Larouche - Children of Satan 4

8/9/2019 Larouche - Children of Satan 4

1/25

CheneysSchmittlerian

Drive forDictatorship

CheneysSchmittlerian

Drive forDictatorship

LaRouche

P 5A 5C 5 Children

of SatanIV

$5Sugge

Contribu


2/25

P.O. Box 6157 Leesburg, Virginia 20178

www.larouchepac.com

COVER: Vice President Dick Cheney: World Economic Forum; Adolf Hitler, Nuremberg rally, 1934.

January 2006 LLPPA-2006-001

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

CHILDREN OF SATANIV

CheneysSchmittlerian DriveFor Dictatorship

INCLUDES

Alito and the Fhrerprinzip Cheney and the Schmittlerian DriveFor Dictatorship Carl Schmitt: Dick Cheneys m in en ce Grise

Fascist Feddies March Through the Institutions Whats a Rohatyn? Felix Rohatyn, New York Dictator, 1975-82

LaRouche

P 5A 5C 5


3/25

On Jan. 5, 2006, in a front-page story, the Wall StreetJournal identified Judge Samuel Alito, PresidentGeorge W. Bushs nominee to replace Justice SandraDay OConnor on the U.S. Supreme Court, as a leadingproponent of the savagely unconstitutional doctrine ofthe unitary executive. The idea of the unitary execu-tive, which forms the core dogma of the ultra-right-wing Federalist Society, to which Judge Alito belongs, ismore properly identified by its modern historicalnamethe Fhrerprinzip, authored by the Nazi regimesanointed Crown Jurist Carl Schmitt. Schmitts doc-

trine, that the charismatic head of state is the law, andcan assert absolute dictatorial authority during periodsof emergency, has been used to legitimize every totali-tarian regime in the West, from Hitler, to Gen. FranciscoFranco in Spain, to Gen. Augusto Pinochet in Chile, toPresident George W. Bush and Vice President DickCheney in the United States.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Judge Alito from aNovember 2000 speech, delivered, appropriately, beforea Federalist Society convention in Washington, D.C. TheConstitution, Alito declared, makes the President thehead of the Executive Branch, but it does more thanthat. The President has not just some executive powers,

but the executive powerthe whole thing.Judge Alito elaborated, I thought thenreferring to

his 1980s tenure at the U.S. Justice Departments Office ofLegal Counseland I still think, that this theory best cap-tures the meaning of the Constitutions text and structure,adding that, in his view, the Framers saw the unitaryexecutive as necessary to balance the huge power of thelegislature and the factions that may gain control of it.

After reviewing the Wall Street Journal account, LyndonLaRouche declared, If Judge Alito does in fact adhere tothe views reported in the Wall Street Journal, he shouldnot be allowed near any courtcertainly not the UnitedStates Supreme Courtexcept as a defendant. LaRouche

insisted that Alitos nomination must be decisively defeat-ed in the Senate, or the Supreme Court will fall fatally intothe hands of a cabal of outright Schmittlerian Nazis, ledby Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, andAlitoall members of the self-avowed conservative revo-lutionary Federalist Society.

LaRouche counterposed the outright Nazi doctrine ofthe Federalist Society proponents of the unitary execu-tive (Fhrerprinzip) to the American System principlesinvoked by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when

he was confronted with the awesome responsibilitypreparing the United States for world war. On Sept1939, at a press conference following his Proclamatof Limited Emergency, as war was erupting in EuroFDR assured the American people, There is no intion and no need of doing all those things that coulddone. . . . There is no thought in any shape, mannerform, of putting the Nation, in its defenses or in its innal economy, on a war basis. That is one thing we wto avoid. We are going to keep the nation on a pebasis, in accordance with peacetime authorizations.

Cheney and 9/11

FDRs respect for the U.S. constitutional systemchecks and balances, and separation of powers, standstark contrast to the assault on the Constitution, launcby Vice President Cheney even before Sept. 11, 2001.

As LaRouche prophetically warned, in testimdelivered on Jan. 16, 2001 to the U.S. Senate JudiciCommittee, opposing the nomination of John Ashcas Attorney General, the Cheney-led BAdministration came into office committed to govement-by-crisis-management, modelled on the Hitler Ndictatorship in Germany. LaRouche warned that the B

Administration would seek, at the first opportunityReichstag Fire justification for dictatorship, all basedthe legal theories of Hitlers Carl Schmitt. It was Schmwho wrote the legal opinion, based on the unitary exetive, Fhrerprinzip, that justified Hitlers declarationemergency dictatorial rule on Feb. 28, 1933twenty-fhours after the Reichstag, the German parliament, wasablaze by agents of Hitlers own Herman Gring.

The aftermath of 9/11 proved that LaRouche was 10right. On Dec. 19, 2005, in a press conference aboardForce Two, Vice President Cheney flaunted the fact the came into office in January 2001, committed to rolback the legislative safeguards, passed by Congress

signed into law by Presidents Gerald Ford and JimCarter, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal andrevelations about illegal FBI and CIA spying on Americitizens. In calling for a rollback of those post-Waterginfringements on Presidential power, Cheney waseffect, declaring war on the most sacred principles wriinto the U.S. Constitution.

Cheneys stooge, President Bush, certified his own adence to the same Fhrerprinzip when he recently signeddefense budget, and invoked the unitary executive r

2

Judge Samuel Alito andTheFhrerprinzip

by Jeffrey Steinberg


4/25

to ignore the bills explicit ban on torture. The McCainAmendment, banning torture of American-held prisonersin the Global War on Terror, was passed by an over-whelming, veto-proof bipartisan majority in both the Houseand the Senate, yet the President asserted his constitu-tional authority as commander-in-chief, to ignore Congress.

Pinochet a nd Hitler

Despite the events of 9/11, the Synarchist bankersbehind Cheney did not fully succeed in their scheme for

dictatorship and the overthrow of the Constitution. Boththe Congress and the American people put up sufficientresistance to partly stymie the efforts to impose crisis-management-style Executive branch rule-by-decree. TheMay 2005 bipartisan Gang of 14 Senate revolt againstCheneys so-called nuclear option to strip the Senate ofits Constitutional role of advise and consent representeda particularly significant setback for the Synarchist cabal.

But the Cheney gangs vision for America shows clearlyin Chile, a South American nation targetted for the Hitlertreatment by a cabal of American-based Synarchists, ledby Felix Rohatyn, Henry Kissinger, and George ShultzChile under the 1970s and 80s dictatorship of General

Pinochet offers the clearest picture of what Cheney et al.still intend to impose on the United Statesif given theopportunity. The defeat of the Supreme Court nominationof Judge Alito offers the immediate opportunity to delivera killer blow to Rohatyn, Shultz, and Cheneys scheme.

The Other Sept. 11

On Sept. 11, 1973, Gen. Augusto Pinochet led a mili-tary coup that ousted the legitimately elected governmentof President Salvador Allende. The Pinochet coup would

unleash several decades ofterror, which would spreadto other parts of South andCentral America, through aHenry Kissinger-approvedregional death-squad pro-gram called OperationCondor.

Among the Americanbankers and governmentofficials who ran thePinochet coup, from theoutset, were:

Felix Rohatyn, theLazard Brothers banker andITT director. Rohatyn, a pro-tg of leading World WarII-era Synarchist bankerAndr Meyer, orchestratedthe 1971 ITT takeover ofHartford Insurance, and,along with ITT ChairmanHarold Geneen, helped over-

see the overthrow of Allendefrom his post on the ITTboard. Two years after the

Pinochet coup, Rohatyn would impose the sameHitlerian/Schachtian austerity policies on New York City,through his chairmanship of the Municipal AssistanceCorporation (Big MAC).

George Shultz, Richard Nixons Treasury Secretary,who orchestrated the breakup of FDRs Bretton Woodssystem on behalf of the Synarchist bankers, travelled toChile, following the Pinochet coup, and gave his personalimprimatur to the regimes radical free-trade economicpolicies, including the looting-by-privatization of the

countrys pension system. The same privatization of SocialSecurity was attempted by the Bush Administration lastyearwith Shultzs enthusiastic backing. Himself a prod-uct of the University of Chicago Economics Departmentof Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys who ran theeconomic policy of the Pinochet dictatorship, Shultz hasbeen the behind-the-scenes Svengali of the Bush-CheneyAdministration, steering it in an explicitly Pinochetdirection, promoting a bankers dictatorship of radicalfree-trade/globalization looting, utilizing unbridled policestate power to achieve his aims.

Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor andSecretary of State to President Nixon, who enthusiastically

promoted the Pinochet coup, at the very moment that hewas formulating National Security Study Memorandum200 (NSSM-200), which asserted Anglo-American ColdWar ownership of the planets strategic raw-materialswealth and an aggressive corollary doctrine of drastic pop-ulation reduction, through wars, disease and faminealltargetted at the Third World. Kissinger was the principalAmerican government official behind Operation Condor, aright-wing death-squad apparatus that ran a strategy oftension terror war against the sovereign republics of

3

The events of 9/11 were theSynarchists 21st-CenturyReichstag Fire (the original is atleft). Adding Samuel Alito (above)to the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates is meant to help consolidatetheir coup.


5/25

South American, which spilled over into continentalEurope, particularly Italy. One of Kissingers primaryassets in Operation Condor was the Propaganda Two (P-2)Freemasonic Lodge of World War II-era fascist Licio Gelli.

The Chile of the Pinochet dictatorship, steered fromWall Street and the Nixon Administration by Rohatyn,Shultz, and Kissinger, is the model for what these sameindividuals and the Synarchist bankers cabal they repre-sent, have in mind for the U.S.A.if they are not stopped.

Carl SchmittThese are the issues before the U.S. Senate in the case

of Judge Alito. The doctrine of the unitary executive pro-moted by Alito is a carbon copy of the doctrine of lawdevised by Carl Schmitt to justify the Hitler dictatorship ofFebruary 1933 and the Pinochet dictatorship of Sept. 11,1973. In both the Hitler and Pinochet cases, Schmitt wason the scene. As the leading German jurist of the 1920sand 30s, Schmitt wrote the legal opinion justifying Hitlers

Reichstag Fire coup. Schmitt argued that the charismleader derives unbridled power from the people in tof crisis, and that any form of government, based on a tem of checks and balances, consensus, and separationpowers, is illegitimate, because it stands in the way of absolute rulers responsibility to protect the people.

In the case of the Pinochet coup in Chile, Schmstudent-protg Jaime Guzman, argued that the govement had to use violence to impose order. Guzman wthe sole source of legal justification for the Pinoccoup and dictatorship, and he insisted that violence wa precondition for success. In effect, Schmitt acolGuzman ran fascist Chilein the name of the same dtrine of unitary executive power that Schmitt had elier codified in the Fhrerprinzip. It is the same doctrthat Cheney et al. seek to impose today on the U.S.A.

This is fascismpure and simpleand it mustcrushed, now, if the United States is to survive as a cstitutional republic.

4

Rohatyn, Pinochet, and the Unitary ExecutiveThree giant steps transformed ITT from the obscureoperator of a telephone system in Puerto Rico,into a world conglomerate: 1) A contract to run thewhole Spanish telephone system for then-fascist dic-tator of Spain, Primo de Rivera, in 1923; 2) Lucrativebusiness in German war industry, after ITT founderSosthenes Behn became the first American business-man to meet dictator Hitler in 1933; and, 3) The wildmerger spree run by Lazard Frres and Felix Rohatynfrom 1961 into the 1970s.

Rohatyn held the top post of Lazard Frres represen-tative on ITTs board throughout its role in planning

and executing Pinochets coup. Other officials, fromITTs Chairman on down, have by now admitted theirfrequent top-level meetings on the subject inWashington and elsewhere, their offers of millions ofdollars, and some of their large expenditures for politi-cal destabilization and a coup in Chile. Rohatyn was incharge of knowing everything about ITT for Lazard; washe the only one in the dark? And would they have daredto undertake such a scheme without consulting him inadvance? No. A glance at the history of the bank makesit clear that it was Rohatyn and Lazard which instigatedthe conspiracy, along with the lower-level pro-fascistITT Director John McCone, rather than Harold Geneen.

But in the meanwhile, the release of the Nixon tapesand the record of the Church Committee hearings of1975, have clarified Rohatyns and ITTs relationship toa drift towards fascist-like dictatorship here in theUnited States. For now we know that it was that drift,in reality, not the Watergate burglary, which convincedU.S. institutions that it was imperative that RichardNixon be removed from the Presidency.

ITTs 1970-71 merger with the Hartford Fire

Insurance Company was opposed by the JusticeDepartments Anti-Trust Division under RichardMcLaren. Somehow, opposition collapsed afterRohatyn went over their head and began meetingwith Deputy Attorney General Richard KleindienstAn ITT internal memo leaked through Jack Andersonimplied that ITT had won approval by pledging$400,000 to the Republican Convention, plus unspecified services. It was this Hartford affair that gaveRohatyn his nickname, Felix the Fixer.

But unknown at the time were Nixons telephonecalls. The day before his meeting with Rohatyn, the

President telephoned Kleindienst, to say that hewould no longer tolerate any antitrust action againsITT. If [thats] not understood, McLarens ass is to beout of there in one hour. The ITT thingstay the helout of it. Is that clear? Thats an order.

Kleindienst tried to stall. He told the President howdifficult it would be to interfere so late in the game.

The President became enraged. The order is to leavethe goddamned thing alone. . . . I do not want McLarento run around prosecuting people, raising hell aboutconglomerates, stirring things up at this point. . . .

Kleindienst tried again to explain how difficult iwas to stifle such an appeal now. You son of a bitch

Dont you understand the English language? Drop thegoddamned thing. Is that clear? (See Judith RamseyEhrlich and Barry J. Rehfeld, The New Crowd [LittleBrown: New York, 1989, p. 99]).

It was also unknown at the time that ITT (andLazard client RCA) were giving tapes of all their international message traffic to the NSA, so that FBI andJustice could monitor Nixons enemies.

Tony Paper


6/25

On Jan. 3, 2001, ninemonths before the9/11 terrorist attackson the World Trade Centerand the Pentagon, Lyndon

LaRouche issued a bluntwarning to a Washington,D.C. audience, that theincoming Bush Administra-tion would attempt to imposedictatorial crisis-managementrule, modeled on the Hitlerregime in Nazi Germany.LaRouche singled out thenomination as AttorneyGeneral of John Ashcroft, aleading figure within theconservative revolutionary

Federalist Society, as theclearest signal of the inten-tions of some in the incomingBush-Cheney regime. First ofall, LaRouche warned, when Bush put Ashcroft in, as anomination for the Justice Department, he made it clear,the Ku Klux Klan was riding again. . . . Ashcroft was aninsult to the Congress. If the Democrats in the Congresscapitulate to the Ashcroft nomination, the Congress isfinished.

LaRouche then got to the heart of thematter: This is pretty much like the samething that Germany did, on Feb. 28, 1933,

when the famous Notverordnung [emer-gency decree] was established. Just remem-ber after the Reichstag fire, that Gring,who commanded at that time, Prussiahewas the Minister-President of Prussiasetinto motion an operation. As part of this,operating under rules of Carl Schmitt, afamous pro-Nazi jurist of Germany, theypassed this act called the Notverordnung,the emergency act, which gave the state the

power, according to Schmitts doctrine, to designatewhich part of his own population were enemies, and toimprison them, freely. And to eliminate them. This wasthe dictatorship.

In prescient words, LaRouche continued: Were

5

Cheney and theSchmittlerian DriveFor Dictatorshipby Edward Spannaus

U.S. Marine Corps/Cpl. Andrew D. Pendracki

Lurking behind Vice President Dick Cheneys pursuit of dictatorialpowers are the Nazi legal theories of Crown Jurist Carl Schmitt(top left) and his boss, Adolf Hitler.

Library of Congress

LaRouche Warned the Senate

The evaluation of the danger represented by the BushAdministrations nomination of John Ashcroft as AttorneyGeneral, which we quote here, was presented at length and ver-batim by Lyndon LaRouches National Spokesperson Dr. DebraH. Freeman, in written testimony to the Senate JudiciaryCommittee on Jan. 16, 2001. The testimony was included in theofficial record of the Senate, and therefore was available to allmembers of the U.S. Senate, from that time forward.


7/25

going into a period in which either we do the kinds ofthings I indicated in summary to you today, or else whatyoure going to have is not a government. Youre goingto have something like a Nazi regime. Maybe not initial-ly at the surface. What youre going to have is a govern-ment which cannot pass legislation. How does a govern-ment which cannot pass meaningful legislation, underconditions of crisis, govern? They govern in every case inknown history, by whats known as crisis-management.In other words, just like the Reichstag fire in Germany.

What youre going to get with a frustrated BushAdministration, if its determined to prevent itself frombeing opposed, youre going to get crisis management.Where special warfare types, of the secret government,the secret police teams, will set off provocations, whichwill be used to bring about dictatorial powers, in thename of crisis management. You will have small warsset off in various parts of the world, which the BushAdministration will respond to with crisis managementmethods of provocation.

LaRouche emphasized, Youve got to control thisprocess now, while you still have the power to do so. Dontbe like the dumb Germans, who, after Hitler was appoint-

ed to the Chancellorship, in January 1933, sat back andsaid, No, were going to defeat him in the next election.There was never a next electionthere was just thisJawohl for Hitler as dictator. Because theNotverordnungof February 1933 eliminated the political factor. . . .

Returning to the Bush-Cheney team, LaRouche said,I know these guys very well, because Ive been upagainst them. . . . These guys, pushed to the wall, willcome out with knives in the dark. They will not fight youpolitically; they will get you in the back. They will usetheir thugs to get you. Thats their methodknow it.

LaRouche next turned to the U.S. Supreme Court ofFederalist Society godfather, Justice Antonin Scalia:

Given the implications of the grave financial crisisfaced by the U.S.A. today, the crucial fact of greatestimportance concerning Scalias doctrines of law, is thathis political and legal outlook is identical, on all crucial-ly relevant points of comparison, to the legal dogmasused to bring Adolf Hitler to power during a roughlycomparable period of grave financial crisis in Germany.Specifically, Scalia expresses the same explicitlyRomantic dogmas of the pro-fascist conservative revolu-tion of G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Nietzsche, et al., whichScalia has imitated, in keeping with the model precedentof the so-called Kronjurist of Nazi Germany, CarlSchmitt. That is the Schmitt who was the legal architect

of the doctrine creating those dictatorial powers given,with finality, to the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler.That was Jan. 3, 2001. Now five years later, Vice

President Dick Cheney, the Herman Gring of the BushAdministration, has come out with the blunt admissionthat everything that LaRouche said back in January 2001was true. On Dec. 20, while traveling to Oman on AirForce Two, the Vice President spoke to reporters, anddelivered an unabashed defense of Carl SchmittsFhrerprinzip (Leader Principle) of absolute executive

power. Cheney, facing a growing revolt from Congress, the military and intelligence institutions, the American people, against his over-the-top push Presidential dictatorship and his promotionNuremberg war crime offenses, let it all hang out, admting that he came into the Vice Presidency, fully commted to the imposition of rule-by-decree government.

A lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnboth, in the 70s, served to erode the authority, I ththe President needs to be effective, especially inational security area, Cheney began. If you want erence to an obscure text, go look at the minority vithat were filed with the Iran-Contra Committee; Iran-Contra Report in about 1987. . . . And those oin the minority wrote minority views, but they wactually authored by a guy working for me, for my stthat I think are very good in laying out a robust viewthe Presidents prerogatives with respect to the condof especially foreign policy and national security mters. . . . I served in the Congress for ten years, . . . bdo believe that, especially in the day and age we livethe nature of the threats we face, . . . the Presidenthe United States needs to have his constitutional p

ers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conductnational security policy. Thats my personal view.

Either were serious about fighting the war on teror were not. . . . The President and I believe very deethat theres a hell of a threat, that its there for anybwho wants to look at it. And that our obligation responsibility, given our job, is to do everything in power to defeat the terrorists. And thats exactly wwere doing.

Presidential Dictat orship: The Dark Sid

This view of unbridled Executive power as laid ouCheney was shocking, even to many seasoned hand

the institutions of our government, especially Cheneys total rejection of the post-Watergate reformis a view that has been expressed in a numberobscure, and many still-secret, legal memoranda writin the past five years by a cabal of lawyers arouCheney, most of whom were groomed in the misnamFederalist Society, but it has seldom been so opeexpressed by the Vice President himself.

Five days after the 9/11 attacks, Cheney had hintedwhat he was planning, during an appearance on NBMeet the Press, when he declared that lawyers alwhave a role to play, but . . . this is war. He elaborahis Hobbesian view:

We also have to work, though, sort of the dark sidyou will. Weve got to spend time in the shadows in intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done hwill have to be done quietly, without any discussiusing sources and methods that are available to our inligence agencies, if were going to be successful. Ththe world these folks operate in, and so its going to

vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basicallyachieve our objective. . . . It is a mean, nasty, dangerdirty business out there, and we have to operate in t

6


8/25

arena. Im convinced we can do it; we can do it success-fully. But we need to make certain that we have not tiedthe hands, if you will, of our intelligence communities interms of accomplishing their mission.

At the same time that Cheney was talking aboutAmericas venture to the dark side, the Vice Presidentwas attempting to bully the U.S. Congress into surren-dering dictatorial powers to the White Houseincludingthe authority to spy on American citizens, without thelegally mandated court orders. As the New York Timesrevealed on Dec. 16, 2005, within days of the 9/11attacks, Cheney attempted to ram through Congress awar powers resolution, granting carte blanche authorityto use any means necessary both abroad and at home,to conduct the war on terror. Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), the Senate Majority Leader at the time of the 9/11attacks, blocked authority for domestic operations, andthe Congress, as a whole, limited the Presidents warpowers to actions against the perpetrators of the 9/11attacks. Cheney and his gang of Federalist Society legalgun-slingers proceeded to ignore the Congress, andlaunched unauthorized surveillance and dirty tricksagainst American citizens, on a scale yet-to-be-revealed.

Already at that pointin fact, even before 9/11Cheney and his hand-picked legal mouthpieces (DavidAddington, Timothy Flanigan, and John Yoo, in particu-lar) wrote this into policy in the documents that havebecome known as the torture memos. In order to getto the dark side, they repeatedly claimed that any lawor act of Congress which infringes on the inherentauthority of the President as Commander in Chief toconduct war, is unconstitutional. It is the President, andthe President alone, who decides what is necessary todefend the nation.

The Leader Create s the Law

This argument has a definite pedigreeeven if itsproponents, understandably, fail to footnote it.

It is called the Fhrerprinzip, and its foremost theoristwas Carl Schmitt, known in his time as the CrownJurist of the Third Reich. Schmitts theories have beenundergoing a revival in the United States and elsewherein recent years, so it is not surprising to see them pop-ping up here.

Schmitt contendedas do Cheneys lawyers todaythat, in times of crisis, legal norms are suspended, andthe Leader, in this case, the President, both is, andcre-

ates, the law. All law is derived from the peoples right toexistence, Schmitt wrote in 1934. Every state law, every

judgment of the courts, contains only so much justice, asit derives from this source. The content and the scope ofhis action, is determined only by the Leader himself.

The theoretical grounding for these arguments inthe Nazi period, was provided by Schmitt, who contend-ed that legal norms are applicable only in stable, peace-ful situations, not in times of war when the state con-fronts a mortal enemy. The Leader determines what isnormal, and he also defines the state of the excep-tion, when legal norms, and notions such as the separa-

tion of powers, and constitutionally guaranteed checksand balances, no longer apply.

When Bush and Cheney recite that 9/11 changedeverything, they are mouthing the words of HitlersCrown Jurist, Carl Schmitt.

The Federalist Society

How did these Schmittlerian arguments get laun-dered into the Bush-Cheney Administration?

Needless to say, the Administrations lawyers dont goaround quoting Carl Schmittat least not by name.Whereas Schmitt labelled his theory of the all-powerfulLeader, the Fhrerprinzip, David Addington and theFederalist Society give it a different name: the unitaryexecutive.

This came to light in an Oct. 11, 2004 profile ofAddington, written for the Washington Post by DanaMilbank.

Where there has been controversy over the past fouryears, there has often been Addington, Milbank wrote,noting that Addingtons views are so audacious thateven conservatives on the Supreme Court sympathetic toCheneys views have rejected them as overreaching.

Even in a White House known for its dedication toconservative philosophy, Addington is known as an ideo-logue, an adherent of an obscure philosophy called theunitary executive theory that favors an extraordinarilypowerful President, Milbank continued.

The theory traces its origins to the ReaganAdministrationand in time it coincided with the for-mation of the Federalist Society (which, to be historical-ly accurate, would better be known as the Anti-Federalist Society). One of the founders of the FederalistSociety, Steven Calabresi of Yale University, is also theforemost proponent of the unitary executive.

At its core, is the dogma that the President has as

much right as, perhaps even more than, the SupremeCourt, to interpret the Constitution, and that thePresident must brook no interference from the other twobranches with his prerogatives and powers. ThePresident is entitled, indeed obligated, to disregard anylaws he regards as unconstitutional (although this is, tobe sure, a quite perverted meaning of what is constitu-tional and unconstitutional).

In the Bush-Cheney Administration, under the direc-tion of Addington and his clique, the doctrine has beenapplied to military and national security matters in anunprecedented manner, even to the chagrin of some ofits proponents.

How I t Worked

David Addington first surfaced as the Bush-CheneyAdministrations latter-day Carl Schmitt two monthsafter 9/11, when a number of military-linked lawyerstold EIR of their anger over the Presidents Nov. 13,2001 Military Order establishing military commissionsto try suspected terrorists. They identified the almost-unknown Addington as one of those who blocked the

views of the uniformed military, who were advocating

7


9/25

sticking with the existing procedures under the congres-sionally enacted Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Although bits and pieces of the story came out overtime, it wasnt until October 2004 that a comprehensiveaccount was published about the battles around the mil-itary commissions; this was in the New York Times ofOct. 24 and 25, 2004.

The Times documented Cheneys specific role in craft-ing a scheme to bypass both the traditional military jus-tice system, and the Federal courts, in order to create asystem under which prisoners could be held indefinitelyas enemy combatants, and then eventually, perhaps,tried by military tribunals.

Cheney operated in secrecy, excluding uniformed mil-itary lawyers from the planning, and then, when a draftMilitary Order was prepared, even ordered it to be with-held from National Security Advisor Condoleezza Riceand Secretary of State Colin Powell.

While the 9/11 attacks were the pretext, the Timesnoted that the strategy was shaped by long-standingagendasof expanding Presidential power and down-grading international treaty commitmentsthat had

zero to do with fighting terrorism.The core grouping of lawyers in the White House and

Justice Department involved in crafting the new strategywere predominantly members of the Federalist Society,and most had clerked for Supreme Court JusticesAntonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, or for AppealsCourt Judge Lawrence Silbermana Federalist Societystalwart and architect of the campaign to bring downPresident Clinton in the mid-1990s.

The key planners, as identified in the Times article,were Dick Cheney (at the top of their chart), thenCheneys Counsel Addington, Bushs Counsel AlbertoGonzales, Gonzaless deputy Timothy Flanigan, and the

Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel. What thechart should have shown, was Addington and Flaniganrunning circles around Gonzales, a corporate lawyerwho was way over his head in these matters. Excludedfrom the process were most of the governments expertsin international law and military law.

The Times said that the idea of using military tri-bunals to try suspected terrorists came in a phone callfrom former Attorney General William P. Barr, toFlanigan, who had worked at the Justice Departmentunder Barr during the Bush 41 Presidency. Tribunalswould give the government wide latitude to hold, inter-rogate, and prosecute suspected terrorists, with control

of the entire process totally in the hands of theExecutive, not the Federal Judiciary. The same ideaswere taking hold in the office of Vice President Cheney,the Times noted, and were being championed byAddington, described as a long-time Cheney aide withan undistinguished legal background.

The Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel(OLC) worked up a plan to establish tribunals, ostensi-bly modeled on the one used by Franklin D. Rooseveltto try Nazi saboteurs in 1942despite dramatic

changes that had taken place since then, the mimportant of which were the 1949 adoption of Geneva Conventions, and the 1951 enactment of Uniform Code of Military Justice. Addington seiupon the outdated 1942 precedent, and was the minfluential in pushing it through, because of the clhe had by virtue of representing Cheney. Top militlawyers offered proposals to shift the scheme closerthe existing military justice system; their suggestiwere completely ignored. The OLC memo argued tthe President could act unilaterally, bypassing Congrby using his inherent authority as CommanderChief.

Addington and Flanigan drafted the Military OrdOn Nov. 10, Cheney chaired a meeting in the WhHouse, attended by Ashcroft, Pentagon General CounWilliam Haynes, and White House lawyers. Senior SDepartment and National Security Council officials wexcluded, and Cheney advocated withholding the fidraft from Rice and Powell. Cheney later discussed order privately with President Bush over lunch, and President dutifully signed it on Nov. 13.

As EIR was told at the time, military lawyers wfurious at the Presidents order and at the bypassingthe court-martial system, fearing that the entire systof military justice would be tainted. The Times quoAdm. Donald Guter, who has since retired as the NaJudge Advocate General: The military lawyers wofrom time to time remind the civilians that there waConstitution that we had to pay attention to.

Hunter-Killer Squads

That particular case study illustrates the way process worked. But it would be much too sanitized

just consider this as a question of what kind of trial

give captured terrorist suspects. The Administratiorejection of U.S. military law and the GenConventions was the marker for a policy that intentially and inevitably produced widespread torture aabuse of prisoners (officially referred to as detaineeOver 100 prisoners have died in U.S. custody, mfrom torture; the Pentagon has classified at least thdozen of these as criminal homicides.

Parallel to the creation of the Presidents MilitOrder in the weeks following 9/11, was a related procto authorize CIA and military covert action prograwhich included renditions, secret prisons, and the ation of hunter-killer squads to track down suspec

terrorists to be captured or killed. Investigative repoSeymour Hersh has provided the best descriptionthis, emphasizing the role of Secretary of DefeDonald Rumsfeld and his deputy for intelligenStephen Cambone.

The Washington Post has focussed almost exclusivon the CIAs role in this, the latest example beinlengthy article published on Dec. 30, 2005, concernthe authorization of an expanded CIA covert action pgram after 9/11precisely what Cheney was describ

8


10/25

in his dark side remarks on Sept. 16, 2001. In fact, thenext day, on Sept. 17, according to the Post, Bush

signed a top-secret Presidential Finding which autho-rized the creation of hunter-killer teams and relatedcovert programs.

And, the Post reported, when the CIA asked for newrules for interrogating key terrorism suspects, theWhite House assigned the task to a small group oflawyers within the Justice Departments Office of LegalCounsel who believed in an aggressive interpretation ofpresidential power, while at the same time excludingfrom its deliberations lawyers from the uniformed mili-tary services, the State Department, and even theJustice Departments Criminal Division, which had tra-ditionally been responsible for dealing with internation-

al terrorism.Former CIA Assistant General Counsel, now a lawprofessor, A. John Radsan, described the process to thePost as follows: The Bush administration did not seek abroad debate on whether commander-in-chief powerscan trump international conventions and domesticstatutes in our struggle against terrorism . . . an innercircle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dis-senters in the administration, and one-upped each otherwith extreme arguments.

The Addington/GonzalesMemo

The process of trashing U.S. laws andinternational treaties came to a headaround the issues of the treatment ofprisoners captured in Afghanistan andelsewhere. After these prisoners beganarriving at the Guantanamo Bay prisoncamp in January 2002, there was still adebate within the Bush Administrationover whether the Geneva Conventionswould apply, which was not resolveduntil early February. The New YorkTimes reported that around Jan. 21,while returning from a field trip toGuantanamo, Addington urgedGonzales to seek a blanket designation,declaring all prisoners at Guantanamoto be covered by the Presidents orderon military tribunals. Gonzales agreed,and within a day, the Pentagon set intomotion the procedures intended to pre-

pare for military tribunals to try theGuantanamo prisoners.

It was publicly known at the time,that there was a fierce debate underway within the Administration, withSecretary of State Powell and the JointChiefs of Staff arguing for the applica-tion of the Geneva Conventions.Amidst press reports of this raging dis-pute, Cheney went on two Sunday talkshows on Jan. 27, where he was asked

about Powells objections.On ABCs This Week, Cheney attacked Powells

position, asserting that the Geneva Convention doesntapply in the case of terrorism. He went on:

These are bad people. I mean, theyve already beenscreened before they get to Guantanamo. They may wellhave information about future terrorist attacks againstthe United States. We need that information, we need tobe able to interrogate them and extract from them what-ever information they have.

The debate over just what was permissible in order toextract such information, continued through 2002 andinto 2003. At every point, it was Addington andFlanigan, working through the John Yoo and the DOJOffice of Legal Counsel, who pressed the Schmittlerian

doctrine that the President as Commander in Chief (i.e.,the Leader) could unilaterally determine which laws toobey, and which to disregard.

Planning for War Crimes

There is no question that they knew exactly what theywere doing, and that they recognized that the actionsthey were proposing, constituted war crimes under U.S.and international law. This is documented in their mem-oranda, which obviously were never intended to see the

9

EIRNS/Dan Sturman

The LaRouche Youth Movement, shown here organizing in New York City inDecember, is demanding the immediate ouster of Cheney.


11/25

10

The Torture TrioDavid S. Addington: Counsel tothe Vice President, and nowCheneys Chief of Staff, replacingLewis Libby, who resigned when hewas indicted in late October 2005.Addington was Assistant GeneralCounsel at the CIA from 1981-84,and then went to work for variousCongressional committees; hehooked up with Cheney duringtheir work together in the Minorityfor the Iran-Contra investigation.When Cheney became Secretary ofDefense in 1989, under Bush 41, hebrought Addington in as a SpecialAssistant, famously giving him anoffice adjacent to his own, whichwas normally occupied by a mili-tary aide. He was later promoted to

General Counsel of the Departmentof Defense, where, according tomilitary sources, he served asCheneys personal hatchet-man,purging the ranks of the uniformedmilitary of officers who resistedCheneys commitment to the doc-trine of preventive nuclear war.During the interregnum of theClinton years, he worked for privatelaw firms, and in the mid-1990s, heformed a political action committeewhich was Cheneys vehicle for

exploring a Presidential bid.

Timothy E. Flanigan: As DeputyWhite House Counsel (i.e., AlbertoGonzaless deputy) during 2001and 2002, Flanigan was a key play-er in all the discussions arounddetainee policy and in the develop-ment of the torture memos.During the Bush 41Administration, he was anAssistant Attorney General in theJustice Departments Office of

Legal Counselthe office respon-sible for advising the ExecutiveBranch on the constitutionality ofactions and legislation, and astronghold of unitary executiveproponents during RepublicanAdministrations.

In September 2005 PresidentBush nominated Flanigan to beDeputy Attorney General, but hewas forced to withdraw the nomi-nation a month later because ofboth Flanigans role in the torture

memos, and his later role asGeneral Counsel of TycoInternational in 2003-04, where hesupervised the lobbying activitiesof the now-indicted JackAbramoff. Earlier, Flanigan hadreceived over $800,000 from theFederalist Society in consultingfees, ostensibly to write an unau-

thorized biography of SupremCourt Justice Warren Burger.

John C. Yoo: Although only Deputy Assistant Attorney Generain the DOJ Office of LegaCounsel, in the first three years othe Bush-Cheney AdministrationYoo wielded inordinate influencdue to his close ties to Addingtonand Flanigan, to the chagrin osenior Justice Department officials, according to a report in theDec. 23, 2005 New York Timeswhich also noted that he was ablto bypass normal DOJ channels tosend his memos directly to thWhite House. Yoo had clerked foJudge Lawrence Silberman at th

D.C. Court of Appeals, and thenJustice Clarence Thomas at thSupreme Court; both judges havbeen key figures in the FederalisSociety, in which Yoo himself waextremely active. Having earliecome to Flanigans attention, Yoohooked up with Flanigan again onBushs legal team in the 2000Florida recount, whence Flanigansponsored his appointment to thJustice Departments OLC.

White House/David Bohrer

David Addington, now Vice PresidentCheneys Chief of Staff.

Timothy Flanigans support for torturewas so flagrant that he lost his bid tobe named Deputy Attorney General.

University of California, Berkel

John C. Yoo, a Federalist Societybooster, was promulgated into

prominence by powerful sponsors,including David Addington.


12/25

light of day.According to the record as known so far, it was John

Yoo who first raised the alarm that U.S. officials mightbe liable for criminal prosecution under the U.S. WarCrimes Act. This was in a Jan. 9, 2002 memo, and hisarguments were incorporated into a more formal Jan. 22memo from the Office of Legal Counsel, to Gonzales andDefense Department General Counsel William Haynes.The memo asserted that the President has plenary con-stitutional power to suspend the operation of theGeneva Conventions.

Powell strongly protested, and in response to hisobjections, Addington drafted the GonzalesMemorandum for the President dated Jan. 25, inwhich he argued that the OLCs interpretation is defini-tive.

Addington/Gonzales wrote to the President:As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new

kind of war. It is not the traditional clash betweennations adhering to the laws of war that formed thebackdrop for GPW [Geneva Convention on Prisoners ofWar]. The nature of the new war places a high premiumon other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain

information from captured terrorists and their sponsorsand their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocitiesagainst American civilians. . . . In my judgment, this newparadigm renders obsolete Genevas strict limitations onquestioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaintsome of its provisions. . . .

But they didnt stop there. They pointed out thatanother advantage of such a determination, was thatthis substantially reduces the threat of domestic crimi-nal prosecution under the War Crimes Act (l8 U.S.C.2441). They continued: War crime for these purpos-es is defined to include any grave breach of GPW or any

violation of common Article 3 thereof (such as outrages

against personal dignity). . . . Punishments for violationsof Section 2441 include the death penalty.

Addington/Gonzales went on to explain to PresidentBush why his determination that GPW does not apply,would guard against a misapplication of the WarCrimes Act, and they noted that it is difficult to predictthe motives of prosecutors and independent counselswho may in the future decide to pursue unwarrantedcharges. . . . They tried to reassure Bush, Your deter-mination would create a reasonable basis in law thatSection 2441 does not apply, which would provide asolid defense to any future prosecution.

The Torture MemosThe most atrocious of the torture memos was theAug. 1, 2002 memorandum signed by Jay S. Bybee, theDOJ/OLC chief, entitled: Standards of Conduct forInterrogations, under the Convention Against Tortureand the U.S. Anti-Torture Act. It is this, which statesthat treatment may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading,but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisiteintensity which would fall under the Federal Anti-Torture Act. This was defined as pain which is equiva-

lent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physi-cal injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodyfunction, or even death.

Addingtons notable contribution to this memo, washis pressuring the OLC to include a strong section onthe Presidents Commander-in-Chief powers. The memoconcluded that a prosecution under the Anti-Torture Actwould represent an unconstitutional infringement ofthe Presidents authority to conduct war.

Another critical memorandum, still undisclosed, wasdiscussed in a Nov. 14, 2005New Yorkerarticle by inves-tigative reporter Jane Mayer. International lawyer ScottHorton has pointed to the memo, written by John Yoo,as reflecting the influence of Carl Schmitt.1 Mayerwrote:

A March 2003 classified memo was breathtaking,the same source said. The document dismissed virtuallyall national and international laws regulating the treat-ment of prisoners, including war-crimes and assaultstatutes, and it was radical in its view that in wartimethe President can fight enemies by whatever meanshe sees fit. According to the memo, Congress has noconstitutional right to interfere with the President

in his role as Commander-in-Chief, including makinglaws that limit the ways in which prisoners may beinterrogated.

There are numerous other examples of this sameapplication of the Schmittlerian doctrine by Cheney,Addington, et al., some now disclosed, some yet to berevealed. But the point is clear.

Waiting for Carl . . .

Sept. 11, 2001 was clearly the moment that Cheneyand his coterie of lawyers had been waiting and hopingfor, the exception which would justify the suspensionof the laws.

For Addington and the Federalist Society cabal, thiswas the culmination of two decades of struggle. ForCheney, it was more. As former White House CounselJohn Dean revealed in his book Worse than Watergate,the issue of unrestricted Presidential power had been anobsession of Cheney since Cheneys days in the FordWhite House of the mid-1970s, in the wake of Vietnamand Watergate, when Congress had set about disman-tling the imperial Presidency.

Cheney has long believed that Congress has no busi-ness telling Presidents what to do, particularly in nation-al security matters, Dean said. And, as Dean wrote andCheney demonstrated in his Air Force Two interview,

Cheney still seems to resent these moves to bring thePresidency back within the Constitution.Addington and the Federalist Society provided

Cheney with a way to transform his anti-constitutionalresentments into the closest thing to a Nazi-style dicta-torship that America has ever experienced. It was amatch made in Hell.

11

__________

1. The return of Carl Schmitt, www.balkin.blogspot.com,Nov. 7, 2005.


13/25

Lyndon LaRouche is not the only Constitutionalscholar to remark that President Bushs claim ofabsolute Presidential power, trumping any mere law orstatute, and Cheneys Air Force II ramblings, comestraight out of Carl Schmitt. Sanford V. Levinson, whoholds dual professorships in law and government at theUniversity of Texas, and is an eminent Constitutionalscholar, wrote in the Summer 2004 issue ofDaedalusthat, although some analysts have suggested that theBush Administration has operated under the guidanceof the ideas of German emigr Leo Strauss, it seems far

more plausible to suggest that the trueminence grise ofthe administration, particularly with regard to issuessurrounding the possible propriety of torture, isSchmitt.

In a similar vein, Scott Horton, chairman of theInternational Law Committee of the New York City BarAssociation and adjunct Professor at ColumbiaUniversity, published a note on the blog Balkinizationon Nov. 7, titled The Return of Carl Schmitt. In dis-cussing Justice Department lawyer John Yoos advicethat the Executive Branch was not bound by the GenevaConventions and similar international instruments in itsconduct of the war in Iraq, Horton writes, Yoos public

arguments and statements suggest the strong influenceof one thinker: Carl Schmitt.

According to Schmitt, Horton notes, the norms ofinternational law respecting armed conflict . . . are unre-alistic as applied to modern ideological warfare againstan enemy not constrained by notions of a nation-state,adopting terrorist methods and fighting with irregularformations that hardly equate to traditional armies. ForSchmitt, the key to successful prosecution of warfareagainst such a foe is demonization. The enemy must beseen as absolute. He must be stripped of all legal rightsof whatever nature. The Executive must be free to usewhatever tools he can find to fight and vanquish this foe.

And conversely, the power to prosecute the war must bevested without reservation in the Executivein thewords of Reich Ministerial Director FranzSchlegelberger (eerily echoed in a brief submission byBush Administration Solicitor General Paul D. Clement)in time of war the Executive is constituted the soleleader, the sole legislator, sole judge. I take the liberty ofsubstituting Yoos word, Executive; for Schmitt orSchlegelberger, the word would, of course, have beenFhrer.

Who Was Carl Schmitt?Born in 1899 to a Catholic working class family, C

Schmitt studied jurisprudence at Berlin, Munich, Strasbourg, and then served under the German genestaff in World War I, administering martial lFollowing this formative experience, Schmitt formedcentral political idea: that how the state acts in the fof concrete danger or the concrete situation, ratthan any moral purpose, determines its legitimacy. sovereign or legitimate dictator is the person who decithe state of exception in order to preserve order a

protect the constitution. Committed to the world viewG.W.F. Hegel and Thomas Hobbes, in which man is en and evil, Schmitt argues that all politics reduitself to the relationship of friend and foe.

In the Schmitt corpus, democracies basednorms, legal rules, and the separation of powers powerless when confronted by charismatic and powereligious or political threats to their existence, suchthe Bolsheviks. The existence of exceptional situatiosuch as states of emergency, refute the very foundatof liberal political systems, which are premised on pestablished laws and norms purportedly applicable topossible situations. Schmitt mocked the idea that ra

nal, endless legislative debate and discussion could gerate the truth, noting that a social democrat whasked, Christ or Barabbas? would immediately sconsultation and then convene a commission to stuthe matter. The enlightened public sphere, the citythe hill in our American discourse, had disappearedpost-World War I Germany. For Schmitt, it had bsuperseded by the advent of mass markets, myth-ming, and propaganda machinery, self-interested partiassertion, and civilizational chaos and moral collapse

From 1921 through 1933, as a law professor proding polemical tracts which were closely read, studand promoted by the synarchist banking crowd wh

sponsored Europes fascist experiment, and then acounselor in the governments of Brning and vPapen, Schmitt relentlessly attacked and undermithe Weimar Constitution.

As early as 1922, Schmitt argued in Political Theolthat the true sovereign is the individual or group wmakes decisions in the exceptional situation. This in

vidual or group, not the Constitution, is the sovereThe most guidance a Constitution can provide is stipulation of who can act in such a situation.

12

Carl Schmitt: Dick Cheneysm ine n ce G rise

by Barbara Boyd


14/25

In The Concept of the Political, published in 1927,Schmitt asserted that the states very identity and exis-tence proceed from the more fundamental or basic rela-tionship between friend and enemy, and that sover-eignty is determined by the individual or entity who isable to define and protect society against the foe underconditions of existential threat. Rather than resort tonorms, Schmitt stipulates, the sovereign resorts to thelaw of the battlefield, or concrete decisionism.

Throughout a long career, which continued until hisdeath in 1985, Schmitt remained devoted to the Italianform of fascism under Mussolini, which, Schmittclaimed, united the church, an authoritarian state, a freeeconomy, and a powerful mythos which motivated thepopulation.

The Transition to ConstitutionalDictatorship

Schmitts principal weapon in deconstructing theGerman Constitution, however, was its Article 48 provi-sion which allowed for the creation of a state of emer-gency and Presidential rule by executive order. In TheGuardian of the Constitution, published in 1931, Schmitt

argued that Article 48 conferred an unlimited authorityin the German President to suspend the Constitutionduring a state of emergency, as long as he restored theConstitution when the emergency ended. Under Article48, the President had inherent dictatorial powers asprotector of the Constitution, including the power tolegislate, free from the need of parliamentary authoriza-tion. Since the President alone represents all of the peo-ple, resort to direct plebiscites would resolve any doubtsabout democratic legitimacy under Presidential rule.

After Brnings fall in 1932, Germany was governedby a Presidential dictatorship with Schmitt as its legaladvisor. When the Nazis staged the Reichstag Fire on

Feb. 27, 1933, of course, the stage had already been setfor a relatively unremarkable legal transition fromSchmitts commissarial or temporary dictatorship toSchmitts idea of a sovereign or permanent dictatorship.

On Feb. 28, 1933, Hitler utilized Article 48 to suspendthe rights of his opponents, labelling them as terrorists.A frightened Parliament, believing that Germany wasunder attack by the Bolshevik hordes, then passedenabling legislation legitimizing the dictatorship onMarch 23. In an article in theDeutsche Juristen Zeitungof March 25, Schmitt defended the enabling legislation,claiming that the Executive prerogative now includedthe power to pass new Constitutional laws, and declare

the Weimar Constitution a dead letter. The new law was,Schmitt wrote, the expression of a triumphant nationalrevolution. According to Schmitt, the present govern-ment wants to be the expression of a unified nationalpolitical will which seeks to put to an end the methodsof the plural party state which were destructive of thestate and the Constitution.

When Hitler slaughtered his political opponents inthe Night of the Long Knives, including Kurt vonSchleicher, whom Schmitt had once declared a friend,

Schmitt wrote in the Deutsche Juristen Zeitung in 1934that,The Fhrerprotects the law against the worstabuse when he, in the hour of danger, by virtue of hisleadership, produces immediate justice. The true leaderis, at the same time, always a judge.

In a propaganda piece published in Germany in 1936,and later in France, Schmitt characterized every govern-ment in post-World War I Europe as suppressing theconstitutional distinction between legislative and execu-tive powers because they needed to keep legislative pow-ers in harmony with the constant changes in the politi-cal, economic, and financial situation. The only uniquething about the Hitler Reich was that this process hadreached its logical conclusion in Germany. In 1933,Germans had fully dispensed with conventional notionsof the separation of powers by instituting a system ofgenuine governmental legislation. It would be wrong,Schmitt said, to characterize this evolution as a dicta-torship. Rather, it represented the triumph of an olderconstitutional legality, one rooted in the thinking ofAristotle and Thomas Aquinas.

During his service to the Nazis, Schmitt reported toHerman Gring and Hans Frank, supervising a project

to purge German universities of any Jewish influences,and to conform all German law to Nazi theory. Schmitt

justified Hitlers aggression against other nations ofEurope by claiming that Germany was creating aGrossraum, a sphere of influence, as the United Statesdid with the Monroe Doctrine. When Schmitt fell out offavor with the SS, he travelled to Spain, Portugal, andItaly, under synarchist sponsorship providing lectureson how to continually legitimize the fascist governmentsof those nations. He refused de-Nazification after hisarrest at the end of the war, arguing that he took no partin the actual administration of genocide, but only pro-

vided ideas, or a diagnosis.

The U.S. Schmitt Revival

The close relationship between Carl Schmitt and LeoStrauss, and the explosive revival of Schmitts works inthe United States, funded by the same foundationswhich sponsor the Federalist Society in the 1980s and1990s (see following article) suggest that Dick Cheneysadvocacy of the Fhrerprinzip is not a matter of coinci-dence. Schmitt helped Strauss obtain a RockefellerFoundation grant to come to the United States. Straussand Schmitt collaborated on Schmitts book, TheConcept of the Political and on Strausss book onHobbes. Strausss fawning letters to Schmitt continued

long after the Nazis ascent to power.New York University Professor George Schwab pro-duced two books on Schmitt in the 1970s, working withSchmitt himself to cleanse and minimize Schmitts Nazipast for a U.S. audience. Schwab was a protg of for-eign policy realist Hans Morgenthau, also of theUniversity of Chicago, and Schmitts works proved use-ful in the 1970s dirty work of George Shultz and HenryKissinger in overthrowing the Allende government inChile, and establishing a bankers dictatorship run

13


15/25

through the University of Chicago and Gen. AugustoPinochet. Jaime Guzman, an open and proud follower ofCarl Schmitt, is widely recognized as the individual whoprovided popular legal legitimization for Chiles consti-tutional coup, utilizing, Guzman states, the theoriesprovided by Carl Schmitt. Jos Pieras, the leader ofChiles social security reform, who toured the U.S. onbehalf of George Bushs Social Security reform propos-als, declares on the Internet that he was the closestfriend of Guzman.

In the late 1970s, a German Straussian, Heinrich Meierof the Siemens Stiftung, also began working on a majorreformulation of Schmitt for purposes of the emergingConservative Revolution. Concentrating on Schmittspostwar diaries, his early work with Leo Strauss, andSchmitts resurrection of the Spanish philosopher DonosoCortes for purposes of legitimizing Franco, Meier recastSchmitt as the theoretician of permanent religious war-fare, or world civil war on behalf of the God of revealedreligion, a theory which has chilling resemblance to theworldview expressed by George W. Bush.

In the 1980s and 1990s Schmitt became a staple on

reading lists of U.S. colleges and universities in politscience and philosophy, a revival which produEnglish translations of most of Schmitts works, areams of scholarly articles, conferences, and presentions. Funding for this project centered in the Lynde Harry Bradley Foundation and other neo-conservafoundations. Michael Joyce, who chaired the BradFoundation during this period, is a Straussian who sted his career with Irving Kristol and the Institute Educational Affairsthe same Foundation that proed seed funding for the Federalist Society. The Engtranslations of both Meier books on Schmitt were plished by the University of Chicago Press under grafrom the Bradley Foundation, facilitated by HiFradkin. Fradkin, a Straussian, taught on the Commion Social Thought at the University of Chicago; was vpresident of the Bradley Foundation from 1988-19was a program officer at the Olin Foundation; headStraussian think tank in Israel called the Shalem Cenand recently replaced Iran-Contras Elliott Abramsthe head of the Ethics and Public Policy CenterWashington, D.C.

14

The same right-wing tax-exempt foundations that arebehind the Carl Schmitt revival of the past 20 years,have also bankrolled a Schmittlerian march throughthe judicial institutions via the misnamed FederalistSociety. Founded in 1982, at the University of Chicagoand Yale University law schools, the Federalist Societyhas promoted the dismantling of all regulatory protec-tion of the General Welfare, while advocating the mostdraconian police-state excesses, typified by the PatriotActs and the torture memos. These have beenauthored by a team of Federalist Society members andallies inside the Department of Justice Office of LegalCounsel and the White House Office of the GeneralCounselunder the sponsorship of Vice President DickCheney and Cheneys current chief of staff and general

counsel, David Addington.The Federalist Societys modus operandi: To hijackthe curriculum at major American law schools on behalfof patently anti-American Conservative Revolution fas-cist dogmas, and place a carefully screened and indoctri-nated group of ambitious right-wing attorneys in keyposts in the Executive Branch, and in Federal regulatoryagencies, to overturn the U.S. Constitution. FederalistSociety members and fellow-travellers now dominatethe Office of the White House General Counsel and the

Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel, and hollarge and growing number of Federal Court judgesh

including on the U.S. Supreme Court. Federalist Socboard member C. Boyden Gray, who was White HoGeneral Counsel under President George H.W. Buemployed Federalist Society founder Lee Liberman Oto head up judicial screening at the Bush 41 WhHouse; she boasted, according to Lawrence Walsh, tnot one judicial appointment was made by Bush onon-Federalist Society member.

When then-First Lady Hillary Clinton denouncevast right-wing conspiracy behind the impeachmenPresident Bill Clinton, she was, knowingly or not, shing a spotlight on the Federalist Society. FederaSociety booster Judge David Sentelle, Jr. headed

judicial committee that selected Federalist Society meber Kenneth Starr to head the Whitewater probe. Sselected Federalist Society member Brett Kavanaughone of his deputies (Kavanaugh has been a White HoAssociate Counsel since the Bush 43 inaugurationJanuary 2001). Federalist Society board of visitors chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) chaired the SenJudiciary Committee at the time of the Clinton impeament trial. His son, Brent Hatch, is the Treasurer of Federalist Society board of directors. Federalist Soc

Fascist Feddies MarchThrough the Institutionsby Jeffrey Steinberg


16/25

Washington, D.C. chapterPresident Theodore Olson,the recently retired SolicitorGeneral of the UnitedStates, ran the Get Clintonsalon that drew togetherright-wing media pundits,lawyers, and foundationexecutives, to drive the pro-paganda barrage against thePresidency.

For the most part, theFederalist Society has goneout of its way to hide itsSchmittlerian roots. Toread the Societys glossy lit-erature, one would get thefalse impression that theyare revivalists of the JamesMadison Federalist tradi-tion. The groups FiscalYear 2003 Annual Reportclaimed, The Federalist

Society for Law and PublicPolicy Studies is a group ofconservatives and libertari-ans interested in the currentstate of the legal order. It is founded on the principlesthat the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separa-tion of governmental powers is central to ourConstitution, and that it is emphatically the provinceand duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not whatit should be. The Society seeks both to promote anawareness of these principles and to further their appli-cation through its activities.

Then the Big Lie concludes: This entails reorder-

ing priorities within the legal system to place a premi-um on individual liberty, traditional values, and therule of law. It also requires restoring the recognitionof the importance of these norms among lawyers,

judges, law students and professors. In working toachieve these goals, the Society has created a conserva-tive intellectual network that extends to all levels of thelegal community.

Many civil rights activists see it quite differently. Theycharacterize the Federalist Society as a network commit-ted to the revival of the Confederate doctrine of law,aimed at overturning all of the civil rights advancessince Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. Indeed, one

leading Federalist Society member, University ofChicago Law School professor Richard Epstein, heads amovement called the Constitution in Exile, whichclaims that FDR ripped up the Federal Constitution withhis New Deal programs of Social Security and othersocial-safety-net guaranteesthis, despite the fact thatthe General Welfare Clause of the ConstitutionsPreamble explicitly mandates that the Federal govern-ment promote the general welfare of current andfuture generations.

Lino A. Graglia, a Federalist Society member andUniversity of Texas law professor, whose Reagan-eranomination to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals waspulled when he admitted that he had referred to AfricanAmericans as pickaninnies, openly asserts, to this day,that blacks and Latinos are inherently inferior to whites.Blacks and Mexican Americans are not academicallycompetitive with Whites in selective institutions, hewas quoted in a 1999 profile of the Federalist Society,

Hijacking Justice. It is, he elaborated, primarily ofcultural effects. Failure is not looked upon with dis-grace. About the Federalist Society, Graglia acknowl-edged, They certainly are unenthusiastic about civilrights laws. Richard Epstein thinks we will be better offif civil rights laws were all repealed. These people dobelieve, as I believe, that so-called civil rights have gonetoo far and are not civil rights at all.

Lawrence Walsh, the Iran-Contra independent coun-sel, put it bluntly: The impression I have is they are try-ing to return to the 18th Century and undo the work ofthe Supreme Court since the New Deal. And I think it iswrong to put someone on the court who has a pre-com-

mitment with a political dogma, whether its the KuKlux Klan or the Federalist Society.Even James Baker III, who held a variety of Cabinet-

level posts in both the Reagan and Bush 41Administrations, was quoted in the Washington Post,referring to Reagan Administration Attorney GeneralEdwin Meese and his deputy Kenneth Cribb as BigBigot and Baby Bigot, respectively. Cribb is a directorof the Federalist Society, and is also on the board of theScaife Foundation, a cash spigot to the Society, and to a

15

www.usdoj.gov

Robert Bork, one of whose protgs was Steven

Calabresi, a founder of the Federalist Society.Bork and Scalia were among the first facultysponsors of the Federalist Society when itwas launched in 1982.

naif.org

Justice Antonin Scalia: many of the

Federalist Society members involved inpromoting the unitary executive schemehad clerked for him, or look to him forinspiration.


17/25

wide range of right-wing front organizations. TheMellon Scaife foundations almost single-handedlyfinanced the Federalist Society-led impeachment cam-paign against Bill Clinton. Ed Meese is one of theFederalist Societys most prominent boosters and fre-quent conference speakers. He is listed on FederalistSociety literature as a member of the groups board of

visitors.But the most on-target diagnosis, to date, of the

Federalist Society, was provided by Scott Horton, pro-fessor of law at Columbia University Law School and aleading figure in the New York City Bar Association. In aNov. 5, 2005 commentary on the Bush Administrationstorture memos, which had claimed that the Presidentwas exempt from the Geneva Conventions and otherinternational laws barring torture, Professor Hortonidentified Hitlers Crown Jurist Carl Schmitt as thesource for John Yoos Justice Department arguments.Yoo, a leading Federalist Society booster since hisdeparture from the Justice Department to take up ateaching post at the University of California Law Schoolat Berkeley, was promulgated into prominence by pow-erful sponsors at the top of the Bush Administration,

including Vice President Cheneys general counsel andcurrent chief of staff, David Addington, and TimothyFlanigan, the recipient of over $800,000 in FederalistSociety consulting fees (paid to him to write an unau-thorized biography of former Supreme Court JusticeWarren Burger, for whom he clerked).

Secret Handshakes

On July 18, 2005, CNN began its coverage of aFederalist Society luncheon in Washington with the fol-lowing profile: At a recent Friday luncheon, formerSolicitor General Theodore Olson cast his eyes over ahotel ballroom crammed with lawyers and wryly wel-

comed all of you Federalists who seem to have masteredthe secret handshake. For those of you who have stum-bled in off the street, it is my duty to advise you that youhave stumbled into a right-wing cabalyou will neverbe the same again, the governments one-time chiefcourtroom lawyer deadpanned as chortles erupted frommembers of the Federalist Society.

Of course CNN went on to acknowledge that theFederalist Society does not have a secret handshake,and its meetings are generally open to the public. Butbeyond that caveat, the Federalist Society, from itsinception, has been, at its essence, aSchmittlerian/Straussian conspiratorial association,

aimed at overturning the Constitutional order.According to a wide range of public accounts, theFederalist Society was launched by three Yale Universityundergraduates, who went on to study law at Yale or atthe University of Chicago. The three were: StevenCalabresi, Lee Liberman, and David McIntosh. At YaleLaw, Calabresi was a protg of two law school profes-sors who would both be appointed to the Federal benchby Ronald Reagan: Robert H. Bork and Ralph K.Winter. At the University of Chicago Law School,

Liberman and McIntosh were mentored by PrAntonin Scalia. Bork, Winter, and Scalia would becothe first faculty sponsors of the Federalist Society, wit was launched in 1982.

The Federalist Society was initiated at the urginganother Yale Law graduate, Michael Horowitz, wdelivered a speech in 1979, calling for the conservatito move in and take over the public-interest law fieldCNN described it on July 19, 2005: The Societys origcan be traced back to 1979the year before RonReagans victorywhen a legal scholar named MichHorowitz published a tract on the public-interest movement, exhorting conservatives to overturn a hcentury of liberal dominance of the legal establishmThis could be done, he wrote, by indoctrinating or wning over succeeding generations of law studenlawyers, and judges. By definition, the campaign hadbe rooted in the fertile ground of law schools.Horowitzs good fortune, Reagan was elected in 19and his administration set to work filling the sails of Federalist movement.

The project involved two tracks. The first was steera large number of right-wing law professors and at

neys into the Federal courts. The second track, Ccontinued, was even more forward-looking ainvolved the apprenticing of a new generation of con

vative lawyer-intellectuals-under-30 to the Reagan apratus. The second track required fresh meat, whicwhere the Federalist Society came in.

By the late 1980s, the Federal courts were teemwith clerks hand-picked from the emerging ranks of Federalist Society. In the October 1988 session aloncabal of 10 Federalist Society members came inU.S. Supreme Court clerks, according to a book-lenaccount. Michael Horowitz, now at the HudInstitute, became the General Counsel to the Offic

Management and Budget at the start of the ReagAdministration, and he typified Federalist Society mbers and boosters who dominated the Executive Bralegal postings under both Reagan and George HBush. After that dozen years of Reagan-Bush, Federal courts and regulatory agencies were, in efftaken over by members of the cabal.

The current Bush 43 Administration is also loawith Federalist Society members, including current former Cabinet members John Ashcroft, SpenAbraham, Gail Norton, and Michael Chertoff; and senpolitical appointees Larry Thompson, John BoltonBoyden Gray, Timothy Flanigan, and Theodore Olson

The current U.S. Supreme Court includes prominFederalist Society members and patrons, includJustices Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the neinstalled Chief Justice John Roberts. Nominee SamAlito is another Federalist Society member.

The Funding Cabal

The same tightly knit collection of right-wing texempt foundations that have bankrolled the revivaCarl Schmitt at American law schools, has been beh

16


18/25

Tony Papert reveals that theSynarchist financial interests

who sought to turn France fascist in the 1930s, are trying todo the same to the U.S. today.(Researched by a team coordi-nated by Pierre Beaudry.)

When a proposal of FelixRohatyns appeared inthe Washington Post of Dec.13, 2005, counterposing hisown plan, to LyndonLaRouches well-known pro-posals for national economicrecovery through long-term,low-interest Federal credits for

vital infrastructure-building,leading Congressional Demo-crats tended at once to realizethat there was something

fishy in what Rohatyn wassuggesting, but many wereunsure about exactly what waswrong with it.

Small wonder.Most Americans, even among those who imagine

that they have known him for many years, lack anyunderstanding of who or what Felix Rohatyn is. Why?Because Rohatyn is neither an American, nor does heresemble anything which more than very few living

Americans have ever know-ingly encountered. Not onlydoes he belong to a speciesthe European Synarchistwith which they have not theslightest acquaintance.Worse, their ignorance ofEuropean history, or, what is

the same thing, the dumbed-down, flat-earth versions ofhistory which they have swal-lowed, leave no room for theeven possible existence ofsuch a species as Rohatyns.

What is the EuropeanSynarchist? A definition willbe provided, but first, giventhe cults of stupidity whichpervade our society, first it isnecessary to demonstrate thatsomething exists out there

to be defined.The U.S. diplomat, Am-bassador Anthony J. DrexelBiddle, Jr., wrote to President

Roosevelt from London on Jan. 7, 1942, describing aclique which controlled the fascist Vichy government ofFrance, the government which (more or less) ruled thatcountry everywhere south of the German zone of directoccupation. This group, he said, should be regardednot as Frenchmen, any more than their corresponding

17

Whats a Rohatyn?

Felix Rohatyn is no American; he was groomed by topEuropean Synarchist bankers at Frances Lazard

Frres bank, to work for the international fascistfinanciers of the same stripe who put Hitler intopower.

the Federalist Society, from day one. The first substantialgrant to the Society was a $25,000 payout, in 1983, fromthe Institute for Educational Affairs, to sponsor the firstnational symposium. IEA was then headed by WilliamSimon, head of the Olin Foundation, and Irving Kristol,the godfather of the neo-conservative movement.

By 1998, the Federalist Society was directly raking in$2.6 million, and that figure has steadily increased sincethen. Major foundation donors include: Olin, the MellonScaife foundations, the Bradley Foundation, the Eli LillyEndowment, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation,the Charles Koch foundations, and the Deer CreekFoundation. Corporate donors include Holland Coors,Verizon, Microsoft, and Daimler-Chrysler.

The Federalist Society, in turn, has spawned an exten-sive network of religious and secular fronts, all workingin concert, to further the Schmittlerian march throughthe institutions: Federalist Society trustee C. BoydenGray has his Citizens for a Sound Economy; FederalistSociety member Manuel Klausner runs the IndividualRights Foundation; Michael Rosner, an early Federalist

Society leader, runs the Center for Individual Rights;Federalist Society figure James Bopp was a long-timetop official of the National Right to Life Committee andthe Christian Coalition; Roger Clegg runs the Center forEqual Opportunity; Donald Hodel, a leading FederalistSociety figure and former Reagan Cabinet secretary, wasthe long-time President of the Christian Coalition.

Pat Robertsons Regent University Law School is amajor recruiting ground for the Society, and Ave MariaSchool of Law, founded by Dominos Pizza magnateThomas Monaghan, lists Society co-chairman RobertBork on its faculty.

Other Federalist Society affiliates include: theInstitute for Justice, the Washington Legal Foundation,the Pacific Legal Foundation, the American Center forLaw and Justice at Robertsons Regent University LawSchool, the Christian Legal Society, the RutherfordInstitute, and the Alliance Defense Fund. The AllianceDefense Fund is a coalition of religious groups, involvedin a series of court cases challenging the separation ofchurch and state.


19/25

numbers in Germany should be regarded as Germans,for the interests of both groups are so intermingled asto be indistinguishable; their whole interest is focussedupon furtherance of their industrial and financialstakes.1

Ambassador Biddle went on to detail the proof thatthe Banque Worms clique controlled most parts of theVichy government, with a special emphasis on total con-trol over all economic and related portfolios. On paper,Banque Worms had been established earlier by theLazard Frres bank of Paris, on behalf of the Wormsfamily of industrialists. In reality, the closely integratedLazard Brothers bank of London, Lazard Frres of Paris,and Lazard Frres of Wall Street, had establishedBanque Worms as a cutout, a vehicle through whichtop financier families could deploy the forces of theSynarchy.

Lazard Paris, where Rohatyns patron Andr Meyerwas a leading senior partner, was intertwined with cer-tain other leading French banks, and integrated into thetreasury and finances of the state, in large part becauseof its intimacy with Lazard Frres of New York, on WallStreet, and Lazard Brothers (London), which latter was

part of the inner circle of financiers around the monar-chy and around Bank of England head (and Hitlerbankroller) Montagu Norman. Lazard Londons LordRobert H. Brand, a senior managing partner in the earlydecades of the century, had founded the British RoundTable for these circles in 1906-09. Brand and LazardBrothers president Sir Robert Molesworth Kindersley,were the British representatives to the DawesCommittee to reorganize the German debt in 1923, andso forth.

As a senior partner, and then also (1938-40), associatemanager of Lazard Frres of Paris, Andr Meyer was

very close to the center of the France-centered

Synarchist conspiracies which had brought fascism topower in Italy (1922), Portugal (1932), Germany (1933),Spain (1939), and other countries. In France itself, theSynarchy tried and failed to overturn the Third Republicin three successive putsch attempts between 1928 and1937, even while burrowing from within and infiltrat-ing successive Paris governments at the same time.These were Marshall Lyauteys intended putsch inAlsace-Lorraine in 1928, aided by pro-fascist clergy,which would have paved the way for a takeover of Paris;Colonel LaRocques planned storming of the Parliamentat the head of his Croix de Feu (Cross of Fire), secondedby Charles Maurras Action Franaise, on Feb. 6, 1934;

and finally, a putsch attempt apparently led by theCagoules (hooded ones, right-wing goon squads),which was exposed and aborted on Feb. 17, 1937. Atlast, by 1940, the Synarchys only recourse had been toinvite the German Reichswehr in, to do what they couldnever do themselves: to sweep away the hated Third

Republic, along with probably hundreds of thousandits supporters.

This was the great mystery of how France cofall to the Germans in six weeks. The Synarchy eftively disarmed the country and prevented effecresistance. This is well documented by Robert RaoHusson, whose writings and clippings form the bulkthe Mennevee Archive of the University of CaliforniaBerkeley, les Documents Politiques DiplomatiqueFinanciers, and by other investigators. Husson others also document that the 1.9 million French trowho were outflanked and helplessly taken backGermany as prisoners, had been largely selected for trole by a Synarchist military intelligence operatheaded by the pseudonymous P.C. Victor, unwhich 60 French fascists were brought intoCinquime Bureau to profile 600,000 anti-fascistpro-republican Frenchmen supposedly consideredanger to national defense. Many of the 600,000 wescaped German captivity in this first round, were sto Germany later as forced laborers, under a progrproposed by Pierre Laval, through which (pro-fascprisoners of war were released back to France, on c

dition that (anti-fascist) forced laborers be sent frFrance, to take their places in the German munitifactories.

Having fled to New York from his own golem, awere, in 1940, this was the Andr Meyer who laadopted the fellow Jewish refugee, the Viennese FRohatyn, to succeed him in place of his own Philippe, of about the same age as Rohatyn, who hwisely refused.

What Rohatyn did to his adopted city of New Ybetween 1975 and 1982, as sketched in an accompaing article by Richard Freeman, proves that old AnMeyer was right: young Rohatyn did indeed have

makings of a European Synarchist of the same moldhimself.

Ambassador Biddle continued, On the one haPierre Pucheu (Interior) and Yves Bouthillier (NatioEconomy) were members of the Worms clique. GrBergeret (Secretary of State for Aviation) was incluby some among Ptains personal following, by othamong the Worms group. Excluding Bergeret, Secretaries of State were almost to a man associatethe same clique. They were Jacques Barna(Delegate-General for Franco-German EconomRelations), Jrome Carpopino (Education), SeHuard (Family and Health), Admiral Platon (Coloni

Ren Belin (Labor), Franois Lehideux (IndustProduction), Jean Berthelot (Communications) aPaul Charbin (Food Supply). . . . Among the Worgroup should be mentioned further a large numbesomewhat subordinate officials (chiefly secretargeneral) like Lamirand, Borotra, RavallaBichelonne, Lafond, Million, Deroy, Filipi, Schwaand Billiet.

Although the name Synarchy was inventedJoseph-Alexandre Saint-Yves, called DAlveydre (18

18

__________

1. William L. Langer, Our Vichy Gamble (New York: The NortonLibrary, 1947), p. 169.


20/25

1909), its occult secret organization, the freemasonicMartinist Order, had existed long before, formed inFrance, centered in Lyon, in the 1770s. This exclusive,secret, magical-mystical Freemasonic order was spon-sored from Jeremy Benthams London. London usedit to insure that no version of the AmericanRevolution and Republic would occur in Europe,specifically in France, which was most ripe for it.Manipulations of the Martinist Order were largely toblame for the fact that the French Revolution becamethe bloody tragedy it did, right through the reign ofNapoleon Bonaparte, and through to that of his nephew,Napoleon III.

Notable 18th-Century Martinists in French politicsincluded the Pierre Mesmer whom Franklin and hisFrench ally Sylvain Bailly exposed as a scientific fraud.Another was the mountebank magician and psychic whocalled himself Cagliostro. The blood-drenched Savoyardnobleman Joseph de Maistre pre-planned the personali-ty and role of Napolon Bonaparte, modelling it on theSpanish Grand Inquisitor Toms de Torquemada whoexpelled the Jews in 1492. Although his moral doctrineswere those of a Caligula, and Sir Isaiah Berlin dubbed

him the first fascist, Maistre is revered by many con-temporary Catholic integrists.

Moving to the early 20th Century, the most powerfulknown organizations of French Synarchy, the

Synarchist Movement of Empire (SME) and its militarywing, the Secret Revolutionary Action Committee(SRAC), were founded in 1922, coincident withMussolinis March on Rome. Writing in La France

Intrieure in February-March, 1945, investigator D.J.David (Robert Husson) defined the SME as the greatFrench fascist secret society. It is this institution which,ever since its creation, had been recruiting patiently andprudently, with extreme care, the men destined to takepower after the awaited revolution, after this revolutionwhich was to destroy, no matter what, all republicaninstitutions.

He classified the SME as an intermediary secretsociety, as follows. Inferior secret societies are thosethat everybody knows about. . . . Whoever wants to jointhem, for personal reasons, can do so. All he has to do isto submit a request at the address of the secret society,generally known, or he transmits his request to a knownmember. . . . Such secret societies are very numerous.David mentions the Masons, the Cagoulards (hoodedones, a right-wing goon squad), the Theosophists andothers, concluding, in the inferior secret societies, theideologies put forward, whatever they are, are nothing

but philosophical, religious, mystical, or political teaserswhich recruit people who are generally personally disin-terested and sincere.

He continues, The intermediary secret societies have

19

What Is Synarchism?Synarchism is a name adopted during the TwentiethCentury for an occult freemasonic sect, known as theMartinists, based on worship of the tradition of the

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. During the intervalfrom the early 1920s through 1945, it was officiallyclassed by U.S.A. and other nations intelligence ser-

vices under the file name of Synarchism:Nazi/Communist, so defined because of its deployingsimultaneously both ostensibly opposing pro-commu-nist and extreme right-wing forces for encirclement ofa targetted government. Twentieth-Century and laterfascist movements, like most terrorist movements, areall Synarchist creations.

Synarchism was the central feature of the organiza-tion of the fascist governments of Italy, Germany,Spain, and Vichy and Laval France, during that peri-

od, and was also spread as a Spanish channel of theNazi Party, through Mexico, throughout Central andSouth America. The PAN party of Mexico was born asan outgrowth of this infiltration. It is typified by thefollowers of the late Leo Strauss and AlexandreKojve today.

This occult freemasonic conspiracy, is foundamong both nominally left-wing and also extremeright-wing factions such as the editorial board of the

Wall Street Journal, the Mont Pelerin Society, andAmerican Enterprise Institute and Hudson Institute,and the so-called integrist far right inside the Catholic

clergy. The