Terry Mauro

With such a lofty mission statement, I thought it appropriate that I chronicle here my own experience with the "Deep Politics Forum" and two of its co-founders, including Mr. Drago. Below is an email I sent to Mr. Drago today on this public issue that is self-explanatory, followed by his response to me today: Here is Mr. Drago's response: I hope you all will sleep better at night knowing that such selfless guardians of personal privacy, truth, honor, and justice are vigilantly on the job, and I hope that you will join them in their tireless efforts. Ashton Gray ****************************************** IT WAS I, WHO VOTED YOU DOWN, Ashton!

Watch the Video The story of Lyndon LaRouche's "Strategid Defense Initiative" For all those fools who love Bertrand Russell or "How I learned to love the bomb". http://larouchepac.com/

Murdagh made them and LaDouche endorsed them. Lyndon LaRouche identified "The New Left" as being a fascist movement way back in 1968. I guess that's why he felt justified in sicking his goons on them. Perhaps you should take this up with your friend Dawn who says she was in the SDS back then. Was she a closet fascist or just a dupe? And he pretty obviously had serious psychological problems at the time, you think his association with a guy who had sex with his daughters starting age 6 reflects well on your messiah? Three or four out of thousands is "so many"? LOL "He pretty obviously "had" serious psychological problems at the time". I know of no one in his circle of friends and colleagues that ever had a single question regarding Bevel's state of mind. Sir Rubbish, you were the only one to see these "obvious" psychological problems. He was screwing his teenage daughter and had been since she was 6, but I guess to a LaRouchite that doesn't constitute having "serious psychological problems " Wasnt that part of GG Allins live act? I'm serious wasnt that part of his act? All I said was that none of his friends, or colleagues ever considered his behavior odd; or suspected him of the crime he was charged and convicted. It is ironic, here you have a guy that was attacking a group of pedophiles and then 17 years later he's convicted of an indentical crime. The pedophiles in Omaha are still operating. Funny, but theyt cant seem to get arrested to save their lives. Where's the outrage Sir Rubbish of Colby, where is the outrage?

You never answered my question- "why are Dennis King's slanders of LaRouche true"? You wanted me to address them so that's what I've done. Now please tell me "what makes the statements true"?

Murdagh made them and LaDouche endorsed them. Lyndon LaRouche identified "The New Left" as being a fascist movement way back in 1968. I guess that's why he felt justified in sicking his goons on them. Perhaps you should take this up with your friend Dawn who says she was in the SDS back then. Was she a closet fascist or just a dupe? And he pretty obviously had serious psychological problems at the time, you think his association with a guy who had sex with his daughters starting age 6 reflects well on your messiah? Three or four out of thousands is "so many"? LOL "He pretty obviously "had" serious psychological problems at the time". I know of no one in his circle of friends and colleagues that ever had a single question regarding Bevel's state of mind. Sir Rubbish, you were the only one to see these "obvious" psychological problems.

No response, that figures.

LaRouche comments on Weatherman and Bill Ayers. http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/10/17/lar...case-today.html

Exactly my point -- you said "there is no evidence King himself subscribed to Marxism." I said there is such evidence, assuming that "Marxism" refers to a philosophy or system of thought expounded by Charlie Marx; a foundational system of thought for practically all socialist movements and parties for the past 150 years or so. Marx's critical analysis of industrial capitalism and the concepts he used to describe it are widely accepted as generally accurate among many people describing themselves as socialist. So in that sense almost anyone advocating socialism is someone who "subscribes to Marxism." But apparently "Marxism" as you originally used the term meant "Communism" or "Marxist-Leninism" or at any rate the ideology of the ruling party in the Soviet Union, "Red" China, their satellite regimes and Communist parties in other parts of the world. According to Garrow's bio (p.43), early in life King came to believe Marx's analysis of the economic side of capitalism was correct (he would dispute the materialism inherent in Marxist theory). Later King had to keep such views private, for obvious reasons, but by the end of his life he was clearly focused on things like poverty being inherent in the system; the need to shake up institutionalized power structures that did nothing about it; advocating a guaranteed annual income; etc. Getting back near the topic, it's hardly surprising LaRouche (thought he) was a Communist in the 1960s; it fits with his image of himself as a genius radical of some sort, and he's not the first supposed Leftist whose authoritarian tendencies would make him comfortable in any totalitarian setting. I suppose as you seem intent on carrying on debates with people who tend to have their own definitions for things, you might want to bring up the subject of the Fabian Society. Being a darkly suspicious British phenomenon, they're also targets of the wrath of LaRouche (Remember: London -- the chief enemy of the U.S.A. and civilization generally) http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2007/3429ly...uth_africa.html .....Not only was [Cecil] Rhodes a mega-imperialist and a true forerunner of Al Gore -- both dedicated servants of the British Empire -- but he was also the founder of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table of Great Britain, the sole purpose of which was to establish the British Commonwealth of Nations and ultimately thereby, to bring the world under the domination of a restored British Empire. One of the founders of the Round Table, H.G. Wells, a former member of the Fabian Society, laid out his vision for a one-world dictatorship in The Shape of Things to Come, in which he envisions that nation-states, after exposure to a prolonged World War II scenario, will submit themselves to world government. Lord Alfred Milner, Rhodes' successor as head of the Round Table, envisaged white supremacy as a principle of world government. He once remarked of himself, "My patriotism knows no geographical but only racial limits. I am a British Race patriot." In the LYM [LaRouche Youth Movement] discussion, it was brought out that this racist monster at the very center of the British Empire, can only be truly understood as the continuation of the Venetian System with its secret-government reign of terror, and that the key purpose of its continuation today is the destruction of the United States and the American System of economics. The Fabian Society, the Round Table, and the synarchists, as Lyndon LaRouche has underlined explicitly, were all created to destroy the United States and the American System from the inside. It is explicitly against this Venetian enemy, that the U.S. founding fathers laid down the Declaration of Independence and later the American Constitution, to break with the, looting from the British Empire [sic.[1] [1] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, 1981..... http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/27...ian-interv.html "'68 Was a Show, Orchestated By Intelligence Services" -- Russian Interview With LaRouche May 26 (EIRNS) -- The prominent Moscow magazine Russky Zhurnal (Russian Journal) today published Nikita Kurkin's interview of Lyndon LaRouche on the occasion of the 40th anniversity [sic] of the May 1968 student strikes in Paris, which touched off a sequence of destabilizations of European nations, in parallel with similar events in the U.S.A. In his replies, which Russky Zhurnal includes in full, LaRouche identified the pathology of the now-ruling Baby Boomer generation, as rooted in the post-war period when FDR's commitment to freeing the world from Anglo-Dutch oligarchism was overturned by Harry S Truman and other tools of the British Empire. .....Following are LaRouche's original English replies, which have now been published in this same order, in Russian translation, by Russky Zhurnal in Russian translation. [sic] LYNDON LAROUCHE: It is virtually impossible to present a reply to your questions which would be useful, without first introducing some essential comments on the historical background for those events, for your information, to use or reference as you may choose: information essential to understand the immediate threat from Britain and its U.S. agents to both the continued existence of constitutional government in the U.S.A. and the massive global warfare intended by London at this immediate juncture, whose included leading targets are Russia, China, and India. Until the day President Franklin Roosevelt died, U.S. policy for the post-war world was to eliminate all forms of colonialism, especially the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forms, through aid of both U.S.A. physical-economic power, and the conversion of the great economic capabilities developed for the war against Nazism, into economic power for development of the nations to emerge from their liberation from sundry forms of imperial subjugation. We knew, as Franklin Roosevelt knew precisely, that Mussolini and Hitler were creations of London, and that London was the chief enemy of the U.S.A. and civilization generally. However, already, in the Summer of 1944, a sharp right-wing turn had erupted in the U.S.A. and Fabian Society circles in London, as typified by the Nazi SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the circles represented by Britain's Prince Philip today. [[Nooooo!!!! Not Prince Philip!!!!!]] The Allied breakthrough at Normandy, which secured the inevitable defeat of Hitler, was the signal for the right-wing turn from the same Transatlantic financier and Fabian circles which had originally created and installed Benito Mussolini and Hitler. For example, the grandfather of the present U.S.A. President, who, as an agent of Harriman's financial house, had activated the credit to rescue Hitler to become the appointed Chancellor of Germany. The right-wing surge inside the wealthy financier circles of the U.S.A. was an echo of the same network which had supported, first, Mussolini, and then Hitler. To secure his reelection, Roosevelt was forced to adopt the right-wing Truman, a Churchill stooge, as Vice-President; Roosevelt assumed that he would live long enough to overcome the problem which a Vice-President Truman would represent. Thus, we had the right-wing turn which erupted in the latter half of 1944 and 1945. Thus, first, whereas FDR had been anti-colonialist, Truman defended British and Dutch colonialism, although sometimes in altered forms. The plan for a "preventive nuclear attack" on the Soviet Union, which was authored openly by Bertrand Russell, and the launching of cultural warfare in such forms as existentialist conspiracies and the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), were typical. Most notable in this conditioning of the U.S.A. and European populations of the post-1945-46 interval, was the use of the nuclear-warfare posture against the Soviet Union as the pretext for building up a vast "internal security" apparatus. This latter apparatus, among its other features, used security-clearance standards to regulate the economic lives of families of "white collar" professionals, and relevant others, beyond those limits within which stricter surveillance and regulation was imposed. This combination of post-1943 developments and circumstances was the foundation of the shaping of the minds of the "white collar" class in the U.S.A., and in western and central Europe. This set of circumstances created the social formation known today as the "white-collar"-rooted generation of those born between 1945 and 1958, the so-called "baby boomer" generation. I was the first to diagnose the "new violence" segment of the Baby Boomer generation as essentially "fascist" in its social inclinations. This was based on my close study of developments at Columbia University and similar locations during the late Spring and Summer of 1968. I published a report titled "The New Left, Social Control, and Fascism" in June-July 1968. I compared the anarchoid element, involved in the second Columbia University strike-action, with the way in which the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party were repeatedly exchanging large chunks of their memberships during the famous Berlin trolley-car general strike. Russky Zhurnal: 1968 the historical event and 1968 the myth: how are the two related? LAROUCHE: The development of the so-called "New Left" generations in the Americas and Europe, were not "spontaneous" social eruptions, but were orchestrated developments, always under the fine-tuning control of relevant security organizations. The leading political forces in both leading U.S. political parties are of the "Baby Boomer/1968er" characteristics typified by the British Fabians and the model of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. They are radical Malthusians, whose role has been the destruction of the economy and sanity of the population of the most politically and culturally influential stratum of the U.S.A., from the relevant section of the children of the "white collar" class born between 1945 and the depths of the U.S. deep economic recession of 1957-58. The lower eighty percentile of family income-brackets in the U.S.A. are reduced to choosing among both physical and mental items presented for consumption by the presumptive "ruling class," composed largely of hard-core "sixty-eighters" in positions of either power or great influence. Russky Zhurnal: What is your evaluation of the political and socio-cultural consequences of the 1968 events for the West, and chiefly for the USA? LAROUCHE: If we identify "British Empire" properly, as being the domain controlled by a network of financier elements similar to Venice's Fourteenth Century "Lombard League," the only significant political menace against civilization today is that "British Empire." This is the new form of expression of what used to be called a reign of "universal fascism," as in the case of the Nazi "Allgemeine SS." Russky Zhurnal: How politically relevant are the 1968 events for today's agenda? LAROUCHE: If one does not understand the nature and significance of today's "68er" phenomenon, no competent grasp of current world history is possible today. Didnt you go on a christian fundy rant about a year ago on this forum? I seem to remember it. LaRouche has never called MLK a communist. You need to follow Colby's tricks a little closer. Then you might see what he's up to. It's ironic you use the label "authoritarian" to describe LaRouche. Can you tell me what it means, and how you know it to be accurate or true. I am going through the same issue with Sir Rubbish Colby from Brazil by way of the NYC punk scene. He's a green party advocate so maybe his patrons in Brazil will let him set up a T-shirt business and XXXXX factory in the Brazilian rainforest? Cause that's art, you know. And eco friendly. Here's a 16 year old piece on the Frankfurt School. You arent even aware that you adopted this "feeling" about LaRouche from this band of social planners. You try and come off as a LaRouche expert when you dont even know your own mind. Tsk, tsk. http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96..._frankfurt.html And what precisely did you disagree with in the articles/interviews you posted? Was HG Wells not a member of the Fabian Society, was the British Empire really a friend to the United States ? Just exactly, what do you disagree with? (EDITED: Removal of offensive language.)

Brazil is not so uptight about such things. The leading candidate for mayor of Rio, Fernando Gabeira, participated in the kidnapping of the US ambassador during the dictatorship. He even wrote a book about it which became a movie known as Four Days in September in English. Alan Arkin played the ambassador. He has been a Federal Deputy (MP / Congressman) since 1994 and ran unsuccessfully for president and governor. His ban from entering the US was even protested by right wing politicians tied to the military government. Yeah, Brazil is very liberal about such things. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/34761.stm

One can never read too much of my writing! Did I ever type "LaDouche" that must have been a typo! Oh yeah I guess he was set up by his own kids. It's possible. You have no idea what pressure was brought to bear. 15 years after the fact? That's a long long time to prove an allegation like this. Look Dennis King is right on top of the story. He even makes a LaRouche connection, 15 years after Bevel was his running mate. That Dennis King, he isnt obessed or anything, right? http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/bevel2.htm He does get one fact correct. James Bevel was a leading figure in the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King. Damn how does that racist LaRouche attract so many of Martin King followers? Maybe they havent read Dennis King?

One can never read too much of my writing! Did I ever type "LaDouche" that must have been a typo! Oh yeah I guess he was set up by his own kids. It's possible. You have no idea what pressure was brought to bear. 15 years after the fact? That's a long long time to prove an allegation like this. Look Dennis King is right on top of the story. He even makes a LaRouche connection, 15 years after Bevel was his running mate. That Dennis King, he isnt obessed or anything, right? http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/bevel2.htm

It’s bad enough that you are hopelessly ignorant about the basics of American history that ocurred decades or centuries ago but you can’t even remember what you typed a few days ago. The question has always been whether or not LaRouche made racist comments not whether he is or has ever been a racist. On Oct 5 on the Sarah Palin thread in response to Don I wrote (post # 172): “…Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them.” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=155626 Within a few minutes you replied (post # 173): “You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify.” So, the only thing I had to qualify for the $ 1000 was bring you “ONE racist quote” by your messiah, I brought you 5, you’ve only disputed one. Thus you should pay up, but since you don’t seem to be a person of your word I doubt you will, prove me wrong! Note that even in my reply the ONLY question was whether or not he made racist comments. Not wanting to lead the Palin thread further astray I replied on this one and proposed the following to you (post # 12, pg 1): "1) I will post racist comments made by LaRouche (often under his pseudonym Lyn Marcus/L. Marcus) in pamphlets, articles, internal documents etc put out by the NCLC, EIR and/or other LaRouche groups. These will be backed by scans (in jpg, pdf and perhaps other formats) of the aforementioned documents." I provide direct quotes of LaDouche 4 out of 5 of which were backed by scans of his literature. Unless you can produce evidence the scans were forgeries my source is irrelevant. Even if a large number of his top aides collaborated with LaRouche that would not be relevant to wether or not he made racist comments they were probably unaware of years before their association with him. That was in a first round primary with several other candidates, he increased that in the 2nd round against one other opponent and got 90% of the vote in the general election. That’s better than Obama was doing against McCain in Florida and Georgia in polls taken a few months ago and better than Kerry in 2004 nationwide. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=154398 What is interesting is not that he made overtures to the black community but rather that they responded. The SCLC easily could have said no when he asked to addresses them. 1) This is irrelevant. 2) As has been repeatedly pointed out only a small number of mid-level people joined up with LaRouche. The most important was just sentenced to 15 years prison time because before after and during his association with LaRouche he was “sexually educating” his daughters when they were as young as six by raping them. I won’t because it’s not relevant. "What you want to try and do now, is keep the debate centered around whether a 1970's article can be argued to be racist." I think most people would agree it and the other quotes were racist. "It is almost as crazy as your argument that John Kennedy simply wanted to fund a ride to the moon and return." The evidence indicates that was his primary objective. Of course in doing so technology was developed that enable other projects, but we're are going off topic. "And what's the point of asking whether LL ever addressed the SCLC?" Your line of argument is basically ‘LaRouche can’t have made racist comments in the 70’s because in the 80’s black leaders started associating with him’ but MLK’s organization invited (or allowed) his most infamous foe to address them. Praising King in 2004 doesn’t indicate he couldn’t have made racist comments 30 years earlier. Are you the one who describe him as a “nasty Communist”? Colby let me be real clear. I never limited my stance to any particular decade. Therefore this pretext that LaRouche did it or "said it" or "wrote it" in the 1970's but not in the 1980's is rediculous. You come up with this insanity so that you can bring George Wallace's 1982 speech into play so you can then torture that into an explanation why LaRouche has ex- MLK associates working with him. Save this BS, it's your typical Rube Goldberg contraption. LaRouche has never been a racist, fascist, anti semite. And to date no one has proven otherwise. Posting the slanders of a 30 year full time anti LaRouche agent like Dennis King is not that smart. You feel safe in doing it because you know the limitations of the other members here They all profile identical to each other. They all think alike and they are all controlled by the same types of propoganda. But you create your own arguments. The George Wallace diversion was on par with your "counting" influential African Americans. It's pointless because that isnt the argument. You attempt to control the argument by reducing it to these bizzare subsets. It reminds me of your arguments with Fetzer over controlled demolition. He is crazy and so are you. Neither address or answer the real question. LaRouche has never made a single racist comment in his entire life. And you havent done anything to prove otherwise. Sending a stooge by the name of Steve ? in an attempt to prode me into addressing some slander by King is not gonna work either. I dont care for swimming in swamps. You've proven nothing except you can paste a Dennis King slander. Hell, every anti LaRouche idiot with a computer has done that. You lose.

It’s bad enough that you are hopelessly ignorant about the basics of American history that ocurred decades or centuries ago but you can’t even remember what you typed a few days ago. The question has always been whether or not LaRouche made racist comments not whether he is or has ever been a racist. On Oct 5 on the Sarah Palin thread in response to Don I wrote (post # 172): “…Larouche has a 2nd rate mind, is a paranoid megalomaniac and probably suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He expressed racist views in the past against Blacks, Latinos, Jews and Native Americans, though he no longer expresses them publicly he has never AFAIK renounced or apologized for them.” http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=155626 Within a few minutes you replied (post # 173): “You bring me one racist quote made by LaRouche and I'll purchase $1,000.00 worth of native Brazilian Art. 3rd party gossip does not qualify.” So, the only thing I had to qualify for the $ 1000 was bring you “ONE racist quote” by your messiah, I brought you 5, you’ve only disputed one. Thus you should pay up, but since you don’t seem to be a person of your word I doubt you will, prove me wrong! Note that even in my reply the ONLY question was whether or not he made racist comments. Not wanting to lead the Palin thread further astray I replied on this one and proposed the following to you (post # 12, pg 1): "1) I will post racist comments made by LaRouche (often under his pseudonym Lyn Marcus/L. Marcus) in pamphlets, articles, internal documents etc put out by the NCLC, EIR and/or other LaRouche groups. These will be backed by scans (in jpg, pdf and perhaps other formats) of the aforementioned documents." I provide direct quotes of LaDouche 4 out of 5 of which were backed by scans of his literature. Unless you can produce evidence the scans were forgeries my source is irrelevant. Even if a large number of his top aides collaborated with LaRouche that would not be relevant to wether or not he made racist comments they were probably unaware of years before their association with him. That was in a first round primary with several other candidates, he increased that in the 2nd round against one other opponent and got 90% of the vote in the general election. That’s better than Obama was doing against McCain in Florida and Georgia in polls taken a few months ago and better than Kerry in 2004 nationwide. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=154398 What is interesting is not that he made overtures to the black community but rather that they responded. The SCLC easily could have said no when he asked to addresses them. 1) This is irrelevant. 2) As has been repeatedly pointed out only a small number of mid-level people joined up with LaRouche. The most important was just sentenced to 15 years prison time because before after and during his association with LaRouche he was “sexually educating” his daughters when they were as young as six by raping them. I won’t because it’s not relevant. "What you want to try and do now, is keep the debate centered around whether a 1970's article can be argued to be racist." I think most people would agree it and the other quotes were racist. "It is almost as crazy as your argument that John Kennedy simply wanted to fund a ride to the moon and return." The evidence indicates that was his primary objective. Of course in doing so technology was developed that enable other projects, but we're are going off topic. "And what's the point of asking whether LL ever addressed the SCLC?" Your line of argument is basically ‘LaRouche can’t have made racist comments in the 70’s because in the 80’s black leaders started associating with him’ but MLK’s organization invited (or allowed) his most infamous foe to address them. Praising King in 2004 doesn’t indicate he couldn’t have made racist comments 30 years earlier. Are you the one who describe him as a “nasty Communist”? The key point is "made by LaRouche" not Dennis King. I knew all along that King would be all you would return with. Again what makes Dennis Kings allegations "true"? The bet doesnt rest on whether I address every turd you lay forth. The bet rests on the truthfulness of your claims. You lost.

Deregulation was a major feature of the Jimmy Carter administration- Trucking, airlines, they were de regulated under Jimmy Carter. Paul Volcker was brought in as head of the Federal Reserve under Carter where he proceeded to jack interest rates t0 20% killing off industrial companies and shifting credit to speculative ventures. PS- I believe Peter Lawford sat on the board of Hugh Hefners "Playboy Foundation" where they push for drug legalization among other niceties. Lawford was the Kennedy family representative on Hefner foundation because it was thought to be too sensitive to the Kennedy image to have a Kennedy seated on the board. http://www.independent-magazine.org/node/545/print http://www.nationalfamilies.org/legalization/norml1979.html And speaking of Jimmy Carter, Hugh Hefner, Playboy Foundation and NORML Here's a pic with drug legalization fanatic Phil Waldon of Capricorn Records and good ol Jimmy Carter. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/101...eer_walden_dies

Mike, but I am not interested in you or your faulty opinions. I am right and you are wrong. I certainly dont care your opinion of me. Understand?

Hadnt the Soviet Union collapse by 1995? From 1945 to 1989 the world was under the the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. That was Bertrand Russell's policy. Maybe you might want to review the "freakout" against President Reagan after he announced his SDI program to national television audience March 23, 1983. Reagan's proposal would have made nuclear weapons obsolete. Had Reagan's policy been pursued it would have meant the end to Russell's MAD policy. PS- Bertie Russell called for a preemptive nuclear strike agains the Soviet Union. Now that's some kind of peacenick. Much like the "hippies" of the 1960's, eh? From the Bertrand Russell Society From 1945 to 1949, he employed a tactic of anti-Soviet rhetoric, claiming to prefer war to Soviet domination (Lackey, pp. 245-6; Clark, chapter 19). To his later embarrassment, he proposed a policy of threatening the Soviets with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Ryan notes (p. 186), "... unlike theorists of the just war (traditionally), he did not think that it was wicked to threaten what it would be wicked to do" (p. 186). Yet Russell insisted that to pursue his goals he was in fact once prepared to use atomic weapons against the Soviets (as he says in a 1959 BBC interview published in The Listener, March 19, 1959, quoted by Clark, pp. 528-9 and Lackey, p. 246, n. 8). Bertrand Russell became a "peace nick" only after the Soviets came up with their own nuclear capability. You're a great educator! What Russell really wanted was to take control of nuclear weapons placing them under international tribunals controlled by the "elite'. This was his wet dream, to use the threat of nuclear weapons to destroy the idea of sovereign nations, placing them under control of world government. QUOTE: Thus, although Russell spoke out forcefully in 1945, his anti-nuclear crusade really entered a new phase in 1949, after the Soviets exploded a bomb of their own. It is worth remembering, to put his own immense contributions in perspective, that other movements of scientists were active in the late 1940's. Russell did not work in isolation. In September 1945, a group of British scientists (for example) involved in developing the Bomb advised the government that "the advent of this new weapon of destruction ought to be the signal for renewed efforts to achieve lasting world peace." (Wittner, p. 89)

Kennedy was murdered on British orders. Major Louis Mortimer's Permindex carried out the murder, and they had also made numerous attempts against the life of French President Charles de Gaulle. You ask for evidence but anything I might provide would not fit the bill. It has to do with the axioms you hold. Like going on about Mercantilism instead of looking at the fundamental conflict between the British Empire and the newly formed republic the United States. Why didnt the founding fathers simply create a new Empire, why did they risk their lives to create a republic? Why a republic, where did this come from?

Pat, Have you ever read Bertrand Russell's cables sent to JFK during the Cuban Missiles Crisis? They are quite eye opening. Russell had no love for John F. Kennedy or the United States. They are still available from the JFK library. Did you also know that Bertie Russell was the leading figure in setting up the nuclear standoff called MAD between the US and Soviets? He convened a series of conferences called "Pugwash" starting in the late 1950'. In attendance were leading Soviet officials along with the likes of McGeorge Bundy, along with Bundy's protege, a young Henry Kissinger, both of whom made up the Mutually Assured Destruction devotees inside the Kennedy administration. Kennedy had to finally fire Kissinger on the grounds that he was "insane". You might want to listen to this 2003 radio show for further education on Bertrand Russell. http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/...31122_en_hi.asx

Bill maybe Ayers will convince Obama to release all that secret Government information on the JFK murder? Finally the mystery for the ages will be "sol-ved". I'm guessing you and Ayers both know the culprit was that nasty US Government. Wasnt this the "Weatherman" line back in the late 1960's? PS- I love your line about the right to own "guns and bombs". That's quite an interpretation.

Mc Cain kicked his you know waht. Hell zerOBAMA could not even tell the truth about ACORN. As far as the heatlh care "extra tax", did you catch the part wher zerOBAM told us exactly waht a medium and large business entails, or for that matter what a "small" business is? Of course not, but as Mac said you need to listen to zerOBAMA very carefully. Its not really what he tells you but what he DOES not tell you. But hey if yoiu want to see the government "spread the wealth areound" I guess zerOBAMA is your guy...at least until he comes for YOUR money. What wealth is there to spread around, the nation is bankrupt.

I am still not persuaded you know anything.

Ron, Youre refering to James Bevel. James Bevel was a close collaborator to Martin Luther King before he became LaRouche's VP running mate during the 1992 Presidential campaign. What I find interesting about this conviction is that James Bevel went to Omaha Nebraska around 1991 to take a leading role in exposing the pedophile, murder ring involved in the molestation and kidnapping of hundreds of children from Omaha NB. Also involved on the Bevel side were local black officials like Johnny Rogers the former U of Nebraska "Heisman Trophy" winner along with other black elected officials. The LaRouche organization also took a leading role in the fight against these pedophiles. Nebraska Senator John de Camp wrote a book about the entire sorrid affair titled "Franklin Cover-Up". The book was published by the LaRouche organization. Now if I told you the names of the people implicated in this international child perdophile and murder ring you would likely scoff. Which is typical. But 15 years after an alleged act of "incest by Bevel against one of his daugters he is convicted? Thats one for the ages. The pedophile ring out of Omaha is still running full steam. The case was tried in Virginia where luckily there is no statute of limitations. How difficult would it be to get prosecutors to prosecute a claim of incest 15 years after the fact? I think it would be very difficult. But the irony here is that you have the case of James Bevel going after a group of very wealthy pedophiles only to be charged and convicted of a similiar crime some 15 years after the alleged crime occured.

What makes the comments true? Please explain why they are true? Isnt that the real question? Dennis King is a long time asset deployed to slander LaRouche. But I'm sure Len is grateful for your "unbiased" opinion. Maybe you can take your interest and email Theo Mitchell. He works with LaRouche and can tell you whether LaRouche is a racist. Again why are his comments true? What makes Kings allegations true? Try answering that question. For some reason youre confusing Len Colby's "pasting" of Dennis King slanders as some kind of revelation by Len. Len Colby is simply pasting the slanders of a long time LaRouche hater. A guy who gets paid to make such accusations. I am curious to find out why you think these comments are true? And why you think Colby has proven his charge of racism? Here is just a taste of Dennis King's obsession with LaRouche. http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/ostrom.htm http://www.amazon.com/Lyndon-Larouche-New-...m/dp/0385238800 http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/adelson.htm http://www.lyndonlarouchewatch.com/biglie.htm It is certainly shocking that a gentile from a fine North Carolina family should be the voice crying out the warning for American Jews. But Dennis King deserves that gratitude of American Jewry for stepping into the breach. I wonder if Dennis King likes the expression "Rubbish"?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=156227 A bit ironic because her messiah was a Communist for the duration of King's career but there is no evidence King himself subscribed to Marxism Desperate, eh?

Murdagh made them and LaDouche endorsed them. Lyndon LaRouche identified "The New Left" as being a fascist movement way back in 1968.