JFK was murdered by the British as part of a plot to...

[Duke Lane]

Ah, yes, high school, so aptly named!

HEY! Where'd you get my yearbook?!?

[Robert Newell]

The Beatles second LP 'With the Beatles' WAS released on Nov. 22, 1963..mmmm. Maybe the walrus was Ozzie....

[Duke Lane]

... I was joking Mike eeer Mark and I didn't mean to imply you were thinking of Duke when you made your typo because the word can't apply to him.

This is true. I have never held back a large body of water, and have no plans of doing so in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, I did do a better job of plugging holes than that little Dutch boy did, plugging three holes to his two!

[Len Colby]

Amelia was the person responsible for bringing that nasty communist MLK into Selma Alabama during the 1950s. She had been involved in civil rights before King was born.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=156227

A bit ironic because her messiah was a Communist for the duration of King's career but there is no evidence King himself subscribed to Marxism

[Len Colby]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it is my impression that although several of his closest advisers were or had been Communists and he associated with others and based on comments he made starting in 1965 or 66 was starting to advocate (democratic) Socialism there is no evidence he supported Communist.

[Terry Mauro]

Amelia was the person responsible for bringing that nasty communist MLK into Selma Alabama during the 1950s. She had been involved in civil rights before King was born.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=156227

A bit ironic because her messiah was a Communist for the duration of King's career but there is no evidence King himself subscribed to Marxism

Desperate, eh?

[Pat Speer]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that Terry's having a bit of fun. She's too independent-minded to swallow the Larouche nonsense whole. No, I'm guessing she brought this up as an ironic commentary on the recent Republican shift of tactics. As exemplified by some of Craig Lamson's posts, despite nearly everyone's initial agreement that the current financial crisis was brought about by "Wall Street greed" and the "climate of deregulation" fostered by Reagan/Bush/McCain, many conservatives are now trying to claim that the real culprits are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and those darned greedy poor people. This IS as absurd as blaming the Kennedy assassination on Bertrand Russell, who, after all, was the first major international intellectual figure to cast doubts upon the Warren Report and embrace the rantings of the otherwise-marginalized Mark Lane.

I hope I'm right. If not, Terry's bound to respond by saying that Russell's embrace of Lane was part of the plot, and designed to throw us off the trail, and that, furthermore, Mark Lane himself was witting of this. She might then cite the FBI files proving that Mark Lane had...sex. I would then be forced to ask Terry if her former employer Hugh Hefner was part of the plot, as he not only gave Jim Garrison a forum for his views, throwing Americans off the trail of the real assassins, but had, years earlier, set the table for the main course of British-flavored sex and drugs by showing the curious and not yet horny Marilyn Monroe's boobies. I might then ask her if Hugh had had Marilyn whacked (which would have been a bit of a twist, seeing as Hugh's publishing of her pictures had provoked so much whacking by others), so she could not warn Jack what was a-coming, or tell Dorothy Kilgallen what had happened on the day after it came. (Note here that Peter Lawford was the last one to talk to Monroe, and that he was...British. Perhaps then it was he who did the whacking, to shut Marilyn up before she could warn Bobby of Hugh and Bertrand's plans for whacking Jack.)

Edited October 16, 2008 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that Terry's having a bit of fun. She's too independent-minded to swallow the Larouche nonsense whole. No, I'm guessing she brought this up as an ironic commentary on the recent Republican shift of tactics. As exemplified by some of Craig Lamson's posts, despite nearly everyone's initial agreement that the current financial crisis was brought about by "Wall Street greed" and the "climate of deregulation" fostered by Reagan/Bush/McCain, many conservatives are now trying to claim that the real culprits are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and those darned greedy poor people. This IS as absurd as blaming the Kennedy assassination on Bertrand Russell, who, after all, was the first major international intellectual figure to cast doubts upon the Warren Report and embrace the rantings of the otherwise-marginalized Mark Lane.

I hope I'm right. If not, Terry's bound to respond by saying that Russell's embrace of Lane was part of the plot, and designed to throw us off the trail, and that, furthermore, Mark Lane himself was witting of this. She might then cite the FBI files proving that Mark Lane had...sex. I would then be forced to ask Terry if her former employer Hugh Hefner was part of the plot, as he not only gave Jim Garrison a forum for his views, throwing Americans off the trail of the real assassins, but had, years earlier, set the table for the main course of British-flavored sex and drugs by showing the curious and not yet horny Marilyn Monroe's boobies. I might then ask her if Hugh had had Marilyn whacked (which would have been a bit of a twist, seeing as Hugh's publishing of her pictures had provoked so much whacking by others), so she could not warn Jack what was a-coming, or tell Dorothy Kilgallen what had happened on the day after it came. (Note here that Peter Lawford was the last one to talk to Monroe, and that he was...British. Perhaps then it was he who did the whacking, to shut Marilyn up before she could tell Bobby Hugh and Bertrand's plans for whacking Jack.)

still in Hollywood, Pat? When does the show start or is this intermission?

Edited October 16, 2008 by David G. Healy

[Terry Mauro]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that Terry's having a bit of fun. She's too independent-minded to swallow the Larouche nonsense whole. No, I'm guessing she brought this up as an ironic commentary on the recent Republican shift of tactics. As exemplified by some of Craig Lamson's posts, despite nearly everyone's initial agreement that the current financial crisis was brought about by "Wall Street greed" and the "climate of deregulation" fostered by Reagan/Bush/McCain, many conservatives are now trying to claim that the real culprits are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and those darned greedy poor people. This IS as absurd as blaming the Kennedy assassination on Bertrand Russell, who, after all, was the first major international intellectual figure to cast doubts upon the Warren Report and embrace the rantings of the otherwise-marginalized Mark Lane.

I hope I'm right. If not, Terry's bound to respond by saying that Russell's embrace of Lane was part of the plot, and designed to throw us off the trail, and that, furthermore, Mark Lane himself was witting of this. She might then cite the FBI files proving that Mark Lane had...sex. I would then be forced to ask Terry if her former employer Hugh Hefner was part of the plot, as he not only gave Jim Garrison a forum for his views, throwing Americans off the trail of the real assassins, but had, years earlier, set the table for the main course of British-flavored sex and drugs by showing the curious and not yet horny Marilyn Monroe's boobies. I might then ask her if Hugh had had Marilyn whacked (which would have been a bit of a twist, seeing as Hugh's publishing of her pictures had provoked so much whacking by others), so she could not warn Jack what was a-coming, or tell Dorothy Kilgallen what had happened on the day after it came. (Note here that Peter Lawford was the last one to talk to Monroe, and that he was...British. Perhaps then it was he who did the whacking, to shut Marilyn up before she could tell Bobby Hugh and Bertrand's plans for whacking Jack.)

Pat,

Have you ever read Bertrand Russell's cables sent to JFK during the Cuban Missiles Crisis? They are quite eye opening. Russell had no love for John F. Kennedy or the United States. They are still available from the JFK library.

Did you also know that Bertie Russell was the leading figure in setting up the nuclear standoff called MAD between the US and Soviets? He convened a series of conferences called "Pugwash" starting in the late 1950'. In attendance were leading Soviet officials along with the likes of McGeorge Bundy, along with Bundy's protege, a young Henry Kissinger, both of whom made up the Mutually Assured Destruction devotees inside the Kennedy administration. Kennedy had to finally fire Kissinger on the grounds that he was "insane".

You might want to listen to this 2003 radio show for further education on Bertrand Russell.

http://asx.ljcentral.net/wms/eir/tls/2003/...31122_en_hi.asx

Edited October 16, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Mike Tribe]

There you go again! The Pugwash Conference -- which was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for its efforts on nuclear disarmament -- was responsible for MAD!!!! And Bertrand Russell, a life-long pacifist who went to jail during World War I as a conscientious objector and was a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, was a leading advocate of nuclear build-up, not to mention the person behind a secret British plot to assassinate Kennedy. Oh, dear....

[Terry Mauro]

There you go again! The Pugwash Conference -- which was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995 for its efforts on nuclear disarmament -- was responsible for MAD!!!! And Bertrand Russell, a life-long pacifist who went to jail during World War I as a conscientious objector and was a founding member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, was a leading advocate of nuclear build-up, not to mention the person behind a secret British plot to assassinate Kennedy. Oh, dear....

Hadnt the Soviet Union collapse by 1995? From 1945 to 1989 the world was under the the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. That was Bertrand Russell's policy.

Maybe you might want to review the "freakout" against President Reagan after he announced his SDI program to national television audience March 23, 1983. Reagan's proposal would have made nuclear weapons obsolete. Had Reagan's policy been pursued it would have meant the end to Russell's MAD policy.

PS- Bertie Russell called for a preemptive nuclear strike agains the Soviet Union. Now that's some kind of peacenick. Much like the "hippies" of the 1960's, eh?

From the Bertrand Russell Society

From 1945 to 1949, he employed a tactic of anti-Soviet rhetoric, claiming to prefer war to Soviet domination (Lackey, pp. 245-6; Clark, chapter 19). To his later embarrassment, he proposed a policy of threatening the Soviets with a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Ryan notes (p. 186), "... unlike theorists of the just war (traditionally), he did not think that it was wicked to threaten what it would be wicked to do" (p. 186). Yet Russell insisted that to pursue his goals he was in fact once prepared to use atomic weapons against the Soviets (as he says in a 1959 BBC interview published in The Listener, March 19, 1959, quoted by Clark, pp. 528-9 and Lackey, p. 246, n. 8).

Bertrand Russell became a "peace nick" only after the Soviets came up with their own nuclear capability. You're a great educator! What Russell really wanted was to take control of nuclear weapons placing them under international tribunals controlled by the "elite'. This was his wet dream, to use the threat of nuclear weapons to destroy the idea of sovereign nations, placing them under control of world government.

QUOTE:

Thus, although Russell spoke out forcefully in 1945, his anti-nuclear crusade really entered a new phase in 1949, after the Soviets exploded a bomb of their own. It is worth remembering, to put his own immense contributions in perspective, that other movements of scientists were active in the late 1940's. Russell did not work in isolation. In September 1945, a group of British scientists (for example) involved in developing the Bomb advised the government that "the advent of this new weapon of destruction ought to be the signal for renewed efforts to achieve lasting world peace." (Wittner, p. 89)

Edited October 16, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Terry Mauro]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and propose that Terry's having a bit of fun. She's too independent-minded to swallow the Larouche nonsense whole. No, I'm guessing she brought this up as an ironic commentary on the recent Republican shift of tactics. As exemplified by some of Craig Lamson's posts, despite nearly everyone's initial agreement that the current financial crisis was brought about by "Wall Street greed" and the "climate of deregulation" fostered by Reagan/Bush/McCain, many conservatives are now trying to claim that the real culprits are Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and those darned greedy poor people. This IS as absurd as blaming the Kennedy assassination on Bertrand Russell, who, after all, was the first major international intellectual figure to cast doubts upon the Warren Report and embrace the rantings of the otherwise-marginalized Mark Lane.

I hope I'm right. If not, Terry's bound to respond by saying that Russell's embrace of Lane was part of the plot, and designed to throw us off the trail, and that, furthermore, Mark Lane himself was witting of this. She might then cite the FBI files proving that Mark Lane had...sex. I would then be forced to ask Terry if her former employer Hugh Hefner was part of the plot, as he not only gave Jim Garrison a forum for his views, throwing Americans off the trail of the real assassins, but had, years earlier, set the table for the main course of British-flavored sex and drugs by showing the curious and not yet horny Marilyn Monroe's boobies. I might then ask her if Hugh had had Marilyn whacked (which would have been a bit of a twist, seeing as Hugh's publishing of her pictures had provoked so much whacking by others), so she could not warn Jack what was a-coming, or tell Dorothy Kilgallen what had happened on the day after it came. (Note here that Peter Lawford was the last one to talk to Monroe, and that he was...British. Perhaps then it was he who did the whacking, to shut Marilyn up before she could warn Bobby of Hugh and Bertrand's plans for whacking Jack.)

Deregulation was a major feature of the Jimmy Carter administration- Trucking, airlines, they were de regulated under Jimmy Carter. Paul Volcker was brought in as head of the Federal Reserve under Carter where he proceeded to jack interest rates t0 20% killing off industrial companies and shifting credit to speculative ventures.

PS- I believe Peter Lawford sat on the board of Hugh Hefners "Playboy Foundation" where they push for drug legalization among other niceties. Lawford was the Kennedy family representative on Hefner foundation because it was thought to be too sensitive to the Kennedy image to have a Kennedy seated on the board.

http://www.independent-magazine.org/node/545/print

http://www.nationalfamilies.org/legalization/norml1979.html

And speaking of Jimmy Carter, Hugh Hefner, Playboy Foundation and NORML

Here's a pic with drug legalization fanatic Phil Waldon of Capricorn Records and good ol Jimmy Carter.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/101...eer_walden_dies

Edited October 16, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Pat Speer]

Terry, how does your former hero Che Guevara connect to all this? It seems he must be involved, someway, somehow.

[Terry Mauro]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it is my impression that although several of his closest advisers were or had been Communists and he associated with others and based on comments he made starting in 1965 or 66 was starting to advocate (democratic) Socialism there is no evidence he supported Communist.

Exactly my point -- you said "there is no evidence King himself subscribed to Marxism." I said there is such evidence, assuming that "Marxism" refers to a philosophy or system of thought expounded by Charlie Marx; a foundational system of thought for practically all socialist movements and parties for the past 150 years or so. Marx's critical analysis of industrial capitalism and the concepts he used to describe it are widely accepted as generally accurate among many people describing themselves as socialist. So in that sense almost anyone advocating socialism is someone who "subscribes to Marxism." But apparently "Marxism" as you originally used the term meant "Communism" or "Marxist-Leninism" or at any rate the ideology of the ruling party in the Soviet Union, "Red" China, their satellite regimes and Communist parties in other parts of the world.

According to Garrow's bio (p.43), early in life King came to believe Marx's analysis of the economic side of capitalism was correct (he would dispute the materialism inherent in Marxist theory). Later King had to keep such views private, for obvious reasons, but by the end of his life he was clearly focused on things like poverty being inherent in the system; the need to shake up institutionalized power structures that did nothing about it; advocating a guaranteed annual income; etc.

Getting back near the topic, it's hardly surprising LaRouche (thought he) was a Communist in the 1960s; it fits with his image of himself as a genius radical of some sort, and he's not the first supposed Leftist whose authoritarian tendencies would make him comfortable in any totalitarian setting. I suppose as you seem intent on carrying on debates with people who tend to have their own definitions for things, you might want to bring up the subject of the Fabian Society. Being a darkly suspicious British phenomenon, they're also targets of the wrath of LaRouche (Remember: London -- the chief enemy of the U.S.A. and civilization generally)

http://www.larouchepub.com/lym/2007/3429ly...uth_africa.html

.....Not only was [Cecil] Rhodes a mega-imperialist and a true forerunner of Al Gore -- both dedicated servants of the British Empire -- but he was also the founder of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table of Great Britain, the sole purpose of which was to establish the British Commonwealth of Nations and ultimately thereby, to bring the world under the domination of a restored British Empire.

One of the founders of the Round Table, H.G. Wells, a former member of the Fabian Society, laid out his vision for a one-world dictatorship in The Shape of Things to Come, in which he envisions that nation-states, after exposure to a prolonged World War II scenario, will submit themselves to world government. Lord Alfred Milner, Rhodes' successor as head of the Round Table, envisaged white supremacy as a principle of world government. He once remarked of himself, "My patriotism knows no geographical but only racial limits. I am a British Race patriot."

In the LYM [LaRouche Youth Movement] discussion, it was brought out that this racist monster at the very center of the British Empire, can only be truly understood as the continuation of the Venetian System with its secret-government reign of terror, and that the key purpose of its continuation today is the destruction of the United States and the American System of economics. The Fabian Society, the Round Table, and the synarchists, as Lyndon LaRouche has underlined explicitly, were all created to destroy the United States and the American System from the inside. It is explicitly against this Venetian enemy, that the U.S. founding fathers laid down the Declaration of Independence and later the American Constitution, to break with the, looting from the British Empire [sic.[1]

[1] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment, 1981.....

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/05/27...ian-interv.html

"'68 Was a Show, Orchestated By Intelligence Services" -- Russian Interview With LaRouche

May 26 (EIRNS) -- The prominent Moscow magazine Russky Zhurnal (Russian Journal) today published Nikita Kurkin's interview of Lyndon LaRouche on the occasion of the 40th anniversity [sic] of the May 1968 student strikes in Paris, which touched off a sequence of destabilizations of European nations, in parallel with similar events in the U.S.A. In his replies, which Russky Zhurnal includes in full, LaRouche identified the pathology of the now-ruling Baby Boomer generation, as rooted in the post-war period when FDR's commitment to freeing the world from Anglo-Dutch oligarchism was overturned by Harry S Truman and other tools of the British Empire.

.....Following are LaRouche's original English replies, which have now been published in this same order, in Russian translation, by Russky Zhurnal in Russian translation. [sic]

LYNDON LAROUCHE: It is virtually impossible to present a reply to your questions which would be useful, without first introducing some essential comments on the historical background for those events, for your information, to use or reference as you may choose: information essential to understand the immediate threat from Britain and its U.S. agents to both the continued existence of constitutional government in the U.S.A. and the massive global warfare intended by London at this immediate juncture, whose included leading targets are Russia, China, and India.

Until the day President Franklin Roosevelt died, U.S. policy for the post-war world was to eliminate all forms of colonialism, especially the Anglo-Dutch Liberal forms, through aid of both U.S.A. physical-economic power, and the conversion of the great economic capabilities developed for the war against Nazism, into economic power for development of the nations to emerge from their liberation from sundry forms of imperial subjugation. We knew, as Franklin Roosevelt knew precisely, that Mussolini and Hitler were creations of London, and that London was the chief enemy of the U.S.A. and civilization generally.

However, already, in the Summer of 1944, a sharp right-wing turn had erupted in the U.S.A. and Fabian Society circles in London, as typified by the Nazi SS veteran Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and the circles represented by Britain's Prince Philip today. [[Nooooo!!!! Not Prince Philip!!!!!]] The Allied breakthrough at Normandy, which secured the inevitable defeat of Hitler, was the signal for the right-wing turn from the same Transatlantic financier and Fabian circles which had originally created and installed Benito Mussolini and Hitler. For example, the grandfather of the present U.S.A. President, who, as an agent of Harriman's financial house, had activated the credit to rescue Hitler to become the appointed Chancellor of Germany. The right-wing surge inside the wealthy financier circles of the U.S.A. was an echo of the same network which had supported, first, Mussolini, and then Hitler. To secure his reelection, Roosevelt was forced to adopt the right-wing Truman, a Churchill stooge, as Vice-President; Roosevelt assumed that he would live long enough to overcome the problem which a Vice-President Truman would represent.

Thus, we had the right-wing turn which erupted in the latter half of 1944 and 1945. Thus, first, whereas FDR had been anti-colonialist, Truman defended British and Dutch colonialism, although sometimes in altered forms. The plan for a "preventive nuclear attack" on the Soviet Union, which was authored openly by Bertrand Russell, and the launching of cultural warfare in such forms as existentialist conspiracies and the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), were typical.

Most notable in this conditioning of the U.S.A. and European populations of the post-1945-46 interval, was the use of the nuclear-warfare posture against the Soviet Union as the pretext for building up a vast "internal security" apparatus. This latter apparatus, among its other features, used security-clearance standards to regulate the economic lives of families of "white collar" professionals, and relevant others, beyond those limits within which stricter surveillance and regulation was imposed.

This combination of post-1943 developments and circumstances was the foundation of the shaping of the minds of the "white collar" class in the U.S.A., and in western and central Europe. This set of circumstances created the social formation known today as the "white-collar"-rooted generation of those born between 1945 and 1958, the so-called "baby boomer" generation.

I was the first to diagnose the "new violence" segment of the Baby Boomer generation as essentially "fascist" in its social inclinations. This was based on my close study of developments at Columbia University and similar locations during the late Spring and Summer of 1968. I published a report titled "The New Left, Social Control, and Fascism" in June-July 1968. I compared the anarchoid element, involved in the second Columbia University strike-action, with the way in which the German Communist Party and the Nazi Party were repeatedly exchanging large chunks of their memberships during the famous Berlin trolley-car general strike.

Russky Zhurnal: 1968 the historical event and 1968 the myth: how are the two related?

LAROUCHE: The development of the so-called "New Left" generations in the Americas and Europe, were not "spontaneous" social eruptions, but were orchestrated developments, always under the fine-tuning control of relevant security organizations. The leading political forces in both leading U.S. political parties are of the "Baby Boomer/1968er" characteristics typified by the British Fabians and the model of former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. They are radical Malthusians, whose role has been the destruction of the economy and sanity of the population of the most politically and culturally influential stratum of the U.S.A., from the relevant section of the children of the "white collar" class born between 1945 and the depths of the U.S. deep economic recession of 1957-58. The lower eighty percentile of family income-brackets in the U.S.A. are reduced to choosing among both physical and mental items presented for consumption by the presumptive "ruling class," composed largely of hard-core "sixty-eighters" in positions of either power or great influence.

Russky Zhurnal: What is your evaluation of the political and socio-cultural consequences of the 1968 events for the West, and chiefly for the USA?

LAROUCHE: If we identify "British Empire" properly, as being the domain controlled by a network of financier elements similar to Venice's Fourteenth Century "Lombard League," the only significant political menace against civilization today is that "British Empire." This is the new form of expression of what used to be called a reign of "universal fascism," as in the case of the Nazi "Allgemeine SS."

Russky Zhurnal: How politically relevant are the 1968 events for today's agenda?

LAROUCHE: If one does not understand the nature and significance of today's "68er" phenomenon, no competent grasp of current world history is possible today.

Didnt you go on a christian fundy rant about a year ago on this forum? I seem to remember it.

LaRouche has never called MLK a communist. You need to follow Colby's tricks a little closer. Then you might see what he's up to.

It's ironic you use the label "authoritarian" to describe LaRouche. Can you tell me what it means, and how you know it to be accurate or true. I am going through the same issue with Sir Rubbish Colby from Brazil by way of the NYC punk scene. He's a green party advocate so maybe his patrons in Brazil will let him set up a T-shirt business and XXXXX factory in the Brazilian rainforest? Cause that's art, you know. And eco friendly.

Here's a 16 year old piece on the Frankfurt School. You arent even aware that you adopted this "feeling" about LaRouche from this band of social planners. You try and come off as a LaRouche expert when you dont even know your own mind. Tsk, tsk.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96..._frankfurt.html

And what precisely did you disagree with in the articles/interviews you posted? Was HG Wells not a member of the Fabian Society, was the British Empire really a friend to the United States ? Just exactly, what do you disagree with?

(EDITED: Removal of offensive language.)

Edited October 17, 2008 by Kathy Beckett

[Terry Mauro]

No, Terry.

I have zero interest in any "debate" with you.

Sincerely.

No response, that figures.