I would like to put to bed one Anti-Larouche canard

[Allah Akbar]

Every time I see someone start a thread on this site asking legitimate questions about Lyndon LaRouche I see the same people making the same statements about him being crazy for thinking that Queen Elizabeth could have a hand in the international drug trade.

Those who don't observe history are doomed to repeat it, so in interest of getting the Big Picture out there I would like to introduce people top a little thing known as the Opium Wars, also known as the Anglo-Chinese War.

The british government was a drug dealer, how one can out of hand dismiss the possibility that such things are still going on as "crazy talk" with "no basis in reality" is something I hope to rectify.

All you need to do is type Opium Wars into google, but for those not so inclined, here are a few links chosen at random from reputable sources

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/OPIUM.HTM

http://www2.cnn.com/WORLD/9706/hk97/past/opium.wars/

http://www.oldnewspublishing.com/opium.htm

In view of the fact that the British government controlled the illegal drug trade in the not so recent past, I would like someone to explain to me how the possiblity that this still might be going on is "crazy talk"

This is not even bringing up the fact that the Bush family and the CIA are the largest importer and marketers of illegal drugs in the United States today.

[jiacinto]

1. LaRouche is bad news

Period.

[Allah Akbar]

4. Insightful and well stated as always

Period

[robcon]

42. LaRouche is a crazy man

and his conspiracies on conspiracies are the ravings of a lunatic. He's also a criminal, having been found to a direct credit card scam on people who contribute to him via credit cards.

[Walt Starr]

2. I would vote for George W. Bush before Lyndon LaRouche

Larouche represents the schizophrenic wing of the Democratic Party, IMO.

As for Queen Elizabeth suppoirting the drug trade, that is so absurd on its face it doesn't deserve a response.

[Allah Akbar]

12. I just provided three links out of literally thousands

that prove that the idea is NOT absurd on its face.

[Walt Starr]

16. No, you provided links that the British were involved in the opium trade

over a century ago.

Your argument is fallacious.

My assertions stand, to claim that Queen Elizabeth is involved in the drug trade is absurd on its face.

The intial positive assertion was made by LaRouche. LaRouche is under the burden of proof and NOT A WHIT OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ASSERTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED!

[Allah Akbar]

18. And why even look into it, since it's absurd on its face

That Bush might have had a hand in 911 is absurd on it's face too.

[Walt Starr]

20. Until there is supporting evidence, yes it is.

Again, the fact that the British were involved in the opium trade over a century ago has absolutely nothing to do with LaRopuche's assertion.

Trot out your evidence that Queen Elizabeth is involved in the drug trade.

Trot out your evidence that Bush and the CIA are the biggest drug smugglers in America.

You can't. There is no evidence, just like there is no evidence available to show Bush was involved in 9/11.

Until there is evidence supporting those assertions, they all remain absurd on their collective faces.

[Allah Akbar]

22. And as long as everyone is content to dismiss it as

absurd there is never going to be any evidence.

[Walt Starr]

24. Raising assertions does nothing without evidence

Trot out your evidence or LaRouche remains a whack job for the false assertion.

[Allah Akbar]

25. You've honestly never seen any evidence that the CIA

traffics in drugs? You must not be looking very hard. Matter of fact we even went to war in Panama to protect their asses, must have missed that.

My premise wan't that LaRouche was right nor not right. My premise was that it is not just "crazy talk" that it might be the case. I see it as an attempt to stifle views, just like Arie Liar talking about a Grassy Knoll is to try and silence people.

Oh, turns out Cynthia McKinney was right about a lot of things, too. But she was pretty well shut up by the same line of reasoning.

[Walt Starr]

26. Without evidence, it is crazy talk to assert that Queen Elizabeth

is involved in the drug trade.

No, I have never seen a whit of evidence that the CIA is involved in the drug trade either.

Trot some out or you have yet to put this to bed.

[Eloriel]

39. C'mon, Walt

The CIA has been involved in drug-running for decades. Go do a google, for heaven's sake.

There was an award-winning series by Gary Webb in the San Jose Mercury News in the 90s on the subject.

Here are the several bookmarks I've made on the subject of the CIA and drug trafficking:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70916FA3C5E0C708DDDAB0894DB404482
National Desk | February 13, 2003, Thursday
Jury Gives Award to Drug Agents Transferred After Accusations

(NYT) 513 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 35 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Jury awards $1.5 million to John McLaughlin and Charles Micewski, state narcotics agents in Pennsylvania who say they were tranferred in 1996 after reporting that drug-trafficking ring was diverting profits to CIA-supported Dominican presidential candidate Jose Francisco Pena Gomez; agents said federal government allowed Pena Gomez, who died in 1998, to return to Dominican Republic with $500,000 in drug profits after 1995 fund-raising trip (M) A jury has ruled for two state narcotics agents who accused a former Pennsylvania attorney general of transferring them after they said a drug-trafficking ring was diverting profits to a C.I.A.-supported Dominican presidential candidate.

A federal jury in Wilkes-Barre awarded $1.5 million to the agents, John McLaughlin and Charles Micewski, after a trial last week. The verdict capped more than five years of litigation.

-----

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/hargrove.html
C I A N A R C O T I C S:
Dr. John Newman Finds Smoking Guns In Federal Files

------

This is your Government on Drugs
http://www.conspire.com/drugscia2.html

snip

Between 1946, when Luciano set up his heroin shop, and 1952, the addict total in the U.S. tripled, then jumped to 150,000 by 1965, due primarily to the efforts of Luciano's new operation. Six years later, that number had doubled and nearly doubled again, the addict population topping half a million. The epidemic is often attributed to the Woodstock generation and the proliferation of hedonistic hippies, but the CIA's partnership with opium-growing Laotian warlords probably has as much to do with it. The CIA's covert operation in Laos during the Vietnam War remains the largest it has ever staged. The "Golden Triangle," Laos, northern Thailand, and Burma, is where seventy percent of the world's opium comes from. Much of the raw opium goes to Marseilles and Sicily, where Corsican and Mafia gangs have laboratories to turn it into heroin for sale by the Luciano-founded crime syndicate. The CIA's own thinly disguised cover airline, Air America, flew raw opium in and out of Laos, as a way of financing the illegal Laotian war without going to Congress. Much of the heroin manufactured from the CIA-couriered base was sold to American servicemen in Southeast Asia, who developed a widespread heroin problem.

In the fall of 1990, a book called Kiss The Boys Goodbye, coauthored by intelligence expert William Stevenson and his wife Monica (a former "60 Minutes" reporter), documented how the CIA and the military quashed investigations into POWs left in Vietnam after the war. Many of the POWs, the book says, wereinvolved in CIA drug operations, which is why the government wasnone too eager to get them home. Conservative billionaire and later presidet candidate H. Ross Perot was charged by President Reagan with scouting out leftover POWs. Frustrated, he told then vice president George Bush, "I go looking for prisoners, but I spend all my time discovering the government has been moving drugs around the world."


-----

Here's a google page on Webb +CIA +cocaine
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Webb+CIA+cocaine

Pulled from the google search, a PBS page on Webb's story:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/october96/crack_contra_11-1.html


Eloriel

[Walt Starr]

43. Cool, evidence that the CIA deals drugs!

That proves that Queen Elizabeth deals drugs every bit as much as the first post in this thread, too!

:evilgrin:

[Terwilliger]

48. Do you know anything about what the drug business represents?

CHA-CHING! Queen Elizabeth, while obviously not overseeing production or some shit, OBVIOUSLY knew what the companies were doing selling their drugs to China. It is very much akin to the proven CIA links to the drug business...these decisions are made with the acceptance of the highest levels. And I really doubt that it was of any great concern (except perhaps the liberals and leftists of the time) to most Britons that this practice was being carried out.

VERRY reminiscent of today, only today, drugs are pretty much illegal, and it's a black-market instead of a forced-market (or whatever describes a situation where the Brit drug companies had to sell sell sell to make their money and prop-up the pound)

[Walt Starr]

62. Uh...LaRouche claims QEII is involved in the drug trade

QEI was long dead during the opium war.

Still no evidence of QEII being involved.

LaRouche is the biggest nutball politician ever. Perot was more sane than LaRouche.

[JVS]

45. I thought you said ABB!

[nolabels]

64. okay, but the only absurd thing are questions that don't get asked

http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:-yY9y_dhaeEJ:www.worldworks.org/ramblings/corp_power.htm+Queen+Elizabeth+supporting+the+illegal+drug+trade&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

A Brief History of Corporate Power
by Richard Stutsman, 11/20/93

(snip)
The concept of limited liability was first used in the 1200s, but Queen Elizabeth I institutionalized the practice when she created and became the sole stockholder of the East India Trading Company in the early 1600s, not long after Columbus proved that the world was spherical and that overseas shipping was more efficient than overland shipping between England and the Orient. Queen Elizabeth had, in effect, invented capitalism and created the world's first corporation.

The East India Trading Company was also the world's first government enforced monopoly, because the Queen used the power of the monarchy to make sure that there was no competition. Her armada of trading ships were armed and backed by the British Navy. They were able to fight off the onslaught of pirate ships. (In fact, the Company itself was actually responsible for most of the piracy on the high seas.)

The East India Trading Company, with the protection and support of the British Crown, colonized much of the world during the next 200 years, including India, China, Australia, and North America. A "colony" is by definition dependent on the mother country for its survival and protection. Of course, all of the lands colonized by England were already occupied by human populations, who had their own ideas about their needs and were quite self sufficient without Mother England. Until the British invaders "conquered" them, they had no need for protection or for trade with England. So the East India Trading Company, in effect, created the need for protection and trade among its colonies by destroying whatever self-sustaining agriculture and industry existed, and by massacring the indigenous populations, as well (except for those able to be forced or sold into slavery). (snip)

Wrong Queen, but was fun looking, inderectly one might make the case through Belieze or Jamica. Didn’t find no smoking guns there either, but at least I found out how some of the first international Corporations got started :evilgrin:

[molly]

3. I picked up the phone about an hour ago and a woman

said that she was representing LL - did I know who he was. I think someone is selling names from petitions signed - like the Ashcroft one. Anyone, I laughed and said I was not interested and hung up.

You don't think he's nuts?

[Allah Akbar]

5. I know I'm not a good little Dembot

because I don't just spout platitudes, like "LaRouche is nuts!"

Care to actually address something about what I wrote?

[molly]

6. Do you support him and if so - why?

[Allah Akbar]

8. I don't have to support or not support anyone

and support of him wasn't what the thread was about.

[Allah Akbar]

7. Oddly enough, we have here several of those I had in mind

and rather than getting at the meat of the matter, we're going to have a rehash of their unsupported litanies against LaRouche.

Can anyone ELSE add something?

[ButterflyBlood]

9. this is a guy who spent 5 years in prison for fraud

and his followers are almost like a cult. he once wanted to quarantine all AIDS patients in California. the guy's a kooky nut and should be avoided at all costs. that alone sums up how credible anything he says is.

[absolutezero]

46. Actually they are

A cult...they come to my school once a semester and try to recruit...they called my house and kept me on the phone for an hour after calling back multiple times, i fanlly threatened to get cops involved, but sometimes I fear for my life

<http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/nclcmain.html>
<http://www.pcc-courieronline.com/news/111501/larouche.html>
<http://www.protest.net/view.cgi?view=2312>

[rman]

56. set up

The government alleged that LaRouche, Billington, and the others, had conspired to borrow money from political supporters, for political purposes, with no intention to repay the loans.
http://larouchein2004.net/exoneration/exon5.htm

*

...an illegal and unprecedented involuntary bankruptcy action--initiated by the same Justice Department prosecutors, and approved by the same federal judge, who later oversaw the frame-up criminal trial of LaRouche in Alexandria, Va.
...
The involuntary bankruptcy--which made it illegal to repay these loans!--was the essential precondition for bringing criminal charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud against LaRouche and his associates.
...
Never before in U.S. history had the government itself been the petitioner in an involuntary bankruptcy case.
...
They secretly went to the Bankruptcy Court on April 20, 1987, and obtained an order allowing the government to immediately go and shut down the companies. That evening, Hudson deployed FBI agents to surveil the offices of those companies. Early the next morning, U.S. Marshals seized the offices of the three companies and sealed them.
http://www.larouchepub.com/exon/exon1.html

*

On Aug. 31, 1995, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark testified before an independent commission of inquiry, probing criminal abuse of power by top officials of the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI. Clark spoke of the frameup of leading American political economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche as the single most grievous case of prosecutorial abuse he had ever encountered.
...
Among the documents later released exposing FBI criminality, was a 1973 FBI headquarters Cointelpro memorandum on LaRouche and the NCLC, showing that the FBI was considering supporting an assassination attempt against LaRouche by the Communist Party USA.
http://www.schillerinstitute.com/health/dc_js_on_kkkatie.html

[Blitz]

57. Do you have anything from an independent source?

Anything at all to back up those assertions from a source that is not a LaRouche site (the Schiller Institute is just another LaRouche front organization which is ostensibly run by his wife).

I wish that I could access old bookmarks since there was a thread that discussed LaRouche very thoroughl, including a post that I wrote detailing his anti-semitism, his homophobia, his mysoginy, etc. I won't redo the research now but will be happy to post it once we have access to bookmarks and/or archives.

I would like to note that I find the support that LaRouche (among others) gets from some members on this site ... well, let's say that I find it informative.

[rman]

58. are there independent anti-LaRouche sources?

[Blitz]

59. Hundreds

If not thousands. Go to your favorite search engine and type in "Lyndon LaRouche" or +"Lyndon LaRouche" +"anti-semite" or "Lyndon LaRouche" +paranoid or "Lyndon Larouche" +"conspiracy theory" or "Lyndon Larouche" +homophobe or ... well, you get the idea. Go ahead and try it & tell me if you don't find any independent (i.e. non-government) "anti-LaRouche" sources. And while you're at it, see if you can find any independent sources for the assertions made in your post.

[Terwilliger]

10. absolutely probable

The British government went to war with China because they didn't wanyt their people hooked on opium anymore.

The US has taken over that, though. Now they enforce tobacco distribution, even assisting in misinforming the citizens of various countries about the dangers of cigarrettes. NOT to mention that the CIA has patently authorized various governments and insurgencies to sell drugs and use the profits for arms purchases. Then we see multi-billion dollar ad campiagns on TV decrying the use they so advocate.

Well, at least Ogilvy and Mather get some change out of it :eyes:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Yes and every once in a while Pat Buchanan has a good point too

That doesn't change the fact that what is informing his psyche is a deep deep disdain and bigotry for Jews.

So did you think he was sane when he called for mandatory tatooing of chldren in California?

[Allah Akbar]

14. So basically everyone's going to dance around this one huh?

And quite honestly, if someone is going to be smeared over one thing (like the particular subject of the thread I started) that is not necessarily the case, it makes me wonder if he isn't being smeared on other things as well.

[Walt Starr]

21. I'll answer it once you presnet evidence to support the assertion

So far, you have raised a canard and provided a strawman. Nothing more.

[Allah Akbar]

27. Well, it looks to me like you are saying there is no way it is happening

I think I showed that 100 years ago, they controlled the illegal drug trade, you want to show where it's been proved that they have stopped it?

Really, I have no thought of changing your opinion on anything Walt. You know the only right answer to anything, until you change your mind that is.

[Walt Starr]

44. Again, trot out your evidence

The LaRouche nutball assertion is that Queen Elizabeth supports the drug trade.

Evidence that the British government was involved in the opium trade mkore than as century ago is not evidence that Queen Elizabeth is involved in the drug trade. You're building this huge fallacious strawman.

Until you trot out your evidence, LaRouche remains a wack job nutball for even asserting something so blatantly absurd on its face.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. Look even a broken watch is right twice a day

it doesn't mean you can tell time with it. La Rouche is a paranoid, homophobe...if you wish to push him be my guest but the fact that he has 1000 self referential web sites that agree with him that are all under his orgs control does not make him credible. The fact that he infuses a few facts with all his other drivel makes him no more credible than Rush Limbaugh who does the same.

[Allah Akbar]

53. I think you are inserting your own thing in here

all I posted is the fact that I think there may be some basis in fact to this one charge he makes, it is not just off hand crazy talk as it is fobbed off as, IMO.

How this equates that I am pushing LaRouche is all in your head.

[Terwilliger]

15. yeech!

I dont think I want to know why.

[Allah Akbar]

19. I'm not sure what you are trying to insinuate here?

Why don't you come right out and say it, what ever it is?

[Terwilliger]

23. what am I trying to imply?

man, you're disappointing me heavily

[Allah Akbar]

29. I don't mean to make anyone happy or disappoint them

However when someone goes "Yech! I don't think I want to know" cryptically it makes me think they are trying to insinuate something, that's all.

No hard feelings? :beer:

[Terwilliger]

50. didn't mean to put you in some straight-jacket

was hoping you'd have some backing of these claims, thats all

I saw MalcolmX last week, and see your avatar and nickname, I figure you got it together :hi:

[Allah Akbar]

66. What kind of backing would I have to have?

A letter signed by QEII ordering one of her henchmen in the drug trade before I could even bring up the possibility that people who were doing this FOR SURE in the last century might still be doing it?

Sorry, I've never even made enough money to visit England on vacation, let alone go there to "investigate" whether the british govt was still dealing drugs like they used to do.

Funny, you seem to be able to believe quite readily the CIA is doing it, who do you think they learned it from? My guess would be the OSS during WWII, they were the basis for our CIA.

Sorry you feel differently, I think I have it quite together.

[WilliamPitt]

13. You have provided google links on the Opium Wars

I can find similar data in the history textbook here by my right hand.

Instead of asking people to disprove your construction:

The Opium Wars happened, therefore this legitimized LaRouche's claims

Perhaps you could proffer LaRouche's evidence for us to consider.

The Germans killed 6 million Jews. Your premise would seem to indicate that it is easily arguable that they are still doing so.

Help me out here.

[Allah Akbar]

17. I just think it unfair

and ignoring history to dismiss something like this out of hand with no thought.

Just like I think it is unfair and unthinking to dismiss any thought that 911 might have been more than "arabs who hate us for our freedoms" as "crazy talk".

Can't imagine why you would have a problem with that.

Edit: I wasn't "legitimizing" LaRouche, rather questioning knee jerk "delegitimizing" of what might be quite legitimate.

Edited again to fix typo because you're a school teacher! :P

[WilliamPitt]

31. Well, let's leave all that aside

You've raised the premise. Back it up with more than a very old historical precedent. You shouldn't complain when people doubt you, as you have asked them to prove/disprove a negative you have offered no evidence for.

[Allah Akbar]

34. Well, I'll have to re-read what I wrote

I admit I'm not nearly as good at conveying my thoughts in the written word as you are.

I don't want anyone to believe or disbelieve me. The whole thrust of my post was the fact that I have seen several people start threads inquiring about Lyndon LaRouche and his views and those are quickly killed with the same litany that has occurred on this thread.

I merely hoped to at least put one of them to rest, ie, that the idea that the British government (Do I honestly think Lizzie deals herself? No!) very well could be involved in the drug trade, judging from the historical precedent that they were at the top of the drug trade at one time. There is no evidence showing that they have stopped to my knowledge.

Disparage the man if he wanted to quarantine Aids patients for instance, but this particular charge MAY have some basis in fact.

[WilliamPitt]

38. You have put nothing to bed

Zero. You floated a charge and got pissed at people because the person (LaRouche) making the charge has covered himself in slime on too many occasions. Come on down to my neighborhood. There's a LaRouche stand right in harvard Square every day. Thay'll give you a tract about the evil Bush cabal...and then hand you another tract about the Zionist/Jewish World Conspiracy. I have a couple of them laying around here somewhere.

My point: Don't make an accusation without being prepared to back it up in at least the most miniomalist fashion. Don't get pissy at people for dusting you off because you fail to do so. Finally, don't bother with Lyndon LaRouche. He is a waste of flesh.

[Allah Akbar]

51. I haven't been pissy with anyone

I haven't accused anyone of anything either.

I just have a problem with this particular charge against him becasue I do not believe this is so crazy it doesn't even bear discussing.

[rman]

60. i think the point is

To disprove the argument that "LaRouche is wrong because it's crazy to even suggest the Queen of England could be involved in drugs trade".

Is there a principal reason why something like that could happen back then but not now?
If there is such a reason, only then it would be a valid argument to say "LaRouche is crazy for saying such a thing".
If there is no such reason, then only pointing to lack of evidence on LaRouche's part is a valid counter argument.

This is not to prove LaRouche is correct about this, it is to disprove a counter argument.
LaRouche may or may not be wrong on about Brittain currently being involved in drugs trade, but not because it is to ridiculous to be true.

Personally i think most of the anti LaRouche arguments are suspect. Most are along the lines of: "he's crazy", "he's fascist", "it's a cult and i fear for my life" - all without any substantiation.
These arguments sound simmilar to "it's crazy to suggest 9-11 LIHOP", "it's crazy to suggest Bushco is fascist", "it's crazy to suggest they lied about the war in Iraq". The basis for these arguments seem to be that it is supposed to be self-evident that these things impossible, period ("let it go", "move on").

[Allah Akbar]

65. I am not an investigative journalist

nor do I think I should have to be one and be able to provide evidence that an actual crime has taken place before I bring up the possiblity that it has.

How have the people that post links of Bush's grandfather's Nazi connections provided any more "evidence" than I have done by posting articles on the Opium War, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that at least at the time of said wars the British controlled the international drug trade? Do you suggest that after these wars to secure their drug profits in Asia, they just quit dealing drugs because they are such nice people?

Tear down LaRouche if you must, I really could care less, but there is some evidence here that there is at least the possibilty of some truthfulness to this particular charge.

And there is definitely no need to try and put me down for pointing that out.

[Elidor]

28. The source of an idea should ideally be separable from the idea itself

The most famous example being that Einstein derived the equation of mass to energy from a dream.

But that leads to two other points. 1) the idea must be capable of surviving scrutiny on its own and 2) in the absence of any serious evidence, we are forced to consider the source, however undesirable that may be.

The issue is not whether or not this is crazy talk. The issue of whether the Queen is engaged in the drug trade should be considered independently of Larouche. If you wish to prove that she's involved, we will await your evidence. But let's not tie such an assertion to Larouche. If it's true, it's true regardless of what he believes. You're serving up an ad hominem argument here, first defending the plausibility of the idea of the queen trafficking in drugs, then defending Larouche's credibility. This schizophrenic effort compromises your every argument.

[Allah Akbar]

33. Of course your right

My intent however was not to show that QEII is dealing drugs, I guess I was trying to say that this type of thing is said solely to dismiss anything that LaRouche says as craziness. QEII may or not be involved in the drug trade, but I think one would be foolish to dismiss it out of hand, sepecially in light of past history.

I don't think he totally wrong on everything that comes out of his mouth, nor do I think even Dubya is wrong 100% of the time. By the same token, I don't think that 100% of anything that comes out a Democrat's mouth is correct. I support Kucinich 100% but I'm sure if I looked enough I could find something he said that I could disagree with or would sound foolish to me.

[Eloriel]

41. Now THAT's one of the most lucid posts I've seen in a while

And so true. Thanks.

Eloriel

[WilliamPitt]

47. Woop.

There it is.

:)

[Allah Akbar]

54. I disagree with this part

The issue is not whether or not this is crazy talk. The issue of whether the Queen is engaged in the drug trade should be considered independently of Larouche. If you wish to prove that she's involved, we will await your evidence. But let's not tie such an assertion to Larouche. If it's true, it's true regardless of what he believes. You're serving up an ad hominem argument here, first defending the plausibility of the idea of the queen trafficking in drugs, then defending Larouche's credibility. This schizophrenic effort compromises your every argument.


A: I started the thread because I take exception to the fact this is constantly fobbed off as "crazy talk". Since I did start the thread, then yes this is the issue. You can join or ignore at your pleasure.

B: I cannot prove she deals drugs and I think it would be foolish to expect that of a poor nobody from nowhere. I see lots of other people saying their feelings without proving anything, it seems like that is requiring something extra on my part; however, I did point out that what makes it a POSSIBILITY that there may be some basis to it was the Opium Wars. I think that is a valid point.

C: I was not defending LaRouche, I was saying IMO this one charge is not very good evidence of how "crazy" he is because of reasons stated above.

I would feel the same way about anyone saying it was just "crazy talk" not just because it's being said about LaRouche. How that implies schizophrenia on my part I am not aware. I feel shutting down any discussion of points he raises with "he's crazy" does a disservice to everyone, much like calling people grassy knollers who question what happened on 911.

Cynthia McKinney is alledgedly a nut too, on this site and in the Democratic party, yet oddly enough, all you'd have to do is crack a newspaper or open your eyes to see she is pretty much right on the money, Bush and his family ARE making huge profits off this warmongering.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but sometimes conspiracies do exist.

[MSchreader]

30. I am all too familiar with the Opium Wars of the 19th century

I am also all too familiar with the history of Lyndon LaRouche -- most likely, more familiar than you. I have no need to harp on his "Queen Elizabeth is a drug queenpin". There are plenty of other positions that make his "populist" fascism clear.

Martin

[Allah Akbar]

61. Gee, if I didn't know any better

I'd almost swear this is what I said in my original post, expressed a little bit differently

[jonnyblitz]

32. "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" by Dennis King

If you are seriously interested in LaRouche check that book out Allah Akhbar. Political Research Associates ( an organization that monitors right wing groups) has some interesting stuff on LaRouche on their website..I don't have the links handy at this moment....

[Allah Akbar]

35. Thanks for the heads up on the book, Jonny

I have no interest in LaRouche myself politically, Dennis Kucinich is everything I have been hoping for in a politician at this time in our country.

I just get tired of seeing this canard thrown up as proof that LaRouche is nuts. He may be, but not because of this particular idea.

[salin]

36. On the old boards

on one of the LaRouche threads - I went digging for some info on his statements. Had some first hand experiences with some of his followers back in the 80s and have long felt he and his movement is rather scary, but fortunately so marginalized as not to provoke real fear. Once we can access old threads I will search for it. Why?

Because one of his rants against the Queen of England and his explanations tying her to a world wide conspiracy of drug trading and worse included some verbage that demonstrated that he had no idea of the constitutional powers of the Queen vs. Parliament. Along with his tendency towards paranoid rants, the inaccuracies in his statements, and the lack of contemporary evidence indicating any such current ties with the Queen, I find it very easy to dismiss this particular La Rouchian charge.

[jonnyblitz]

40. that is why rather than go on a rant about LaRouche...

I provided you with some info. Granted it doesn't put him in a good light..but still...here it is . DO a google search on LaRouche and the Political Research Associates site will come up with stuff on him.
:hi:

[nolabels]

49. Drugs are only part of the story

This is one reason the people on this thing they call the >right< get so up in arms with people on this other side (that they declared) of the thing they call the >left<. The only real control is this place you have let somebody else take control over.
http://www.mayanmajix.com/art_tf.html
(snip)
Did we say the Truth was Coming ?


Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security
THE ULTIMATE DELUSION

Subject: THE ULTIMATE DELUSION
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:40:27 EDT
From: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>

To the people,

I found this paper while going through Stephen Ames' files. I am hoping that you will put it out on your E-mail and fax networks. This paper explains and documents very much. It is absolutely mind blowing!!!!!!

^---(snip)

[Allah Akbar]

52. Neat site!

Thanks for the link.

I see these conspiracies, some are very real. What scares me is that I think what we see is just scratching the surface of what is really there

What terrifies me is the vast amount of people that won't see some of this stuff even when it's thrown in their face on a daily basis.

[nolabels]

55. Or flies into the large buildings of their citys

Here's something you might want to read:

http://standdown.net/
or this (snip)
Was 9/11 Allowed to Happen?
Developed and Maintained by Paul Thompson
To verify statements, click on links to original articles on mass media websites
The complete 200+ page timeline is at www.cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline
For a 25-page summary of the timeline, see www.wanttoknow.info/911timeline25pg
For how we can create a better world, see www.wanttoknow.info/newparadigm
For information on other cover-ups, go to the homepage at www.wanttoknow.info
(snip)
Or click onto this and see if you see any simularities(snip)
http://watch.pair.com/default.html
(snip)
The Rise of the Fourth Reich

The Bush Family Oligarchy ~ Funding the Hitler Project

New Crimes Defined as “Terrorism” ~ Bye, Bye Bill of Rights!

Brave New Babies ~ The Unprotected Human Subjects of Biomedical Research
~ Bush Administration Exploitation of the Christian Right & Pro-Life Cover-Up of Same
(snip)
(snip)
the rise of the third reich
In 1933, shortly after Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany, the German Parliament was set on fire by the Nazis and the Communists were blamed for this act of terrorism against the German people. Following the Nazi-inspired arson, Hitler exploited the outrage of the German citizens to arrogate to himself dictatorial powers, which he promised would be used to rid Germany of Communists. The next day, Chancellor Hitler demanded from the German cabinet an emergency decree which would enable him to deal decisively with the domestic crisis. President von Hindenburg signed the decree "for the Protection of the people and the State." An account of this watershed event is found at The History Place:
(snip)
on edit: missed a couple (snips), I am only a reading and copy guy mostly, relaying the links I see

[theemu]

63. Okay, but he is a nutcase.

I mean, he is.

[rman]

67. again, no substance.

.

[hayu_lol]

68. This is what happens when the Lyndon LaRouche people are allowed...

off their reservation. An entire disrupted thread which leads nowhere, answers nothing, describes nothing, amounts to nothing. We will never learn just not to answer these freaks.