Conference taveng::bagels

    
    And people wonder where the next Hitler will come from.
    

    Let's not get carried away with ourselves here.  Lyndon Larouche
    is hardly the material for "the next Hitler".  The only difference
    between the Lyndon Larouche of the past, and the Lyndon Larouche
    of 1987 is that he is getting more press coverage than he deserves.
    
    I don't know if you've ever heard a discourse by him, but he is
    as coherant as Moe, Larry, and Curly.  Just because he claimed that
    the ADL is a tool of the KGB doesn't make him a threat to the Jewish
    people anymore than claiming that Queen Elizabeth is a drug-pusher
    makes him a threat to Great Britain.
    
    I remember Larouche from way back, when he had the "US Labor" party
    (a misnomer if there ever was one!).  The most exposure he ever
    had then was a two-minute commercial on local TV.  Yesterday at
    his news conference (after his arraignment) all the networks plus
    the NY Times was there to cover it.  Why he should suddenly deserve
    this attention is probably due to the fact that the presidential
    candidates of both parties are about as exciting as watching your
    car windows fog up on a rainy day.
    
    Yes, two Larouchies won nominations in Illinois, but that was due
    to a gaffe by the voters, who just went in and voted for a straight
    democratic ticket, not paying attention to the names, etc. (Ok,
    I admit that's scary in itself)  But before you loosely throw the
    name Hitler around remember that the Nazis had a depression, and
    a country with a long history of institutionalized anti-semitism
    to work with.

    David

    
    
    BE CAREFUL!!!!!
     
    Just because lash larue is as coherent as a demented humming bird
    and based on recent allegations is somewhat less ethical than a
    loan shark, do not ignore him. Don't forget that the man is running
    for office and strange things happen at election time. Appathy at
    the poles by the saner portion of the population could get him elected
    by default. 
    
    Personal opion no flames please... I would rather see a Richard Nixon 
    re-elected than have a nut like Larouche in any kind of public office
    even dog catcher.
    

    Remember that Hitler was considered rather silly and demented when
    he first started out. In fact they put him in jail where he wrote
    his manafesto (Mein Kaumf)(sp). Some of the differences are that
    he is for 'rounding up all the people who have aids and putting
    them where they won't infect the good decent whites who should
    have right to not have to see these degenerate people' and the 'aids'
    carriers he refers to are the Gays and Drug Dealers. He seems to
    be able to put anyone he wants into these catagories. Hitler wasn't
    much different in the beginning, so don't just laugh him off or
    in 10 to 15 years we could all be in for a lot of trouble.

    Look, I agree that there are a few (and I want to emphasize FEW)
    parallels between the incoherencies of Lyndon LaRouche and Adolph
    Hitler.  However in America of the '80's Larouche is missing one
    large component, and that is maximum television exposure.
    
    What is scary is how the American people are so manipulated by the
    medium (Marshall Mcluhan, are you listening?), look how an a*****e
    such as Ollie North can project himself as Gary Cooper against the
    bad guys, and win hearts and minds.  Those of you who read the comic
    pages daily such as I, should be paying attention to recent
    Doonesbyry's.  It is not so far fetched to imagine a character such
    as "Ron Headrest" running for president.
    
    David 

    I can't disagree with the concerns over LaRouche. LBJ, Tricky Dick
    and now Ronnie are symptomatic of how close to the edge we have
    come. _So far_, the system has worked.
    
    The main reason I don't get too upset about LaRouche is that our
    society being what it is, some other whacko will probably blow him
    away before he can scratch his way to the top. Ref. Malcolm X, and
    one of the neo-Nazis some years back, among others.
    
    - Richard

    re: .6
    
    Malcolm X was far from being a "loony".  His religion, the color
    of his skin, and that he was so outspoken were factors that prejudiced
    him in the eyes of the (mainly) white american media.
    
    David

    re: .7
    
    No offense intended. Malcolm X may or may not have been a loony
    (he was, beyond doubt, pretty far out). My recollection of him is
    that he qualified as a "racist in reverse". Neither here nor there.
    I was using him as an illustration of what tends to happen to those
    with visibly extreme points of view in our society. Such behavior
    can be "hazardous to your health." Not the commentary we'd like
    to have made about us, but true. Maybe that's a side effect of
    constructing a melting pot.
    
    - Richard

    Malcolm was only classified as an "extremist", and the most famous
    slander "racist in reverse" by those whom his ideas were threatening
    to in this country.
    
    Self-determination for blacks is no more an "extreme" idea than
    what Zionism intended for the Jewish people.  Malcolm was willing
    to cooperate with the NAACP, CORE, or any other organization that
    would support the goal of self-determination.  At the time of his
    assassination he was planning to elevate the civil rights issue
    to that of a human rights issue at the UN.
    
    I would suggest a reading of his speeches, and of course his
    autobiography.  A few of his speeches are even available on record.
    
    David 

    re .6
    
    	I agree that we continue to live "close to the edge" politically
    in the US.  The other day Senator Rudman of the "Contragate" committee
    (I prefer the name "Gippergate" myself) noted that the committee
    is getting a lot of hate mail, and the two top targets are Rep.
    Stokes (because he's black) and counsel Arthur Liman (because he's
    Jewish).
    
    		David

    The interesting thing about LaRouche, is that last summer and
    fall, when a lot of people in his organization were being 
    indicted was the preponderance of Jewish last names.
    
    I don't think that this was due to the fact that only Jews in
    his organization were doing illegal (whoops, have to say 
    allegedly illegal) things, but rather his organization appears
    to be made up of a large number of Jews - definitely more than
    one would expect in a group like his.
    
    I wonder why, and has anybody else noticed this?
    
    
       Alan
    

Perhaps someone should put a pointer to this note in BLACKNOTES.

Malcom X was a Black nationalist, at a time when Martin Luther King
was a radical subject to close investigation by the FBI.  I doubt
that any one of the manny correspondents in this notesfile have
had access to un-biased information on his ministry, beliefs, and
goals.  (Assuming un-biased informantion actually exists.)

Martin.

    re: .12
    
    Maybe you could explain what you mean by unbiased information? 
    Which direction would the bias be coming from?  Also, I don't
    understand what you mean by the connection with Martin Luther King
    and his FBI investigation.
    
    David

    As the author of .6, I'm beginning to be sorry I ever brought Mr.
    X up. What will probably be my last comment on the subject: he showed
    up regularly in the papers and on TV, and I wasn't running around
    in diapers or short pants. Matter of fact, the day after he was
    shot, I took a wrong turn on my way to a date in Brooklyn, and found
    myself driving through Bed-Stuy. Not too comfortable! I remember
    a lot of talk - from him among others - about "white devils" and
    various and sundry similar remarks. Yes, I will concede that his
    views seemed to be maturing/mellowing prior to his death.
    
    I have a hard time comparing him with Martin Luther King, who
    technically broke the laws, but who sought to reach out to others
    of good will of all races, and who was prepared to accept
    responsibility for his acts.
    
    No, I'm not an expert on Malcolm X, and yes, some of my opinions
    could have been influenced by bad PR. But the man made his own
    impression on me.
    
    And lest there be any doubts, my views on prejudice were formed
    while growing up in a time of awareness of ultimate prejudice, i.e.,
    during and after WW II. I've always sympathized with the black
    experience by virtue of being in perhaps the only minority subject
    to worse prejudice.
    
    BTW, one of my daughter's highest compliments was to tell me how
    much I reminded her of Bill Cosby, who is my all-time personal favorite
    very funny and very human type person.
    
    And now, back to Bageldom...
    
    - Richard

    	That's what I like about us Jews. Whether we are black or white
    nothing is black or white.

                                             
    I'm very much a newcomer to this conference.
    I'll pass on a few things I've seen/heard about L LaR.
    
    According to high US Gvt CIA or ONI (office of naval intel)
    official, L LaR may have the largest or most extensive
    private intelligence network around.
    
    Around where, I don't know. I believe this remark is attributed to
    Stansfield Turner or Bobby Inman (the official's) in  Bob
    Woodward's book VEIL, which concerns CIA Dir William Casey
    and the Iran/Contra/Enterprise disclosures.
    
    L LaR moved to Germany some years ago, married German (I assume
    W German) Helga Zepp. L LaR developed a close association with a
    retired (West) German military officer (name escapes me).
    
    I believe the discussion of L LaR in this (BAGELS) conference
    is very important and more enlightening that the corresponding
    discussion in SOAPBOX.
    
    I would be particularly interested to hear of any alleged
    Gvt (USA or other Gvt) connections that L LaR might have.
    
    Regarding the question of seemingly Jewish names of much
    L LaR staff, I don't know. However, one of the 2 Illinois
    state Democratic nominees (mentioned in earlier note), in
    response to a question during televised debate, which question
    ridiculed L LaR org's apparent anti-Isreal (?) stance,
    defended herself by explaining how her uncle (or close relative)
    barely survived a death camp. She was quite vehement, if I recall.
    I don't know how to interpret this.
                                              
    Of course, L LaR's printed literature has for a long time
    been
    			pro SDI
    			anti Rockefeller
    			pro Nuclear (esp breeder and fusion) power
    			anti "trilateralist"
    			scoffing at CIA "incompetence" (!?)
    			anti-Soviet
    			very similar, in many ways, to Birch Society??
    
    I can't see any pattern to it, so naturally I wonder if it
    is a rendering of some "hidden agenda" of some concealed
    backer or interest group for which L LaR might be a front.
    
    I hope this sounds conspiratorial enough.
    
    regards, John
    
    

    RE .16:

	Maybe he's just schizophrenic?  I don't mean to minimize the
	danger of LaRouche, but his program (and flip-flop from
	left to right) is so off-the-wall that it's hard to believe
	that he's got all his marbles.  I think the strangest thing
	about him is his ability to attract followers.  I wonder what
	kind of brainwashing techniques he uses.

	We used to call them the National Cuckoos of Labor.	

	It is a mistake to think that LaRouche has flip flopped.

	LaRouche proclaimed himself an avowed Marxist in the early 60's.
	Not surprisingly, he spent his time trying to destroy
	left orientated political groups especially through 
	disruption and violence. It was the communist
	party in the US that labeled LaRouche as connected with
	the CIA. This was labeled as kooky but his actions and
	past history say otherwise.

	Now given LaRouches past, doesn't it seem surprising
	that LaRouche was given OPEN ACCESS to the White House
	and top people in the U.S. intelligence community.
	Admiral Bobby Inman at that time was CIA director was
	conferring with LaRouche and he even admitted LaRouche
	had the world's largest private intelligence organization.
	It is very hard to judge such a claim since the CIA has
	private sector employees also.
	
	LaRouche even said at his credit card trial admitted that
	he was carrying out what the CIA wanted him to do.

	To understand the role LaRouche played is to understand
	the concept of Pseudo-gangs and the strategy developed
	by Frank Kitson. The basic idea behind this strategy is
	to infiltrate government agents into movements and even
	create bogus groups within way before the become a major 
	factor or more specifically when things	are calm. When a 
	more active period of opposition arises, there are people 
	in higher echelon of the movements. It is not uncommon 
	for the CIA to create Maoist groups to carry out their
	deeds. 	His agenda in the 60's was to destroy from the
	inside the political movements of the left.

	Who knows, LaRouche may now have a little agenda on his own 
	but for	most purposes the agenda for his group was neutralization
	of leftist groups. LaRouche supporters I talked to were rabid
	Reagan supporters. Even LaRouche was enthusiastic about Reagan.

	Darryl

	P.S.

	Mr. LaRouche ... if you are caught or killed the Secretary
	of State will disavow all knowledge of your action ... :-)

    
    {re: 326.18}   ....Frank Kiston...
    
    Thank you and very interesting. I have also heard strong
    suggestions that "destroying leftist movements from
    within" was a/the purpose of NCLC (natl caucus of labor cmtes),
    L LaR's original organization.
    
    However, could you explain more about Frank Kiston (Kitson?),
    who he was/is, and any specific source material about him.
    
    -John
    
    ps. Adm. Bobby Inman was head of ONI or DIA, and (?) a deputy CIA director.
    He was never actually CIA director. He had hoped to be named such,
    but Casey got the prize. That's when Bobby Ray Inman went to head
    MCC (nat'l Microelectronics & Computer Tech Center in Austin Texas).
    VEIL alleges that Inman had his own mole in the NSC (or oversight
    cmte??), illegally extracting info for Inman or his "constituency".

                                                         

	Inman ... deputy director. Thank you for correcting me.


	Frank Kitson was a Bragadier British commander. He wrote
	a basic counterinsurgency method in Western Europe and
	North America called "Low Intensity Operations: Subversion,
	Insurgency, Peacekeeping (1971)" which describes insurgency as
	developing through three stages. 

	Stage 1: The Preparatory Period
	Stage 2: Non-Violent Phase
	Stage 3: Insurgency

	Stage 1 is a period when nothing is happening and things are
	normal, all is calm. According to Kitson because you can
	not see rebellion does not mean its not there. The state
	tate enemies are gathering force and knocking at the door.
	The period when nothing seems to be happening is the time
	when police must prepare themselves and start penetrating
	the opposition because something is bound to develop.

	Earlier theory was practiced by J. Edgar Hoover which was
	reactive. Somebody would do something and they would get
	added to the list.

	The Preparatory period is when the police deploy themselves
	to infiltrate the enemy. That is when people are not on
	their guard and when spies and provocateurs could more
	easier be put in place so when open rebellion takes place
	their agents are there. 


	Stage 2 is when people are leafleting and marching. The police
	must have a grasp of the insurgents' politics. They must sort
	out the different categories of enemies in order to divide and
	weaken them.


	Although the simplest method to deter movements is to
	surprise the movement with ruthless application	of naked 
	force, this may not be politically acceptable to some
	governments. The most promising line of approach lies
	in separating the mass of those engaged in the campaign
	from the leadership by judicious promise of concessions,
	at the same time imposing a period of calm by use of
	government forces backed up by statements to the effect 
	that most of the concessions can only be implemented when
	the life of the country returns to normal. Although with
	an eye to world opinion and to the need to retain the
	allegiance of the people, no more force than is necessary
	for containing the situation should be used, conditions
	can be made reasonably uncomfortable for the population
	as a whole, in order to provide incentive for a return
	to normal life and to act as a deterrent towards a 
	resumption of the campaign.

	When the insurgency begins, it is important to associate
	as many prominent member of the population, especially
	those who have engaged in non-violent action with the 
	government. This is known as co-optation.

	If defeating the enemy comes down largely to finding
	him, it is easy to recognize the importance of good 
	information (intelligence).

	Kitson termed any liberation movement "gangs". He claims to
	have invented in Kenya during the British war against the
	Mau Mau the concept of pseudo gangs or counter gangs. It is
	important for these PHONY OPPOSITION MOVEMENTS TO DEVELOP
	CREDIBILITY SO THEY CAN EFFECTIVELY CONFUSE, DIVIDE AND 
	UNDERMINE THE AUTHENTIC ORGANIZATIONS and so they can
	eventually serve as paramilitary auxilliaries to the security
	forces.

	I have tried to excerpt and summarize here.

	Darryl

    thanks for the information about
    Frank Kitson and countergangs.