02-11-2008, 05:22 PM
David Guyatt Wrote:LaRouche's publications and essays are far too often lacking in citations that show where their evidence was derived from. This always leaves a bad taste in my mouth because there is no need to leave out this important information that allows other researchers to evidence the accuracy of their essays.
Meanwhile Linda, I have answered my own question about the Queen dun it! attitude. It's in that large Synarchy dump I sent you awhile back. According to the LaRouche people the Queen and her Duke-y are the top dogs of the synarchy bunch.
They present absolutely no evidence in support of this statement...
I have to disagree with you here, David. I never read anything that doesn't cite sources, and I have followed up on all of the LaRouche group's work and found their research to be impeccable--from Treason to Dope, Inc. to Unauthorized Bio. They don't have footnotes in their news rags, however, and just repeat the same lines ad nauseum. What they do write in their published books is very documentable. But my beef is what they don't write; what they ignore.
I don't think they ever say that the queen is behind all the intrigue. What they do imply is that the people who manage the queen's wealth operate and have long operated the intelligence operations of the British government. They use the term "British" as a shortcut word that really means "Dutch-Anglo oligarchy" which set up the Bank of England after the Act of Settlement which brought William of Orange to the thrown. They trace this oligarchy back to the Bank of Amsterdam and to the Bank of Venice. Then they follow that back to the philosophical debate between Nicholas of Cusa and his enemies in Venice.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/20...x12_49.pdf
"History records that the Money Changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." --James Madison