LaRouche has a history of success using similar tactics involving Soros-related conspiracy theories. In 2003, he and his minions charged Soros with profiting from an international drug cartel (read here and here). During the 2004 presidential campaign, that charge was actually repeated by mainstream Republicans such as then Speaker of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert (read here), David Horowitz (read here) and Accuracy in Media (read here).
LaRouche has a long history of recklessly charging political figures with drug dealing -- most famously Henry Kissinger (read here) and Queen Elizabeth (read here). Those accusations were laughed out of the market of public opinion, for obvious reasons, but the Soros accusations seem to find more receptive ears. For years, Republican organizations such as the National Legal Policy Center have promoted a world view featuring Soros as Satan (read here), a trope readily picked up by Fox News. (Googling 'Soros +"Fox News"' gets 465,000 hits. He's their favorite target, and no charge seems too wild for them if Soros is in the story.)
So LaRouche may be calculating that this will be another way for him to sneak the camel's nose of extremism under the Republican tent. The Republicans should take care if they let that nose in. Pretty soon, the whole camel could follow.
Here's the rough draft of the conspiracy theory, with the LaRouchian paranoia still intact. Watch for cleaned-up versions in the Republican rumor mills. Some of his charges actually originated in the Republican blogs and media outlets, so his views may resonate there.
from LaRouche Political Action Committee: "How Soros Financed Obama's Campaign"
In late 2006, George Soros, the British empire/Wall Street gatekeeper of the Left, vetted Senator Barack Obama's potential Presidential candidacy on behalf of financier oligarchs. Soros then introduced Obama to a selected financier group, and Obama soon afterwards announced he would seek the White House.
By the way, in January, LaRouche was absolutely certain that Obama was a stalking horse for a Bloomberg presidential bid (read here: 'Obama Will Get Chopped Down To Prepare Bloomberg Run'), a certainty which he now seems to have forgotten.
4 comments:
To be correct, LaRouche has not forgotten the Bloomberg threat. You need to read EIR. LaRouche has made it very clear, Obama is not going to make it to the presidency, but right now there is a more important question for the ascent of Bloomberg, and that is, will Hillary stand in his way? You seem to not like conspiracies. I wonder how you ever managed to get this far in life. Is is not a conspiracy theory that you and other are spreading, that Soros is a good man, when the evidence points to the opposite? You know about Soros being a mega-speculator with an interest in legalising of narcotics?
Sleeping Toilet:
Thanks for commenting.
Your comment, while a testament to your faith in Lyndon LaRouche's memory, in no way clarifies how his conspiracy theory regarding Bloomberg conspiring to use Obama to make himself our next president could possibly harmonize with LaRouches's conspiracy theory regarding George Soros using Obama to take over the government in a silent coup. How can both of these apparently contradictory theories be true? LaRouche seems to depend more on the poor memory or blind faith of his followers than he does on consistency.
You also stated that the belief that "Soros is a good man" (which you attribute to me without citing a reference) is a conspiracy theory. How is that a conspiracy?
You ask if I know that Soros is what you call a "mega-speculator with an interest in legalising of narcotics". I know that Soros is a currency trader who's theories about the inefficiencies of currency markets have paid off for him in a big way. Currency trading is speculation. You seem to object to that without stating your objection. Your comment would have been more interesting had you made your case about this subject.
I think that Soros has supported repealing or reforming drug laws and taking a medical approach to addiction (I'm not an expert on the guy, but I've heard this). Does that mean he has "an interest in legalising of narcotics"? What does he stand to gain? My guess is that he honestly believes that this would be good for society. If you know otherwise, share your secret. That would make for an interesting comment.
Why do you say that I need to read EIR? If you read it and the answers to the questions you raise are there, why don't you just cite them?
Lastly, may I suggest that you change your screen name?
I'll try a first approximation as to why one might object to "mega speculation", such as currency trading. On the one hand, this is an activity which produces nothing, but reaps at least some of its participants huge profits. What value do these individuals such as Soros create to justify such profits under any even approximately moral theory of economics? Secondly, speculation - both in currencies and commodities - can and does negatively affect the economic well being of millions of people in ways entirely unrelated to the physical parameters of the economics at issue. Currency speculation can drive down the value of a currency in ways entirely unrelated to the actual value of the production of the nation whose currency is at issue. Similarly, playing the commodities futures markets can drive up commodity prices in ways not even justified by the supply and demand schema of the market economists - let alone a rational economics based on matching physical productive potentials to human need.
This is not a complete or analytical criticism of speculation, and a determined critic could undoubtedly pick holes in it. But I think it serves as an effective statement of the general flavor of the anti-speculative viewpoint.
-Steve
Controversial Obama Smear Book Released
Post a Comment