by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
October 17, 2008
Oct. 18, 2008 (EIRNS)--This release was issued on Oct. 17 by the
Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC).
Chicago's Bill Ayers has currently uttered what is, in itself, a
wildly tendentious account of his own, and implicitly, Dohrn's roles
in the Weatherman terrorist operations of that grouping within SDS
during the 1968-1970 interval and beyond. For any relevant historian,
Ayers' statement is implicitly his confession of everything which I
know to have been recently charged against him. I have relevant
eyewitness and related expert witness in this area.
In late June 1968, I wrote a relevant, substantially eyewitness
assessment of those events, at Columbia University which had just
occurred during the interval of March-June 1968. The title of that
piece, contained within a rather widely circulated publication at
that time, was The New Left, Local Control & Fascism, in which I
likened the circles then associated with Mark Rudd as being an echo
of the "purgative violence" dogma of Benito Mussolini's fascists, and
also expressed in the way in which avowed Communists and Nazis
swapped large portions of their forces, back and forth, during action
on the streets of Berlin during the pre-Hitler period of the
trolley-car "mass strike."
By the Spring of the following year, the official Students for
Democratic Society (SDS) organization fractured, producing what
became known as Mark Rudd's "Weatherman" organization in which
Bernardine Dohrn came to play a widely publicized role. The most
crucial of the relevant points to be made on the subject of Bill
Ayers' current piece, is that he expresses the same, systemic form of
fascist ideology for today, which was expressed by the Weatherman
terrorists, such as his companions Rudd and Dohrn of yore.
However, there is a more important connection of relevance for today,
in this matter. The crucial historical fact about the case of Ayers
et al., is that they were a creation of the type of sponsorship from
within the financier community which we associate with the expression
"Wall Street law firms," or with the Wall Street backers of Adolf
Hitler's cause, such as President George W. Bush, Jr.'s grandfather,
Prescott Bush (then of Brown Brothers Harriman) together with the
Bank of England's Montagu Norman, back during the early 1930s.
Thus, when a putative "former terrorist" such a Bill Ayers, turns up
in a notable law firm or kindred institution, we ask ourselves, "Has
he, a terrorist, returned to his native roost?" Which is Ayers? Is he
a repentant sinner, or is he out of the same stall as when he served
with Mark Rudd's terrorist band during the 1969-70 interval?
To answer that question, we should compare the "fingerprint" which
Ayers presents in his putatively exculpatory piece now, and that of
his actions during the 1968-1970 phase of the emergence of the
"Weatherman" terrorist group. His own currently uttered piece is
fairly described as nothing but an indelibly Sophist defense of the
terrorism he practiced back then, and as anyone associated with the
kind of firm with which he is associated knows that.
Sophistries such as his construction of Sherman's march, reveal more
evidence than they purport to conceal. I have the benefit of relevant
experience, that I understand mentalities such as those of Dohrn and
that of the mentality of Ayers' attempted swindle very well.
The British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham and Bentham's protege
Lord Palmerston had conspired to break up and subjugate our United
States through a massive barrage of operations, including often
overlooked genocide against the Cherokee nation, and the massive
infusion of African slaves into the U.S.A. through Britain's puppet,
the Nineteenth-Century Spanish monarchy. The U.S. leaders of the
conspiracy which was the Confederacy plot were agents of the same
British Foreign Office which thrust the Habsburg tyrant upon
democratic Mexico through combined British, Napoleon III's, and
Spanish monarchy forces, all as part of the British empire's scheme
in using Foreign Office puppets such as Napoleon III and the Spanish
slave-trading monarchy in the effort to conquer both Mexico and the
United States itself.
War is war, and the British monarchy and its French, Spanish, and
Confederacy tools were fully guilty of the crime which Sherman's
actions aided greatly in defeating. Thus, Ayers makes himself a
defender of enslavement of persons of African origin: not exactly
what any Presidential candidate, including Obama, should desire
anywhere near his camp.
There is nothing inconsistent with his a.) past offenses. b.) the
specific kind of Sophist mentality shown in his currently uttered
apology, and his lack of loyalty to the United States expressed in
his reference to Sherman,
Otherwise, as I repeatedly presented the relevant, conclusive
argument, the mentality of the Weatherman was, as I foresaw the trend
in June 1968, fascist. That is the same mentality I recognize in
Ayers' apology today.
Presidential candidate Obama must repudiate that association publicly
now, that for the good of our nation in this perilously trying present time.
http://billayers.wordpress.com/?s=fantasy Episodic Notoriety Fact and
Fantasy April 6, 2008
Day in and day out I go about my business, I hang out with my kids
and my grandchildren, take care of the elders, I go to work, I teach
and I write, I organize and I participate in the never-ending effort
to build a powerful movement for peace and social justice; now and
then (and unpredictably) I appear in the newspapers or on TV with a
reference to my book Fugitive Days, a memoir of the revolutionary
action and militant resistance to the Viet Nam War the years of
miracle and wonder and some fantastic assertions about what I did,
what I said, and what I believe. The other night, for example, I
heard Sean Hannity tell Senator John McCain that I was an unrepentant
terrorist who had written an article on September 11, 2001 extolling
bombings against the U.S., and even advocating more terrorist bombs.
Senator McCain couldn't believe it, and neither could I.
My e-mail and my voice-mail filled up with hate, as happens, mostly
men with too much time on their hands I imagined, all of them venting
and sweating and breathing heavily, a few threats "Watch out!"; "You
deserve to be shot"; and from email@example.com, "I'm coming to get you
and when I do, I'll waterboard you" all of it wildly uninformed. I've
written a lot about the Viet Nam period, about politics, about
schools and social justice, and I read and speak about all of it. I
encourage people to argue, to agree or disagree, to discuss and
struggle, to engage in conversation. I believe deeply in the
pedagogical possibilities of dialogue of listening with the
possibility of being changed, and of speaking with the possibility of
being heard and I believe in revitalizing the public square,
resisting the eclipse of the public and expanding the public space,
searching for a more robust and participatory democracy. Talking to
one another can help.
So in that spirit here is another attempt at clarity:
1. Regrets. I'm often quoted saying that I have "no regrets." This is
not true. For anyone paying attention and I try to stay wide-awake to
the world around me all/ways life brings misgivings, doubts,
uncertainty, loss, regret. I'm sometimes asked if I regret anything I
did to oppose the war in Viet Nam, and I say "no, I don't regret
anything I did to try to stop the slaughter of millions of human
beings by my own government." Sometimes I add, "I don't think I did
enough." This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and
thinks there should be more bombings.
The illegal, murderous, imperial war against Viet Nam was a
catastrophe for the Vietnamese, a disaster for Americans, and a world
tragedy. Many of us understood this, and many tried to stop the war.
Those of us who tried recognize that our efforts were inadequate: the
war dragged on for a decade, thousands were slaughtered every week,
and we couldn't stop it. In the end the U.S. military was defeated
and the war ended, but we surely didn't do enough.
2. Terror. Terrorism according to both official U.S. policy and the
U.N. is the use or threat of random violence to intimidate, frighten,
or coerce a population toward some political end. This means, of
course, that terrorism is not the exclusive province of a cult, a
religious sect, or a group of fanatics. It can be any of these, but
it can also be and often is executed by governments and states. A
bombing in a caf in Israel is terrorism, and an Israeli assault on a
neighborhood in Gaza is terrorism; the September 11 attacks were acts
of terrorism, and the U.S. bombings in Viet Nam for a decade were
acts of terrorism. Terrorism is never justifiable, even in a just
cause the Union fight in the 1860's was just, for example, but
Shernan's March to the Sea was indefensible terror. I've never
advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The
U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use
of it in its own cause consistently.
3. Imperialism. I'm against it, and if Sean Hannity and others were
honest, this is the ground they would fight me on. Capitalism played
its role historically and is exhausted as a force for progress: built
on exploitation, theft, conquest, war, and racism, capitalism and
imperialism must be defeated and a world revolution a revolution
against war and racism and materialism, a revolution based on human
solidarity and love, cooperation and the common good must win.
We begin by releasing our most hopeful dreams and our most radical
imaginations: a better world is both possible and necessary. We need
to bring our imaginations together and forge an unbreakable human
alliance. We need to unite to transform and save ourselves as we
fight to change the world and save humanity.