Ok, I've held my fire on the LaRouche topic because in my 35 years of journalism, the LaRouchoids were the only ones who actually threatened my life and, as a result, I had to move my family out of Northern Virginia for many years.

LaRouche doesn't like me because for a time I was the leading expert on their little Trotskyite communist cult. When he moved his little band of thugs from New York in the early 1980, he just happened to move into my territory, Loudoun County, Virginia, where my newspaper had a firm foothold. LaRouche immediately went about setting up his empire and threatening anyone in the County who disagreed with him.

I wrote a series of articles about the group and they -- in full accord with their reputation of going after any journalist who opposed them -- came after me.

The reason LaRouche changes his position so often is that the truth is not his goal -- unlike those who participate on this forum. His goal is whatever Vladimir Putin -- or his masters -- tell him his goals will be. One day, he's a revolutionary socialist; the next, he's the head of the Communist Party USA; the next day, he's "the world's #1 enemy of the Soviet Union"; now he's back to being a "Democrat" attacking the Queen of England -- it goes on and on.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING that comes from that cult -- and it does fully fulfill the definition of a cult -- can be believed. They are so intellectually dishonest that I wouldn't waste my time even reading or considering their opinion. Why? Because they are not in pursuit of the truth. They are completely manipulative. Their mission is to deceive and confuse.

Now don't get me wrong; some of their research is brilliant! But you cannot rely on it, or the conclusions they draw from it. This is one of the most skilled groups in the world at disinformation -- the best the world "revolution movement" can buy. And that term, "world revolution" has a very specific meaning. Read Nesta Webster. This is all about consolidation of power -- away from the sovereign nation state -- and towards world dictatorship.

LaRouche is not worth my time -- unless -- he starts to intrude into my area. Now, his name has appeared on this thread too many times, so it must be shot down. I, admittedly, am pretty strict about the discussions that go on here. Why? Because in the wild west of the Internet, anyone can say anything and so although it is a great way to exchange information, now the question becomes one of sorting out the truth.

This Reforum will be maintained as a bastion of truth. It is one place where you can go and get one certain, reliable, peer-reviewed, undistorted point of view. Our mission is to create a platform of truth and then discuss current events as they unfold held up against that standard.

The LaRouche mission is to confuse the truth to support their hidden, revolutionary agenda. This, from my first book with subsequent updates:

-------------

Lyndon LaRouche

Both Lyndon LaRouche and Richard Nixon deceived America in the same way. Both claimed to be staunch enemies of the Soviet Union, and neither really was.

LaRouche deceived hundreds of thousands of American conservatives with his well-publicized Presidential campaigns claiming to be the "number-one enemy of the Soviet Union." In 1989, LaRouche began serving fifteen years in federal prison for convictions on thirteen counts of tax fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy.

Although few people would know it today, LaRouche had a long and well-documented history as a leader in the Communist Party USA. In fact, in 1948, at age 26, he took on the alias of Lyn Marcus from the names of Lenin and Marx. By 1974, the FBI was well acquainted with LaRouche/Marcus and his group, and referred to them in their annual report as "a violence-oriented organization of revolutionary socialists."

In the early 1970s, LaRouche/Marcus battled traditional American Communist leader Gus Hall for leadership of the Communist Party USA. By 1973 he declared victory. After a 1974 visit with his Soviet handler, Gennady Serebreyakov, at the Soviet United Nations mission in New York, LaRouche/Marcus took off on the tangent for which he would become so well known. He changed his name back to Lyndon LaRouche, and set off on his new course. According to respected journalists Robert Moss & Arnaud de Borchgrave (former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times), writing in their newsletter Early Warning in May, 1984;

"His [apparatus] set out both to attack and penetrate conservative organizations and the major political parties while at the same time developing alliances with neo-Nazis ... and leaders of racist hate groups."

From that point, Gus Hall stopped running for President, and Lyndon LaRouche started. In a "security memorandum" from early 1975, LaRouche tried to justify the shift to his bewildered cadre.

"Cadres should be firmly fixed on the politics underlying this move.... ONCE WE HAVE WON THIS BATTLE, ELIMINATING OUR RIGHT-WING OPPOSITION WILL BE COMPARATIVELY EASY."

In the 2004 Presidential election, LaRouche ran as a Democrat and demanded that John Kerry support a Congressional investigation of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Friedrich Schiller
Behind the switch away from hard-line communist rhetoric was that in the 1970s, Communism was finding it increasingly difficult to gain much support in America using Marxist rhetoric. LaRouche's mission was the difficult task of finding something that would sell.

LaRouche began to attempt to popularize the pre-Marxian line of revolutionary thought of eighteenth century German playwright Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller (1759-1805). Schiller was the leading playwright in German history. His early plays protested the tyranny of aristocracy, the hallmark of all revolutionary thought.

Schiller, in "The Robbers," (1781) claimed that decent men are justifiably driven to crime by monarchical systems (the old Masonic line). So in reality, LaRouche was only trying to get back to the roots of revolution. He claimed that Schiller was the real hero of the American Revolution, and that the founding fathers all held Shiller in the highest esteem. LaRouche therefore still busies himself trying to establish Shiller's birthday as an American national holiday.

This is what is behind his persistent rhetoric about the Queen of England being behind all the sins of the world. It is the traditional attack line behind every communist revolution thoughout history; monarchy is bad; so the substitute is a communist revolution to throw the bad monarchs out – disguised as a popular movement where power will be spread out amoung the “people,” when, in fact, an even more dictatorial government is installed – a communist-style dictatorship. Then, our only job is ongoing public relations – domination of the press and electronic media -- to disguise the fact that power has become even more consolidated than before.


-------

LaRouche, or his many publications, as far as I know, have never disputed any of these essential facts, although I first published them 25 years ago in my newspaper -- and paid a price for it.

Although there are some fingers of blame to point at Britain since 1694, monetary manipulation has been going on for thousands of years.

"Recurrently over the centuries men have supposed that they have mastered the secret of [money’s] infinite amplification…Invariably it involves the rediscovery, perhaps in slightly novel form, of some infinitely ancient fraud.” John Kenneth Galbraith, 1975

Furthermore, if you want to attack the heart of the problem -- consolidation of power to the international level -- planning for this predates England itself. The heart of this problem is not an individual, it is a concept -- freedom for the rest of us -- the hope of an escape from serfdom.

Remember, it was in England that the dreams of a free people -- the dreams going back at least to the Greek philosopher Solon in 600 B.C. -- were resurrected, and advanced mightily with Magna Carta and an elected Parliament. In the Hall of Human Freedom, the good deeds of the English people will probably outweigh the bad deeds of some of their monarchs. No seeker of the truth would fail to recount this.