LaRouche on the Passing of Graham Lowry: — Graham's Historic Mission

LaRouche Responds To Questions from 'Pure Politics'

LaRouche: A Short Definition of Synarchism

From Volume 2, Issue Number 31 of Electronic Intelligence Weekly, Published Aug. 5, 2003

LaRouche on the Passing of Graham Lowry: — Graham's Historic Mission

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. — July 29, 2003

Longtime LaRouche associate Graham Lowry died July 28 at Georgetown Hospital in the city of his birth, Washington, D.C., after a long illness. Lowry, who would have been 60 in August, was a leader in the LaRouche movement, a member of the National Committee of the International Caucus of Labor Committees, and—a former history professor who had left that career to work with LaRouche—the author (1988) of a seminal work of the history of America leading up to the American Revolution: How the Nation Was Won: America's Untold Story, Volume I, 1630-1754.

A resident of Purcellville, Va., for the last 18 years, Lowry is survived by his wife Pam and twin sons, Colin and Malcolm. What follows is Lyndon LaRouche's thoughts on Lowry's passing.

There are certain facts which must be noted, and said by me, at this time, so that we may seize the unique occasion of this moment, to mobilize our commitment to what we must do in honor of fallen soldier Graham Lowry's importance for our association. We have in our hands an uncompleted mission, a mission for the benefit of humanity which he set into motion with his unique approach, as a working professional historian, to original researches into the Leibniz roots of the American Revolution of 1776-1789. On that account, I must take this moment to do something for our true patriot and historian Graham which he can no longer do for himself.

Graham has combined a sensitive regard for truth, with the addition of an indispensable, creative, personalized treatment of subject, which marks the distinctively irreplaceably personal mark left by the truly professional truth-seekers among historians. Such historians are the soul of the political intelligence profession, and the indispensable inspiration of the conscience of the true statesman. To serve those ends, the true historian's challenge is to bring past history to life, as it actually was, as such among the greatest Classical dramatists and historians such as Friedrich Schiller did. So, the true historian brings belated justice to the sufferings and achievements of the past. He, or she breathes fresh life into a moment taken from the simultaneity of eternity. As I know of his state of mind from my discussion of this work with Graham himself, his approach in writing his celebrated book, was just that, and this shows in the reading.

The pioneering quality of his work, parallels that begun at a time before Graham defined his project, by the crucial, pioneering, 1970s work of our deceased collaborator Allen Salisbury, by the contributions of the late statesman, freedom fighter, and friend Fred Wills, and by the two projects launched in echo of Allen's work, the parallel undertakings by Graham and Anton Chaitkin. Yet, for more than a decade, the fundamental contributions to American historiography by Graham, and Allen earlier, lay fallow, unfinished, chiefly because of the takeover of the leadership of the organization in the Americas by a turncoat agent of our own association's and the U.S.A.'s avowed Synarchist enemy, Fernando Quijano. The moment for justice on that account has come.

When that Quijano delivered his menacing, fraudulent version of world and American history, at a 1990s conference, Graham, seconded by Chaitkin, had the courage to rise to the occasion to denounce that viciously fraudulent sketch which had been just delivered from the podium. Virtual illiterate Quijano promptly showed his special hatred for Graham's work, just as Quijano had worked similarly in his attempt to discredit the 1970s work of Allen Salisbury. In an especially vicious reaction to Graham's intervention, the same Quijano and his corrupted accomplices, organized a political-lynch-mob effort at a rump meeting called for this purpose, to expel Graham from the National Committee, and to cut Graham out of the organization as much as possible.

As soon as I had the power to do so, years later, I organized the restoration of Graham to his proper position of leadership. Graham then moved to resume his work, as much as his seriously impaired health allowed. Now, only some important fragments of this more recent work survive, but we, Nancy Spannaus and relevant others, shall do our utmost to bring the intended result to completion, for the honor of our association, and for the benefit of mankind.

Graham will have his place in immortality. Thank you, Graham, for being.

LaRouche Responds To Questions from 'Pure Politics'

Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche replied on July 27 to the following set of questions submitted by Paige Rohe for PurePolitics.com. The interview has also been posted on the website.

Q: In light of your decades-long struggle against charges of conspiracy by the U.S. government, how do you think this would affect your relationship with the CIA, FBI, and Department of State were you to be elected President?

LaRouche: Already, today, after more than two years of poor George, and with the ongoing U.S. catastrophe in the hot sands of Iraq, many professionals would be delighted with the change. Others, according to custom, would adjust. A few skunks would discreetly seek employment away from the henhouse. Such is the relevant best available of all possible worlds.

All the documented 1973-89 conspiracies against me, including discovered assassination-plots, came from within, most notably, the U.S. or Soviet governments, were done either under a government which no longer exists, or by powerful financier interests whose power would be much diminished by the mere fact of my election. Most in government have the habit of "going along to get along" with the presently established arrangements of that occasion.

Q: In order to help save what you refer to as a doomed world and national economy, Mr. LaRouche, you recommend removing the international "free trade" hegemony and replacing it with "the promotion of protected hard-commodity international trade, as part of the promotion of a global, long-term economic-recovery effort." [Paige references LaRouche's Economics: At the End of a Delusion, which appears on the LaRouche in 2004 campaign website; it was also published in the Feb. 8, 2002 issue of EIR—ed.] Could you elaborate on how you will convince Congress and the American people that this plan is in their best interest?

LaRouche: In broad terms, I have several crucial advantages working for me. As FDR had the "advantage" of Hoover's bad performance, I will have, as negative advantages, the support of popular hatred against any prolongation of the presently accelerating effects of a systemic breakdown-crisis of the world's present, floating-exchange-rate monetary-financial system, and the related spectacle of Alan Greenspan fleeing the pages of history in his nightshirt. On the positive side, I would benefit from the combined factors of my published record of unequalled success of more than 30 years as the world's leading long-range economic forecaster, and my position as the first President since Nixon's 1996-68 campaign as actually an advocate of the interests of "the forgotten man," the lower 80% of family-income brackets.

The people will tend to support the President who supports the people; for most Americans today, such as those now watching their social security, power supplies, and health-care evaporate under both recent and current managements, that will be an unusual but gratifying experience.

Q: In addition to resolving the United States' economic problems, could you expound upon your views on your top three domestic issues you will believe are of primary importance to the American people (i.e., adequate health care, crime, the war on terror)?

LaRouche: The customary politics of "what are your issues?" frankly turns my stomach, especially when secondary-school teachers assign their cruelly misinformed charges the task of writing letters to candidates on "Where do you stand on the issues?" I do think, however, that that reflected state of our educational system is a significant issue. A competent occupant of the position of President of the U.S.A. proceeds according a mission-orientation for the performance of his office in his time, as General Douglas MacArthur won that Pacific War which was fought over the greatest area, with the lowest cost of life, by avoiding battles not worth fighting, all in the quickest possible time. MacArthur's whole life was summed up in that one consuming mission of 1941-45. So it goes, as for MacArthur's case, with those qualified U.S. Presidents, who have left their honorable mark on the continuing historical development of our institutions.

The all-subsuming issue is: I am the only visible contender who actually has competently defined, and documented a comprehensive mission for the Presidency, our economy, and our foreign relations, at this juncture of national and world history. The evidence indicates that the single most important issue of the present campaign is, that none of my putative rivals could define a coherent mission-orientation, even if they were willing to try, even if the neo-conservatives now dominating the Democratic National Committee gave them permission to speak. One of the more significant reasons they could not, is that they are so busy ducking, bobbing, and weaving demands for their stated "position on each of the list of issues," that they no longer seem actually to know who they themselves are. (I presume you know the fable of the toad and the centipede.)

Q: What would be your role as President in promoting national security, in light of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the establishment of the office of Homeland Security?

LaRouche: Sept. 11, 2001 was the U.S.A.'s approximation of the Reichstag Fire of February 1933, an incident which was stage-managed by Goering on Hitler's behalf. This was precisely the type of likely risk against which I had warned publicly at the time of George W. Bush's January inauguration. This incident of Sept. 11 brought Vice President Cheney and his neo-conservative rabble to their presently, widely exposed position of power inside the Bush Administration.

I am not a poor dumb bunny like our current George. Although I more than merely suspect that there are some who might wish to do something against my Presidency, as they did against his, I doubt that anyone capable of successfully orchestrating such a stunt would be reckless enough to take the risk of attempting that against my Administration. Had adequate security of the type which had been supposed to be operational on Sept. 11, 2001, been properly functioning, three successive planes could not have done by surprise what was done that day. Maybe the first incident had been barely possible, but not three in an on-line-coordinated, controlled administrative pattern of the type recorded as the pattern on that day.

The cumbersome "Rube Goldberg" of Homeland Defense would have done no good that day, or perhaps any day. Traditional security and law-enforcement vigilance, properly implemented, would be our best possible defense. I do intend to strengthen the relevant intelligence functions, as I have discussed these matters with relevant types of senior professionals to whom I would, once again, turn for advice and related assistance. The lessons of "our Reichstag Fire" will prompt me to ensure that what should have been in place on the morning of Sept. 11, or any comparable future day, will be in place, and functioning, and regularly reviewed for improvements.

Q: Under your Administration what do you foresee the role of the United States will be in the decisions and actions of the United Nations?

LaRouche: The historic interest of our republic, from the beginning, was to prepare the way for a world composed of a community of principle among a system of perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. Broadly, in addition to its vital, primary, Security Council function of enforcing a military doctrine of strategic defense among nations, the UNO is presently the most convenient diplomatic forum within which to promote such a "community of principle," as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams defined that term in his letter advising President Monroe in the matter of the Monroe Doctrine.

Q: In an attempt to bring the readers of PurePolitics.com a more intimate view of the candidates for President, we are asking one question to all, irrelevant of their political campaigns. Mr. LaRouche, what is your favorite flavor of ice cream?

LaRouche: At the moment, lime. Since you brought that subject up, I can imagine the taste of it now!

LaRouche: A Short Definition of Synarchism

"Synarchism" is a name adopted during the Twentieth Century for an occult freemasonic sect, known as the Martinists, based on worship of the tradition of the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. During the interval from the early 1920s through 1945, it was officially classed by U.S.A. and other nations' intelligence services under the file name of "Synarchism: Nazi/Communist," so defined because of its deploying simultaneously both ostensibly opposing pro-communist and extreme right-wing forces for encirclement of a targetted government. Twentieth-Century and later fascist movements, like most terrorist movements, are all Synarchist creations.

Synarchism was the central feature of the organization of the fascist governments of Italy, Germany, Spain, and Vichy and Laval France, during that period, and was also spread as a Spanish channel of the Nazi Party, through Mexico, throughout Central and South America. The PAN Party of Mexico was born as an outgrowth of this infiltration. It is typified by the followers of the late Leo Strauss and Alexandre Kojève today.

This occult freemasonic conspiracy, is found among both nominally left-wing and also extreme right-wing factions such as the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the Mont Pelerin Society, and American Enterprise Institute and Hudson Institute, and the so-called integrist far right inside the Catholic clergy. The underlying authority behind these cults is a contemporary network of private banks of that medieval Venetian model known as fondi. The Synarchist Banque Worms conspiracy of the wartime 1940s, is merely typical of the role of such banking interests operating behind sundry fascist governments of that period.

The Synarchists originated in fact among the immediate circles of Napoleon Bonaparte; veteran officers of Napoleon's campaigns spread the cult's practice around the world. G.W.F. Hegel, a passionate admirer of Bonaparte's image as Emperor, was the first to supply a fascist historical doctrine of the state. Nietzsche's writings supplied Hegel's theory the added doctrine of the beast-man-created Dionysiac terror of Twentieth-Century fascist movements and regimes. The most notable fascist ideologues of post-World War II academia are Chicago University's Leo Strauss, who was the inspiration of today's U.S. neo-conservative ideologues, and Strauss's Paris co-thinker Alexandre Kojève.

—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

All rights reserved © 2003 EIRNS