AUSTRALIA'S BODYGUARD OF LIES
A New Old Libel Against Me
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.May 1, 2001
In reply to what I received this morning, as the copy of an extraordinarily unwarranted and malicious disregard for truthfulness displayed by the Australian Conference of Trade Unions executive [circulating a libel originating from the Australian Anti-Defamation Commission, which is dominated by Queen's Privy Councillors--ed], I state the following.
I reply to an aggravated libel of me, dated 6 April 2001, and entitled "The LaRouche Cult," as issued by the ACTU Executive, issued by its President, Sharan Burrow, and Secretary, Greg Combet, on the subject of the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC); which states, in its opening sentences: "The Citizens Electoral Council is a branch of the global LaRouche movement. LaRouche's 'racist conspiracies,' according to a new briefing document prepared for unions, 'have been adapted by the CEC with local targets including Aborigines, Jews, environmentalists and the Australian Government.'..."
Thus, those certain corrupting circles in Australia, which have instructed ACTU to this effect, have obliged me respond to their monstrously lying personal attack upon me now circulating in that nation.
On Sept. 24, 1976, Washington Post publisher Katharine Meyer Graham's Paul Rosenfeld issued and printed an editorial statement under the title "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," on the subject of me and my candidacy for election to become U.S. President. Rosenfeld stated it to be the Post's editorial policy, never to publish any account of the activities of me or my associates, but, instead, to publish only defamatory statements against me.
Earlier, in 1973, the New York Times had written lying defamatory filth against me, as an attempted diversion of public attention from the fact that the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation had been caught out, and frustrated publicly, in an operation which, in the words written in official documents of the Bureau itself at that time, had been intended to accomplish my personal "elimination." However, the Rosenfeld piece in the Sept. 24, 1976 edition of the Post, was the first occasion on which a leading news medium of the U.S. actually confessed publicly to a consciously malicious, continuing intention to do what the Post has done against me on virtually every occasion since, up to today's date--lie.
Thus, did Australia's ACTU join in the Goebbels-like practice of the infamous, Orwellian "Bodyguard of Lies."
I have read the libelous document from Australia. Only three points in the document required any detailed attention by me, given that the authors of the libel have written and published with reckless disregard for truth. Notably, what they cite as their principal sources, are only time-wearied libels which have been exposed, repeatedly, widely, and amply, as fraudulent, many years earlier.
Since I am a seasoned veteran of such wildly lying expressions of malice from agencies controlled by the world's leading Anglo-American financier oligarchy, such as the New York Times and Washington Post, I am shocked only by the fact that the emitters of this rewarmed lying filth permitted themselves to be used as the cloak under which they were caused to publish such a pack of rewarmed old lies.
The Mont Pelerin Society
In general, apart from three of their points included in that libellous attack on me, it is sufficient to state, that such reckless disregard for truth by the authors of that attack, demands the conclusion that the Australia piece is, like the continuing behavior of Katharine Graham's Washington Post, a product of malicious intent to perpetrate lying libels.
On the matter of the timing of the emitted libel from ACTU, the appropriate general observation as to its appearance, is the following. This libel appears during a period when I have been ever more widely recognized around the world, as shown by recent events, to be a most authoritative long-range economic forecaster of the recent decades. The implication of the choice of timing of the ACTU's reemitting discredited libels so ancient as to be almost archeological artefacts, is that their libel was not made in disregard for my skyrocketting authority as a leading economist, but, rather, precisely because of that.
Only three points of that libel itself, are in any respect more than simply rewarming old lies exposed as such many times, over the course of preceding decades. The only three charges ACTU issues, on which some comment might be reasonably required of me, are the authors' references to the topics of the Mont Pelerin Society, aborigines, and environmentalists.
As to their collateral assertion that I am involved in attacks on Australia: that can be put aside peremptorily, since it is well known that my attitude of good will toward the past, present, and future welfare of Australia, is more or less identical to that expressed in practice by General Douglas MacArthur. The libellers therefore cast themselves in the role of professed patriots who attack only the friends of their nation's people, rather than the alien predators who have greatly looted and nearly ruined it.
The case of the Mont Pelerin Society is the most significant issue, since the Mont Pelerin Society is truly my principal political adversary on this planet today, and I not only their opponent, but, perhaps, the most dedicated adversary of the work and influence of that pernicious, neo-feudalist collation of openly professed global parasites. That I am an adversary of that cabal, is perhaps the only part of the ACTU's relevant emission which can be regarded as truthful.
The New Bogomils
From their own teachings, including the writings of their lately deceased high priest, Friedrich von Hayek, the Mont Pelerin Society is properly to be classed as a modern revival of the ancient, neo-Manichean cult known as the "Bogomils," and known in popular English slang as "the buggers."
That the ACTU should have chosen to fall into bed with that Mont Pelerin Society, must appear to most observers as almost a contradiction in terms. Therefore, this paradoxical self-juxtaposition of the usual victim, the ACTU, to its natural foe, the predatory Mont Pelerin Society, needs a bit of explaining.
To explain that crucial point, the following facts are most essential.
As a reader of Gibbon will recall, the subject of the Bogomils' origins and history, is among the topics he addressed with some notable degree verisimilitude. For today, the most relevant feature of that medieval religious cult, is its doctrine of "the elect" or "the perfected ones." This dogma was revived in some lurid, frankly pro-satanic detail by the same Bernard Mandeville whom von Hayek featured as the equivalent of an historical Mani for his own Mont Pelerin Society cult. The same dogma was employed, in defense of the institution of feudal servitude, the doctrine of laissez-faire, by the celebrated Dr. François Quesnay, the Physiocrat who, together with Turgot, was so liberally plagiarized by Lord Shelburne's lackey Adam Smith, for that so-called Wealth of Nations, which had been more fairly titled The Stealth of Nations. This same dogma is the core of the variety of liberalism presented by another famous lackey of Shelburne's, Jeremy Bentham, and followed by other notable utilitarians later.
The historical setting of the point so situated, we may come directly to the crucial point at issue in the matter of ACTU's emission.
The clearly recognizable as theological argument, of Mandeville and his acolyte von Hayek, is to the effect that the universe is purely a statistical phenomenon, in which the equivalent of "little green men under the floorboards," a devil in the detail otherwise recognizable as von Hayek's "god," or Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand," are slyly manipulating probability in a certain, marvellous way, such as to bestow riches and power upon the few, to the amazement of the impoverished many.
The argument of Mandeville, von Hayek, and the glassy-eyed "globalizers" of today, is that it would be a crime against their god, "the devil in the detail," to interfere with anyone's propensity to sin as liberally as he or she might choose. For, surely, if we were so sacrilegious as to interfere with the will of the devil in the detail, the "little green men" running the universe from under the floorboards, would wreak terrible punishments upon us all!
Since the Fifteenth-Century eruption of the Golden Renaissance, and the first emergence of the modern sovereign form of nation-state republic under France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, there has been a continuing conflict: between those feudalist traditions which seek to return the world to the imperial, ultramontane order of the time of the regrettable Plantagenets; and those who demand sovereign nation-states under the higher law known variously as the principle of the general welfare and the common good for all persons and their posterity.
As the cases of the degeneracy of France under the Fronde-allied Louis XIV, and the Fronde-like mentality of the pro-feudalist Physiocrats, of the ultra-reactionary Holy Alliance, there has been a persisting struggle throughout globally extended modern European civilization, between the defenders of the general welfare and those reactionaries who seek to return the planet as a whole to a more or less globalized sort of neo-feudalism, in which the majority of those populations permitted to survive, are subjected to grab-your-forelocks-when-the-master- passes status as virtual human cattle.
The Mont Pelerin Society, which created Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher out of an unfortunate choice of greengrocer's daughter, is represented in the U.S.A. itself by such apostles of depravity as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Are the trade-unions of Australia prepared to accept that servile status, of virtual human cattle, which the advocates of the Mont Pelerin Society present to them?
On the Subject of Aborigines
I would uphold the view of those in Australia who recognize from notable individual cases, that the so-called "aborigines" of Australia, given the opportunities, can accomplish as much as would be reasonably hoped for from a child of any human household. For anyone to imagine that I am pro-racist, while on record consistently as a leading opponent of the racism represented by the Nixon "Southern Strategy" of 1966-1968, as hegemonic in the U.S. Congress and current U.S. Administration today; that person is clearly either demented, simply stupid, or corrupted beyond the reach of exculpatory explanations for their lying behavior.
What I do oppose, is the wicked segregation of any class of persons into a virtual biological category of "aborigines," and using such so-exploited captives of a "aborigine" policy as an instrument for keeping those captives in a "primitive condition," and waiting, sadistically, for them to die out "naturally," through aid of spread of modern infectious diseases into aboriginal conditions. Thus do some promoters of an "aboriginal lands" policy intend to gain control of the land areas assigned to such intended victims, for the enrichment of the promoters of that policy, the type of financier predators sharing the ideology of the Mont Pelerin Society.
Those of us familiar with the practices against the so-called North American aborigines, the so-called "American Indians" inhabiting so-called "reservations," know first-hand the injustice bestowed upon the doomed inhabitants of an "aboriginal preserve" under management of pre-aboriginal, predatory types such as the Mont Pelerin tribes.
Environmentalism
The recent revival of Malthusianism, in the name of "environmentalism," is even more brutish and insane than the argument which Jeremy Bentham's Thomas Malthus plagiarized from Venetian and related sources, such as Giammaria Ortes, to assist the British Parliament in discovering pretexts for what was done in the name of repeal of the Poor Laws in England.
Now, as then, the essential argument made by the environmentalists, today's so-called ecology argument, is an intrinsically anti-scientific cult-belief which could have spread as it did only through the combined impact of the post-1963 spread of the rock-drug-sex counterculture, and those so-called liberal reforms of education which have produced the present-day proliferation of university-educated scientific illiterates.
My own views, over more than a half-century to date, have always been wittingly consistent with the conceptions of biosphere and noösphere defined by the great founder of biogeochemistry, V.I. Vernadsky. This is also a fact of long-standing record; for anyone to present the issue in different terms, is but another evidence of their flagrant disregard for truth.
If anyone wishes to comment on my views of "environmentalism," they should first study those views, before proceeding to run as foolishly at the mouth, as the authors of the ACTU libel have done.
