From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Why The Statue of General Albert Pike Must be Destroyed
Date: 5 Oct 1992 03:50:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In article <19ee6mINNck8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
>aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>> 
>>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>>
>>>I didn't include the original message here because you can go
>>>back and read the original.  If anyone can read that message
>>>and doubt for an instant that everything that's been said
>>>about LaRouche being a foaming at the mouth, psychopathic,
>>>anti-semitic lunatic is true, then there's no convincing.  I've seen
>>>dozens of his idiotic messages on here but this one hits
>>>every button there is.  I mean the only thing left for the
>>>guy is for his brain to burn out like a lightbulb.
>>
>>I take this to mean LaRouche has said things that differ radically
>>from the way you see the world and that you find this offensive.
>>
                                                                                 >So far - very true.  I find it offensive that LaRouche writes all
>these speeches in which Jews are the bad guys and they are simply
>posted to the net as fact.

What are you saying? Jews can't be bad guys? These particular Jews
weren't bad guys? Anybody who critizes Jews must be anti-semitic?
Albert Pike was Jewish? 

The post accuses particular Jewish and Gentile organizations and
individuals of specific sorts of wrongdoing. If you think they are
innocent, by all means stick up for them, just like I stick up
for LaRouche when HE gets unjustly accused of something. But try
to have some rational basis for your viewpoint.

>>>He starts with the statue of some guy and moves on to 
>>>topics like:
>>
>>The "guy" was named Albert Pike, a historical figure and very
>>connected to the events discussed iin the rest of the speech.
>>
>>>B'nai Brith being the "Pro-slavery" arm of American Jews,
>>>founding the Klan, sending neo-nazis and skinheads into
>>>Germany.
>>
>>If you think this charge is false, it would be useful to state why.
>>

>You want ME to tell YOU why this is false?  Sure, right after I tell
>you why I think that little green men from Mongo IV did NOT kill JFK.
>He made the accusations - you prove it.

Not comparable. Unlike Mongo IV, Albert Pike and the B'nai B'rith 
are in the history books. If anybody wants to look more deeply into 
these charges, there are avenues open. 


>>>The Klan being an arm of British Intelligence, and the
>>>civil was actually a war against Britain.
>>
>>British support for the Confederacy is a matter of unquestioned
>>historical fact. As for the Klan connection, why don't you read
>>some history before jumping to conclusions.
>>

>The British supported the Confederacy and wanted it to win.  That's
>a big jump to "The British shot Lincoln" to put their puppet
>Andrew Johnson in the White House.  Where's your proof for all this?
>None is mentioned in the speech.

If you're looking for a smoking gun, 100 years later, you'll
probably be disappointed. If you want a little more background
on the allegation, which could serve as a starting point for
independent research, this excrept is from Tony Chaitkin's speech
at the same confrence, also posted here on alt.activism (see mention
below)

<begin excerpt>

   This ugliness was in vain. But
just when Lincoln's nationalist money
policies and our industrial strength
overwhelmed the rebellion, President
Lincoln was murdered. A dragnet went
out for the Confederate secret service
operators, accused of participation in
the assassination. Albert Pike escaped
and joined Jacob Thompson in Canada.
Judah Benjamin fled to England, joining
the exiled Robert Toombs and James
Bulloch. John Slidell stayed
permanently in France. 
   Confederate secret service agent
John Surratt made it to Italy and hid
in the Vatican, while Surratt's mother
was convicted and hanged on the charge
of plotting with John Wilkes Booth to
kill Lincoln. John Surratt was
discovered and returned for trial. He
was acquitted. But in 1870, Surratt
admitted publicly that he had plotted
with Booth to ``abduct'' Lincoln. He told
of the days preceding the murder, of
his trip to Montreal carrying money and
messages from Judah Benjamin. The
secret service bank in Montreal, where
gold from Britain was deposited for
Benjamin's crew, was the same bank in
which Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes
Booth had made his deposits six months
before the killing. 
   The war was over. But the defeated
Confederacy was transformed into the
romantic {Lost Cause}, an object of
cultish reverence. 

<end excerpt>


>>>the Masons being behind all this stuff as agents for
>>>Britain.
>>
>>Well, he names names and cites circumstances. Why don't you look
>>some of them up.
>>
>He does not mention names and circumstances so much as he simply
>states that the freemasons were behind everything and everybody
>and that the Confederacy and most of Europe were puppets of
>a Masonic conspiracy.

There is more detail given in Tony Chaitkin's remarks. It is
unfortunate that John Covici was not able to post them 
immediately as a companion article to LaRouche's speech, but
nobody's perfect.

>>>After that he spins off into Aristotle (bad), Plato (good),
>>>Henry Kissinger, the Warbugs, the Federal reserve, the
>>>income tax and his 2500 year struggle between these dark
>>>forces behind the scenes.   There's too many things in
>>>that message to even catalog.
>>
>>I can see that this all seems very strange to you.
>>
>I wonder if you can.  The question is - why doesn't any of this
>sound a trifle bizarre to you?

Well, a number of years ago, when I first encountered LaRouche and his 
people, they were promoting the "Rockeffeller conspiracy" hypothesis and 
it all sounded EXTREMELY bizarre. But it was inextricably interspersed 
with stuff that made extremely good sense, and was not being publicized 
elsewhere. My first response was to find out more about who these
people were, and what precisely they believed, and why (philosophical
basis, etc.).  My next step was to do independent research to try
to figure out if any of the controversial stuff made sense. My 
verdict, finally, is that LaRouche's world view overall made a lot
better sense than any of the competing hypotheses, and I'll accept
it unless and until I run into something that makes more sense. What
I did NOT do was start spouting mindless flames whenever somebody
made a statement that flew in the face of my intellectual or emotional 
predjudices.


>>>Jeez.  What would really be educational would be a video
>>>of Larouche typing or dictating this insanity. It might
>>>be very educational.
>>
>>What would be educational would be to pick up a book or two
>>and check out some of the people, organizations and events
>>mentioned before starting to foam at the mouth. A response
>>asking whether the person posting this material had any 
>>further background material to support controversial
>>statements made in LaRouche's speech would also have been
>>appropriate.

>The speech is filled with unprovable assertions on secret
>conspiracies of Masons, Jews, and the English.  I've seen
>books and other postings on this subject and they basically
>parrot each other - making the same accusations - but never
>any "proof".  If the poster had any "background material" he
>should have posted it (or at least references) a long time
>ago, instead of simply making thousands of insulting and
>probably libelous remarks accusing Jews of slavery and
>treason.

Well the background material has been posted now, under the topic 
KKK: A Scottish Rite Project. As I mentioned in another post here 
it was taken from  a speech given at the same conference by Tony 
Chaitkin, a LaRouche affiliated writer specializing in American 
history and author of the book "Treason in America - From Aaron Burr 
to Averell Harriman". Should anyone be tempted to raise the specter of 
anti-semitism based on Mr. Chaitkin's references to various Jewish 
individuals and organizations, it is interesting to note that in his 
book he is described as "... the son of Jacob Chaitkin, an attorney who 
spent the 1930's fighting Nazi Germany's corporate and legal collaborators 
in the United States."
                                                                                 A passage in Chaitkin's book sheds more light on this. From page 555
of the second edition (the first edition is abbreviated and does not
contain this material)

[Material on a court case handled by Jacob Chaitkin with John Foster 
Dulles as the opposing attorney omitted. This was a test case of the 
Hitler government's debt moratorium and was brought to help disrupt 
Nazi international financial maneuvers]

"But Dulles, Harriman, and their allies stepped up the trade
between Nazi Germany and the United States. American Jews and
others including the American Federation of Labor organized a 
boycott of German imports. In 1934 the AMerican Jewish Congress
hired Jacob Chaitkin as the legal director of their Joint Boycott
Committee. Chaitkin negotiated with Macy's and other department 
stores; Macy's and others stopped selling goods from Nazi Germany
under threats of demonstrations and boycotts.

[as support for the boycott grows]

... two Jewish organizations opposed the boycott and warned Jews not to 
take any public action whatsoever against the Hitler regeime. These two 
anti-boycott groups were the B'nai B'rith and the American Jewish Committee,
whose leaders were deeply involved in the politics, commerce, and - to the
extent Jews were allowed - the social life of the pro-Nazi Harriman-Dulles
circle, and the Venetian-German-"Jewish" Warburgs. "

Chaitkin cites the following source. Gottleib, Moshe R., American Anti-Nazi
Resistance 1933-1941: An Historical Analysis, Ktav Publishing House, New
York, 1982.

If you missed Tony Chaitkin's speech and it has expired at your site, let me 
know, and I'll be glad to email you a copy. 

Bear in mind, that "proof" is relative. There are still people who
believe that Oswald acting alone, killed JFK. What we deal with in
conspiracy research is usually circumstantial evidence. The question 
of how much of what kind of evidence lends how much credibility to a
hypothesis is an important one, but yelling "proof, proof" whenever
somebody voices a hypothesis you personally dislike is not going to
make a positive contribution to that discussion.

>I truly couldn't care less what LaRouche, Covici, you
>or anything thinks about these things.  Think away.  But
>I can't just sit around silently while crap like this
>is poured onto the net.  You expect to make accusations
>linking people to slavery, assasination, violence in
>Europe and not to be called on it.  The speech had not
>one single shred of what might be called proof.

What you did is not about "calling" anybody about anything.
Without asking a single question or looking up a single
reference or making a single reasoned argument, you came
on spouting mindless insults. 

>marc colten

-Steve Crocker

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.desert-storm,alt.politics.clinton