FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Right woos Left
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, of course I knew generally who LaRouche was, or the rumors about him being a weirdo conspiracy guy. I knew none of the details, having never read the literature and having never been accosted by any at college (that I can recall). They did not seem to attend any of the keggers I went to.

Now I feel like virtually an amateur expert on LaRouchian history, the digest version.

However, this thread was never specifically about LaRouche or his followers, but about right-wingism (authoritarianist movements and cults) in general trying to MERGE with left-wingism (not referring to some murderous or Stalinist cult, but democracy both civil and economic). Insofar as this discussion, the similarities highlight how German "national socialists" tried to glom on to various left socialists and steal their supporters with a combination of conspiracy theories, threats, promises, and the lure of violence, cult of personality, high rhetoric about Glory and State.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/holocaust/Research/Proseminar/saratwogood.htm
http://www.takeoverworld.info/munichpost.html

Of possible interest. Rotten.com had some semi-satirical discussion of Freemasonry and the Illuminati.
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/freemasonry/
http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/illuminati/
Back to top
Rosalinda



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:13 pm    Post subject: left and right Reply with quote

Quote:
However, this thread was never specifically about LaRouche or his followers, but about right-wingism (authoritarianist movements and cults) in general trying to MERGE with left-wingism


"Right-wing" and "left wing" are a fiction of the mass media; mere devices
to distract attention from the real issues that face nations and societies today
"authoritarianism" is a blind provided by Hanna Arant and her co-"thinkers";
just a ruse to deflect critical assessment of the nature of the power structure
God knows who the angloamerican "leftwingers" are supposed to be today ?¿
ARE the Gore-worshipers supposedly to be the heirs to the legacy of the Left?
Yes, inded, the German Nazis were "leftwingers", treehugging ecologists and
eugenics was pseudo-science favored at that era. Nothing much has changed
inasmuch as the Left is masquerading as the Right
and the Right is masquerading as the Left.

As for LaRouche - as long as i have been aware of this,
"the Left" has called LaRouche a "fascist",
whereas "the Right" refers to LaRouche a "Communist".

_________________
"It is through beauty, that one proceeds to freedom." - Friedrich Schiller
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zak247



Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All that’s fine and dandy RosaLinda, but that doesn’t tell us who the good guys are. Hu is going to come and save us from all these buggy men?

Or as some say:


Save yourself

If u can?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:35 pm    Post subject: David Corn Reply with quote

I've been away a bit, fixing, cleaning, but also reading some stuff on Chip Berlet's website, the piece debunking David Ray Griffin. Unlike many hack polemicists, Berlet posted Griffin's response.

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/dubious_claims.html
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/conspiracism-911.html

Here's an email I sent to Berlet
re: DAVID CORN
Quote:
Nation columnist David Corn criticized Ruppert in a March 1, 2002 essay on Alternet, “When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad.” According to Corn:

I won't argue that the U.S. government does not engage in brutal, murderous skulduggery from time to time. But the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd.”


Chip,
I'm reading your website and generally supporting your viewpoint, that much of Sept 11 conspiracy shit is shallow and stupid and right wingish. I have some objections to your points.

This entire statement by Corn is laughably absurd. (He posts it as almost a truism -- if Corn says it, it must be right.)

One might instead say: The fact that the USG does engage in brutal, murderous, skullduggery from time-to-time, and sometimes clandestine skullduggery beyond that which the public is aware, this does not de facto prove that the USG did purposely authorize the murder of thousands of American civilians on September 11, in order to generate victims for propaganda purposes, to generate a "helpful wave of public indignation" [don't have to tell you where that quote comes from], in order to launch a major project, the Global War on Terror lasting at least 100+ years (lasting forever: don't expect peace interrupted by occasional wars, expect wars interrupted by occasional peace, basically what we've had since the end of WW2 anyhow, but now with justification for larger and more official wars less confinement to clandestine ops), only beginning with a war on Afghanistan (to make it look like "legitimate revenge"), actually mass murder of Afghani shepherds and taxi drivers and women and children, again purely for propaganda purposes, i.e. "hitting the enemy".

However while this does not de facto prove that Sept 11 was an inside job, there is little-to-nothing in the way of evidence and known history to cast this this an absurd allegation -- with the implication that "no way would the USG ever do such a horrible thing" ... quite the opposite.

That's the first phase of any investigation, identifying possible suspects with an M.O., not holding a trial or presenting evidence to a Grand Jury.

I already knew that Israel did not do this *to* America, because they are dependent on America, regardless what Counterpunch now says (about the movers and art students). But reading the book Profits of War by Ari Ben-Menasche, there's further edification for that point in a section on how Israeli leaders did screw over Jimmy Carter (in a sense) over Iran after it was clear he was a lame duck, but only via backroom deals and strong assurances from Republicans, Casey and George Bush, to which Menashe was a witness and somewhat participant. However, the Israelis were very concerned about alienating America, Congress, etc. by stepping on Carter. Carter became very angry with Begin twice, over weapons sales, but by the 2nd time when it was clear that Bush would triumph, Begin was able to tell off Carter.

(The only thing I wonder about is that Carter belongs to the same Tri-Lateral Commission that Bush belongs to. Your boss is whoever writes your paycheck, correct? So was Carter really undermined by Bush? Or was it more that Carter had to officially oppose Iran, for PR reasons, while Bush could work with them under the table, and then push forward the scheduled next phase of the Tri-Lateral agenda, Reaganomics and the corporate takeover of Latin America? I think maybe that's more realistic.)

But with Bush Jr. and the neo-conservatives in power, absolutely no reason exists for Israel to have had to "booby trap" Wink America with Al-Qaeda, to seduce Laughing or dupe the US govt into Global War the ruling class eager Razz to launch in the first place. (Brzezinski, James Lindsay, Ledeen, and the entire PNAC crowd were achingly eager to launch war, forever ... they said so, explained it in detail in books and probably speeches, for over a decade.)
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beating some more dead horses.

I wish to emphasize that my point all along on this thread has been to shine a glaring light on persons who wish to offer us a hand out of the frying pan, directly in to the fire. It's not about some artificial distinctions btw Right v Left. At some level that's true that the distinction has been rendered phony, on another level it's like saying there's "no such thing as class war", when those in power have celebrated every win.

http://www.ctka.net/pr399-fdr.html
The Attempted Coup Against FDR
By Barbara LaMonica

I was looking up some Bush-Hitler articles for someone that sent me an email and found this.

I know you all know about this, but this is one of the more comprehensive articles I've read on what some of the real distinctions are, and it's simple enough for the average person to absorb.


(I just located some new articles I've never seen, like the one below Profits über Alles.)

http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bush+nazi
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bush+hitler
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=cia+nazi
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=cia+nazi+bush
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=bush+gehlen
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=corporations+hitler
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=butler+bankers+coup (about Gen. Smedley "War is a Racket" Butler)

Washington Post Explains How the Nazi-Created CIA Protects Us
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NIM20051119&articleId=1285
(WAPO chiefs of past actually grew up and went to college with CIA chiefs)

Third World Traveller - Fascism Watch
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Fascism.html
collection of links and detailed articles

Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/51/pauwels.html

Plus Paul Grignon, who Socred mentioned above, has written this:
Nazi, GOP, business, Bush Knots
http://www.sunmt.org/bushnazi.html
Quote:
Project Paperclip: the CIA Nazi recruitment program. Many of the think tanks and organizations behind Bush got their ideas directly from these former Nazi ...
Paul Grignon http://www.paulgrignonart.com
100 Links to Bush connections —
The following are links to information about the Bush family, the Bush cabinet appointees and the corporations, think tanks and foundations that are behind the GW Bush administration.

Money as Debt : Animated Video by Paul Grignon
a separate issue. I recognized the name Grignon from earlier in this thread, good important video
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush#War_seizures_controversy
Notwithstanding, the underlying importance is Hitler's known ideology; intelligent business partners like Bush and Thyssen and Harriman clearly knew who they were doing business with and were willing to do so. Thyssen's "autobiography" is entitled I Paid Hitler.

Chris Floyd: The CIA, the Bush Gang and the Death of Frank Olson
Are they going to find about Reinhard Gehlen, too: the Nazi spy who joined ... founding father of the CIA, the hotshot lawyer who kept Prescott Bush's name ...
www.counterpunch.org/floyd0828.html


Documents show post-war CIA covered up Nazi war crimes - Haaretz ...


Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed Documents in National Archives Prove ...
After the "Hitler's Angel" article was published Bush and Harriman made no attempts to divest themselves of the controversial Thyssen financial alliance, ..

Bush Hitler Nazi Death Camp Connections -- Bush Family History ..
Prescott Bush became Hitler's banker when he became Fritz Thyssen's banker. The incredible loot Fritz's father made in steel, coal, and railroads ...
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/

Reinhard Gehlen and U.S. Intelligence In 1956, control of the Gehlen Org shifted from the CIA to West Germany's ... Allen worked with Prescott Bush (grandfather of President George Walker Bush) ...
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/gehlen2-a.htm

almost related:
Wal-Mart running private intelligence agency to monitor critics
By Joshua Holland
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/51142/

Quote:
No, this isn't fascism as defined by Benito Mussolini* …

Wal-Mart Stores has been recruiting former military and government intelligence officers for a branch of its global security office aimed at identifying threats to the world's largest retailer, including from "suspect individuals and groups."

Wal-Mart's interest in intelligence operatives comes at a time when the retailer is defending itself against allegations by a fired security employee that it ran surveillance operations against targets including critics, dissident shareholders, employees and suppliers.




Bush-Hitler connection unfair - Opinion WAH!!
The Bush-Hitler Identity Theory It's disgusting that anybody would compare Bush with Hitler.

American Newsreel: George W. Bush is no Adolph Hitler So it's both unfair and insulting to compare George W. Bush to Adolph Hitler. But unfair to whom?

ZNet |Iraq | Bush Must Be Stopped Now Before It Is Too Late But, it may be objected, that it would be unfair to compare Bush with Hitler, since Bush leads a democratic country, while Hitler had established a ...




http://nihlist.blogspot.com/2005/04/top-11-reasons-why-bush-is-worse-than.html
Top 11 Reasons Why Bush Is Worse Than Hitler - sorta humorous

War is a Racket | Gen Smedley D. Butler

Wall Street's Fascist Plot to Seize the White House
Although Butler's patriotic efforts did thwart this fascist coup plot, the Wall Street bankers and corporate leaders who sponsored it continued to conspire ...
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/53-index.html

Plans Hatched & Monies gathered for a coup d'etat in the U.S.
They were a few Wall Street bankers, some linked to the Morgan financial empire, ... After all was said and done with regard to the coup plot, Butler ...
http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/53/plans_hatched.html

THE BUSINESS PLOT TO OVERTHROW ROOSEVELT
The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm

FDR vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated


http://www.Takeoverworld.info/music/Immortal_Technique_Cause_of_Death.mp3
hardcore gangsta rap about politics, WARNING: rudeness, profanity, Bush-bashing

OF COURSE, the big picture is that this is HARDLY limited to Bush, but Bushco has a long history with this. Congress? I wonder how many know.


Last edited by dilbert_g on Wed May 30, 2007 4:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FYI,
While perusing on Steve Kangas site, I found this:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/alllinks.html
"Critiques of Libertarianism" All links.

A lot of very cool breakdowns on Murray Rothbard and the like, and a lot of Neo-Con mantras, some I've heard recently.

Libertarianism Makes You Stupid
Seth Finkelstein

A Non-Libertarian FAQ
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html
Quote:
STRATEGIES FOR ARGUMENT
Many libertarian arguments are like fundamentalist arguments: they depend upon restricting your attention to a very narrow field so that you will not notice that they fail outside of that field. For example, fundamentalists like to restrict the argument to the bible. Libertarians like to restrict the argument to their notions of economics, justice, history, and rights and their misrepresentations of government and contracts. Widen the scope, and their questionable assumptions leap into view. Why should I accept that "right" as a given? Is that a fact around the world, not just in the US? Are there counter examples for that idea? Are libertarians serving their own class interest only? Is that economic argument complete, or are there other critical factors or strategies which have been omitted? When they make a historical argument, can we find current real-world counterexamples? If we adopt this libertarian policy, there will be benefits: but what will the disadvantages be? Are libertarians reinventing what we already have, only without safeguards?

There are a number of scientific, economic, political, and philosophical concepts which you may need to understand to debate some particular point. These include free market, public goods, externalities, tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma, adverse selection, market failure, mixed economy, evolution, catastrophe theory, game theory, etc.


Reasoning has limitations.
Claims to "reason" or "rationality" should not necessarily convince us. Our suspiscions should start with first, the circularity of justifying reason with reason.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#evangelical
The original intent of the founders has been perverted.
The US Government ignores the plain meaning of the constitution.
The Declaration Of Independence says...
Libertarians are defenders of freedom and rights.
Taxation is theft.
If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at your house, initiate force and put you in jail.
Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified.
Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't we be left alone?
Extortion by the state is no different than extortion by the Mafia.
There's no such thing as rights to govern territory!
Why should I be told what to do with my property? That infringes on my rights of ownership.
Of course it's my property. I paid money and hold the deed.
New limitations on use of property are a taking, and should be compensated.
Think how much wealthier we'd be if we didn't pay taxes.
We lived in a fairly libertarian society in the US 150 years ago.
"Might Makes Right" is the principle behind statism.
Why shouldn't we adopt libertarian government now?
There's a conspiracy to prevent a working libertarian experiment.
An event is explained by the issue at hand.
Haven't you read "Libertarianism in One Lesson"?
Every belief system has its evangelistic writings, designed to help convince or draw in new members. The Campus Crusade for Christ uses "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", Scientology uses "Dianetics", and libertarians use "Libertarianism in One Lesson".

All of these books are very convincing-- in the absence of counterargument. However, they are easily rebutted by skeptics because they MUST omit the exceptions to their point of view to be convincing.

If I may cite a convert: "Libertarians like me believe in a simple morality-- everyone should be free to do what they like, so long as they don't initiate use of force... If you're not familiar with this morality, I urge you to read "Libertarianism in One Lesson", by David Bergland. I was personally shocked to find that things could be so neatly axiomatized, and what's even more remarkable is that in the empirical world, societies seem to me to be punished in an eye for an eye fashion from their deviation from this simple morality. We are deviating quite a bit and suffering accordingly... in my view this is why economic growth is stagnating, the inner cities are dying..."

Any time I read how simple it is to understand the world through system X, I know I'm dealing with a convert from evangelistic writings. They blithely assert that their explanations show the true cause of current problems. And the key to showing them to be wrong, is to show that there's more complexity to the world than is encompassed by their simplistic explanations.


Have you read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority"?
Libertarians oppose the initiation of force.
How noble. And I'm sure that in a real libertarian society, everybody would hold to this morality as much as Christians turn the other cheek. [ Sad For the sarcasm-impaired.]

"Initiation of force" is another libertarian newspeak term that does not mean what the uninitiated might think.


The World's Smallest Political Quiz. [Nolan Test] - bent to lead to libertarian answers
You're a Statist!

Some selected quotes and counter quotes:
Please get your political terms straight! 'Communism' means 'Everyone wearing glasses gets their heads staved in with rifle butts,' while 'Socialism' means 'Drinks and smokes on the middle class!' Laughing
Steve Mayer

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

'Libertarian UberMensch smites devolved, parasitic, running-dog, statist lackies that want our women!' Atlas Shrugged in a nutshell.
Mike Huben

There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the

the word "democracy" -- recall that many communists called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism.

What is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?
Noam Chomsky

... I have developed, over the years, some sense of the difference between real horseshit that you can step in and Ideal Platonic Horseshit that exists, evidently, only in the contemplation of those who worship such abstractions; and I continue to notice that Natural Law bears an uncanny resemblance to ideal Platonic Horseshit.
Robert Anton Wilson, "Natural Law"

Injustice was as common as streetcars. When men walked into their jobs, they left their dignity, their citizenship and their humanity outside. They were required to report for duty whether there was work or not. While they waited on the convenience of supervisors and foremen they were unpaid. They could be fired without a pretext. The were subjected to arbitrary, senseless rules... Men were tortured by regulations that made difficult even going to the toilet. Despite grandiloquent statements from the presidents of huge corporations that their door was open to any worker with a complaint, there was no one and no agency to which a worker could appeal if he were wronged. The very idea that a worker could be wronged seemed absurd to the employer.
Walter Reuther (on working life in America before the Wagner act)

The key reason executives are paid so much now is that they appoint the members of the corporate board that determines their compensation and control many of the perks that board members count on. So it's not the invisible hand of the market that leads to those monumental executive incomes; it's the invisible handshake in the boardroom.
Paul Krugman, "For Richer" in New York Times Magazine 10/20/02

After all, there's a lot of experience with privatization by governments at all levels -- state, federal, and local; that record doesn't support extravagant claims about improved efficiency. Sometimes there are significant cost reductions, but all too often the promised savings turn out to be a mirage. In particular, it's common for private contractors to bid low to get the business, then push their prices up once the government work force has been disbanded. Projections of a 20 or 30 percent cost saving across the board are silly -- and one suspects that the officials making those projections know that.
Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 11.19.02

Many conservatives cling instinctively to a cost-blind approach to the protection of the so-called negative rights of property and contract, because staring hard at the costs would shatter the libertarian fiction that individuals who exercise their rights in the classic or eighteenth-century-sense, are just going about their own business, immaculately independent of the government and the taxpaying community. The public costs of non-welfare rights show, among other things, that "private wealth," as we know it, exists only because of governmental institutions.
Holmes and Sunstein, "The Cost of Rights", p 29.

David Hume, the Scottish philosopher, liked to point out that private property is a monopoly granted and maintained by public authority at the public's expense.
Holmes and Sunstein, "The Cost of Rights", p 61.

Liberty, rightly conceived, does not require a lack of dependence on government; on the contrary, affirmative government provides the preconditions for liberty. The Bill of Rights is a do-it-yourself kit that citizens can obtain only at taxpayer-funded outlets.
Holmes and Sunstein, "The Cost of Rights", p 205.

... [L]ibertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
Robert Locke, Marxism of the Right

YOU GET THE DRIFT, more here
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/quotes.html
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

(No difference between Left and Right? No difference between men and women either.)

www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/libcon.html
THE LIBERTARIAN AS CONSERVATIVE
Quote:
To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst. And yet (to quote the most vociferous of radical libertarians, Professor Murray Rothbard) there is nothing un-libertarian about "organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party." Indeed. That is why libertarianism is just conservatism with a rationalist/positivist veneer.

Libertarians don't denounce what the state does, they just object to who's doing it.

Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade.

If one looks at the world without prejudice but with an eye to maximizing freedom, the major coercive institution is not the state, it's work. Libertarians who with a straight face call for the abolition of the state nonetheless look on anti-work attitudes with horror. The idea of abolishing work is, of course, an affront to common sense. But then so is the idea of abolishing the state. If a referendum were held among libertarians which posed as options the abolition of work with retention of the state, or abolition of the state with retention of work, does anyone doubt the outcome?

Most of what little there is consists of Randite rantings against parasites, barely distinguishable from the invective inflicted on dissidents by the Soviet press, and Sunday-school platitudinizing that there is no free lunch -- this from fat cats who have usually ingested a lot of them.

If you spend most of your waking life taking orders or kissing ass, if you get habituated to hierarchy, you will become passive-aggressive, sado-masochistic, servile and stupefied, and you will carry that load into every aspect of the balance of your life. Incapable of living a life of liberty, you'll settle for one of its ideological representations, like libertarianism.
-- Bob Black, 1984


www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/abolition.html
The Abolition Of Work (this is both amusing and serious)
Quote:
No one should ever work.

Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you'd care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.

That doesn't mean we have to stop doing things. It does mean creating a new way of life based on play; in other words, a ludic revolution.

Even if you aren't killed or crippled while actually working, you very well might be while going to work, coming from work, looking for work, or trying to forget about work. The vast majority of victims of the automobile are either doing one of these work-obligatory activities or else fall afoul of those who do them. To this augmented body-count must be added the victims of auto- industrial pollution and work-induced alcoholism and drug addiction. Both cancer and heart disease are modern afflictions normally traceable, directly or indirectly, to work.

Work, then, institutionalizes homicide as a way of life. People think the Cambodians were crazy for exterminating themselves, but are we any different? The Pol Pot regime at least had a vision, however blurred, of an egalitarian society. We kill people in the six-figure range (at least) in order to sell Big Macs and Cadillacs to the survivors.


Last edited by dilbert_g on Wed May 30, 2007 4:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 8:29 pm    Post subject: this is beginning to explain a helluva lot... Reply with quote

Dilbert_g wrote:
Well, of course I knew generally who LaRouche was, or the rumors about him being a weirdo conspiracy guy. I knew none of the details, having never read the literature and having never been accosted by any at college (that I can recall). They did not seem to attend any of the keggers I went to.

Now I feel like virtually an amateur expert on LaRouchian history, the digest version.

However, this thread was never specifically about LaRouche or his followers, but about right-wingism (authoritarianist movements and cults) in general trying to MERGE with left-wingism (not referring to some murderous or Stalinist cult, but democracy both civil and economic). Insofar as this discussion, the similarities highlight how German "national socialists" tried to glom on to various left socialists and steal their supporters with a combination of conspiracy theories, threats, promises, and the lure of violence, cult of personality, high rhetoric about Glory and State.


I've finally had a chance to look at a little of the Berlet material, and I have to say, I'm beginning to see the woo...

and how it fits with the world wide woo web.

So, thanks for sharing your research - while I was thrashing about in the patriot section of the web investigating the potential liabilities of corporate personhood, I got a good whiff of some of the extremely conservative religious and racial conspiracies woven into the informational literature.

Being rather ignorant of the Larouche / Birch crew and agenda myself, I have to admit that Berlet's perspective does explain the possible genesis of this 'conspiracy against america' view of hidden political history.

I agree that the fact that he published this material prior to 911 shines a whole new light on the bullhorn and 'ZOG attack' reruns - at least like, where the hell did all this stuff come from?

So, I'm checking out this thread, and links, carefully, from the beginning - you've presented some interesting pieces of the puzzle.

I'll be back when I've got a handle on my right and left woos. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Jerry. As I said above, I think Berlet obviously goes WAY TOO FAR, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

But he has a point.
Back to top
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 8:57 pm    Post subject: Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi Reply with quote

wow THIS is interesting:
http://www.Takeoverworld.info/Perle+Khashoggi.html

Annals of National Security
original article: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/17/030317fa_fact
Lunch With the Chairman
Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?

by Seymour M. Hersh March 17, 2003

Perle has also been an outspoken critic of the Saudi government, and Americans who are in its pay. He has often publicly rebuked former American government officials who are connected to research centers and foundations that are funded by the Saudis, and told the National Review last summer, “I think it’s a disgrace. They’re the people who appear on television, they write op-ed pieces. The Saudis are a major source of the problem we face with terrorism. That would be far more obvious to people if it weren’t for this community of former diplomats effectively working for this foreign government.” In August, the Saudi government was dismayed when the Washington Post revealed that the Defense Policy Board had received a briefing on July 10th from a Rand Corporation analyst named Laurent Murawiec, who depicted Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that the Bush Administration give the Saudi government an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its financial assets in the United States and its oil fields. Murawiec, it was later found, is a former editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, a magazine controlled by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., the perennial Presidential candidate, conspiracy theorist, and felon. According to Time, it was Perle himself who had invited Murawiec to make his presentation.

-----------------------------------
This is interesting because:
Perle is also a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P., which was registered in November, 2001, in Delaware. Trireme’s main business, according to a two-page letter that one of its representatives sent to Khashoggi last November, is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. The letter argued that the fear of terrorism would increase the demand for such products in Europe and in countries like Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

and the beginning of the article says:
At the peak of his deal-making activities, in the nineteen-seventies, the Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, earning hundreds of millions in commissions and fees. Though never convicted of wrongdoing, he was repeatedly involved in disputes with federal prosecutors and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in recent years he has been in litigation in Thailand and Los Angeles, among other places, concerning allegations of stock manipulation and fraud.

During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

Khashoggi subsequently claimed that he lost ten million dollars that he had put up to obtain embargoed weapons for Iran which were to be bartered (with Presidential approval) for American hostages. The scandals of those times seemed to feed off each other: a congressional investigation revealed that Khashoggi had borrowed much of the money for the weapons from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (B.C.C.I.), whose collapse, in 1991, defrauded thousands of depositors and led to years of inquiry and litigation.

("Bank of Al-Qaeda", created by the CIA's Richard Helms in Pakistan in conjunction with Pakistani businessmen, dealt in arms trading, narcotics, money-laundering, helped fund both Al-Qaeda and the Contras. Pakistan was the conduit for funding Al-Qaeda.)

I remember hearing Perle talk in some video, in which this "Prince of Darkness" (nickname from his friends) argued that he is only an advisor to the President. Laughing Laughing
Back to top
jirons



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/globalism/cfr.htm
Quote:
Beware the Secret Heart of the EU [by Ashley Mote, an independent member of the European Parliament]: "Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits.... We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them....

"The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road.... The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states... are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.

"...officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers.... But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government. ... The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure... designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

"...the EU’s parliament has a built-in majority in favour of the social market. It is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. ... In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide." The "Americas" is moving in the same direction! See The Revolutionary Roots of the UN and the next link:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide.


Excellent find.

The only thing I would add is what should be the obvious point, that the "endless social engineering", while it represents a cottage industry of repression disguised as "help" and "liberalism" (not that actual help is not also needed), it mostly represents the means by which society can be continually RE-SOLD on worshipping the big business machine, the "God of the Invisible Hand" and consumerism, or at least passive acceptance of same.

Also, I dispute that this "left" in Parliament the author is discussing is really a legitimate left in any real sense of the word. It's the right with less-fascistic-sounding overtones. Witness, one of the videos on the DailyKos page about Cindy Sheehan featured an antiwar protest AND a Save Darfur via military peacekeeping invasion protest. The height of idiocy. Didn't Bush also say he wanted to help the people of Iraq?

The Establishment Left is a psyop, notwithstanding the occasional anti-corporate anti-fascist person or representative who happens to lurk in the fringes (eyeing them with careful scrutiny as to their legitimacy).

Any legit Left does not paper over the class war (the one that Warren Buffett complained that his class has won, unfairly) with social engineering and cliches. Think Mario Savio and Fred Hampton replaced by Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, and I think you get what I mean.


Last edited by dilbert_g on Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:56 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
PatrickSMcNally



Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Posts: 846

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g wrote:
Also, I dispute that this "left" in Parliament the author is discussing is really a legitimate left in any real sense of the word.


You can see the pattern in the way that the Democrats are often referred to today as "the Left." 70 years or so ago it was more common for the Democrats to referred to as "the Center," which was to be counterposed against both Right and Left. At that time the Democrats were at least open to certain social reforms aimed at taking the worst edge off of capitalism and in that respect were closer the actual Left of that era than they are today. Since Ronald Reagan took office the Democrats have steadily moved to the Right and dropped most of the pretense that have any program which is even moderatly Left. Yet the tendency to refer to the Democrats as "the Left" has become such a standard pattern that whenever anyone refers to "the Left" I can usually predict that they just mean Al Gore, rather than any actual Left-wing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
Page 19 of 20

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.