Has Gadhafi Been Reading Lyndon LaRouche

It seems that Colonel Gadhafi, who claims not to the Leader of Libya, has been reading Lyndon LaRouche the conspiracy theorist.

During the interview with the BBC, which took place in a restaurant in Tripoli, Gaddafi blamed outsiders for the civil turmoil, adding: "It's al-Qaeda. They went into military bases and siezed arms and terrorised the people.

"The people who had the weapons were youngsters and they're starting to put down their weapons now as the drugs that al-Qaeda gave them wear off."

He previously claimed that al-Qaeda had drugged demonstrators by spiking their "Nescafe".

LaRouche puts some sociopolitical and intellectual movements into the "positive" category and some into the negative. He believes the Reformation militated against the nation-state (and human well-being) while the Renaissance was an inspirational positive. He believes in classical humanism and defines philosophy and philosophers based on their contributions to it. In order to arrive at these conclusions, he has researched the underlying fundaments of what he (and many others) call the Anglo-American axis (or empire) and traced it back to Venetian bankers and even earlier. For LaRouche, Western history is a recitation of Anglo conspiracies that have ever attempted to draw ever-tighter the noose of mercantilist central banking and its torrents of debt-laden fiat money.

Michael Crichton Climate Change Denier

In an essay on his home page Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, compares the current debate around Climate Change with the Scientific movement for eugenics and Lysenkoism. He calls it the politicization of science. Well duh science has always been the handmaiden of the ruling class.

"Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression. "

Michael Crichton© 1997-2007 Constant C Productions. All rights reserved.

However in describing those who oppose the science and politics of climate change as brave 'authentic', 'objective' scientists whose voices are being suppressed he overlooks their politics, and their political agenda. Which is not the defense of science, or even technology but of capitalism as it currently exists.

As much as Crichton is a popular author, and one who opposes attempts to patent genes, on the issue of Climate Change he ends up using the arguments of the political right who have made the eugenics argument their way of slagging feminism and the left and now those who defend the science of global warming.

What they fail to do, as does Crichton, is differentiate between the moralist reform movements of the fin de sicle 19th Century (the temperance movement) which sought to keep women in the home and those progressive movements that sought greater liberty for women. Both were precursors to modern feminism and the progressive movements for social reform. But they were politically different, and thus to confuse the two is at best poor scholarship at worst deliberate political obfustication.

In his essay Crichton ultimately sounds like that other defender of science and technology and opponent of the conspiracy theory of Climate Change; Lyndon LaRouche.

In the first half of the 20th century, eugenics in action largely meant governments sterilizing or murdering people they didn't like. (Lenin, Stalin, and Mao slaughtered even more tens of millions in the name of equality than Hitler murdered in the name of inequality. And, as Aleksandr Solzenhistyn has pointed out, the doctrine of "class origins" transformed "egalitarian" mass murder into ethnic genocide since there is no sharp line between family and race.)

Progressives, Eugenics, Women and the Minimum Wage
Stephen W. Carson

American intellectual life in the early 20th century has a dirty secret and its name is Eugenics. Alex Tabarrok points out an excellent article by Thomas C. Leonard on Protecting Family and Race: The Progressive Case for Regulating Women's Work (PDF). Leonard makes the point that Progressive support for exclusionary labor legislation for women, including the minimum wage, was based among other things on ensuring "that women could better carry out their eugenic duties as 'mothers of the race'". Though most know that eugenics had some sort of open popularity prior to the Nazis giving it a bad name, few know how thoroughly it was supported by all the "best and brightest". Here's a partial list from Leonard's paper: Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, T. S. Eliot, D. H. Lawrence and economist Irving Fisher.

Progressives, in part for eugenic reasons, wanted to make women and other groups unemployable. Their chosen tool: the minimum wage.

...these progressives argued that minimum-wage-induced disemployment was a social benefit. Legal minimum wages and other statutory means of inducing undesirable groups to leave the labor force were, in the progressive view, a eugenic benefit.

The Progressive Case for Regulating
Women’s Work

By THOMAS C. LEONARD*

ABSTRACT. American economics came of age during the Progressive Era, a time when biological approaches to economic reform were at their high-water mark. Reform-minded economists argued that the labor force should be rid of unfit workers—whom they labeled “unemployables,” “parasites,” and the “industrial residuum”—so as to uplift superior, deserving workers. Women were also frequently classified as unemployable. Leading progressives, including women at the forefront of labor reform, justified exclusionary labor legislation for women on grounds that it would (1) protect the biologically weaker sex from the hazards of market work; (2) protect working women from the temptation of prostitution; (3) protect male heads of household from the economic competition of women; and (4) ensure that women could better carry out their eugenic duties as “mothers of the race.” What united these heterogeneous rationales was the reformers’ aim of discouraging women’s labor-force participation.

Eugenic thought crossed national borders, and it also traversed an extraordinary range of political views. Ideologically, the eugenics movement attracted reactionaries, such as Madison Grant, author The Passing of the Great Race, and key movement figures, such as Francis Galton, founder of modern eugenics, and Charles Davenport, head of the Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, who can be described as social conservatives. But eugenics also won advocates of very different politics, such as Margaret Sanger, the birth control advocate who began intellectual life as a radical anarchist (a protégé of Emma Goldman), Fabian socialists such as Karl Pearson, Sidney Webb, and George Bernard Shaw, and the sui generis feminist, economist Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

Love and Eugenics in the late Nineteenth Century
Angelique Richardson

Developed by Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton in the 1860s, and drawing on theories of evolution, eugenics looked to provide solutions both for the problems of the urban poor and for the challenge of maintaining national supremacy. Richardson shows how these theories had particular resonance for a number of intellectually and politically concerned women in the period, who firmly believed that "the women of Britain could best serve the race, the country, and their own interests through the rational selection of a reproductive partner" (p. 215). This was the view that time and again comes across in the fiction of some of the best known New Woman Authors, particularly Sarah Grand and George Egerton (although, as she shows, resistance to eugenics is an important aspect of Mona Caird's work). Richardson's achievement is to get us to recognize this fact and its implications, as well as the part played by their writings in the late-century debates between the hereditarians and the environmentalists. This is a bravely revisionist reading, which will give considerable pause for thought to all those who have enthusiastically embraced and celebrated the progressive, protofeminist aspects of the New Woman movement. One understands freshly that the resistance to romance which can be found in so many of the New Woman novelists and polemicists is less a defiant call for woman's autonomy and self-determination than a demand for rational reproduction. Richardson exposes not just the class biases, but in some cases the antihumanitarianism of these writers.

In the first volume of The History of Sexuality Michel Foucault deemed eugenics one of the ‘two great innovations in the technology of sex of the second half of the nineteenth century’. Richardson’s book is a notable aid to our understanding of the scope and importance of Foucault’s remark and the continuing significance of eugenics as a language of modernity. Much scholarly work in recent years has emphasized the pervasive anxiety about degeneration and decline characteristic of the period, in which eugenic thinking played a central part, but Richardson also shows the tremendous eugenic optimism felt by many of its enthusiasts: able to reverse Malthus’s cruel laws, eugenics promised a new and clean way to social perfection … In charting this ground, Richardson leaves us in no doubt about the class violence endemic to eugenic discourse in the period. That advocacy of eugenics was most enthusiastic within collectivist politics is now well known, but illuminated further here, especially in the final chapter on Mona Caird. Biological determinism, Richardson argues, ‘was underpinned by the paralysis of the individual’; at the heart of the eugenic project of this period is a critique of liberal individual, exemplified here by one of the book’s good men, John Stuart Mill. In her suggestive interpretation of this troubled alignment between left politics and the eugenic fantasy of state-managed human reproduction as a means to squeeze suffering out of the social body, Richardson reminds us that individualism ‘was not anathema to Marx’. Mill’s own contribution to the opposition to eugenics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is an individualism that shares with Marx a commitment to ‘autonomy, activity, true consciousness, and sociality.’

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
climate change denier, climate change, environment, global warming,
Kyoto, UN, IPCC,
Michael Crichton, Lysenkoism, eugenics, flat earth, Lyndon LaRouche, right wing, conspiracy, conspiracy theory, climage change denial,

Strange Bedfellows

You know the climate change deniers have officially joined the Flat Earth society when their major spokesperson publishes his work in Lyndon LaRouche's conspiratorial publication; Executive Intelligence (sic) Review.

Yep that puts them squarely in the camp of conspiracy nutbars and folks who believe that humans lived with dinosaurs.

Of course LaRouche and his followers are the original climate change deniers, who have spent the past thirty years promoting nuclear power.

Of course it is all about the company you keep. And it seems that when it comes to Climate Change there are those on the American left who also embrace the flat earth ideal.

Alex Cockburn for instance, who in keeping up with his fellow ex-Trotskyist, ex-Brit compatriot and former Nation fellow writer; Christopher Hitchens, has decided to be a contrarian.

“Peer Review” and Global Warming

There were yelps of alarm and the rustle of skirts being hoist knee-high after I published a note on sources in my column last week, Dissidents against Dogma. The panic was caused by one of the references to the work of Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski who, as I wrote, has written devastating onslaughts on the IPCC rallying cry that CO2 is higher now than it has ever been over the past 650,000 years. Jaworowski has pointed out the enormous inaccuracies in the ice-core data and the ease with which a CO2 reading from any given year is contaminated by the CO2 from entirely different eras. He also points out that from 1985 on there’s been some highly suspect editing of the CO2 data, presumably to reinforce the case for the “unprecedented levels” of modern CO2. I offered a couple of references to Jaworowski, one of them to an essay, "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase", published in 21st Century Science & Technology, Spring 1997.

It turns out that this is a publication put out by the LaRouche crowd. Next thing you know, poor Jaworowski was being accused oif being a neo-Nazi cultist, with kindred vitriol hurled at CounterPunch co-editor Cockburn.

Of course this makes sense since LaRouche is also an ex-Trotskyist. Heck isn't everybody who makes up the American neo-con right.

The problem with Hitchens and Cockburn is that they could have posed a libertarian alternative to the war in Iraq (which Hitchens supported) or to Kyoto and the capitalist crisis of the environment, which Cockburn denies. But they didn't. Instead they have like their former Trotskyist predecessors, embraced the neo-con right. Just as some of those in the so called Libertarian movement in the U.S. have over the issue of climate change.

Take Lew Rockwell, for instance. He is incredibly insightful when discussing the over bearing power of the state to make war, or the intrusion of the state into our lives. But he happily links to articles such as this one by Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch, regurgitates the most of the so-called scientific evidence against global warming, every single bit of which has been debunked and refuted before.

It is clear from the preponderance of evidence, from the vast majority of climate scientists (a number that is growing, not shrinking) that global warming is really happening and is caused by human activity. Why, then do libertarians and anarchists refuse to accept it?

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Fraser Institute, climate change, environment, global warming,
Kyoto, UN, IPCC,
John Birch Society, Creationism, nuclear power, flat earth, Lyndon LaRouche, right wing, conspiracy, conspiracy theory, climage change denial,

LaRouche Takes Over Vive le Canada

There has been a disturbing trend over at Vive le Canada lately, it seems to have lost it's moderators for there can be no other explanation for the right wing conspiracy theorists that are now spamming it with their nut bar posts.

Here is the latest one from followers of the former Trotskyist turned conspiracy noodle head; Lyndon LaRouche. This appeared also on Progressive Bloggers because Vive le Canada is a member of the PB aggregator.

GOD DAMN THE PUSHERMAN, part two

This article appears in the December 14, 2001 issue of Executive Intelligence Review. Dope, Inc. Is $600 Billion and Growing by Jeffrey Steinberg In the Summer of 1996, EIR conducted an exhaustive study of the worldwide illegal drug trade,

EIR is one of LaRouche's major publications. LaRoucheites came up with the slogan Nuke the Whales, since they are proponents of nuclear power and have used their private intelligence to attack the anti-nuke movement.

They are racists, LaRouche spent years attacking black culture, believing in a banking conspiracy they are Anti-Semites, they are homophobic AIDs deniers, they believe in the Anglo-American conspiracy theories, etc. etc. in other words they are a violent proto-fascist movement

evidence shows 'suicide' student was beaten to death
Duggan, from Golders Green, north-west London, had become involved with the Wiesbaden followers of Lyndon LaRouche, an American millionaire with virulent anti-Semitic views. Unaware of the group's leanings, the former Christ's Hospital pupil told followers that he was Jewish. At 4.20am on 27 March, 2003, Duggan rang his mother. His voice was hushed: 'Mum, I am in deep trouble.'

Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement

Of course it doesn't help when anti-globalization publications like Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research.ca publish LaRouche sourced materials giving them undeserved legitimacy.


The LaRouche organization was also described by Norman Bailey, a former senior staffer of the National Security Council, as "one of the best private intelligence services in the world."

Global Research refuses to publish neo-fascist white racists who oppose globalization but will publish LaRouche via his followers. It shows that Chossudovsky's conspiracy theory laden analysis of globalization is far closer to LaRouche than he cares to admit.

In that same vein the proto-nationalism of Vive le Canada with its opposition to Deep Integration allows it to fall into the same ideological trap as the anti-globalizationists, accepting conspiracy theories from the left and the right as long as they appear reasonable.

Folks get your act together and start monitoring those posts!

DISCREDITED former MP Ken Aldred was last night dumped as a Liberal candidate in the federal election over his links to far-right groups and his attacks on a prominent Jewish lawyer. Mr Aldred appeared before a specially convened meeting of the Liberal Party's administrative committee in Melbourne after he issued a legal threat to the party demanding the right to attend.

He tried to justify his past conduct in a statement that he read at the meeting, but the committee members - including Peter Costello and state Liberal leader Ted Baillieu - voted unanimously to dump him as the preselected candidate in the seat of Holt.

Liberal Party state director Julian Sheezel confirmed the result last night saying: "The administrative committee considered that he was an unsuitable candidate to receive endorsement."

John Howard had earlier written to members saying he did not think Mr Aldred - who has been linked to the far-Right US-based LaRouche organisation and its Australian arm, the Citizens Electoral Council - was a suitable person to stand for the Liberal Party.

Prominent Jewish lawyer Mark Leibler, who has led calls for the party to dump Mr Aldred, yesterday described Mr Aldred's preselection last weekend as an "embarrassment".

Mr Leibler, who was falsely accused by Mr Aldred in 1995 of being involved in a money-laundering scam run by Israeli spy agency Mossad, said yesterday: "It's not half the embarrassment it is to me as it is to the Liberal Party.

"This guy is a racist, an anti-Semite, he's presented fraudulent documents to the parliament. He is not the sort of person who would be supported by the Prime Minister or the Treasurer or any Liberal of standing."

The LaRouche Movement: American 'fascism' or something else?

The LaRouche movement is a clever organization: clever because it operates several independent divisions that are hard to connect with each other. The Schiller Institute, the Fusion Energy Forum, the Executive Intelligence Review, the Campaign to Explore Human Rights Violations in the U.S. (whose main interests seem to be the rights of Larouchians), Bread for the World, the Human Life Committee, the New Federalist , and 21st Century Science & Technology magazine are all part of the LaRouche organization. Currently, LaRouche is also connected to the ' Productive Triangle Program" (the 'Paris-Berlin-Vienna' axis) promoted by the International Progress Organization (IPO) in Central Europe, intended to promote economic development. Lyndon H. LaRouche has run (as a Democrat, no less) for president several times; in 1992 he is running from a jail cell, with the Rev. James Bevel (a SCLC founder and associate of Rev. King) as his vice presidential running mate. One might note, incidentally, that several LaRouchians do hold various offices around the country, and many LaRouchian groups have sprung up in Europe.

LaRouche is one of those political trippers that has managed to take the bend all the way around from the Far Left to the Far Right, without breaking his neck. In the 60s and 70s, he was "Lyn Marcus," head of the International Caucus of Labor Committees, an ultra-doctrinaire Marxist group with some strange disciplinary practices. Even back in the late 70s he was warning of impending financial crisis and cultural ruin. Today, Lyn(don) is a big promoter of the Strategic Defense Initiative, an implacable foe of world communism, a big supporter of a united Germany, and a borderline anti-Semite, who has attacked a whole bunch of Jews - particularly Roy Cohn, Henry Kissinger, and the heads of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith - by saying they are really "Zionists," i.e. a particularly wicked bunch of Jews... anyone remember the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? (One might note that LaRouche has, on several occasions, attacked the Nazi-hunting branch of the Department of Justice (the OSI) as "witch hunters persecuting upright German citizens," some of those upright citizens being V2 rocket engineers smuggled into this country through Project Paperclip.) It is clear that his trip into the Far Right has left him with some discredited Far Left ideas.

LaRouche's main thesis is that the 'Anglo-American cabal,' which involves George Bush, the English monarchy, and some other ingredients, has decided to undertake a programme of genocidal IMF/World Bank-financed de-industrialization to deplete the population of the Third World. The cabal's plan includes "narcotrafficking"; environmental policies to prevent those countries from developing economically; 'Malthusian' population policies which incorporate birth control, abortion, and allowing disease and hunger free rein; profiteering through 'neo-colonial' resource control; the "lab-created" AIDs virus; and promotion of 'antifamily' ideals such as feminism, homosexuality, Satanism, and "the sex-drugs-rock and roll counterculture." This conspiracy theory, needless to say, is a grab bag of far right and far left nut worries. LaRouche believes that only massive industrial projects - nuclear power, huge irrigation canals dug with atomic bombs (!) in the Middle East, and similar high-tech developments - can free the Third World from the sinister grasp of the oligarchs' cabal.

See:

Conspiracy Theory or Ruling Class Studies

Bilderberg

Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy

Ruling Class



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Trilateral Commission, CFR, Bilderberg, LaRouche, Secret Societies, NWO, New World Order, Globalization, Conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Bohemian Grove, Conspiracy Theories, Ruling Class, Anglo-American Conspiracy, Michel Chossudovsky, EIR, fascist