From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Why The Statue of General Albert Pike Must be Destroyed
Summary: REbuttal
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:58:01 GMT



>>In article <19ee6mINNck8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, 
>>aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker) writes:
>>> 
>>>colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>>>
>>>
>                                                                                 >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? 
>

No Jew, to my knowledge, claims that all Jews are saints.  The
jails in Israel are full of Jews who decided crime pays.  In
America there are plenty of Jews in prison.  That's not the point.

>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.

Note the jump from organizations to Jews to "Jewish Organizations".
To claim, without proof, that organizations composed of one group
are criminal and treasonous is to tar too many people with the
same brush.
>
>>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 Bnai Brith that LaRouche discusses is as far from Earth as Mongo IV.
Where's the proof of ANY wrongdoing on the organizations part, much
less it's supposed role as an arm of British intelligence, as founder
of the Ku Klux Klan, as promoter of skinheads or any of the claims?

>
>>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)

So if I look for the smoking gun, I won't find any after 100 years, and
yet we are supposed to accept LaRouche's accusations anyway.  Where
is HIS smoking gun?

>
><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>
>
I concatenated the lines to save some space (by the way, any chance that
the great minds working under LaRouche could discover the 80 character line?).
A lot of allegations here - none of which is pertinent to the story.  In
any case, is there proof for any of this (I mean the "Secret Service Bank"
or proof Booth had an account).
>

>>>>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.
>

My flames are not usually mindless, but sometimes I snap.  There`s
only so much of this unsubstantiated stuff I can read before I feel
compelled to fire back.  I usually don't - I'm never going to change your
mind and I think most other people don't need convincing.  however, certain
allegations need to be at least challenged.  As for you conversion to
LaRouches idea, the question I have is how much independent research
you did, or was it just circular research where you went back and forth
to complementary sources which support only each other.  Some of the
allegations (mutli-generation, thousands year old, secret societies,
etc) would seem to have no proof to go on.  How much is proof and how
much is belief?

>
>
>>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."

I've read the Scottish Rite material as well, but my questions
remain the same.  Proof or just more allegations.  The material in
thos postings seem to be no more than a rehash of the same themes.

>                                                                                 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. "
>

Several American Jewish organizations weaseled very badly during the 
Hitler years.  Their failures are adequately documents in "The Abandonment
of the Jews" whose author escapes me at the moment.  Their motives, far
from being sinister were those of indicisive people who should have known
better but didn't.  They were trapped between the hope to save German Jews
and the fear that oppossing Hitler at that point (we were not yet at
war) would create enemies not only in Germany (where millions of Jews
were essentially trapped) but in the US which had a great deal of open
and not so open Anti-Semitism they were afraid to stir up.  Many of
their fears turned out to be correct during the war when the US government
had no more interest in saving Jews than they did before the war.   To
escalate this into a plot between the Bnai Brith and the AJC and
the "Venetian-German-"Jewish" Warburgs is pushing it.


>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.

Proof is relative.  fine, but in the absence of proof, why should
your allegations go unchallenged?  If someone doesn't yet "proof,
proof, proof" then any allegation must be accepted and lives ruined,
people destroyed, all on someones claim.  I hate to use it, but
the word for this is "witch hunt".

>
>>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. 
>

LaRouche, and by extension you, call people traitors, satanists,
slavers, and all the rest and MY insults are mindless?


marc colten

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