporatism
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative representation is given to industries or professional and economic groups. Ostensibly, the entire society is to be run by decisions collectively made by these groups. It is a form of class collaboration put forward as an alternative to class conflict and was first proposed in Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum which influenced Catholic trade unions which were organised in the early twentieth century to counter the influence of trade unions founded on a socialist ideology. The Vatican's ideas were also influential in the development of fascist economic theory.

    Under Fascism in Italy, employers were organized into syndicates known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body known as the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni.

    According to various theorists corporatism was an attempt to create a "modern" version of feudalism by merging the "corporate" interests with those of the state. Also see neofeudalism.

    This use of the term "corporation" is not exactly equivalent to the restricted modern sense of the word. Compare corporate state and militarism. Corporate in this context is intended to convey the meaning of a "body," as in corpus. Its fundamental concept is to reflect more medieval European concepts of a whole society in which the various parts each play a part in the life of the society, just as the various parts of the body play specific parts in the life of a body.

    Some elements of corporatism can be found still existing today, for example in the ILO Conference or in the Economic and Social Committee of the European Union, or the collective agreement arrangements of the Scandinavian countries.
    And no, there are no "falacies" in my statements.
    "quod nihil illi deerat ad regnandum praeter regnum"

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wounded Knee
    Posts
    506

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    The Fascist Roots Of the Wolfowitz Cabal



    by Jeffrey Steinberg
    May 27, 2003
    The report provided a brief history: "The Synarchist movement is an international movement born after the Versailles Treaty, which was financed and directed by certain financial groups belonging to the top international banking community. Its aim is essentially to overthrow in every country, where they exist, the parliamentary regimes which are considered insufficiently devoted to the interests of these groups and therefore, too difficult to control because of the number of persons required to control them.
    "SME proposes therefore to substitute them by authoritarian regimes more docile and more easily manueverable. Power would be concentrated in the hands of the CEOs of industry and in designated representatives of chosen banking groups for each country. In a word, the idea is to give to each country a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure organized for the following purposes:
    "1. Place the political power directly into the hands of chosen people and eliminate all intermediaries. 2. Establish a maximum concentration of industries and suppress all unwarranted competition. 3. Establish an absolute control of prices of all goods (raw materials, semi-finished or finished goods). 4. Create judicial and social institutions that would prevent all extremes of action."...

    In 1922, Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi launched the Pan European Union, at a founding convention in Vienna, attended by more than 6,000 delegates. Railing against the "Bolshevist menace" in Russia, the Venetian Count called for the dissolution of all the nation-states of Western Europe and the erection of a single, European feudal state, modeled on the Roman and Napoleonic empires. "There are Europeans," Coudenhove-Kalergi warned, who are "naïve enough to believe that the opposition between the Soviet Union and Europe can be bridged by the inclusion of the Soviet Union in the United States of Europe. These Europeans need only to glance at the map to persuade themselves that the Soviet Union in its immensity can, with the help of the [Communist] Third International, very quickly prevail over little Europe. To receive this Trojan horse into the European union would lead to perpetual civil war and the extermination of European culture. So long, therefore, as there is any will to survive subsisting in Europe, the idea of linking the Soviet Union with Pan Europe must be rejected. It would be nothing less than the suicide of Europe."
    Elsewhere, Coudenhove-Kalergi echoed the contemporaneous writings of British Fabian Roundtable devotees H.G. Wells and Lord Bertrand Russell, declaring: "This eternal war can end only with the constitution of a world republic.... The only way left to save the peace seems to be a politic of peaceful strength, on the model of the Roman Empire, that succeeded in having the longest period of peace in the west thanks to the supremacy of his legions."
    The launching of the Pan European Union was bankrolled by the Venetian-rooted European banking family, the Warburgs. Max Warburg, scion of the German branch of the family, gave Coudenhove-Kalergi 60,000 gold marks to hold the founding convention. Even more revealing, the first mass rally of the Pan European Union in Berlin, at the Reichstag, was addressed by Hjalmar Schacht, later the Reichsbank head, Economics Minister and chief architect of the Hitler coup. A decade later, in October 1932, Schacht delivered a major address before another PanEuropa event, in which he assured Coudenhove-Kalergi and the others, "In three months, Hitler will be in power.... Hitler will create PanEuropa. Only Hitler can create PanEuropa."
    According to historical documents, Italy's Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was initially skeptical about the PanEuropa idea, but was "won over" to the scheme, following a meeting with Coudenhove-Kalergi, during which, in the Count's words, "I gave him a complete harvest of Nietzsche's quotes for the United States of Europe.... My visit represented a shift in the behavior of Mussolini towards PanEuropa. His opposition disappeared."
    At the founding congress of the Pan European Union in Vienna, the backdrop behind the podium was adorned with portraits of the movement's leading intellectual icons: Immanuel Kant, Napoleon Bonaparte, Giuseppe Mazzini, and Friedrich Nietzsche.
    Bankers' Fascism
    The pivotal role of Schacht in the Hitler coup and in the Pan European Union, highlights a critical dimension of the universal fascist scheme: the top-down role of the financial "overworld" and its banking technocrats. By all historical accounts, Schacht was the architect, in 1930, of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), along with the Bank of England's Montagu Norman. Historian Carroll Quigley, in his epic book, Tragedy and Hope—A History of the World in Our Time (New York: MacMillan Company, 1966), described the BIS scheme to establish a dictatorship over world finance:
    "The powers of financial capital had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
    Quigley highlighted the role of Schacht's closest ally in the BIS scheme, Bank of England Governor Norman, who headed the privately owned British institution for an unprecedented 24 years (1920-44). "Norman was a strange man," Quigley reported, "whose mental outlook was one of successfully suppressed hysteria or even paranoia. He had no use for governments and feared democracy. Both of these seemed to him to be threats to private banking, and thus to all that was proper and precious in human life. Strong-willed, tireless, and ruthless, he viewed his life as a kind of cloak-and-dagger struggle with the forces of unsound money which were in league with anarchy and Communism."
    Montagu Norman and Hjalmar Schacht personified the banking overworld, that bankrolled and installed Hitler and the Nazis in power, in pursuit of their larger, universal fascist scheme.
    Even more damning were the profiles of Schacht and Norman and their role in the Hitler project, in The Hitler Book, by a Schiller Institute research team, headed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1984):
    "The BIS, nominally set up after the breakdown of 'normal' international financial relations in order to prevent a downward spiraling of international payments, in fact finished off the hapless Weimar Republic by its stern refusal to come to the help of a virtually bankrupt Germany in the crucial summer of 1931, after the Danat Bank collapse had brought the whole nation to its knees. Schacht, who had been a member of the original BIS team and was to return to its board from 1933 through 1938, had been campaigning since his 1930 resignation as head of the Reichsbank, for Anglo-American support for a takeover by the NSDAP [Nazi Party] and its leader, Herr Hitler. He had resigned on March 7, 1930 and the BIS was formally established in June. In September, he was off to London and the United States, to 'sell' the Nazi option to the Anglo-American leadership, notably Bank of England governor and BIS director Montagu Norman, and the already influential Dulles brothers of Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, one of America's most influential—and the attorneys for IG Farben, and many other large German companies and provincial governments. Schacht's Hamburg friend and colleague, patrician Nazi Gerhard Westrick, ran the correspondent law firm to Dulles's in Germany."
    On March 16, 1933, a grateful Hitler brought Schacht back as head of the Reichsbank, explained The Hitler Book. A year later, Schacht was made Economics Minister. "Now, the BIS was going to help the Third Reich—by 1939 it had no less than several hundred million Swiss gold francs invested in Germany. On the BIS board were Baron Kurt von Schröder, by now a general in the SS Death's Head Brigade; Dr. Hermann Schmitz of IG Farben—whom Schacht had trained at the imperial economics ministry from 1915 on—and, later, Hitler's two personal appointees, Walter Funk and Emil Puhl of the Reichsbank."
    File: 'Synarchist/Nazi-Communist'
    The larger universal fascist schema, into which the Norman-Schacht "Hitler project" fit, was well known to leading American intelligence, military, and diplomatic figures of the Franklin Roosevelt era, who maintained exhaustive files under such headings as "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist."
    U.S. government archives from the FDR era, which were made available to EIR researchers, feature extensive intelligence reports on the international fascist plots, from the files of the U.S. State Department; U.S. Army Intelligence and Navy Intelligence; and the Coordinator of Information (COI), and its successor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). These files are of immediate relevance today, given the ongoing coup d'état in Washington by the disciples of Leo Strauss, Alexandre Kojève, and Carl Schmitt inside the George W. Bush Administration. Kojève and Schmitt were leading figures in the wartime "Synarchist" conspiracy, and they personified the perpetuation of that universal fascist plan and apparatus into the postwar period.
    Already, following EIR's lead, major American and European newspapers have identified such putschists as Paul Wolfowitz, Abram Shulsky, William Kristol, John Ashcroft, Steve Cambone, and Gary Schmitt as the offspring of the late University of Chicago Prof. Leo Strauss; Strauss, in turn, was the life-long collaborator and promoter of Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt, official Nazi philosopher and Nietzsche revivalist Martin Heidegger, and French Synarchist Alexandre Kojève—all unabashed advocates of tyranny as the only appropriate form of government. Although the May 4 Sunday New York Times feature off-handedly mentions Kojève as Strauss's colleague, without further identification, all of the major media coverage has been sanitized of any discussion of the overtly fascist/Synarchist roots of the Straussian creed.
    Nevertheless, there are growing indications that some elements within the U.S. political institutions—particularly the military and intelligence communities, which comprise an important element of what Lyndon LaRouche refers to as "the institution of the U.S. Presidency"—are waking up to the cruel reality that a small group of universal fascists has seized the reins of power and is steering an ill-equipped President George W. Bush, the United States, and the rest of the world into a maelstrom of perpetual war and chaos.
    A timely review of the history of the 20th-Century Synarchists is, therefore, in order, to enable those political circles already shocked into action, to understand the nature of the enemy, and exploit the greatest weakness of these Straussian would-be putschists—their open embrace of universal fascism, otherwise known as "Synarchism."

    to be continued....

  10. #90
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wounded Knee
    Posts
    506

    Default Re: Is the USA fascist?

    ...continued article

    The Langer Study
    As EIR reported on May 9 ("Dick Cheney Has a French Connection—To Fascism"), in 1947, OSS veteran and Harvard Prof. William L. Langer assembled the official history of the Roosevelt Administration's dealings with Vichy France. Our Vichy Gamble was based on an exhaustive review of wartime archives, buttressed by interviews with top American officials, including OSS head Gen. William Donovan and President Franklin Roosevelt himself.
    Langer minced no words in discussing the Synarchist circles in Vichy France. Referring to Adm. Jean François Darlan, who, along with Pierre Laval, was among the most notorious of the Vichy collaborationists with the Nazis, Langer wrote: "Darlan's henchmen were not confined to the fleet. His policy of collaboration with Germany could count on more than enough eager supporters among French industrial and banking interests—in short, among those who even before the war, had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked to Hitler as the savior of Europe from Communism.... These people were as good fascists as any in Europe.... Many of them had long had extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were still dreaming of a new system of 'synarchy,' which meant government of Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of financiers and industrialists."
    EIR is in possession of many of the documents that Langer reviewed, in preparing Our Vichy Gamble. They offer an in-depth study of a fascist apparatus, whose European-wide tentacles extended into France, Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands—and, across the Atlantic, inside the United States. One particularly revealing document, prepared by the Coordinator of Information in November 1940, focussed on the Synarchist strategy towards England and America. The document was called, "Synarchie and the Policy of the Banque Worms Group."
    The unnamed author began, "In recent reports there have been several references to the growing political power of the Banque Worms group in France, which includes amongst its members such ardent collaborationists as Pucheu, Benoist-Mechin, Leroy-Ladurie, Bouthillier, and representatives of big French industrial organizations." Under the subtitle, "Similarity of aims of 'Synarchie' and Banque Worms," the report continued, "The reactionary movement known as 'Synarchie' has been in existence in France for nearly a century. Its aim has always been to carry out a bloodless revolution, inspired by the upper classes, aimed at producing a form of government by 'technicians,' under which home and foreign policy would be subordinated to international economy. The aims of the Banque Worms group are the same as those of 'Synarchie,' and the leaders of the two groups are, in most cases, identical."
    The "Banque Worms group" was closely allied with the Lazard banking interests in Paris, London, and New York, and with Royal Dutch Shell's Henri Deterding. Hippolyte Worms, the bank's founder, was one of 12 initial Synarchist Movement of Empire (SME) members, according to other French police and intelligence reports.
    The report itemized the aims of the Synarchists, as of August 1940: "to check any new social schemes which might tend to weaken the power of the international financiers and industrialists; to work for the ultimate complete control of all industry by international finance and industry; to protect Jewish and Anglo-Saxon interests; ... to take advantage of Franco-German collaboration to conclude a series of agreements with German industries, thereby establishing a solid community of interests between French and German industrialists, which will tend to strengthen the hands of international finance and industry; ... to effect a fusion with Anglo-Saxon industry after the war."
    The author of the COI study reported, "There is reason to believe that both [Hermann] Göring and Dr. [Walther] Funk are in sympathy with these aspirations," and that "Some headway is claimed to have been made in securing the adhesion of big U.S. industry to the movement."
    Beaverbrook and Hoare
    The COI study's segment regarding "Policy in regard to Great Britain," elaborated the following Synarchist plan: "To bring about the fall of the Churchill Government by creating the belief in the country that a more energetic government is needed to prosecute the war; it is recognized that an effective means of creating suspicion of the Government's efficiency would be to induce the resignation of Lord Beaverbrook; to bring about the formation of a new Government including Sir Samuel Hoare, Lord Beaverbrook and Mr. Hore-Belisha. (Note. The source has added that in the Worms group it is believed that those circles in Great Britain who are favorably disposed to their plan, are most critical of Mr. Churchill, Lord Halifax and Captain Margesson.); through the medium of Sir Samuel Hoare to bring about an agreement between British industry and the Franco-German 'bloc'; to protect Anglo-Saxon interests on the continent; to reach an agreement for the cessation of the reciprocal bombing of industrial centers. (Note. The source has added that Göring is reputed to have signified his entire approval of this project.)"
    The naming of Lord Beaverbrook and Sir Samuel Hoare, two leading figures in the British Roundtable group, as Synarchist collaborators is of great significance, indicating that American intelligence, from no later than 1940, was tracking the high-level British involvement in the scheme for a postwar universal fascist "Europe of the oligarchs," along precisely the lines spelled out in Count Coudenhove-Kalergi's "Synarchist" manifesto, founding the Pan European Union. Indeed, other U.S. intelligence wartime documents identified the PEU as a project of the European Synarchist secret brotherhood. The Synarchist Movement of Empire (SME), according to various accounts in the wartime U.S. files, was founded in 1917 or 1922, and the first two major "projects" of the Synarchists were Mussolini's March on Rome and the launching of the Pan Europa movement.
    Back on the British front: Sir Samuel Hoare was a leading figure in British intelligence, having been posted to Russia during the period of the Bolshevik Revolution, where he had a personal hand in the assassination of Grigori Rasputin, after Rasputin had warned that Russian participation in World War I would surely lead to the fall of the Romanovs. Hoare was the leading British military intelligence case-officer for instigating the overthrow of the Tsar and the Russian Revolution. He personified the upper echelons of what U.S. intelligence files characterized as the "Synarchist/Nazi-Communist" group. In his capacity as Foreign Secretary in 1935, he had negotiated the Hoare-Laval agreement, by which Great Britain and France mutually accepted Mussolini's conquest by invasion of Abyssinia, a major act of appeasement. He later served as British ambassador to Francisco Franco's Spain, and, according to several biographical accounts, remained secretly on Lord Beaverbrook's payroll as a policy advisor. Hoare, later "Lord Templewood," was also a leading British promoter of Frank Buchman and the Moral Rearmament Movement, the antecedent to Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church (see EIR, Dec. 20, 2002).
    The case of Lord Beaverbrook (Max Aitken) has even more profound and enduring implications, given that two of the leading financial-political propagandists for today's neo-conservative revolution in Washington—press magnates Lord Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch—are Beaverbrook protégés. The Australian Murdoch, on graduating Oxford, did an apprenticeship at Beaverbrook's London Daily Express, which Murdoch referred affectionately to as "Beaverbrook's brothel."
    For Black, the connection ran deeper—through the wartime British secret intelligence high command. Conrad Black's father, George Montagu Black, worked directly under the Beaverbrook chain of command during World War II, when Beaverbrook was Minister of Aircraft Production, and when Black and Edward Plunkett Taylor ran the Canadian front company War Supplies, Ltd. out of the Willard Hotel in Washington, coordinating all British-American-Canadian military procurement arrangements. The $1.3 billion garnered by Taylor and Black from their wartime "private" arms deals provided the seed money for G.M. Black's postwar launching of the Argus Corp., which, today, is the Hollinger Corp. media cartel of Conrad Black.
    Beaverbrook's transformation, from a leading promoter of an Anglo-German alliance following Hitler's takeover, to a leading war cabinet official, following Hitler's attack on Britain, was nothing short of miraculous. In 1935, when Hoare had conducted the secret negotiations with Laval, Beaverbrook had accompanied the Foreign Secretary on the trip and conducted his own back-channel work to assure positive media coverage of the deal in both England and France. That year, Beaverbrook traveled to Rome and Berlin for personal meetings with Mussolini and Hitler. A year later, Beaverbrook was the guest of Hitler's Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, at the Munich Olympic Games.
    But the most famous part that Beaverbrook played in the Hitler saga, had to do with the 1933 Reichstag fire—the arson attack on the Weimar Republic's parliament—which consolidated Hitler's death grip on absolute power. Beaverbrook had posted a trusted aide, Sefton Delmer, in charge of his Daily Express press bureau in Berlin, and Delmer had become a confidant of Hitler, traveling with him on the campaign trail during the 1933 elections. Delmer was one of the first "journalists" to arrive as the Reichstag burned, and his dispatch from the scene—complete with exclusive interviews with Hitler, Göring, and others—established the cover for the actual Nazi authors of the terror attack, which sealed Hitler's dictatorship. Delmer, in a 1939 article recounting the incident, stuck to his story, which countered the majority of the world media coverage, and blamed the fire on a communist—not on the Nazis.
    Beaverbrook—even after his "Damascus road conversion" to war cabinet minister—retained his ties to the Nazi machine. When Nazi leader Rudolph Hess parachuted into Scotland, in a final vain effort to maintain the Anglo-Nazi alliance against the Soviet Union, Beaverbrook arranged a private prison interview with Hess. Details of the session are still sketchy, but one quote to emerge from the meeting, was Hess telling Beaverbrook: "Hitler likes you a great deal."

    to be continued....

Similar Threads

  1. Fascist Resurgence
    By MBorofsky in forum War & Peace
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-07-2006, 06:59 AM
  2. Londons Fascist Mayor Invites Fascist To Visit
    By sarasara in forum U.S. Politics Archives
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-19-2005, 01:49 AM
  3. Fascist Quotes
    By WFCY in forum Historical Discourse
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-18-2005, 08:26 PM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 12:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •