The following is brought to you thanks, in part, to the kind assistance of CyberNews and the fine folks at Cornell University.

Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 8 Num. 26

("Quid coniuratio est?")


I received the following e-mail message from a reader of CN:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

By way of information, I have been a regular subscriber to LaRouche's publications for 12 years now, and am occasionally privy to "briefings" from the home office. But I am not a "brainwashed LaRouchie" in any way. In fact, I disagree strongly with LaRouche on many major issues (drug policy and nuclear power among them). My loose if lengthy association with the movement stems from my opinion that LaRouche is pretty much correct in his views on the economy, the dangers of "fascism with a human face" that come from both "sides" of the political spectrum, and the view that elite oligarchs rarely if ever have the interests of normal humans at heart.

I agree that LaRouche is in league with the Vatican, or at least with the leadership of the Vatican around Pope JP II and Joaquin Navarro Valls. Lyn dutifully reflects the opposition to "liberation theology" that emanates from the Pope, even though the LT branch of the Church in Central America is the only organized force against IMF conditionalities in that region. (You are of course aware that opposition to the IMF/World Bank regime is a major tenet of LaRouche's political stance).

To call LaRouche a "stooge" may perhaps be too strong a word, implying that he is an unwitting tool of a greater force. I suspect LaRouche is not a "stooge" of anyone, but is willing to put his massive public relations and intelligence network at the service of any entity that can afford him. This would help explain his opposition to Henry Kissinger and the CSIS crowd who, aside from being "British agents" (probably true enough), are also doing the same thing for their clients. In fact, Kissinger and LaRouche even shared clients in at least one case, the brutal regime in Haiti that overthrew Aristide (also backed by the CIA...what a grand coalition of skilled propagandists that had Emmanuel Constant in common! And yet the official line is that Haiti is of no use or importance to anyone).

Going back to the late 70's-early 80's, it seems likely that LaRouche was being financed in part by elements within the Brezhnev regime in the USSR. When Brezhnev was replaced by Yuri Andropov, and then by Gorbachev, was when LaRouche abandoned his mildly pro-Soviet line, and became for several years a virulent Russophobe. Perhaps the money was cut off suddenly?

So, are Clinton or the Dems paying LaRouche to do dirty tricks on their behalf? Possibly, though I really do not think so. It appears from the info I am given that LaRouche is really trying to do within the Democrat Party what the Pat Robertson fascists have done successfully within large parts of the Republican Party...that is, take it over from within. Frankly, considering the Democrats abject refusal to take on our own brand of home-grown theocratic fascism (Oliver North, Robertson, etc.) and LaRouche's actual intermittent success in challenging these guys, the Democrats could do a lot worse than be taken over by LaRouche. Then we could indeed have a British vs. Vatican fight divided up by party affiliation. (grin).

I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."

If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to (Note: that is "CN-L" not "CN-1")

For information on how to receive the improved Conspiracy Nation Newsletter, send an e-mail message to

Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc? (1) telnet (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom

See also:

See also: ftp pub/users/bigred

Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt. Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9