From: aq817@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steve Crocker)
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Why The Statue of General Albert Pike Must be Destroyed
Date: 12 Oct 1992 08:30:33 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:

>>>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.

And the fact that a particular Jew may be socially prominent as 
a Jew, or may be among the leadership of an organization whose
aim is to promote Jewish interests should not alter this principle.
When LaRouche and his colleagues attack groups like the B'nai B'rith 
or the ADL, individuals like Judah Benjamin or Henry Kissinger, or
families such as the Bronfmans or the Rothschilds, there is no reason
I can see to equate this with an attack on the Jewish people. By
analogy, one could attack an organization such as the NAACP or a 
leader such as Jesse Jackson for their political stance and/or
character without being accused of being anti-black. The question
that needs to be answered about the objects of LaRouche's ire is 
not "are they Jewish" but "are they guilty". If there were cause
to think he made these charges in bad faith BECAUSE the targets were 
well known as Jews, we might suspect anti-semitism at work. This 
appears far-fetched to me, primarily because of the even-handed 
manner in which prominent gentiles are attacked on the same issues.

>>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.

Marc, just a minute here. It was YOU who accused ME of supporting
material in which "Jews are the bad guys". I presumed your objection
here was that the criticized organizations, in this case the B'nai 
B'rith, are in fact Jewish. I am fully aware that no such organization
can claim to represent the Jewish community as a whole. This is a 
point I have made repeatedly in trying to explain why I do not consider
such attacks anti-semitic. Neither LaRouche nor myself has any control
over the fact that the B'nai B'rith is Jewish. 

To drive home that what is going on here is NOT anti-semitism, let
me quote from Tony Chaitkin's speech. Note that he carefully 
distinguishes between different factions within the Jewish community
at the time, based on their political perspective - particularly their
attitude pro or anti slavery

<begin excerpt>

    The B'nai B'rith and `Egyptian
Principles'

   In his admiring biography of Judah
Benjamin, Eli Evans quotes the famous
attack against Benjamin's pro-slavery
fanaticism by Ohio's Senator Ben Wade:
``when old Moses, under the immediate
inspiration of God Almighty, enticed a
whole nation of slaves, and ran
away ... to old Canaan, I suppose that
Pharaoh and all the chivalry of old
Egypt denounced him as a most furious
abolitionist.... There were those who
loved Egypt better than they loved
liberty.... They were `Israelites with
Egyptian principles.'|'' 
   Senator Wade's barb hit its mark.
Judah Benjamin had deserted the
religion of Moses. He had spat on the
law of freedom, the gift that Jews
celebrate in the Passover seder (which
was also Christ's last supper). 
   Since then, other ``Israelites with
Egyptian principles,'' those Jews who
like Benjamin attached their destinies
to the British Empire and its
racialism, have become a vital
component of the Anglo-American Eastern
Establishment; ``honorary Anglo-Saxons,''
they have helped transform the United
States into an essentially mindless British
model imperium. And the racialism they
coauthored has brought tragedy to Jews
as well as to others outside the racial
pale. 
   In the Civil War, twice as many
Jews fought for the Union as for the
Confederacy. Northern Jews, many of
them recent German immigrants, were
strongly pro-republican and
anti-slavery. 
   The predominant Jewish tradition
in the South was not only pro-slavery,
but overwhelmingly Freemasonic. 
   The Independent Order of B'nai
B'rith formed in 1843 as a Jewish
community sub-project in the
restoration of Masonry by the Scottish
Rite and the British foreign office.
Though most of its lodges were in the
North, B'nai B'rith was openly
pro-Confederate. Though it claimed to
be neutral in the war, many of the
Order's Northern spokesmen were
stridently pro-slavery. B'nai B'rith's
post-Civil War leaders were
pro-Confederate operatives, including
later president Simon Wolf, who had
been arrested by the War Department in
Washington, D.C. as the lawyer for a
Confederate spy ring. 

[much more relevant material deleted for brevity]

<end excerpt>



>>>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?

Well, unfortunately, Tony did not give his sources. This was a speech,
rather than a book or a learned article, so perhaps this is understandable,
if regretable. (Note that I have shifted the focus from LaRouche's
speech, to Tony Chaitkin's much more detailed one, since a comparison
of contents clearly shows that the former is supported by the latter.)
I have read Tony's book length work, and it is all well documented. Tony
is co-author with Webster Tarpley of the Unauthorized Biography of George
Bush which has been serialized here, and the footnotes in that documwent 
are plentiful. In short, I consider Tony Chaitkin a careful researcher 
who would not make such claims recklessly. Your mileage amy vary.

>>>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?

You don't get it Marc. There IS no smoking gun. I cannot produce one.
LaRouche cannot produce one. Anybody who expects a gun to still be 
smoking after 100 years is just being silly. Anybody who demands
"smoking gun" quality of proof on historical issues in being absurd.
Historical questions unavoidably turn on ambiguous and circumstantial 
evidence, as do most questions of conspiracy. And we deal here with
historical conspiracies. If you have read Tony's speech, you will
have seen as much "evidence" as exists in machine readbale form. If
you need more, see if you can find "Treason in America" by Anton
Chaitkin in your library (be sure to get the 2nd edition). It touches 
on related issues and is better documented than the speech.

>><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?).

Most of the material John posts appears to be arranged in columns for
input to a typesetter. I don't have any software to change this. Anyway,
it's useful in that it sets off this material from the body of the 
discussion.

>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).

If Tony says Surratt claimed this publically, then I presume the account
of his admission would be somewhere in the historical documents of that
time. Whether you would choose to believe Surratt is probably similar to
whether one believes the account of James Earl Ray of the events 
surrounding Martin Luther King's assassination. As to whether Surratt's
public statements adequately support Chaitkin's allegations, I suppose
one would have to read them. If you are able to find them in your
library, please let us know your opinion.

>>>>>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

I'm never going to object to somebody firing back - but you were 
shooting blanks. :)

>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

I went to documents from those LaRouche claimed to be modern day
conspirators (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilaterial Commission,
Rockefeller family institutions, etc.) as well as standard reference
works. I looked for personel overlaps and ideological stances. It
took VERY little research, for example, to confirm that the Rockefeller
family was up to their eyeballs in supporting Malthusian "population
control" programs.

>>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?

Again, I am uncomfortable with your demand for "proof". We rarely have
"proof" in social affairs. Who shot Kennedy? Why? Where's your "proof".
If we demanded proof before we acted, most social activism would come
to a grinding halt. As I said before, the relevant question is what
sort of circumstantial evidence is sufficient to lend plausibility
(not certainty!) to a hypothesis. Aditionally, on what grounds would
you establish somebody's intellectual authority so you would take their
word for anything? LaRouche has dozens of full time researchers and
writers digging this stuff up. I should reproduce their research before
I believe any of it? That's just not physically possible. I believe
LaRouche about secret societies, etc. because he acquired authority in
my eyes by saying uniquely sensible things about issues I consider 
myself qualified to have an opinion on. 

>>>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.

Marc, once more, please try to get this straight. The form 
of your statement leaves it conveniently unclear exactly
what opinion you accuse LaRouche of holding, since the phrase
"accusing Jews" can be read as either "accusing certain specific
Jews" (this is accurate) or "accusing Jews in general" (untrue
and rather disgusting). THE B'NAI B'RITH IS NOT THE JEWISH
PEOPLE. AN ACCUSATION AGAINST THE FORMER IS NOT AN ATTACK ON 
THE LATTER.

>>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.

That speech is useful because of the degree of detail, providing 
many more accessible starting points for anybody who wants to pursue
the question in a library.

>>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.

Well, as I said, I cannot reproduce Tony's research, and he is not
available on the Net to elaborate. The main reason I included this
material is to show that at least in this instance, criticism of the 
B'nai B'rith appears to be motivated by profoundly pro-Jewish and
anti-Nazi considerations.

>>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,

Fine, challenge them. Give a reason why you think they are wrong. 

>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".

Well, in this particular case, the targets of the accusation are already
safely dead :)  I understand your point generally, though. But I would 
say that nobody but a fool will "accept" anything merely because it 
is posted on usenet. The value of announcing an allegation of this
sort is that knowing in detail what is being alleged, the reader can
keep their eyes and ears open for material from other sources which 
would tend to confirm or refute them. 

>>>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?

But Marc, "people" ARE all of these things. You appear to believe
that THESE PARTICULAR people are not. You should do a little research
and determine if this is accurate. I called your insults 
"mindless" because they lacked substantive content. They were
almost the precise semantic equivalent of jumping up and down
yelling "IS NOT...IS NOT".


>marc colten

Steve Crocker