Sunday, 31 August 2014

Couldn't Make it Up : "World Order", by Henry Kissinger - Published Sept. 9 2014


Henry Kissinger on the Assembly of a New World Order

The concept that has underpinned the modern geopolitical era is in crisis

The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis, writes Henry Kissinger. Above, a pro-Russian fighter stands guard at a checkpoint close to Donetsk, Ukraine in July. 

"Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace. The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

In the Middle East, religious militias violate borders at will.

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy."

— Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

The Kursk Incident - The Second Occasion when Vladimir Putin PreventedWorld War III

It was US and UK that sank Russia's Kursk submarine?


Strategic submarine "Kursk" that sank in 2000 was sunk by the Americans. This theory discussed in Russia and abroad was once again raised by the Polish Wprost, referring to the information allegedly received from the Russian General Staff officer, "Lt. Col. Andrei."

According to the authors, the restraint of the Russians made it possible to avoid a full-scale nuclear war.

The fact that "Kursk" perished at the torpedo explosion was adopted as the official theory in Russia. The report of the Prosecutor General of Russia of 2002 stated that the torpedo was a teaching one, and it exploded on its own followed by a detonation of the ammunition.

Almost immediately after the accident a few admirals and officials claimed that "Kursk" was torpedoed by a U.S. submarine stationed in the area of the exercise.

Also, some military officials declared that Russian nuclear submarine collided with a foreign submarine.

The first information of any unexpected event that subsequently gets an official legend, as a rule, is the closest to the truth.

The same theory was also developed by French director Jean-Michel Carré in the movie "Kursk": "Submarine in turbid waters," (2005).

According to the movie, the Russian submarine was watched by two American submarines "Memphis" and "Toledo."

"Toledo" came dangerously close.

To prevent an attack of the Russian submarine at "Toledo", "Memphis" allegedly fired Mk-48 torpedo at "Kursk".

According to the Canadian History TV Channel, in the course of surveillance of "Kursk", "Toledo" tried to come closer, but by chance ran into the Russian nuclear submarine that was likely performing a maneuver.

The captain of "Memphis", thinking that "Kursk" attacked "Toledo" (presumably receiving an acoustic signal to open the torpedo locks), fired at the Russian submarine.

According to "Lieutenant Colonel Andrei", "small submarine AS-15 (apparently, "Kashalot" (Project 1910) - Ed.) quickly discovered "Kursk" after the accident. However, there was no decision on rescue operations - though, as the source claims, there were divers on board able to operate at depths up to 200 meters. "Kursk" was lying at a depth of 108 meters.

"Kashalots" are among the most secret Russian Navy submarines. To this day, it is unknown whether they obey the Navy command.

At least until 1986 (at the time the first submarine of this type was used for three years), they were registered with the GRU.*

Glavnoye Razvedyvatelnoye Upravleniye
(Soviet Military Intelligence)

"We thought that the crew was killed, there was no contact with them," continued lieutenant colonel.

"The phone rang, Korabelnikov picked up, listed, turned pale, and murmured:

"The U.S. (...) sunk the ship, there will be a war!" Supposedly said Korabelnikov.

Of course, the American side rejected both theories.

Against this background, the presence of a British boat "Splendid" in the area was forgotten.

In 1986 it encountered a Soviet submarine "Simbirsk" and in 1999 struck at Serbia, and was supposedly scared by "Kursk" surfaced in the Mediterranean.

After the explosion at "Kursk" submarine, it left for repairs at NATO bases.

The presence of two boats in the area of ​​the crash, along with the harmonization of positions on the force majeure between Moscow, Washington and London, as expected, could cause delays in the rescue operation of the Russian sailors.

Interestingly, it was possible to track down the route of the Americans after the incident, but the situation with the British nuclear submarine has not been clarified.

The idea of a possible involvement of "Splendid" in the death of "Kursk" concerns the British.
The British "Wikipedia" on the page devoted to this boat, made a very voluminous retreat.

It argues that the British submarine had nothing to do with the death of the Russian submarine.

"Although the charges were unfounded, the conspiracy theorists have developed them in different directions for a long time," said "Wikipedia".

Indeed, back in 2000, "Nezavisimaya Gazeta" published an opinion of one of the captain divers, according to which "Splendid" submarine found rest next to "Kursk" on the bottom of the Barents Sea, and was blown up during an operation aimed to raise the Russian submarine. The author suggests that we will soon hear of the death or retirement of this submarine.

In October of 2000, according to BBC, 12 nuclear submarines (including all submarines "Swiftsure") were removed from combat duty because of a leak in the cooling system of a nuclear reactor in a boat of Trafalgar class.

It is unknown how many boats later returned to the system.

According to "Jane's" catalog, the boat was written off in 2004.

Although it was the last and the newest boat of project "Swiftsure" (a total of six), it was the first one to be sent to scraps.

Six days after something went dreadfully wrong with the Russian nuclear submarine Kursk, another submarine quietly pulled into a Norwegian port, carrying some of the most detailed evidence so far of why the pride of Russia's navy sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea.
The other submarine was the Memphis, a nuclear-powered attack submarine based in Groton, Conn., and one of two American submarines that were spying on the largest Russian naval exercise in years when disaster struck the Kursk on the morning of Aug. 12.
By the time the Memphis reached Bergen, Norway, Russian officials, including the defense minister, Marshal Igor D. Sergeyev, had said the Kursk had probably sunk after colliding with a foreign submarine or a World War II mine. So the arrival of the Memphis spawned news reports in Russia that a damaged submarine needing repairs had limped into port.
Publicly, the Pentagon still refuses to comment on the whereabouts or the mission of the Memphis. And they say the most likely cause of the sinking is the misfiring of one of the Kursk's torpedoes.

They insist that the Memphis was not damaged. Nor was it, the other American submarine or any other foreign submarine involved in any collision, they said. The Memphis's arrival in Norway was a long-scheduled liberty call, they said.
The call allowed the submarine to unload sonar tapes and other recordings that the Americans say captured two explosions that ravaged and sank the Kursk, killing all 118 people on board.
Those tapes, now being analyzed at the National Maritime Intelligence Center in Suitland, Md., contain the strongest evidence, until now not discussed in detail, to support the leading American theory of what destroyed the Kursk.
And that theory, they said, does not include the collision that the Russians have said probably occurred. ''We have subs that hear everything that goes on,'' a senior officer in Washington said. ''It's pretty clear to us what happened.''
According to the American theory, a rocket-propelled torpedo being loaded or launched as part of an exercise misfired, its engine or its fuel exploding.
After 2 minutes and 15 seconds -- during which time the Kursk's captain either increased power from the nuclear reactor or blew ballast in an effort to surface -- a powerful explosion of the torpedo's warhead tore a gaping hole in the submarine's bow, killing most if not all of the crew instantly.
[In Vladivostok, Russia, today, a former submarine officer who is a member of a governmental commission investigating the explosion said a new weapons system was being tested on board the Kursk when it sank. But the former officer, Sergei V. Zhekov, would not elaborate on the system during a news conference, saying it was a state secret, the news agency Interfax reported.]
When the Kursk sank, the United States government knew within hours. The Americans collected telltale recordings by means of submarines and a surface ship, and even from shore.
They detected no sounds of a collision. And they monitored the Russian fleet's emergency radio transmissions closely during the aftermath.
In addition to two submarines, the Navy had a surface ship, the Loyal, in the Barents Sea.
The Loyal is one of a class of surveillance ships operated by civilian contractors, but with as many as 15 Navy sailors and officers aboard.
According to the Navy, ships like the Loyal have only a single mission: ''to gather underwater acoustical data'' in support of ''the antisubmarine warfare mission'' of fleet commanders.
The ship can tow an array of underwater listening devices that pick up the most minute data, and that, the officials said, was precisely what it was doing.
A senior American officer said the two submarines were ''a long ways away'' from the Kursk at the time of the explosions, but he declined to say how far. Another senior officer said that under the Navy's rules of engagement the submarines would not have gone any closer than five miles, especially because the Russian ships were testing weapons. The Loyal, whose presence would have been obvious to the Russian fleet, was presumably even farther away.
Still, the senior officer said, the submarines were close enough not only to detect the explosions with their sonar, but also to feel the underwater concussion caused by the second, larger blast.
Even so, there was no damage to the Memphis or the other submarine, all of the officials said. ''Not a teacup was rattled,'' the senior military officer said.
Britain, the other country whose submarines regularly prowl the Barents, has denied that it had a submarine in the area at the time.
Within hours of the explosions, both American submarines radioed messages back to fleet headquarters. ''They were alive and well and had no bumps,'' another senior officer said.
The American officials said that neither the two submarines nor the Loyal had detected any sounds that would suggest that the Kursk had been involved in a collision of any sort.
Even at great distances, the signals created by a collision or an explosion are easy to distinguish, the officials said.
One official also said that given the Kursk's immense size, larger than the American Trident ballistic missile submarines, it was unlikely that another vessel could have endured a collision without suffering significant, perhaps debilitating damage.
It is also unlikely, given the Kursk's double-hulled design intended to withstand crashes or torpedoes, that a collision alone could have caused the damage that doomed the Kursk, the officials and experts said.
Ever since the Kursk sank, Russian accounts of what happened have been imprecise and sometimes contradictory. Officials in Russia did not report the accident until early on Aug. 14, which was a Monday, a day after the they realized that something had gone wrong and nearly two days after the accident. Even then, they said it had happened on Sunday, rather than on Saturday.
The Russians do not deny that a massive explosion hit the Kursk. But they have insisted that the submarine first was involved in a collision with some huge object, possibly a submarine or a World War II mine.

The Russian assertions are based in part on five hours of underwater videotape now being examined by an investigative commission headed by Deputy Prime Minister Ilya I. Klebanov. Russians officials have cited external damage on the submarine's hull that they said could only have been caused by its scraping another large object, and they have reported detecting pieces from unknown foreign submarines on the ocean floor.
In a television interview a week ago, Marshal Sergeyev, the defense minister, said that Russian surface ships racing to rescue had detected a second vessel on the seabed near the Kursk and had found an unknown signal buoy like those used by submarines. Some Russian reports said the buoy's markers were green and white and did not match those of the Russian fleet. Mr. Sergeyev said the buoy had never been recovered.
American officials questioned the reports of a green and white buoy being found. They said rescue buoys on American and British submarines are orange, while emergency communication buoys are gray.
They also discounted the possibility that the second vessel the Russians claimed to have detected on the ocean floor could have been one of the two American submarines.
''They didn't go in that close to look at what happened,'' a senior intelligence official said.
But even after the explosion, the two submarines did not immediately leave the area, the officials said. They continued to gather intelligence, intercepting frantic, confused radio messages between the other Russian ships trying to determine what had happened to the Kursk and trying to coordinate a rescue effort, the officials said.
The officials and submarine experts said it was possible that some of the crew -- perhaps 15 men or more -- had survived the initial explosions if they had managed to shut the watertight doors to their compartments in the stern quickly.
The Russians said they had detected tapping sounds from within the Kursk at least two days after it had sunk, raising hopes that a rescue of some crewmen might be possible.
Some American officials said that neither the Loyal nor the American submarines had detected the sounds, though they might not have been able to do so if they had been too far away.
The officials said it also appeared likely that the force of the second explosion had torn the Kursk apart with the force of one to two tons of TNT. The Norwegian divers who reached the Kursk a week after the accident found the rear escape hatch deformed, suggesting that the force of the blast might have rocketed throughout the submarine's compartments.
One question is whether the American submarines could have done anything to help the rescue effort. The American officials said the American submarines had not carried the kind of rescue equipment, like a submersible vehicle, that could have helped.
While the Americans had a fair guess of what had happened to the Kursk early on, it was only after the Memphis unloaded its sonar tapes on Aug. 18 that officials in Washington began to offer the theory of the torpedo misfiring.
But how much the Pentagon will be prepared to say in public remains in question. The submarine fleet has been traditionally wrapped in silence, and even now, more than two weeks later, the Pentagon has not publicly acknowledged the presence of two submarines in the Barents. Officials privately confirmed the role of the Memphis only when the vessel surfaced in Norway, and they still will not disclose the name of the other submarine. Nor have the Americans provided information on the submarines' exact whereabouts when the Kursk went down.
Given that secrecy, and the likelihood that the Russians will not fully share what they learn even if they recover the wreckage, it will be difficult to learn with any certainty what happened to the Kursk.
In 1968 an American submarine, the Scorpion, sank in the Atlantic near the Azores. Like the Kursk, it may have have been destroyed in an accident involving a torpedo misfiring. Other experts have argued that a faulty battery led to a fire and explosion. But to this day there is no public explanation of what happened.

Kommersant, December 5, 2001, p. 2
Admiral Vyacheslav Popov, former Commander of the Northern Fleet, dismissed last Saturday by the president, has moved to the Nuclear Ministry. According to Kommersant, the admiral has been appointed chief of the department in charge of scrapping nuclear submarines. In other words, exactly he will be in charge of scrapping the Kursk submarine.
Vologda Governor Vyacheslav Pozgalev said: "The admiral is in rather optimistic spirits. He said he moves to Moscow where he has received a new apartment." Official representatives of the Nuclear Ministry do not know anything about the admiral's appointment. However, Kommersant's sources said on condition of anonymity that the admiral will control the department for scrapping nuclear submarines.
The admiral has been appointed to a very important post - his department will have to scrap over 150 nuclear submarines. Admiral Popov's new job will be linked with his previous responsibilities because the functions of scrapping nuclear submarines were passed over to the Nuclear Ministry from the Defense Ministry in 1998. Currently, the Navy has to pass over technical bases of the Northern and Pacific Fleets to the Nuclear Ministry's enterprises. The military do not want to part with their property because the maintenance of the bases is funded from the state budget. Admiral Popov will have to settle relations with his former subordinates.

The Incident at Pristina Airport - The First Occasion when Vladimir Putin Prevented World War III

"We must find a way to help Kennedy - somehow..."

- Nikita Kruschev, 
Supreme Soviet, October 1962

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," Jackson told Clark
Behind the scenes battle over Pristina airport between British and US generals comes to light

Monday 2 August 1999 15.11 BST

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.

Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.

"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.

News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

The move is widely seen as a rebuke for the man who led Nato to victory, but who clashed repeatedly with his superiors because he favoured more aggressive tactics. General Clark, for example, pressed for the use of Apache attack helicopters, but his wish was denied amid fears of American casualties.

Trouble flared between the two men as soon as General Jackson was appointed commander on the ground in Kosovo. Talks on Russia's role had broken down and the American general was so anxious to stop Moscow from stealing a march on the allies, he ordered British and French troops to take the airport.

General Clark then asked fellow American commander Admiral James Ellis, in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to land helicopters on the runways to prevent giant Russian Ilyushin transport coming in. However, Admiral Ellis also refused, saying General Jackson would not like it.

The Russian planes were only prevented from landing after US officials persuaded Hungary to deny them permission to overfly the country. Both generals turned to their political masters for support, but while the British government backed General Jackson's judgment, General Clark received no support, effectively meaning his orders were overruled.

In Kosovo itself, the province took a step towards normality when post office workers and university professors returned to their jobs in the capital Pristina.

Bernard Kouchner, who heads the UN mission in Kosovo, accompanied hundreds of ethnic Albanian workers back to their jobs at the main headquarters building in Pristina.

"This is an important day in the rebuilding of Kosovo," Mr Kouchner told the workers. "It is a very important day because the workers are going back to their work."

But ethnic tension remains high. A bombing yesterday of an Orthodox church in the heart of Kosovo's capital underscored Serb fears that Nato is unable to protect them from vengeful Albanians. The bombing "was not a surprise because for the last few days we have been telling every day the K-For officers that this is going to be the next target," said Father Sava Janjic, a prominent Serbian Orthodox priest in Kosovo.

In Serbia, opponents of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic said they would hold a major rally in the capital on August 19 calling for a transition government to lead the country to democracy.

Cologne, Germany - June 20, 1999 - G8 Summit, Day 2.

The Yeltsin Group face off against Clinton and core members of his Rogue Cabinet.

President Clinton (DeMolay Society, Rhodes Scholar. CFR, Bilderberg) Secretary Albright (Israeli Mossad, Trilateral Cm., Bilderberg, CFR)  and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger (CFR, Trilateral Cm., Quill & Dagger, McGovern '72) meet with Russian President Boris Yeltsin (Heritage Foundation) and members of his delegation at Cologne’s Renaissance Hotel

Suddenly, Yeltsin reached below his desk and produced a yellowing loose leaf file of papers.

"A gift, for my old friend, Bill!"

Clinton's eyes widened like saucers -  

"Oh, I can use this...!"

President Yeltsin decorates Moscow Mayor Vladamir Putin for Services to Mother Russia.

NEWLY RELEASED Soviet files may shed light on one of America's most enduring mysteries, the assassination in 1963 of President John F Kennedy. The documents concern Lee Harvey Oswald, who shot the President in Dallas. Many Americans still suspect Oswald was part of an elaborate conspiracy.

The former US marine lived briefly in the Soviet Union, leading to speculation that he was a Soviet agent - and counter-speculation that he was a convenient patsy for American right-wingers. The files - assembled at the request of the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin - were handed to the US at the weekend during the G8 summit.

They are unlikely to prompt any great revelations. "The Russians opened their files to Norman Mailer and Lawrence Schiller years ago, resulting in Mailer's Oswald biography," said John Locke, an independent researcher on the assasination. "Some details may emerge, but they won't be central." Large parts of the KGB files were revealed in Izvestia several years ago. But they will provide new information on one of the strangest eras in Oswald's life.

Oswald was a source of great fascination for the KGB, which concluded he could not possibly have been the only assassin: he must have been part of a larger conspiracy. But the Izvestia reporter, Sergei Mostovshchikov, said this was partly professional jealousy. They could not understand how a man under their noses for so long and disregarded, had emerged as such a significant figure.

Oswald arrived in the Soviet Union in October 1959, having flown from London to Helsinki. He claimed political asylum and when the authorities tried to throw him out, he slashed his wrists. They let him stay.

He was under heavy surveillance while he lived in Minsk, now the capital of Belarus, because the KGB believed he worked for the other side. They were extremely interested when he bought a rifle in August 1960 and joined a hunting club because they suspected he would use this as an excuse to visit secret facilities while out on "hunting" trips. In fact he sold the rifle shortly afterwards and was a poor marksman.

He had a job as a low-level worker at a radio factory, and in March 1961 he met 19-year-old Marina Prusakova at a dance. They married and had a child.

The KGB was increasingly suspicious that Oswald missed "numerous union meetings and cultural events", and doubted his political commitment.

When he finally returned to America in 1962, disillusioned by his experiences, he said to a neighbour: "You go on building your communism by yourselves. You can't even smile like human beings here."

The authorities decided that he was of no interest as adversary or ally.

Oswald came to the attention of the KGB again when he visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City, wishing to return to the Soviet Union. He was fed up with being followed and harassed by the FBI, he said. The KGB brushed him off. The next time they heard of the former employee of Department 25 at the Gorizont radio factory was 22 November 1963, the day that Kennedy died.

Izvestia and Mr Mailer say the Oswald files contained no big new secrets. After Belarus became a separate state, the files caused a wrangle with Russia. Now it is up to the US what is released. Whatever is made public, addicts of conspiracy theories will continue to believe still more has been hidden.

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance.

Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians.
"I'm not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark's order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.
News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.
The move is widely seen as a rebuke for the man who led Nato to victory, but who clashed repeatedly with his superiors because he favoured more aggressive tactics. General Clark, for example, pressed for the use of Apache attack helicopters, but his wish was denied amid fears of American casualties.
Trouble flared between the two men as soon as General Jackson was appointed commander on the ground in Kosovo. Talks on Russia's role had broken down and the American general was so anxious to stop Moscow from stealing a march on the allies, he ordered British and French troops to take the airport.
General Clark then asked fellow American commander Admiral James Ellis, in charge of Nato's Southern Command, to land helicopters on the runways to prevent giant Russian Ilyushin transport coming in. However, Admiral Ellis also refused, saying General Jackson would not like it.
The Russian planes were only prevented from landing after US officials persuaded Hungary to deny them permission to overfly the country. Both generals turned to their political masters for support, but while the British government backed General Jackson's judgment, General Clark received no support, effectively meaning his orders were overruled.
In Kosovo itself, the province took a step towards normality when post office workers and university professors returned to their jobs in the capital Pristina.
Bernard Kouchner, who heads the UN mission in Kosovo, accompanied hundreds of ethnic Albanian workers back to their jobs at the main headquarters building in Pristina.
"This is an important day in the rebuilding of Kosovo," Mr Kouchner told the workers. "It is a very important day because the workers are going back to their work."
But ethnic tension remains high. A bombing yesterday of an Orthodox church in the heart of Kosovo's capital underscored Serb fears that Nato is unable to protect them from vengeful Albanians. The bombing "was not a surprise because for the last few days we have been telling every day the K-For officers that this is going to be the next target," said Father Sava Janjic, a prominent Serbian Orthodox priest in Kosovo.
In Serbia, opponents of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic said they would hold a major rally in the capital on August 19 calling for a transition government to lead the country to democracy.

Synarchy Against America by Anton Chaitkin

This article appears in the September 2, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Synarchy Against America

by Anton Chaitkin

This article is the product of a task force of EIR historians studying the history of Synarchism for the past half year. Together with Lyndon LaRouche's treatment of the current strategic threat of Synarchism ("World Nuclear War When?" EIR, Aug. 29, 2003), and other material, it will be published in September in a LaRouche in 2004 campaign report. More articles are forthcoming.

Contributing to this article were Pierre Beaudry, Irene Beaudry, Jeffrey Steinberg, Antony Papert, and the late H. Graham Lowry.

Introduction: The Adversaries at Bowood

The menace now confronting humanity from Washington's Cheney-Rumsfeld regime is a usurpation of power by financier terror leaders; the final, mad phase of a two-centuries-long project—to counteract the stunning success of the American Revolution and America's intervention in world affairs. This enemy totalitarian project came to be self-named, about a century ago, as "Synarchism."

To defeat it requires historical understanding, which can never consist merely of stupid lists of crimes and plots, however complex. It must instead be the story of the central fight for man's mind—and for the strategic direction of nations—over the question: Does the Creator give man Reason to shape scientific and social progress, or must "authority" manage men, as indistinguishable from beasts?

This is the persistent, nagging problem in intelligence analysis generally: Here are perpetrators, associated for such and such a purpose; here are those we judge good, in their earnest projects; yes, but how have those, with the power to shape large events, intervened to fuel or stall these actors, in line with the global, paradigmatic ideas guiding the power of those strategy-shapers?

The creation of the American republic was projected and built for by Europe's republican philosophers and statesmen, from Plato's humanism through and beyond the revival of knowledge in the 15th-Century Golden Renaissance. The American settlements of the 1600s were designed to make a renewed Renaissance base, safe from the tyranny of Europe's Venice-centered imperial rulers and their manipulated wars of religion and revenge. The 1648 Peace of Westphalia gave Europe a respite and a direction for survival. But the world's real hope was in America. Increase and Cotton Mather, John Winthrop, Alexander Spotswood, and at length, the scientist Benjamin Franklin—allied in ideas and action with the greatest minds of Europe, Gottfried Leibniz, Jonathan Swift, and their friends—all together contesting with Europe's feudal-minded financial powers over the fate of the human race.

Benjamin Franklin's world-famous scientific inquiries were informed by Plato's teaching, and by Franklin's participation in the trans-Atlantic war for the mind,[1] led by Leibniz, against the British empiricist "dead universe" advocates Isaac Newton and John Locke.

Franklin was already to be seen, in the early 1770s, leading a world movement for self-government and scientific progress. Then living in England as the agent of the colonies, Franklin frequently visited the Earl of Shelburne at his Bowood estate. Shelburne chaired the all-powerful three-man "Secret Committee" of the East India Company, which also included Francis Baring of the banking house that bore his name. Shelburne was the most sophisticated representative of the frankly Satanic financier powers behind the British throne.

The East India Company, a Royal-chartered private joint-stock company, represented the pinnacle of mid-18th-Century power, of what was known as the "Venetian Party" of rentier-financier oligarchs, who derived their global power from near monopoly control over key raw materials and commodities, insurance, banking, and shipping routes. The East India Company of Shelburne's "Secret Committee" deployed a more modern and large-scale military force than did the British Crown, maintaining control over their private fiefdoms in India and other parts of the world. The Company represented the gradual merger of British and Dutch financier factions, and, thus, operated above any notion of individual national loyalties. In effect, Shelburne was the "doge" of the combined British and continental European financier oligarchy.

The two wary, urbane, chief opponents—Franklin and Shelburne—constantly took each others' measure. Shelburne had to be the negotiating partner: Franklin knew Shelburne favored some concessions to the Americans, fearing that simple, brutal British repression would lead to an uncontrolled colonial revolt.

Their overlapping international circles often met and mingled at Bowood for liberal colloquy and friendly, tense, mutual intelligence-gathering. One might see there, for example, Shelburne's pagan French priest, Abbé Morellet, jousting with Franklin over magic and reason; while Franklin's scientific protégé and agent, Joseph Priestley, arranged his employer Shelburne's library.

Soon the U.S. declared independence, and Franklin won the kingdom of France as its Revolutionary ally. He inspired, at England's back door, the anti-British freedom struggle in Ireland, now emboldened by Britain's united enemies. America's cause was increasingly popular, praised as just and rational, esteemed as mankind's future, from Russia, to Joseph II's Austria, to Charles III's Spain, to South America.

For the threatened imperialists, Shelburne raised a positively hellish counterattack against the increasing American momentum. Shelburne's cadres and occultist agents threw France into bloody confusion and terror, then "solved" the chaos with Napoleon's tyranny that plundered Europe, leaving France ruined and America isolated.

This criminal initiative echoed down through the 19th and 20th Centuries, the model for the Synarchist movement of leading bankers, who opposed the persisting American power by spawning fascism and fundamentalist terror.

Shelburne's Bestiary

The world saw in Franklin's America the resurgent principles of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, that had ended Europe's Thirty Years' War: national sovereignty, coupled with renunciation of revenge, the banning of religious crusades and similar pretexts for eternal war. This orderly framework, with government protection for industry, and public credit, would lead to educated citizens, truth-seekers, inventors, who could increase their productive power and prosperity—man in the Divine image.

The British rulers and their Continental European factional allies went to total war to reverse the gears of mankind's progress, to obliterate the Peace of Westphalia they hated, and its American incarnation. Shelburne acted for the imperial looters, adventurers, and speculators who gained absolute power behind Britain's Kings George I, II, and III.

This oligarchy had spoken most bluntly through the shameless Mephistophelian writer, Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733). He demanded absolute "free market" lawlessness to satisfy man's alleged inherent evil, all his criminal appetites. He said the safety of the powerful depends on the maximum cheapness and brutalization of their subjects. "The surest wealth consists in a multitude of Laborious Poor.... To make the Society Happy ... it is requisite that great numbers ... should be Ignorant as well as Poor.... Going to School in comparison to Working is Idleness.... Men who are to remain and end their Days in a Laborious, tiresome and Painful Station of Life, the sooner they are put upon it at first, the more patiently they'll submit to it for ever after."

Mandeville argued that "the best policy is to preserve men in their native simplicity, strive not to increase their numbers; let them never be acquainted with strangers or superfluities, but remove and keep from them everything that might raise their desires or improve their understanding."[2]

Lord Shelburne's English estate housed the agents of influence for those financier powers, literary justifiers of their dominion over men, script-writers for managed insurrection. And Shelburne maintained Continental bases for his allies and subversive agents within French-speaking Switzerland, Geneva and its environs, and inside France proper, as will be described below.

Shelburne assigned two projects to East India Company propagandist Adam Smith. First, to prepare the research outline for a study of the Roman Empire, needed to aid conceptually in erecting a new such pagan empire with London as its headquarters. (This assignment was later turned over to another East India Company researcher, Edward Gibbon, and completed as The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which blamed the intrusion of Christianity, the religion of the weak, for the collapse of the mighty.)

Shelburne also commissioned Smith's work on an apologia for Free Trade. This, Smith completed in 1776 as The Wealth of Nations. He claimed that the power of an "invisible hand," and each man's pursuit of his selfish interest rather than anyone's desire to do good, causes economic well-being. (Wise men have since asked, is this invisible hand, financiers who rig stock bubbles, or Shelburnes who rig insurrections?) Smith warned Americans and Frenchmen not to dare the "artificial," government-promoted change from agrarian to industrial society; he attacked specifically the protectionist tradition of Jean Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for France's Louis XIV.

In the 1780s, Shelburne installed as his agent the Nero-imitating writer Jeremy Bentham, in an apartment at Bowood. Bentham had written with contempt in October 1776, against the defense of human rights in America's July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence: "This they 'hold to be' a 'truth self-evident.' At the same time, to secure these rights they are satisfied that Government should be instituted. They see not ... that nothing that was ever called Government ever was or ever could be exercised but at the expense of one or another of those rights, that ... some one or other of those pretended unalienable rights is alienated ... In these tenets they have outdone the extravagance of all former fanatics."

Bentham was to write speeches, translated by the Genevan Etienne Dumont, which went by diplomatic pouch and through other means to Paris, to be spoken by the street leaders of the Jacobin Terror: Marat, Danton, and Robespierre.

In preparation for this work, Bentham wrote a 1785 essay defending "Paederasty," arguing that penalties against men's sex with children stem from society's "irrational antipathy" to pleasure, especially sexual pleasure; and a 1787 pamphlet, In Defense of Usury, attacking all restrictions on the lenders' right to take the highest interest rates they could get away with.

The Shelburne-Bentham collaboration from this period is reliably considered the beginning of the modern British Secret Intelligence Service.

England, Switzerland, France

On the shores of Switzerland's Lake Geneva there were assembled, by the 1700s, a most peculiar set of banker-nobles. Some of these families descended from the Cathar chieftains, pagan buggerers who gravitated up the Rhône river. Some were well-to-do Protestant (Huguenot) emigrés from French religious strife. Most adhered to the sect of the earlier French emigré Genevan, John Calvin; this gave them ties to the Dutch financiers, and religious denominational affiliation with those Scots who served London's empire. They were joined later by embittered aristocratic refugees from the Terror in France. Thus for the corrupted Anglo-Dutch monarchies, French Switzerland became a knife pointed at the heart of France.

The misnamed 18th-Century Enlightenment stank from Geneva to Paris, from Amsterdam to London. The undead Cathar pagan reverence for possessed objects—such as gold, land, piles of grain, the bodies of serfs—yielded the doctrine of physiocracy: that wealth is simply transferred from natural earth and the treasure under it, so man's creative discoveries and scientific advancements have no economic value. Adam Smith formed his Free Trade notions from the physiocrats while in France and Switzerland in the 1760s. He only chided their assertion that manufacturing is not equally necessary (e.g., no cannons, uniforms, or ships; no empire), while adhering to the mania that conscious Reason, by its nature benevolent, must never be permitted to intrude in economics.

Geneva was ruled through the Council of 200, whose leading families intermarried and engaged jointly in espionage, covert propaganda, grain monopoly, colonial slave management, and foreign imperial military careers. Their life work often emulated the strategic tradition of Venice's higher aristocracy.

Among Geneva family names notable in the late-18th-Century political storms, were Necker, André, Gallatin, Mallet, de Saussure, du Pan, and Prevost.

The massively wealthy Geneva-born banker Jacques Necker was appointed the ambassador of Geneva to the court of France in 1764, and became French finance minister in 1777. Necker worked secretly with the British against the American-French alliance, and to wreck the French government. Necker's wife was formerly the fianceé of British imperial historian Edward Gibbon. Necker and his famous daughter, Germaine Necker de Staël, intrigued for both the "left" and "right" phases of the French turmoil.

British army officer John André, son of a Geneva merchant banker, returned to Geneva University to be militarily trained before going to America as a master spy. Gen. George Washington hanged André for procuring Benedict Arnold's treason. The André family merged into the de Neuflizes and joined with Schlumberger and Mallet, forming a politically powerful financier grouping to be of great influence in the project known as Synarchism. These combined interests also appeared in Schlumberger, the huge oil services and covert operations specialists paralleling Dick Cheney's Halliburton.

Albert Gallatin, raised on the knee of Geneva corruptionist writer Voltaire, hid out in the Maine woods during the American Revolution, then led the political attack, within Pennsylvania, against adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Later a U.S. Treasury Secretary, Gallatin led the Free Trade faction against American nationalists.

Banker Jacques Mallet du Pan founded the British branch of the Mallet family. An intimate of Voltaire, and Britain's main French-speaking intelligence officer, Mallet du Pan teamed with Necker and Joseph de Maistre in leading the opposition to an American-style constitution in Europe.

Gen. Augustin Prevost, very close to Voltaire, commanded Britain's invasion of South Carolina against the American Revolution. General Prevost introduced Britain's Scottish Rite Freemasonry onto American soil. His brother James Mark's widow married Aaron Burr and familiarized Burr with top British intelligence circles. Augustin's son Gen. George Prevost, the British Governor General of Canada, invaded New York state during the War of 1812. When Aaron Burr was in exile in England following his U.S. treason trial, the Mallet-Prevosts and Jeremy Bentham were Burr's co-hosts.

Geneva's de Saussure family, emigrating to become leaders of the South Carolina plantation owners, coordinated the Massachusetts Tories and southern secession agitators, for British intelligence. Their Swiss castle, Frontenex, remained a mecca for visiting British noblemen, and they would later boast of intimacy with Britain's statesman and spymaster Lord Palmerston.

In the lower social ranks, Jean-Paul Marat, from Neuchatel and Geneva, was trained for ten years by British intelligence in England before going on to murder thousands of France's intellectuals in the Reign of Terror. Geneva's Etienne Dumont was intimate with Gallatin, was the worldwide promoter and translator for Jeremy Bentham, and tutored Lord Shelburne's sons.

The Shelburne machine owned France's Philippe Duke of Orleans, cousin and enemy to Louis XVI, and opponent of the French nation-building tradition which was now being applied to the American cause. Shelburne and the Duke of Orleans employed creatures from the swamp of mystics and charlatans centered in the freemasonic lodges of Lyons, France, in particular the Martinist Order. Among the Martinists who performed in the staged 1780s-1790s French destabilizations were Franz Anton Mesmer, Count Cagliostro (real name Giuseppe Balsamo), Jacques Cazotte, Fabré d'Olivet, and Joseph de Maistre.

Martinism, a mocking perversion of Catholicism, considers Fallen Man to be in exile in this earthly existence, deprived of his powers. Man can only restore his original condition by initiation to the inner ranks of a secret society, through purgative violence—sado-masochistic rituals, torture, and human sacrifices. As a candidate learns to tolerate injury to others, he gives up his human identity, the sympathy which was celebrated in the Peace of Westphalia as the "Advantage of the Other." He loses the Platonic and Christian truth that men prosper by seeking to benefit others rather than themselves.

This pagan ritualism breeds heartless imperial soldiers and fanatic gang leaders, as Mithraic Stoicism did for the Roman Caesars. After Martinism guided successive French coups, its banker-proprietors spun it into Synarchy and fascism—while labeling it Conservatism or fundamentalist Christianity.

The Shelburne Revolution

France announced in the Spring of 1778 that it was joining America's war for independence. Franklin and his friends acted quickly to strike a winning blow.

Franklin's open letter to the Irish people, printed November 1778 in Dublin's Hibernian Journal, pleaded the common cause of America and Ireland against the British.

The following Spring, 1779, France and Spain agreed to send a joint fleet carrying 60,000 soldiers to invade England and decide the war. Elements of the fleet set sail into the English Channel. An invasion of Ireland was also contemplated. Lafayette, back from his first North American fighting, planned to lead that invasion. He told the pro-American foreign minister, Count Vergennes, "the thought of seeing England humiliated, crushed, makes me thrill with joy."[3] Indecision, smallpox, and faulty intelligence combined to wreck the plan, but the fleet's presence in the Channel, coupled with events to the west, cast a dark shadow over London.

Irish Protestant "Volunteers" began arming themselves, ostensibly to repel an expected American-French invasion. By late 1779, one hundred thousand Irishmen were drilling, and overtures for Catholic-Protestant solidarity were circulating. Thousands of handbills were distributed in Ireland: The American Congress offered Irish emigrants free land and full religious toleration.

Lord Shelburne wrote from Ireland that he found "all classes more animated about America than in England. In every Protestant or Dissenter's house the established toast is success to the Americans."[4]His spies informed Shelburne that Franklin personally coordinated Ireland's alliance with the American rebels.[5]

Meanwhile Shelburne acted through former East India Company director Thomas Walpole, to coordinate the treason of Walpole's close friend and banking colleague, Jacques Necker, the French finance minister. Necker and Walpole intrigued in France against Vergennes, to stop the "wasteful spending" for the French-American alliance. Another British spy, Geneva professor Paul-Henri Mallet, on King George III's payroll, "spent a good part" of Spring 1780 in the company of his cousin, Necker. He soon divulged Necker's views "under solemn oath of secrecy" to Lord Mountstuart, Mallet's intermediary to King George III and Lord Shelburne. " 'Were these talks to be disclosed,' he cautioned, they might 'greatly prejudice M. Necker,' who was now winning the support of the King [Louis XVI] ... Necker had been frank with the Swiss historian, according to the latter's own account. To introduce fiscal reforms, the court of France had to have peace [i.e., stop France's aid to the American Revolution, which was] a war he had never had nor could approve.... Necker ... was quoted by Mallet as expressing the fervent hope 'in God the English would be able to maintain their ground a little better this campaign.' "

Mountstuart reported to London that "Necker was prepared to go behind [French Foreign Minister] Vergennes' back and effect a peace without satisfying even the minimum goals of France's ... allies and without regard to Louis XVI's own honored commitments. On December 1st, Necker, in the full assurance of his growing power, dispatched a secret message to [British Prime Minister] Lord North.... 'You desire peace,' Necker wrote. 'I wish it also.'"[6]

Paul-Henri Mallet and Necker also proposed to the British government strategems to split the rebelling American colonies against each other, North versus South, in order to weaken their fight for independence.

But Necker was soon forced out of his cabinet post.

In the face of the tightening American-Irish-French-Spanish noose, Shelburne's protégé, British Col. Isaac Barré, wrote to Shelburne attacking the weakness and inept policy of the government: "We cannot stand aside and permit the country to take a cowardly course." The opposition should "by some bold and daring measure stun the Court, awake the people, and then take the reins of government into their hands."[7]

Weary of the failed prosecution of the war in North America, and convinced that the Ministry of Lord George North would ruin his dreams of permanent empire, Lord Shelburne, through the East India Company and its allied Baring Bank, bankrolled a Jacobin mob to descend on London in June of 1780. The pretext was the nervous North government's granting of extremely limited "reforms" of the longstanding legal oppression of Catholics.

Led by Lord George Gordon, the Protestant rabble stormed Westminster, sending parliamentarians and Lords alike down flights of stairs, out windows, and to the hospitals. For eight days, London was ransacked, culminating in the storming of the Newgate Prison and the freeing of all the prisoners, who joined in the assault on the Parliament. Eight hundred people died, with terrible property damage.

Lord Shelburne, as head of the interior committee of the House of Lords, personally assured the maximum terror by delaying the reading of the Riot Act which called out the Home Guard until violence had spread to every corner of the City. When the rioting began, Shelburne "was one of the few peers to reach the House of Lords without molestation. He was conspicuous in opposing the calling out of the military. 'I will ever resist and prevent such a matter if possible,' he [told the Lords]. The next day ... he defended the assemblages of the people, and felt that their shouts of 'No Popery!' ... came from sincere, if misguided, conviction."[8] The Lord Mayor of London was a spectator of the smashing and burning, declining to intervene on the grounds that "there are very great people at the bottom of the riot."[9]

After a brief incarceration in the Tower of London, foreshortened by Shelburne's personal intervention with the Crown, the useful Lord Gordon went off to friendlier ground in the Netherlands. There, to the astonishment of his Scottish Presbyterian cronies, he became a convert to Jewish Cabalism, taking the name Israel bar Abraham. He shortly thereafter surfaced in Paris, working with the magician Cagliostro as a provocateur against Queen Marie-Antoinette, while situated as an occult advisor of hers; and from that position participated in Shelburne's intrigues against the French state. Later, the Jacobin insurrection in Paris would replay on a grander scale the earlier Shelburne-instigated Gordon Riots, down to the storming of the Bastille Prison and the unleashing of the criminals.

When the London flames died, the Ministry of Lord North was in ashes as well. North held on to office, paralyzed and frightened, until the victory of the Washington's and Lafayette's American and French forces at Yorktown in October 1781, ushered him out.

Shelburne went into the new Rockingham cabinet (March-July 1782) as Foreign Secretary for the Northern District, subsuming the North American colonies. Shelburne became Prime Minister upon Rockingham's death. His brief personal command of the British government (July 1782 to April 1783) gave him imperial-overlord factional policy control at this decisive turning point. Shelburne set up parallel, separate peace negotiations with the U.S.A. and France, through which arrangement the seeds of the death of France were planted. Suspicions between the American and French allies were fanned; the pro-American faction, the intelligent inheritors of Colbertism, were weakened, as Shelburne prepared a new war within the peace.

By this time, King George III had declared himself wholly subservient to the Shelburne-led East India Company faction, the Venetian Party. As the result of these events, the shadow government formally took charge of the official state apparatus. The intelligence operations formerly housed at the East India Company were henceforth run out of the newly formed Foreign Office and the British Secret Intelligence Services (SIS).

The Company and its financiers reigned supreme in Britain. The new British Empire would focus on subduing India under the Company's private army of 300,000, far exceeding the regular British government's forces; conquering China with Indian opium; and looting the world through uneven trade relations. Shelburne's imperial bankers permanently controlled British strategy, even after the East India Company per se was phased out in the 19th Century.

Six months after Yorktown, General Washington's chief aide, Alexander Hamilton, who coordinated military intelligence for the alliance, described publicly the economic tradition which the American leaders would use to develop their country, when they had the necessary energetic government:

Rapid progress ... is in a great measure to be ascribed to the fostering care of government.... The trade of] France ... [would not] have been at this time in so prosperous a condition had it not been for the abilities and indefatigable endeavors of the great COLBERT. He laid the foundation of the French commerce, and taught the way to his successors to enlarge and improve it. The establishment of the woolen manufacture, in a kingdom, where nature seemed to have denied the means, is one among many proofs, how much may be effected in favour of commerce by the attention and patronage of a wise administration. The number of useful edicts passed by Louis the 14th, and since his time, in spite of frequent interruptions from the jealous enmity of Great Britain, has advanced that of France to a degree which has excited the envy and astonishment of its neighbors.[10]

In 1783, as Shelburne's new government signed a peace treaty, Adam Smith issued an updated version of the Wealth of Nations, complaining that "Mr. Colbert, the famous minister of Lewis XIV ... [endeavored to regulate] the industry and commerce of a great country upon the same model as the departments of a public office; and instead of allowing every man to pursue his own interest in his own way ... he bestowed upon certain branches of industry extraordinary privileges, while he laid others under as extraordinary restraints ... [Colbert preferred] the industry of the towns above that of the country."

This unfair policy—by which France had become a greater manufacturing power than England—said Smith, was responsible for provoking cycles of retaliation between France and England, and peace could only be secured on the basis of "free trade" between them.

Prime Minister Shelburne made his own public demand for unbridled free trade and usury on Jan. 27, 1783, while arguing in the House of Lords for ratification of the Treaty of Paris formally ending the American Revolution. Shelburne warned, "Situated as we are between the old world and the new, and between southern and northern Europe, all we ought to covet on earth is free trade.... With more industry, with more capital, with more enterprise than any trading nation on earth, it ought to be our constant cry: Let every market be open."

After the 1783 Peace treaty, before the Americans had a strong Federal government to protect their industry, British ships deluged U.S. ports with cheap goods, their brashly public purpose being to stifle America's infant manufacturing.

In France, Adam Smith's theory of free trade was popularized by Swiss banker Jacques Mallet du Pan, who called Smith "the most profound and philosophic of all the metaphysical writers who have dealt with economic questions." Mallet du Pan's cousin Pierre Prevost, professor at the University of Geneva, would translate the works of Adam Smith and East India Company professor Thomas Malthus.

Attacking Colbert's policies in 1786, Mallet du Pan lobbied strenuously with France's King Louis XVI to accept British Prime Minister William Pitt's offer of a treaty that would force France to give up all protective measures, and put the country at the mercy of Britain's "free trade" policies. At the same time the international banking houses, led by the Swiss, suddenly refused credit to the French government, and Louis XVI was forced to sign Pitt's Eden Treaty. The British trade war began immediately; they dumped cheap British manufactures on the French market and cut off the supply to France of vital Spanish wool.

Within France, employment, agriculture, and trade quickly collapsed and starvation followed. In 1789, credit was again withdrawn from the French government. King Louis XVI was forced to reinstall Genevan banker Jacques Necker as minister of finance—after having fired him several times before—in order to "regain the confidence" of the banking community. Necker proposed austerity as the only solution to the crisis. He told the people of France that their troubles stemmed from "wasteful spending" by the King and Queen. A showdown approached.

But in the years leading up to this decisive moment, the American faction had been battling the spooks swarming all about the Royal and wealthy circles of Paris.

King Louis had appointed Benjamin Franklin head of a nine-member commission to probe the pretenses of the Martinist, Franz Mesmer, whose hypnotism ("mesmerism") was attributed to Animal Magnetism flowing from his hands. Astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly, secretary of the Academy of Sciences, wrote the report for Franklin's group, demolishing Mesmer's claims.

Lyons Martinist Jacques Cazotte made a chilling and self-fulfilling "prophecy" at a 1788 dinner of the Academy of Sciences. Cazotte declared that the pro-Americans sitting at the table, including Jean Sylvain Bailly, were going to be executed within the next few years—that Bailly would die on the scaffold.

Cagliostro had already published a Letter to the French (June 20, 1786) prophesying that "The Bastille shall be completely destroyed, and the land upon which it had been erected shall become a promenade area." The "Count" made this pronouncement after his meetings with the Scottish Rite Mother Lodge in London.

Queen Marie-Antoinette was the particular target of Shelburne's Martinists. The Queen's brother, Austrian Emperor Joseph II, sponsored Wolfgang Mozart, whose music illuminated Joseph's Vienna and his sister Marie-Antoinette's Paris. Marie personally acted in a performance of The Marriage of Figaro, a play by Franklin's arms supplier Caron de Beaumarchais, satirizing the pornographic, still-feudal oligarchy (Mozart's opera was based on the play). The enraged Orleanists repeatedly interfered, trying to stop the play's performance at the Royal court, just as the Duke of Orleans—"Philippe Égalité" as he called himself for the Jacobins—had forced Mozart himself out of Paris in 1778.

The gossip roiling Parisian streets against Marie-Antoinette came from the assassination warmup known as the Affair of the Necklace. Cagliostro and his occultist brothers enabled a designing countess, down on her luck, to embroil a Cardinal in a scam involving the purchase, for the Queen, of an exorbitantly expensive necklace she explicitly did not want. The arrest of the countess and Cardinal was played into a scandal vilifying Marie-Antoinette as extravagant, unfeeling, and foreign, amidst starvation. The Countess who stole the necklace escaped prison and fled to England where she was falsely celebrated as a poor victim of tyranny. The French King and Queen would be executed.

Terror Against a U.S.-Style Constitution

France, impoverished by British Free Trade, Necker's speculators, and ruinous debts, could only be prosperous again under the dignity of self-government and laws promoting productive economic growth. There had to be a written constitution, establishing the government's purpose and power to so promote the general welfare.

The American example presented itself. Delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention had met at Franklin's home to hear the program for the projected Constitutional government—nationally promoted industry and public credit. Gen. George Washington was duly inaugurated the first President on April 30, 1789, and brought in Hamilton as Treasury Secretary to implement the Franklin program.

On June 17, 1789, seven weeks after America's national government began, a French "national assembly" was put into action, with Jean Sylvain Bailly as its president. Bailly and General Lafayette, spokesmen for the republican alliance with America, proposed the necessity of a written constitution to place the king and the entire nation under law, allowing for publicly controlled credit to finance national development. This would be a leap far beyond the British "constitutional" monarchy, since Britain had no written constitution, and no real law other than the mere will of its private bankers, who dictated to the government and to the state church.

On June 20, the King having shut the assembly out of their hall, the members met on a tennis court. All but one signed an oath, as a revolutionary act, asserting that political authority derived from the people and their representatives, and vowing to continue meeting at all costs until a national constitution would be written, ratified, and put in force. This was France's day of glory. The Tennis Court Oath launched what should have become known as the French Revolution.

On July 11, Necker secretly left France on the King's advice. Savagely ignorant mobs were put into the streets protesting Necker's downfall—though he had not really been dismissed, and was himself manipulating the King. The mob carried busts of Necker and Orleans as heroes who should be in power.

Rumor management (including lies of murder screamed by the Marquis de Sade out of his Bastille cell window, leading to his transfer to a lunatic asylum) steered a mob to storm the Bastille prison, freeing its remaining prisoners—an assassin, two mental cases, and four forgers. The attacking mob paraded through the streets with sticks bearing the heads of the prison's governor and several guards, whom they had murdered. Necker returned to his office 18 days after leaving.

A struggle ensued. Lafayette was elected head of the national guard, and Bailly was chosen as Mayor of Paris. The "Jacobins" soon began meeting, haranguing the populace with bloodthirsty speeches crafted at Bowood. Though a Lafayette-Bailly constitution was adopted in 1791, by 1792 the terrorists had won the contest. All pretense of law was abolished, even as a Republic was declared. The republican Lazare Carnot led a brilliant military campaign to defend France from the kingdoms attacking it, but the Revolution's military defense was changed to outward imperial conquest.

The word "republic" was an abuse, as those in power mass-executed their rivals, and were themselves executed in turn. Bailly and Lavoisier (Priestley's co-discoverer of oxygen and Franklin's gunpowder supplier), scientists who were the treasure and strength of France, were decapitated. American friends of the Revolution such as Tom Paine pleaded unsuccessfully for the lives of the King and Queen, and an end to the butchery.

British historians adopted the lie that the French Revolution was a fight won by Left radicals over Right monarchists.

Thomas Jefferson wrote to Lafayette in 1815, that the British ran the (traditionally called "left-wing") anarchists in the French Revolution, and were running the Boston ("right-wing") banker-insurrectionists in the period of the War of 1812:

The foreigner gained time to anarchise by gold the government he could not overthrow by arms, to crush in their own councils the genuine republicans, by the fraternal embraces of exaggerated and hired pretenders, and to turn the machine of Jacobinism from the change to the destruction of order; and in the end, the limited monarchy [that Lafayette and Bailly] had secured was exchanged for the unprincipled and bloody tyranny of Robespierre.... The British ... fears of republican France being now done away, they are directed to republican America.... The Marats, the Dantons, and Robespierres of Massachusetts are in the same pay, under the same orders, and making the same efforts to anarchise us, that their prototypes in France did there."[11]

John Quincy Adams later told the U.S. Congress, in his eulogy for Lafayette, "The movements of the insurgent Power were ... guided by secret springs, prompted by vindictive and sanguinary ambition, directed by hands unseen to objects of individual agrandizement."[12]

During early 1789, Jacques Mallet du Pan wrote articles "On the British Constitution" and "On the Declaration of Rights," demanding France adopt the British parliamentary system, with a balance of power among the people, the nobles, and the crown, and an intermediary body of advisors such as the Privy Council, which must assure that authority over the issuance of credit would be kept strictly in the hands of central bankers, independent of the control of an elected government.

Necker and Mallet du Pan had long worked together against the spread of Franklin's American economics and constitutional ideas. Mallet complained that the American Revolution had spawned a "swarm of fanatics" in Europe.

Mallet du Pan's ultimate political theory may be summed up in his outburst in a letter he had written to his teacher Voltaire in 1772: "I shall exhaust all the feeble enlightenment that I owe to you in eradicating the work of St. Boniface."[13] The Eighth-Century missionary Boniface Christianized Germany. Thus, what Mallet means is, "I work to overturn Christianity's original takeover of Europe—this was a catastrophe which hindered the rightful unlimited rule of barbarian warlords."

So Mallet du Pan and Necker diligently collaborated with an "expert" enemy of the nation-state, Joseph de Maistre, a satanic Martinist deep in the lodge circle of Lyons. A Savoy nobleman, de Maistre in 1792 fled upon the advance into Savoy of the French Revolutionary armies. When Mallet du Pan and Necker and their families consulted with him, in Geneva and Lausanne 1792-1793, Necker was "retired" from French office, but deeply involved in managing events within the Revolutionary turmoil, and Mallet du Pan was the principal director of Continental intelligence for the British crown. They put de Maistre onto the world stage as the spokesman for the darkest feudal reaction within the modern era, directing the role he was to play in the creation of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The Beast Project, Napoleon

What did Necker and Mallet du Pan want from de Maistre?

Listen to Mallet spin out his scenario, published in January 1789, as Franklin's friends prepared to export the American Constitution to France. Mallet wrote of England's past, to suggest a future to be imposed on France:

The blood of Charles I and ten battles only submitted Parliament and the nation to their own army, which was soon enthralled to its cleverest chiefs. Democracy had destroyed the constitution; this democracy led to an oligarchy of generals; the Protectorate beat down everything, Parliament, army, sects, factions, and Cromwell reigned alone over a people whom frenzy had deprived of its vigor and its reason.[14]

Then, Mallet went on to say, the monarchy was restored and few states have been as free of political troubles as has England since then.

The discussions in the salon of Necker and his daughter, Mme. de Staël, led directly to de Maistre's writing his 1796 Considerations on France. Published the following year, the book transported the imagination of the upstart general Napoleon Bonaparte, who was a ready actor in the horrible order of events foreshadowed in Mallet's scenario.

Most of the themes in de Maistre's book, the evil nature of fallen man, the role of Providence, why the innocent victim must pay for the guilty, are taken from the work of Claude Louis Saint-Martin, high priest of the Martinist order of which de Maistre became the most prominent representative following his two decades of freemasonic work.[15]

It will be seen below, what Napoleon got from de Maistre, and where he went with it.

Corsican-born army officer Napoleon Bonaparte was known as a Jacobin and Robespierrist, a murderer and a bandit, a revolutionary executioner. Thus in 1795, when Paris rebels rose against yet another intended change of regimes, the then-head of the government, Paul Barras, appointed Napoleon to block the rebels' advance. The Corsican directed cannon grapeshot fire, and mowed down the rebellious people in the streets. Barras, who now advanced Napoleon upward in the army, was himself an extravagant corruptionist who took his orders from banker Jacques Necker.

Barras shared his mistress, Josephine de Beauharnais, with Napoleon. She was one of a set of political prostitutes along with Mme. de Staël (known as the "ugly beauty"), ladies on the lookout for available executioner-generals to take charge of French affairs. Napoleon married Josephine and became commander in chief of the French Army in Italy, under the Barras-led French regime called the Directory. The loot from his foreign conquests were shared among the Directory and its banker sponsors. In a notorious 1797 scene of staged female hysteria, recorded in Barras's memoires, Mme. de Staël compelled Barras to make her dissolute plaything, Charles Maurice Talleyrand-Perigord, the foreign minister. Napoleon came back from abroad in 1799 and made himself a dictator. Necker's Talleyrand was Napoleon's intermediary to obtain Barras's resignation, and Napoleon kept Talleyrand as foreign minister.

Talleyrand helped Napoleon conquer Germany and Italy, helped him become Emperor, helped him subdue the Pope, and held him off from invading England. Talleyrand's enormous wealth from bribes and theft was deposited in England. As the slaughter exhausted France and Europe, Talleyrand began moving to the next phase of things, betraying Napoleon—who accurately called him "shit in a silk stocking." The British and European nobility who finally crushed France and restored the monarchy, rewarded Talleyrand by reinstalling him as foreign minister.

Devil de Maistre Whispers to Napoleon

Joseph de Maistre's book Considerations on France appeared in 1797, giving Napoleon some two years to reflect on its message for him, before he seized power. British historian Isaiah Berlin reports, "Napoleon ... was impressed by the brilliance of de Maistre's writings, which he was said to find politically sympathetic." And de Maistre admired Napoleon, whose "clear grasp of the realities of power, his open contempt for democrats, liberals and intellectuals ... but above all the contrast between the stupidity and weakness of the Bourbons [royal line] and the military and the administrative genius of a man who once again lifted France to a pinnacle of glory, could not but appeal powerfully to the apostle of realism and authority."[16]

Through his book, at first published anonymously, de Maistre whispered in Napoleon's ear: I speak for the invisible ruling powers: Providence will adopt you, if you are bold enough to make yourself the Man of Destiny. You may commit all crimes, make limitless war on the world. God himself wants you to commit as many crimes as possible—through them you will become God on Earth.

Let us listen to de Maistre's own words—keeping in mind that the author is regarded today as a Christian authority by Dick Cheney's conservative supporters:

Unhappily, history proves that war is, in a certain sense, the habitual state of mankind, which is to say that human blood must flow without interruption somewhere or other on the globe, and that for every nation, peace is only a respite.... If you ... examine people in all possible conditions from the state of barbarism to the most advanced civilization, you always find war....

Yet there is room to doubt whether this violent destruction is, in general, such a great evil as is believed.... First, when the human soul has lost its strength through laziness, incredulity, and the gangrenous vices that follow an excess of civilization, it can be retempered only in blood.... Mankind may be considered as a tree which an invisible hand is continually pruning and which often profits from the operation. In truth the tree may perish if the trunk is cut or if the tree is overpruned; but who knows the limits of the human tree? What we do know is that excessive carnage is often allied with excessive population.... Now the real fruits of human nature—the arts, sciences, great enterprises, lofty conceptions, manly virtues—are due especially to the state of war. We know that nations have never achieved the highest point of the greatness of which they are capable except after long and bloody wars. [emphasis in the original][17]

Pagan or Christian, God loves human sacrifices! He protects the guilty, not the innocent!

We are continuously troubled by the wearisome sight of the innocent who perish with the guilty. But ... we can consider [this] solely in the light of the age-old dogma thatthe innocent suffer for the benefit of the guilty.

It was from this dogma ... that the ancients derived the custom of sacrifices that was practiced everywhere.... Christianity came to consecrate this dogma, which is perfectly natural to man although appearing difficult to arrive at by reason. [emphasis in original][18]

In telling Napoleon that destiny explains his success, and that the hand of God is guiding him, de Maistre wrote, "[It is] neither paper money nor the advantage of numbers [that] allows the French to invade Italy without cannons."[19]

(De Maistre's editors explain that "Napoleon in his first Italian campaign in April 1796 was short of artillery because of a lack of horses to move his cannon.")

You can destroy any opposition, de Maistre implied, if you are not squeamish!

Tyrants succeeded one another and the people always obeyed.... Their masters have gone so far as to crush them by mocking them. They told the people, ... 'If you dare to refuse [our law], we will shoot you down with grapeshot to punish you for not wanting what you want.' And they did."[20]

(De Maistre's editors explain that this referred to "the uprising ... which young General Bonaparte put down with grapeshot.")

Does Destiny call your name?

When Providence decrees the more rapid formation of a political constitution, there appears a man invested with an indefinable power: he speaks and makes himself obeyed. But these marvelous men belong perhaps only to the world of antiquity and to the youth of nations.[21]

Take it! Only the Unseen Powers decide who rules.

This is how counter-revolutions are made. God warns us that he has reserved to Himself the establishment of sovereignties by never confiding to the masses the choice of their masters.... Thus the Roman people gave themselves masters while believing they were opposing the aristocracy by following Caesar."[22]

Despite your lowly birth, all History has been waiting for you!

There has never existed a sovereign family to which one can assign a plebeian origin; if this phenomenon should appear it would be epoch-making.... We often hear it said, 'If Richard Cromwell [son of Oliver Cromwell, who seized England—remember Mallet's scenario] had had his father's genius, he would have made the Protectorate hereditary in his family.' How true!"[23]

Napoleon took the advice, to see himself as such a Man of Destiny. By insane wars throughout Europe, and a series of coups, he made himself Emperor, his rule secured by a pervasive secret police, censorship, arrest of dissenters. And though he was short, he made himself God. The Pope was forced to sign a treaty putting Napoleon in charge of the Church in the French Empire. Bishops and priests had to teach as he said, swear loyalty to him, take their pay from him, report political conspiracies to his spies. And he did as Cromwell did not, creating Kings and nobility out of his heirs, family and friends (a Mallet became a French Baron).

'America Is Not Possible!'

The fourth chapter of de Maistre's Considerations, entitled "Can the French Republic Last?", was, according to de Maistre's editors, "apparently a direct response to Benjamin Constant's 'Objections Drawn from Experience Against the Possibility of a Republic in a Large State.'"[24]

Benjamin Constant was the lover of Germaine Necker de Staël from 1794 until 1806. When de Maistre's book was published, Constant and de Staël were in Paris sponsoring Barras, and Constant took part in the 1799 coup establishing Napoleon's rule.

In this fourth chapter, de Maistre insisted that "nature and history together prove that a large indivisible republic is an impossibility ... a large and free nation cannot exist under a republican government." He "proves" this assertion: "If we are told that a die thrown a billion times had never turned up anything but five numbers—1, 2, 3, 4, and 5—could we believe that there was a 6 on one of the faces? NO ... one of the faces is blank or ... one of the numbers is repeated.... Fortunetirelessly throwing the die for over four thousand years. Has LARGE REPUBLIC ever been rolled? No. Therefore that number is not on the die." [emphasis in the original][25]

Note the queerly hysterical cheapness of this argument. He first hints at the real problem: "There is nothing but violence in the universe; but we are spoiled by a modern philosophy that tells us all is good, whereas evil has tainted everything, and in a very real sense, all is evil..." [emphasis in the original].

His editors explain, "de Maistre is castigating the 'best of all possible worlds' optimism that seemed to characterize some Eighteenth-Century thinkers. Of course de Maistre was not alone in this reaction; Voltaire'sCandide, for example, included a brilliant satire on philosophical optimism."[26]

"This is the best of all possible worlds," is the loving idea Gottfried Leibniz gave the modern world from Plato and Christ, for which Voltaire mocked him in Candide. This Platonic, Leibnizian heritage, carried through the America of Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin, is the central issue.

De Maistre lets the underlying rage of his faction spill out in a way that shocks us across the centuries:

Not only do I doubt the stability of the American government, but the particular establishments of English America inspire no confidence in me. The cities, for example, animated by a hardly respectable jealousy, have not been able to agree as to where the Congress should meet; none of them wanted to concede the honour to another. In consequence they have decided to build a new city to be the capital. They have chosen a very favourable location on the banks of a great river and decreed that the city should be called Washington. The sites of all the public buildings have been marked out, the work has begun, and the plan of this queen city has already made the rounds in Europe. Essentially these is nothing in all this that surpasses human power; a city may easily be built. Nevertheless, there is too much deliberation, too much humanity in this business, and one could bet a thousand to one that the city will not be built, that it will not be called Washington, and that the Congress will not meet there. [emphasis in the original][27]

The madness and wreckage that the defeated Napoleon left behind, kept the American model out of Europe for the time being. But de Maistre was not an accurate forecaster on the destiny of nations. The United States survived a Civil War, 1861-1865, despite sponsorship of the insurgent slaveowners by the British and their French junior partner under Bonaparte's nephew, Napoleon III.

Not only survived: Did the impossible! Abraham Lincoln's radically nationalist economics transformed America into the world's greatest industrial power within 20 years. The example of America's Promethean success, under high tariffs and huge public investments, was deliberately placed before Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, Meiji Japan, Sun Yat-sen's China, Arthur Griffith's Ireland, M.G. Ranade's India, Carlos de Olagíbel's Mexico, Rafael Nuñez's Colombia. The impending end of peasant backwardness, the age of electricity, steel mills, and powered transport, under explicitly anti-imperial politics, meant the coming end of world power for the old financier oligarchs.

In this global showdown, three U.S. Presidents were shot down: Lincoln, James Garfield, and William McKinley. And America's European enemies assembled a new version of the assault weapon earlier employed in France. Joseph de de Maistre's work was the glue for the imperial bankers' politics—including his insistence that the executioner (or assassin) is all that holds society together; and his demand for the Church to rule a world from which Reason and Progress have been banished—a world under Higher Powers which are, candidly, the opposite of God.

The new imperial techniques of that era were built upon the array of manipulation that had gone into the beast-project, Napoleon. A Martinist magician cohort of de Maistre's named Fabré d'Olivet had been hired as a top official of Napoleon's war department. As occult advisor, he too whispered to Bonaparte on Providence and the Triumph of the Will.

As the influence of America's sovereign-nation success began transforming Germany, in 1878, the students of d'Olivet and de Maistre were formed into the distinctive movement which was to become known as Synarchism. Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, in his book, Mission des Souverains, continued de Maistre's attack, calling the 1648 Peace of Westphalia "an anarchistic Republic of powers armed against each other, ... that the fundamental law of the sovereignty of force obliges, under penalty of death, to function in this fashion, until the abrogation and replacement of this law by a better one."[28] The "better law", Synarchism, is the dissolution of nations in the night of bankers' dictatorship.

George W.F. Hegel put his admiration for Bonaparte's evil at the center of his concept of the "end of history."

Robespierre set up ... Virtue and Terror [as] the order of the day.... This tyranny could not last; for ... all interests ... revolted against this terribly consistent Liberty ... [in] so fanatical a shape. An organized government is introduced, analogous to the one that had been displaced; [further coups] proved ... the necessity of a governmentalpowerNapoleon restored it as a military power, ... establishing himself as an individual will at the head of State: he knew how to rule, and soon settled the internal affairs of France.... But the antithesis of [Good Feeling] and Mistrust made its appearance.... Thus agitation and unrest are perpetuated." [emphasis in the original][29]

For Hegel, the cycle—witless Jacobin mobs, tyrants, and again, when necessary, new mobs—was now to be the permanent form of governing powerless mankind. (The pathetic Francis Fukuyama directly revived Hegel's end-of-history filth for today's neo-conservatives.)

Friedrich Nietzsche called the one whom de Maistre, d'Olivet, and Hegel summoned to bring order out of the chaos, the Superman. By acting without any humanity, the absolute, brilliant Beast soars above the contemptible ant-like rabble, in Nietzsche's nightmare fantasy.

These were the wells of experience and craft for the architects of Hitler and Mussolini: Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman; Lord Halifax; Lord Beaverbrook; the Warburgs; Lazard Frères; the French-Swiss banking axis; J.P. Morgan; Brown Brothers Harriman; Hjalmar Schacht; Richard Koudenhove-Kalergi.

This was the personal tradition of University of Chicago fascist Leo Strauss; his mentor, Hitler's jurist Carl Schmitt; and the Parisian Synarchist Alexandre Kojève. And it is the life model for Strauss, Schmitt, and Kojeve's followers—today's Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Ashcroft berserkers—and the guide for their religious fundamentalist, actually pagan supporters. Unless they are removed from power, the city of Washington will be unbuilt, and the devil will win his bet.

[1] H. Graham Lowry, How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story, Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: EIRNS, 1988).

[2] Bernard Mandeville, essay added into the 1723 re-issue of his Fable of the Bees.

[3] Richard B. Morris, The Peacemakers: The Great Powers and American Independence (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), p. 28.

[4] Shelburne to Richard Price, Sept. 5, 1779, quoted in Maurice R. O'Connell, Irish Politics and Social Conflict in the Age of the American Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965), p. 124.

[5] O'Connell, op. cit., p. 191.

[6] Morris, op. cit., pp. 100-104.

[7] Morris, op. cit. p. 35.

[8] Morris, op. cit., pp. 85-86.

[9] Morris, op. cit., p. 80.

[10] April 8, 1782, New-York Packet, No. 5 in Hamilton's series called "The Continentalist."

[11] Feb. 14, 1815, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington D.C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903-1904), Vol. XIV, pp. 246-251.

[12] Oration, Dec. 31, 1834 (Washington, D.C.: Duff & Green, 1835).

[13] March 21, 1772; quoted in Frances Acomb, Mallet du Pan(Durham: Duke University Press, 1973), p. 23.

[14] Mallet du Pan, in the Mercure, 1789, no 3. (Jan. 17), pp. 119, 122; quoted in Acomb, op. cit., p. 201.

[15] His sources could have included Saint-Martin's documentation later published in The Ministry of the Man-Spirit, 1801; Saint-Martin's Letter on the French Revolution, 1794; Saint-Martin's Man of Desire, 1790: and Saint-Martin's theme, the "desire for recognition" which became the favorite theme of 20th-Century Synarchist Alexandre Kojève.

[16] Isaiah Berlin, "Joseph de Maistre and the Origins of Fascism," inThe Crooked Timber of Humanity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf), 1991, pp. 146-147.

[17] Joseph de Maistre, Considerations on France, translated by Richard Lebrun (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 23-29.

[18] De Maistre, Considerations, op. cit. p. 30.

[19] Ibid, p. 22.

[20] Ibid, p. 23.

[21] Ibid, p. 51.

[22] Ibid, p. 80.

[23] Ibid, p. 101.

[24] Editorial note in de Maistre, Considerations on France, op. cit., p. 32.

[25] Considerations, op. cit. p. 33.

[26] Ibid, p. 31.

[27] Ibid, pp. 60-61.

[28] Saint-Yves, Mission des Souverains, Paris: Nord-Sud, 1948, p. 272.

[29] The Philosophy of History, translated by J. Sibree (New York: Dover Publications, 1956), pp. 450-452.