Subscribe to EIR Online
This presentation appears in the July 7, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Stop the Synarchist Takeover in Berlin

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the chairwoman of the Solidarity Civil Rights Movement (BüSo) party in Germany. Here is her speech to an EIR-sponsored seminar in Berlin, Germany on June 27; it has been translated from German.

I want to address an observation by our Chancellor, which she made a couple of weeks ago, and which has created considerable excitement. Specifically, she said that Germany is a readjustment-case. That is just another way of saying that Germany is bankrupt. And therefore a huge torrent of voices arose, which said, "No, you cannot say that!" The other position was then put forward: "Yes, yes, this is a case of insolvency." I would prefer to believe, that Mrs. Merkel, who is actually an "Ossie" [from former East Germany] knows such insolvency cases quite well, and that she has thus asserted what I have said many times, namely, that the global financial system today is just as bankrupt as East Germany was in October/November 1989. And how true that is, has been underscored once again this morning in the various presentations.

Now we must naturally ask: Why is Germany a readjustment-case? Why is Germany bankrupt? And so one cannot avoid the issue of who were in the governments of the last years. Who were the leading banking houses, the leading people, who are responsible for the weaknesses in the financial system? And I want to briefly cast a glance at just that.

The Lazard Frères Role

But, first of all, there is the fact that we are here in Berlin and are conducting a Berlin election campaign, with the goal of reindustrializing Berlin as the first step in the reindustrialization of Germany. Thus, one comes to certain stumbling blocks: The first is, that there are several powers in this city, including not only the mayor, but also the leading senior partner of Lazard Frères in Germany, former U.S. Ambassador John Kornblum, who, just as Rohatyn was Ambassador in Paris, was the Ambassador in Berlin. Now, these two people are linked more closely than one might think at first.

We have begun to look carefully at Mr. Kornblum, because he had certain definite ideas for Berlin; he had given an interview, a while ago, to the newsletter Berlin-Box, in which he proposed that Berlin follow the model of Boston from the last 30 years. That model is a kind of Boston version of New York's Big MAC, and it then functioned under the idea of urban renewal. At that time there was a group of Boston bankers called The Vault, which in German is called Der Tresor. Yes, that's what they're called, those who proposed to deindustrialize Boston, to revamp the workers' areas of the city, and instead erect banks, insurance companies, media companies, and universities in Boston—which they have done, with the result that many inexpensive houses for working people have been demolished, and in their place now stand speculative properties for offices and service industries.

If you look at the development of Boston, then you can establish the fact that the same thing has happened there over the last 15 years, as in Berlin, where we also have about half a million unemployed, very poor people. And for them, Mr. Kornblum naturally has no sympathy. In another interview he said: "Therefore, the people who criticize this development, who criticize globalization, they are the Losers—and we are with the Winners!" A sweetie pie of the first order.

Another project links Rohatyn and Kornblum. They began in the year 2000 a Mayors' Initiative, which aimed at creating a worldwide network of mayors—indeed, because they are of the opinion that in the globalized world the sovereign nation-state has lost its usefulness, and instead the role of the cities is much more important, and above all, the close collaboration of mayors in the cities. Now we certainly have one such mayor in Berlin, and also top managers, who could work together on the privatization of infrastructure, the privatization of industry, and then you wouldn't need government any more, the state could fall by the wayside, since the mayors, the bankers, and the managers have taken care of everything!

We are really only at the beginning of the investigation—I would like my observation to be understood as an inspiration for many more people, to cooperate in these investigations, because this has an unbelievable dimension. But let's take one case of what Lazard Frères has previously done in Berlin. They are well known for their specialty in so-called mergers and acquisitions.

Our mayoral candidate Daniel Buchmann, in the course of his election campaign, recently visited striking workers from Case and New Holland (CNH), who have been striking here in Berlin already for a week. This firm, in the '90s, had taken over the earlier, traditional machine-tool firm Orenstein & Koppel, a takeover for which, naturally, Goldman Sachs, Crédit Suisse, and Lazard Frères were the advisors. Now this story is interesting because in the year 2001, the Berlin Senate had supported this takeover with about 70 million euros annually, with the promise that CNH would keep its production in Berlin. But then the management of CNH decided in 2005, that it would now relocate production to Italy, at which point the workers began a weeks-long strike, until they soon accepted a settlement, because, as is known, striking workers do not have unlimited financial means to be able to carry through such a strike.

Now, if you look at who is the international chairman of CNH, it is a certain Jean-Pierre Rosseau, who sits on the board of a company called Euraseo, where once again, the chairman of the advisory board is a certain Michel David-Weill, that is, the former head of Lazard Frères. Euraseo is in practice the most important player in the three combined banking houses of Lazard in Paris, London, and New York. We have in view an unparalleled takeover—one could almost say robbery—of Germany by these locusts; for example, the German and French Telekoms are continually selling off parts of themselves, such as AWB, but also medium-sized industrial enterprises, villas, and social properties are being actually dismantled in a flash in this way, so that practically nothing of Germany will survive, if a halt is not called.

The Treuhand Precedent

But naturally this development, which has now in a certain way arrived at an end-phase, began much, much earlier, if you look at the development after 1989, and especially after 1991, when Berlin, above all, and the new federal states, were taken apart. That is an interesting case study, which has contributed to this development. So let's look back again to the 8th of March 1990. Then, the last People's Assembly of the G.D.R. [East Germany] decided on the establishment of the Treuhand, with the explicit purpose of preserving the people's property.

But already under the government of Lothar de Maziere, there was no longer any talk about safeguarding the people's property, but privatization and reorganization were going ahead, as written in the Law Sheet of June 22, 1990. Then the resistance within the population grew, since everything was in such great chaos. Therefore, in August 1990, they appointed Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, who had a very good reputation, because he was the "savior" of Hoesch AG, and then had led Hoesch AG in the Ruhr region out of the red, into the black; he also had a reputation as someone who understood something about physical economy, and was also sensible in respect to the social effects of such transformations. But he was, up until then, in a minority faction on the board of the Treuhand. The opposing position was held by Birgit Breuel, who stood for direct privatization, while Rohwedder came more and more to the idea that it would not work to privatize the whole industry of the former G.D.R., but that it was necessary first to reorganize, and then to privatize, with the idea of preserving as many jobs as possible, and at the same time creating new jobs.

Now, Birgit Breuel had acquired a certain reputation as Lower Saxony Economics Minister, where she had put through an absolutely brutal campaign of de-statification and de-bureaucratization. And she immediately put Rohwedder under pressure, and also made her own press declarations, so that the Treuhand at that time spoke with two tongues.

Rohwedder not only came under pressure as a result of this opposition on the Treuhand board, but through international consulting firms, American and British investment bankers, who accused him of stopping foreign investment. But criticism also came from the CDU [Christian Democratic Union]—Biedenkopf, for example, and also Geissler, who reproached him for his failures. Then, as is known, Rohwedder was shot on April 1, 1991.

"Just in time," a week before, a huge campaign had been started about a supposed connection between the Stasi [East German secret service] and the RAF [Red Army Faction, a terrorist gang], which was exposed a short time later as a total media hoax, but which totally dominated the climate in the media during the period of the Rohwedder murder. Everyone said that the Stasi was behind it. And therefore, naturally, the investigation was guided onto a certain track. A short time later, this hoax disappeared from sight. It was clear that it had been badly overblown by two Monitor journalists.

But what remained was the idea that there was a third generation of the RAF. Now, the "third generation of the RAF" is a phantom. No one has ever seen it, there is no proof of whether it exists or not, but it has been held responsible. Thus it happened, that in the Rohwedder case there were unbelievable holes in his security screen, and no results from the search for his killers.

Still, the notable thing about Rohwedder's death is that, if one considers cui bono?, one comes to the hypothesis which John Perkins wrote about in his book The Economic Hit Men: that is, that Rohwedder, just like Herrhausen, was an advocate of the Third World, of the workers' interests, of social issues. This cui bono actually leads to other areas, because the beneficiaries were, without question, the international financial circles, who had the motive for doing away with this man. At least, that is a question which one could have, and it is really remarkable that the investigative authorities have never raised it.

In any case, the leaf turned for the international investors at the moment Birgit Breuel became Rohwedder's successor. She began with an unparalleled economic "clean sweep" in the new federal states, but also in Berlin. One can argue whether, with the downfall of the G.D.R., the claim of the citizens of the G.D.R. to their life's achievements also was lost. But in my opinion—and that is open to debate—an unparalleled crime against humanity was carried out in the new federal states, where people were thrown out into the cold overnight, because basically the people had built up these enterprises. They were, it's true, part of the system, but one cannot simply throw them away!

The only ones who profited from that, were the international financial sharks, who really made unbelievable profits, since the Treuhand then was the largest industrial holding company in the world. This was no small thing.

Birgit Breuel and the Schröders

Now, just as a question—I don't believe that this matter has now been fully clarified. But let us now look at, who was this Birgit Breuel? Her father was Alwin Münchmeyer, a private banker from Hamburg, who in the 1930s took over the bank of a Jewish family, named Rappold, who had to emigrate. There were a lot of people then who took over Jewish property. In 1969, Münchmeyer merged with Schröder Bank and the Hengst and Co. Bank, and in this way the Schröder Münchmeyer Hengst & Co. Bank came into existence, now suddenly united, but maintaining the historical continuity of the Schröder Bank.

It is, so to speak, a very traditional bank, because the head of Schröder Bank was a certain Baron Rudolf von Schröder, who was also the vice president of the Hamburg-America Line, which today is Hapag-Lloyd, and then came the daughter of the American investment bank Brown Brothers Harriman. This was the bank of Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the current U.S. President George W. (We have documented all these things which I mentioned in George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography [EIR, 1992]). We have not only received no complaints from George Bush (nor from George W. Bush) but, if you saw the election special which President Clinton produced for his 1992 election campaign, a two-hour election special, then you saw this Unauthorized Biography lying on the table. We actually only researched and published this, in order to catch the old Bush, and to substantially contribute so that Clinton won in this way. And in a certain way it was a thank-you, that he put the book on the table. All the "records" exist, all the documents exist, which we have published, which was the reason why a complaint never followed.

Now, to Rudolf von Schröder: He was an intimate of Averell Harriman, the co-owner of the Hamburg-America Line, who played a leading role in the American eugenics movement, had intensive relations with the National Socialists, and very much admired, of all things, the race theory of the Nazis, since eugenics encompassed the idea of breeding men. And he also found the Aryan concepts very interesting—according to documents from the time of the Second World War, and also from the U.S. government, with a focus on the Hamburg-America-Line, which was well known to have financed the National Socialists, and therefore, naturally, the enemy.

Another family member was Kurt von Schröder, the co-director of Thyssen-Huette, of whom it is known that he directly financed Hitler. And Kurt von Schröder was, together with Hjalmar Schacht, actually instrumental in helping Hitler come to power. It is therefore interesting, that Lazard Frères, when its German branch was founded in 1999, took over a large part of the customer base of Schröder Münchmeyer Hengst & Co. Bank, which was taken over on their side by Lloyds Bank. And Lazard Frères then remained the chief coordinator for privatizations, and further mergers and acquisitions.

Now back to Breuel. After Breuel took over the Treuhand in 1991, more and more banks took over the business of privatizations: Goldman Sachs, SG Warburg, Crédit Suisse First Boston, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, etc. And through the Treuhand, this whole market of mergers and acquisitions, and therefore the mergers and acquisition business, was first opened in Germany, in a form which had never existed before. And at the time, these banks made enormous profits, while the poor people became ever poorer.

The Danger of a New Fascism

Now, a new phase has been reached, with an unparalleled "financial locust" attack on Germany. And the question is naturally, why no one from the various parties in the Bundestag will do anything to prevent the total rip-off of Germany? We have defined, in the case of the United States and the takedown of the auto sector, the role of Rohatyn very clearly. It is totally clear: There are Senators, there are Congressmen, who love money from Rohatyn more than the defense of their constituents. For that, there is a good word: namely, corruption!

And I really have the horrible suspicion, which is worth confirming, that we in Germany and Berlin have a very similar situation. Presently, Germany is being destroyed. And what these people intend, is not only to make profits, but they have an ideological idea of neo-feudalism, to completely tear down the social state, as it has been crystallized since the 15th Century, and originated in Germany through the Bismarck reforms 130 years ago. And when the soccer fever in Germany fades away on the 9th or 10th of July, people will rub their eyes, and see that during the four weeks they've been in fantasy-land, an unparalleled attack has been under way on their living standards, on the institutions of the social state, and on the health system, and that the rich have become richer in the meantime, and the living standards of the poor have been reduced.

Therefore, what stands before us, what we're looking at, is the danger of a new fascism. And these bankers and these interests are just the instruments. This is really nothing new, because already in 1972, Lyndon LaRouche conducted a debate with the economist Abba Lerner, and in this debate Abba Lerner was so challenged that he said: If we get the people to accept the policies of Hjalmar Schacht—i.e., the most brutal destruction of living standards, which finally led to concentration camps and the destruction of labor in them—then we don't need a Hitler any more. And as a result, a leading person in the Council of Cultural Freedom, Sidney Hook, who had followed this, dropped his mask and said: If LaRouche got Abba Lerner to say such things, which are taboo, then we must make sure that we never again conduct a debate with LaRouche on matters of content—the discussion will be limited, it will be confined to slanders—but a debate, that is too dangerous for us.

The Battle in Berlin

The reason these things are extremely important is: We must know where the enemy lies. And we must expose the international proponents of this new fascist danger. We will reach, within a very short period of time, a turning-point in the financial crisis, at which point the oligarchy, the Synarchist oligarchy, already has plans which they have made ready: They want the central banks, the European Central Bank, the Berlin banks, and the businesses to take over in Berlin, the which will naturally be a massive attack on the living standards and lives of the population.

Over the next weeks and months, we must do everything to promote the alternative, which Lyndon LaRouche has brought to the agenda, specifically a New Bretton Woods. And I would like to ask all of you not only to sign this call for a New Bretton Woods, not only to organize for it, but to help us to make an example here in Berlin, by chasing the anti-industrialization grouping out of the temple. I would like to invite you to support the mayoral campaign of our candidate Daniel Buchmann, because Berlin must become the gateway to the Eurasian Land-Bridge. And it must become a symbol of hope, so that we actually create, over the next 50 years, a totally different world order, in which each man and woman on this planet has the right and possibility for a life worthy of a human being.

Therefore, support Daniel Buchmann!

Back to top