("Quid coniuratio est?")
A laparotomy is a surgical section of the abdominal wall. In this Conspiracy Nation we will try to get to the guts of just what is LaRouche about?
I read the LaRouche paper, The New Federalist, and it is like a mathematical puzzle. I know I can figure this guy out. So I have been puzzling over the LaRouche conundrum. No solution yet, but here is what I've got so far.
Tonight on 60 Minutes they opened with a piece on the U.N. war crimes tribunal vis a vis Bosnia. According to the report, yes, the Serbs have been committing atrocities. For example, one man had his legs broken, then was forced to watch as Serb "soldiers" took turns raping his wife and daughter. Finally, after a few days, they killed the two women.
But who are ya gonna believe?? Remember the item they were telling us about Iraqi soldiers ripping babies out of incubators? That turns out to have been a lie. So when the "news fakers" constantly lie and mislead us, how can we know when they are telling us the truth? Who can you trust?
So LaRouche says that, yes, it's true. The Serbs committed (and are committing too, I guess) genocide. And personally I believe he's right on that. But I can't say for sure.
But then we have LaRouche saying that Bill Clinton is not such a bad guy -- it's the British that are spreading these stories about him. Yet other sources, that I respect, say otherwise. So who are ya gonna believe? Should I just "ask the experts"? But the "experts" say that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy! So how can I put my trust in them?
So the puzzle aspect: Regarding the Clinton labyrinth, to whit -- Yes, Clinton is a scumbag... No, it's a British plot... Yes... No... Yes... No... (It just goes round and round): I think it is inescapable that Clinton has done or been connected with outrageous lies, questionable financial practices, pathological sex, and drug abuse. I say it is inescapable because the alternative is that persons such as Paula Jones, Larry Nichols, Sally Perdue, Terry Reed, L.J. Davis, and so many others are all of them British inventions. What, are they all actors telling us stories!? I don't think so. I say that, without a doubt, there is something there.
So the question becomes: Yes, but why is the British controlled press telling us about it? In other words, LaRouche is saying that there is something sinister in the fact that the British controlled press is merely reporting on things THAT HAVE HAPPENED. We have got a basic choice here: Either the conspiracy is (a) that the British press is reporting about it, or the conspiracy is (b) that the American press is not reporting about it.
So let's have a poll of the readers. I ask that you respond by choosing one of the following:
(a) -- The conspiracy is that the British press is reporting about the Clinton scandals.
(b) -- The conspiracy is that the American press is not reporting about the Clinton scandals.
Yes, LaRouche is a real puzzle. So how does our own press handle it? They just throw mud. "Why think? Just throw mud," they say. So for example, the local paper has reported gravely that LaRouche is an "anti-Semite" and a "racist". That is outrageous! I'm not going to go into details, but if you have read LaRouche's stuff then you know that those charges are lies.
But why does LaRouche defend Clinton? That is the bottom line. We have got irrefutable evidence that this Clinton is close to being an abomination on the face of the earth; that this Clinton is a pullulation and a lie. (I refer doubters to past Conspiracy Nation and Conspiracy for the Day issues, covering the mind-boggling lack of the remnants of a conscience that Mr. Clinton exhibits. Does William Jefferson Clinton still belong to the family of man? I don't think so.) Yet LaRouche declares that Bill Clinton is "not so bad." So why oh why is LaRouche lying?
It is a puzzlement. Why does this sometimes brilliant man lie to us about Clinton? Somewhere in the weekly New Federalist newspaper that is put out by LaRouche and the herd there may be an answer. Somewhere from past the Tales of the Venetian Doge, near to Nicholas of Cusa: Our Hero, but not exceeding Adventures on the Orient Express, there might be an answer. Ah hah! Here's an item about "The Confederate Masonic Circle Behind Whitewater Judge Sentelle: The Untold Story" (New Federalist, Sept. 26, 1994). Hmmm... Seems that Chief Justice Rehnquist is entrusted with selection of a special 3-judge panel which in turn designates independent counsels. And, Rehnquist was confirmed as Chief Justice in 1986 with the assistance of none other than Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. South Carolina is the site of the founding of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Oh my God!! It all fits in! And what is more, THURMOND IS A 33RD DEGREE MASON. Well of course! Thurmond also helped confirm David Sentelle's appointment to the above-mentioned special 3-judge panel and then Sentelle in turn was behind the replacement of Whitewater special counsel Fiske with Kenneth Starr. It all fits in, not.
But I haven't solved the riddle yet. I don't know why LaRouche is lying on this one. But he is lying.
This is not to say that I don't enjoy reading the LaRouche materials. But it's like I said before, with LaRouche you get extreme polarities. It is like the Bill Cosby joke about how everyone in his old neighborhood grew up "to be either killers or priests. That's it! There was no middle ground." With LaRouche you either get the press and their herd saying "anti-Semite", etc., or you get LaRouche and his herd saying, "Hail LaRouche!"
Meanwhile it's like I said -- So who are ya gonna believe??
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
"Justice" = "Just us" = "History is written by the assassins."