Treason in America by Antoine Chaitkin

[Jan Klimkowski]

LaRouche opines:

‘Just as Venezuela is nothing but a synarchist paradise of bankers. You have two major factions: one a left-wing thing around Chavez; a right-wing thing on his opposition. They're both synarchists; they're both controlled by the same set of bankers; and they're going to kill off the left and then bring in the right.

Lyndon really is a crashing bore. Maybe Tarpley just had enough of LaRouche droning on, and that's why he formally split from his one-time funder...

[Charles Drago]

Any duality of the Venezuala heirarchy -- presupposing Lyndon has stumbled onto a truth -- would be reminiscent of that of the Cuban leadership and its Sino-Soviet split -- which ultimately was rendered moot by, shall we say, larger exigencies.

JFK researchers who view Cuban politics as a monolithic ideological structure are, by defintion, doomed to failure.

[Linda Minor]

I would be really very interested if there is any supporting evidence for the following statement when it is generally regarded that St. Yves was the origin of European Synarchy.

quote

Now, who was the Synarchist International? The Synarchist International was a creation of what? It was a creation, essentially, of the British East India Company.

unquote

LaRouche may well be correct, but it would be useful to have a clear audit trail to follow.

The following article was written by Allen Douglas who, with his wife Rachel Douglas, did much of the research into what they termed the Roots of the Trust--the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy. They are multi-lingual and do their research in various languages. At one time I was allowed to borrow, under penalty of death if I didn't return it, a copy of one part of their type-written tome, which was about 4 inches thick. It made absolutely no sense to me because the quotes were all in foreign languages I didn't understand! Anyway, here's an article by Allen Douglas:

http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/09/...ion-state/

...The city-state of Venice, never more than 200,000 people, could not stand against the new powers that were coming into being, founded to promote the Common Good of their citizenry; the sheer numbers, the science and technology, the military power, were too much for even the powerful and devious masters of La Serenissima (as Venice is famously called).

The nuovi realized that, notwithstanding the bloody religious warfare which Venice had unleashed in Europe following the failure of the League of Cambrai to defeat Venice in 1511, its days were ultimately numbered. They took several strategic actions. First, under the leadership of Paolo Sarpi, they created the philosophy of empiricism, as a sense-certainty-based fraud whose purpose was to destroy the creative method of Platonic hypothesizing. Second, also under Sarpi’s leadership, they launched a fierce war against the Vatican, posing as the bastion of “enlightened” Europe against obscurantist Rome. Third, they brought the newly emerging Protestant powers England and Holland (whose rise came largely thanks to Venice itself), into what had always been the cornerstone of Venice’s fortunes—its trade with the East Indies. The Venetians founded the British East India Company in 1600 (from a merger of the England-based Venice Company and the Turkey Company) and the Dutch East India Company in 1602, and the wealth derived from this trade helped create or enrich a number of great aristocratic families in both countries, along the Venetian model. And, as LaRouche has often emphasized, the British East India Company became the foremost power in the world in 1763, in the wake of the British-rigged Seven Years’ War among contending European powers, in the classic Venetian “divide and conquer” method. Fourth, they moved much of their fortunes (and even some of their families) north, first into Holland, and then into England, where they created what would be known in the 18th Century as “the Venetian Party.” As part of this, they established the famous Wisselbank (Exchange Bank) of Amsterdam in 1609—the most powerful bank in the world—modelled upon their own private, patrician-controlled banks, followed by the Bank of England in 1694, both serving as the models upon which all central banks have been established since then.

In part because of these redeployments, Venice’s financial power remained huge well into the 18th Century, as did its legendary spy system, brilliantly chronicled by Friedrich Schiller in his novella Der Geisterseher (The Ghost-Seer), and American intelligence operative James Fenimore Cooper in his novel The Bravo.[8] Barings Bank in England, the bank of the British East India Company, for instance, was the vehicle for Venetian funds in Britain, and was at the center of the “Venetian Party,” together with the Bank of England.

Napoleon Bonaparte had been partially sponsored and funded by Venetian and Genoese families: The Genoese Princess Pallavicini of that era famously punned that her family owned “la buona parte“—”the best part”—of him. His Corsican family had been retainers for the Genoese and Venetian nobility for centuries; and, as noted above, his favorite sister married a Borghese. When Napoleon’s ravages had ended, Count Giovanni Capodistria, a Venetian nobleman acting as a government minister of Russia, almost single-handledly wrote the essential documents issued by the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, which established the ultra-reactionary Holy Alliance. Capodistria also pulled together the modern nation of Switzerland, in part as a repository for Venetian family funds (fondi), which were also used to found several insurance companies in the late 18th Century. These later included the Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) and the Assicurazioni Generali di Venezia e Trieste.[9]

At the turn of the 20th Century, the “ancients” of Venice, although diminished, still commanded important financial and intelligence power, both on their own behalf, but also because they deployed as part of the British- (and subsequently Anglo-American-) dominated world which their ancestors had created. In the wake of the split/redeployments of 1582, they cloned themselves and their institutions and methods to dominate northern Protestant, often freemasonic Europe, while they still maintained their power in their historic seats of control in the formerly Hapsburg-ruled southern, more Catholic portions of Europe, in particular in Italy and Spain, and in the Church at Rome. They played a crucial role in organizing the Balkan Wars which laid the immediate basis for World War I, for which Britain’s King Edward VII had schemed for decades. In the early 20th Century, a group of Venetian financier patricians, led by Count Piero Foscari of an ancient family of Venetian Doges, established a number of companies and banks. Chief among the latter, was the Banca Commerciale Italiana (BCI), and in particular its Venice branch.[10]

Though Foscari was the undisputed leader of this Venetian group, its most active public figure was Giuseppe Volpi, later known as Count Giuseppe Volpi di Misurata, after his early-1920s rule of Italian-occupied Libya on behalf of Mussolini. Acting as the point-man for an international financial syndicate including the Bank of England, the Mellons, and the House of Morgan, Volpi organized Mussolini’s rise to power, precisely as Schacht did later for those same forces in installing Hitler in Germany. Volpi was Mussolini’s Finance Minister from 1925 to July 1928, following which he became a member of the Grand Council of Fascism, and, in 1934, chairman of the Industrialists Association. He designed Mussolini’s economic doctrine of corporatism along the model originally laid down by Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (1842-1909), the founder of the Synarchy of Empire movement, and the inspiration for the Martinist freemasonic lodges through which the modern Synarchy was organized. Nominally a tripartite pact among corporations, the state, and labor, it was basically rule by corporations, i.e., private financiers....

[Keith Millea]

And my favorite is that it's all the fault of the Beatles: the British invasion. Or that the peace movement was being funded and controlled by the Rockerfellers.
Now I do question the Weathermen- and women- their violence was rewarded. That has always reeked of cointelpro pys op.
And yes the man who brought us acid (and Acid Dreams, Thanks Marty)
did so via CIA, but it really backfired.

Then there's the anti semitism.

We do need serious third party candidates but LL was never one I'd support.

Dawn

Well,I totally have to agree with Dawn that when LSD came to the streets,it became an uncontrolable situation and ultimatley backfired on the CIA.The thing to note is that the "Counter Culture"didn't die away.It migrated.The main migration route being straight up the coast from San Francisco to Oregon and Washington.The"back to the land",grow your own organic food-medicine ideals put into motion.This new culture is now deeply ingrained in the social-economic structure of this part of the country.The roots have been laid down,now it's up to the next generation of dreamers to evolve the "VISION".

CIA dupes?Me no think so.......

[David Guyatt]

The following article was written by Allen Douglas who, with his wife Rachel Douglas, did much of the research into what they termed the Roots of the Trust--the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy. They are multi-lingual and do their research in various languages. At one time I was allowed to borrow, under penalty of death if I didn't return it, a copy of one part of their type-written tome, which was about 4 inches thick. It made absolutely no sense to me because the quotes were all in foreign languages I didn't understand! Anyway, here's an article by Allen Douglas:

***

The Venetians founded the British East India Company in 1600 (from a merger of the England-based Venice Company and the Turkey Company) and the Dutch East India Company in 1602, and the wealth derived from this trade helped create or enrich a number of great aristocratic families in both countries, along the Venetian model.

***

He designed Mussolini’s economic doctrine of corporatism along the model originally laid down by Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (1842-1909), the founder of the Synarchy of Empire movement, and the inspiration for the Martinist freemasonic lodges through which the modern Synarchy was organized. Nominally a tripartite pact among corporations, the state, and labor, it was basically rule by corporations, i.e., private financiers....

Thanks for this Linda. I think I am beginning to solve my riddle, which seems to me to be the dual use LL and EIR play with the word Synarchy. On the one hand they use it in the usual dictionary sense:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Synarchy

Syn´ar`chy

n. 1. Joint rule or sovereignity.

And they again use it in its occult sense as witnessed by their reference to St. Yves and Martinism.

This can cause confusion. For example, the Anglo-Dutch British East India Company was founded as a protestant partnership in direct competition with the very Catholic Spanish and Portuguese who had a monopoly on the East Indies spice trade due to their superior navigation skills..

See: http://usp.nus.edu.sg/victorian/history/empire/eic.html

Obviously, Larouche could equally use the word Synarchy to define the Catholic Churches sponsorship of the Spanish and Portuguese trade as well but I haven't ever seen that happen (perhaps I am remiss here?) and so I suspect some bias here.

Having said that, with the involvement of St. Yves and the continuation into Martinism we are dealing with a wholly Catholic esoteric tradition - and I can't see how this curious gap is reconciled?

(We must also be careful for there are two principal, but different, Martinist orders, the Ordre Martiniste, and the Martinist Order and Synarchy. See: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropoli.../mart.html)

The Wiki entry on LL has some intriguing pointers about the man's make-up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRo....80.931947

I note that by age of 13 he had rejected Bacon and others but had adopted Liebniz. The mind boggles. Later, a favourite was Nicolas de Cuza (also amongst others).

The overall picture is of a highly complex character -- and one that comes with its own confusing layers of confusion it seems to me.

[Linda Minor]

Thanks for this Linda. I think I am beginning to solve my riddle, which seems to me to be the dual use LL and EIR play with the word Synarchy. ...

The Wiki entry on LL has some intriguing pointers about the man's make-up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRo....80.931947

I note that by age of 13 he had rejected Bacon and others but had adopted Liebniz. The mind boggles. Later, a favourite was Nicolas de Cuza (also amongst others).

The overall picture is of a highly complex character -- and one that comes with its own confusing layers of confusion it seems to me.

The group of people I became acquainted with in Houston are included in the list shown at: http://sthweb.bu.edu/index.php?option=co...Itemid=357

They were ideologues who were so immersed in their own world of history and ideas that they became totally unaware of how they sounded to normal people. I would read all their available literature (the weekly New Federalist news rag and somewhat more professional EIR and Fidelio magazines, and for a time subscribed to the taped news briefings they mailed out on tape). I would also attend their meetings from time to time, but it became apparent the purpose was to indoctrinate the uninformed prospective members of that week's party line and not to think or question the reasoning involved in arriving at the briefing points. That probably helps explain how most democratic institutional ideals either dissolve into anarchy or totalitarianism; people who ask questions of the authoritarian framework become a threat to the financial infrastructure that has developed over time. They cannot pay for the albeit-subsistence level of their dedicated followers when they depart from the need to raise funds in an attempt to educate every person who would question the briefing points.

But the group was not, as it has often been called, a cult; nor was it in any way racist or anti-Semitic, as it has been labeled by liberals who have adapted to the politically correct language required by today's society. For example, they often used shorthand terms such as "house nigger" or "court Jew," which they used in historical terms that were often misinterpreted. A "house nigger" would be a black person like Uncle Tom in Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel, who took care of the white massah and the chillens while ignoring what was best for his own black family. The "court Jew" in LaRouche literature was epitomized by Henry Kissinger, who had come up in the ranks of Harvard and the Rockefeller Foundation. The term originated from the days when Jews were banned in England because they were looking after the interest of Venetian oligarchs to whom the Crown was in debt.

LaRouche disciples, when I was learning what I could from them more than a decade ago, were steeped in the history of Venice versus Florence and the Florentine ideal of "man made in the image of God," which developed as a result of the Renaissance promoted financially by Nicholas of Cusa. LaRouche and his group, even when in desperate need of money to support their cause, always spoke in favor of that idea which came out of the Renaissance--that mankind is all-important on the earth and can achieve anything; that every individual is sacred and deserves to be educated. They spoke of universal brotherhood, which is antithetical to financial oligarchy and rule by financial elites.

The only real difference I had with them, in retrospect, was that I placed a different value on what they offered than they did. I was unwilling to fork over as much money as they begged for almost daily. As I told them, I'm willing to pay for information, but not make donations. That was where we parted ways.

[Ron Williams]

Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman is a book students and researchers of the deep political structures will most definitely want to read, if they haven’t already. The excerpt linked to in the initial post from Terry Mauro is from the first part of the first 1984 edition.

Since the United States became a colony again in the early part of the twentieth century, real United States history written by real citizens of the Republic, especially history of this quality, has been hard to come by. Lloyd Miller in his Project journal had this to say in 1985:

[COLOR="Blue"]Treason in America by Anton Chaitkin

Thesis: Everything evil in America, From Aaron Burr to Henry Kissinger, is a product of America’s Oligarchical “First Families.” Chaitkin grabs the Eastern Establishment by the tail and uses the traitor’s own writings and other original source materials to tell you the story—for the first time! …Ever!! (The Project, August-Sept 1985, Vol II Nos. 6 & 7, p. 10)[/COLOR]

Interested readers will also want to consult the eloquent autobiographical sketch that the author contributed when he joined the Education Forum a few years ago.

If one were to think of an inquiry into the deep political structures as a college level course of study, Treason in American would surely be one of the necessary prerequisites, as would two other works from the Lyndon LaRouche organization that Anton Chaitkin pays tribute to in the preface to the latest edition of his book, Graham Lowery’s book How the Nation was Won: America’s Untold Story 1630-1754, and the Nancy Spannaus essay “Uncovering the Treason School of American History” from the 1977 book The Political Economy of the American Revolution.

Here is part of the author’s description of his work from the preface:

[COLOR="Blue"]The Treason in America story was conceived as a kind of family biography of the Anglophile U.S. Eastern Establishment, seen in their conflict with the republican patriots from the American Revolution into the present era, …Using mainly primary sources, so as to go beyond mere gossip, an attempt has been made in this work to reconstruct the pivotal political wars in U.S. history from the 1780s to the mid-20th century… It is believed that this work is the first serious chronicle of the anti-nationalist side of American history yet written.

But, a complete picture requires the other side of the story, a thorough-going account of the republican nationalists. H. Graham Lowery’s 1987 How the Nation Was Won: America’s Untold Story, Volume I, 1630-1754, and several articles since 1988 by the present author, have documented the tradition of Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Lincoln, (Henry) Carey and their allies, who created modern times and spread civilization despite the British Empire-centered enemy.[/COLOR]

[Linda Minor]

The Issue of Synarchism
Nonetheless, the fact persists, that, to all intents,
when the fact of that crash is put, hypothetically, momentarily
to one side, the present trend in international
and nations’ internal affairs, is showing all the principal
economic and related symptoms of an oncoming form
of what became known as fascism in 1920s Italy, and
what had been actually developed in 19th-Century
France under the name of the “synarchist” movement.
That was the synarchist movement which had developed
about the close of the 1860s and beginning of
the 1870s. That form of synarchism which was recognized
as “fascism,” was originally introduced, later, as
a label for the form of synarchism which the British
asset and Venetian financier, veteran of London’s
“Young Turk” operation, Volpi di Misurata, brought
into Italy during the early 1920s. The selection of the
trade-style “fascism” as a name for a synarchist scheme
in 1922 Italy then, was a choice based on the intent to
present an obvious appeal to memory of the legendary
Roman imperial legions. In turn, Nazism was the intentionally
Wagnerian-flavored brand-name supplied to
bring the so-called fascist model of synarchism from
Italy, into Germany, and also back into the occupation
of France. That French government was, frankly, the
synarchist formation which had arranged the victory of
the Wehrmacht over what was, technically, a relatively
superior military force of the French nation.

It is important to recognize the symptoms of fascism
of which Prescott Bush would have been proud, in cases
such as the 2001 inauguration of his worse than foolish
grandson, President George W. Bush, Jr.
The importance of emphasizing this Bush heritage,
is that we should recall, that, after the 1929 U.S. stockmarket
“crash,” what had become known as fascism
during the 1920s was about to take over in the United
States. Fascism would have taken over the U.S.A. then,
but for the election and inauguration of President Franklin
Roosevelt.

The right-wing, anti-Roosevelt movement
led by the Wall Street financier interests during
the 1930s, was intended to achieve a fascist takeover of
the U.S. government, even by an intended military seizure
of power by Wall Street interests. The same trend
toward fascism has been clearly expressed recently in
President George H.W. Bush’s collusion with British
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the matter of Germany’s
reunification. It is to be recognized, recently, in
the two successive terms of President George W. Bush,
Jr., that the Bush impulse toward creating a new fascist
system has persisted, inside the U.S.A. and elsewhere
today; the policies of “bail out” and “stimulus” of recent
cases, such as those of the Bush Administration and the
often simian-like antics of U.S. Democratic Representative
Barney Frank, have typified this trend.

It is important to recall, that during the interval of
the 1920s and 1930s, fascism had become an active
force inside London itself, even into the ranks of the
monarchy. This included the official British fascists’
role as a spin-off from the Fabian Society of H.G. Wells
and his ilk, and as also expressed, nakedly, in the
avowed 1937 intention of John Maynard Keynes. This
pattern in the 1930s had been preceded by efforts introduced,
also from London, into the U.S.A. through Wall
Street and related circles, as introduced by Wall Street
and related sympathies for Mussolini and Hitler, by the
leading adversaries of what Franklin Roosevelt represented,
during both the 1920s and 1930s. Not surprisingly,
this pattern continued throughout the 1930s, up
to the time of Italy’s joining the Wehrmacht “Blitzkrieg”
in France; a moment when Britain’s Winston
Churchill had deftly abandoned his adopted Italian protege,
Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

Today, we must recognize the current influence of
the same synarchist trend in the U.S. circles which had
been associated with circles of the faithful followers of
the tradition of Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson. Those two U.S. Presidents were
second-generation products of the British-directed Confederacy’s
attempt to destroy the U.S.A.; they were, in
historical fact, traitors of the type which also qualified as
later supporters of the same synarchist tradition also expressed
by the 1920s Italian and German sympathizers
of Mussolini and Hitler. London’s assets reigning in
Wall Street, constituted a nest of such enemies of the
United States’ Constitution during the 1920s and 1930s,
including names from among those of the circles of the
principal targets of the 1930s Pecora Commission investigations.
Prescott Bush, the London-steered man
who was assigned to release the Anglo-American funds
to assist Adolf Hitler into power, had committed that act
on behalf of his employers (both the Bank of England’s
Montagu Norman and Brown Brothers, Harriman), who
were leading members of the same pack from among
leading Anglo-American backers of fascism.

For most relevant, ironical reasons, the 1941 attack
on Pearl Harbor by the Japan which had been a British
ally against the U.S.A. since no later than 1894, turned
out to be a momentary great embarrassment for the anglophile,
pro-fascist, Wall Street enemies of President
Franklin Roosevelt’s 1930s and early 1940s U.S.A.;
but, those European and U.S. fascist enemies of President
Franklin Roosevelt remained a credible force, despite
their embarrassment over the Pearl Harbor attack.
They remained an active political force in the background
throughout the 1942-1945 period. They reappeared
on the streets in newly chosen habitual guises,
returning to the surface of visibly leading positions of
influence, from about the time of the events at Normandy
in June 1944. With the death of President Franklin
Roosevelt and the inauguration of President Harry
Truman, the lurking fascist circles inside the U.S.A.
slid into a nearly controlling political position in the
U.S.A., throughout the terms of the Truman Administration,
and have remained a stubbornly persisting, and
growing, Wall Street related factor, as they have been
since the riots of 1968 and the election of President
Nixon, until now.

It was not only fascist nations of the past, but, rather,
the persistence of this presently global, fascist threat,
which has been a principal factor in world politics since
the interval of London’s appointment of Napoleon III to
reign as London’s agent over France. The source of the
threat, in whatever nation it has arisen as a ruling political
influence, was never spontaneous. During this
time, synarchism, fascism, and their offshoots, have
always remained essentially a disease spread to other
nations by the British Empire, as it had been when the
British Foreign Office’s Lord Palmerston inserted his
asset, Napoleon III, into the government of France.

[David Guyatt]

Hi Linda. Fascism is certainly the goal imo, and I sense that the systemic breakdown of the global banking system is part of that process.

But I cannot get out of my mind that Carroll Quigley quote about the Oxford Group that they planned to use the banking system to dominate governments with the aim of re-instituting a form of middle ages serf-master relationship where the ordinary people obviously, are to be made the forelock tugging serfs. To me this form of social engineering has been happening via the modern consumer system where it is now the seller who dictates to the buyer the terms of the contract, including what payment method is and is not acceptable, plus all the additional terms. 30 years ago it was the other way around.

I also still think that it is an occult agenda that sits behind the Synarchist agenda.

I hope your book is coming along nicely.