SEARCH

edit SideBar

Olof Palme and the Neo-Nazi International

EXECUTIVE INTELLIGENCE REVIEW

Strategic Studies

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

June 8, 1982

I head a small but highly significant international news service, whose qualifications include a reputation for special talents in investigating forces behind international terrorism.
During our investigation of the 1980 bombing of the synagogue on Paris's Rue Copernic, we had already noted the fact that Armenian terrorists in France were being deployed by a neo-Nazi organization based near Geneva, in Switzerland. With this and other information in hand, we followed up proof developed more recently by French police, that the terrorist Bruno Breguet was an agent of the Swiss head of the neo-Nazi international, from the "Malmo International" headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland. The new jigsaw puzzle pieces we added to our collection through this lattej investigation fitted with the many others we already possessed.
Thus, we penetrated high into the circles behind the Nazis and modern "neo-conserva-tives," old and current, and developed new evidence concerning Sweden's Olof Palme.
One of the leading figures of the neo-Nazi "Malmo International," Dr. Per Engdahl of Malmo, Sweden, was inevitably among the priority subjects of our assembly of added volumes on background information for our Breguet dossier. In the middle of our investigator's discussions with Dr. Engdahl, the leading Swedish Nazi volunteered an account of his warm reception by then-Prime Minister Olof Palme. Whether he fully understands it or not, this was the gist of Dr. Engdahl's observation: Social Democrat Olof Palme is an excellent fascist.1 TheNold Nazi leader referred to Palme's socio-economic programmatic policies as proof of the fascist commitments of the Swedish Socialist International figure. By every objective standard of scholarship concerning fascism, there was not a jot or tittle of exaggeration in Engdahl's characterization of Palme as a fascist.
No scholar of twentieth-century political history, in either the United States or Europe, should ever be particularly surprised to discover that some prominent figure of the Socialist International is in the process of emerging as an actual or potential fascist leader in this or that country.
Generally speaking, the anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist factions of the Socialist and Communist international organizations have been spewing out fascist leaders and fascist movements since the days of Giuseppe Mazzini's leadership of the radical "Young Europe" movement of the 1840s. Just as the Socialist Party of Italy produced Benito Mussolini then and Bettino Craxi now, so the leading pro-fascists in the United States around the beginning of the 1930s included "liberal" Averell Harriman and the social-democratic admirers of Mussolini's fascism around pragmatist John Dewey. It ought not to be surprising that Max Eastman and Deweyite James Burnham produced the fascist National Review circles and contributed to the fascist "neo-conservatives" of New York's East Side Conservative Club. 2
Twentieth-century fascism has two interdependent features. Under emerging depression conditions, states tend to acquire the general features of the Nazi regime wherever the conceptions of Hjalrnar Schacht, Milton Friedman, or the Mont Pelerin Society generally are deployed to impose a certain, radical form of austerity on the society. In that sense, economist Lester Thurow's current doctrine is merely another fascist concoction.-1 However, since radical austerity measures of the Thatcher-Friedman-Volcker variety conflict increasingly, and absolutely with the most vital interests of large constituencies, there are political limits to the degree to which fascist forms of austerity can be imposed upon a democracy. Sooner or later, such austerity must be continued by force or fail through popular resistance. Enter the kind of political movement suited to impose Friedmanite austerity by means of force: the fascist political movement.
From the standpoint we have just summarized, it might appear that the marriage between Schachtian forms of economic austerity and fascist political movements occurs as a marriage of convenience. This, of course, is the conventional, mistaken explanation for the leading role of the leader of German Liberalism, Hjalmar Schacht, both in bringing down the Social-Democratic-Liberal coalition government of Mueller, and in assuming the leading role, subsequently, in bringing Hitler to power.
Such appearances of mere coincidence in service of merely temporary goals between Schachtian liberalism and fascism are the misleading, superficial feature of the process by which fascist movements have been brought into power. At a deeper level, the kind of Friedmanite liberalism typified by Schacht and fascist social movements have common origins and common sponsors. That is key to understanding the cases of such contemporary Socialist International fascist leaders asOlof Palme or BettinoCraxi today.
Both the economic policies of Schacht and Friedman, and the policies of practice of modern fascist movements have been and are today deployed by a feudalist network assembled chiefly in the guise of networks within the Hospitaller, sometimes called "Maltese" orders.
This political force of feudalism has existed in this included Hospitaller disguise since the last half of the thirteenth century, at which time it was interchangeable with a faction of the European oligarchy known as the "Black Guelphs," the immediate opponents of the republican forces associated with Dante Alighieri and the Staufer house. These forces represent not only feudalist aspirations, in the sense the schoolboy might define feudalism. They are presently the single wealthiest political force in the world, the dominant rentier-finance interest centered in such places as Venice, Trieste, Leichtenstein, Switzerland, Amsterdam, and London. Although these rentier-financier interest have moved heavily into financial control of multinational corporations, news media and communications industries generally, their basic financial interest continues to be concentrated in real-estate and usury, using each financial crisis of nations to move in to buy up large tracts of real estate relatively cheaply, as they are operating through fronts to buy out farms from under U.S. farmers in the United States presently.
It is in this connection, and only this connection, that the reader can understand two leading things about the successes of this writer and his associates. First, why have we often enough succeeded in intelligence and counterintelligence inquiries and assessments, where powerful, well-equipped agencies have failed? Second, why have the oligarchical forces linked to the Hospitaller orders expended so many tens of millions of dollars worth of libelous propaganda through controlled news media and other channels, as attempted containment and attempted extermination of a force with such poor material resources and so little explicit political power as the writer and his associates have represented?
The key to answering both questions lies in our emphasis on an epistemologicalapproach to historiography as our method, the method we employ in counterintelligence activities, as well as in political analysis or in matters of the fundamentals of physics and other scientific matters. It is the lack of classical education and related culture among recent generations which deprives executives of political parties and governments of the intellectual equipment indispensable for understanding the purposes and methods of the forces bent upon destroying the United States (among other targeted nations) today.
For example, only a relative handful of persons of influence and power in the United States today has competent knowledge of the issues of the American Revolution. What were the burning issues of 1776-1789 which impelled the founders of the United States to fight a perilous, protracted war against our mortal adversary, Britain? What was the unbridgable difference in political philosophy and economic policy which obliged the co-conspirators of Benjamin Franklin to launch a mortal struggle against British parliamentarism, British law, and the economic policies outlined in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations'! On these questions, contemporary Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, and so on lie outrageously, and the honest, ordinary citizen, in or out of Congress, simply has no accurate notion of the answer to such important questions.
In Europe, the situation is only slightly better than in the United States. There are a diminishing few in France who know the policies and purposes of Tremblay, Richelieu, Mazarin, Colbert and such Benjamin Franklin allies as the circle around Lazare Carnot. There are a diminishing few in Germany who still know the significance of the vom Stein, Humboldt, and Scharnhorst reforms.. There are a few in Italy who remember the Golden Renaissance and perhaps also the nineteenth-century republican faction associated with Cavour.
Largely for reason of a lack of classical education, most party and government officials of today, including intelligence officers, operate on the basis of the widely held, but foolish assumption that such matters of the past have little or even no practical relevance for current events. The educated, if predominantly wrong-headed George Santayana was surely right in promoting one of his aphorisms: "Those who fail to master history are condemned to repeat it."
The mastery of the past 2,500 years of European history from a reference point of classical Greek scholarship has proven its unique competence to show the student and future statesman how the behavior of and destiny of societies are shaped by those forces of ideas examined under the heading of epistemology. That study informs the student that there have been only two significant, opposing forces shaping the ebbs and flows of European civilization over the course of longer than these 2,500 years.
If a well-advised republic's government had its preference in the matter it would permit no person to advance either to a key position of policy-making or to leadership of an intelligence or security agency until the candidate had proven mastery of the lessons to be adduced from a classical approach to historical studies along such lines. Indeed, every well-advised republic would insist that basic competence in such matters must be a featured part of the work completed by every graduate of secondary educational institutions. (For, if we do not have citizens capable of understanding the practical implications of policy for the future of the nation, of civilization, how can electoral majorities ever become qualified to judge alternative policies and candidates competently?)
It is the emphasis on such matters of epistemology and historiography by the writer and his associates which supplies our work in some, various areas, including political intelligence, a wide margin of superiority in quality. Although our resources are tiny, relative to those governmentally-backed agencies, by knowing what is crucial and by devoting our efforts preferentially to searching out what is crucial, we have not infrequently outrun the leading competing agencies of the world in a number of matters of strategic importance.
It is for related reasons that, increasingly, beginning summer 1968, agencies directed by the Hospitaller orders have judged the writer and his associates to be "a serious potential danger," to be contained by libel, slander, and physical harassment, and to be destroyed if that could be accomplished without significant political risk to the ultimate authors of such enterprises. In 1968, this was the policy and practice of circles behind the British intelligence asset known as the Institute for Policy Studies, and also of circles associated with the Ford Foundation's McGeorge Bundy. Beginning the early 1970s, elements of British intelligence proper became involved in expanded covert and open operations against the "serious potential danger." Beginning 1975, Henry A. Kissinger began to deploy personally the resources of several governments and other capabilities persistently against the "serious potential danger." The commitment has broadened and escalated greatly since 1975, including prominent and continuing operations by leaders of the Socialist International including the fascist Olof Palme.
The fear is clearly not the marginal material resources or political power of the writer's associates as such. The fear is that the cumulative credibility which the writer's associates have gained over the past decade, might cause numerous institutions to become infected with the epistemological-historiographical outlook of we the few. Hence, the Hospitallers' determination to first contain and then destroy the influence of the few before a more general such "infection" might occur.
From our vantage-point of knowledge, there is no mystery respecting the roots of the fascist impulses dominating Sweden's Olof Palme. We turn now to summarize the historical perspective within whose overview the emergence of the Hospitaller conspiracy and such products as modern fascism can be best understood.


Notes:
1. Interview with Dr. P. Engdahl, May, 1982. Cf. New Solidarity, New York, May 10, 1982.
2. The world's principal scholarly authority on Nazism, himself a former member of Hitler's SS, is the Swiss-born
head of the Siemens Stiftung, Armin Mohler. The Siemens Stiftung is a pro-Malthusian, policy-research arm of the giant Siemens firm, as attested by the public circulation of Mohler's anti-technology propaganda through agencies of the firm itself. Mohler lists James Burnham of the National Review as among his preferred ("neo-conservative") fascists in the United States. The East Side Conservative Club, a center of pro and proto-fascist elements, including Roy M. Cohn, William F. Buckley, and leaders of "organized-crime families," is a notorious conduit for relevant varieties of "neo-conservative" propaganda and political operations.
3. Lester Thurow is currently a leading adviser on economic policy to the Democratic Party's National Committee. Among Thurow's sillier, but energetically pressed assertions is the proposal that U.S. national productivity can be increased best by shutting down most less-than-most-productive firms and thus increasing mass unemployment rather than by the "more costly" method of investing in improved technologies! Thurow, in this and other respects, is more rabidly fascist than Hjalmar Schacht.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on July 25, 2011, at 08:25 AM