The real story behind
Queen Elizabeth’s
fascist racial
vilification legislation
Her Majesty’s Privy Council
B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission
Privy Councillor
Sir Zelman Cowen
Chrmn Advisory Board, ADC
Privy Councillor
Malcolm Fraser
Advisory Board, ADC
Privy Councillor
Sir Ninian Stephen
Advisory Board, ADC
A Publication of the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Price: $5
March 2001
Page 1
For further information or to obtain more copies of this pamphlet please contact:
Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
595 Sydney Rd Coburg Vic 3058 Australia
P O Box 376 Coburg Vic 3058
Home Page: http://www.cecaust.com.au Email: [email protected]
Ph: 03 9354 0544 Fax: 03 9354 0166
Photo Credits Cover: Zelman Cowen. The Age/Eamon Gallagher; Malcolm Fraser. The Age/Matt Bowie; Ninian Stephen. The Age/Belinga; The Queen. AP/Russell Boyce
Page 2
From the CEC National Secretary
Dear Fellow Citizen,
The state governments of Victoria and Queensland are presently attempting
to ram through draconian “racial vilification” legislation, with similar laws
likely to be pushed soon after on the federal level, under which Australian
citizens could be heavily fined or thrown in jail for six months, on the basis
that someone (even a third party) “feels offended”, according to the ultravague wording of these proposed laws. Such “catch-all” laws, with their heavy
criminal penalties, are an attempt to rip up the civil liberties and basic human
Craig Isherwood
National Secretary
rights of all Australians.
In Victoria, the State Opposition has admitted receiving an astounding 10,000
letters and emails, which were overwhelmingly against the legislation. In addition, polls taken by the
Victorian government show an overwhelming sentiment against it, as did the public meetings which
that government held in an attempt to claim support. According to eyewitnesses, despite the fact that the
meetings were obviously staged, with rigged questions and professional “facilitators” whose job was to
sell the legislation, those attending the meetings overwhelmingly rejected the legislation.
Such utter rejection flows from the fact, which is obvious to any thinking Australian, that there is simply
no need for such legislation. As The Age of May 31 1994 already noted, when the Keating government
tried to push through similar laws on a federal basis, the legislation was clearly not justified by any massive upsurges “of racial bigotry…We could understand the government’s concern if there were in Australia significant neo-Nazi or other racially bigoted groups intent on violence and civil disturbance. But
where is the evidence for such groups in Australia?…Where are the groups hogging the streets, inciting
violence or preaching hatred?”
Indeed, any actual or alleged incitement comes almost entirely from postage stamp-sized front groups
deployed by Anglo-American intelligence agencies, such as the recent, oh-so-timely activation of the
“World Church of the Creator”, or the periodic surfacing of the Ku Klux Klan, which is notoriously controlled by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Nor is it surprising, that a longtime employee
of the Leibler brothers (who have been the chief sponsors of racial vilification legislation over the past
decade), would be a founder of National Action and the National Front, whom the Leiblers themselves
have repeatedly characterised as the two major Australian neo-Nazi organisations.
So, if there is no genuine threat of racial and religious incitement or violence (except by provocations),
and the Australian public is overwhelmingly opposed to such laws, why is there presently a mad attempt
to ram them through?
The “land rights” scam
On the first level, the answer is: to protect the Crown’s Aboriginal “land rights” scam. Those pushing
these laws, such as Melbourne tax avoidance specialist Mark Leibler and his cronies in the Anti-Defamation Commission of B’nai B’rith, are precisely those leading the charge for “land rights”. As the CEC
has demonstrated in our December 1997 pamphlet, Aboriginal “Land Rights”: Prince Philip’s racist
plot to splinter Australia, “land rights” was cooked up by the Crown and its raw materials cartel, led by
Rio Tinto, in order to break up the Australian nation-state and steal our raw materials—precisely what
Gough Whitlam was fighting against, when the Queen sacked him. Therefore, it is lawful that three of
Her Majesty’s Privy Councillors dominate the board of the ADC. The Privy Council, the ruling body of
the British Empire/Commonwealth, takes its name from feudal times, when only the monarch’s closest
supporters were allowed to approach him (or her) on the royal commode. Thus, any dirty, smelly job Her
Majesty wants done, she delegates to her Privy Councillors, just as her former personal representative
in Australia, former Governor General Sir Ninian Stephen was earlier assigned another job against the
Australian people: He chaired the Rio Tinto-funded Constitutional Centenary Foundation (CCF), which
cont..
Page 3
set up the infamous Constitutional Convention, whose purpose was to give Australia a phony republic
(without a popularly elected President) and to rewrite the Constitution, in order to enshrine “land rights”.
(As of late January, the ADC listed Bob Hawke on its board as “The Right Honourable”, signifying
membership in the Privy Council; recently, the ADC has downgraded him to only an “Honourable”.
Perhaps even Her Majesty has some standards.)
Neither the ADC, nor the “land rights industry” in general, have ever challenged the documentation
the CEC has provided in its pamphlet on land rights, and in other locations, because they cannot—it
is true. But, with racial vilification laws, if you question the land rights scam, you soon may be fined
or thrown in jail as a “racist”, precisely as the ADC has demanded.
The Establishment: “Shoot to kill!”
On the second level, these laws are being pushed for the same reason that the Howard Government
earlier rammed through a law to disarm the Australian population, and then, with the full support of
Kim Beazley and his ALP, last year rammed through another law which, for the first time in Australian history, will allow the government of the day to deploy the army against vaguely-defined “civil
unrest”, with the specified right to “shoot to kill” Australian citizens: Australia, along with the rest of
the world, is now rapidly plunging into the worst global economic depression in several hundred years.
The fact that world stock markets are now crashing, with 62% of the U.S. high tech NASDAQ index
(representing US$4 trillion) having disappeared in the last year alone, is merely the tip of the iceberg,
as entire nations, such as Japan, Turkey, Argentina and many others are now sliding into bankruptcy.
This depression has been caused by the precise policies of globalisation, privatisation, deregulation, etc.
which both the Coalition and the ALP have championed. Now, these parties, along with their masters
in Wall Street and the City of London, are terrified that citizens may suddenly reject such anti-human
policies, and return to the national banking, protectionist, regulated sort of economy which built our
nation (and other nations) in the first place. So, their solution is, “Terrorize them into silence!”, “Lock
them up!”, or, if necessary, “Shoot them!”.
The real target: LaRouche
But at the deepest level, the British Crown-centred world financial oligarchy is terrified of the American physical economist and Y2004 U.S. Presidential candidate, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. LaRouche has
for over thirty years both forecast the current deepening Depression, and uniquely designed a pathway
out of it—a “New Bretton Woods” international monetary system, based upon sovereign nation-states
using the policies of national banking, protectionism, and a re-regulated economy to rebuild their collapsed manufacturing and agriculture sectors, to replace the bankrupt, globalist system based upon
looting. As the oligarchy’s global system is crashing, they are hysterically trying to crush any opposition
to their continued rule. And, since we in the Citizens Electoral Council are the Australian associates of
Mr. LaRouche, the thugs and liars of the ADC are determined to shut us down, and, for good measure,
to wipe out the civil liberties of anyone else in Australia who might protest these globalist policies.
The policies of “globalisation” were not designed in Australia, nor were the “racial vilification” laws
which were written to enforce those policies. Both flow from the British Crown-centred City of London
and Wall Street. The main organisation pushing the “racial vilification” laws here, the Anti-Defamation
Commission of B’nai B’rith, brags of its ties to its defacto parent body in New York, the organised
crime-saturated Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai Brith, which has been nothing but a hit squad
for the financial oligarchy since it was founded in 1913, at the same time as the U.S. Federal Reserve
and FBI, as we provide a summary of the case in the pages which follow. While modeled upon the
ADL, the ADC is in fact run as an arm of Her Majesty’s Privy Council. So, since the Crown is hysterical
about LaRouche, the ADC is deployed to attack LaRouche as “anti-semitic” and “racist”, utterly absurd
charges belied by Mr. LaRouche’s own, well-known philosophy, as well as the fact that numerous of
his closest longtime associates are themselves Jewish or African-American; that a substantial portion
of his entire organisation is Jewish or African-American (among other “minorities”); and that leading
African-American civil rights figures have for years worked closely with Mr. LaRouche and continue
to do so, including some of the closest collaborators of the martyred Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Thus, no matter how many of Her Majesty’s knights adorn its board, the ADC is, as usual, just
cont..
Page 4
flat, plain lying about LaRouche and his organisation. In the context of the proposed racial vilification
legislation, this fact takes on great significance, since the ADC has repeatedly argued, as it did in its
submission to the Victorian Parliament, that one of the main reasons such a bill is needed, is because of
the mere existence of LaRouche associates on the Australian continent.
This pamphlet
The following pages are divided into several sections. The first, and most important, is the response
of Mr. LaRouche to the Crown’s recent attacks on him in both Australia (through the ADC) and in
Brazil (through Prince Philip’s World Wide Fund for Nature, which founded the worldwide “green”
movement), which response was first published in Executive Intelligence Review magazine of Feb. 9,
2001. You may find the content challenging and difficult, but we urge you to carefully think through
the strategic issues he elaborates; after all, as the CEC has documented in our pamphlet, The Fight for
an Australian Republic, our own nation, just like the true America which Mr. LaRouche represents, has
been from the very outset locked in a bitter battle against the Crown-centred financial oligarchy—what
old Labor called the “Money Power”. Australians have to begin to think, if we are to get out of this
present disaster—mere impotent populist anger will ensure that the oligarchy triumphs.
The third article, “Globalisation and ‘Land Rights’: The Crown Plot to Loot Australia”, published
in EIR of Feb. 16 2001, provides much of the Australia-specific documentation for Mr. LaRouche’s
article—including why the financial oligarchy merely laughs at Pauline Hanson, but is terrified of LaRouche. While Pauline Hanson has no idea in the world about how to get Australia or the world out of
the Depression—and has shown almost no interest in the matter—LaRouche has proposed policies, as
briefly sketched in the second article, “LaRouche on Urgent Debt Reorganisation” (and in the CEC’s
12 point Fighting Platform—see back cover), which would eliminate the power of that oligarchy, and
begin a global economic recovery.
The concluding article, “The Leibler brothers and the Australia/Israel Review: Economic rationalism, dope and land rights”, is reprinted from The New Citizen of August/September 1998. The sordid
activities in which the Leiblers have been involved, is a lawful reflection of their patrons in the City of
London. Throughout the entire decade of the 1990s, the Leiblers led the charge for racial vilification
legislation—and to eliminate LaRouche and the CEC from the Australian continent—until Isi moved
to Israel a couple of years ago, and Her Majesty’s Anti-Defamation Commission supplanted Mark as
the main, upfront lobbyists for racial vilification and in attacks on LaRouche, perhaps due to Mark’s
notoriety in tax avoidance and other dubious ventures. In any case, the Leibler crowd is almost identical
with the ADC (which they helped build up to begin with), as indicated by the President of the ADC’s
board, Sir Zelman Cowen, also serving as the Patron of Isi’s Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs
(AIJA), while ADC Executive Director Danny Ben-Moshe formerly worked at Mark’s Australia/Israel
Review magazine. Mark and his multi-millionaire and billionaire clients and friends are still fanatically
committed to this legislation (and to attacking LaRouche). In fact, given the hundreds of thousands or
millions of dollars which Mark’s clients pour into the Coalition and the ALP every year, you might
want to ask your local MP, if his or her party has effectively been bought off to pass this legislation; this
would certainly help explain why the Victorian and Queensland governments are pushing for it, despite
the obvious, widespread revulsion in their electorates against it.
The last great Depression brought us Adolf Hitler, courtesy of the same City of London/Wall Street
circles who are now plotting, once again, to survive this new, even worse Depression of their own making, by fascist forms of social control. This pamphlet provides you with the information which you, the
average Australian citizen, urgently require, to defend yourself against this fascist onslaught of “shoot
to kill” and “racial vilification” gag laws, and to begin to take our nation back.
Craig Isherwood
National Secretary
Citizens Electoral Council of Australia
Page 5
Table of Contents
1. LaRouche Replies to the Crown’s Attacks:
“Look At What Happened in Brazil”
2. LaRouche on Urgent Debt Reorganisation
3. Globalisation and ‘Land Rights’:
The Crown Plot to Loot Australia
4. The Leibler brothers and the Australia/Israel Review:
Economic rationalism, dope and land rights
Page 6
Reprinted from EIR Feb 9, 2001
1.
Look At What Happened in Brazil
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
1
January 27, 2001
As more and more among the
world’s best-informed people
will soon see, as they turn from
the ugly noises in Washington,
D.C., and toward the panic
spreading from the U.S. state
of California, this planet is
teetering at the brink of the horror which is threatened by the
combination of the habituated
obsessions of the new administration in Washington, and the
influence of the thuggish, maddened religious fanatics within
that large and growing popular
minority composing its mass political base. The looming threat
is, that the U.S. is at the verge
of being toppled into not merely a looming general, planetwide breakdown of the presently depleted world economic
system, but, possibly, even, desperate and chaotic actions,
such as those now threatening Brazil, Indonesia, and others,
actions, such as the wildfire spread of a new Middle East
religious war, which could trigger the descent of the planet,
chain-reaction-style, into a global new dark age.
Unless something is done, very soon, to reverse the policies now prevailing in Washington, that is the gloomy course
of probable events, with which the British monarchy’s newly
reigning asset in Washington threatens our planet today.
Of such times as these, it was often said, that those whom
the gods would destroy, they first make mad. As certain
symptomatic events in Washington, Brazil, Australia, and
elsewhere, attest, the British monarchy, and probably the
new Administration in Washington, too, is either already that
mad, as mentally deranged as a barking “fundamentalists,”
or likely to soon become so.2
Against this background, what may prove to be one of the
hottest stories breaking world-wide today, involves a fresh
attack on me by the Bush Administration’s beloved British
monarchy, in both Australia and Brazil.
Once again, as on earlier occasions, the mere mention
of my continued existence, seems to unsettle the British
monarchy in about the same degree a passing thought about
the Ardvaark might strike fear and trembling in a colony of
termites. Not that Queen Elizabeth II and her family have
ever had reasons to suspect they might be put at physical
risk by me. That monarchy’s repeatedly expressed fear, is of
that type which may sometimes seize the guilty imagination
1. The author is a registered candidate for the 2004 nomination to become the
President of the U.S.A.
2. “Mad as a hatter,” were the appropriate term, were the reader familiar with
the implication of that English expression. The source of the expression was
The latest attack on Lyndon LaRouche by the British
Monarchy, in both Australia and Brazil, is one of the hottest stories breaking internationally. The much bigger story
behind that story, affects the future of all nations.
of such royally predatory Romantic figures.
Those recurring fits of madness by that monarchy, foretell
the likely toppling of a modern Nineveh. We may be near
the time when the hand of history has lost its patience with
such royal Olympian antics as those of Elizabeth II’s crew.
If you doubt that history has an efficient hand, I shall show
you, before you have reached the close of this report, that,
indeed, history does command the power to use exactly
such a miraculous organ in its own defense of its continued
existence.
This situates us to begin our account of some significant
bits of current world history, by reference to breaking British
news from Brazil. Start with that breaking story there, and
then go up the back-trail, to discover the much bigger story
behind that story, the bigger story, which affects our nation,
and will determine your personal fate as well.
The breaking story is this.
The Jan. 20 inauguration of U.S. President George W.
Bush defined the global setting, in which fresh attacks were
launched upon me personally, once again, from institutions,
such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), associated
with the interests of two picaresque figures, the veritable
“Burke and Hare” of world politics today, British Royal
Consort Philip Mountbatten and his most notable accomplice, “1001 Club” figure, and one-time Nazi party member,
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
Two currently notable such attacks erupted during the
same fortnight within which that inauguration was situated.
One of that pair of such atrocities against me, occurred in
not the hatter’s choice of profession, but the mental state induced by prolonged
exposure to certain toxic materials once employed in that trade. Thus, one should
be cautious about blaming a profession for the ills which may have been locally
induced by some errant choice of employed human, or other materials, such as its
selection of Prince Consort in the matters at hand in this report.
Page 7
Brazil, on the day before the Bush inauguration, Jan. 19, in a
disgusting action conducted on behalf of the local, national
subsidiary of the WWF. The second, in Australia, on Jan.
24, was a travesty launched on behalf of an organization
represented by four officials of Queen Elizabeth II’s Privy
Council. In both incidents, the attacks came in the form of
malicious actions demanding a summary suppression of the
human rights of designated persons, whom the perpetrators
identified as associated with me personally. As on earlier
such occasions, the predators in these cases, have expressed
themselves with a barrage of perverse British actions
wrought in willfully reckless disregard for truth.
Some presumably authoritative sources, have attributed
the British monarchy’s recurring such role in targetting of
me, to an obsessive and even perhaps murderous obsession
with me by the Royal Consort, Prince Philip. For example,
on June 15, 1998, the London Guardian published a vile
slander article by Francis Wheen, characterizing a raging
fight between “Mr. ­LaRouche and Mr. Big,” a reference to
Royal Consort Prince Philip. In the piece, Wheen, who has
been identified by reliable London sources as a “poison pen”
for the Monarchy, charged that I was behind a campaign to
vilify Prince Philip as the man behind the assassination of
Princess Diana in August 1997, and behind the conspiracy to
bring down the Presidency of Bill Clinton—in order to consolidate a world dictatorship under the House of Windsor.
The Wheen article was provoked by the appearance of my
associate, EIR editor Jeffrey Steinberg, on two British television broadcasts on June 3 and 4, 1998, reviewing evidence
that the wrongful deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed
were murders. Steinberg told Channel 4 interviewer Martyn
Gregory that he “could not rule out” that Prince Philip was
behind the death of Princess Diana. Those remarks triggered
a flurry of British media slanders against me—all emanating
from news organizations fiercly loyal to the Windsors, led by
the Daily Telegraph of Prince Philip’s 1001 Club associate
Conrad Black. That is at least a plausible report, and might
be both true and relevant. Nonetheless, I would place the
crucial emphasis on a more scientific appreciation of the way
in which important developments are caused to appear, as I
explain in the concluding portion of this present report.
Then comes the bigger story, the story behind the story.
As in astrophysics, so in real-life politics, any observed
object’s mere existence, is always less important, than the
orbit which controls its destination, whether as a comet, a
planet, a moon, an asteroid, a national culture, a political
institution, or Philip Mountbatten. It is a regime’s intention,
as expressed by the crucial physical effects of its orbit, which
controls the shape of its events, and usually the behavior
among most of the relevant actors.
The cause of a planet’s motion, is not the mere individual
events observed within the orbit itself. Only a fool focusses
only on the local events occurring on the surface of an asteroid which is targetting our Earth. As the founder of modern
astrophysics, Johannes Kepler, emphasized, in his The New
Astronomy, in connection with his original discovery of a
principle of universal gravitation, it is the apparent intention,
as expressed by the paradoxical features in the trajectory
Page 8
of that asteroid itself, its orbit, which is the threat to be addressed. So it is with great empires, or entire cultures which
have vanished into the past, or in the case of the presently
hegemonic political institutions of our planet today.
In this case, the bigger story is, that what is threatening Earth, is not an asteroid, but the broader and deeper
implications associated with the greatest financial collapse
in history, a collapse long oncoming, and due to arrive at
its destination very soon, unless, as I have demanded, the
new Bush Administration changes its policies, on energy
deregulation and other matters very soon, profoundly, and
suddenly.
It is not some particular deeds of the British monarchy’s
representatives, which are the determining consideration
in the particular pattern of events addressed in this report;
the threatened evil, in this case, comes not from isolable
particular policies, but, rather, from that intention, or, one
might say, the orbit of that monarchy’s history, an intention
which, as the great Carl Gauss proved Kepler’s method
for the case of the orbit of the asteroid Ceres, is merely
expressed by the incidents such as those bearing on recent
developments in Brazil and Australia.
1. The Brazil and Australia Cases
The Jan. 19 attack, in Brazil, was first attempted on behalf
of the World Wide Fund for Nature, in a brief dated Oct.
16, 2000.
WWF-Brazil first filed that 23-page brief against persons associated with me, the Ibero-American Solidarity
Movement (MSIA), before a civil court in the city of Rio
de Janeiro. The WWF’s request, for an order to search for
and seize MSIA documents, was denied by Judge Paulo
Mauricio Pereira, who ruled:
“. . . Secondly, no concrete evidence is presented that the
information issued by the first party [defendant] is false or
distorted, and it is also the case that they are not the only
ones issuing such opinions, which summarize an entire
discussion involving what nationalists call the ‘imperialist
policy of the great world powers’ and ‘the policy of internationalizing the Amazon,’ matters which have for a long time
been discussed in the press, including by members of the
Brazilian government and military, the latter because of the
duty they have to safeguard our borders and sovereignty.”
A desperate WWF then appealed to the Court of Justice
of the State of Rio de Janeiro, filing a second, 18-page brief
dated Dec. 11, 2000, together with an earlier brief. That
appeal was granted on Jan. 17, 2001, in an Antonin Scaliastyle intervention by an appeals court judge, Edson Scisinio.
Although no evidence has been presented which would
competently contradict Judge Paulo Mauricio Pereira’s
ruling as to fact, a raid against the MSIA office was carried
out on Friday, Jan. 19, 2001 at 5 p.m.
In assessing the international pattern of developments, of
which the Brazil case is only one important aspect, the outstanding fact is that WWF-Brazil targets me personally. On
that account, the WWF-Brazil’s brief states the following:
“. . . the MSIA [the publisher which is the leading defend-
ant in the case] says that it is part of an international movement led by the U.S. economist Lyndon LaRouche, which has
as its objective the defense of sovereign nation-states and the
reconstruction of the world economy, based on the adoption
of a new international monetary and financial system and
on great infrastructure projects. They believe that, in these
initiatives, ‘are found the bases for a new Renaissance that
will allow humanity to overcome the present crisis of civilization and avoid the onset of a New Dark Age.’ ”
That far, that isolable portion of the WWF brief is, its
defects aside, fair comment.
The WWF-Brazil then adds a wildly false statement, in
which WWF proceeds in what proves to be, characteristically, willfully reckless, and systemic disregard for truth.
It argues, thus, that its
“. . . image before Brazilian society is vital for its very
survival. Because of the above, it is patently clear that the
intent of the Defendants to truly damage the honor of the
Appellant before society, using a frightening exercise of
speculative fantasy, distorting known facts, and adding
them to events constructed in their own imagination, and
to unsustainable lies.”
There is no truthfulness in that WWF characterization of
the relevant MSIA publications.
There are many additional falsehoods, and what may be
simply, negligent, if important errors of fact, in addition to
those, in both the two, October and December, briefs which
have been submitted by WWF-Brazil to date. At the same
time, everything which the MSIA has published is verified as true, in contrast to much in these WWF briefs that
is either explicitly lies, or, at its best, willfully reckless in
disregard for fact.
In short, the evidence on the public record so far, is, that
everything which the WWF considers damaging to its cause,
in material actually reported by MSIA, is not only heavily
documented fact, but its truthfulness had been, as had been
implied by Judge Paolo Mauricio Pereira’s cited ruling,
widely acknowledged among numerous representatives of
the most responsible and prestigious circles of Brazilian
society.
The desperation shown by the WWF in this case, is therefore understandable. It is WWF-Brazil’s actions on behalf of
its global, mother organization, which are the more significant feature of the action, a feature even more ominous globally than the immediate and obvious, awful threat, which
some might view as even treasonous, represented by WWF’s
policy, to the continued political stability of Brazil itself.3
The personal attack on me, shows that WWF’s targetting of
Brazil expresses a much broader, global intention.
If Brazil’s government were toppled by aid of WWF’s activity, then all of continental Europe, not excluding “Teddy”
Goldsmith’s France, in addition to Brazil itself, would be
obviously the next target on the list for destruction. If Europe, too, goes under as a continuation of the chain-reaction
touched off in Brazil, the fate of the rest of the planet is
menaced accordingly.
Therefore, as its own brief implies, the WWF has no true
facts it has been willing to present, to support its plea for of-
Pamphlets issued by
the MSIA in Brazil,
exposing the plot to
internationalise the
Amazon.
ficial help from the legitimate institutions of Brazil. Instead
of relevant facts, WWF and its legal representatives have
resorted to the following legal sophistry:
“We are not here discussing the constitutional right of the
free expression of thought, but rather demonstrating that a
defamatory campaign perpetrated by the Defendants . . . is
causing incalculable damage to its [WWF’s] image, as well
as to its members and supporters.”
WWF-Brazil’s December appeal brief argues:
“The logical conclusion drawn is, that these defamatory
activities, including the improper use of our trademark [no
trade-mark infringement actually occurred], would continue,
unless Your Excellency were to take immediate measures; it
being the case that, were the Defendants allowed to continue
with their defamatory activities until such time as a judge
would rule on the matter, Appellant’s reputation would be
irreparably affected.”
In choosing to employ the latter argument, the Appellants
have implied that Brazil is a virtual colony of the British
3. See Appendix for a summary of the issue of the original brief submitted by
the WWF-Brazil.
Page 9
monarchy, and thus, not a sovereign nation, but, rather,
subject to presumptive forms of laws, according to the
principle of lèse majesté, which are among the peculiarities
of that monarchy. In this case, it is the claim of the British monarchy’s creation, the WWF, which claims, through
WWF-Brazil, to invoke a higher, supranational authority
over Brazil than the Brazil constitution and legal tradition
itself. It was, therefore, not prudent of the Appellants to
demand, as WWF’s virtual plea of last resort did, that Brazil’s courts rule to such effect. That imprudence might, and,
speaking morally, probably should become the instrument
of WWF-Brazil’s undoing.
By its choice of that form of its argument in its own brief,
the issue for WWF, is that the relevant facts published by
MSIA happen to be known to WWF as true facts and, as
the contortions of the WWF brief implicitly attest, by its
legal counsel, too. This condition is reflected in the fact,
that WWF evades its obligation to muster evidence which
addresses seriously and rationally the issue of the truthfulness of the content of those MSIA documents against which
it complains. In short, WWF-Brazil argues for a summary,
pre-emptive, virtually final decision gagging the future
truthful speech of the defendants, that by an action which
is premised essentially on the Appellant’s own exhibition of
systemically and willfully reckless disregard for truth.
Instead of seeking to present some truthful evidence in
support of its attacks on the factual content of the MSIA
publications, WWF-Brazil makes the burden of its complaint
its own insistence, that the MSIA has been very effective
politically, in securing widespread acceptance of the truthfulness of its heretofore published, relevant documents. The
WWF demands that the publication of those facts, which
it has so far declined to refute with truthful evidence as
to matters of fact, must be suppressed, that solely on the
grounds, asserted by WWF itself, that the MSIA’s facts,
whose truthfulness it has not challenged factually, have
more or less effectively discredited WWF’s political cause
in Brazil’s public market-place for ideas. That logic of the
construction of WWF’s argument, reminds us of the old
quip about the fellow who killed his parents and then sought
clemency from the court, as an orphan.
There, in the most significant of the symptomatic features
of WWF’s own briefs, we are presented with the nub of the
most immediate issue in that case.4
Thus, to summarize the issues of that case, the essential
feature of WWF’s legal intervention is the following.
As just described, WWF-Brazil has not only conceded,
but laid heavy emphasis on the point, that the MSIA has
gained wide and largely successful circulation of a number
of printed publications documenting the leading issues
involving the international WWF and its network of accomplices.5 These publications have radiated throughout
many of the leading channels of Brazil’s influential state,
scientific, and other strata, to the point, that many of those
circles have reached the conclusion that WWF’s policies are
both largely false as to fact, and represent a clear and present
threat to the welfare of Brazil as a sovereign nation.
When the WWF briefs are read in the light of the actual
Page 10
content and successful impact of those MSIA publications,
WWF’s court actions are those of an organization which has
described itself, in its own briefs, as in danger of losing any
continuation of the relevant public policy-debate. It claims
that it is therefore desperately in need of aid in the form of
repressive official measures, to accomplish an end which
it could not achieve by honest practice of reason and fact
presented according to due process in the market-place of
ideas, but only by pre-emptive decree akin in spirit to the
legal philosophy of the notorious Carl Schmitt, as Schmitt’s
doctrine was employed in establishing the Nazi dictatorship
on February 28, 1933.
Meanwhile, in Australia
Comparing the actions of WWF-Brazil with the related
action in Australia, makes the point still clearer.
In both Brazil and Australia, one among the leading strategies used by the anti-technology, neo-Malthusian NGOs
and kindred associations, has been to exploit the name of
“indigenous peoples” as a way of conduiting enormous
tracts of land containing natural resources, out from under
the control of the nation and its elected government, and
into the hands, in fact, of private multinational interests
contracting with the representatives of the so-called “indigenous peoples.” We should compare this, with what is
being done, aided by mercenary armies, in takeovers of large
tracts of mineral resources in Brazil’s neighbor, war-torn
sub-Saharan Africa.
In Australia, it is that use of the “indigenous peoples”
variant of the general WWF line, which is the strategy in the
attacks upon my associates by the Australian Anti-Defamation Commission, Inc. (ADC), a privately controlled entity
whose relevant Board of Advisors includes four members
of the British Privy Council. These are, the Right Honorable
Sir Zelman Cowen, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of
St. Michael and St. George; the Right Honorable Malcolm
Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister; the Right Honorable
Bob Hawke, former Labor Prime Minister; and, the Right
Honorable Ninian Stephen, a former Governor-General,
and Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St. Michael and
St. George. Those titles of these gentlemen have a special
relevance, because Queen Elizabeth II is the sovereign of
not only the United Kingdom, but also Canada, Australia,
and certain additional member-states of the British Commonwealth (not quite yet including the U.S.A. as a royal
satrapy).
Thus, in the tradition of the British East India Company
as once represented by Lord Shelburne, we have the agents
of an imperial form of political rule, employing entities
which are, in turn, its agents, either as nominally private
mercenary armies, or other forms of private associations,
as instruments of, first, furthering the personal whims of the
imperial ruling family under private covers, and, secondly,
4. See Appendix.
5. Two pamphlets, “The Green Mafia Attacks the Waterways,” 5,000 of which
had been printed in 1998, and “Roraima at the Center of the Internationalization
of the Amazon,” printed in November 1999, with a run of 15,000.
denying the ruling family’s accountability for the actions
it so fosters.
ADC’s current propaganda concentrates on attacking
a certain Tony Drake’s candidacy for Senate in Western
Australia. ADC, in its complaint, complains that my associates depict “Aboriginal land rights as a ‘fraud concocted
by Prince Philip’ to splinter Australia,” and identify Drake
as linked to me, through the Australian Citizens Electoral
Council (CEC). ADC complains that Drake issued a 1998
public statement, stating that “The Citizens Electoral Council derives its credibility from the fact that we alone among
Australian political institutions have for four years issued
repeated warnings based on the economic forecast of Lyndon
LaRouche that the world’s financial system and monetary
system would collapse.”
The attack upon Drake and the CEC by ADC has been
widely reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation,
and other radio broadcasts in Western Australia.
The connections of the ADC itself cast additional light on
the background for the sundry WWF and related hysteria
against me at this time. Typical are the ADC and related connections of Canada’s Edgar Bronfman, a one-time booster
of East Germany’s Honecker regime. The following documentation, not only gives additional exposure to evidence
of the fraudulent disregard for truth by WWF’s actions on
those two continents, but points to the nature of the influence
which the British Commonwealth’s (Canada’s) Edgar Bronfman et al. have exerted within Australia through channels
associated with ADC.
Bronfman’s role in this is better understood when we recall
Page 11
Canada's Edgar Bronfman,
the one time booster of
East Germany's Honecker
regime, is a point-man for
British Commonwealth influence internationally.
British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher’s frenzied attempt to prevent the reunification of Germany, an attempt which came prominently to
the surface early during the 1989-1990 crisis of the Soviet
Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. However, efforts by her
government, and related attitudes by France’s President
François Mitterrand to similar effect, were already evident
before the eruption of the Eastern Europe crises of 1989.
There are certain strategic developments of a related nature,
which bear in an important way upon the issues posed by
the cited Brazil and Australia developments.
On pages 54-55 of its Jan. 11, 1991 issue, EIR published
a report entitled, “Bronfman Colluded with Communists.”
This report, by EIR’s Jeffrey Steinberg, cited a Dec. 21, 1990
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) article by Michael
Wolffsohn, quoting from former German Democratic Republic (D.D.R.) Foreign Ministry files on years-long collusion between Edgar Bronfman and his WWF associates with
the D.D.R. regime, including Honecker, ex-Foreign Minister
Oskar Fischer, and Foreign Ministry U.S.A. Department
head Herbert Barth. Citing minutes from an Oct. 17, 1988
meeting in East Berlin, between Bronfman and Honecker,
and subsequent meetings between Fischer and Dr. Maram
Stern, World Jewish Council (WJC) representative to the
D.D.R., that article, authored by notable journalist Wolffsohn, detailed the ongoing role of Bronfman as mediator
between East Berlin and Washington, a role dating at least
to 1985.
On Oct. 17, 1988, five days after my nationally televised
press conference held in Berlin, where I had pre-announced,
in significant detail, and great accuracy, some crucial and
detailed features of the imminent collapse of the Soviet
economic system and probable early reunification of Germany, Bronfman was awarded the Gold Star of People’s
Friendship, the highest civilian honor, by Honecker, in
person. The Wolff­sohn article, cited in EIR, quoted from a
Newsweek magazine interview with Bronfman, two weeks
after the D.D.R. award ceremony, calling for East Germany to be given Most Favored Nation status by the U.S.
government, and calling for Honecker to be invited to the
White House for a state visit. Just over a year later, the East
Page 12
Germany regime of Bronfman crony Erich Honecker collapsed, and Germany moved toward reunification, despite
Mrs. Thatcher’s characteristically ill-tempered objections
to such developments.
In EIR’s Aug. 19, 1994, edition, under the title of “Thirty
Years of Collusion Between the ADL and Stasi,” Jeffrey
Steinberg detailed four case studies of ADL and Bronfman collusion with East German intelligence, including:
1) the Eichmann trial; 2) intensifying the ‘Nazi hunt;’ 3)
the ‘Get LaRouche’ task force; 4) Shabtai Kalmanowitch.
On Kalmanowitch, the EIR story cited another Michael
Wolffsohn article, appearing in the June 28, 1994 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, detailing the role of Alexander
Schalck-Golodkowski in financing the spy swap that freed
Kalmanowitch.
The subject here is not Bronfman’s policies and actions as
they might be only narrowly considered. The subject is the
British monarchy’s policy, as it may or may not coincide,
from time to time, with particular actions by Bronfman. The
issue is the role of the British monarchy’s actions toward
the goal of bringing about the dismemberment, or even
dissolution, through aid of “ecological” and “indigenous
peoples” gambits, of nation-states such as Brazil and Australia, among many others. The related issue is the use of
methods, such as in the instance of the promotion of the
recently accelerated threat of a new Middle East war, which
latter has come about as a consequence of that monarchy’s
policies and actions.
The monarchy’s Middle East policy has been essentially
continuous since the early days of the Napoleonic wars,
when its long-range intentions respecting the break-up of
the Ottoman Empire, began a British centuries-long double
game, of British-backed gang versus British-backed countergang, throughout the Middle East region as a whole. The
London-directed creation of the body which became the
“Young Turk” regime, is but one, very significant aspect
of this history. The way in which London has concocted
the presently continuing, decades-long Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, since the Jewish settlers’ defense against the attacks led by the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti, is reflected, today,
as a pivotal feature of current Anglo-American geopolitical
concoctions for Asia and North Africa as a whole.
At the present moment, the respective and overlapping
intentions of the new U.S. administration and London, on
the matter of exploiting, strategically, the potential for a new
Middle East war, is a center-piece of the strategic policies of
relevant factions among governments, policies reflecting the
way in which the deployment of the WWF and related assets
will be folded into what putatively mad Zbigniew Brzezin­
ski’s Samuel P. Huntington has defined as his geopolitical
scheme for a “Clash of Civilizations” between the Islamic
world and “the West.”
The repercussions of the presently threatened outbreak
of Israeli attacks upon Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, in
addition to the Palestinians, with or without “Desert Storm”like roles of the military forces from NATO, will largely
determine the way in which strategic cultural subversion
is deployed, globally, through aid of such elements of the
world’s landscape as WWF.
In this and related matters, the customary silliness of most
leading journalists and others, about such strategic factors,
must be put aside. A new Middle East war of the general
type and implications indicated, will occur or not, whether
or not certain specified incidents materialize. It will occur
only if the combination of the Israeli government and certain
Anglo-American circles wish to have it occur. If they should
wish it to occur, the incidents to “explain” that occurrence,
will be arranged, just as the Hitler regime concocted the
incidents used as the pretext for the invasion of Poland.
Contrary to widespread childish opinion, most of the
important things that happen in the world, happen because
powerful forces intend them to happen, not because of some
so-called “sociological” or other merely statistical coincidence of the types reported for the popular edification of
the easily deluded. The new Bush Administration wishes
to settle accounts with Iraq, in memory of the passions of
former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and former U.S.
President George Bush. As long as that remains a prevalent
Anglo-American intention, a new Middle East war, bigger
than any yet seen, is more or less inevitable under presently
reigning global influences, whether or not any significant
number of Israeli or Islamic leaders wish it to occur.
The Case of ‘Teddy’ Goldsmith
To better understand the importance of the facts I have
just outlined, consider a related current development, and
some of its relevant background.
At the same time as the referenced attacks from WWFBrazil and Australia, there has been a relevant, ongoing
operation, targetting Brazil from Pôrto Alegre, led by the
Edward “Teddy” Goldsmith, the brother of the late Sir
Jimmy Goldsmith, and former, 1950s, witting, Paris-based
collaborator of both Stephen Spender and a figure who later
became an old adversary of mine from the 1983-1984 days
of the launching of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
That adversary is “Teddy” Goldsmith’s old crony from Paris
days: spooky New York banker John Train.
Whereas, WWF and related neo-Malthusian organizations, are among the chief world-wide arms of the effort to
bring about the extermination of the sovereign nation-state
throughout this planet, through “globalization,” “Teddy”
Goldsmith is a central figure of a riotous collection of socalled “activists” following in the tradition of the British
Foreign Office’s Jeremy Bentham from the terrorist days of
Robespierre, Danton, and Marat. This rabble is deployed in
protesting impotently, if with some proclivity for violence,
against “globalization.” Goldsmith acts, not to the effect of
defeating globalization, but, rather, ensuring its success, by
deploying to take control of the opposition to globalization,
pre-emptively, out of the hands of what might otherwise
emerge as the leading opposition.
After considering Goldsmith’s background and his
family’s spooky connections over decades, one may be
disgusted, but not honestly surprised, by the suspicious,
Jacobin-like, leftist rabble-rouser role, being played by the
followers of veteran British-French-American spook Gold-
smith, in places such as Seattle, Pôrto Alegre, and other parts
of the world. His involvement at Pôrto Alegre during this
time-frame, happens to be, at this moment, among the most
politically significant of his spooky countergang escapades
currently, this time directly threatening to destabilize the
government of Brazil.
To appreciate the significance of Goldsmith’s personal
appearance in that context, the following background should
prove most helpful. EIR has followed Goldsmith’s role
closely and carefully, over the years.
The Feb. 1, 1991 EIR, pp. 20-25, “John Train, Paris Review, and the ‘Get LaRouche’ Gang,” by Scott Thompson,
detailed the 1950s Paris Review nexus involving John Train,
W.H. Auden, Stephen Spender, Aldous Huxley, Jimmy Goldsmith, Edward (“Teddy”) Goldsmith, and Saddrudin Aga
Khan. Teddy Goldsmith’s wife at the time, Gillian Marion
Pretty, was editorial assistant to Train at Paris Review.
Another report by Scott Thompson, in an Oct. 28, 1994
EIR article, “The Train/Goldsmith Nexus,” reported that
Sadruddin Aga Khan, publisher of Paris Review during the
heyday of Train et al., is a member of Prince Philip’s 1001
Club, funding arm of WWF. A later Scott Thompson report,
logged an interview conducted with Teddy Goldsmith, in
which he personally confirmed ties to John Train dating
back to the 1950s Paris Review epoch, adding that his
brother (and funder of his own The Ecologist magazine),
“Iran-Contra” days Vice-President George Bush associate
Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, remained in “almost weekly contact”
with John Train up to that time.
New York banker John Train played a crucial role in a
1982-1984 effort, initiated, at the persistent instigation of
former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, to launch
a U.S. “secret government” operation against me and my
associates under the foreign intelligence operations provision of U.S. Executive Order 12333 and related provisions.
According to official U.S. government records which have
been released, this action by Kissinger was first launched
during the Summer of 1982, following a keynote address
delivered publicly at a London Chatham House conference
on May 10, 1982.
It was in this setting, that former British Foreign Minister Lord Peter Carrington acted to assist the subsequently
royally knighted Kissinger, in the formation of a lucrative
venture known as Kissinger Associates, Inc. It was in this
and related circumstances that Kissinger, in August 1982,
wrote a letter, demanding a special operation against me.
During January 1983, Kissinger’s demand was authorized
through a rump session of the official President’s Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), and immediately set
into motion that same month.
In the context of that E.O. 12333 action, a combined
task-force of both public and private intelligence and newsmedia capabilities, was put into operation, in support of the
project set up by Kissinger’s insistence. John Train, beginning about April 1983, set up a salon on the premises of his
New York City office, during which he brought together a
group of intelligence operatives and press representatives
for the purpose of coordinating a 12333-style operation,
Page 13
EIR's covers chronicle its ongoing battle with the House of Windsor.
in cooperation with agencies including NBC-TV and the
Wall Street Journal, among numerous others. Most of the
defamation circulated by leading U.S. television and print
media during 1983-1984, and later, was orchestrated through
participants in the meetings of that salon. Most of the defamatory propaganda against me and my associates, which
is circulated, through major news media, and others, against
me internationally, and also legal actions targetting me and
my associates, has had its origin in the still never-ended
collaboration between official and other activities associated
in an exemplary way with that Kissinger-prompted action,
and with that salon.
Similarly, “Teddy” Goldsmith’s operations, as in Pôrto
Alegre, have, to the present day, the characteristics of a
high-level intelligence operation of a type traceable to the
nature of Anglo-French and American activities around
the “witting” Paris Review of the 1950s. In this light, the
French connections of Goldsmith’s operations targetting
Brazil today, coincide with the intention of some to bring
down the present government of Brazil.6
Brazil, the last major point of resistance to British Commonwealth-initiated, NAFTA-style globalization of all of
Central and South America, is one of the key nations on the
current list of leading targets of so-called “environmentalist” and related pro-globalization projects world-wide.
Goldsmith’s influence within Brazil’s political life is notable
under such circumstances.
Consider some typical related earlier actions by WWF
against us, and how we responded to them.
6. The track of the Goldsmiths, Train, et al. intersects the network of Paul
Rivet, Jacques Soustelle, and Jean de Menil, in sundry operations over the period
from the 1930s into the 1960s targetting of Charles de Gaulle and others by these
circles. All three of the latter, as most of the leading Permindex figures, are now
deceased, but the legacy continues.
Page 14
EIR, Nov. 25, 1994, pp. 30-32, “EIR Goes Toe to Toe
Against the House of Windsor,” by Carlos Wesley, and
“Geneva Gatherings Will Fund WWF Mass Murder,” by
Our Special Correspondent, contains details of the WWF
reaction to the initial release of EIR’s “Coming Fall of the
House of Windsor,” Special Report edition. The Oct. 30,
1994 edition of People, a London weekly with circulation
of 5 million, reported that the EIR study “compares Philip
with Hitler and brands him a mass murderer who is plotting to stamp out Africa’s ‘darker complexioned peoples.’
. . . The WWF was staggered at the attack on Philip and
the charity.” To call WWF a “charity,” is a very charitable
characterization, indeed.
WWF public affairs executive Dana West had said: “It’s
just nonsense. We are helping people in Africa—not killing them. It’s laughable. We’ve never even heard of this
organization,” she lied. The EIR article noted that WWF
had earlier threatened, explicitly, to sue EIR, obviously not
an organization unknown to WWF.
The same EIR article reported that on Nov. 16, 1994, the
Australian Labor Party government of Prime Minister Paul
Keating threatened to deport EIR editor Webster Tarpley, to
prevent a news conference by Tarpley at the National Press
Club in the capital of Canberra on the release of the EIR
“Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.”
A second EIR article, “Geneva Gatherings Will Fund
WWF Mass Murder,” detailed a large fundraiser for WWF
in Geneva, Switzerland, on Nov. 28, 1994. Sponsors of the
event, to feature a speech by Prince Philip, included: Coutts
private bank, Kleinwort Benson, British Bank of the Middle East, Pictet and Lombard Odier banks, Swiss Omega
and Rolex watch companies, Edmond Safra, and Mr. and
Mrs. Edgar Picciotto, of Union Bancaire Privée. Picciotto is
involved in GeoPol, a Swiss think tank, implicated in antiLaRouche operations conducted via a certain Laurent Mu-
rawiec, a real-life “Beetlebaum” of the legendary mythical
horse-race, and a hand-me-down political carcass, currently
in the possession of institutions of a peculiar odor.
EIR’s June 19, 1998 cover story, contains a report entitled
“Prince Philip’s Minions Lash Out Against LaRouche,” pp.
40-43, detailing certain of the London Telegraph’s published
attacks on LaRouche associates, over the linking of Prince
Philip to the death of Princess Diana.
In an EIR Aug. 13, 1999 cover story, one is reminded of a
published item bearing the title,“The Queen on LaRouche:
‘Shut That Man’s Mouth!’ ” The item features details of a
Take a Break libel against LaRouche, by Katie Fraser, noting
that Buckingham Palace has become “increasingly alarmed”
at LaRouche activities, quoting an unnamed palace source
that LaRouche represents “the biggest threat ever to the
reputation of the Queen worldwide . . . Something has to be
done.” The article quotes another commentator, “It is vital
to protect the Queen as a symbol of decency in a sometimes
wicked world. She is a figurehead for all that is good about
Britain. That must be protected at all costs.” One was left
to wonder what “at all costs” is intended to mean.
To understand that British monarchy, one must take into
account the fact, that it was originally the Eighteenth-Century creation of an association known to Eighteenth-Century
Europe as “the Venetian Party,” which used the House of
Hanover and its royal descendants, as Venice had, earlier,
used so many among the old Norman occupiers of England,
France, Sicily, and elsewhere. It is a British monarchy
originally selected for the same general purpose for which
Venice had formerly selected its Doges.
The ruling oligarchy of the United Kingdom mimics the
financier oligarchical families of old Venice. That Kingdom
requires an agency, in this case the monarchy, to hold its
heteronomic ranks together as a unified force, against both
the population of the British isles in general, and also as
much of the larger world as it might gather into its imperial
roster of colonies, satrapies, and World Bank dependencies.
Thus, the Queen, as head of state for several individual
Commonwealth-member nations, and primus inter pares for
the Commonwealth as a whole, has, like a Venetian Doge
of yore, relatively tremendous, including arbitrary powers
and privileges, if chiefly within the scope of the imperial
monarchy’s globally far-flung state apparatus and associated
custom as such.7
This power is conditional, in the sense that a loss of the
monarchy’s image of authority in and among the victims of
that affliction known as British public opinion, might lead
to the toppling of the tiresome royal house itself. Yet, at the
same time, the oligarchy, especially its explicitly financier
component, and the Commonwealth, too, require the existence of the monarchy as an institution, to hold the inherently
heteronomic tendencies among the oligarchy, the kingdom,
and the Commonwealth together. Not so unified, divided,
their unity would easily collapse.
The key issue of law involved in that role of the monarchy, is the concept sometimes identified as “shareholder
7. A monarchy which claims sovereignty over a number of nations simultaneously is nothing but an empire.
interest.” Unless there is some powerful authority, to compel a people to give up modern society’s inclination that
government must efficiently promote the general welfare
of all of the nation’s current population and posterity alike,
and must also promote those institutions of government on
which defense of the general welfare depends absolutely,
the rapacious claims of an arbitrary “shareholder interest,”
could not compel a people to abandon the self-defense of
its general welfare.
Herein lies the dependency of the world’s presently hegemonic financier oligarchy on a combination of the British
monarchy-led Anglo-American financier interest, and the
destruction, through “globalization,” of the authority of
those forms of sovereign government, to which a people
might turn, in a time of crisis, for defense of the people and
nation against rapacious “shareholder interest,” as we see an
example of this in the California energy crisis today. Hence,
the power of the monarchy lies in the symbiotic dependency of the intrinsically anarchic impulse of “shareholder
interest,” upon the role of arbitrary power represented by
the monarchy.
As I shall indicate in the closing section of this present
report, it is precisely that characteristic feature of the British
monarchy which now threatens it with the prospect of extinction by its own hand. Pending that concluding observation,
I continue with my summary description of the apparent
characteristics of that monarchy at this instant.
As a consequence of this disgusting symbiosis, which
some may consider reminiscent of a caddis-fly’s pupal state,
among royal house, financier oligarchy, and the generality
of the population, the monarchy exerts a powerful grip upon
the kingdom, throughout the Commonwealth, and intruding
into the world at large. What holds the whole mess together,
is an ideology expressing the interdependency of these elements. The sticky stuff which keeps these assorted elements
tied to one another, is the mortal advantages and pleasures
which the participants share, that through the predominantly
predatory role enjoyed by the slime-mold-like concoction
as a whole.
Reduced to essentials, Queen Elizabeth II today has a
certain ominously ironical resemblance to the Babylonian
figure popularly known as Belshazzar. In performing that
role, like doomed tyrannies of ancient Mesopotamia, the
Del­phi cult of the Pythian Apollo, and ancient pagan Rome,
the Queen is, essentially, like the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte or disgusting Napoleon III, or Benito Mussolini, a
Romantic figure, in the literal sense of that term.
That monarchy is a modern expression of what was known
to ancient Greeks and others as “the oligarchical model” of
society, in which some people, and their armed and other
lackeys, herd, use, and cull a mass of subjects maintained, as
the most numerous class, that of virtual human cattle, with
aid of sundry measures of the kind of population-control
outlined in Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s progenocidal, 1974 NSSM-200 and President Jimmy Carter’s
population-control policies.
To understand that royal house, and such associates as the
neo-Malthusian World Wide Fund for Nature, it is sufficient
Page 15
to think of historical precedents such as that arrangement
among the Spartans and their helots, as the Lycurgan code
was conceived by the Delphi Apollo cult, or the slave-owning Confederate States of America, and the latter’s tradition
of so-called “shareholder interest” continued today. That
topic is key to defining the orbit in which objects such as
the World Wide Fund for Nature are moved, that according
to the intention of the oligarchical principle.
2. Now, Study the Orbit Itself
The foregoing points taken into account, we have come to
the crucial issue: why that monarchy is doomed, at least in
its present form, carrying to its doom, like a sinking Titanic,
anyone wrapped in its continued embrace.
As in all similar attacks upon me from British quarters,
by the Mont Pelerin Society and others, during more than
a score years, the charges circulated against me and my
associates, which have been made by foregoing types of
sources, are either pure and simple lies, or other expressions of willfully reckless and malicious disregard for truth.
Nonetheless, behind that royal bodyguard of lies, there are
real issues, some of them issues of great importance for
humanity as a whole.
It is on account of those real issues, as distinct from the
lying propaganda of those adversaries of mine, that the
inauguration of President George W. Bush appears to have
been taken by those royal and related interests as the opportunity for making me, personally, once again as during
the 1980s, a principal, and most consistent choice of target
of their malice, as expressed throughout diverse regions
of this planet. Some of the shrewder such opponents, hate
me because they fear that I am accurate in my forecaster’s
outlook on the current situation. Other opponents hate me,
because my warnings threaten to shatter their desire for
the consolations of blind faith in their current religious or
other wishful delusions; these latter, are typified by that
referenced British tabloid which headlined its attack, “Shut
This Man’s Mouth!”
However, there is a deeper issue, which is reflected by that
pagan religious quality of “fundamentalist” belief, which
is expressed by neo-Malthusian cults such as the World
Wide Fund for Nature. Here lies the key to recognizing
the present British monarchy’s propensity for impending
self-inflicted doom.
Prince Philip: Man or Beast?
So, considering the arguments of my adversaries from
among certain of that monarchy’s accomplices, the Queen’s
Consort would appear to believe, that I, as a professed and
practicing human being, am thus a representative of a species
which is superior to that lower form of life which he, Philip
Mountbatten, has repeatedly claimed himself to represent.
Lest any person receiving my report, might be so naive
as to suspect that my immediately preceding statement is
exaggerated on any point, the following summarizes the
most relevant evidence bearing upon the two incidents,
those, in Brazil and Australia, just identified above. This
Page 16
report has identified but a sampling of the decades-long
pattern of those incidents which indicate that the attacks
upon me and my associates from actual or otherwise avowed
representatives of that monarchy, are but various threads of
the same continuing cloth.
I include a summary of the proofs, that, in both the recent
and some earlier comparable cases, the issues raised by the
actions of the Prince’s sundry relevant supporters and agents,
center on a conflict, that between me and those, among adversaries who claim to represent a different species, Princes
Philip and Bernhard. On the one side, there is the human
species, as defended by me; and, on the opposing side, there
is the WWF, which acts in service of its often expressed
conviction, that mankind is just another form of beast, fit
only to be ruled by beastly predators, its population used,
herded, hunted, or culled, as beastly cattle might be.
The existence of that difference in belief and practice, is
no mere matter of opinion. Since the first emergence of the
modern sovereign nation-state as an institution, during the
course of Europe’s Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, all of
modern, globally extended European civilization has been
divided between two principles. One of these has been, since
Europe’s Fifteenth-Century, Italy-pivotted Renaissance, the
modern nation-state, which is premised upon the constitutional principle of service to the general welfare of all of the
population, as typified by the opening three paragraphs of the
1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of
the Constitution of the U.S.A. The opposing, more ancient
principle, is the modern continuation of the ancient, premodern, oligarchical model, for which the British monarchy
is the leading expression on this planet today.
The issues set forth in the opening paragraphs of the 1776
U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the
1789 Federal Constitution, express the unbridgeable gulf
separating the principle of a modern sovereign nation-state
republic from an oligarchy of such forms as the British
monarchy.
Inside the U.S.A. itself, the sometimes mortal conflict
between republican patriots and pro-monarchy, pro-oligarchical American Tories, has been that division of opinion
respecting the nature of the human individual.
The patriot’s view, gave political expression to the Christian view of the Mosaic principle, that man and woman are
made equally in the image of the Creator of the universe, and
empowered, and also obliged, to rule over all lower forms
of life in that universe, for their own benefit.
The American Tory’s pro-monarchy view expressed the
pro-oligarchical view which has persisted into modern
times, since ancient Babylon, the Delphi cult of the Pythian
Apollo, pagan Rome, and the Confederate States of America,
and is premised upon the presumption of both doctrine and
practice, that, contrary to that Christian principle, some men,
as rulers, may use, herd, or cull other persons, as virtually
human cattle, to whatever those rulers perceive to be their
pleasure in adopted perception of self-interest.
In the earliest history of the United States, this American
Tory view was expressed most efficiently by the followers
of the British empiricism of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes,
and John Locke. From the beginning of U.S. independence
and the debate impinging upon adoption of its Federal
Constitution, the Tory view was centered in circles such as
those of New England’s Judge Lowell and the slaveholders, especially those of the Federal States of Georgia and
South Carolina.
At later times in our national history, the pro-oligarchical
view came to be centered in circles and followers of the
perennially treasonous Aaron Burr, the agent of the British
Foreign Office’s Jeremy Bentham, who founded the Bank
of Manhattan. Burr and his legacy, united Wall Street, the
New England drug-trafficking partners of the British East
India Company drug-trafficking interests, and the rabidly
Anglophile slaveholder of the slave states. Today, that degraded, anti-Christian, anti-Mosaic view respecting the
nature of the human species, is expressed, systemically, by
the alliance of Wall Street-centered “shareholder interest”
with the pro-Confederacy tradition mustered by Republican
Presidential candidate Richard Nixon’s so-called “Southern
Strategy” of his 1966-1968 election-campaigns.
Admittedly, because of that division of European civilization, between two opposing currents, even without such
attacks upon me from sources such as the World Wildlife
Fund, I, as a U.S. patriot, could not be other than a political and philosophical adversary of that monarchy. My own
historic opposition to the British monarchy and the American
Tories and Confederacy’s legacy, not only as a candidate
for election to be a President of the United States, but in
every other way, since childhood, has always been, as I
have said, the same difference with the British monarchy
and American Tory legacy, expressed by every fully witting,
patriotic President of the United States, such as John Quincy
Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, since
the opening three paragraphs of the 1776 U.S. Declaration
of Independence and the Preamble of the Federal Constitution. My views and action express thus what is sometimes
called “the American intellectual tradition.”
There are three principal causes for that difference between my standpoint and what the Queen’s admirer and
benefactor, Henry A. Kissinger, has described as the motive for his own hatred for what he has described as “the
American intellectual tradition.”8 My patriotism, is the first
of three issues posed by the recurring attacks upon me from
the circles of Princes Philip and Bernhard.
The second, related issue, is typified by my hatred against
Malthusianism, as that has been expressed by such official
documents as Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger’s
pro-genocidal 1974 NSSM-200. This, in and of itself, is
an immediate issue to be recognized in connection with
the most recent attacks upon me. Admittedly, although the
monarchy’s recent revival of its hateful Malthusian dogma,
is an issue in itself, there is nothing in its neo-Malthusian
rantings which is philosophically inconsistent with the
legacy of such past British notables as Lord Shelburne and
Jeremy Bentham, or Bertrand Russell and H. G. Wells more
recently.
Thirdly, there is the issue of those who not only advocate
neo-Malthusian policies and practices launched world-wide,
by the two princes and their lackeys, or the presently leading circles of the International Monetary Fund and World
Bank, but who also use their influence on governments and
other powerful forces, to force Malthusian and kindred prooligarchical policies on individual nations, as “conditionalities,” and upon powerful international authorities as well.
Despite the fact that those three points of conflict, either
are, or underlie the only true and significant differences
between that Queen and me, none of her family’s public
advocates, past or present, have presented any pertinent
evidence in support of their recurring actions against me,
but have relied, instead, as in the referenced Brazil and
Australia cases, upon statements readily exposed as being
a mixture of outright lies and willfully reckless disregard
for readily and copiously available true facts. For proof of
that pattern of lying in their attacks, I rely upon extensive
relevant documentation which my associates have maintained in our journalists’ files over the greater part of three
decades to date.
Now, as the Biblical prophet Jonah warned the men and
women of Nineveh, the very highest court, that of history,
is moving to remove from power that which that monarchy
represents, in one way or another. On that account, now
consider the relationship between those three issues and
that tragic flaw within the monarchy, which impels it, like
Hamlet, toward its evidently chosen, self-induced doom. I
expand somewhat on the summary of the three issues just
stated.
The Three Strategic Issues Posed
In considering the repressive actions taken against me by
agents of Britain’s Prince Philip and the Netherlands’ Prince
Bernhard, we have, thus, the three referenced, overlapping,
but nonetheless distinct issues to take into account in somewhat greater detail.
The first issue of the British monarchy’s personal quarrel
with me, is the fact, already referenced. Historically, that
monarchy has been the consistently avowed enemy of the
principles upon which the United States was founded, since
before the 1776 U.S. Declaration of Independence, until
the current day. It has sought to crush my republic at the
outset, in which attempt it failed, as Prince Metternich’s
Holy Alliance did, also. It tried to tear my republic apart,
through backing the Confederate States of America, as
Lord Palmerston attempted, but was defeated by President
Lincoln’s leadership. It has sought to destroy us by its corrupting embrace, as it has acted since the assassination of our
President William McKinley, to the present day. For a time,
during the past century, those enemies were defeated by the
leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt’s return of the
nation to its principle of the promotion of the general welfare, and might have been turned back by the assassinated
President Kennedy, had he lived. More recently, during the
recent thirty-five years, the pro-racist, so-called Southern
8. Henry A. Kissinger, “Reflections on a Partnership: British and American Attitudes to Postwar Foreign Policy, Address in Commemoration of the Bicentenary
of the Office of Foreign Secretary,” May 10, 1982, Royal Institute of International
Affairs (Chatham House), London.
Page 17
Strategy, and the related “fiscal conservatism” and “free
trade” fads, has been used by the American Tory tradition,
in a fresh attempt to destroy this republic.
Those efforts to destroy my nation, are not merely
schemes. Like the attacks of the jackal or hyena upon its
intended prey, the quarrel which that monarchy has with
both my republic and with me, expresses the deeply rooted
character of that species which the monarchy of the United
Kingdom has claimed itself as representing, from the start
to the present day.
Notably, those who share the American Tory outlook in
the U.S. today, including all of those morally depraved
strata which are politically committed to the supremacy of
neo-Malthusian and shareholder-value dogmas, represent,
in their practice, a continuation of the tradition of those
treasonously inclined adversaries of the principle of the
general welfare during the American War for Independence
and the defense of our republic against the Confederacy. This
puts all of the patriots of the republican cause, world-wide,
into principled opposition to the nature and practice of the
British monarchy. The issue of that conflict is nothing less
significant, than two mortally opposing views of the nature
of the individual member of the human species. Hence, the
form of that global conflict has the form of mortal strife
between what are self-defined, functionally, as two irreconcilably different species.
The currently reigning British royal family, represents, as
such a species-type, that tradition of the bloody tyrant, William of Orange, which was known, during the Eighteenth
Century, as “The Venetian Party.” It is a party which had
dominated the English monarchy, recurrently, since such
agents of Venice as Cardinal Pole, Francesco Zorzi, and
Thomas Cromwell, had seduced King Henry VIII and beheaded the sainted Sir Thomas More. From about the time
of the death of Queen Anne and the ouster from England of
the Gottfried Leibniz otherwise intended to serve as England’s first minister, the present monarchy, in its self-defined
character as a species-type, has defined the nature of both
the Kingdom and the Empire.
This legacy of William of Orange’s “Venetian Party,”
has thus dominated the present British monarchy since the
coronation of George I. It is a monarchy selected to serve
as presiding head of state in the interest of an imperial form
of financier-oligarchical caste. On that account, the conflict
between that monarchy and my republic, has always been
of an incurable, systemic nature, a conflict between species
of society which are natural adversaries by birth.
We human beings, as creatures of free will, have the power
to improve, even greatly change our character. However, as
the Biblical Jonah warned Nineveh, unless we exercise that
free will, to make such improvements in a timely way, our
fate is less often the outcome of what we might imagine
our goals to be, than what our character causes us to bring
upon ourselves, whether we are conscious of that connection or not.
Such is the tragic flaw so nakedly displayed by the newly
inaugurated Bush Administration, which it shares, in large
degree with the British monarchy.
Page 18
The second issue of that monarchy’s quarrel with me, its
Malthusianism, is expressed in the fact, that, since no later
than 1973, the accomplices Princes Philip and Bernhard,
have used their positions as contemporary, royal representatives of that Anglo-Dutch Venetian Party, to introduce global
measures of population control which, if not prevented,
would plunge this entire planet into a new dark age for all
humanity.
This awful belief, whether it is called “Malthusianism,”
“neo-Malthusianism,” “environmentalism,” or “ecology,”
is derived from, and expresses a pro-oligarchical view of
each and all members of the human species, as “no better
than a beast,” as Prince Philip does. Such views, the same
from which Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime derived its legal
doctrine of “useless eaters,” under the rubric of “eugenics,”
are the leading practical expression of today’s global conflict
between two mortally opposing views on the nature of the
human species.
The third issue, is that the proponents of these personal
attacks, not only upon me and my friends, but also on entire
nations, are liars of the sort not content to rob and kill their
victims, but who must defame them, too, as they have lied
so persistently in deploying their lackeys to defame me and
my associates, world-wide, during recent decades.
On this account, their legal practice differs in no point of
principle from that of either U.S. Supreme Court Associate
Justice Antonin Scalia, or of the Carl Schmitt from whose
doctrine the legal coup d’état establishing the Hitler dictatorship was derived. The argument typical of the ideologues
of the World Wide Fund for Nature, that they have the
right inhering in their arbitrary irrational choice of belief,
to destroy the economic and political foundations of all of
the leading achievements of modern European civilization,
for the sake of their so-called ecological revolution, differs
in no important respect from that derived, in the tradition
of the right-wing fanatic G.W.F. Hegel’s theory of the state,
by Carl Schmitt, to impose the dictatorial Notverordnung of
Feb. 28, 1933, which unleashed World War II as its lawful
consequence.
Of these three strategic issues, one is most fundamental:
their actions as adversaries of the well-being of the human
species as a whole. While the evidence bearing on the other
two issues must be included, it is the attack on the welfare
of present and future generations of my species which is
the essential issue.
The tragic flaws of the Bush Presidency and the British
monarchy are related, but otherwise specific to each. The
common feature of those flaws, is, as I have stressed above,
that neither has an efficient conception of that principle
of law known to modern society by the names of general
welfare and common good. It is the hostility of each to that
principle, which is the awful tragic flaw underlying both
cases. But, there is another aspect to this same matter. As
the Disciple Luke writes, if no other agency, the very stones
may speak. So, as if behind the motion of such stones, recognize the hand of fate now descending upon the British
monarchy.
The Twilight of the Gods
connection between the state of affairs before and after the
relevant act of production, is not measurable as a straightline connection of the type seen in the financial accountant’s description of that act of production. Thus, there is a
systemic, sometimes economically fatal, difference between
cost accounting analysis of production and the physical
reality of the cause-effect relations reflected.
In production, the net gain, in excess of total costs of
production incurred by the entire society, is ultimately
the result of applied technologies which are derived from
discoveries of universal physical principles. Thus, to sum
up the case, the cause of the difference between costs of
production and the output of successful production, is a
pathway of physical action which is mathematically of the
form of an incommensurable, an incommensurable which
corresponds to the universal physical principles expressed
by the productive process.
Once again: the financial accountant takes a directly contrary view. He imagines, falsely, that the representation of
the functional relationship between cost and gain in output
can be represented by straight-line, connect-the-dots sort of
mathematics, just as John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern did in their notorious, and essentially incompetent,
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.10
While such cause-effect-relations are present in all successfully anti-entropic acts of production, the strict proof
of the point which I have just summarized lies within the
domain of so-called “macro-economics,” the study of
the function of local (so-called “micro-economic”) activity within the physical economic process as a whole. By
“physical” we mean measurements made in non-monetary,
non-financial terms; or, in other words, we mean that all
financial statistics must be interpreted as a mere reflection
of the effects of purely physical-economic activity.
This means, that we must include, as biogeochemist
Vladimir Vernadsky insisted, the notion of physical economy from the standpoint of what he termed a noösphere.
That is, human cognition acting upon the principle of life,
as expressed by the biosphere, which, in turn, is transforming the non-living domain upon which, and within which it
acts. The essential form of “macroeconomic” human action
upon the biosphere, is the application of the discovery of
experimentally validatable universal physical principles.
From the standpoint of mathematical physics, as successively defined by Carl Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, and
Bernhard Riemann, the aggregation of presently discovered
universal physical principles has the geometric form of what
is called a manifold. This notion of a manifold supersedes
absolutely the so-called Euclidean geometry used by Galileo,
Descartes, Newton, et al. In other words, it is the addition of
new discoveries of universal physical principles, by means
of which mankind is enabled to increase its power, per capita
and per square kilometer, in and over the macroeconomic
domain, the universe, in which mankind exists.
It is, thus, to the degree that we develop our young in
the ability to cooperate in the discovery and use of such
9. For example, in my “California Takes a Swift Look at Today’s Economists,”
EIR, Feb. 2, 2001.
10. John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic
Behavior, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953).
Thus, we come to our concluding point: the threatened
extinction of the British monarchy by its own hand. Since
I have elaborated that case in its general form, in numerous
published locations,9 it will be sufficient, on this occasion, to
summarize the essentials and situate the British monarchy’s
fate within that general case.
To understand how a culture may doom itself, even to
the point of its self-induced extinction, as ancient Mesopotamian cultures did repeatedly, it is most useful, today,
to point to a closely related phenomenon, blind faith in the
view of today’s conventional financial accounting as a guide
to shaping of economic policies of individual firms, even
entire economies. The issue is the same as that pointed out
by Kepler, in his The New Astronomy, in pointing out the
absurdity of the method employed by such predecessors as
Claudius Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe. The issue
is the same lunacy practiced by the credulous devotees of
the teachings of Adam Smith, Friedrich von Hayek, and
the American Enterprise Institute. The issue is the folly of
relying upon the symbol-minded statistical method known
as the childish game of “connect the dots.”
In economic reality, the ability of a population to continue
to reproduce its numbers in a better condition than earlier, is
accomplished solely through the impact of those discoveries
derived in the form of experimentally validated universal
physical principles, and the technologies derived from such
discoveries. Such discoveries have the mathematical form
known to the ancient Classical Greeks as incommensurable
magnitudes.
Kepler recognized, as implicit by the paradoxical, elliptic
character of the orbit of Mars, that in a universe in which
a continuously non-constant, even non-uniform curvature
described the recurring orbital trajectory of a stellar body,
that no connect-the-dots scheme, such as that of Copernicus,
could account for the way in which the motion of that planet
or other body were predetermined. From the consideration
of that paradox, Kepler derived his discovery of a universal
physical principle of gravitation.
Leibniz’s original discovery of the calculus, which Isaac
Newton was never able to follow, was developed as a
solution to the type of problem which had been posed by
Kepler’s discovery of universal gravitation. Leibniz’s differential is not the linear interval erroneously proposed by
Leonhard Euler, Augustin Cauchy, et al., but an interval
of non-uniform curvature, whose corresponding interval
defines an orbit of the paradoxical quality recognized by
Kepler.
In fact, every experimentally validated universal physical
principle has that same specific quality of an incommensurable. That distinct quality, distinct to each such principle, is
otherwise known as the characteristic of that principle, or, in
the alternative, of the physical-space-time domain associated
with a Riemannian manifold of such principles.
In physical production, in which universal principles
such as those associated with chemistry, are applied, the
Page 19
a progressively unfolding manifold of universal physical
principles, that we obtain the anti-entropic effects properly
associated with the notion of a society’s macro-economic
physical “profit.”
Once this physical aspect of the matter is taken into account, we are obliged to turn our attention to the social
aspects of this physical process. The history of cultures,
especially the historically unprecedented rates of success
of post-Fourteenth-Century, globally extended modern
European civilization, shows us that what we may also
recognize as certain universal cultural principles, governing
the relationship of people in society, determine the relative
degree of likelihood that a society will employ and foster the
discovery of universal physical principles for the purpose
of increase of the relative anti-entropy of the relationship
between the human species and its noösphere.
This attention to universal cultural principles, and their
functional relationship to the discovery and use of universal
physical principles, enables us to define functional distinctions between relatively healthy and pathological forms of
cultural manifold (e.g., matrices), with an effective degree
of relative rigor. This ought to be the standpoint for education in, and practice of statecraft. From this vantage-point,
we must say that the oligarchical model, as typified by the
British monarchy’s case, belongs to the same class of pathological cultural types as the fallen pagan empires of known
past history, such as those of ancient Babylon and Rome.
On this account, the system represented by that monarchy is
doomed to precisely the relative degree it tends to converge
upon becoming globally hegemonic!
Nothing expresses that propensity for self-doom more
neatly, in physical-economic terms, than the combination
of oligarchical cultural values associated with the combination of “shareholder value” with globalized notions of “free
trade.” Call it the “Ozymandias Syndrome.”
That means, that if a culture imposes behavior upon its
society which results in a systemically entropic unfolding
of the physical-economic relations between the entire population and nature, that society, if it continues that habit, is
ultimately doomed to collapse. The legendary fallen empires
of history, fit that pattern.
For this purpose, we may assort societies into two general
types. The two types are assorted empirically, by examining
the evolution of the demographic characteristics of entire societies, in their approximately “closed system” relationship
to the region of the noösphere which that population inhabits
and exploits. Societies in which the localized noösphere is
developing anti-entropically, typify one of the two types;
societies which may prosper at home, by looting populations
and regions abroad, constitute an opposing type.
In the case of ancient Mesopotamia and Rome, for example, these cultures ascended to increased power for a
time through parasitical looting of other populations and
territories. Once the limits of expanded looting of that form
were reached, that culture went into an internal decline, as
the cyclical patterns in ancient Mesopotamia, the successive, respective demographic collapses of ancient Rome
and Byzantium attest.
Page 20
Thus, as in the case of the rise of the British Empire,
and its extension in the form of assimilating the U.S.A.
into a global Anglo-American system, the degree to which
the empire expanded, increased its rate of proximity to
its inevitable doom. The past approximately dozen years,
since the beginning of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact
alliance, until the present, typifies that historical pattern
from the past. The typically pagan-imperialist types of
measures taken, to gobble up the parts of the world which
had been outside the Anglo-American domain, as long as
Soviet power continued, set into motion an acceleration of
the process leading to the presently immediate doom of that
form of Anglo-American system itself.
Typical of the same process of self-inflicted doom, is
the effect of post-1971 changes in U.S. policy toward the
region of Central and South America. The WWF’s present,
NAFTA-related threat to Brazil’s existence, typifies the
ongoing pattern seen in the cases of Argentina and Mexico,
in 1982, in narco-terrorism-ridden Colombia, in Panama,
Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and so on.
Under Franklin Roosevelt, and also Kennedy, the United
States’ policy toward the states of Central and South
America tended toward the intentions expressed earlier by
John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln. This rich and
vastly untapped portion of the continent, with a population already infused with the crucial elements of modern
European culture, represented one of the richest potentials
for economic growth and power in the world at large. To
the degree, the U.S. promoted the self-development of the
sovereign republics of the hemisphere in ways consistent
with what Hamilton and others had defined as “the American
System of political-economy,” the Americas, with a combined population of much less than a billion persons, with
such vastly untapped natural resources, was the most crucial
strategic self-interest of the U.S.A. itself. To the degree we
aided these neighbors in enriching the average standard of
living and employment of all, we could not fail to prosper
mightily, and indefinitely, from cooperation.
Beginning 1971, especially since 1982, we of the U.S.A.
threw all those riches away! We were the fool who cooked
and ate the goose who laid the golden egg! Obviously, we
have not enjoyed a truly sane government of the U.S.A. since
President Lyndon Johnson, and even he had the problems
of suffering that queasy feeling of being the successor to
assassinated President Kennedy. We have wrecked and
looted the entirety of that great region of our hemisphere’s
continent.
The same was done, under the direction of Thatcher, Mitterrand, and Bush, to eastern Europe and the former Soviet
Union. We destroyed the built-up productive forces of that
vast region of Eurasia, all for the sake of those lunatic qualities of imperial, geopolitical motives, of destroying, and
looting potential economic competitors, which we associate
with Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski’s circles.
Thus, destroying the outskirts of “Anglo-American imperial power,” in so much of Eurasia, Africa, and Central and
South America, we drew the noose around our own nations’
political-economic neck, just as had the rulers of the pagan,
slavery-ridden city of Rome.
That said, focus upon the state of mind which sets the
oligarchical mentality of the British monarchy, and its
lackeys, apart from the kind of society which had built up
all of the great achievements of the pre-1965 U.S.A. and
rebuilt post-war, 1945-65 western Europe.
Now, to sum up the working point. The distinction between
the human individual and all lower species, lies essentially
in the specifically human quality of cognition, as opposed
to, distinct from reductionist deductive constructs. It is
through that mode of cognition which is formally associated, in mathematical physics, with what Leibniz named
Analysis Situs, or geometry of position, that the individual
human mind is able to define those true paradoxes which,
in turn, prompt that mind to discover an hypothetical new
universal physical principle. If that hypothetical principle is
validated by experimental methods, it, and the technologies
derived from it, may be applied to human practice. This is
the primary source of the anti-entropy exhibited by durably
profitable forms of national economy.
Thus, the essential thing in economics, is to define the
circumstances needed to foster that kind of anti-entropic
process in the physical economy of the nation as a whole.
Two conditions must be satisfied to permit that benefit
to be realized. First, we must develop the total environment in an appropriate way. The best way to think about
that, is to adopt Vernadsky’s view of the noösphere. That
means to foster the biospherical processes, as such, which
spread and improve the potential for support of human life
and its technological practice at rising levels of per-capita
performance by the society as a whole. Second, we must
develop the individuals, and provide them the means of
production and increasing capital-intensive, and increasingly energy-intensive, systems of cooperation on which
the fostering of science-driven technological and cultural
progress depends.
On the second account, we must focus upon the development of the newborn individual to maturity a score or more
years later. This means, systems of education of the young
which raise the potential of the individual to a high degree of
cognitive maturity and motivation. This signifies, for example, that any sane nation will insist that during the first two
decades of the life of any new individual person, the years
of primary and secondary education and popular culture
will be governed by what is known as strictly Classicalhumanist modes of development of the moral potential of
each individual, through emphasis on cognitive experience
of discovery and rediscovery of universal principles, rather
than mere learning.
This means that we must provide the conditions of family,
community, and national life, in which the noetic qualities
of increased productive power of labor are fostered to the
relatively highest degree possible.
From what we should have adduced from both our knowledge of pre-history as well as history, it is should be apparent
to us that humanity of the past has made vast contributions to
knowledge, that over hundreds of thousands, even millions
of years to date, from which we benefit today. Yet, most of
those cultures from which we so benefit today, were failures,
as cultures, in their time. Indeed, all cultures, prior to the
Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, even including the stunningly best of Classical Greek, were failures in the end. This
paradox should grab our concentrated attention, should we
wish to avert the doom which presently menaces the U.S.A.
and its entire population under its new President.
To sum up the point to be made on this account, the individual person is naturally great in potential. The issue is,
under what political-social conditions does that individual
live, and what part of the whole society is encouraged, or
even permitted to develop in ways consistent with human
nature? If we look at the galloping depravity which is to be
seen in the condition of the United Kingdom’s economy,
and the Yahoo-like cultural condition into which its general
population has been plunged, over the course of the time
since the Profumo scandal, we have relevant evidence to
consider. We have similar evidence in the case of the U.S.A.
over the recent thirty-five years, in continental western Europe during the same period, and throughout Central and
South America.
The problem is the retreat from the conception of the human individual as universally a cognitive creature, thus, contrary to Hobbes and Locke, made in the image of the Creator
of the universe, a creature which society must develop to
its corresponding individual potential, and must foster for
that individual the opportunity to make the contribution to
progress of which he, or she, by nature is properly destined
to contribute.
Thus, the British monarchy, with its expressed views on
the nature of man and beast, has been a leading political
and cultural force for evil on this planet. The catastrophe
which looms immediately before us marks the end of an
empire, an empire defined by the kind of Anglo-American
domination which the British monarchy’s role and influence represents today. We have reached the point, at which
another stroke of folly, or two, brings the whole shebang to
a certain culmination.
Either we rid ourselves of that legacy typified by the
morbid ideology of the WWF, or the whole shebang soon
collapses. Such a moment is sometimes called “The Twilight
of the Gods.”
Once again, the essence of the study of history is the study
of history in its making. The essence of that profession, is
the development of one’s capability to recognize the echoes of centuries-long processes of cultural evolution and
devolution, as reflected in what may be distinguished as
clinical crucial symptoms in the relatively short-term and
small. Such is the importance of the incidents identified as
recently occurring in Australia and Brazil.
Page 21
Appendix
WWF’s October 2000 Brief
The complaint filed by WWF-Brazil features a string of
a dozen or so alleged statements of relevant fact. Taken in
their entirety, as a single statement, that list of so-called
facts is polluted, pervasively, by a willfully reckless disregard for truth. Since it is not the purpose of this report to
supersede the functions of Brazil’s legal system, but only to
show the political and moral character of WWF’s actions,
a few examples are sufficient for that purpose here. I list
relevant portions of WWF’s claims as to fact, together with
identification of some of the published materials showing
that WWF claims as to fact are either demonstrably willfully
declared falsehoods, or have been uttered in willfully reckless disregard for facts readily accessible to an association
possessing the world-wide and high-level resources of WWF
and associated organizations.
Notably, in its own brief, WWF-Brazil reports that “the
WWF network . . . has a structure similar to the United
Nations Organization.” It describes the WWF as composed
of 27 national organizations, among them WWF Brazil, as
active in 96 countries, and as having 4.7 millions affiliates.
Given the positions of its leading officials and supporting
organizations, an association with such immense resources
must be held to a higher standard of truthful regard for available fact than even many governments of the world, and certainly much higher than a more typical public figure. On this
account, WWF’s moral and legal responsibility to proceed
with reasonable regard for truthfulness must meet a much
higher standard of threshold than even that to which many
among the world’s governments today must be held.
In reading the Plaintiff’s brief dated Oct. 16, 2000, we
recognize thirteen distinguishable claims made by the Plaintiff in the course of that document. As noted below, two of
these might be consolidated with other claims which would
reduce the thirteen to which we respond here to eleven.
Where clarity requires this, I have indicated the relevant
portion of that Plaintiff’s brief in a footnote.
WWF’s Claimed Fact #1 appears in their brief as follows:
“The . . . [defendants] accuse the Plaintiff of participating
in a ‘well-articulated offensive against the highest levels of
the oligarchic Anglo-American Establishment, whose direct
objective is nothing less than hindering the development of
the South American hinterland . . . , strangling the entire
region through lack of low-cost transportation routes, and
with little possibility of overcoming its condition of a mere
raw materials producer.’ ”
Here, the WWF has perpetrated two willfully misleading
reconstructions of what is otherwise an accurate, isolated
excerpt from a widely circulated pamphlet, whose title,
in English translation, is, The Green Mafia Assaults the
Waterways, but the referenced text does not say that the
WWF “participates in;” in reality, the sentence immediately
following that cited by the WWF complaint reads: “That offensive, coordinated by the apparatus of non-governmental
Page 22
organizations (NGOs) which gravitates around the World
Wide Fund for Nature, and other entities directly linked to
the House of Windsor.” In honest citation, the citer does
not alter the content of one sentence in a paragraph to the
purpose of conveying a different meaning than is clearly
shown if the cited sentence is examined in the light of relevant features of an immediately adjoining one.
The EIR edition of Oct. 28, 1994, featured an in-depth
report entitled, “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor.”
This report featured two articles by Lyndon LaRouche, and
supplied detailed documentation of WWF global operations. This featured a flow chart (p. 24) tracing key WWF
board personnel and their positions on boards of directors
of Barclays Bank PLC, Shell Transport & Trading Co. PLC,
The Bank of England, RTZ Corporation PLC (with Queen
Elizabeth II as the largest individual shareholder), N.M.
Rothschild & Sons, Ltd., National Westminster Bank PLC,
The Telegraph PLC, Imperial Chemical Industries PLC,
Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa Ltd., De Beers
Consolidated Mines Ltd., and De Beers Centenary AG.
This report included further notable elements, which
bear upon the willful disregard for truth which is shown by
WWF’s Claimed Fact #2, which claims that they were slandered by the Defendants when they said that “. . .‘The WWF
was instrumental in insuring that companies of the Commonwealth, a euphemism for the British Empire, predominated
in their control over Africa’s raw materials, as well as over
a large part of the vast network of parks and natural reserves
which have carved up a majority of the countries of the continent. At the same time, they have prevented the nations’
exploration of their own natural resources, for mining and
other purposes, these companies blocked or made impossible, the building of large-scale infrastructure, essential to
regional socio-economic development.’ ”
Those further elements include: a partial membership list
of the 1001 Club and short biographical profiles, drawn from
composite membership lists; and an article by A1 Douglas,
“The WWF: Race Science and World Government,” with
a detailed pre-history of the WWF with the Society for the
Preservation of the Wildlife Fauna of the Empire (now the
Fauna and Flora Preservation Society, FFPS) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), detailing the role of Sir Peter Scott, Julian Huxley, and British
Foreign Office permanent secretary Max Nicholson, whose
1970 history of the launching of world environmentalist
movement, The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the
New Masters of the World, stated, in part: “the lesson has
been learnt and reservedly accepted that Ducks Unlimited
means Sovereignty Superseded.”
The same EIR of Oct. 28, 1994, details protected areas and
parks in Africa, with data drawn from International Union
for the Conservation of Nature “Protected Areas of the
World,” 1989 and 1991 editions. It also details the overlay
of WWF directors with leading British Commonwealth raw
material and banking cartels.
See also EIR Special Report, “The True Story Behind
The Fall of the House of Windsor,” September 1997; EIR,
May 24, 1996, “The Sun Never Sets on the New British
Empire,” including “Raw Materials Cartels Lock Up World
Economy,” by Richard Freeman, pp. 103-112, and “The
Anglo-Dutch Corporate Empire,” by Anthony K. Wikrent.
The foregoing, widely circulated published materials,
show the WWF’s complaint to have been crafted with flagrant disregard for truth.
Plaintiffs Claimed Fact #31 is a plain hoax. “Conspire” is a
word inserted by the WWF, not the defendant; nowhere does
WWF show that, in that referenced document, the MSIA
accuses the Plaintiff of “conspiring” to such an effect.
Plaintiff’s Claimed Fact #42, is addressed, below, under
facts pertaining to Plaintiff’s Claimed Fact #13.
WWF’s Claimed Fact #53, willfully paraphrases a passage
from the MSIA, by inserting the term “front,” as if it were
employed so by the MSIA, which never, in fact, occurred.
Fact 5 is also addressed, below, together with Fact 13.
WWF’s Claimed Fact #6, is simply irrelevant, since MSIA
nowhere asserts “the thesis” that the WWFs are “merely the
puppets of the House of Windsor.”
Within Claimed Fact #7, the WWF states falsely that:
“Mr. Nilder Costa, the third defendant, gave a speech in the
[Brazilian] city of Campo Grande, on Feb. 25, 2000. In said
speech, the Defendant attacked the Plaintiff and the WWF
in many ways, giving out entirely false pieces of information, such as, for example, that members of the movement,
including the WWF President, had been members of the
Nazi Party.”
This is typical of the resort to outright lying, as well as
slovenliness by the Plaintiff’s October brief. What was
presented at that Campo Grande meeting was mention of
the former Nazi party membership of a single personality,
the Netherlands’ Prince Bernhard, the leader of the “1001
Club,” and President of the association behind the WWF. It
was at later public events, that Mr. Nilder Costa presented
a photocopy of the Nazi party membership card of Prince
Bernhard.
During the 1990s, a series of documents were declassified
in the Netherlands and in the U.S. National Archives, which
provide the “paper trail” to prove what has long been known:
that Prince Bernhard was a member of Hitler’s NSDAP (the
National Socialist Workers Party-or, for short, the “Nazis”).
These documents include:
(a) A record of Bernhard’s dues payments to the NSDAP,
which show that Prince Bernhard (“Prinz zur Lippe, Bernhard Leopold”), born June 29, 1911, joined the Nazi Party’s
Greater Berlin organization on May 1, 1933 (upper righthand
corner, “Eintritt”). His membership number is 2583009
(in the upper far right). He only quit the Nazis because he
wanted to marry Princess Juliana of the Netherlands, and
the Dutch royal house was anxious to avoid any possibility
of scandal;
1. “Likewise, the document under discussion accuses Plaintiff of conspiring
against Brazil’s development, acting with the stated purpose of rendering the
Brazilian State economically and technologically inferior to other nations. It
is therefore irrefutable that said document causes effective damage to Plaintiff,
since it directly harms Plaintiff’s image and good name, therefore requiring its
immediate confiscation.”
2. “. . .The Defendants accuse the WWF Network (of which the Plaintiff is a
part) of conspiring to impede the full development of underdeveloped countries
(b) A letter prepared by the U.S. Embassy in The Hague,
to the U.S. Secretary of State, confirming Prince Bernhard’s
membership in the NSDAP, from a list prepared by Headquarters Berlin Command, Office of Military Government
for Germany (US) on Nov. 1, 1947;
(c) A list of NSDAP members, which includes not only
Bernhard, but other members of his oligarchic family (those
listed as “Prinz z. Lippe,” or “Prinzess z. Lippe”);
(d) An Aug. 10, 1948 letter on U.S. Department of State
letterhead, to “The Officer in Charge of the American Mission, The Hague,” “concerning the removal of the name
of Prince Bernhard from the consolidated list of NSDAP
members residing in the Netherlands.” The relevant State
Department official notes that, “Since Prince Bemhard’s
name is also included in the consolidated World List, which
has been widely distributed through the Government as well
as outside the United States, it is felt that at this time it is not
practicable to alter the current lists by deleting his name.”
Other published sources also report on Prince Bernhard’s
Nazi Party connections, such as Queen Juliana, by William
Hoffman (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979), pp. 67-69.
Skipping over the silly Claimed Fact #84, the extensive,
relevant publications by EIR et al., show that the WWF’s
Claimed Fact #95 proceeded purely and simply from willfully reckless disregard for truth.
See EIR, Oct. 28, 1994, “Prince Philip’s Murderous World
View, In His Own Words,” and EIR, Dec. 16, 1994, “Prince
Philip: ‘Doge’ of the Real Fourth Reich,” by Scott Thompson
and Jeffrey Steinberg, and also “Some of the Better New
Books on the Windsors,” providing annotated details on
14 recent books on the current generation of the House of
Windsor, many of which were used in preparation of the
biographical sketch of Prince Philip which appeared in the
same issue of EIR.
On the WWF’s Claimed Facts #10 and #11, its brief
makes no effort to identify factual support for its claim.
Notably, on Fact 10, it merely cites a passage from MSIA
publications which is truthful, and not contradicted by the
Plaintiff.6 See September 1997 EIR Special Report, “The
. . . .”
3. “The Defendant states that the Plaintiff represents the interests of the House
of Windsor, which, in turn, controls various large multinational companies. The
WWF network, therefore, would serve only as a ‘front’ for defending the interests
of these companies and their controllers . . . .”
4. The WWF brief complains that the MSIA circulated a pamphlet “with the
following title: ‘The WWF’s Forest Trap’. It is worth noting that ‘trap,’ according
to the Aurelio Dictionary, means ‘plot or intrigue.’ Thus, the very title of the text
already demonstrates its intent to defame by denoting the Plaintiff as responsible
for some secret scheme.”
5. “In fact, diverse ‘information’ of the most absurd, mistaken and baseless
sort were spread maliciously and without the least concern with the possible, and
even foreseeable, damage that they could bring to the image of the Plaintiff, before
Brazilian civil society... It is stated in the material that the WWF International
is a movement led by the British Monarchy and financed by the families of the
Anglo-American oligarchical Establishment, with the objective of keeping Brazil
as an ‘underdeveloped’ country­—which is absolutely insane!!!”
6. “ ‘The “secret agenda” of the NGOs led by the WWF objectively seeks to
keep Brazil encircled and sterilize any pro-development impulse in the country ....
Environmentalism is a new disguise for the old ideas of malthusian colonialism,
not employing, as in the past, military invasions, but invasions by an irregular army
of NGOs financed by the Anglo-American oligarchical Establishment families,
under the leadership of the British Monarchy, the House of Windsor. The power
of these groups can be appreciated by their effective control over: the Bank of
England; the U.S. Federal Reserve System; the large banks, investment houses
Page 23
Documents declassified in the Netherlands and the United States prove that Prince Bernhard was a member of the Nazi party.
Invisible Empire of NGOs,” by Joseph Brewda, documenting
specific leading NGOs which are headed by members of the
House of Lords/Privy Council, with specific biographies of
Viscount Cranborne, Lord Avebury, and Baroness Carolyn
Cox of Queensbury.
So-called Claimed Fact #117, is no better than irrelevant
sarcasm.
WWF’s Claimed Fact #128 is shown to be willfull falsification, by a visit to the WWF’s own website, which repeatedly
identifies Prince Philip as International President Emeritus
of the WWF just as the MSIA does in its publications.
In the WWF’s Claimed Fact #13, WWF summarily
Page 24
reviews seven items, which they characterize as “factual
errors and distortions.” In fact, all that EIR and MSIA have
stated on these matters is not only true, but extensively
7. The WWF states that the MSIA has a “prophetic style, characteristic of
someone who is announcing great truths, unknown to common mortals .... The
mentioned text spreads, in an extremely efficient and convincing way diverse
assertions that do not have the least basis in fact, nor could it be otherwise, since
they constitute a true exercise in creative speculation.”
8. “A clear indication of the degree of disinformation of the Defendants is in
the repeated statement that Prince Philip is president of the WWF International,
when his term ended several years ago [!] . . . . Apparently they [the Defendants]
do not feel constrained from carrying out a truly defamatory spectacle, designed
to trick unsuspecting readers and spectators.”
documented in a most carefully crafted and responsible way.
In these items, the WWF relies chiefly on its willfully false
representation of the facts.
Compare, for example, EIR, Jan. 13, 1995, “The ‘Green’
Terrorists on Prince Philip’s Leash.” This begins with a juxtaposition of quotes from Prince Philip: “In the event that
I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus,
in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation,”
(August 1988, to Deutsche Presse Agentur) and Earth First!
founder David Foreman: “AIDS is not a malediction, but the
welcome and natural remedy to reduce the population on the
planet . . . Should human beings disappear, I surely wouldn’t
mind . . . Just as the Black Plague ended the feudal era, so
AIDS will end the industrial era of progress. That is a good
thing, since industrial progress brings population growth,”
Nov. 8, 1987 issue of Earth First! Journal).
On one element of WWF’s Claimed Fact #139, as also its
Claimed Fact #5, see: EIR, Jan. 13, 1995, “British Oligarchs
Created the Eco-Terrorist Movement,” by Jeffrey Steinberg
and Rogelio A. Maduro. This detailed the founding of Friends
of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Earth First! Members of 1001
Club/WWF, including Peter Cadbury (1001 Club charter
member) and Christopher Cadbury (WWF-UK director) put
up seed money, via Cadbury Trust, to launch Greenpeace.
London Friends of the Earth was headed by Jonathan Por-
ritt, son of the former Governor General of New Zealand,
who obtained corporate funding for FOE from Telegraph
PLC of Conrad Black’s Hollinger Corporation (Black was
a charter member of 1001 Club). “By 1977, the WWF
was publicly bankrolling Greenpeace for the purchase and
outfitting of a fleet of ships. That year, the Dutch branch of
WWF bought the ship Rainbow Warrior for Greenpeace,
conduiting the money through Greenpeace’s London office.
Three years later, Netherlands WWF bought another ship,
Sirius, and gave it to Greenpeace.” That article also cited
Danish TV documentary, “Rainbow Man,” on Greenpeace
leader David McTaggart, detailing his links, from 1978, to
WWF Executive Director Sir Peter Scott and Prince Philip,
including reports of secret meetings at WWF London headquarters including Scott, McTaggart, Dr. Sidney Holt, and
Jean Paul Gouin, for the purpose of launching a takeover of
the International Whaling Commission. By the late 1980s,
McTaggart “retired” from Greenpeace, and the director
of Greenpeace London office was Lord Peter Melchett, a
former Labour Party Member of Parliament and the heir to
the Imperial Chemical Industries PLC fortune.
9. “The Plaintiff did not create nor does it control the association known as
Greenpeace, or any other Non-Governmental Organization.”
Page 25
2. LaRouche on Urgent Debt Reorganization
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.’s memo to the Milan Conference on “Debt Forgiveness and the New Bretton Woods,” was
written on Jan. 9, 2001, and read to the conference on Jan. 14.
I
greet the conference, on the subject of “Debt Relief and
the New Bretton Woods” being convened at Milan’s
Catholic University on Jan. 14, 2000.
I think it important, for this occasion, that I emphasize
that the present world financial and monetary system is
now already hopelessly bankrupt in its present form. Only
by putting that system, and most among its associated
central banking systems into bankruptcy reorganization,
could a viable form of monetary order continue to exist on
this planet.
This means that the following measures must be included
as an absolute precondition for the existence of viable world
monetary and financial order.
1. The cancellation of claims to the most disreputable
categories of nominal debt, such as financial derivatives and
junk bonds, which are to be adjudged morally as claims of
the same nature as gambling debts.
2. The freezing of principal and accruals of interest on
much of the world’s total debt, and forgiveness of large
portions of such debt, as practical and moral considerations
dictate.
3. The reorganization of the world’s monetary and financial structures in a manner consistent with the lessons of
the immediate post-war decades: a new monetary system
whose design is pivotted upon a system of long-term credit
and trade agreements in the range of twenty to twenty-five
years, at prime interest costs not in excess of between 1%
Page 26
and 2% simple interest per annum in agreements between
sovereign national states.
4. A matching array of fixed exchange-rate parities among
currencies, buttressed by capital controls, exchange controls,
and financial regulation, consistent with the experience of
the original Bretton Woods system’s initial two decades of
operation.
5. The creation of large volumes of credit by sovereign
nation-states, for the purpose of promoting those investments both essential forms of public infrastructure and
related hard-commodity private investments needed to bring
levels of employment and output up to levels of sustainable
long-term physical-economic growth.
The great danger today, is presented by the hysterical
demand, especially from implicitly self-ruined financier
interests, that their financial claims be honored promptly and
in full, with disregard for the effects of such demands upon
the victims of such usurious policies. If such demands are
not resisted by aid of the kinds of reforms I have indicated,
this planet will be plunged into a protracted new dark age
for humanity as a whole. By submitting to hysterical demands of such as those self-ruined financier interests, great
empires of the past have been left, shattered, in the sands
of the desert their empires have become. In such matters,
it is the common good which must prevail.
Reprinted from EIR, Feb 16,
3. Globalization and ‘Land Rights’:
The Crown Plot To Loot Australia
by Allen Douglas
I
n the global strategic context defined by the Jan. 20 inauguration of the professedly Anglophile administration of President George W. Bush, the son of that Sir George Bush knighted
by Queen Elizabeth II for his service to British imperial interests,
two seemingly disparate attacks were launched on the associates of American statesman and physical economist Lyndon H.
LaRouche, Jr., one in Brazil, and the other in Australia.
However, both attacks, which occurred within a week of each
other, came from individuals and agencies intimately associated with the Crown; in Brazil, through the local branch of the
Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), founded in 1961 by Prince
Philip and the ex-Nazi, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands,
and, in Australia, through the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation
Commission, whose board is dominated by four members of
Her Majesty’s Privy Council, the ruling body of the British
Empire, now known as the Commonwealth.
In his response, “Look At What Happened in Brazil” (EIR,
Feb. 9, 2001), LaRouche identified the nature of the Crown’s
renewed attacks on him as flowing from a conflict between
two different species. For his part, LaRouche represents the
interests of the human species, as embodied in the existence of
nation-states committed to the general welfare of their populations, while Prince Philip et al. represent an inferior species;
not, as one might suppose, the animal species, for there exists
abundant proof of the WWF helping to eliminate rare animal
species, including through such instruments as Philip’s own
gun,1 but, of another inferior species—the Crown-centered
world financial oligarchy which is committed to pursuing its
own evil, heteronomic interests, including the elimination of
all nation-states, and the reduction of what is left of the human
species to the condition of feudal serfs, or worse.
The assault on LaRouche personally, in Brazil and in Australia, where he has a rapidly growing movement, belies the
Crown’s fear that, under conditions of the accelerating global
financial collapse, LaRouche, whose track record in economic
forecasting is unparalleled in history, might succeed in rallying
resistance to their royally pernicious schemes. Thus, the cry
goes out from Buckingham Palace, across the globe: “Shut That
Man’s Mouth!”2 The present article will provide the background
to the latest attempt to silence LaRouche in Australia.
Her Majesty’s Anti-Defamation Commission
On Jan. 24, the Australian B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation Commission, Inc., which styles itself as “a national Jewish anti-racism
organization,” issued a press release entitled “One Nation Candidate’s Racist Background.” Its ostensible target, to which it devoted
only a tiny portion of the release, was Tony Drake, a candidate of
the One Nation party for the Legislative Assembly in the Western
Australian state elections scheduled for Feb. 10, and formerly a
1. The WWF’s complicity in helping to ensure the near-extinction of the panda,
the elephant, and the rhino, for instance, is documented in “The Oligarchs’ Real
Game Is Killing Animals and Killing People,” by Allen Douglas, in EIR’s Special
Report, “The True Story behind the Fall of the House of Windsor,” September
1997.
member of the Citizens Electoral Council, LaRouche’s associates
in Australia. Almost the entire rest of the release, however, was
devoted to a lying attack on LaRouche.
The ADC complained that Drake “has long been associated with the far-right ‘Citizens Electoral Council’ (CEC), the
Australian arm of the U.S.-based racist Lyndon LaRouche cult,
which believes that the world is on the verge of a great financial
crisis, engineered by the ‘Oligarchy,’ an alleged cabal of Jewish
bankers and usurers.” “Apart from vilifying Jews,” the ADC
continued, “the CEC is an antagonist of multiculturalism, [and]
depicts Aboriginal land rights as a ‘fraud concocted by Prince
Philip to splinter Australia.’ ”
One might pass off the ADC release as the typical sort of
diatribe it has issued against LaRouche repeatedly over the last
decade, characterized by its usual wholesale lying and reckless
disregard for truth, except for one striking new feature: the
board of directors which is listed prominently in the upper-righthand corner of the release, includes four members of Queen
Elizabeth’s Privy Council (signified by the preface “The Right
Honorable”). These include two former prime ministers (The
Right Honorable Bob Hawke and The Right Honorable Malcolm Fraser) and two former Governors General, the Queen’s
personal representative in Australia (The Right Honorable Sir
Ninian Stephen, GCMG, and The Right Honorable Sir Zelman
Cowen, GCMG).
The ADC is one of a stable of nominally Jewish institutions
built up by the brothers Mark and Isi Leibler, Melbourne-based
businessmen (though Isi has recently moved to Israel), and
fanatical, right-wing Zionist extremists, who have dominated
Australia’s Jewish community over the past two decades,
despite often intense opposition within that community itself.
The Leiblers have been bitterly opposed to LaRouche, since
even before his Australian associates opened a full-time office
in Melbourne in October 1992. The Leiblers have also been the
chief proponents, since the early 1990s, of “racial vilification”
legislation on a state and federal level, for which a renewed
drive is presently under way in the state of Victoria, where LaRouche’s movement is headquartered. The legislation stipulates
$30,000 fines and six-month jail sentences, for those deemed
“racist.” The main purpose of such laws is to shut down anyone
opposing the Crown’s dogma of Aboriginal “land rights,” of
which LaRouche has been the chief opponent, both directly, and
through his indirect influence on the One Nation party.
‘Land Rights’: A Right Royal Scam
As in the actions by the Crown’s WWF in Brazil, there has
never been the slightest attempt to refute what LaRouche
or his Australian associates in the CEC have actually said
about “land rights,” or about virtually anything else, for that
2. In mid-1999, the British pro-royal magazine, Take a Break, published an
article entitled “The Queen on LaRouche: ‘Shut That Man’s Mouth!” noting that
Buckingham Palace had become increasingly alarmed at LaRouche’s activities.
The article quotes an unnamed Palace source, that LaRouche represents “the
biggest threat ever to the reputation of the Queen worldwide. Something has to
Page 27
Among her other vast Australian raw materials holdings,
Queen Elizabeth II ("Elizabeth
Regina"—ER) owns a big piece
of the world's largest diamond
mine, as acknowledged in this
article from Australia's main
weekly news magazine The
Bulletin.
matter. Instead, the Crown’s lackeys endlessly repeat their
ludicrous charge that LaRouche and the CEC are “racists”
or “anti-Semitic.” In his article “Look At What Happened in
Brazil,” LaRouche summarized the issues being obscured by
this bodyguard of lies:
“In both Brazil and Australia, one among the leading strategies used by the anti-technology, neo-Malthusian NGOs and
kindred associations, has been to exploit the name of ‘indigenous
peoples’ as a way of conducting enormous tracts of land containing natural resources, out from under the control of the nation
and its elected government, and into the hands, in fact, of private
multinational interests contracting with the representatives of the
so-called ‘indigenous peoples.’ We should compare this, with
what is being done, aided by mercenary’s armies, in takeovers
of large tracts of mineral resources in Brazil’s neighbor, wartorn Sub-Saharan Africa.
“In Australia, it is that use of the ‘indigenous peoples’ variant of
the general WWF line, which is the strategy in the attacks upon
my associates by the Australian Anti-Defamation Commission,
Inc. (ADC), a privately controlled entity whose relevant Board of
Advisors includes four members of the British Privy Council.
“Thus, in the tradition of the British East India Company as
once represented by Lord Shelburne, we have the agents of an
imperial form of political rule, employing entities which are, in
turn, its agents, either as nominally private mercenary armies,
or other forms of private associations, as instruments of, first,
furthering the personal whims of the imperial ruling family
under private covers, and, secondly, denying the ruling family’s
accountability for the actions it so fosters.”
In illustration of LaRouche’s point, we summarize the merest
headlines of the voluminous material on the subject, which both
EIR and LaRouche’s Australian associates have widely circulated over the past decades, during which “land rights” has been
one of the most bitterly contested of Australian public issues.
Fact #1. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the largest noninstitutional shareholder and dominant political power in Rio
Tinto, the largest (or, according to some accounts, the secondlargest) mining company in the world.3
Fact #2. Rio Tinto is the dominant corporate presence on
the continent of Australia, with enormous political power, as
well.4
Fact #3. Rio Tinto has been the single largest funder of “land
rights” over the past several decades, into which it has poured
hundreds of millions of dollars, both directly, and indirectly,
the latter in its capacity as the chief financier for the Australian
Conservation Foundation (ACF), which Prince Philip personally established following his 1963 Royal Tour of Australia, as
Page 28
a de facto branch of his WWF. The ACF, supplemented by an
official WWF-Australia established slightly later, has spawned
the entire “green” and “indigenous” movements now infesting
the country.5
Fact #4. The Queen’s personal representatives, such as the
present Governor General, Sir William Deane, and The Right
Honorables Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser, have played
leading roles in the “land rights” movement, and in the derived “reconciliation process,” whose purpose is to negotiate a
“treaty” between a presumably sovereign Aboriginal “nation”
and the nation of Australia. With the ground well-prepared by
her representatives, the Queen, who is by far the richest woman
in the world, has personally over the past year begun lobbying
for “land rights.”6
Fact #5. Both of the founders of that WWF which has sponsored “land rights,” ostensibly on behalf of the Aborigines, are
notorious racists, as evidenced by Prince Bernhard’s years-long
membership in the Nazi Party, and through Prince Philip’s
seemingly endless racist comments about the “slitty-eyed” Chinese, “wogs,” and numerous similar remarks, which the press
politely refers to as his “gaffes.” As EIR has documented,
the co-founders of the WWF with Philip and Bernhard, such
as Sir Julian Huxley, were officials of the British eugenics
(“race science”) movement, simultaneously with their founding of the WWF.7
In short, Aboriginal “land rights” is a thoroughly racist
movement sponsored by the royal family, and run through
such fronts as Rio Tinto, for the purpose of consolidating
their political control over Australia, and greatly enriching
themselves financially.
Bronfman Downunder
The Anglo-American establishment has had a long-standing
method of dealing with the “LaRouche problem,” as that was
3. The relevant details, and numerous public citations, of the Queen’s financial
interest in Rio Tinto (and in other British multinationals), are summarized in “Stop
the British Crown Plot To Crush Australia’s Unions,” CEC Australia, 1998.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid. Also, “Aboriginal ‘Land Rights’: Prince Philip’s Racist Plot To Splinter
Australia,” CEC Australia, 1997.
6. The involvement of Deane, Hawke, and Fraser in ferociously lobbying for
land rights, is a matter of daily commentary in Australia’s press. The Queen herself
took a leading role in the “land rights” project during the year 2000, by, for the
first time ever, inviting indigenous leaders to Buckingham Palace, and then, later,
during a trip to Australia, by visiting “sovereign” Aboriginal land, bestowing her
de facto recognition, as Australia’s head of state, upon that “sovereignty.”
7. Allen Douglas, “The WWF: Race Science and World Government,” in “The
True Story behind the Fall of the House of Windsor,” op. cit.
The influence of LaRouche in rural Australia
("the bush") terrified the
Australian establishment,
whose media from 1997
on play-ed up Pauline
Hanson and her One Nation party, in an attempt to
supplant him.
explained to EIR investigators back in 1978, by Canon Edward
West, rector of the Episcopalian Cathedral of St. John the Divine
in New York City, the church of most of New York’s financial
and social elite. Said West, “We will not get directly involved.
We will have our Jewish friends at the Anti-Defamation
League deal with Mr. LaRouche and his organization.” One of
the major powers in the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for
decades, has been the Bronfman family of Canada, one of the
Crown’s leading assets in dirty financial dealings since at least
Prohibition, as documented in the bestselling book, Dope, Inc.
In his “Look At What Happened in Brazil,” LaRouche said,
regarding that ADC, the Australian wing of the ADL, which
had attacked him on Jan. 24:
“The connections of the ADC itself cast additional light on the
background for the sundry WWF and related hysteria against
me at this time. Typical are the ADC and related connections
of Canada’s Edgar Bronfman, a one-time booster of East Germany’s Honecker regime. The following documentation, not
only gives additional exposure to evidence of the fraudulent
disregard for truth by WWF’s actions on those two continents,
but points to the nature of the influence which the British Commonwealth’s (Canada’s) Edgar Bronfman has exerted within
Australia through channels associated with the ADC.”
LaRouche then cited extensive documentation of the filthy
role of Bronfman (a major funder and Honorary Vice Chairman of the ADL), in collusion with East German intelligence,
the Stasi, in such projects as the U.S. Department of Justice’s
“Nazi-hunting” legal gestapo, and the U.S.-based public/private
“Get LaRouche” task force which framed up LaRouche and
sent him to jail for five years. All of these operations, through
Bronfman protégé Isi Leibler, were to appear in Australia, as
well, in particular the attack on LaRouche.
In 1992, simultaneously with the CEC establishing its national
office in Melbourne, but before LaRouche’s associates had
much national influence to speak of, Leibler commissioned
a 17-page diatribe against LaRouche in his amusingly titled
Without Prejudice magazine. “There is no doubt,” said the
magazine of the LaRouche movement, “that it has a disruptive
capacity never before seen in this country,” a prophetic warning, given the explosion of LaRouche’s influence in Australia
in subsequent years, as documented below. Leibler himself told
the Australian Jewish News of Nov. 27 of that year, without, as
usual, offering the slightest shred of evidence, that “LaRouche
and his followers seem to be in step with the ugly recrudescence
of the right-wing extremist neo-Nazism which has recently
manifested itself in Germany.”
Isi, the longtime head of the Executive Council of Australian
Jewry, was not merely speaking for himself, nor for “Australian
Jewry.” His rise to fame, in Australia, in Israel, and throughout
Asia, was sponsored by Edgar Bronfman, through Bronfman’s
personal fiefdom, the World Jewish Congress (WJC).
In 1981, Isi, whose service to the Crown was to earn him
an Order of the British Empire, pronounced himself “deeply
honored” that the newly inaugurated WJC president, Edgar
Bronfman, had “personally extended to me” the post of chairman of the WJC’s International Advisory Committee. In
1983, Isi set up the Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs, as a
“research arm” of the WJC; the AIJA, Isi said, was “modeled
upon the Institute for Jewish Affairs in London,” funded by the
ADL, and by the Rothschild family, longtime financiers to the
Crown. The patron of Isi’s AIJA was none other than Sir Zelman
Cowen, formerly the Queen’s Governor General of Australia,
and presently the president of the Advisory Board of that ADC
which just attacked LaRouche! In 1984, Bronfman asked Isi to
set up the Asia Pacific Jewish Association of the WJC—that
is, to head up the WJC’s operations in all of Asia—and then
anointed him, in quick succession, co-chairman and chairman
(in 1996) of the WJC’s Governing Board.
Sir Zelman was not the only longtime crony of Isi to show
up in the present ADC attack on LaRouche. Leibler was also a
longtime close associate and mentor to the economic rationalist Bob Hawke during the latter’s years as Prime Minister of
Australia (1983-89). In May 1988, WJC President Bronfman,
on his first official visit to Australia, gave Hawke the AIJA’s
first Human Rights Award.
The rest of the ADC crowd has been closely intertwined
with Isi, or with brother Mark, as is evident in the ADC’s joint
sponsorship, with Isi’s AIJA, of the annual “Sir Zelman Cowen
Oration.” Additionally, the board of Isi’s AIJA has boasted two
longtime heads of the ADC, while the present ADC Executive
Director, British immigrant Danny Ben-Moshe, previously
worked at Mark’s Australia Israel Review magazine.
As LaRouche emphasized, one of the chief roles which the
Crown has assigned to the Leiblers and their ADC apparatus, is
as enforcers for Aboriginal “land rights.” In 1990, Her Majesty’s
Australian High Court handed down the “Mabo decision,”
which overturned 200 years of law in Australia, and established the right of Aborigines, as Australia’s “indigenous”
inhabitants, to claim virtually any part of the continent, as their
own. The decision stunned many Australians, and there was
Page 29
an uproar against it. Almost immediately, the Leibler brothers
began to lobby for federal “racial discrimination,” or “antivilification” laws, with draconian penalties. As proposed by
the Leiblers (but later passed in less draconian form), anyone
who said anything which could be interpreted as “vilifying”
someone’s “race,” could be heavily fined or thrown in jail
for two years. Such a law is most convenient as a bludgeon
against anyone who criticizes “land rights,” or perhaps Mark
Leibler’s own shady financial dealings, which have repeatedly
erupted into public scandal over the past decade. (Mark is a
tax lawyer for 20% of Australia’s richest citizens, many of
whom are notorious tax evaders.) In April 1998, Mark blasted
the federal government for “refusing to link” the federal Racial
Discrimination Act for which he and Isi had heavily lobbied, to
the Native Title bill, a piece of land rights legislation passed by
the federal parliament to implement the Mabo decision.
The Leiblers were not merely doing a favor for the Crown:
Mark Leibler’s law firm employed one Noel Pearson, whom the
March 3, 1997 Australian Financial Review called “Australia’s
foremost Aboriginal land rights negotiator,” whom Rio Tinto
executives have lauded to the skies.
The Role of ‘One Nation’
The Jan. 24, 2001 ADC press release concluded with the following: “One Nation has endeavored to portray themselves as
having shed their racist associations,” but, the ADC demanded,
“If One Nation is serious about addressing the problem of racism in their ranks, they should immediately disendorse Mr.
Drake.”
The ADC attack followed by only a few days a similar one by
Western Australian Premier Richard Court. On Jan. 19, in the
context of the Feb. 10 state election, Court charged, regarding
the Curtin Labor Alliance (an electoral alliance of the Citizens
Electoral Council and the Municipal Employees Union of
Western Australia), “We find some of their policies and statements quite racist,” arguing, as the ADC had clearly implied,
that One Nation were much preferable to the LaRouche-linked
CLA. Both statements raised more than a few eyebrows in
Australia: first, because there is an unwritten rule of Australian politics, since 1996, to never mention LaRouche publicly;
and second, because from 1998 until recently, One Nation had
been denounced, by the ADC—as by the often-terrified major
parties—as the Devil himself, because the party had drawn
over 1.2 million votes in the October 1998 federal election, and
had caused the biggest uproar in Australian politics in decades,
upsetting the cozy arrangements between the Australian Labor
Party and the ruling Liberal/National Party Coalition. Now, all
of a sudden, some of the leading figures in Australian politics—
led by two former Governors General and two former Prime
Ministers—were publicly naming LaRouche as more dangerous than the hated One Nation. To appreciate this emerging
phase-shift in Australian politics, it is necessary to review some
history, in which key figures on the ADC’s board have played
decisive roles.
In 1983, ALP Prime Minister Bob Hawke overturned the
protectionist, national banking tradition which had characterized
his party, and the nation in general, for several decades. Using
plans drawn up by the Australian think-tanks of the Crown’s
London-based Mont Pelerin Society,8 Hawke dropped tariffs,
Page 30
The Citizens Electoral Council has published extensive documentation
on the British Crown's operation against Australia, and on the Crown's
use of Australia as its marcher-lord against Asia.
floated the Australian dollar, and generally ushered Australia
into what later became known as “globalization.” A new phase
of globalization was opened in the wake of the 1990 High
Court’s Mabo decision, through the “land rights” scam, under
which as much as 75% of Australia was claimed.
As rage built in the country over these policies, LaRouche’s
Australian associates opened a full-time office in Melbourne
in late 1992, and poured out millions of pieces of literature
throughout the country over the next few years. Despite bitter
opposition by the Leiblers and their friends, LaRouche’s influence soared, particularly in rural Australia, where the globalist
policies had hit hardest, and where the CEC had most of its
members. In mid-1996, the situation exploded, when thenDeputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer, within hours after meeting
a high-level British government official, launched an all-out
attack on LaRouche, charging (falsely) that LaRouche had organized a 150,000 person anti-gun-control rally in Melbourne.
Fischer blustered, in press conferences in Canberra and also in
Washington, D.C., “There is no place in Australia for the sort
of ideas associated with Lyndon LaRouche.”
The Leibler brothers called for a federal parliamentary inquiry
into the CEC, while circulating bucketfuls of lies, such as that
LaRouche was “linked to right-wing death squads in Spain.”
However, LaRouche himself appeared on Australian radio and
TV and calmly dismissed Fischer’s and Mark and Isi Leibler’s
hysterical slanders, and identified the real nature of the battle as
being between the “old Labor” tradition of Australia’s heroic
wartime Prime Minister John Curtin, and his collaboration
with Gen. Douglas MacArthur and President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, against the sabotage of Winston Churchill, to win
the war in the Pacific.
Then, word went out, that LaRouche should never again
be publicly mentioned in Australian politics.
But the issue that remained, was, how to control his influence. Soon after, in 1997, the major Australian media,
8. The role of the Crown’s Mont Pelerin Society in establishing the major
Australian economic think-tanks, and its takeover of both major Australian
parties, is documented in “Stop the British Crown Plot To Crush Australia’s
Unions,” op. cit.
Edgar Bronfman's protégé, Isi Leibler (far left; center, right) and the Queens
Privy Councillor, Sir Zelman Cowen (far right), Patron of Leibler's AIJA, have
slandered LaRouche as a “racist”' and are pushing “anti-racism” laws to
muzzle his associates in the CEC.
dominated by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer, two multibillionaires closely tied to the Crown, chose to lionize a previously unheard-of former fish-and-chips shop owner from rural
Queensland, Pauline Hanson, who had managed to win a seat
in the federal parliament. In one memorable speech in Parliament, Hanson blasted the fraud of Aboriginal land rights, using
material unmistakably drawn from LaRouche’s associates. She
charged, “There is no doubt the long-term goal of the Aboriginal
industry is to create a separate indigenous nation within Australia,” as had effectively been done already in Canada, with
the creation of the “Nunavut” nation for the Inuit indigenous
people. In her speeches and press releases, she also called for
the restoration of tariffs, the “reindustrialization of Australia,”
the re-establishment of a national bank, and other economic
nationalist measures—measures which had been previously
uniquely associated with LaRouche’s friends in the CEC.
The coincidence of Hanson’s ideas with those of LaRouche
did not go unnoticed. As the Brisbane Courier Mail noted on
Aug. 26, 1998, “But she does have ideas, alas, and her ideas
are essentially those of the CEC.” Or, as well-known journalist Philip Adams wrote in the Weekend Australian of May 3-4,
1997, “It’s been noted that Pauline Hanson’s memorable maiden
speech was chocker with policies that bore an eerie resemblance
to those of Lyndon LaRouche.”
Hanson showed courage in her attacks on the establishment’s
pet projects. However, the major media could have simply
blacked her out, and that would have been the end of the
story—she had no mass organization whatsoever. By choosing to attack her, particularly given the enormous anger against
globalization and land rights, and the well-known Australian
tradition of supporting the underdog, Murdoch and Packer made
her a heroine among working class and rural Australians—as
any fool could have predicted. After hundreds of millions of
dollars of effectively free advertising had made Hanson and
her One Nation party household words, many commentators
openly admitted the obvious—that the media itself had created
the “Hanson phenomenon.” Then, in the Queensland state election in June 1998, Hanson’s One Nation party exploded into
prominence when it won 11 seats in the 89-seat parliament, and
was predicted to win as many as 12 seats in the October 1998
federal elections.
The Leibler crowd went nuts, and attacked Hanson as “racist” and “anti-Semitic.” The Leiblers’ attacks drew fire, even
from leaders of Jewish Holocaust survivors’ organizations. One
Holocaust survivor, Walter Dohan, denounced Leibler’s actions:
“I don’t think Pauline Hanson would have done any damage to
the Jews. She has never said anything anti-Semitic. Why are we
attacking someone who’s never attacked us?”
The issue, of course, was economic policy.
Globalism versus the Nation-State
In a 1998 article entitled, “Only Hanson Defends the NationState,” longtime columnist for the Melbourne Age, Kenneth
Davidson, noted the obvious: that the rise of One Nation was
due to the “globalization, privatization, and competition [deregulation] agenda” embraced by both major parties. The title
of Davidson’s article was disingenuous: The establishment
had summoned up the energies of a populist mob, One Nation,
precisely in order to avoid a far more dangerous threat—an
emerging mass movement based upon the ideas of Lyndon
LaRouche, in particular the notion that every man and woman
has a divine spark of reason.9 However, through ways which
9. Hanson has since dropped, or played down nearly into non-existence, most
of the key policies upon which One Nation rose to power, including her onceoutspoken opposition to “land rights,” and virtually all of the party’s economic
nationalist planks. As One Nation advisers told CEC officials, “They cause a lot of
controversy and division.” It is no wonder that the Australian media have recently
been, once again, lionizing Hanson.
Page 31
the establishment had clearly not foreseen—including when
Hanson dumped her earliest, establishment-provided advisers, and adopted others not so owned—One Nation became
a Frankenstein’s monster. Thus, the explosion in the party’s
influence after the June 1998 Queensland election began to
cause shifts and realignments even within the major parties,
and a distinct slowing down of the rate of implementation
of “economic rationalism,” as globalist policies are known
in Australia.
With a federal election only months away, Her Majesty’s
Privy Councillors—precisely those later involved with the
ADC—swung into action. The Right Honorable Bob Hawke
organized a coalition of business, union, community, and
church leaders, including longtime Rio Tinto board member
Sir Gustav Nossal, around an hysterical manifesto denouncing
One Nation, which was a paean to globalism.
The Right Honorable Malcolm Fraser jumped in as well, and
issued a heretofore unthinkable call, on the alleged basis that
“racism is so great an evil that to prevent racism from having an
influence in Australia within the body politic,” for the allegedly
bitter enemies, the ALP and the Coalition, to form a government
of national unity, based on a shared economic policy, to stop One
Nation. The major banks were terrified; Citibank, for instance,
issued an hysterical report globally, warning that foreign investment would plummet and the Australian stock market, its dollar,
and interest rates, could come under widespread attack.
Royal Honors versus Australian Patriotism
The LaRouche-triggered rise of One Nation represented
the biggest upsurge in Australian economic nationalism since
the early 1970s Labor government of Prime Minister Gough
Whitlam, whom the Queen dumped from power.
Contrary to the carefully cultivated image of a kindly old
soul, who spends her time at tea parties and in endless rounds
of meaningless ceremonies, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
commands far more concentrated power than any elected (or
hereditary) head of state in the world, as EIR documented in
its September 1997 Special Report, “The True Story behind
the Fall of the House of Windsor.” This is so, by virtue of the
position of the Queen and her Consort Prince Philip, atop the
Club of the Isles, a City of London-centered world financial
combine which controls an estimated $9 trillion in assets; and
by virtue of the formal powers invested in her as Queen of Great
Britain and the sovereign of a dozen other countries, including
Australia, and as de facto head of the 54-member-nation British
Commonwealth. For instance, according to what are known as
her Prerogative Powers, the Queen alone may declare war at
her pleasure; as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, she
may appoint all commanders and officers of all services; she
may convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve Parliament; she
may dismiss the prime minister and choose whom she will as
replacement, etc., etc.
These powers are customarily exercised through, and with
the advice of the Privy Council, which body stands above the
Parliament, and serves as the ruling body of the British Empire/
Commowealth. Thus, the fact that the Advisory Board of the
Anti-Defamation Commission boasts four Privy Councillors,
signifies the actual provenance of the ADC’s attack on LaRouche. To maintain her image as “above the fray,” the Queen
Page 32
prefers to exercise her powers at apparent arms-length, than to
act in her own name.
The method of her attack on LaRouche, through such right
royal toadies, calls to mind the methods through which the
Crown in 1975 dumped Whitlam, who was moving to “buy
back the farm”—to take back sovereign control of Australia’s
vast mineral deposits from Crown-allied multinationals, in order
to industrialize the continent. With the complicity of The Right
Honorable Malcolm Fraser, then the leader of the Opposition,
and under cover of a nominal deadlock in Parliament (which
was in the process of being solved), Governor General Sir John
Kerr, the Queen’s personal representative in Australia (who thus
holds her Prerogative Powers), suddenly sacked Whitlam, in
one of the most shocking events of Australian political history.
Astounded, tens of thousands poured out into the streets, as
Fraser took over as Prime Minister.
But, the deed was done, and it involved precisely the same
“honorable” entities as in the ADC attack on LaRouche. As
Whitlam himself noted, in his memoirs, “The explanation of
Sir John’s priorities and preoccupations lies in the complex
hierarchy of Imperial Honours,” that is, the Crown-centered
pecking order denoted by such titles as “The Right Honorable,”
and suffixed initials such as “GCMG” (signifying one of only
120 Knights Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of
St. Michael and St. George, including the ADC’s Sir Ninian
Stephen and Sir Zelman Cowen).
Kerr claimed that he never consulted the Queen in dismissing
Whitlam, but only his superior in the Order of St. Michael and St.
George, Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court,
and the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, the
local arm of Prince Philip’s WWF. Buckingham Palace claimed
ignorance of Sir John’s actions. However, as Sir John himself
proudly recorded in his autobiography, the Queen showered him
with honors shortly after the sacking: “I was sworn in as a member
of Her Majesty’s Privy Council at a meeting presided over by the
Queen.” Not only did she elevate him to the Grand Cross of St.
Michael and St. George, she dubbed him a member of the Royal
Victorian Order, which ranks below only the Order of the Garter and
the Order of the Thistle. Membership in the RVO is conveyed solely
at the discretion of the Queen, without any recommendations from
any of her governments, as is the case with lower-ranking orders.
As Whitlam noted drily, after Sir John Kerr sacked him, Kerr “had
become in a single annus mirabilis The Right Hon. Sir John Kerr,
A.K. GCMG, GCVO, KSt. J.”
The old Australian Labor Party maintained a proud tradition
among its members, of refusing all “imperial honors,” because
they realized that the “honor system” opened the pathway to
treason. For the same reason, the American Founding Fathers
wrote a Constitution that expressly forbids American citizens to
accept any titles bestowed by a foreign power. Notwithstanding
the Constitution, President George W. Bush’s father was dubbed
Sir George Bush by the Queen, and made an Honorary Knight
Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath—the highest award which
can be given to a non-subject of her realm. President George W.
Bush’s Administration is largely made up of the associates of
his father, Sir George, including Secretary of State Sir Colin
Powell.
Such are the dishonorable roots of the recent attacks on
LaRouche in Australia.
Reprinted from New Citizen Vol 4 No 10 August 1998
4. The Leibler brothers and the Australia/Israel Review:
Economic rationalism, dope and land rights
Introduction
T
he July 8-28 issue of the sleazy little rag, the Australia/
Israel Review carried a list of names of 2000 members
of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party, in a blatant attempt
to terrorize those average citizens who had expressed their
concerns about where this country is heading, by joining One
Nation. This is not the first time AIR has pulled this trick; it
has previously published not only the names of supporters of
the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), but also the amounts
of money those individuals contributed to the CEC.
This time, however, a chorus of outrage, including from
the Jewish community, greeted AIR’s latest despicable act
under chairman Mark Leibler. Most scathing were survivors of the Holocaust. Marika Weinberger, a survivor of the
Auschwitz death camp and president of the Australian Jewish
Holocaust Survivors, told the Australian Jewish News (AJN)
of July 17, 1998, that the publication was “irresponsible...
It has caused division. It did not achieve any good, and
it is not becoming of us. It is not the way Jews operate.”
“Nine members of my mother’s family were taken away,”
continued Ms. Weinberger, “because their names appeared
on a list. About 22,000 Hungarian
Jews were taken away because
their names were on lists. Jews
should know better.” Another
Holocaust survivor, Mr. Sam
Spitzer from Sydney, told the
AJN that AIR’s publishing the
lists “has done more harm to
the Australian Jewish community than Pauline Hanson
could do in 100 years.” Said Mr.
Spitzer, “I condemn the publication of the list. It
has injected fear and anguish into Holocaust survivors and
resulted in personal insecurity and angst. Their actions are
unforgivable... they have harmed the Jewish community”.
But most to the point was the question asked by Holocaust survivor Walter Dohan: “I don’t think Pauline Hanson
would have done any damage to the Jews. She has never
said anything anti-Semitic. Why are we attacking someone
who’s never attacked us?”
Who and what does AIR really represent?
A
s even the acting president of the Executive Council
of Australian Jewry, Peter Wertheim—who defended
AIR’s publication of the list—had to acknowledge in the July
17, 1998 AJN, the AIR “is a privately-owned publication. It
does not represent or speak for the Jewish community...” The
truth is, that despite its high falutin’ name, AIR represents
neither Australia, nor Israel, nor anyone but the people who
set it up—the Leibler brothers, Mark and Isi, their small
circle of ultra-wealthy associates (See Table 1), and implicitly, Australia’s financial oligarchy, for which Mark serves
as the tax accountant. The Leiblers use AIR for hatchet jobs
against those whom they, and the financial oligarchy they
serve as frontmen, want to destroy.
And, as we shall demonstrate in this, and in an accompanying article “Taxation lawyer Mark Leibler: Robin Hood
in reverse”, AIR boss Mark Leibler is up to his eyeballs in
activities destructive to this nation, including economic rationalism, the tax avoidance industry on a staggering scale,
the legalisation of deadly drugs, and Aboriginal land rights,
from the latter of which Leibler is personally making a tidy
bundle, as he has from the tax avoidance industry. The issue
is not one of “race”, nor of religion: these are economic poli-
cies by which the average Australian is being looted to the
benefit of the Leiblers and their ultra-wealthy friends. The
Leiblers are hysterical about Pauline Hanson, and even more
so about American physical economist Lyndon LaRouche,
because both have proposed policies of economic nationalism which are anathema to the Leiblers and their backers,
because it would stop the looting of this country.
Futhermore, to the extent that the Leiblers and their friends
represent anything whatsoever within the Australian Jewish
community, it is only a very narrow section of it, that most
clearly identified historically with the notorious Jewish
fascist of the 1920s and 1930s, Vladimir Jabotinsky, the
man whom Israeli founding father David Ben Gurion used
to refer to as “Vladimir Hitler”.
But the real secret to the Leiblers’ influence lies with
their powerful sponsors: they are part of a London-directed
international “anti-defamation” apparatus associated with
Canadian booze baron Edgar Bronfman’s World Jewish
Congress, and with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai
B’rith, an ostensibly U.S.-based organisation which is in fact
directed from London. And both of these, in turn, are merely
thugs for the London-centred global financial oligarchy.
Page 33
The AIR: In the beginning...
I
n the wake of the 1973 ArabIsraeli war, Isi Leibler began
a crusade against “pro-Palestinian” or alleged “anti-Semitic”
influences in the labour movement, in trade unions and in the
universities. He gave a famous
speech in 1974, “The Escalation
of Anti-Israel and Anti-Semitic
agitation in Australia”, in which
Isi Leibler
he said that “I intend to personally devote the bulk of my communal activity in the immediate future towards assisting in this area”, and emphasised
that “Mr. [Sam] Lipski’s Australia-Israel Publications Office
...will be required to act in this area immediately.” According
to a standard history, The Jews in Australia by Prof. W.D.
Rubinstein, who himself served on AIR’s board as well as
on the board of the Isi Leibler-founded Australian Institute
of Jewish Affairs (AIJA), “The first effort in this direction
[to implement Leibler’s speech] was the establishment of
the fortnightly Australia/Israel Review by Australia/Israel
Publications (AIP) in 1976 under the Directorship of Isador
Magid and the late Robert Zablud, Jewish leaders who have
been close to Israel for many years. Its first editor was Sam
Lipski, the well-known journalist (with Yehuda Svoray
playing a prominent role); more recently Michael Danby
(as editor) and Dr. Colin Rubenstein of Monash University
(as Chairman of the Editorial Committee) have headed its
operation...”
Isi gave a big push to the AIP in the early days, while
brother Mark helped secure AIR’s office on St. Kilda
Road, Melbourne. Early funding came from the Zionist
Federation of Australia and from the United Israel Appeal.
Table 1
The Oligarchs behind the AIR
This sleazy little rag represents only the following superwealthy elitists and a few of their friends, who are now, or
have been leading figures in the AIR and/or its parent body
chaired by Mark Leibler, the Australia Israel Jewish Affairs
Council (formerly Australia/Israel Publications, AIP). The
fact that they are nominally Jewish is purely incidental; they
represent what the old Labor Party used to call the “Money
Power”, which is entirely ecumenical.
NAME
NET WORTH*
Frank Lowy, key figure in Sydney AIR
operations Australia’s 2nd richest man after
$2.1 billion
Kerry Packer
Isador Magid, co-founder of AIP, with Ja$165 million
botinsky follower Robert Zablud
Solomon Lew, key figure in Melbourne
AIR operations
$600 million
Isi Leibler, called for founding of AIR
$80 million
Mark Leibler, present chairman of AIR.
Net worth unknown, but represents 40
people on BRW “200 Rich List”, and several of Australia’s top corporations.
Unknown
* According to the May 25, 1998 “Rich 200"
list in the Business Review Weekly
Though Isi and Mark have had their well-publicised spats,
their organisations have been very close: there have been
frequent discussions over the years about merging Isi’s
AIJA with Australia/Israel Publications (AIP), the original
parent company for the AIR, which is now known as the
Australia Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), and which
Revisionist Zionism
A
s noted, AIR represents only a minority—and extremist—viewpoint within the Australian Jewish community, one most closely identified historically with the
“Revisionist” current of Zionism associated with Vladimir
Jabotinsky, whether all AIR personnel formally call themselves Revisionists, or not. But the founder of AIR was precisely such a fanatical Revisionist, Robert Zablud. Former
longtime AIR editor Michael Danby eulogised Zablud,
whom he called the “organisational genius” behind AIP/
AIR, in the 19 September-2 October 1989 AIR, noting that
Zablud’s vision of Judaism was inspired by “his mentor
Zeev Jabotinsky”, whom Danby called “a much misunderstood centre-right Zionist ideologue.” Mr. Danby was a tad
polite—Vladimir Jabotinsky was a well-known admirer of
Italian fascist Benito Mussolini in Italy in the 1920s and
1930s, who even founded a legion of “black shirts” modeled on Mussolini’s and Hitler’s fascist gangs, at a training
ground Mussolini gave him in Civitavecchia, Italy. Israeli
founding father and first prime minister David Ben Gurion
used to regularly refer to Jabotinsky, the spiritual father of
“Revisionist Zionism” which gave birth to the terrorist Irgun
and Stern gangs in the 1930s, as “Vladimir Hitler.” The priPage 34
vate secretary to Jabotinsky in
the 1930s was Benzion Netanyahu, the father of Israel’s current prime minister, Binyamin
Netanyahu, who has inherited
Jabotinsky’s outlook, and who
has therefore all but destroyed
the Arab-Israeli peace process.
Jabotinsky-admirer Zablud held
numerous Zionist positions in Israeli Prime Minister BinAustralia, including President yamin Netanyahu threatens
plunge the Middle East
of the State Zionist Council of to
into war.
Victoria, and then President of
the Zionist Federation of Australia, a post later held for a
decade by Mark Leibler, now chairman of AIR.
Not surprisingly, the Leiblers have had bitter differences
with the pro-peace faction in Israel. Mark and Isi had for
many years appointed themselves to represent the government of Israel, in their dealings with governments of the
Asia/Pacific region, including that of Australia, until Prime
Minister Yitzhak Rabin told Isi in an early 1993 meeting in
Israel that they should drop that role. According to the Aus-
tralian Jewish News of 22/1/93, “He
[Rabin] has told Executive Council
of Australia Jewry president Isi
Leibler that, while he appreciates the
Australian Jewish community’s past
efforts, government-to-government
relations should be left to Israel’s
embassy.” The AJN said Rabin was
specifically talking about Leibler’s
ECAJ and the Zionist Federation
of Australia, then headed by Mark
Leibler, whom Rabin did not want
“approaching Canberra unilaterally with letters, statements, or
delegations which may influence
the frequency, tone or content of
the Australian government’s official
statements on Israel and the Middle
East.”
Whether because of this snub, or
for other reasons, Isi caused a huge
scandal in the Australian Jewish
community when, on August 29
1995, he issued an unprecedented
open letter to Rabin in which he castigated the Israeli prime minister for
allegedly using “the most abusive
and offensive language” about the
fanatical West Bank settlers movement. In November, 1995, a member of that movement assassinated
Rabin, in a process which ultimately
brought Binyamin Netanyahu to
power, and with him, the end of the
Oslo Accords. Isi could not contain
his excitement at Netanyahu’s election, congratulating him for “fighting an uphill battle under enormous
handicaps. You amazed the world
with what can only be described as
an absolutely stunning victory.” In
1986, Netanyahu had been a guest
of the AIR in Melbourne.
Though the Leiblers are closest
to the Jabotinsky strain of Zionism,
their ultimate allegiance is to nothing within Judaism, but to what
the old Labor Party used to call the
“Money Power”, centred in the City
Australian Jewish News
22 January 1993
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin in 1993 told Isi and
Mark Leibler to drop their
self-serving representation of
Israel to governments in the
Asia/Pacific region. In August
1995, Isi defended the fanatical “settlers’ movement” in a
bitter public attack on Rabin;
three months later, one of
that movement assassinated
Rabin.
Table 2
Mark Leibler’s Clients
Mark Leibler, chairman of the Australian Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), which
publishes Australia/Israel Review, represents neither “Australia”, nor “Israel”, but Australia’s
corporate and financial oligarchy. He is on the board of retailing giant Coles Myer, which is,
after Rio Tinto, the second most important corporate “kindergarten” in the country, whose
trainees have fanned out to take control over many other companies. As a “taxation specialist”
and the senior partner in the Melbourne law firm of Arnold Bloch Leibler, some of his clients
were described in a June 26, 1987 article in the Australian Financial Review:
“Arnold Bloch Leibler has traditionally been a firm that serviced the Melbourne Jewish
community—the likes of Hooker’s George Herscu, Visyboard’s Richard Pratt, Entrad’s Abe
Goldberg, Sussan’s Marc Besen, developer and prominent businessman John Gandel, Leon
Fink of Hoyts and the prominent Melbourne Liberman family.”
Let us look at these figures, and what happened to them and their fortunes over the last
decade, as the average Australian farmer, trade unionist and small businessman were
being smashed economically. Bear in mind that these are only a tiny fraction of Leibler’s
clients—Mark has publicly stated that 40 of his ultra-wealthy clients are members of BRW’s
“Rich 200" list, which starts at $60 million. Asked by the 7:30 Report on July 8, 1996 if any
of his ultra-wealthy clients pay as little as $20,000 per year in taxes, Leibler responded,
“It’s possible some do...”
NAME
EARLIER WEALTH
PRESENT WEALTH*
George Herscu $500 million (1989)
Hooker collapsed in 1989 and
Herscu was sentenced to five
years jail for bribery.
Richard Pratt
$70 million (1984)
$1.8 billion (1998) Australia’s
third richest person.
Abe Goldberg
$20 million (1984)
$250 million (1989); now a fugi-
tive from Australia
Marc Besen
$30 million (1983)
$535 million (1998)
John Gandel
$40 million (1984)
$600 million (1997)
Leon Fink
$50 million (1987)
$185 million (1990)
$30 million (1984)
$750 million (1998)
Liberman family
* Figures from various BRW “Rich 200" lists
The “Money Power” and Economic Rationalism
From the very beginning, our nation has been defined
by the struggle of “old Labor” to free the nation from the
“Money Power”. The nature of that power was adequately
described in the following editorial in the Brisbane Worker
of January 5, 1907:
“The Money Power! It is the greatest power on earth; and
it is arrayed against Labour. No other power that is or ever
was can be named with it...It attacks us through the Press—a
monster with a thousand lying tongues, a beast surpassing
in foulness any conceived by the mythology that invented
dragons, wehr wolves, harpies, ghouls and vampires. It
thunders against us from innumerable platforms and pulpits.
The mystic machinery of the churches it turns into an engine
of wrath for our destruction.
Page 35
“Yes, so far as we are concerned, the headquarters of the
Money Power is Britain. But the Money Power is not a
British institution; it is cosmopolitan. It is of no nationality,
but of all nationalities. It dominates the world. The Money
Power has corrupted the faculties of the human soul, and
tampered with the sanity of the human intellect...”
Labor theoretician and longtime MP Frank Anstey made
clear that the problem was not “Capitalism”: “The ‘Money
Power’ is something more than Capitalism... These men
constitute ‘The Financial Oligarchy,’ ” he said, warning that
“No nation can be really free where this financial oligarchy
is permitted to hold dominion, and no ‘democracy’ can be
aught but a name that does not shake it from its throne.”
That the Leibler brothers work for the London-centred
Money Power becomes clear in an examination of their
sponsors and connections. (See Table 4) Take Isi, for instance, a Commander of the British Empire. As the literature
of his Australian Institute of Jewish Affairs (AIJA), founded
in 1983 by himself and Richard Pratt, says, the AIJA is “a
research-based organisation modeled on the internationally
renowned Institute of Jewish Affairs [IJA] in London.” The
leading force behind the IJA is Lord Jacob Rothschild, who
is also the sponsor and creator of megaspeculator George
Soros, whose hedge funds are comprised of the wealth of
ultra-wealthy families, including the Queen herself, whose
private fortune is estimated at between US$25-50 billion.
(2)
Soros and his backers have made a fortune attacking the
currencies of South East Asia (including Australia) and have
thrown untold hundreds of millions of people into misery,
while lining their own pockets.
Isi’s rise to fame and fortune as an alleged “leader of
world Jewry” has been sponsored by the Bronfman family
of Canada, who are closely associated with Rothschild’s
IJA and who have themselves been retainers for the Brit-
E
ish oligarchy for decades. Isi is the co-chairman of the
World Jewish Congress, whose longtime chief official has
been Edgar Bronfman, chief executive of Seagrams liquor
company. Bronfman’s WJC, like Isi’s Australian outfits,
represents not “world Jewry”, but merely the interests of
Bronfman and his associates. In 1981 Isi pronounced himself
“deeply honoured” that newly inaugurated WJC president
Edgar Bronfman had “personally extended to me” the post
of chairman of the WJC’s International Advisory Committee.
In 1984 Bronfman gave Isi another boost when he asked him
to set up the Asia Pacific Jewish Association of the WJC.
So, who is Edgar Bronfman? One entire chapter of the
bestselling book, Dope, Inc. is devoted to the history of the
notorious Bronfmans of Canada, who got their start during
the American Prohibition in the 1920s running liquor from
Canada into the U.S., which they secured from the wealthy
Attack dogs for the Money Power
ver notice how the leaders or
founders of the key violence-prone
groups in Australia are all British?
The headquarters of the Money Power,
remember, is the City of London,
whose local subsidiary is Melbourne.
Lawfully, therefore, that is where the
pommie-led violence-prone groups
are all based. Their job is to whip up
violent demonstrations against those
advocating economic policies—such
as national banking, protective tariffs, etc.—which their Money Power
masters detest. The poms below,
the leaders or founders of the major
violence-prone groups in this country,
have been repeatedly deployed against
the Citizens Electoral Council, against
Pauline Hanson, or against both:
Page 36
Yukking it up at a 1989 reception at Arnold Bloch Leibler law firm
in Melbourne. From left to right: Second Commissioner of Taxation
Brian Nolan, a Leibler crony; Governor-General Bill Hayden; fanatic
economic rationalist and billionaire Richard Pratt; Mark Leibler, bookkeeper for the rich and famous; and Rowena Stratton from Kerry
Packer’s Bulletin.
Steve Jolly: The head of the far-left
“Militant” Trotskyist group. Jolly was,
curiously enough, present at Tiananmen Square for the bloody demonstration in 1989. He has led violent demonstrations in Victoria, and has most
recently spearheaded demonstrations
to shut down Pauline Hanson’s meetings. The powers that really stand
behind Jolly are reflected in his recent
comment to the Age of July 25, 1998,
about how he would sue the Victorian
police. “Next April we are suing them
in court—civil action. We have a lot of
top lawyers who will work for us for
nothing.” (emphasis added)
David Glanz: The Melbourne-based
head of the International Socialist
Organisation (ISO), which has had re-
peated bloody clashes with the police.
Glanz is also head of the ISO front,
“Brunswick against the Nazis” and
similar “anti-fascist” organisations.
David Greason: Australia/Israel
Review columnist Greason helped
found both of Australia’s major neo-nazi
groups, the National Front (a spin-off of
the British National Front) and National
Action, both of which serve as convenient foils for counter-demonstrations
by such as Jolly and Glanz. Greason,
who has been a featured speaker for
the ISO, is also a correspondent for
the notorious MI5 front, Searchlight
magazine in London. Greason is too
pathetic to carry out physical assaults
himself, so he uses his pen or his
mouth to incite others.
old English and Scottish families in Britain who owned
distilleries. As Dope, Inc. documents, the Bronfmans have
played a leading role ever since in international organised
crime. Reflecting their original British patronage during
Prohibition, the Bronfmans’ financial empire is not controlled by themselves, but by the famous Eagle Star Insurance
company, which is dominated by leading members of the
British oligarchy.
Further insight into the Bronfmans is afforded by a look
at their longtime family attorney, Maj. Louis Mortimer
Bloomfield of Montreal (now deceased), who was also a
leading figure for many years in the Rothschilds’ IJA. As
documented in Dope, Inc., Bloomfield was investigated by
New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison for coordinating the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy,
through the Permindex corporation Bloomfield ran. After
LaRouche’s associates in the late 1970s first published
information linking the Bronfman family to drug-running,
Maj. Louis Bloomfield’s brother angrily attacked a member
of the LaRouche organisation in Montreal, exclaiming, “Do
you know who we represent?! We represent the old families
of England!”
Bronfman is also a top leader in the U.S.-based AntiDefamation League of B’nai B’rith. The ADL showed its
colours, yet again, in 1985 when it gave its prized “Torch
of Liberty” award to Las Vegas businessman Morris Barney
“Mo” Dalitz, who for decades had been the right hand man of
gangster Meyer Lansky, the head of the U.S. organised crime
Syndicate. Dalitz and his gangster friends were leading
contributors to the ADL; the ADL’s bank, from the earliest
days was Sterling National Bank in New York, which was
set up by Meyer Lansky’s lieutenant, Frank Erickson.
The Leibler machine’s ties to the London-centred Money
Power are exemplified in the outlook and activities of an
associate of both Leiblers, Prof. W.D. Rubinstein, a longtime
AIR board member, a member of the Academic Advisory
Panel of Isi’s AIJA, and a member of the editorial board of
the IJA’s Patterns of Prejudice magazine. Together with his
wife Hilary, Rubinstein authored the two-volume The Jews
in Australia, which was financed by Isi’s AIJA. Rubinstein is
not an incidental figure: in the Jews of Australia he bragged
about himself, “It is no secret...that Professor Rubinstein
has been intimately involved with the leadership of the
Australian Jewish community for over ten years, often at
the most senior levels of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies. It is
not an exaggeration to claim that in the 1980s no Australian
academic has been closer to Australian Jewry’s most senior
leadership and there have been few major decisions taken
by the community’s representative bodies with which he
has not been thoroughly familiar and, very often, closely
involved.”
Rubinstein has been particularly deeply involved in “antidefamation” work (see below). But it is his professional life,
which is most revealing: he is a chronicler and apologist
for the elite families of England, and of the power of the
City of London, beginning with his article, “Wealth, Elites,
and the Class Structure of Modern Britain,” and continuing through the books, Capitalism, Culture and Decline
Table 3
Mark Leibler: Bean counter for the “Big
End of Town”
The 1990 interim report of the federal government’s Martin
Committee entitled “Tax Payers or Tax Players” identified 15
Australian companies as big users of tax havens. As reported in
the Age of Sept. 26, 1990, “The 15 all had either $20 million or
20 per cent of their profits derived in tax havens,” so as to avoid
or miminise taxes. Mark Leibler was a tax adviser for several of
these fifteen, two of whom had him on retainer.
News Corporation
Bond Corporation
Pioneer
Elders IXL
Goodman Fielder
FAI Insurance
James Hardie
Hooker Corporation
Bell Resources
ANZ Bank
TNT
CIG
Hanimex
Leighton Holdings
Ariadne
Of the above, some things should be noted. The fate of Alan
Bond, of course, is well known. Hooker Corporation collapsed in
1989, and its boss, George Herscu was sent to jail. An Australian
Security Commission investigation into irregular transactions at
Ariadne castigated senior management, and Ariadne boss, New
Zealander Bruce Judge left Queensland for the south of France.
Leibler reportedly represented Elders, which held an astonishing
113.2% of its total profits in tax havens in 1988. Elders boss John
Elliott, a key pioneer of economic rationalism in Australia, was
investigated at length by the National Crime Authority, while the
chief lobby group in this country for the legalisation of dope, the
Australian Drug Foundation, was founded in ANZ’s board room.
News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch, as a board member of
the notorious Tasman Institute, has also been one of the most
vociferous advocates of economic rationalism in Australia. (For
Murdoch and Elliott’s roles in introducing economic rationalism
into Australia, see Stop the British Crown plot to crush Australia’s
unions.)
Table 4
The British Money Power
The power of the Leibler crowd has been greatly magnified
by the financial backing from two British-tied financial institutions, 1) the ANZ Bank, which was headquartered in London
until 1977, and which made hundreds of millions of dollars of
loans to the clients of Arnold Bloch Leibler, the law firm headed
by the British-born Arnold Bloch, and 2) the Tricontinental Bank
of Victoria, founded by Sir Ian Potter, a raving Anglophile and
dominant figure in postwar Australian finance who was a partner
with leading City of London institutions, and who played a key
role in stopping Prime Minister Ben Chifley’s postwar plans for
national banking for national economic development.
In mid-1989, the Tricontinental Bank collapsed, with some
$2 billion in bad loans. As the Royal Commission into its failure
noted in its July 30, 1991 report, “a significant amount of total
loans is provided to the Jewish community and in loans for
property development.” More specifically, Tricontinental’s borrowers looked like a Who’s Who of Arnold Bloch Leibler clients
(see Table 2), including:
John Gandel—$20 million
Marc Besen (Gandel’s brother-in-law)—$74.8 million
Abe Goldberg—$62 million
Libermans (two of the clan)—$24.32 million
George Herscu—$7.4 million.
The bank’s downfall, remarked the Sun-Herald of Sept. 7,
1990, was the result of the “aggressive loans policy” of Ian
Johns, who became managing director in January 1986 at age
32. Said the Sun-Herald, “Trico cultivated ‘relationship banking’,
first with a group of successful Melbourne businessmen including Solomon Lew, Marc Besen, George Herscu, John Gandel
and Abe Goldberg, then with a widening pool of growth-driven
businessmen and companies”.
John Gandel, Solomon Lew, Marc Besen and Liberman family
patriarch, Jack Liberman were all at one time members of the
Advisory Committee of Isi Leibler’s AIJA, while Ian Johns was
represented after the collapse by Arnold Bloch Leibler.
Page 37
in Britain, 1750-1990, Men of Property and Elites and
the Wealthy in Modern British History. Throughout all of
these he has championed the view (which, ironically, would
hardly be disputed by any of LaRouche’s associates), that
Britain’s vast empire and continuing world power, was and
is based upon a relatively tiny group of wealthy, oligarchical
families centred upon the City of London. As he told the
Economic History Society of London, the British “industrial
revolution” was largely a myth, and Britain’s power was
always based on the financial clout of the City of London.
Rubinstein even boasted that “I am credited with creating
the new orthodoxy in British history. In fact I got my chair
at Deakin University for this type of thing.”
Though he does not directly mention the Queen’s Mont
Pelerin Society, which designed all of Thatcher’s policies,
Rubinstein does observe the following about those policies,
“Thatcherism at its heart was simply the admission, as the
centre-piece of governmental policy, that Britain’s comparative advantage in the international sphere lay in the services,
finance and commerce...”, as it always had been. (Emphasis
in original). As the CEC has documented, this “comparative advantage” in money power was deployed, through
Mont Pelerin’s fronts here such as the Tasman Institute, the
Institute for Public Affairs, the Centre for Independent Studies, etc. in order to take over both major parties and to loot
and destroy our agricultural and industrial base.(3) Betraying
his own sympathies with the Thatcherite regime, Rubinstein
concluded, “The well-known close correlation between real
wage rigidities and unemployment, together with relative
unit labour costs—areas in which Britain had long been
notoriously bad—showed, that, if anything, Mrs. Thatcher’s
reforms did not go far enough in freeing up the British labour
market.”(emphasis added)
Mark Leibler’s AIR was in the middle of this economic rationalist revolution which Rubinstein championed. Speaking
about Australia in the late 1970s, Rubinstein said that “most
Australian Jewish intellectuals, notably those around Australia/Israel Review...were close to the so-called ‘New Right’
in Australia...” By the late 1980s, Mark Leibler, who had
originally helped set up AIR, was himself publicly boosting
economic rationalism. In a speech he delivered in August,
1989 at a reception at his Arnold Bloch Leibler law firm in
Melbourne, attended by Richard Pratt and Gov. Gen. Bill
Hayden, among other elites (see photo), Leibler delivered a
chilling message to government: get out of the way of economic rationalist looting. Said Leibler, “One of the greatest
challenges we face is maintaining the rule of law within our
modern democratic society as we move into an era of new
economic ‘liberalism’. This means strong and effective resistance to the rising tide of greater rule-creation—the progeny of
bureaucracy. There must be no acquiescence to governments
and their agents who seek to justify their existence with more
restrictions and regulations on economic freedom...Lawyers
who do not play an anti-bureaucratic role in the 1990s will
be turning their backs on the interests of their clients and,
indeed, on the future of Australia as one of the world’s most
dynamic new economic ‘liberalist’ nations.”
Indeed, the Leiblers and their friends were to be at the cutPage 38
Hilmer designed the National Competition Policy
which is helping to ruin
this country. He is the
longtime vice-chairman of
Westfield Holdings, which
is owned by Frank Lowy,
one of the major money
bags behind Australia/
Israel Review. Last year
Lowy designated Hilmer
as chairman of Westfields. Photo: Lisa Iley/Fairfax
ting edge—or even the
chief architects of—the
new economic rationalist policies of competition policy, unionbusting and tax reform,
as the following three
cases indicate:
Competition policy:
The chief architect of this disaster was Prof. Fred Hilmer,
a consultant to Rio Tinto for many years, and the longtime
vice-chairman to AIR heavyweight Frank Lowy at Lowy’s $7
billion Westfield Holdings. In 1997, Lowy anointed Hilmer
to succeed him as Westfield’s chairman, while making his
three sons joint managing directors.
Privatisation and Union-busting: The co-founder, with Isi
Leibler, of the AIJA, and its first president, was cardboard
box king Richard Pratt. Pratt was one of a handful of people
on the original board of the Tasman Institute, of which he
was a chief funder, and which co-wrote, together with the
Institute for Public Affairs, all the devastating economic
rationalist reforms for Victoria’s Jeff Kennett, including assaults on the unions. Not surprisingly, therefore, in 1997-98,
three long time former top Pratt executives showed up as
crucial figures in the plot to smash the Maritime Union of
Australia: Dr. Steven Webster, who wrote the government’s
secret plan to crush the MUA; Peter Wilson, the former
operations manager at Northern Shipping and Stevedoring
in Townsville in 1997, which worked with Rio Tinto to try
and eliminate the union from the docks there; and Dr. John
Davies, who was paid $96,000 by the Howard government
to help draft the plan for “waterfront reform.” In addition,
the security firm doing the non-union training of SAS personnel in Dubai, had previously worked for Pratt, and said
they were contacted by Webster for the Dubai job.
Pratt will be a major beneficiary of the privatisation
policies he has championed, if, as he plans, he buys up the
Australian Defence Industries, a jewel of Australia’s waning
technological base. Pratt has done very well in the last 15
years of economic rationalism: his fortune has soared from
$70 million in 1984 to $1.8 billion in 1998.
Tax reform: As documented in an accompanying article
(p. 47), throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the single
most important individual in Australia responsible for shifting the tax burden from the super-wealthy to the relatively
disadvantaged was Mark Leibler.
Covering up for the Holocaust
T
he role of the Leibler
crowd as apologists for
the Money Power is perhaps
nowhere clearer than in Prof.
Bill Rubenstein’s book, The
Myth of Rescue: Why the
democracies could not have
saved more Jews from the
Nazis. There, Rubinstein
painstakingly recites reasons why the “democracies”
could do nothing, concluding that “Hitler, the Nazis
and their accomplices—and
only they—bear full and
total responsibility for the
Holocaust.”—a palpable
lie. For instance, while in
Opposition before the war,
and then during it, Winston
Churchill turned down overtures from the German General Staff to overthrow Hitler,
whom many of the generals despised. When asked in parliament after the war why he did so, Churchill replied that he
preferred Hitler in power, rather than his opponents.
More importantly, as American historian and LaRouche
associate Anton Chaitkin has demonstrated in his book,
George Bush: The unauthorized biography, British circles
around Bank of England chairman Montagu Norman and
their allies on Wall Street, typified by the Brown Brothers
Harriman banking firm headed by former U.S. President
George Bush’s father, Prescott Bush, actually helped finance Hitler’s rise to power. Chaitkin provides extensive
documentation of this support; to cite merely one example,
on October 20, 1942 the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi banking operations in New York City, under
the Trading with the Enemy Act, by which the government
seized the Union Banking Corporation, of which Prescott
Bush was a director. All of Union Banking Corporation’s
shares were owned by Bush, by Wall St. financier Averill
Harriman’s brother, by three Nazi officials, and by two other
associates of Bush. While George Bush’s father was financing the Nazis, Chaitkin’s father Jacob was the chief legal
director for the American Jewish Congress’ 1930s boycott
campaign against all trade with Nazi Germany.
From the very beginning of the war the British knew
from intercepted German police radio messages, precisely
where Jews were being killed, and when, but decided to do
nothing about it—actions which Rubinstein justifies in his
book with various excuses. A much more accurate view
was put forward on June 21, 1997, by filmmaker Arthur
Brauner, president of the B’nai B’rith Janusz Korczak Lodge
in Berlin, who placed a full-page ad in the London Times,
Left: The gate to the Auschwitz
death camp. Above: Author Anton
Chaitkin exposed the truth which
Leibler crony Prof. Bill Rubinstein
covered up: that Hitler was brought
to power by powerful financial
forces in the City of London and
in New York, including George
Bush’s father.
entitled “Who is Reponsible?” There, Brauner documented
the mass slaughter of Jews from the beginning of the war,
and appealed for all remaining British records on the matter
to be released. In an interview with EIR on July 25, 1997,
Brauner charged, “I am convinced, that the English monarchy was informed about the developments in the territories
occupied by Himmler’s SS, SD, and other killer-groups. I
believe also, beyond that, that certainly, they consulted with
Churchill, how to deal with the matter, and that Churchill
was the one who—as he had already arranged with the
press—took the decision, that no outcry over the cruelties
would spread. He did this, in a clear-headed manner, with
calculation and intolerance.”
In a follow-up letter to the Times, Brauner attacked the
“threadbare argumentation”—of the sort used by Rubinstein—that Churchill did not order military actions to end
the slaughter of Jews because he was afraid it would reveal
British code-cracking capabilities. “It would have been no
trouble at all,” Brauner charged, “to divulge the internal
facts to the public eye, and name refugees who succeeded
in escaping, who exactly brought this information to the
responsible government authorities.” Brauner concluded,
“Therefore, it is a mere excuse, of the responsible and basically guilty group of people, who spread the false assertion
that the war was shortened, by remaining silent and being
passive. In actual fact, the life of umpteen thousands, or
probably hundreds of thousands of children, was shortened
before they even started to live...Accessories and witnesses
to a crime are guilty, if they fail to intervene helpfully. And
without a doubt, such is the case here. The facts must, under
no circumstances, remain unsolved.”
Page 39
The “Nazi War Criminals” scam
B
ased in part upon their version of the genuine, unforgiveable horror of the Holocaust—that only the Nazis,
and not their political and financial sponsors—are guilty,
Bronfman’s WJC, the ADL, and the Leibler crowd here
have organised a great hunt for alleged Nazi war criminals
in the U.S., Canada and Australia, among other countries.
The purpose of the operation, in which the Bronfman crowd
worked closely with the KGB and the East German Stasi
intelligence service, was to conduct witchhunts against politically independent ethnic groups, or, before the fall of the
Berlin Wall, against anti-communist groups, often of Eastern
European ethnic origin. Bronfman had extremely close
personal ties to the Soviets and East Germans, who awarded
him East Germany’s highest civilian medal, the “People’s
Friendship Medal in Gold”. The medal was pinned on him
by East German dictator Erich Honecker in the waning days
of the East German regime, in part, perhaps, for the lucrative
liquor contract Bronfman had with the East German leadership. As part of his propagandising for the establishment of
a Nazi-hunting unit here, Bronfman protégé Isi authored the
foreword to a 1989 book, Sanctuary: Nazi Fugitives in Australia by Mark Aarons, a member of the clan often called the
“royal family of the Communist Party of Australia”. Aarons
had taken “long service leave” in Yugoslavia several years
before, and returned to direct a two-part series on the ABC
on alleged Nazi war criminals.
In the U.S., a special unit of the U.S. Justice Department
called the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) was set up
in 1979 to coordinate such activities, which relied heavily on
KGB-provided evidence, much or all of which was later shown
to be forgeries. The most notorious case which the OSI handled
was that of a Ukrainian-born autoworker from the state of Ohio,
John Demjanjuk, whom the OSI charged was the notorious Ivan
the Terrible, a particularly sadistic guard at the death camp of
Treblinka. The OSI had Demjanjuk’s citizenship revoked and
sent him to Israel, where he was condemned to death, but all
the while the OSI had concrete proof that Demjanjuk was not
Ivan the Terrible. Only the courage of his Israeli lawyer, Yoram
Sheftel, and the fall of the Soviet empire, which allowed access to
KGB records (which proved KGB forgery) prevented Demjanjuk
from being executed. The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
reopened the Demjanjuk case, restored his citizenship, and
harshly criticised the OSI for the frame-up. The Sixth Court also
singled out the ADL for harsh criticism for conducting a public
relations campaign for Demjanjuk’s conviction, and for paying
for a senior OSI official to make a high profile trip to Israel on
the eve of the Demjanjuk trial there, which the Court said was a
blatant attempt to interfere in the proceedings. (4)
One of the top officials of the OSI from the time of its founding
was Neal Sher, the man whom Isi Leibler brought to Australia
to help set up Australia’s Special Investigation Unit modeled on
the OSI. On December 12, 1997, the Attorney General-Minister
of Justice of Canada, Anne McLellan, announced that Neal
Sher had been hired to act as a paid adviser to the Canadian war
crimes unit. Sher’s appointment was secured by the lobbying
of the Canadian Jewish Congress, headed by Edgar Bronfman,
Page 40
Isi Leibler brought U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) bigshot Neal Sher to Australia to
help set up the “Nazi-hunting”
Special Investigations Unit
(SIU). Sher has been under
investigation for the last decade for manufacturing false
evidence for the DoJ.
the Canadian branch of Bronfman’s World Jewish Congress.
The CJC put out a release which said, “The issue of Nazi war
criminals is a top priority of Canadian Jewish Congress...CJC
monitors the prosecution of alleged war criminals and maintains close contact with the RCMP [Royal Canadian Mounted
Police] and the Justice Department.” Accompanying the release
was a photograph of two officials from the RCMP meeting
with a CJC “private investigator”. He was Steven Rambam, a
longtime member of the Jewish Defense League of Rabbi Meir
Kahane; the JDL had some years earlier been named by the FBI
as the leading terrorist group in America, and was involved in
the assassinations of several Arab-Americans and others on its
“political enemies” list.
However, a scandal broke out in Canada, when it emerged
that Sher had been charged with knowingly using false affidavits from the communist Yugoslav government to secure
OSI convictions. Nine years after the initial complaint was
filed against Sher, the case is “still under investigation” by
the U.S. Justice Department, implying there is solid foundation for the charges. Progressive Conservative Justice Critic
and House Leader Peter MacKay told the press following a
hearing on Sher, that his contract should be cancelled: “It’s a
little shocking to think that somebody that is being relied on
heavily by the Canadian government is himself under investigation for potential—and I key on the word potential—fraud
perpetrated upon the court... I think he should be paid for his
advice and sent packing.”
Meanwhile, in Australia, after almost a decade of investigations, the expenditure of over $50 million, and much anguish
within targeted ethnic communities, not one war criminal was
convicted by the unit which Isi Leibler and Neal Sher championed here, for which Mark Leibler had heavily lobbied, as
well. One of the most telling comments about this charade of
the Leiblers was offered by the late conservative intellectual
Frank Knopfelmacher, numbers of whose family died in the
Holocaust: “The war crimes trials are a device to galvanize
support for Israel amongst Jews as well as traditional allies.”
With a none-too-subtle reference to the Leiblers, Knopfelmacher further said, “I am entitled to question the motives
of the people who are organising this circus. I don’t want to
have anything to do with their racketeering. They are only
interested in phony fame and money. They are not interested
in my dead family.”
Though the “Nazi-hunting” SIU has lapsed, the terror operation against independent political forces continues under
the rubric of “anti-defamation” activities.
Australian Jewish Times 15 May 1986
15 May 1993
23 April 1993
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is an intelligence and dirty tricks unit for the financial oligarchy in the U.S. and Britain, which spies on
and infiltrates civil liberties and ethnic groups in the U.S. (The Amsterdam News is the major African-American newspaper in the U.S.) The
ADL’s main target, however, is Lyndon LaRouche, whom they have instructed the “anti-defamation” apparatus in Australia to attack.
The “Anti-defamation” racket
W
ith their fraudulent version of the Holocaust forming
the backdrop, the usual trick of the AIR and the associated “anti-defamation” apparatus in Australia (centred
around the Anti-Defamation Commission [ADC] of B’nai
B’rith), is to set up a sanctimonious bullfrog’s chorus croaking “anti-semitism” or “racism” against anyone who dares to
question or criticise the political or financial activities of the
Leiblers and their small circle of super-wealthy friends. But,
as AJN journalist David Bernstein demanded to know in an
Oct. 25 1996 article entitled “Anti-defamation wars,” about
the various “anti-defamation” organisations which claim
to represent the Australian Jewish community, specifically
the AIP/AIR and the ADC, “Just who has appointed these
organisations to that role? Who determines their agendas?
Who authorises them to talk ‘on behalf of’ the community
on such matters? Who set them up in the first place, and to
whom are they ultimately accountable?” He has particularly
sharp criticism for the AIP, which he says “is a particularly
disturbing example of how an organisation, set up for one
clearly defined purpose—to work for a balanced public
opinion in Israel, especially in the media—has been able
over recent years to usurp for itself a high-profile role in
such matters as tracking Nazi war criminals, responding to
local anti-semitism, attacking Australian politicians on local
issues, all areas far removed from its original brief. And then
pursue its own agenda in these highly sensitive areas without
any clear or direct form of accountability to the communal
leadership either at state or at national level.”
The answer to Bernstein’s questions, is that this Australian
“anti-defamation” machinery is “ultimately accountable”
to the London-based IJA, to the
World Jewish Congress of Edgar
Bronfman, and to the U.S.-based
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
of B’nai B’rith. The ADL is the
mother body for the ADC in Australia, and has usually been run
by Isi’s associates such as Paul
Gardner and Prof. Bernard Rechter, both of whom became board
members of the amusingly-titled
Without Prejudice magazine of
Isi’s AIJA. (5)
In 1992, a scandal erupted in
the U.S. when U.S. law enforcebook named the names
ment agencies charged the sup- This
of the old British families who
posed great “civil rights” group, run the world’s $600 billion
the ADL, with infiltrating police per year drug trade, and their
departments across the country, ADL lackeys went wild.
and obtaining classified documents, in order to compile files on 950 organisations and
over 20,000 individuals. Raids on ADL offices showed that
they had spied on numerous civil rights groups, and even
other Jewish organisations. Those spied on included: the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the AIDS activist group
ACT-UP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American
Indian Movement, the New Jewish agenda, Americans for
Peace, and the LaRouche organisation. The liberal Village
Voice newspaper in New York, in coverage typical of other
Page 41
newspapers across the country, charged that this represented
a “massive violation of civil liberties,” and that the ADL had
set itself up as a “Jewish thought police.”
The ADL is nominally affiliated with the Jewish charitable,
communal organisation, the Order of B’nai B’rith. In fact,
it is almost entirely independent of its mother organisation,
and was set up in New York in 1913, primarily to attack law
enforcement agents investigating Jewish organised crime.
It was not even particularly Jewish, because, although the
founder of the ADL and its head from 1913 to 1945 was one
Sigmund Livingston, he in turn was the chief lawyer for
the super-wealthy Episcopalian establishment family, the
Moores, who owned several major American corporations,
including Nabisco. The Episcopalian and Presbyteriandominated U.S. establishment sponsored the ADL to do jobs
they did not like to dirty their hands with. (See Table 5). A
typical example is the ADL’s longstanding war against the
LaRouche organisation.
After Mr. LaRouche and his associates at the Executive
Intelligence Review published their first edition of Dope,
Inc. in 1978, two EIR investigators visited the Episcopalian cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City,
the main headquarters of the old establishment families,
which cathedral was then run by Bishop Paul Moore of the
Moore family noted above. Given that Dope Inc. named
the names of many of the old establishment families who
had gained their start running drugs to China in the 19th
century, and who were still involved in the trade, the EIR
investigators asked Bishop Moore’s assistant, Canon West,
what would be done about the “LaRouche problem.” In a
cold, ruthless tone, the Canon stated confidently, “We will
not get directly involved. We will have our Jewish friends
at the Anti-Defamation League deal with Mr. LaRouche and
his organization.” Shortly thereafter, the ADL launched the
first shots in a decades-long campaign to defame and frame
up Mr. LaRouche and his associates. The ADL was part of
the combined federal and private task force set up in 1983,
which resulted in the frame-up and jailing of Mr. LaRouche
and a number of his associates, and their sentencing to jail
terms of as long as 77 years.
In addition to organised crime, the ADL works with
various intelligence agencies, as it did in the LaRouche
frame-up. In World War II, it functioned as a covert arm of
the British Special Operations Executive (for which Maj.
Louis Mortimer Bloomfield also worked) in New York
under William Stephenson (“Intrepid”), in close liaison
with the FBI. The ADL is the mother organisation for the
Australian “anti-defamation” apparatus centred around the
Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC), as attested to by
Dr. Paul Gardner, a board member of Isi Leibler’s AIJA.
Gardner served as chairman of the ADC between 1982 and
1988, part of that time as the Australian delegate to the AntiDefamation League’s headquarters in New York. In the Jewish Year Book for 1985, Gardner wrote, “The Commission
[the ADC] is in regular contact with the Anti-Defamation
League of B’nai B’rith in New York. ADL in America is
a powerful, influential and widely respected human rights
Page 42
Table 5
The ADL: A front for the
“Money Power”
From its foundation in 1913, the Anti-Defamation League
has been funded and used by the blue-blood corporate and
financial establishment of the U.S., Britain and Canada to
do dirty jobs that that establishment would prefer to keep
at arm’s length.
Similarly, Mark Leibler is a gopher for the financial elite
of this country—most of whom are not Jewish—some of
whom are shown in Table 3. His position on the board of
Coles Myer, chaired by Wallis Commission and Business
Council of Australia head Stan Wallis, is indicative of this.
As the Australian Financial Review of June 26, 1987 remarked, “Mark’s clients at Arnold Bloch Leibler also form
a power base—the business and economic base of the
country. So much so that a huge blue-chip legal firm...
wanted a slice of its coveted entrepreneurial clientele and
sought a merger early last year.”
The following are the chief funders of the ostensibly
Jewish Anti-Defamation League, most of whom represent
non-Jewish “old Establishment” families and money:
Atlantic Richfield
Archer Daniels Midland
Mellon Bank
Merrill Lynch
Seagrams
AT&T
Chase Manhattan
Miami Herald Publishing
Co.
Shearson American Express
Material Services Corp.
Dart Industries
20th Century Fox
First National State Bank of
New Jersey
Hearst
Rolls Royce
Corning Glass
Goldman Sachs
MetroMedia
Shearson Loeb Rhoades
Marriott Corp.
First Boston Corp.
Times Mirror
Pepsico
United Brands
Sharon Steel
Hyatt
Amex
Warner Communications
New York Times
Mutual Benefit Insurance
Sears Roebuck
Irving Trust
General Electric
Citibank
organization, with 400 full-time professional staff and a $17
million annual budget. The flow of relevant information and
material from America to Australia is unending.”
The AIR is not so much a magazine, as an intelligence
organisation along the model of the ADL. According to
Prof. W.D. Rubenstein, “AIP maintains probably Australia’s
best files on extremists and antisemites.” He also added,
somewhat ominously, “Much of its influence occurs behind
the scenes and may not yet be openly discussed.” As a sort
of precursor of the AIP/AIR, Isi, according to the Age of 30
May, 1974, set up “a secret service style group” with connections to various intelligence agencies, to spy on alleged
“anti-semites”, “extremists” and “Nazi war criminals,” under
the aegis of the Victoria Board of Jewish Deputies which he
then headed. Isi’s private outfit “liaised with Jewish intelligence organisations overseas,” as well as with “State and
Commonwealth police.” The main purpose of the outfit, Isi
claimed, was to trace “Nazi war criminals.”
“Racial Vilification”
T
he “anti-defamation” racket leads naturally into another scam, that of alleged concern with “racial vilification.” However, according to the three great religions, Islam,
Judaism and Christianity, man is made in the living image
of God (Imago viva Dei in Latin); for the adherents of those
religions there is only one race—the human race. Therefore,
any attempt to create different “races” is itself a racist fraud
concocted for political ends. The chief proponents of “racial
vilification” legislation in Australia have been Mark and Isi
Leibler, in particular Mark.
On May 28, 1994, Prime Minister Paul Keating announced
to a banquet of the Zionist Federation of Australia, then
chaired by Mark Leibler, that the government would soon
be introducing “racial vilification” legislation in order to
“dissuade those who seek to incite violence and hatred.”
The banquet itself, as described in the Australian Jewish
News of June 3, reflected Mark Leibler’s political clout:
“An estimated 500 guests packed the ballroom of the Grand
Hyatt Hotel...it was a politically star-studded guest list with...
half the Cabinet and most of the Liberal Party. There was
a brace of former Prime Ministers—Bob Hawke and Malcolm Fraser, new deputy opposition leader, Peter Costello,
Victorian premier Jeff Kennett and a huge list of Cabinet
ministers, Federal and State MPs, significant government
departmental officers including Michael Costello, head of
Foreign Affairs and Trade, and a goodly proportion of the
Melbourne list in BRW’s top richest 200 Australians.”
Keating chose the ZFA banquet to make the announcement, because Mark Leibler, since at least 1992, had been
the fiercest advocate of such legislation, which proposed jail
terms of up to two years for “vilifying” a person’s “race”,
tribe or ethnic group, and according to which ethnic organisations could initiate criminal actions against individuals
for “psychological hurt” claimed by their members. The
legislation was so draconian, that it provoked an outcry
even from the major media, who pointed a finger at where
the alleged “community support” for such legislation was
coming from. As the Sun-Herald editorialised on May 31,
“The Keating government’s latest pandering to sectional
interests is a direct threat to our freedom of speech. With
its proposed racial vilification laws, the government again
yields to pressure from powerful and noisy lobby groups...
Where is the push coming from? The prime minister, Mr.
In 1994, the Citizens Electoral Council led the fight
against the racist “racial
vilification” law pushed
by the Leibler brothers.
U.S. civil rights leader Rev.
James Bevel, the legendary Director of Mass Action for the Rev. Martin
Luther King, Jr. during the
civil rights marches of the
1950s and 1960s, who
later ran with Lyndon LaRouche for president and
vice president of the United
States, respectively, toured
Australia to lobby against
Paul Keating, chose the Australian Zionist Federation’s
Melbourne conference to confirm that the government will
go ahead with the legislation.” Even the Melbourne Age got
things right for once, in its lead editorial of May 31, “Race
Case Unproven.” Like the Sun-Herald, the Age asked the
crucial question of why the big hype, which was clearly not
justified by any massive upsurges of “racial bigotry”: “We
could understand the government’s concern if there were
in Australia significant neo-Nazi or other racially bigoted
groups intent on violence and civil disturbance. But where
is the evidence for such groups in Australia?...[Immigration
and Ethnic Affairs Minister] Senator Bolkus talks about
offenses that are ‘of such magnitude and so repulsive’ that
criminal sanctions are called for. But where is the evidence
of such offenses? Where are the groups hogging the streets,
inciting violence or preaching hatred?”
The evidence is, that to the extent such groups existed,
they were started by individuals now associated with AIR,
and also now associated with the Leiblers themselves.
Agent Provocateurs
O
ne of the oldest tricks in the book of the ADL and of
its international fellow-travellers, is to use agent provocateurs to create “anti-semitic” incidents of violence and
mayhem from which the ADL’s political agenda—not to
mention its fundraising—benefits immensely. Look at three
typical, documented examples from the U.S.:
* In February 1979, an ADL-financed operative, one
Mordechai Levy, applied, under the pseudonym “James
Guttman”, for a permit for a neo-Nazi rally in Philadelphia,
at which he planned to display banners reading “Hitler
was right, gas the commie-Jews.” While working out of
the Philadelphia office of the ADL-run Jewish Defense
League, Levy mobilised local left-wing groups for a counterdemonstration, one expected to be violent. Levy’s plan fell
apart when a Philadelphia newspaper printed the headline
story, “Nazi Rally Rouser Really Jewish.” One of his coconspirators in the plot was one Jimmy Rosenberg, whom
the ADL had paid to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan in nearby
Trenton, New Jersey, and who tried to incite the KKK to
blow up the local offices of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). (see ADL
cheque to Rosenberg)
Page 43
* As part of his 1994 electoral campaign for Mayor of New
SMH 12 March 1992
Orleans, ADL National Committee member Donald Mintz
sent out anonymous racist and
anti-semitic flyers attacking
himself, which called Jews
“Christ killers” and blacks
“jungle apes”. He then sent
out fundraising letters, to take
advantage of the hysteria he
himself had stirred up.
* The Los Angeles-based
ZZZZ Best Company, tied to
ADL operatives, simultaneously financed both the Jewish Defence League and the
KKK.
But, we don’t have to go to
America to find such examples
of ADL-style provocations.
Take the case of AIR columnist
and self-confessed compulsive
masturbator, David Greason,
who has recently penned attacks on Pauline Hanson and
One Nation, but who has spent
much of his career for the past
Commonwealth Chief Rabbi
decade writing nasty diatribes
Jonathan Sacks let the cat out of
the bag on the Anti-Defamation
against Lyndon LaRouche and
League’s methods. Below Sacks’
the Citizens Electoral Council.
remarks is a cheque to James
The AIR, for which Greason is
Rosenberg from the ADL’s “FactFinding Division”, which paid him
the “Focus on the Far Right”
and others to organise Nazi rallies which attacked “the commie Jews”. Does this happen in
columnist, spends much ink
Australia? David Greason, regular columnist for Mark Leibler’s AIR and sometime columnist
crusading against actual or imfor Isi Leibler’s Without Prejudice, earlier played a key role in founding both major neo-Nazi
groups in this country, National Action and the National Front. The violence-prone ISO, which
agined “neo-Nazi” groups in
organises demonstrations against Hanson and against the CEC, later promoted Greason as
Australia. Typical was former
an “anti-Nazi” speaker.
AIR editor Michael Danby’s
1991 column, in which he reported “Last week, to their great credit, the Victorian police Leibler's AIJA paid Greason to write a 17 page hallucinatory
arrested and charged the head of the National Action Group rant against Lyndon LaRouche and the Citizens Electoral
for making a bomb threat to the Jewish Solidarity rally at Council in the magazine of Leibler’s AIJA, the amusingly
the Palais Theater.” However, Mr. Danby omitted to mention named Without Prejudice, among dozens of other such atthat National Action had been founded by his own column- tacks on LaRouche which Greason penned. Greason also
ist, David Greason! Greason also founded the other main tried to organise a violent demonstration against the CEC’s
actual neo-Nazi group in this country (as opposed to those May, 1993 international conference in Melbourne, such that
whom the AIR chooses to label as “neo-Nazi”), the National over 100 Victorian police had to take up positions around the
Front. And, while Greason was founding these two neo-Nazi conference. Throughout this time, Greason was also a corregroups, he was simultaneously a member of the Australia- spondent of a notorious U.K.-based “anti-fascist” magazine,
USSR Society! Greason had also been active in the League Searchlight, which has repeatedly been exposed in the Britof Rights, a genuinely anti-semitic offshoot of the British ish press as a front for the MI5 intelligence agency.
Israelite cult. But, at some point, Greason “saw the light”,
Given that the CEC conference was entitled, “Economic
and became a featured speaker for the violence-prone British Reconstruction for Sovereign Nation-States, Post-IMF”, at
intelligence front, the International Socialist Organisation which the CEC released its economic programme, Sovereign
(ISO), helping to stoke up their “anti-nazi” rallies. He also Australia: An economic development programme to save this
managed to work in a stint as a “features editor” for the nation, it is obvious that Greason, in attempting to whip up
dope- and porn-pushing Playboy magazine.
a riot against it, was doing what he has always been paid to
Greason also went to work for the Leiblers. In 1992, Isi do—defending the Money Power.
Page 44
Don Veitch:
A friend of Australia/Israel Review
On January 28, 1996, “Jewish community leader” Mark
Leibler sent a wild letter to Prime Minister Paul Keating,
in which he demanded a parliamentary investigation of
the Citizens Electoral Council, the Australian associates of
American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, and any connection the CEC might have to Leibler’s bete-noir, Liberal
MP Ken Aldred. Leibler’s request was based, he claimed,
on “authenticated and verified documentation as well as
interviews with former senior directors of the pernicious
LaRouche movement,” about which Leibler professed to
be “ appalled and deeply disturbed.”
The “former senior directors” Leibler referred to were
Don Veitch and his mate John Seale. The date of Leibler’s
letter to Keating, January 28 (a Sunday) is noteworthy,
because on that very same day Don Veitch signed an affidavit which was one long, repetitious defense of Mark
Leibler, in which Veitch mentioned Leibler’s name no
fewer than 9 times, each time to allege that the CEC/
Aldred were engaged in a plot to “smear” him.
Veitch must have been a busy beaver on January 28,
because he and Seale also that day appeared on Radio
3RRR, on the aptly-named “Liars Club” together with
AIR columnist David Greason, to denounce the CEC. The
programme turned into such a love-fest between Greason
and Veitch/Seale, with Veitch apologizing to Greason
and Greason gushing about “how brave” Veitch and
Seale were, that the host, referring to Veitch, encouraged
Greason, “Well, take him out to lunch, go on!”
Veitch even bragged in print of his AIR connection, as
he did on the back of his lunatic diatribe against the CEC,
Beyond Common Sense, where he boasted that that work
“was used in a recent nation wide expose of the LaRouche
movement by The Age newspaper, Channel 9’s ‘6:30
Report’ (sic), the Australian/Israel Review (sic) and the
ABC’s ‘4 Corners’ program.”
Dope and criminal investigations
A
ustralia’s establishment is today on a mad drive to legalise dope, which will expand drug usage, and therefore
greatly increase the already untold billions which banks and
other institutions make by laundering drug money (see New
Citizen Vol 4 No 10, p. 12). One of the key institutions in
this drive, as we document elsewhere in this newspaper, is the
Macfarlane Burnet Centre in Melbourne. The Centre’s single
largest contributor is dope-pusher George Soros, followed
closely by mining giant Rio Tinto, but a hefty $5,000 was also
tossed in by Leibler’s Arnold Bloch Leibler law firm, as well.
That Leibler would be helping to legalise dope is perhaps not
surprising, as exemplified by the following:
* On August 8, 1991, Dennis Stevenson, an Independent MLA
for Canberra, stunned the chamber by naming the bosses of
some of this nation’s drug and pornographic video operations.
One of those he cited was Alexander Gajic, whose lawyer, Leon
Zwier, traveled to the United States “to negotiate with various
organised crime groups to set up a deal to import and franchise
X-rated videos.” Zwier, Stevenson noted, “was recently made
One Nation National Director David Ettridge issued the above
“WARNING” about the activities of Don Veitch’s mate, John
Seale.
a partner in Arnold Bloch Leibler”.
* On March 6, 1986 the customs unit at the Jackson airport in
Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, brought their special drugsniffing dogs to examine an executive jet about to take off for
Australia. Upon sniffing luggage and parts of the plane, both dogs
went wild. However, the intervention of PNG’s Prime Minister
Somare, who had just eaten lunch with the three businessmen
on the plane, aborted any further search, to the astonishment of
the local police.
The three businessmen included one who had been named in
the Stewart Royal Commission investigations in drug-trafficking
two years earlier; another who was involved in a small airline
under police surveillance for drug-smuggling; and a business
associate of Mark Leibler, whose wife worked for Leibler at the
Zionist Federation of Australia.
* As noted, the November, 1992 issue of Isi Leibler’s AIJA,
Without Prejudice, carried a wild, 17-page diatribe against
Lyndon LaRouche and his associates in the Citizens Electoral
Councils who had just two months previously set up a fulltime
Page 45
office in Melbourne, where Leibler is based. The Greasonauthored AIJA article repeatedly claimed that LaRouche had
set up an “intelligence network” whose major purpose was
“to spy on ...Melbourne Jewish community figure Isi Leibler and
businessman Sir Peter Abeles.” In making that outlandish charge,
however, Greason revealed that his boss had apparently been under
police surveillance: “Senior Victorian police fear, however, that
confidential reports from the Internal Security unit and the Bureau
of Criminal Intelligence may have ended up in LaRouchite hands.
LaRouche documents seen by senior police contain a number of al-
Land Rights
Not surprisingly, numbers of people associated with the Leibler brothers or AIR have taken the lead in still another racist
scam, that of Aboriginal “land rights”. These include:
Noel Pearson. Pearson is the “fair-haired” boy of Rio
Tinto, which has poured several hundred million dollars
into land rights. As Rio executive Greg Walker exclaimed,
“The problem with the Aboriginal community is they don’t
have another twenty Noel Pearsons.” Pearson is employed
at Mark Leibler’s firm, Arnold Bloch Leibler.
Mark Leibler. His firm, Arnold Bloch Leibler, has been
paid big money by ATSIC to pursue the Yorta Yorta peoples’
claim in Victoria.
Ron Castan, Q.C.. On the board of AIR for many years,
Castan argued at least two major court cases on behalf of
Eddie Mabo, and is an adviser to the National Indigenous
Working Group on Native Title, and active with DONT,
“Defenders of Native Title”.
Richard Pratt. The co-founder of Isi Leibler’s AIJA,
Pratt recently appointed Pat Dodson, the former chairman
of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, to head up a
project to link all Aboriginal cultural institutions, museum
collections and cultural centres on the Internet, for which
Pratt put up $3 million.
Given the tax history of Leibler, Castan and Pratt at the
“bottom-of-the-harbour” (Table 6), one wonders whether
they will help file Aboriginal “sea rights” as well. (6)
The Leiblers’ war against Lyndon LaRouche
M
legations aboutAustralian Jewish community figures. Police believe
these documents are based on Internal Security Unit and Bureau of
Criminal Intelligence material.” (!)
Were the police investigating Leibler and some of his associates, as is clearly implied in what Greason wrote, and, if
so, for what? Certainly it would not be the first time any of
Mark’s or Isi’s friends had been investigated. AIJA co-founder
Richard Pratt was investigated at length by the Australian Tax
Office and the National Crime Authority, before matters were
“resolved”.
Table 6
Land Rights at the “Bottom
of the Harbour”?
The following are some of the 923 persons, virtually all based
in Melbourne, who were named in the 1982 McCabe-LaFranchi
Report on Tax Avoidance, as either directors or secretaries of
companies which were stripped of assets, and whose records
were then sent to the “bottom of the harbour”. Over $200 million
in tax was avoided. All are or were associates of tax specialist
Mark Leibler, either as clients (see Table 2) or as board members
or former board members of Australia/Israel Review, or associated with his brother Isi’s Australian Institute for Jewish Affairs.
The number after the name signifies the number of bottomof-the-harbour companies in which they were involved. The
McCabe-LaFranchi report did not charge those named below
with any illegal activity. However, a special, highly favorable deal
negotiated with the Australian Tax Office in 1989, which included
all bottom-of-the-harbour schemers nationwide recovered $750
million. Some 95% of those named, finally paid up.
Arnold Bloch (snr. partner of Arnold Bloch Leibler, dec.), 37
Howitt Rd., Caulfield (6)
Elaine Bloch, 37 Howitt Rd. Caulfield. (3)
Castan, Ronald, 5 John St., Kew (4) (former board of AIR)
Leon Fink, 1 Wimbledon Ct., E. St. Kilda.
Fink, Yvonne, 1 Wimbledon Ct., E. St. Kilda.
George Herscu, 7 Whernside Ave., Toorak (33)
Sheila Herscu, 7 Whernside Ave., Toorak (25)
Mark Leibler, 11 Oulton St., Caulfield (5) (Chairman of AIR)
Solomon Lew, 65 Albany Rd., Toorak (4) (board of AIR)
Richard Pratt, 1 Eamon Ct. Kew (3) (cofounder of AIJA)
Samuel Smorgon 90 St. Georges Rd., Toorak (37) (former
Advisory Bd, AIJA)
Besides former AIJA board member Samuel Smorgon, 6 other
members of the Smorgon family, including his cousins Victor (39
companies) and Eric (39 companies), between them held 100
directorships of bottom of the harbour companies. In addition,
Neil William Fletcher Watson, of Howe Street, Murrumbeena,
then a director of many Smorgon family companies, was listed
as a director or secretary of 42 companies.
While not so big on taxes, some of the above are very big
on land rights: Ron Castan (a member of the Smorgon family)
argued for Eddie Mabo before the High Court; Mark Leibler
employs radical land rights spokesman Noel Pearson at his
Arnold Bloch Leibler law firm, which has been paid big money
by ATSIC to argue the Yorta Yorta peoples’ claim in Victoria, and
Richard Pratt gave $3 million to set up a five-year project to link
all Aboriginal organisations on the Internet, for which he installed
land rights advocate Pat Dodson as head. The tax scams of the
1970s and 1980s were made possible thanks to the decisions of
High Court Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick, a personal friend
of Prince Philip and president of Philip’s Australian Conservation
Foundation from 1965 until Philip replaced him as president in
1971. The ACF from its inception has been the chief organiser
of the land rights campaign in this country.
ark Leibler’s AIR has run literally dozens of nasty attacks against LaRouche and the CEC over the years.
Already in 1992, Isi’s Without Prejudice (sic) proclaimed
that LaRouche and the CEC “has a disruptive capacity never
before seen in this country.” One might well ask, “Disruptive
of what? Of the various scams which the Leiblers had been
running almost unchallenged for so many years?” Things
reached a fever pitch in early 1996, when the Age, then controlled by British intelligence’s Conrad Black ran front-page
attacks on the CEC, as the cutting edge of an all-out media
onslaught against the CEC, and Mark wrote letters to Prime
Minister Paul Keating and Opposition leader John Howard,
calling for a federal parliamentary investigation.
In all of this, as in the same crowd’s attacks on Pauline
Hanson, they rarely mention what is really at issue: control
over monetary and economic policy. Lyndon LaRouche is the
world’s leading physical economist, and the designer of the the present, bankrupt globalist system. Such a re-regulated
“New Bretton Woods” monetary system which must replace system would wipe out the financial oligarchy which owns
Page 46
Mark and Isi, and return our country (and many others) to the
producers—to the farmers, trade unionists and small businessmen who are the real backbone of the nation, as opposed to
the Money Power. So, the Leiblers scream bloody murder
against LaRouche, as they do against Pauline Hanson, who
has proposed similar policies to that of Mr. LaRouche, for
national banking, tariff protection, a re-industrialisation of the
country, etc.. The Leiblers and their crowd are particularly
hysterical now, because they are aware that a financial crash is
unfolding which will greatly weaken the financial and political
power of themselves and their Money Power sponsors.
So, we return to the question asked by Holocaust survivor
Walter Dohan at the outset of this article, “I don’t think
Pauline Hanson would have done any damage to the Jews.
She has never said anything antisemitic. Why are we attacking
someone who’s never attacked us?” And not merely attacking: as the first boss of AIR, Sam Lipski recently put it in an
editorial in the Australian Jewish News, “We must mobilise
all our considerable resources to bring what influence we can
to bear, first on containing One Nation, and then on helping
Footnotes
(1) This closeness is reflected in the fact that Isi, while president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (EJAC), issued the “Fradkin report” on EJAC’s
functioning, which recommended merging AIP and AIJA under EJAC. There was
already some direct overlap because ECAJ’s executive vice chairman, Jeremy
Jones, is AIR’s Sydney representative.
(2) For the full story behind Soros and his Rothschild and royal backing, see the
EIR Special Report The true story of Soros the Golem: A profile of megaspeculator
George Soros, 1997.
(3) For the full history of the Mont Pelerin Society’s takeover of both major
parties, and its destruction of our nation, see the CEC Special Report Stop the
British Crown plot to crush Australia’s unions, 1998.
Behind the GST—
I
Australian Jewish News 9 Feb 1996
The Leibler brothers’ organisations
have paid David Greason to write
numerous articles against Lyndon
LaRouche and the CEC. Did they
also pay him to attempt to organise
a riot outside a CEC international
conference in Melbourne in 1993?
Mark complained, in this letter he
wrote the Australian Jewish News
of February 9, 1996, that the Jewish community was insufficiently hysterical about LaRouche and
the CEC.
to destroy it.” (emphasis added)
By now, the answer to Mr. Dohan’s question should be
amply clear.
(4) In 1994, the Schiller Institute held a two-day special hearing into U.S. Department of Justice frame-ups, including that of Demjanjuk and Lyndon LaRouche,
at which Demjanjuk’s Israeli lawyer, Yoram Sheftel, testified. The hearings were
chaired by former U.S. Congressman James Mann and noted civil rights attorney
J.L. Chestnut. Videotapes of the proceedings are available from the CEC.
(5) The ADC denounced the publication of the lists, no doubt judging that such
a wild action did more harm than good.
(6) The full story of how Prince Philip personally created the entire “land
rights” scam in this country is contained in the CEC pamphlet, Aboriginal ‘land
rights’: Prince Philip’s racist plot to splinter Australia. 1997.
Taxation lawyer Mark Leibler: Robin Hood in reverse
n mid-May, Melbourne tax lawyer Mark Leibler, who represents 40 of the BRW’s “Rich 200” list and several of
Australia’s top 15 corporate users of tax havens (see Table
3), gave a speech to the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA), in which he called for the
near-term enactment of a GST of 10%. “The centrepiece of
tax reform,” he intoned, “will be a broad-based consumption
tax—a value added tax.”
This was not the first time that Leibler, the single most
influential private individual in determining tax policy in
Australia over the past two decades, had called for a GST,
a highly regressive tax which hits the poor the hardest (See
headline on p. 48 “Consumption tax call to halt rorts”). In
his CEDA speech, he was merely doing what he had already
been doing for all of that time: trying, by any and all means
available, to shift the tax burden in this country from his ultrawealthy clients, onto the backs of the poor and working- and
middle-class Australians.
The present call for “tax reform” by the Howard government and such oligarchs as Business Council of Australia
head John Ralph—the former longtime chairman of Rio
Tinto and now the chairman of Australians for Fairer Tax,
part of the Business Coalition for Tax Reform—is the most
shameless example imaginable, of ripping off the public to the
advantage of a relative handful of ultra-wealthy corporations
and individuals. As a special research project by the New
Citizen has uncovered, evidence taken by two now-forgotten
federal parliamentary investigations, the 1990-91 House of
Representatives’ Standing Committee on Finance and Public
Administration chaired by Steven Martin (ALP-NSW) and
the 1992 Public Accounts Committee chaired by Gary Punch
(ALP-NSW), demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt,
that tens of billions of dollars of taxes had been “avoided”
during the 1980s by the ultra-wealthy, many of whom were
Mark Leibler’s clients. (See Table 6) Already in early 1990,
tax specialist and former Diamond Valley (Vic.) Shire President Barbara Smith charged, based upon internal Australian
Tax Office (ATO) documents, that tax scams over that period
had probably increased Australia’s foreign debt by as much as
$30 billion, to the detriment of the average citizen. As Mrs.
Smith noted, “The average taxpayer has no insight whatsoever of the tax burden he or she must shoulder to enrich the
assets of the wealthy protected by lax tax laws.” Her charges
provoked the convening of the Martin committee.
But, the story gets more shocking. The evidence uncovered
by the Martin and Punch committees was limited, given their
lack of subpoena power, but it did demonstrate that leading
ATO officials, particularly in the ATO’s Melbourne office,
were aware of this monumental tax avoidance, and had for
ten years tried to force the ATO head office in Canberra and
the Treasury to do something about it. As Mrs. Smith told
the Sun-Herald on April 28, 1991, “Nothing short of a royal
commission will reveal why the Tax Office and the politicians
have lacked the will to act for 15 years. A parliamentary
Page 47
Herald Sun 28 April 1991
inquiry does not have the power to obtain
all the required information.”
Not only did Treasury/ATO not act to
crack down, but, by a series of “reforms”
they enacted during the 1980s, they dramatically increased the opportunities for
such avoidance, opportunities which still
exist and are unquestionably still being
used today. The key figures in designing
those reforms were Treasurer Paul Keating, ATO head Trevor Boucher, and Mark
Leibler. Leibler had held, for over a decade,
Leibler’s buddy, former Australian Taxation Office
simultaneous positions as a member of
boss Trevor Boucher loosened tax laws to the
advantage of corporations and the ultra-wealthy,
the Commissioner of Taxation’s Advisory
about which Boucher’s own staff complained
Panel, the National Tax Liaison Group, and
bitterly. Boucher is now the ACT head of “Racial
the Capital Gains Tax Subcommittee—the
Respect”. Photo: The Australian
Leibler. If you're rich, he might Tax amnesty for trust strip schemes.
only non-ATO individual ever to sit on all Mark
tax your patience, but nothing else.
three of these key tax advisory committees. Photo: The Age
As for Treasurer Keating, he claimed in the
run-up to the 1990 election, that, because
of government crackdowns, tax rorting was
“nearly finished” in Australia.
Four days after his 1993 election as prime
Minister, Keating gave the United Israel
Appeal (UIA), which Barbara Smith told
the Punch Committee had been named in
internal ATO documents as a “dubious”
charity, its long-sought tax-exempt status.
Leibler had long been the UIA’s solicitor
and served on its governing board, while
Mark deserves an award for chutzpah (“nerve”) for his call to pass a GST on poor and
UIA president was Frank Lowy, a key figure,
working class people to make up for the billions lost by the Australian Taxation Office
like Leibler, in the Australia/Israel Review
to the sorts of tax avoidance schemes which he designs for the super-wealthy.
(See Table 1). Leibler later claimed that
ATO Second Commissioner Brian Nolan had assured him “Say No to Pauline Hanson” Party.
that the UIA was not a dubious charity, but Nolan admitted
The following report will not cover the entire gamut of tax
to the Martin Committee that the ATO had instructed the key scams by which our citizens have been and are being ripped off
tax officer examining such charities, John Thorburn, to have of billions of dollars, but only the activities of a single “tax pracno further contact with Mrs. Smith.
titioner”, Mark Leibler, the chairman of the Australia/Israel JewThe following year, at Leibler’s prompting, Keating pushed ish Affairs Committee, publishers of Australia/Israel Review.
into law the Racial Vilification Act which Leibler had champi- Even so, through the prism of just his activities, the magnitude
oned for years. As for Leibler’s mate Trevor Boucher, he is today of this scandal is breathtaking. After all, as The Bulletin of July
the ACT head of the new group, “Racial Respect”—a rather 21, 1992 observed, “The ATO is the most important financial
unusual job for a former Tax Commissioner, some might argue. institution in Australia. Each year, its 18,000 staff raise $90-100
Racial Respect, is pushing, among other things, the just-formed billion. Without it, the government could not function.”
Leibler’s “Artificial” tax schemes
T
hroughout the 1970s and 1980s, Leibler was one of the
country’s leading architects of tax “avoidance” or tax “minimisation” schemes, often of dubious legality. He championed
these, for instance, in his contribution to the 1980 Law Institute
Journal’s debate, “Should the Law Institute of Australia take
a public stand against artificial and contrived tax avoidance
schemes?” Leibler wrote, “In my view there is no rational basis
for drawing any distinction between ‘artificial’ and ‘contrived’
schemes on the one hand, and arrangements constituting legitimate tax planning on the other.” As for the moral questions
involved, Leibler continued, “I would like to make it clear that,
in my view, the duty of the professional advisor is to provide
Page 48
such services as may be requested by his client, provided that
he acts both with the law and within his sphere of competence.
To the extent that a moral judgment is involved in a decision to
engage in a particular artificial tax avoidance scheme, that is a
judgment which must be made by the client.”
Such pronunciamentos were hardly surprising, given that
Leibler had authored such specialist papers as “The Implementation of Tax Avoidance Schemes and the Second Limb
of Section 26 (a)”. But, Leibler’s own advice was to catch up
with him, when he and a number of his clients were found to be
directors or secretaries of companies in the notorious “bottom of
the harbour” scheme uncovered by the McCabe-LaFranchi
Victorian parliamentary investigation in 1982 (see Table 6).
In that scheme, a company would be stripped of its cash by
those seeking to avoid taxes, its shell sold to a new paper
company, and the records of the original company were
consigned to the “bottom of the harbour”.
Then, in 1984, Leibler made headlines again on the tax
issue (see right), when he personally negotiated with the
ATO what the Age of November 14, 1984 called a “unique
amnesty arrangement permitting people involved in ‘trust
stripping’ schemes to disclose their involvement without
penalty.” Leibler told a 1984 seminar in Melbourne that
the settlement “recognised the realities of the tax avoidance
situation” (!) and “represented a sensible business approach
to tax collections.” Leibler bragged that he had saved the
trust-strippers very large sums of money: “The taxpayer is
therefore receiving an interest-free loan equivalent to the
unpaid tax. In the case of some taxpayers, the payment of
one lot of taxation only, together with the interest-free loan
(if appropriately invested) represents a reduction in the effective tax rate from 60 cents in the dollar to 30 cents.” All
penalties were avoided, as well.
In 1989, the ATO finally recouped some $750 million
from the bottom-of-the-harbour schemes, after sending out
a letter to the tax avoiders which offered them a “once-only
opportunity” to “reappraise their positions.” Over 98% of
those who had not previously settled with the ATO over the
scheme, did so upon receiving the letter. The offer to settle
The Age of November 14, 1984 recounted the fabulous deal
Mark negotiated for tax avoiders.
was too good to refuse, and was almost identical to what
Leibler had negotiated in the 1984 “trust-stripping” cases.
As the Australian Financial Review of July 9, 1990 noted,
“By accepting the terms of settlement, these errant taxpayers have enjoyed a massive interest-free, 10-year loan in a
high interest rate and high inflation environment, because
they have only paid the original tax owed. No allowance
has been made for inflation.”
Barbara Smith’s charges
I
n 1990, Leibler’s name exploded back into the headlines
again, when tax specialist Barbara Smith of the Phillips
Institute’s School of Business charged that ATO documents demonstrated that tax scams had probably increased
Australia’s foreign debt by as much as $30 billion over the
past decade. Her charges were picked up by the press (see
headlines overpage), and provoked a federal parliamentary
investigation by the Finance and Public Administration
Committee chaired by the ALP’s Steven Martin. She told
the Martin Committee, “There is a massive fraud going on
of the revenue of this country...I think there are extremely
powerful and privileged people involved who may have
some sort of political control over governments insofar as
they provide political funding.”
Mark Leibler was stung. He retorted that Smith’s “diatribes directed against non-existent and powerful people who
allegedly control governments and cleverly deceive the ATO
are totally without foundations.” Not only that, he charged,
but “Ms. Smith appears to harbour an obsession that can
only be regarded as anti-Semitic.” Mrs. Smith responded,
“I didn’t know what ‘anti-Semite’ meant, until Mark Leibler
charged me with it.”
It was not surprising that Leibler howled. He had held, for
well over a decade, three positions on key committees which
advised the ATO. As Liberal MP Ken Aldred had observed
in testimony in parliament on October 8, 1991, “Mr. Leibler
further argues that there is no conflict of interest for him as
a taxation lawyer in being on these bodies. Surely he cannot
be serious, given his role through the 1980s and back into
the 1970s as an adviser on major tax avoidance schemes,
which is so well documented in his own words in his own
numerous articles and pronouncements.”
In testimony before the Martin Committee in 1990-91 and
a follow-up investigation by Gary Punch’s Public Accounts
Committee in 1992, Mrs. Smith submitted the documents
she had gained from the ATO under Freedom of Information which backed up her charges of widespread rorting.
These documents showed that the earlier “bottom-of-theharbour” schemes had been replaced by others, sometimes
referred to as the “out-of-the-harbour” schemes. In the latter,
income-earning assets would be placed, either by individuals or corporations, in a trust and the income from that trust
directed to a beneficiary overseas. The Australians sending
the funds would pay only a 10% tax rate, as opposed to a
normal rate of as high as 49%, depending on the “donor’s”
tax bracket. The beneficiary would then loan the money
back into Australia to those who had sent it out, and the
“borrowers” would claim a tax deduction on the interest
on this “loan.” In many cases, the money never even left
Australia. In a variation on this theme, all income from the
trust would be sent abroad to a foreign charity, with a tax
deduction taken in Australia for the full amount. The “charity”, if it existed at all, would take a small percentage, and
deposit the funds into an offshore account where it could be
“loaned” back into Australia, again with a deduction taken
on the interest.
One of the ATO documents which Mrs. Smith submitted
to the Punch Committee, dated March 1988 and entitled
Page 49
“Distribution to overseas charities
via Australian charitable trusts”,
Sunday Age August
showed that the ATO was aware of
91
the scam. The document said that “in
recent years there has been a high
level of charitable trusts established
in Australia for the purpose of making large, non-taxable distributions
to ‘purported’ non-resident overseas
Herald S
un 26 O
charitable institutions,” and recomct
1991
mended that regulations be tightened
29 April 1990
to stop this scam. Another document
Nov
15
ge
A
was titled “Distributions to charities
day
Sun 2
by families previously involved in
199
tax avoidance schemes”. Though Sun Herald 28 April
the names of the families were all
deleted, it said that “It is difficult to
believe that regular distributions of
substantial amounts of income each
Where do we stand now?
year since 1977 to various charities
are all used for charitable purposes.
Some of the families involved have a
history of participation in tax avoidance schemes (e.g. trust stripping)
and as such schemes became illegal
they increased their charitable activities.” (emphasis added) One tax
officer wryly recounted to a parlia- In 1990, taxation specialist Barbara Smith blew the whistle on tax avoidance schemes which
mentary committee a case he had
she estimated, based upon internal ATO documents, had cost the Australian public $30
billion over the previous decade. Mark Leibler howled that she was “anti-Semitic”.
examined where a son went overseas
for two or three years, and “a million
ing deregulation.
dollars was attributed to his lifestyle on a kibbutz. When
After the Campbell Committee’s deregulation of the early
he was in Australia he was lucky to get $1000 a year as a 1980s, the next major phase of financial deregulation was
distribution.”
that of the Wallis Committee, chaired by Stan Wallis. CoMrs. Smith also said there was a “strong correlation” incidentally, Wallis just so happens to be the chairman of
between the growth in the various tax schemes and bank- Coles Myer, upon whose board Mark Leibler sits.
Leibler’s threats
R
egarding the motive behind Leibler’s tirades, Mrs. Smith
told the Punch Committee on April 14, 1992, “Tax evasion is generally only used by the poor; those who can afford
to pay for the services of tax experts engage in tax avoidance or tax minimisation. Leibler states that he refused to
establish discretionary trusts using fictitious names... but has
established trusts which have included non-resident beneficiaries. Case law confirms that many distributions are never
intended to benefit the beneficiaries. Leibler is reputed to be
the expert in regard to trust deeds covering charitable trusts
and non-resident beneficiaries, multiple trust arrangements
and capital gains tax advice.” Leibler told the Martin Committee, in menacing tones, “I think Ms. Smith is undertaking
research which carries certain risks.” Mrs. Smith reported
that she had been subjected to “ridicule, taunts, stonewalling,
libel and defamation” for her efforts to expose the tax scams,
some of the most nasty of which came from Mark Leibler.
“I do have a written opinion from Minter Ellison which
states ‘You have been defamed by Mark Leibler’,” she told
the Punch Committee in August, 1992. But, she said, “It is
Page 50
obvious that it is not possible to take action against a person
who owns a law firm.”
Leibler also viciously attacked ATO staff who complained
about him. As Aldred told parliament on October 8, 1991,
“Mr. Leibler’s attack on ATO staff caused Mr. Paul Tregillis,
Tax Office Branch Secretary of the Public Sector Union, to
write to the Taxation Commissioner questioning the membership of the national tax liaison group of ‘someone who
has both attacked the staff of that organisation and actively
assisted those working against the principal objective of that
organisation’.” (emphasis added)
The attacks were not just verbal—Leibler often sought to
have his critics downgraded or removed. The ATO’s Doug
Booth, a team manager in charge of complex audits at the
Box Hill branch of the ATO, tabled a minute from a meeting
of office managers of November 21, 1989, which noted: “It is
understood that Mr. Leibler has recently vowed to arrange for
the removal of one of the complex-audit managers from his
current duties. It is also understood that Mr. Leibler has been
successful in a similar venture on a previous occasion... We
deplore Mr. Leibler’s de facto role as an ATO executive officer
and wish to convey to the audit chief and deputy commissioner
our utmost concern with these developments.”
One ATO official whom Leibler attacked was John Thornburn,
who had played a key role exposing tax scams from the 1980s
on. Thorburn himself told the Punch Committee that Leibler,
“after having a case settled his way,” had telephoned him and
said that he, Leibler, was going to see the second commissioner
to have him removed. As Ken Aldred told the Punch committee,
“It is important to note as well that Mr. John Thorburn, the crack
ATO auditor in Melbourne who was moved not long after Mr.
Leibler’s attack, was at the time actually working on tax avoidance schemes involving interest withholding tax arrangements,”
exactly the sort of scheme in which Leibler specialised. The Australian Jewish News in September 1992 reported that Thorburn
had told a parliamentary committee that “hundreds of millions
of dollars” at least was avoided in taxes which were set up with
overseas beneficiaries so as to pay only a 10% withdrawal tax,
Some earlier “tax reform”
A
s a result of the heat generated by the Martin and Punch
Committees, Leibler professed himself to be “taken aback”
by the kind of tax avoidance schemes he had championed just a
few years earlier. As he told the Age in October, 1990, “I freely
admit that my attitude to the whole issue of tax minimisation
has changed. I guess, if you go back several years, I would
have had no qualms on advising on artificial means of tax
avoidance...Today I don’t believe I would.” Asked why the
change, Leibler said that the ATO had become much more
willing to listen to his point of view. “I’m talking about the
top of the tax office,” he said, in particular Trevor Boucher.
“When you get down to the grass roots level, there are some
very ugly people there....who are highly motivated and who
still haven’t recovered from the old late ’70s days when you
have to get the taxpayer for the most you can extract from
them... but that runs counter to everything that is coming
from the top now.”
In other words, “reforms” implemented by the ATO were so
favourable to Leibler and his clients, that he did not need to
engage in the same dodgy practices as previously! And, these
reforms were organised by Paul Keating, Trevor Boucher and
Leibler himself. About this troika, the Australian Financial
Review of November 23, 1990 reported, “A determined,
carefully calculated effort led by the Federal Treasurer, Paul
Keating, and the tax commissioner, Trevor Boucher, has
changed the terms of tax policy and administration in the
1980s. Everyone involved agrees that Keating is the hub of the
power in tax...Keating and Boucher have the real clout. Keating, his staff and Treasury set policy. Boucher and his officers,
and notably second commissioner Brian Nolan, set the tone
of administration. So who influences them?” Answering its
own question, The AFR reported, “Leibler is seen to be close
to Boucher.” However, the AFR continued, “He is not popular
with auditors and others lower down the ATO tree. The reason,
probably, is that Leibler is unapologetic in his view that a tax
scheme or arrangement, however contrived or artificial, may
still be legal.” Still, the AFR concluded, “Leibler, of all the
instead of the full income tax rates. “I don’t think the office [the
ATO] knows how vast it is, because we still haven’t identified
it all,” Thorburn said. Most of these scams involved Israel, said
Thorburn: “We found mainly Israeli beneficiaries.” He added,
“I would say that probably 70 or 80%, from the work I looked
at, were all basically coming from the same (tax) agents.”
Thorburn also told the Public Accounts Committee in
August, 1992, Leibler had used his influence to “change the
course of some of the audits I have worked on.” In response,
Leibler blustered that such allegations were “without substance”, that Thorburn’s comments were “quite improper”,
and that Thorburn, a senior tax auditor, was only “a relatively
junior officer.”
Thorburn’s charges of tax schemes involving “Israeli beneficiaries” no doubt hit another raw nerve with Leibler. As
noted, Leibler was the solicitor for the UIA and a member
of its governing board. And was he, by any chance, the tax
lawyer for many of the UIA’s major contributors?
panel members, is in the greatest position of influence.”
The “panel” the AFR referred to, on which Leibler sat, was
the taxation liaison group started by Boucher in 1984. Its
purpose, according to Brian Nolan, was to “cement relations
between the tax office and professional bodies.” The astonishing results of the new arrangements—under which the foxes
were allowed to guard the henhouse—were reported three
years later, by the AFR of January 15, 1987, “A revolution
is under way in the Australian Taxation Office. For the first
time in its history, the Tax Office is communicating with tax
professionals before it finalises its internal rules for interpreting
legislation...Mr. Mark Leibler, the Law Council of Australia’s
member in the group, warmly welcomed the move, saying it
was ‘nothing short of a revolutionary change’ which ‘gives
professional bodies a direct role in setting policies... Six or
seven years ago there was almost a total state of war between
the Tax Office and tax advisers’, Mr. Leibler said. Mr. Boucher
had been instrumental in changing that, he said.” (Emphasis
in original)
The changes allowed Mark to intervene to protect his superwealthy clients. As one press account noted, “Minutes of the
taxation liaison committee show that some years ago Mr.
Leibler had direct input into rulings affecting trust distribution of trust income to beneficiaries living overseas—one of
the out-of-the-harbour schemes mentioned by Mrs. Smith.
The minutes show that in August 1986 Mr. Leibler criticised
the fact that the Melbourne Taxation Office had sent letters
to a large numbers of trusts distributing income to overseas
beneficiaries where there were doubts about the bona fides of
the arrangements.”
But Leibler did not merely criticise the action. Mr. John
Pickering, the President of the Taxation Officer’s Branch of the
Federated Clerk’s Union, told the Punch Committee inquiry in
1992, that the ATO in 1986 had sent letters to 700 holders of
offshore trust companies, demanding tax payments, but then,
“a tax adviser saw the Commissioner and those letters were
withdrawn. He was actually able to impose his will over the
Page 51
operation of the Taxation Office.” That tax adviser was Mark
Leibler, as Leibler himself latter bragged: “My representations were accepted by the Tax Office, following which the
700 standard letters were withdrawn.”
Leibler further said, when asked by Ken Aldred what he
did if he did not get satisfaction from the local Tax Office, “I
do act for many taxpayers at the top end of the market. When
you are dealing with disputes of tax, not involving $10 or
$15, but tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars,
it is obvious that more senior tax officials and sometimes the
Commissioner (Trevor Boucher) himself have a direct interest in the dispute, which means you sit down and negotiate
these issues with people at different levels, depending on
the amount of tax involved and the complexity of the issues.
That determines where I go.” (Emphasis added) ATO official
Pickering, as well as other tax officers, regularly complained
that Leibler had “undue influence” over Boucher.
Besides the “consultations” with those, such as Leibler,
who represented the ultra-wealthy, the other reforms which
Leibler’s friend Boucher initiated in the ATO were even
more extraordinary, given the evidence that wide-spread
rorting was already taking place. According to a summary of
the nature of these reforms in The Bulletin of July 21, 1992,
“Trevor Boucher, one of the most capable and dynamic commissioners in recent times, has replaced the regime of close
scrutiny of returns with a self-assessment process relying on
voluntary compliance. Only 1% to 2% of returns are audited.”
(Emphasis added) Boucher told the Punch Committee, about
the “honour system” he had initiated, “People tend to respond
to what is expected of them. If you expect them to try to
cheat, they will; if you expect them to do the right thing, they
will.” Others were less charitable regarding the motives and
honesty of ultra-wealthy taxpayers. Democrats’ leader Sid
Spindler told parliament in December, 1990, “The Tax Office
made the somewhat incredible claim that, since about 50%
of the loans [at issue in a tax scheme] involved the largest
corporations, these bodies would not risk being involved in
questionable schemes. However, when we look at the success
of the large corporate audit program being conducted by the
Tax Office—it yielded some $600 million this year—this is
a somewhat bizarre claim.”
ATO officers also complained about the results of the “reforms”. A memo from an ATO officer to Michael Carmody
(the ATO commissioner who replaced Boucher in 1992)
tabled at the Punch Committee hearings warned that the ATO
had reached too many “soft settlements” with large corporations which had been caught avoiding taxes, and that the
ATO had taken too much advice from “external people with
vested interests.” The memo further attacked the introduction
of “voluntary compliance” tax assessment, the “softening
of penalties” and “restrictions” imposed upon tax auditors.
Another internal ATO report, written at the end of 1992 by a
special ATO working party set up a year earlier to investigate
claims by senior tax personnel that “in practice, taxpayers
write their own interest deductions,” found that “corporate
taxpayers are... using international funding arrangements to
avoid significant amounts of revenue.” The strongly worded
report stressed that this was not merely a matter of tax receipts,
but that such large-scale evasion would have a “substantial
longterm impact on the entire Australian economy.”
Where do we stand now?
T
hough very useful, the Martin and Punch Committees
could only go so far, given their limited powers. On August 10, 1990 Stephen Martin told his committee that he was
“bitterly disappointed” with the responses from the ATO to
questions raised during his committee hearings, and charged
that its replies had been “totally inadequate”. Nor was the
business community—which is today crowing its head off for
“tax reform” and a GST—of any help. The Confederation of
Australian Industry, for instance, wrote a letter to Mr. Martin
declining to make a submission, stating that the Confederation was “most concerned” that the inquiry was “little more
than a wild-goose chase which causes unwarranted damage to
confidence in the vast majority of fair and honest business.”
The letter also included the backhanded threat that “certain
Commonwealth ministers” had “expressed concern” over the
committee’s work. Which ministers would be concerned with
taxation questions? Treasurer Paul Keating, naturally. But,
according to the Age of August 11, 1990, “A spokesman for
Mr. Keating said yesterday that he accepted advice from the
tax office that the schemes were of no great concern.” Keating’s nonchalance was remarkable, given that ATO officials
had already complained bitterly about the rorting, as in a
memo by the senior assistant deputy commissioner for audit
Page 52
in March, 1990: “The evidence is quite clear that the lower
withholding tax rates [as used in “out-of-harbour” schemes]
are presently being exploited by these non-resident arrangements which have been in vogue for over 10 years and have
increased dramatically since 1983”—the year after the whistle
was blown on the the “bottom-of-the-harbour” schemes.
Limited as the 1990-1992 parliamentary hearings were,
they did put the spotlight on Mark Leibler and made him
squirm, as did hard-hitting testimony submitted by the CEC,
which was officially accepted by the Punch Committee.
Leibler shortly thereafter resigned his three tax advisory
positions. But, have his old habits changed?
On May 21, 1996, Tax Commissioner Michael Carmody
gave a speech to the Corporate Tax Association, in which he
said there was “clear evidence of extremely aggressive and
questionable practices being employed. There is significant
revenue at risk, estimated at $800 million per annum...”,
Carmody concluded.
Then, on July 8, 1996, ABC-TV’s 7:30 Report ran a special
feature on this missing $800 million per year which ultrawealthy Australians had not paid to the Australian Tax Office.
The 7:30 Report found that, in the tax avoidance business,
“all roads lead to Mark Leibler”.