Faces Of Evil

"Martyrdom of St Erasmus" by Dieric Bouts the Elder ca.1458, Sankt Peterskerk, Louvain

 

Well, if dealing with naughty 'Hubby Bubba' is all Hillary is proposing to offer as credentials to deal with evil men, one poster child, Hossein Shariatmadari, should pop the cork.

And only days after the first annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, it is of particular importance to put a face to evil whenever possible, hence the link to Hossein's picture from Holy Crime's list of Iran's 'Most Wanted' -- don't miss the Mullahcracy's panoptic who's who of butchers and henchmen.

You remember my expose on Iran's current godfather of evil, Mohammad-Ali Ramin, who trumped his Holocaust denial with the recent claim that Hitler was Jewish and the founder of Israel -- all of course in the interest to further discredit the State of Israel in preparation for its destruction.

So, what sets Hossein Shariatmadari apart? Not surprisingly, he joins Mohammad-Ali Ramin as a member of a neo-fundamentalist think tank, another who's who of evil; all are of course sworn supporters of Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and Supreme-Thug-In-Chief Ali Khamenei -- recently voted the 'least popular of Iranian leaders', just over 1%....

Also, Hossein is busy spreading the Holocaust denial propaganda via the Iranian daily, Kayhan, where he is Editor and General Manager of the Kayhan Institute and Publishing Company or, according to the Official News Agency of the Islamic Republic (IRNA), the head of the 'Media Mafia' -- it's a must read, granting us a rare insight as to the extend to which the Mullahcracy have fashioned their entire infrastructure after that of the Nazis.

Hossein is not a journalist, who rose to the position of Editor. Instead, he was appointed by the Supreme-Thug-In-Chief Ayatollah Ali Khameneh'i to ensure that Kayhan becomes the "mouthpiece of the hard liners".

Under the title of “How the Media Mafia Was Formed in Keyhan”, IRNA starts by revealing the activities of the “team” that rule over Keyhan under the leadership of (...) Hossein Shariatmadari, (...) a former prison interrogator, who learned the business of bulletin writing (...) at the Revolutionary Guards Intelligence Unit.

“A media mafia has been formed within the Persian-language afternoon daily “Kayhan” for quite a long time now and works to implement a policy of violence”, IRNA says, adding that [at the time] Hossein Shariatmadari had been moved to a centre where he was able to start the work of spreading accusations and fabricating offences”.

According to IRNA, it was in the Qezel Hesar Prison, “where he spent several years”, when Mr Shariatmadari put together a team of repentant members from the outlawed “Arman Mostaz’afin” (Ideals of the Deprived) organization, which he later installed at Keyhan with orders to collect political and intelligence background information on reformers and dissidents.

In keeping with well-proven Gestapo methods, such information was then used to attack and 'character assassinate' reformists and dissident intellectuals.

Keyhan’s Managing Editor [Hossein Shariatmadari] had also a hand in the preparation and broadcasting of notorious programs such as "Peyda va Penhan" (Visible and Hidden) and "Hoviyat" (Identity) where leading journalists, politicians, scholars and intellectuals would randomly and indiscriminatingly be accused as being on the “foreigners” payroll. 

Hossein's latest broadside, condemning the UN Resolution against Holocaust Denial, is even more eerie and evil when understood in that context:

The Holocaust, or the slaughter of Jews during of WWII by German Nazis, is a myth and a contrived story. [...]

There is no doubt that this resolution is an additional attempt to protect the regime that is occupying Jerusalem. In this situation, there is also no doubt as to the role that was placed on Israel, [namely to act] brutally against the Palestinian people and the rest of the Muslim nations. Not only can the U.N.'s Friday resolution not protect the role of 'the walking baton' for the collapsing Zionist entity, but it is a sturdy nail in the coffin of the U.N. The organization has long been on its deathbed, and it is not impossible that [even] before the collapse of the Zionist regime it will become a corpse, fit only for burial in the graveyard…

Rabid anti-Semite and anti-Zionist credentials, check!

Nothing new, though. Already in 2002, "just hours after twin attacks on Israeli targets in Kenya", Sharidmadri called for genocide:

After the lightning success of the Intifada against the Zionists, more and more Muslim revolutionaries have reached the conclusion that we should open a front outside occupied Palestine that targets the security of the Zionists and their protectors," the Kayhan newspaper said in an editorial. "They should all be killed and expelled from the areas where they have expelled you".

But apart from consensus over seeking the destruction of Israel, another common denominator emerges as even more striking among members of the Mullahcracy's leadership: Practically all of them are closely affiliated with Iran's blue-print copy of Himmler's Gestapo, the Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Even more disturbing, to earn ones stripes, years of interrogation duty in Iran's notorious prisons is a prerequisite; torturing innocent men and women is what sets these men apart, what makes them trustworthy as future leaders of the Islamic Republic.

Recalling the Angel of Death's words, "We don't want a system where people like George Bush can be elected as their leader, but instead want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals"... As their hair grays, they will be the very same individuals, who had proven their reasonableness and wisdom during years of inflicting unbearable pain by breaking the teeth and bones of mostly young men and women with clubs and chains.

But our Liberal friends are eager to interview these murdering swine to support their, at best confused and at worst, [...you fill in the gap...] political agenda. In fact, Muriel Mirak-Weissbach interviewed Hossein Shariatmadari only last month, repeating her boss' proposal to resume "full diplomatic relations with Iran, with no conditions, and revive normal relations with Syria", and furthermore asking if Iran would speak to the United States: "Obviously, a different United States—I'm not talking about Cheney/Bush, I'm talking about people you can trust, who, hopefully, will be in power soon."

You'd be excused to dismiss LaRouche and his team as has-been crackpots, were it not for the sad fact, that these kind of views are widespread among Liberal voters. Again, read the interview carefully and take it from the horse's mouth:

• The greatest benefit for the invasion was to Iran and the Islamic world.


• On the 20th day into the war, Mr. Bush said that the Israeli war against Lebanon was a war of the United States against Iran. He said Hezbollah was fighting on behalf of Iran and that Israel was fighting on behalf of the U.S.—and I accept what he said!


• I believe the Arab countries are in for a great shock coming from their people very soon. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the government is a hereditary monarchy. There is only one family controlling the state, all of the benefits of the country are in the hands of one family. This is unacceptable.


• The new American plan, as you said, is war between Sunnis and Shi'ites.


• If you look at the Iranian Revolution, for the last 27 years, you see we have had problems and a struggle with America and Israel—but we never had any problem with the Sunnis. The Sunni people in the region see Iran as a Shi'ite state fighting the common enemies of the Muslims, the United States and Israel. So the Sunni vs. Shi'ite scenario is meaningless.


• I think security in Iraq is good for everybody, it is to the benefit of all states, except for Mr. Bush. If there is security established in Iraq, it means that Mr. Bush has lost everything. Not only Mr. Bush, but the neo-cons and the Republican Party will lose. Because the first question is: Why did Mr. Bush invade Iraq? He has killed American soldiers and a lot of innocent Iraqis, and has spent billion of dollars of American taxpayers' money, and discredited the image of America's liberal democracy in the world. So if he withdraws, everyone will ask: Why did you invade in the first place? He has no way out; he has to stay in Iraq.


• We believe the main reason for the insurgency in Iraq is the presence of American and British troops. If they withdraw, the Iraqi people will have no problem living together.


• We have a lot of young educated people, who have studied in universities, and you see the nuclear achievement that has been made by these young people. We have had great success in nanotechnology. We will make announcements on the anniversary of the revolution [in February 2007], and everyone will be surprised.

Sounds familiar...

Comments

[nofate]

Apropos wikipedia, here is an interesting Newsbusters article about same. 'Nuff said.

[Red Violin]

Fantastic post. I'm not suprised at all. Ahmadinjead's spiritual mentor, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi is a disciple of Heideggar.

http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=3989

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

Ghost Dansing hit straight in the point about Communist Italian Antonio Gramsci's concept of a hegemon as an intellectual and cultural elite which directs social thought. That's Cultural Revolution: what's happenning in the West since decades ago. Universities and media are the main battlefield for commies. In Brazil, they already won the cultural war. Antiamericanism gets stronger also in the Old Europe, since "organic intellectuals" influence EU and its rejected new Constitution. That's our worst within enemies.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jacques Chirac has said it would not be very dangerous for Iran to have a nuclear bomb - only to retract the remark 24 hours later. “I would say that what is dangerous about this situation is not the fact of having a nuclear bomb - having one, maybe a second one a little later, well, that’s not very dangerous.”

Chirac, 74, had appeared distracted at times and struggled to remember names and dates during the interview. Considering his age and the pressures of the job, he is coming down with Alzheimer's.

Considering the shameful past in World War II, when France had surrender (French language word) and allied to the first Nazis, would not a big surprise if they do the same again. Chirac can changes his ideas every day.

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

God hear you, fellow... because there's a difference between business crimes and IDEOLOGICAL crimes. That press sites got hacked AT SAME TIME because their ideological containing.

Democracy itself is going to be die in Brazil in a way more subtle than the press is reporting. If you would know what socialists Brazilian leaders are making here, you would be ASTONISHED. In this war, our new rulers ARE in Islam's side. Their partner Hugo Chávez is only the iceberg's tip.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Of course, the International Petition will leads to nothing. Everyone knows there's only one way to stop that Iranian Nazi rat. It's the same way used against the first Hitler. Americans are preparing for the new World War against the new Nazi Axis. Israelis are ready.

By the way, the French, too. President Jacques Chirac already notified in interview last Thursday that France "NEVER will accept" an Iran with atomic weapons; and beforethe first Iranian missile travel through the skies, "Teheran will be DEVASTATED."

But the (desperate) objective of the Petition is get a peaceful solution for avoid a war - the first nuclear war in the History, that maybe will be the last one. Why? Because, in order to destroy the subterranean nuclear installations, isolated by tick walls of metal, the only possible way is an atomic bombardment. By the way, several.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

"Iran is a superpower. (..) The acomplishment of a new world without the infidels is possible and already is visible. (..) After Israel and America, goes Europe, with the end of all of the westerners, all of the infidels in the world (..) "

In a few words... EXTERMINATE "a minority" of 80% of the Humanity. Of course that everything that is a delirium of psychopaths. But when they got mass destruction power, the worst nightmares become real. Any doubt, study the History of the Twentieth century and see the real results of the Communist and Nazi dreams.

[Ghost Dansing]

Ernesto... if you feel threatened you to that degree, you need to take action to put yourself in a safer position. I don't look at the sites you are citing, and don't know what your position is exactly. However, everybody is vulnerable to hackers of various flavors and if you are running high-visibilty BLOGS with strong opinions that people don't agree with, you run the risk of people with the knowledge to attack through CYBERSPACE to do so... it is not right, it is ugly and stupid regardless what they think their justifications are... but we all run the risk... even Government websites get hacked.

The good news is that those kind of attacks will probably go no further than that... Cyberattacks... and will not necessarily result in physical attacks... you are wrestling in the INFOSPHERE, and being attacked in kind.

I would recommend that if you have reason to believe that things will go beyond that, you should consult the authorities.... the authorities may not like what you say or do, however, if they were having a problem with you, it is most likely they would confront you directly... even incarcerate you.... at any rate it would probably be far less ambiguous who your advesaries were.

Granted, there have been both rightest and leftest regimes that have violated human rights in the past... but I don't get the impression that you are living in such a place at this time, even if it is a "socialist" government. If they had a problem with you, you would know it...

Therefore, even if the government doesn't like you, they probably would be sympathetic if you felt your life or person was in danger and would help you out, or at least give you advice.

The alternatives, if you can afford it, include private security agencies and technical security arrangements in you home and work... surveillance cameras, alarms, personal tracking devices etc.... that would record and-or track any attempts at abduction or assassination.

In 2003, Brazil led the world as the point of origin for Cyber attacks:

September 26, 2003

Brazil leads the world as the source for digital attacks. Through September 2003, more than 95,000 digital attacks have originated from Brazil, far more than any other country. Turkey is second on the list at 14,795 attacks, followed by the United States (2,995 attacks), Indonesia (2,360 attacks) and Egypt (2,365 attacks).

Latin America (including "Portuguese" America) does seem to have a significant crime problem that apparently hinders economic growth, and probably contributes to Ernesto's general sense of "unsafeness".... a feeling that it seems many share in the region.

October 17, 2006

High Crime Stifles Latin Economies By JENS ERIK GOULD

CARACAS, Venezuela, Oct. 16 — Years of rampant violent crime is not only robbing Latin America of significant private investment, but in some cases is stealing up to 8 percent from national economic growth, economists and World Bank officials say.

Growth rates for the economy, along with those for income and private investment, would be higher, they say, if it were not for widespread insecurity about crime. Instead of simply producing their products, companies feel driven to spend resources on preventing violence and protecting employees and property. Often, though, there is good reason.

“Our business suffers a lot from crime,” said Darío Vivas, president of the Venezuelan waste management company Cotecnica, a subsidiary of Veolia Environnement of France. “Employees cash their salary checks but then arrive home with nothing because thieves have robbed them.”

In Brazil, if the country’s homicide rate in the early 1990’s had been as low as Costa Rica’s, which has one of the lowest in the region at one-sixth Brazil’s rate, per capita income would have been about $200 higher and the gross domestic product 3.2 to 8.4 percent higher in the late 1990’s, according to a World Bank report issued to the Brazilian government in September and released to The New York Times. Across Latin America, the economic cost of crime is similarly pronounced, equal to 14.2 percent of the region’s G.D.P., according to a 1999 Inter-American Development Bank report, the most recent study of the region, though some critics suggest that cost estimate is too high.

“You have money spent on guarding stuff rather than making stuff,” said Michael Hood, Latin America economist for Barclays Capital. “There’s a large population standing around in blue blazers rather than engaged in more productive activities.”....

So, on the positive side, it shouldn't really be difficult to engage a personal security service based on availablity. Again, I don't know if that's an option for Ernesto or not.

Brazil

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

Nofate, thank you for care. I had spend the last weeks in some problems, since my sites got hacked… and and many more.

ISLAMANAZIS CLOSED ANTI-ISLAM SITES.
My anti-Islam blogs INFERNO = ISLAM and DYSTOPIA finished being HACKED.

It looks like a hacker on service to the Islamics erased anti-Islam sites.

They put out also the site JahMusic, which was linked to my 2 deleted anti-Islam blogs.
Also hacked my third blog with my photos.

At same day, the periodic site Mídia Sem Máscara (Media Without Mask) was blocked 2 times.
The right-wing newspaper, which supports the War on Terror, is mine main information source for the files, with endless number articles attacking the islamism.

I really don't know what I may do.
Specially after I saw our Brazilian teacherous socialist president, Luis Lula da Silva, giving a shake-hand to the Nazi Iranian rat, in Caracas. The two totalitarian revolutions are opening the hell doors on Latin America.

They already have my name, my mail and my face.
To any moment, I can appear dead.
Or then, sooner or later, I’m going to disappear.

[Ernesto Ribeiro]

Alexandra, your post is even more important that seems. Read:

An Egyptian newspaper thanks Adolph Hitler by the work, denounced also in the film The Islamic Mein Kampf:

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/islamic-mein-kampf/

Already it is being filled in all of the countries of the civilized world the International Petition for UNO, requiring the immediate removal of the dictator of the Iran, if possible the whole nazi regime of that country. The problem is the origin: all the Islamic religion is nazi.

That happens in extraordinary character in the History, soon after Iran and Hezbollah call the Muslims in the whole world to execute the Big Holocaust and the New Final Solution for exterminate all of the Jews and Americans on Earth, "wipping off the map" Israel and America.

The reaction was immediate:

The United Nations Convention for the Crimes Against the Humanity and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide fits the Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in its clause c) : "Incitement for the crime of genocide."

The International Petition will be delivered in the Court of the UN in Hague.

For sign the International Petition, click the link:

http://www.aish.com/iran

[Ghost Dansing]

bayonet 1

bayonet 2

bayonet 3

bayonet 4 

[nofate]

Alexandra: Wonderful post. I am still doing my homework, i.e. all the links you have provided. My thunder was stolen long before I was able to get here to comment, by brighter lights than myself, but here goes anyway. Liquid, absolutely, desert. The minute I started reading, I knew this was a special post. FWP, CNR, Amen. But, as LMI points out, aside from the "bounty" of Alexandra's posts, our Wikipedia wonder can always be counted on to touch a nerve or two. She is like a whetstone, keeping our wits sharpened by having to continually point out the inconsistencies she shows. And the moral equivalencies also, as in the last one:

"We don't want a system where people like George Bush can be elected as their leader, but instead want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals"...

taking a quote out of context in ATB's 3-23-06 issue to give all of us poor souls a lesson in democracy and it's difficulties and, lest we not have noticed by now, how the Republicans in general and George Bush in particular have screwed up the world using democracy to hide behind. BTW, the lead in to this quote was: "Mohammad-Ali Ramin appears moderate, calm and reasonable. Yet his views are the same that led without fail to the biggest atrocities and genocidal crimes committed by man-kind. My translation of a short passage from a German interview in June 2004, well before the election of extremist Ahmadinejad, shows why this soft-spoken ideology always ends in disaster:" But, no matter, I'm sure the wikipedia wizard will enlighten us as to why the quote applies to George Bush as well as to the mullahcracy.

Enough of sideroads, Alexandra, the threads to the Nazis are many and tangled. One that I found interesting when I started learning about this subject is from an Andrew Bostom article in FrontPageMag: "The Legacy of Jihad in Palestine". Without putting a long quote up here, it points out the connection of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII with Hitler and the formation of muslim SS units in Bosnia, and the mufti's subsequent mentoring of Yasser Arafat (he that Bill & Hill thought so highly of). Ernesto Ribiero(sp?) has also given us at one time, a link to a YouTube that showed nazi propaganda being sold @ muslim mosques, etc. (Have we heard from Ernesto lately? Hope he's OK.) There is a wealth of information easily available to any and all that shows the truth of what is going on, but people like our wikipedia wonkette and modern libs in general, just plain refuse to see. They like the designer blinders they wear. Those of us that do see have no requirement that their choice of political views change, we only want them to be able to see what we see, but somehow their vision of what they percieve as reality is inextricably tied to their political views, with a few exceptions, like Hitchens, Lieberman, and a few others, who are savaged for not toeing the party line. Our own media mafia and PC police have so far managed to do their job quite well, generally without resorting to violence, although I'm sure our own resident authority on the fairness doctrine would disagree. But look how the media mafia is going after the town of Herouxville in Quebec:

...We would especially like to inform the new arrivals that the lifestyle they left behind in their birth country cannot be brought here with them and they would have to adapt to their new social identity...

We consider that men and women are of the same value. Having said this, we consider that a woman can: drive a car, vote, sign checks, dance, decide for herself, speak her peace, dress as she sees fit respecting of course the democratic decency, walk alone in public places, study, have a job, have her own belongings and anything else that a man can do.

However, we consider that killing women in public beatings, or burning them alive are not part of our standards of life...

So what do they get for their brave statement?

...“It is totally distasteful to see someone using this kind of writing and putting it in a public domain, and this is not just an ordinary someone, these are people in authority,” said Salam Elmenyawi, president of the Muslim Council of Montreal"...

How dare they infringe on the right of a religious group to preach the enslavement of women and sell nazi propaganda that tells the truth about the holocaust?! What is truly sad is that my last tongue in cheek comment is actually what these muslim lights and their deluded useful idiot liberal supporters think. Sad, sad, sad.

[Ghost Dansing]

Recalling the Angel of Death's words, "We don't want a system where people like George Bush can be elected as their leader, but instead want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals"... As their hair grays, they will be the very same individuals, who had proven their reasonableness and wisdom during years of inflicting unbearable pain by breaking the teeth and bones of mostly young men and women with clubs and chains.

This is a very very good point.... Americans, and Liberal Democracies in general, prefer risking the potential for occasionally electing officials that lead them down blind allies and don't work out so well in exchange for the Freedom, Liberal governmental structures and processes (free and democratic elections) that allow the people to change course... hold elected officials accountable and see that they serve the People and not the other way around.

Liberal Democracy is not an easy governmental form.

 "....democracy is the worst possible form of government....save all the rest."
Winston Churchill

I would add that what we seek in the rest of  the world is not merely Democracy.... Democracy can and has delivered many a dictatorship, and put many unsavory characters in power.... for example HAMAS in Palestine. Also, there are "elections" in Iran.... even Saddam had "elections"... Ba'ath is a nationalist, some say fascist political party. There will be more to follow as extremists see the value of advocating democracy as a means to power.

What we are really looking for are people ready to take the risks of Liberalism with notions of tolerance and equality for all individuals.... respect for human rights for EVERYBODY, and government in the service of the People, not their ruler.

In exhange, the People get a say in their government, and indeed have a responsiblity to speak truth to power.

Paul Krugman has a nice eulogy to Molly Irvins in todays NYT... She died of breast cancer on Wednsday.

.... Molly never lost sight of two eternal truths: rulers lie, and the times when people are most afraid to challenge authority are also the times when it’s most important to do just that. And the fact that she remembered these truths explains something I haven’t seen pointed out in any of the tributes: her extraordinary prescience on the central political issue of our time.

...Molly’s columns from 2002 and 2003, the period when most of the wise men of the press cheered as Our Leader took us to war on false pretenses, then dismissed as “Bush haters” anyone who complained about the absence of W.M.D. or warned that the victory celebrations were premature. Here are a few selections:

Nov. 19, 2002: “The greatest risk for us in invading Iraq is probably not war itself, so much as: What happens after we win? ... There is a batty degree of triumphalism loose in this country right now.”

Jan. 16, 2003: “I assume we can defeat Hussein without great cost to our side (God forgive me if that is hubris). The problem is what happens after we win. The country is 20 percent Kurd, 20 percent Sunni and 60 percent Shiite. Can you say, ‘Horrible three-way civil war?’ 

July 14, 2003: “I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I’d rather not see my prediction come true and I don’t think we have much time left to avert it. That the occupation is not going well is apparent to everyone but Donald Rumsfeld. ... We don’t need people with credentials as right-wing ideologues and corporate privatizers — we need people who know how to fix water and power plants.”

Oct. 7, 2003: “Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire.

“I’ve got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war, and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I’ve had a bet out that I hoped I’d lose.”

So Molly Ivins — who didn’t mingle with the great and famous, didn’t have sources high in the administration, and never claimed special expertise on national security or the Middle East — got almost everything right....

Amen

[LilMissIndie]

Geez, Alexandra, how many hours does it take you to put these things together? I feel like I'm researching a thesis just by looking up the links YOU provide. You're a machine! But I am so glad you do it. I come away so much more informed than I would just from perusing the usual media. I like Liquid's comparison of this post to a bountiful spread.

About Ghost...I'm glad he/she's here. Often, GD's posts hit upon a nerve and provoke comments that educate. I'm sorry that some of you don't see GD's value in the ATB ecosystem.

[Ghost Dansing]

Well I am over my hissyfit about LaRouche... a bit unseemly but I must say I do feel much better now :) I guess I couldn't be a conspiracy theorist without knowing how to spell conspiracy... so conspiricy = conspiracy.

And there is something admirable about dogged loyalty to one's idol... so Crusader... here's one just for you:

Stand By Your Man

[Ghost Dansing]

Oh, Republicans and their fans will blame everybody but themselves, but everybody knows who's to blame.

Leonard Cohen

Conspiricy of Beards

Concrete Blonde

 

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Ooops. Sorry GD. Just getting carried away I guess. Darned keyboard!

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Er...

GD, victory was not possible in Iraq because people like you made up your minds to do everything in your power to ensure Mr Bush failed. Remember, as you so consistently remind everybody, you're really the one who knows it all, and BUsh has no pwoer anyway. So tell me, when will you be stepping in to rescue the day, GD?

I eagerly await GDs announcement that he/she/it is now going to take over and fix it all.

GD, you are a total loser, and people like you ensure that America remains weak, pathetic, squabbling and divided.

[Ghost Dansing]

The New York Times has a very concise Editorial on the Iran issue and Dubya's repitition of failed "bullying" strategy in today's edition. America does not need LaRouche to find problems with this Republican administration:

Given America’s bitter experience in Iraq, one would think that President Bush could finally figure out that threats and brute force aren’t a substitute for a reasoned strategy. But Mr. Bush is at it again, this time trying to bully Iran into stopping its meddling inside Iraq.

We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent, just as we have no doubt that Mr. Bush’s serial failures in Iraq have made it far easier for Tehran to sow chaos there and spread its influence in the wider region. But more threats and posturing are unlikely to get Iran to back down. If Mr. Bush isn’t careful, he could end up talking himself into another disastrous war, and if Congress is not clear in opposing him this time, he could drag the country along.

The drumbeat began during Mr. Bush’s recent speech on Iraq, when he vowed to “seek out and destroy” Iranian and Syrian networks he said were arming and training anti-American forces. Mr. Bush also announced that he was sending a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. Hours earlier, American troops raided an Iranian diplomatic office in Iraq. If anyone missed the point, aides let it be known that the president had authorized the military to kill or capture Iranian operatives in Iraq.

Iran certainly is helping arm and train Shiite militias. But the administration is certainly exaggerating the salutary effect of any cutoff as long as these militias enjoy the protection of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. If Mr. Bush is genuinely worried — and he should be — he needs to be as forceful in demanding that Mr. Maliki cut ties to these groups and clear about the consequences if he refuses....

....Mr. Bush’s bullying may play well to his ever shrinking base. But his disastrous war in Iraq has done so much damage to America’s credibility — and so strained its resources— that it no longer frightens America’s enemies. The only ones really frightened are Americans and America’s friends.

PERMALINK 

The Republican's botched invasion and occupation of Iraq has furthered Iran's agenda further than they could have ever done so themselves.... America will be sorting-out this geopolitical mess for decades.

 

[mac Brachman]

In the next to last sentence I meant to write, after the colon, "the pervasiveness of self-delusion and the search FOR AN ALL ENCOMPASSING GRAND THEORY..." The words in all CAPS were inadvertently omitted in the original. Sorry. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[mac Brachman]

LaRouche is like megalomaniacs throughout history: part sociopathic snake-oil salesman who will say or do anything to market his product to the gullible, the young, and the resentful or ignorant, and aware of the lies underlying the product he's pitching; part true believer, who believes he's the chosen one to take power and use it for what he surmises are good ends, and any "means" is acceptable to those "ends" as he defines them; and all narcissist, with no ability or desire to see others as humans with their own thoughts and feelings (to use a phrase from Kantian ethical theory, to see others as "ends in themselves," rather than as means to one's own ends). His goal is power and self-aggrandizement. GD does a good job tracing his decades-long chameleon-like ideological meanderings, the specific content of which are less important than the ultimate goal, which is the greater aggrandizement of Lyndon LaRouche and the increase of his own power and influence. That he has had minimal success for decades merely means his marketing has been poor or has suffered from poor timing. Alexandra is right not to write him off as a "has-been" crackpot: the pervasiveness of self-delusion and the search among the gullible, the resentful, the ignorant, and those suffering from admirable but misplaced idealism is phenomenal, and accounts for the spread and increasing acceptance of many (frequently anti-Semitic) conspiracy theorists among leftist "thinkers" since 9/11 (e.g.: Mossad was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks; "the Israel Lobby" runs U.S. govt. foreign policy, etc.). Sorry if this post rambles and is less than perfect grammatically. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[Ghost Dansing]

So you think Larouche is a liberal, or wrong to criticize the Republican performance in Iraq Francis?

The point is, just because Larouche criticizes it, doesn't mean Dubya didn't screw up. And don't think for one minute that I'm not appreciative of your posts Alexandra...

I love your posts and your pictures. I don't think LaRouche or his machine is anybody's "liberal friend".

LaRouche 

[Francis W. Porretto]

...and it took Ghost Dansing about ten minutes worth of cutting and pasting to ruin the comment thread.

I will ask again, Alexandra: why do you tolerate him?

[Alexandra]

Liquid,

I am so glad you noticed. It took me some hours to put together...

[Ghost Dansing]

Larouche is an interesting study... not sure he is a Liberal (or even a liberal)... looks to me like his political philosophy, while decrying oligarchy, would result in dictatorship with him as the dictator... roots in Marxism... hybrid central control of capitalistic enterprise a la typical kleptocrats of rightest or leftest persuasion...

Lyndon LaRouche began his political career as a Marxist but he and his National Caucus of Labor Committees abandoned this outlook in the 1970s. LaRouche no longer opposes capitalism as an economic system, and his analysis of political events is no longer phrased in terms of class. To LaRouche, the main enemy is now the conspiracy of financiers he calls the Synarchist International.

During and after the period of his break with orthodox Trotskyism, LaRouche's theory was influenced by what he called his "Theory of Hegemony" which was derived from Lenin's view of the role of intellectuals in being a vanguard helping workers develop their consciousness and realise their leading role in society. He was also influnced by Gramsci's concept of a hegemon as an intellectual and cultural elite which directs social thought. LaRouche's theory saw himself and his followers as being able to become such a hegemonic force. He rejected, however, Gramsci's notion of "organic intellectuals" being developed by the working class itself. Rather, the working class would be led by elite intellectuals such as himself.

LaRouche was also influenced by his readings of Rosa Luxemburg's The Accumulation of Capital and Karl Marx's Capital developing his own "theory of reindustralization," arguing that the west would attempt to industrialize the Third World, particularly India, and attempt to solve the economic crisis both by developing new markets in the Third World and using its cheap and surplus labor to increase profits and minimise costs (see neocolonialism.) This attempt would be unsuccessful, however, and would lead to catastrophic economic collapse. To oppose this, LaRouche argued for a "reindustrialization" of the United States with himself at the vanguard of the effort allowing him to personally resolve the crisis of capitalism. Though his arguments have since been stripped of their quasi-Marxist language and citations, his core theories have remained essentially the same since the late 1960s.

Tim Wohlforth writes:

This scheme, which shaped LaRouche writings and agitation in the late '60s and early '70s, was presented in an increasingly frenetic manner, bolstered by predictions of economic doom. LaRouche was a crisis-monger of the highest order. LaRouche and his followers became increasingly convinced that the fate of the world rested with their group and their great leader. The problem lay with the stupidity of the nation's leaders and the boorishness of the masses. If only LaRouche were in power, all the world's troubles - perhaps even the rats problem in New York City - would be resolved swiftly....

LaRouche himself frequently describes his enemies as fascists or proto-fascists. On the other hand, LaRouche himself is frequently described by left-wing writers and orators as a fascist. Journalist Dennis King used this thesis in the title of his book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism.

Fascism is a difficult word to define, and has been debased since World War II by its frequent use of a term of general abuse. (Actually it's not hard to define, but is sometimes used for the purpose of general abuse.... Larouche has a strong fascist streak going.)

LaRouche does not openly advocate American nationalism or militarism. Operation Mop-Up, which consisted of violent physical attacks on left-wing meetings, is the genesis of most accusations of LaRouche being a fascist; however, the LaRouche network has not engaged in physical violence against its political opponents since the 1970s. In fact, the LaRouche movement has opposed most recent U.S. military actions, including both invasions of Iraq, the bombing of Yugoslavia, and attacks on Grenada and Panama.

The perceived abusive and demagogic nature of his political speech also leads to him being accused of being a fascist.

Since the 1980s, a new set of theories about fascism has gained attention in academia. These include the work of Roger Griffin (fascism as a right-wing populist movement calling for heroic rebirth - palingenesis) and Emilio Gentile (the sacralization of politics). Using these and related theories, critics such as Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons have described LaRouche as a neofascist.

According to Berlet and Lyons:

"Though often dismissed as a bizarre political cult, the LaRouche organization and its various front groups are a fascist movement whose pronouncements echo elements of Nazi ideology....Beginning in the 1970s, the LaRouchites combined populist antielitism with attacks on leftists, environmentalists, feminists, gay men and lesbians, and organized labor. They advocated a dictatorship in which a 'humanist' elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists. They developed an idiosyncratic, coded variation on the Illuminati Freemason and Jewish banker conspiracy theories. Their views, though exotic, were internally consistent and rooted in right-wing populist traditions."

Several critics of LaRouche argue that his ideas about economics are not original and are similar to the policies of Germany under Bismarck; and the corporatism of Italy under Benito Mussolini, Spain under Francisco Franco, and Portugal under Antonio Salazar.

According to research conducted by journalist Dennis King, LaRouche developed an intense interest in fascism in the 1970s, and began to adopt some of its slogans and practices, while maintaining an outward stance of anti-fascism. King generally claims that LaRouche's public statements do not reflect his actual views.

Link 

So Alexandra's proposition that Larouche's criticism of Dubya's policies is somehow undermined by the fact that he is a crackpot (he's not really a crackpot nor insane... but is obviously despotic and at least tacitly politically totalitarian and messianic... the world is full of heads-of-state thus characterized) is non sequitor.

The argument is analogous to saying that someone who is insane, but shares some common perceptions and opinions with sane people thereby debunks the opinion and perceptions of the sane.

The argument would also be analogous to saying that Republicans sharing the same opinion and perceptions on some issue, like Iraq which is indeed the case,  as Democrats are somehow debased in their perceptions and opinions...

In reality, the better conclusion would be that certain observations and opinions can be derived from observing the performance of Dubya and this Republican administration such that even individuals of significant mental deficit and profoundly problematic ideologies can perceive the common point of view.

[Liquid]

Wow Alexandra, what a post full of information! I Have only hit a few of the links you offer so far and I am like at 'an info buffet' trying to eat slowly before I eyeball the dessert! Ha Ha You have really offered us good direction on great stories today and the 'Media Mafia' about the pen wars is definately a must read! I want to say thanks to you for all your hard work that you share with us and how beautifully you present your research to us!

Ok...I am back with another plate and ready to pick from the goodies on the table!