Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
Len, if you're looking for a real expert on serial killers then why don't you consult Merle Allin the brother of the late satanist GG Allin? Merle seems to have a real understanding of what makes these guys tick.
-
I'm not sure if I missed something, but are you saying that Len Colby had some kind of connection to this Satanic freak Allin? I wouldn't want my name even associated with such a piece of trash.
I make no apologies for my association with GG. I organized several of his tours.You can conjecture he was possed by the develor some other similar rubbish but he certainly didn't worship the devil, he only worshipped himself.
I take back what I said about Allin. He was not a Satanic freak. He was a self absorbed piece of garbage acting as an agent of social degeneration. I wonder what entities and organizations are really behind this agenda to overthrow the norms and mores of civilized society. Call me a wild eyed conspiracy theorist, but it looks for all the world to be of the devil to me, and I am an agnostic when it comes to religion.
GG Allin didnt worship satan? That's because he thought of himself as satan. Somewhere in this milieu of satanic punk rock I'll bet you could find connections to David Berkowitz, John Markham and the Process Church.
-
Colby, you remind me of an ADL agent. Did they deploy you to Brazil under cover of "artist"? I dont know anything about the recent troubles James Bevel finds himself. I do know that decades before he ran as VP with Lyndon LaRouche he was a key strategist for Reverend Martin Luther King. So should Dr. King be slandered as a result of his association with Bevel?
The obvious difference is Bevel was raping his daughter while he was running with LaRouche and had been doing so for several years but there is no evidence he did this sort of thing during his association with King who was assassinated 24 years earlier. A normal person would shy from choosing someone who lived in a secluded compound as his running mate but since LaRouche did himself this didn't set off any warning bells.
You obviously started this thread to try to “slander” me because I live in the same country (Pop: 170 million and larger than the 48 states) as a US diplomat who had sex with teenage girls.
Besides according to your guru GG Allin, "rape" is perfectly okay, "it makes the woman stronger" said GG Allin.GG Allin would reportedly "rape" women on stage during his act. An act you promoted!
He was hardly my guru, when I thought he was full of $#!t or himself or that one of his records or shows sucked I had no qualms about telling him so.
Not everything he said was to be taken seriously, he also said he’d kill himself on stage on Halloween but as his brother and I noted he always managed to be in jail or prison in late October. I don’t know of him ever forcing himself on anyone on or offstage, obviously if he’d raped someone during a show (all of which were videotaped) he would have been arrested. People who came to his shows especially those who stayed close to the stage knew what to expect and often baited him.
C'mon Len, GG Allin promoted rape and perversion as a matter of "lifestyle". Now you're saying that he was just full of Sh#t? That you were only kidding? Have you ever eaten any of GG Allin's s#it? Look at the video I posted, this is entertainment for you? You should be jailed just for your role in this GG Allin operation. And it is an operation.
It's funny you can condemn Lyndon LaRouche by association but you're own actions (and pleasures) in spreading the perversion of the Punk Rock "suicide" culture is to be dismissed out of hand?
I dont know any of the specifics regarding James Bevel and his recent conviction. I do know that political opponents are often targeted in this country by their enemies. You'll notice that they prosecuted Bevel in Virginia where there is no time limitations for the crime of rape. This could be another case of "venue" shopping by political opponents in a rigged criminal trial. These alleged rapes took place 15 years ago? Certainly it took quite a while to bring James Bevel to trial.
LaRouche was in federal prison in Rochester MN during his 1992 campaign with James Bevel. Bevel was not the only former MLK civil rights leader to support Lyndon LaRouche. Amelia Boyton Robinson(sp) who first brought Martin Luther King to Selma Alabama in the 1950's had been a long time collaborator of LaRouche. It is likely her influence with Bevel that resulted in his meeting Lyndon LaRouche, along with his decision to run on the 1992 ticket.
But you should know all this Len. The ADL still brief their agents don't they?
Still Nazi hunting in Brazil?
-
I give you Len Colby and GG Allin. Len makes accusations about cults, well judge for yourself. This is the mind of Len Colby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-hR9G1ZO6Q...feature=related
-
Then again I take it you are also a fan of the genocidal Bertrand Russell?
Russell the peace and disarmament activist “genocidal”, that’s a strange theory, did you get that from your guru as well. Is your entire worldview shaped by him? Are you capable of independent thought? Disprove my assumption that you are a LaRouche cultist. Tell us one issue on which you disagree with him.
You made buckets of money…I think you were the only person who didn’t figure out that was sarcastic, no he wasn’t really almost as big as Nirvana.
You state that LaRouche's ad had nothing to do with this topic? How is it that LaRouche identified the forces waging war against Russia way back in 1999? Perhaps if the current US President had watched the videoWe can be thankful that though the US electorate was stupid/crazy enough to elect Nixon, Reagan, Bush jr (sorta) and perhaps is stupid/crazy enough to elect McCainiac president they don’t seem to be stupid/crazy enough to elect LaRouche or one of sycophants
he wouldnt have been so stupid as to condemn Putin for his actions. Actions that probably prevented WWIII.So a local conflict, a country smaller (in size and population) than Ireland using military force to quell separatists in a province smaller (in size and population) than Trinidad and Tobago “probably” would have developed in to WWIII but for the intervention of one of the world’s superpowers? What a delightfully bizarre theory, did you get that from your messsiah inasnum?
And that's what this war action by Georgia was intended to do; spread war around the region leading to the destruction of nation states all while ulitmately pitting Russia against the United States in a nuclear show down.I don’t presume any evidence in support of this domino to Dr.Strangelove “theory” will be forthcoming? And no I won’t consider the undocumented claims of Il Manico or his disciples evidence. You don’t think Russia had any role in fomenting the tensions in the region? You think Russia would sit idly by as pipelines through Georgia destroyed its energy dominance over Europe? The loss of said monopoly which would cost it both millions of dollars and political power? Power that it used to ‘punish’ countries like the Ukraine and Czech Republic (the latter ‘coincidentally’ only a few weeks before the war). It just another coincidence that South Ossetia is very close to those pipelines? Just another coincidence they attacked one of the main pipelines with missiles?* I though conspiracy theorists didn’t believe in coincidence!
*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2534767/Georgia-Russia-targets-key-oil-pipeline-with-over-50-missiles.html
In the September 1946 issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientist "peace nick" Betrand Russell called for a first strike nuclear attack against the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets developed nuclear weapons of their own he changed his colors to that of a peacenick. Russell was the key figure in devloping the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction; an evil policy that controlled the world from 1945-1991 period. These nuclear agreements were developed and agreed upon at Bertrand Russell's 1950's Pugwash Conferences.
Russell was also a key figure in the Cuban Missiles Crisis. Russell sent JFK a series of cables calling him a "mad man" and a "mass murderer". You can access these Russell/Kennedy cables from the JFK library in Boston. But Bertrand Russell was no "fan" of John F. Kennedy and/or the United States.
I got a laugh reading your challenge. If I understand your barking orders I am to disprove your theory that I am a LaRouche cultist?
Do you think I care about your opinion?
I notice you did not wish to debate your involvement with GG Allin. I dont blame you. There is nothing more disgusting and bestial than what you were involved in, with the targeting young people for this kind of satanic perversion. And you probably called it "popular entertainment"! I hope you didnt develop a habit for drinking urine?
PS- Comparing size and population as a means to understanding the recent Georgia/Russia crisis is really not bright.
If you've read anything that Russian President Putin has publicly said in the last few days, then you'd know that he blamed the United States for the entire affair. And while I am at it, have you compared the size/population of Georgia to say "Cuba"? Now that was just a small island off the shore of Florida and yet it was the trigger mechanism to a near nuclear showdown between the Soviets and the USA in 1962.
The promoter of GG Allin! The insane still walk among us. They may have cleaned up and changed their wardrobe but underneath it all they are still just as insane.
-
Minister, Rights Leader Denies Incest Charges
Bill Brubaker - Washington Post, Apr 9, 2008
James L. Bevel, a Christian minister and leader in the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s, insisted repeatedly at his incest trial in Loudoun County yesterday that he did not have sex in the 1990s with one of his daughters.Bevel was asked by his public defender, Bonnie H. Hoffman, whether he ever rubbed the daughter’s chest, another allegation that the woman has made but that is not part of this criminal case.“Yes, I have engaged in rubbing [her] chest in an educational context,” he said. Bevel was not asked by his attorney or prosecutors to elaborate. But he testified that as a minister and teacher, he has often educated people, including his children, on the “science” of sex and marriage.[...]He also acknowledged that he considers himself a recovering “sex addict.”[...]Yesterday afternoon, a brother, son and daughter of Bevel’s testified about two family meetings called in 2004 and 2005 to discuss his daughter’s allegations. At one meeting outside Selma, Ala., family members presented Bevel with an affidavit that accused him of being a pedophile and having sex with his daughter.Family members testified that the affidavit was prepared partly because they feared he would sexually abuse his youngest daughter if she continued to live with him.[...]In one exchange, Bevel told his daughter, “I have no interest in getting you pregnant.” But he never flatly admitted or denied having sex with her.http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/new...g-incest-trial/
In the 1 1/2-hour call, recorded by Leesburg police without Bevel’s knowledge in 2005, Machado asked her father about his motivation for having sex with her when she was 14 or 15, and why afterward he asked her to use a vaginal douche.Bevel responded, “Because I had no interest in getting you pregnant,” prosecutors said.http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/new...-leader-incest/
Jury Hears Tape Recording in Incest Trial; Bevel Responded Vaguely to Questions About Alleged Encounters
Bill Brubaker - Washington Post, Apr 9, 2008
Prosecutors in the incest trial of civil rights leader James L. Bevel played a tape for a Loudoun County jury yesterday of a phone conversation in which he never fully admitted or denied having sex in the 1990s with his then-teenage daughter, despite her repeated attempts to get him to make the admission.[...]In the phone conversation, Bevel at times seemed close to admitting that he had sex with his daughter."So you're saying all your sexual experiences with me were scientific processes?" his daughter said."That's right," Bevel replied.The daughter testified that she had sex with her father as a 14- or 15-year-old in Leesburg after years of sexual abuse during a childhood in which she said she lived in communal "cultlike" homes and was a "functioning alcoholic." As a child, she said, she was suicidal.Bevel has pleaded not guilty to a single charge of unlawfully committing fornication on an unknown date while he lived with the daughterin Leesburg from Oct. 14, 1992, to Oct. 14, 1994.[...]The woman told the jury that Bevel presented himself to the people who lived with him in the "clinic houses" as "the successor of Jesus, and he was carrying out the work of Jesus."On Monday, she testified that she was sexually molested by her father about 10 times a year in early childhood, a time when she said he also invited her to watch as he had sex with her mother. Nudity was common in the communal houses, she said.[...]Bevel was a congressional candidate in the 1980s andthe running mate of perennial presidential candidateLyndon H. LaRouche Jr. in 1992.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0803228_pf.html
Colby, you remind me of an ADL agent. Did they deploy you to Brazil under cover of "artist"? I dont know anything about the recent troubles James Bevel finds himself. I do know that decades before he ran as VP with Lyndon LaRouche he was a key strategist for Reverend Martin Luther King. So should Dr. King be slandered as a result of his association with Bevel? Besides according to your guru GG Allin, "rape" is perfectly okay, "it makes the woman stronger" said GG Allin.
GG Allin would reportedly "rape" women on stage during his act. An act you promoted! So have a drink of urine and cool off.
James Bevel
Reverend James Bevel (b. October 19, 1936) the strategist, tactician, and main teacher of nonviolence of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement in America, served as the Director of Direct Action and Nonviolent Education of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) from 1962 to 1969. Born in Itta Bena, Mississippi, Bevel served in the Navy for a time and then attended the American Baptist Theological Seminary in Nashville, Tennessee. While attending college, he joined with others in workshops on Gandhian Nonviolence, taught by Reverend James Lawson. Bevel also participated in the 1960-61 Nashville Sit-In Movement and the 1961 Freedom Rides, directed the 1961 Nashville Open Theater Movement, and co-initiated the Mississippi Freedom Movement with Bernard Lafeyette.
In 1962, after several years in the Nashville student movement, Bevel was invited by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to join the SCLC, where, on Bevel's insistence, they agreed to share work and move ahead on an agreed-upon agenda. As SCLC's Director of Direct Action and Nonviolent Education, Bevel soon initiated and directed the 1963 Children's Crusade, which sparked public outrage over the City of Birmingham, Alabama's use of fire hoses and dogs to stop elementary and high school children from marching to talk to the city's mayor. In September 1963, immediately after the bombing of the church in Birmingham that killed four young girls, Bevel initiated the Alabama Project. He co-wrote the project proposal with wife Diane Nash, and worked with Nash and Birmingham student activist James Orange on the plan from that time until late 1964, when SCLC and Dr. King -- who had originally opposed the Alabama Project -- joined it and it became known as the 1965 Selma Right-To-Vote Movement. After the shooting of one of the participants in that movement, Jimmie Lee Jackson, Bevel called for a march from Selma to Montgomery, which began with "Bloody Sunday" and led directly to United States President Lyndon Johnson asking Congress to immediately write and pass a Voting Rights Act. In 1965, Martin Luther King gave the SCLC's highest award, the Rosa Parks Award, to Bevel and Nash.
In 1966, Bevel chose Chicago as the site of the SCLC's Northern Campaign, where he initiated and directed the Chicago Open Housing Movement. Earlier, in 1963, he had also called the March on Washington as a response to U.S. President John Kennedy asking Dr. King to stop the use of children in Birmingham. He later directed the National Mobilization Against the War in Vietnam in 1967, founded the Making of a Man Clinic in 1970 and the Students for Education and Economic Development in the early 1980s, and co-initiated the 1995 Day of Atonement/Million Man March in Washington, D.C.[1]
The Republican Party ran Bevel as its candidate for Congress from Illinois' 7th Congressional District in 1984, and he ran as the vice presidential candidate in 1992 on Lyndon LaRouche's ticket.
James Bevel lives in Washington, D.C., with his current wife Erica Henry. He has been married four times and has 17 children.
Arrested on Charges of Incest in 2007
In late May 2007, Bevel was arrested in Alabama after being charged with unlawfully committing fornication. The charges stem from an alleged incestuous relationship he had some time between October 14, 1992, and October 14, 1994 in Loudoun County, Virginia. The accuser is one of his daughters, believed to have been 13-15 years old at the time. Some of his other daughters have corroborated the accusation from their own experiences with their father, who has allegedly admitted to the acts on tape, claiming they were part of the daughters' "religious training." Currently charged in Virginia -- which has no statute of limitations for incest -- Bevel faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. He is free on bond until his trial. [2] [3]
References
"James L. Bevel, The Strategist of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement", a 1984 paper by Randy Kryn, published with a 1988 addendum by Kryn in Prof. David Garrow's "We Shall Overcome Volume II" (Carlson Pub. Co., 1989)
"Movement Revision Research Summary Regarding James Bevel", an internet paper by Randy Kryn, October, 2005
"Advocate of the People's Rights: James Luther Bevel, The Right To Vote Movement", compiled by Helen L. Edmond, 2007 (Lulu.com)
External links
The History Makers: Rev. James Bevel
Bio and discussion
Article about 2007 arrest
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Donate to Wikimedia
-
This post could have gone here or on the Larry Stern thread, but I think it is interesting in the context of honing our definition of the "free trade" which has a lot of ideological baggage, just as its supposed anty "protectionism" does.
I have seen for some time now a division between unilateralists--focussed more on china and Latin America and China-- and multi-latteralists focussed more on Europe and UN. Probably I picked this up from P.D. Scott, but I see a lot of it around.
In that context I found this article by Larry Stern very interesting, BECAUSE IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT JFK WAS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY THAT HELPED THE "AEROSPACE AND MILITARY" INDUSTRIES ON THE ONE HAND, AND AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY THAT HELPED OTHER SECTORS OF THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY ON THE OTHER HAND.
--------------
-- JULY 6, 1963 Industrial Research Aid Stalls in Congress: Commerce Department Program Cut by Laurence Stern
Congress, which spends with a lavish hand for miltary and space research, is turning a deaf ear on an Administration
plea to stregnthen scientific know-how in the Nations's less glamorous civilian industrial sector.
In fact the House Appropriations Committee has all but signed a death warrant for a civilian industrial tech-
nology program that has been endorsed by the Presiden, as well as blue-ribbon panels of scintific and economic
advisors.
This grim condition of the new Department of Commerce program has been blamed on poor Congressional sales-
manshipm shrewd industry lobbying and the conservative temper of the House committee.
But the House committee, which slashed a 7.4 million dollar Administration request to $1 million last June 21,
never came to grips with the arguments by the President and his advisors in favor of the program.
Arguments for Aid
Chief salesman for more Federal aid to civilian industries is J. Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secretary of Commmerce
for Science and Technology. His argumen to Congress and to industry itself stands mainly on these grounds:
* Of the nations's 16-billion dollar outlay for research ad development, less than $4 billion is plowe into new
products and new industrial processes that contirbute to growth of the civilian economy. [the Civilian Economy
when was the last time you heard THAT phrase on CNN/]
* Other advanced industrial nations, such as those in the European Common market adn Japan, investa higher
proportion of thier research effort in the civilian economy. This leads to technical superiority on consumer
products and, and inevitably, a stornger export position in an increasingly competetive world market.
* Within the United States, the fruits of research are concentrated on a tiny minority of Corporations and
universities rather than beging distrubted broadly throught he economy. Thus, only 300 companies perform
90 per cent of all research and development in American manufacturing industries. Only 100 of our 2000
Colleges and universities carry out 95 per cent of all Federaly supported research.
Even President Kennedy, in his budget mesage to Congress this year, voiced his concern that in concentrationg on
space and military research, "we have paid a price by sharply limiting hte scarec scientific and engineering resources
available to the civilian sector of the economy"...... In his messge, the Presiden outlined a six-point program which
he said would "redress the balance in the use of scientific skills" between the military-space effort and the industries
serving civilian markets.
Among the President's proposals were a federal-State engineering extension service in the Nations' universities;
more tax-icentives for research by business firms; pilot programs of support for industrial research and encourgement
of more university training of industrial researchers.
It was with this background of Administration support that the Department of Commerce approached Congress last
year to get its fledglin program off the ground. (article continues on how Congress blocked it )
---------------
Those who wanted more spending on the space and military sector and less on the 'civilian economy' seem to be in favor of direct US intervention in Latin America and the Pacific to protect that investment. This woul eventually culminate in NAFTA, because these folks (most notably Nelson Rockefeller at his most illiberal) wanted to keep these markets open to US investment. But eventually this would necessitate opening the US to lower labor standsards, more cheap products and NAFTA.
What struck me as I read this Larry Stern article was the DIRECT DICHOTOMY THAT THE AUTHOR ESTABLISHES IN THE LEAD BETWEEN MILITARY GOV SPENDING VS GOV SPENDING IN THE "CIVILIAN ECONOMY" It is noreworthy that the latter phrase doesn't even exist today. Does this correspond with the change that P.D Scott describes as moving from the CFR to the American Security Council Worldview?
Also it was notworthy just how explicit JFK himselm states this dichotomy. Perhaps a little too clearly for his own health?
Also note that all of the bulleted points are in support of JFK's argument. I cannot immagine reading these pro "industrial policy" arguments in a mainstream american newspaper after 11/22/63
But also note the way that JFK establishes the dichotomy. Its is not really a question of Laissez faire vs. more gov. involvement. It is a quesiton of gov involvement to help the arms makers OR government involvement to help the bridge builders. One can't help thinking this could be a winner in 2008. Just one problem. Anyone saying it would get cut off TV well before Iowa!
*********************************************
Thanks for bringing these points up, Nathaniel. You've got a good head on your shoulders. Keep vigilant because these are hard scrabble times we're facing here in this 21st Century. Remember, 11-22-63 happened for the specific reason of setting the groundwork for what we're being forced to live through right now, in the moment.
Arguments for Aid
Chief salesman for more Federal aid to civilian industries is J. Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secretary of Commmerce
for Science and Technology. His argumen to Congress and to industry itself stands mainly on these grounds:
* Of the nations's 16-billion dollar outlay for research and development, less than $4 billion is plowed into new
products and new industrial processes that contribute to growth of the civilian economy. [the Civilian Economy
when was the last time you heard THAT phrase on CNN]
* Other advanced industrial nations, such as those in the European Common market and Japan, invest a higher
proportion of their research effort in the civilian economy. This leads to technical superiority on consumer
products and, inevitably, a stronger export position in an increasingly competitive world market.
* Within the United States, the fruits of research are concentrated on a tiny minority of Corporations and
universities rather than being distributed broadly throughout he economy. Thus, only 300 companies perform
90 per cent of all research and development in American manufacturing industries. Only 100 of our 2000
Colleges and universities carry out 95 per cent of all Federally supported research.
Even President Kennedy, in his budget message to Congress this year, voiced his concern that in concentrationg on
space and military research, "we have paid a price by sharply limiting the scarce scientific and engineering resources
available to the civilian sector of the economy"...... In his message, the President outlined a six-point program which
he said would "redress the balance in the use of scientific skills" between the military-space effort and the industries
serving civilian markets.
Among the President's proposals were a federal-State engineering extension service in the Nations' universities;
more tax-incentives for research by business firms; pilot programs of support for industrial research and encouragement
of more university training of industrial researchers.
It was with this background of Administration support that the Department of Commerce approached Congress last
year to get its fledgling program off the ground. (article continues on how Congress blocked it )
---------------
Those who wanted more spending on the space and military sector and less on the 'civilian economy' seem to be in favor of direct US intervention in Latin America and the Pacific to protect that investment. This would eventually culminate in NAFTA, because these folks (most notably Nelson Rockefeller at his most il-liberal) wanted to keep these markets open to US investment. But eventually this would necessitate opening the US to lower labor standards, more cheap[ly made (My emphasis. T.M.)] products and NAFTA.
I just had to add that.
What struck me as I read this Larry Stern article was the DIRECT DICHOTOMY THAT THE AUTHOR ESTABLISHES IN THE LEAD BETWEEN MILITARY GOV SPENDING VS GOV SPENDING IN THE "CIVILIAN ECONOMY." It is noteworthy that the latter phrase doesn't even exist today. Does this correspond with the change that P.D. Scott describes as moving from the CFR to the American Security Council Worldview?
Also it was noteworthy just how explicit JFK himself states this dichotomy. Perhaps a little too clearly for his own health?
Absolutely!
Also, note that all of the bulleted points are in support of JFK's argument. I cannot imagine reading these pro "industrial policy" arguments in a mainstream American newspaper after 11/22/63.
And, most especially after the so-called "conservative revolution" coined by the neo-cons in 1994.
But, also note the way that JFK establishes the dichotomy. It is not really a question of Laissez Faire vs. more gov. involvement. It is a question of gov. involvement to help the arms makers OR government involvement to help the bridge builders. One can't help thinking this could be a winner in 2008. Just one problem. Anyone saying it, would get cut off TV, well before Iowa!
You're dead on the money, Nathan.
-
So do you now plan on spamming all threads with the barely relevant pronouncements of that lunatic and his sycophants?
Barely relevant? LaRouche issued his video "Storm over Asia" in 1999. LaRouche detailed in 1999 the forces involved in the planned breakup of Russia. The problem with LaRouche is that he is always so far ahead of everybody else.
Barely relevant? You dont know how stupid that comment is.
I’m not sure what you are babbling about, except for Chechnya and perhaps a few other small districts wanting to succeed there is no indication Russia is in the process of breaking up. Perhaps you meant the break-up of the Warsaw Pact or USSR but like the separatist movement in Chechnya this was old news in 1999. The page claims he predicted the break up of the USSR in 1988 but this was hardly prophetic since some of the Soviet bloc countries and Soviet republics were already on the road to independence.
I really have no interest in getting into an off topic debate with a misinformed Larouche cultist.
You have no interest in debating a LaRouche cultist? This coming from a GG Allin cultist! Or did you just promote that filth to the kiddies for a profit?
You seem to underestimate the intelligence of the people who read this forum. My association with GG might have been relevant if we were discussing music or cultural mores etc.Obviously if you had anything of substance to say you wouldn’t have resorted to a lame and desperate ad hom. Whether or not you approve of someone I hung out with 15 - 20 years ago doesn’t change the facts that:
- the LaRouche ad you posted had little if any relevance to the topic of this thread
- you demonstrated a marked ignorance of the subject matter
Or did you just promote that filth to the kiddies for a profit?- I didn’t know you were such a prude!
- And most of the shows were for people old enough to drink.
- Yeah I made buckets of money on the GG tours! He was almost as big as Nirvana.
Music. what does GG Allin have to do with music? More importantly it goes to the axiomatic assumptions that drive your political views. How could anyone in there right mind promote the filth and bestial outlook expressed by this satanic piece of garbage? Then again I take it you are also a fan of the genocidal Bertrand Russell? Russell and GG have alot in common.
You made buckets of money feeding your youthful audience some of GG's urine and feces? Now that is art at in it's highest form.
You state that LaRouche's ad had nothing to do with this topic? How is it that LaRouche identified the forces waging war against Russia way back in 1999? Perhaps if the current US President had watched the video he wouldnt have been so stupid as to condemn Putin for his actions. Actions that probably prevented WWIII.
And that's what this war action by Georgia was intended to do; spread war around the region leading to the destruction of nation states all while ulitmately pitting Russia against the United States in a nuclear show down.
- I didn’t know you were such a prude!
-
So do you now plan on spamming all threads with the barely relevant pronouncements of that lunatic and his sycophants?
Barely relevant? LaRouche issued his video "Storm over Asia" in 1999. LaRouche detailed in 1999 the forces involved in the planned breakup of Russia. The problem with LaRouche is that he is always so far ahead of everybody else.
Barely relevant? You dont know how stupid that comment is.
I’m not sure what you are babbling about, except for Chechnya and perhaps a few other small districts wanting to succeed there is no indication Russia is in the process of breaking up. Perhaps you meant the break-up of the Warsaw Pact or USSR but like the separatist movement in Chechnya this was old news in 1999. The page claims he predicted the break up of the USSR in 1988 but this was hardly prophetic since some of the Soviet bloc countries and Soviet republics were already on the road to independence.
I really have no interest in getting into an off topic debate with a misinformed Larouche cultist.
You have no interest in debating a LaRouche cultist? This coming from a GG Allin cultist! Or did you just promote that filth to the kiddies for a profit?
-
I remember reading on a "fringe" website or two about a pedophile ring in the U.S. extending all the way to the White House. Some names were named, including that of a boy who was given an after-hours "tour" of the White House, and there was also an appropriate "suicide" as I recall. But I guess it's something that will remain on fringe sites, as I would think that such a thing, if it actually exists in high DC circles, is definitely too hot to handle.
Maybe our friend in Brazil (appropriately enough) can go ahead and debunk it all now. I would be delighted to find out it's not true.
I forgot about that. Maybe he knows the convicted?
-
Brazil and other developing sector countries are a hot bed for wealthy pedophile
-
So do you now plan on spamming all threads with the barely relevant pronouncements of that lunatic and his sycophants?
Barely relevant? LaRouche issued his video "Storm over Asia" in 1999. LaRouche detailed in 1999 the forces involved in the planned breakup of Russia. The problem with LaRouche is that he is always so far ahead of everybody else.
Barely relevant? You dont know how stupid that comment is.
-
I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.
*****************************************************
FYI and FWIW Part II
This documentation appears in the March 12, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
DOCUMENTATION
SDI and the Jailing
Of Lyndon LaRouche
by Paul Gallagher
1) Since there is nothing there but the undocumented self-serving claims of one of LaRouche disciples this isn’t evidence of anything.
2) Reagan’s shooting isn’t mentioned
3) Nothing in the essay indicates his arrests were trumped up
The author Paul Gallagher was also sent to prison with LaRouche. I thought his article was very precise with regards to dates and events. The documentation/timeline from the article list's various publications, press conferences and public meetings where LaRouche promoted the ideam of "beam weapons". You could look at the dates and find the publications. Their website www.wlym.com has downloaded some of those old magazines.
You can also look at my thread JFK attacks Free Trade. Click on the link and it will take you to the LaRouche video "1989" missed chance. The video goes through the SDI period, and LaRouche's role in pursuading Reagan to adopt defensive beam weapons that effectively ended Bertrand Russell's policy of mutually assured destruction.
-
And into the mouth of lions!
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.ph...rleans&st1=
170 - Address in New Orleans at the Opening of the New Dockside Terminal.
May 4, 1962
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, in event that one is of the opinion that it will serve any purpose, then one can go to the New Orleans library and observe film of the Presidential motorcade driving through New Orleans.
May even give one a few ideas!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***************************************************************
The friends I knew in New Orleans really seemed to love JFK, and were proud of the banner they had strung across, Canal Street [was it? or Bourbon?] proclaiming a favorite greeting inherent to New Orleans, alone, "Where 'yat, Jack!"
-
Interesting point. One of the things that Thy Will Be Done, the book about Rockefeller, Evangelism, the CIA and Oil does is trace a clear line of development from the death of JFK to the Passage of NAFTA.
Basically the authors argue that the assassination marked a radical shift in US policy towards Latin America, the key event being the Brazilian coup of 1964, in which Rockefeller and J.C. King were the key players. Under LBJ the US would basically use the CIA and its missionary links (Wycliffe Bible Translators) to undermine any government in Latin America that was considering any nationalization whatsoever,but also the "catch-up" policies of tariffs and import-substitution. These new economic policies gave US Corporations much more free reign in Latin America.
Later Nelson Rockefeller pushed the OAS as a means of asserting US Corporations dominance over the governments of Latin America. Rocky's buddy Adolph Berle told Latin America leaders at a conference in 1968 that they should accept the OAS as a "substitute for [uS controlled] empire":
His soluiton was even more startling: He called uppon the OAS to discuss Nelson's suggestion regarding
"huge deposits of oil and other resources udner the high seas of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico"
Governor Rockefeller has proposed that under common agreement thes resources be exploited for the
benefit of the capital-hungry American states her is a task par exccellence for the OAS....Some of the
revenues paid by oil companies, mostly US firms, would passed on to the OAS to finance its poicing and
other tasks in the hemisphere. Anothe chunk of oil royalties wiould be passed on to banks, again mostly
US banks to help pay for debt service. By then, foreign debts consudme 65 percent of Latin America's
foreign income and left OAS member countries in arrears averaging 10 percent. Such "extranational"
financing of the OAS woul also take financial pressure off member states to adopt protectionism in inter-
American trade. Banks with heavy loan performance in Latin America, including David Rockefeller's Chase,
would have little to gain by acurrency restircions of tariffs that stemmed the flow of capital or direct invest-
ment earnings from Latin America back to the United States. Free trade, it was argued, was the way to avid
tariff wars, declining trade, world economic depression and world wars. (p. 606-607)
More on this theme leading up to NAFTA tomorrow.
********************************************
"...the US would basically use the CIA and its missionary links (Wycliffe Bible Translators) to undermine any government in Latin America that was considering any nationalization..."
I really despise organized religious superstition.
Later Nelson Rockefeller pushed the OAS as a means of asserting US Corporations dominance over the governments of Latin America. Rocky's buddy Adolph Berle told Latin America leaders at a conference in 1968 that they should accept the OAS as a "subsitute for [uS controlled] empire":
His solution was even more startling: He called upon the OAS to discuss Nelson's suggestion regarding
"huge deposits of oil and other resources under the high seas of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico"
Zapata Oil, by any chance?
Governor Rockefeller has proposed that under common agreement these resources be exploited for the
benefit of the capital-hungry American states her is a task par excellence for the OAS....Some of the revenues paid by oil
companies, mostly US firms, would passed on to the OAS to finance its pricing and other tasks in the hemisphere. Another
chunk of oil royalties would be passed on to banks, again mostly US banks to help pay for debt service. By then, foreign
debts consumed 65 percent of Latin America's foreign income and left OAS member countries in arrears averaging 10 percent.
Such "extra-national" financing of the OAS would also take financial pressure off member states to adopt protectionism in inter-
American trade. Banks with heavy loan performance in Latin America, including David Rockefeller's Chase,
The REAL Fort Knox, located in Chase's main vaults in Maryland, not in Kentucky. There is no gold in Fort Knox, Kentucky.
would have little to gain by a currency restrictions of tariffs that stemmed the flow of capital or direct investment
earnings from Latin America back to the United States. Free trade, it was argued, was the way to avoid tariff wars, declining trade,
world economic depression and world wars. (p. 606-607)
Free Trade or Laissez Fair has aided and abetted the downfall of the U.S. economy, any time it has been implemented by the
fascistic conservative element whenever it takes control of the American Government, as it has in the past, and now, in the present.
Thanks for bringing these points to the forefront, Nathaniel.
-
-
On the "bad moderator" thread which John deleted the subject of academic freedom came up. I pointed out that in the US numerous professors hold leftist and other controversial views and that as far as I knew only three "truther" professors had lost their jobs. None of them were tenured they were Steve Jones, Barrett and Judy Wood. I suggested that Wood was fired for backing crackpot theories such as the structures of the WTC Twin Towers were akin to trees, they were hit by holograms rather than 767's and "the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry." At first Terry indicated she thaught Wood was a crackpot but then she replied with the following"...the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry..."
That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird, just as it set up Reagan to look like a blithering idiot when he set about attempting to implement the SWI. And, shortly after which, ended up getting him shot at, whilst the man who introduced the concept of the "Star Wars Initiative," to Reagan, Lyndon LaRouche, personna non grata himself, ended up going to jail on trumped up charges driven home by the John Train Salon of NBC Television, merely for getting close enough to Reagan to get the idea across to him.
Therefore, most definitely would she have been denied tenure, let alone risk life and limb, by getting shot at, or run off the road late one night, for attempting to think in the abstract, or "outside of the box," which seems to be the favorite metaphor being used as of late.
That's why you'll never read in the history books in school about the real reason for the Vietnam debacle. Everything must be glossed over and made to appear justifiably in favor of the U.S.A., even if our government was 99.9% at fault for proceeding to defy Geneva Accords and interfere in a foreign government's affairs. Regardless of whether they asked for our help or not. You should already know that by now, as well as why our presence in Iraq is a veiled excuse for eminent domaining their oil reserves, among other things.
But, you know something? I must take leave of this place for awhile, as I've just gotten a phone call from a dear friend of the last 30 years, who just found out he has cancer, and will be going into the hospital for therapy on Thursday. I will be spending the coming weekend at his bedside, helping him to get back on his feet. So, I'll turn this over to my good friend, Myra, whom I'm sure will be able to sufficiently hold down what's left of the fort in my absence. Ciao.
“That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird…”
But she did say them and says them repeatedly, watch her videos on Google and YouTube see the various “papers” she has written and look at her site.
Have you seen the Russell Crowe film “A Beautiful Mind”? Wood’s site which is like a modern day version of Dr. John Nash’s garage/MIT office/scrapbooks has a total of 10 pages with the phrase “Star Wars Beam Weapon” in the title. The phrase (“star wars”) also appears several times on the homepage. The term SDI appears on a few other pages on her site where she promotes her risible theory that the WTC was destroyed by “Star wars” type weapons in space.
Here one of the ten "star wars" pages
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html
AFAIK thus far no one has tried to kill her or Morgan Reynolds or Jim Fetzer or any of the other handful of people who back her kooky theory. As for her being denied tenure the people who decided that would have been remiss if they had granted it to her, this is a mental health rather than a academic freedom issue.
She discussed her tree theory with a forum member who likes to tout his critical thinking skills.
Judy Wood: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that's what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.James Fetzer: Marvelous!Judy Wood: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust, ya know, from the top down.(laughter)Judy Wood: With sawdust flying out.James Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they're blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust from the top, is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!Judy Wood: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the towers being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, to put their, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.James Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?Judy Wood: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.James Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214842/pg1
Here is a slide from her the WTC was just like a tree PowerPoint presentation.
I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.
*****************************************************
FYI and FWIW Part II
This documentation appears in the March 12, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
DOCUMENTATION
SDI and the Jailing
Of Lyndon LaRouche
by Paul Gallagher
This speech was given on March 21, 1993, to a conference of the Schiller Institute in Northern Virginia, and was published in an April 1993 EIR White Paper on "The Crucial Role of Lyndon LaRouche in the Current Strategic Situation." Gallagher was the former executive director of the Fusion Energy Foundation (FEF), which had been shut down by an illegal government-forced bankruptcy in 1987.
President Reagan's Strategic Initiative Speech ten years ago—or as it was called worldwide at the time, his "Star Wars" policy speech—caused one of the greatest worldwide furors of any statement by any President in history; it changed history; although it was merely the final five minutes of his half-hour nationally televised speech of that evening. The President proposed to abandon the threat of massive nuclear retaliatory destruction (known as Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD), and to embark on a crash scientific mobilization to develop energy-beam anti-nuclear defenses, offered to nations worldwide to remove the threat of nuclear attack against them. This new strategic doctrine had been developed and fought for for years, by Lyndon LaRouche.
More than that, LaRouche had been discussing this possibility with representatives of the Soviet regime for more than one year, known to both sides to be acting informally for the Reagan government. In diplomatic language, such an intermediary activity by a private individual is called a "back-channel" between two governments.
Let me quote what Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer told an audience at the National Press Club two weeks ago. General Scherer is the former head of military intelligence for Germany.
"In the Spring of 1982 here in the Soviet Embassy there were very important secret talks that were held.... The question was: Did the United States and the Soviet Union wish jointly to develop an anti-ballistic missile defense that would have made nuclear war impossible? Then, in August, you had this very sharp Soviet rejection of the entire idea.... I have discussed this thoroughly with the developer, the originator of this idea, who is the scientific-technological strategic expert, Lyndon LaRouche. The [soviet] rejection came in August, and at that point the American President Reagan decided to push this entire thing out into the public eye, so he made his speech of March 1983."
In that speech of March 1983 President Reagan adopted, for a time, as U.S. government policy, the strategic doctrine which LaRouche had designed and presented to the governments of both superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. LaRouche called this strategy "relativistic beam weapon anti-missile defense. President Reagan called it the "Strategic Defense Initiative."
One month ago, at a Princeton University conference, two former Soviet government ministers, including the former Foreign Minister, Bessmertnykh, acknowledged that it was the Strategic Defense Initiative that caused the collapse of the Soviet empire. Specifically, it was the Soviet attempt to reject the SDI, and to defeat it by a massive nuclear and conventional military buildup, which led to that collapse. LaRouche had warned them, very publicly in 1982 and many times afterward, that this would happen by 1988 if they took the road of rejecting his SDI. They destroyed themselves; sowed the seeds of current global warfare; and caused LaRouche's imprisonment, which must now end before it is too late.
It was the actions of LaRouche himself and through his collaborators in that period, changing the strategic policy of the United States and for some time threatening to change the economic and strategic policy of the world's major nations, which led directly to his legal persecution; to the attempt to kill him during massive police raids on Leesburg in October 1986; and to his continuing imprisonment. Following Reagan's adoption of the SDI, Soviet attention was rivetted on Lyndon LaRouche, its author, and the destruction of his influence was demanded from the highest levels of the regime of Yuri Andropov, and later that of Mikhail Gorbachov.
Here is the crucial sequence by which LaRouche's successful intervention into the events of national and global policy in 1982-83, brought the Soviet reaction which led to his imprisonment.
July 1977. LaRouche commissioned the first-ever mass-circulation report to the American people on this subject. The title of the pamphlet was "Sputnik of the 70s," emphasizing the fact that the technologies on the horizon for anti-missile defense, like Sputnik, were not weapons as such, but "new physical principles" which would revolutionize both technology and weaponry.
August 1979. LaRouche, through his representatives, held the first discussions with Ronald Reagan campaign personnel on "energy beam defense."
January-February 1981. (The Reagan "transition period"), LaRouche and his representatives had meetings on the strategic doctrine and related scientific and energy policies, with Energy Secretary Donald Hodel, Interior Secretary James Watt, Science Adviser Dr. George Keyworth, and State Department official Richard Morris. Later that year Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met with CIA Deputy Director Robert Inman. In July of 1981 LaRouche's PAC released a mass circulation pamphlet on the SDI.
April 1981. Soviet representatives at the UN approached representatives of LaRouche several times, seeking discussion of his assessment of the incoming Reagan Administration, and of strategic questions.
Fall 1981. LaRouche and representatives regularly met with United States CIA and other intelligence representatives to discuss LaRouche's "beam weapons" military strategy. Reagan National Security Council official Richard Morris testified that this was one of six areas dealt with in meetings with LaRouche and his representatives. Morris testified to this in December 1988 during LaRouche's second trial; and again in May 1990 during the prosecution of LaRouche associates,
December 1981. The Reagan Administration, through intelligence agencies, requested LaRouche attempt "back-channel" discussions with Soviet representatives, about the new scientific/military strategy represented by LaRouche, and how the Soviets would react if this policy were adopted by the United States.
February 1982. EIR held a Washington, D.C. conference on anti-missile defense policy attended by more than 300, including U.S. government, Soviet and East bloc representatives; LaRouche gave the keynote on "relativistic beam weapons."
February 1982. In private meetings around this public conference, LaRouche opened the desired "back-channel" discussions involving himself and Soviet Washington embassy official Yevgeni Shershnev, with constant consultation and reporting to the U.S. government. The subject: possible adoption by the Reagan Administration of LaRouche's proposed new "beam weapons" military doctrine.
October-November 1982. While this "back-channel" continued, Henry Kissinger (an architect of the MAD doctrine LaRouche was challenging) and others on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, contacted FBI Director William Webster asking for targetting of LaRouche. The Advisory Board and other intelligence agencies at that time adopted a secret intelligence assessment—"Soviet Capabilities for Strategic Nuclear Conflict, 1982-1992"—used by Reagan in the first 25 minutes of his March 23, 1983 speech; declassified in February 1993. This report acknowledged Soviet buildup for nuclear war "first strike" capabilities, which had been featured in LaRouche publications since 1980. But it did not acknowledge any possibility that the U.S. might abandon the MAD doctrine—precisely what was required by this shortening "hair-trigger" for nuclear war.
Dec. 22, 1982. EIR published LaRouche's "Reply to Soviet Critics," a detailed warning to the Soviet leadership not to reject the new doctrine and not to refuse cooperative development of new energy and particle beam military technologies. He explained why the underlying problems of their economy and workforce would bring them down if they did.
Jan. 1, 1983. LaRouche told a national political conference in New York City, that the Reagan Administration must scrap MAD doctrine "within 90 days" or the world was on a course toward war.
February 1983. Shershnev, in the back-channel talks, detailed to LaRouche why the Soviet leadership rejected his doctrine: It would work militarily, but its development would be to the advantage of the West's superior scientific-productivity capabilities; therefore, the Soviets would reject such a new doctrine by Reagan.
February 1983. LaRouche returned from Europe, where he had held seminars for European military officials and officers on the science and technology of the new "beam weapons" military strategy. Dealing with the Soviet "rebuttal," LaRouche shuttled between U.S. officials and Soviet representative in an intensive phase of back-channel negotiations. He warned the Soviets that a military buildup will destroy their economy and break their empire within five years (i.e., by 1988), unless they accepted the new "science driver" represented by relativistic beam technologies.
February 1983. The Soviet representative told LaRouche the Soviet leadership had been assured and was confident, that any intention by Reagan, to adopt a new military doctrine abandoning MAD and developing beam-weapons defenses, would be blocked by Democratic Party leadership and its administration influence.
Late February 1983. LaRouche's National Democratic Policy Committee published another of many such mass circulation pamphlets on relativistic beam weapon defenses. This included a white paper written by a Fusion Energy Foundation scientist on how beam weapons work, also being used by LaRouche in his contacts with U.S. government officials. The political mobilization call on the front page of the pamphlet was prophetic: "Let us make the month of March...."
March 1983. LaRouche scientific representative Uwe Parpart met with NSC scientists and consultants on possible forthcoming Reagan announcement of new military doctrine.
March 16, 1983. LaRouche representatives Jeff Steinberg and myself met with representatives of the Air Force and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; we were told the Pentagon was unaware of any prospect of a new strategic policy.
March 23, 1983. Ronald Reagan finished a nationally televised address on the Soviet military buildup, by announcing the new doctrine known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. The form of anti-missile defense doctrine Reagan announced, was uniquely that of LaRouche, calling for fundamentally new beam technologies rather than the old interceptor missiles. He offered to share these technologies with the Soviets, in a cooperative effort to end MAD and make the new defensive technologies available to all countries: distinctly LaRouche's policy of anti-missile defense.
Yuri Andropov's Soviet leadership was shocked and attributed vastly greater influence to LaRouche; said Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh at the Princeton conference recently, "the SDI put us into a very dangerous situation." Secretary of State George Shultz, speaking at the same Princeton conference, said that the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff were "floored" by Reagan's announcement.
March 24, 1983. I appeared, representing FEF, on CBS-TV evening news as the first non-government spokesman to defend and explain the SDI. CBS-TV said that they had contacted the Heritage Foundation, considered the premier think-tank for Reagan Administration policies, but Heritage's staff director told CBS they knew nothing about SDI, which was "the Fusion Energy Foundation's thing." FEF Research Director Uwe Parpart was featured the following morning, March 25, on "Good Morning America," for the same reason.
April 8, 1983. LaRouche keynoted a Fusion Energy Foundation conference in Washington, D.C. on the Strategic Defense Initiative, attended by 800 representatives of administration, Congress, business, and the diplomatic community, including 16 East bloc representatives. Representatives from the Soviet embassy and press attended, but then walked out.
April 1983. Soviet designate Shershnev informed LaRouche that he had been ordered from the highest level in Moscow to terminate the discussions with him. Shershnev had reacted to the Reagan announcement by seeking to have senior Soviet KGB "America expert" Georgi Arbatov meet with LaRouche; this was rejected, and Shershnev was ordered back to Russia.
May 24-28, 1983. A high-powered KGB delegation of 25, including some Russian Orthodox Church prelates since acknowledged to be KGB agents, came to Minneapolis, Minnesota to hold a "peace conference" with leading Democratic associates of Walter Mondale. The purpose of this "U.S.-U.S.S.R. Bilateral Exchange Conference" was to declare war on the SDI. The Soviet delegation was sponsored by Georgi Arbatov, head of the U.S.A. and Canada Institute of the U.S.S.R. (this was the official who had refused to meet with LaRouche as Shershnev proposed); it was headed by KGB publisher and journalist Fyodor Burlatsky, a confidant of future President Mikhail Gorbachov.
Aug. 10, 1983. Burlatsky, in the weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta, attacked the SDI, and by implication LaRouche, as a cause for war.
August 1983. Democratic Party National Chairman Charles Manatt publicly declared war on Reagan's SDI policy, and said "all" Democratic candidates for President in 1984 would totally oppose SDI, despite its broad popular support.
September 1983. LaRouche announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President, to back the SDI and rally Democratic voter support for it. During 1984, LaRouche's campaign put the candidate on half-hour network policy broadcasts no fewer than 15 times; one-third of these were directly on U.S.-Soviet strategic relations and the SDI.
Oct. 26, 1983. Burlatsky, in Literaturnaya Gazeta, reiterated his casus belli statement on the SDI and attacked "the American LaRouche" for it.
Nov. 14, 1983. The Soviet government newspaper Izvestia published an attack on LaRouche.
March 1984. NBC-TV's prime-time half-hour program "First Camera" attacked "the LaRouche factor in the Reagan Administration." The New Republic magazine (Slide 15) then repeated the attack. Its cover read: "The LaRouche Connection—Since 1981 the leaders of a lunatic movement have conferred repeatedly with top Administration officials. Their aims: to win respect, and to influence Reagan's Star Wars plan. They succeeded."
March 8, 1984. Democratic Party Chairman Manatt held a Chicago press conference to demand that Reagan immediately break all administration contact with LaRouche or his associates.
March 12, 1984. Izvestia demanded that Reagan break all administration contact with LaRouche, which Izvestia called "a scandal" which "the White House does not even try to deny."
April 2, 1984. Soviet Communist Party newspaper Pravda published an attack on LaRouche.
September 1984. LaRouche, in a national TV broadcast, denounced Walter Mondale as "an agent of KGB influence" for his campaign against the SDI.
October 1984. The Department of Justice began its first attempt to prosecute LaRouche and his associates, just before the Presidential election. In addition, circulation of anti-LaRouche slanders became a "Project Democracy" policy of elements of the U.S. government and private intelligence networks under Executive Order 12333.
Jan. 13-15, 1985: The Washington Post published a three-day, 10,000-word "exposé" of all the contacts between LaRouche and his associates, and anyone connected with the Reagan Administration, name by name, in order to try to force those contacts to be broken.
April-June 1985. The Fusion Energy Foundation held conferences in Rome, Paris, and Bonn on the Strategic Defense Initiative, to inform European military leaders and scientists of the work involved and the implications for economic progress worldwide.
July 1985. EIR published Global Showdown, a Special Report on the Soviet military buildup, by which Moscow was trying to defeat the SDI policy. LaRouche's 1983 warning to the Soviet leadership was repeated in much greater detail: East bloc economies will break down under this military buildup by 1988, unless the Soviets accept the new scientific and technological "driver" offered by development of SDI against MAD—or unless they go to war.
February 1986. The Department of Justice launched a new campaign to suppress LaRouche's movement, holding a nationwide meeting of law enforcement officials in Boston to solicit prosecutions.)
February-March 1986. After a relative interlude during the "caretaker" regime of Soviet figurehead Konstantin Chernenko, Gorbachov took over, and attacks resumed on LaRouche. The KGB conducted an international "dirty trick," attempting to blame LaRouche for the Feb. 28, 1986 assassination of Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme. The campaign featured two Soviet TV broadcasts in 1986, and an international KGB disinformation campaign about LaRouche and the murder of Palme.
April 1986. FEF held a conference in Tokyo attended by nearly 300 Japanese science, business and military representatives, addressed by scientists from Europe, the United States and Japan, on the urgency of Japan cooperating with the SDI. Soviet embassy representatives protested and walked out during the speech of LaRouche representative Uwe Parpart. Two months later Japan's Foreign Minister Abe announced Japanese scientific labs would join the SDI.
July 1986. Ronald Reagan repeated in writing to Mikhail Gorbachov the original SDI offer that the new technologies essential to anti-missile defenses could be shared with the Soviets and offered to other countries; Reagan reiterated this in a speech at the United Nations.
July-October 1986. Soviet press repeatedly called for investigation and prosecution of LaRouche.
Fall 1986. Gorbachov and the Soviet military leadership planned to use the Reykjavik, Iceland summit, in early October 1986, to force Reagan to abandon the SDI. This was admitted and described in detail by former Soviet officials and Red Army generals at the recent Princeton conference. But at that time—Fall 1986—the international media covered this up out of ignorance—all sources assured and insisted that the SDI would not be an issue at this summit at all!
Sept. 24, 1986. Georgi Arbatov gave a pre-summit press briefing in Reykjavik. According to the Danish press, "Arbatov maintained his friendly façade only until Mr. Rasmussen of EIR asked a question." Arbatov then denounced EIR as "LaRouche fascists," and closed down his "friendly face" press conference.
Sept. 30, 1986. Sovetskaya Kultura magazine denounced LaRouche's policy inputs to the Reagan Administration, accused him of tax fraud, and demanded, "Why isn't the Internal Revenue Service interested" in prosecuting LaRouche?
Oct. 3, 1986. Gorbachov, speaking in East Berlin, denounced "hidden Nazis without swastikas," the phrase used by Soviet publications to describe LaRouche. Gorbachov attacked "the hidden viruses of militarist, aggressive fascism."
Oct. 6, 1986. One day before the Reykjavik summit was to begin, 450 armed agents of the FBI, IRS, Virginia State Police, and other agencies conducted a massive raid on LaRouche publications' headquarters in Leesburg, Virginia. LaRouche's residence was completely surrounded by armed agents, armored cars and personnel carriers, helicopters; a shootout and killing of LaRouche was threatened throughout the day. Leaders of LaRouche's movement were indicted and the U.S. Attorney in Boston, William Weld, was attempting to get indictments of LaRouche himself.
Oct. 7, 1986. In Reykjavik, Georgi Arbatov again shouted "fascists, LaRouche fascists" at EIR correspondents in front of hundreds of international journalists. Soviet press spokesman Aleksandr Bovin called EIR "a dirty, dirty magazine."
Oct. 7, 1986. While 1,000 journalists waited outside the summit meetings in Reykjavik, Cable News Network entertained them by replaying films of the massive anti-LaRouche raids in Virginia the previous day. The coverage reported LaRouche's charge that the Soviets were demanding his political elimination as a summit condition at Reykjavik.
Oct. 12, 1986. Secretary of State Shultz emerged from all-day summit sessions in Reykjavik, Iceland, to say that broad arms control agreements could be had. But, said Shultz, the agreements are being blocked by Soviet insistence that the United States give up the SDI.
The 1,000 journalists were thrown into total confusion. Until that moment, all international press except EIR had insisted that SDI was not an issue at this summit.
April 20, 1987. The U.S. Department of Justice, in an action without precedent in U.S. history, acted alone to bankrupt, seize, and liquidate the major publications associated with Lyndon LaRouche, seizing their subscription lists as well. At the seizure, Fusion magazine, the consistent vehicle to circulate, worldwide, the scientific basis of LaRouche's beam weapons initiative, had, in the United States, 140,000 subscribers. 28,000 subscriptions went to college and high school teachers and students; 7,000 went into the country's national laboratories. The government's bankruptcy seizure, more than two years later was declared illegal. But Fusion, New Solidarity newspaper, other publications were liquidated.
July 1987. LaRouche was personally indicted for conspiracy for the first time by the Federal government. This was now increasingly a government of then-Vice President Bush, which was pushing the SDI aside.
Oct. 12, 1988. LaRouche, in a televised Berlin press conference, forecast the breakup of Soviet control of Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany. For the third time. he detailed that the Soviet bloc could not go beyond 1988 in its military buildup. He proposed specific initiatives by the West to start rebuilding the East economically.
Oct. 14, 1988. LaRouche was indicted on the same conspiracy charges for the second time by the Federal government, again just before a Presidential election in which he was a candidate; his trial moved to Alexandria, Virginia—the nation's so-called "rocket docket"—to assure a conviction the second time.
Jan. 27, 1989. LaRouche was imprisoned with a 15-year sentence.
-
The Georgian Peace Committee declares asks World public opinion not to identify the current Georgian leadership with the people of Georgia, with the Georgian nation.
Declaration of the Georgian Peace Committee
Once more Georgia was launched into a situation of chaos and bloodshed. A new fratricidal war exploded with renewed strength on Georgian soil.
To our great disappointment, the alerts of the Georgian Peace Committee and of progressive personalities of Georgia on the pernicious character of the militarization of the country and on the danger of a pro-fascist and nationalist policy had no effect. The authorities of Georgia once again organized a bloody war, feeling the support of some Western countries and of regional and international organizations. It will take decades to cleanse the shame poured by the current holders of the power over the Georgian people.
The Georgian army—armed and trained by U.S. instructors and using also U.S. armaments—subjected the city of Tskhinvali to a barbaric destruction. The bombings killed Ossetian civilians, our brothers and sisters, children, women and elderly people. Over 2,000 inhabitants of Tskhinvali and of its surroundings died.
Hundreds of civilians of Georgian nationality also died, both in the conflict zone as well as in the entire territory of Georgia.
The Georgian Peace Committee expresses its deep condolences to the relatives and friends of those who have perished.
The entire responsibility for this fratricidal war, for thousands of children, women and elderly dead people, for the inhabitants of South Ossetia and of Georgia falls exclusively on the current president, on the Parliament and on the government of Georgia.
The irresponsibility and the adventurism of the Saakashvili regime have no limits. There is no doubt the president of Georgia and his team are criminals and must be held responsible. The Georgian Peace Committee, together with all the progressive parties and social movements of Georgia, will struggle to assure that the organizers of this monstrous genocide have a severe and legitimate punishment.
The Georgian Peace Committee declares and asks broad public opinion not to identify the current Georgian leadership with the people of Georgia, with the Georgian nation, and appeals to all to support the Georgian people in the struggle against the criminal regime of Saakashvili.
We appeal to all the political forces of Georgia, the social movements and the people of Georgia to unite in order to free the country from the Russian-phobic and pro-fascist anti-popular regime of Saakashvili!
The Georgian Peace Committee Tbilisi, Aug. 11, 2008
********************************************************
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/1999/storm_v..._pr_991203.html
EIR Releases 'Storm Over Asia' Video,
Hosted by Lyndon LaRouche
"Our fundamental interest as a republic, is to bring forth on this planet the hegemony of a community of sovereign nation-states, each of which has in common its commitment to the general welfare of its total population, and their posterity. Otherwise, it is not our intent to meddle in the internal affairs of these countries. It is sufficient for us that they are sincerely and seriously dedicated to promote the general welfare, as we understand the notion of the general welfare; and they understand that we as nations must stand together, against those forces of oligarchy, such as the British financial oligarchy, which are our natural enemies."
--Lyndon LaRouche, Storm Over Asia
Executive Intelligence Review magazine is pleased to announce the release of a vital policy report by Founding and Contributing Editor Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "Storm Over Asia" is a two-and-a-half-hour video which explores, in depth, the current drift into a new global conflagration, and proposes a new American foreign policy, based on the best traditions of our Founding Fathers, to reverse that otherwise inevitable course towards war and economic ruin.
Mr. LaRouche, who is today one of three leading candidates for the Democratic Party 2000 Presidential nomination, reviews the ongoing crises in the Caucasus region along the southern tier of Russia, in the Indian subcontinent, in Africa, and in Ibero-America, exposing the hideous incompetence and worse, of the U.S. State Department under Madeleine Albright, and the outright geopolitical treachery of the Blair government in Britain. He develops the relationship between the ongoing collapse of the world financial and monetary system and the impulse towards regional, and, eventual global confrontation, drawing on the experiences of the two world wars of the 20th century.
LaRouche reviews his own role, during the period from 1977-1984, in promoting what President Ronald Reagan labeled the Strategic Defense Initiative, and how LaRouche came to the conclusion, by the autumn of 1988, that the Soviet empire was about to collapse and that the prospects for German reunification were immediately on the table. Instead of adopting LaRouche's proposals for a Marshall Plan and Food for Peace approach towards the nations of the collapsing Soviet bloc, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, U.S. President George Bush, and French President Francois Mitterrand, adopted an anti-German, anti-Russian geopolitical agenda, which led to the industrial collapse of Germany and the wholesale looting of Russia. This folly has led us to the bring of a new strategic confrontation.
To set the proper framework for understanding the current policy crisis and the appropriate solutions, LaRouche reviews the issues that shaped the American Revolution and the development of the idea of a community of principles among perfectly sovereign nation-states--the basis for John Quincy Adams' development of the American system of diplomacy. Later, LaRouche delves into the founding principles of Western Civilization, dating back to the period of the Greek Classics and the early Fathers of the Christian Church, tracing that tradition through the European Renaissance, and into the founding of the colonies in North America.
No one can claim to be prepared for the earth-shattering crises and life-and-death decisions that will face the next President of the United States, and world leaders on every continent, without studying this video report.
"Storm Over Asia" is available from Executive Intelligence Review magazine for $50.00 plus shipping and handling, and can be ordered from EIR News Service, Inc.; P.O. Box 17390; Washington, D.C. 20041-0390; or, on the web, from eirns@larouchepub.com; or, call toll-free, 1-888-347-3258.
-
In this video JFK attacks free trade, using the disaster befallen American farmers in the 1920's as an example of free trade. Not even a forced education by Papa Joe at the London School of Economics could rid JFK of the heritage of the American System. Who pushed Free Trade, who is famous for their devotion to Free Trade?---answer "The British Empire".
-
On the "bad moderator" thread which John deleted the subject of academic freedom came up. I pointed out that in the US numerous professors hold leftist and other controversial views and that as far as I knew only three "truther" professors had lost their jobs. None of them were tenured they were Steve Jones, Barrett and Judy Wood. I suggested that Wood was fired for backing crackpot theories such as the structures of the WTC Twin Towers were akin to trees, they were hit by holograms rather than 767's and "the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry." At first Terry indicated she thaught Wood was a crackpot but then she replied with the following"...the towers were destroyed by “star wars” weaponry..."
That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird, just as it set up Reagan to look like a blithering idiot when he set about attempting to implement the SWI. And, shortly after which, ended up getting him shot at, whilst the man who introduced the concept of the "Star Wars Initiative," to Reagan, Lyndon LaRouche, personna non grata himself, ended up going to jail on trumped up charges driven home by the John Train Salon of NBC Television, merely for getting close enough to Reagan to get the idea across to him.
Therefore, most definitely would she have been denied tenure, let alone risk life and limb, by getting shot at, or run off the road late one night, for attempting to think in the abstract, or "outside of the box," which seems to be the favorite metaphor being used as of late.
That's why you'll never read in the history books in school about the real reason for the Vietnam debacle. Everything must be glossed over and made to appear justifiably in favor of the U.S.A., even if our government was 99.9% at fault for proceeding to defy Geneva Accords and interfere in a foreign government's affairs. Regardless of whether they asked for our help or not. You should already know that by now, as well as why our presence in Iraq is a veiled excuse for eminent domaining their oil reserves, among other things.
But, you know something? I must take leave of this place for awhile, as I've just gotten a phone call from a dear friend of the last 30 years, who just found out he has cancer, and will be going into the hospital for therapy on Thursday. I will be spending the coming weekend at his bedside, helping him to get back on his feet. So, I'll turn this over to my good friend, Myra, whom I'm sure will be able to sufficiently hold down what's left of the fort in my absence. Ciao.
“That phrase alone, had the words actually been uttered by Wood, would have automatically set her up for ridicule, by the press, media, Mockingbird…”
But she did say them and says them repeatedly, watch her videos on Google and YouTube see the various “papers” she has written and look at her site.
Have you seen the Russell Crowe film “A Beautiful Mind”? Wood’s site which is like a modern day version of Dr. John Nash’s garage/MIT office/scrapbooks has a total of 10 pages with the phrase “Star Wars Beam Weapon” in the title. The phrase (“star wars”) also appears several times on the homepage. The term SDI appears on a few other pages on her site where she promotes her risible theory that the WTC was destroyed by “Star wars” type weapons in space.
Here one of the ten "star wars" pages
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam3.html
AFAIK thus far no one has tried to kill her or Morgan Reynolds or Jim Fetzer or any of the other handful of people who back her kooky theory. As for her being denied tenure the people who decided that would have been remiss if they had granted it to her, this is a mental health rather than a academic freedom issue.
She discussed her tree theory with a forum member who likes to tout his critical thinking skills.
Judy Wood: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that's what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.James Fetzer: Marvelous!Judy Wood: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust, ya know, from the top down.(laughter)Judy Wood: With sawdust flying out.James Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they're blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust from the top, is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!Judy Wood: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the towers being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, to put their, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.James Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?Judy Wood: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.James Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread214842/pg1
Here is a slide from her the WTC was just like a tree PowerPoint presentation.
I will refrain from comment on your theory that backing Star Wars was the reason for Reagan being shot and LaRouche “going to jail on trumped up charges” other that to say it seems highly improbable, perhaps you should start a thread about it when you can spend more time here.
****************************************************
FYI and FWIW
A PERSONAL REFLECTION
I Remember Ronald Reagan
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
June 6, 2004
This morning's press brought me stunning news: the death of U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Although we actually met on but one occasion, at Concord, New Hampshire, for a candidates' night, in January 1980, that meeting between us changed world history in ironical ways which are reverberating still today.
The continuing significance of that encounter is that it led to meetings with the incoming Reagan Presidential team, in Washington, D.C., later that year, and new meetings with key representatives of the new Presidency over the interval into 1984. The most important product of those meetings was my 1982-83 role in conducting back-channel talks with the Soviet government, on behalf of that Presidency. The leading topic of those talks, coordinated through the National Security Council, was my proposal for what President Reagan was to name his "Strategic Defense Initiative" (SDI). That proposal changed the world.
In reflection on that and related experience, over the following years, I was often bemused in reflecting on the paradoxical features of that relationship to the President during that period. In part, the affirmative aspects of the relationship were rooted in our sharing the experience of our generation, despite the decade's difference in our age: the common experience of President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership of the U.S. economic recovery and the defeat of fascism. In all my dealings with the Reagan Administration during that time, this area of agreement was clearly, repeatedly demonstrated, whereas, on economic policy otherwise, such as the subject of Professor Milton Friedman, we were almost at opposite poles.
One point about those matters needs to be cleared up; and it is my special, personal obligation to do so. While it is true that Soviet General Secretaries Andropov's and Gorbachev's repeatedly hysterical rejection of President Reagan's offer of March 23, 1983, and not military threats from the U.S.A. and its allies, led to the fall of the Soviet system six years later, it was the folly of the Soviet government, not threats by the administration of President Reagan, which led to the end of the Soviet system in the way that occurred. On March 23, 1983, the President had made a public offer, which he renewed later, to find a way to escape the system of "revenge weapons." It was the Soviet rejection of the President's offer which brought down the Soviet economy and the break-up of the Soviet Union. Had the President's offer been accepted then, during the years which followed, the history of the world would have made a better turn than it did then, better for both the U.S.A. and Russia, a better way toward a better world today.
Had we reacted to the break-up of the Comecon/Warsaw Pact bloc as I proposed publicly in October 1988, the worst of the miseries experienced during the 1989-2004 interval to date, on all sides, would have been avoided. Those 1989-2004 failures of U.S. and European policies on this latter account, do not detract from the indelible achievement of President Reagan's most stunning intervention in history, as first announced on March 23, 1983. Such is his enduring personal landmark in all truthful future accounts of U.S.A. and world history. Ironically, the U.S. Democratic Party's leadership never understood any of this, to the present day; that makes it all the more important that President Reagan's achievement on this account be commonly acknowledged by his survivors, Republican, Democratic, and others, today.
Such is the nature of the institution of the U.S. Presidency. That is not past history. It is a lesson in statecraft which the new generations of this world must still learn today.
As well as...
This article appears in the July 20, 2007 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The Long Road to U.S.-Russian Missile Defense Cooperation
by Marsha Freeman
On March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan made a stunning proposal on national television: The United States would develop a Strategic Defense Initiative, to end the age of Mutual and Assured Destruction, or "MAD," and instead make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete." The revolutionary new technologies that would be developed, using the "new physical principles" of lasers and other directed-energy systems, would be shared with the Soviet Union. That proposal, which had been forumlated and then publicly discussed by Lyndon LaRouche the previous year, was turned down by the Soviet leadership.
On March 23, 1993, Lyndon LaRouche released a statement, "On the Tenth Anniversary of President Reagan's Announcement of the SDI." Describing Reagan's proposal, as "an announcement which changed the course of history," as it could only lead either to new cooperation between the two powers, or "the collapse of the Soviet empire for economic reasons, within about five years." LaRouche noted that, "once again the time has come for similar bold initiatives." Scientists in both the U.S.A. and Russia had been thinking along the same lines.
Discussions were already underway on U.S.-Russian missile defense cooperation. In October 1991, the Wall Street Journal reported on a visit by Russian Gen. Konstantin Kobets to Washington. In public discussions, his deputies proposed that, with the Soviet Union gone, there be the integration of Russian and U.S. Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) efforts, including a joint space-based defense.
The following year, a group of American and Russian scientists began discussions to define areas of potential missile defense cooperation. In a June 10, 1992 article in Nezavismaya Gazeta, entitled, "From Star Wars to a Global System for the Protection of the World Community: Boris Yeltsin Will Discuss That Topic With George Bush," Academician Yevgeny Velikhov spelled out the strategic importance of this cooperation. Velikhov recalled that President Yeltsin had proposed, in his speech to the UN Security Council in January 1992, the creation of a global system to protect the world community, "based on the reorientation of the U.S. SDI, using high-technology systems developed within the Russian defense complex."
Russia, "as a leading nuclear power bears a special responsibility, together with the United States, for averting the threat of nuclear war," Velikhov wrote. The specific proposal included joint monitoring of the launch of ballistic missiles, notifying the world community of any missile attack, and "protecting the member states against ballistic missiles."
"Cooperation in defense technologies with the United States is in Russia's national interests and, on the one hand, will help to maintain the country's scientific and technical potential through investment and stem the 'brain drain,' and, on the other hand, will help the country's high-technology output gain access to the world market and aid industrial conversion," from defense to civilian production. Velikhov also emphasized the potential use of defense technologies "in the solution of a broad range of questions," both in defense and the civilian economy.
Velikhov, having been prominently involved in leadership positions in Russian scientific endeavors, from thermonuclear fusion, to magnetohydrodynamics, to lasers, pleaded with his nation's political leadership to preserve science. "If we destroy science, we shall never rebuild it," he warned in 1991, "then we will have no future."
Over a period of four decades, the Soviet Union had created the most robust manned space program in the world. When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the very real danger existed that this globally critical capability would be lost. Discussions between the U.S. and Russia on manned space cooperation began in 1991, and in October 1992, an initial agreement was signed to fly an astronaut on a Russia Soyuz, and a cosmonaut on the Space Shuttle.
In 1993, President Clinton made a strategic foreign policy decision, agreeing to a greatly expanded cooperative program, and a virtual integration of the world's only two manned space programs. The agreement included long-term stays of American astronauts aboard the Russian Mir space station. It also invited Russian partnership in the future International Space Station, cementing together two formerly parallel programs, now to be dependent upon one another. The $400 million that NASA paid the Russian space agency for the use of its Mir space station through the late 1990s, kept the former Soviet manned space program alive.
On the strategic defense side, Aviation Week reported, on Sept. 28, 1992, on continuing high-level military/security discussions, stemming from the Bush/Yeltsin summit meeting the previous June.
'Trust'
On April 2, 1993, an article appeared in Izvestia by Viktor Litovkin, titled, "On the Eve of Vancouver, Russia Proposes to the USA a Joint Plasma Weapon Experiment." Russian scientists told Litovkin that at the upcoming summit between the U.S. and Russian Presidents, the "Trust" program proposal would be offered to President Clinton.
This would involve use of ground-based components, such as microwave or optical (laser) generators, to produce an ionized structure, known as a plasmoid. The plasmoid would be directed and concentrated not directly on a ballistic missile target, but aimed at the area of the atmosphere directly in front of the missile, its warhead, or even an aircraft. The energy-dense plasmoid would ionize the surrounding area of the atmosphere, disrupting the flight of the target, at an altitude of up to 50 km. The target's trajectory disrupted, it would be destroyed by enormous aerodynamic forces.
Because the plasmoid is traveling at the speed of light, Russian scientists explained, it is a "practically invulnerable weapon, with guaranteed defense against any attack from space, or from the upper or lower layers of the atmosphere." Such a system would be able to offer protection against offensive weapons in space, or those used by nuclear terrorists.
To do joint testing of this new capability, Russia, it was proposed, would send the required equipment, including microwave generators to create the plasmoids, by ship to America's Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The target missiles could be launched either from Russia or the U.S.A., and the United States would provide the solid-state electronics and computer technology for the experiments. Litovkin's article was accompanied by a drawing of a coordinated land and sea, anti-ballistic missile system, demonstrating the "Trust" plasmoid concept.
While the U.S. press ridiculed the proposal, at a press conference in Rome on April 20, Dr. Leonid Fituni of the Center for Strategic and Global Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, was asked by EIR to expand on his comments on the "plasmoid weapon" proposal. He explained that it was designed as a Soviet "secret weapon"; as the unconventional response to the American SDI. He said there was no possible countermeasure, and that "Trust" could become a major point of future joint talks.
But implemention of the "Trust" proposal never moved forward. As Lyndon LaRouche explained on July 10: In 1993, at the outset of his Presidency, Clinton was briefed on LaRouche's role in Reagan's SDI, and adopted the concept of cooperation with Russia. Later, Yeltsin raised the prospect of cooperation with Clinton, and the idea was moving ahead, until Vice President Al Gore sabotaged it, in 1996. At the time, LaRouche was in Moscow engaged in critical discussions with leading people about the revival of SDI cooperation.
Even though President Clinton backed down from missile defense cooperation with Russia at the time, and an historic opportunity to revive the LaRouche-Reagan SDI was missed, the idea did not die. This was the prelude to the developments during the recent Bush-Putin summit.
Following the capture of Congress by the Gingrichite neo-conservatives in 1994, Clinton came under increasing pressure to proceed with a near-term, in fact ineffective, limited ground-based kinetic-kill vehicle program, with the commitment to decide on deployment of the interceptor system by 2000. President Reagan's Soviet-partnership SDI became a national missile defense program, without "new physical principles" or Russian cooperation. The revolutionary directed-energy technologies that would have created entirely new industries as well as an actual defense, were de-funded.
By the end of the 1990s, as the U.S. deployment decision was nearing, the Russian military was warning the U.S. that it could revitalize its nuclear arsenal, deploying "unconventional" capabilities, to overwhelm any limited anti-missile defenses. In response, Clinton, as reported by NBC's Tom Brokaw in June 2000, said that he was willing to share U.S. anti-missile technology. In a June 1 interview, President Putin proposed "pooling" U.S. and Russia efforts to protect against emerging missile threats, concentrating on boost-phase intercept, which could protect against missiles as they are fired. But this effort went nowhere.
President George W. Bush's accession to office the following year put the kinetic interceptor anti-missile program on a deployment fast-track. Having reached no agreement with Russia on treaty modifications, the Bush Administration unilaterally abrogated the ABM Treaty in December 2001. In a further provocation, in 2004, the Bush Administration was discussing placing anti-missile interceptors in Poland, at Russia's doorstep.
RAMOS
One joint U.S.-Russian anti-ballistic missile project that did get off the ground was the Russian-American Observation Satelite, or RAMOS. The U.S. team on RAMOS was sponsored by the Defense Department's Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO), through the Space Dynamics Laboratory at Utah State University. The objectives were to develop new, advanced sensors to measure mid-to-long-wave infrared Earth background radiance and structure, measure the polarization of short-wave infrared Sun glint from high-altitude clouds, and use stereo observations, in order to be able to detect and track moving objects against the background radiation of the Earth. Two satellites taking measurmenets simultaneously would allow stereoscopic imagery.
Preliminary measurements occurred between 1995 and 1997, using existing Russian and U.S. satellites.
Although the deadline was approaching for President Clinton to make a decision on BMD deployment, which would necessitate changes in the ABM Treaty, cooperation was still on the table with Russia. At a press briefing on Jan. 21, 1999, Robert Bell, Space Assistant to the President for National Security and Arms Control, was asked if there were consideration of cooperation with Russia on the limited ABM system the Clinton Administration was developing, for deployment against "rogue states."
Bell responded that joint exercises had been carried out using theater missile defense systems with the Russians. The U.S., he said, was "proposing missile-data-warning sharing to allow them to use the information we have about incoming threats that their Theater Missile Defenses could counter."
Even at the national missile defense level, Bell stated, "there has been a program of collaboration with the Russians." A "major exercise" was being planned in Alaska, with Russian participation, to test methods of discriminating warheads reentering the atmosphere. The BMDO is "pursuing important collaborative programs with the Russian Academy of Sciences," he reported.
Two months later, Aerospace America reported that, "At the last U.S.-Russia summit, there was an agreement to have a shared early warning arrangement between the two countries. The Administration was considering whether to move to the next step in the RAMOS project, for a space surveillance demonstration. Another program, called the Advanced Plasma Experiment, involving sounding rocket flights from Alaska, was planned for early 1999, with both sides taking measurements.
But just weeks later, testifying on the FY2000 budget for the BMDO, Gen. Lester Lyles said that the estimate to complete the program, and build the two observational satellites, was about $250 million. The BMDO decided that against that level of funding, in light of the limited resources available for technology development.
The curtailment of the RAMOS project was not due to a lack of progress. In March 1999 Defense Department Congressional testimony, it was reported that, in the previous two years, newly developed American and Russia sensors had been jointly tested aboard a U.S. aircraft, the first joint images had been taken from space.
At a press conference following a U.S.-EU economic summit, on March 31, 2000, President Clinton said that the U.S. would share missile defense technology. "We've done a lot of information-sharing with the Russians," he said. "We have offered to do more, and we would continue to." He described as "unethical" the position that such technology would not be shared.
Bush Ends Cooperation
Statements continued to be made by representatives of the Cheney/Bush Administration on the potential for cooperation with Russia, following the U.S. abrogation of the ABM Treaty at the end of 2001. But actions spoke louder than words.
On May 22, 2003, President Putin sent a letter to President Bush, proposing to expand cooperation in missile defense. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said that Russia was ready to start talking about cooperation. But the following year, the U.S. began discussions with Poland, on stationing interceptor missiles in Russia's backyard.
The end of U.S.-Russian ballistic missile cooperation, and of the only program still functional from the 1993 Russian Trust proposal, finally came to an end in February 2004. In its FY05 budget request, the Missile Defense Agency cancelled the RAMOS program. About $120 million had been spent on it, and it was projected to cost an additional $550 million to build the two observational satellites. To no avail, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and other members of Congress urged the Pentagon to continue the program, citing it as the most important military cooperation project with Russia.
Putin's recent offer, to make the Gabala radar in northern Azerbaijan, as well as an upgraded radar in southern Russia, components of a joint global missile defense system, is perhaps the last opportunity for a strategic partnership.
In an official briefing just before the Kennebunkport summit, Gen. Alexander Yakushin, from Central Command Space Troops, explained to Western journalists visiting the site, that the radar's 6,000 km range could detect launches from the Indian Ocean, to the Arabian Sea, to the Middle East. He said that it had been used during the Iran-Iraq War, and in Iran missile tests in January.
On June 22, representatives of the Russian Duma, who were visiting the United States, were given a briefing and tour of the Airborne Laser Laboratory aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, after having been invited by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Calif.).
It is past time to pick up where the SDI left off, more than 20 years ago, and make nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete."
-
It has been brought to my attention that an email has been circulating amongst the group of members I have been in dispute with about the postings on the forum. This email claims that I have been behaving in an irrational way “bitching about the abuse received by moderators & administrators on forums generally” because of the “recent death of his wife."
It is true that my wife is terminally ill but she is still very much alive. My posts on the forum about the campaign against Len Colby and Evan Burton are based on logic and not on any distress I am feeling as the result of the death of a loved one.
I think this rumour is an example of the thinking of what I would call the “extreme conspiracy theorist”. They cannot grasp the idea of someone supporting people in public who they disagree with about “conspiracy theories” As I appeared in the past to be a conspiracy theorist, their must have been a cause for my “irrationality”. What better reason than the death of my wife.
One part of the email made me smile. It said: “I checked out his user account, and he seems to have retreated into penning (largely unread) arcane histories of the football team he's supported as a boy: West Ham.” In other words, my distress had resulted into a retreat into childhood.
****************************************************
"This email claims that I have been behaving in an irrational way “bitching about the abuse received by moderators & administrators on forums generally” because of the “recent death of his wife."
It is true that my wife is terminally ill but she is still very much alive. My posts on the forum about the campaign against Len Colby and Evan Burton are based on logic and not on any distress I am feeling as the result of the death of a loved one."
Whomever had the sheer audacity to assume such an egregious and erroneous error in judgment should be banned for this dishonest and despicable assertion of which they had no business in relating to other forum members.
I, for one, had not received such an e-mail, and rightly so. For, whomever this person is, they most assuredly must know that I would have read the riot act to them with regard to HIPAA Regulations, here in the States, which hold patient privacy above and beyond dispensation for public knowledge. I also would look to John Simkin, himself, as the bearer of any news concerning his wife's health matters, or the well-being of any of his family members.
I find the news of this to be reprehensible.
This was a callous act. I don't care who this person is, or even if I know them personally. And, I would most assuredly hope they were NOT a health care provider or professional, since one of the oldest, tried and true rules of this profession is, "Never assume anything, with regard to the health and well-being of your patient, or anyone else's patient. Assume nothing."
I wish Judith only the best, John. I hope you realize this. I am shocked and dismayed at this very act being committed against you and Judith.
Sincerely,
Terry
-
To the Owners of the Education Forum:
I would like to be considered for the position of moderator.
Would you please post the formal criteria for selection?
My C.V. is available upon request.
Sincerely,
Charles
Charles you can only be a moderator if we currently stock your size in hob nail jack boots. Special orders are out of the question....
Thank YOU
As an aside. I just envisioned Dopey Dwarf in Hob nailed jack boots, and almost wet my pants! Heres to you Kathy!
***********************************************
Get XXXX, Williams.
Edited for offensive language
Kathy,
Thank you very much for editing this most vulgar expression from Ms. Mauro. Not only was it shocking and appalling , I would have expected much more from a lady.
****************************************************
"...I would have expected much more from a lady."
Of course, you must be joking, Mike. Or, at the very least, expressing a little sarcasm.
BTW, don't refer to me as a lady because that's the last thing I expect to come off sounding like. Ladies are supposed to "know their place," in the relative scheme of things, now isn't that right? Whereas, I refuse to kow-tow to those conventional stereotypical roles attributed to females. Never have and never will. So don't try and pen me in with the rest of the herd because it ain't happening. You can call me whatever the hell you like, just don't call me a frigging "lady." That would be a contradiction in terms.
Thank you.
That's right Terry. A real gentleman would have known that.
***************************************************
Thanks, Mag.
You know how much those "closed mind and closed mouth" factions just love to "dis" us for being so outspoken and uppity.
Hey, where's old Myra been lately?
-
And Terry-Berry, you can kow-tow in front of me anytime!
***************************************************
But, only in front of you, CD.
You know what a wise-ass I can be.
Respectfully yours,
Your Berry
-
To the Owners of the Education Forum:
I would like to be considered for the position of moderator.
Would you please post the formal criteria for selection?
My C.V. is available upon request.
Sincerely,
Charles
Charles you can only be a moderator if we currently stock your size in hob nail jack boots. Special orders are out of the question....
Thank YOU
As an aside. I just envisioned Dopey Dwarf in Hob nailed jack boots, and almost wet my pants! Heres to you Kathy!
***********************************************
Get XXXX, Williams.
Edited for offensive language
Kathy,
Thank you very much for editing this most vulgar expression from Ms. Mauro. Not only was it shocking and appalling , I would have expected much more from a lady.
****************************************************
"...I would have expected much more from a lady."
Of course, you must be joking, Mike. Or, at the very least, expressing a little sarcasm.
BTW, don't refer to me as a lady because that's the last thing I expect to come off sounding like. Ladies are supposed to "know their place," in the relative scheme of things, now isn't that right? Whereas, I refuse to kow-tow to those conventional stereotypical roles attributed to females. Never have and never will. So don't try and pen me in with the rest of the herd because it ain't happening. You can call me whatever the hell you like, just don't call me a frigging "lady." That would be a contradiction in terms.
Thank you.
Brazil hotbed for international pedophile ring
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
Len, you argue/defend GG Allin as if you were not involved with this "POS", but you were. You went along with it and promoted it. You're so proud of this that you list it in your biography. And why would I care what "people" might think of GG Allin and his so-called music. I am wondering what "you" think of him and his music. And, yes I do think you should be taken to task for spreading this kind of vile satanic perversion to the youth. What gave you the right to spread this perversion and insanity? Your argument is identical to the US Diplomat arrested in brazil---"the victim knew what they were getting into" or "the victim liked it".
And as far as James Bevel I do know that during 1991-1994 period James Bevel went to Omaha Nebraska to organize law enforcement, media and the local population around the "child sex scandal" that broke out in 1989 around the Franklin Credit Union and Larry King. Now 15-16 years later he is in jail for the very same type of crime. Bevel worked with former Nebraska state Senator John De Camp in his efforts to bring the pedophiles to justice. Now James Bevel sits in jail over a case that was 15 years old when brought to trial. It's lucky for officials that the alleged rape/incest took place in Virginia where they have no statute of limitations on rape. I have not followed Bevel's case but I do know that he could have been set up by the very same pedophiles he was pursuing 15 years ago.
And how can I not believe that you have an association with the ADL (American Dope Lobby), your "id format" slander of LaRouche comes straight from their organization. I've read these false allegations so many times I know them like the back of my hand.