Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

by **Dreams End** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:32 am

This is a rush job and very sketchy reply to Chiggerbit's request for more info on Larouche connections to the Franklin Coverup investigation. I make it clear in the text below, but let me state clearly, I do believe the evidence is quite clear that high level abuse took place in Omaha and was covered up. The Larouche connection, however, may have tainted the larger picture as well as discredited important testimony. And that, I think, is pretty much what they do for a living. chiggerbit, (had asked if there was proof that Decamp worked with Chaitkin and that Chaitkin was a Larouchite) Decamp has publicly acknowledged Chaitkin for helping in his "research". <blockquote>Quote:<hr> I had known of Chaitkin, who writes for Executive Intelligence Review magazine, from the book he co-authored with Webster Tarpley, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. This 659-page-book is a devastating expose of Bush, and it played a notable role in helping to shape the 1992 presidential campaign, which Bush happily lost. Perhaps it was because the name "Bush" was all over the Franklin scandal, that Chaitkin showed up one day in my Lincoln law office. I told him, "Look, I know you have been in some tough spots before, but are you really sure you want to poke around in this? This question of 'mind control' - the Monarch Project - is the most scary and, dangerous thing I have ever encountered." As I came to know Anton, probably all that little lecture did was to spur him on. Chaitkin got his story on the Monarch Project, and printed it in the December 13, 1993, New Federalist newspaper under the headline, "Franklin Case Witnesses Implicate FBI and U.S. Elites in Child-Torture and Murder." (from DeCamp's book on Franklin: <a href="http://educate-yourself.org/cn/franklincoverupexcerpt.shtml">educate-yourself.org/cn/franklincoverupexcerpt.shtml</a>) <hr></blockquote> Chaitkin's bio on Larouche's radio show site: Anton Chaitkin <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anton Chaitkin is Executive Intelligence Review's History Editor, and has directed a number of feature-length studies, particularly of 18th- and 19th-century American history. He has documented the British roots of the Confederacy, and has revealed the nexus between them and the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, for example. Mr. Chaitkin has written scores of investigative articles, as well as some groundbreaking studies on the nationalist leaders of the American republic. His 1985 book, Treason in America: From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, sold 80,000 copies. He co-authored the book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, in 1992, which sold over 50,000 copies. Mr. Chaitkin was born in New York in 1943. His father, Jacob Chaitkin, was the legal director of the 1930s joint boycott against Nazi Germany, organized by the American Jewish Congress and the American Federation of Labor. He attended public schools in California, and was one of the founding members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees in the 1960s. During 1997, Mr. Chaitkin authored a number of `blockbuster' exposés, ranging from the on-going war of genocide in Africa being part of the British Commonwealth's raw materials grab, to the dirty underside of who really controls the militias and the Promise Keepers operations. In May 1996, Chaitkin's exposé of the ties between political consultant Dick Morris and Roy Cohn helped set into motion Morris's political demise. Because of his vast knowledge on a wide range of subjects, he is a popular guest on talk shows in the United States and Canada. <hr></blockquote> Tarpley's has been edited weirdly but check out all the programs he appeared on: Webster Tarpley <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Mr. Tarpley hosted The LaRouche Connection from (sentence ended here...this isn't my typo) Mr. Tarpley appeared on the following programs: Nos. 7, 37, 44, 56, 57, 63, 68, 88, 89, 95, 97, 101, 103, 105, 107, 109, 111, 125, 127, 134, 135, 139, 145, 147, 148, 153, 155, 156, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 170, 171, 173, 177, 181, 182, 185, 193, 201, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 216, 217, 219, 220, 225, 229, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 253, 256, 260, 264, 270, 274, 276, 277, 279, 281, 284, 286, 293, 294, 296, 297, 300, 301, 302, 303, 306, 308, 310, 312, 314, 318, 321, 324, 327, 330, 331,<hr></blockquote> Show 331 does appear to be the last one Tarpley did, but he was the HOST, not a guest... and that was in November of 1997. You can check out the list of shows with brief summaries here: <a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1996-1999.html">www.larouchepub.com/tv/tlc_programs_1996-1999.html</a> As for the Franklin thing...there was abuse, I have no doubt that much of the story is true...but I felt like there was some chance the Monarch testimony and other bits about Gosch may have been coerced from Bonnaci. Larouche and co. have been very big in the Satanic abuse story...and in my view, whenever they are around a story it often means the story is legit but the waters are about to get really muddy. In the court transcripts in which Bonnaci "won" against Larry King (but by default...King didn't appear" it was actually an alleged alter personality of Bonnaci's that was doing much of the testifying. Now, I of all people, know alters are real, but when did Bonnaci stop being "handled"? That's my question. Here's an example of the problem. An investigator named Schmit is testifying in the below linked article that the girl Alisha Owen could NOT have fabricated her stories of abuse, which were recanted by the other two alleged victims. The article is very persuasive on this point but then Schmit has to defend himself from being a "Larouchite": <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'Not LaRouchite' Schmit acknowledged giving a talk at a meeting where literature from the extremist Lyndon LaRouche group was distributed, but he denied being a "LaRouchite." "That does not make me a LaRouchite. I wanted to make it clear. You seem to be intent on making me a LaRouchite, and I am not," he told Moran. <hr></blockquote> See how their involvement immediately muddies the waters?<a href="http://www.franklincase.org/6-13-91.htm">www.franklincase.org/6-13-91.htm</a> It looks like the two boys recanted after Gary Caradori's plane went down. They got the message and his widow recalls a conversation with one of them, Troy Boner, and admitted his recantation was out of fear. So, in sum, the case seems legit to me, but the involvement by Chaitkin calls into question, in my mind, the larger picture as it gets TOO all encompassing. gosch, the callboy scandal (why fly them in all the way from Omaha?), Monarch, Aquino etc. However, I don't mean to say none of this is true just because of the Larouchite involvement. It's the fact that some or all of it may be true but they just happened to come on the scene to discredit this stuff. By chaitkin being first to print the larger allegations in EIR, well, every time they are raised subsequent to that, people will say "That's just b.s. from EIR..." But I am troubled that Decamp worked with them uncritically and didn't even acknowledge the controversial nature of EIR. And since there is no way how much of what he printed is truth and how much is that special Larouche spin, it becomes useless as part of the evidence trail. Speaking of which, do head over to http://www.franklincase.org/index.htm for a very thorough treatment on the case.

by **NewKid** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:40 am

DE, a bit off topic but what do you think of Tarpley's 9-11 Synthetic Terror thesis? Do you see anything you think is disinformational in it?

by **Dreams End** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:03 am

Good God! I'd never heard this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Old age, though, wasn’t everyone’s nemesis. For years the Franklin matter had haunted Troy Boner. Following his interviews with the Yorkshire TV crew Boner fell off the radar until 2003. After running into a New Mexico hospital in 2003, waving the Franklin Cover-Up book, and screaming that they were out to get him because of the book, Boner was sedated. The next day when hospital workers went to check on Boner he was found dead. The death was never publicly investigated, and remains a mystery.<hr></blockquote> Newkid, I don't know anything about his synthetic terror thesis. The idea of fake terrorists is nothing new, of course, as the whole terrorist campaign carried out by Italian fascists in the Gladio network, including manipulation of leftist terrorists surely demonstrate. Strategy of tension, etc. Is that what it's about? Back onto this topic, the above is from the long summary on franklincase.org. I think a fair reading will show that the case is pretty much exactly what it looks like, a wide ranging abuse ring that goes fairly high up. So from now on, if you are an investigator to such a case, please politely decline help from EIR...and Ted Gunderson, too, while you are at it.

by **NewKid** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Newkid, I don't know anything about his synthetic terror thesis. The idea of fake terrorists is nothing new, of course, as the whole terrorist campaign carried out by Italian fascists in the Gladio network, including manipulation of leftist terrorists surely demonstrate. Strategy of tension, etc. Is that what it's about?<hr></blockquote> Pretty much. He's an invisible govt MIHOPer. I haven't heard him say anything on 9-11 that sounds that bad. He makes a pretty decent case. He may be wrong, I don't know, but I think it's a perfectly respectable position. I don't see anything that looks poisonous or particularly disinformational about what he's arguing. That said, nobody doing the work he does can be entirely free of suspicion. As for his predictions that don't turn out, I don't know if this is the case at all, but he and others might be trying to preempt certain actions by announcing them and thus making them less likely to occur.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:19 am

Tarpley isn't the only one saying that stuff...so I'd go to another source. And "secret government" is a red flag phrase for me. A consistent theme within this whole network...and one that got the christic case hosed. Back to Decamp. Found this on the franklincase site: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Jun 19, 1991 Jurors Got LaRouche Newspaper; [Metro Edition] Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb. pg. 11 Full Text (225 words) (Copyright 1991 Omaha World-Herald Company) District Judge Raymond Case and lawyers involved with the Alisha Owen perjury trial questioned jurors about two weeks ago after discovering they had been given Lyndon LaRouche organization material on the Franklin sexual abuse allegations. Prosecutor Gerald Moran said that at least five and possibly more of the jurors had copies of the New Federalist, a newspaper of the extremist LaRouche organization, delivered to their doors. Moran said that also during that time, the newspaper had been distributed in the Douglas County Courthouse. That issue of the paper discussed the perjury cases of both Miss Owen and Paul Bonacci. Both Miss Owen and Bonacci were charged with lying under oath to the Douglas County grand jury looking into matters of sexual abuse of minors. Moran said that after all the jurors were questioned and all said that the material would not affect them, Case allowed the trial to continue. The issue of the paper distributed in the courthouse alleged a cover-up of a ring of Nebraska pedophiles. It reported that Bonacci said he was forced to have sex with the body of a dead child while someone pointed a gun at Bonacci's head and another person filmed the 1984 episode. The paper said Bonacci later was forced to watch the film. The paper did not say where the events were supposed to have taken place. <a href="http://www.franklincase.org/6-19-91.htm">www.franklincase.org/6-19-91.htm</a><hr></blockquote> So here was an active attempt to create an impression of jury tampering. Exactly the sort of thing I'd expect.

by **NewKid** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And "secret government" is a red flag phrase for me<hr></blockquote> I cringe at it too. Sort of like NWO.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:27 am

DE wrote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's the fact that some or all of it may be true but they just happened to come on the scene to discredit this stuff. By chaitkin being first to print the larger allegations in EIR, well, every time they are raised subsequent to that, people will say "That's just b.s. from EIR..." But I am troubled that Decamp worked with them uncritically and didn't even acknowledge the controversial nature of EIR.<hr></blockquote> ??"they just happened to come on the scene to discredit this..."?? ?? "...people will say that's just b.s from EIR"?? ??"...controversial nature of EIR"?? Dreams End- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The article is very persuasive on this point but then Schmit has to defend himself from being a "Larouchite"...See how their involvement immediately muddies the waters?<hr></blockquote> This isn't making sense to me. It's sounding like circular reasoning to me now. >'Larouche is painted as an extremist in the Operation Mockingbird press and then used to indict others who go anywhere near him.' >'Everyone Larouche touches is tainted and everything they touch is now tainted.' And both DreamsEnd and NewKid say that 'secret government is a red flag' comment??!! You're kidding, right? You two are actually posting on Rigorous Intuition that "secret government" is a controversial phrase to be concerned about?! DE, you are the only one I've ever read that considers Larouche to be the Devil His Own Self (for whatever faults)and suggests that Chaitkin, Tarpley, and EIR discredit anything they touch. No, wait. Chip Berlet does, too. And the Mockingbird media. Now I am confused. Remind me again why Larouche is so dangerous that all the info on the Bush Crime Family and fascist National inSecurity State coming from Chaitkin, Tarpley, and EIR is 'sadly dismissable.' Dreams End wrote- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Newkid, I don't know anything about his (Tarpley's) synthetic terror thesis. <hr></blockquote> I recommend you look into it. I don't think you can judge Tarpley unless you look at this material instead of ho-humming that it is "old news." Guess I better find the old thread on Larouche because I don't follow your dismissal of Chaitkin and Tarpley at all. So, DE, you seem to know a lot about Larouche. Why was he jailed? Wasn't he exposing the October Surprise and other Bush crimes? Do you think that any negative press on him could be to bury his reputation as deep as possible no matter his own faults? Seems to me it would be hard to tell which was smear and which was his own nature, right? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/26/06 4:43 am

by **NewKid** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You two are actually posting on Rigorous Intuition that "secret government" is a controversial phrase to be concerned about?!<hr></blockquote> I think that term sounds cartoonish and is discrediting to a lot of people who'll roll their eyes and think black helicopter. It's also a little vague. But like I said earlier, I think his argument is certainly very plausible. In other words, I don't doubt that there is some sort of embedded national security infrastructure that represents a sort of permanent govt in Washington, or that elements of it carried out the attacks. But let's get a new term for it. As for the other stuff, I have no idea.

by **starroute** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 12:58 pm

There's one LaRouche theme I keep running into (and have posted a little on here, though always with reservations) that would really explain a lot. But because it's from LaRouche, I'm continuingly wary of it. That's the idea that certain prominent figures -- who share a pattern of abusive/dysfunctional childhoods, crippling problems with alcohol or the like in early adulthood, and then being straightened out by "finding religion" -- have really been subject to mind-control by the "religious" groups that supposedly helped them get their lives together. Tom DeLay is their prime example, as someone with an abusive father who was an active alcoholic when he first got to Congress but turned into the amoral monster we all know after getting religion. Michael Jackson -- who went off to spend time with the Fellowship Foundation after he first got in trouble -- is another. I'm not sure if it was from LaRouche sources or not, but I've also seen it suggested that whatever "conversion" experience turned George W. Bush from an amiable drunk into an apocalyptic monster was of the same nature. I really *hate* to trust the LaRouchies -- especially since they sprinkle this stuff with comments about "beastmen" out of their own bizarre worldview -- but in this case there really does appear to be a kernel of truth. Speaking of which, there was a particularly grotesque Bush photo at <a href="http://thismodernworld.com/2786">Tom Tomorrow's blog</a> yesterday, with the comment: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This photo caught my eye on Yahoo News. It looks like some strange Photoshop chop job, but it’s not. Maybe he’s actually an evil alien puppetmaster who didn’t quite get his skin costume on properly that morning. Or maybe he’s collapsing inward on himself and soon there will be nothing left but a dense gravitational field from which no truth can escape. Oh, wait.<hr></blockquote>

by **chiggerbit** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 1:40 pm

Wow, thanks, DE. You do answer questions thoroughly. I had no idea that Larouche had been involved with DeCamp. Add Ted Gunderson into the mixture and it smells funny. I'm with you, I DO believe this travesty did happen, but there have been too many unanswered questions, a feeling that the story was being spun towards a certain end or being spun away from something significant. that left me me unsatisfied. Re this comment: Old age, though, wasn’t everyone’s nemesis. For years the Franklin matter had haunted Troy Boner. Following his interviews with the Yorkshire TV crew Boner fell off the radar until 2003. After running into a New Mexico hospital in 2003, waving the Franklin Cover-Up book, and screaming that they were out to get him because of the book, Boner was sedated. The next day when hospital workers went to check on Boner he was found dead. The death was never publicly investigated, and remains a mystery. I won't swear by it, but I think that report came from my favorite agent, Ted Gunderson. I'd like to see some independent support for that story. Wasn't it Gunderson who made a statement to somebody that DeCamp (who later married a woman who had been one of the children he helped to rescue in Operation Babylift (?) at the end of the Nam evacuation) was himself a perv? And Gunderson was supposed to be on DeCamp's side, "helping" him. Sorry, Hugh, but when a person tells the truth 99% of the time and some really big but believable whoppers 1%, how inclined are you to trust anything that person says? DE is about Larouche the way I am about Gunderson. I seem to remember a long thread around here on Larouche, maybe before you came on board.

by **Dreams End** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 3:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I seem to remember a long thread around here on Larouche, maybe before you came on board.<hr></blockquote> Hugh knows that thread very well, as he was defending Larouche at the time as "Watchful Citizen", a name he changed when we all had to register (not secretly...he announced it so everyone knew they were the same person.) <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm39.showMessage?topicID=9.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm39.showMessage?topicID=9.topic</a> So, let me be clear, Hugh. I didn't start this thread to revisit why it's clear that Larouche is a fascist cult leader who is dangerous and connected to the intelligence community -- it was implied in chiggerbit's question that she already understood that to a degree. Like you claimed to by the end of the above thread. But I guess that was just a tactical retreat. Here's some helpful reminders of the words of your icon against fascism: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973. "Jazz was foisted on black Americans by the same oligarchy which had run the U.S. slave trade, with the help of the classically trained but immoral George Gershwin and the Paris-New York circuit of drug-taking avant-garde artists." "The Racist Roots of Jazz", Back Cover, The Campaigner, September-October 1980 "The paranoid, so approximating the lower animal species, is relatively lacking in such sense of human identity and is, to a corresponding degree, incapable of sustaining a stable guiding moral structure for his behavior. "The paranoid state is characteristic of the “village commune’,’ culture. Objectively, the model “oriental village commune” is characterized by the fixing of the mode of production with a rigidity paralleling the behavioral stagnation of lower animal life. Worse, the culture evolved in reconciling the victims of such a dead-end culture to that animal-like state.... All the cognitive and related cultural achievements of capitalist development in music, philosophy, and so forth, are symptomatically denounced as “Western” in favor of the philosophical and cultural ideological relics of pre-1949 China’s long barbarian past. Out of this hideous muck comes first a reactionary, actually counterrevolutionary rejection of the working class...." The Campaigner, (Journal of the National Caucus of Labor Committees), Vol. 8, No. 8, August 1975, pp. 5-40. [edit] Antisemitism "Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a selfsustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim." "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., (under pen name L. Marcus), The Campaigner, December 1973 "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry, and labor." "A War-winning Strategy", Editorial, New Solidarity, March 1978 <hr></blockquote> Coming back to you now, Hugh? Need more? How about this "anti-fascist" rhetoric: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"We have another purpose in fighting AIDS, for our fighting AIDS--for our inducing people to do what they should have done anyway without our speaking a word. Government agencies should have done this. There should be no issue! But government agencies didn't! That's the issue. Why didn't they? Because of a cultural paradigm shift. They did not want, on the one hand, to estrange the votes of a bunch of faggots and cocaine sniffers, the organized gay lobby, as it's called in the United States. (I don't know why they're "gay," they're the most miserable creatures I ever saw! The socalled gay lobby, 8% of the population, the adult electorate; the drug users. There are 20 million cocaine sniffers in the United States, at least. Of course it does affect their mind; it affects the way they vote! It also, I think, affects their employability. They ought to be taxed 100% of their income, on the basis of not having earned it, and on the basis of the fact that we need the money to fight the effects of their habit. ----------snip------------------ "They’re already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They’ll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they’re beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It’s a matter of children’s civil rights!" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40. <hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr> "The lynchers…are a special variety of political revolutionary, and express, spontaneously, the conspiratorial and other ethical characteristics of political revolutionaries…. "Since the idea of touching the person of the (AIDS) carrier is abhorrent, stones and the nadiest approximation of a collection of baseball bats, come to mind. Certain individuals, of known haunts, first suggest themselves as easy targets. (editorial note...12 years later and he's still fond of baseball bats. Come on, guys. See this guy for what he is.) "The point is fast approaching, that increasing portions of these populations will focus upon the fact, that a dead AIDS carrier ceases to be a carrier. If governments were to proceed with repeated mass-screenings of the population, and isolation of carriers, the likelihood of a teenager lynch-mob phenomenon would be small. If not, then other ways of reducing the number of carriers will become increasingly popular. "In that case, the lynch-mobs might be seen by later generations’ historians, as the only political force which acted to save the human species from extinction." Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “Teenage Gangs’ Lynchings of Gays is Foreseen Soon,” New Solidarity, February 9, 1987, p. 8.<hr></blockquote> Explain to me, Hugh, the anti-fascist comment in that particular quote (all this is sourced, by the way, in the original thread. Which Hugh has read. And yet still wants to defend these fascist fucks. If you are still incapable of understanding that just because someone is the enemy of our enemy they are not necessarily our friend, then I don't know how else to explain it. You keep defending them, and I'll keep posting Larouche's own words...and you'll end up looking pretty silly continuing to call the anti-fascist. Here's some info on what it's like to be in the Larouche cult by a former member: <a href="http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/living_prison.htm">www.justiceforjeremiah.com/living_prison.htm</a> Which in turn is linked from a website by a mom tryin to understand how her son, who went to a Larouche conference (there is now a Larouche youth movement...oh joy) and ended up dead six hours after calling her to say that dark things were going on and he was in too deep. <a href="http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/">www.justiceforjeremiah.com/</a> Here is an article describing how the idealistic Jeremiah went to Germany to a Larouche conference and ended up dead. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But after three more days without contact, Mrs Duggan began to worry. "I woke up at 2.30am on Thursday and I didn't know why. I just sat next to the phone and at 5.24am it rang. He was terrified. He said, 'Mum, I am in deep trouble.' I asked him what the problem was and he said, 'You know Nouvelle Solidarité. I want out. I don't want any more.'" They were cut off, but Jeremiah called back moments later. "I could tell he was in terrible distress. He said, 'I want to see you, now!' and that he was in Wiesbaden. Then the line cut." Mrs Duggan called Colindale police station and then Maya, who had also received a disturbing phone call. "He told her he had found out some very grave things and that he was going to get the train the next day. He complained of pains in his arms and legs. Later that morning, his girlfriend also received a call from someone called Sebastian who said Jeremiah had run off." At 3.30pm, two Met officers arrived to tell Mrs Duggan that her son was dead. "They said it was suicide. I shouted and screamed that there was no way." <hr></blockquote> More testimony from ex members here: <a href="http://justiceforjeremiah.com/speak_out.html">justiceforjeremiah.com/speak_out.html</a> Picture of victims of "Operation Mop-up", Larouche's brave "anti-fascist" assault on Communist activists in New York: <img src="http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/nclc_mop_up.jpg" style="border:0;"/> See, Hugh, it's not just that they beat up people with baseball bats...it's that, generally speaking, beating leftists up with baseball bats is kind of a fascist thing to do. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4710880-103690,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4710880-103690,00.html</a> I'm sorry that Berlet and others use Larouche as a way to discredit all conspiracy theory...others do it as well. That's actually one of my issues with Larouche...he taints legitimate areas of inquiry by tracking all such legit threads of investigation back to the neo-masonic/zionist City of London run by Venetian bankers. And since his history of fascist rhetoric is so easy to find (well, except, for some reason, for people who post on this board) then an open minded reporter or truth seeker will check out Tarpley's theories on synthetic terror (probably very reasonable...though he's not the only one to have them) and find other Tarpley material such as this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>During the last dozen years, our philosophical association has advanced the thesis that many of the disasters of modern history have been rooted in the heritage of the former Venetian Republic. This includes the central role of the Venetians in cutting short the Golden Renaissance of Italy, in precipitating the Protestant reformation and the wars of religion, and in creating the pseudo-scientific, irrationalist currents of thought that are called the Enlightenment. I would like to return to some of these themes today in order to explore them in greater detail. http://www.abjpress.com/tarpv2.html <hr></blockquote> And this begins a journey where we find out that fascism is not the true enemy, but a millenia old conspiracy from Babylon, via Venice, now lodged in Britain. By the way, all this stuff really does seem to have a "anything not Catholic is bad" flavor to it. Go read the whole series on venice...well, Hugh already has...but I encourage others to. If you can even follow it. Then go do some more googling and check out Tarpley at the "Peace Summit" with Helga Larouche and various Russian fascist military leaders... Say, isn't that Webster Tarpley sitting there with Leonid Ivashov: <img src="http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/jpg/390-b-4-4.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>EXTREMIST ARMY OFFICERS HOLD ANTISEMITIC RALLY. Between 400 and 600 extremist nationalist army officers held a rally in Moscow on February 19, according to a February 21 report by the Sova Information-Analytical Center. The officers were addressed by Igor Rodionov; a defense minister under President Boris Yeltsin and currently a member of the State Duma and the extremist nationalist Motherland faction; Leonid Ivashov, a former Rocket Troops commander; and Stanislav Terekhov, head of the Union of Officers. Reportedly, Terekhov openly incited violence against Jews by calling on the officers to struggle "against Judeo-Nazism." Ivashov added to the pogromist atmosphere by warning the officers to "be ready to defend against not just the external, but also the internal enemy." Uncharacteristically quiet on the "Jewish question" was Rodionov, a signer of the now infamous letter last month to the Prosecutor General calling for a ban on Jewish organizations. http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/022505Bigotry.shtml <hr></blockquote> anti-fascist my ass. Hey but as long as he says that terror is fake, then he must be one of the good guys, right? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 3/26/06 12:46 pm

by **Dreams End** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:10 pm

Here's Larouche, just so we are clear, explaining what HE thinks was really behind the rise of fascism. Same stuff as Tarpley with the Venetian bit. Secret bankers who control the world. Blah blah blah <blockquote>Quote:<hr>But I also said in this kind of crisis, one must look back, to 1928-1933, and the effect on Germany, in particular, of the great economic crisis of that period. And during that time, a [grouping] centered in London, but with financial backing from New York circles, adopted Adolf Hitler as their project. Their intent was to bring Adolf Hitler to power, in order to prevent a natural, or democratic, response to the great financial collapse which was then already in process. At the end of 1932, Hitler's party was defeated, in an election campaign. As a result of the defeat of Hitler, a Chancellor was appointed, von Schleicher, of Germany, who was not a bad Chancellor; but the Nazi Party leaders, such as Goebbels and Hitler, threatened to commit suicide, because the Nazi Party was bankrupt. Then, the London bankers—headed by the former head of the Bank of England, Montagu Norman, backed by New York financiers—financed the recovery of the Nazi Party. And then on the 28th of January of 1933, von Schleicher was dismissed, by blackmail pressure on President von Hindenburg. And on the 30th of January, 1933, Hitler was appointed chancellor by Hindenburg. the following month, the Reichstag was burned down; which was used to make Hitler, who was then a joke, as a political figure, suddenly the dictator of Germany. And the fate of the world, from that point on, until the end of the war, was determined by that sequence of events. The danger was, in the year 2001, and again today, the danger was and is, that a group of financial circles, of the Venetian fondi model—typified by those who were behind Hitler then, behind Vichy France, behind Mussolini in Italy, behind Franco in Spain—that these small groups of bankers, who are strongly represented in the New York market, and who are very powerful influences there; that these groups would try a Hitler-style solution, this time trying to use the nuclear power of the United States to establish a total world monetary-economic dictatorship of the planet, through some kind of coup, modelled on the Hitler precedent. I said, we must expect that to happen; that's a likely prospect. <a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2003/3026istanbul_event.html">www.larouchepub.com/lar/2...event.html</a> <hr></blockquote> This is from EIR...that Hugh thinks is so anti-fascist. Guess what, Hugh, referring to a secret group of bankers controlling the world is kind of a fascist theme. You might look into that. I mention this particular quote (so many to choose from, so little time) to bring in the whole "Eurasian" angle. Check out this quote: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This problem is a group of, as I said, of financiers. They're not known as major banks. They're the kinds of people who control banks from behind the scenes, wealthy financial circles, who are running exactly this kind of policy for no purpose but to use nuclear weapons—including the so-called mini-nukes—to use them against countries which have no nuclear weapons. And to find pretexts for doing so. Their general objective is not to target Iraq, or merely to target Islamic nations, though that is their prime target; their intention is to create a geo-political condition under which, what I will outline as the alternative to this kind of policy, could not occur. The potentiality for the revival of the world economy today, lies, as I shall indicate, in Eurasia. The potentialities of Eurasia. If you start enough wars in Eurasia, so there is no coordination, or no possible coordination among the principal nations of Eurasia, then there will be no recovery of the world economy, in a meaningful sense. Therefore the issue is really today, as it was in 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt was about to be inaugurated as the President of the United States: Which road will we take? Will we take the road which is typified by what happened in Germany with Hitler? Or the road which is typified by what happened in the United States with the election, and the subsequent inauguration, of President Roosevelt (from same link above)<hr></blockquote>? Larouche is alligning himself with a neofascist movement for a pan Eurasian ascendency to stop the evil Jewish controlled West. While I'm all for standing up to the West, the heros being put forward in this movement, such as Ivashov above and Putin, are not really making me feel too warm and fuzzy. Dugin is another such figure. I and others have posted on all of this before. In short, for those with eyes to see, Larouche is part of a neofascist alliance which wants to blame "synthetic" terror on a secret group of bankers who control the world and can only be opposed by this Eurasian renaissance. For a bit more on all that you can start with this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The journalist Pavel Voshchanov, once Kurginyan's associate and also onetime Yeltsin's press secretary, was the first to make public the activities of the Experimental Creative Center and its links to the discredited Soviet governments of Nikolai Ryzhkov and Valentin Pavlov. It turns out that Kurginyan's institute has had strong support from former analysts and Page 16 Red Religion 35 ideologists of the CPSU Central Committee's International Department, the group of think tanks of the former USSR Academy of Sciences, prominent space and nuclear strategists from the defense sector and the KGB people from such front organizations as the Soviet Committee for Peace Defense, the Institute of the International Working Movement and the Council of General Trade Union Confederations. Together with these organizations, the ECC began to publish in 1991 an intellectual bi- monthly, Polis, which repeated his theme in a more sophisticated form. Polis' editorial board and contributors represent the whole constellation of the names from this realm. They include Alexander Galkin, former deputy rector of the Institute of Social Sciences of the CPSU Central Committee; Yuri Krasin, rector of the Academy of Social Sciences of the CPSU Central Committee; Alexander Weber, Timur Timofeev, Vsevolod Rybakov, Alexander Epstein, all career staffers at the Central Committee's International Department; and the leading experts of the Institutes of USA and Canada, Europe, and Oriental Studies. For years, members of this group have studied "subversive" movements active in the West (sometimes in the hopes of manipulating them). In an odd turnabout, writings in Polis make it evident that the new political coloration of the ECC group reflects the thinking of groups that used to be their object of study: ideologies of the Western radical leftist and extreme rightist movements including the New Age and Lindon LaRouche philosophies. <hr></blockquote> <a href="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fxjRtF_0bloJ:www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem%2520Archives/DEM%252001-02%2520yasmann.pdf+larouche+dugin&hl=en&client=firefox">72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:fxjRtF_0bloJ:www.demokratizatsiya.org/Dem%2520Archives/DEM%252001-02%2520yasmann.pdf+larouche+dugin&hl=en&client=firefox</a> Here's the basic ideology. Yes, they are standing against the U.S. but so did Hitler... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Eurasian-internationalist group has advanced the platform of an "All-Continental Eurasian Resistance" to the "oceanic powers," i.e. the USA and England. Kurginyan and the Prokhanov group have established contacts with European "neo-rightists" such as the French Jean Marie Le Pen and Alain de Benois, and the Flemish nationalist Robert Stoikers, as well as with Italian, Spanish, and German neo-Nazis, Indian nationalists from the Hindi Jhanati Bkhrati movement and Lebanese falangists. Page 17 D EMOKRATIZATSIYA 36 Robert Stoikers, for example, recently wrote in Den that "the only genuine legitimacy for Europe is a German-Russian geopolitical union of an imperial type based on a corporative-socialist economic model. National Roots, Justice, and the Empire are the three components of the conservative revolution on which the future of Europe and of the whole Eurasian continent depends. It is important that the union of socialists and nationalists will be not only a pragmatic alliance against the forces of the Atlantic orientation, but a basis for the continental ideology of the Third Way. Alexander Dugin agreed with Stoikers: The notion of Nashi ("ours"<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> is identical to the entire network of supporters of the great continental block from Japan to Belgium, from China to France, from India to Spain, from Iran to Germany, from Russia to Italy. Nashi is a single invisible continental front of surface, the western province of which is Europe; the front which is confronting the West, i.e., the oceanic powers<hr></blockquote> And these are exactly the sorts who were hanging out at the "peace summit" we see Tarpley in above.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:13 pm

Urgh. I posted late last night on this and in pell-mell fashion. Not advisable for clear thinking or writing. But I did (sigh) because I accidentally started that long discussion of Larouche before I was registered on ez-board and used the handle 'Watchful Citizen.' I didn't know much about Larouche (mea culpa: still don't having gone into psy-ops science instead) and had found his post-9/11 essay explaining that it was part of Brzezinski's 'Grand Chessboard' for occupying the oil regions. So being new to RI and thinking it was a thoughtful place with less vitriol than DemocraticUnderground I put LL's essay up with a best-case interpretation to be dissected. Ouch. What a mistake of framing. I became in some eyes the same devil LL is portrayed as rightly or wrongly. That was quite a learning experience for me and quite relevent to discussing LL's weaponized reputation. My thinking at the time was: Since LL was jailed back when he was exposing GHWBush's October Surprise-type crimes I wondered if LL was more 'investigative good guy' than 'wacko fascist cult leader' and offered it to the Rigorous Intuition board for examination not realizing that the board was vigilant against recent disruptors spouting white supremecist stuff (which I think was a disruption tactic, not even genuine. But that's another...). BIG curfuffle ensued and the info I got from Dreams End was >some LL followers used baseball bats back Vietnam era >LL used some nasty language about Jews and gays >LL focused on England/Great Britain as a long-running plot, I think DE said LL's term was "golems." Since CIA shill Chip Berlet uses LL as his poster boy for the diversionary theme 'conspiranoia=extremist right-winger,' I STILL wonder just how much of that reputation is innoculation against a larger group of people focused on The Secret Government from back when Bush I was in the spotlight with all that implies and how much is the 'useful nasty genius' used to make the case against ALL parapolitical investigators ever to get close to his orbit. Is LL an intentional discreditor? Is LL demonized to make him a discreditor? Does it matter which of the discrediting virus has taken hold? I think this is what DE is trying to say, if I understand him. I've noticed the disinfo discrediting virus all over the place in the last few months and have become more vigilant against it myself. But when Chaitkin and Tarpley are questioned I distinctly sense this is carrying 'things' too far in the cause of understanding and educating more people on 'The Grand Game.' Not a clear line and it changes as one's perception evolve and priorities are redefined. I guess this comes down to deciding how much discrediting you are going to amplify and thus serve the purposes of the discredit-ER versus taking any discrediting as a sign that is PRECISELY where you should look for info regardless of a single personality. After all, personalizing is a key psy-ops tactic. Shoot the messenger to kill the message. Seems to me LL is the most complex case for balancing those two options in judgement. Oh, hell. Now I have to go back and look for that old thread. And I thought I was going to save the world this morning. lol.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:26 pm

Dreams End, I see we are posting at the same time. Thanks for all the materials. Looks like LL is one of the topics you have stacks on to present. Curious why such a focus on LL? Guess he does have a long history and frikkin' huge parapolitical footprint. Having just scanned and seen how much you pulled out, let me just point at the point I was belaboring in my previous post- How far do we ourselves decide to carry the discrediting virus to Chaitkin and Tarpley whose own works don't have nastiness (um,right?) but lots of anti-fascist info we really need? Maybe your above material has this answer and I should do the reading. Ok... You say 'they haven't denounced LL and that is suspect.' Well, I wonder if they see bigger dragons to fight and simply don't want to focus on LL? Could it just be as simple as that? (Oh, please. Let some things be simple in life. lol.) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 3/26/06 1:31 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Mar 26, 2006 4:34 pm

From the other thread about 'World Crisis March 20-26' DE put this interesting line of inquiry to consider- <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here's my real live, unable to prove, speculation. Larouche, Hubbard, Newman (the real power behind Lenora Fulani), Pettie (of the finders) are all of a similar age and likely part of similar projects to create state sponsored (or at the VERY least, state OBSERVED) politico-cults for the following reasons: 1. Observing and infiltrating legit movements 2. Providing other forms of intel (particularly the Finders and Larouche, both of whom had fairly sophisticated intel networks. ) 3. Provide disinfo by jumping into legitimate areas of opposition, providing excellent "research" but muddying the waters with extraneous b.s. or else simply discrediting factual info by virtue of who they are.. 4. Provide experiments in social control and manipulation, to be reproduced in other forms and in other countries, and applied to more mainstream religions as well, including, of course, Islam. This may not be some overarching conspiracy, but the similarities of these folks are quite striking.<hr></blockquote>

Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Re: Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Re: Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Re: Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Re: Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Re: Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!

Re: DE and "Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!"

Re: DE and "Franklin, Chaitkin, Larouche, Oh My!"

I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Re: I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Re: I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Re: I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Re: I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Re: I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Re: I would love to know what from LaRouche is reliable

Who is online