SEARCH

edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Part III - Page2

< FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Part III - Page1 | FACTNET.ORG FORUM | FACTNET.ORG FORUM: Updates What is going on in the World of Larouche Today >

 

xylm (xylm)
10-12-2005, 10:44 AM
Steven,
I don't think I would be mistaken to imagine that you depict the LYM as "revolutionary thinkers". Being so, the LYM in of itself displays that the "opportunity to foster scores of revolutionary thinkers" already exists. LYMers are freely spending 50 plus hours a week trying to recruit members and shift axiomatic thinking without any political or capital disturbances. So this 'consequent generation' you speak of already exists in terms of opportunity. It's the people who are and have been freely turning the LYM down, some too incompetent to understand the pitch and others too competent to fall for it.
I've personally witnessed briefings in your movement favoring aristocracy over democracy. First, I would like you to admit this fact as it stands undisputable and second, explain to us why aristocracy is better.
Maybe you can start with, "since people freely don't want our ideas…"

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-12-2005, 01:46 PM
Very good question. First we have to come to similar terms in understanding. Aristocracy in Classical Greece had a different meaning than how many view the word today. Many think Aristocracy to be synonymous with Oligarchy. The best way to answer this question is to draw the difference between an Aristocracy, as a Classical term, and an Oligarchy in the Venetian sense.
I just finished reading Goethe's Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship, and I noticed that two of the characters in the novel help draw this distinction. With the help of the protagonist Wilhelm, we can see the difference between him and his friend Werner.
Werner represents a lower rank in the European oligarchy, a speculator. He glorifies to Wilhelm the fact that the world is already claimed, and it is his job to play the middle man and move capital around, while he claims speculative profit with no concern for the state or peasantry, just his pleasures. Werner, in fact, shows us a consistent motive with the entire oligarchy, one of arbitrariness. His selfish desires are arbitrary when it comes to the organization and general welfare of the entire society, and he makes no secret of this.
Wilhelm comes to the conclusion that the "mob" must be educated through schooling and art (in his case drama) to rise above arbitrariness and locate the universal aim that should guide every responsible citizen of the society.
In a Democratic_Republic, the citizens popularly (and otherwise through electoral college) elect representatives that should be the most studied and representative not of popular opinion but of the general welfare of the population. This is because many times the popular opinion of the day is to oppose measures promoting the general welfare of themselves and society. (This happens many times in history, Classical Democratic Greece is a good example, and I would suggest that it is happening today: we vote for our own misery because we don't understand the true forces affecting our misery and success, especially in terms of economics.)
Superimposing the Classical term Aristocracy on today's circumstances, we see that our Democratically elected representatives act as an Aristocracy, a group of people guided not by arbitrary opinion (oligarchical or popular) but by universal Natural Law, or simply the general welfare. And if the mob doesn't like them, they can kick them out next term and reap the consequences. Or if the leaders do poorly, we can kick them out next term and elect intelligent and loving leaders to make specific decisions.
Steve

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-12-2005, 01:56 PM
As for the other comment:
Well, the LYM are already POLITICALLY revolutionary thinkers. They have thrown off the shackles of liberal vs. conservative, whig vs. tory, Republican vs. Democrat, and are now thinking in terms of republican ideas, not parties.
Other revolutionary thinkers in other areas (mathematical-physics, poetry, drama, etc.) will come when the youth can spend their much more than 50 hours a week (we don't stop working even if we are told so, I don't know who your source is) on such academics. For now, the political revolution must happen today, to save as many lives from the ongoing collapse (in wages and federal budgets, overall accessible capital) as possible. For this, history, politics and economics must grab the bulk of our attention.
Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
10-12-2005, 03:11 PM
Let's all just keep playing pretend now, shall we?
The LaRouchies do not one iota of original work: that is the reality. All that matters is the daily quota.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-12-2005, 04:08 PM
To sancho
The "LaRouchies" are principally 18-25 years old. Dare to compare the same age bracket to say one of the prestigious UC schools that they visit daily? Try working under a Grad professor from there and see how much "original work" you can do, without offending the awesome text books they make you buy for their classes. Try breaking from the formula test answers that are programmed to be remanufactured on the blue book exam in the form of a short essay.
Would you call a Grad student studying under his master/professor a cult member? Perhaps you will if he reveres him too much? Is that a "cult of personality"?
Look at the mainstream literature coming out from these guys and compare it to the literature coming out of the organization. You're damn right it is markedly different. Original? Oh no, it is crazy and from bizarro world. Or, perhaps, it is looking at the same text but with a rigorously Classical standard, of the type that I briefly outlined above, in one case. I can tell you right now that the difference between Wilhelm and Werner, in terms of ideas in political-economic ideas, was not emphasized at all. I recognize that as one of the most important issues of the book. Bizarro? Only if you choose to waste your time nitpicking a part without consideration of the whole.
And on the whole, this type of Classical method is the one that I developed keenly while studying under the organization and Mr. LaRouche's papers in particular.
Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
10-12-2005, 04:23 PM
For so keen an intellect as you allege to possess - you manage to keep it well camouflaged underneath brambles of solecisms and thistles of illiteracy.
How many papers in particular did you study under anyway?

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-12-2005, 04:29 PM
If I studied only one of Mr. LaRouche's papers it would no doubt lead me to a more knowledgable and loving perception of the universe than anything I have seen penned under your anonymous wit.
Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
10-12-2005, 05:17 PM
Yes, _Beyond Psychoanalysis_ is just brimming with love for creation.
You are so comically and thoroughly deluded - you must be indeed none other than Ignatius J. Reilly.
(Message edited by sancho on October 12, 2005)

 

kheris (kheris)
10-12-2005, 05:52 PM
The "LaRouchies" are principally 18-25 years old. Dare to compare the same age bracket to say one of the prestigious UC schools that they visit daily? Try working under a Grad professor from there and see how much "original work" you can do, without offending the awesome text books they make you buy for their classes. Try breaking from the formula test answers that are programmed to be remanufactured on the blue book exam in the form of a short essay.
Maybe the students you refer to need to reexamine why they chose that particular university. I got my Masters at a small Catholic university and the ubiquitous blue books were no where in sight. Original work and original thought were the emphasis. Otherwise it was pointless for you to be there. Of course a degree in culture and spirituality is not exactly a platinum-plated ticket to a prestigious job, and even less so when it is not from a prestigious school. But that prestige - current and future - is precisely why many grad students endure what you describe. Heck, isn't that why are you at Yale?

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-12-2005, 06:17 PM
Nope. I'm here for many reasons, some known to me very well and others that I am working out constantly. One of the main reasons why I am here is because of the so many here that I consider an extension of my family and best friends. I am indebted to many for the many things that friends do for each other and I see our relationships challenging in a good way. Also I see breaking through the irreligious nature here very challenging and equally intriguing as I work to figure my way through.
I'm not too worried about arbitrary prestige. I want to affect institutional change one way or another, and hopefully my work will speak for itself, especially to those who are willing to make alliances to similar humanist goals.
As human beings, I recognize that we do need to organize ourselves if we want to be a powerful for good. That is why I maintain correspondence with the LYM as well as many of my friends here. I welcome the diversity.
Steve

 

xylm (xylm)
10-13-2005, 10:36 AM
Steven
Storytelling two types of aristocratic views do not change, define, or justify aristocracy. I could just as well defend democracy by storytelling the Bush administration as the misconception of democracy while glorifying Roosevelt's term as the plausible and needed exemplification.
Aristocracy is a government led by the ruling class.
The part you don't understand is that this uneducated, popular-opinion-driven "mob" who fails democracy by arbitrarily choosing their means for general welfare will be the same dubious mob that chooses their aristocratic ruling class. The only difference is that once a mistaken aristocrat is chosen, everyone is screwed! Can you imagine the Bush Administration under an aristocracy?

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-13-2005, 05:04 PM
"Storytelling two types of aristocratic views do not change, define, or justify aristocracy."
"Aristocracy is a government led by the ruling class."
These comments demonstrate misunderstanding of what my post was asserting. Let me clarify.
You said you remember observing briefings "favoring aristocracy over democracy." In all my tenure and study, the only possible context in which this could have been true is when the discussion was particularly aimed at Classical Greece, in terms of opposing mob Democratic Greece.
In context of today's society, I then asserted that our system of government, that of a Democratic-Republic, acts in the same principal manner as a Classical Greek Aristocracy, because both are explicitly dedicated to principles of Natural Law, and are insulated, to a degree, from the whims of public opinion.
I hope that clarifies my post.
Steve

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-13-2005, 05:22 PM
A quick follow up:
On government, many in the organization emphasize the Federalist Papers and even James Madison's minutes taken during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787. These discussions are more thorough and don't simplify the matter in a matter of a few posts on a message board.
Steve

 

kheris (kheris)
10-13-2005, 05:25 PM
In context of today's society, I then asserted that our system of government, that of a Democratic-Republic, acts in the same principal manner as a Classical Greek Aristocracy, because both are explicitly dedicated to principles of Natural Law, and are insulated, to a degree, from the whims of public opinion.
Hypothetically that might be true, but as your fearless leader has often pointed out, the reality is quite different. The whims of public opinion are shaped by those who constitute the formal, and informal, leadership of this country. At the end of the day the viability of any democracy, or democratic republic, rests upon the willingness of the public to balance self interest with public interest (or general welfare if you prefer.) I believe Americans are capable of that, even if our putative leaders are unwilling to live with that uncomfortable reality.
By the way, I have noticed you once again dodged commenting on the questions I posted on the Duggan Affair. I am truly coming to believe that, like many sycophants, you close your eyes to the inconvenient facts surrounding LHL and the Schiller Institute.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-13-2005, 06:36 PM
kheris, read my october 10 post concerning the "Duggan Affair".
Also, "the whims of public opinion" are a conglomerate of individual decisions on the following uneducated basis. Mass media and sophist politics give slogan answers to single issue questions, which are placed in the platter of a platform for individual candidates and parties in general.
The true self-interest of a responsible citizen of a nation based on Natural Law IS subsumed by the interest of the general welfare of the nation and implicitly mankind.
And so, "at the end of the day", the viability of mankind rests on whether or not society has elected responsible leadership, which creates policy that curbs fuedal tragedy and promotes progress. Globalization (represented by the IMF and the independent banking system) is fuedalism, "even if our putative leaders are unwilling to live with that uncomfortable reality."
Steve

 

xylm (xylm)
10-14-2005, 09:42 AM
"In context of today's society, I then asserted that our system of government, that of a Democratic-Republic, acts in the same principal manner as a Classical Greek Aristocracy, because both are explicitly dedicated to principles of Natural Law, and are insulated, to a degree, from the whims of public opinion." - Steven
Look, every government is dedicated to a moral good: democracy for freedom, communism for general welfare, etc. There is nothing new or profound about a government dedicated to "natural law"; you honestly believe other government types did not have similar intentions?
The question, therefore, is not dedication, but rather foundation. And Classical Greek aristocracy is the same aristocratic form we speak of in modern history. The form which takes away the people's voice to have a ruling class make all the decisions for them.

 

xylm (xylm)
10-14-2005, 10:14 AM
This Greenspan bubble, has been largely based on a form of "gambler's side-bets" known by such cover-names as "financial derivatives" and "hedge funds."
The above is yet another sick twisted lie by Larouche to perverse modern practice for his conspiratorial convenience. Financial derivatives and hedge funds are not "bets" for greedy gamblers, they are risk management techniques used to offset existing risks. Let me explain the difference: when somebody pulls up a chair at a blackjack table, they are creating a new risk they never had until they sat down. When a company already has a risk, for instance, high earthquake exposure, they "hedge funds" into another condition (or risk) to offset the potential risk (earthquake exposure).
This other risk a company or government hedges funds into could be, by example, a catastrophe bond. (I'm certain "catastrophe bond" has already been ridiculed and heavily perversed by the Larouche Movement). How would a government protect its region from the severe financial consequences of a big earthquake? Catastrophe bond! Through a catastrophe bond, a government would only have to pay an interest rate fee for the exchange of having their earthquake exposure covered. I would like somebody to explain to me how this is betting?

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
10-14-2005, 03:33 PM
kheris, read my october 10 post concerning the "Duggan Affair"."
Lets go back much earlier and see how the org works shall we?
Very few members of LYM and many dead enders in Leesburg had no idea of who Jeremiah Duggan was or what happened in Wiesbaden. There was no discussion and any that was was quickly extinguished. I wonder if that is why there is no "Academy2004" LYM site? The last questions I think that were raised were why certain European members who were at that conference were shuttled over to the US?
On the latest concoction called "AntiDummy" on yahoo groups we found an interesting post there by LYM NJ member Jeremy Battertson.
Antidummy today has just sputtered out and only posts Nigerian money email and "geek dating services" for losers.

From: Jeremy Batterson <jdbaterson@.. (jdbaterson@.).>
Date: Sun Jul 13, 2003 2:00 pm
Subject: LaR will take care of operation jeremybatterson
Offline
Send Email
Not necessary to respond to every operation, especially
amateurish and desperate ones. Please read following,
related, note from today's briefing.
NOTA BENE: Candidate LaRouche, whose campaign is the target
of the {Guardian} article, has directed that no response is to be issued
to the {Guardian} attack, from Europe or anywhere else, except
that from LaRouche himself. What may be said, LaRouche advises,
is that "this article is nothing but a dirty trick against the U.S.
Presidential campaign of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., conduited into the British
press from known U.S. circles associated with the American Family
Foundation of Arizona-based John Irwin III
Jeremy D. Batterson
Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
(201)641-8858/(877)305-8858
Literary and Astronomy Page

Now as far as the use of the word "HOAX" by LHL and co, the use of the word Hoax was pretty prevalent by the LYM. On the antidummy and academy 2004 site it was verbotten to bring the
Duggan problem up. It was quite a site as none of the members had any idea that a death took place, just an influx of members from Europe showing up one day. When the question was brought up by a LYM, the moderator reprinted Lyn's words about this being a hoax. Curiously, many entries have been removed by the cult. Harley used the word HOAX in one late night briefing from Glendale a few years ago that may still be on the LYM site.
Lyn has refered to this whole episode as being a HOAX when he was asked about it by various media.
http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/cultandcandidate.html


  • LaRouche has taken the same line in response to any external criticism throughout his career
    - condemning it as part of a long history of conspiracy against him, largely contrived by MI6, the CIA and the KGB. The Duggan case was, therefore, a hoax contrived by "admirers of Dick Cheney and Tony Blair" while a story in The Independent on Mr Duggan's parents campaigning to raise awareness of political cults was a "smear".

  • Look under "The Hostile Fantasy World of Lyndon Larouche on the Justice for Jeremiah web site to see some of this.
    Those of you who were in a long time ago will understand why calling that link by that name is an inside joke.
    These are sick people. How many of you out there would look at an org which prints this about a death of a SUPPORTER who attended a weeklong meeting as being a rationale group?
    Imagine that your child attended a meeting of a group like the 4H club and tragically died. What would you think if this is what the 4H club told all of its memebers, held press conferences about and reprinted this in its worldwide publications and posted it proudly on their web site?
    Steve, people around the globe have been asking the same questions via this site when they do a larouche search. It startles everybody except people who are in the cult. Just the same way that many of us did not wish to see our antisemtism and criminal actions.
    I can see why a card table shriner is lost, but for a jabroni like yourself, well, your 21 and not a parent yet. But, your on your way slowly but surely to Biazarro world. Not because you are interested in history, the arts, science and economics, but because of what you wish to avoid about the cult and larouche.
    Upon your arrival back into the real world, you will still be the same man interest in the same things, but without the crazy specs on your eyes.
    Here are some exerpts from the cult's world wide media.


Early March, 2003: Jeremiah Duggan, a 22-year-old British student, meets LaRouche Youth
Movement organizers in Paris at a book table, engages in a discussion, and takes
some literature. Duggan is told about an international conference in Germany
at the end of the month. He is particularly interested in LaRouche's strong
opposition to the Cheney-Blair Iraq war and the imperial policies underlying
that unjust invasion. Over the next several weeks, Duggan exchanges several
email messages with LYM organizers, and arranges to travel to Germany for the conference.
March 27, 2003: Jeremiah Duggan, attending the Schiller Institute international
conference and youth cadre school near Wiesbaden, Germany, is killed when he
jumps in front of speeding cars on an autobahn. Wiesbaden police and prosecutors
investigate the death, and conclude that Duggan committed suicide. Duggan had
confided to his conference roommates, in his last days, that he was diagnosed
with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, an illness that can induce schizophrenic
behavior, including paranoia. He had begun to show signs of emotional stress
during the day before his suicide, March 26, and had fled the apartment where
he was staying, March 27, at approximately 3:30 in the morning. When LYM organizer
called Jeremiah's girlfriend Maya Villanueva in Paris, shortly after Duggan left
the apartment, to see whether she had heard from him, she cynically asked,
"Is there a river nearby?" Subsequently, both Erica Duggan and Maya Villanueva have
failed, notably, to mention Jeremiah's diagnosed illness, fuelling the media fraud
about the role of the Schiller Institute in his death. Erica Duggan has
acknowledged to reporters that she, her divorced husband, and Jeremiah, had
undergone group counselling at the Tavistock Clinic when Jeremiah was
approximately 7 years old.
and this
According to both eyewitness accounts of people who spoke to
Jeremiah Duggan in the final days and hours before his
suicide, and to statements made to the press by his moth*er,
Erica Duggan, the young man had suffered psychological problems.
At age 7, following the divorce of his parents, Jeremiah
had been in family counselling, with his divorced parents,
at the Tavistock Clinic in London, an institution long
associated with radical experimentation in individual and
mass psychological manipulation. (During World War II,
virtually the entire staff of Tavistock had been absorbed
into the Psychiatric Division of the British Army, an
experi*ence that Clinic head Dr. John Rawlings Rees had
memorial*ized in a series of lectures published in the
1950s under the title, The Shaping of Psychiatry by War.)
In conversations with several youth attending the LaRouche
Youth Movement cadre school, Duggan had spo*ken of being
diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). At one
point, on Sunday, March 23, 2003, Duggan had attempted to
locate a pharmacy where he could obtain some prescription
drugs.

Why do you think many of us call this the Bizarro World of Larouche?
Thank God or whatever you wish, that a web site like this exists for interested parties to see what goes on in the group.
The one universal truth and law that Steve obeys is that the role of the jabroni is rarely understood by the jabroni at first.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

kheris (kheris)
10-14-2005, 06:14 PM
October 10, 2005 from Steven:
I can not imagine any maliciousness on the part of Schiller Institute or Mr. laRouche's associates. Some have brought up points like perhaps they offended and mistreated the mother. I don't know on that account. I think the question that concerns us, the reason why we even know of the name Duggan is because it reached here through people like those who are here on this message board, who somehow got in in the mother's head that Mr. LaRouche is at the head of a criminal cult. That is my preliminary view, not set in stone. When I have more time to look at the empirical facts I will do so, just as I want to do so with the LaRouche case.
October 11, 2005 from Kheris:
Have you so little comprehension of the emotional toll on a grieving parent when no one will explain the events surrounding the death of her son? I don't know any mothers who will sit still and accept such silence. It matters not whether the people involved are part of a cult; it is answers that are being sought. Mrs. Duggan did what any parent would do in the face of such stonewalling; she researched LHL herself and drew her own conclusions. Has she made common cause with those who call LHL a cult leader? Yes and that outcome was entirely predictable. Especially considering the subsequent actions by the Larouche In 2004 campaign.
If not maliciousness, then why would a political campaign drag Jeremiah's reputation through the mud to serve its own interests? Why cobble together events unrelated to his death and suggest they are all part of a 'dirty tricks' campaign against LHL? Are you really so naive that you cannot recognize actions that are, if not malicious, then certanly mean spirited and stupid? Can you not see that sort of behaviour serves to cement the worst expectation anyone might have of LHL? The Duggan Affair lives on precisely because of the silence of the Schiller Institute and the missteps by the Larouche campaign.
The campaign, and the Institute, feared the cold light of an investigation, and they weren't at all happy with the coverage by the British media. If you go back and read the campaign's own material about the Duggan Affair you will see the hyperbole at work in article titles, yet unsupported by the alleged 'facts' (empirical or otherwise) in the articles. The Institute set the stage for this, and until they are forthcoming with a full and candid disclosure of what happened over 2 years ago, the Affair remains open.
So Steven - why the reluctance to acknowledge my post of October 11? If your answer of October 10 is all you have to say on the matter then the term 'sycophant' definitely applies to you.
More from Steve:
Also, "the whims of public opinion" are a conglomerate of individual decisions on the following uneducated basis. Mass media and sophist politics give slogan answers to single issue questions, which are placed in the platter of a platform for individual candidates and parties in general.
What uneducated basis? Basic economics as applied to capitalism assumes that individuals make decisions out of rational (a word Steven should appreciate) self interest. That concept can be applied to the entire process of political decision making. Well educated analysts and PR folks leverage what they learn about the general population's desires and needs to craft a message that people will accept. That doesn't mean the public will buy the sloganeering forever, as the GOP is currently learning to its sorrow.
The true self-interest of a responsible citizen of a nation based on Natural Law IS subsumed by the interest of the general welfare of the nation and implicitly mankind.
You might want to do some research on generational differences Steven. You (and the Baby Boomer Larouchies that statement applies to) may be seriously mistaken about the current crop of Millenials and those Gen-Xers who immediately precede them.
And so, "at the end of the day", the viability of mankind rests on whether or not society has elected responsible leadership, which creates policy that curbs fuedal tragedy and promotes progress. Globalization (represented by the IMF and the independent banking system) is fuedalism, "even if our putative leaders are unwilling to live with that uncomfortable reality."
I don't know that I agree that globalization is some modern version of feudalism. Certainly Saddam and Kim Jong Il epitomize a modern day feudalism, the Saudis openly practice feudalism, and I would argue that many modern oligarchies are a modern twist on medieval feudalism. While you're at it, define progress.
E.J. Dionne wrote an insightful article (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20051014/losing_the_poverty_debate.php) on the collapse of the Katrina-initiated war on poverty. I am certain our current leadership sees themselves as responsible, but they are also acting out of self interest, which will have a long term negative effect on the country.
Mapping Steven's paradigm to Dionne's article results in a conclusion that this country is actually full of irresponsible people, including the leadership. That doesn't mean I will get behind a man whose political campaign has already demonstrated that it can be as venal as the mainstream parties, and just as determined to cover up potential embarrassments - thereby rendering it just as irresponsible as those leaders they wish to replace. And that's just for openers.
Oh - and before I forget, there is a phrase that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Thanks Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
10-15-2005, 06:27 AM
A Quick Overview of the Tactics of Unethical and Destructive Psychological Influence
We do not allow others see us enter our PIN numbers into ATM machines. We tell our children not to accept candy from strangers. We advise our teenagers on safe sexual practices. We proactively protect our computers from viruses. We stop at traffic lights.
All of the above are examples of how we protect ourselves and our communities from harmful possibilities.
Yet there are some things that our parents cannot tell us. There are occasions where we only learn by first getting hurt. Nevertheless, we have the capacity to inform ourselves through written records and oral traditions.
FACTNet focuses on protecting freedom of mind and thought from harms caused by all forms of unethical influence found in destructive cults or fundamentalist groups. FACTNet makes this information freely available so that people do put themselves in harm's way.
There are warning signs. There are red flags. For example, if one reads carefully through the list below, one can correlate what one is reading to what one experiences in everyday life. We all experience some of these things to varying degrees. In our religious organizations, our work environments, our political systems and even our marriages.
In the best of all worlds, no one should be subject to these conditions. We wish for all FACTNet users that they aim for the best of all worlds in their lives.
The following tactics are some that are used to create undue psychological and social influence, often by means involving anxiety and stress, fall into seven main categories:
TACTIC 1: Increase suggestibility and "soften up" the individual through specific hypnotic or other suggestibility-increasing techniques such as: Extended audio, visual, verbal, or tactile fixation drills, Excessive exact repetition of routine activities or indoctrination, Sleep restriction and/or Nutritional restriction.
TACTIC 2: Establish control over the person's social environment, time and sources of social support by a system of often-excessive rewards and punishments. Social isolation is promoted. Contact with family and friends is abridged, as is contact with persons who do not share group-approved attitudes. Economic and other dependence on the group is fostered.
TACTIC 3: Prohibit disconfirming information and non supporting opinions in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled. An "in-group" language is usually constructed.
TACTIC 4: Make the person re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Efforts are designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control and defense mechanisms. The subject is guided to reinterpret his or her life's history and adopt a new version of causality.
TACTIC 5: Create a sense of powerlessness by subjecting the person to intense and frequent actions and situations which undermine the person's confidence in himself, his understanding of reality and his judgment.
TACTIC 6: Create strong aversive emotional arousals in the subject by use of nonphysical punishments such as intense humiliation, loss of privilege, social isolation, social status changes, intense guilt, anxiety, manipulation and other techniques.
TACTIC 7: Intimidate the person with the force of group-sanctioned secular psychological threats. For example, it may be suggested or implied that failure to adopt the approved attitude, belief or consequent behavior will lead to severe punishment or dire consequences such as physical or mental illness, the reappearance of a prior physical illness, drug dependence, economic collapse, social failure, divorce, disintegration, failure to find a mate, eternal suffering etc.
The above tactics of psychological force are regularly applied to such a severe degree that the individual's capacity to make informed or free choices becomes inhibited. The victims become unable to make the normal, wise or balanced decisions which they most likely or normally would have made, had they not been unknowingly manipulated by these coordinated technical influence processes. The cumulative effect of these manipulative psychological processes can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force and physical and legal threats.
How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion and Influence Differ from Other Kinds of Influence?:
Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.
Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.
Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.
Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful?:
Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.
By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.
While there can be no doubt that coercive psychological systems are harmful and that their use and the harm they are causing worldwide is growing, there are few organizations anywhere doing what FACTNet does to educate and expose these systems wherever they take root. Please remember to help do your part to support our free delivery of critical information and services to victims of destructive cults and fundamentalist groups with your generous donation today. It is easy and fast if you use our online pay pal donation link.
Special Message from FACTNet's Co-Founder Lawrence Wollersheim on a new Service for High Risk Cult Victims
Because of my first hand experience in needing and using free, secure, emergency safe houses and sanctuaries during my ordeal to educate and bring justice to Scientology, I knew that this free emergency support service had to be made available to others. I am now happy to announce FACTNet - in co-operation with a non denominational, non profit organization and various other donors - has just completed creating a secure, emergency safe house and sanctuary for individuals affected by cults and mind control who might need such a place to temporarily reside.
This is not a cult exit program or service such as Well Spring or other such cult exit and healing services. This is only a secure, emergency safe house and sanctuary for impoverished individuals under credible physical threat due to their actions in educating, exposing and/or litigating cult and mind control abuse for either themselves or another.
Now that such a place finally exists again, I and FACTNet personally ask you to help us with your generous donations so that we have funds to continue to pay for the food, transportation and additional special security costs needed to help the individuals who are and will be using it. Please remember to help do your part to support this new service with your generous pay pal donation today. http://www.factnet.org/donation.htm
It is easy and fast if you use our online pay pal donation link. The qualification and application procedures for using this safe house are available by requesting them from manage@factnet.org.


  • Anyone who denies that the LaRouche organization(s) constitute a criminal cult by its daily repeated use of Tactics 1-7 above is him- or herself so delusional as to constitute a present danger to him- or herself and others.
 

borisbad (borisbad)
10-15-2005, 10:48 AM
The thing is Steve, you appear either to be disguising yourself, or if you are really a Yalie, you would be derided as "LC periphery" who perhaps has too many connections to the outside world to become a full-time member. Believe me, if you ever have a dispute with anything LaRouche says or start critically for yourself, you will be called an agent, a provocateur, and someone who was not ready to make the leap to full-time banality "having fun" at the card table 12-14 hours a day. So it sounds perhaps more like you're a dilettante playing with LaRouche's ideas believing that you have attained some secret knowledge that others at Yale (except maybe the Skull and Bones members) don't have. But, I guess it's better to have one foot in than completely give your life over to LaRouche as many others did, pretending that you're making a revolution.

 

sancho (sancho)
10-15-2005, 11:55 AM
Excellent point, Boris! Rather than deriding Steve for his manifest moral and intellectual stupidity in lending aid and comfort to the LaRouche gang, we should laud him for his modicum of sanity and courage in keeping away from full-time commitment (a modicum of sanity and courage we lacked). Further, the fact that he is not completely in shows that he is not terribly committed to the LaRouche view of life - a very encouraging sign. If he did truly believe any of what he was saying, he would not be playing around on the internet but at the shopping mall or post office.
Therefore, at long last, I can say: Steven, bravo!

 

kheris (kheris)
10-15-2005, 12:16 PM
Steve is posting from Yale, and it could be he is availing himself of a library computer. However Yale's naming conventions suggest otherwise. That said - Borisbad, you called a spade a spade. I would agree with the "dilettante" characterization.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
10-15-2005, 12:18 PM
Since Steve mentions aristocrats and ruling, let's review what how the Larouche cult manipulates the yutes to accept benovelent dictatorships. After all, you life in the org is one of accepting a benovelent dictatorship of self.
The first axiom to establish is that there are no other institutions or peeople who have any idea of the crisis or how to solve the crisis. What crisis you ask? Why the impending world economic collapse which Lyn has been forecasting for 50 years or so.
Indeed, each national confernece we would attend would start off with Lyn screaming, "I have measured every world leader in present crisis, and they have failed" lyn would drop a few dozen names of international and national leaders and procalim that they all rejected him and have proved that they "Have no guts for survival".
The point of this is to now accept the premise that ONLY Larouche will solve the world's problems since only Larouche has the guts to use larouche to solve these problems. Since we all know that lyn is a man who has pulled of this scam of being the worlds greatest whatever, it does make sense.
Our history has always been full of supporting dictators and writing nice tracts about them. The argument is wlays that they did what they had to to ensure survival of their people. Thus, we had a tribute to the solid fist of Stalin, loved Marcos of the Phillipines, Argentinian dictators and never had a bad word about Saddam Hussein. If we thought that we could get some money or good press and meetings for Lyn, we did not care what you did.
The Stalin campaigner came aroiund the time that we became a cult of personality for Lyn. Lyn was the final word and nothing happened unless his name was in it. The only time Lyn ever denied that he ran things was when he was on trial and all of a sudden had no idea where the money came from and who paid for the cases of Rheingau consumed each week.
The KEY PHRASE for the members was "PHILOSPHER KING". That is what was drummed into us each elcetion cycle. Members would talk about how if only Lyn ran the world, everything would work. Even the Maglev trains would run on time.
The general range of our readings was about how people in history took power and imposed the good against the wishes of the sheep. We were the chosen selct Golden Souls who would lead the sheep. Lyn was the Philospher King who would rule and the 6 thousnad year old battle between good and evil, Plato and Aristotle would be over. No more rock music, no more drugs, no more fags, no more video games. Everyone would be performing Schiller and laying flowers at Lyn and Helga's feet like we would do at conferences.
Some of you may have forgotten this from our Detroit conference. But, we brought out a chair that was like a throne for Helga when she spoke. I also once read about how we proposed after Lyn won the 1980 election that the days between Lyn and Helga's marriage and Christmas would be an international holiday for everyone.
LJust like crazy people in old movies would believe that they are Napolean, Lyn's streak of lunacy revolves around Roosevelt.
Here are some examples of this.


  • LaRouche in 7th bid for kingly presidency
    Knight Ridder Newspapers/October 21, 1999
    By Mary Otto
    WASHINGTON -- Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. says ecology is a "destructive cult belief," warns that the world economy could collapse within the next year, and believes the president should be a "philosopher king."
    At 78, he has launched his seventh bid for philosopher king, but while his writings are voluminous and his charts put Ross Perot's to shame, he is facing some formidable obstacles.
    For one thing, it isn't clear how many voters will rally behind his discourse on the "growth of European population, population density, and life expectancy at birth, estimated for 100,000 BC-AD 1975."
    For another, he can't even vote for himself in his home state of Virginia, because he is a convicted felon


Lyn adressing the yutes


  • I am essentially a Christian philosopher, and, with that pecific
    qualification a "philosopher king" in the sense defined y Plato. This role
    has emerged as a kind of metamorphosis of the central personal developments
    in my life during the years 934-1952. Those developments are essentially
    two; they are istinct, but closely interrelated.

  • Another address for us to read.

  • So, what am I doing? Today, I know this, what I just said to you. Okay. Am I going to fail, as Roosevelt, in one sense, failed? That's my concern, that I shall not fail. I can not pre-determine what the result will be. But I can pre-determine what {I will do} about shaping the result. And therefore, you will see, in all my writings, I do something that Roosevelt never did: Roosevelt expressed ideas, but he was not a {man of ideas}. He was a man who acted on ideas, who had ideas, who developed his understanding to {use} them, with good executive power, with leadership capability. But, he was not a {creator of ideas}. He was not a scientific discoverer, as I am.
    So, I know everything Roosevelt knew, in terms of how to govern and how to lead. But, I, also, am a creative personality, a scientific discoverer. And recognize, that you must have, as Plato emphasized, with the idea of the philosopher-king, that a world in crisis needs the leadership of a philosopher-king, not merely a good President, under the present circumstances. And my job is provide to that necessary quality of leadership, of a philosopher-king.
    NOVEMBER 14, 2000 Washington D.C. The Lyndon LaRouche Gathering
    Summary and Press Release of the Lyndon LaRouche Speech:


Here is a detailed analysis from the King book on how things worked.

Archive/File: larouche larouche.018
Last-modified: 1993/05/08
XRef: index larouche, larouche larouche.ihr
LaRouche's racialism, like Hitler's, doesn't just target the British.
In a softer form it applies to most of the human race, whom LaRouche
accuses of being mired in sheeplike beastiality and thus requiring
close surveillance by LaRouchian shepheds. He professes great
compassion for the sheep. Their subhuman state is the fault of the
British. Once the latter are removed from the scene, the sheep's
heredity can be changed, raising future generations to the level of
true humanity.
LaRouche describes this process using terms from Plato's 'Republic,'
in which society is composed of an ascending scale of bronze, silver,
and golden souls. But his ideas are very different from Plato's. To
LaRouche the bronze soul is a sensuous donkeylike wretch (or worse).
To Plato the bronze soul was an upright moral citizen whose role was
to build the weath of society through craftsmanship and commerce. To
LaRouche the silver soul is someone who has begun to accept political
leadership from LaRouche or at least has developed an "organic"
humanism parallel to LaRouche's (e.g. South Africa's white rulers).
To Plato the silver soul was not defined by his ideology but by his
specific function and talents - he was a member of the warrior class.
To LaRouche the golden souls are himself and those few lieutenants of
his who have fully assimilated his intellectual method - the
so-called "hyposethis of the higher hypothesis." To Plato the golden
souls were the philosopher-statesmen who took care of government
affairs and studied higher ethical and metaphysical principles to
guide them in their work. These principles, as expressed by Socrates
in Plato's dialogues, have little in common with LaRouche's ideology.
Plato never theorized about a hypothesis of the higher hypothesis.
Nor did he regard his philosopher-kings as a biologically superior
race.
LaRouche's misappropriation of Platonism as a buttress for modern
fascism is not unique to LaRouche. In 1939, Dr. Otto Dietrich, the
head of Hitler's press bureau, announced that Hitler's views on
leadership were "in entire conformity" with Plato's "immortal Laws"
which teach the "voluntary subordination of the masses, whilst at the
same time bringing the 'wise men from within them to leadership.'"
Platonic jargon was also adopted by Oswald Mosley, fu"hrer of the
British Union of Fascists, and by members of South Africa's
Broederbond during their rise to power after World War II.
When LaRouche begins to talk about specific ethnic groups, his humanist
devotion to raising bronze souls out of ther bestial mire suddenly
disappears - apparently because they so stubbornly resist the values
of his would-be golden souls. He adopts instead a relentless racism
fit more for a master race than idealistic shepherds. For instance,
the Chinese are a "paranoid" people who share, with "lower forms of
animal life," a "fundamental distinction from actually human
personalities." American blacks who insist on equal rights are
obsessed with distinctions that "would be proper to the
classification of varieties of monkeys and baboons." Puerto Ricans
are intellectually impotent representatives of a culture based on
"'macho' pathology" and crazed blood oaths. Italians, also impotent,
are obsessed with churches, whorehouses, and "images of the Virgin
Mary" (whose "goddam smile" LaRouche would like to remove from public
view by closing Italy's churches). Irish-Americans are
representatives of a backward Catholic "ethnic piggishness" and are
responsible for a "hideous mind-and-body-eroding orgy of fertility."
Tribal peoples, as in Brazil's Amazon Basin, have a "likeness to a
lower beast."
These attitudes have definite implications for LaRouche's doctrine of
world conquest. In discussion U.S. treatment of American Indians in
the nineteenth century and the conquest of Mexican territories in
1848 by General Winfield Scott, LaRouche asked: "Was it ... correct
for the American branch of European humanist culture to absorb the
territories occupied by a miserable, relatively bestial culture of
indigenous Americans? _Absolutely_. Was it correct to absorb ... the
areas taken in the Mexican-American War? Historically, yes - for the
same reason." And the underlying principle? "We do not regard all
cultures and nations as equally deserving of sovereignty or
survival." (King, 289-290)
Work Cited
King, Dennis. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. New York:
Doubleday, 1989
On your knees Steve and bow down to the Philospher King.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com
BONUS Here is a PDF about the Australian Larouche cult operations. Great reading
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/em/elect01/subs/sub167.pdf

 

sancho (sancho)
10-15-2005, 01:46 PM
"only Larouche has the guts to use larouche to solve these problems"--a pricelessly accurate capture of the rank absurdity of the whole enterprise
LaRouche can't even govern himself (consider his Satanic pride, his consuming greed, his Gargantuan gluttony for the fruit of the vine, his envy of just about everyone for starters) - so how could he ever govern anyone else? And I would still like to know why someone would bother to call himself a "Christian" if one doesn't even believe in Jesus Christ?

 

borisbad (borisbad)
10-17-2005, 02:59 PM
It is interesting that Steve, who I guess is becoming a useful foil, or as Lenin would call a useful idiot, would talk about revolution led by LaRouche. I am interested to know what revolutionary supported Ronald Reagan in his so-called revolutionary "SDI" doctrine (which of course Reagan got from LaRouche)? What revolutionary supported corrupt regimes like Marcos, Peron, Noriega and yes Sadam Hussein? And when LaRouche thought he could get money from them by pushing his anti-Israel propaganda, he had no problems trying to deal with the eminently revolutionary Saudi regime to get financing for his publications. Of course, even the anti-Semitic Saudis didn't seem to have too much use for him despite his attacks on Henry Kissinger, and more recently the neo-cons.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
10-23-2005, 06:43 PM
Test.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
10-23-2005, 06:58 PM
Dear Mr. Steven Grendon,
I am interested in discussing this LHL business with you. You seem, nearly uniquely, here, to have a clue. So, even though I don't have a specific question to ask, I do remember I have a boatload of what seem like paradoxes concerning the movement in question. I will think of something! I am really posting this just to delay your final departure, if that hasn't yet happened.
Yours,
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-25-2005, 01:49 PM
I'm all ears, borracho.
You can email me too, at steven.rendon@yale.edu

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-25-2005, 01:54 PM
p.s. the "g" is my middle initial, for George, named after my grandpa. Good man. A carpenter, like Jesus. He has a lot in common with the latter. Anywho...

 

sancho (sancho)
10-26-2005, 11:23 AM
Mrs. LaRouche's actual statement translated precisely from the German was "I'm glad that I have two sexes."

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-26-2005, 11:52 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho:
I appreciate your post.
There is a laundry list of reasons why to promote the LaRouche Movement. And, as our confused friends demonstrate here, there is a laundry list of corrupt perceptions. I find it reasonable to examine papers, essays, speeches and platform (and those of their opponents even) and discover a single personality of the movement. Some people call this cult worship, because the movement is built around the political voice of Lyndon LaRouche. But this is the nature of a humanist movement; it helps solidify a single idea to rally around. It is embodied as a single idea, but composed of a dynamic of independent, yet unified parts, the many beautiful souls that promote these ideas in their own ways. And all of the work done in the history of the organization has the same principle ideas that I can discover, namely on physical economics and humanist politics. And so, where you can name off a long list of reasons to have a predilection for studying the movement, I think it is necessary to discover that there are few moral-intellectual international institutions that have such a will.
The secular taste of the organization, as opposed to the unique and concurring nature of the Vatican, is a result of a uniquely American culture! It is brilliantly American. Lyndon LaRouche read Leibniz as a twelve read old! In the first chapter of his autobiography, The Power of Reason: "Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Berkley, and Rousseau I hated. Leibniz moved me with a sense like that of coming home after a long homesickness. I read the Monadology, Theodicy, and the Clarke-Leibniz correspondence again and again, going on to writers later in my series, and back to Leibniz again. By fourteen, I was an avowed student of Leibniz. After my evangelical Christian upbringing, this encounter with Leibniz was the most important intellectual experience of my childhood and youth. The two encounters have been the most defining experiences of my development."
Now this is where it gets fun for people like me. Leibniz IS the most powerful influence on America's republican existence, and Leibniz is explicitly Platonic. The Leibniz-Swift-Mather core alliance represented the purely trans-Atlantic republican movement under the British crown, which led to the development of the independence movement and the creation of this American Republic. Benjamin Franklin was a protégé of these circles, particularly the revolutionary Puritans (who had already many times acted independent and threatened to defend its independence, well before 1776), and the success of his career is reflected by this more or less clandestine relationship.
And so, I think that that key moral and intellectual relationship is absolutely necessary in understanding 1) the nature of the "cult of personality" phenomenon that drives modern liberal arts professors mad, and 2) the irreconcilable line drawn between Mr. LaRouche and his political enemies, especially in regards to the political economics of a republic versus debt-speculators and in many cases, plain feudal usury.
That seems to me the most important idea to discover about the nature of the LaRouche Movement.
About your questions: very simply, I will draw on Mr. LaRouche's use of Vernadsky. There is no principle difference between man and women, like there is a principle difference between human and ape, which is located in reason and defined as the Noosphere. Consider this: every person has unique qualities of biological makeup, which would change a bit of the sensory apparatus so that each person senses the world around him or her differently. They are all capable of discovering principles of reality, but through perhaps varying predicates. This is true also when we can see a bit of a difference in biological makeup between groups of societies that have evolved in different climates. And yet again, when we take our empirical notepads out, plot a few points, we can make a distinction between the way men in general sense the outside world and the way women in general sense the outside world.
The differences observed in cross-cultural analysis exist within the framework of the Noosphere in the large. In contrast, the differences observed between male and female biology exist within the framework of the Noosphere in the minutia. A dynamic exists between the male and female such that traditional Western Civilization has come to regard the nuclear family as having an intrinsic dynamic that creates the best effect for children of society to develop within.
Without being Freudian or fascist, we should look at the larger scope of principles that are operating within the universe, and, with love in mind, create human social relations in harmony with such principles.
Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
10-26-2005, 06:46 PM
Principal and principle are two different words.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-26-2005, 07:13 PM
"principle ideas" = "principal ideas"
pardon.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
10-26-2005, 09:50 PM
Dear Mr. Rendon,
I think where I agree, in terms of search, is in finding the distinctiveness and superiority of the movement /as an idea/. When many criticize the personality cult, what they're really thinking, somewhere, ultimately, is that Mr. LaRouche is a kind of Hitler, and his leadership of his organisation is using a /Fuehrer-prinzip/, his own repudiation of such (as in the case of Gov. Schwarzennegger) notwithstanding. So yes, finding out the specific worth of the movement in terms of heritage, is a good idea.
When people complain of the harshness of the movement, its tendency to insist on increasing output of its members, rallying to the point of abuse, and so on, once again we have a cult impression arise. But I think that, if the above paragraph's suggested search for the core idea is successful (as you argue is, for you), then we can recognise that the movement is indeed a four-letter word. That is, it is an army. They're raising an army of people willing to fight, if you'll pardon an appropriate pun, for truth, justice, and the American way. Once you volunteer, they'll try to kick your butt into line as best as possible, to keep you on that superior level, and they'll reduce you to what feels like, for a typical Imperial subject used to luxury, roughing it in the field. Some people are repulsed fairly soon, some people burn out, and, rarely, some people go nuts (a real possibility when tinkering with the nuclear forces of the human mind). But regardless, in this light, it's no more a cult than the Marines who sacked Baghdad are a cult.
That raises a third question, in that, for all talk of the Presidency, Mr. LaRouche's leadership of his organisation is not patterned after the US government. Rather he is a general, running an army fighting an epistemological war. I'm sure the second tier folks (recruited in the 1960s) have a say, but they're not making the strategic decisions except when delegated to. Only if he had a stroke, or someone slipped him some LSD, or whatever, could the second tier conspire to remove his authority, akin to a ship's mutiny by its officers. So (1st para.) even if we establish it as having a good heritage, and (2nd para.), show that it is really an army and not a cult, we still have the concern that it is set up with proper checks on power.
I think answering the above will go a long way toward a good apology.
On my questions, from what you describe, I see an overlap. Racial differences are potentially no less real than sex ones, but the former falls into the concern for the proper makeup of nations, while the latter appears in all nations. If language, religion, culture, and geography are legitimate factors in determining appropriate nationhood, race, here potentially, should be also.
But it's the sex differences that concern me more, right now. The nuclear family as a null set might indeed contain a worthwhile dynamic, but there is still no decisive evidence that a homosexual couple can't healthily generate a family to fill that set. A mere "dynamic" based on a statistical tendency of temperament, doesn't suffice to establish that there is a principled difference between "male" and "female" that merits enshrinement in law.
One possible solution to these two paragraph's problems, may be the notion of art. It has occurred to me, that the best defense of race, and sex, lies in the realm of art. For, after all, if it ain't a scientific principle, it's gotta be an artistic one, right? Now, I recall a recent speech by Mr. LaRouche where he discusses the desirability for many types of apples, especially homegrown ones. And everywhere, implicitly, we have this notion of "diversity"—of dog breeds, of apple breeds, and so on. These things fall into distinct types. Diversity isn't promoted by crossbreeding twenty breeds of apple together, producing only chaos, but by cultivating distinct lines, and occasionally creating and attempting to stabilise new ones. The results can be considered artistic—what is more of an acculturated work of living art than a Golden Retriever, for instance?--docile, good with children, pretty, and so on. What I wonder is, can we usefully consider the sexes, and perhaps the races (or even nationalities) "artistically distinct" in this way? Is, thus, trying to equalise the sexes, by dressing the same (basically: telling women not to dress alluringly all the time—even movement womenfolk do it with dresses and makeup), trying to get equal numbers into all jobs, encouraging Darwinian games-theory mating rituals, and so on, simply bad art?
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-27-2005, 08:55 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
Actually, the idea of the LaRouche Movement, in terms of its historical significance, is tantamount to an ecumenical New Renaissance.
Now, in order to grasp the seeming paradox between that ecumenical base in ideas and the ambitious nature of the LaRouche card-carrying organizations, one must understand that the LaRouche organization is indeed an army, but not akin to the utopian wet dreams expressed by Sam Huntington's Soldier and the State. It is a citizen-soldier army, and therein lies the answer to the problem of checks on power.
Again, this brings me back to the point of the difference between oligarchical arbitrariness and the Greek sense of Republican duty. The highest law of the land is not people, but principle, as you suggested when you pointed out that the general welfare principle is the true law of the land.
In a citizen-soldier army, the soldiers are not mindless zombies running deadly errands. They are quite conscious of the issues at stake, the arguments for such issues and the arguments against such issues. A citizen-soldier has a conscience. And the way that the organization is set up, the membership battle out ideas openly, even, in many cases, in plain public forums. If you go to a conference of a webcast, you can see non-members invited to observe internal membership discussions. Why do you think Mr. LaRouche is always complaining about the baby-boomer syndrome within this very organization? And so, while the decisions tend to be top-down, they are not arbitrary and unknown.
So agape is the true law of the land, and the best check to arbitrariness is open education, conscience and open dialogue.
On the question of a principle difference between male and female.
In a way, I agree with the metaphor that mankind, in general, has artistically created complementary roles within society for men and women. However, there is also an intrinsic order to the biological art of God in creating human society, composed of men and women.
Pope Benedict XVI points out that women are the mothers of life. "That…[women] are able to carry within them another person and can themselves give flesh and blood to that person, all of this gives woman a particular distinction and her own special status." Different as the biological role of woman is, it does not make that role any more or less significant than the role of man, in defining humanity. He makes the necessary distinction: "differentiation exists as complementarity within unity."
That being said, again, I emphasize the need to overlook these discrepancies of opinion, which should and must be eventually addressed, for the sake of addressing the nuclear issues, so to speak, which immediately affect mankind's welfare as a whole.
Respectfully,
Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
10-28-2005, 05:55 AM
Again, principal and principle are two different words.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-28-2005, 06:35 AM
actually, instead of "principle difference" I meant "principle-difference," the diction is correct though. Empiricists: can't live with em, can't live (in peace) without em. Jeez.

 

dave72 (dave72)
10-28-2005, 12:13 PM
"They're already beating up gays with baseball bats around the country! Children are going to playgrounds, they go in with baseball bats, and they find one of these gays there, pederasts, trying to recruit children, and they take their baseball bats and they beat them up pretty bad. They'll kill one sooner or later. In Chicago, they're beating up gays that are hanging around certain schools, pederasts; children go out with baseball bats and beat them up—which is perfectly moral; they have the civil right to do that! It's a matter of children's civil rights!"
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., "The End of the Age of Aquarius?" EIR (Executive Intelligence Review), January 10, 1986, p. 40.

 

sancho (sancho)
10-28-2005, 01:48 PM
By em, of course is meant 'em.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
10-29-2005, 01:03 PM
Dear Mr. Rendon,
I'll grant your summary of the movement as embodying the idea of such a Renaissance. Further, I'll grant them the benefit of the doubt, in forming such a type of army rather than a personality cult. That said, we should hold in mind that just because it's of a certain type, it's not necessarily a good example of that type. The US has a superior type of government to Canada and Scandinavia, for instance, but those countries trump the US in terms of things like universal healthcare, literacy, and race relations. If you have a bad back in Norway they'll give you a free trip to the Canary Islands, for God's sake. So the movement may be suffering from certain axiomatic-like procedural miscalculations, or worse, that hampers its efforts.
That possibility leads me to wonder about the movement and its former members. Not everyone's cut out to be a soldier.[1] So--excluding any of the aforementioned potential significant procedural boners--because of the brainwashing that people have suffered, the movement is bound to have casualties who can't deal with the needed ego-stripping necessary to construct the Self. My question is, it seems that when they speak at all, these casualties adopt a rather antagonistic stance toward both the movement and its founding idea, similar to a Metallica-esque stance of aggressive hopelessness and utterly cynical view of war. Why haven't any casualties simply split to form a parallel movement?
Elsewhere:
I'm tending to think about sexual orientation as akin to handedness. If we gingerly start thinking about the "art of God," we can also ask about why right-handers outnumber left-handers ten to one. Homosexuality seems to me like little more than sexual left-handedness. Again, reproduction is a technical issue. It may well be that heterosexual monogamy is the more "harmonically efficient" blending of biology and psychology, but as a defense of that as having exclusive claim on legal marriage, it doesn't fly. Dwarfs and other physically malformed people don't fit the Golden Section as well as normals, but if they seek families, we still attempt to accommodate them.
Why I'm broaching these issues, is that I question the ecumenical efficacy of concentrating all possible manpower on what amounts to a frontal assault on popular opinion. It's all very well to dismiss the issues, but there is (1) an ecumenical usefulness in being able to provide concise summaries of positions on issues in order to reassure people and so more easily dismiss those issues, and (2) a possibility of actually dealing with things in a Philoish manner.
As I've already given an example of the former, I give one of the latter, for this is something I've wondered of for a while now. There's a prolific writer in Canada named Rolf Witzsche who is an ardent LaRouche sympathiser, who ran in a few local elections up there, and has contacts with the Committee for the Republic of Canada. Now, he wrote a book, called "Lord of the Rings Metaphors," referencing LaRouche throughout, in which he basically pulls a Philo of Alexandria on the book, bringing it in line with the classical humanist tradition. It's quite an interesting read, especially in light of how dismissive the movement members are toward it Tolkien.[2]
Refer to the question posted by someone above, concerning Philo's work on the Old Testament. This is also referenced in "How Jesus And His Followers Saved Civilisation" (Campaigner). I think that what's missing today is an understanding of just how powerful the enemy really is, in mentally controlling the masses.
We can sketch a timeline: The pre-Christian era, dominated by the sorts of madness that Philo and later Jesus addressed. Christianity begins as the first ecumenical attempt to "switch tracks" on history into the proper mode. Now, however, we've had a rallying of evil, which has given rise to a post-Christian era. This era, postmodernity if you will, has not merely regressed back to the pre-Christian conception, it has /advanced/ into a destruction of the texts of Christianity itself, and of the related concerns. The old stories, parables, and shorthand /no longer work/, and any attempt to make them work, leads only into evangelical-style corruptions.
Can the counterculture not be "thrown" in some way, not as an entirety, but tripped, like a Sumo wrestler over a kitten? I can assure any movement organiser that there are hundreds of millions of Westerners who will never be reached, because no one is speaking their language. They are incapable of processing the information. Witzsche's book seems like a good "rabbinical commentary" that gives people a chance to begin translating their private languages into public ones again. I have at least two other films in mind that fit this category.
That seems rather "nuclear," if it can provide a way to augment the movement's power, don't you think?[3]
DH
[1]
To tell a brief tale: The late psychedelic booster Terence McKenna talked about such drugs in general one time, and remarked how they "dissolve boundaries" in consciousness, or perhaps as we might put it, more clearly, psychedelics dissolve /consciousness/ into pure preconscious activity, classifications blending into one another on into Timothy Leary's "pure chaos" of his interpretation of Socrates' investigations. But McKenna added a cautionary note that (paraphr.) "Some people are not ready to have their boundaries dissolved!"
[2]
I think it was Harley who remarked during a lecture, about how unedifying it was to have the plot resolved by a large military battle—demonstrating, of course, that he hadn't been paying much attention.
[3]
The movement's hyperbole about the economic collapse is fine for whipping up the whippable. But I realise that if I were such a forecaster, and I knew what was coming, I'd probably preach doomsday a little earlier than I expected it to come, just to give everyone a margin.

 

dave72 (dave72)
10-30-2005, 09:01 AM
“…..because of the brainwashing that people have suffered, the movement is bound to have casualties who can�t deal with the needed ego-stripping necessary to construct the Self”
---------- Needed ego stripping ???!!!! Steve, this kid trusts you, please help him out here.
My question is, it seems that when they speak at all, these casualties adopt a rather antagonistic stance toward both the movement and its founding idea, similar to a Metallica-esque stance of aggressive hopelessness and utterly cynical view of war. Why haven�t any casualties simply split to form a parallel movement?
------------- Answer: We rejoined the real world where we can do real good. Larouche’s battle lines are all imaginary. They dissolve when you leave the organization.
“…….. Now, he wrote a book, called �Lord of the Rings Metaphors,� referencing LaRouche throughout, in which he basically pulls a Philo of Alexandria on the book, bringing it in line with the classical humanist tradition. It�s quite an interesting read, especially in light of how dismissive the movement members are toward it Tolkien.”
----------- The members dismiss it because Larouche has not authorized it. That is where some of our cult accusations are coming from. After a few ego stripping sessions you will begin to “understand” what is wrong with Tolkien.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-31-2005, 06:10 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
“Why haven’t any casualties simply split to form a parallel movement?”
This question, I think, cannot be simply answered and be given justice at the same time, but I will discuss it in any case. Most of the honest ex-members, it seems to me, have been burnt out from the physical commitment as well as the psychological battle that is intrinsic in fighting popular opinion to improve popular opinion. But, if you’re burnt out, how are you supposed to go and create a “parallel movement” when the reason why you left was because of the nature of the fight? Are you going to fight it in a new setting where you do not have to confront the most pressing necessities of such a movement? And other ex-members have been outright confused, a form of brainwashing, by media and spook-esque operations, to deny the very existence of such a fight that needs an army to fight it. In any case, ex-members have been up to stuff, look at the Mars Society and Webster Tarpley for another reference. Mr. Tarpley seems to be one of the most competent and intelligent of the ex-membership, but is bordering sophistry by omitting Mr. LaRouche’s real decisive role in contemporary 20th and 21st century American history.
“I question…a frontal assault on popular opinion.”
I can assure you, there is no “ecumenical usefulness” is fighting slogans with slogans. The best we can do, in staying true to the idea of uplifting mankind to its potential, in universal Classical humanist education, is to fight slogans with metaphors developed through discourse around ideas. You fight a single issue by presenting a thesis which subsumes the littleness of a single issue, addressing it, and situating it as a predicate of a larger issue. The alternative is to treat humankind as cattle, and get them to shuffle off to your slogan and not someone else’s. There is no long term potential for a Renaissance with that approach.
We must, at some points, discuss the truthfulness of existing popular culture. We must discuss music, hip hop, pop, country, etc, but in a way which makes clear the idea to which it is a predicate of. We must discuss music, the artistic principles that are embodied there, and culture in general, and where these pop forms of music situate themselves in culture. But we must not attempt to give art an idea which it was not intended to express.
The example of Tolkien is a good example. I am not proficient in his literature, but have been greatly exposed to discussion with those who are. The only preliminary suggestion that I offer here is that we look into the text and look for philosophical discussion or suggestion, and seek the classical principle of metaphor, especially when investigating man’s relationship to the universe and to the Creator himself. Books like these, and the movie trilogies of Star Wars and the like, tend to be more dualistic in describing the universe. There is a good principle and a powerful evil principle. Evil seems to actually be something, when, we know from Augustine’s classical teaching that evil is in fact nothingness. It is the lack of good, it is emptiness. These dualistic dreams of good versus evil might have detrimental effects on our understanding of the real-life understanding of man’s struggle to free himself from nothingness and confusion.
Steve

 

sancho (sancho)
11-01-2005, 02:18 PM
"bordering sophistry" = "bordering on sophistry"
"is" = "in"
"uplifting mankind to its potential" = ???
"at some points" = "at some point"
"truthfulness of existing popular culture" = ???
"the idea to which it is a predicate of" = "the idea of which it is a predicate"
"where these pop forms of music situate themselves in culture" = ???
"But we must not attempt to give art an idea which it was not intended to express." = ??????
"The example of Tolkien is a good example." = "The example of Tolkien is good."
"I am not proficient in his literature, but have been greatly exposed to discussion with those who are." [very clumsy]
"our understanding of the real-life understanding of man’s struggle to free himself from nothingness and confusion"
Indeed.

 

xylm (xylm)
11-02-2005, 03:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-03-2005, 03:14 PM
Dear Mr. Rendon,
POP CULTURE AS LOOT
I submit that the best of pop culture’s broadest value is as a source of images for metaphor. The ancient Greeks who wrote up their mythology weren’t classically-minded â€" even Plato accedes to banish Homer from the puritan Republic - but those creations were indispensable in providing a novel palette for the classical artists. Today, we face a landfill of a hundred years of intense, skilful, and often very candid and clever self-expressions â€" a landfill of curious gems. The best of these can be no less, than is most of the Bible, or any of the ancient myths. Instead of burning this landfill, I say, mine it.
On adding unintended meaning to art: Even today, we have the various religions, supposedly containing something worthwhile at their centres, but in Judaism’s case, the only imagined relevant parts are Philo’s complete reinterpretation of what Mr. LaRouche termed “a mess.” So with Christianity: Most of the New Testament is incomprehensible noise, with Jesus waffling on about something or other. “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons” and other rubbish. Nothing can be made of this unless we treat it as fairy tales, plagiarise it for new, classical meanings /we/ intend, or else we discover the science behind Jesus’ magic powers. So with other art.
ADOLESCENCE
I think I see a paradox at the heart of man, the transition from child to adult. The movement seeks to accelerate adolescence, but there is no mention of the need for an adolescent literature that blends the emphasis on curiosity, in children’s literature, with the emphasis on agape, in adult’s. Adults properly don’t read children’s literature not because it’s inappropriate, but because the adults aren’t /curious/ of those things any more, having satisfied their curiosity.
In seeking soldiers, the movement recruits children, and tries to make them adults. Most people go psychotic if treated this way. There needs to be a transitional stage, for the ones who aren’t tough enough. Otherwise, the push toward implicit sexual-political potency contains echoes of a kind of child molestation.
For consideration, then, I mention three things to describe an arc of transition: Tolkien, going from the children’s book The Hobbit as a preamble, into the adolescent’s book Lord of the Rings. And as a final, older adolescent’s, and pornographic, example I give Clive Barker’s Hellraiser Mythos, specifically the films Hellraiser I and II.
THE HOBBIT
The Hobbit doesn’t bear much comment, except that it provides children with a sense of the exhausting nature of a real adventure. It’s also more sedate, less sensational â€" encouraging the child to fantasise literarily, rather than thinking it’s “just like the movie!”
LORD OF THE RINGS
I think Lord of the Rings is the ultimate fairy tale. The evil represented is a corruption of good, even in the creation myth â€" Eru (God) creates a divine symphony, and one element of it is dischord, who rebels. So, as with the real world, evil /acts/ like a principle, a self-feeding cycle, but it always remains akin to blowing out the ground level of an office building, and the emptiness created allows, in slow motion, each succeeding floor to collapse down into itself. So the absence, frees the actual principles to interact in a way that lowers the level of order in the system.
The essence, and cunning plot, of Rings, is the notion of the Doom of Man (the One Ring) â€" man is doomed to be affected by philosophy, whether he knows it or not. The ring is the ultimate evil philosophy, and to destroy it demands one head into the heart of enemy controlled territory (philosophy, epistemology, culture), and scale Mount Doom (history) to the place where the philosophy was made (Witzsche identifies this as Aristotle), and destroy it â€" destroy the fundamental axioms in a non-superficial manner.
Doing this demands a ring bearer. The only one reliable to bear the ring’s ultimate corruption is Frodo (agape), and who is in the end accompanied only by his servant, Sam (common sense â€" properly, as LaRouche discusses it in “In Defense of Common Sense”) and Gollum/Smeagol (the witch, the ego). Fighting off their inner alternate personalities, agape and common sense thus execute a flanking action against the enemy, while he is distracted by military concerns themselves orchestrated by King Aragorn (reason) in order to buy time for the hobbits’ suicide mission.
Not a classical work, no, but containing too many true notes to be lightly tossed away.
HELLRAISER
I’ll give you a pornographic example: the Hellraiser Mythos by Clive Barker, specifically Barker’s film Hellraiser, and its sequel. Now, these films taken as a whole contain a certain kind of metaphor, but an inverted one. That is, the originator, Barker, who is openly gay, married so, at one time seriously into the S&M scene, and well-known for his gruesome novels and short stories (The Books of Blood, etc.), has, unwittingly, put together something that is classically intelligible. It’s not a classical work per se, but he’s a profound enough thinker in the realm of Horror to have come up with something â€" Hellraiser, his most popular and enduring work â€" that is like a reverse polarity image of a proper metaphor.
This unintentional expression, is akin to the character Gollum in Lord of the Rings, who clearly expresses the witch-possession described in “Beyond Psychoanalysis,” and “The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach,” if not elsewhere.
Simply put, “Hellraiser I & II” is about the adult’s infantile ego’s terrified reaction to confronting the Logos (Leviathan), which is painted as black as possible. There is no duality in this universe: no god, no devil, only Leviathan, a perfect geometric god, who is waging a “war on flesh” to create a condition of perfect order of flesh reconciled to spirit. The condition sought by Leviathan’s servants, the Cenobites, is “pain and pleasure, indivisible.” If you use your cognitive powers to open the mystical puzzle box, the will emerge and “tear your soul apart” in their quest to remould you in their gruesome image (think willing torture casualties). This is clearly a sexualised rendering of the process of ego-destruction leading to the joy/sadness of agape, through greater cognitive understanding. One character, obsessed with arcane knowledge, at one point is caught by the Cenobites and highly reluctantly remade into one of them. Afterwards he muses, “And to think I hesitated…”
To most people, the whole of the movement’s explicit plan (much less their implicit one!) makes its soldiers look like Cenobites coming to torture people for their own good. The Logos appears as this hateful, evil thing, a god of darkness, demanding absolute order. To the movement casualties, this must be something of what they feel: that they used their cognitive powers to open a terrible door, and out came monsters that tried to drag them away. But fortunately they escaped, and now they’re as bitter as fried cats. And who precisely blames them!?
HORROR
So, the problem starts to seem to revolve around Horror, the soul feeling horror at being violated by the unfamiliar, the demanding, the authoritarian. It’s like a young adult being told, “You are not allowed to have sex until you are seventy!” â€" there’s a carnality that is being attacked, a sense of individual umbrage at being given a body and then told it must be “organised."
The notion of "everything for your own good, for the General Welfare" is a harsh one to integrate. Few people will bare their backs to that whip; hence the Barkerian parallel between carnal sado-masochism, and the spiritual version demanded by the classical tradition. In a saner culture, one might naturally shade into the other, in the sense of letting rebellion itself serve a higher purpose.
In “Jesus Christ and Civilization,” Mr. LaRouche mentioned the problem of the prospect of a future recrudescence of the type of crisis currently occurring. Even if we solve this, he said, how do we solve the deeper problem? I think the failure to address what we might call “dark eros” â€" curiosity, carnality, horror â€" is laying the groundwork for those future problems. Did ancient Greece really not need Dionysus? Or was the real trouble only that no one thought to put him on a suitable leash?
That’s what I’m driving towards lastly: That perhaps we need the counterculture, in restructured form, to serve as a kind of vaccine. If the movement wins, globally, imagine the future where there is no living memory of what it was like to overcome the counterculture. Better to personally give each individual that memory, no? Most other cultures have a traditional “rite of passage” (often, among shamanic cultures, involving psychedelics), but we in the sterile West do not, other than driver’s license, getting drunk, and hooking up. Perhaps without such a rite, with the movement’s success we’re back in Eden, but this time the bad tree has an electric fence around it.
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-03-2005, 07:19 PM
Although I am not given to conspiracy theories, the LaRouchites have happened upon a very interesting tactic to deprive this message board of rational, legitimate criticism of the antisemitic gangster LaRouche and his lemmings. The new tactic is to have two or more apparently addled logorrhea sufferers go at it in an unsuccesful attempt to fog over the established criminality of the LaRouche syndicate. I would remind anyone looking into LaRouche for the first time that he or she read all the foregoing posts, most of which well document the exact nature of the LaRouche CULT. I would further remind the curious that all cults try to play a shell game of having the potential recruit focus on the putatively novel "ideas" of the cult leader and to take his or her eye off the CASH. When trying to figure out a CULT, follow the CASH (and ignore the blather.)
The best place to start to learn about what is really going on with the LaRouchies is
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)
Oh, and it is also well documented above that in addition to being a rabidly immoral and selfish individual, Lyndon LaRouche is a patently oafish intellectual FRAUD.
(Message edited by sancho on November 03, 2005)

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-04-2005, 09:42 PM
"My question is, it seems that when they speak at all, these casualties adopt a rather antagonistic stance toward both the movement and its founding idea, similar to a Metallica-esque stance of aggressive hopelessness and utterly cynical view of war. Why haven�t any casualties simply split to form a parallel movement? "
------------- Answer: We rejoined the real world where we can do real good. Larouche’s battle lines are all imaginary. They dissolve when you leave the organization.
Dave 72. I do not think that you or anyone who was in the LC could create a list of larouche's enemies over the past 40 years and call it complete. Depending on when you joined and the way we were fundrasing, the enemy was custom fit.
Steve and other jabronis will have further enemies of Larouche to battle as they empty their bank accounts and continue their illusion that they are part of a movement rather than a cult of personality.
Boys, Lyn has you figured out better than you you can ever imagine. The key thing is to create this idea that you have no chance of "creative mentation" and "hubris" or what ever is the code word for LYM today. You can talk to any former member and see that the targetting of the yutes is based on exploiting a person's intitial fear that the world is heading a dangerous directon and something must be done.
Take that initial impulse and now create catastrophic collpases and horors of thermo nuclear war and genocide run by whatever enemy Lyn has smelled is good fodder.
In the 1970's we wanted recruits from the left. So the PLP,RCP,SWP,CPUSA,SDS,SLP, Bavarians, Trotskyists, Maoists and anyone left was the opposition to not socialism, but scientific socialism that only Lyn was aware of.
Bigger cults needs bigger enemies. Now we have phony brainwashing plots whuch you can read about on the LYM web sites. The KGB,FBI,CIA,GRU,DDR and every intell agency is after us on orders from the Rockefellers.
The Rockefeller period was now expanded to include the Trilats, CFR, Bilderbergers and what not. You see, Lyn is a genius in cribbing different groups and expanding the enemy list to prove that he knows who the real enemies are.
In Europe, it got more inane as we took European conspiracy writers and now included Masonic lodges, Jesuits, Aristotle, P2, Knights of Malta, The British, the Queen of England, Zionists, the Isle of Capre, The Venetians.
I seriously can not begin to write all of the groups we had as part of the conspiracy. Of course, the one thing they all had in common was that they wanted to be part of an assasination team.
Unbeknowst to most members, we made friends with dictators and right wing gangs around the globe. The Dem party was KGB run. Liberals were the enemy. Now the Republicans are Neo Con enemies. This lunacy is all over the map. Satan, rock music, movies, any thing and everything is part of the conspiracy which is preventing you from reaching your full potential as a creative person.
Lyn will give that to you. But first, man the card table shrine and max out your credit cards.
This side show has been running for decades and Lyn is by far a master at making a Steve think that he will be a superior Golden Soul who owes his creative mentation from Lyn.
The one big difference between yesteryear and today is that back then, we internally did not wish to think that we were in a cult. We did things to prove to our selves that it was not a cult. Eventuallym the charade ends and you can't keep on fooling yourself for ever.
The recruiting today is right to the cult without a shred of thinking that there is something wrong in a sycophantic worship of a cult of personality. I see this every week when I find blogs and postings from people who meet Larouche members on the street. The first word is usually "larouchies" "cult followers".
I guess that Lyn has only so much time left and he needs you to worship him while he is still around.
The best thing in all of this is that so many people around the globe find this site and confirm their initial gut feeling.
As Lyn denounces the use of Solar power as insane, a former member has just won a prestigious award from a major US business publication for the spectacular growth of his company and product performance.
The Larouche jabronis are worth their weight in convertable Rubles here.
One final note. A band called "StarSailor" has released a song about Jeremiah Duggan in Europe. Find the StarSailor web site and you can hear a short exerpt of it.
Since your life is now dedicated to beauty, music and poetry, here are the words for the LYM members to memorise and his mother's comments.
TO ALL SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS OF THE JUSTICE FOR JEREMIAH CAMPAIGN
StarSailor have just released their latest cd and track 11 is a song called "Jeremiah"
Go to www.starsailor.net (http://www.starsailor.net) Jeremiah
Went off to another land this evening
For to find some inner peace
And to see a better way of living
He only went to try to change something
His poor young life was pulled from under him
Found him by the motorway
Jeremiah ran away from something
Jeremiah's mother wept
For the answers they had left behind them
He only went to try and change something
His poor young life was pulled from under him
And everytime I see the sun go down I think of you
The polizei have swept it out of sight
There's nothing new
And everytime I see the sun go down I think of you
I hope someday someone will feel the need to tell the truth
Little one do not fear
The ways of the world
Will soon be clear
The song says it all. It is a cry for Jerry for Justice. I know he would have loved it.
A prayer which has as its last line: Little one do not fear the ways of the world will soon be clear
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-05-2005, 11:59 AM
Perhaps one bottle too many this time, but I have to ask:
You antagonists implicitly and explicitly refer to Mr. LaRouche as "immoral." What do you hold is the basis for this "morality" you refer to?
DH

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-05-2005, 05:43 PM
I certainly do not view myself as an antogonist. Consider me a person who was around for 14 or so years in different areas and positions who had many of the same views and reasonings as current yutes have.
The only thing I bring to the table is experience and a long range history. I encourage everyone to persue the many wonderful avenues of life available today. Some streets you do not wish to be on and some people you should know more about before trusting them.
In the case of the Larouche cult. The problem is like any other con job in business or pleasure. You are a better consumer when you have the info. I only post things when I see history being rewritten and yutes not knowing the real story.
In the case of Lyn's immorality. I would first venture to bring up the Chris White brainwashing affair which was a major part of creating a cult of personality.
I would definately add the whole financial crimes and frauds committed against supporters, members and vendors.
The argument I have heard from current Yutes is that this was done with out Lyn knowing it and he put an end to this. This is so outrageous that any body who believes that is too jaded to think straight. Any leader who tells yutes this who was around from the 1980's is severely lacking in morals.
NOTHING happened in finance without Lyn knowing it and orchestrating it through Will Wertz and a few other criminals.
You only have to have been a guest in the old estate mansion seeing Lyn devour bottle after bottle of Rheingau and having nightly banquets, travelling like a jet setter and reviewing the finances to understand this. There is nothing which underscores this as during one of the trials where Lyn was questioned about how this lifestyle came about. His telling a judge and jury that he has no idea where any of this comes from was enough for many members to leave in disgust.
To hear a Larouche talk about economic collapse when he shed not a dime for the many supporters whom we stole money from with promissory notes should be enough for many.
This is a heartless bunch of people. Forget the glorious world which you wish to create. Understand that members were ripped off and screwed.Members were evicted from apts while we sent money for Lyn to stay at the best hotels.
We paraded ourselves as pro life when we were marching female members to get abortions because Lyn told the membership at a few conferences that we are too busy saving the world to have children.
A few months ago, a convicted criminal named Shelly Ascher was on Capital Hill as an EIR reporter. She was covering Social Security hearings. DO you think that something is horribly immoral when she is writing about the plight of the elderly when she herself was convicted for absconding with nearly a million dollars from our elderly supporters? Look up her name in the Washington Post from the late 1980's to see what she did to several families.
Lyn has a well prepared and very defined techhnique for making concerned 18 year olds believe that they will reach their full creativity. You will find that the speeches and the methods are virtually the same for 4 decades.
I have to both laugh and sigh when I hear the same lines by Lyn and yutes in an endless loop starting from 1972 and onward.
The biggest thievery is actually your lives. When you leave school and put your prime years into this, you will find later that all of those cluse that you were in a cult were filtered by your high morals in wishing to do something great.
Stick around long enough and you will end up broke, old, boozed up and perhaps with serious problems that only a rope or gun will solve. It has happened.
The list can go on and on when you witnessed what was said one place and what was done elsewhere. The current Jeremiah Duggan problem is just one more thing to add to the arrogance of the cult.
I just have to reread the articles the cult wrote about this being a "Hoax" to keep Larouche from getting into the White House to make me gag. Making this poor mother part of an international conspiracy of Dick Cheney and the Queen is more sick than I could ever imagine.
I thought I met my limit with the Holocaust denial and Nazi rocket scientist insanity we had.
The cult has raised the bar more with what it is willing to spew with this latest chapter.
It took me a while to finally give up my illusions that the group could be nothing more than a cult of personality. It is very hard to accept that after you put in years of hard work.
The moment one really leaves is liberating. I mean really leaves because it is common for ex members to wonder if there is anything outside the LC that can deliver so many promises of culture and knowledge with the politics. Most people find out that it is possible and you can get a lot more done than you ever thought.
Many years after members leave, we sometimes run into each other. Swapping stories one finds a common link where most people who met Lyn privately became convinved he was a delsuional madman. Others, tell stories of being lied to by Lyn concerning many private things.
Never forget guys and girls, this is Lyn's cult, not yours. When Lyn goes it will be between Steinberg and Helga over whom you will be subsidising.
That guy Zubrin from the Mars Society was a sharp guy before he came in. He left when the illusions evaporated and I would guess that he knew a lot more about things since he was in the National Office when we were doing questionable things. He invented and patented a three person chess game, became a PHD, created a large greass roots org for Mars science, wrote a few best sellers about both Mars and is a big player among space lobbying. He also wrote novels as well and has a family.
We were rewriting the Nazi past of Nazi rocket scientists.
I think the morality speaks for itself.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-05-2005, 07:42 PM
Dear xlcr4life,
What you write is interesting, and supports the hypothesis that the movement is being misdeployed, but I don't think you read my question.
You talk of "morality." You say things make you "gag." You presume to inform "consumers." You deride Nazis, convicts, and what is sketched as typical oligarchal behaviour (banquets, etc.).
My question is, where are you getting your moral standard from, that you use to lend weight to your accusations?
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-05-2005, 10:33 PM
Any person of normal if not normative values will study
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)
and not require any clarification.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-05-2005, 11:21 PM
My question is, where are you getting your moral standard from, that you use to lend weight to your accusations?
DH
A mirror.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-06-2005, 11:08 AM
Dear xlcr4life,
I'm unclear on this. Are you saying that if you "can look yourself in the mirror" afterwards then you're satisfied with your moral behaviour? Or are you implying you follow the Kantian Imperative? Or perhaps Sancho's appeal to popular opinion and custom? Or something else entirely?
DH

 

kheris (kheris)
11-06-2005, 01:55 PM
DH
Let's try good old fashioned Judeo-Christian morality, which is predicated on the notion of moral obligation arising from relationships. The Golden Rule is the underlying basis. We are not obligated to maintain relationships that are toxic, but neither should we be creating toxic relationships.
LHL's 'ego stripping' tactics are nothing more than tools to create toxic relationships, which leave him as the focal point and source of all that matters to the follower. They are nothing without his intervention, or so LHL would have it. That is not what I consider to be moral behavior, at least not in a positive sense.
New life can arise out of chaos and destruction. But destruction that is targeted to solely serve the purpose of the destroyer (which is what LHL and his cronies are) does not create a new life, only an approximation. LHL wants the dollars he can wring out of people, and history has shown he'll do whatever he deems necessary to achieve that end.
It's not about Kant, or popular opinion DH. It's about what it means to be human and to treat fellow humans with the respect and dignity they are entitled to. Destroying people on a psychological basis because you can in order to achieve a personal end is not consistent with a moral worldview that values humans and human relationships. I doubt very much that this is what the Classical Humanists ever envisioned.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-06-2005, 01:59 PM
I must admit that the new descriptions I often see now of people who run into a present Larouche organiser includes the word "creepy". I have avoided that moniker, but the jabroni's are earning that faster than their 20 bucks a week.
There is a wealth of material here for you to read and original writings for you to find. You do not have to know Kant to read about the Protocals of Zion or the millions we siphoned from the elderly.
Maybe that is too exotic. I would think that flying Helga's dogs for 5K cross Atlantic trips while members are told that there is no money to pay their rent, food or debt would upset you.
If you still insist that this all an abstract exercise, than I certainly can't convince you that the history of the org is a continual non stop con game of delusions of both the cult leaders and the cult followers.
It is funny how more good is accomplished by Larouche sycophants coming here than manning a card table shrine.
Are you waiting for the imminent 30, 60 or 90 day economic collapse to judge your place in history? Considering the history of Lyn, maybe he meant an imminent 30 60 or 90 year economic collapse.
Maybe my mistake was just his editor after all of these years.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-06-2005, 05:35 PM
Dear Kheris,
The Golden Rule, here, is just sound social game theory. The best version of it is, I gather, the Nice-then-Tit-for-Tat system, where one tries to cultivate a culture of initial pro bono interaction, followed by responses in kind. This is no different in motivation from the spontaneous micro-truces that arose between the entrenched enemies during World War I. In other words, we are dealing with Darwinian self-interest, not ontological morality as such.
Now, you've augmented "morality" with "what it means to be human," and entitlements to "respect and dignity." I can understand your concern about avoiding predation, but I am still very unclear where you're getting this augmented notion of morality from, other than a "moral worldview" that, based on Darwinian self-interest, "values humans and human relationships" for the sake of generating a culture of minimal predation, that will thus minimise the effort you need to spend worrying about self-defense.
So, how is your augmented word "morality" any more than what I've described?
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-06-2005, 06:04 PM
Many lives have been aborted, mangled, contorted, and ended for over forty years all in service of LaRouche's id. To use this message board to debate "ideas" is to stand in front of Auschwitz or Dachau and to conduct a similarly pointless exercise.
LaRouche and his fanatics are criminals who must be stopped. Period. Save your autoerotic logorrhea for the privacy of your own home(s).
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)
(Message edited by sancho on November 07, 2005)

 

kheris (kheris)
11-07-2005, 03:18 AM
Darwinian self interest does not account for reflective self awareness, which only exists in humans as far as we know. It is that capability that enables us to take the next step beyond self interest and consider who we are and our purpose here and provide a context for our lives. That context is our worldview and one needs only to scan the current cultural landscape to recognize that there is no single homogenous worldview. However, there is a general consensus that humans are entitled to respect and dignity, even if we aren't in consensus as to how that looks.
You so quickly trivialize the notion of human relationships that are grounded in something other than mere self interest, I have to wonder if you believe in the existence of altruism. If Darwinian self interest were all that defines our social interactions we would be reduced to nothing more than overly bright apes, something I am sure LHL would not agree with.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-07-2005, 07:38 AM
Dear Kheris,
Altruism is misunderstood as somehow acting against one's self-interest. In fact, altruism is never anything other than self-interest. That humans are self-aware only makes the social games they play more complex, and allows the introduction of various mind-altering ideas into play – such as the modern conceit that the common man merits "respect and dignity."
Who are we, what's our purpose, and what is our context, has been answered a thousand ways in a thousand cultures. Yes, the present context of our lives is typically unavoidable, causing most people to sue for peace by "believing" in it, but I don't see what is ontologically compelling about the present order's popular and legislated notions of morality. As Herodotus said, "Custom is king."
What's wrong with being a clever ape, exactly?
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-07-2005, 08:30 AM
Note how the focus continues to be directed away from LaRouche's crimes and onto moot issues. Interesting. Why anyone would want to waste time conducting an academic discussion - solecisms and all - on a message board dedicated to detailing the exact nature of the LaRouche cult - it just makes one wonder. Surely there are many newsgroups that discuss general philosophical issues that would be more suitable for such discussions. I therefore must conclude that this rant is intended as a distraction. So let's all keep our eyes on the ball, shall we? Lyndon LaRouche has been running a cult of personality and criminal organization since at least 1972 in the wake of his concoction of the Chris White brainwashing.
For the most accurate information on LaRouche, please visit www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com).

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-07-2005, 01:32 PM
Dear Sancho,
As attractive as meditating on the alleged crimes of Mr. LaRouche are, my question remains, of the meaning of your terming him "immoral." I gather you all find some emotional satisfaction in recycling your accusations against him, on this out-of-the-way forum, but your preferences do not support the implied moral outrage that colours your attacks.
So, presume I agree with you, that Mr. LaRouche is a predator, and guilty of more or less what you describe. So, then, again, what does morality have to do with it? If I felt duely warned, I might say, "Thanks for the tip," but again, this is just Nice-then-Tit-for-Tat purring away like it should.
Whence moral, Sancho?
DH

 

kheris (kheris)
11-07-2005, 05:25 PM
DH
To Kheris
In fact, altruism is never anything other than self-interest. That humans are self-aware only makes the social games they play more complex, and allows the introduction of various mind-altering ideas into play – such as the modern conceit that the common man merits "respect and dignity."
To Sancho
So, presume I agree with you, that Mr. LaRouche is a predator, and guilty of more or less what you describe. So, then, again, what does morality have to do with it? If I felt duely warned, I might say, "Thanks for the tip," but again, this is just Nice-then-Tit-for-Tat purring away like it should
So shall we then conclude that you view the world as amoral, and the acts of humans having no moral bearing whatsoever? Thereby rendering all that is done by humans as merely instinctual responses? In which case, the law is a meaningless construct, as are the ethical codes that humans develop. It's all an illusion or a mass delusion that somehow you, and like-minded inviduals, have escaped. It's too bad you have such a low estimation of humanity.
Does LHL behave in an ethical manner? I answered that question and gave my reasons. If the best you can do is to natter on about a tit-for-tat world then this conversation is over.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-07-2005, 05:47 PM
Dear Kheris,
I'm not sure why you think it is "too bad" that I point out you have given nothing to support the ontological existence of morality. You must be sentimental about your arbitrary moral code, which is understandable.
But arbitrary or not, Leviathan is a useful institution for those seeking to preserve themselves. I, here, merely think - outside the fear of the evil eye, and supernatural consequence that makes most people cultists - about what is real, and provable, rather than what I would prefer.
It's not in my interest in destroying your blind faith in morality, but I was wondering just how honest you were willing to be in admitting its ontological baselessness.
Yours,
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-07-2005, 06:17 PM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
I respect your thoughts on "mining the existing culture" and believe we could continue that discussion further. However, in the interest of addressing some of the more tangible controversies, I would like to venture elsewhere.
Your process of axiom-finding has been fun; needless to say, I recognize the method. Let's continue.
Since Mr. Chris Curtis (a.k.a. xlcer4life) leads the matter-of-fact story telling here, how should we objectively discuss these matters with one of the most notorious traitors to the movement, as he obviously is well-versed in Dennis King's sophistry, and played a leading role in the government's acceptance of that position in convicting Mr. LaRouche of the various charges?
I refer you to my post here, on July 13th, 2005 and also to my October 10th, 2005 post at this alternative thread: http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/13668.html?1129000859
Respectfully,
Steven

 

sancho (sancho)
11-07-2005, 06:41 PM
Let the two semiliterate windbags go at it. They are, after all, here to divert attention from LaRouche's crimes and economic (and other) inanities. The newest Nazi to appear even deploys the logic of Ayn Rand in service of derailing criticism of the Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates. xlcer4life does a great service to humanity in the way he so artfully demonstrates time and time and time again for even the most obtuse and/or poorly educated how the LaRouche Show reprises itself over decades. The reality however can be found at
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com).
Today, I especially enjoyed rereading this account
http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/levy_m.html.
P.S., Einstein, "duely" is not a word: surely you meant "duly." The imprecision of the LaRouchies' English overabundantly on display here at FACTNet speaks volumes for their unkempt thought, casual disregard for truth, and troglodytic disregard for civilized manners.

 

kheris (kheris)
11-08-2005, 03:50 AM
DH
You are either an atheist or pretending to be one. But even atheists have a moral code, grounded in something.
There are no evil eyes here, or fears of the supernatural at work. That you rely on such old chestnuts demonstrates a lack of knowledge and/or understanding of current theological and spiritual thought, as least as understood in the West.
My moral code does have an ontological base since it assumes that we also have a relationship with the divine, and that Being is not some super-human, but wholly outside the understanding of humans. We are not sock puppets, mindlessly bouncing on some Divine string. We have evolved to a state that includes reason and reflective self awareness, coupled with the ability to choose, to express our own free will and thus decide how we choose to live and create the environment for that life. But we share this planet with billions of other willful humans, and if we are not going to destroy it, then we must learn to live in mutually supportive and enhancing relationships. We can choose to express our own creativity in positive ways and achieve outcomes that enable life to blossom further and enhance human development. Or not, and face the unhappy consequences of those choices. That is what sin and punishment are about. Not Divine intervention.
LHL's behavior is not about uplifting humanity or the planet, it's about filling his wallet, no matter how much he relies on Classical Humanism as a cover. He tramples over the humans who obtain the cash he covets. And when they no longer serve his purpose, they are kicked to the curb. Robert Beltran was a celebrity to be displayed to LHL's advantage, a shining example of Classical Humanism at work. Now he is off the radar, no more classical drama workshops, no more talk of a traveling repertory group to organize the masses. Beltran is no longer useful so he is off the list and gone from sight.
There are others who were not so lucky as Beltran and whose departure was far different. Jeremiah Duggan died trying to leave. The rest fall in between the two extremes and the wreckage from LHL's tender ministrations sometimes appears at this forum. They are often in pain, angry, or resigned in some cases, and always searching for healing, or offering it to the walking wounded. Such are the 'traitors' to the movement.
Keep in mind Steve, they are all traitors who leave and turn their backs on LHL, regardless of the circumstance. I suppose as long as Beltran doesn't make negative comments about LHL or Harley (his 'good friend') the movement will leave him alone. But if he pulls a Chris Curtis on them, I am sure he will be fodder for your dissection.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-08-2005, 11:06 AM
Dear Kheris,
Your claim a "relationship with the divine," whatever that is – I guess I'll never know given that your Divine Whatsit is wholly unknowable - then provide the /real/ reason we should work together and play nice: simple self-interest in preserving the commons.
Mysticism aside, I do have a question for you about Mr. LaRouche. If he is as much a master of human psychological manipulation as you say, and his only goal is to acquire money and perhaps a feeling of power over others, then, instead of promoting a miniscule cult of personality based on arcane and largely boring screeds - ("In Defense of Poetry" anyone?) - why wouldn't he simply start "Scientology II" or something? I mean, really, Mr. Hubbard started his cult only sixteen years earlier, and today he's got around fifty thousand people. Time Magazine claims the Church of Scientology, in 1987, listed an income of over $500 million. How much more money do they draw, eighteen years later? Why would Mr. LaRouche bother with such penny-ante stuff as harping about politics when he could start a Divine Whatsit cult and increase his income by a factor of a hundred?
DH

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-08-2005, 11:14 AM
Dear Mr. Rendon,
This thread takes too long to load, so I shall answer you in a new one.
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-08-2005, 11:48 AM
A Quick Overview of the Tactics of Unethical and Destructive Psychological Influence
We do not allow others see us enter our PIN numbers into ATM machines. We tell our children not to accept candy from strangers. We advise our teenagers on safe sexual practices. We proactively protect our computers from viruses. We stop at traffic lights.
All of the above are examples of how we protect ourselves and our communities from harmful possibilities.
Yet there are some things that our parents cannot tell us. There are occasions where we only learn by first getting hurt. Nevertheless, we have the capacity to inform ourselves through written records and oral traditions.
FACTNet focuses on protecting freedom of mind and thought from harms caused by all forms of unethical influence found in destructive cults or fundamentalist groups. FACTNet makes this information freely available so that people do put themselves in harm's way.
There are warning signs. There are red flags. For example, if one reads carefully through the list below, one can correlate what one is reading to what one experiences in everyday life. We all experience some of these things to varying degrees. In our religious organizations, our work environments, our political systems and even our marriages.
In the best of all worlds, no one should be subject to these conditions. We wish for all FACTNet users that they aim for the best of all worlds in their lives.
The following tactics are some that are used to create undue psychological and social influence, often by means involving anxiety and stress, fall into seven main categories:
TACTIC 1: Increase suggestibility and "soften up" the individual through specific hypnotic or other suggestibility-increasing techniques such as: Extended audio, visual, verbal, or tactile fixation drills, Excessive exact repetition of routine activities or indoctrination, Sleep restriction and/or Nutritional restriction.
TACTIC 2: Establish control over the person's social environment, time and sources of social support by a system of often-excessive rewards and punishments. Social isolation is promoted. Contact with family and friends is abridged, as is contact with persons who do not share group-approved attitudes. Economic and other dependence on the group is fostered.
TACTIC 3: Prohibit disconfirming information and non supporting opinions in group communication. Rules exist about permissible topics to discuss with outsiders. Communication is highly controlled. An "in-group" language is usually constructed.
TACTIC 4: Make the person re-evaluate the most central aspects of his or her experience of self and prior conduct in negative ways. Efforts are designed to destabilize and undermine the subject's basic consciousness, reality awareness, world view, emotional control and defense mechanisms. The subject is guided to reinterpret his or her life's history and adopt a new version of causality.
TACTIC 5: Create a sense of powerlessness by subjecting the person to intense and frequent actions and situations which undermine the person's confidence in himself, his understanding of reality and his judgment.
TACTIC 6: Create strong aversive emotional arousals in the subject by use of nonphysical punishments such as intense humiliation, loss of privilege, social isolation, social status changes, intense guilt, anxiety, manipulation and other techniques.
TACTIC 7: Intimidate the person with the force of group-sanctioned secular psychological threats. For example, it may be suggested or implied that failure to adopt the approved attitude, belief or consequent behavior will lead to severe punishment or dire consequences such as physical or mental illness, the reappearance of a prior physical illness, drug dependence, economic collapse, social failure, divorce, disintegration, failure to find a mate, eternal suffering etc.
The above tactics of psychological force are regularly applied to such a severe degree that the individual's capacity to make informed or free choices becomes inhibited. The victims become unable to make the normal, wise or balanced decisions which they most likely or normally would have made, had they not been unknowingly manipulated by these coordinated technical influence processes. The cumulative effect of these manipulative psychological processes can be an even more effective form of undue influence than pain, torture, drugs or the use of physical force and physical and legal threats.
How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion and Influence Differ from Other Kinds of Influence?:
Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.
Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.
Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.
Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful?:
Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.
By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.
While there can be no doubt that coercive psychological systems are harmful and that their use and the harm they are causing worldwide is growing, there are few organizations anywhere doing what FACTNet does to educate and expose these systems wherever they take root. Please remember to help do your part to support our free delivery of critical information and services to victims of destructive cults and fundamentalist groups with your generous donation today. It is easy and fast if you use our online pay pal donation link.
Special Message from FACTNet's Co-Founder Lawrence Wollersheim on a new Service for High Risk Cult Victims
Because of my first hand experience in needing and using free, secure, emergency safe houses and sanctuaries during my ordeal to educate and bring justice to Scientology, I knew that this free emergency support service had to be made available to others. I am now happy to announce FACTNet - in co-operation with a non denominational, non profit organization and various other donors - has just completed creating a secure, emergency safe house and sanctuary for individuals affected by cults and mind control who might need such a place to temporarily reside.
This is not a cult exit program or service such as Well Spring or other such cult exit and healing services. This is only a secure, emergency safe house and sanctuary for impoverished individuals under credible physical threat due to their actions in educating, exposing and/or litigating cult and mind control abuse for either themselves or another.
Now that such a place finally exists again, I and FACTNet personally ask you to help us with your generous donations so that we have funds to continue to pay for the food, transportation and additional special security costs needed to help the individuals who are and will be using it. Please remember to help do your part to support this new service with your generous pay pal donation today. http://www.factnet.org/donation.htm
It is easy and fast if you use our online pay pal donation link. The qualification and application procedures for using this safe house are available by requesting them from manage@factnet.org.


  • The LaRouche organization clearly constitutes a criminal cult by its daily repeated use of Tactics 1-7 above.
 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-08-2005, 03:25 PM
Interestingly enough, Tactics 1-7 are also used daily by that large, well-funded, violent cult known as the U.S. Army.
Perhaps few people are aware that the U.S. Army Basic Training is specifically designed to break down a person's old, weak, individualist, non-combat-ready personality, in order to reform it into a new, strong, conformist, combat-ready personality.
Perhaps even fewer know that parents of recruits often receive tearful letters and telephone calls - on the few, short times such communications with the outside world are permitted - expressing the recruits' regret at joining, their desire to come home, their realisation it was all a mistake, etc..
Of course, most parents, because they have been conditioned by the media to think that having their son or daughter get shot to death in an illegal foreign war for the sake of multinational corporations, encourage their desperate children to stay the course. The Army builds character, after all - in between engaging in homoerotic hazing rituals, and stabbing foam dummies with bayonets.
Why would anyone want to support an armed-to-the-teeth, violent cult most recently responsible for carrying out an illegal war that has murdered 30,000 people, generated a global upswell of hatred against the U.S., and sparked an ongoing civil war? A cult that sexually and religiously humiliates its prisoners, in between electric torture, sensory deprivation, kidnapping, and incarceration without right to trial, and which, when confronted with these facts, dismisses them as the work of a few "bad eggs"?
If you are interested in helping FACTnet expose and neutralise this dangerous cult, before its 7,500 professional recruiters get to your son or daughter, using a slick, 1.3 billion dollar recruitment campaign, complete with online video games and promises to turn the individual slacker into a Terminator-style "Army of One," then please use our easy and fast online Pay Pal donation link.

 

kheris (kheris)
11-08-2005, 05:33 PM
DH
Mysticism aside, I do have a question for you about Mr. LaRouche. If he is as much a master of human psychological manipulation as you say, and his only goal is to acquire money and perhaps a feeling of power over others, then, instead of promoting a miniscule cult of personality based on arcane and largely boring screeds - ("In Defense of Poetry" anyone?) - why wouldn't he simply start "Scientology II" or something? I mean, really, Mr. Hubbard started his cult only sixteen years earlier, and today he's got around fifty thousand people. Time Magazine claims the Church of Scientology, in 1987, listed an income of over $500 million. How much more money do they draw, eighteen years later? Why would Mr. LaRouche bother with such penny-ante stuff as harping about politics when he could start a Divine Whatsit cult and increase his income by a factor of a hundred?
Remember who you are talking about; a self promoter who ever so briefly gains the limelight, only to fall back into obscurity as the cold light of day reveals that his wild claims are constructed of straw.
As for the Army - at least be fair to the military. They have centuries of experience and are pretty good at recruiting, especially among those who have few options for success. People who leave the military can do so at the end of their term of enlistment without being scourged as traitors. Unfortunately, the leadership of this country is who needs to take the fall for torture. While Cheney and Rumsfeld are unlikely to serve jail time, they have succeeded in alienating their usual supporters.
I believe in a mystical relationship with the Divine, something you no doubt eschew and I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you. However, I also think that Machiavelli's The Prince is instructive here. Perhaps if the ruling elite re-read it they might decide to change their ways.
Oh wait, of course -- Machiavelli would never appeal to anyone besotted with LHL. After all, Machiavelli suggests that the Prince who arises out of popular support and sees to the need of the common society will hold power much longer than one who arises out of the elite and caters only to the elite. Given that LHL scorns the vox populi I guess we need to look elsewhere for a leader. And a long search it will be.

 

sancho (sancho)
11-08-2005, 06:07 PM
Another typically irrational response: whether or not the U.S. Army constitutes a cult or not is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the LaRouche organization is a bona fide cult.
For a group that purports to promote "reason," each and every one of you undereducated, semiliterate hams couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. And that inability to reason, speak, or write cogently which plagues everyone from the Greatest Ham Since Roger Bacon down to the lowliest card-table-shrine-hugger gives the lie to all your impotent blarney about promoting renaissances. You are simply fixated on a father figure who you believe has the power to bring order to the sad mess your life has become.
Grow up and move on. Life is far greater, more wonderful, more nuanced than you could ever imagine from within the confines of your cult of distinctly pedestrian personality.
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)
sancho_everyman@hotmail.com
(Message edited by sancho on November 08, 2005)

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-08-2005, 08:39 PM
Dear Kheris,
So, you're saying that Mr. LaRouche has cathexised the ideas he promotes, and is more interested in promoting them, at the least for the sake of his self-aggrandisement, than he is in making money. Since, again, if he merely wanted to make money he could start a proper religious cult, and very profitably pander to people's mystical religiosity instead of making strenuous efforts to wean them from it.
I think we've found something on which we all can agree!
Well, enjoy your mysterious something-or-other,
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-08-2005, 08:55 PM
Lyndon LaRouche began his cult of personality proper when his common-law wife left him for a younger and more virile man, Chris White, around whom LaRouche then concocted a wild assassination plot involving East Germans and whatnot. LaRouche's fragile ego, which was under enough duress already from his pedestrian midlife crisis at age fifty, could not withstand the shock of this betrayal and therefore tried to convince his then NCLC acolytes that he was in fact what Carol had demonstrated he was not: the greatest and most mysterious something-or-other. That is the root of the LaRouche cult, an impotent autodidact's freak out at his own wife's infidelity.
What a humanist.
And Ms. Kheris is to be extolled for being faithful to her own path, not one imposed upon her by a sociopathic freak such as yourself. You see, in the real world (not in the hostile fantasy world of the teetering octogenarian LaRouche) there exist two precious things termed Liberty and Conscience ... for neither of which you and your ilk have the guts.
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

kheris (kheris)
11-09-2005, 03:09 AM
DH
LHL's self aggrandizement would be incomplete without the money. And like many people he sticks with what he knows (or thinks he knows). In his case; the ability to forecast the economic future. In that regard he is on a par with the storefront 'psychics' who will happily deprive you of your cash while promising that great love and/or a great windfall are imminent. Only LHL never touches the money that is forked over, it's handled by the yutes at the shrines or by whoever is processing the mailed in donations. He has to maintain the aura of being a "Great Leader."
Remember, this is the guy who trumpeted that he had raised more money than the Dems during the initial days of the 2004 campaign. He was eclipsed of course, but while he had the opportunity he waved those dollar signs.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-09-2005, 09:15 AM
Dear two,
So, you're saying that Mr. LaRouche has cathexised the ideas he promotes, in response to a personal fears of sexuo-political impotency, and is more interested in promoting them, at the least for the sake of his self-aggrandisement, using his most familiar talents, than he is in constructing a religious moneymaking cult that would take in factors of magnitude more cash. This, despite his background in apocalyptic bibliolatry, study of religion, mind manipulation, management, and rhetoric.
Why do you not extol Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Kim Jung Il for being faithful to their paths? I know why - because you aren't them, and being bottom political dog, you extol the religion of slaves: "Conscience, Liberty, Fuzzy Sweaters for All!"
Knowing your axioms are baseless, you deny the truth of words and simply use them as hammers to continually assert your arbitrary notion of morality. You are thus a forum demagogue, serving your self-interest in preserving a political system that tends to leave you to your delusions, and, for the time being anyway, keeps a lot of looted goods in the stores for you to pick from.
Odd, perhaps, that you, conscientious liberals, hold faster to Nietzsche's dismissal of Socratic doubt than I do.
DH

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
11-09-2005, 09:40 AM
Dear Mr. Borracho,
Before you get bored here, I would very much like for you to address my question on your alternative thread, either here or there or perhaps my email: http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/15240.html?1131480366
Thank you.
Respectfully,
Steven

 

borisbad (borisbad)
11-09-2005, 10:04 AM
It's entertaining to see drunkenhegel (wonder if he ever read Phenomenology of Mind which I thought was required reading in the NCLC before LHL started to denounce him) and Steve pretending to have their "Socratic" dialog. But the world keeps spinning on its axis with or without LaRouche's interventions which are like the shadow show in the cave that Plato writes about in the Republik. How many times has LaRouche saved the world from the brink of disaster? Was it after stopping James Schlesinger from launching a preemptive thermonuclear war in the early 70s? Or maybe after exposing Kissinger's plans to do one abomination or another (which usually involved raping a male waiter in Acapulco) or "getting Reagan" to adopt the SDI program (not people who actually worked in the field like Edward Teller and others at Lawrence Livermore) etc. But guess what, there's been other would be saviors from time immemorial and the world will survive the passing of LaRouche (though I wonder how the members of his cult will fare living on $50 a week)?

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-09-2005, 03:39 PM
The Larouche Jabronis have yet to figure out that the sole purpose of the org for Lyn to have subjects. Forget any delusions of running the world. You will find that Lyn usually self destructs when ever he is not in front of a sycophant convention of college drop outs.
We used to have in the National Office different parts of the org called "sectors" US intell, economics, Asia, Latin America, US Ops, Europe, Mid East, FEF etc. floating between the sectors you quickly learned that your biggest fear was after working your <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> of for months in meeting people that Lyn wants to meet big shots.
The day approaches and we all got the surprise of our lives when we first hand saw how crazy Lyn was when he actually met with real people.
The first glimpse of this should have been during Mop Op when he ordered us to attack the CP and SWP with pipes and numchucks. Fearless leader usually holed himself up in his Washington Heights apt with body guards while people had their brains busted.
In 1976 we succeeded in getting Lyn on a Meet the Press show for independent candidates where he proceeded to make every other candidate look rationale. In the 1980 New Hampshire camaign the staff started to trick Lyn into not doing interviews by telling him that there were security threats. They did that because when you sent Lyn to a Kiwanis club the first thing he did was demand to be treated like the Queen of England and have the place swept for bombs and insists that the security detail could be fully armed when meeting little old ladies for tea.
Lyn hated this stuff as he really thought that he was above all of this and through a top leaders like Gus and Ken Dalto, had the election bought from Mafioso figures from Detroit. As we made more money it became quite apparent that Lyn and Helga were now Philosopher King and Queen while everybody else was beneathe them. Lyn really had a hard on for now liver diseased and buried Graham Lowry as Lowry knew how to do the New England Patrician act very convincingly.
The people lyn best got along with were the hoardes of security contacts and Liberty Lobby kooks who would share Jew Jokes with us. This was very interesting as your future master Jeff Stenberg and Paul Goldstein, the heads of security, had to guffow with these people during the festivities.
It wasn't until I left years later that I began to read about how much money these security spooks scammed from Lyn and Steinberg. We shuffled millions to these guys as they knew how to inflate Lyn's ego to gargantuan size and convince hime that everyone wanted to assasiante him. Of course for a price, Lyn could be saved. In one infamous scam, Lyn had us pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to a guy who siad that he could get Lyn on a NSA "Do Not Asssasinate List".
AS the money came in, Lyn and Helga's taste became richer. At one point, Lyn occupied a few rooms of an exclusive Park Ave, Hotel, devouring casees of Rheingau, while members who lived a few miles away in the NYC area were being evicted.
In the 1980 campiagn we kept Lyn from interviews in public because the press was having a field day showing what a kook he was. They would start off the conference with a couple of softballs and then start him up with Queen of England assasination questions . Lyn would go off the deep end screaming "Where do you get these lies you drug dealers". The press would just hold up our publications and show the circled quotes from fearless leaders own writings.
To stop this travesty we convinced Lyn that "MISTER ED" told us that it is dangerous doing these press interviews and he needs to stop.
The Morton Downey show was one of the best where Lyn had a melt down as he was pelted with his own quotes on Jews and other groups. The members were told that Lyn is being boycotted by the oligarchy because of how dangerous he is. the truth is that there is only so much time for fools on TV and we had to keep him from going off the deep end time and time again.
We sent him to India where afetr years, we had a meeting with Indira Ghandhi. Lyn went nuts during the meeting with whatever crazy paranoid assasination plot was after him and a scared Indira yelled at her staff for having her waste her life meeting a Madman.
No matter where you go in the history of the org, Lyn shows up, goes crazy and you never see the person again . One by one, each sector person dropped out as it became apparent in these meetings and in private meetings with Lyn that he was truly nuts.
What Lyn usually does is pretty basic. You blame the person leaving as part of a plot by Kissinger or whatever imagined enemy we had. SO the Rockefellers were the enemy in the 1970's, Kissinger and the KGB took over, overlapped by the ADL. We had Lyn telling us that our Mid East sector Heads, Bob Dreyfus and his wife were kidnapped or some crazy story like that. During the 1980's, the sectors were turned into full time money machines for Lyn and the result was that only the hard core dead enders remained.
After the person left, they then became part of the negentropic growth of conspiracies against Larouche. Witness the Larouche Press release last summer about NEC member Fernando Quijano. Fernando was not just a member who left, but a member who was purged by Lyn using Dino as Lyn's eyes and ears. Fernando was then the target of an official press release as being part of a Nothern Virgina terrorist plot! Dino then found himself to be the target of Lyn's delusions and he just said FU and took off for good.
So if you wish to be part of this long running circus, be my guest Jabronis.
Spin your wheels about "building a movement" and try to figure out how come after 30 years of this, you have burnt through thousands of supporters, a few hundred million dollars, thousands of members and a few thousand cases of Rhiengau.
I now am starting to believe that Lyn knows he has a few years left and would rather have a cult from day one, rather than giving us the illusion that we were doing something real.
In this environment, all previous Larouche history is made irrelevent and current yutes do not need messy and expensive front groups to occupy themselves with. Go right to being a Larouchey in the Larouche Youth Movement and pretend that the old ladies whose money we siphned away never existed. Hell, I can't stop laughing when I hear a yute write "Mr. Larouche". knowing that they are getting 20 bucks a wek while Lyn and Helga have a castle in Germany.
Jabronis. Ask yourself where Lyn's son Danny Larouche is? You ever see him? Did you know that he had a son? Do you know that he worked on Wall Street for a while?
Ask yourself how come Lyn never forced his son, an excellent chess player by the way, to join the Larouche Movement.
Do not worry Sancho. The only power Lyn has taken is from the Jabronis you read here.
xlcr4life

 

sancho (sancho)
11-09-2005, 06:26 PM
DH is just a spoiled brat who cynically quizzes the morality of others - until he stubs his toe and very unphilosophically runs tearfully for refuge with mommy. Just like your master.
You don't fool anyone, jabroni.

 

sancho (sancho)
11-09-2005, 06:35 PM
Oh, and
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)
just to keep it real.
sancho_everyman@hotmail.com

 

sancho (sancho)
11-10-2005, 06:21 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051108/lf_nm/arts_protocols_dc

 

sancho (sancho)
11-11-2005, 02:31 PM
The amusing thing about such as DH who believe themselves such incisive minds that they can at a whim tear apart anyone ELSE's axiom system is that he is hilariously oblivious to the fact that in his metaphysically barren universe his axiom system is as arbitrary as anyone else's and that he is therefore in no position to critique anyone else as his set of axioms, rules of deduction, etc. are no better than anyone else's.
Go back to your warm milk and cookies, cult boy.

 

sancho (sancho)
11-11-2005, 06:58 PM
Lyndon LaRouche is not recognized as an authority in any field by experts in that field. LaRouche is a university undergraduate dropout who claims to be not just an economist, but "the world's greatest" economist. Anyone with a modicum of maturity will instantly recoginze this for what it is: bunk. How can one claim to be "the greatest" at anything without the approbation of at least some of his peers? Generals will attest to the greatness of Alexander, philosophers to that of Plato, poets to that of Homer - but no economist of note will even acknowledge that LaRouche is a practitioner of economics. The LaRouchies - the cult personality followers - ardently maintain that this situation obtains because other economists are variously agents, enemies of LaRouche, or simply methodologically or technically incompetent professionals. All economists are in error: only LaRouche is "right." And whatever happened to the modesty becoming in a mature human being? Even if one were "the greatest," most would demur from saying so themselves.
LaRouche can get away with this claim - and with his claims to originality in many other fields in which he is a professed nonexpert - only with callow youths and uneducated older folks with emotional problems.
See here a sober discussion of LaRouche's intellectual methods:
http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/george.html
and judge for yourself whether LaRouche is, as he and his followers claim, "the greatest mind since Leibniz."

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-11-2005, 10:51 PM
Let's take a spin around the US and see if other wandering consumers find larouche and his Jabronis creepy.

Sunday, September 04, 2005
Posted 6:52 PM by Scoobie
New Chick Tract!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's called "The Missing Day" and I was disappointed.
Posted 8:47 AM by Scoobie
Campus Stuff
One of the reasons I haven't blogged much lately is that I'm working in the USC area. The other day, I saw a woman at USC wearing this t-shirt. She was too far away for me to say "Right on."
At USC, the Larouchies, the followers of whacko conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche, had a table on the sidewalk across from the campus. They were blocking the flow of sidewalk traffic so I said, "Hey Larouchies, you're blocking the path of people trying to walk on the sidewalk." One of the Larouchies then asked me if I was a "closet Larouchie." I told him I wasn't because I wasn't the follower of an ex-con nut job. Quick notes: my funniest things about LaRouche: 1) the pamphlet he circulated attacking his then-bete noire Henry Kissinger (in recent years, Dick Cheney has taken Kissinger's place) titled "Kissinger: The Politics of Faggotry";
2) When two LaRouchies won Democratic primaries in Illinois in 1986, a couple of them appeared on CNN's Crossfire. Arnaud de Borchgrave, who at the time was the editor of the Moonie Times, was the guest host (on the right, of course). The LaRouchie guest began referring to de Borchgrave as "Count" and claiming that de Borchgrave was behind myriad conspiracies. It was fun watching the member of one cult slam the representative of another cult.

Franken Sense?
Reader Darren Garnick writes in to defend the actions of Al Franken, which we noted yesterday:
I'm no fan of Franken's views, but I give the guy credit for trying to tackle the LaRouche thugs. I was at the Dean rally in New Hampshire and those guys were not going to leave peacefully. There were no cops around, and polite requests from the Kumbaya-swaying Dean volunteers weren't convincing the LaRouche-heads to leave. One LaRouche heckler screamed his taunts from the balcony, swinging his leg above the crowd as if he were going to jump. Ironically, they were shouting that Dean had no "courage" to criticize Dick Cheney. C'mon--Dean's whole presidential campaign is based on bashing Bush/Cheney. The LaRouche zombies are really really creepy. If I could turn back time, I'd have happily sacrificed my glasses in Franken's noble rumble.
An account in today's Manchester Union Leader corroborates the detail about the balcony.

Lyndon LaRouche, again
Filed in: politics, Mon, May 3 2004 04:10 PT
Kristen and I attended the 46th Legislative District caucus most of the day yesterday.
Of the hundred or so candidates for state delegate in the Kerry subcaucus, seven — seven — were supporters of Lyndon LaRouche. Yes, Lyndon LaRouche, the paranoid, misogynist cryptofascist cult leader and convicted felon. He's got supporters. They're numerous. They're rabid. And they're infiltrating the Democratic Party. Again.
The LaRouche Seven, four men and three women, all of college age, stood up in front of the crowd as candidates, all to take their alloted 30 seconds to state that Kerry was going nowhere unless he engaged LaRouche in a debate on the issue of Iraq. Each identified him or herself as a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement — which sounds eerily like the Hitler Youth to me. To add to the Hitler theory, the men all wore sweatshirts over their button-up shirts, like it was a little uniform. They were creepy, they were loud, and above all, they were uninformed, many of them having read from their LaRouche cheat sheet just before speaking. And to top it all off, this process of subverting the political process in a coordinated and sometimes intimidating fashion is patterned after the Nazis' rise to power in the 1930s.
LaRouche, sadly, has a number of followers in Seattle, usually taken from the colleges around town. They're out in downtown Seattle, or at the post office, or in front of the Democratic Party meetings, always full of literature. I've had to step over many a LaRouchie in the past year. It is important to remember at all times that LaRouche supporters are a cult, with all the brainwashing, intimidation, money-grubbing, and silly simple answers to complex problems that comes with. LaRoucheism is the Scientology of politics.
In any case, the caucusgoers tolerated their pontifications with some audible groans, and went about their business. But this just ended up being another reason for keeping a watchful eye over your political process: sooner or later, a group like this may infiltrate your political party and cancel your vote. Stay alert.
More on the actual Democratic part of this caucus is coming tomorrow.
Comments are closed.

  • N ovember 10, 2003
    Lunch with Lyndon
    I was walking towards the HUB, the University of Washington's student union building, for a spot of lunch today, when I spied a gaggle of LaRouchians peddling their intellectual smut from a card table by the side of the path. Since one of them was cute, I accidentally made eye contact. Never make eye contact. They will swoop down upon you like vultures upon a fresh and steaming carcass. Or George Bush on a bottle of Southern Comfort, laced with cocaine, Iraqi oil, and the blood of the exploited working class. I tried to play my standard 'Get Out of LaRouche Free Card', and claimed to be a Communist; normally a LaRouchian will recoil from Communism like Michael Howard from a clove of garlic. (I should get a little hammer and sickle pin, and brandish it like a crucifix at them next time.) This time, I'm not exactly sure why, it didn't work. He was made of sterner stuff. Perhaps it was the strength of character and intestinal fortitude lent to him by his goatee. At any rate, I got an earful of Genuine LaRouche ThoughtTM before I made my escape...
    It's pretty funny stuff.
    Now, from my last brush with these silly sorts, I knew Lyndon LaRouche had some kind of weird obsession with mathematics; he likes to name-drop people like Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann and Johannes Kepler, claiming, in typical schizoid nutjob fashion, that he and he alone truly understood the discoveries of these intellectual titans, and that modern mathematicians and physicists wilfully distorted and castrated their work. He seems to dislike Newton quite a bit, and attaches a quasi-mystical significance to the complex numbers. You can find a lot of such silliness in Riemann for Anti-Dummies, which, though not by The Man himself, was recommended enthusiastically by one of his vapid and brainwashed minions. It is, as they say, all complete pants. It is also quite long. So is this article, in which LaRouche has a go at maths in his own words. This, too, is rather long and boring. But it involves some LaRouche trademarks, like a rabid insistence that only he properly understands these things, and that most other figures in the field (in this case, maths) were malicious hoaxsters and frauds, and that it's all tied to some kind of conspiracy involving Napoleon Bonaparte somewhere along the line. Also, he thinks empiricists and free-trade types are pro-Satanic. He's big on Satan.
    When LaRouche claims institutionalised maths is an oppressive monolith that squashes original thought outside its rigidly-defined channels, you can read it as code for 'I'm going to accuse anyone who points out flaws in my laughable logic and the huge gaps in my understanding of being a dogmatic malicious tool of a Vast Conspiracy.'
    Satan, Napoleon, Riemann...You might be asking yourself at this stage if there's anyone or anything LaRouche hasn't worked into his schizoid conspiracy theories. No. No there is not. In this little gem, which is blessedly short, LaRouche claims the neocons are the intellectual children of an occult Freemasonic conspiracy founded by the Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. They apparently run the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
    And, as I learned from my surreal little conversation today, there is room enough to spare for the Queen in all of this. Apparently, the LaRouchian told me, the Queen of England is at the head of a cabal or conspiracy of British bankers and financial interests, linked to that very same occult Freemasonic Martinist cult, who have been using capitalism for centuries to manipulate economies across the world and subvert our natural, American, LaRouchian, Founding-Fathers-mandated economic system, which he attempted to describe, without actually making any sense or saying anything substantive. The Queen wields vast and terrible power, particularly over Canada. (And all without the Canadians realising. How fiendish.) The way to fight the Queen and her creeping evil is to revitalise America by constructing a huge network of maglev trains, travelling at 600 miles an hour.
    No, really.
    Here you can find Rosicrucians, Robert Fludd, gnostics, and Cathars, linked to usury and some kind of artistic repression. LaRouche has had a long and chatty career; he's managed to work everything in somewhere. It's almost impressive, in its way, his ability to name-drop. I'm sure the Knights Templars and the Gay Mafia will pop up sooner or later.
    He's creepy, yet simultaneously funny. Loonies are like that. Just keep your hands and feet away from his mouth.
    LEGAL NOTICE: I am not accusing LaRouche or his supporters of being diagnosably insane, before anyone gets any bright ideas about lawsuits. I am just accusing them of being stupid and silly.
    Posted by aloysius at November 10, 2003 06:09 PM | TrackBack | Comment (0)
    Comments
    You sure went to a great deal of time and effort in order to discuss your feelings about a guy (LaRouche) whom you claim to be a crack pot.
    There seems to be a contradiction here.
    Posted by: on December 28, 2003 09:37 AM
    No, there really isn't.
    A. It is funny to expose crackpots and laugh at them.
    B. There are lots of people out there who don't yet know that LaRouche is a crackpot. If they aren't told, they might end up doing something stupid like giving him money, or voting for him, or joining his brainwashed cult of magazine-peddlers. My saying 'LaRouche is a crackpot' alone wouldn't be likely to convince anyone; specific examples of his crackpottery, however, might.
    C. This post had very little to do with my feelings and a lot to do with LaRouche's documented, palpably silly statements.
    Even if the entire posting were about my bitter dislike for the man personally, devoid of any objective content, there still wouldn't be a contradiction. Crackpots can be annoying as well as cracked, and the annoying are worth verbally abusing.
    And there wasn't really much time and effort involved. Google's a wonderful thing.
    Posted by: aloysius on December 28, 2003 10:28 AM
    The Larouche "Movement"
    "Don't let her leave!" The group leader had thoroughly worked her over, hammering her with guilt about her previous actions, accusing her of being delusional, telling her to confess, until she was no longer recognizable as a woman, but only as a blubbering mess of tearful convulsions. The tearful woman got up to flee the room.
    "Don't let her leave! Keep her in here!" No one stopped her, so the leader ran after her and wrestled her down into a chair.
    "SIT DOWN. Now Marsha," the leader said in a calm voice, "You know you've got to stop doing this..." She went on calmlyand quietly for some time, and then everyone else left the room. I sat across the room and watched her sob hysterically with her face in her hands, and not for the first time wondered what the LaRouche organization was all about.
    Throughout the summer I witnessed similar scenes over and over again in different forms; in personal meetings with the leadership, in small group meetings, Sunday "Field Meetings," at "retreats," and one-on-one conversations. There was a clear pattern being used in each case; the sowing of guilt (real or imagined), fear, confusion, and the use of "sore spots" (personal shames or shortcomings) to browbeat someone into an extremely worked up emotional state. Once the person has been whipped up she is then questioned until she contradicts herself on some minute point. This contradiction is then used as a stick to beat her with until there is a complete emotional breakdown, then they admit their faults (confess), after which the leadership then redefines the "mission" for them. I recognized it as manipulation. I recently took interest in a book by William Sargant, "The Battle for the Mind," and he had another name for it: Brainwashing.
    In the section on political indoctrination, there is a description of how Communist China brainwashed workers into being a "conduit from the Party to the people," and oddly enough I found the program used fits almost precisely what I've undertaken in the Lyndon LaRouche organization. It begins for many with indoctrination "retreats," where students go out to cabins for a "weekend of intellectual discussion," where new recruits are worked on from the minute they walk in, to join the organization. For a weekend they are bombarded with classes that challenge their identity, culture, past training, and are given an apocalyptic view of the near future. Very frequently, "freak-outs" occur; crying, violent outbursts, or complete inhibition—-which is exactly the necessary response, for the weakened mind state makes an individual ripe to be implanted with ideas. Those who then begin working with LaRouche will immediately see very little sleep, physical exhaustion (LaRouchies work seven days, 90-100 hours a week), a large number of classes (in the beginning indoctrination), strong encouragement to break ties with family and friends, mental fatigue, fellow organizers reporting to the leadership any deviations in thought, a groupthink atmosphere, vicious attacks from the leadership, group confessions, and "struggle meetings." They will receive around $80.00 per week, and be housed somewhere by the organization. The organization makes sure organizers have little or no free time, to make sure there is not a pause to examine their enslaved condition. If they ever do, as one defector from California stated, "By the time I realized what had happened, I had dropped out of school, had no money, the organization owned my lease, and I had told all my family and friends they were fascists." I've now done a great deal of study into the physiology of brainwashing and the Communist's tactics, and each report I read confirms my suspicions, and so many confusing incidents over the summer have been replayed in books that are almost fifty years old!
    LaRouche began his political career as a member of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA), and recruited many of his first followers from the Maoist PLP. As recently as 1976, during a series of lectures called, "What Every Communist Knows," LaRouche described his movement as part of the "world's Marxist labor movement" working to "bring into being a new Communist international". After reading "Mein Kampf" by Adolph Hitler, I saw so many striking similarities in LaRouche ideology I have little doubt that he is the fascist that Dennis King claimed in his book, "Lyndon LaRouche: The New American Fascism." LaRouche purports to be the only true progenitor of the "American Intellectual Tradition," and in between thinly veiled anti-Semitic rhetoric, and wild conspiracy theories, claims to be the new Franklin Roosevelt.
    For thirty years, LaRouche has been a parasitical entity, soliciting millions of dollars per year, marching young wives of members to abortion clinics, and doing irreparable psychological damage to hundreds of his organizers. One former organizer used to show up and stand in front of the office talking to him. The ones who stay are completely unable to think for themselves, and are so paranoid that anyone they meet who opposes LaRouche is an "agent" or a fascist. Anyone who has been there for more than a few years generally feels completely unable to live in the "outside world," and the organization has instilled a sense of superiority in them that living among the "population" would be wasting their lives anyway. They have committed themselves to making LaRouche president, never mind the Supreme Court ruling that stated he was disqualified from candidacy because he is a convicted felon (fraud, tax evasion), and candidates must be registered to vote.
    Using Communist brainwashing, fascist ideology, and American propaganda, LaRouche has built a multi-million dollar network and, I believe, today poses one of the greatest threats to the American way of life, not to mention the number of bright, young students the organization has pulled out of college to sell newspapers in the street, feeding their egos with the thought that they are "saving civilization."
    Posted by: scott on April 19, 2004 08:37 PM
    i find the best way to interact with larouchians is to be crazier than they are. in berkeley, a number of people simply inform them "i don't like cheese." i do this myself, and i must say, it annoys the hell out of them. i once had one follow me three blocks demanding to know what larouche had to do with so many people disliking cheese.
    Posted by: metal mike on June 10, 2004 09:33 PM


Well, there's the crazy thing up front - you have to deal with that right away. And the whole "The Queen of England put a microchip in Alan Greenspan's brain and controls him by satellite" speil doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence. And there's the way he has this creepy, stalker-style one-way "relationship" with the Democratic party, and the fact that he looks like Hunter S. Thompson, and the fact that there are no pictures of him taken after 1981. And the election fraud thing is a drawback, and the way we're supposed to go back to using colorful pebbles for currency. And the teeth, too. So there are some problems here.
Go here for the great picture talked about
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SrglXIPgujMJ:www.thepoorman.net/archives/001632.html+larouche+and+creepy&hl=en (http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SrglXIPgujMJ:www.thepoorman.net/archives/001632.html+larouche+and+creepy&hl=en)

If you were listening to the Jeff Katz show, I was on it too. Anyway, we had a good time yesterday. PS - is it just I, or is the LaRouche gang kind of creepy?

March 12, 2004
Space Cadet
Here's a tale straight out of the Android's Dungeon: Chakotay is a supporter of perennial presidential candidate and wacky conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. You have to scour the universe to find any actors or actresses who have given money to Bush—most such donors are Democrats. But Robert Beltran, the semi-rebellious space cowboy from Star Trek: Voyager, pumped $1,000 into spacey LaRouche's 2004 presidential campaign last year. Voyager's story line is that it got thrown trillions of miles off course, into the Delta Quadrant, an area of creepy aliens and strange conspiracies. Back in 1999, Beltran told fans that he thought he had "enough of a range to transcend the expectations that some people have about for former Star Trek actors." Well, he's met our expectations. Beltran probably bumped into LaRouche in the Delta Quadrant. Not to mention the comic book guy.

Were just getting started on consumer reviews of the various models of larouche and his Jabronis.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

sancho (sancho)
11-12-2005, 03:48 AM
Highlights from the above:
(1) "The LaRouche zombies are really really creepy."
Stephen G. Rendon, for example.
(2) "Yes, Lyndon LaRouche, the paranoid, misogynist cryptofascist cult leader and convicted felon."
As amply demonstrated time and again on FACTNet.
(3) "Each identified him or herself as a member of the LaRouche Youth Movement — which sounds eerily like the Hitler Youth to me. To add to the Hitler theory, the men all wore sweatshirts over their button-up shirts, like it was a little uniform. They were creepy, they were loud, and above all, they were uninformed, many of them having read from their LaRouche cheat sheet just before speaking. And to top it all off, this process of subverting the political process in a coordinated and sometimes intimidating fashion is patterned after the Nazis' rise to power in the 1930s."
Read _Mein Kampf_ and note how much LaRouche copies out of der Fuehrer's playbook.
(4) "It is important to remember at all times that LaRouche supporters are a cult, with all the brainwashing, intimidation, money-grubbing, and silly simple answers to complex problems that comes with. LaRoucheism is the Scientology of politics."
LaRouche is one-stop shopping for intellectually curious mental and emotional defectives.
(5) "Now, from my last brush with these silly sorts, I knew Lyndon LaRouche had some kind of weird obsession with mathematics; he likes to name-drop people like Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann and Johannes Kepler, claiming, in typical schizoid nutjob fashion, that he and he alone truly understood the discoveries of these intellectual titans, and that modern mathematicians and physicists wilfully distorted and castrated their work. He seems to dislike Newton quite a bit, and attaches a quasi-mystical significance to the complex numbers. You can find a lot of such silliness in Riemann for Anti-Dummies, which, though not by The Man himself, was recommended enthusiastically by one of his vapid and brainwashed minions. It is, as they say, all complete pants. It is also quite long. So is this article, in which LaRouche has a go at maths in his own words. This, too, is rather long and boring. But it involves some LaRouche trademarks, like a rabid insistence that only he properly understands these things, and that most other figures in the field (in this case, maths) were malicious hoaxsters and frauds, and that it's all tied to some kind of conspiracy involving Napoleon Bonaparte somewhere along the line. Also, he thinks empiricists and free-trade types are pro-Satanic. He's big on Satan."
I have demonstrated repeatedly and in detail above at FACTNet that LaRouche is a mathematical illiterate. Mathematics is something with which many are unfamiliar at any depth - particularly the history of mathematics - so LaRouche thinks he can jumble up things mathematical and toss them out to bamboozle the equally illiterate. As someone who knows mathematics well, I can attest that LaRouche's claims within mathematics are as absurd as those he makes within economics and politics.
(6) "He's creepy, yet simultaneously funny. Loonies are like that. Just keep your hands and feet away from his mouth."
Yikes!
(7) ""Don't let her leave!" The group leader had thoroughly worked her over, hammering her with guilt about her previous actions, accusing her of being delusional, telling her to confess, until she was no longer recognizable as a woman, but only as a blubbering mess of tearful convulsions. The tearful woman got up to flee the room.
"Don't let her leave! Keep her in here!" No one stopped her, so the leader ran after her and wrestled her down into a chair.
"SIT DOWN. Now Marsha," the leader said in a calm voice, "You know you've got to stop doing this..." She went on calmlyand quietly for some time, and then everyone else left the room. I sat across the room and watched her sob hysterically with her face in her hands, and not for the first time wondered what the LaRouche organization was all about.
Throughout the summer I witnessed similar scenes over and over again in different forms; in personal meetings with the leadership, in small group meetings, Sunday "Field Meetings," at "retreats," and one-on-one conversations. There was a clear pattern being used in each case; the sowing of guilt (real or imagined), fear, confusion, and the use of "sore spots" (personal shames or shortcomings) to browbeat someone into an extremely worked up emotional state. Once the person has been whipped up she is then questioned until she contradicts herself on some minute point. This contradiction is then used as a stick to beat her with until there is a complete emotional breakdown, then they admit their faults (confess), after which the leadership then redefines the "mission" for them. I recognized it as manipulation. I recently took interest in a book by William Sargant, "The Battle for the Mind," and he had another name for it: Brainwashing.
In the section on political indoctrination, there is a description of how Communist China brainwashed workers into being a "conduit from the Party to the people," and oddly enough I found the program used fits almost precisely what I've undertaken in the Lyndon LaRouche organization. It begins for many with indoctrination "retreats," where students go out to cabins for a "weekend of intellectual discussion," where new recruits are worked on from the minute they walk in, to join the organization. For a weekend they are bombarded with classes that challenge their identity, culture, past training, and are given an apocalyptic view of the near future. Very frequently, "freak-outs" occur; crying, violent outbursts, or complete inhibition—-which is exactly the necessary response, for the weakened mind state makes an individual ripe to be implanted with ideas. Those who then begin working with LaRouche will immediately see very little sleep, physical exhaustion (LaRouchies work seven days, 90-100 hours a week), a large number of classes (in the beginning indoctrination), strong encouragement to break ties with family and friends, mental fatigue, fellow organizers reporting to the leadership any deviations in thought, a groupthink atmosphere, vicious attacks from the leadership, group confessions, and "struggle meetings." They will receive around $80.00 per week, and be housed somewhere by the organization. The organization makes sure organizers have little or no free time, to make sure there is not a pause to examine their enslaved condition. If they ever do, as one defector from California stated, "By the time I realized what had happened, I had dropped out of school, had no money, the organization owned my lease, and I had told all my family and friends they were fascists." I've now done a great deal of study into the physiology of brainwashing and the Communist's tactics, and each report I read confirms my suspicions, and so many confusing incidents over the summer have been replayed in books that are almost fifty years old!"
http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html?FACTNet
(8) "For thirty years, LaRouche has been a parasitical entity, soliciting millions of dollars per year, marching young wives of members to abortion clinics, and doing irreparable psychological damage to hundreds of his organizers. One former organizer used to show up and stand in front of the office talking to him. The ones who stay are completely unable to think for themselves, and are so paranoid that anyone they meet who opposes LaRouche is an "agent" or a fascist. Anyone who has been there for more than a few years generally feels completely unable to live in the "outside world," and the organization has instilled a sense of superiority in them that living among the "population" would be wasting their lives anyway. They have committed themselves to making LaRouche president, never mind the Supreme Court ruling that stated he was disqualified from candidacy because he is a convicted felon (fraud, tax evasion), and candidates must be registered to vote."
Just look at the hysterical LaRouche supporters here: he is the only thing which holds their neurotic little world together. God forbid they should ever think for themselves.
Correction: LaRouche was never a member if the CPUSA to the best of my knwledge, rather the SWP (Socialist Workers Party.)
"Creepy" is indeed the best word to describe LaRouche and his lemmings.
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-12-2005, 12:07 PM
Here are some new articles about the Larouche Creep Show.

Tyler Hahn: Cultists on our campus
by Tyler Hahn
Issue date: 10/27/05
Article Tools: Page 1 of 1
The cultists are at our door and they make no attempt to hide themselves. They stand on the sidewalk distributing pamphlets and booklets with such titles as "Soldiers of Satan" and "Earth's Next Fifty Years." They are the recruiters and propagators of the conspiracies, hate and demagoguery of Lyndon LaRouche. Beware.
The LaRouchites draw in unsuspecting passersby with warnings of an impending U.S. invasion and war against Iran, at the behest, of course, of the children and soldiers of Satan (i.e. Bush, Cheney, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, etc.). I, ever the diligent democrat, saw the signs and blatant propaganda, and decided to debate the fools. Predictably, they had no semblance of evidence or proof of this attack, and could only mutter "contingency plan" and posit ambiguous analogical "connections" and doomsday scenarios. What struck me about them and their arguments was not their fanaticism and logical inconsistency, but that they intimated a larger, more sinister plot.
Lyndon LaRouche, an economist, former presidential candidate, convicted felon and cult leader, has written extensive philosophical, economic, political and conspiratorial works. His thousands of pages of writing often read like the incoherent ramblings of a drunken paranoid-schizophrenic vagrant, but one can basically summarize his arguments by reviewing the LaRouche PAC literature and the talking points of his lackeys.
According to LaRouche, the world is quickly racing toward an imminent economic apocalypse, which is the result of the economic treachery of the "synarchist elite." Parallel to this detrimental economic regression is the decline and manipulation of civilization and human cognition (specifically our ability to create). Very basically, the "synarchist elite" manipulate and deceive civilization and the world economy in an attempt to capitalize off of perpetual war and destruction.
Just who are the "synarchist elite?" The answer to this question varies from LaRouchite to LaRouchite, and whether one is speaking in a historical or contemporary context, but it generally reduces to three main groups: the descendants of British royalty and elites, the decedents of Venetian bankers and, of course, the Jews. These three groups have for centuries undermined the financial markets. With the abandonment of the Bretton Woods monetary system and subsequent adoption of the floating currency, the synarchists rose to an unprecedented level of power and control. Through their enormous but hidden power, the synarchists control and dictate the course of the world economy and politics. LaRouche argues that the politicians, corporate leaders and other lower-level elites are at the control of the synarchists, knowingly and unknowingly. For example, the "soldiers and children of Satan" launched the war in Iraq at the synarchists' command.
LaRouche believes the elites have attempted to destroy the Westphalian (sovereign and independent) state. We, apparently, are headed toward a new world order, and one world government. He and his GW campus representatives demand a strong and isolationist state, central control over the economy and a return to "classical" Euro-centric culture, to replace the immoral and insane culture in which we currently find ourselves. They demand a populist-revolution with enlightened, committed vanguards leading the way. In other words, ladies and gentlemen, we have fascists on our campus.
Why is LaRouche PAC a cult, do you ask? Let's go down the list. LaRouche is a very charismatic leader; he'd have to be to have recruited two Jews as his top aides while simultaneously refusing to write holocaust without quotation marks around it, maintaining that half a million Jews were killed in the "holocaust," denying the existence of death camps and making statements like, "Jewish culture ... is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim." The LaRouchites have an unquestioning commitment to their leader, and look to him for their "truth" of reality - just ask them. LaRouche controls even the most personal details of his followers' lives - he has written numerous papers linking sexual impotency to political and organizational ineffectiveness, and demands "performance" of his members. Members are demanded to devote inordinate amounts of time to their work with the group - many are jobless and drop out of school to join.
I consider my nearly four hours of debate with various LaRouchites among the strangest and eeriest of my life. The absolute, unreasoned conviction LaRouchites have to their anti-Semitic leader, his ideas and their implementation scares me. I want the cultists off our campus.
-The writer, a sophomore majoring in Middle Eastern studies, is a Hatchet columnist.

Issues of Concern
LaRouche movement misleading, frightening
By Andrew Stefan / Staff Writer
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2005
Many Eastern Michigan University students are familiar with the name Lyndon LaRouche. Each week, a group of his political supporters, also known as LaRouchites, set up a booth near the Porter Education building to disseminate his message to students passing by. At a casual glance, this group of activists may appear harmless—but a closer look into the LaRouche Movement will reveal a world of deception, coercion, racism, homophobia, crime and violence. The LaRouche Movement, though sometimes dismissed as a political oddity, should be taken quite seriously, and one should question whether their political ideas are legitimate or merely hate politics in disguise.
When speaking to EMU students, members of the LaRouche community adamantly argue that their leader has answers to many of the world's economic problems. They attempt to hold the attention of interested people for as long as possible and eventually send them off with a stack of propaganda. I recently spoke with a student who listened to a LaRouche volunteer talk for nearly 45 minutes because he didn't want to be rude and walk away in the middle of the speech. Throughout the course of their "informative talks," LaRouchites will often attempt to make those in question of the movement feel inferior by asking them difficult-to-answer questions and accusing them of being ignorant.
The more visible political views of the LaRouche Movement are carefully crafted to appeal to liberal-thinking people—especially college students. By highlighting their own anti-war and anti-globalization opinions, among other issues concerning politically aware students, they attract the attention of people worried about the current state of our government. The LaRouchites may fully support these sentiments, but do not let this facade fool you. An in depth look at the writings of LaRouche will show his actual messages falling much closer to the extreme right in many cases, distorted and encoded by oddly phrased ideas and mountains of unnecessary words. If enough attention to detail is devoted to understanding his literature, ideas supporting racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism/Holocaust denial, and religious fanaticism begin to emerge.
Between 1988 and 1994, LaRouche, whose full name is Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., was imprisoned under charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud. In 2004 he ran for president for the eighth time since 1980. It was during the 1980s when LaRouche eagerly endorsed anti-homosexual policy by supporting proposals to quarantine people afflicted with AIDS in California. Dennis King, author of the book Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, examines the anti-Semitic attitudes fostered within the, Larouche-run, National Caucus of Labor Committee (NCLC). King, in a 1981 article, brought up instances, reported by former NCLC members, of LaRouche frequently using anti-Semitic humor to influence the opinions of people around him. The Political Research Associates say that LaRouche often questions the existence of the Holocaust through claims that most of the Jewish people died as a result of disease and being overworked. Even though these actions and ideas may seem absurd, it is important to remember that LaRouche has a large following of people that subscribe to even his most bigoted ideologies. Other instances of Larouche's, racially questionable,political activity have been noted by organizations like The Anti Defamation League (ADL), Political Research Associates (PRA) and Publiceye.org.
Groups affiliated with LaRouche have a notorious reputation of engaging in cult-like behavior. Michael Winstead, a former LaRouche movement volunteer, wrote an article in March 2003 describing the manipulation techniques used by the movement to brainwash its members. In regards to member treatment, he wrote, "Those who then begin working with LaRouche will immediately see very little sleep, physical exhaustion (LaRouchies work seven days, 90-100 hours a week), a large number of classes (in the beginning indoctrination), strong encouragement to break ties with family and friends, mental fatigue, fellow organizers reporting to the leadership any deviations in thought, a groupthink atmosphere, vicious attacks from the leadership, group confessions, and 'struggle meetings.'" Throughout his article, Winstead also notes similarities between the ideologies of Larouche and Adolf Hitler.
In 2004, April Witt of the Washington Post wrote a disturbing article that questioned how the LaRouche Movement may have played a role in the death of 22-year-old Jeremiah Duggan, a member of the LaRouche Movement. Though the death was labeled as a suicide by authorities, his family speculates that the truth behind the tragedy may directly involve the Larouche group. Entitled "Eight-time presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche may be a punchline on 'The Simpsons,' but his organization -- and the effect it has on young recruits -- is dead serious," the article can be found in the Washington Post's archives, located at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/search.html.
LaRouche has been an underground force in U.S. politics since the 1970s. He has solidified his frightening message through countless groups including the NCLC, The Schiller Group and The U.S. Labor party, as well as almost every facet of the media. He distributes many publications including his Executive Intelligence Review and Children of Satan, runs a television show and even sells informational CD-ROMs from his web site. His group has been a weekly fixture at EMU for several years.
Many questions arise concerning the LaRouche Movement's involvement with Eastern Michigan University. Are the LaRouche volunteers students of EMU? Is the school compensated for allowing them to spread their message on campus? Is school administration aware of their presence and message? If so, how do they feel about it? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not yet known.
It is clear that LaRouche is quite capable of spreading his dangerous political ideologies to the public. Information from the LaRouche group should be examined under a careful eye. Journalists Chip Berlet and Joel Bellman warn, "... to not understand the nature of the LaRouche phenomenon is a dangerously naive rejection of the lessons of history... "


  • I've not yet found any data to defend the assertion that the extreme ends of our political spectrum have encountered recruitment bonanzas. (True, Lyndon LaRouche and his efforts at affixing "Beast-Man" to Dick Cheney's name never really seem to run out of funds or creepy young people for his movement...perhaps we should blame the Internet.) The crazies will be with us for the long haul, and I don't think I'd worry too much about new media disintegrating our public sanity.


There seems to be many common reviews by consumers around the US about the Larouche Creep Show.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

kheris (kheris)
11-13-2005, 07:42 PM
I finally figured it out....DH talks like Mr. Smith from Matrix Revolution. I watched the last encounter between Smith and Anderson and Smith vocalized (without using ivory tower-speak) the very ideas that are at the core of DH's writing. Smith has a very low opinion of what motivates humans, and in that respect, he parallels DH. I was absolutely stunned, and chilled. DH has a lot to learn about the human race he is part of.

 

sancho (sancho)
11-13-2005, 10:26 PM
It's an old stunt that goes back to the Cynics if not early Socrates/Plato, and continues through most of Wittgenstein and all of Derridean postmodernism and the Nietzsche-inspired Kulturkritik: sit on one's a-- and pick apart everyone else's assumptions/axioms which, if done with logical rigor, is not difficult to do. Everyone else is thus exposed as inadequate - until, that is, someone turns around to the inquirer and says to him what is the basis for the axioms and rules of deduction that he is employing to question one's system? For that they either deny hysterically that one can turn the tables on them or then fall back on the aprioricity or the elegance and efficiency of their system - all notions as arbitrary as those they putatively "expose." Interestingly, Derrida dismissed western logic as a mere extension of the grammar of Attic Greek, so it was never clear to me why he bothered to write books and articles in the first place if there was no way to determine their truth or falsity. (Oops.)
Wittgenstein is perhaps the most virulent example of this type of fraud, fooling even Russell into believing him a great genius. Wittgenstein's envy of Goedel's true genius is well documented, with Goedel playing Mozart to Wittgenstein's Salieri.
Of course LaRouche is just a crude excrescence in this cynical tradition and is far from being in even Wittgenstein's league: he just slashes and burns all of science and culture to erect his own cheap house of cards on the smoldering remains of civilization, and says voila. What is funny is DH's lame attempt to use the very methods LaRouche supposedly eschews to establish the intellectual superiority of LaRouche. So DH, if directed by Security (Steinberg et al.) to pose a distraction on this message board from the crimes of LaRouche and his lemmings, employed a more deeply-committed Nazi ideology to earn points than I ever thought even they were capable of. Scary the depths of their true nihilism/Nazism - which should not be difficult to deduce, I suppose, from the way the rank-and-file Labor Committee member is treated on a daily basis. (See the Seven Tactics above.)
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-14-2005, 03:34 AM
"I have demonstrated repeatedly and in detail above at FACTNet that LaRouche is a mathematical illiterate. Mathematics is something with which many are unfamiliar at any depth - particularly the history of mathematics - so LaRouche thinks he can jumble up things mathematical and toss them out to bamboozle the equally illiterate. As someone who knows mathematics well, I can attest that LaRouche's claims within mathematics are as absurd as those he makes within economics and politics. "
When Sancho wrote that, I do not know if he ,or anyone else ever read this wandering review of the cult.

March 31, 2004
Barmy as three ferrets in a burlap sack.
I had another brush with Lyndon LaRouche's zany cultists this afternoon. It was a bright and cheerful day, and I was feeling full of beans. I was heading to the HUB for some pizza when I spied yet another of LaRouche's dupes flogging his table full of pamphlets with titles like 'Children of Satan II' and spewing untruth into the ears of the unwary...He was giving his little spiel to an unfortunate girl as I passed; I happened to catch sight of his notepad, on which I observed him scrawling what appeared to be geometry. I felt it my duty to whisper in the poor girl's ear as I passed that the LaRouche people were crazy, since they sort of are. Mr Cultist--I don't know his name, so let's call him Pickles--happened to overhear, and did protest. How could I say such a thing? Had I even read their stuff, he asked?
Pickles engaged me in discussion. Which is to say, after he found out I was a mathematician, he threw out more or less unconnected, off-topic factoids from mathematics and (once or twice) physics, trying to wow me and cow me with his erudition until I succumbed. The thing was, he got all of his mathematical and physical points fundamentally very wrong. Like the other LaRouchies I've talked with, Pickles was jam-packed with names, dates (some even correct), buzzwords, and even a few pieces of genuine information. None of it, however, made sense. I pointed out to him his factual errors. Perhaps I took a somewhat combative tone, but I think on the whole I was fairly civil. He tried to talk about heat but he didn't know what statistical mechanics was. He tried to talk about nuclear forces, but didn't know the difference between a lepton and a hadron. (He thought a positively-charged electron was a proton.) Just like the last one, he was all about demonising Isaac Newton and Euler; I've also heard and read LaRouchian assaults on Lagrange, Cauchy, Hermite, and others. They're all about Kepler, though. And Gauss. Gauss' proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra seems to have mystical significance for them; I tried to explain that there are better modern proofs, but apparently most of modern mathematics is a malicious fraud ignoring the philsophical implications only Lyndon LaRouche has the wisdom to see. When he did his Newton/Kepler schtick, I tried to convince him that Newtonian gravitation was a hell of a lot more powerful than Kepler's laws of planetary motion; according to him, I was missing the point. After all, Newton was a warlock. And Kepler was an astrologer, I told Pickles; so? I kept hammering away at Pickles until he was completely sick of me, and he told me I was ignorant and closed-minded. A passing, gallant gentleman overheard, and leapt to my defense. He'd been dealing with LaRouchies for thirty years, he said, and it seemed he was even sicker of them than I am. He gave Pickles what you might call an earful. LaRouche's cult was packed with egomaniacs, he said, out to puff themselves up with fancy-seeming snippets of information they really didn't understand, flashing it around to make themselves seem superior and degrading anyone who argued with them. Which has certainly been true of all the LaRouche cultists I've met. In the end, Pickles got so sick of us that he told us to 'stop masturbating onto his table' and walked away.
It was a beautiful, beautiful moment.
Lyndon LaRouche seems to run a sort of intellectual cargo cult. He and his followers use mathematics like a talisman. They seem to think of it in magical terms. They scoop up bits and baubles and phrases from real mathematics, and they chant their stolen scraps like spells or incantations, as if the power resided in the words alone: as if saying it made them an Authority. And there is a certain power that comes from mathematics. I have yet to harness representation theory of semisimple Lie groups to make laser beams shoot from my eyes or bend the masses to my will, but there is still power. There is the power that comes from an ability to think logically and model the physical universe, but this is uninteresting to LaRouche and Pickles; this power takes long years of careful study to achieve. They want power over other people: they covet the power that comes with credibility and with 'expert' status. They mouth the words and expect the power to flow through them. Everything, to them, is about personality; nothing descends, in the end, to logic or fact. To discredit Newton's mathematical contributions they claim he was a warlock; they can't distinguish the man from his work. It doesn't matter if Newton was barmy as three ferrets in a burlap sack; he was still a genius. But it has to be all about personality to them, because without it, they are nothing. All they have is their Black Mass mockery of real scholarship, trappings and appearances. Their cargo-cult airfields. Which can fool someone, if they've never seen an airfield before. (Mathematically, most people haven't.) But when challenged they invoke their crude idols of bamboo and bone, utter their Words of Power...And it all fails them. The airplanes never land.
And since it isn't big enough to deserve a posting of its own, I'll add here that Moonies have something far, far sillier than the Mormon Magic Underwear: Moonies have the Holy Handkerchief. After man and wife are properly joined by the Unification Church, they are to ritualistically mate on three consecutive days under the watchful eye of a photo of the Reverend Moon, having sprinkled the Holy Salt. Then they are to wipe their naughty bits with this Holy Handkerchief, which they are never allowed to launder. Ever.
It has long been said that some people will believe anything. I cannot bring myself to disagree.
Posted by aloysius at March 31, 2004 08:04 PM | TrackBack | Comment (0)
LaRouche Search:
Lyndon LaRouche is an 82 year old, eight-time presidential candidate who never garnered more than 80,000 votes at the height of his popularity and never more than 25,000 in the past quarter century. An ex-felon, he has a zealous following in the States.
You may have seen people on the UC Davis Quad who support LaRouche. If you approach one of them, or they approach you, they will probably ask you to "double the square". It's a simple planar geometric mathematical exercise. They use this question to recruit people.
Here is how to solve the problem. They will first draw a box and state that each side is of length 1 and then ask you to draw a box of area 2. In order to do this, you need each side of length square root of 2. The diagonal of a box (from one corner to another) is of length square root of 2 (according to the Pythagorean Theorem). This then becomes the base of your box of area 2. Using this diagonal, your box is drawn at a 45 degree angle with respect to the first box.
You may ask, what on earth does this have to do with politics?
The answer is: nothing.
It has to do with brainwashing. Or, more accurately, the methods discussed in Sargants 1957 text, "Battle for the Mind". Usually you won't get experienced higher-level LaRoucher's on the Quad, but if you ever do, discuss this book with them - they will have read it all the way through and studied it thoroughly.
This seems to no longer be true. All the LaRouchers that I talked to on Oct 3, 2005 were familiar with, and claimed to have read this book along with other unnamed brainwashing books.
If you define a cult as an organization wherein the initiation process involves well-known brainwashing techniques - very formal and blatant brainwashing techniques - then Lyndon LaRouche is the head of a political cult.
Here is where that math problem comes back in. Hopefully you will not know the answer to the math problem and become anxious and stressful - thus increasing your level of suggestibility (through a decreased trust in your intellect brain and an increased trust (temporarily) in your emotions).
If you talk to the LaRouchers long enough oftentimes they will want you to prove the Pythagorean Theorem - but that is about all they have up their sleeve other than mentioning a cycloid occasionally - but that is after discussion of a motion definition of a circle. Their main task is to show you that all that you have learned in school or through life experience (which they will try, like pulling teeth, to attach to either "mainstreamism" or "the educational establishment") is wrong. That you are a product of the system and are not an independent thinker. That all your thoughts were put in your head.
The primary objective of brainwashing is to make someone believe in something that contradicts blatant obvious fact (Sargant). This is where the initial problem comes in. By showing you that the easiest way of drawing square root of 2 is indirect - by drawing two bases of a triangle to make the hypotenuse, the LaRouchers want to use your increased suggestibility to destabilize your notion of cause and effect. Since you cannot directly draw the square of area 2, but it is there, then you cannot always directly see the cause of some effect.
Of course, to the properly trained mind, this is garbage, but to most people it sounds pretty solid. Then they will probably give you text, at a price, that will try to persuade you that all awesome things that have happened were indirectly caused by LaRouche.
This is nothing more that to feed the Megalomaniacal egomaniac psyche of LaRouche. In Jim Bakers 1996 autobiography, "I Was Wrong" - he spoke of being a cellmate with Lyndon LaRouche in the early 90's when he (Bakker) was serving time for extortion.
He said that "to say LaRouche was a little paranoid would be like saying that the Titanic had a little leak." He found LaRouche to be a brilliant man who was well-connected in politics. During the Persian Gulf War under Bush Sr, Bakker said that LaRouce would often get word of events in Iraq days before they appeared on CNN. Make no mistake that LaRouche (a confirmed Mason), although never having served public office, has high connections.
More about the LaRoucher's. Most live together in a co-op house.
This claim was unsubstantiated by the LaRouchers on Oct 3, 2005. Two stated that they live together with other LaRouchers and that it was an independent decision on their part and not an establishment on behalf of the movement.
This is because, much like Scientology, following LaRouche demands you to detach from your friends, family, and the outside world.
The "demand" claim, contrary to a few internet sources, seems to also be unsubstantiated. However, the LaRouchers on the Quad on Oct 3, 2005 do claim that they voluntarily choose to spend all their time for the LaRouche movement leaving no time for family, friends, and the outside world. I therefore believe that the methodology is more close to Huxleyian then Owellian and mirrors the voluntary encouragements of Scientology.
This is another essential part of a successful brainwashing - detachment. They have been called "Intellectual Fascists" (Al Franken) and "Phony Liberals" (Al Sharpton). They support such nonsense as perpetual motion, 'cold fusion', and nuclear energy. They believe in this despite the Detroit and Long Island incidents [?] and the fact that another reactor hasn't gone online since 1971 and that a reactor takes almost a decade to put online. Basically, the LaRouchers (who believe that all independent thinking is implanted but coincidentally think the same on everything (ref. the brainwashing discussion above)) believe in a fantasy land where natural laws can be broken and obvious fact can be overturned with a slight wave of mighty Lyndon [LaRouche]'s hand.
Believing that nuclear energy has a future, and even the possibility of cold fusion, doesn't make one crazy. Reasonable people can disagree.
As for what can go wrong when LaRouchers don't play by the rules, search the internet for "Jeremiah Duggan" - although unfortunately your guess is most likely correct.
In Summary: If you are sympathetic, try to get them to drop their fantasies. If you are not, just flip them the bird and move on.
Also, they are extreamly afraid of Barnabus Truman. They thought that I was assigned by him to come talk to them. Their paranoia runs deep ...
-ChristopherMckenzie
I have reports of Lyndon LaRouche's followers acting like cultists at Ventura College, UCSB, and UCLA. To the average college student, these guys are far more dangerous than terrorists.
- BrentLaabs
There are some La Rouche people out carolling today on the quad...it was delightful.
-GeorgeLewis

I never knew that math could be so creepy. There are plenty more of these wandering consumer reviews ready to roll for our readers and yutes.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

sancho (sancho)
11-14-2005, 05:57 AM
Just to highlight really the best words yet written to describe the LaRouchies' mathematical sophistry:
"I had another brush with Lyndon LaRouche's zany cultists this afternoon. It was a bright and cheerful day, and I was feeling full of beans. I was heading to the HUB for some pizza when I spied yet another of LaRouche's dupes flogging his table full of pamphlets with titles like 'Children of Satan II' and spewing untruth into the ears of the unwary...He was giving his little spiel to an unfortunate girl as I passed; I happened to catch sight of his notepad, on which I observed him scrawling what appeared to be geometry. I felt it my duty to whisper in the poor girl's ear as I passed that the LaRouche people were crazy, since they sort of are. Mr Cultist--I don't know his name, so let's call him Pickles--happened to overhear, and did protest. How could I say such a thing? Had I even read their stuff, he asked?
Pickles engaged me in discussion. Which is to say, after he found out I was a mathematician, he threw out more or less unconnected, off-topic factoids from mathematics and (once or twice) physics, trying to wow me and cow me with his erudition until I succumbed. The thing was, he got all of his mathematical and physical points fundamentally very wrong. Like the other LaRouchies I've talked with, Pickles was jam-packed with names, dates (some even correct), buzzwords, and even a few pieces of genuine information. None of it, however, made sense. I pointed out to him his factual errors. Perhaps I took a somewhat combative tone, but I think on the whole I was fairly civil. He tried to talk about heat but he didn't know what statistical mechanics was. He tried to talk about nuclear forces, but didn't know the difference between a lepton and a hadron. (He thought a positively-charged electron was a proton.) Just like the last one, he was all about demonising Isaac Newton and Euler; I've also heard and read LaRouchian assaults on Lagrange, Cauchy, Hermite, and others. They're all about Kepler, though. And Gauss. Gauss' proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra seems to have mystical significance for them; I tried to explain that there are better modern proofs, but apparently most of modern mathematics is a malicious fraud ignoring the philsophical implications only Lyndon LaRouche has the wisdom to see. When he did his Newton/Kepler schtick, I tried to convince him that Newtonian gravitation was a hell of a lot more powerful than Kepler's laws of planetary motion; according to him, I was missing the point. After all, Newton was a warlock. And Kepler was an astrologer, I told Pickles; so? I kept hammering away at Pickles until he was completely sick of me, and he told me I was ignorant and closed-minded. A passing, gallant gentleman overheard, and leapt to my defense. He'd been dealing with LaRouchies for thirty years, he said, and it seemed he was even sicker of them than I am. He gave Pickles what you might call an earful. LaRouche's cult was packed with egomaniacs, he said, out to puff themselves up with fancy-seeming snippets of information they really didn't understand, flashing it around to make themselves seem superior and degrading anyone who argued with them. Which has certainly been true of all the LaRouche cultists I've met. In the end, Pickles got so sick of us that he told us to 'stop masturbating onto his table' and walked away.
It was a beautiful, beautiful moment.
Lyndon LaRouche seems to run a sort of intellectual cargo cult. He and his followers use mathematics like a talisman. They seem to think of it in magical terms. They scoop up bits and baubles and phrases from real mathematics, and they chant their stolen scraps like spells or incantations, as if the power resided in the words alone: as if saying it made them an Authority. And there is a certain power that comes from mathematics. I have yet to harness representation theory of semisimple Lie groups to make laser beams shoot from my eyes or bend the masses to my will, but there is still power. There is the power that comes from an ability to think logically and model the physical universe, but this is uninteresting to LaRouche and Pickles; this power takes long years of careful study to achieve. They want power over other people: they covet the power that comes with credibility and with 'expert' status. They mouth the words and expect the power to flow through them. Everything, to them, is about personality; nothing descends, in the end, to logic or fact. To discredit Newton's mathematical contributions they claim he was a warlock; they can't distinguish the man from his work. It doesn't matter if Newton was barmy as three ferrets in a burlap sack; he was still a genius. But it has to be all about personality to them, because without it, they are nothing. All they have is their Black Mass mockery of real scholarship, trappings and appearances. Their cargo-cult airfields. Which can fool someone, if they've never seen an airfield before. (Mathematically, most people haven't.) But when challenged they invoke their crude idols of bamboo and bone, utter their Words of Power...And it all fails them. The airplanes never land."

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
11-14-2005, 03:59 PM
Card table shrine reviews are next. Look here for the picture of a card table shrine so you can match the comments with the picture.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17256&only


  • saturday, august 27, 2005
    LaRouche Lunatics Act Up
    Deluded followers of political bottom-feeder Lyndon LaRouche are getting out their vile message in Los Angeles:
    9:10 PM PDT
    email this article
    82 comments
    Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs. Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
    Hide comments
  1. 1 deadman 8/27/2005 09:11PM PDT
    Vote Lyndon LaRouche, the man Kissenger hates the most!
  2. 2 Earth2moonbat 8/27/2005 09:11PM PDT
    Oh, like we need another flavor of nuts.....
  3. 3 mojo_the_migo 8/27/2005 09:12PM PDT
    How well known is this Focker? A bunch of his supporters were at my college last year, who I laughed at and in their faces.
  4. 4 Gunsniper 8/27/2005 09:13PM PDT
    The only one missing from this menagerie is Jerry Springer.
  5. 5 deadman 8/27/2005 09:13PM PDT
    I don't see the point. Obviously a case of BDS, but what is the connection between the first and second statements?
  6. 6 Beagle 8/27/2005 09:15PM PDT
    Message? It's bad when I can't piece together a coherent statement, much less a message.
  7. 7 Bayou_King 8/27/2005 09:15PM PDT
    i'm looking at this poster, and i'm saying,
    "huh?"
  8. 8 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds 8/27/2005 09:17PM PDT
    I'm assuming it's written in Moony-ese, because I can't make heads or tails of it. And don't the Left usually call it Bush's War, instead of attributing it to Cheney?
  9. 9 SeanGleeson 8/27/2005 09:18PM PDT
    Yeah, I don't get it. Will someone explain the poster, if possible?
  10. 10 nellodee 8/27/2005 09:21PM PDT
    umm...i don't get it either...help?
  11. 11 channeling the shah 8/27/2005 09:21PM PDT
    wow, these nuts are one of the few ones that manage to make cindy sheehan look sensible!
    LYNDON LAROUCHE & DAVID DUKE IN '08!
  12. 12 SeanGleeson 8/27/2005 09:23PM PDT
    Hold on, I think I'm onto the answer. It has something to do with something that may or may not be on a radio program here. The August 20 show talks about "Cheney's New 9/11 Plot."
    I haven't listened to the show of course. One of you volunteer.
  13. 13 Rust Never Sleeps 8/27/2005 09:24PM PDT
    Stop Cheney's new 9/11
    How can you be sooo wrong, LaRouche!
    Not Cheney, but Evil Rove is planning a second chemical, a third biological, and a fourth nuclear 9/11. And of course, as always, he's working with the Evil Zionists to reach that goal!
    // sarcasm off
    But I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later the left will start to believe this kind of raving lunacy too ...
  14. 14 DesertSage 8/27/2005 09:24PM PDT
    This one doesn't make any sense.
    Stop Cheneys new 9/11?....?
    With a picture of the WTC in the backround...wasn't that the original 9/11?
    I'm totally confused.
  15. 15 Shiplord Kirel 8/27/2005 09:25PM PDT
    This is so far out there even I do not understand it---as a skeptical observer of commercial conspiracy theories for the past twenty years, I have no idea what this means. LaRouche and his cult assert that the Queen of England runs the international drug cartel, among other things,but I don't know why they think terrorism has become a spectator sport and why Cheney is supposed to be responsible.
  16. 16 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds 8/27/2005 09:25PM PDT
    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and surmise that that this poster is a "call to arms" of sorts for moonies, playing on the popular myth of the Left that 9/11 was engineered by Cheney and his oil buddies to justify the conquest of the Middle East. The poster is saying that they have to take action before another 9/11-ish event is staged to justify continuing a false war.
    Then again, I could be wrong.
  17. 17 Charles 8/27/2005 09:27PM PDT
    LaRouche seems to be focusing on Cheney for some weird reason. There were two other anti-Cheney posters on display, and one of the creeps at the table approached me and said, "Are you ready to get Dirty Dick deposed?"
    I have no idea what the point of this evil poster is; but if you think that's weird, you should see the literature they were handing out - a bizarre 32-page brochure mixing Communism, environmentalism, and antisemitism.
    Bad craziness.
  18. 18 Yankee Division Son 8/27/2005 09:28PM PDT
    Do all of you really expect moonbats to make sense? Have a sound argument?
    Think about it : )
  19. 19 Dayenu 8/27/2005 09:28PM PDT
    When you're dealing with the supporters of Lyndon La Roach....
    Heaven help me, when I tried talking to those people I don't even think THEY understand their own positions. I'm at a loss to explain it. Except the last time I was answering this guy's economic fantasy lands with some basis reality... and it was interesting to see his face contort in that unacusstomed frame called thought.
  20. 20 Amy 8/27/2005 09:28PM PDT
    I don't get it, either.
    What are they referring to with the "spectator sport" statement? As for the second part of it, WTF?
  21. 21 SeanGleeson 8/27/2005 09:29PM PDT
    Since no one volunteered, I'm listening to "Larouche Show" now. I'll let you know what I find out...
  22. 22 Ojoe 8/27/2005 09:29PM PDT
    Open the pod bay door hal ...
  23. 23 DesertSage 8/27/2005 09:30PM PDT
    you should see the literature they were handing out - a bizarre 32-page brochure mixing Communism, environmentalism, and antisemitism.
    These guys should be in Crawford Right now!
  24. 24 Yankee Division Son 8/27/2005 09:31PM PDT
    I'm sorry Dave, I'm afaid I can't do that...
  25. 25 mrgreen 8/27/2005 09:31PM PDT
    Oh good, I thought it was just me that was clueless about what this is supposed to mean.
  26. 26 Gadfly 8/27/2005 09:32PM PDT
    To think I actually saw the nut on TV once, ranting about how he was the man the Soviets hated most. I thought he and his followers had all died off.
  27. 27 Macker 8/27/2005 09:32PM PDT
    Bummer!
    No mention of the Queen of England pushing drugs. He's losing his edge....
    /sarcasm
  28. 28 Jimmy The Clam 8/27/2005 09:34PM PDT
    Oh Charles, you have it all wrong.
    I just LOVE Lyndon LaRouche.
    I have a LaRouche follower on my discussion board and the guy is good for countless hours of both entertainment and abuse. No, I will not share him. ;)
    LaRouchers are a whole breed apart from the average casual moonbat type. They are filled with a level of dedication to their cause you will rarely find anywhere else.
    "Cult" is 100% correct!
  29. 29 channeling the shah 8/27/2005 09:35PM PDT
    isn't larouche still in the joint for tax fraud or something along those lines? it goes without saying that the charges were, of course, bogus, that he was set-up & persecuted by our zionist-led government simply because the MAN didn't want the "truth" getting out!
    FREE BOTH LYNDIES, ENGLAND & LAROOOOOOOOOOOOOCHE!
  30. 30 SeanGleeson 8/27/2005 09:36PM PDT
    Aha! I got it! According to the radio show, the theory is, Dick Cheney wants to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, on the pretext of preventing a "New 9/11." And somehow it's all tied up with the occult, with Cheney's inner circle of warlocks using their telekinetic powers to hypnotize their enemies, or something. Makes perfect sense, really.
  31. 31 freedomsound 8/27/2005 09:36PM PDT
    Did the LaRouche flunky think you were a CIA agent, Charles?
  32. 32 Terp Mole 8/27/2005 09:37PM PDT
    moonbat shriekedSince when did terrorism become a spectator sport?!
    Because the moonbat clearly isn't looking for spectators.
    Frickin' amateur!
  33. 33 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds 8/27/2005 09:39PM PDT
    Speaking of our "plans" for the Middle East, I was recently talking to a Canadian semi-moonbat (hasn't completely gone over the edge, but he's tapdancing on it) who asserts that...wait for it...we're still building the mythical oil pipeline in Afghanistan. And that the reason we're so eager to invade Iran is so can finish the pipe.
    To give you an idea of how shaky this guy's assertions are, he assured me this time last year that there were folks in Afghanistan who had seen and taken pictures of said pipeline, but that their stories were being suppressed by the media. To this day, he's still not shown me said pictures or eyewitnesses accounts.
  34. 34 Jimmy The Clam 8/27/2005 09:40PM PDT
    If you really want to mess with them Charles, just fake a British accent and say you are from MI6.
    Also, ask a bunch of questions about The Beatles". They think they were a fabrication of the British Royal family to undermine America's youth by getting them addicted to drugs.
    Charles Manson was a failed mind control experiment too BTW (at the hands of the Queen).
  35. 35 DesertSage 8/27/2005 09:43PM PDT
  36. 30 SeanGleeson
    "Cheney's inner circle of warlocks using their telekinetic powers to hypnotize their enemies, or something"
    Is Dick Cheney also channeling the dead?
    Because there's some crazy lady down in Crawford that's doing that too.
  37. 36 Beagle 8/27/2005 09:46PM PDT
  38. 30 SeanGleeson
    Thanks for the update. The Internet is a fascinating place where all the crazy conspiracy theorists can get together. Sarcasm noted. I don't need no stinking "/".
  39. 37 Catttt 8/27/2005 09:47PM PDT
    He's nuts, and his entire cadre is a disgusting cult. Everything is a conspiracy against him - he's an egomaniac.
    Even the mysterious death in 2003 of Jewish student Jerry Duggan, who ran out onto a busy street and was run over after somehow becoming involved with LaRouche people, is Cheney's fault, according to LaRouche.
    Baroness Sarah Ludford said earlier this year "All the evidence points to the fact that Jeremiah's death was linked to his involvement with a mad, but also dangerous and secretive, anti-Semitic cult.
    "Since he was Jewish, this is significant, but there seems to be a wilful determination by the authorities to ignore the context."
    Who does LaRouche blame? He says the whole thing is a "hoax" and an "obvious fabrication" constructed by supporters of the British prime minister, Tony Blair, and the U.S. vice-president, Dick Cheney as part of a campaign to discredit LaRouche over his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
    Looney, dangerous, bad.
  40. 38 cobra 8/27/2005 09:48PM PDT
    WTF?
    And who is the cheering crowd supposed to represent?
  41. 39 Ward Cleaver 8/27/2005 09:48PM PDT
    Charles, these people have been complete loons for decades.
    As for the sign, WTF are they talking about?
    As for Lyndon LaRouche and his followers? The lights are on, but no one's at home.
  42. 40 Bilgeman 8/27/2005 09:49PM PDT
    OMG Larouchies!
    Their World HQ used to be right up the road a spell.
    I'd forgotten all about them!
    So frickin' weird that they're almost cute.
    Regards;
  43. 41 Morgan 8/27/2005 09:53PM PDT
    In terms of national politics, LaRouche is a harmless kook. However, to the confused and semi-educated young people he attracts into his cult, he is a dangerous figure. He preys on starry-eyed students on college campuses who want to "change the world" but have a limited understanding of politics, economics or history. His cult is apocalyptic and messianic - the economy is always about to collapse, the government is always about to be overthrown - and only LaRouche, now 80 years old, can rescue the world. His repeated presedential runs are just a means of keeping his recruits on a constant war footing. The focus on Cheney and "neo-cons" is simply LaRouche's way of keeping up with the trendy causes of the angry, paranoid and confused. In previous decades it was Kissinger, Mondale and Brzezinsky who would destroy the world.
    When you see these LaRouche protestors don't be angry, just feel sorry for them. One day many of them will wake up and understand what they lost.
  44. 42 SeanGleeson 8/27/2005 09:56PM PDT
    It's all spelled out in Cheney's 'Guns of August' Threaten the World:
    Lyndon LaRouche, on July 27, issued an international alert, covering the period of August 2005, which is the likely timeframe for Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to unleash the recently exposed plans to stage a pre-emptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran.
    ...
    LaRouche based his "Guns of August" alert on a series of factors, reported to him over the recent days, beginning with the qualified report, from a former U.S. intelligence official, published in the Aug. 1 issue of American Conservative magazine, that Dick Cheney ordered the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in the event of a "new 9/11-style attack" on the United States.
  45. 43 SwampWoman 8/27/2005 10:00PM PDT
  46. 41 Morgan
    He preys on starry-eyed students on college campuses who want to "change the world" but have a limited understanding of politics, economics or history.
    I don't recall ever being starry eyed. Perhaps I was born cynical.
  47. 44 denbike 8/27/2005 10:02PM PDT
  48. 27 Macker
    Bummer!
    No mention of the Queen of England pushing drugs. He's losing his edge....
    From your link:
    This explains the supposed huge deep underground base found beneath the Denver International Airport, which has quasi-Masonic murals smeared with bizarre pictures that even David Lynch wouldn't make. The DIA is reputed to be a Masonic project (that, some believe, involves evil Reptilian Aliens) and is the alleged future site of the control center for the nefarious New World Order. Naturally, the New World Order will need it's slave labor camps (a la Auschwitz and Jonestown), and those Masons and Reptilians have apparently found their spot. Sure enough, Liz II has been reported to be buying up a lot of property in Colorado under a pseudonym.
    Yikes! They're on to us.
  49. 45 jlfintx 8/27/2005 10:03PM PDT
    Hey Swampy. Uh, well, uh, can't.say.it.
  50. 46 Fresh Air 8/27/2005 10:05PM PDT
    Saw the same schtick two days ago in Chicago. Picture of Bush that made him look like Alfred E. Neuman, one lone dope at a card table with flyers and buttons, and a Free-Mumia-type-fellow wearing a "Multicultural Appreciation Day" t-shirt hanging around. Real potent force it was.
    Now we know why Sheila Jackson and Pat Buchanan saw eye to eye.
  51. 47 deadman 8/27/2005 10:07PM PDT
    Charles:
    LaRouche seems to be focusing on Cheney for some weird reason.
    He is deeply nuts. Post #1 was his campaign slogan for 1984 (I think) and it was tag line for all of his commercials. Its good that he finally got over that decades long obsession.
    He did time for funding one of his campaigns with credit card fraud. The Dems may need to turn to his expertise if Kos has anything to do with their future.
  52. 48 deadman 8/27/2005 10:11PM PDT
    "Free-Mumia-type-fellow"
    Other countries have prisioners-of-conscience held for things like illegal libraries (Cuba)or accurately describing elections (Iran). In America, they tend towards first degree murder.
  53. 49 Macker 8/27/2005 10:16PM PDT
  54. 44 denbike
    OK I take back my last sentence....it's not as if he still had something to lose in the first place!
  55. 50 Apu Pibat 8/27/2005 10:27PM PDT
    As Dave Barry once wrote, where you and I have a brain, Lyndon LaRouche has a whack-a-mole game.
  56. 51 Ed Driscoll 8/27/2005 10:33PM PDT
  57. 27
    "Bummer!
    No mention of the Queen of England pushing drugs. He's losing his edge....
    /sarcasm"
    That was going to be my line! I'll never forget seeing LaRouche's infomercials in the 1980s when he'd shout out his riffs about the Queen of Englands being a drug dealer. I didn't know anything about politics at the time, but it was obvious even to a layman that this guys was absolutely frickin' nuts.
    But hey, he's movin' on up: these days, his house organ is a Google news source!
  58. 52 Ed Driscoll 8/27/2005 10:34PM PDT
    PIMF! "guys" should be "guy"
  59. 53 artboy 8/27/2005 11:10PM PDT
    Lyndon LaRouche is to politics what Hillary Clinton is to erections.
  60. 54 epobirs 8/27/2005 11:16PM PDT
    THe things LaRouchites believe are so contradictory and strange that I've wondered how these people manage to hold down jobs and get through life in general. The card tables guys I've encountered always seem to be retired types, which explains their abundant free time but not how they survived to that point. Perhaps it's an expression of senile dementia.
    The person who made the sign doesn't seem to comprehend what terrorism is about. It is very much a spectator activity. Visibility is critical or nobody will be terrified. You don't make the headlines by bombing some hermit who lives fifty miles from the nearest phone.
  61. 55 Capa Negra 8/27/2005 11:35PM PDT
    Dealt with 'em at college once or twice too. To the best of my knowledge they're some kind of neo-helenists with a patological fascination towards science. They, I understand, think of art (music, painting, etc...) as a way to engineer society. Don't seem to take human soul and spirit into account.
    They have too an "end of the world as we know it" animosity towards the stock market. Sworn enemies of anything resembling investing; they think any kind of speculation is just an inch from collapsing the economy.
    They hate Cheney and love calling him "fascist", hate Soros too (broken clock...)
    Bad stuff. Better to keep away from them. I once took a while with them, but only being bored to death already. Enough to get the full scoop. Will never do that again. Later they went into Calculus class a friday. Something tells me they won't be exactly easy to get rid of.
  62. 56 Mardukhai 8/28/2005 12:32AM PDT
    The La Rouchies started out as Trotskeyites, a long way back.
    They're just a cult, nothing more. I wonder if La Rouche has multiple wives... It might be interesting to find out.
  63. 57 gromster 8/28/2005 02:28AM PDT
    An acquaintance of mine at another discussion board recently gave me what she considers proof or evidence that Dick Cheney is currently in a conspiracy plot to "nuke" Iran (her word, "nuke").
    At the very least, she thinks that there's a plot by the Bush administration to attack Iran in some fashion.
    (She also believes that Bush was behind 9/11, or knew about it in advance but did nothing to stop it.)
    I clicked the link she gave me,
    (Cheney's Guns of August Threaten the World), to check it out.
    Apparently, it is from some organization called "The People's Voice.org" where they have pasted in an article by Lyndon La Rouche.
    It all looked like unverified information, many unnamed sources were given in the story, as though it was based on speculation and not facts or documented evidence, etc., and it did not look reliable to me. What do you all think?
    I'm not terribly familiar with LaRouche.
    Some sources I found say he's right wing, some say he's left wing, and yet others say he used to be heavily anti-Semitic, and that he loves conspiracy theories. Can someone else here fill me in on this guy?
    I also couldn't help but notice that many of the links on the side of that "Guns of August" page are to anti-Israel / anti- Republican / anti-Bush sites.
  64. 58 gromster 8/28/2005 02:51AM PDT
    I did my post before reading eveyone else's; I've already learned quite a bit, and I see that someone else brought up that goofy "Guns of August" page that I had mentioned in my previous post.
    I'll have to quote some of the posts from this thread to this acquaintance of mine (that I mentioned in post #57 in this thread), or at least give this person the link to this thread.
    I'll keep reading, too, after I post this.
  65. 59 Joel 8/28/2005 03:50AM PDT
    Im Manhattan I've seen the LaDouchies in Greenwich Village and the Upper West Side (the two epicenters of NY radicalism and liberalism) trying to weave their posion.
  66. 60 tbarney 8/28/2005 04:55AM PDT
    After reading comments, I think I get it now: You have to believe that Bush, Cheney, et.al. are the real terrorists. Then, the poster becomes, "Why are you sitting around watching them commit terrorists acts? Do something!"
    Yeeesh.
  67. 61 Ghost 8/28/2005 05:17AM PDT
    I'm sure that we do have plans developed in case we need to attack Iran. Iran, and many other countries, too. It doesn't mean that we expect to use those plans, now or ever. They're just contingency plans. Though I'm sure that the plans for attacking Iran get updated much more often than the plans for attacking, say, Mexico.
  68. 62 sas 8/28/2005 05:26AM PDT
    Since when did terrorism become a spectator sport? Since the beginning. That's why it is called "terrorism" and not "kill you all and nobody will be around to see it"-ism, which I think is another way of saying "murder." Terrorism has as its goal destroying the will of those left living after an attack, so it begs for a spectator.
    As for the Cheney remark, I thought Karl Rove was in charge over there in the beltway. What's this about Cheney? I smell a scoop!
  69. 63 sas 8/28/2005 05:29AM PDT
    On the bright side, in three days we'll know for sure whether LaRouche is indeed a genuine Prophet of God.
  70. 64 david e 8/28/2005 05:37AM PDT
    Now for the 64 dollar question:
    Are they off their meds or overmedicated?
  71. 65 N. O'Brain 8/28/2005 05:46AM PDT
    Ok, ok.....
    I think I got it.
    While you're distracted, trying to figure this out, they take over the world.
    A brilliant plan, worthy of Dr. Evil.
  72. 66 RickZ 8/28/2005 06:13AM PDT
  73. 53 artboy:
    Lyndon LaRouche is to politics what Hillary Clinton is to erections.
    That is an elegant analogy. You really should go to work for those S.A.T. people.
  74. 67 Farmer Joe 8/28/2005 07:19AM PDT
    Don't make the mistake of thinking LaRouche is a harmless kook. What he actually is, is a straight-up antisemitic fascist. I would encourage everyone to read a book called Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. His screeds may look kooky to the uninitiated, but to those who follow him and know how to read his stuff, they're quite coherent.
    What really got to me about that book was the fact that when LaRouche made his swing from leftist to fascist (not all that wide a swing, really), he was able to bring a lot of his Jewish followers along by focusing on "anti-zionism" rather than "antisemitism". This was a novel idea at the time. So, if you think he's a marginal figure in national politics, think about how widespread that idea is now.
  75. 68 j-damn 8/28/2005 07:25AM PDT
    LaRouche has focused on Cheney for years, except when he took a little time-out to harangue against Ah-nuld during the Cali recall election campaign (Arnold's a Nazi, if you didn't know, by the way--thanks Lyndon!)
    I used to see these kooky <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> all the time between Farragut West and the White House. They like to drive a hearse up and down the streets of DC while blaring Chopin's Funeral March. For some reason, they attract a lot of college-age weirdos. I guess the reason is that college-age people are generally impressionable *and* stupid/ignorant, seeing as how there's a lot of college-age leftists, too.
  76. 69 Morgan 8/28/2005 07:55AM PDT
    67 Farmer Joe
    Coherent? Below is LaRocuhe writing about mathematics. Read the whole thing - he is a kook among kooks. His crazed teachings seek to divide historic figures and ideas into absolute good and absolute evil in a way that appeals to semi-educated simpletons and perpetual children. He is only dangerous to the venal and miseducated who voluntary choose to subject themselves to his control.
    http://www.larouchep...
    "Given Euler's extensive accomplishments in mathematics as such, his sundry attacks on Gottfried Leibniz's uniquely original discovery of the infinitesimal calculus, were not merely wrong, but a fraud, a dirty lie. For more than two centuries, Euler's sundry—each vicious—hoaxes against Leibniz, have been copied, more or less directly, by a majority among our culture's relevant textbooks and classrooms. Today, those false premises which Euler had employed have become an implicitly self-evident dogma, even for many professionals. The notable, if radically extreme examples of that dogma, include the influence of such acolytes of the pathetic Ernst Mach and thoroughly evil Bertrand Russell as Norbert Wiener (the "information theory" hoax), John von Neumann (the "systems analysis" and "artificial intelligence" hoaxes), and also the latters' dupes, still today."
  77. 70 itellu3times 8/28/2005 07:58AM PDT
    Don't know where the picture was taken, but they're often taking up sidewalk around noon in beautiful downtown Burbank, attracting about as much attention as a dead ant.
  78. 71 danger close 8/28/2005 08:05AM PDT
  79. 67 Farmer Joe
    Good Point.
    My personal experience is that once a person drinks conspiracy kool-aid there are no known antidotes.
    At first I would try logic and rational analysis. A motive, means and opportunity type approach to try and break the fever. Then I tried the "What about the the last failed theory?" method. Y2K was an excellent time for the Clintons to declare martial law and complete the New World Order take-over. "Its just wasn't time yet" they would aver afterwards . Pointing out that commercial satellelite photography could expose a large (chinese) army hiding in the forests of, take your pick, Louisiana or Montana didn't make a dent either. And so on.
    Searchlight is a publication that, assuming its still around, was the source for quite a bit of this crap.
    Combine lots of free time, just enough money and zealous evangelizing and you can get results. Hence Farmer Joe's concern.
    Toujours Pret
  80. 72 danger close 8/28/2005 08:16AM PDT
    Is Dick Cheney a Freemason by any chance?
  81. 73 Macker 8/28/2005 08:17AM PDT
  82. 69 Morgan
    I tried reading that EIR "article" by LaRouche. It gave me a real headache! See! It's men like him who have it all figured out for us!
    Ya, right! I say BULL-ST!
  83. 74 Farmer Joe 8/28/2005 08:25AM PDT
  84. 69 Morgan:
    Coherent? Below is LaRocuhe writing about mathematics. Read the whole thing - he is a kook among kooks.
    I'm not going to attempt to parse a LaRouche article because I'm not an initiate or an expert. My understanding is that the seemingly more incoherent bits of his writing need to be taken in context of his other stuff. They may serve to amplify ideas he's propounded elsewhere, OR, they may be deliberatly "kooky" to provide cover.
    Indeed, it's this veneer of kookiness which has allowed him to operate without attracting the kind of attention that someone spewing his kind of bile should. If he were plainspoken about what he believes, he'd be regarded more as a David Duke than a David Icke.
  85. 75 BeerDrinking_VictoryMonkey 8/28/2005 08:42AM PDT
    "Omy G-D! Aliens, Bio-duplication, nude conspiracies! Lyndon LaRouche was right!"
    Homer Simpson
    I had a run-in with one of these turds not too long ago. When I politely declined one of their pamphlets, the guy starts screaming at me "I don't know if you're living in a dream-world or a nightmare, but you better wake up!"
  86. 76 Morgan 8/28/2005 08:58AM PDT
    74 Farmer Joe
    The very name Lyndon LaRouche has come to mean political crank. And no, one does not need to be an "initiate or an expert" to realize that LaRouche's combination of historical name dropping mixed with gratuitous insults is the work of a raving lunatic. Here he is calling Galileo a "pig". If there is a method to his madness it's that his followers know so little about history, philosophy and science that they can't even begin to rationally analyze these pages full of erudite nonsense.
    http://larouchein200...
    "Now, empiricism is a system which was invented by a very evil gentleman, called Paolo Sarpi, who was the tyrant of Venice for some decades. And he had a house servant who was called Galileo Galilei. And the house servant was really -- he was a pig, essentially, and Paolo Sarpi instructed his house servant, Galileo, to promote a system of thought called empiricism. This was the system of thought, which was, under Paolo Sarpi's and Galileo's influence, was taught to Francis Bacon, in the early part of the 17th Century, in England. Thomas Hobbes was personally a student of Galileo. This was the system of John Locke. This is the doctrine of Mandeville, the doctrine of Adam Smith. It is also the doctrine of Quesnay, the putative founder of Physiocratic dogma. It is the doctrine of free trade today -- is a product of that."
  87. 77 Farmer Joe 8/28/2005 09:17AM PDT
    Morgan -
    I'm not arguing that in the popular mind LL is equivalent to "political crank."
    Please, go read Lyndon LaRouce and the New American Fascism. It's quite an eye opener. That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
  88. 78 ladycatnip 8/28/2005 09:46AM PDT
    A college SAT question in the analogy section:
    911. Intelligence: conservative
    a) conspiracy: liberal
    b) mind-cloud: Dick Cheney
    c) taking over the world: Karl Rove
    d) all of the above.
    e) d only
    f) a, b, c, d, e AND f
    /
  89. 79 Capa Negra 8/28/2005 10:52AM PDT
  90. 57 gromster
    "Some sources I found say he's right wing, some say he's left wing"
    The "fine people" I met have nothing close to or remotely resembling a political platform. They're a cult, they're not alignated.
  91. 80 shatterglass 8/28/2005 12:51PM PDT
    The 2 LaRouche Crew was out in Cleveland last week, and their setup was just as elegant and about half as big as the one pictured. "Nikoli, call the California HQ -- remind them it's our turn to use the card table next week."
  92. 81 growler 8/29/2005 07:53AM PDT
    Last weekend there was a card table with 2 or 3 of these moonbats just north of Union Square in Manhattan. One of the freaks was saying, "Help us get Osama bin Cheney" and "We need to put Bush in a mental home and Cheney in a prison." He looked like a nut. And yet, I saw a few people stop to talk.
    But what do you expect. Union Square has weekly "Get Israel out of Palestine" vigils, regular antiwar rallies and monthly assembly of Critical Ms.
  93. 82 EE 8/29/2005 07:44PM PDT
    Monsieur Lyndon LaRouche, exconvict and megalomaniac, with a cult following that wants to install him as the next fuhrer, needs to be exposed for the vile creature that he is.
    The focus of the attacks of this demagog used to be against Israel and the Jews and -- oddly enough -- Britain and its queen. Now it includes Cheney.
    It is difficult to predict the attacks of Monsieur LaRouche, except that there seems to be a correlation between his attacks and those of the French. That at least is my theory, to try to put some coherence into his lunacy.
    I suppose we will be seeing Steve at a card table shrine in the very near future next to a very old Larouche deadender, being the source for many blogs.
    The one post on the Gaileo is an award winner.
    xlcr4life@hotmail.com
 

kheris (kheris)
11-14-2005, 04:33 PM
Oh that is precious stuff...straight from the folks who are being targeted as recruits.

 

sancho (sancho)
11-17-2005, 06:50 PM
Just as the apple doesn't fall far from the apple tree, an interesting legacy of LaRouche is the use to which his mind-control tactics were put in the formation of the Fred Newman cult - an offshoot of LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees - which coopted the Independence Party and today exerts an inordinate degree of influence in the Michael Bloomberg administration:
http://www.dennisking.org/

 

sancho (sancho)
11-24-2005, 04:38 PM
"There are some Republicans," LaRouche concluded, "who have been obsessed with me for decades, particularly since they observed, up close, my collaboration with the late President Ronald Reagan, in devising what came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. For some Republicans—and they know who they are; I don't have to name names—my SDI work with President Reagan has been a point of absolute obsession ever since."
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2005/lar_pac/051110mehlman_flips.html
LaRouche met Reagan exactly once, prior to a candidates night in New Hampshire in 1980. They spoke about the gun issue for a minute or so; LaRouche was rumored afterwards to have remarked how deaf Reagan was.
If a LaRouchite can't detect in this simple statement how insanely delusional his or her god is, then no amount of argumentation will win you over from the dark side.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-24-2005, 09:02 PM
Dear Sancho,
Is the photo linked to below, the "candidates night" you refer to, or is it of a different occasion?

DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-25-2005, 05:20 AM
Exactly.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

 

borisbad (borisbad)
11-28-2005, 01:53 PM
I thought people might also like to review the anti-semitic meanderings of Helga Zepp LaRouche. The wikipedia.org entry on her background is VERRRY INTERRESSTING!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Zepp-LaRouche

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-28-2005, 05:04 PM
Dear borisbad,
Anti-Jewism seems to be a common charge against the LaRouche movement. I have read nothing that has convinced me of this, and I find the arguments for it, smug and shrill by turns. It seems to revolve around (1) Mr. LaRouche's willingness to address The Jewish Question, in the tradition of Karl Marx's own essay by that name - and in the process critiquing Judaism; and (2) highlighting the existence and maneuverings of the Zionist lobby. The first is a tar pit that racists push foolhardy gentiles into, and the gist of the second is patent to anyone halfway clued in about politics. So, the only real charge here is of Holocaust revisionism, which your linked article references. On to that, then.
I read the New Solidarity quote by Mrs. LaRouche, and, while I don't know what she meant by it, it does call to mind the argument I've heard made, that the movement once held that the official Holocaust story was inaccurate, but that the movement now agrees with popular opinion. If the 1978 New Solidarity quote on the wikipedia entry for LHL is true, it appears to contradict what he said in 1999 (cf. ibid). This may merely be him adding in the N Jews killed by firing squad and combat, who didn't actually die of enslavement, and thus might not indicate a revision of his revisionism. I am not sure.
Has he made any other statements about this subject that you know of? Those seem to be the best way to attack him for being anti-Jew.
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-28-2005, 07:16 PM
Hmm, in addition to his other accomplishments, DH now willingly exposes himself as a garden-variety antisemite. Ho hum.
Search above on this board for more on LaRouchite antisemitism: you'll have even more reason to love your Fuehrer.

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
11-29-2005, 08:05 AM
Dear Sancho,
I've gone through this thread looking for more discussion, specifically more quotes from the movement or Mr. LaRouche, on this issue, and haven't found any. As the quotes stand, they represent a paradox in the movement, one that Steven is not willing to notice, perhaps. I'm neutral on the issue, personally, but don't see any reason for the movement to avoid making an unambiguous policy statement on same, other than a desire to cater to, ahem, "popular opinion."
Can anyone clarify this, with direct quotes from movement leaders? Can any ex-member supply detailed "insider" clarification?
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
11-29-2005, 08:39 AM
First off, I believe David above expresses the experience of many of us when he said that we were not aware of any (or much, in my case) antisemitism or pro-Nazism when were in the organization.
However, with the assistance of Dennis King's book on LaRouche, it becomes easier to see in hindsight the coded language LaRouche uses to disparage Jews and others. So that book should be your first stop. Most of us had no truck with antisemitism at all while members and many of us too were Jewish: however had we been familiar with conventional antisemitic themes, metaphors, and images through the ages, it would have been very easy to spot LaRouche as an antisemite. I am willing to believe that many if not most present-day LaRouchites are not conscious antisemites - until they arm themselves with this information.
(I happen to have good inside information by the way that LaRouche's sister was a raving Jew-hater, so the question remains open whether Lyn was raised as one or whether this nuttiness of hers was idiosyncratic.)
Hope this helps.

 

xylm (xylm)
11-29-2005, 08:52 AM
Drunkenhegel,
Below is a link to one of my many posts of lucid anti-Semitic remarks made by Larouche. I had also taken the liberty of providing links and direct page numbers to these quotes so inquirers such as your self will not have to question its validity and context.
http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=4&post=194552#POST194552

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
12-01-2005, 09:08 AM
Dear xylm,
These quotes you give are certainly controversial, and compelling, but what of it? They address the perennial Jewish Question and especially dig into the essence of Judaism. Is Karl Marx anti-Jewish too, because of his famous essay on the subject?
Talking with most people about Jews is like talking to women with PMS. They have nerve endings about three feet long extending from their skin, and are primed to kill. I wish white people were like that, especially when Jews like Susan Sontag call us "the cancer of human history." How's that for anti-white hatred? Or is it just fair criticism, a proposition to be debated and proved or disproved, like calling Judaism an "influential hoax"? Toughen up, mate.
All this nonsense about code-words and how anyone who mentions Atlantis, or criticizes (or even acknowledges the /existence/ of!) the Zionist lobby, or who advances controversial theories of the origin and nature of Judaism, must be a Nazi committed to shoving all Jews in microwave ovens or whatever, is just a bunch of horse.
Come up with something better than that. I've researched pro-white stuff, and anti-Jew stuff, and I'm telling you, the LaRouchies ain't it.
DH
P.S.
Dear Sancho,
Mr. LaRouche's family should be an interesting test case, shouldn't it? What became of the rest of his family, specifically his ex-wives, and especially his son? What's it like to be raised by someone like that, and why isn't his son involved in the movement? Questions to ponder.
DH

 

borisbad (borisbad)
12-01-2005, 11:12 AM
Besides the infamous anti-semitic jokes that ran current in the NCLC such as how Jews in ashtrays and some joke where the punch line was "shake and bake", just judge him by the company he keeps or has kept including the Liberty Lobby, the Nation of Islam, various anti-semitic governments like Sudan that he tries to cozy up to, etc. Of course when he tries to reach a more cognizant audience he talks about Moses Mendellsohn and Philo of Alexandria, but never hesitates to provide his rogues galleries attacking various Jewish figures of different stripes. He also tries and covers up his predilictions by being "an equal opportunity offender" attacking Episcopalians, the Knights of Malta, etc. but the real consistent attacks are against the Jews. And besides there isn't much political hay to be made attacking Episcopalians, although there are certain elements who share his antipathy to the Masons. And although you try and equate it with anti-Zionism on the left, the fact is he does both, calling Zionists Nazis, etc. And as previouly posted, he has also endorsed the notorious in the first edition of the so-called War on Drugs book.}

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
12-01-2005, 04:00 PM
Dear borisbad,
Well, most people agree that the U.S. and U.K. fighting World War Two was a good thing. And what enormous evil power did they decide to ally with, for the sake of a common enemy?
Jokes? Well, who said these jokes? I'm guessing the old guard of the movement is about 25% Jewish at least, so were /they/ cracking them? If not, did they know about the jokes? If so, did they say anything? Are Schlanger and Freeman Jewish Nazis? Do they plan on shoving themselves into the microwaves when the NRA is established? If I make a joke about blondes, do I want to shove blondes in the microwave?
How is it strange that a major target of honest criticism would be a group with a vastly disproportionate percentage of political, economic, and media power? The Jews are a strange bunch, historically, one that historians have puzzled over the meaning of and professors (cf. Kevin MacDonald) puzzle over to this day. They really are a unique entity in all the world, and that the Zionists can influence American policy to the degree they have, in supporting Israel, truly is remarkable.
"And as previouly posted, he has also endorsed the notorious in the first edition of the so-called War on Drugs book."
I'm guessing you meant, "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Well, again, what of this? For aspiring culture wreckers it contains some sound advice. I don't think it matters who wrote it, any more than it matters who wrote the CIA assassination manual.
DH

 

sancho (sancho)
12-02-2005, 04:00 AM
Lyndon LaRouche is a demonstrated antisemite, as is anyone who uses the term "anti-Jew" for the conventional "antisemite" on the facile basis that "Arabs are not semites." Antisemitism is a hallmark of intellectual mediocrity, by the way, and I am always fascinated by the way antisemites seem to think they are brilliant iconoclasts when they are in fact just ignorant, garden-variety bigots - twisted freaks.
Ho hum.
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
12-02-2005, 07:47 AM
Dear Sancho,
Actually, Arabs /are/ Semites, hence the inaccuracy of the term "anti-Semitic." I am bothered by inaccuracy in language. Here are few other examples:
"Impact" – For some reason this meteoric word has replaced the perfectly serviceable, and typically more accurate, "affect."
"Inuit" – Inuit are just one ethnic group of many in the Arctic: Inuit, Yupik, Aleuts, et al. "Eskimo" is the relevant term.
"Watch tv" – When I bother, I do not just watch tv, I listen as well. "Perceive" is more accurate.
"Bullet" – People don't load bullets into guns. "Cartridge," or "round" is the word.
"Negro" – Africans have many different ethnicities: Negros, Hottentots, Pygmies, Tutsis, Tuttifruities, whatever. "Black" is more appropriate.
"Passed away" – No, my uncle didn't pass away to Valhalla in a magic rainbow of light. He /died/, specifically because his body gave out like an old engine. Where did his mind go? Well, where does a well go when you fill it in?
"Young girl" – Used by many to refer to female teenagers of marriageable age, who are properly termed "young women."
"Asian" also bothers me, because it's too broad, referring to everyone from Turks to Russians to Indians to Japanese. I tend to use "Oriental" instead to refer to anyone there, outside of Russia or the Middle East. But I'm still working on that one.
It's not surprising that accuracy in language is a trait that the present day thoughtcrime Commissars, who have a few representatives here, want to suppress. That would be why "discrimination" (which means "to tell the difference") has popularly replaced the more accurate "bigotry."
DH
(Message edited by Drunkenhegel on December 02, 2005)

 

sancho (sancho)
12-02-2005, 07:52 PM
Well, precision in speech is certainly a worthy aim, I would agree. You should then have a field day with the scribblings of Fearless Leader. I particularly chafe at his use of the adjective "Riemannian" when he is doing his best to emulate the Great Oz. (And I don't mean Amos.)

 

drunkenhegel (drunkenhegel)
12-03-2005, 08:11 PM
Whenever he uses "Riemannian" I think of those grey doughnuts and pretzel-shapes in the math diagrams. So, I gather he means "related to brainy math involving grey doughtnuts."

 

sancho (sancho)
12-04-2005, 02:30 PM
Far more entertaining than the lexical imprecison exhibited by the World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates (the WGJSS), is his ponderously labyrinthine syntax.
Have fun with this one, the opening paragraph entire of a September ramble, chosen at random for illustrative purposes:
"Within the state of education today, including higher education, regrettably, little attention is paid to the crucial importance of rigorous studies in the theory of knowledge (i.e., epistemology), whether in poetry, science, or government. Those studies are indispensable in the efforts to prevent present trends [how does one prevent present trends?] in combined official and public opinion from plunging our society into that terrible, sophistry-ridden state of mind, the state of life-threatening ruin, into which the population of the once powerful U.S.A. [isn't the U.S.A. still considered by everyone, friend and foe alike, as the most powerful nation in the world???], as it were a fabled Rip Van Winkle, now discovers that it had been lured during its recent long sleep [how does one become lured in one's sleep?]."
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2005/3239shape_emptyspace.html
He, must, have learned com,ma use from, Ayn Rand,
What a bloviating blowhard.
See in addition:
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

sancho (sancho)
12-04-2005, 02:40 PM
P.S. I wish I had chosen the second paragraph, which is even more of a howl:
"That present situation is actually a reflection of a long-term trend already underway since the death of President Franklin Roosevelt. However, the presently immediate threat of national bankruptcy, and also worse, is a consequence of more recent trends, as typified by not only the current Bush Administration, but, the prevailing trends of both popular and academic opinion during a period of the most recent three decades."
Already underway since? The presently immediate threat!? Whoa, I really gotta get me out to a cardtable shrine to sell a subscription.

 

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
12-04-2005, 02:57 PM
To whom it concerns:
If anyone else would like to contact me, my email has changed to steven_g_rendon@yahoo.com. My school account will be expiring soon, as I will be directly studying and working in the WLYM. If you have any questions about the work that I will be engaged in, feel free to contact me.
Yours truly,
Steven G. Rendon
P.S.
In case anyone was unable to find the link to the discussion I have been engaged in, with Mr. Borracho, I paste it here: http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/15240.html?1133553561.
Happy holidays!

 

kheris (kheris)
12-06-2005, 05:38 PM
Steven
Do let us know how it goes at the card table shrine. Or are you above all that?

 

borisbad (borisbad)
12-13-2005, 03:59 PM
I read the LaRouche pub article on empty space and there certainly appears to be vast quantities of it in his article. The run on sentences on incredible. I'm sure he believes that he's simulating the obscurantist writings of Hegel or other German critical philosophers by his long winding sentences with his infinite use of commas. I came across another two sentences of his in the same article that make the point.
"My treatment of the subject of logic here, includes consideration of important contributing causes of certain very practical, very important effects for society as a whole today. These are causes like those which have contributed, in principle, to the present, self-inflicted, deadly state of ruin of our U.S.A. as a whole, as the world as a whole has sampled these effects now, in the outcome of the current Bush Administration's awful negligence, in the coastal regions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In writing this report, I am considering, thus, the effects produced by the awful negligence of that rather empty-headed President, and also by the defective moral inclinations, the wild-eyed sophistries produced out of what malicious humorists might name as Bush's own, and his cronies' mental powers"
It's amazing how he jumbles together two thousand years of history weaving Plato with Vernadsky and Moses Mendelsohn to "establish" his links with these historic figures. What the connection is to the empty space in the title is left unsaid as far as I can see.

 

borisbad (borisbad)
12-13-2005, 04:02 PM
I read the LaRouche pub article on empty space and there certainly appears to be vast quantities of it in his article. The run on sentences on incredible. I'm sure he believes that he's simulating the obscurantist writings of Hegel or other German critical philosophers by his long winding sentences with his infinite use of commas. I came across another two sentences of his in the same article that make the point.
"My treatment of the subject of logic here, includes consideration of important contributing causes of certain very practical, very important effects for society as a whole today. These are causes like those which have contributed, in principle, to the present, self-inflicted, deadly state of ruin of our U.S.A. as a whole, as the world as a whole has sampled these effects now, in the outcome of the current Bush Administration's awful negligence, in the coastal regions of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In writing this report, I am considering, thus, the effects produced by the awful negligence of that rather empty-headed President, and also by the defective moral inclinations, the wild-eyed sophistries produced out of what malicious humorists might name as Bush's own, and his cronies' mental powers"
It's amazing how he jumbles together two thousand years of history weaving Plato with Vernadsky and Moses Mendelsohn to "establish" his links with these historic figures. What the connection is to the empty space in the title is left unsaid as far as I can see.

 

anon127 (anon127)
12-14-2005, 11:35 PM
this is from a bfg...

LAROUCHE: Make the commitment. {Then}, if something comes up in the meantime, you are organized. Because you're organizing {for} something, which means you're in a state of mobilization. So, the point is, is people should not go away for long vacations. They shouldn't take vacations. They shouldn't have the holiday celebrations with family and so forth this year. They should be {on alert}, for a breaking situation.

happy holidays steven.

 

dave72 (dave72)
12-15-2005, 02:07 PM
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it."
-- Henry Kissinger
I remember some time in the mid 80's, a few of our supporters went to see Henry Kissinger speak at a local university. They wanted to see and hear the enemy face to face.
The next day they reported to us that they were confused because Henry spoke about the importance of industrial and technological development for Africa! Our local leader responded that this was proof of the evil of Mr. Kissinger. Apparently he was presenting Larouche's ideas in order to subvert them. I manned the card table shrine with extra vigor that day knowing that we had an insidious enemy indeed.

 

sancho (sancho)
12-20-2005, 06:05 PM
LaRouche has once again <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> on mathematics:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2005/2005_50-52/2005-51/pdf/04_49_dialog_lhl.pdf
For anyone not up on elementary geometry, do not allow yourself to be bamboozled or mystified into kowtowing before the tower of jello which is the mind and character of the World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates. This eighty-one-page screed is just another arbitrary concatenation of LaRouche "oldies." Time and again, in each of these long-winded exercises, the WGJSS just repackages the same trite material complete with fetishes (FDR, Vernadsky, etc.) to putatively address different topics which are situated as elements of a solution to all of the world's ills - a solution which only the WGJSS provides. LaRouche is a dropout from a poor college, and at eighty-three he can find nothing better to do with his dwindling time than state that the discipline of economics is dead.
I maintain that anyone with a solid secondary school education firmly grounded in the sciences and/or classical languages will not fall for this shell game. The only yutes susceptible to falling for this bilge as evidence of the "genius" of the WGJSS are those who are LACKING, whether in loving parents, intelligence, character, education, or attention.
If you fall for LaRouche, then know that you have become as much a dilettante and no-account as Fearless Leader and his boomer minions.

 

anon007 (anon007)
12-23-2005, 12:25 AM
Is Beltran still affiliated with the Larouche movement?

 

sancho (sancho)
12-23-2005, 06:49 PM
I think he's left the Delta Quadrant.

 

sancho (sancho)
12-27-2005, 07:55 PM
Another point to note regarding the LaRouchites: even if their warped perception of mathematics were true, it remains painfully evident that they have made not a single, small advance in mathematics or in any other area of human endeavor. They are imitative in their own bizarre way, and their alleged creativity lies in nothing else but distorting truth.

 

kheris (kheris)
12-28-2005, 04:52 PM
Is Beltran still affiliated with the Larouche movement?
Harley could probably answer that one. Based on what I have seen since last February, I would guess not. There was no Labor Day Conference, but there was a cadre school held in LA. Harley gave a lecture on Shakespeare and the relationship of the dramas to current political conditions. No mention of RB. I can't find anything more recent about RB since the President's Day conference in 2/2005. I posted the following on 9/23/05 regarding RB and it reflects my personal views only.
Beltran got behind LHL because he believed (and he spoke specifically to this in an interview with Harley) that LHL was speaking the truth. That was in 2001. It's 9/2005 and Beltran is no longer a fixture at the LYM site aside from past work done, and there is no evidence that the LYM or any other Larouche organization, is supporting a theatrical troupe to go out and organize the masses. Now mind you that commitment was made at the President's Day conference in 2/2005. So I have to ask the obvious, where is the troupe and where is Beltran's public support? What happened that suddenly he is no longer visible in the group, but very visible in the realm of pop culture - the very culture LHL so despises? If a self proclaimed standard bearer has disappeared from the scene, what does that mean in terms of the claimed commitment to use classical culture; i.e. drama and music, as organizing tools? If the organization has lost the support of a genuine, notable artist who publicly proclaimed his support, what happened to create that situation? Is it possible Beltran woke up and smelled hypocrisy instead of coffee?
Interestingly - he evidently is not volunteering anything about the LaRouche organization during his public appearances, and it appears the fans aren't asking him about it, at least not when his answer can be heard and noted by inquisitive 3rd parties. Seems to me he has a great opportunity to do some organizing, but isn't. Wonder what Harley would have to say about that.

 

sancho (sancho)
12-30-2005, 04:18 PM
Recall that while the LaRouche website appears to conscientiously reprint all of its old and eerily dated material, the LaRouchites (like the self-hating Jew Phil Rubinstein) have elected to delete the "Zionism is Not Judaism" _Campaigner_ as well as the first edition of _Dope, Inc._ which reprinted the famous forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Nonetheless, in a later edition of _Dope, Inc._ provided on the YLM website from which said "Protocols" are purged
http://wlym.com/pdf/iclc/dopeinc1978.pdf
on p.32 et seq. an argument is advanced on behalf of their authenticity! That is not so surprising given the well-documented antisemitism of LaRouche; what I would like to try to draw to the attention of the yutes is the weak argument used, the lowest level of rigor possible thoroughly evidenced throughout Fearless Leader's multi-page ravings. The argument is: here is (another, Christian) text like it which is real, so "The Protocols" are real.
LaRouche just wants your money, the money you can bring in, and your slave labor. All of this autodidactic, pseudointellectual paraphernalia is camouflage to better entrap idealistic young people.
Be careful. Just remember what happened to Jeremiah Duggan:
www.justiceforjeremiah.com (http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com)

 

kheris (kheris)
01-08-2006, 08:17 AM
What! No explanation from the LHL faithful as to why Beltran is no longer visible in the organization? Is it possible my speculation is correct?

 

sancho (sancho)
01-09-2006, 07:57 AM
What is this perpetual fascination with a hack actor? Am I missing something about Chakotay?

 

wanderer (wanderer)
01-09-2006, 07:39 PM
For one thing, if he was a hack actor, the LHLs wouldn't have targeted him.
Speaking for myself, I observed the LHLs trying a trick out of Scientology's book. They came up with the idea they could use celebrities to gain themselves widespread credibility.
With the invention of the Internet and a basic understanding of PR101, they headed out to try to trap any celebrity they could talk into letting them set up a fansite.
Files were kept of who was visiting the site and their particulars which was then used against the guests. Sales from the website were used to support the site and some "secret charity".
The celebrity in question then had to follow LHL protocol publicly or endure their family, friends and fans being subjected to abuse and harrassment. Plus those involved ensured the celebrity was the one who got blamed for it.
Voila! You have an enabling of Schiller Institute credibility and publicity on the world stage.

 

wanderer (wanderer)
01-09-2006, 08:46 PM
BTW, here's a hint. A real fansite promotes the health and well-being of the celebrity and talks about how wonderful they are.
A fake site doesn't. It serves to create rumor and innuendo. Makes fun of the celebrity and threatens them with career and public disgrace.
Take a look at what happened at Nicole Kidman's website.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a response to drunken's e-mail.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
01-10-2006, 03:54 AM
In the 1980's we were marketing ourselves as self proclaimed "conservative Democrats". In reality, we were neither. Our chameleon skin was based on where Lyn thought we should go to get a payoff. We pretended to be Reagan supporters and did the Rep. dirty work against the Dem party in many ways.
The money now is being anti Bush. We have suckered some Dems into taking the lunacy seriously enough to have various conspiracy ramblings show up with Dems. The Dems look crazy and have not figured out how they are being associated with lunacy to harm them.
In the 1980's liberals were our enemy and we denounced them every day in the daily briefing. Twice we ran our AIDS proposition which caused a fury of anti Larouche activity among Hollywood literati.
Lyn goes to jail and the org withers away as many people leave, barely with the shirt on their back. We hook up with a Scientology offshoot in the Christic Institute and see that there is money to be made in now attacking the right wing, which we were always accused of working for. IRan Contra gives us an idea, so we now move towards our version of the left.
Among the Hollywood liberals who we attacked like clockwork was Ed Asner and his PAC. Asner was one of our main enemies in the past.
Bush and Cheney come to office which gives us new life as these guys are the new Anti Christ for the left. Lyn proclaims that Bush Sr. put him in Jail while Clinton set him free to save humanity.
Time can make people forget things and lo and behold, Ed Asner gives Lyn a few hundred bucks and shows up at a campaign meeting in Ca..
Since many Hollywood people live in fantasy land, Lyn's fantasies are streamlined and the org purges its history and starts over with LYM. A project is carried out where members in certain areas quietly leave the org and turn up in positions of either journalists for a few papers like Le Monde and The Nation. Other people set up their own traveling road show and hit the jack pot using Larouche and the org's lunacy without naming Lyn. Webster Tarpley and Bill Endghal do this full time.
Jeff Steinberg learned that when crazy conspiracy minded intell people with anti semitic or anti Israeli thinking are bounced out, they like their egos stroked by Lyn and the org. Selective interviews are used and now Lyn's lunacy shows up among ex intell people. This is exposed in many places and what ever criticism made against the US is now tainted with the lunacy of Larouche.
We were great dirty tricks players in the 70's, 80's, 90's and now this time. Real old leftists always hated us becasue we were suspected of being police agents of some type to screw them.
How real that is I do not know. However, we have never turned down an opportunity to be used and we work cheap.
Getting an actor like Beltran is more to legitimise the cult and rewrite our past. The LYM was beig concieved in the uterus when we had our card table shrine signs against <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> and AIDS.
I must see that video where Harley proclaims that Beltran is devoting his life to Lyn. I wonder if Beltran knows that Harley's wife Suzie has two sisters who used to be in the org. They both dropped out, went back to school, got degrees and jobs and had children.
My sense is that Beltran saw some more insanity and hightailed it out before he mortgaged his house to Lyn. If Beltran says any bad things about the cult, expect the cult to say that he was the victim of a Dick Cheney operation to stop Lyn's hegemony.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

kheris (kheris)
01-10-2006, 08:29 PM
I must see that video where Harley proclaims that Beltran is devoting his life to Lyn.
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out how to download the audio or video files, but here is all the info -
Schiller article on the LYM Julius Caesar presentation (http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/shakespeare/Julius_Caesar_panel.html)
The lo speed audio link. (http://larouchepub.com/eirtoc/confpres/2005/pres_day/session_5_en_lo.asx)
The lo-speed video (not very good quality - if you are on cable or DSL try the hi-speed link at the program page) (http://larouchepub.com/eirtoc/confpres/2005/pres_day/session_5_en_vid.asx)
The program agenda including links to the audio and video files (http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2005/Presidents_day/program.html#program)
At about Time Stamp 57 minutes Harley starts talking about the ideas that gave rise to Beltran's proposal for a traveling theater group. At about 1 hour 1 minute Beltran discusses it from his own perspective including his interest in the theater company and the use of drama as an organizing tool, intervention, and an opportunity for Platonic dialogue with the audience. He talks about the concept for about 8 minutes.
At 2 hours 6 minutes (after the performance) Harley starts talking about Beltran's joining the movement, how it came about, and says Robert stated his "main goal is to work for the LaRouche movement."
No one made this up, it is recorded for posterity. Beltran's disappearance from the LaRouche scene is intriguing in view of his apparent commitment, as recorded here.

 

erin_b (erin_b)
02-11-2006, 04:31 AM
Question for ex-members.
How did you get hooked?
I was in a transitional time in my life and didn't know a lot of people. I was opposed to the war in Iraq and was eager to hang out with this political campaign that professed to feel the same way I did about the war.
They were nice for about a day, then they started making more and more demands.
With my personality, I guess there was a little bit of an adrenaline rush when I found out they might be dangerous. I liked arguing with them. I didn't know how to leave when I found out I was trapped.
I never really knew what kind of trouble I was in until I was out of the cult for a while and got some distance from it.
They told me not to read anything about LaRouche that wasn't published by the org. They told me not to read anything that wasn't put out by the org, as it was "bullsh-t". I tried to ignore this. It seemed so simplistic and I always hated people telling me what to do like I couldn't make these decisions for myself. Logic was outnumbered. I didn't know that many people locally. The closest people to me were long distance.
I visited my family that year, a little earlier than the usual holiday season. I talked to some of my family members about it. One of them, I told about LaRouche's book, "Money is an Idiot", and how he and the senior members are always telling the youth that money can't talk to you. They said they thought it was interesting that he felt the need to tell people that money couldn't talk to you. It was funny, all the stupid things I'd noticed that it didn't occur to me that that was odd. It was such a wild, wierd world, that something like that could easily be insignificant.
This was around the time I was kicked out. I really had to talk about it. I don't think my family fully understood how confused I was. I said. "People say he's anti-Semitic." We looked it up on google. A whole bunch of quotes came up by LaRouche that were clearly Anti-Semetic. I'd done it before by myself, but the cult says that's no good because everyone is lying. It still took me a while after that to realize that everyone else isn't lying; the cult is.

 

sancho (sancho)
02-11-2006, 09:22 AM
This cult traps well-meaning (usually young) people who already believe (usually) in the value of the life of the mind and who have a strong sense of justice coupled with a desire to right wrongs. The cult of LaRouche is one-stop shopping for such people: it supplies definitive answers to all life's questions (appealing to the young and/or naive who mistakenly think such a thing possible) and supplies a means at the same time of improving the world. Of course no one group let alone an individual human being has many - let alone all - answers to the big questions. But as you, I was in a transitional period and did not know what my next step was to be when these people entered the picture. I then found it much more convenient to "change the world" rather than to engage in the far more challenging task of changing myself.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-12-2006, 09:43 AM
For Erin and others who read this.
You are absolutely correct in describing the initial experience as an adrenaline rush. When you are in your late teens, there are many paths to take. People who have open hearts and wish to solve some of the more pressing problems can be easily attracted to a group like Larouche's. At the time I started to read their publications, I skimmed the crazy stuff and concentrated on what I believed in. It was refreshing to see an org which wanted scientific progress as the basis to solve mankind's problems. It was great to see an emphasis on classical arts, literature and history. The counterpoint to the other extremes of society were welcomed by me.
When the problems of the world are reduced to simplicity and the solutions are reduced to simplicity, it does intoxicate you with the idea that you are part of a solution.
The lunacy will usually be noticed by people who are skeptical, or cynical or just plain experienced with life. Those of us who are not so jaded will somehow look the other way when the evidence starts rolling in about Lyn's lunacy, the anti semitism, the crazy life and how every criteria for a cult is being met.
If you examine the history of the cult by reading this forum you will see how history has been repeated by Lyn over and over for another wave of recruits.
Poor Steve is probably at a winter's card table shrine now. He thinks he has a future in the org as a researcher or writer. That was promised to everyone by the way. You have this belief that you will be doing heroic things and changing or saving humanity from destruction.
Steve should have a good long talk with the elderly dead ender he will be deploying with. These guys and girls thought they too were going save humanity and now have spent 30 years feeding Lyn and Helga's habits.
Steve is always welcome back when he wises up.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

kheris (kheris)
02-14-2006, 04:07 AM
Has anyone else noticed that there is no announcement of a President's Day Conference? Only a notice that Larouche will be doing a webcast on 2/23?

 

erin_b (erin_b)
02-15-2006, 09:40 PM
Thanks sancho and xlcr for responding to my question. I was just interested in what draws people in.
I regret being so hard on Steve.
I know I didn't know what was going on when I got involved. I know I was deceived. I don't know how to give soemone the benefit of the doubt and still protect myself.
When Steve called me like that, first said he was an ex-member, than began telling me my perceptions about the organization were wrong and it was harmless, it was scary. It was like having one of them start to work on you again.
I know people who know me from other places probably read this stuff. That's too bad. Pretending none of this ever happened would be a mistake.

 

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
02-16-2006, 03:55 AM
"When Steve called me like that, first said he was an ex-member, than began telling me my perceptions about the organization were wrong and it was harmless, it was scary. It was like having one of them start to work on you again."
Erin, that is so creepy that it even creeps me out, and I saw a lot to creep me out.
The cold of winter is a good time to start at a card table shrine for Steve.
xlcr4life@hotmail.com

 

borisbad (borisbad)
02-16-2006, 11:13 AM
When I left the org. many years ago I kind of stayed in its periphery for awhile, reading New Federalist, EIR, etc. because I had "dichotomized" some of its platform with its actual practice and the way it treated people. So I even went to a conference afterwards, and didn't have quite the traumatic exit that others did, being turned upon by former friends and associates, etc. But I remember that there would be occasional contacts from the regional center trying to get me to contribute money (I did the first year for a NF subscription of which I maybe received ten copies over the space of two years) but refused to give the big money. Other times they would try and get me to attend some Schiller event or other "less political" sideshow. But as I came to realize more and more that despite some of the nice ideas like aiding development in the Third World, promoting fusion energy and so on, the reality was simply that these were simply ways to open people's wallets for what counted most, their money or their influence if they happened to be a politician or artist. Finally they stopped calling me altogether when they realized I wasn't going to be a "prime fundraising" target.

 

dave72 (dave72)
02-16-2006, 11:35 AM
I've always felt that the great majority of the members are sincere in what they do. The "dead enders" are some of the most likable people I've known. Beside the seduction of the cult aspects of the org, they are overall an interesting and amiable group of people. There are some overly ambitious creeps in the org, but I've found them in about the same percentage in the corporate world as well. I believe that Larouche is or at least became a messianic whack job and that the org evolved naturally into a cult in order to accommodate this. I think that we are doing a disservice to the future "Steves" out there if we imply that the group has a dirty little secret that they are merely a cult that wants them for fundraising in order to make Lynn and Helga richer. That may be the underlying reality of the group, but it exists beyond the intention of the individual members. Steve may be freezing at card table right now, but he is not likely discovering the "big lie" of the org. In a similar way, I believe that the World Bank and IMF have, or at least had, policies that led to the death of many people, without any member explicitly deciding and shaping policy because they thought that the world could use fewer black and brown people. I'm both comforted and a little frightened by my belief that a lot of the evil in this world (and the org ) exists without any original evil intent by an individual or group of individuals.

 

xylm (xylm)
02-17-2006, 03:38 PM
Ever since ive been acquainted with the LYM (handful of years), they have been fiercely proclaiming a housing market collapse. In contrast, the housing market fiercely ascended during the interim.
I remember, month by month, the predicted collapses which had never occurred. Today, at the housing market's maturity and amidst all the positive speculators, there are some economists predicting a dip, and rightfully so, but none are leaping into full scale economic shutdown predictions as Larouche did! –and today's streak of housing growth is probably the reason their proclamations have faded away.
And as much as we can argue the aforementioned, the end result will always remain: there was no collapse.
But something detrimental did occur, the minds of the new recruits stayed around from month to month on predictions that have only led them into a brainwashed state of mind; thrown vulnerably into a surrounding of the most refined cult indoctrinating techniques.
Whether Enron, Housing Market, or the Iraq War; the Larouche campaign is only riding the waves of media hysteria. With their picks, they throw the most extreme, fear inducing twists and correlate them to past writings to fit Larouche history and "prophecy".
And with all this said, they have transcended their focus from the housing collapse to Alito's Schmitterian policies.

 

sancho (sancho)
02-18-2006, 03:03 AM
I agree with dave72 100%. The evil people in the organization (the LaRouches, Debbie Freeman, Phil Rube - most of the so-called "leadership") regard the good people as "deadenders"? And they then draw in all of these arrogant and ignorant young Turks to revitalize the coffers? F them. Of those "deadenders" I have only the fondest memories, people such as Linda Rogovin and Elliot Greenspan. They are truly among the very best people I have ever known, and I have gotten around a lot in life. I only wish them the very best. Lyndon LaRouche is not worthy of a single one of these noble soldiers.

 

vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on July 24, 2012, at 07:29 AM