Bringing it to the streets: Community Forums

by **veritas** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:40 pm

is not Watchful enough. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Berlet badjackets the most important whistleblowers against the CIA (L. Fletcher Prouty, Mark Lane, Lyndon Larouche who really is a crank though extremely well-informed about CIA thus aiding Berlet's tactic) as 'right-wingers' and it works.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1781.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1781.topic</a>

by **Watchful Citizen** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:54 pm

Does that better lineate for you? I meant that Larouche really is worth avoiding for those qualities. You are familar with the way Berlet has become a 'specialist' in the right-wing and pulls in everyone who has the goods on CIA or the Bushes, right? Say what you mean, please, by "not watchful enough" without being vague and ominous. I'm sick of that.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:59 pm

As in Larouche is racist and homophobic. Speak up veritas. And soon. I'm sick of unfounded accusations on this board. Thumperton and his BNP ilk really stirred up the shit here.

by **jenz** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:38 pm

check out the Heinberg thread watchful.

by **veritas** » Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:58 pm

creeps in this petty pace from day to day..... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm sick of unfounded accusations on this board.<hr></blockquote> I suggest only that Larouche IS a rightwinger. Not unfairly labeled as one. Not a good example. Not at all. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> check out the Heinberg thread watchful.<hr></blockquote> Yes yes! Or read Jeff's blog now. Beware the brown shirts when dyed red and green. Yes.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:45 am

Perhaps writing 'crank' wasn't sufficiently derogatory. I'll make it a point to be as derogatory as possible to avoid your suspicions because you seem to be implying that I'm promoting Larouche through stealth. So I'm going to expand on that to stop this snowballing whisper game Dreams End started back when Thumperton was pissing many off and then the Storm Front infiltration post reinforced the hostile atmosphere.. Bravely on despite the slings and arrows- Even though Larouche is an asshole you have to admit that the intel coming from his organization is a threat to the CFR, CIA, and Bushes and thus not totally without redeeming value. Do you agree? So I refuse to avoid his name to keep from being accused of promoting instead of discussing him despite the witchhunting atmosphere post-Thumperton because that would be encouraging cointelpro tactics by being complicit in a taboo. No, taboo is much worse than promoting bad things. Things must be said, not avoided or coyly dangled. That's how we learn and evolve, not by playing word games to raise eyebrows of suspicion with innuendo. Grave confession: I found Webster Tarpley/Anton Chaitkin's Unauthorized Biography of George Bush and Executive Intelligence Review before I knew much about Larouche's mottled (oops-I mean unforgivable) history so Dreams End and proldic blasted me for "claiming" to not know Larouche's darker side as if I know every damn thing. So with your heading "Larouche and larouche and larouche creeps in this petty pace from day to day" you seem to be continuing Dreams End's mistake of calling me a Larouchie cultist. Shit, now I'm cursed with proldic amplifying DE's erroneous framing and proldic is now cursing me out for being some kind of stealth agent. You too, veritas? Here's proldic's recent lovely post to me: "You disengenious fucking liar!" (Thank heaven that Israelirealities had something rational to say instead. I actually gained perspective from IR.) Proldic even insinuated that my opposition to tobacco in another thread mimicked some Larouchian anti-drug attitude...right. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1755.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1755.topic</a> Title: You have no legal rights. Dreams End really fucked up by starting a whole thread to accuse me of being a cultist. Thanks, DE, for the scarlet letter of false accusation. You see how easy it is for the Mockingbird media to neutralize people with a raised eyebrow of accusation. So easy. Hell, I've only mentioned Larouche twice, in appropriate juxtaposition to the topics of Webster Tarpley and Chip Berlet and agreed that his nastiness is nasty when that was documented by DE. May I leave the Group W bench now, please? So knock off the coy poetic insinuations, veritas. Do people accuse you of promoting Richard Heinberg for all your writing on him? I'm still trying to see why Jeff archived that Heinberg thread as important. I read all eight pages and the most I can glean (since you won't make an analytical statement) is that perhaps the old meme of the lost garden will be used to take environmentalism to mass eugenics as fascists have intended for ages, that nature will be used to trump 'unwanted' people big time. Is that the crux of the bisquit? The Population Explosion was the big scare theme back in the 1960s when congressman George Bush was bringing in eugenics people to the floor of the House to whip up fear as I read in The Unauthorized Biography. <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20020124222343/http://www.tarpley.net/bush10.htm">web.archive.org/web/20020...bush10.htm</a> (Rubbers Goes to Congress) Advice: If something is important, SAY IT. That is an underlying principle of social interaction. Playing 'see if you get it' is tedious and unhelpful despite the cute Yodalities. My biggest criticism of intellectual and political leaders is that they don't tell people who really runs our government so people can defend themselves and ally against the abusers. You've got to speak up to build a resistance. So tell tell tell. Don't hold cards. That's why I usually load my posts with links so folks can catch up if they don't know much about what's being discussed. Otherwise you're playing an elitist game to keep the club small. I advise others to ignore personalisations so sorry for the peevishish tone but I've had it with the insinuations and backhands. Done.

by **veritas** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bravely on despite the slings and arrows- Even though Larouche is an asshole you have to admit that the intel coming from his organization is a threat to the CFR, CIA, and Bushes and thus not totally without redeeming value. Do you agree?<hr></blockquote> No. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> OK, that's not just cranky or eccentric. That is truly fucked up shit. That is bigoted homophobic violent fascist bullshit, not to get technical... I didn't mean to defend Larouche the man originally anyway. I was trying to point at the information that's there in EIR and some of his historical rants. Sorry to have even done that with his anti-semitic and homophobic rants brought to light by DE. Thanks for the info! (After seeing more stuff DE found, yes, Larouche is way too flawed. Just get back-up on any info from EIR but leave him out of the discussion.) <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm39.showMessageRange?topicID=9.topic&start=41&stop=60">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...41&stop=60</a> This is good advice.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:24 am

You've repeated my own words that the man is nasty but haven't addressed EIR. I ask you since you abviously hold an opinion (still to yourself), not to promote a racist homphobe. Perhaps you choose not to explain, just vote yay or nay. Your choice, of course. I've made the analogy of Miles Davis beating up women but having a good band. I think that applies here but I could be wrong. ( I anticipate veritas responding "yes, you are wrong" in a HAL9000 voice.) But I based my opinion of EIR on topics like these three: -Prescott Bush and the Nazis by Chaitkin, -the Nazi-fication of the Bush II administration, -and especially a January 19 2001 article by, I guess his wife, warning that "Americans need to know the history which concluded the Weimar Republic and installed Hitler, in order not to repeat it. The incoming Administration of George W. Bush is headed in exactly the same direction as the Nazi government that his grandfather, Prescott Bush, together with Morgan and British interests, brought to power." !!! January 2001 !!! That was a pretty fucking prescient warning from EIR so I don't get your rejection of them. Maybe there's more dark side I haven't seen but Nazis and torturers are scarier to me than that bigoted old man. (I omit links to the articles to not further distract from original topic although it's too late.) In fact, I think those EIR articles do more to warn us of what's happening than studying Richard Heinberg and is worth something, cranky old racist shithead or not. Oh, nevermind. ("Yes, that is good advice.") Good night, HAL.

by **veritas** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:21 am

Good news! I have unearthed your original post. It was not easy. No. I did not know the topic. What is so important that you want us to learn from this man? What wisdom does he have for us so that we can overlook his baseball bat? Here is the whole post. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I was glib. I know some Larouche. Flawed but also brilliant. He does seem to have an occasional bug up his ass about Jews. Not good. But there is so much more to him than that flaw. He has identified fascism through the ages and sees it as our worst fears right now and he know the players inside and out.. Larouche tends to write more than people can bear to read so this gets lost in his reams of history and theory. He writes that the coup against JFK in 1963 has led to a reign of Jacobin-like terror and is getting worse. And he claims that economic sustainability and ecological sustainability are both the goals of a successful culture. AND he points directly at Zbigniew Brzezinski's 'Grand Chessboard' as a template for a 'Clash of Civilizations' plan to foment wars for resources just as Mike Ruppert and now most of us realize is our curse to overcome. Not too kooky now, is he, despite his long and checkered past? Here is a clip from an excerpt at the bottom of this post: Larouche on 9/11 and Zbigniew Brzezinski: >snip< "Just as the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, produced the conditions under which the first fascist tyranny, that of Napoleon Bonaparte, emerged, so the capture of the control of the U.S. by the British monarchy, under U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, produced the conditions favorable to the emergence of Twentieth-Century fascist tyrannies, such as those of Mussolini and Hitler, which were explicitly modelled on the traditions of the fascist reign of self-proclaimed Caesar and Pontifex Maximus Napoleon Bonaparte. ...We should not be astonished to recognize the ideologues of today's cult of universal fascism, globalized fascism, such as that of Huntington and Brzezinski, as typifying a new epidemic of fascist ideologues worse, by implication, than even the most notorious figures of the 1920s and 1930s." >snip<  So his signinficance isn't as a garden-variety anti-semite, he has his eye on the Mossad in the PNAC neocon-zionist alliance as many do today including Wayne Madsen with revelations of NSA battles with Mossad over cryptology Trojan Horses. Still, Larouche admittedly resorts to tarring Jews in history in the manner of those who are, shall we say, 'over-sensitized' to the Israeli military intelligence organizations so much a part of US foreign policy since WWII. BUT (and this is why we should still read him) He has an comprehensive and prolific Buckminster Fuller-esque understanding of Big Picture History of power and economics that sensitizes him to ruling elite, secret police, psychological warfare, and who today's bad guys are. He gets all that right and I ignore his occasional barely-cloaked swipes at Jews through history like Emma Goldman who he links to the assassination of President McKinley (propaganda of the day) or his calling bin Laden an "Old Fagin of terrorism." Yikes. Moving on... I looked into him when I discovered the GHWB biography and EIR detailed NATO's ongoing partnership in the Balkans with 'al-Queda.' Once I found out that he's been railroaded into jail for blabbing about GHWB's 1980 October Surprise and that CIA media spook Chip Berlet was targeting Larouche, I realized he was not to be ignored as 'too kooky.' I thought, "damn, he's quite odd but dishes excellent info on the US secret government cabals and the big economic picture behind their wars and that is worth learning from without being put-off by oddities." I read everything I can and keep what makes sense in the world as I know it. Relentless examination has paid off repeatedly. Especially going where I've been warned away from. (Even disinfo can show by shadow what is meant to be hidden.) If he's dangerous to the Bush Crime Family and CIA then I want to hear what he's got to say so I can mine for information, certainly not 'follow the cult leader.' This article of his about 9/11 and Zbigniew Brezinski is archetypal Larouche. He knew what the New Pearl Harbor was all about while most Americans were still looking for flag decals for their SUVs. He is right about almost everything from the Renaissance to the invasion of Iraq... AND he takes his obligatory swipes at Jews which is how Chip Berlet and others can steer people away from this goldmine of information in a cranky old German economist turned political activist. www.pegmusic.com/lyn-brzez_01-12-23.html ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI & SEPT. 11TH, 2001 IT'S TIME TO BRING ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI TO JUSTICE ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI & SEPT. 11TH, 2001 by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. December 23, 2001 >snip< Among the relatively simpler, but extremely important sets of facts to be considered, we have to include the following question. To what degree did the role of the Israeli military intelligence's deep and implicitly hostile penetration of the U.S. political and military command and operations, play a contributing role in shaping the part played by both the military coup-attempt and its political-strategic complement? Deep investigation of the long-standing, increasing levels and aggressiveness of activity of Israeli spies inside the U.S.A., including the notorious, years-long "Mega" penetration of the security of the Clinton White House by the agents of the Israeli intelligence services, points to the likelihood of at least a significant, if coincidental Israeli role in creating the environment from which the events of Sept. 11th were launched. >snip< The assertion, that Osama bin Laden directed the events of Sept..11th, is, of course, purely a "conspiracy theory," in support of which no scientifically plausible proof has been presented publicly, to the present day. The doctrine that "Osama did it," is, in that respect, just another case of the substitution of fiction for both fact and science. Nonetheless, conspiracy, in the proper use of that term, is the most characteristic feature of all human history, especially when it comes to the important matters of statecraft. How should we sort out the difference between the fact of the existence of a truly efficient conspiracy, from the popularized fiction which most of the mass media is now circulating on the subject of Sept. 11th? The kinds of fools who concoct the foolish, popular varieties of so-called "conspiracy theories," are divisible chiefly into two general classes. There are the obvious ones, those perverts, including crooked judges and prosecuting attorneys, who seek to portray history fantastically, as it were a matter of reporting on individual actors walking onto a shared common, blank stage, each uttering frivolous mere text, words spun, and interpreted as antecedents from outside physical space and time. The symbolic and other interpretation of the mere text as such, becomes the attributed meaning of the action. In the second class, are the wild-eyed fanatics, who declare, "I don't believe in conspiracy-theories," the latter prattling on about this persuasion perhaps even at the moment a providential practical joker is demonstrating a higher principle of justice, by conspiring silently with the amused spectators, by setting fire to the leg of the foolish boaster's trousers. >snip< The overriding requirement of our response to the horrors of Sept. 11th, is not merely to assign blame, but to define a reliable course of action for rescuing civilization from the consequences of that attack. Removing the infected organ, will not necessarily enable the victim to survive. Therefore, to speak with reasonable confidence about the nature of the choices of a future which are available to us in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, I must now summarize those methods of long-range forecasting, my own, which have now been proven repeatedly to be so uniquely and spectacularly successful, over more than a quarter-century past. - Crafting A Science of Strategy -  My own most fundamental, and eminently successful contribution to the study of cultures, lies in my introduction of the conception of potential relative population-density, as the uniquely competent basis for defining a physical science of economics, and, therefore, the needed basis for clarifying the principles of a universal method in economic history. Thus, as I have shown in numerous published locations, the only scientifically acceptable basis for measuring the relative quality of a culture, today, would be the bearing of the essential features of scientific and artistic development upon the culture's power to sustain and improve its potential relative population-density. This approach to a physical science of economics, provides us the optimal basis for rigorous study of not only past history, but of reliable methods for shaping the future outcome of that history. This is a study to be conducted from the standpoint of attention to the physically functional characteristics of the evolution, or decadence, of cultures. In first approximation, this means that we must study both national, or analogous particular cultures, and relationships among cultures, over periods of not less than one to several generations, and patterns of changes in cultures over centuries. >snip< - A. The Historical Settings - I have applied that method of analysis and forecasting successfully to the crisis centered around the influence of that homicidal lunacy known as the Brzezinski, Huntington, Bernard Lewis, "Clash of Civilizations" conspiracy. A competent grasp of the problem posed by the attempted coup d'etat in question, demands that we place that conspiracy and its associated developments within the relevant general setting, the same setting within which the subject-matter of the science of physical economy is located. Without situating the subject of the Clash of Civilizations strategy within its place in the long-term evolution of what has become globally extended modern European civilization, no truly rigorous, no competent assessment of the causes for, or the lunatic influence of Brzezinski's conspiracy, could be provided. The problem posed by the crucial implications of the developments of Sept. 11th, is therefore broadly situated within the recent six centuries of world history, and, more emphatically, the great upheavals set into motion within European and other cultures by the 1776- 1789 establishment of the U.S.A. as the first successful model for a modern, sovereign, constitutional nation- state republic. I must now define here, once again, the relevant aspects of what I mean by the term modern European civilization. I craft that definition within the bounds of the forecasting method indicated, and examine the relevant lessons of the history of modern European culture from that point of departure. I proceed now, by quickly summarizing those issues of U.S. policy rooted in the periods 1400-1648, 1688-1763, and 1776-1901, which can not be ignored. I, then, focus upon the special, crucially relevant features of the past century's developments, beginning with the interval 1894-1901, and continuing through the present moment of ongoing global collapse of the world's present monetary-financial system. These typify the essential evidence which must be taken into account, to assess what is, from case to case, ongoing in the minds of leading political forces of the world at this moment. To restate the case, I shall now divide globally- extended expressions of post-1400 A.D., modern European civilization, summarily, into crucial phases, as follows: 1. Modern history begins with the Fifteenth-Century, Italy-centered Golden Renaissance, which was the birthplace of modern experimental physical science and of the sovereign nation-state. 2. During much of the two following centuries, we have what Trevor-Roper and others have identified as a "little new dark age" of European civilization, the Venice-Habsburg-dominated period of anti- Renaissance religious and related warfare, over the interval which concluded with the reemergence of the modern nation-state, with the Peace of Westphalia, 1511-1648. 3. Next, came the rise of the Venetian modeled Anglo-Dutch imperial maritime power, typified by the 1689-1763 emergence, around the tyrant William of Orange, of what became of the power of the British India Company. 4. The 1763-1789 period of the U.S. struggle for independence from both that Anglo-Dutch tyranny and also the imperial Habsburg tradition, is to be recognized as the central reference-point for that reaction against the American Revolution, from which the present form of Anglo-American imperial maritime form of rentier-financier domination emerged, with the 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley. That reaction, that neo-venetian, originally Anglo-Dutch, rentier- financier domination of much of the world, is to be recognized, still today, as rooted in that philosophical empiricism which has led the world into the present general breakdown crisis of the existing monetary-financial system. 5. Within the latter setting, we have, then, the globally revolutionary impact of the American Revolution of 1776-1789, which established the intentions expressed by that Constitution, as the model of reference for defining the principal alternative to both the waning power of the decadent Habsburg tyranny and the currently hegemonic, originally Anglo-Dutch models of imperial maritime institutions of global rentier- financier domination over the planet as a whole. 6. It should be especially evident since the 1989- 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, that the American revolutions of 1776-1789 and 1861- 1876, rallied the best currents from throughout European civilization for the cause of a true republic. Those two American revolutions have been clearly shown, by the net results of intervening and subsequent history, to be the only durable known source of continuing challenge and threat to the neo-Venetian, Anglo-Dutch model of imperial maritime rentier-financier oligarchy, to the morbid grip of empiricism and its derivatives, from that time to the present date. The best features of all national economies since 1789, have been modeled on the principles set forth as the American System of political-economy. 7. With the triumph of the U.S.A., led by President Abraham Lincoln, over the British monarchy and its puppet the Confederacy, the global conflict among nations and cultures has centered, in fact, upon the choice between the American System of Alexander Hamilton, Mathew Carey, Henry Carey, and Friedrich List, and the opposing British system of political-economy. So, even taking into account the importance of the Soviet Union's role during most of Twentieth-Century history, the world economy as a whole today, after 1989-1991, is plainly divided, chiefly, between opposing forces which are most economically. and fairly described as the mutually opposing, respective American and Anglo-Dutch systems of political-economy. All other conflicts must, of necessity, orbit historically around the continuing conflict between these two. This latter, presently underlying global conflict, has three interdependent but otherwise distinct features. First, the American System of political-economy, as so described by the first U.S. Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, is based on the same principle, that termed alternately the general welfare, or, the common good, upon which the idea of the sovereign nation- state's creation and existence was premised earlier. It was the establishment of this principle, during the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, and the reigns of France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII, which defines the historical existence of modern European civilization. The conception of the general welfare as a supreme doctrine of natural law, is the pivotal feature of what is rightly recognized as the American intellectual tradition, of which I personally am a product, the tradition which Professor Elliot's Henry A. Kissinger hates, and to which I adhere.  Second, the democratic-republican form of the constitutional American System of political economy, as axiomatically opposed to the Anglo-Dutch "liberal" system, the latter which is based upon the exceptional power and privileges of that rentier-financier class formerly typified by the Dutch and British India companies. The conflict between President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, during the period of World War II, typifies the issues, as does the continuing 1972-2001 conflict between me and the circles of Elliot's Golems Kissinger, Huntington, and Brzezinski today.  Third, the Anglo-Dutch system is based on the Hobbesian or like notion of axiomatic, perpetual conflict among and within nations, whereas the American System of U.S. paragons John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt, is premised on the goal of establishing an expanded, durable ("multi-polar"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> community of shared principle among perfectly sovereign nation-state republics. The ideology typified by the personal moral and intellectual devolution of the followers of Professor William Yandell Elliot over the course of the recent half-century, typifies the trend toward the most extreme forms of what can only be described as a new ultramontane, integralist dogma of universal fascism among those followers of Elliot and their like. On this account, the greatest tragedy suffered by the people of the U.S.A,. has been the recurring hegemony of enemies of the American System within the U.S. itself. Thus, except for the period of President Franklin Roosevelt's incumbency, the Twentieth- Century U.S.A., since the assassination of President McKinley, has been corrupted, and largely dominated by an international rentier-financier oligarchy sometimes identified as the financier-legal-academic circles of the "ABC" American, British, Canadian cabal. This features powerful financier interests and their associated law-firms, which have deeply penetrated the institutions of government, and are represented, as a combination, by the most powerful tax-exempt and related think-tanks behind the influence of Elliot's Golems. The presently onrushing terminal collapse of the world's presently reigning monetary-financial system, is chiefly an internal, self-induced collapse of the system which has dominated the world since the immediate aftermath of Franklin Roosevelt's death, and has temporarily assumed the posture of pretended global imperial power during the period since the break-up of the Soviet system. It is only in that context of modern history so defined, that the causes and remedies for the crisis of Sept. 11th can be efficiently understood. In the following chronology, I limit myself to as many selected highlights of that history as are indispensable for a competent assessment of the immediate world strategic crisis. - B. The Rise & Decline of U.S. Power - The following post-1789 developments, are the most crucial elements of historical-cultural background for the role of the U.S. in the principal global developments of the Twentieth Century. The principal watershed of post-1714 progress in modern political history, had been the rallying of the leading representatives of the Classical cultural and scientific tradition of modern European civilization, around promoting the emergence of a modern form of sovereign nation-state republic in the English-speaking colonies of North America. This resistance against the tyranny of both the Habsburg and Anglo-Dutch imperial traditions, has remained the pivotal legacy of modern European history, since then, to the present day. Thus, until the July 14,1789 beginning of the Jacobin Terror in France, the triumph of the cause of the independence of the U.S. republic and its 1787-1789 draft of its Federal Constitution, expressed the greatest political achievement in statecraft of European civilization up to that date. However, the succession of the 1789-1794 Jacobin Terror in France, followed by the specifically fascist tyranny of Napoleon Bonaparte, temporarily broke the U.S.'s ties to the European ally, France, on which assistance in securing U.S. independence had chiefly depended. The subsequent 1814-1815, post-Napoleon, Vienna Congress, created for a time a new imperial power- sharing throughout Europe, a power co-dominated by both of the U.S.'s enemies, the British monarchy and the Habsburg Holy Alliance. Under these strategic conditions, from 1789 until President Lincoln's 1861- 1865 leadership of the war against the Confederacy, the U.S. was chiefly isolated and harassed by the leading foreign powers, and subjected to the treasonous influence of London-connected U.S. bankers, southern slave-owners, Habsburg plots, and the odds and ends of a Bonapartist family's rabble meddling in their fashion in our affairs. The U.S. expulsion from Mexico, of the French occupying military forces of the puppet of the Habsburgs/Hapsburgs and Napoleon III, marked the emergence of the U.S. as an established world power, not only within the Hemisphere, but in the world at large. The U.S. victories of 1861-1865 were continued as a process of agro-industrial development through the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial celebration. As the outcome of the success of Henry C. Carey's American System policies during the 1861-1876 interval, Germany, Russia, Japan, and many other nations inside and outside the Americas, not only adopted key features of the American System for the improvement of their own economies, but sought to emulate the success of the U.S. in bridging the North American continent, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, through the transcontinental railway program. Thus, between Gettysburg, in 1863, and Philadelphia, in 1876, the U.S. emerged as the world's greatest threat to both the British Empire and the relics of the Habsburg tyrannies. For this reason, a London- directed espionage network, supported by the Habsburg interest, conducted the assassination of President Lincoln, and launched concerted efforts at both economic warfare and fostering of treason against the U.S., through the time of that successful 1901 assassination of U.S. President McKinley which was facilitated through Emma Goldman of New York City's Henry Street Settlement House. Admittedly, the post-McKinley U.S. gained in relative military and economic power over the course of the Twentieth Century, but it was no longer quite a U.S. of the same character which had been established by President Lincoln's victory. Any competent study of U.S. domestic and foreign policy during the past one hundred years, is focussed upon the implications of that reversal of the Lincoln victory over the Confederacy, which has been represented by the successive Twentieth Century Presidencies of two sons of the Confederacy, Theodore Roosevelt and Ku Klux Klan fanatic Woodrow Wilson, and also oligarch Calvin Coolidge. As President Franklin Roosevelt emphasized this fact repeatedly, both to the U.S. electorate, and to Prime Minister Churchill, the principal division within the U.S. political-economic process has been the axiomatic hostility of the American intellectual tradition of our founders, to the American Tory tradition expressed by those devoted to what Roosevelt derided as "British Eighteenth-Century methods." Whoever seeks to interpret U.S. history without premising it on that fundamental cultural and moral conflict within our nation, marks himself or herself as a foolish babbler, or worse. When we consider the full sweep of the rise in global power of modern European civilization, since the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, we must regard the greatest part of the interval 1901-2001 as relatively an historic "new dark age" in the existence of mankind. Two world wars, the great depression and rise of fascist dictatorships following the First World War, the great depression of the 1930s, the Second World War, the so- called "Cold War," the wave of intellectual and personal moral decadence merely typified by the numerous lackeys of Harvard's William Yandell Elliot, the assassinations and political coups in the Americas and Europe. during the 1962-1965 interval, and the post- 1965 slide of the economies of the Americas and Europe into horrible trajectory of long-term monetary-financial decadence of 1971-2001, qualify fully for the title of a cultural "new dark age." Only the leadership of President Franklin Roosevelt, and the benefits of the 1945-1963 interval of economic reconstruction in the Americas, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere, provide a few outstanding bright spots in an otherwise terrible and now rapidly worsening decadence gripping the world of 1901-2001. The 1962-1965 interval of intensified crisis, is identified by the emergence of a fascist-style military coup-plotting against the U.S. government itself, by the 1962 Cuba missiles-crisis, the attempted assassination of France's great President Charles de Gaulle, the political coup against Britain's Prime Minister Harold MacMillan, the hustling of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer into premature retirement,.the assassination of President Kennedy, the launching of the U.S. war in Indo-China, the pestilence of the first Harold Wilson government of the United Kingdom, and the ouster of Chancellor Erhard in Germany. These and related prominent events of 1962-1965, mark a separation between what was, in net effect, the upward course of economic developments which predominated during the 1945-1963 interval of post-war reconstruction, and the accelerated general moral and economic decadence aptly signalled by Richard Nixon's 1966-1968 pro-Ku Klux Klan campaign for the U.S. Presidency. But for a few bright moments, here and there, since, the prevalent course of globally extended European civilization has been. economically, morally, culturally, an accelerating, increasingly decadent downhill slide of the economy and other crucial elements of culture combined, since the critical turn in events during the 1962-1965 interval. Just as the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, produced the conditions under which the first fascist tyranny, that of Napoleon Bonaparte, emerged, so the capture of the control of the U.S. by the British monarchy, under U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, produced the conditions favorable to the emergence of Twentieth-Century fascist tyrannies, such as those of Mussolini and Hitler, which were explicitly modelled on the traditions of the fascist reign of self-proclaimed Caesar and Pontifex Maximus Napoleon Bonaparte. If we look at the history of the post-World War II Harvard squirrel-cage operated by the Nashville Agrarians' Elliot, against the background provided by the French developments of 1789-1815, and fascist dictator Napoleon III, and the background of that neo- Romantic epidemic of cultural pessimism traced from such as the existentialists Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, through Adolf Hitler, Martin Heidegger, and Theodor Adorno, we should not be astonished to recognize the ideologues of today's cult of universal fascism, globalized fascism, such as that of Huntington and Brzezinski, as typifying a new epidemic of fascist ideologues worse, by implication, than even the most notorious figures of the 1920s and 1930s. >snip< (and so much much more...)<hr></blockquote> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am scratching my head. These were your examples of the wisdom of Larouche. Some questions: Do you believe the US has been taken over by the British and their "Golems"? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Twentieth- Century U.S.A., since the assassination of President McKinley, has been corrupted, and largely dominated by an international rentier-financier oligarchy sometimes identified as the financier-legal-academic circles of the "ABC" American, British, Canadian cabal. This features powerful financier interests and their associated law-firms, which have deeply penetrated the institutions of government, and are represented, as a combination, by the most powerful tax-exempt and related think-tanks behind the influence of Elliot's Golems.<hr></blockquote> Golems are mythical mud creatures. yes. From Jewish folklore. What does Larouche mean by this? The "morbid grip of empiricism" a significant problem? What can this mean? Science without empiricism, then? How could this be possible? Maybe you can explain. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "...Israeli military intelligence's deep and implicitly hostile penetration of the U.S. political and military command and operations..."<hr></blockquote> Are THEY the golems? Would you explain why this is true: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>the only scientifically acceptable basis for measuring the relative quality of a culture, today, would be the bearing of the essential features of scientific and artistic development upon the culture's power to sustain and improve its potential relative population-density.<hr></blockquote> How does artistic development affect population density? Why is this so important that you want to share with us? Is this the cause of global conflict: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> the world economy as a whole today, after 1989-1991, is plainly divided, chiefly, between opposing forces which are most economically. and fairly described as the mutually opposing, respective American and Anglo-Dutch systems of political-economy. All other conflicts must, of necessity, orbit historically around the continuing conflict between these two.<hr></blockquote> I see you post much on fascism recently. That is good. yes. But this is what you think causes fascism? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Just as the Jacobin Terror of 1789-1794, produced the conditions under which the first fascist tyranny, that of Napoleon Bonaparte, emerged, so the capture of the control of the U.S. by the British monarchy, under U.S. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge, produced the conditions favorable to the emergence of Twentieth-Century fascist tyrannies, such as those of Mussolini and Hitler,<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>He (Larouche) is right about almost everything from the Renaissance to the invasion of Iraq... <hr></blockquote> No. He is not. I see no sense here. What is so compelling here? Why should we overlook those baseball bats? You should let Larouche go. He is a deceiver. You have been deceived.

by **veritas** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:24 am

I copied the whole post but not the link. Now there is no guessing! <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=237.topic&start=21&stop=39">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=39</a>

by **Watchful Citizen** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:52 am

But I'm referring to EIR, not Larouche. They aren't equivalent. And no, baseball bats are not to be overlooked. This post of mine was before Dreams End pulled out Larouche's bigoted quotes which I wasn't familar with. Please distinguish between Larouche and the many writers at EIR. I made the analogy of woman-beating Miles Davis and his band. No, I don't think Larouche the man has some great message you should all have, I just got treated like a criminal for bringing him up and want to clarify that AND point out (forgive me for being self-justifying) that EIR has some good info. There is more depth of history and parapolitics at RI then any other board I've seen and I innocently thought Larouche made for a complex and interesting conversation piece. When I dragged his name and writing out onto the table at RI to see what others thought I didn't expect to get beaten over the head with him for it as a criminal. I got the feedback I sought but also -a thread dedicate just to accusing me of being a cultist. -Another person screaming obscenities at me. -And you doing narrow-eyed innuendo. That original post of mine you found that started all the curfuffle was one of the first I posted at RI and, yes, does read a tad embarassingly...over-enthusiastic...perhaps by finding a long arch of historical perspective instead of typical myopia. Perhaps by his essay soon after 9/11 having reference to Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard book. I suppose I was taken with the contrast between the mainstream media reputation of him as a wacko and what I was reading which wasn't all wacky. Just partly wacky. (I shouldn't have written he "gets it all right." Figure of speech. I didn't vet the whole excerpt, just found many points of veracity.) So I wondered if he had been 'over-badjacketed' by the Chip Berlets of the world who neutralize anyone with the goods on CIA, Bushes, and knowledge beyond the official cover stories for war. Why is looking at even only partly correct info worth it? Just look in the Richard Heinberg thread at what Israelirealities wrote in response to why neo-Nazism was even a concern: "Re: nazi revival distant early warning line ok, that makes sense to me. i was also under the impression that this is quite an esoteric concern these days, but being prepared for the next trouble is a very good idea. I think the Bush trouble was a proof - how bad it is to lag behind the plans of master=plotters of this vile kind." How bad it is to lag behind the plans. Exactly. And here is Barbara Boyd (with no baseball bat as far as I can tell) writing in the 1/19/01 issue of EIR: "Americans need to know the history which concluded the Weimar Republic and installed Hitler, in order not to repeat it. The incoming Administration of George W. Bush is headed in exactly the same direction as the Nazi government that his grandfather, Prescott Bush, together with Morgan and British interests, brought to power." January 19th, 2001. Quite prescient. Wish I'd read that then. Still want to ignore EIR in case of baseball bats or 'Brit-bashing'? What about the Bush-Blair war? Or Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs? Or Harriman Brown Brothers? That's an American-Anglo elite alliance at work, right? Sorry, I don't see how EIR is decieving me. Seems quite the opposite which is why I keep mentioning EIR when others keep harping on Larouche himself. That seems evasive. Thanks for finding the post. I do hear all warnings about baseball bats and will keep an eye open for deception. Bed for me.

by **proldic** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:15 am

smoke that fucking mosquito out veritas

by **veritas** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But I'm referring to EIR, not Larouche. They aren't equivalent. <hr></blockquote> No! No! Now you are not truthful! Berlet quote was about Larouche. The long post was by Larouche! EIR was not mentioned. Your entire post was to prove Larouche is no Kook. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>No, I don't think Larouche the man has some great message you should all have, I just got treated like a criminal for bringing him up and want to clarify that AND point out (forgive me for being self-justifying) that EIR has some good info.<hr></blockquote> What good info? What info? There was only garbage there. Garbage. But you CHOSE that garbage! Edited and snipped. Yes. Why! Why! Not EIR. Read the post. Larouche is no kook was your cry! <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That original post of mine you found that started all the curfuffle was one of the first I posted at RI and, yes, does read a tad embarassingly...over-enthusiastic...perhaps by finding a long arch of historical perspective instead of typical myopia. Perhaps by his essay soon after 9/11 having reference to Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard book.<hr></blockquote> You speak as if Larouche is the only one to see a big picture. He is not! His big picture is wrong. English Golems! Lies! You read all of EIR? Expensive. Demand a refund! <blockquote>Quote:<hr> (I shouldn't have written he "gets it all right." Figure of speech. I didn't vet the whole excerpt, just found many points of veracity.) <hr></blockquote> No no no no no. You did not vet? But you snipped. Yes! Why did you choose the parts you chose! Your snipping was random? You did not read what you were going to post? No no no no. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why is looking at even only partly correct info worth it?<hr></blockquote> This is called disinformation. It confuses and beguiles. This is why. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Still want to ignore EIR in case of baseball bats or 'Brit-bashing'? What about the Bush-Blair war? Or Council on Foreign Relations and Royal Institute of International Affairs? Or Harriman Brown Brothers? That's an American-Anglo elite alliance at work, right?<hr></blockquote> It is not alliance Larouche claims, but subversion. America is the great! America is the true Republic. England is the villain! They control the US. With Golems! Golems!!!! America has been taken over by a foreign force! yes! British monarchists and "financiers" and their "lawyers" and their Golems! They run the show. You are deceived.

by **Watchful Citizen** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:52 pm

Are you deliberately mischaracterizing to make me correct repeatedly and look like I'm promoting this guy? No one's more sick of fucking Larouche then I am due to this endless shell game of context started by Dreams End and continued by proldic and now veritas. (Proldic, see the SourceWatch.org re: Zelikow clarification near bottom of this post.) So I'm going to try again to correct you. TWO POSTS IN CONTEXT: 1) My first and admittedly semi-informed post was response to discussion of TARPLEY and his 9/11: Synthetic Terror materials-. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm17.showMessageRange?topicID=237.topic&start=21&stop=39">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...21&stop=39</a> Watchful Citizen: "His work with Anton Chaitkin on The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush has him in my permanent APPROVED department. His work on explaining false-flag ops with patsies in Synthetic Terror is excellent. LaRouche goes in to old old history and too much theory but is exactly right about secret government, secret police, and the economics of war. Exactly right. And that gives him a pass from me, too." Dreams End Registered Member Posts: 437 (9/22/05 9:36 pm) Reply Re: We must be prepared Quote:LaRouche goes in to old old history and too much theory but is exactly right about secret government, secret police, and the economics of war. Exactly right. And that gives him a pass from me, too. Oh. I see. Watchful Citizen: Unregistered User (9/23/05 12:47 am) Reply Is there something more sinister to Larouche? I haven't seen anything that alarms me...yet. He's odd but very interesting. Got something darker than interesting? Share if you'd like. Now you've got me curious. >snip< So Dreams End starts off with a deadpan "Oh. I see" of accusation immediately! WTF. I later found out Thumperton had the board all sensitized to stealth racists. Proldic went off the deep end immediately following DE. Chain reaction. I wrote "Got something darker than interesting? Share if you'd like." Now there's obvious stealth racism for ya, proldic, right? sheesh. Can't put one over on you! Why didn't I have a vision of bat-weilding cultists?. Because the only negatives I'd yet read were from CHIP BERLET who is a CIA shill and badjackets anyone with too much info on them. A hell of a lot of info followed that matured my assessment of the man, ok? And that leads to my second and ONLY OTHER reference to Larouche IN A POST ABOUT NAMEBASE.ORG AND DANIEL BRANDT. Sorry for shouting. Seems warranted. 2) My other post was in response to inquiry about namebase.org so I posted on Daniel Brandt and his political memoir and praised him for his work outing Berlet, and went into who Berlet was by snipping the short explanatory note I sent to Lip Magazine who'd just interviewed Berlet. <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1781.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1781.topic</a> Title: wikipedia a profiteer's scam? namebase for real? Watchful Citizen: "As I recall from a long-ago read, what interested me most about this political memoir was newly-arrived 'politically correct speech'-tensions when some whistleblowing sources got painted as untouchbles by the likes of Chip Berlet who Brandt got the smell of early on. www.lipmagazine.org/ The current issue of Lip Magazine online (good mag) has an interview with Chip Berlet by Brian Awehali, I was apalled to see. Chip only talked about "the left's problem of politically correct speech" in the guise of offering ways to defend it while explaining Lakoff's framing concept as he actually impudently framed progressives in a rediculous way...right in the interviewers face shamelessly. That's ole Chip's thang, give with the visible hand as he taketh away with the subliminal swipe while avoiding who controls the media, his clients." >snip< How ironic that the topic of framing is here. Because that's what Dreams End did to me and has me hounded by proldic and hissed at by veritas. I expected better at Rigorous Intuition from knowledgable people but human nature is ubiquitous. You are correct that there are many other people who, as I originally wrote of Larouche, are "right about secret government, secret police, and the economics of war" but I was interested in what happens to people who get targeted by Chip Berlet. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Nobody expects... Does this sequence of context make sense to you? I can't be here again until tomorrow so carry on. Thanks for both your curfuffle and information. p.s.Hey proldic-link to YOUR post about Zelikow I responded to and which you characterized as "out of the blue." DO IT and show your error. Sourcewatch includes the Emad McKay/IPS News bit saying ZELIKOW says the Iraq war was a defense of Israel, not me. I think that is absurd since except for getting oil, the US government cares nothing for anyone. You keep excerpting only HALF of this sourcewatch.org bit I cut and pasted TO SHOW WHAT ZELIKOW SAYS. But several times you attributed it to me! (Hey, you get lots of things right and we are on the same page about cointelpro destruction of black leaders. You just got twisted up in DE's framing of me when Thumperton was poisoning the well.) THIS IS SOURCEWATCH, NOT WATCHFUL CITIZEN- <a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow">sourcewatch.org/index.php...D._Zelikow</a> >snip< Phillip David Zelikow was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) on October 8, 2001, by President George Walker Bush. Zelikow (<a href="http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2001/zelikow-oct-8-2001.html)">www.virginia.edu/topnews/...2001.html)</a> has served as Director of the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs since 1998. He is also White Burkett Miller Professor of History. He was director for European security affairs at the National Security Council from 1989 to 1991. In this position, Zelikow advised current PFIAB Chairman Brent Scowcroft and President George Herbert Walker Bush "on European issues, including the unification of Germany and the multinational coalition against Iraq."[4] (<a href="http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2001/zelikow-oct-8-2001.html)">www.virginia.edu/topnews/...2001.html)</a> "After serving in government with the Navy, the State Department, and the National Security Council, he taught at Harvard before assuming his present post in Virginia to direct the nation's largest research center on the American presidency. He was a member (2001-2003) of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and served as executive director of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald R. Ford, as well as the executive director of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. "Zelikow's books include The Kennedy Tapes (with Ernest May), Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (with Condoleezza Rice), and the rewritten Essence of Decision (with Graham Allison). Zelikow has also been the director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a policy program of the Aspen Institute." He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[5] (<a href="http://www.americanpresident.org/action/about/philipzelikowbio.article.shtml)">www.americanpresident.org...cle.shtml)</a> According to Melvin Goodman, Zelikow "headed a case study project at Harvard and took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA. He used CIA documentation and produced case studies that exonerated the CIA from any charges of politicization of intelligence, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union." [6] (<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/29/1513213)">www.democracynow.org/arti...9/1513213)</a> from Emad Mekay for IPS, 29 March 2004 (<a href="http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23078):">ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23078):</a> "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 1200 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. >snip< Why the hell does Emad Mckay at IPS News say the admin is "aknowledging" defending Israel? Looks like SourceWatch included that as part of an article on Zelikow's OWN WORDS and that bad analysis tagged along. That's my take on that excerpt that has freaked out proldic as stealth anti-semitism. Ok, I really have to go now. More later. Please read carefully. Links links links.

by **veritas** » Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:13 pm

Watchful, Maybe you are sincere. But you post this info. Forget who it's from. What of this looong post was compelling?(the one I reposted.) What do you agree with? I gave detailed questions about your post. I posted the whole thing. All. Yes. I asked questions. About the content, not the author. About the content, not the author. Who are the golems? Who are the golems? If you edit and post (snip snip) this writing it has meaning for you? Why? You think England controls the US. You think they send Golems? You think empiricism is the problem? You answered no questions. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> No. You're wrong again. TARPLEY+BERLET were topics.<hr></blockquote> No...I asked questions about the long Larouche post. You avoid avoid avoid. Where is Tarpley? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Berlet badjackets the most important whistleblowers against the CIA (L. Fletcher Prouty, Mark Lane, Lyndon Larouche who really is a crank though extremely well-informed about CIA thus aiding Berlet's tactic) as 'right-wingers' and it works.<hr></blockquote> Swarms of links. No answers. Larouche was the issue. Larouche's ideas are also the issue. Maybe you now don't like Larouche. But you still like Larouche's ideas. You posted them. Why? I ask about them. Silence. You post that his ideas about secret government are exactly right. BUT OF THE ENTIRE POST FROM LAROUCHE THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT SECRET GOVERNMENTS. Larouche and secret governments. Contaminated Christic. Or maybe Sheehan was already contaminated. Cost Anagnos a million. Yes it did. Blew the case. Blew it bigger than the La Penca bomb. Now Danny chases UFO's. Or maybe they chase him. But you quote Larouche on history, on culture on economics. Not Secret governments. Why do you post these articles if you don't agree with them? Tell us about the secret British control of the US. Tell us about the Golems and the hostile Israeli actions in the US military. Tell us about morbid empiricism and how population density is affected by artistic expression. It's nonsense. Misdirection and gobbledygook. Yet you posted. You must have read or why else did you snip snip snip? Are you a random snipper? Who are the golems?

Bringing it to the streets: Community Forums

I think Watchful Citizen

"Larouche really is a crank" as in racist and homo

"HOMOPHOBIC"line was cut short and changed word.

Mizz Vee

Larouche and larouche and larouche

Ah. Yes, Larouche is a right-winger. I noted that.

larouche

"No." Ok...no means no. Um, why?

larouche

apologies

Ah, thanks for finding that. No, he doesn't get it all right

Re: Ah, thanks for finding that. No, he doesn't get it all r

larooooooouche

No. You're wrong again. TARPLEY+BERLET were topics.

bah

Who is online