LaRouche Replies to Bartley Columnby Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
June 10, 2003
This letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal was written in response to an attack on Presidential candidate LaRouche by Journal editor emiritus Robert Bartley, over LaRouche's internationally-followed exposé of the "Straussian cabal" in the Bush Administration. LaRouche titled it, "Re: 'Joining LaRouche In The Fever Swamps,' Wall Street Journal, June 9th.''
My old adversary, since 1973, your Robert Bartley, acknowledges that my Presidential nomination-campaign pamphlet, "The Children of Satan," has been widely influential; but he refuses to address that central issue of that pamphlet which has gained replication within some leading parts of the U.S. press and elsewhere around the world.
I make three points.
First, the subject of the pamphlet is the evidence that the faction in government currently headed by Leo Strauss follower Lynne Cheney and her husband, Vice-President Dick Cheney, is a continuation of what U.S.A. diplomatic and intelligence services of the 1930s and 1940s classified under the rubric "Synarchism: Nazi-Communist." This Synarchist network, then tied to circles in Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and heavily infiltrated in Central and South America, was a principal security concern of the U.S.A. during the 1930s and 1940s, and was the source of the Nazi-centered threat to the world at large which prompted President Franklin Roosevelt's personal alliance with the United Kingdom's Winston Churchill during the 1940-1941 interval preceding the December 7th Pearl Harbor attack.
The point of the pamphlet to which Bartley referred, was the fact that a so-called "neo-conservative" network of the Vice-President's lackeys, organized around the influence of Professor Leo Straussa follower of the Nazi existentialist Martin Heidegger, Nazi legal figure Carl Schmitt, and Hegelian Alexander Kojeveare the core of the current pro-war faction inside the current Bush Administration's Defense and State Departments, in addition to the office of the Vice-President himself. Bartley evades these facts, the facts of the very issue which made the pamphlet as influential as he describes it.
Second, in an included afterthought, Bartley finds my exposure of such Nazi traditions as suggesting "anti-semitic" motives.
The common quality of those lackeys who do have putative Jewish pedigrees is not that they are Jewish, but that many of them had been professedly putative Trotskyists, either of the Max Schachtman pedigree, or, in the case of Bartley's Wohlstetter, products of the successive leadership of the Wall Street Journal's former writer, "B.J. Field," and Leo Strauss later.
Third, my exposure of those synarchist roots of Vice-President Cheney's Straussian lackeys, also underlined the importance of recognizing that Strauss, like his Allan Bloom, were in fact haters of Plato in the same tradition of Nietzsche as Strauss's teacher Martin Heidegger.
In fact, the strained argument of self-described "slow reader" Strauss was a copy of the Sophist method, of those Greek sophists who were the bitter enemies of the historical Socrates and, by name, the principal targets of attack in Plato's dialogues. The formal key to the interpretation of Plato's method of hypothesis has always been recognizable, whether in Greek or translation, in Plato's treatment of key topics of pre-Euclidean, Pythagorean traditions of geometry. Plato's most famous application of that same dialectical method occurs in "The Republic," in which the concept of "agape" is presented by Socrates in opposition to the contrary principles of both Glaucon and the evil Thrasymachus. This is the same principle of "agape" explicitly adopted as the core of Christian practice by the Apostle Paul, and enshrined under such terms as the Latin "caritas," or the English "common good" or "general welfare," in all commendable features of law and other practice in the subsequent course of globally extended European civilization.
I stand for defense of those overriding principles of our Federal Constitution expressed as its Preamble. I stand for the principle of the general welfare, as Plato's Socrates, the Apostle Paul, and as Franklin Roosevelt did. The Straussians, as typified by Cheney's Chicken-hawks, stand by the side of Thrasymachus. Once again, in his June 9th piece, Bartley demonstrates that his method is the sophistry of Thrasymachus.
My advice to Bartley: don't complain about the small size of the mental shoes you are trying to fit onto a man with big feet.
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.