Lyndon Larouche

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Talking with LaRouchies

Postby starroute » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:47 am

Someone my son was friends with in high school still comes around to say hi once or twice a year. He's a LaRouchie these days and insisted on hauling my son off to a meeting of the LaRouche Youth Corps, or whatever they call it.<br><br>My son had very mixed feelings. He said that with so many of his contemporaries being total airheads, it was a welcome change to talk to people his own age who actually knew something about intellectual subjects and could hold their own in discussions about history and philosophy and so forth. But the longer he spent with them, the more obvious it became that they were cultists. Very intelligent, sharp-witted cultists, but ultimately as brainwashed as any other cult adherents.<br><br>The real problem with LaRouche may not be whether or not he's personally a crank. It's that what he's created around himself is every bit as much a cult as the Scientologists or the Moonies. And that is not a good thing.<br> <p></p><i></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Talking with LaRouchies

Postby Dreams End » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:23 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The real problem with LaRouche may not be whether or not he's personally a crank. It's that what he's created around himself is every bit as much a cult as the Scientologists or the Moonies. And that is not a good thing.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>starroute, that is exactly correct. I'd LIKE to think that I'd be just as hard on someone with whose public pronouncements I totally agreed with if I found this material on them or even if they were not hiding more sinister beliefs but were using coercive tactics. <br><br>And Watchful, I noticed your take on the ANSWER rally. Here's my own approach. For good or ill, ANSWER has grabbed the rights as main organizers of anti-war rallies and those same folks get all the airtime (though I thought another group was spearheading it this time.) I never discourage people from going and only engage in this type of discussion in sites such as this...for now at least. I simply don't know how to say to someone, hey it's great that you are willing to go and march against the war, but ANSWER is suspect so you'd better stay home. <br><br>I think more appropriate would be encouragement, as one poster put it, to go beyond the weekend protest mentality. And I think a lot of people who go to these things do work in their local communities and could care less about who actually organized the march. <br><br>It's also quite awkward given that I really do come from a left perspective so ragging on WWP publicly is not a position I like to be in. However, I've worked directly with them in California...and they are definitely a "glassy eyed" bunch...maybe just from overwork. I'm pretty good at reading people....but not those folks. <br><br>There's so much we may NEVER know the truth about. I'm sure there are paper shredders buzzing 24/7 that will insure we don't know. <br><br>I particularly jump on Larouche, though, not just for his beliefs, but also because I think he's dangerous. Bats are for baseball.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

LaRouche

Postby robertdreed » Mon Sep 26, 2005 5:57 am

Hmm, high level of discourse...<br><br>Good background info, starroute, bringing up Barruel. And I'm with you on RAW. Historical rigor isn't his forte, but I've learned a lot from his overall approach toward politics and political history. A lot. Reading Wilson's works has been like a mail-order course in principles of counter-intelligence. He taught me to consider and recognize the pitfalls of premature certainty, among other things. And he understands the value of having a self-mocking sense of humor about one's own speculations as an antidote to paranoia. Invaluable lessons.<br><br>Succumb to paranoia, and one grants a huge victory to the adversary. I prefer pronoia. It's already worked better than I could ever possibly have dreamed, and I've only been with the program for a little while. I'm only just getting started ;^)<br><br>Paranoia is, of course, a hallmark of all crisis cults. This ain't no crisis, this is just another tricky day...<br><br>Back to LaRouche...you've already made some excellent points about the entire phenomenon, DE. I didn't realize that the youth groups were so Moonie-oid. Ironic, considering that LaRouche and EIR have offered perhaps the most high-profile exposes of Moon's organization, in terms of getting the material out before the public...their info on Moon is generally quite accurate, as well, although it's no great feat of investigation as far as I can tell, being as it consists mostly from reports sourced out of pre-existing news stories in the world press, articles from Spanish and Asian publications. A minor feat of translation, as it were...<br><br>Too bad about the coercive element of the LaRouchies. I was idly thinking about what would happen if a sufficient number of independent-minded types joined the youth organization, that they could modify the organization from within, and get rid of the crackpot stuff by examining its assumptions. Fat chance of that, under the circumstances. <br><br>I still like the choral singing stuff, though. Gambit though it undoubtedly is...deceptive, that way. The youth group still might be worth joining, if for no other reason than for the singing lessons- all the while testing how much unorthodoxy one could put on the table before being kicked out. What's to lose? Although it would help to join up with at least one friend, as an ally. <br><br>Perhaps the most troubling unanswered question I have about LaRouche is the extent of his alliances within political and military circles, both in the USA and worldwide, in other nations. He has a remarkable amount of entree for a wingnut crisis cult leader of a marginal political organization that holds some awfully apostate positions regarding some US political figures ( at least ostensibly.) He visits nuclear power plants in India, and conferences in Germany, meeting with ministers of various governments, etc. It seems as if there could be more going on than simply a few minor functionaries here and there indulging LaRouche's delusions of grandeur by granting him an occasional audience. Could it be that he's simply a stalking horse, representing the views and agenda of a wider alliance that for the most part remains beneath the notice of outside observers? <br><br>I've also long wondered about the sources of the LaRouche organization's money. Although now that Loudoun County has turned into a booming real-estate market, he's probably sold at least part of his property there, and made a fortune in the process. That was a very far-sighted investment.<br><br>Last but not least, I'd like to know where he did his Federal time, and what his fellow inmates thought about him- particularly if they noticed anything strange going on in his case, special treatment like unusual privileges or unexplained absences...or was he just another number? I have the same questions about Rev. Moon's term in jail, as well...<br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/26/05 4:38 am<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Thanks for RI

Postby robertdreed » Mon Sep 26, 2005 6:37 am

Thanks, Jeff, once again. I've finally found a suitable place to broach a lot of questions that I've had on my mind for quite a while, to an audience that has some idea of what I might be talking about. <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Thanks for RI

Postby Dreams End » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:02 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Perhaps the most troubling unanswered question I have about LaRouche is the extent of his alliances within political and military circles, both in the USA and worldwide, in other nations. He has a remarkable amount of entree for a wingnut crisis cult leader of a marginal political organization that holds some awfully apostate positions regarding some US political figures ( at least ostensibly.) He visits nuclear power plants in India, and conferences in Germany, meeting with ministers of various governments, etc. It seems as if there could be more going on than simply a few minor functionaries here and there indulging LaRouche's delusions of grandeur by granting him an occasional audience.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yes. That's my concern to. Even though Scientology, say, is bigger...they don't seem as hooked into power structures the way Larouche is.<br><br>Moonie's...my God...I didn't even include them in my list. I'm such a xenophobe! I didn't now Larouche did Moony exposes. Interesting. Larouche talks about a lot of things and I hope no one gets the message: Larouche said it, therefore it must be wrong. Not my point at all.<br><br>Moonie's need a new thread. They own papers, own politicians and are given all kinds of support and alliances with rightwing Christian "leaders" despite belief that Moon is the Messiah. They are very powerful throughout the world, but most importantly are probably a creation of or adjunct to South Korean Intelligence. I'd say Moon probably studied Larouche to perfect his technique.<br><br>When I was in LA 15 years ago or so I met a young woman selling flowers for Moon. They used to just stand out on roadways selling roses. I talked to her for awhile. they worked ungodly hours, like 7 days per week (one day off per month) and 12 hours a day. Under such stress, anyone...and I mean ANYONE could be manipulated and controlled.<br><br>Larouche has his folks on the phone raising money in much the same way. No time to think. Fatigue. Pressure to perform. Tried and true technique.<br><br>As for the youth Chorus, no, please warn all young people the other way. We like to think we'd never get sucked into such mentality or "brainwashed" but it happens. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Makow...

Postby Qutb » Mon Sep 26, 2005 10:45 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>There should be a POISON symbol over the doors of our universities, cinemas and art galleries. There should be a similar warning on our TV, music and videos.<br><br>In the 1920s, leaders of the Communist International decided that Western society was too strong to conquer. It was necessary to weaken it by subverting its cultural institutions--family, education, religion, art, mass media and government.<br><br>They have largely succeeded. While maintaining these institutions in their familiar format, they have subtly changed the content. It's like lacing a bottle of aspirin with arsenic. The purpose is to gradually poison, paralyze and eventually destroy us.<br><br>We are noticing that our political and cultural leaders are mostly cowards, dupes, traitors, crooks, opportunists and impostors rewarded for how much harm they can do.<br><br>Our failure to combat Communism is due to a misunderstanding of its true nature. We imagine it is a discredited movement, once based in the USSR and China devoted to social justice, equality and public ownership. Millions of idealists, including myself, were duped.<br><br>In fact, Communism is an international phenomenon that invaded Russia and China. It is the creation of a satanic cult (the Illuminati) formed in 1776 by international bankers. It is designed to put all the world's wealth in their hands, and to eventually reduce and enslave the human race. The five-pointed Red Star is symbol of both Communism and Satan-worship. A demonic virus, Communism has morphed into countless forms (i.e. fe-manism) and is hoodwinking more people than ever. www.savethemales.ca/000180.html<br><br>Western Civilization is built on Christianity, the premise that God is real, in fact the ultimate and only permanent Reality, a spiritual one. Through man's Divine soul, the ordinary individual can discern the Divine Will without mediation from a worldly authority. This is why the bankers hate Christianity.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It always amazes me how people can reduce history to such a simplistic Theory of Everything as this. First of all, it's factually incorrect at the most basic level. The Bavarian Illuminati weren't bankers. They were free-thinkers and artists, like Goethe, of bourgeois backround, which is why they were outlawed by the ruling aristocrats who felt their power threatened by them. If I lived in the late 18th century Germany, I would certainly root for the Illuminati rather than the king of Bavaria. Starroute provided a good overview of the origin of this particular brand of conspiracy theory.<br><br>Makow and his like-minded, and I'll include Pat Robertson in that category, propound a world-view which posits that all the changes Western societies have undergone over the last 200 years have been deliberately created by a Diabolical cabal of Jews/Illuminati/"bankers"/Communists. It's the ultimate reactionary ideology. <p><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="color:black;font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;"><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Richard Perle's Larouchie buddy

Postby Qutb » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:11 am

<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2069119" target="top">Voilà</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->.<br><br>The PowerPoint That Rocked the Pentagon<br>The LaRouchie defector who's advising the defense establishment on Saudi Arabia.<br>By Jack Shafer<br>Posted Wednesday, Aug. 7, 2002, at 4:49 PM PT <br><br><br>Diplomatic china rattled in Washington and cracked in Riyadh yesterday when the Washington Post published a story about a briefing given to a Pentagon advisory group last month. The briefing declared Saudi Arabia an enemy of the United States and advocated that the United States invade the country, seize its oil fields, and confiscate its financial assets unless the Saudis stop supporting the anti-Western terror network.<br><br>The Page One story, by Thomas E. Ricks ("Briefing Depicted Saudis as Enemies: Ultimatum Urged To Pentagon Board," Aug. 6), described a 24-slide presentation given by Rand Corp. analyst Laurent Murawiec on July 10, 2002, to the Defense Policy Board, a committee of foreign policy wonks and former government officials that advises the Pentagon on defense issues. Murawiec's PowerPoint scenario, which is reproduced for the first time below, makes him sound like an aspiring Dr. Strangelove.<br><br>Just who the hell is Laurent Murawiec? The Post story and its follow-up, also by Ricks, do not explain. The Pentagon and the administration insist that the presentation does not reflect their views in any way. The Rand Corp. acknowledges its association with Murawiec, but likewise disavows any connection with the briefing. (Neither Murawiec nor Rand received money for the briefing, Rand says.) According to Newsday, Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard N. Perle, a former Pentagon official and full-time invade-Iraq hawk, invited Murawiec to brief the group, so Perle can't exactly distance himself from the presentation. But he can do the next best thing—duck reporters' questions. Murawiec also declined reporters' inquiries, including one from Slate. <br><br>The first half of Murawiec's presentation reads calmly enough, echoing Fareed Zakaria's Oct. 15, 2001, Newsweek essay about why the Arab world hates the United States. Its tribal, despotic regimes bottle up domestic dissent but indulge the exportation of political anger; intellectually, its people are trapped in the Middle Ages; its institutions lack the tools to deal with 21st-century problems; yadda yadda yadda. <br><br>But then Murawiec lights out for the extreme foreign policy territory, recommending that we threaten Medina and Mecca, home to Islam's most holy places, if they don't see it our way. Ultimately, he champions a takeover of Saudi Arabia. The last slide in the deck, titled "Grand strategy for the Middle East," abandons the outrageous for the incomprehensible. It reads: <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Iraq is the tactical pivot<br>Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot<br>Egypt the prize</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>Egypt the prize?<br><br>(...)<br><br>Who is Laurent Murawiec, and where did he learn to write like this? The George Washington University Elliot School of International Affairs' Web site lists him as a faculty member, but it lists no current or future classes by him. The site's biographical page adds that he's a graduate of the Sorbonne University, that he worked as "A foreign correspondent for a major French business weekly in Germany" (isn't that kind of vague?) and is the co-founder of GeoPol Services SA, "a consulting company in Geneva, Switzerland, which advised major multinational corporations and banks." It also lists him as a former adviser to the French ministry of defense and the translator (into French) of Clausewitz's On War. <br><br>A sweep of the Web shows that he lectured on Islamic terrorism in Toronto on March 11, 2002, under the aegis of the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies. He wrote an article titled "The Wacky World of French Intellectuals" in the Middle East Quarterly, co-edited a Rand Corp. book, and made these comments at a Nautilus Institute conference. When he spoke on panel with Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute on Dec. 1, 1999, Murawiec was introduced as having just moved to the United States after "a dozen years" of working as managing director of GeoPol in Geneva, "a service that supplies advice to European clients, similar to what Kissinger Associates offers from New York, except without the accent." That is a bit of an overstatement. A Google search of "Murawiec and GeoPol" produces 12 hits. Compare that to the 10,300 hits on Google for "Kissinger Associates."<br><br>Murawiec's résumé would predict many Nexis hits, but a search of his name reveals just five bylines: Twice already this year, Murawiec has contributed to the neocon publication the National Interest, on the subject of Russia. [Correction: Murawiec wrote for the National Interest once in 2000 and once in 2002. The topic both times was Russia.] In 1999 he wrote for the Post's "Outlook" section on "internationalism," and in 1996 he contributed a piece to the Journal of Commerce on Russia. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>His only other Nexis-able byline is a dusty one from the Jan. 23, 1985, edition of the Financial Times, which describes Murawiec as "the European Economics Editor of the New York-based Executive Intelligence Review weekly magazine."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br><br>My comment: How 'bout them apples. LaroucheCo distance themselves from the man, though:<br><br>Executive Intelligence Review, as scholars of parapolitics know, is a publication of the political fantasist, convicted felon, and perpetual presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. It's not clear exactly when Murawiec left the LaRouche orbit. An article by LaRouche that appeared last year in Executive Intelligence Review calls Murawiec "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." In 1997, LaRouche's wife Helga Zupp LaRouche wrote in Executive Intelligence Review (republished in the LaRouche-affiliated AboutSudan.com Web site) that Murawiec "was once part of our organization and is now on the side of organized crime." The truth value of that statement surely ranks up there with LaRouche's claim that the Queen of England controls the crack trade. To say, zero.<br><br>When Murawiec departed LaRouche's company is unclear, but Dennis King, author of 1989's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, thinks it came when many followers split as LaRouche's legal problems grew and climaxed with a 1988 conviction for conspiracy and mail fraud. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"Murawiec was not a political leader," says King, "but a follower who did intelligence-gathering."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>My comment again: How d'you like <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>them</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> apples? <p><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="color:black;font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;"><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

My problems with LaRouche as a source

Postby starroute » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:14 am

The lesser problem is that anything from LaRouche sources is likely to mix what looks like solid information and considered analysis with knee-jerk rants about either British intelligence or Israel or both being behind whatever shady dealings are in question. It's tempting to think that you can just ignore the rants and consider whatever is left to be reliable, but I have a suspicion that would be extremely dangerous.<br><br>The greater problem is when LaRouche is the sole source for particularly juicy allegations that can't be confirmed anywhere else. I've fallen more than once into the trap of thinking I had something solid -- on infiltration of the Likud Party by the Israeli Mafiya, say, or on George Soros having been up to no good in his financial dealings in the former Soviet Union -- only to discover when I looked over my saved filed that they all traced back to a single EIR article that bore all the signs of standard LaRouche anti-semitic insinuation.<br><br>LaRouche materials on Moon are particularly susceptible to this problem -- for example, <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2949moonification.html.">www.larouchepub.com/other...tion.html.</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> Much as I'd like to cherry-pick and pull out the good bits, I eventually have no choice but to conclude it's all a pile of steaming crap.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Richard Perle's Larouchie buddy

Postby Qutb » Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:03 pm

What do you know, seems Murawiec has recently published a <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0742542785/qid=1127746517/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-1806525-5527868?v=glance&s=books" target="top">new book</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->:<br><br>Princes of Darkness : The Saudi Assault on the West (Hardcover)<br>by Laurent Murawiec <br><br>Book Description<br>Princes of Darkness is the English translation of La guerre d'apres (The Next War), originally published by Albin Michel Publishers in Paris in 2003. This book is a highly critical expose of Saudi Arabia and attacks the elite inside that country as enemies of the western world. By extension this is also a criticism of the US foreign policy that has supported the royal family. It should be noted that the genesis of this book comes from the author's intensely controversial and subsequently leaked Defense Department briefing in July 2002, while serving as a senior international policy analyst at RAND.<br><br>About the Author<br>Laurent Murawiec lives in the Washington, D.C. area. He is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Previously, Murawiec was a senior international policy analyst with the RAND Corporation and an adviser to the French Ministry of Defense. He is the author of several books. <br><br>---------------<br><br>An interesting little piece of information from the Slate article:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>(Murawiec) is the co-founder of GeoPol Services SA, "a consulting company in Geneva, Switzerland, which advised major multinational corporations and banks."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>GeoPol doesn't seem to have a web presence, nor exist any more (it's written about in the past tense - "advised"). <br><br>Close to nothing can be found in English about this company, but <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://solidariteetprogres.online.fr/News/Strategie/breve_541.html" target="top">here's</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> some very interesting info in French:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Au début des années 90, Murawiec travailla pour une obscure société de consultants suisses, GEOPOL Services SA, basée à Genève. Parmi les dirigeants de cette société, il y avait le trafiquant d'armes Helmut Raiser, qui a vendu à l'Irak des milliards de dollars de munitions dans les années 80 et qui lui a transféré des technologies de missiles. Il y avait aussi l'ancienne ministre suisse de la Justice, Elizabeth Kopp, épouse de Hans Kopp, un avocat servant d'intermédiaire dans des affaires louches, qui fut plus tard rayé du barreau zurichois. Le président de GEOPOL était Pierre Hafner, un financier genevois qui fut en relations d'affaires avec Edgar De Picciotto de l'Union Bancaire Privee. Après qu'Hafner ait passé plusieurs mois dans une prison suisse, GEOPOL commença à tomber dans l'oubli. Murawiec reçut une bourse de recherche de la « Fondation Marc Rich », basée à Paris. Marc Rich est un financier américain ayant vécu pendant des années en Suisse pour échapper à la justice américaine. Il a finalement obtenu une grâce présidentielle de Bill Clinton, grâce à une substantielle contribution financière au Parti démocrate.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br>One of GeoPol's directors was Helmut Reiser, an arms merchant who sold missile technology to Iraq in the 80s. Another one was a former Swiss justice minister. Their president Pierre Hafner served time in jail. And get this: Murawiec received funding from the Marc Rich Foundation.<br><br>This old Larouchie sure gets around. <br><br>Oops... I just discovered that this French web site that I just quoted is a Larouchie site. <br><br>http://www.solidariteetprogres.org/spip/sp_accueil.php3<br>I could delete it, but I'll let it stand. No idea if the info on GeoPol is accurate.<br><br>It's interesting to explore this guy's connections. <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0833030655/qid=1127748101/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-1806525-5527868?v=glance&s=books" target="top">Here's</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> a book Murawiec co-edited: <br><br>Demography and Security: Proceedings of a Workshop, Paris, France, November 2000 (Conference Proceedings (Rand Corporation).) (Paperback)<br>by Laurent Murawiec (Editor), David M. Adamson (Editor) "This presentation offered a general framework for considering the relationship between demographic factors and security issues..." (more) <br><br>Book Description<br>Demographic shifts are a cause, an effect, and a forerunner of geopoliticalshocks and transformations. Examining these shifts is an important step inany strategic assessment of the global security environment. Unfortunately,the demographic community and the strategic and defense communities seldominteract. Providing venues for such interactions is therefore important. Forthis purpose, RAND sponsored a workshop on "Demography and NationalSecurity" in Paris at the initiative of RAND1s Population Matters program inNovember 2000. The workshop brought together French, American, and otherEuropean demographers; senior representatives from the French Ministry ofDefense; and researchers, economists, and experts in geopolitics. Revealingdifferences emerged, both between demographers and national-security expertsand also between American and French participants. Different objects ofconcern surfaced, and contrasting views of phenomena were debated. Forexample, immigration and its social, cultural, and political impacts tendedto be seen in an altogether different light on the two sides of theAtlantic. Americans were more likely to focus on the geopoliticalimplications outside U.S. borders, while Europeans focused on its domesticimplications.<br><br>From the Publisher<br>In November 2000, a group of population scholars, security analysts, and interested observers gathered in Paris, France, to discuss demographic trends and their implications for international security. This document summarizes these discussions.The conference was sponsored jointly by RAND's Population Matters project, the Institut national d'études démographiques (INED), the Société de Stratégie, RAND's Center for Middle East Public Policy, and RAND Europe.The primary focus of Population Matters is synthesizing and communicating the findings and implicationsof existing research in ways that policy analysts and others will find accessible. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The Population Matters project is funded by grants from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> This document should be of interest to anyone concerned with demographic trends and issues and their security implications. For further informationon the Population Matters project, contact Julie DaVanzo, Director, Population MattersRAND1700 Main St.P.O. Box 2138Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138Julie_DaVanzo@rand.<br><br>---------------<br><br>Population Matters, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Does that smell right?<br><br>Another interesting find: an <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=3677" target="top">article</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> published by the Hudson Institute, in French, in which he asks whether the efficacy of Bush's strategy for the Middle East has been underestimated by "Old Europe". The interesting thing about it is that it was written in March this year, which I remember was precisely the time every European newspaper and weekly had editorials which were variations on this theme ("Was Bush right after all?" etc). I remember it struck me at the time how unusually similar all those editorials were: freedom was on the march, they proclaimed, when it should have been obvious to any semi-conscious observer that it wasn't. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it. <p><!--EZCODE FONT START--><span style="color:black;font-family:century gothic;font-size:x-small;"><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></span><!--EZCODE FONT END--><br><br></p><i></i>
Qutb
 
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 2:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Richard Perle's Larouchie buddy

Postby Dreams End » Mon Sep 26, 2005 2:40 pm

Great stuff, Qutb. See what I mean? What other "opposition" groups have such access and hang with such folks. <br><br>LL does lots of stuff on population reduction as a strategy of the NWO. Seeing as how this is a concern of mine, I've had to be pretty careful. I found one document that laid out the specifics of the whole population reduction strategy as uncovered by the author...but it was EIR. <br><br>Interesting also about the Illuminati. Until recently, I didn't even think they existed at all, only to find out they weren't even that secret. The anti-modern trend in Illuminati thinking is clear. Their overt history, at least, seems to show them in a much more progressive light than those who opposed them. I think many of us use the term "Illuminati" to simply stand for the power elites. I know some assume a literal Illuminati still running most of the world behind the scenes. And many histories I've seen hasten to point out that Illuminati founder Weishaupt (sp?) was Jewish by birth. <br><br>As for Rockefellers creating Communism, etc. I am sure that there is all kinds of funding and creation of organizations to redirect revolutionary energy into safer channels. However, these theories do two very harmful things. One is to redirect anger from a larger, systemic problem inherent in our system of government and economy. Yes, there are elites, but their whole agenda is to preserver this system and continue to fine tune it so they make out like bandits while the rest of us thank them for the privilege of being their virtual (or actual) slaves. The second problem is that it puts out the message that there have been no authentic left movement. That is, it's always these "secret forces" stirring up trouble and the agenda of the movements themselves have no validity. So, our American way of life is wonderful and any organization saying otherwise is simply an elite tool. <br><br>I think a wiser analysis, because clearly the elites DO play these games and some "left" groups are wholly owned susidiaries of these elites, is that these left groups are designed to compete with and disrupt the genuine left. Problem is, it sure gets hard to tell who's on what side here.<br><br>I think of the civil rights movement here in the South. Nope, "Negroes" were perfectly happy till Communist agitators started making trouble. Simply add that theory to the theory that all communists are tools of the elites and that the elites are actually bankers...well, you see how it lets a LOT of people off the hook, even without the Jewish slander attached.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

classic disinfo gambits

Postby robertdreed » Mon Sep 26, 2005 3:23 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>And many histories I've seen hasten to point out that Illuminati founder Weishaupt (sp?) was Jewish by birth. </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>I've also read this repeatedly- but I've never been able to confirm that with a verifiable source. Not that someone's birth heritage ( their "attributed status", as we say in anthro) necessarily explains anything about their individual political path, anyway. It's an isolated data point, unless more context is provided it means little.<br><br>But it's part of "classic anti-Semitism" to be obsessed with linking up political adversaries to Jewish ancestry somewhere in the ancestral family tree. The traditional Jewish denotation of Jewish ancestry- through the unconverted maternal line, directly- is typically discrarded. Under the Nazi classifications, even someone with a Jewish father or paternal grandfather was said to be "Jewish", even if that ancestor was a convert to Christianity. Obsessed anti-Semites are often known to work back the lineage even further in an attempt to find a "Jewish connection." And if one still can't be found, they've been known to simply make one up, to assume it. Sometimes based on stereotypical phenotypical features, which I find laughable...it leads to declarations that the elite nobility of the Roman Empire was actually a covert cabal of Jews, etc. There's no end to the shit.<br><br>Here's a short list of people or families about whom "Jewish ancestry" has been alleged, by some author or another, based on what I consider to be either insufficient or unverifiable data, or what could perhaps best be termed "remote ancestry", or possibly simple fraudulent rumors cut from whole-cloth:<br><br>Colin Powell<br><br>Sibel Edmonds<br><br>The Rockefeller dynasty<br><br>The Roosevelt dynasty<br><br>Adolf Hitler<br><br>Alfred Rosenberg<br><br>Vladimir Lenin<br><br>Rupert Murdoch<br><br>Winston Churchill<br><br>Charles De Gaulle<br><br>Dwight Eisenhower<br><br>Harry S. Truman<br><br>Several Roman Catholic Popes, including most recently Giovanni Montini, Pope Paul VI<br><br>The aforementioned Adam Weishaupt<br><br>There are lots of others. <br><br>Admittedly, the Jews have in fact gotten around as a gene pool, notably in the European nobility. This is discussed extensively in the book <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Jews</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, by Roger Peyrefitte. (Hard to find in English, easier to find in French, entitled <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Les Juifs</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.) I recommend the book highly, even though its material has long been used a fodder by anti-Semites. It airs a lot of things out and puts them on the table for discussion. Accusations, insinuations, folklore, historical fact, the whole schmeer. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't an indictment of the Jews, it's a springboard for discussion. Peyrefitte was a bad-boy journalist who loved overturning taboos and doing exposes. His book succeeds on that score. But it isn't written from a stance of Jew-hatred. The overall tone is one of bemusement, at least in my reading of it. <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Jews</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> begins its first paragraph with a hilarious recounting of a list of famous families around the world whose surnames indicate that their lineage possibly contains at least some Jewish ancestry. Two names I remember offhand are Fidel Castro Ruz of Cuba, and Francisco Franco of Spain...<br><br>There's also a website on-line, Jewish Tribal Review, that gets into a lot of that material- albeit in a manner that's openly hostile and anti-Semitic. But I still find it worthwhile to peruse on occasion, since there's a lot of undeniably factual material compiled. It's absolutely a <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>caveat lector</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> situation, however- the site has a definite axe to grind, and I strongly advise seeking confirmation from other references, and checking bibliographic sources for context. <br><br>The biggest problem with JTR is that it purports to be something like an objective history, but it's actually written as an indictment. It concentrates exclusively on the negative and criminal aspects of the history of individual Jews, and the heritage of Jewish ethnic collusion and organized criminality. There's no shortage of material- but the primary reason is that the Jews have more documented history than any other ethnicity in the world, at least in terms of what's been translated into European languages. Because every ethnic group I know of has ethnocentrism, favoritism, and criminality as part of its story. <br><br>Whenever I read JTR, I'm always struck by what would happen if a similar "history" were compiled about, say, the Scots. It would, for instance, working from surnames, demonstrate that that my hereditary clan alone includes political luminaries like this: <br><br>Pat Robertson, present leader of the single most politically powerful religious sect in the USA, son of a Republican Senator<br><br>Lord Robertson, recent former head of NATO<br><br>Harry Reid, presently Democratic Senator and present Minority Leader of the US Senate<br><br>Jack Reed, presently Democratic Senator of Rhode Island<br><br>Philip D. Reed, Chairman of General Electric, 1940-1942, 1945-1958<br><br>John S. Reed, Chairman and CEO of Citicorp<br><br>Additionally, the Skull and Bones membership roll- a very short list- contains 3 Reeds; 2 Reids; and 3 Robertsons. And those are only a few of the surnames associated with the Donnachaidh clan. <br><br>In fact, in perusing the list of S&B members, most of the names are "Scottish looking" to me. <br><br><br>Yess...call it conspiracy...<br><br>Seriously, I'm not a "self-hating Scot." I'm simply providing a comparative illustration of what a "Scottish Tribal Review" might begin to look like, based on about 15 minutes research. (Along with wondering whatever happened to my dividend checks...) I hope it gives readers some inkling of what Jews have had to put up with, simply as a result of their history of being scapegoated for their ethnocultural identity.<br><br>And consider that, unlike the Jews, the Scots pretty much lack any recorded history until the Romans- who were literate- showed up to chronicle their observations. Even with less of a chronology to draw on, anyone seeking to using the "methodology" of JTR to book a case against the Scots could easily do so. <br><br>Much the same could be done for the Germans, the French, the English, the Spanish, the Italians...but somehow, there are no equivalents to Jewish Tribal Review for those ethnocultural categories. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/26/05 2:59 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

A few quick points

Postby starroute » Tue Sep 27, 2005 12:00 am

robertdreed -- I got a laugh out of your hypothetical "Scottish Tribal Review." But oddly enough, in the memoirs of the late science fiction writer A.E. van Vogt he says that when he was working on the Canadian census in the early 30's, he shared a room in a boarding house with a Scottish college student who informed him that the Scots were the *real* rulers of the British Empire, exacting their revenge for the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charlie, and that as a member of this conspiracy he expected to be assigned a post in the Canadian government as soon as he graduated.<br><br>(Hey, I'm just reporting -- I'm not vouching.)<br><br>Second, Marc Rich's name caught my eye in the above discussion, because Rich occupies a very prominent place in the LaRouche demonology, and is used to established all sorts of further dubious connections. So there is clearly more going on there than meets the eye.<br><br>And third, from anything I've read about Adam Weishaupt, he functioned very much in the mold of a cult leader, not unlike L. Ron Hubbard or, for that matter, Lyndon LaRouche. That, as far as I can tell, was the real problem with the Illuminati. Unlike Freemasonry, which was intended to function as a means of psychic liberation (and clearly did for people like Mozart), the Illuminati-cult was designed to bend its members entirely to the will of its leader.<br><br>The thing about cults, though, is that once their original leader is gone they invariably seem to either get domesticated or just peter out. That's the nature of top-down leadership.<br> <p></p><i></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Marc Rich

Postby robertdreed » Tue Sep 27, 2005 4:01 am

There isn't much doubt that Marc Rich has been guilty of a lot of international white-collar organized crime schemes, ranging from tax evasion to illegal oil deals with embargoed regimes like Iran and Iraq. <br><br>The most information I've found on Rich's career is found in the book <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Metal Men</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, by C. Craig Copetas. Copetas actually became a metals and commodity trader for a while, in the course of doing his reasearch. He also interviewed a lot of other metals traders, including the people who gave him his start. A lot of them seem to harbor a lot of bitterness, alleging that he transformed the commodity brokering business by breaking a lot of informal ethical rules that had been followed by the business as a matter of tradition. Lots of spicy stories in that book, which first came out in the late 1980s, and which has been re-published quite recently- 2002, I think-with an update by Copetas in the wake of Clinton's pardon of Rich. <br><br>I'm not surprised about Marc Rich showing up prominently on LaRouche's list of pet demons. LaRouche has a way of finding demons that have already been exposed by investigative journalists, and adopting them as <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>bete noirs</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, as if his organization were responsible for their unearthing their unsavory dealings. What gives him that opportunity is the lackadaisical attitude of the "mainstream" media toward scandals that are politically sensitive. <br><br>Therefore, we get someone like Copetas doing the legwork on the Marc Rich story, with the mainstream media meanwhile taking only the most cursory notice and dropping the ball- which in turn gets picked up by other outlets, like Executive Intelligence Review. (For instance, Copetas's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Metal Men</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->- a brilliant book, full of scandalous anecdotes and murder mysteries- doesn't get the notice, promotion, prominently featured rave reviews, interview opportunities, etc., that invariably greet the latest snoozer by Bob Woodward. Much less being followed up by the investigative journalism departments of large US newspapers, publications, and broadcast outlets...well, those departments hardly exist any more anyway, do they? ) Except that when they get ahold of the story, it gets worked into Larouche's theory of everything...with predictable results. But since so few other media outlets deal comprehensively with stories like that, and LaRouche has the funding to put out different several publications for overlapping audiences, available for free, many times the first time anyone hears the news about such matters is via LaRouche's media machine. So it looks like his people are getting the scoop, when they're actually simply re-printing stories that other journalists have already researched and written. This in turn confers the appearance of a mantle of muckraking integrity (unearned and undeserved) on LaRouche publications like EIR, who then use that rep to foist LaRouche's signature array of nonsense on the unwitting public. High-level disinfo... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/27/05 2:11 am<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby 11:11 » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:21 pm

I haven't read this yet, but it came up in another, so I'm copying my post to DE, to here. From what I've read out EIR, I don't think the criticism is fair, and I'm inclined to think there is an ulterior motive in discrediting him. I ahven't even finished the OP, yet, because I stopped to look up a connection. When I'm done reading it, I'll comment more.


From the other thread:

I've just started reading your RI thread on La Rouche, DE, and I noticed this:

The LaRouche organization has "taken on the characteristics more of a political cult than a political party," said a March report by Information Digest, a biweekly publication written by journalist John Rees. LaRouche's followers have "afforded him blind obedience," wrote Rees, a longtime specialist in LaRouche.



In the EIR link that I posted (http://american_almanac.tripod.com/steinb.htm) there is a John Rawlings Rees of Tavistock. Is this just a coinkydink, or are the two related? A quick Google on Rees the journo, turns up this:

John Rees was active during the 1980s as a right-wing journalist and private intelligence operative. Among the publications he was associated with are Review of the News and American Opinion, published by the John Birch Society, and his own Information Digest. In addition, he collaborated with the Birch Society's late Congressman Larry McDonald in the activities of the Western Goals Foundation.

And this:

By Chip Berlet
Political Research Associates
9/8/2000 (Revision 2)

The Maldon Institute is a right wing think tank that studies national security and terrorism from a countersubversive and often conspiracist perspective. Maldon's director, John Rees, infiltrated the political left in the 1970s, and passed the information to groups ranging from the John Birch Society to the FBI.


I think that Chip Berlet is suspect, himself, so here's the Google stuff -

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=In ... gle+Search


Maybe I should put this in the La Rouche thread. I have to finish your post though, before following any of this. Just trying show that there could be some agenda by those painting La Rouche as a conspiracy nut.
11:11
 
Posts: 1570
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:45 am
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to Fascism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests