Have been reading transcripts of EIR radio:

http://www.larouchepub.com/eir_talks/index.html

Start from July 14th on.

Not terribly interested in his political nomination references; however, the facts are incredibly stimulating (understatement).

After you read the 14th and the 21st; y2k? what's that?

-- I'm (with@titude.now), August 27, 1999

Answers

He is interesting to listen too, but I have often wondered if his elevator went to the top. Haven't decided yet.

-- rambo (rambo@thewoods.com), August 27, 1999.

Can't personally offer any opinions of the man. But the *experts* featured on these talks are clearly well-informed. Take time to print and read them sloooooowly.

-- I'm (with@titude.now), August 27, 1999.

If you take the LaRouchie shills seriously, I can get you some great deals on any of several bridges. :-)

Oh yes, stimulating "facts". Made to order for their boss.

Looks like the folks in LaRouchie land are really desperate for attention.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 27, 1999.

Separating the politics from the economic discussions, I've too found that their analysis tends to dovetail the more transparent economic discussions found elsewhere (& with different or no political agenda) on the web. Quite interesting.

Check out Kitco forum, USAGold forum, Le Metropolie Cafe, Gold Eagle editorials, Reuters, International Herald Tribune - the LaRouche material isn't that much different in substance.

Only a very few will think after following these discussions for several months that the markets, currencies, precious metals, banks, and the like are free from pernicious meddling.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), August 27, 1999.

I can see it now: LaRouche for pres, with Ross Perot as his VP. (The "NUTZ" party!)

Yup. I think ol' Lyndon is WAAAAAYYYYY out there.... Different galaxy than the rest of us.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 27, 1999.

Why is LaRouche a nut? Can someone substantiate that? With Waco coming to the fore, and the hideous libels (Whacko, child molester, etc.) offered along with the government lies to conceal that mass-murder, we should all be impatient with unsubstantiated attacks on character. If you can offer specific examples of how and why LaRouche is nutty (or sensible) it would be helpful.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 27, 1999.

i agree with Liberty.. The demonizing is just pathetic and commits one of the most obvious fallacies in trying to argue a point.. please give some examples of why LaRouche is "nuts". Is it the conspiracy theories??? Hillary believes in a "right-wing" conspiracy against her. I guess that makes her nuts too!!!

-- gary (anom@nowhere.gov), August 27, 1999.

Nuts? That's putting it much too kindly. The content of his publications provides abundant evidence that not just LaRouche, but also his fawning LaRouchies, make Inspector Clouseau look like James Bond.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 27, 1999.

Okay, very cinematic. But where's the beef?

Enough name-calling already. Somebody please tell me what is the core fallacy of LaRouche's belief system. I really want to know.

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 27, 1999.

Here's what I "know" about Lyndon LaRouche:

• He ran for president once on the Libertarian ticket.
• I heard him on the radio briefly once, He sounded lucid.
• The Govmnt put him in jail for mail fraud or campaign fraud or something like that. He denied any wrong doing and said he was really a political prisoner convicted on trumped up evidence.

I would like to know more about him too.

Berry

-- Berry Picker (BerryPicking@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.

Uh Oh, I just read the link at the top of this thread. I have to take back that part about lucid.... Wow - this guy can ramble/babble.

Berry

-- Berry Picker (BerryPicking@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.

Berry,

Wrong ticket, not the Libertarian party.

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 27, 1999.

For anyone having difficulty figuring out that the LaRouchies are off the wall:

Just a few samples of some LaRouchie insanity: "90% of political power", "to save hedge funds", labelling $300 trillion as "gambling debts" and simply declaring them "null and void", and then, in case you still haven't figured it out, "Government takes over", with LaRouche in charge of the government, of course. Yes, calling him nuts is putting it much too mildly. If you still can't figure it out, don't give up your day job.

Jerry

From the Aug 18 EIR, LaRouchie Nancy Spannaus says:

And therefore, these are the powers that are actually carrying this out. What most Americans really don't get, and which Mr. LaRouche is constantly stressing, is that the major global power on this planet is not the United States. It lies in London. It lies in the grouping around the British financial oligarchy. They control about 90 percent of the political power. They control an enormous percentage--you know, certainly much over 50 percent--of the basic economic power, including the financial flows internationally.

From the July 14 EIR, LaRouchie Richard Freeman says:

On June 15th, the Bank of Japan intervenes, after coordinating with the Federal Reserve of Alan Greenspan and the Bank of England of Eddie George, and intervenes to push the yen down to save hedge funds from losing on their position!

From the Aug 6 EIR, the banana in chief himself says:

So, the first thing we do as sovereign nations, is we declare that all gambling debts, including derivatives and junk bonds, are now retroactively declared to be null and void. No one among us will ever honor again, any gambling debts, such as financial derivatives and junk bonds. Now, that does the positive thing of taking at least $300 trillion of current financial debt out of the world system. If you don't do that, there is no possibility of reorganizing society, and saving civilization. That's the price. You cancel $300 trillion, approximately, of gambling debts, such as financial derivatives, and say that they are null and void as if they had never existed--which sovereign governments can do, if they're perfectly sovereign and if they represent nations which represent the majority of the human race, that's a pretty good decision, about as good as you can get on this planet. That's the beginning.

What about the rest of the junk? Put it into bankruptcy reorganization. Freeze it. Freeze the accounts. Terminate interest payments on these accounts. End it. Government takes over. The government puts each part of its society into generalized bankruptcy reorganization under state supervision. You want to survive, you're going to do that. If you don't do it, you're not going to survive. You have no choice. The comet has reached the Sun. You have no choice.

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 28, 1999.

Jerry - sounds like a plan!!! He's right in that London is the source of all financial games - they are poulling the strings, always have done. London also pulls the strings with regard to the American Presidency. Of course he would be assasinated before he could do anything, were he ever voted into power...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.

Lyndon LaRouche---the man who says that "the Holocaust is a Zionist hoax", that Queen Elizabeth is a drug dealer and that the British monarchy were the real Oklahoma bombers. His pathological hatred of Jews has made him very cozy with Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam.

Here are a couple of links of interest for those who might want to do a little reading about who LaRouche is, and what he represents:

Link

Link

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 28, 1999.

Andy,

I suppose that Londoners might be flattered to be told that their leading gang of scoundrels somehow dominates most of whatever is worth dominating in the world, including most or all of the other gangs of scoundrels in the world. However, it seems to me that any rationale that could reach that conclusion, could reach almost any conclusion.

In any case, even if someone chose to accept such a conclusion, they might find it useful to avoid mentioning that that conclusion is shared by such professional basket cases as LaRouche. :-)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 28, 1999.

Re LaRouche:
Excellent analysis of problems.
Merely a different brand of fascism promoted to fix many of them.

If you really think voting does any good (I don't), vote Libertarian.
(BTW: LaRouche is not a libertarian and never ran on the national Libertarian Party ticket.)

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 28, 1999.

I have been reading the Larouche material for years. There has never been anything in their literature which is anti-Jewish in any way. Ruok, you imbecile, you provided a link to info provided by the ADL. It is a well proven fact that the ADL is composed of criminal mobsters who are also agents of the Mossad. Anyone who does not genuflect before the Zionist lobby will be labeled as "anti-Semitic" by those guys.

As for the Queen of England and the drug trade, study the opium wars of the 19th century and see how the Brit monarchy destroyed the Chinese civilization.

-- Joe O (ozarkjoe@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

RUOK,

Thanks. As I read this, I have to agree he's orbital. But, especially with regard to the anglo-american banking establishment (see Carrol Quigley), I'm reminded of the saying "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." As for drugs, what powerblock is NOT dealing drugs these days...

I don't know that I'd drag the Queen Mum into it, though...

Liberty

-- Liberty (liberty@theready.now), August 28, 1999.

Jerry et al,

I assure you that London is the epicentre of corruption. It's a no brainer :)

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 28, 1999.

Andy,

:)

Jerry

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), August 28, 1999.

There you go again Andy, with your meaningless one liners (that is, when you aren't quoting others, and trying to bask in the glow of their ability to string more than two sentences together). Could you please tell me, us, exactly what you mean by, "London is the epicentre of corruption". In your own words. Did you read it somewhere, and it sounded good, so it's worth repeating? Come on matey, give it a go! Just 4 or 5 succinct paragraphs, putting us in the picture. And if you do, I promise I'll apologise for thinking that you remind me of one of those little fish that swim around the head of a shark, picking up morsels, and looking VERY important. Your old pommy mate, Porky

-- Porky (not in a cell) (Sceptically @yours.com), August 29, 1999.

Porky - my challenged friend - don't worry about it. I am mistaken - it's a figment of my imagination. All power resides in Boise, Idaho.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 29, 1999.

Porky - check out the british political/royalty/secret service/financial machinations in the books advertised on this site. this will get you started and perhaps put Larouche's claims in context. plenty more material where this came from - it's up to you if you believe it and delve deeper or not... What is your background/ Perhaps you can shed some light on the CFR, Bilderburg group, Committee of 300, the Rhodes Scholarship system, the US President/British Monarchy bloodline connection etc.

http://www.davidicke.com/icke/index.html

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 29, 1999.

Come out come out wherever you are PORKY!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 30, 1999.

Pork,

Here is another one wich I find very detailed and extensive. It's only a mere 1500 pages if you print it, but by the tone of your print, I'm sure it's all fodder.

http://www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy/conspiracy.html

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

FYI all: There is no necessary connection between fascism and anti-semitism. That was 'merely' a peculiar manifestation of Nazi (national socialist) Germany. Italy was also a self-avowd fascist state at the time (under Mussolini).

Fascism is one variant of collectivism, which holds that all resources, material and human, belong to the state (the collective). Welfare-statism, socialism, communism, fascism... are all variations of collectivism.

Communism is the variant where all (at least all major) means of production are owned by the state, and run by state functionaries.

Socialism is the variant where a little less may be owned by the state. There is no ESSENTIAL difference between socialism and communism, though socialism may not have quite as heavy a hand. Remember that the USSR (Russian and other republics) were united (by force) into the USSR, meaning "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics").

Note that I can no longer find a reference to USSR in some of my latest reference books. They refer simply to the "former Soviet Union", leaving out "Socialist". Anyone recall the "memory hole in George Orwell's "1984"? [So I if interchanged 'Soviet' and 'Socialist' above, that's why].

Now as to fascism, FASCISM IS THE VARIATION OF COLLECTIVISM HERE IN THE UNITED STATES and most countries in the world. There are some elements of socialism, such as postal service, communications, national parks, etc. (depending on the country). But the main thrust of fascism is nominal private ownership of resources, but the government tells you what you can and cannot do with them.

What kind or signage can you put on your storefront? What strength of encryption products can you export? How much money can you withdraw from a bank, and if what manner before you are targeted for "structuring" charges? What kind of dope can you do? (Alchohol and tobacco OK, sort of; caffeine, fine; bennies, maybe; pot and coke (an original ingredient of coca-cola), no-no.) What part of your body can you use in which of someone else's orifice(s) can you use? Who can you sell even the legal drugs to? During what hours? With or withour food? How much you got to pay for permits and licenses to braid hair, push cuticles? How many square inches of buttocks showing on the beach is OK; how many a no-no? Who gets the government franchises for telephone service, cable TV, sports stadiums, radio station frequency assignments? Who decides that the greek/latin terms are OK, maybe, but not the Anglo-Saxon equivalents (e.g., "penis" vs. "cock")? Do you have to pay overtime over 40 hours in a week, or over 8 hours in a day, even if not 40 hours a week? Why 40 hours? Minimum wage of $5.15 (whatever) decreed -- why not $5.17 -- whose business is it?
I've run out of steam on this

Back to Nazis and anti-semitism: Every government or power seeking group (like the major religions) need scapegoats. For Germany it was the Jews. For Fundamentalist Christians, it IS the Jews. For Muslims, it's the Jews (and Christians). For Jews, its the "goys". For Catholics it's the Protestants and vice versa.

Be sure to arrive at work on time so you can participate in the mandated "hate sessions" ("1984" by George Orwell)

-- A (A@AisA.com), August 30, 1999.

R wright is right, Douzzer has possibly THE best take on all things conspiritorial. By the way there's no shame in being a "conspiracy nut". If you believe that the intelligence agencies, the finance industry, old, old money, organised crime and trans-national interlocking directorates have more power (and thus, are more noteworthy) than the deMOBlicans on teevee, then voila!, you're a "conspiracy nut." It's a badge of honour these days. Doesn't mean you believe the freemasons (in conjunction with the saucer people and the reverse-vampires) are projecting mind control beams through the hubble telescope to make everyone obedient, or anything like that. It just means you realise that power is routinely exercised in relative secrecy, because secrecy amplifies or facilitates that power. It's natural, sort of.

-- number six (Iam_not_a_number@ .), August 31, 1999.

A,

Are those your own definitions of fascism, communism, and socialism? This is not a bait post, I really want to know.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

number-six,

(i can't write that without thinking of that song by Iron Maiden)

His name is "Author: Daniel Pouzzner (douzzer@ai.mit.edu)"

Just trying to help.

Lett the 10 begin.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.