Prescott Bush and ZORG
One good thing about the passing of the Bush Administration:  the end to having to hear about gawd-danged Prescott Bush.  Were you aware that Prescott Bush funded the Nazi War Machine? Why, the Bush Family is responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany!!
It is there that this awkward passage dangles in wikipedia’s “Prescott Bush” entry.:
 On July 23, 2007, the BBC Radio 4 series Document reported on the Business Plot and the archives from the McCormack-Dickstein Committee hearings. The program made no allegations about Prescott Bush.
I would think the statement “BBC documentary made no allegations” would land in the discussion page, but apparently a whole mass of people roll to wikipedia seeking BBC’s verification that Prescott Bush was in the middle of Smedley Butler’s claimed conspiracy of a coup attempt against Roosevelt to justify its requirement. So Prescott Bush gets to be post-humously shoe-horned into the picture: Jules Archer’s rather repetitive book on the subject doesn’t have Butler fingering Prescott Bush.
The entry on the “Business Plot” is seen here, and I suppose I’d argure for Raymond Swing’s contemporaneous dismissal of said plot in “Forerunners of American Fascism” to be included somewhere along the lines, but his thoughts are pretty much summised in Arthur Schlesinger’s reaction, at any rate Schlesinger not obscure as Swing.
In the discussion section for this, one question is suggested: Isn’t this just an International Jewish Bankers’ Conspiracy? Oh, I’d say Not quite.  But one can be forgiven for saying it is, and the right archtypes are there, it fits the Grand Narrative and quickly can be applied in subverting the history of the rise of Hitler.   Note that listed in the “Historians Reaction” on this wikipedia page, right next to Schlesinger, is Hans Schmidt, I suppose appropriate for writing a biography on Butler , though some further background I’d think might be approrpiate — he doesn’t have a wikipedia page to link to, so I have to scrouge up  this. I will also note that a google search reveals Schmidt is in ill health at the moment, hence a supplier of nazi paraphenilia features a well wish greeting.
Curiously discussed in the discussion page, issue acknowledged with a “Wow” by an editor with no clarification left on the page itself.
Also interesting to note — deleted from wikipedia here. I know where this fits the Larouche cause of last year; I don’t know enough of what the organization was shilling in 1994 to know what they were attempting then.
So the sudden burst of Larouchite sock-puppets at the “Larouche Criminal Trials” wikipedia discussion over the issue of clarifying some used as a Larouche Credentialist at the time of Larouche’s Imprisonment, Von der Heydt, “Huge in Europe and a Political Prisoner!” — bring Dennis King to task for — hypocrisy? — over not taking on the real Nazis of history — namely Prescott Bush – right about here…
This is all a big fraud. Dennis King has no credentials as an actual opponent of Nazism *  — when has he ever spoken out against the Americans and Brits who actually supported Hitler, such as Prescott Bush, Averell Harriman, Montagu Norman, or Joseph Kennedy? When has he ever opposed the Germans who really <i>and etc. etc.</i>
This article isn’t about King, Bush, Montagu, or Kennedy. Nor is it about Heydte. We have plenty to cover without bringing in extremely tangential characters. Heydte is a side-show. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the phrase “Actual Opponent of Nazism”.  That covers most of us — though, I guess not all of us. Is there anyone out there who does not believe that Dennis King opposes Nazism? And if it takes credentials to get that, where can I get these credentials as cheaply as possible? In politics, anyone who is discovered to be otherwise is electorally dead in the water – witness the case with Tony Zirkle.
Wander further into this underbrush and we see documents posted at “laroucheplanet” being challenged for being posted at such a slanderous site, and then there’s what I guess is a lesson in the economics of the Larouche Cult from one of the Larouche sock puppets:
The LaRouche movement is anything but typical, so the supposition that publishing someone’s book involves a financial transaction is unfounded. And it is worthy of note that the LaRouche trial generated an international hue and cry. I don’t see two German professors, by the way. And why is it that they are only “obscure” when you disagree with them? —Terrawatt (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The LaRouche Movement doesn’t pay its authors? Do you have a source for that astonishing assertion? The second professor is Albert Bleckmann. Niether German professor is famous in their field in the U.S. and neither is known to have attended the trials. There’s no apparent relation between themn and the case, except that they have opinions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. The rest of my day’s ramblings are here. I don’t want too much more of this to be sitting here on this blog.Â
In other news: appropriation of phrases — the cult is pushing for Fusion with the phrase, (ahem) “Yes we can”. These guys may want to be a bit more careful. And this is mildly interesting.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I don’t watch too many Webster Tarpley videos on youtube, but xlcer brings a couple to anyone’s attention.
Jump to 6 minutes in to find some Things “Historican” (sic) Webster Tarpley thinks we should find out about Obama: “If he was a Moslem”, “did he sign up for Selective Service?”, “Is he HIV Positive?” (incidentally, the answer to that question, as he took a test in South Africa to publicize the need for people to do so — http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14500535/ , a worthwhile and I’d say apolitical exercise– is “no”.), “Does he have a criminal record?”, “Is he bi-sexual?”, “Does he smoke crack-cocaine?”
I wonder how many fewer votes McCain would have received if he had demanded to know “Are you bi-sexual?”
………………………………..
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/01/usas-alliance-with-iran.html
Obama, according to Tarpley, is linked to Skull & Bones and Wall Street financiers.
Yeah, but Who isn’t linked to Skull and Bones?
Skip to last paragraph:
According to Robert Dreyfuss, in ‘Hostage to Khomeini’, in 1975, Western ‘plans for reversing the Shah’s industrialization program and for turning Iran into a model dark ages regime were mapped out.â€
“Model Dark Ages Regime”?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I notice that some intrepid anti-LaRoucheist has added an interesting sentence about von der Heydte’s Nazi past–and Hitler’s belief in his loyalty–to the von der Heydte section in the LaRouche criminal trials article on Wikipedia:
Friedrich August Freiherr von der Heydte, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Mainz in Germany, compared the LaRouche trial to the Dreyfus affair, which he called “a classical example of a political trial”. Of interest about von der Heydte, he was personally picked by Adolf Hitler for a leadership role in the Ardennes Offensive at the end of World War II–despite the fact that von der Heydte’s cousin, Count Claus Schenk von Stauffenberg, had only a few months before been executed on Hitler’s orders for his role in the July 20, 1944 assassination plot against Hitler, a circumstance suggesting that Hitler must have been very sure of von der Heydte’s own loyalty. In any case, von der Heydte wrote, “Just as LaRouche was, the French Capt. Alfred Dreyfus was deprived by the structure of the trial procedures, of any opportunity to prove his innocence, and facts critical for his defense were excluded from the trial.”[124]
It seems to me that any LaRouchean with half a brain wouldn’t want to trumpet von der Heydte’s idiotic analysis, given his background. For a cousin of Stauffenberg’s to be in a leadership position of any kind in Germany’s last desperate battle tells you that cousin had to be pretty darned loyal to der Fuehrer.
But the same people who think Prescott Bush put Hitler in power, would think that this Hitler bitter-ender von der Heydte would be a perfect character witness for LaRouche. LaRouche also put Gen. Paul-Albert Scherer on the stand as a defense witness in the Alexandria trial.
Imagine how awkward it was when the prosecutor got to asking Scherer what he did during the war … in the Germany Army on the Eastern Front.
I don’t know if the LaRouche folks are using pathetic, broken-down Boomers or know-nothing tweeners to interpolate their stupid stuff on Wikipedia, but whoever their trolls are, they need to get a new set–the ones they have now are just too dumb.
Holding up von der Heydte as an expert on law and freedom is like inviting Albert Speer to talk about the architecture of the Holocaust Memorial.
And the worst of it is, they quote von der Heydte comparing Lyn’s trial to the Dreyfus Affair–pretty ghastly, somehow, when you consider what an anti-Semite ole von der Heydte was in those heady days when he was a young military hero of the Third Reich.
Really, LaRouche people, it’s true you’ve lost your last brain. No one left there with any sense to prevent you all from looking as bad as you really are.
January 14th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Noam Chomsky on the Larouche Movement — since livejournals tend to disappear, I’ll cut and paste to the end of this commentinig:
http://grundolf.livejournal.com/1343.html
When Paranoid Styles Collide: http://truthseeker2473.blogspot.com/2009/01/jesuit-information.html
I had to read Apollian’s comment three times to figure out if this is a negative reaction to the video on the “68ers” or a positive reaction.
http://thedefenestrators.blogspot.com/2009/01/larouche-who-are-68ers.html
And now a word from Noam Chomsky:
I haven’t written about them, but have followed them rather closely since 1968, when they were formed, primarily because children of some old friends were involved. It began as one of the many Marxist-Leninists outgrowths of the student movement, living together as a collective with a strong in-group character, committed to some kind of outreach to workers (which made very little sense, but they were sincere about it). LaRouche, the guru, began to introduce slightly off-beat ideas into the party line. At each point, these young people had to make a choice: shall I accept this, even though it seems weird, or shall I leave the collective to which I’ve dedicated my life, leave my friends, and begin life all over. Many took the second choice, and before long they found themselves committed to really crazy ideas, and actions. At one point LaRouche had them approach their parents (mostly moderately or very well-off) and demand that they hand over what the own to the movement, or else the children would disown them as traitors to the working class. It was a straight rip-off operation by LaRouche. I watched it with some dismay, but didn’t say anything and deflected questions, until after at talk, and older couple came over to me and asked me sincerely to tell them what I thought, because their children were demanding that they sell their small store and give the proceeds to the LaRouchites, then I think called the Labor Committee. So I told them what I thought. A few days later I received a note saying something like: Our intelligence has discovered that you are circulating rumors about the Labor Committee. You have one week to clear yourself of these charges. Signed, Labor Committee intelligence. Something like that. A few months later I had a death threat under the windshield of my car, together with a pamphlet predicting that on the bicentennial (July 4, 1976), atomic bombs were going to go off in cities all over the US, with the four leaders of the conspiracy pictured on the front cover: me, Marc Raskin (who is the mildest non-violent person you can imagine), the Queen of England, and the head of the Tavistock Institute (a psychiatric institute in London which, for some reason, LaRouche hated). The amusing part was that this was in August 1976. Usually end-of-the-world cults have some kind of explanation when the predicted disaster doesn’t happen. But this gang is unique in their fanaticism. And so it continues until now.
They manage to recruit some smart young people, and some of their ideas make sense, so they can seem superficially serious. But it’s a very insidious operation in my opinion, which has caused very serious harm to people trapped in it, and also to others, for example, when the work with the police as infiltrators in anti-nuclear demonstrations, and so on.
I’ve looked at their literature now and then, and it is a mixture of scattered sanity and a lot of absurdity. Meanwhile LaRouche himself has been in and out of jail, but I suppose he’s still the guru.
Anyway, that’s about what I know.
NC