SEARCH

edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued 5a


< FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued Three | FACTNET.ORG FORUM | FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued 5b >
From http://factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?11710-LaRouche-Continued-5

01-23-2008 04:17 PM

yamabkad

The latest thread in the fabric. The first post in the thread. May the discussion/demystification continue.

02-08-2008 01:53 AM

scrimscraw

I agree that the general discussion might as well be continued here. The #4 thread is up over 425 posts, which is generally a good time to start a new one.

02-08-2008 02:13 PM

xlcr4life

We started new threads in the older set up because it would take so long for the posts to load up. We can keep this one going for awhile and see if if there are any difficulties in loading.

I would like to see factnet.org place the old place the old threads back up in a "locked" view only and easy to find. This stuff is very valuable to many people, especially current LC/LYM .

Before the change we had someone named zisepsyche posting about his/her experienece in the LYM.

If zisepsyche made it to this thread, I have some questions.

-How were you paid, check or cash?

-Did you pay your bills like rent and utilities or did the local office pay them?

-did you receive a 1099 from your local office?

-did you fill out any IRS forms for exemptions when you officialy joined?

-Did you or anyone else have health insurance from the LYM or local office?

You can PM me if you prefer.

I am going to be posting some info about something called LaroucheCare. After all, the world's greatest economist, historian, scientist should also have a world class health plan for his fine staff of very valuable employees, right? Since the education the yutes are getting from Larouche U is worth quite a small fortune, I would guess that their health care plan would too.

Here is a daily example of what the cult finds so upsetting about the web. On any given day that someone runs into the cult, a person consults friends and others to find out about the cult.

This did not happen in my day which is why we could fool more people, including myself.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Nicola Tan View profile

More options Feb 6, 12:57 am

From: "Nicola Tan" <nicola....@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:57:11 -0800

Local: Wed, Feb 6 2008 12:57 am

Subject: random election question

Who was that guy who used to have people campaigning outside 77 Mass Ave, I guess he's run for president a bunch of times, but I had never heard of him before?

Nick Saenz View profile

More options Feb 7, 9:29 am

From: "Nick Saenz" <nsa...@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 17:29:37 +0300

Local: Thurs, Feb 7 2008 9:29 am

Subject: Re: [c3ck] random election question

Are you thinking of Lyndon LaRouche? He's actually a fascist cult leader...

http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/

And they seemed like such nice people...

Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-08-2008 at 02:16 PM.

02-08-2008 04:18 PM

scrimscraw

Help me out here. I'm just trying to make sense of the latest emissions from the Only Competent One...

Quoting from the just posted "Mitt Romney Walks Out" (accompanied by a nice big photo of Hitler on the LARpac site's front page, more typical vicarious Nazi porn from LHL):

On such matters I enjoy the authority of being the only visible long-range economic forecaster who has been consistently on the mark since 1968. (Do tell. In fact, how about a single example of this accuracy? Even a blind pig finds a truffle now and then.) My "Triple Curve," first published widely since January 1996, has been the only factually validated long-range forecast over the entire interval since. (Oh, tut tut.) Hence I am greatly feared, and therefore hated by both stubborn fools and crafty evil-doers, such as George Shultz and fascist Felix Rohatyn, to the present date. (Wait a sec. If you were indeed turning out accurate long-range forecasts, why would power players fear and hate you? Instead, one would assume that they would take advantage of these accurate long-range forecasts and make a pile of money.)
The U.S.A. is now plunging into the deepest pit it has known since about 1960. (Oh, it's always been doing that! Don't you recall all those accurate forecasts of immediate disaster?) There are actions, actions which conform to the stated intent of our Federal Constitution, by means of which we could do as President Franklin Roosevelt did, to rescue our nation and its people from a presently ongoing plunge which has no visible bottom. As this was made clear in the recorded California gathering of Governors Schwarzenegger and Rendel, Mayor Bloomberg, and the Rockefeller Foundation's Judith Rodin, the policy which they outlined (on recorded camera) was explicitly a fascist "infrastructure" program modeled exactly on the precedents of Mussolini and Hitler, a program which, by its nature, must lead to similar outcomes. However, this time, were the present followers of those fascist intentions to succeed in gaining the U.S. Presidency, they and their British masters would be soon destroyed utterly by the results of their own choice of economic policy. (So, what's the problem? If Bloomberg is elected, he and his (their??) "British masters" will be "destroyed utterly"--in fact, they will self-destruct. Soooo...by your own logic, the most direct route to the self-destruction of the British cabal is to let Bloomberg take power. Hmm?)
The word to the wise citizen has thus been given to you. The rest, you should be capable of thinking through, yourself. (Yes, but it makes my brain hurt.)

Last edited by scrimscraw; 02-08-2008 at 04:20 PM.

02-08-2008 08:58 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by scrimscraw
Help me out here. I'm just trying to make sense of the latest emissions from the Only Competent One...
Here is how you decipher all of this. Lyn has a basic cheap parlor trick for yutes which started in the 1960s and is based on a simple method as you will see. The trick stays the same, but the props change as time and the audience change.''

In the 1960s to mid 1970s when the LC was recruiting yutes who wanted a socialist revolution, Lyn used this cheap parlor trick.

S/C+V and S'/C+V

What happend is that Lyn CORRECTED the errors of Marxists as he was the only intellectual giant who could do this. In this era, Lyn and the LC were able to make trust funds revolt from the yutes.

In the later part of the 1970s, Marx was dead and Lyn now became an expert on "American System" economics and added "Hamiltonian" to any word to show yutes back then how he was the expert who corrected the errors of founding fathers and would bring them back. In this economic model you have more income made at card table shrines by clean looking LC members than a bearded SDS LCer in a T shirt. We had a picture of Don Buck holding some of our 10 cent New Solidarities chasing a professor in many of our "Strategy for Socialism" articles. A T shirt does not cut it at an airport or post office in suburbia.

As we entered the 1980s and Reagan was the president, we now had fundraising lists of people with more money and we needed to sell them something. Lyn took some work by Uwe Henke who knew something about Riemann and created a real great illusion for the LC called the "Larouche-Riemann" economic model. This was a masterpiece cheap parlor trick by Lyn as we were now selling $250 dollar Quarterly Economic reports to people. The trick was that if you bought one, you probably got one that was a few quarters old as we were jerking around the money for publications and sent these things out haphazardly. To the LC this was a sort of litmus test of suspension of belief because no matter what quarter you picked up, the finale was always the same of impending doom and crash which only Lyn could direct the elites in saving humanity. For members the real fun was to ask someone to actually explain the Larouche/Riemann model and what you usualy got was a zombie look from them. The whole point of this was to attack any economists as incompetent with Lyn being the greatest economist in the world.

Dave G tried to make sense of this lunacy until he left. He and Lyn wrote a book about Milton Friedman that we sold. That is another hilaroius story as that book was part of a book club we set up and used promisorry notes to finance. You can see ads for the book club on some of the publications back then. Dave G left and he is a big investment banker now. The book we wrote had nothing mentioned about Freidman that you could analyze and was just another Britsh invasion book by lyn. Whennth ebook came out I spotted a copy of Feeidman's book "Free to choose" at a bookstore and after reading a few pages I wondered WTF were we talking about.

People who tried to use the model to do something found that when you inputted data, what you got was gibberish instead of a highly polished prognostication. Once I asked Uwe Henke that if he is this smart in math, couldn't he make some money in investing. He gave me a sneer, but years later, he ended up being an investment banker, just like Dave G.

The Marxist Lyn used the tricks to seperate trust funds from radical yutes. The American System Lyn used the tricks to seperate trust funds from conservative widows.

The late 1980s and early 1990s saw Lyn learn abut the economics of prison life and the focus on the LC work was using Rev Bevel and the methods of the Moonies to resurrect Lyn from prison. The 30 million we hijacked was quickly forgotten and the order of the day was full page ads and numerous commissions to prove that lyn was innocent.

I do not think a one slime dime was used to repay our victims. Please correct me Barbara with the facts and figures if I am wrong. The forum is open for you and Nancy.

When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 lyn got a new idea and changed the trick again for the newer generaton of early yutes. Taking the slogan "It's the economy stupid", lyn had a phrase for the yutes called "The physical economy". This was hillarious to see as I began to read early web blogs by people who would report a wild eyed yute running up to them and warning about the physical economy. The person usually would ask them to look around 360 degrees and report what was not there becuae of the lack of the physical economy. This worked on yutes because everything lyn does to a yute is based on telling them bad stories at night time to give them nightmares. You are in a class, half dazed until late into the night listening to someone who has no idea of a job or a business and 10 cents in his pocket telling a yute with 5 cents in his pocket about jobs and exports. We have yutes who have no idea that many parts of a big project are built in many palces and final assembly is just that. The engineering, design and countless other tasks which are not part of a "physical economy" generate jobs and revenue.

Lyn always had a crisis at hand to use on a yute from the dollar crisis in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 2000, inflation, oil crisis, S/L problems, Asian stock markets, tech stocks, and now sub prime loans. Every crisis has some connection to some elaborate conspiracy which of course he is the only one who knows about and you are the only one who can stop it. This never ends and in between you throw in nuclear war and mass deaths and you pretty much have a yute scared to death at the real world.

Form the physical economy came the "triple curve" which also is kaput when real numbers begin to be used. In the real world, spending and investments are fluid. Yu can raise the price of oil and you reach a point where so many other means of energy production and invention now become viable and investments increase at a massive clip into those fields. The only thing Lyn can predict long term is that you will be at a card table shrine for many decades and we have shown you pictures of members who joined in the 1970s when we were Marxists who are still there today!

The next trick Lyn is playing now is "Two Tiered Credit" and he links himself to China to infer that the Chinese agree with him. Lyn and yutes will yap about two tiered credit for infrastructure. For a yute with no real life experience there is no knowledge that we have a multi tiered system of credit allready in existence. We have tax free municipal bonds, bonding agencies, gas taxes, IPOs, consumer credit, mortgage credit, short and long term lines of credit, stocks, preferred stocks, corporate bonds, debt swaps for equity and other ways of generating capital.

All of lyn's tricks are to scare a yute so that they do not run away from their new 8 yute to a room home.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com
Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-08-2008 at 09:10 PM.

02-10-2008 12:58 AM

wassel

Rule by one man is rule by one man, no matter how you cut it. And the overwhelming experience of the human race is that it doesn't work. The Larouche experience is simply one more piece of corroborating evidence in the matter. But it is not Lyn alone who was/is responsible for the LC's troubles in this regard. But to me the real question is, 'do we get a second chance?'

02-10-2008 01:11 AM

gladtobexlc

Originally Posted by wassel
But to me the real question is, 'do we get a second chance?
'

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Do you mean, does the LC get a second chance?

02-11-2008 03:56 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by gladtobexlc
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Do you mean, does the LC get a second chance?
A second chance for the LC is called parole. Lyn went right back to what he has spent his life doing which is leaching off of others using a basic collection of cheap parlor tricks over and over like all good bunko artists do.

The LC sure did not give the hundreds of elderly supporters a second chance to get their money back and live in peace after we got through with them. Jeremiah Duggan never got a second chance to go back to school and live another 75 years.

Here is a blog which shows how the yutes are right on the trail of the Bolomberg conspirqacy, in behalf of the Ango/Dutch, to make Obama popular and then shut him down so George Schultz and Felix Roahatyn can defeat Lyn and install a New Dark Ages for humanity.

http://www.crosscut.com/blog/mossback/11441/Lyndon+LaRouche+in+a+nutshell/

Lyndon LaRouche in a nutshell
By Knute Berger

Barack Obama isn't the only anti-war politician who thinks we're at a pivotal point in history and is inspiring young people to rally to his cause. There's Lyndon LaRouche. Outside the Obama rally at Seattle Center last week, the LaRoushies were handing out brochures of their leader's prose, as they do at various locations around town including my friendly neighborhood market. I've been amazed at how many young people have signed on to his cause, but try as I might, I've been unable to grasp what LaRouche wants to accomplish. Which probably makes me, in LaRouche's terminology (perhaps echoing the Bill Gates of old), an "idiot."

Spend some time trying to work your way through a piece — even a paragraph — of LaRouche literature and you'll find yourself buried in an avalanche of predictions about the looming end times. Civilization, he says, will collapse this year. To make the case, he offers wearying details, historical asides, and an account of the international conspiracies that brought us here.

His rants are peppered with a dizzying array of references to international accords made or sabotaged: the Bretton Woods Agreement, the Maastricht Treaty, the Peace of Paris of 1763 — and don't forget the 1647 Peace of Westphalia! They are also spiced with insults and conspiracy theories. Al Gore is fat and the "exemplification of evil." Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, really wears the pants in the family and Dick is merely her puppet. She takes her orders from The Fabian Society and is a British spy. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "owned" by fascist sympathizers. And the Anglo-Dutch alliance that helped Mussolini to power is seeking to put New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at the head of a new totalitarian regime. At least, I think so.

LaRouche — like Ross Perot — also likes charts and graphs, including one he called "The Triple Curve." The gist of them is that we're issuing too much money, productivity is declining, and the whole world is about to enter bankruptcy court. Only an agreement on a new financial system between the U.S., Russia, India, and China can help avert complete disaster. Unfortunately, America's youth isn't rushing to the rescue because they are being trained to kill by our corporate masters via computer games or being brainwashed on social networking Web sites. The perennial presidential candidate is not running this year, but he is leading a "movement." Just don't expect any MySpace meet-ups.

Though time is short and the situation dire, LaRouche cannot bring himself to explain what's happening in simple terms. Civilization will likely collapse long before Larouche has finished expounding on the nature of the crisis. You can blame Barack Obama for being short on specifics, but not Lyndon LaRouche.

You know yutes, it was a lot easier to be just against the Rockefellers in the 1970s then to have to peddle this lunacy over and over. Back then, there were more of us and no coverage except a few teeny articles. Today, there are very few of you and a whole world wide distribution of Lyn's delusions for the masses to read and view. Have you figured out the correlations yet?

xlcr4life@hotmail.com
Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-11-2008 at 04:09 PM.

02-12-2008 06:46 AM

eaglebeak

Nostradamus He Ain't

Here's a hilarious few excerpts from the briefing of January 8--merely a month ago, and look how everything Lyn predicted--oops, make that forecast--has come true. Or not.

Thus did Lyndon LaRouche characterize [a bipartisan summit in Oklahoma]...

Four days after the Iowa caucuses and on the eve of the New Hampshire primary today, the meeting was clearly organized for one purpose only--to provide Michael Bloomberg and his pending independent candidacy with a national and international platform. Although all of the participants at the summt denied that they were promoting any one candidate, and Bloomberg himself was silent on the subject, their silence itself merely heightened the speculation that Bloomberg would run. And that was the design of the meeting, which Lyn further characterized as a Bloomberg election rally.

This is precisely what Lyn has accurately warned would happen. First, on May 13, 2007, in the response to an interview with Chuck Hagel on CBS's Face the Nation, Lyn warned that the accelerated primary schedule would create rage in the population against the candidates of the two major parties, thus bringing an end to the two-party system and creating conditions of ungovernability in the U.S. ...

And finally, in addressing this past weekend's French cadre school Lyn further warned that Barack Obama is being built up in order to be chopped down as another step in the furtherance of the Bloomberg independent candidacy. This has also now been proven to be absolutely the case.

What a total hoot!

Obviously, Lyn's unprecedented and history-making prescience hinges on the twin facts that Bloomberg is the perfect Fuehrer figure, with his tremendous charisma and spell-binding oratory (poor Obama, trying to go up against all that....), and that an enraged population, furious at Obama for the shortened primary schedule, is preparing to hurl itself into the arms of Bloomberg, sinister in the wings, plotting hyperinflationary explosion coupled with depression collapse.

Or he would be plotting it, if it all hadn't already happened years ago. As Lyn accurately forecast.

And so, congratulations to William Wertz/Lyndon LaRouche/Helga Zepp-LaRouche/and of course KRN, on producing one for the ages. But they couldn't have done it without You Know Who.

Last edited by eaglebeak; 02-12-2008 at 06:48 AM. Reason: spelling

02-12-2008 04:30 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by eaglebeak
This is precisely what Lyn has accurately warned would happen. First, on May 13, 2007, in the response to an interview with Chuck Hagel on CBS's Face the Nation, Lyn warned that the accelerated primary schedule would create rage in the population against the candidates of the two major parties, thus bringing an end to the two-party system and creating conditions of ungovernability in the U.S. ...
When that briefing first came out I just had to show how it is a cheap parlor trick by Lyn for the yutes. In one commatose sentence of creative mentation, Lyn is able to dismiss all of the candidates and place himself as the saviour by denigrating everyone else. Gee, that sure sounds familiar if you have been in the LC/LYM or been following these threads. Lyn can also continue the 24/7 life of endless New Dark Ages nightmare bed time stories to the yutes to keep them going on thje treadmill. No matter who is a candidate does not matter since lyn can predict that each move was a calculated pre ordained move by the oligarchy because of the upcoming crash.

For naive yutes who think singing in front of a building for spare change determines elections, this is all believable. The only prediction a yute can make is that they will be in a new flat after they get thrown out of the old one like clockwork.

The real ungovernable situation is in Leesburg as Lyn holds on the LC/LYM with a death grip worthy of an Edgar Allen Poe story while Jeff tries to Launch "The Jeff Steinberg Report" to salvage what he can from current and former members as Helga wonders who will provide shopping mall money.

Yo yutes, do you have any BAE leaflets and pamphlets around to see how that was supposed to bring the oligarchy down? DId you receive your 1099s yet?

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-12-2008 05:25 PM

shadok

1983: Nuclear Armageddon

In June last year I posted something about our possible role into what could have triggered the first Nuclear holocaust:

For those who were born before the Fall of the Berlin wall and were campaigning against the Soviet nuclear Armageddon... just this info I read at the time:

Oleg Gordievsky, a KGB defector, revealed (I quote) that during a November 1983 NATO exercise, to enable the Western alliance to practice its nuclear release procedures, the Soviets responded to the manuever by going into an "ill-founded panic," since they believed that "belligerent imperialist circles in the U.S.A. are getting ready for war, and are preparing new weapons systems which could render a sudden attack feasible." (ie the march '83 Reagan's "Strategic Defense Initiative", SDI aka "Star wars") As a result of this "panic," Gordievsky claims, on or about Nov. 8-9 (1983), the world "really passed through a war danger."

I cannot help not to think that these "belligerent imperialist circles in the U.S.A." associated to the SDI, were also connected to ours. We were all over the place at the time, officially invited to speak about the Reagan/Larouche's SDI. But in August that year, irresponsible larouche wrote an Open letter to Soviet leader Yuri Andropov: "YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO PLUNGE THE WORLD INTO WAR", because of his rejection of Reagan's sdi proposal. Then, in November these NATO maneuvers took place and were perceived by the Soviet KGB as a possible cover or preparation for a US military offensive...
Full quote at: http://forum.laroucheplanet.info/comments.php?DiscussionID=9&Focus=2205#Comment_2205

NOW IF YOU RE INTERESTED TO KNOW THE REAL FULL STORY, HAVE A LOOK AT: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1630001170436508560

WE REALLY WERE AT A PRESS OF A BUTTON FROM A NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION THAT WOULD HAVE KILLED MILLIONS.... THIS DOCUMENTARY (1983: The Brink Of Apocalypse) INTERVIEWS REAL ACTORS FROM THAT PERIOD AND IT IS... SCARY. (especially for those of us who were involved in these campaigns)
OUR ANALYSIS ABOUT USSR WAS ALL WRONG. THE RUSSIANS HAD NO INTENTIONS OR MEANS TO START AN OFFENSIVE WAR. THEIR LEADERSHIP WAS OLD, ILL AND DYING. OUR WARMONGERING HATEFUL CAMPAIGNS SENT THEM A MESSAGE THAT WE, IN THE WEST, WERE LOOKING FOR A PRETEXT TO START SUCH A NUCLEAR WAR.
RUSSIANS ALWAYS REMEMBER OPERATION BARBAROSSA...
THANK GOD, ONE RUSSIAN MILITARY OFFICER DIDN'T PRESS THE BUTTON!
NO JOKE!!!!

02-13-2008 01:49 AM

wassel

is there a text version of this? i tried watching the boob stuff but doing tv is simply more self-degradation than i can take.

Last edited by wassel; 02-13-2008 at 01:54 AM.

02-14-2008 12:11 AM

borisbad

I listen to a radio analyst called Dave Emory who has all sorts of interesting programs on the continued existence of fascism and Nazism post war, the connections to organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, various banking arms out of Switzerland, etc. Some of it sounds like EIR but alot of it is well documented and he is not trying to build a "movement" but rather educate people. In any event, his guest yesterday was an author of a compendium of the Kennedy (JFK) assassination and a lot of it had to do with things that came out during the Garrison hearings in New Orleans. Seems that Lee Harvey Oswald, the so-called defector and commie shared an office in NO with a notorious right-wing anti-communist, former FBI agent. Seems he also had some interesting right wingers, such as George Lincoln Rockwell, in his address book. This was written up by writer, Paris Flammonde in Kennedy Conspiracy and Assassination of America. Anyway, I'm listening to the guest talk about Oswald's right wing connections when the guy starts talking about how names like GLR turned up in Oswald's possession with his address and then he mentions LaRouche's old friend, Roy Frankhouser who was also hooked up to the American Nazi Party through his role with the KKK. Funny how LaRouche never mentioned that when he talks about the Kennedy Assassination.

02-14-2008 12:14 AM

borisbad

Roy Frankhouser and LaRouche

Looking up Frankhouser I came across this interesting tidbit in the NY Times from 1987 about how Frankhouser deceived LaRouche stating he was monitoring right wing groups while he was actually at some convention.
NY Times 12/10/87
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDF1F39F933A25751C1A961948260
LEAD: A neo-Nazi hired for security by Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the political extremist who frequently runs for President, bilked and ridiculed Mr. LaRouche and his associates, according to testimony and statements in the man's trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

A neo-Nazi hired for security by Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the political extremist who frequently runs for President, bilked and ridiculed Mr. LaRouche and his associates, according to testimony and statements in the man's trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The man, Roy E. Frankhouser Jr., was sent by Mr. LaRouche to Boston in November 1984 to check on the progress of a Federal investigation into possible credit card fraud by LaRouche campaign workers. But Mr. Frankhouser, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, and two other members of a security team apparently went instead to a convention of fans of the television series Star Trek, being held in Scranton, Pa.

Mr. Frankhouser's conduct that weekend has no direct bearing on the charges against him but offers new insights into operation of the LaRouche organization. Mr. LaRouche, five aides and five related organizations are scheduled to go on trial here Monday before Judge Robert E. Keeton, who is also hearing the Frankhouser case.

According to testimony and other evidence in the trial, on Nov. 10, 1984, Mr. Frankhouser called the LaRouche headquarters in Leesburg, Va., from Scranton and claimed to be in Boston. According to the notes of a LaRouche aide that were later seized by the Government, Mr. Frankhouser reported from Scranton that there were Feds all over in Boston, and wiretaps on the phones of LaRouche workers. Jury Begins Deliberations

The testimony and notes were reviewed today in the closing arguments of the prosecution and the defense. Mr. Frankhouser, 48 years old, was charged in October 1986 along with 10 associates of Mr. LaRouche, when members of the LaRouche organization allegedly burned crucial papers and spirited potential witnesses out of the country to block a Federal grand jury's investigation into charges of credit card fraud.

The LaRouche workers are said to have made unauthorized charges of hundreds or thousands of dollars to the credit cards of contributors, or simply persons who had used their credit cards to buy LaRouche-affiliated publications.

Mr. LaRouche himself was added to the case in June 1987 and charged with obstruction of justice, but the case of Mr. Frankhouser was severed. A jury of seven women and five men deliberated for about an hour this afternoon and will resume Thursday.

The prosecutor, John J. E. Markham 2d, an assistant United States attorney, quoted in his closing arguments from the notes of a LaRouche aide containing advice from Mr. Frankhouser that your people in Boston should be unavailable - not there. 'A Little Ruse Going'

The prosecutor also cited frequent references in the notes of LaRouche aides that Mr. Frankhouser's advice on certain records was 451-F, a reference to the temperature on the Fahrenheit scale at which paper burns. According to the notes, the purpose of destroying or moving records was to prevent the investigators from linking Mr. LaRouche to a crime.

But Mr. Frankhouser's lawyer, Owen Walker, said his client had found the LaRouche workers gullible and had decided to take advantage of them.

Mr. Frankhouser had a little ruse going, said Mr. Walker, declaring that there had been a conspiracy to obstruct justice but that his client had not been part of it. The LaRouchites have had a history of threats, wrongdoing and obstruction of justice for years, said Mr. Walker. He cited sections of notebooks seized from the LaRouche headquarters calling for attacks on various individuals.

Mr. Walker maintained that his client had been trying to make them behave themselves and had counseled repaying some of those whose credit cards had been illegally billed. Allusion to Talking Horse

According to testimony here, Mr. Frankhouser, who was paid $500 a week by the LaRouche organization, at one point invented a source in the Government who leaked details of planned investigations. Mr. Frankhouser referred to the source as Ed, a name he chose as a reference to Mr. Ed, the talking horse.

02-14-2008 12:15 AM

borisbad

Roy Frankhouser and "Mr. Ed"

NY Times 12/10/87 continued...
Mr. Markham argued that rational people would have been skeptical over the report given by Mr. Frankhouser from the Star Trek convention, but we're not dealing with rational people in that sense. We're dealing with a scared cult, a cult that believes everybody is out to get them.

This is a paranoid group of individuals that is scared of everybody, the Queen of England, Henry Kissinger, the Pope, he said. Mr. LaRouche has accused Queen Elizabeth II of involvement in drug dealing, and said that Henry Kissinger is a Soviet agent. Earlier in the trial, some of the testimony described a discussion of whether Mr. Kissinger, a former Secretary of State, could be assassinated.

Two lawyers for Mr. LaRouche and one of the other defendants in the trial to begin Monday, Edward Spannaus, sat in the first row in the audience and took notes on the arguments today.

Mr. LaRouche has a long history of radical political activity, ranging from extreme left to extreme right to somewhere that defies that categorization.

According to the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which tracks extremists, Mr. Frankhouser was a protege of the late George Lincoln Rockwell in the American Nazi Party in the early 1960's and later became the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan for Pennsylvania.

Mr. Frankhouser also figured in the 1965 suicide of Daniel Burros, a Nazi who was Jewish. Mr. Burros shot himself in Mr. Frankhouser's living room, in his home in Reading, Pa., as Mr. Frankhouser, who was in the room, sought to dissuade him.

02-14-2008 04:34 AM

eaglebeak

A Surpassingly Silly Man

From the NEC/LYM meeting on Tuesday evening, Jan. 29, 2008:

I don't want to bore you into a stupor by quoting long sections of this report in the January 30 "briefing," so I'll make it truly brief:

Lyn reiterated that Obama is merely in there to be the spoiler against Hillary--not to be the actual nominee. If they get a deadlocked convention, don't be surprised to see the Democrats march in Bloomberg to be the nominee. And then we'd have Lenora Fulani as his Condi Rice. The architects of the Bloomberg option seem to have gotten stuck on Charlie Chaplin's version of Mussolini, from the Great Dictator.

Actually, kids, be more than surprised. Michael Bloomberg left the Democratic Party to become a Republican to run for Mayor of New York in the wake of Republican Rudy Giuliani. (He has since left the GOP to become an independent.) So I, for one, would be quite surprised to see the Democratic Party anoint as its nominee someone who is not a Democrat, for whom no Democrat has voted in the primaries, and for whom the polls are not tolling, as it were.

Even though Lyn has recently informed us that Bloomberg's moving "like a juggernaut."

The funny thing about Lyn--or rather, one funny thing about Lyn--is that he has absolutely no conception of American politics, the American system of government, or how any of this works. That's the only way to explain how he managed to waste 40 years of everyone's time, untold millions of dollars (as XLCR points out), and a number of lives--and get absolutely nowhere politically in this country.

It must've been hard to do, but by golly, he did it!

And did you like the part about Lenora Fulani becoming Bloomberg's Condi Rice? Who said LaRouche is not a racist misogynist? He's noticed two things about Condoleezza Rice (not "Condi" to you, Mr. L)--she's black and she's female. Whoa! So's Lenora Fulani. So, QED.

What a prince! Don't believe him, kids, if he ever talks to you about individual sovereignty. Not only can't he spell sovereignty, he can't understand it. He can't differentiate between Rice and Fulani. All interchangeable to him.

In any case, LaRouche's forecast of a Bloombergini future for us (or is it the Archduke Bloomberg, five feet tall with his spitzhalm?) is about as convincing as his other nostrums, past, present, and to come.

Which reminds me--I've been meaning to mention it--have you noticed the Triple Curve has no numbers on it? Hmm. Whaddya think that means?

02-14-2008 03:42 PM

borisbad

My image of LaRouche in his role as world's leading economist, world's leading strategist, world's leading music critic, etc. is of a guy who sits in front of a TV set or reads a paper and happens on some public figure speaking, like Chuck Hagel on Meet the Nation and gets a tick to respond. A normal person would perhaps write a letter to the editor or perhaps dash off a note to Congress. But not LaRouche, he thinks the world is waiting for his response so that he must make his world historic pronouncement on the subject, so ouila, he writes about how Bloomberg is going to be appointed a bonapartist leader of the US. Funny how he can't simply understand that Hillary Clinton is unravelling of her own accord and there doesn't have to be any orchestrated conspriacy to cause her campaign to falter. Wonder if the LYM is going to go all out and mobilize for Hillary in Texas and Pennsyvlania to "save the republic."

02-14-2008 05:49 PM

xlcr4life

When ever I see Grandpa Simpson start off going crazy about some topic, like the sun shining, I think of Lyn . Rambling stories which don't go anywhere. Endless confusion with time periods mixed up.

Just read these Grandpa SImpson quotes and see if they differ from Lyn.

Mr. burns: so do you have a way to get rid of the protesters?

"We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell them stories that don't go anywhere. Like the time I took the fairy to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe so I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on them. Give me five bees for a quarter you'd say. Now where were we, oh ya. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because if the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones."

"I'll join! I'm filled with p*ss and vinegar. At first I was just filled with vinegar."

"Ah , there's an interesting story behind this nickle. In 1957 I remember it was, I got up in the moring and made myself a peice of toast. I set the toaster to three, medium brown."

"I leave these: a box of mint-condition 1918 liberty-head silver dollars. You see, back in those days, rich men would ride around in Zeppelins, dropping coins on people, and one day I seen J. D. Rockefeller flying by. So I run of the house with a big washtub and, where are you going?"

Lisa: "You're a member of the Stonecutters Grampa?"

Grampa: "Oh, sure. Let's see, I'm an elk, a Mason, a communist. I'm the president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance for some reason. Ah, here it is. The Stonecutters

Bart: "So how do you know so much about American history?"

Grampa: "I pieced it together, mostly from sugar packets."

Lisa: "Oh, Grampa! You're not busy, are you?"

Grampa: "Well, you're really asking two questions there. The first one takes me back to 1934. Admiral Byrd had just reached the pole, only hours ahead of the Three Stooges ... and I guess he won the argument, but I walked away with the turnips. The following morning, I resigned my commission in the Coast Guard. The next thing I heard, there was civil war in Spain ... and, that's everything that happened in my life right up to the time I got this phone call."

This sounds like Lyn on a web cast with the Q/A with the LYM.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Attached Images lyn.jpg‎ (13.9 KB, 8 views)

Last edited by xlcr4life; 08-12-2009 at 02:22 PM.

02-14-2008 08:18 PM

scrimscraw

LOL!!!

I'll post something more substantial soon, but my DSL keeps dropping every 10 minutes, so until that's fixed, mum's the word.

02-15-2008 04:14 AM

wassel

great stuff! is it from the Simpsons or did you write it yourself?

02-15-2008 04:22 AM

scrimscraw

The wackiness continues...

Monadology!

WHAT IS A "MONAD"? My Early Encounter with Leibniz: ON MONADOLOGY
At my present age of eighty-five, I retain a happily vibrant sense of what are, probably, the remaining productive years now ahead of me. However, I dare not ignore the prudence of saying now what it will be important that I would have said, while the opportunity still remains for me to do so. I sense, thus, the duty of identifying some of the most important among the deeper roots of those most precious conceptions now urgently needed for the use of the leading intellectual strata of representatives of present adolescent and young-adult generations. The origin of the most central, fundamental, and most memorable of those deeper roots of my presently knowledgeable outlook, is to be located in my reaction to a study, dating, from my adolescence, on the subject of Gottfried Leibniz's concept of the Monadology. That is, essentially, the subject of my concern here. There are, thus, certain special ideas which I intend, as if each were a poem,[1] to be a heritage to be placed at the disposal of, especially, my wife Helga, with whom I share something special of great value on this account; but, these matters, such as my adolescent discovery of the meaning of Leibniz's Monadology, must become shared, especially, by all those others among my associates generally, who have committed themselves to faithful promotion of that same kind of intended benefit for all present and future humanity. The text of the Monadology is, of course, available to those who will seek out its spark of genius; but, the way in which I came to experience it, and to probe its implications ever more deeply over the decades since my adolescence, is an experience which is rarely encountered among those living persons whose world outlook has been dominated by the cultural ruins left by the post-1968 European civilization of today; that will remain the prevalent condition, until more among us do as I have done, work to convey to others, especially the young adult generation of leaders emerging today, a sense of that specific quality of Promethean spark by which men and women may be freed from the chains of Sophistry.

At least now they are admitting:

This is an unedited draft.

I especially love that last sentence in LHL's introductory paragraph above.

the way in which I came to experience it, and to probe its implications ever more deeply over the decades since my adolescence, is an experience which is rarely encountered among those living persons whose world outlook has been dominated by the cultural ruins left by the post-1968 European civilization of today

Great stuff. Don't know if I can stand to wallow through the whole rehashed article though.

02-15-2008 09:51 AM

exELC1973

Originally Posted by xlcr4life
When ever I see Grandpa Simpson start off going crazy about some topic, like the sun shining, I think of Lyn .

Great ! you are a specialist of Lynslang indeed !

02-15-2008 03:23 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by wassel

great stuff! is it from the Simpsons or did you write it yourself?
Those quotes come from web sites devoted to quoting the Simpsons. Grandpa Simpson has so many great lines that you just have to ggole his name and quotes to find them. I was going to put up some of the video of these, but FOX has forced YouTube to remove them.

Lyn and Grandpa Simpson have a long time link at the heart.

http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_01/002987.php

January 8, 2004
THE TENTH CANDIDATE....Brian Montopoli on hearing Lyndon LaRouche on TV last night:

I felt like I was listening to Grandpa Simpson, only with more historical references. It was kind of a disappointment, actually, though--I was expecting a little more charisma, perhaps a crazy new laser based mail system or maybe something involving aliens and a secret handshake. I mean, LaRouche was strange, don't get me wrong. The magnetic levitation thing was great. I was just hoping he'd go a little further over the edge.

By an odd chance, a good friend of mine has two sisters who have worked for LaRouche for about 20 years, so I periodically hear all kinds of stories about the LaRouche organization. One of the oddest is that he doesn't confine himself to politics and current events, but also has firm opinions on cultural and artistic matters. If you're a dedicated LaRouchie there are certain composers you're supposed to like, certain artists, certain colors, certain nationalities, etc. I suppose it's not much different from any other nutball cult, but it's definitely entertaining.

And don't forget about Queen Elizabeth and the cocaine trade....

If all goes well , I will be posting The Mother of all Cheap Parlor Tricks by Lyn later. After a yute gets fooled by the initial cheap parlor tricks, Lyn pulls the greatest sleigh of hand yet. Always keep in mind that the tricks are for the internal audience which wants to believe that Lyn is an economist, statesmen, scientist and over all saviuor of mankind.

When you go to Las Vegas or anywhere else and pay good money to see a magician, you need to suspend belief to enjoy the show. You see the fire, the girls and something vanishing. You know that no one has magical powers, but for those few hours you enjoy the show and then leave wondering how it was pulled off. In the LC/LYM you have some people who have not figured it out for decades and decades and decades.

Lyn has been doing this trick his whole adult life, first practising it on the SWP and then finding out that an internal audience who want to believe the trick makes for a better show.

Just like in magic shows where you see the box , but can not measure it or inspect it with real dimensions, Lyn does the same thing with this trick.

Hint:

How come you do not see real numbers on the fantastic trick called The Triple Curve?

We will have the answers later.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-15-2008 05:07 PM

exELC1973

Originally Posted by borisbad
he thinks the world is waiting for his response so that he must make his world historic pronouncement on the subject, so ouila, he writes about how Bloomberg is going to be appointed a bonapartist leader of the US."

If you want to understand what LHL's statements mean, you must allways ask the right question. Not "why?" but "what for?". Concerning Bloomberg, the question is not "why does Larouche hate Bloomberg?". But "what is he focusing on a jewish bilionnaire for ? because he hates...bilionnaires?"
He only cares for the effect of his pronoucements... If you try yo find out the cause, you'll miss the case.

02-15-2008 07:30 PM

scrimscraw

Let's Twist Again, Like We Did Last Summer

Originally Posted by exELC1973
He only cares for the effect of his pronoucements... If you try to find out the cause, you'll miss the case.

Probably so, though it does occur to me that the biggest cause of his ire against "social networking sites" may well be this site, as well as embarrassing videos posted to YouTube, etc. But I think xlcr4life pointed that out already.

Seems to me like much of his repeating his "analysis" over and over is akin to street schizos talking to themselves and trying to anchor their worldview through repetition. "Let me go through this Leibnitz business for the 500th time, just to make sure it is out there for "the young adult generation of leaders emerging today"...

One would think that he would be bored out of his skull by now.

02-15-2008 09:20 PM

xlcr4life

"Which reminds me--I've been meaning to mention it--have you noticed the Triple Curve has no numbers on it? Hmm. Whaddya think that means/

That is a good question Eaglebeak and one in which a few people have emailed me with the answers. It seems that we have

The Mother of All Cheap Parlor Tricks

To see why we say this, an email was sent to me by one our many readers who asked him/her self "why does Lyn and the cult use an economic model with no data in it"?

The answer is pretty easy to see once you examine the history of Lyn and how he operates. What Lyn has done is have the yutes go out and raise money to keep his precious body fluids alive by having them hustle at card table shrines. Instead of Three Card Monte, Lyn has them doing the Triple Curve Monte in the final zenith of his trickery.

All illusionists have tricks they have been using for years. It is an insult to call Lyn an illusionist as I think delusionist is more appropriate. A good illusionist can create a trick and refine it every few years for new audiences. After all, you can't go touring with the same tricks and you can't run a cult using the same tricks either.

What you will see at the bottom of this post are two graphs. One is Lyn's Triple Curve Monte while the other is a graph sent to me using real economic data to show what the US Economy has actully measured at for the past 60 + years. We will explain some of that graph after we have a brief history lesson of how a cheap parlor trick has evolved by Lyn.

When Lyn first came upon the SWP he found that as the reams of his writings increased, the interest went down. No one there needed his predictions or analysis about the economy since everyone knew that Capitalism was supposed to end anyways. For Lyn, he had the wrong demographics and as he wrote, he figured he could start his own operation. Not much occured in the early 1960s as he had his wife to support him and could teach at a free school as the JFK economy grew. Vietnam was more important than economics on campus until we reached some problems and Lyn found that predicting the end of Captialism worked on college students as the economy was undergoing changes and he could provide all of the answers.

For the socialist crowd, Lyn was the Marxists who had an economic model for them to use. Good ol S/C+V was the model and I learned about it when I attended LC classes in smelly , filthy offices filled with chain smoking members.

S/C+V had

S as Surplus Capital, available after all of the means of production were completed

C was constant Capital, the machinery.

V was the variable Capital, the woikers.

Out of this you could predict the end of Capitism and how Rockefeller had to be defeated. At no time did anyone ask to see real data and what this model would do. Between the brainwashing capers and Rockefeller, the solution for yutes of that era was to grab some New Solidarities and go raise money at the local UE center and do a walking tour in a bad neighborhood in the evening.

Once Lyn burnt out that demographic, we dumped communism/socialism , registered as Democrats and became American System folks . This version of the LC could not sell a Marxist model to our conservative boiling lists and thus Lyn took the first trick, dumped that and installed The Larouche Riemann Model as the new economic forecaster for us to use. I caught the tail end of the first trick and now was in the middle of this one. This new and improved model was capable of doing three month forecasting which always seemed to have the Russians doing better than the USA, unless Lyn was in the White House. I was still a naive yute who asked the local NC that if the LHL/Reimann model is so good, why can't we just use the forecasting to make gobs of money in various markets instead of having to raise money aorund the clock? I was yelled at pretty good as that is all irrelevant unless Lyn wins the White House and the solution to economic collapse was to send clean cut yutes to airport card table shrines to sell 250 dollar LHL/Riemann forecasting EIR special Reports and borrow gobs of money and not pay it back. I asked later that if we have such a great model , why can't we make a fortune off of the markets in the sectors we write about and then take that cash and buy up office buildings and apt houses dirt cheap when that market collapses. After all, Lyn was saying that you will soon be able to buy everything for a nickle on the dollar, so why not make some nickles now? As you can tell, I never was a NC candidate, not even steering committe member.

Some of our EcoFin people tried to make the model work with real figures. That quickly came to an end as nothing was produced which worked with whatever Lyn was ranting about at the time. A good illusionist and a great delusionist like Lyn depend on timing and the inability of the viewing audience to see or measure the trick up close. The timing for Lyn is to predict an economic problem every year for several decades. Lyn has burnt through a few generation of yutes and now we have the final version of his classic trick which has evolved into The Mother of all Cheap Parlor Tricks, the Triple Curve Monte.

The Deadenders have been through so much , that for them to still follow this lunacy shows how beaten down they are. They still have their eyes filled with gleam as Lyn predicts yet another collapse and each year they fall for the same old trick. The yutes get the newer trick.

One attachement should be Lyn's latest trick.

The other attachement is an initial graph done by a person who used economic data starting 60 years ago.

The X axis is based on multiples of one, with one being the value for around 1945. Thus, the 2006 physical economy is 60 times the 1945 physical economy.

Monetary aggregates = "monetary base" as reported by the Fed.

Physical economy = GDP

Financial aggregates = total stock market capitalization + corporate bonds + government bonds + municipal bonds + total bank loans as reported by the Financial Industry Association and by the Fed.

A few versions of these were run and in the commentary provided, the deduction of what is considered undesireable production by lyn did not make a difference in the over all look of the graph.

We will go over this in more detail later as well as show how Lyn's tricks coincide with the rise and fall of the S&P 500 as each generation of short term yutes has no idea how the long term Lyn operates as a delusionist.

Have fun yutes playing Triple Curve Monte at card table shrines.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Attached Images
TripleCurve.jpg‎ (23.5 KB, 9 views)
Attached Files
TRIPLE_CURVE__WITH_REAL_NUMBERS.pdf‎ (10.9 KB, 17 views)
Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-15-2008 at 09:29 PM.

02-16-2008 04:36 AM

eaglebeak

No Nostradamus--And He Ain't Pythagoras, Either

The striking thing as you look at the real Triple Curve--the Triple Curve with numbers attached--the one that's a graph, that plots something in the real world--is that it makes clear that the LaRouchean Triple Curve is just a DRAWING.

One day Lyn sat down and drew a picture of three curves, looking the way he thought they ought to look.

That's the long and the short of it.

That's why they have to call it a "heuristic" or a "pedagogical device"--because the underlying principle generating the LaRouchean Triple Curve is just that that's how he wants it to look.

Nothing more profound is driving it.

You should have known what balderdash the "Triple Curve" was the minute you saw it--when you noticed there were no numbers on it..... Maybe you did know what balderdash it was, and like so many others in the org, kept to yourself the Emperor's clothes-less-ness, his cluelessness.

As I said in my earlier post, "Hmmmm."

P.S. For Lyn's "early encounters" with Leibniz, check the index of Dialectical Economics. If you can't bear to do it, I'll do it for you soon. (Easy, because I already posted this material months ago, but I'll reprise it.)

02-17-2008 12:39 AM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by eaglebeak
The striking thing as you look at the real Triple Curve--the Triple Curve with numbers attached--the one that's a graph, that plots something in the real world--is that it makes clear that the LaRouchean Triple Curve is just a DRAWING.
One day Lyn sat down and drew a picture of three curves, looking the way he thought they ought to look.

That's the long and the short of it.

I was looking at Lyn's Triple Curve Monte and can't help but noticing that perhaps Lyn "discovered" this by reviewing in prison how he ran the cult for the past 40 or so years.

For many years the income of the LC would have been flat as most income was raised by dues. There were minimal physical outpts of magazines and debt would have stayed the same since Lyn used "primative accumulation" in emptying trust funds for start up costs.

If one were to graph what we did you would notice that as time increases on the y axis, an ever rising curve would be created by the amount of income we were raising that Lyn and Will Wertz were demanding to be created to satisfy Lyn's delusions. Out income would grow from several thousands per year to several thousadns per day to hundreds of thousands per week till culminating in a figure of close to $750,000 per week at our peek. Knowing just that figure, the collective worth of the LC as a corporation with a yearly income of 40 million multiplied by say 10 as a standard value would yield a worth of 400 million or so dollars using one set of corporate values. So over the course of time, the LC would have grown as a positive curve with subsidiaries like Computron, PMR. KMW, World Comp etc.

The big problem is that the way Lyn runs the cult we would have massive hidden drainage of income streams to scam artists like Carpet, Mr Ed etc. as well as Lyn and Helga's diversion of income to the delusion fund. On top of that we have Lyn and Will Wertz massively inflating the financial aggregates as we had an "on book" explosion of promisorry notes as well as an "off book" explosion of debt due to not paying back members, skipping loans and being in default and charge back scandals with the credit cards.

At the same time, a negative curve would be created as the physical output of the LC was declining rapidly as publications were being canibalized, members were being canibalized and the entirety of our physical stock such as homes, autos, clothing, savings, health care were declining at an accelerating rate.

The "implosion" Lyn is talking about is actually autobiographical in nature! We have a relative straight tragectory for all three along the Y axis with short increases in the 1970 but a massive take off of the triple curves in the 1980s. The whole thing collapses just like the LC collapsed.

The bottom line is that Lyn has spent nearly 250 million dollars and has proved that the Triple Curve exists because he in fact has shown the world how to do it!

Bravo Lyn , you have something to put on your tomb stone so anyone can figure out what you did , even space aliens , dead enders and recovering yutes.

Take a look at the triple Curve Monte yutes, Lyn is having his final laughs at you as you are the last aggregates so to speak.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-17-2008 at 12:44 AM.

02-17-2008 01:08 AM

scrimscraw

Slipped a digit or two?

Originally Posted by xlcr4life
I was looking at Lyn's Triple Curve Monte and can't help but noticing that perhaps Lyn "discovered" this by reviewing in prison how he ran the cult for the past 40 or so years. [...]
The bottom line is that Lyn has spent nearly 250 million dollars and has proved that the Triple Curve exists because he in fact has shown the world how to do it!

This is a good insight, I think. But your math may be off. If, as you say

Our income would grow from several thousands per year to several thousands per day to hundreds of thousands per week till culminating in a figure of close to $750,000 per week at our peak

you end up with generated income of nearly $40 million in one year at the peak. So, either you are overestimating the peak weekly income or underestimating the total spent over 40 years. No?

Where's my abacus?

02-17-2008 03:37 AM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by scrimscraw

you end up with generated income of nearly $40 million in one year at the peak. So, either you are overestimating the peak weekly income or underestimating the total spent over 40 years. No?
Where's my abacus?

As you and others surely know, many problems have been solved on a napkin. One evening during happy hour, the band took a break and the TV had something about gross income revenues over thirty years by a company. That got me thinking about exactly how much money Lyn has spent on persuing his delusions. Gross Delusion Product so to speak.

Gross Delusion Product based on what I know and can guess was written down on a napkin with income being minor , in the early SDS days, but in the millions if you knew about the trust funds signed over.

Income increased in the 1970s with a weekly budget of 100 to 125K per week by the mid 1970s. By the time we got to the late 1970s we were raising 250K a week and rising.

During the roaring 80s we had wekly income of 300 to 400 with a new category called "Specials" being rasied of very large sums. Once the Will Wertz show started and Helga needed designer clothes and Lyn needed Rhiengau by the case and servants, the income was sky high. This is misleading because a lot of this growth was the promisorry note scams. Very little of the money spent was for repaying and income began to fall after the raids.

Lyn's strategy as the world's foremost Legal Mind, (go ask Ed Spannaus, he'll tell ya) was to payout more in legal fees than we were being prosecuted for! We even stifffed lawyers and in the King book I read that we even paid for the plane tickets of one of our lawyers using a shady credit card.

As Lyn led the LC to prison and members wised up and left, weekly income was less than 200K a week, still 10 million a year. Current income varies from 100K to 150K a week, still 7 to 8 million a year.

Keep in mind that under the Larouche/Schacht economic model, you stiff vendors, members and lenders. Money is also diverted to the many scam artists with a total estimated at nearly 13 million in the trial testimony. Money was also skimmed away into the black hole of security and sent to Europe.

Wow, it seems everyone got something except a member and the IRS.

When you add everything up and include the trivial income from Europe and other places, I came up with nearly 250 million dollars.

When I look at the Triple Curve I see our total debt going upward geometrically, our members making the income rising slowly for a while and the collapse of the physical LC going downward geometrically. After a certain period of time, the whole thing collapses like Lyn drew on his napkin on a prison lunch table.

Lyn the delusionist, imagined the whole thing would never collapse as he would walk away from every instance while everyone who came in contact with him and the LC was wiped out financially, emotionally and often physically.

Lyn forecast a depression, economic collapse and a new dark ages successfully but forgot to add that this would be to people who associate with him.

I got an idea. How about a yute just ask Barbara or Nancy or even Lyn and ask for an accounting of gross income from say 1968 to 2008.

C'mon Babrara, the Triple Curve deserves the data so we can animate it for you.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-17-2008 07:36 AM

wassel

does anyone know where i can get pictures of LHL's estate?

02-17-2008 02:25 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by wassel
does anyone know where i can get pictures of LHL's estate?

Wassel, before the change in factnet.org's forum layout, I posted something called

Your friendly tour guide to Lyn's Ground Zero real estate collapse

You can access that on laroucheplanet.info Barbara has that on her "favorites" bookmark list. Zeke uses the maps to get around when he is working to keep food on the table.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=LaRouche.FriendlyTourGuide1

If you are in Leesburg, you can download the maps and spend a pleasant afternoon driving along The Larouche Trail so to speak. The real property you want to see is THE IBYKUS house which still exists. That is the famous home where Lyn and Ed Spannaus wanted the lawyers to tell the jury, the IRS and everyone else that the $60,000 (in mid 1980 dollars BTW) swimming pool built for Helga and the dogs was actually a firewall to protect the house!

Most of the links will give you maps and satelllite photos. Once you have an idea of the area, try looking at the house using MSN maps. They have a neat hybrid and "overhead" views that let you see a lot of detail og the main house. Keep in mind that Ibykus was a 185 acre or so property which costs tens of thousands each week to run at the time.

Lyn has downsized his abode to a rental I think called "Windy Hill". The rental and expenses to run that have several thousand a month budgeted from the LC. Lyn should skip the web casts and buy cheap informercial time on late night cable networks. He outperforms any late night stock market or real estate or gold bullion informercial on how to enjoy the good life.

Take a look at this yutes.

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.PersonalFinancialDisclosure

LaRouche Personal Financial Disclosure
LaRouche is living like a millionaire and making 26,ooo dollars a year!

2000 : Official income: $29,041.52. (pdf file - 549 Kb.) .
2001 : Official income: $25,866.65. (pdf file - 524 Kb.) .
2002 : Official income: $26,451. (pdf file - 577 Kb.) .
Sources:

Personal Financial Disclosure for Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. (D-Va)

Lyn is living on the equivalent of 12 to 13 bucks an hour assuming a 40 hour work week yutes!

This is an amazing feat as the yutes, who are called "volunteers" can live in what former LYM have described as "slave galleys" and create the income each week so a nice portion can be used to maintain Lyn's life style and jet setting, along with Helga's shopping trips.

The LYM need a protection act for themselves to be passed by Congress as they seem to be the worst victims of the decline in the Gross Delusion Product under Lyn.

Do not worry yutes and deadenders, we have not forgotten the Triple Curve Monte. Expect an updated graph with monthly data inputed and more commentary about it. You need to know what you don't know so Lyn can live like a King on $25,000 a year.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-17-2008 at 02:28 PM.

02-17-2008 06:04 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by wassel
does anyone know where i can get pictures of LHL's estate?

Wassel, I will have pictures next week for you. In the meantime, follow this

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qhpdmm8j0zjm&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5448563&encType=1

and see if you can see the Ibykus house with the "cement pond" Lyn had constructed for Helga and her critters.

With this link you can click to see different views. Try the 3D hybrid and birdseye views to see how vast this property covered in 185 or so acres. There were no other homes on this property except Lyn's . Now try to imagine the fun when Lyn gets on a witness stand and tells the jury that he has no taxable income. The LC bought it, but remember that no one except for a select few had transcripts of this.

Maybe Barbara and Nancy can chime in with some memories of Ibykus for nostalgia.

Keep working those card table shrines yutes. One day you too will live like Lyn when you make 12 bucks an hour like he claims.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-17-2008 06:19 PM

scrimscraw

Missing an opportunity?

You know, I find it interesting and somewhat curious that although LHL has flirted with 9/11 revisionism - saying in passing that it was an inside job, as I recall - he hasn't exploited it as a major card table issue. On the one hand, it would probably go over much better on campuses and among many of the general population than Maglevs or Rohatyn, and thus be a better source of income.

But on the other hand, I suppose it would risk branding Lyn as even more of a conspiracy nut (if that is possible) and compromise his delusion of being a serious economist and statesman. And, there is no big infrastructure project he could spin out of it -- and those whopping projects always seem a necessary part of the game.

02-17-2008 07:27 PM

wassel

xlcer4life,

thanks for your response, but the link just takes me to the homepage for live.com. no pic.

02-17-2008 08:12 PM

scrimscraw

Here we go...

I had my "Belfry Crew" work this up. I think it has potential...

Attached Images WTC-triplecurve.jpg‎ (16.4 KB, 8 views)

02-17-2008 08:13 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by wassel
xlcer4life,
thanks for your response, but the link just takes me to the homepage for live.com. no pic.

Sometimes it depends on your computer and if you have certain MS installs I suspect. Try this one

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qhpdmm8j0zjm&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=5448563&encType=1#JndscD0x

Give it some time and it may make its way to laroucheplanet.info as part of the tour.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-17-2008 09:20 PM

wassel

xlcer4life,

still can't get anything but a page with url http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=10255. it's acting like the link is broken. could you check for that? but then i am running firefox under linux and maybe that is the problem.

02-17-2008 10:57 PM

scrimscraw

I suspect that some dynamic links that are created by search/find functions at some websites do not serve as permalinks. The Mapquest links still at your Real Estate Tour postings here at Factnet - http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=10255 - also don't work, maybe for the same reason. I'm not sure what the solution is...

02-17-2008 10:58 PM

xlcr4life Paid Member

Originally Posted by wassel
xlcer4life,
still can't get anything but a page with url 'http://intl.local.live.com/'. it's acting like the link is broken. could you check for that? but then i am running firefox under linux and maybe that is the problem.

I think that may be your problem. I click on the link and it goes right to the house and has the tools to do 3d and view from different directions.

See if this works to get a picture. I should have a few more for tomorrow . This is just part of the house. The swimming pool area is cut off by the quirk of MicroSoft.

On laroucheplanet.info you should be able to learn about the exact area where the house is and search on MSN or Mapquest. We used the Satanic and eeeevil Cartesian geometry to locate it for yutes . MSN gives you better detail when zooming in. The 3d and zoom in for this area is new by MSN, obviously a plot by the Devil in your laptop to show exactly how Lyn lived the good life.

Too bad we did not have this technology 20 years ago as you could probably see the cases of Rheingau empties piled out side.

On the MSn homepage click on maps and directions and enter

Count Turf Pl, Leesburg , Virginia

to find the area. Look for Count Turf Pl. and where Alysheba Dr intersects. The house , guest house and pool complex will be on the right of your screen. All of the surrounding homes were built after Lyn lost everything through his superior real estate skills.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-17-2008 11:10 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by scrimscraw
I suspect that some dynamic links that are created by search/find functions at some websites do not serve as permalinks. The Mapquest links still at your Real Estate Tour postings here at Factnet - http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=10255 - also don't work, maybe for the same reason. I'm not sure what the solution is...

The links and maps should be updated. No one should be denied to see the full extent of how Lyn was the original subprime loser in the Leesburg real estate market. There is other property which is hard to pin down which was almost a 1000 acres. There may be still other properties which very few people knew about which were lost.

In the meantine, here are some snapshots of the goodlife to see. Always keep in mind that LC members were being paid 5 bucks a day while tens of thousands went to keep this party going for a few years.

I have to resize those Jpegs as they exceed the factnet.org limit. Let me try again tomorrow.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com
Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-17-2008 at 11:14 PM.

02-18-2008 04:10 AM

eaglebeak

I Was a Teenage Leibnizian

Lyn's recent twaddle about his early encounter with Leibniz--"My Early Encounter With Leibniz: On Monadology" (http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008...onadology.html) refers to his adolescent study of Leibniz and The Monadology.

Well, not quite--

I assure you, dear readers, young ones and old ones, if Lyn knew about a subject, even remotely, it was shoehorned into his masterwork Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marixst Political Economy, by Lyn Marcus, D.C. Heath & Co., 1975 (wondering how Lyn got published by D.C. Heath? Ask Patricia Dolbeare Salisbury--Pat Salisburgy--to explain it to you).

So grab a copy of "DE," as we call it, and check the index for Leibniz (I did this on a post several months ago, to prove the same point I'm making here).

All righty, the Great Leibnizian, the man who was transformed as a 14-year-old into a world-historical--nay,the world-historical--being by his mastery of Leibniz, has the following references to Leibniz:

Pages 13, 57-58, 113, 260.

Hmm. That's mighty sparse. Suspiciously thin. But let's see--what do they say?

On page 13, Lyn refers to "the related [to Lagrange's work] accomplishments of Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Euler, and others." Holy Toledo! Imagine combining the odious swine Descartes, Newton and Euler with the great men Kepler and Leibniz?!?! What gives?

On page 57-58, Lyn refers to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence, and Leibniz's charge that in Newton, God is needed periodically to wind the whole thing up. But--and here's the key--Lyn doesn't say which one is right, Leibniz or Newton. Good Lord!!

Page 113 is describing the contributions of Friedrich Engels (My, my, we certainly changed our line on that, didn't we?)--and notes that Engels borrows from Leibniz's "clockwinder" remark. (Here, to be fair, he calls Engels insightful for doing this, thus suggesting that he approves of Leibniz's remark.)

Page 269 is the richest--here he attacks Leibniz and others in the following assertion: "Neither Kant nor Hegel could muster the hubris to push aside Euler, Lagrange, Leibniz, et al. and say, 'No! The fundamental laws of the universe as you define them do change!'"

[f course, philosophically speaking, if they were the fundamental laws, then by definition they would not change. But never mind that...]

The hilarity here is occasioned by Lyn's wanting to push aside Leibniz, and even more hilarious, by Lyn's equating Leibniz with Euler and Lagrange in that wonderful "et al." Leibniz and Euler and Lagrange! Wowie!

Now, all this was written when Lyn was in his 50s. "DE" was published when he was 53. So he wasn't becoming any Leibnizian in his teens. No sir.

One more time, all together now: The guy's a poseur, a fraud, and as a guru, a huge embarrassment.

Or, as the saying goes, "Read it and weep."

02-19-2008 03:10 AM

wassel

caesar's wife

xlcer4life,

i got a good map at mapquest. it disappoints me that Lyn would get involved in anything like that. caesar's wife should be above suspicion, not to mention the would-be leader of the whole universe.

what do his fellow prometheans say when confronted with the mess?
Last edited by wassel; 02-19-2008 at 03:12 AM.

02-19-2008 07:18 AM

eaglebeak

Lyn and Agape

It's almost a year since the suicide of Ken Kronberg, who lept to his death from a highway overpass on April 11, 2007, shortly after reading the Morning Briefing of that day, in which briefing writer Tony Papert, channeling Lyn and reporting on the NEC meeting at Lyn's house the night before, attacked PMR (Kronberg) and invited Kronberg and other similarly situated Baby Boomers to kill themselves.

To commemorate the first anniversary of Ken's tragic death, and to recall the monstrous way in which he was driven to it by Lyn and the LaRouche org--and because rumors are swirling around Leesburg of wild stories about to be generated by the LaRouche org, evidently in self-defense against what Kronberg's widow Molly Kronberg might say next--we begin to print or reprint significant documents in the Kronberg case--documents which convey more powerfully than we ever could, how spiritually, morally, and emotionally bankrupt LaRouche is (never mind intellectually, and never mind the psychic status of his increasingly pathetic followers).

Here, for example, for the first time, we print an alpha message sent to Lyn on April 19--over a week after Kronberg's death--by a distraught member of the LaRouche org in Leesburg, begging Lyn to communicate some message of condolence to Kronberg's family. We also print Lyn's absurd response.

(In a week's time, Lyn hadn't been able to pull himself together to communicate to the Kronberg family about the death of Ken, who had been a leader of the organization for 35 years--even though Molly Kronberg was herself at the time supposedly also a leader of the organization, and thus presumably deserving of some nod from the Great Man. The word is that he was petrified at Kronberg's suicide, to the point that, according to reliable sources in Wiesbaden, he didn't even tell Helga about it.... Someone else had to do that.)

Message date: 4/19/07

Dear Lyn,

I am writing to beseech you to break your silence on the
death of Ken Kronberg, and say something that recognizes
Ken's extraordinary worth as a human being. Indeed, he was
one of the finest men I have ever known. My [spouse] and
I long looked to him, as to Graham, as a mentor, a
beacon of dedication and intellectual integrity, and a
friend. Whatever errors in judgment he may have made,
especially in recent years--and who among us has not made
mistakes?--have to be considered within the context of Ken's
life as a totality.

If you have reason not to make a public statement, then
I plead with you at least to send Molly and Max a private
message of condolence. Whatever one thinks of Molly
personally and politically [a reflection of the shunning
already underway, months before Molly started to hammer
the organization for its responsibility], one can still give
Ken's family support and encouragement at this time of
searing grief.

With best regards,
NAME WITHHELD

From: PGM::IF_ 19-APR-2007 00:18:45.83
To: XXX,@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
CC: IF_
Subj: reply

TO:ssw,@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
FROM:LAR " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "
CC:HZL
SUBJ: rely to xxx
12:03 AM 4/19/2007 EDT

My stated policy is the only acceptable policy
at this time. The reasons for this are known
to Nany (sic) and Molly, in addition to a handful of
relevant others. It is the only correct policy.

I am reasonably certain that you have no
understanding of what the considerations actually
are; but, sometimes that is both the knowledge
and responsibility that responsible persons
involved must bear.

Translation: Shut up, you moron.

02-19-2008 07:53 AM

eaglebeak

Cat Had His Tongue

Then, of course, there's a further translation.

Because Shut up, you moron, translated, means:

I haven't figured out what the hell to say yet. This situation is another mess that only I can deal with--except I haven't figured out how to deal with it.

Since I don't know what to say, I think I'll say that I can't say anything at this time for important and arcane reasons known (like everything else worthwhile) only to a tiny handful of "relevant" people. That should shut 'em up, my faithful followers. It always does. Then, later on, when I come up with something to say, I'll say I knew it all along, but I couldn't say it because of X, Y, and Z.

Well, that may be a little more coherent than Lyn's actual interior monologue, but you get the idea.

Looking back now, the obvious question is:

If he knew that Molly Kronberg was responsible for her husband's suicide because she gave dollars to Bush, and if he knew that Molly Kronberg was an alcoholic who had gone over to the enemy and in fact had been working for John Train for years, why didn't he say so?

And the obvious answer is:

He didn't know any such a thing. He didn't know what to say. But, as always, he had great faith in his ability to improvise.

Another obvious question:

If he knew all along that Molly Kronberg was responsible for his indictment, frameup trial, and conviction--and he had never said a word about it for all those years for fear of hurting Ken (soooo uncharacteristic!), why didn't he say so, now that Ken was dead and people were badgering him to send nice messages to Molly?

And the obvious answer is-- (drumroll, please)

He didn't know any such a thing. He made it up months later and claimed he'd known it for years.

It makes you wonder--what will they think of next? And how transparently false and base will it be?

Remember: I predicted in a post months and months ago that, as in the Jeremiah Duggan case, when Lyn ran out of people to blame (Fernando, Uwe Friesecke, Linda Frommer, Gus and Andy, the fundraisers, the PMR lifestyle) for Ken's death, he would wind up blaming the family.

And a week after I made that prediction, by gum if he didn't!

So, as I said over the summer, I'll say again--If I were you, Molly, I'd have my brakes checked.

(Oh, and if people at PMR don't think they were blamed and vilified, they should think again. I'm sure even those who've stayed in the org would be shocked at the way Barbara and Bruce spoke of them, snickering at how they were losers who could never get another job, and that's why they'd stayed at PMR. Of course, they all got other jobs, and remarkably fast, too--but Barbara and Bruce can't be blamed for not knowing what they were talking about--it's an occupational hazard.)

02-19-2008 07:58 AM

larouchetruth

In Defense of the Triple Curve. Well, not really, but...

It's simply not fair to say that they have never tried to put numbers to their triple curve. They have, several times in the past decade, with risible results, to be sure, but let's give them their due. Here are two, total hoots both of them.

First, is Dennis Small's 1999 article "Bankers Math vs. human math: Do you know how to count?" (see http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1999/bankers_math_2612/bankers_math_2612.html ) He shows the heuristic version, then one with supposedly real numbers. The y axis is in trillions, with the highest being $60 trillion, the lowest being -$30 trillion. For the financial line, he uses what he calls "derivatives" which goes from 0 in 1970 to $60 trillion in 1998. He uses GDP (which he says tracks monetary results closely enough) for the monetary line!! (Justified with "The middle curve is U.S. GDP. That's of course not the same thing as monetary supply, but it actually has a close relationship to it.") It grows from something under $2 trillion in 1970 to perhaps $8 trillion in 1998, far less than the financial line, and growing steadily, and slowly, while the financial line takes off exponentially--in other words, diverging, when everything Lyn says today says that they will converge, and then monetary will exceed financial, and hyperinflation will ensue.

The third line is "physical production." His exact words here are "GDP hasn't grown nearly as much as derivatives, but compare it to the physical economy, the bottom curve, which has been collapsing at the rate of about 2% per year, ever since 1967-70." He shows a line that descends steadily in a straight line from the 0 point (the left-most point on the x axis) to -50% (the right y axis is %). So, he claims that physical production collapsed 50% from 1970 to 1998.

I ask you to try to get your mind around the enormity of what he is asserting here. This is supposedly a measure of absolute production, meaning that per capita, the collapse is far greater, since our population grew substantially in that period. Even if one adjusts per capita consumption for the net trade deficit, Dennis Small evidently believes that material consumption by Americans plummeted by more than 50% during those 28 years. Can anything more preposterous be claimed?

John Hoeffel (who has a humurous lecture posted on the front page of the LPac website as of today) wrote an article in the Nov. 21, 2003 issue of EIR, page 34 ( http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2002/eirv29/eirv29n03.pdf ), where he also put actual numbers to the triple curve. Here, evidently, everything is indexed, with a scale on the left that has 1 (for 100%) at the far left where all the lines begin, so each line is presumably relative to its value in 1996, when this graph begins. Nothing in the article says where the actual numbers come from, but whatever. There is one rising line, called debt, that rises linearly from 1 to about 1.55 from 1996 to 2002. Then there is a line that rises just about the same, increasing slightly more than debt around 2000, ending up at 1.65 or so. Then there is corporate profits (and these fit in to the triple curve how?), which show a rise to 1998, a decline to 1999, a rise to 2001, and then a plummeting to about .95 in 2002. And then we have the "physical production" line. And to represent this, they have...manufacturing employment. It declines very gradually from 1 to about .95, less than 1% a year decline.

Not exactly the collapse function the triple curve is supposed to show. And, of course, the manufacturing employment figure is no measure of physical production, since with rising productivity (rising quite substantially), actual manufacturing output has risen steadily throughout the last several decades, despite falling manufacturing employment. Curious choice, suggesting that Hoeffel also discovered that manufacturing output was rising, not falling, forcing him to choose the fraudulent employment measure, even though even that only shows a very slow, gradual decline, hardly fitting the parameters of the triple curve.

There may have been some other attempts to, I seem to recall finding one other, which also used manufacturing employment.

Hold the phone. I just discovered an article in EIR Jan. 25, 2002 ( http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi.../eirv29n03.pdf ) that is the basis for the Hoeffel article above, which shows the same graph, but also shows graphs for each of the components with real numbers. For debt, here is the explanation: "all types of borrowings (corporate, household, consumer revolving credit, etc.) kept as a category by the Federal Reserve statistics, but excluding certain types of government debt. The time period is 1952 through the third quarter of 2001." So, that is the financial (replacing Small's use of "derivatives"). The final absolute number is about $30 trillion.

The monetary is described thusly: "value of money supply in the United States, called M3, from 1970 through 2001. Clearly rising throughout, the rate of rise after 1996 is spectacular." As of 2002, this is listed as just over $8 billion. Which means that in absolute terms, it is about 1/4 of the financial (hardly threatening to exceed it--which highlights that the very decision to graph them as indexes destroys even the nominal possible validity of using them as Lyn specifies they should be used to predict hyperinflation--the point that monetary values exceed financial values, which cannot be ascertained except with real numbers). And they show a graph of declining manufacturing employment, not sourced.

And the corporate profits is taken from a graph that shows a steady, huge rise from 1952 to 2000, rising from roughly $60 billion to $900 billion, then falling to roughly $700 billion in 2001, with the commentary "the level of U.S. corporate profits is shown from 1959 through 2001’s third quarter. They now are approaching a hyperbolic rate of fall." Like that really happened. I haven't checked the figures, but I know that corporate profits have increased greaterly as a percentage of GDP, so surely have increased even more in relative terms. Ooops, time to retire this measure, I presume.

So, anyway, it is total slander to say that they never try to use real figures. They don't seem to have done so in the last 6 years, true, but when they did, previously, they provided the strongest possible evidence that the real figures don't support the Triple Curve.

Which raises an interesting prospect. Do any of you think it possible that they stopped providing graphs that used real numbers, actually, because the real numbers didn't fit the triple curve? And of course, since we know that the triple curve is the true reality, what was the point of showing empirical numbers that didn't support it, since they clearly couldn't be accurate.

Sort of like how phenomena can never refute noumena, eh?

02-19-2008 11:10 AM

shadok

faith or facts?

Originally Posted by larouchetruth
So, anyway, it is total slander to say that they never try to use real figures. They don't seem to have done so in the last 6 years, true, but when they did, previously, they provided the strongest possible evidence that the real figures don't support the Triple Curve.
Which raises an interesting prospect. Do any of you think it possible that they stopped providing graphs that used real numbers, actually, because the real numbers didn't fit the triple curve? And of course, since we know that the triple curve is the true reality, what was the point of showing empirical numbers that didn't support it, since they clearly couldn't be accurate.

I remember that after the 1987 crash we used to publish every week in EIR comparative charts between the 1987 and 1929 DJ crashes. Larouche at the time went on tv to compare the dow jones with the pathway of a falling bouncing ball... Of course we stopped eventually to compare 1929/1987 because the dow jones recovered. I also heard from ex-members that the larouche-riemann model was dropped because it didn't prove what Larouche wanted it to prove: the collapse of our western economies. The triple-curve is therefore nothing new. Just less sophisticated than the L-R model. It is meant to convince members, not the outside world. And since the intellectual level has dropped since the 70s, it had to be very SIMPLE. Larouche's sick mind is stuck in 1929: the year of the financial crash that "caused" the fall of Weimar Republic, the rise of Hitler who was "forced" to start WW2. All of that because of Wall Street and the Brits/Jewish financiers "who put Hitler to power" (his "capitalism leads to imperialism/fascism" Leninist theme). The triple-curve is in fact supposed to "illustrate" a Weimar-style hyperinflation that will "logically" lead us to WW3. NO DATA are required. 1929 is a life-long larouche's obsession. It s all about faith, not facts. Every time a member is trying hard - with research - to prove Larouche's right, s/he is confronted with a serious dilemma: faith or facts? Should I stay or should I go? Last edited by shadok; 02-19-2008 at 12:09 PM.

02-19-2008 07:44 PM

xlcr4life

We can take a short break from Lyn's Triple Swerve for the yutes and the Ibykus mansion to see what happens when you work with Lyn and the cult. Read this article and see why I am more inclined to believe that one of the purposes of the cult via Lyn is to spread disinformation in many fields. How conscience that is, I have no solid clues. All I know is that when you start to look at just about anything we got involved with, our job was to disrupt and spread disinformation. We probably did it all by ourselves, but we sure did a lot of disinformation and dirty tricks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=515992&in_page_id=1766

Al Fayed got involved with us I believe through Al Douglas. We printed a book on Fayed's competitor for Harrods named Tiny Rowland. The price some people told me was 10K (Boy we worked cheap!) and was through EIR. In many cases we would do a report on someone or somehting for a few bucks and then release it as an EIR special Report later to sell. If you go throught the LYM archives you can see some of our reoprts baout the British.

When Lady Di and Dodi died, Jeff Stienberg moved in and poor Al found himself no longer in the LC spotlight. For a few years, Jeff and Lyn found themselves being able to do interviews on TV shows who wanted a wack job for the latest Lady Di story. Jeff had a good side job going in appearing as a Lady Di expert in tabloids until better writers came around. These days Jeff spends most of his time living a life no yute will ever have in the cult. Jeff has his townhouse, spending money, time to go out and have a good time and a ski timeshare I was told while you yutes are busy inhaling carcinogens. Keep track of Jeff as "The Jeff Steinberg Report" may be shopped around in a post Lyn world yutes. No moldy basement for Jeff and Michelle.

In looking at what Al Fayed was doing for the past few years I think he got hooked up with people who were going to give him the stories he wanted. A desperate guy like Fayed wants to believe in something more than a crash. I read quite a few UK news articles over the years that Fayed was paying a lot of money to anyone who claimed to be a former this or that and had some info.

I have no idea of the details of what Al Fayed has paid out, but I do know that the Lady Di conspiracy stories are big in the Middle East. The cult has viewed that as another market to tap and they have persued that with passion. Al Fayed has his own tragedy to investigate while the cult uses it to make inroads for Lyn in the Middle East.

You sure aint gonna see no articles about Islamic based terror by the cult unless you can blame it on the British or the Jews. Here is an Arabic version of the cult's work:

http://www.nysol.se/arabic/sida.html

What the cult has done is to take the old anti semitic lunacy and add some of today's lunacy and yield another version to sell to the Muslim world. The image on the left is one of our old pamphlets during our Dope Inc days. The image on the right is from the Arabic EIR site from above and found in the section which takes Dope Inc, The British and BAE, mixes it up with the Jews of course to make a product for the target audience. The image is supposed to be of the Queen, but at first glance I see the DNA of many classic caricatures of anti semitic cartoons.

If anyone can read Arabic, give us an idea of what this web site is posting.

You see yutes, you can't get away from what is in Lyn's blood. Every dollar you make is one more dollar for Lyn's lunacy. Just read the latest LPac statement by Lyn about "The Cabal" which is running Bloomberg to enslave the planet.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Attached Images

queenstar1 LHL antismite.jpg‎ (49.1 KB, 9 views) LHL Arabic.jpg‎ (94.2 KB, 12 views)

02-20-2008 07:39 PM

xlcr4life

As soon as I saw the reports of the Illinois college shooting I figured that the cult would be running to that tragedy ASAP to exploit that for it's own purpose. This also was expected by the gamers who have dealt with covicted felon Don Phau and his Virginia rise from the Leesburg deadenders club.

At this site we have some of what is appearing.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/02/larouche_blames_microsoft_for_niu_tragedy-2.html

LaRouche Blames Microsoft For NIU Tragedy

"International Fascism: Microsoft Will Kill More Youth than Hitler." That is the title of a news posting over at the LaRouche Political Action Committee website, home of the supporters of American political nutcase Lyndon LaRouche. Taking their lead from the New York Post's sensationalist article "COLLEGE KILLER CRAZY FOR VIOLENT VID GAME", the LaRouche Camp is apparently blaming "Microsoft's Counterstrike killer video-game" for the shooting. Never mind that Microsoft doesn't make Counter-Strike - that's probably all part of the conspiracy as well.

The intended effect, to foster an environment of mass suicide terrorism in the U.S.A., is a by-product of the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' policy, organised by Felix Rohatyn and George P. Shultz; the same individuals, who not only helped to install the fascist Pinochet into the Chilean government, but are the prime backers of a fascist Bloomberg Presidency. We really need to get LaRouche and Thompson into a room together. Then we can lock it and forget where we put the key. Perhaps sweet love will bloom.

International Fascism: Microsoft Will Kill More Youth than Hitler [LaRouche Website via Game Politics]

At first glance it seems comical and so Laroucheian to for Lyn to blame MicroSoft for a game it does not make. But is there something more sinister here for the yutes?

http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/01/international-fascism-microsoft-will-kill-more-youth-hitler.html

Why would Lyn and the cult have a headline which tells yutes that MicroSoft will kill more people then Hitler? I have to think back to when I was a yute and how the publications and briefings would reprint Lyn's memos and writings which always ended with , at that time, Rockefeller or Jimmy Carter being a hundred times worse than Hitler. This continued with more rantings about how any opponent of Lyn was a hundred times worse than Hitler. At the same time we were praising Nazi Rocket Scientists, meeting with old Nazi military people in Germany and reading Lyn's endless dribble about the Holocaust death figures. As one very close insider told me when he urged me to leave the LC "It is as if the Germans and Germany had nothing to do with World Wars and the Holocaust".

Lyn was alive during WW2 and I was born after it. It was not until I left the LC and looked at classic anti semitism and Holocaust denial nuts that I recoiled in shock at what we were exactly doing and saying.

This new crop of yutes was born when we were stealing tons of money and except for some trojan Jews in the LC, there is hardly and Jews among the yutes. WW 2 is an abstraction in a way to yutes and it seems real creepy to equate Bill Gates with Hitler and a national policy of anti semitism and a systematic extermination of Jews and other undesireables.

How could any yute or anyone on the planet read that LPAC headline and article and think they were in a sane environment? But never forget that what the cult writes is more for internal rewiring of a member to further stay in the Bizarro world than to actually accomplish something in the real world. Lyn has a real problem with the web as the 250 million dollars and growing he has spent on his delusions become worthless by sites like this forum and

http://laroucheplanet.info/

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/

http://www.kennethkronberg.com/

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0711.klein.html

along with an ever growing number of blogs and media which write more and more about the cult. No wonder Lyn has to hate Bill Gates for computers and Al Gore for inventing the internet..

Not only is the history of WW2, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust made trivial and non existant, but Gates is made to be the inferior of Lyn. See what the cult does the next day on LPAC.

http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/...inue-kill.html

WTF is the cult talking about? The Gates foundation has been involved in eliminating polio on the planet. Just look up the Gates Foundation and see what they do and their work on malaria. I can have a problem with the business end of MicroSoft and how screwy Vista is, but, I would have to be crazy or a yute to say that Bill Gates will kill more youth than Hitler.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases/Vaccines/Announcements/Announce-060201.htm

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases/Malaria/default.htm

It sure seems like Lyn has to compulsively convince yutes again that only he can save the world and no one else is doing anything of importance. For the people who study cults and how they work, this is a real time Bizarro world experiment . The final product ends with a dopey yute calling you on the phone saying that only Larouche can save civilization.

I think we will have to take a look at LaroucheCare and see how the world's greateset economist and forecaster and real estate baron took care of his members.

Boy oh boy. The fun never stops here as we have the Triple Swerve, LaroucheCare, Arabic EIR , Club Ibykus and so much more to show the yutes.

Yo Yutes. How about using the image below and put it on a card table shrine.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Attached Images
LHL with crystall ball.jpg‎ (9.1 KB, 4 views)

Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-20-2008 at 07:55 PM.

02-21-2008 01:54 PM

borisbad

FOr the "impact" LaRouche is having among the non-gullible college people, I draw attention to the following that was found on a site called Center for Inquiry which can be found at the following link. I wonder if any of the newer ex members can glean who this "Karen" person is that the writer refers to: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/909/P15/#14694

Thank you for your post, cbushin. For 4 years now, I have been gullibullied by LaRouche campaigners. During the first call, I stupidly engaged and debated with the LaRouche representative (Karen) on the phone. Karen is good. She kept me on the phone for 15 - 20 minutes. Many of the views she expressed I happened to agree with, being a self-professed standard-issue progressive liberal. At the time I was blinded by disillusion and anger caused by the current administration’s many crimes against humanity. After the third phone call though (this woman was deft!) I began to get wise that the LaRouche campaign is a special kind of political party with fascist leanings. They made me nervous with their persistence, hyperbolic propaganda and dubious statistics—all common cult recruitment tactics. I asked to be removed from their list immediately. I asked not to be contacted in the future. Ever. They called again. And again. And again. “Never call me again!” I’d holler into the phone. I am generally a well-mannered person. I don’t routinely holler at strangers. The calls continued. I tried screaming obscenities into the phone like one afflicted with advanced Tourette’s Syndrome. No luck. I hung up loudly. I whistled. I sang, “Hello My Baby, Hello My Darlin’ Hello, my Ragtime Gaal..” like the dancing frog in the Warner Brothers cartoon. If my husband happened to answer, the woman would say, like our oldest friend, “Hey! This is Karen! Can I speak with...?” Tonight, she called again. It’s no exaggeration to say this was around the 45th call. When I heard her unmistakably pushy voice on the phone and the words, “I’d like a few minutes of your time to discuss the Lyndon LaRouche campaign...” I let out an ear-piercing, blood-curdling shriek into the phone—so loud that my family came running, assuming I’d been stabbed. I can only hope Karen’s ears are bleeding profusely somewhere in her sad little cult-y world, impotent, caged political animal that she is. Take my advice: DO NOT give these people your telephone number. Run, and don’t look back. My only recourse now is to harass the harassers. I’m going to miss that Lyndon LaRouche when he finally kicks the bucket. Maybe Karen will still call me after he’s gone… just to chat.

02-21-2008 06:41 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by larouchetruth
So, anyway, it is total slander to say that they never try to use real figures. They don't seem to have done so in the last 6 years, true, but when they did, previously, they provided the strongest possible evidence that the real figures don't support the Triple Curve.
Which raises an interesting prospect. Do any of you think it possible that they stopped providing graphs that used real numbers, actually, because the real numbers didn't fit the triple curve? And of course, since we know that the triple curve is the true reality, what was the point of showing empirical numbers that didn't support it, since they clearly couldn't be accurate.
Sort of like how phenomena can never refute noumena, eh?

The period of the last 6 years is when the yutes began multiplying and the boomers were effectively cast as the reason why Lyn was not the ruler of the universe. All of the previous models, DE , physiocrats, socialism are cast aside and a new, unique approach is needed for this crop. If you look at the decline of the physical economy which the cult says has been a 2% per year decline, their friends who are former members should all be destitute after leaving. Indeed the Northern Virginia area, should have been pretty much a no mans land in the 25 years after Lyn purchased his Ibykus estate. The US population should be lower, not higher as the one- two punch of this 2 % yearly decline and the massive deaths due to our AIDS death modeling should have wiped out a huge chunk of the population.

This is all done for the present generation of yutes as they were born before Lyn's nightmare bedtime stories for us. Take AIDS for instance. When I first came around in the mid 1970s as yute, I was looking at graphs using simple function growth over time which showed that the whole world would be dead of some disease because of the Rockefellers. On the graphs we had exponential growth plotted over time which meant that when I left the LC, we should have all been dead.

During our AIDS scare show, I wondered what the hell we were doing when we began to reprint the same graphs but whited out whatever death causing disease we had under Rockefeller and put AIDS in its place. Lyn then declared that he alone predicted the onset of AIDS and now predicted that it would grow and using either geometric or exponential functions, we all would be either dead or speaking Russian.

AFTER I left the LC and reenrolled back in school and took a general health class. The class showed how different vectors spread disease and how the MOST LETHAL ones actually do not spread as fast since the hosts which carry them die before they spread beyond a certain point. In preparing my LaroucheCare fun Lyn went to town by saying that AIDS would kill everyone because mosquitos would spread it. There was no truth to this or proof of this, but I would hear Lyn yell in a meeting that Mosquitos are nothing more than flying syringes. This was equating the AIDS virus with other diseases and was based on using fear for our goals. The big thing Lyn used was a bump in AIDs cases in Belle Glade Florida and quoting a British MD on AIDS who was big on the spreading of AIDS via mosquitos. We used this MD's supposed work and wrote that he has a paper published in a major medical peer review journal about this.

Imagine my surprise when 20 years later I find out via the internet that there was no article published but a letter to the editor in a medical journal which was this guy's credentials and we used him as our expert. I took my kids to Disney World in Florida many years ago and wanted to take the family to Fy Meyers to the Edison Museum. The route I took went through Belle Glade and the area conficted with how we described it back then. This was not an open area like a swamp, but sugar cane fields. The labor was usually from the Caribbean which made up a percentage of the AIDS cases in that area, but something else was important. We were using AIDS to target gays and the propoganda we were putting out had gays as being the number one enemy which was going to allow the KGB to beat the USA by using the Dem party to internally destory us while AIDS decimated our population. What the secret of AIDS spreading in Belle Glade was that this area had a high number of heterosexual prostitutes as it was a known cruising area by the daily truckers. That along with ill immigrants, at the time zero usage of "safe sex" and not mosquitos was the factor.

Anything you see in the LC and done by Lyn has the same DNA. There may be a portion of something correct, but the end product is for the cult and not supposed to be under scrutiny. When that happens, people leave which is why most Jews left when they took a close look at what Lyn and the LC were doing. Most ex members will find that one moment when the whole belief structure in the LC and Lyn just collapses like Richie Freeman at a National Conference. The present yutes have to believe that the Triple Swerve works since they have no basis to challenge it. Who the hell has time to go find data, input it and then compare it to Lyn's nonsense.

Well, someone does who sent me a new graph which uses monthly figures for the Triple Swerve and had his/her computer print out the results. That file is a wee too large and I will repost the previous graph with real numbers as I downsize the new graph for factnet.

Along with the graph were some comments"

-GDP and "physical output" grow at approximately the same rates since 1945. LaRouche is perplexed by the fact that there are fewer workers in manufacturing, but he does not understand productivity. From 1987, productivity (output per person) grew 250% and from 1945 it grew by 900%.

-When the present value of stocks and bonds goes up faster that current production, it means that the future income streams are growing faster than current income streams -- which is what happens when an economy's technology keeps accelerating.

-a software program, is a purely mental algorithm which physically is nothing but a rearrangement of electrical charges. Yet, a piece of software can organize a company's supply chain -- say the timing and geographical allocation of a supermarket chain's truck fleet that saves millions of dollars without altering the number of trucks, or drivers or the contents of the trucks. Is it a drain on the real economy?

-the graphs do not reflect 10,000-fold decline in semiconductor prices from 1975 to now. If we measure semiconductor output in 1975 prices, then the "Physical output" curve would be going through the roof.

This leads me to think that the fluidity in a total economy is adjusted by the market conditions which can cause a value to go up or down . The home builders can go out and build for the high end of the home market, which is what they did for the past few years. The market for that product was smaller , but no one wanted to be the first to admit or the last to leave profits behind. Speculators carried some of the market until that was oversaturated and the market tanked. You add the fraud which took place among brokers, lenders and appraisers and our problem is an oversupply of one part of the housing market. The market for lower priced homes is still there. The correction wil be when the price of the existing homes which are overpriced meets the income levels of the local market. I know this in detail as I both bought my first home that way and know people who specialize in buying the undeveloped lots and existing inventory of major builders very cheap.

Apple invented the IPod in which there is a wee bit of money in the hardware, but the ITunes business grosses a billion in selling downloads, which are nothing but data strings. Are we better off letting another country make the hardware we design here and then import to make the real money in the downloads which is then redistributed to APPLE sharholders?

For a yute, these types of questions are verbotten as the only question is how much did you raise today and are you sufficiently scared by the Triple Swerve model of Lyn to call a contact back a dozen time like the poor lady in BorisBad's post.

As to the origin of the actual Triple Swerve by Lyn. I am adding another hypothesis of the higher hypothesis besides him scribbling the history of the LC on a prison napkin. Ever notice that Lyn likes to describe the yutes as "Gideon's Army". That got me thinking of the Archangel Gabriel's Horn.

Just compare that to the Triple Swerve of Lyn.

http://curvebank.calstatela.edu/torricelli/torricelli.htm

Have fun pushing those "Children of Satan' briefs yutes. You ae going to find out your peer group has a love for that too.

Below you hsould have lyn's Triple Curve, er Swerve, Gabriel's horn, A triple curve with yearly data plugged in and plotted, and lyn the prediction magician.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Attached Images\\z TripleCurve.jpg‎ (23.5 KB, 7 views)
gabriels horn.jpg‎ (10.1 KB, 5 views) LHL with crystall ball.jpg‎ (9.1 KB, 5 views)
Attached Files
TRIPLE_CURVE__WITH_REAL_NUMBERS.pdf‎ (10.9 KB, 7 views)
Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-21-2008 at 07:04 PM.

02-21-2008 09:15 PM

socialistboomer

please allow me to introduce myself

I'm a former member of the Labor Committees (joined in '68; left very shortly after the Chris White/KGB/brainwashing national conference). I've been an occasional lurker since around the time of the death of Ken Kronberg, who I remember seeing, but don't know if I ever spoke with. To those of you who were, and remain, close to him, I send you my warm wishes.

I haven't spent much time checking factnet for reasons personal to me -- I don't find it valuable (to me) -- I'm not that interested and I see nothing about the LC that was useful _and_ distinctive. At least until 1973, I see it as one of a number of left socialist vanguard sects -- no better, no worse, no particular merit. Additionally, the number of factual inaccuracies on the factnet threads (none deliberate, I believe) is so great that it cannot be accounted for by simple memory loss; I suspect that even cursory fact-checking is often not done.

There is one thing about factnet that really bothers me. That's the constant use of the word "yutes." Now, if "yutes" was used (either in speech or in writing) in Laroucheland, that's one thing. But if it's a factnet convention, there's something wrong. I don't know why people use it -- I suspect some do so just because that's how it's done here. I think that all of us who went through LaRouchism, in whatever guises, should have learned better than doing things because "the group" does it. And for those who have some other reason, I find it repellant. Perhaps you're doing it because you see it as a "heuristic device." Well, not all devices work. Perhaps you think it's clever. I don't , and I don't think repetition is the soul of cleverness.

Regardless of what you think you're doing, it comes across to me as if you are saying that "the youth" are a bunch of uncultured louts. Perhaps they are; perhaps all of them are. Loutishness is an unappealing quality. As far as I'm concerned, being "uncultured" is no problem. And people who think of themselves as "cultured" and make a point of asserting or demonstrating that they are, engage in behavior that I find quite unattaractive. I am not saying that this is why the term is used; just how it comes across to me.

But since I don't find it useful or clever, and other lurkers just might have a similar view, why say it unless you have good reason to.

As to Lyn (who I remember with a certain fondness -- his weirdness and goofyiness -- and) who is a monster and commits monstrous acts: At a certain point after reading Fidel Castro's recent message (which the press falsely calls a resignation statement), I contrasted my view of Castro's message with vrious things that Lyn has recently written. Castro has no interest in his immortality; he certainly does not claim to have the ability to make others immortal; and he does not think, and I'm sure has never thought, that the existence of humankind and the planet is dependent on Fidel Castro. Regardless of your view of Castro and the Cuban Revolution, it is a warm, decent and (to me) moving statement.

I was a socialist before, during and since my LC affiliation. My conception of and ideas about what socialism means are far vaguer than when I was younger, and I'm not an activist.

So, I'll conclude [stormy applause, sighs of relief]:

"So raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds, we'll live and die.
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here."

Venceremos!

socialistboomer

02-21-2008 09:56 PM

socialistboomer

Originally Posted by borismaglev
Is that a red flag you are flying there or a red diaper?

My parents were not members of the CP, so just the flag.

02-21-2008 11:00 PM

scrimscraw

If not "yutes", what?

Originally Posted by socialistboomer
There is one thing about factnet that really bothers me. That's the constant use of the word "yutes." Now, if "yutes" was used (either in speech or in writing) in Laroucheland, that's one thing. But if it's a factnet convention, there's something wrong. I don't know why people use it -- I suspect some do so just because that's how it's done here. I think that all of us who went through LaRouchism, in whatever guises, should have learned better than doing things because "the group" does it. And for those who have some other reason, I find it repellant. Perhaps you're doing it because you see it as a "heuristic device." Well, not all devices work. Perhaps you think it's clever. I don't , and I don't think repetition is the soul of cleverness.
Regardless of what you think you're doing, it comes across to me as if you are saying that "the youth" are a bunch of uncultured louts. Perhaps they are; perhaps all of them are. Loutishness is an unappealing quality. As far as I'm concerned, being "uncultured" is no problem. And people who think of themselves as "cultured" and make a point of asserting or demonstrating that they are, engage in behavior that I find quite unattaractive. I am not saying that this is why the term is used; just how it comes across to me.

Having read through most of the threads here (or at least 2/3rds of them), I seem to recall that "yute" was a coinage here on this board. Mildly disparaging, rather like "card table shrine." It did occur to me at one point that if the reason for this board is to try and intervene and wake LYMers up, that calling them "yutes" might be counterproductive. But, after awhile, I just got used to it, kind of like calling Moonies, well, Moonies.

I think of "yute" as a kind of exasperated but affectionate expression, along the lines of "get off the couch, you doofus!" But, I suspect there is also an element of rueful self-criticism embedded in the term, with ex-LC members using it as a kind of shock name, because they wish someone had come along and shocked them into seeing what the LC really was about before they wasted months or years in it.

I see nothing about the LC that was useful _and_ distinctive. At least until 1973, I see it as one of a number of left socialist vanguard sects -- no better, no worse, no particular merit.

Everyone is entitled to their view of the LC and yours makes sense as far as it goes. Many vanguard sects were, in many ways, built around a main dominant personality, such as PL, RCP, October League, or certain Trotskyist groups. Viewing things from outside all of them, as I do, I just think that the LC was loonier and in some specifics (such as ego-stripping) certainly worse than many. But, it is also worth remembering that 1973 was 35 years ago, and from Operation Mop-Up on, the cult has been distinctive in its amoral (at best) tactics and its exploitation of members and naive supporters. It has morphed far beyond its original socialist shape into something both more monstrous and pitiful.

But back to the "yute" term, I also think it is used in an attempt to inject some humor into the critiques here. It is a kind of proxy for how LHL must regard his own recruited youths. A kind of patronizing "have fun!" term.

Whether it is perceived as insulting or offputting might be best told us by some of the LYMers reading the postings here.

02-22-2008 12:26 AM

wassel

xlcer4life,

helpful stuff. I think part of the healing process for us is to consider carefully the claims that LHL is making. also:

-a software program, is a purely mental algorithm which physically is nothing but a rearrangement of electrical charges. Yet, a piece of software can organize a company's supply chain -- say the timing and geographical allocation of a supermarket chain's truck fleet that saves millions of dollars without altering the number of trucks, or drivers or the contents of the trucks. Is it a drain on the real economy?

is the LC claiming that computer software is a drain on the real economy?

PS. how do you get the quote feature to work?

02-22-2008 01:37 AM

scrimscraw

Originally Posted by wassel
PS. how do you get the quote feature to work?

Hit the Quote button on the right of the screen of the posting you want to quote from. Alternately, copy and paste a passage into the Reply screen and click on the little icon of a comic strip balloon.

At least this all works in my settings.

02-22-2008 08:15 AM

larouchetruth

I have never liked the "yutes" usage, and never use it.

I concur with socialist boomer on that one. It strikes me as identical to what LaRouche does to everyone he doesn't like, come up with some insulting moniker, and I have never used it any of my previous posts. I believe the LYM members should be addressed with the same respectful forms of address that should be used for anyone else, and I am always careful to refer to them as "LYMers" or "LYM members." I wish we would all adopt this approach. And I can't believe we haven't hurt our credibility with LYM members who have lurked on this site by this, IMO, insulting moniker. What's the point? I can't see one.

02-22-2008 09:03 AM

shadok

yutes

Sorry guys but it s such a formal debate about the use of the term "yute". I haven't used it but I would. In a sense it is all become a very "larouchian" discussion now. "Naming the names", labeling people etc are the central formalist method in a larouchie's mind (ooops are we allowed to call them "larouchie" ? - I was one!).
This discussion board is not about words or names, it s about substance and it has helped many to leave the cult. I have helped directly some to leave and I can assure you that calling them "yutes" is not insulting and nowhere near what a larouchie would call YOU (insults like "are you sodomized by Rohatyn?", "you nazi, fascist, gay..." etc - you would know this only when you try engage in a discussion with one of them) In No way it would discredit this discussion board in a larouchie's eyes. We ARE de facto discredited and vilified by larouche, not because we call them "yutes" but because of the quality of the arguments and information posted here: substance.
Yet, there is no hatred here against the LYM-ers, quite the contrary. All we are trying to do is to help them thinking outside of their box/cage. Most of us are now parents and do care for these poor "yutes" and their parents, friends or relatives who often are desperate and clueless.
So, (and if you really care about them) let's go back to some substance.

Last edited by shadok; 02-22-2008 at 09:29 AM.

02-22-2008 01:15 PM

yamabkad

Echoing some of the posts so far, I don't particularly care for the term either way. Since there is some remainder of a member in each of us from the time when we were (or are) larouche youth, the goal of posting on this site, IMHO, should be to minimize the "yute" in everyone.

Echoing shadok a bit, I guess we could attempt to do this by not typing the words, and doing that would certainly get rid of the "yutes" on this message board...

02-22-2008 02:54 PM

gladtobexlc

Originally Posted by socialistboomer
I'm a former member of the Labor Committees (joined in '68; left very shortly after the Chris White/KGB/brainwashing national conference).

Welcome to the list! I know you've been lurking for a long time, but still, it's good to hear from a new voice here.

Originally Posted by socialistboomer
There is one thing about factnet that really bothers me. That's the constant use of the word "yutes."....Perhaps you think it's clever. I don't , and I don't think repetition is the soul of cleverness.

I agree that the word has been heavily overused. It does actually have a certain value as it combines the connotations of religious fervor (referring to the Methodist Youth Understanding the Eternal Salvation) and the humor of the Joe Pesci bits in My Cousin Vinny. It can also be used to specify the younger members of the current LC organization as opposed to the worthless (to Lyn) boomers still hanging on.

So I don't find the occasional use of the term offensive. However, when it gets tossed around in post after post, I feel that it's name-calling for the sake of making the people in question look foolish (and feel foolish, if they happen to be lurking). I don't think calling people names is likely to change their minds and I don't think it's a particularly valuable contribution to the discourse here.

Originally Posted by socialistboomer
"So raise the scarlet standard high
Beneath its folds, we'll live and die.
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer
We'll keep the red flag flying here."
Venceremos!

It's nice to hear a positive thought sometimes, when most of what we write about here is pretty depressing.
Last edited by gladtobexlc; 02-22-2008 at 03:40 PM. Reason: typo

02-22-2008 03:02 PM

gladtobexlc

Originally Posted by shadok
This discussion board is not about words or names, it s about substance ...Yet, there is no hatred here against the LYM-ers, quite the contrary. All we are trying to do is to help them thinking outside of their box/cage. ...let's go back to some substance.

If you seriously wish to help the current members, then the question of whether calling them names is helpful, is an important question, and does not deserve to be brushed off as not being of "substance."

02-22-2008 03:30 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by borismaglev
Let's do what Joe Pesci did when confronted with Judge Fred Gwynne's objection to the use of the term "yutes." Let's call them "youths" and see if it is less funny. But, please, not "young adults," ok? That is the term of art employed by convicted felons.

I was pretty busy last night and wished to explain how "yute" came about, but BorisMaglev wins the prize.

In my home I have my computer and work area on a second floor loft which overlooks the family room. Late one night I was looking at the LYM website when the movie "My Cousin Vinny" was playing and the hilarious court room scene was on where the sounds of Joe Pesci talking about "these two yutes" with Fred Gwynne then asking him what a "yute" is. Priceless comedy and it solved a problem I was seeing on a few web sites and blogs.

"Larouchey" was being used by many people and I thought that was not a healthy thing to call a naive young person who dropped out of college to do what they thought was a noble action. After all, I was in their shoes many years ago and knew the emotions which propel you to wish to do something. Part of the reason why many former members never wrote or expressed any thing about their experience was becuase they would be called an ex larouchie". That seemed like a problem because who the F wishes to talk to or explain something about what they went through to assist other people if it all boils down to you being a Larouchie? I do not blame any former member for being quiet about what they went through and finally figured out that cults seem to take advanatage of being a cult in that the people who leave willbe so ashamed that they will not go to the police when they witnessed a crime. They will not stick their head out when they have a chance to warn new recruits about what they will be put through. They will not volunteer knowledge which can be used by various agencies like the IRS or college writers to write factually correct articles.

The cult benefits from this which is why you rarely find legal action against the crimes and abuses which took place because the victim was not only abused by the cult, but now finds themselves facing more ridicule for admitting that they were taken advantage of. The Larouche cult knows this and we learned first hand when we were busy hijacking the life savings of our elderly supporters. The victims were more afraid of being laughed at and ridiculed by their family and law enforcement and reluctantly discussed what happened to their money. Scam artists know this and count on it as they leave to the next set of victims.

What I find interesting in comparing the era when I was in to today is how much more intense classic cult techniques are used on the LYM. In the past one could reside in an entity or side show like the FEF and maintain a level of individual identity to stay sane when confronted with the lunacy. The transition over time has everything a naive member today using Larouche as the prefix to where the entire identity is Lyn and nothing else.

I find it easier to describe a young, naive college drop out a yute instead of further , in my mind, victimizing them again by using Larouche youth or Larouchey. Over the years I have been pretty consistent in stating that the reason why a person joins something like the lYM and the LC are noble and should be understood by anyone who wishes to learn about how they operate. The tragic part is how that goodness is taken advantage of by a madman and the person is placed on a hamster syle endless run with no end in sight. Lyn has to convince members that he is the only way and that is basic cult 101.

The LYM used to have their own forum which allowed questions to take place. I found those and simply raised questions about the history of the LC and how Lyn operates. There are others who found that site also. Within a very short time, they shut down their own public forum. I was recieving emails from LYM members who asked me to continue to post on the site because it was the only exciting thing going on where members began to question the LA office about many things. I recieved emails from LA members who left and were thanking me for showing them that their hearts were in the right place, but their choice of who to work with was not.

Among the most popular requests was for LC history in endless mobilizations, being thrown out of an apt, why were older members always being attacked (this is 5 years ago) why they knew nothing about Jeremiah Duggan and were told to keep their mouths shut, what was the real story about the convictions why won't anyone talk about Mop Up, 1974, the CHris White brainwashing and the anti semitism they heard about but were told by older Jewish member that we never said anything about the Holocaust.

I view "yute" as that "in betweeness' we talked about in the LC where we simply wish that a person just question their habitat of their surrounding and figure out what many of us figured out . Perhaps if there was an internet in 1974 when someone like our newest visitor left the LC, he or she could have written about why they left and what they found was wrong. Maybe I would have found that and questioned what I was doing and my life would have taken a different direction. That is all in the past and what people here write does make a difference and is read by many people who run into the Lym.

On a personal note, I have recieved many, many emails from former members who left one way or another. In almost every case they have said that reading factnet.org was an eye opener and made everything they were thinking come together as they had no clue where to go to find out about LYN untl they had some free time on a computer and did some searches. In most cases the person has taken some time off, cleared their head and returned to school and their former interests, friends and family.

To our newest poster you are correct that there are errors here which are not deliberate. It is because of the way the LC was structured by Lyn from the getgo. Nonone has the complete picture and I am constantly surprised at what I find and am told by members. Anything you have about the era fro 1969 to when you left is more than welcome since that is an uncharted area and before many of us. Any corrections you have are welcome because what you will find is that Lyn would tell different people different things at the same time for his overall control.

How different would have things been if the people who knew the Chris White brainwashing was a hoax were more vocal about it and were able to post that information for other members to read? Was there any discussion about this at the time ? How did that prople you to leave?

What I find in the history of the LC is that whenever a policy, money issue or hidden problem is found out by members and discussed, members leave and lyn has to keep those stilll in by creating another level of intense 24/7 lunacy and try to replace the lost numbers using a current problem on well menaing but naive youth.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Last edited by xlcr4life; 02-22-2008 at 03:34 PM.

02-22-2008 03:40 PM

xlcr4life

The ever important GamePolitics points us to this bat**** insane press release from Lyndon LaRouche's PAC that claims, without a hint of irony, that the perpetrator of the Northern Illinois massacre "was allegedly addicted to Microsoft's Counterstrike killer video-game." Oh wait, it gets better. The title of the release? Microsoft Will Kill More Youth than Hitler

Quote: The intended effect, to foster an environment of mass suicide terrorism in the U.S.A., is a by-product of the 'Revolution in Military Affairs' policy [See Expose], organized by Felix Rohatyn and George P. Shultz; the same individuals, who not only helped to install the fascist Pinochet into the Chilean government, but are the prime backers of a fascist Bloomberg Presidency.

Now that's a special kind of crazy. He makes Jack Thompson look like an angel in comparison.

Dr.Finger
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Dr.Finger
Find More Posts by Dr.Finger

02-19-2008, 02:54 PM #2
CaptStu
Starting An EvAv Revolt!

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Alabama
Posts: 5,221 Hmm. Didn't know CS was an MS property. __________________ Live: CaptStu
Zune: CaptStu

I pity the Asian telcom executive with a southern accent that I know will cross your path one day. He will get the pounding of a lifetime. - civil_dead

CaptStu
View Public Profile
Send a private message to CaptStu
Find More Posts by CaptStu

02-19-2008, 02:54 PM #3
frederec
Pseudodifferential

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 836 Anyone that seriously looks at the field of mathematics as an evil cult is a special kind of crazy. Or maybe I'm just saying that because I'm part of the cult.

frederec
View Public Profile
Send a private message to frederec
Find More Posts by frederec

02-19-2008, 02:55 PM #4
IrishWhiskey
Living in Wikiality

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Thousand Oaks, CA
Posts: 4,566 How the hell the LaRouche movement is so big in this country is one of life's great mysteries to me.

He's sorta liberal, sorta conservative, sorta libertarian, and completely crazy. __________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Expugnare
If a cow evolves with a machine gun up its ass and kills me, so be it.

"A fool's fool fools fools who foolishly accept the foolishness of a fool's fool"
- Franziska VonKarma

IrishWhiskey
View Public Profile
Send a private message to IrishWhiskey
Find More Posts by IrishWhiskey

02-19-2008, 02:56 PM #5
Disgustipated
I'm Old Gregg!

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Jose
Posts: 9,867 What a retard. CS isn't even owned by Microsoft. Valve owns the license.

So Valve has caused these deaths!
__________________ The Who's Who is back and better than ever!
http://www.immortalmachines.com/ : PC Gaming Is Not Dead
Gamertag: Disgustipated X

Disgustipated
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Disgustipated
Visit Disgustipated's homepage!
Find More Posts by Disgustipated

02-19-2008, 03:03 PM #6
Dr.Finger
The Red Lantern

Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,327 Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishWhiskey
How the hell the LaRouche movement is so big in this country is one of life's great mysteries to me.

He's sorta liberal, sorta conservative, sorta libertarian, and completely crazy.

You know, he may be the most unifying force in American politics - everybody thinks he's nuts. __________________

[Gamertag - DoctorFinger]

Grab our Comic Podcast - Johnny Gigawatt and the Tiger Men from Mars

Here we have some gamers who discuss Larouche.

http://kotaku.com/358052/larouche-blames-microsoft-for-niu-tragedy/

Lyn sure has a reason to hate the interent. This kind of instant feedback did not exist in most of the days of the LC.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-22-2008 05:20 PM

scrimscraw

Mystic Ruminations

My approach, over the years, to skimming LC material while maintaining my sanity, has been to look for those choice phrases that seem to best personify the underlying looniness. LHL's writings were usually the richest veins to tap, but with the decline in LC literacy and the departure of competent editors, I now find whoppers popping up all over the place.

Today's question: Is the following by the Great One or by one of his earnest youthful choir?

How Green Were the Nazis?
February 21, 2008 (LPAC)-- Many might remember the famous story of the foreign intruders that invaded the pure soil of Nazi Germany, which supposedly caused considerable upset to the blooming native flowers cherished by the Nazi leaders. Today, with the mystic ruminations of the Green God of Gore, Albert, the British empire's plan for a universal Mussolini Bloomberg-style fascism is brought into an eerie perspective.

I'm tilting towards voting that it's Lyn. That first sentence resonates with a typical Lynism -- referencing a "famous story" that no one else has heard of AND waxing poetic about the Nazis under the guise of irony. The "pure soil of Nazi Germany" indeed.

On the other hand, the phrase "the mystic ruminations of the Green God of Gore, Albert," is so stunningly awkward (yet gothic!) that I'm thinking that the budding Marvel Comics writer in the Basement has been allowed upstairs again for a bit of sunlight and a spin at the keyboard.

The rest of the short item is just a summary of a Bloomberg speech about Climate Change that, frankly, mostly struck me as reasonable (the speech that is).

As for the catchy title of this piece? The author never quite addresses it. (Surprise!) He just attempts to wrap things up with a failed catchy phrase:

It might be asked by those who consider history, how green were the Rohatyn Boys?

I'm guessing Lyn again on this one. The portentious first clause leads into a non sequitur rhetorical question that only makes sense if one has internalized the LaRouchian demonology.

Awesome.
Last edited by scrimscraw; 02-22-2008 at 05:44 PM.

02-22-2008 07:54 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by scrimscraw
I'm tilting towards voting that it's Lyn. That first sentence resonates with a typical Lynism -- referencing a "famous story" that no one else has heard of AND waxing poetic about the Nazis under the guise of irony. The "pure soil of Nazi Germany" indeed.

This is a reference to one of the best EIR articles Dean Andromidas ever wrote which we have placed here for everyone to read every now and then.

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007_10-19/2007-13/pdf/49-50_713_hitler.pdf

Dean ties Al Gore, Nazis, New Dark Ages and so much more that I doubt a paid comedic writer could ever come close to this one.

The point of all of this lunacy is as usual, for the internal audience. Lyn does not need any LYM member to think that there is any bit of good in anyone except himself and his children of the good. Bloomberg, the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world raises issues about the pollution levels of NYC and is there a way to lower them in large cities around the globe. This requires rationale thought which can be emotional. But in the end you will need people who have expertise in energy storage, production, mass transit, urban landscaping and other areas instead of a naive drop outs in a cult. Bloomberg's NYC will be the home of the first commercial construction of superconductive wiring.

http://media.cleantech.com/1195/american-superconductor-to-gird-new-yo

Lyn does not need a member who looks at the real world and wants to be part of it and engage in some real way to work or study in it. When that happens you get a Bob Zubrin where you discover that if you go back to school you just might get a PHD , have high profile jobs , write books people pay money for, invent things and have a family. lyn's solution is to make everone and everything scary, corrupt, evil and part of a massive conspiracyagainst him .

It really is quite sick to look at this when you have a few hundred ex students who have so many opportunities in so many different areas to do something to have that delayed for a madman's delusion.

One can disagree with Al Gore about Co2 dangers, but Lyn needs to demonize any suggestion of environmental concern as being on par with genocide. How many of the current yutes would be valuable for lobbying for or working on mass transit, waste to energy plants, alternative energy sources instead of stanbding at a card table shrine rasing money where 5 K a week is being sent of to a sam artist who is telling Lyn that the Elites are following his every word to save themselves?

I think of this stuff when I turn on the Discovery channel or pick up an issue of Popular Science and see so many college kids who are busy on many campuses studying and developing things like biofuels from algae instead of corn for fuel. Thinking back to what Lyn has done one can be amazed at how many subjects and areas he has demonized to discourage a student from studying or going to work in.

Lyn has a bug up his ass about computers and numbers except when smart LCers ran Computron and he was able use that as his piggy bank. Think of the absurdity of Lyn and the LC/LYM charade talking about Al Gore and hte VPs Naval Observatory remodeling when below you should see some snapshots of the IBYKUS main house and guest house.

Lyn had member receiving 5 bucks a day when he was living in this house

Read this affadavit from the FBI during a trial about how much money was being spent on Ibykus .

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-finances1.PDF

I would ask current members to ask themselves why with all of the possible titles for a pamphlet, does LYN/LC/LYM print pamphlets with a historical anti semitic title of "Children of Satan"? You thought that this was just about Dick Cheney who is poretty easy to despoise. Do you have any historical grasp of what "Children of Satan means? If you do not wish to use the evil Wikipedia where this comes from:

"The Encyclopedia Judaica interprets the title "Children of Satan" to be a form of "masked anti-Semitism." An entry in the encyclopedia includes this passage: "A series of LaRouchite pamphlets calls the neoconservative movement the "Children of Satan," which links Jewish neo-conservatives to the historic rhetoric of the blood libel. In a twisted irony, the pamphlets imply the neoconservatives are the real neo-Nazis.""

Try this site to see how this is used.

http://www.aryannations.org/

"We also know that there are literal children of Satan in this world. These children are the descendents of Cain, who was the result of Eve's original sin, her physical seduction by Satan. We know that because of this sin, there is a battle and a natural enmity between the children of Satan and the children of the highest God, Yahveh. (Gen.3:15) The Canaanite Jews are a literal descendent of Satan and the natural enemy of our white Christian race. This is attested by scripture and all of history."

I think the odds of several EXLYM , a few years from now recoiling at what they thought they were doing and what was actually the case is pretty high. The Children of Lyn fighting the Children of Satan, yikes.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

Attached Images
ibykus1.jpg‎ (53.6 KB, 12 views)
ibykus2.jpg‎ (60.4 KB, 9 views)
ibykus3.jpg‎ (70.3 KB, 9 views)
ibykus4.jpg‎ (48.2 KB, 11 views)

02-22-2008 09:31 PM

borisbad

with regards to Scrimshaw, I disagree that the quote he cited: "It might be asked by those who consider history, how green were the Rohatyn Boys?" was by Lyn. Of course it reeks of the kind of tepid "irony he tries to insert in his writings but it seems to lack the ever-present comma associated with his highly obstruse writing. I believe he might have written: "It might be asked, by those who consider, history, how green, were the Rohatyn Boys?"
It definitely was written by someone attempting to emulate the Master, Sauranam the White Wizard.

02-22-2008 11:36 PM

scrimscraw

How Green is my Valley?

Originally Posted by borisbad
with regards to Scrimshaw, I disagree that the quote he cited: "It might be asked by those who consider history, how green were the Rohatyn Boys?" was by Lyn. Of course it reeks of the kind of tepid "irony he tries to insert in his writings but it seems to lack the ever-present comma associated with his highly obstruse writing. I believe he might have written: "It might be asked, by those who consider, history, how green, were the Rohatyn Boys?"
It definitely was written by someone attempting to emulate the Master, Sauranam the White Wizard.

LOL. You are probably right, Borisbad! I'm guessing that the author is Mark Samet, who could be writing Spiderman if only he'd bust free from the cage in the Basement. Mark, dude! Follow your bliss! Your talents are wasted on LARpac, I assure you.

02-23-2008 12:25 PM

hecker

Hi, everybody, after having seen the blogs mentioning the Detroit local and its leader Ken Dalto, i looked through my picture files and found an old photo of Dalto from 79: the times they are a changing....

Oops: help, how can I insert pics here?

02-23-2008 10:10 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by hecker
Hi, everybody, after having seen the blogs mentioning the Detroit local and its leader Ken Dalto, i looked through my picture files and found an old photo of Dalto from 79: the times they are a changing....
Oops: help, how can I insert pics here?

There are a few ways to insert a picture.

You can scan it into your computer and then start a post. At the bottom of the page you should see "advanced", this opens up little page where you can download a picture from your computer.

Always keep in mind that there is a KB limit, so use a low resolution setting.

It should appear as an icon in your post to be clicked on for a larger view.

Hope that helps and welcome. Any contributions (writing, not money or promisorry notes) are welcome. There is a huge difference between what was presented to the remaining LC membership and what actually happened. Needles to say, Lyn used his cheap parlor trick of saying that he knew all along this was going to happen.

We can also use some info about how we were briefing and meeting with Gerald Ford's family in Grand Rapids, calling Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the 1970s, the mob start up money for Ren Prints if that was true, Lyn's Bloomfiled home, the mob people we worked with in Atlanta where a car rammed the legs of an organiser, the far right wing farm and militia contacts, KKK friends and whole lot more.

Dalto appeared to try to set up his own cult of personality at Ren Prints is what many former members of that set up have mentioned in why they left Dalto.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-24-2008 01:51 AM

jimmy-o

Originally Posted by socialistboomer
There is one thing about factnet that really bothers me. That's the constant use of the word "yutes." Now, if "yutes" was used (either in speech or in writing) in Laroucheland, that's one thing.

A little late, but I wanted to add one thing. The word "yutes" was certainly used in my local when I was in the LYM a few years back. There were the "boomers" and the "yutes" and that was generally how they referred to each other. Not sure if that's why it's used here, though. I never liked either word, personally, or the whole inciting of generational conflict that went with it.

02-24-2008 07:52 AM

hecker

Thanks for the advice,it seems have to worked. Well, looking at Dalto's present picture, I am not so sure whether leaving the LC has helped his development so much? He looks like a baron right out of Charles Dicken's time... quite an ego himself. Right?

Attached Images
dalto-alt.jpg‎ (9.6 KB, 22 views)
dalto-new.jpg‎ (38.2 KB, 19 views)

02-24-2008 02:47 PM

xlcr4life

Great picture Hecker. It's too bad you do not have a picture of his legendary ironed and pressed creases in his trousers he used to gleam about. Dalto had a real big operation going and he pulled the wool over Lyn the NEC and security for a long time as he and others planned their split. The culmination was the National Conference in Detroit at the Black Masons hall. His staff brought out literally a throne for Helga to sit on during her self introduction to the LC. He also had a late night party with plenty of booze which ended with a midnight breakfast buffet. It was a sight to see LCers staggering out of the hall with a few vomiting at the exits.

On using the word "yutes". I will add that about 5 or so years ago, you could listen to a live briefing from the LA LYM office. Ona few of those I heard a person proclaim the future power of Larouche yute in carrying out "Lyn's mission". One of those "missions" was Harley telling the yutes that Jeremiah Duggan's death was a "hoax" , set up by the British and DIck Cheney to stop Lyn from winning the 2004 election.

You can go here:

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/

and listen to Erica Duggan describe what happened in 2003 and why this is a sick cult when you hear Harley, Lyn and read what they have printed over the years. The same sickness emerged again when Ken Kronberg died and Lyn and the cult could not contain themselves. many Lcers quit after that and I thank everyone of them. If you think about the many members who have resigned over the years, the treatment of people , including themselves and supporters was always a factor. Lyn has spent his entire life and nearly 250 million dollars declaring his mastery of the Universe as the casualtiies, losses and deaths pile up.

Instead of yute, one can write "Children of Lyn". However, I thought that was making a naive yute a victim one more time. I take the legal approach where the master is held responsible for the crimes of his slaves.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-24-2008 04:19 PM

borisbad

In addition to those like Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg, lt's also remember those who died travelling in death trap autos because money had to go to the national center rather than spending money on frivolities like oil changes and tire replacements, not to mention those who got sick because they had no medical insurance, etc. And it has nothing to do with "sacrifice" like the revolutionary soldiers at Valley Forge, or the Russians at the Siege of Stalingrad. At least George Washington was out there with his troops, unlike Lyn and Helga who get to drink their spaetlaeze at their retreats with Jeff and Michelle.

02-24-2008 06:46 PM

scrimscraw

Orders of Magnitude

I was just watching the most recent emission from LARpac, the Firewall video, but I got derailed by a "wait a minute!" moment...

One of LHL's favorite rhetorical phrases is "order of magnitude." Thus in the little clip from his mighty Jan. 17th webcast, he was talking about the crisis getting worse, week by week, by an "order of magnitude."

So, I was thinking, hey! what does that assertion really mean? So I looked did a "define: order of magnitude" on Google and nearly every definition pegged it as an increase by a factor of ten.

So, if the economy's in bad shape in week 1, it would be ten times worse in week 2, and 100 times worse (than week 1) in week 3, and so on.

So, here we are over 5 weeks after that webcast. Lyn's prophecy was that by now, things would be 10,000 times worse than on Jan. 17th.

Glad we got that cleared up!

02-24-2008 10:24 PM

borisbad

But you are probably overlooking Riemanian manifolds and the Cantor progression of n, n+1, n+2, and so on into the the transfinite and beyond. So really we are probably talking about much higher rates than such simple linear magnitudes.

02-25-2008 02:30 AM

wassel

i've been looking out my window every 10 minutes since learning of lyn's prediction. still no dungheaps, just redwoods, riding hills in sheets of ocean rain.

02-25-2008 06:02 PM

xlcr4life

Originally Posted by wassel
i've been looking out my window every 10 minutes since learning of lyn's prediction. still no dungheaps, just redwoods, riding hills in sheets of ocean rain.

This reminds me of when we attempted to set up an EIR alert service to provide our contacts with "up to the minute economic forecasting. It seems that no matter what time of day, month or year you called, our forecast was always a depression and a New Dark Ages. What should our contacts do with their investments? "You need to cash out all of your paper and give money to us so we can buy more TV time for Lyn to avert the crash".

This is all hillarious because as we were paying LC ers 5 bucks a day and having them evicted from their flats, we were secretly buying up prime land in Leesburg, a 185 acre estate outside Leesburg, a thousand acres here and a few hundred there. Our real nice glossy prospectus which we were giving out to the people who "invested" with us in PGM had a completely different economic forecast by us. In that document, we were predicting a fast rise in Leesburg economic activity and the surrounding areas around Dulles and along Leesburg Pike. We were telling people that it was wise to buy land and develop office buildings in those areas and investing with us was a great way to support us and make money.

Just ask Ed and Nancy, Lonnie, Barbara and others to explain how we both predicted a real estate boom and then lost all of it in the Leesburg area.

My misfortune as a yute back then was that I viewed things more as a legit business instead of a cult. To me, I guessed (wrongly) that the NEC would function as a sort of Board of Directors who could reign in some lunacy and some spending problems. If you look at how Lyn has run this cult and its subsideraries, Lyn is on par with the head of Tycho years ago and many corporate criminals.

The big difference is that Lyn knew this was, is and will be a cult and members did not. When they figured it out, they left. Under a corporate set of accounting and due dilligence, Lyn should have been booted out of the LC for so many violations of laws that he should still be in prison. His commanding of paying out close to 13 million dollars to various scam artists is outright looting and grand theft. The transfer of his income to be under reported and yet live like a millionairs is criminal (wait, he was convicted of that). The dismisal of any opposition to examine books, the running up of debt with no safe guards for repayment and countless other items are things which put people in jail in the real world.

In the cult world, you can get away with all of this boys and girls. Lyn say to your face at confernces that you are all "volunteers' so you can kiss any thing like minimum wage and OT goodbye. I would make sure you have a real 1099 and anyone of you can trigger a complaint to the IRS and local wage and standard boards for your exploitation.

There have been members who have sued and used lawyers to get their rightfull wages and had bills paid which were run up in their name. These things are very hush hush and have happened a few time.

Read up on how cults use their status as a cult to evade the laws and work you to death kids. This has been going on for decades.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-25-2008 07:40 PM

scrimscraw

Christic Institute

Here's a question I've had in the back of my mind for some time. I seem to recall, in the course of reading through the threads here, some passing mention of LC security or EIR staff feeding info to the Christic Institute back in the '80s. Their whole Iran-Contra-Drugs lawsuit got tossed out of court, of course, but I always wondered whether they got some bum leads from the Bizarro universe. Anyone from that era recall? Xlcr4life?

02-25-2008 08:53 PM

socialistboomer

There's a fair amount of stuff on this online, easily accessible to anyone, at least in the U.S. For example, there's Alexander Cockburn's "Beat The Devil" column in the Nation, June 15, 1992, v. 254, issue 23, pp. 810-811. For electronic access from the comfort of your home, it helps if you have a public library card to virtually any US library, or access to any US academic libraries. I left the NCLC in '74, so I have no inside knowledge.

02-25-2008 10:47 PM

wassel

Please, I need enlightenment. In the Foreward to DE, p. v, I read:

"This necessity obliges authors and lecturers in this field to master an unusually broad range of source materials; we identify the most essential writings below. It also frequently compels the instructor to employ a style of exposition, for certain topics, which tends to offend prevailing academic tastes. Objections incurred on this account are not evidence of any actual defect in such passages. For reasons we shall identify here, it is impossible to competently elaborate any of the essential notions of marxian political economy employing ordinarily preferred forms of literary usage. However, unless the possible objection on this account is anticipated, as we do here, there is a danger that the student will mistake essential but apparently egregious features of formulations for mere stylistic aberrations. If he discounts those as aberrations, he will understand nothing of importance in this field. The following paragraphs, therefore, are included as warning against such misassessments."

What I'm reading here, between the lines of the author's intended meaning, is another message which goes something like:

"I'll ignore standards of English usage as I please -- including standards of paragraph organization and concision -- and you, my reader, will go along with it, or you 'will understand nothing of importance in this field.'"

Has anyone pursued the idea that Lyn is an alcoholic? I have these stories about his drinking from this and other sites, along with my own long-term observations that he refuses to subject himself to anyone else's authority and is obsessively controlling of others. These traits are prime markers for alcoholism.

At any rate, I would appreciate comments on my interpretation of his 'paragraph.'
Last edited by wassel; 02-25-2008 at 11:30 PM.

02-25-2008, 11:34 PM

wassel

swapping 'wassel' for 'boomer70'

i am switching my handle from 'wassel' to 'boomer70'.

02-26-2008, 04:50 PM

scrimscraw

Quote:
Originally Posted by wassel
What I'm reading here, between the lines of the author's intended meaning, is another message which goes something like:
"I'll ignore standards of English usage as I please -- including standards of paragraph organization and concision -- and you, my reader, will go along with it, or you 'will understand nothing of importance in this field.'"

That reads about right to me. Though to be fair to Lyn (!), he could be trying to say in a roundabout obtuse way that a Marxist economic analysis defines certain terms (like "labor" or "profit") differently from accepted (non-Marxist) usage.

Quote:
Has anyone pursued the idea that Lyn is an alcoholic? I have these stories about his drinking from this and other sites, along with my own long-term observations that he refuses to subject himself to anyone else's authority and is obsessively controlling of others. These traits are prime markers for alcoholism.

The likelihood has been remarked upon fairly often in past postings. Personally, I don't know the guy and I am reluctant to make clinical judgments from a great distance (and I'm not qualified to make one, anyway.) My impression is that he manifested the traits you mention from the very beginning of his political career.

02-26-2008, 10:44 PM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
That reads about right to me. Though to be fair to Lyn (!), he could be trying to say in a roundabout obtuse way that a Marxist economic analysis defines certain terms (like "labor" or "profit") differently from accepted (non-Marxist) usage.

I think he's pushing more than different terms, i.e., I think he's pushing his f*ck you 'style':

Quote:
Originally Posted by wassel
". . . It also frequently compels the instructor to employ a style of exposition, for certain topics, which tends to offend prevailing academic tastes. . . .impossible to competently elaborate any of the essential notions of marxian political economy employing ordinarily preferred forms of literary usage. . . . A danger that the student will mistake essential but apparently egregious features of formulations for mere stylistic aberrations.

But let me say here that I have been reading DE lately and feel that I am getting a lot out of it, e.g., revisiting the "scene of the crime" against me by Lyn and certain others in the org', and getting rid of some things which until now have been festering with very destructive effect. But also I find much in the book that is very worthwhile for my understanding of the world. Crazy people are sometimes worth listening to; just don't get sucked into their mess.

02-27-2008, 01:56 AM

boomer70

concerning Lyn's possible alcoholism, if anyone on this blog has seen him drunk it might be helpful to talk about it here. i myself was at a conference in nyc ~1975 where i thought he was UI for one of his presentations, but i was in a place where i wouldn't trust myself to be critical of lyn in any way and so never talked about it until now.

02-27-2008, 02:37 PM

xlcr4life

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
concerning Lyn's possible alcoholism, if anyone on this blog has seen him drunk it might be helpful to talk about it here. i myself was at a conference in nyc ~1975 where i thought he was UI for one of his presentations, but i was in a place where i wouldn't trust myself to be critical of lyn in any way and so never talked about it until now.

I have been sooo busy with my kids that I have been a little late with some material . Believe me, there is no end to what we can show everyone abut Lyn and the cult for interested parties. Speaking of parties, let us go back to our US Labor Party days in the waning dyas of the later 70s.

At hat time we were on a wine kick and Lyn began to introduce a few paragrapghs about wine into his memos. This ended up in a fashion similar to how many members were smoking pipes after seeing Lyn smoke a pipe. Each local now had the NCs become wine experts and our telex machines were spreading the Gospel about which German wine to buy.

To be a sophisticated LCer you now had to have both a rack for your pipe collection and a wine rack for your bottles. This continued into the 1980s when things got out of control and Lyn issued a memo about how members should drink smaller portions. Well, you know the laws of the Universe do not apply to Lyn. In NYC it was common knowledge that if you went into Lyns 58th st penthouse there would be tons of empties and Rheingau was now the wine of choice for Lyn. There was a liquor store on the East Side, I think Lexington ave where I picked up cases of the hooch.

Once we had Club Ibykus running, the drinking increased by an order of magnitude. As the legal cases were being run by Lyn, the legal expert, the amount of Rhinegau consumed became a running joke in the LC as anyone who went to Ibycus would usually have to keep both a straight face and be quiet about how smashed Lyn was. The common site was Lyn coming down the stairs in his underwear, a side arm in his shoulder hoster with some new breakthrough he just had a vison of based on a "tip" from one of the numerous scam artists working Lyn who were receiving cash for these tips. Phil U became the waiter who would serve Lyn at Ibykus. The story told to me is that Lyn smacked a glass off the table after taking a sip and yelled at Phil U for bringing him such a bad vintage with his meal.

It got so bad that I was told that Lyn was told to dry up by some MDs who thought he was going to do permanent damage. There is a lot more to this and we will see how many stories can be round up.

Hey, we got plenty of time. We have to go over The Christic Institute, LaroucheCare and Lyn vs the Gamers.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-27-2008, 03:47 PM

scrimscraw

Well, someone's smashed, I reckon...
The LARpac site continues to delight with its policy of putting up any old thing, no matter how incoherent. From the latest batch we have this apparent product of the "telephone game."

Quote:
Bloomberg's New "Congestive Sex" Policy for New York Isn't Very Desirable
February 25, 2008 (LPAC)--The "congestive sex" policy of Mussolini, infrastructure-the-hard-way, Bloomberg is, according to Lyndon LaRouche, a new plan to "love your mother while you still can" and the plan also provides the means for "breeding without sex" or in its most advanced stage, "breathing without sex."
The policy, which calls for a $8 per trip toll for cars and a $21 per trip toll for trucks to enter the borough of Manhattan, from its southern tip to 60th Street, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, is far from reaching its approval amongst many of New Yorks elected officials.

I guess the web crew in the Cellar are so hard up for material that they are taking LHL's "jokes" (I use the term advisably) and turning them into lede paragraphs. Man oh man, that first sentence might have meant something and worked as a offhanded half-witticism when uttered by Lyn as a Rheingau toast, but wrenched out of context it largely functions as an exercise in Freudian free association.

Let's see, we get traffic congestion turned into "congestive sex," along with what would appear to be a crack about loving Mother Earth morphed into an incest reference, followed by an artificial insemination yuk, followed by a pun about lack of sex. (And we won't even begin to enumerate the punctuation errors...)

Par for the course these days from the World's Greatest Economist.

Say, here's a theory: the web crew are actually having a little joke at Lyn's expense, by putting his "raw intelligence" directly up online. Lyn thinks his brilliant putdowns are being disseminated to the faithful, but fails to notice the snickering in the peanut gallery. :D

02-27-2008, 05:19 PM

scrimscraw

Apple Falls Not Too Far From Tree Dept.

By the way, with the talk of a hypothetical post-LC "LaRouche without LaRouche" org or stance, it is worth checking in now and then with that curious phenomenon known as Webster Tarpley, Jr. The Tarp has been busy spreading light and reason to the 9/11 movement, as well as retailing his own overwrought take on the world.

For a real frothing rug-chew, I recommend:

http://actindependent.org/FordFoundation.pdf

Includes the rather disengenous disclaimer:

Quote:
Instead, Berlet suggests that I am a sock-puppet for LaRouche. LaRouche drove me out of his organization in 1997, more than ten years ago. I have nothing in common with LaRouche, whose supporters have repeatedly slandered me, albeit in terms slightly different from those used by Berlet. LaRouche is a border guard for the sinister Hillary Clinton-Rahm Emanuel neocon warmonger machine in the Democratic Party. He is currently trying to combine that with the notion that Bush is a force for peace with Putin's Russia – a manifest absurdity, since Bush is promoting aggression against Russia in the form of a nuclear first-strike capability. Contrary to what Berlet writes, LaRouche has no commitment to 9/11 truth and has contributed nothing to the 9/11 truth movement. LaRouche has rather sponsored a personality cult complete with a youth movement which is a parody of Chairman Mao's Red Guards of the mid-1960s.

But you have to read the whole thing to really be able to savor the bit about "I have nothing in common with LaRouche." Right.

And speaking of sock-puppets, elsewhere on the same site, we find a missive by one Bruce Marshall, that includes the following lede:

Quote:
Do not be fooled! Barack Obama's call for National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank (NIRB) does not signal the return of the Democratic Party to the values of FDR and a revival of the Constitutional prerogative to "promote the general welfare," but would rather provide more welfare for Wall Street, and worse. Obama's plan is nothing more than the direct means of instituting the Rohatyn-Rudman National Investment Corporation (NIC) plan called for in 2005, which in essence is a revival of Mussolini's methods of corporatist control of the state in a politically correct post modern fashion.

Hmm. FDR, Rohatyn, and Mussolini, all in the same paragraph. Remind you of anyone?

02-27-2008, 11:53 PM

borisbad

There's so much to comment on. With respect to the "image" we used to foster with the Rheingau and the pipes, I remember smoking a pipe from almost the time I joined in the 70s to the time I quit in the 80s. I was a heretic in the sense that I appreciated good French wines as much as good German wines, and today drink mostly red wines, French, Californian or Australian. We also had the knitting fad in the very early days that I believe was begun by Nancy Spannaus, but many others joined her (I even started in for a while along with a then girlfriend I was trying to recruit - abduct) into the NCLC.

Webster's conspiracy theories seem like he wants to vie with Lyn and David Rense as to who can make the more outlandish and nonsensical accusations, perhaps he even goes further than LaRouche.

Lastly, as to Lyn's gullibility with his security contacts, I posted that article from the NY Times a little while back (I think page 1 of this thread) about Roy Frankhouser the Nazi friend of LaRouche's trial in 1987 where he comments about how gullible LaRouche was. I like the part where Roy suggests to the NCLC how they should be making their witnesses "unavailable" at the time that the case against the org. was centered in Boston.
I had the web link on my thread on page 1 if anyone's interested.

From the NY Times re: Frankhouser trial in MA
"... neo-Nazi hired for security by Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., the political extremist who frequently runs for President, bilked and ridiculed Mr. LaRouche and his associates, according to testimony and statements in the man's trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The man, Roy E. Frankhouser Jr., was sent by Mr. LaRouche to Boston in November 1984 to check on the progress of a Federal investigation into possible credit card fraud by LaRouche campaign workers. But Mr. Frankhouser, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, and two other members of a security team apparently went instead to a convention of fans of the television series Star Trek, being held in Scranton, Pa.

Mr. Frankhouser's conduct that weekend has no direct bearing on the charges against him but offers new insights into operation of the LaRouche organization. Mr. LaRouche, five aides and five related organizations are scheduled to go on trial here Monday before Judge Robert E. Keeton, who is also hearing the Frankhouser case.

According to testimony and other evidence in the trial, on Nov. 10, 1984, Mr. Frankhouser called the LaRouche headquarters in Leesburg, Va., from Scranton and claimed to be in Boston. According to the notes of a LaRouche aide that were later seized by the Government, Mr. Frankhouser reported from Scranton that there were Feds all over in Boston, and wiretaps on the phones of LaRouche workers. Jury Begins Deliberations

The testimony and notes were reviewed today in the closing arguments of the prosecution and the defense. Mr. Frankhouser, 48 years old, was charged in October 1986 along with 10 associates of Mr. LaRouche, when members of the LaRouche organization allegedly burned crucial papers and spirited potential witnesses out of the country to block a Federal grand jury's investigation into charges of credit card fraud.

The LaRouche workers are said to have made unauthorized charges of hundreds or thousands of dollars to the credit cards of contributors, or simply persons who had used their credit cards to buy LaRouche-affiliated publications.

Mr. LaRouche himself was added to the case in June 1987 and charged with obstruction of justice, but the case of Mr. Frankhouser was severed. A jury of seven women and five men deliberated for about an hour this afternoon and will resume Thursday.

The prosecutor, John J. E. Markham 2d, an assistant United States attorney, quoted in his closing arguments from the notes of a LaRouche aide containing advice from Mr. Frankhouser that your people in Boston should be unavailable - not there. 'A Little Ruse Going'

The prosecutor also cited frequent references in the notes of LaRouche aides that Mr. Frankhouser's advice on certain records was 451-F, a reference to the temperature on the Fahrenheit scale at which paper burns. According to the notes, the purpose of destroying or moving records was to prevent the investigators from linking Mr. LaRouche to a crime.

But Mr. Frankhouser's lawyer, Owen Walker, said his client had found the LaRouche workers gullible and had decided to take advantage of them.

Mr. Frankhouser had a little ruse going, said Mr. Walker, declaring that there had been a conspiracy to obstruct justice but that his client had not been part of it. The LaRouchites have had a history of threats, wrongdoing and obstruction of justice for years, said Mr. Walker. He cited sections of notebooks seized from the LaRouche headquarters calling for attacks on various individuals.

Mr. Walker maintained that his client had been trying to make them behave themselves and had counseled repaying some of those whose credit cards had been illegally billed. Allusion to Talking Horse..."

02-28-2008, 08:09 AM

larouchetruth

LaRouche Prediction Right Again

This just in. Michael Bloomberg announced today that he will NOT seek to run for president as an independent this year. Ooops.

Actually, the full story is as follows:

Avowed and explicit fascist and public admirer of Adolph Mussolini and Benito Hitler, Michael "gas chambers are us" Bloomberg confirmed today the prediction made last September by Lyndon LaRouche, that Bloomberg absolutely intends to be installed as a white horse in the White House (sic--should this read "on" a white horse??), in order to carry out the orders of his masters Felix "the cathouse" Rohatyn and George "Georgie Porgie" Schultz, and their London-run controller Lynne "mad woman of Chaillot" Cheney and her pussy-whipped wimp of a husband Dick "the Dick" Cheney, all according to the ideology spread since the early 1940s by that Nazi Heidegger-lover and fascist slut Hannah Arendt and her co-accomplices in the Frankfurt School and Congress of Sexual Freedom, which Bloomberg furthered today by disavowing an independent run for the presidency, after having set up both parties to nominate the weakest candidates possible on both sides, McCain on the Republican side, and Obama on the Democratic side, ensuring that he would knock out the only real opponent who might have stopped Bloomberg in his inexorable drive to the presidency, Hillary Clinton, setting the stage for Bloomberg to be made president by acclamation after McCain's health ensures he doesn't have a chance to win, and scandals hatched in London involving long-time Obama crony Tony "the slumlord and scuzz" Rezko topple him after he wins the nomination, leaving the Democrats without a candidate, clearing the way for Bloomberg to be perceived to be the only one to deal with the aftermath of the descent into a New Dark Age that began last July, accelerated by an order of magnitude in August, and has been deepening ever mor rapidly ever since, in the context of hyperinflation 100 times worse than that of Weimar Germany, preparing the way for a Bloomberg dictatorship 100 times worse than London tool Adolph Hitler's administration in Germany run on behalf of Hitler's British controllers of the likes of Winston Churchill.

02-28-2008, 12:57 PM

hecker

3 Attachment(s)

Of course, Lyn was always drinking a lot, and when he was plastered, he would rave about all kinds of issues e.g. threatening to throw nuclear bombs on South Africa if the Apartheid politics wouldn't be stopped, were he President of the USA. Nobody would question him on such nonsense, because nobody wanted to become the target of personal insults by the Great Leader.

By the way, in former times, the LC did well know how to celebrate and throw parties: here are a couple of examples showing the leadership dancing on New Years eve...at those days, the favorite booz, however, wasn't wine, but home-made eggnought.

02-28-2008, 03:11 PM

scrimscraw

Quote:
Originally Posted by larouchetruth
Actually, the full story is as follows:

Excellent summation! And only 5% more whack than the authentic yardage. It took me half-way through before it dawned on me that this wasn't a direct quote from the LARpac site. (But now I'm going to have to double-check just to make sure it isn't!)

And Hecker wrote:

Quote:
By the way, in former times, the LC did well know how to celebrate and throw parties: here are a couple of examples showing the leadership dancing on New Years eve

What year would this have been? I'm gathering that ties and jackets and dresses were the dress code for LC parties? Was Lyn lurking in the corner somewhere?

02-28-2008, 04:53 PM

poe

HiLHLary Clinton?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
By the way, with the talk of a hypothetical post-LC "LaRouche without LaRouche" org or stance, it is worth checking in now and then with that curious phenomenon known as Webster Tarpley, Jr. The Tarp has been busy spreading light and reason to the 9/11 movement, as well as retailing his own overwrought take on the world.
For a real frothing rug-chew, I recommend:
Includes the rather disengenous disclaimer:
But you have to read the whole thing to really be able to savor the bit about "I have nothing in common with LaRouche." Right.
And speaking of sock-puppets, elsewhere on the same site, we find a missive by one Bruce Marshall, that includes the following lede:
Hmm. FDR, Rohatyn, and Mussolini, all in the same paragraph. Remind you of anyone?

King and Berlet's mean-spirited campaign to "drive LaRouche agent Tarpley out of the 911 Truth Movement" seems to have had a very negative effect upon Tarpley's integrity. In the above quote from Tarpley, he correctly critiizes Lyn's current status as a "border guard for the Hillary Clinton Rahmm Emmanuel war party" , but since then, he and his collaborater Marshell have joined Lyn in his Obama -bashing and Hillary promoting. I think that LaRouche is correct in his criticism of Rohatyn, but if you do a Google search for +Clinton +Rohatyn you will generate a list that includes two main categoiries of articles. First, recent articles by LaRouche, Tarpley, and Marshell promoting the Clintons as the only ones who can stop a Bloomberg-Rohatyn Fascist Takeover, and second, a series of news articles about how Bill Clinton tried to appoint Felix Rohatyn to the Federal Reserve, and how he denounced the Republicans for blocking him. Lyn's defense of Hillary is pathetic. Ex-member Tarpley seemed to realize that, until the recent campaign against him drove him back toward Lyn. If Bloomberg does help impose fascism on America, he will most probably do it as Hilhlary's vice-president.

02-28-2008, 06:54 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
Excellent summation! And only 5% more whack than the authentic yardage. It took me half-way through before it dawned on me that this wasn't a direct quote from the LARpac site. (But now I'm going to have to double-check just to make sure it isn't!)
And Hecker wrote:
What year would this have been? I'm gathering that ties and jackets and dresses were the dress code for LC parties? Was Lyn lurking in the corner somewhere?

I confess that I thought it was real at first and also looked up the Lpac web site to see if that release was there. Amazing that once you start reading and figuring out the tricks, you too can write something which is passable Laroucheeze.

On the pictures I will guess that they are from the mid 1970s. The middle picture looks like a very young Chris and Carol White. I think those are the Spannaus kids in the backround. I was going to guess that it was after Jan 1974. But since everyone looks happy, maybe it was before Jan 1974. I think that may be Fred Wills in the backround, so that would place this around 1977. Allen S is in another picture. Sad to see him full of life back then when many years later he goes through LaroucheCare in Leesburg.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-28-2008, 08:41 PM

xlcr4life

We have so much to cover that I might as well start with some current commments about lyn and the cult. Lyn's legacy will be blogged one day at a time. A sort of death by a thousand electronic paper cuts.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22314569&postID=8716830656374381089&page=1

Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Bormann's Ghost and Mr. Marcus: Right Face

During the early-1970s, the LaRouchites were somewhat extreme in their views. Nevertheless, they still agreed with the left on many key issues. The NCLC's major objective consisted of educating their ranks about economics in general and how it applied to social problems and solutions. Consequently, the organization engaged in a good deal of discussion, and that brought with it numerous disagreements, both large and small. LaRouche, at first, preferred to keep an open mind about many of his own theories, accepting criticism and tolerating dissension, despite possessing (according to many contemporary observers) a gargantuan ego.

In Reflections of An American Political Prisoner, Michael Billington, a longtime LaRouche associate, mentioned a FOIA-requested 1973 FBI document calling for the removal of LaRouche from the national scene. The timing of this document is quite curious, however, for LaRouche had already removed himself from the national scene a year earlier.

Did he retire? Had he lost interest in politics?

The answer to both is no. Upon catching his second wife having an affair with Christopher White, one of his closest lieutenants, LaRouche simply went into seclusion for about eleven months. After emerging from his funk, he appeared to be a changed man in more ways than one. He gathered a few of his remaining followers, and set out to meet with White, who, after a couple of days of suffering LaRouche's relentless, blustering attacks, now claimed that he committed adultery under mind control courtesy of a joint effort undertaken by Prince Phillip of England, MI5, the KGB and the CIA.

Okay, maybe there is a minuscule possibility that White wasn't lying about being under the spell of some kind of brainwashing. It's considerably more likely, however, that the love affair was just one of those things. LaRouche's first wife, Janice, left him ten years earlier because of his devotion to political matters, which left little time for her and their son, Daniel. One could therefore guess that Carol Schnitzer, his second (common-law) wife might likewise have felt neglected emotionally.

From then on, the issue of mind control became increasingly entrenched in NCLC ideology and operations. Under the suspicion of being brainwashed by the supposedly CIA/British Intel-controlled Tavistock Institute, LaRouche's inner circle (kinda) voluntarily submitted to deprogramming exercises, some more willingly than others. One young woman literally became a prisoner in their London office, having been confined there until she submitted to the LaRouche counter-brainwashing. She escaped by scribbling a message for help on a sheet of paper which she then folded into an airplane and pitched out the window. A passerby picked it up, read the message, and contacted police.

Not every high-ranking LaRouchite found himself or herself subjected to this horror, but other forms of social pressure had a similar effect. In her 1986 essay "Breaking the Silence," former member Linda Ray depicted the NCLC as nothing less than a mind-control cult:

The LaRouche organization tried to control nearly all aspects of my life. I was told which apartment to live in, when to buy a car, when to quit my job, what to read, what movies not to see, which music was o.k., how to ask my parents for $2,000 for dental work when I needed money to pay the rent, and when to split up with my boyfriend. Pregnant women were usually told to have an abortion, since having a baby would siphon off too much time and money from the organization. For those who already had children, day care was usually assigned on a haphazard basis.
Ray further explained how she and the others managed such a jarring shift in ideology at LaRouche's prompting:

It is difficult to pinpoint when LaRouche's organization changed from a left-wing group to its current extreme right-wing orientation. It was like cooking crabs: if you raise the temperature gradually enough, the crabs will never notice they're being boiled alive.
At the same time, LaRouche had installed an elite guard within the NCLC, and members had to endure the threat of emotional pain and humiliation. Thus, most of them began swallowing and regurgitating the leadership's new conflicting messages without hesitation, especially if the conflicts posed seemed trivial.

Posted by X. Dell at 5:31 PM
Labels: assassinations, mind control, NCLC, new world order

http://progressivevalues.blogspot.com/2008/02/even-worst-than-ralph-nader.html

Thursday, February 28, 2008
Even Worst Than Ralph Nader

At one time, Ralph Nader held an important position as a senior apostle of the left who was seen as the conscience of the nation on many issues because many of his observations and complaints about the system were so correct. Then with one endless defeat after another in one perpetual losing race for president after another, Nader slowly began to wear away his role as a sort of senior statesman for the left and was increasingly seen as little more than some egotistical political cult leader.

And as bad as the slow decline of Ralph Nader has become, there is yet a even worse perpetual candidate, who seems to make far less sense, yet still has an appeal to a small political cult of followers. Former college dropout, turned Marxist, turned unusual political philosopher, Lyndon LaRouche still attacts a tiny core of followers and continues to write elaborate strange conspiracy tales despite a former stint in a federal prison and other personal setbacks. At one time, LaRouche headed a leftist political party, the U.S. Labor Party, but has since run for office within the Democratic Party as what has to the strangest and most unconventional of platforms compared to the broad mainstream of most Democrats.

It's not only the endless runs for political office, but also the highly unconventional views of LaRouche which have run the gamut from one-time Trotskyite Socialism all the way to a form of pseudoconservatism and elaborate conspiracy theory construction that have seemed to characterize LaRouche as very far from his claimed "Franklin Delano Roosevelt" form of Democratic Party mainstreamism. In so many ways, the logic of LaRouche's writings often seem like "synthetic", not real political thought because the logical connection between the points often seems so distant to many like me at times.

It is hard to believe that LaRouche once left college due to poor grades because on the surface he seems like such a prolific writer. Yet the real value of much of his works seems really lost to many readers as it often weaves strange conspiracy tales involving world banking, the Queen of England, and other matters not typical in most mainstream political discussions.

The other day I noticed a supporter of LaRouche with a display of his books outside the post office. I guess LaRouche is probably gearing up for yet another run for office as a vehicle for his unconventional conspiracy tales. Ralph Nader isn't the only candidate who endlessly runs for office and still has some political groupies who cling to his views it seems.

This is a strange site, but this guy is on to something.

http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/

"I love it when people say they're on a government hit list. They usually say it from the podium of a very public place that has no security whatsoever. Isn't it ironic how some people who spoke from a podium and didn't say this ended up being assassinated? Like Malcolm X and RFK? But the people who do say it usually die of old age? I mean, for the past 30+ years Lyndon LaRouche has been telling his groupies that the KGB, the CIA, and the British monarchy are gunning for him, yet he's now in his 80s and doesn't have so much as a paper cut to show for it."

We will get to the gamers a little later. That is a little confusing as we have the cult misquoting someone for their benefit who then finds out about it. Like in anything we do, disinformation rules.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

02-29-2008, 01:18 AM

poe

The larouchepac.com site has not even taken down the two press releases ranting against the New YorkTimes for "lying" about John Lewis switching his superdelegate vote to Obama.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/16/larouche-new-york-times-obama-pac.html

02-29-2008, 05:38 AM

boomer70

some kind of joke?

Does anyone know the origins of the piece titled, 'Dr. Karl Marx Refuted,' in the Campaigner of Oct., 1983? It's presented by the prometheans as a manuscript from the 1890s, but drips with His Hubrisnessisms. Was the thing intended as some kind of joke? avail' at: http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM8310.pdf .

and where did the Henry Carey thing come from?

02-29-2008, 08:00 AM

hecker

"One young woman literally became a prisoner in their London office, having been confined there until she submitted to the LaRouche counter-brainwashing. She escaped by scribbling a message for help on a sheet of paper which she then folded into an airplane and pitched out the window. A passerby picked it up, read the message, and contacted police."

Just a small correction; I think this refers to Alice Weizman who was kept in her apartment in NYC (near the GW Bridge), not in the London office of the LC.

To the pics: I think they are from 1979. Interesting that nobody mentions Vivian who was Lyn's lover before he started to get involved with Helga. The other dancing couple is Uwe H. with his first wife Judy.

Does anybody know what he is doing these days?

02-29-2008, 08:32 AM

scrimscraw

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
Does anyone know the origins of the piece titled, 'Dr. Karl Marx Refuted,' in the Campaigner of Oct., 1983? It's presented by the prometheans as a manuscript from the 1890s, but drips with His Hubrisnessisms. Was the thing intended as some kind of joke? avail' at: http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM8310.pdf .

Reading just one paragraph, it seems so obvious that this was written by LHL, that the mind boggles that anyone took it as anything else, some 25 years ago. If anyone wants to dispute my "one paragraph" analysis, feel free and I'll be happy to extend the dissection.

02-29-2008, 10:26 AM

shadok

Uwe H.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hecker
The other dancing couple is Uwe H. with his first wife Judy.
Does anybody know what he is doing these days?

Uwe H. von Parpart worked for years at Asia Times http://www.atimes.com/ and joined Bank of America in Hong Kong as currency/market strategist. http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/a-list/2003w42/msg00070.htm Then in 2006 he joined "Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., a leading global financial services provider to the institutional equity and fixed-income markets."
So much for the "Riemannian physical economy" :p

02-29-2008, 11:04 AM

shadok

marcus refuted

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
Does anyone know the origins of the piece titled, 'Dr. Karl Marx Refuted,' in the Campaigner of Oct., 1983? It's presented by the prometheans as a manuscript from the 1890s, but drips with His Hubrisnessisms. Was the thing intended as some kind of joke? avail' at: http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM8310.pdf .

I think this doc is clinically very interesting as to how Humanist Fuehrer deals with facts. It s inspired (I think) from the legendary Kepler's proof of the existence of "a missing planet http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/974_lar_clas_prin.html between Mars and Jupiter."
Kepler "proved" that this planet had to exist... for "harmonic reasons." Humanist Fuehrer loved this because he does not need facts to prove he s right. And if no facts can be found, he ll make them up, not as a joke but as a "Keplerian re-enactment." In other words, for Humanist Fuehrer, this manuscript "had to exist"... so he wrote it. This is consistent with his later writings regarding "changing/affecting the past" (the Brunelleschi/catenary curve period). Consistent with one of his slogans (mid 90s): "How the Future Determines the Present"... consequently, the present determines the past! Which is exactly what he did with his "Karl Marx refuted" hoax.
Re-writing History is an old hobby of his - infamously started when he re-wrote the History of the Holocaust.

02-29-2008, 02:41 PM

borisbad

My first thought when I heard Bloomberg definitely state he wasn't running (although he allegedly left the door open to the VP'ship) was that Lyn will come out saying it was his daring exposes that helped deflect Bloomberg from running, just like we stopped those many runups to nuclear war like Project Hilex.

02-29-2008, 04:58 PM

scrimscraw

Uwe = Spengler?

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadok
Uwe H. von Parpart worked for years at Asia Times and joined Bank of America in Hong Kong as currency/market strategist.

Anyone know if the Asia Times columnist, "Spengler", is Uwe? I've run into references that Spengler is ex-LC, but not specifics.

And whose $$ is behind Asia Times? The paper has a slightly odd skew that I can't quite put my finger on.

02-29-2008, 05:12 PM

scrimscraw

London Calling

Quote:
Originally Posted by borisbad
My first thought when I heard Bloomberg definitely state he wasn't running (although he allegedly left the door open to the VP'ship) was that Lyn will come out saying it was his daring exposes that helped deflect Bloomberg from running, just like we stopped those many runups to nuclear war like Project Hilex.

Looks like he's not abandoning the Bloomberg prediction anytime soon. Today brings us this bit of mouth-foaming http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/02/28/flash-bloomberg-lies-i-am-not-running-only-dripping-copiousl.html:

Quote:
London will bring down Obama, and pave the way for New York's Mayor Bloomberg--despite his claims that he is "not running." John McCain, the purported Republican frontrunner for the nomination is already showing severe signs of strain. He may not make it to November. There is no certainty whatsoever in the current electoral process, LaRouche warned. About the only thing that is certain is that the current post-Bretton Woods financial system is finished. Between now and election day in November, the financial crash will accelerate, through a series of shocks to the system.
The United States will be a very different place by the time the nominating conventions occur and the vote is cast. And if fascist SOBs like Felix Rohatyn and George Shultz are allowed to have their way, their new Mussolini, Michael Bloomberg, will be in. And if that happens, one of the people who can be blamed for the treachery is Rohatyn's pawn, Nancy Pelosi, who has played a filthy role, in setting up her own party, as well as the nation, for a fascist hell.

Dear me!

02-29-2008, 09:04 PM

boomer70

some kind of joke?

was anyone here in the the org' when it came out with 'Karl Marx Refuted'? if so, could you describe how people within the org reacted to the piece?

02-29-2008, 09:41 PM

xlcr4life

1 Attachment(s)

Today we can look at some comments made by people who are "gamers". I can really see why Lyn is so angry and I would be ****ed off too . Lyn has blown 250 million dollars in his life long struggle to be accepted as a recognised genius and saviour of mankind. If one were to place a picture of Super Mario next to Super Lyn on any world wide street corner, Mario wins hands down. Even Donkey Kong beats Lyn, the Donkey King in this type of battle of fictitious worlds.

I was reading this blog and was having a few laughs at the comments when something stood out.

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/larouche-pac-wi.html

LaRouche PAC: Wired's Clive Thompson a 'Degenerate'
By Chris Kohler February 25, 2008 | 6:59:47 PMCategories: Politics
The political action committee of perennial political candidate and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche has written a piece condemning Wired.com writer Clive Thompson for his Games Without Frontiers column, calling him a "degenerate writer" and "disgruntled family man."

A choice snippet of the reality-impaired report:

In his enraged screed, titled, "Suicide Makes Sick Sense After Playing Halo 3," Thompson wrote, "I used to find it hard to fully imagine the mindset of a terrorist. That is, until I played Halo 3 online, where I found myself adopting -- with great success -- terrorist tactics. Including a form of suicide bombing."

As Thompson points out in his blog, collision detection, the piece is inaccurate beyond parody, using out-of-context quotes, twisting words and getting quotes wrong in an absurd effort to suggest that his columns on Halo and Super Columbine Massacre RPG conclude that videogames encourage teenagers to commit suicide. The report even subtly alters the column's headline, changing a couple of key words to totally distort its meaning. (The actual headline is "Suicide Bombing Makes Sick Sense in Halo 3.")

LaRouche PAC put the piece together to further its unsubstantiated claims that videogames were the cause of the Virginia Tech shootings, and that the absence of games from the federal government's report on the shootings constitutes a cover-up.

At the time, LaRouche PAC cited the website "Gammer Life," which we are reasonably sure is us, as an arm of "the videogame lobby" complicit in the "cover-up."

Thompson, for his part, takes the lunacy in stride. "This is the best thing I've read in, like, seven years or something," he writes on his blog. "And who knows? Given that just yesterday I blogged about the aesthetic pleasure of dying in Halo 3, maybe they're right!"

Terrorism Comes To The West [LaRouche PAC, via Collision Detection]

We will get to that a bit later. For now, let us read what the gamers sub culture thinks of the cult.

Congratulations, Clive! I only wish I could be awesome enough to win a LaRouche Degeneracy Award.

Posted by: Shih Tzu Feb 25, 2008 4:12:42 PM

Hahaha - You're a degenerate!!

Posted by: Jihadi Feb 25, 2008 4:26:56 PM

YOUR A DEGENERATE TOO!!!!!

Posted by: L. LaRouche Feb 25, 2008 4:37:54 PM

When you're an old and lonely man with no one really paying attention to you, you do things like this to gain some momentary notoriety. You suddenly feel less lonely because hey, people know you exist. If we all just ignore him, he'll wane like the rest.

Posted by: Some Dude Feb 25, 2008 5:25:49 PM

Mark of honour, no doubt. Now just get... I don't know, Ross Perot... mad at you and you can have the four horsemen of the crazy apocalypse (LaRouche, Boll, Jack, Perot) coming after you.

Posted by: Stephen Feb 25, 2008 6:12:27 PM

This guy's still alive????

Posted by: Matt Feb 25, 2008 6:13:44 PM

Lyndon Larouche is an inbred moron followed in cult fashion by people even more inbred and moronic than Larouche himself.

I got a phone call from them in late 2002 asking for money to support the LaRouche campaign because, "only Lyndon Larouche" could stop the coming war in Iraq.

I cut the idiot woman off and said, "wait a second. We're months away from invading Iraq and everyone knows it. The election isn't until 2004. So how on earth does Lyndon Larouche plan to stop the war WITHOUT being President?..."

...Then the chick on the other end of the phone says...

"Lyndon Larouche is the smartest man in the world, and when he talks, you should be humble, and listen..."

...I hung up at that point. Larouche's followers are insane, and will say anything to get publicity or donations. Don't help them by publishing any more articles with his name on them!!!

Posted by: hsing lee Feb 25, 2008 9:14:20 PM

He's just Jack Thompson with more of a fanatical following. Desperate people call for desperate measures, regardless of any facts behind them.

The issue isn't that people like this exist -- we all probably know a person or two that has strange, unbelievable theories on crap -- the issue is that he's powerful enough to have people buy this crap. While he's never made a good point beyond his anus squeezing off a dump so sharp that it could cut diamonds, people listen to and believe what he says.

The problem isn't that people like him exist. Rather, the problem is that there are enough sheep to empower him.

Posted by: Sarkazein Feb 25, 2008 11:18:55 PM

LaDouche!

Posted by: the truth Feb 26, 2008 4:34:28 AM

If LaRouche was any weirder, he'd be fictional. Read his Wikipedia article, he reminds me of Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Even his name makes him sound like a Bond Villian. Good job Clive.

Posted by: Scott Feb 26, 2008 5:22:57 AM

"Laughing Makes Perfect Sense While Reading LaRouche's Articles"

Posted by: electrikALIEN | Feb 27, 2008 7:32:59 AM

02-29-2008, 09:44 PM

xlcr4life

Now let us review this sentence

"As Thompson points out in his blog, collision detection, the piece is inaccurate beyond parody, using out-of-context quotes, twisting words and getting quotes wrong in an absurd effort to suggest that his columns on Halo and Super Columbine Massacre RPG conclude that videogames encourage teenagers to commit suicide."

and go to Thompson's blog.

http://www.collisiondetection.net/

to read what the cult has written about him. (Go about 2/3rds down)

http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/terrorism-comes-west-new-cult-teenage-suicide-bomber.html

February 25, 2008
LaRouche report calls me a "degenerate writer"

This is beyond delightful! The LaRouche PAC report -- "The Noosphere vs. The Blogosphere: Is The Devil in Your Laptop?" -- refers to me as a "degenerate writer", "infantile", and a "disgruntled family man".

Apparently the political action committee of Lydon Larouche -- an economist, political activist, and prolific conspiracy theorist -- decided to fund a report on various sourges of digital life, including blogs, Wikipedia, and video games. (PDF copy here.) As you might imagine, the section on video games argues that video games are training kids to become such bloodthirsty psychopaths -- so thoroughly desensitized to death -- that they are inexorably drawn to suicide.

Their proof? My video game columns at Wired News! The report writers stitch together horrified reactions to my columns on Halo suicide bombings and the infamous Super Columbine Massacre RPG, in a bouquet of prose so garishly purple it reads as if it had been written by a Victorian sexual anthropologist. I don't even know where to start quoting; it's all so spectacularly wonderful! So I'll just excerpt the segment below at length, and let it speak f or itself.

I should point out that their research is so dreadful that the errors begin in the header opening up their section on me, where they report that I live in "Worcestershire, U.K." I also love that picture, which -- in addition to clearly depicting my homicidal/suicidal degeneracy and familial dissatisfaction -- they appear to have stolen, without attribution, from the web site of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowships.

This is the best thing I've read in, like, seven years or something. And who knows? Given that just yesterday I blogged about the aesthetic pleasure of dying in Halo 3, maybe they're right!

Forthwith:

The Case of Wired Magazine Writer Clive Thompson, 38 years old Worcestershire, U.K., Nov. 5, 2007

On Nov. 5, 2007, degenerate writer Clive Thompson supplied clinical evidence to support the charge by Lyndon LaRouche that, the intended end-game of computer games is to drive the player to suicide. In addition, he provided clinical evidence that it is an obvious intention of certain institutions to popularize this cult of death, in the United States and Western Europe. In his enraged screed, titled, "Suicide Makes Sick Sense After Playing Halo 3," Thompson wrote, "I used to find it hard to fully imagine the mindset of a terrorist. That is, until I played Halo 3 online, where I found myself adopting -- with great success -- terrorist tactics. Including a form of suicide bombing." The infantile Thompson whines that he "sucks" at Halo 3, played on Bill Gates's Xbox live, because he has a wife, and kid, and therefore only gets "maybe an hour with Halo on a good day."

But, Thompson proclaims, therefore, he has learned to kill superior opponents by charging them, while being shot, and throwing a grenade at them at the last moment, to kill, "from beyond the grave." "It was after pulling this maneuver a couple of dozen times that it suddenly hit me: I had, quite unconsciously, adopted the tactics of a suicide bomber -- or a kamikaze pilot. It's not just that I'm willing to sacrifice my life to kill someone else. It's that I'm exploiting the psychology of asymmetrical warfare. "For me," the disgruntled family man continued, "dying will not penalize me in the way it penalizes them, because I have almost no chance of improving my state. I might as well take people down with me. Or to put it another way: The structure of Xbox Live creates a world composed of two classes -- haves and have-nots. And, just as in the real world, some of the disgruntled have-nots are all too willing to toss their lives away -- just for the satisfaction of momentarily halting the progress of the haves. Since the game instantly resurrects me, I have no real dread of death in Halo 3." On the subject of suicide, Thompson concludes, that "something about playing the game gave me an 'aha' moment that I'd never had before: an ability to feel, in whatever tiny fashion, the strategic logic and emotional calculus behind the act."

In another Wired magazine article, by the same Thompson, titled "I, Columbine Killer," he revels in the game "Columbine Massacre RPG," a game created to simulate the Columbine massacre! He writes, "I barrel into the Columbine High School cafeteria, pull down the fire alarm, and the kids erupt into chaos. Then I pull out my Savage-Springfield 12-gauge pump-action, which I've sawed off to 26 inches for maximum lethality. A jock stumbles across my path: With one blast, he lies dead on the floor. 'This is what we've always wanted to do!' hollers my fellow killer, Dylan Klebold. 'This is awesome!"'

This game, as can be observed, places the player in the shoes of satanic gamers' "folk heroes" Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. What's the end of the game? Thompson can't wait to tell you: "As the school shootings wind up, your avatar commits suicide in the library alongside Harris.

The game cuts to real-life photographs of the killers' dead bodies, taken from security cameras in the schools."[9]

Posted by Clive Thompson at February 25, 2008 04:00 PM

02-29-2008, 09:46 PM

xlcr4life

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1742

Comments
Oh, no! Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies... Oh my God! Lyndon LaRouche was right!
-- Homer, "Treehouse of Horror VII"

Posted by: profjohnfrink at February 25, 2008 4:49 PM

Considering the source I think degenerate, infantile, and disgruntled are the holy trinity of personal adjectives. Congratulations, Clive! You should take up painting next, and make Entartete Kunst. I can see it now, a 10 by 10 foot oil on canvas called something like "Autoerotic Asphyxiation in Blue".

Posted by: Andrew Rickard at February 25, 2008 4:55 PM

This made my day, especially "disgruntled family man." These people are constantly outside my school, informing Canadians how critical it is that we impeach Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: Matthew Gallant at February 25, 2008 4:56 PM

Wear it as a badge of honor. You are in excellent company with jews, gays, Al Gore, Averell Harriman, and Queen Elizabeth. Degenerates all, according to LL.

Oy.

Posted by: Michael Abbott at February 25, 2008 5:24 PM

About "disgruntled" it has been directly taken from the quote juste below. Not a very inventive way of talking or else.

On an other hand, "clinical evidence" brought by "satanic gamers", even ones only in the shoes of such, should be taken with caution.

Maybe I'll start reading Lyndon instead of Clive if he also denounce the evil squid affiliation which lingers here.

Posted by: gemp at February 25, 2008 5:38 PM

Ahahah! I love the way they instantly go to the unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks. 'Disgruntled family man,' indeed!

Posted by: debcha at February 25, 2008 8:24 PM

That picture makes you look like Bruce Campbell's cousin, I swear. It's the way the chin juts.

Posted by: Jonn at February 25, 2008 9:08 PM

Woo! Thank you all!

I think I need someone to translate "degenerate, infantile, disgruntled" into Latin so I can finally have a heraldic shield.

Posted by: Clive at February 26, 2008 1:06 AM

A rare chance to dust off my schoolboy Latin! I think I'd go with perditus, infantilis, et acerbus.

Posted by: Andrew Rickard at February 26, 2008 3:56 AM

haha. A LaRouche supporter handed that report (or some derivative thereof) to me outside of a DC Metro station. I thought it might be a funny read, but it was raining, so I used it as an umbrella instead. :-)

Posted by: s-bomb at February 26, 2008 12:20 PM

Somebody should point Mr. LaRouche in the direction of Call of Duty 4. Specifically, the "Martyr" perk- he'd have a field day with it.

Posted by: Bulsajo at February 26, 2008 3:00 PM

{blinks in disbelief} Of all the blogs I read, Clive, yours is clearly a long way from a genuine claim to degeneracy. Perhaps you're not trying hard enough? ;)

On the other hand, your cephalopod fixation clearly denotes you as a Servant of Cthulhu. :P

02-29-2008, 09:46 PM

xlcr4life

Chris.

Posted by: Chris at February 27, 2008 7:36 AM

don't know why, but i always thought that you were bald. i think that in my imagination all tech/pop/culture spearheads are bald. go figure ;)

Posted by: Miguel Young at February 27, 2008 4:32 PMI

This is what Worcestershire does to otherwise decent human beings.

Posted by: Leo at February 28, 2008 9:04 AM

Heh. Thank yew for all the kind words, folks!

Posted by: Clive at February 29, 2008 2:21 P

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

In the Hostile Fantasy World of Lyndon H. Larouche Jr. this has all the add ons which make Lyn and the Children of Lyn go bonkers. We have Satanism, video games, computers, the British and a New Dark Ages to all mix together into swirling, psychodelic collage of connecto to keep this cult going.

Yutes, forget this video game stuff. You want to see what you are spreading and supporting?????

Go to this blog, read everything and take a gander at who does love Lyn and the hard work you are doing to make this a Zionist free world.

You hard work pays off about half way down and yes, there is a peer group for the cult.

http://nohjott.blogspot.com/2008/02/zionists-masterminds-of-september-11.html

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-01-2008, 06:56 AM

larouchetruth

Bloomberg Option Blossoms--LPAC's Latest

Get a load of the latest from just above the Basement:

"Bloomberg is not only lying, he is viciously lying, in his latest ploy to become president next November. His stated intention to not seek the nomination as an independent is a transparent sham, a vicious farce intended to dupe the clueless and lull Barack Obama into thinking he is out of danger, as the fascist circles backing Bloomberg, led by Felix Rohatyn and George Schultz, want to insure that Obama finishes off Clinton before they finish him off in a hail of scandal-backed stories detailing his 20-year long involvement with scum-lord Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his mob-linked connections in Chicago.

The real story, Lyndon LaRouche revealed today, that will hit like a bombshell before the summer, and that no one outside of the insider "need-to-know" circles knows, other than LaRouche, is that the timing of independent fascist Ralph Nader's announced bid for president had everything to do with the timing of Bloomberg's announcement. The plan is for Nader to secure the ballot slots in those states where one must file early, securing them for a later Bloomberg independent candidacy. Nader, who made plenty of his own money on the stock market, has no trouble with how Bloomberg got his money, and Bloomberg's successive breaks with the Democratic and then the Republican parties fit Nader's needs perfectly. In exchange for "bow-coup" bucks from Bloomberg, Nader will get on the ballot across the country, then stage a convention where he will step down in favor of Bloomberg, accepting the vice-presidential slot, though that part isn't totally agreed on yet. The deal is that it will look as if Bloomberg is being drafted, so there will be no blowback for his claiming he doesn't intend to run now. The calculation is that this way, Bloomberg can truly be the man on the white horse, who didn't seek the presidency, but who will be nominated by acclamation, and win over the wreckage of the post-McCain Republican and post-Obama Democratic parties.

The only thing standing in the way of the success of this fascist scenario for no later than next October, at the latest, is the major effort that the LYM has mounted to blow the whistle on these crooks and to raise the stupidity of the American people to the point where they can really see what is being planned for them.

We will also be monitoring the industries that are expected to take off as soon as the election of Bloomberg is seen to be a certainty. In particular, we will be monitoring the paving industry, in expectation of a push to extend the autobahn network, plus the output of boxcars, barbed wire, and zyclon B, to try to detect sharp increases in government orders for these products. Any such increases will NOT be counted as part of physical production for Lyndon LaRouche's reknowned "Triple Curve" that shows the "up" lines beating the "down" lines two to one. For obvious reasons."

03-01-2008, 08:27 AM

pastrami

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
Anyone know if the Asia Times columnist, "Spengler", is Uwe? I've run into references that Spengler is ex-LC, but not specifics.
And whose $$ is behind Asia Times? The paper has a slightly odd skew that I can't quite put my finger on.

Spengler is David Goldman

03-01-2008, 03:58 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
was anyone here in the the org' when it came out with 'Karl Marx Refuted'? if so, could you describe how people within the org reacted to the piece?

From where I was at that time in LC history, there was no reaction, just muttering. The LC was long gone from having any type of internal discussion, debate, filing papers or doing anything except two things.

-raising money

-spreading disinformation

In my memory, that doc was in the context of gearing up for Lyn's 1984 run and was after the Detroit split. The LC was on a virtual 24/7 non stop mobe for money and our boiler rooms were calling conservative lists, not CPUSA lists. We were basically disinformation bandits for Reagan operatives and our whole direction was heading to things like

-"Global Showdown" which had the propaganda working overtime on how the USSR was going to defeat the USA in the physical economy and the war economy.

-"The Russian Orthodox Church" this had the Russians directing the "Fourth Reich" via the Russian Orthodox Church in taking over the world.

-"NDPC" or National Democratic Policy Committee. We set up a psuedo style Dem PAC which ran as "Conservative Democrats" to run candidates around the country.

Lyn was now wearing cowboy hats and boots and our security contacts were busy being involved in running arms to anti communist militias. In this envoronment we, er Lyn had to be an anti communist . The funny thing is that Lyn ran the LC like Stalin and basically used Stalin/KGB methods to completely erase and reference to Marx in our past and things like "Strategy for Socialism.

Since you did not have an internet in those days, our biggest enemy was only photocpies of articles and s few of them originated with the Heritage Foundation and Congressman Larry McDonald's office as well as the National Review I think.

You can never look at the LC and Lyn like a normal group. There are things going on at several levels and most of what appears is for running a cult of personality , making money and then private matters with Lyn's carefully worded anti semitism for other consumption. In this model we have memebrs who have no idea about the anti semites Lyn , Jeff and Paul are swapping jokes with in the Liberty Lobby or the Nazis we are having fun with in Europe.

To the members, they are called "Patriots" and if you question that, well, you will get a stern look and a short talk by security or via a local NC about how you do not understand how magical Lyn is in organising a coalition to take over from the oligarchs.

The doc about Marx has to be published because we are now anti communists and Lyn can erase the LC past with ease since most of those yutes from the 1960s are long gone. The remaining members on the NEC are all pretty much beaten into the ground as they all went through "Beyond Psych" sessions with Lyn and are just like a rubber stamping Politiburo. Lyn has his secret police in security who keep tabs on certain things which a member may have done. Even then , only a mere handfull will know the details.

Take a guy like Graham Lowry from Boston. He may have been a radical leftists when he first came around and ran the Boston region. Over the years he went with our gradual change to being conservative Dems and now was writing and reading about American History without having to worry about quotas and daily issues. In between he was runnning the Boston office when we had some problems with members being herded into an office and undergoing some sort of sessions with people removing clothes and then being spanked!

I only found out about this a few years ago. It was known by only a handfull of people in the LC as to why Graham was shipped from Boston to NYC and then was allowed to do whatever he pleased. When we went to Leesburg, Graham was out of the daily loop and just read books and wrote .

The LC environment as far as questioning that Campaigner article was non existant. We pretty much stopped having semi yearly conferences and I do not think I ever saw an internal discussion doc by a member in the 1980s. If you saw anything like that, it was usually a resignation letter that someone xeroxed of a xerox of a xerox.

When we did have a National Conference in VIrginia, it was always based on SDI and the Russians, raising money using any means possible and how Lyn is tight with the "Elites". At no time did most members know of the money we were shuffliing to Leesburg real estate or to the scam artists who were working Lyn and security like a Stradivarius in receiving millions in cash.

At one our conferences Lyn rewrote his SWP experience and told people that he was approached by the FBI to keep an eye on things only if he saw something which was a national security risk. That little statement was enough to keep a broken down LC happy as it justified our spying on and doing reports on environmentalists, enemies of the Klan, anti Apartheid activists and others.

You can best understand this whole lunacy by not imagining that a real org exiosted which had a board of directors, editors and checks and balances, but a nightmare of exhausted, on the edge of world collapse money makers who at the end of the day were happy to get their 5 bucks while Lyn partied like it was 1999.

Any member who actually read what we wrote usually prepared a way to leave the LC instead of a rebuttal.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-01-2008, 07:53 PM

boomer70 some kind of joke? xlcer4life,

but the "karl marx refuted" thing was an outright lie. did no one broach that, even a little bit?

03-01-2008, 09:54 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
xlcer4life,
but the "karl marx refuted" thing was an outright lie. did no one broach that, even a little bit?

There may have been some chit chat between two people who were taking a breather between fundrasing calls, but that is about it. There was no public discussion that I ever noticed. Look at the last page of that doc and see what the ad for Lyn's bio says.

"Andropov's Public Enemy No. 1"

The entire LC was being run on what was called "The Third Rome Thesis". Every thing we did was to "prove" that. We had meetings with some Reagan supporters and conned our way into meeting with Reagan officials. There was no way Lyn was going to let our Marxist fingerprints be picked up by people whom we wanted money and influence from. Lyn did a clever thing to the LC by attacking the Heritage foundation as KGB run! Always understand that what seems lunaticeese by someone on the outside is immaterial. The audience is internal and Lyn had a cult which had no idea what the Heritage Foundation was . We attacked left wing think tanks before like the Institute for Policy Studies and connected them to terrorism. Then we attacked Reagan supporting think tanks as all being KGB infiltrated.

Insane?

Of course, but Lyn was riding a money train and we had to have our people be able to counter some old lady on the other end of the phone who would say "Well, I give money to the Heritage Foundation to support Reagan and conservatives".

Our boiler room would counter that those people are not true conservatives and are being KGB influenced to surrender the USA to the Russians and we have this 250 dollar report you need to read. This also is occuring after General Danny Graham sent out releases about how anti semitic and crazy Lyn and the cult were. Lyn's cheap parlor trick is to always state that any person who attacks us is KGB run and part of the enemy. If the KGB can't be used, then the person is from London, Venice, the Islae of Malta, a fan of Aristotle or whatever boogeyman he could use.

There is no way you are going to see any Marxists defense occuring while we rode the SDI for every penny we could. King's web site has a great letter which I never knew existed which shows what type of side show grifter game we were running.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-teller.PDF

The whole SDI story will come out eventually. Lyn has the cult believing that he invented it. When that was shown to be a fairy tale, boom, another cheap parlor trick was done where Lyn was now "The intellectual author" of SDI. When we started our right wing turn, which by the way was not right wing in any sense of conservatism or had any basis in reality, some NEC memebrs began to meet with some people in NYC and DC who were Reagan supporters and insiders. We had that going a while back in California out of LA. (In Michigan we had "Yahoo" types thorugh the farm belt and Midwest while LA had the Reagan backers. We moved as many memebrs as possible to LA and then boiled that fudnraising list for millions and millions.)

In one of those meetings, an NEC member said innocently and jokingly, "I am going to the Soviet embassy to meet with so and so in an hour. Any messages?".

This got turned by Lyn into a massive behind the scenes exchange between himself , the National Security Council and the Kremlin which ended with Lyn telling the LC that Andorpov or Gorbachev demanded his head on a silver platter to continue peace with the USA over SDI because Lyn was so dangerous!

This all was lunacy as yes we did meet with some high ranking people who would listen to our intell people which we then interpreted to mean that we were running the Reagan administration! We also had a few con artists who would then call and meet with Lyn and security and feed him more stories about how Lyn is being debated by the Elites. The GOP had a field day using us as a disinformation dirty tricks wild card. Any rumour or slander you wanted to spread would be challenged by media if it originated by a GOP spokesperson. Since Lyn was nuts and had his own cult, one could leak selective info to us and Lyn would have the LC then print up and distribute it in physical form and over world wide telephone lines. Our work on Mondale and especially Dukakis is a good example. Since the source was us, it would never be sued because Lyn was nuts and others could report about a nut like Lyn and then describe the whole story.

There are so many things which we did that I do not know of and hardly anyone else knows the full and exact story. All we can do here is provide different pieces of of this for readers and researchers.

In retrospect , I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the whole role of Lyn and the LC is disinformation as virtually everything we did was to spread enough lunacy to smother any legitimate info we may have had. From our days in SDS to how the cult says that Bin Laden is run by London and the Israelis run terrorism , the spin is always of a certain quality and has sent many a person down non existant diversions. The damage is done and we move onto the next delusion. This is an amzing thing to look at because you could manipulate Lyn's delusions to have him do something and it would cost you barely nothing. If you were part of the scam artists whom Lyn transferred over 13 million to over the years, you made money on the deal. Lyn was receiving messages, tapes and other communications from the scam artists who would feed Lyn's massive ego with stories about how the Elites need him to solve a problem. For a nice chunk of cash, whatever opus Lyn wrote up was delivered along with cash to these scammers who probabaly had a good laugh at how long this was going on for. The funniest thing was how Lyn and security believed that our "CIA contact "Mr. Ed" was secretly "Ed Knoche" whose first name is not Ed! As soon as I heard about tihs I thought of the TV series "Mr Ed" the talking horse and how Lyn the jackass who was starving his members to feed his delusions.

You could create a huge spinning wheel like at a carnival and place as many of our "campaigns" on them as possible, give the wheel a spin and no matter where it landed, there was disinformation on our part.

Considering that over 250 million and counting was spent on this over 40 + years, Lyn is not even getting his legacy for this side show.

There was no time to question, no time to read, no time to think, just time to disinform. About the only objections I can remotely think off were in FEF people and a few others who resigned over Lyn's Third Rome kick.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-01-2008, 09:54 PM

boomer70

manic-depressive syndrome

has lyn said or published anything about manic-depressive syndrome?

03-02-2008, 12:09 AM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
has lyn said or published anything about manic-depressive syndrome?

Lyn has recently used the term to describe the Clinton Admnistration and the Chinese a few years ago. Within the LYM there are a few episodes where the cult has had members who were told that their problems can all be cured by studying larouche! In the LA office they have a local leader "Liz", I think who is the local's "shrink" of sorts according to former LYM. The East coast has a long time member who runs his own practise who I have been told has dealt with LYM emotional collpases of sorts. I really have no more info about this and would welcome anyone who knows about this to post some info about Dr. R.

Here is how you can look at this from what I noticed over the years. Lyn has on numerous occasions used whatever is the current sensational TV adjectives to describe both his current political obsession and also to describe a member he wants to F with. A few posts ago someone wrote that the last thing you wanted to be was the target of a Rheingau fueled Lyn as he tore into you in a meeting.

I swear a few times aorund the early days of the web I read something by Lyn where he took Jerry Springer guest catch phrase "Don't go there" and wrote a whole opus on it for an EIR article about Clinton as a Boomer.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=larouche+and+"don't+go+there"

If you look at the long run of Lyn's speeches and writings you will find quite a few hijacking of catch phrases which get incorporated into the opus.

The best example I can think of using "manic depressive" was when Lyn reemed a new A hole on Gerry Rose at a National Conference. This was after the 1980 New Hampshire debacle when Gerry was running Chicago and directing the campaign in other states. Lyn whipped him like a government mule as Gerry entered the auditorium with a cowboy hat on. Rose was at the microphone and was talking about "practicality and pragmatism" in running Lyn's campaign. I did not think at the time that he was so bad, but either during the conference and definately after the conference Lyn blamed the whole election break down on Rose and his cowboy hat. That was a great cheap parlor trick by Lyn to do because it evaded the whole issue of how we were running a madman, Lyn, for the Presidency on "The Queen of England Platform". Instead of the members looking at this whole lunacy as a bad nightmare, we could blame Gerry Rose for the losses.

The whole history of Lyn has been conducting psychological analysis of people and ridicule while at the same time denouncing psychyiatry. I mentioned this many times before, but if you ever look at the bio of Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard "Bare Faced Messiah"

http://www.clambake.org/archive/books/bfm/bfmconte.htm

you will be amazed at how close the two are in attacks on the British and psychiatry, along with other subjects.

This stuff gets pretty spooky when you see the history of Lyn and Fred Newman's cult and how every cult relies on a personal tilted version of mind control to create and run a cult of personality.

I posted a letter by Al Doulass to the Australian LYM a few threads ago which shows how the use of psychology and mind control by Lyn gets replicated as you go down the food chain. The victims will become the accusers and victimizers in short order as they stay in. Recent LYM posters hee ahve written about how it trickles down to them. This becomes more bizarre as the whole LYM has every trick done to them in a sped up time trial as Lyn approached the last version of the cult for himself.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-02-2008, 04:54 AM

boomer70

manic-depressive syndrome

Of course, I'm trying to get a handle on Lyn, and one thing that comes to mind on this is the manic-depressive features, i.e.: the '40-hour sessions' and the like

the gargantuan loquaciousness

the constant irritability

the flimsy grip on - general contempt of, really - the world of fact

the completely overblown self-image

the use of alcohol - to medicate the mania? I would appreciate any comments on this, especially concerning a depressive side in his behavior.

BTW, on the 'fact' thing, I've never come across a 'faithful' LCer trying to find facts that contradicted any of his/her hypotheses, but this of course is key in an effective quest for truth. How could we have been so absolutely dense about this?! But then again and on the other hand, I can remember being in the LC and having questions and being afraid to ask them, because I knew they would open a path the hell out of there, s'thing which at the time had the flavor of suicide for me. Instead I stayed in "try harder and you'll get it" mode.

03-02-2008, 03:15 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
BTW, on the 'fact' thing, I've never come across a 'faithful' LCer trying to find facts that contradicted any of his/her hypotheses, but this of course is key in an effective quest for truth. How could we have been so absolutely dense about this?! But then again and on the other hand, I can remember being in the LC and having questions and being afraid to ask them, because I knew they would open a path the hell out of there, s'thing which at the time had the flavor of suicide for me. Instead I stayed in "try harder and you'll get it" mode.

There are two things I can think of which will delayl one's exit. Both things require one to still have virtuous thoughts that the LC is actually set up to accomplish something instead of the bad joke and disinformation orgy it was.

One of the most common phrases I would here among disgruntled LCers was:

"If only Lyn knew"

This makes one think that the incompetence, slavery and outright lunacy is not from Lyn, but from the leadership. It assumes that Lyn has no idea of what is happeneing in the finances and the publications. It takes a while to figure out that that is all bunk so to speak. Not one thin dime is spent unless Lyn has reviewed it and in a split second he can order anything he wishes and change any budget in an instant. The leadership chosen by Lyn is based on who will raise the bucks the best and who will have no remorse or guilt in starving and abusing members for him. The remaining NCs have all passed that test with flying colors. Over the years it has been very clear to me from other members that Lyn not only knew of every bit of what was going on, but had the LC set up in a way to ensure that everyone would be against everyone to curry favors and only a handfull of people would ever know the final decison on many matters. How many people had any idea of the 13 million paid out to scam artists by Lyn to feed his ego?

The next thing which messes with your head (it did mine) was the belief that the LC was capable of change . A cult of personality only changes on behalf of the personality. The carrot is always there. For many it was the move to Leesburg and the belief that we were going to morph dinto a think tank of sorts and the card table shrines and vapid presidential runs would end. This all came crashing dwon for many when Lyn reiterated to members that it was all about him, nothing else mattered and you should count on being at a card table shrine till you die. We lost many members in the 1980s and when th etrials were running it became clear to many more that Lyn expects you to be in prison, not him. Further writings bordred on outright straightjacket lunacy when Lyn portrayed himself as a martyr and in the same league as Christ.

Everyone has their own level which when breached causes an escape. Some do it in an instant, others wait for various reasons. Others are similar to battered wives who despite the abuse, feel deep down that their batterer is a "good person" who is misled or would be better if not for the drinking or money problems.

There are quite a few deadenders in Leesburg who feel that Lyn is a genius who was thwarted by the LC itself in not becoming master of the universe. Lyn in my opnion knew he had a cult going at a certain point while the members didn't. As they questioned, they left. Thus Lyn always has to have a perosn or group to blame for the failures. Take whatever generation of LC recruits you find and see that the ones that left were to blame and now this time it will be different. Now you can figure out why Lyn has to set the LYM against the Boomers, the presidential campaigns against the FEF, the American System against the SDS LC Marxists, Detroit against the LC, COmputron against the NCR and so on and so forth.

The sick thing of mind control in cults will be seeing many very old LCers who will still be at card table shrines after Lyn drops dead. If Lyn wanted to really take this to the max, he could go on life support in a coma and be kept alive on life supprt for another 20 years and drain the LC. Members would hustle to pay for this and would be allowed a once in a lifetime pilgrimage to view him under glass.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-02-2008, 06:18 PM

scrimscraw

After the Thrill is Gone...

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcr4life
The sick thing of mind control in cults will be seeing many very old LCers who will still be at card table shrines after Lyn drops dead. If Lyn wanted to really take this to the max, he could go on life support in a coma and be kept alive on life supprt for another 20 years and drain the LC. Members would hustle to pay for this and would be allowed a once in a lifetime pilgrimage to view him under glass.

That would be (almost) amusing. But do you really think the whole operation can continue once Lyn expires? It seems to me that the LC is such a single-minded personality cult that once he's gone the whole focal point will vanish with him. I don't see Helga or Jeff having anywhere near the strange charisma that LHL seems to exert, nor do they have the capacity to bill themselves as "the world's next greatest economist."

Scientology has been able to continue past Hubbard's death because the cult was never entirely about L.Ron, but about techniques and working your way up a ladder of consciousness and org status. But for most LYMers, there is nowhere to aspire to and no means to get there. Playing with geometric solids ain't going to suffice, I should think.

Similarly, Kim Il Sung had a grand personality cult going in No. Korea, but it was, in some sense, a means to an end - running a country - not an end in itself. Once he was gone, there wasstill a country to run and his son could just take over the machine. Same thing's happening in Cuba. In a closed country, there is nowhere else to go. So everyone is still stuck in the machine. But once Lyn is gone, what will there really be to keep LYMers or Dead-enders in the cult?

I suppose Webster Tarpley could be biding his time, waiting to step back in as the nutjob on the white horse to rescue the whole operation, but unless he has sleeper agents in the leadership, I just don''t see it. ;)

03-02-2008, 06:53 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcr4life
One of the most common phrases I would here among disgruntled LCers was:

"If only Lyn knew"

I gotta slow down when I type. Obviously I mean "Hear"

Scrimsaw, there are plenty of sects which can survive after the death of the founder. In most cases they become tiny worshipers of the departed as everyone else drifts off. In Leesburg, most LCers have drifted away to a degree. Most have jobs and very few people are full time anymore. Jeff Steinberg can parlay his weekly report into an internet gig if he hooks up with the people Lyn does not know about about. You would be surprised at just how much of Jeff's time is spent having a good time dining and going out while the LYM wait in line in the local LYM clubhouse/soup kitchen.

Helga can fly back to the USA for the funeral and make the yutes swear on Lyn's grave that they will devote their lives to keeping her in the standard of living she is accustomed to. There ae rumours of hidden money which some speculate Lyn's ex wives and son will go to court over. I do not think there is any hidden money as Lyn is enough of a madman to spend every dollar on his lunacy 24/7 . Any money in Europe I think took off when the Germans took off a little while ago.

Here are some more comments about the LYM and their peer groups. This one is from Australia and is about someone named Scott Balson.

http://todaysapatheticyouth.blogspot.com/2008/03/someone-thinks-hes-tom-cruise.html

As editor of the daily "newspaper", Balson has directed readers to bizarre antisemitic conspiracy material web-sites which have included direct promotions of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and published articles referring to Jewish "tentacles". Openly antisemitic postings have included claims that Jews "have certainly been reading" the anti-Jewish forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and "acting on" their blueprint for world domination, with another containing an appeal for the English to "rise up against the filthy rotten zionist infested British Establishment".

[...]

Drawing mainly on his own imagination, with such reliable sources as convicted US fraudster Lyndon LaRouche, the promoter of Australian Christian Identity (ie. white supremacy) Ray Platt and a bevy of "One Nation supporters", Balson's book is not the first attempt at bringing internet "wisdom" to the world of the book, but it is most likely one of the intellectually lamest.

[...]

This has some musings from people who have run into the cult .

http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2008/02/twirling-towards-freedom.html

I got there a little early, thinking it was going to be pretty crowded. As my reward for planning, I got to wait in line for half an hour for them to open the doors to let us in. I also got to hear all about the boss of the women behind me in line. Volunteers walked up and down the line telling us that we couldn't bring signs in. Grizzled men with mustaches tried to sell us buttons for $5. Each. FairTax people handed out t-shirts. LaRouchies handed out flyers***. "...............................

"***I really, really don't understand the LaRouche phenomenon. This guy could find a conspiracy in a room containing one person. Here is an actual quote from the flyer, talking about what he thinks will happen in this election: Democratic Option: Following the London orchestration of Obama's downfall, Hillary is also eliminated in some way, and Bloomberg's machine grabs the Presidency and with the support of Schwarzeneggar, institutes the immediate reign of a neo-Schachtian, corporativist fascist program of Lazard Frères-created George Schultz "revolution in military affairs" crony Felix Rohatyn, in the U.S.A. You can't make stuff like that up. Or at least I can't. And anyway. "................

" bluebird of doom and gloom said...

Neo-Schachtian is a new word for me. Apparently Dr. Schacht was the dude the nazis put in charge of the insolvent Reichsbank in 1933; LaRouche reveals a bit of senility here with references like that."............................................ .......

Justin said...

LaRouche reveals a bit of senility here with references like that.

The flyer (English on one side, Spanish on the other) was an anti-Bloomberg screed. I'm not sure why LaRouche has it in for Bloomberg, but then nothing he does makes much sense to me. He puts facts together in a way similar to a crazy person, making them fit in places that they clearly don't belong. Then he wonders why we don't all see things like the conspiracy to undo Obama being hatched in London as clearly as he does.".................

Conor said...

When I was in line to see Ted Kennedy speak in Oakland on behalf of Obama, some college agish folk were handing out literature. The people in front of me took it but I refused. A couple minutes later I looked at it, and it was a LaRouche pamphlet! How on earth they manage to brainwash sentient young people into believing this garbage is beyond me.

Have any of you in the LYM taken a guess as to why anti semites love the briefings and lit packets you send them while the rest of the people view you as a cult to have fun with on blogs?

Don't worry, it took some time for many of us to figure that out as well.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-02-2008, 07:36 PM

eaglebeak

The Mysterious Stranger

The Mysterious Stranger

Havoc in LaRoucheland

According to a report from LYM leader Megan Beets in the Sunday morning briefing lead February 17, a mysterious stranger has knocked on the door of LaRoucheland. She didn't put it quite that way, but that's what she meant.

People outside the Lyn-stabile will understand that the stranger was Reality, coming in the form of real-world state legislators who finally actually looked at the HBPA (that's the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act that had to be enacted by October 2007 to prevent Doomsday). Now, I need hardly tell you that when the state legislators actually read what a few LaRouche shills in various state legislatures had introduced, there was a Problem.

Here we have Megan's own statement of the Problem:

"This week, we've picked up, through various channels, that it's becoming quite clear, that there's a really concerted effort now from the bankers [read: anybody—ed.] to counterorganize against our HBPA: People know about the Kanjorski press conference, where Kanjorski just lied! And he came out with a line which echoed Felix Rohatyn from 2005, saying that 'Lyndon LaRouche wants to seize the banks of the United States,' which is the same thing Rohatyn said about the auto industry.
"Now, I'll just run through, In New Hampshire, after our testimony on Tuesday, the president of the state bankers association, said that he just had to testify, and he came out with the same line as Kanjorski, 'LaRouche wants to seize the Federal Reserve and all banks for five years.' In Rhode Island, we had our sponsor who has got a barrage of emails from the Corporations Committee, who on Tuesday, when it was scheduled for a vote, seized the HBPA and stuck it into the committee.
"In Pennsylvania, obviously, Illinois, Michigan, these states have been targeted right from the beginning. The HBPA's been foiled through various operations that we're trying to get a handle on."

Good luck with that, babe.

Let's see. Five states are mentioned here: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois. The last three are the ones in which, if memory serves, the most co-sponsors signed on. Megan leaves out a number of states where (or so the org claims) variants of the bill were introduced, but I think it does include the biggest ones.

Look at her phraseology: "HBPA's been foiled through various operations," and "we're trying to get a handle on" what's happened. Jeez, I'd love to help you get that handle, but I'm afraid my lips are sealed.

Meanwhile, recent ops reports show a dramatic tailing-off in efforts to push the HBPA on states and municipalities, or at least in reported efforts. Hmmm. How could this happen? And to such deserving people? I wonder if the Problem Megan reports has been repeated elsewhere. I do vaguely recall a recent LPAC item that referred to a discussion of the HBPA in which the LYM bemoaned the fact that some municipality had eliminated the most important provisions.

Not to worry, though. As of Feb. 17, the LYM had launched an effort to intensively organize over the next days, until the March 4 primaries, "an increasing density of singularities in that period…an increasing density of quality of changes in the population. So what that means, is we're going to need a rapid change in the cognitive level of the population, which is where the Hyperinflation video comes in." Now, there's no question that the Hyperinflation video could produce drastic changes in anyone's cognitive level, but I'm thinking the arrow wouldn't point up.

Actually, Megan's whole report was one for the ages. She started by announcing that:

"Okay, so we began to get things really rolling this week on launching a really intense Presidential campaign"—especially intense, given that "…[P]eople know that we're not running Lyn for President, but we're running to stop fascism, and we're running our policy." Running? And who is this "we" you say is running? How will you know if you're successful, dear?

Now mind you, Megan specifies that the 3.5 weeks between Feb. 17 and March 4 are "an interval of time chosen in which we're going to destroy Bloomberg." So there is a metric for knowing if they're successful. Hey! wait a minute—don't we have Mission Accomplished here? I mean, now that Bloomberg's out, can't we say "Wow! They finally won one!"

Not so fast. Turns out that, despite his public protestation that he is not running for President, Bloomberg is doing that very thing. He's just lying, according to LPAC of Feb. 28. Have you ever wondered how it is that Lyn claims victory all the time, but somehow, with every victory, the situation just gets worse and worse and more Apocalypse Right Now?

Well, gang, I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

Megan, dear, my thought on the HBPA is—maybe people just read the wretched thing. And I do appreciate that that would be tough for you all to get a handle on.

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

Otherwise:

--Uwe's first wife's name was Julie, not Judy (and I don't think that's Julie in the picture).

--Speaking of the pictures, the two rather forlorn-looking children are Michael and Andrew Spannaus, whose childhoods left much to be desired.

--I've seen Lyn sauced at NC/NEC meetings plenty of times. He gets louder, more dissociated, more obscene, and more "out there." Puns incessantly--can't get his mind off the sounds. (The rest of us didn't get much or anything to drink, which made the meetings even more of a trial. But Lyn got--and polished off--bottles' worth.)

--On the topic of the guy on the government's hit list who after 30 years doesn't have a paper cut to show for it--the crucial experiment was Lyn's five years in Federal prison. Aside from the assassination-attempt-by-colonoscopy that I described in an earlier posting, Lyn came out of Federal prison in great shape (sober, for one thing).

Kinda made it clear that the Federal government didn't give a tinker's damn about him.

--However, I have always thought that the fact that he was sober when he came out in January-February 1994 probably had something to do with his remarkable level of vicious vituperation against all the longtime members who had loyally stood by him, starting with the NEC and of course, Ken Kronberg and PMR.

Or maybe it was the collision between his enforced sobriety and his ability to get his hands on the hooch again, that made him so frightful. Not to mention five years of prison, in which he was able to brood on all the wrongs the world had done him.

03-02-2008, 08:28 PM

hecker

1 Attachment(s)
hi, eagelbeak!

as you can see from the added pic, it is julie....
by the way, do you have an idea why nobody has mentioned vivan, lyn's latin lover, so far?

hecker

03-02-2008, 08:48 PM

scrimscraw

Whoa! A young Helga. At least it looks like people were having fun at that party.

And Eaglebeak wrote:

Quote:
Or maybe it was the collision between his enforced sobriety and his ability to get his hands on the hooch again, that made him so frightful. Not to mention five years of prison, in which he was able to brood on all the wrongs the world had done him.

Locked up in the same cell with Jim Bakker would have driven me over the edge, guaranteed.

03-02-2008, 09:19 PM

socialistboomer

this just in
guess they got tired of jews, impotent puerto ricans, vicious black welfare mothers, women, gays, etc.

Time to mock Italians.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/02/video-mouse-olini-spotted-new-york-city.html

03-02-2008, 09:28 PM

eaglebeak

Cranes of Ibykus (Ibacus)

In preparation for the first anniversary of Ken Kronberg's death, which is fast approaching (April 11), I'm going to reprint a few things here, with more reprintings to come, along with a few first-time postings.

Chronology

April 11, 2007: Infamous Morning Briefing written by Tony Papert and reflecting the NEC "discussion" the night before (Tuesday night) at Lyn's house. Every word Tony mindlessly set down came straight from the Brain of Lyn. This was the briefing that declared that "the print shop was the worst"—the print shop being PMR, meaning Ken Kronberg—and suggested that the Baby Boomer members should commit suicide. To be reprinted in full later.)

April 11, 2007, 10:29 a.m.: "Controlling Your Rage!" This memo directly from Lyn has the effect of confirming that the Morning Briefing wasn't a product of Tony Papert's fantasy, but was Lyn's own.

Significantly, Lyn and the org admitted, in effect, that Lyn's ranting about suicide in the Morning Briefing was to blame in Ken's death. The admission came in the form in which the memo appeared in the Morning Briefing on April 12—the reference to "suicide" had been redacted. What's reprinted in full immediately below, relevant part emphasized, is the form in which Lyn originally wrote the memo and in which it was sent via "mail message" to the NCs, Wiesbaden, the House (that is, Lyn's and Helga's house outside Wiesbaden), etc. The redacted version came about later, after Lyn and the NEC were informed of Ken's death.

  1. 2 11-APR-2007 10:56:44.95 MAIL
    From: PGM::IF_
    To: @DIS:NC,WIE,HSE
    CC: IF_
    Subj: Controlling Your Rage

TO:@DIS:NC,WIE,HSE
FROM: LAR "Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr."
CC: HZL
SUBJ: CONTROLLING YOUR RAGE!
10:29 AM 4/11/2007 EDT

The report from the west coast, in today's ops bulletin, contains a much-needed lesson in how to keep your sanity when the Congress's Baby Boomers have joined the ranks of the medieval flagellants.

In the case reported in today's ops bulletin, our shrewd young folk recognized the error of responding against the population with their own rage at the betrayal of the human race by members of the U.S. Senate, among others. They learned the lesson of the Decameron, of Rabelais, Cervantes, Shakespeare, and others, to respond to extreme provocations by immoral circles around them, with wit.

The problem exists even among us, as some among us are enraged not only at the immorality in the Senate and elsewhere, but among those in our own ranks who refuse to give up the kind of Baby Boomer corruption typified by the Winstar dupes who insisted that I was wrong about my economic forecasts, until the Y2K blowout of 2000. they are enraged at seeing my warnings against Baby Boomer immorality so vividly confirmed by the behavior of many leaders in the Democratic Party and elsehwere (sic) of late. [b]Some among us with (sic) rather commit virtual suicide than admit I have been right on these matters.[b/]

Think, and speak and write with so. (sic)

April 18, 2007, 10:21 a.m.: Lyn's also-infamous "Policy on Ken Kronberg Suicide" memo. This constituted Lyn's first public utterance on the matter—fully a week after Ken's suicide, and by a bitter irony, on Ken's 59th birthday. The headline is enough to give the game away—Lyn, who had been in a crazed silence for a week, rather like Stalin in the days after the German invasion of Russia, realized he had to say something. So he decided to have a "policy" on the suicide of a man who had been a member for 36 years, a member of the NC for 33 years; the man who had created the organization's printing and publishing operations, who had edited its culture magazines….

Meanwhile, he had made no other public statement—no regrets, no "we're sorry," none of the obsequious, fawning tripe he often puts out when total strangers die ("my friend Indira")…. And of course, no message to the widow.

Aside from the nearly psychotic syntax and circumlocutions of this "policy," what it really means is: SHUT UP, EVERYBODY. WE HAVE A PROBLEM, SO SHUT UP.

Also, notice how Lyn announces that he knows the story, but will divulge it later—in other words, once he's figured out what to say. Subsequent documents show that he changed his "analysis" repeatedly, based on internal factional and other requirements.

A former organizational intelligence analyst remarked upon reading this that it showed that Lyn was terrified—commenting that, when Lyn is at his most hysterical, he insists most loudly on his surpassing intellect and discernment.

The "policy" is reprinted in full immediately below, as it was mail-messaged to the NC et al.

  1. 150 18-APR-2007 11:12:42.87 MAIL

From: PGM::IF_ To: @DIS:NC,WIE,HSE CC: IF_ Subj: Policy on Ken

TO:@DIS:NC,WIE,HSE FROM: LAR "Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr." CC: HZL SUBJ: POLICY ON KEN KRONBERG SUICIDE April 18, 2007 (10:21am) EDT

Evidence presently placed at my disposal has now shown me the actually determining personal factor in the suicide of Ken Kronberg, This additional evidence corresponds precisely with both my personal knowledge of both Ken, and also the business circumstances within which his actions were situated. At some later time, it will be appropriate to disclose at least a significant aspect of that evidence. That, (sic) evidence includes, essentially, not so much the cause of Ken's suicide, but certain usually overlooked, but crucial, aggravating factors in his situation, factors which are to be traced, for emphasis, to evidence dating chiefly from the period when Ken was under the joint misdirection of Fernando Quijano and Uwe Friesecke during the early through late 1990s.

[b]Therefore, since Nancy Spannaus' already published version of the biographical note, is truthful in respect to what it includes, that should be the only official reference to Ken's passing made publicly by our association at this time./b]

In coming times...

During the immediate months ahead, I will come to share my present, other knowledge on the matter, only with persons who have relevant competence, or who have a special right to know. Although the essentials of the case are now clear to me, there are relevant supplementary factors, including the already known current British operation by the friends and accomplices of Al Gore against our association, which must still be more fully explored.

It should be recalled, that I am exceptionally good at intelligence work, with a record, in my areas of specialization, far exceeding that of most known (sic) professionals otherwise. Intelligence is, as my experience, more likely to be accurate in identifying the nature of the relevant situation, than in locating the detailed features of the subject-matter. In this case, I know the character of the problem, but must no exclude surprises which now turn up as factors to be considered in pinning down the details which make for detailed evidence of what I already know the nature of the subject to be.

30-30-30

As Dennis King likes to say on his website (www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org), "More to come."

03-02-2008, 09:31 PM

eaglebeak

Scrimscraw: Yeah, but think what it was like for Jim Bakker to be there with Lyn!

Hi, Hecker--yeah, you're right, it is Julie. I didn't remember her hair being that long. And of course we have Gus Axios on the right, LYMers--the man who destroyed the organization for the next 30 years, according to Lyn....

This picture was probably taken around 1979,I'm guessing. Is that about right?

03-02-2008, 10:24 PM

realme

picture reminiscence

I think 1979 sounds about right. The age of the Spannaus kids fits. Now I'm trying to remember something, maybe someone can fill this in. Julie Henke (Parpart was fictitious, wasn't it?) was somebody's sister. I can't remember who, but I seem to recall a Philadelphia connection, but the only Phila. NC I can remember is Steve Douglas, and it's not him. I think Julie was related to the wife of the other Phila. NC whose name totally escapes me.

Or maybe I'm totally mis-remembering this.

As far as LHL's ex-wives battling over the great one's estate, what ex-wives? I'm almost certain that he was legally married to neither Carol nor Vivian. That leaves only Janet and Helga, and I doubt Janet (if she's still living) would have a claim.

As for Vivian, I personally saw her suffer greatly when the world's greatest economist broke up with her via telex. So go easy on her, please.

03-02-2008, 11:40 PM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
In this case, I know the character of the problem, but must no[t] exclude surprises

which now turn up as factors to be considered in pinning down the details which make for detailed evidence of what I already know the nature of the subject to be.

go, dude.

......

03-03-2008, 02:33 AM

dking

Lyn bipolar? Future of LYM?

I was struck by the suggestion that LaRouche may have a "manic-depressive" illness (the term currently used for this is bipolar disorder). I said to myself, wait a minute, his behavior also fits like a tee the DSM definition of narcissistic personality disorder. And isn't he also a bit paranoid? Then I remembered the case of M.D., the leader of the now defunct Democratic Workers Party cult--like Lyn, an alcoholic, like Lyn, an extreme narcissist, possibility bipolar and with a touch of paranoia (every university she taught at, she claimed the other teachers were plotting against her). I guess cult leaders tend to be pretty complicated people, although I think the narcissism is what's really important, what HAS to be there to set in motion the organizing of a cult. Still, some people might want to cut through all the jargon and say that Lyn is basically just a nasty drunk.

As to whether the LaRouche organization is going to survive, the key question is not what happens to the Leesburg burnouts but what happens to the LaRouche Youth Movement. Lyn launched the LYM--his last tour de force--precisely for it to SURVIVE HIS DEATH. So regardless of who ends up running the Leesburg remnants, who will run the LYM? I have a feeling that the old geezer still has a few tricks up his sleeve, including a possible nasty surprise for Jeff and Helga.

03-03-2008, 04:31 AM

eaglebeak

Various:

LaRouche's first wife's name was Janice, not Janet.

Julie Henke was the sister of Fran Moss--wife of Henry Moss, in the 1970s a Philly NC member.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason whatsoever to discuss any of LaRouche's former lady friends, wives, etc.--the only one who requires discussion is Helga, because she is a malignant narcissist and tyrant like her husband.

That certainly was never even remotely true of Carol or Vivian, and I doubt it was true of Janice, who left Lyn not because he neglected her but because he is such an abusive personality.

So I see no reason for discussion of any of these people--except Helga, who, in the image and likeness of LaRouche, has ruined plenty of lives and is responsible for many of the enormities of the ICLC.

03-03-2008, 03:55 PM

xlcr4life

There is one more very close relationship that Lyn had for many years until he was dumped and the cad took off with Webster Tarpley.

For the many LYM who read these posts, feel free to print , copy paste and ask Barbara, Nancy and your local NC about this rarley discussed "Marriage" of Lyn.

The first few pages will have what you need for a great LYM revival.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/2a70cae038aeed75/87f180318500ad5c?hl=en&q=Larouche#87f180318500ad5c

How about the Boston LYM music group write a little operetta called "The Marriage of Larouche"? The costs would be cheap since you only need some white sheets, a cheap card table, empty Rhinegau bottle, a few chairs and a guy in drag as Helga wearing Isle of Capri pants carrying , excuse me, ordering LCers to carry her shopping bags. The Carto part can be non speaking as the Lyn character would not allow it to over shadow him. The Euro version would be our "Spring Time for Helga" production.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-03-2008, 08:38 PM

howie

<i>As to whether the LaRouche organization is going to survive, the key question is not what happens to the Leesburg burnouts but what happens to the LaRouche Youth Movement. Lyn launched the LYM--his last tour de force--precisely for it to SURVIVE HIS DEATH. So regardless of who ends up running the Leesburg remnants, who will run the LYM? I have a feeling that the old geezer still has a few tricks up his sleeve, including a possible nasty surprise for Jeff and Helga.</i>

This is what I've wondered about. My general sense, from as far outside of anything as I am, is that Steinberg would likely shake off the ball of chain of Larouche and transition to the type of game your Webster Tarpley has going, retaining his contacts, still appearing on Arab and Iranian television outlets as someone with something to say, retaining much the same ideology. Am I wrong? (A sign of that-- his "Political Digests", or whatever they're called.)

Helga -- Don't know. Assuming Larouche is thinking through rationally his options of carrying out his Name, her service when he was in prison does not bode well... methinks.

03-03-2008, 10:17 PM

realme

Thanks for refreshing my memory about the Philadelphia NC. His name was very similar to someone I knew in high school, so my memory kept coming up with the wrong name. After over 23 years out of the LC, I sometimes confuse people I knew in college, people I remember from the LC, and people I've met since leaving.

And quite right about there being no need to discuss any of LaRouche's exes.

There's been some discussion here about what kept people in the org when they knew it was time to leave. I remember being very apprehensive that I would regret leaving. I didn't doubt that I would be better off leaving, I just feared that I would be giving up too much. But I never, not for an instant, had any regret. I never wanted to go back.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on how long it takes to cleanse one's mind of LaRouche-crap. I spent 11 years in the org, and I estimate it took me 10 years to have a L-free mind. I'm almost afraid to say this, for fear of talking someone out of leaving, but I wonder if someone with 30 or 35 years in the org would ever be completely free of LaRouchism. To my contemporaries still in the org, don't let that stop you. Even if you get 10% free (how would you quantify that?) you're way ahead.

03-03-2008, 11:40 PM

larouchetruth

Wow. I was wrong. You CAN make this stuff up!!

In RE mine of two days ago, which I thought to be a terrifically funny spoof, my best ever. Wow, I judge by the absence of a single complement on the wonderful belly laugh that I expected most of you to have, that, well, you all thought it was for real. I therefore reprint it verbatim, this time, I hope, for your total enjoyment, having spilled the beans that, no, this actually ISN'T from LaRouche, though the first 90% of it could have been:

Quote:
Originally Posted by larouchetruth
Get a load of the latest from just above the Basement:
"Bloomberg is not only lying, he is viciously lying, in his latest ploy to become president next November. His stated intention to not seek the nomination as an independent is a transparent sham, a vicious farce intended to dupe the clueless and lull Barack Obama into thinking he is out of danger, as the fascist circles backing Bloomberg, led by Felix Rohatyn and George Schultz, want to insure that Obama finishes off Clinton before they finish him off in a hail of scandal-backed stories detailing his 20-year long involvement with scum-lord Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his mob-linked connections in Chicago.
The real story, Lyndon LaRouche revealed today, that will hit like a bombshell before the summer, and that no one outside of the insider "need-to-know" circles knows, other than LaRouche, is that the timing of independent fascist Ralph Nader's announced bid for president had everything to do with the timing of Bloomberg's announcement. The plan is for Nader to secure the ballot slots in those states where one must file early, securing them for a later Bloomberg independent candidacy. Nader, who made plenty of his own money on the stock market, has no trouble with how Bloomberg got his money, and Bloomberg's successive breaks with the Democratic and then the Republican parties fit Nader's needs perfectly. In exchange for "bow-coup" bucks from Bloomberg, Nader will get on the ballot across the country, then stage a convention where he will step down in favor of Bloomberg, accepting the vice-presidential slot, though that part isn't totally agreed on yet. The deal is that it will look as if Bloomberg is being drafted, so there will be no blowback for his claiming he doesn't intend to run now. The calculation is that this way, Bloomberg can truly be the man on the white horse, who didn't seek the presidency, but who will be nominated by acclamation, and win over the wreckage of the post-McCain Republican and post-Obama Democratic parties.
The only thing standing in the way of the success of this fascist scenario for no later than next October, at the latest, is the major effort that the LYM has mounted to blow the whistle on these crooks and to raise the stupidity of the American people to the point where they can really see what is being planned for them.
We will also be monitoring the industries that are expected to take off as soon as the election of Bloomberg is seen to be a certainty. In particular, we will be monitoring the paving industry, in expectation of a push to extend the autobahn network, plus the output of boxcars, barbed wire, and zyclon B, to try to detect sharp increases in government orders for these products. Any such increases will NOT be counted as part of physical production for Lyndon LaRouche's reknowned "Triple Curve" that shows the "up" lines beating the "down" lines two to one. For obvious reasons."

Now, the logic of LaRouche claiming that Nader is a stalking horse for Bloomberg, I grant you, could still be in the offing. If that's all I'd written, shame on no one for not "getting it." And while I thought it was very funny, I suppose they are capable of saying that the job of the LYM is to "raise the stupidity" of the American people. But I really thought the notion that they would start monitoring economic statistics to track extra cement for expanding "the autobahn network," and above all, boxcars, barbed wire and zyclon B, would have been just a wee bit over the top even for them, so far, at least. Apparently not. You all thought them quite capable of saying it. Bravo.

And I thought my inventive take on how to "read" the Triple Curve(ball), as the two "up" lines beating the solitary "down" line two to one, was the coup de geste. I still laugh every time I read it. I hope the rest of you all can enjoy it now too.

So, evidently, you CAN make this stuff up. Hmmm.

03-04-2008, 01:09 AM

scrimscraw

Too close for comfort

Quote:
Originally Posted by larouchetruth
In RE mine of two days ago, which I thought to be a terrifically funny spoof, my best ever. Wow, I judge by the absence of a single complement on the wonderful belly laugh that I expected most of you to have, that, well, you all thought it was for real.

I thought it was authentic-sounding enough, when I first read it, that I went to the LARpac site and tried looking for it. Then I realized it was a spoof. But I got distracted from commenting at the time, and things rolled on.

Trying to raise laughs on a bulletin board is a tough job. I've posted things that I thought would get a rise out of someone, only to get silence. That's life, I guess. ;)

03-04-2008, 03:26 AM

boomer70

it's all a spoof!

Has it occured to anyone that all of Lyn's stuff is a spoof from about CW on? That he's trying to get someone to call him on it and raise a real opposition?

Why has no one responded to my last post at 'What Is To Be Done'?:confused:

03-04-2008, 09:01 AM

shadok

leaving

Quote:
Originally Posted by realme
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on how long it takes to cleanse one's mind of LaRouche-crap. I spent 11 years in the org, and I estimate it took me 10 years to have a L-free mind. I'm almost afraid to say this, for fear of talking someone out of leaving, but I wonder if someone with 30 or 35 years in the org would ever be completely free of LaRouchism. To my contemporaries still in the org, don't let that stop you. Even if you get 10% free (how would you quantify that?) you're way ahead.

I don't think a "L-Free mind" is the right way out. The evidence is this discussion board! What are we doing here? Talking about, commenting on larouche's last farts! I think the right way out is what to do with all this crap! To help mistakes not be repeated.

Moreover, no matter how long you ve been in the cult it is always, to some degree, a trauma.
I know some youth who were in the cult just a few months and yet it took them years to get back to their feet, resume studies at school and decide what they really want to do in their lives. Of course, their problems aren't all directly related to the cult but the lar experience didn't help.

The difference between then, when we older members left (say ten years ago or more) and now, is that - then - we had to figure out by ourself what this was all about and D King's book was hard to find anyway.
Now, with the internet, it is online, and there are other websites and chat rooms where we can exchange ideas and information or ask advice.
So, now I think the de-larouchization should take less time for the newer generation of ex-larouchies. In a sense, the older members were pioneers at every stage of this cult: for starting it off, building it and then, after leaving, for realizing what it really was. Many of us had to do their homework about larouchism, yet trying to get back to our feet in the real world.
As I mentioned in earlier posts last year, it was like a "rape of the mind" - but without realizing we were "raped", without realizing we were, in fact, victims of a "destructive cult" to use Steven Hassan's http://www.freedomofmind.com/ terminology. Some left the organization deeply bruised but without understanding what really happened, what it was really all about. If they knew then what we know now, I am sure they could have received help a "rape/cult victim" is entitled to.
That is why, it took so long to sort things out all by ourselves.
This is why such a discussion board here is precious for those youth who will leave the cult. Because they all will. Eventually. :)

03-05-2008, 02:07 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
Has it occured to anyone that all of Lyn's stuff is a spoof from about CW on? That he's trying to get someone to call him on it and raise a real opposition?

It would make this all pretty easy to sort out if that was the case. My view is that the dynamic working here is a little more complex. lyn knows it is a cult and runs it that way as he has a formula which works. The big difference to me is that he also believes all of this lunacy which is what I find is a common trait when I read about pathological liers, con men and people with delusiuons of grandeur.

If Lyn though this was all a crock, he would not have any reason to pay Carpet, The Colonel, MR Ed , Frick and Frack, Roy Frankhouser and the rest of the scam artists over 13 million in cash to reinforce his delusions around the clock. Lyn knows full well what happens to the members, but probably feels justified soince he is saving the world.

I have spoken to people who were pretty high up in the LC who have confronted Lyn on what you are talking about and finally saw that Lyn is so delusional about the world that is scared the sh*t out of them and they quickly left. There was a point where this was happeneing so fast that it became a running joke about how so many members were never seen or mentioned after those meetings.

On a few occasions I have heard from people who met with a Rhinegau fueled Lyn where he told them that there is a privy council which runs the USA and he has a part in determining what it does. "This privy council goes back and forth about me" is what the soon to be leaving LCers will hear. If the LYM could raise more money, there would be more money available to spend on these delusions with the scam artists who know Lyn far better than everyone here.

The remaining deadenders will have their own set of delusions and want to believe that Lyn does have these amazing powers. Take Harley for example. He and Lyn once had a few conversations about the money being raised by the local offices. Lyn actually wanted to do some sort of cult "franchise fee" where the local offices would have to pay something like 10 % to Leesburg in addition to whatever was raised and sent to Leesburg in LPAC funds. Right, no need to have long term health care planning for yourself which explains somethings about what happened to his loved one.

You don't die for Lyn like Joan of Arc in one swoop. Rather, you die one organ at a time it seems.

Here are some new blogs about the cult which clearly show what spending 250 million gets you as you approach death.

http://louminatti.blogspot.com/2008/03/lyndon-larouche-and-his-dynamic-leaflet.html

Lyndon LaRouche and his DYNAMIC LEAFLET

Over on a popular blog about the housing bubble there are a fair number of people who post links and snippets from the Lyndon LaRouche organization. So I downloaded the LaRouche podcast and listened in.

LaRouche is all over the place. Once a Marxist, then a "right winger" and now an FDR New Dealer. From a Washington Post article in the mid-1980s,

LaRouche has a good deal of control over the lives of the members of his organization, known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), according to interviews with former NCLC members, others familiar with its activities, published reports and an examination of the group's internal documents, some of which were filed in a recent libel suit in Alexandria.

"He demands sycophantic obedience," the former member said. "He repeatedly tells the members he is in total control of the organization."

The members are "rank-and-file automatons" devoted to LaRouche, according to one member's resignation letter several years ago.

The organization bred "pure psychological terror," the ex-member wrote. "The group was transformed into sniveling informers vying with each other for LaRouche's approval. Even couples were encouraged to 'inform' on each other's 'progress' . . . . In most cases the marriages were preserved, although the relationships were totally broken."

LaRouche's current obsession is apparently Mayor Bloomberg of New York. Every time Bloomberg's name is mentioned they compare him to Mussolini and call him a fascist, then chuckle amongst themselves about how clever they are to see what only they can see.

The story as I can piece together from yesterday's show, and I am not making any of this up: Rupert Murdoch ("owner of MySpace") and Bill Gates ("owner of Facebook") are controlled by the bankers in New York and London via former Secretary of State George Schultz. The bankers ordered Schultz to bring Murdoch and Gates on board in order to "spy on young people" and brainwash them via MySpace and Facebook. They are doing this because we are currently in the midst of the worst global depression ever known to mankind, which LaRouche has been saying we've been in for the past 40 years. The bankers don't want us to know about this, so the New York and London bankers have hand-picked Bloomberg and Arnie (who is a Nazi, ha ha) to run things. The only way out of this mess is to restore FDR's economic policies.

But how to get the word out? The LaRouche fans have a solution. They call it THE DYNAMIC LEAFLET, and its title is "The Devil in your Laptop?" A typical status report from the LaRouche organization is about photocopying a few reams of paper and handing out this DYNAMIC LEAFLET on college campuses.

What about the other politicians? Obama is a stooge, McCain is a pawn. I think the LaRouchies like Clinton, simply due to the fact that they don't criticize her. Who knows, and frankly, who cares. The fact that this nonsense mill is quoted on a regular basis as reputable source of material detracts from the credibility of the blog mentioned in my first paragraph.

posted by Lou Minatti @ 8:42 PM

6 Comments:
At March 04, 2008 6:43 AM, Tesla said... The best way to tell if you're dealing with conspiracy nutters: they need more conspiracy theories to support their original conspiracy theory. Instead of logic and evidence they fall back to a recursive loop of conspiracies.

At March 04, 2008 8:21 AM, NoVa Sideliner said...
To be fair (or at least as far as I've seen), the blogger in question isn't putting up that stuff himself. That junk is showing up from various LaRouchies who visit.

I guess he could ban 'em (I hear he does that occasionally, dunno for what -- eek), but most people there don't take the nutters too seriously, or at least not enough to take action.

By the way, Tesla, nicely put, a "recursive loop of conspiracies". That's what it takes to make the arguments even come close to making sense, and that still only works for uncritical thinkers -- of which there are sadly too many.

At March 04, 2008 7:45 PM, Funny Circus Bears said... I can think of no better measure of man's grip on reality than his view on Lyndon LaRouche. I have a LaRouche question on my Job Application forms.

http://www.cleveland.com/living/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/1204543888294270.xml&coll=2

Ralph Nader: a few gentle suggestions - Punchlines
Monday, March 03, 2008Michael HeatonPlain Dealer Reporter

Ralph Nader has hurled his White House-happy chapeau once again into the ring of presidential hopefuls.

Yes, he's baaaaack.

He's like the kid in school who on Friday afternoon keeps reminding the teacher that she hasn't assigned any homework for the weekend. He's like the Uncle Rico character in "Napoleon Dynamite" who can't stop reliving his high school football season of 1982. He's like the restless retiree you wish would become a Wal-Mart greeter.

What I don't want to see the guy become is the Lyndon LaRouche of the left. All Nader really needs is some gainful employment or maybe a hobby. I have a couple ideas.

http://xdell.blogspot.com/2008/03/bormanns-ghost-and-mr-marcus-tavistock.html

Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Bormann's Ghost and Mr. Marcus: The Attack on Minorities

Among other things, LaRouche the ex-Trotskyite now claimed that the US faced a conspiratorial attack from communists. If you're assuming he meant some kind of sneaky influence from China, Cuba or the Soviet Union, then you'd only be partially right. For behind the facade of these sovereign states, he reasoned, lay a bigger plot brought about by a more sinister bunch: the Jewish International Conspiracy.

What led him to this conclusion? Hmm.

LaRouche manifest this brand of bigotry in vicious diatribes against Henry Kissinger and other prominent Jews at first, but it later extended to all Jewish institutions including the B'nai B'rith, the ADL and the state of Israel. In their organizational magazine New Solidarity, he described Jews as "a subhuman oligarchical species." In an article titled "The Case of Ludwig Fuerbach," he wrote:

Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a self-sustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. Of course, the above makes you wonder how Judaism sustained itself for 1,500 years before Christianity.

When LaRouche began downplaying the Holocaust, it would end all doubt that his organization was courting such fascistic segments of the population as the KKK and other racist extremists.

Strangely, one-fourth of the NCLC was, like the aforementioned Linda Ray, Jewish. Still, members feared the new deprogramming efforts too much to complain. Some Jewish LaRouchies even went so far as to help promote the orgainization's new anti-Semitic line. LaRouche, in turn, pointed to their membership as proof that the NCLC wasn't simply a bunch of bigoted baboons. Still, individual members found themselves surrounded by Jewish jokes and other bashing. Some, like Robert Cohen and Paul Goldstein griped, naturally. That only made them targets for 'persuasion' to correct thinking under the whip of LaRouche's third wife, Helga Zepp, a native of Wiesbaden, Germany who bluntly claimed that the persecution of Jews during WWII was a hoax.

While there are said to be people of color within the organization (I haven't met any, but they claim there are--I'll take their word on that for the time being), the same types of strategies seem to apply, particularly in the US. While claiming to champion the cause of minorities, they bitterly attacked prominent Blacks, Latinos and Asians when they acted independently. When, in 1973, organizer Leroy Jones (aka Amiri Imamu Baraka) advocated community-based action in order to change urban policy, LaRouche supporters made unsubstantiated accusations that his, and other movements within decaying US cities had been backed financially by Wall Street corporations, and that Baraka and others like him were stooges of British/Jewish/communist mind control. As the NCLC put it, black leaders who disrespected LaRouche wore the "Tavistock Grin."

As he did to Jewish members, LaRouche held up African Americans in his organization in order to show his commitment to diversity and inclusiveness, but quickly kicked them to the curb if the presented problems. One FactNet poster related an example of this in the treatment of a woman referred to only by the initial 'S.,' a one-time successful moneymaking fundraiser from the Chicago office who accompanied Zepp on a number of shopping trips:

No matter how 'special' S thought she was to Helga, she was only as good as the next 'Special' the phone team was bringing in. Once that well dried up, S dried up. S was also another boomer victim of the cult. At one time S was on top of the world and was put on the National Committee, a pretty big deal if you are into the cult. But, it all came tumbling down as once the income figures dropped, Lyn noticed and that was that. Eventually S was babysitting other members' kids. All-told, it seems clear that LaRouche and his organization actively sought and used Jews and Blacks in order to deflect charges of racism and anti-Semitism. But open contempt for non-"Aryan" civilization, and coded language that attacked "inferior" civilizations, indicated that his vision of cultural purity was tantamount to racial purity.

Posted by X. Dell at 2:00 AM
Labels: assassinations, cults, mind control, NCLC, new world order
8 comments:
SJ said...
I wonder how they and others like them managed to see Jews and Christians as different civilizations at all. The links and commonalities are just ignored.

I think we had once earlier discussed about how it is too late to maintain racial purity coz for thousands of years all races (by whatever definition) have mixed.

If they weren't dangerous it would be easy to dismiss these guys as insane.

4:46 AM
SJ said...
I know some nasty anti-semitic jokes but am not telling. :)

5:07 AM
X. Dell said...
SJ, first off everyone knows nasty anti-Semitic jokes, many of them told by Jewish comedians. To understand the humor in them requires one to accept the stereotypes they are based on, to some degree.

"Racial purity," as most define it, is one of those things that's possibly one of the biggest chimeras remaining in the 21st century, especially if one lives in a polyethnic/polyglot society. But in my way of thinking, as long as humans breed with other humans, we are maintaining racial purity.

As to your first point, many, if not most Americans refer to the predominant national religion as Judeo-Christianity. Only the very fundamentalist among us would separate Judaism completely from Christianity on a religious basis. On a social and cultural level, however, is another story.

But LaRouche's insistence that Judaism is dependent upon Christiany for identity and culture is ridiculous on the surface of it, since Judaism is that much older a faith than Christianity. What he harkens back to are older Germanic notions expressed by such racialists as Richard Wagner (in his book Judaism in Music and Adolf Hitler (in My Struggle). Both saw Jews as not produceing culture, but rather leeching off of "superior" ones. In other words, both depict Jewish cultural presence as parasitic, and LaRouche concurs with this basic premise.

6:09 AM
Jadedprimadonna said...
"Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a self-sustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist." - That may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read or head, and we must take note of the fact that I'm saying that in the middle of the first Web 2.0 powered presidential election.

10:30 AM
JohnB said...
The "girl" I mentioned in my comment in the last post was in fact African American...but then I would expect that in an organization such as LaRouche's that those recruiters in the field may be so much more removed from the actual "goings-on" within the organization. I mean, they can't know too much, otherwise they wouldn't have the outward appearance of being rational and logical...because all this racial purity crap (dare I state the obvious) is anything but. The "face" of the group seems to be a perfect cover, especially here in Seattle, where the local culture here is such that it is sensitive to anything remotely fascist...based on my own observations over the last seven years.

1:09 PM
X. Dell said...
LMAO, Jaded. Nowadays, even if something wants to sound ridiculous, it has stiff competition.

Actually, a lot of LaRouchie policy platforms (e.g. quarantining gays and lesbians, and then exiling them to a moon or Mars colony) would be rip-roaringly funny if didn't have the history of defamation, criminality and violence that it does. What's worse, they've gotten their hands on some real power, especially in certain pockets of the world.

John, yeah. The rank and file almost never know what's going on in the inner circle. And, judging from S's experience, sometimes those in the inner circle are clueless too.

I had close contact with this group for an extended period of time (eleven months of my life that I still want compensation for). Their attitudes on race and religion really appalled me from the start. The thing is that their rhetoric runs counter to their attitudes and beliefs, and sounds downright progressive to the outsider.

The young lady you mentioned--I'll have to light a candle for her.

3:43 PM
foam said...
i hate bigots ..
oops, does that make me a bigot?
it's kind of amazing that such an old coot still can wield influence. actually learning about these cult is extremely interesting to me since i'll be sending a young one out into the big wide world it a year or 2.

5:25 PM
X. Dell said...
Foam, I wouldn't worry about your young'un, because I know that at least his mutti wouldn't give up on him. Nevertheless, I'm sometimes surprised at how little many people profess to know about them.

I guess that's why there are still cults.

10:45 PM

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23861

A professor of mine once lectured on the difference between totalitarian and democratic regimes. In totalitarian regimes, dissent is suppressed and vital. In democratic regimes, dissent is tolerated and ignored. Democracies treat trivial speech as trivial. So do we. My professor and I continued to converse outside the classroom, walking from WLH and past Sterling. At the corner of High and Elm, at the heart of our campus, very near to our pristine Old Campus, several young men and women manned a table of literature for Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche is a perennial Democratic candidate for president, a homophobe, a neo-Fascist, and an anti-Semite. I don't recall the details of that day's literature — the LaRouchies appear on campus from time to time — but the thrust was something about Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter and the Jews controlling the government. One "activist" stood in between my professor and me, hawking his hateful wares as my professor and I looked each other in the eye, shared a few parting thoughts on Tocqueville and Orwell, and bid each other goodbye, turning in opposite directions. The LaRouchie was left in the middle, talking to no one, ignored — exactly as he should have been.

There you have it Children of Lyn. 40 years of card table shrines, disinformation and a 1/4 billion dollars gets you being compared to a Nazi leader, the punchline of a joke in a major newspaper and a side show on a college campus.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-05-2008, 08:37 PM

boomer70

helga's castle
does anyone have info on Helga's castle? pictures? location?

03-06-2008, 02:30 AM

eaglebeak

I think XLCR may have some photos of old Helga castle pix--but not of Erdenheim or Erbenheim or Elfenheim or whoever's heim it is that Helga calls heim now.

03-06-2008, 02:42 AM

eaglebeak

What a Scream.

And I can hear the screams now--I just can't make out whether they're screams of horror or shrieks of laughter. Either way, as the saying goes, it's all good.

I give you the lead to the Morning Briefing of Feb. 27. I have boldfaced the most uproarious parts, but I think any comments by me would be, well, superfluous--kind of a buzzkill, if you know what I mean.

THE BATTLE IS JOINED

People have to face the fact that Lyndon LaRouche was right all along on what was really going on in the US elections, when no one else was. Back on November 7, 2007, when so many believed that Rudy Giuliani had the Republican nomination locked up, LaRouche looked at the Giuliani dossier, and said immediately that Giuliani would soon be torn down, to the ultimate benefit of New York Mayor Bloomberg.

And it happened. It all happened just the way he said.

Only LaRouche had understood that the financial system had already collapsed, athat a Weimar hyperinflationary blowout has already begun, and that London had already chosen their Mussolini, and was determined to put him in the White House--and would stop at nothing to do it.

The whole crazy primary season has occurred on a playing field which is being systematically tilted by the British. Republicans have been shot down one by one, to leave only McCain--who himself can be rapidly bundled off, given health and other vulnerabilities. Obama is being built up by supporters who are often his worst enemies, only in order to destroy Hillary Clinton, and to be destroyed himself. All to bring in Bloomberg.

On one aspect of that British manipulation of "all sides against the middle," note that the polling and political firm Penn Schoen, which works for many Democratic candidacies, and the firm of right-wing Republican dirty trickster Charlie Black, formerly called Black Manafort, are not both subsidiaries of Burston Marsteller. But Burston Marsteller is owned and controlled by WPP Group, out of--you guessed it--London!

No wonder so many Americans above the 18-22 age group, who have experienced Presidential elections before, have been responding, "I knew it!" They sensed that this electoral process was something completely different, and not at all what it pretended to be.

The way we will defeat this is in the streets, with ideas. A lead item in the Operations Bulletin reports that the nationwide level of mass distribution rose to 19,000 "Romney Walks Out" leaflets and 10,500 "Devil in Your Laptop" pamphlets on Monday, Feb. 25 alone. That item and the Operations Bulletin in its entirety, display unmistakable signs of the mass effect. We must foster that and go on to win with it.

The strategic battle will be won or lost in the U.S. and in Europe, LaRouche said, against the Bloomberg operation and the Europe-wide fascist coup which is the Treaty of Lisbon.

Well, I said no comments--but I do want to say I'm glad to see they're still passing out "Lucifer in Your Lunchbucket" leaflets. What a truly indefatigable crew.

03-06-2008, 08:19 AM

larouchetruth

LaRouche Updates Nietsche. Reason Is Dead, and I mean DEAD!

From Eaglebeak's Feb. 27 briefing lead:

THE BATTLE IS JOINED

People have to face the fact that Lyndon LaRouche was right all along on what was really going on in the US elections, when no one else was. Back on November 7, 2007, when so many believed that Rudy Giuliani had the Republican nomination locked up, LaRouche looked at the Giuliani dossier, and said immediately that Giuliani would soon be torn down, to the ultimate benefit of New York Mayor Bloomberg.

And it happened. It all happened just the way he said.

Only LaRouche had understood that the financial system had already collapsed, athat a Weimar hyperinflationary blowout has already begun, and that London had already chosen their Mussolini, and was determined to put him in the White House--and would stop at nothing to do it.

The whole crazy primary season has occurred on a playing field which is being systematically tilted by the British. Republicans have been shot down one by one, to leave only McCain--who himself can be rapidly bundled off, given health and other vulnerabilities. Obama is being built up by supporters who are often his worst enemies, only in order to destroy Hillary Clinton, and to be destroyed himself. All to bring in Bloomberg. ...

No wonder so many Americans above the 18-22 age group, who have experienced Presidential elections before, have been responding, "I knew it!" They sensed that this electoral process was something completely different, and not at all what it pretended to be.

The way we will defeat this is in the streets, with ideas. A lead item in the Operations Bulletin reports that the nationwide level of mass distribution rose to 19,000 "Romney Walks Out" leaflets and 10,500 "Devil in Your Laptop" pamphlets on Monday, Feb. 25 alone. That item and the Operations Bulletin in its entirety, display unmistakable signs of the mass effect. We must foster that and go on to win with it.
[END OF LEAD]

One lasting, if dubious, achievement, of LaRouche's 60 odd years (and I do mean odd), is his beggaring of the English language. I find myself unable to express, using my full command of my native tongue, the degree of inanity, insanity, stupidity, foolishness, mendacity, anti-common sense, anti-history, anti-thinking, of almost everything he is saying these days. The above briefing lead is no exception. Sorry, Eaglebeak, but I cannot resist, even as I admire your self-restraint, making a few comments. If any LYM members are reading this, as I hope they are, what is self-evident to former members will not be self-evident to them, I feel I owe them to show them how the only way they can read this briefing lead and not quit is if they have simply shut down the reasoning faculty of their minds, and become mindless parrots of LaRouche's amazing, absurd pronouncements.

To take it from the top, LaRouche did predict Giuliani would fall, at the point that the Kerick revelations came out late last year. He also predicted that he would fall only after taking down every other candidate, that is, his prediction was that Giuliani would lock things up, wipe out McCain, Romney and Thompson, the presumed other serious contenders, only then to be disgraced by these scandals coming out. Excuse me, but NOTHING Lyn predicted has come about. It is not at all clear that the scandals had any significant impact on Giuliani's political demise, for starters. He chose not to campaign in the early states. He quickly exposed himself as a one-note charlie on the 911 that became old quickly. But Giuliani was theFIRST to fade, in the sense that he never won any significant vote total anywhere in the early states. Even had there been a behind-the-scenes someone who "took him out," by doing so, all they took out was...well, Giuliani. NOT the other candidates that LaRouche said was the purpose of the "operation." So, LaRouche was 100% wildly off-base (incredible surprise).

"The the ultimate benefit of Bloomberg." Right, like Bloomberg just announced he wasn't running as an independent. And John McCain is the Republican nominee. Anyone not under the thrall of LaRoucheThink would conclude that McCain was the beneficiary of Giuliani's demise.

Then we have the slight matter of the claim that Guiliani "would soon be torn down." There is no evidence that Giuliani's fall was because someone external to his campaign "tore him down." He didn't compete. I have seen no evidence that his poor showing in the early states was owing to people reading about the scandals. The scandals frankly went basically nowhere. And even had they, one would still need to show that "someone" behind the scenes was orchestrating them as part of a deliberate plot on behalf of Bloomberg. But that would require evidence, which is an Aristotelian invention that has no reality, and is basically a plot to delude the human race into thinking that what happens in the real world has a bearing on what one should believe about how the world works.

So, nothing at all happened the way LaRouche said on Nov. 7, 2007, that it would. LYM members (and any other members reading this)--please go reread what Lyn said on Nov. 7. If you really believe that what Lyn said would happen, has happened, it's time to apply to Social Security for disability insurance on grounds of mental issues.

But the next paragraph (the third) tops the first two by an order of magnitude, for its absurdity. Only LaRouche had understood that...London had already chosen their Mussolini, and was determined to put him in the White House--and would stop at nothing to do it. !!! Do any members actually read this stuff? It's one thing to claim that Lyn's Nov. 7 prediction about Giuliani's fate "came true" because at least he's no longer in the race. But it's quite another to state that Lyn has been proven right that a London cabal has chosen Bloomberg for dictator and "would stop at nothing" to install him. One slight problem--he's not yet installed (and nowhere near being installed). No one can be described as stopping at nothing to achieve something unless they have either succeeded, or totally failed trying. Lyn can point to evidence that Bloomberg clearly wanted to run, and that significant political forces were mooting backing a third party candidate, perhaps Bloomberg. But leaving aside the issue of establishing that this movement was controlled by Rohatyn and Schultz, in turn controlled from London, you simply can't say that Lyn has already been proven correct that they are determined to put him in the White House and will stop at nothing to achieve that. Well, you can in LaRoucheLand, using LaRoucheThink, I stand corrected.

Next paragraph is equally absurd. Now, "the British" (no indication of which British, who, how, when, what did they do) are "tilting" the political landscape (evidence, please?). Republicans have "been shot down." Oh, really? By whom? Did someone shoot down Romney so he lost to Huckabee in Iowa? If so, say how it was done, and by whom. But LaRouche has gotten so far into his own rabbit hole that he fails to have the slightest recognition that for people on the real world side of the Looking Glass, something beyond mere empty assertion is required in order to make a claim like this. And of course, this paragraph totally refutes the first one, which refers to Lyn's Nov. 7 prediction that Giuliani would knock everyone else off, BEFORE getting knocked off himself. Can Lyn really be so unaware that he totally contradicts himself like this??

Of course, we then move to Obama, who failed to play his role last night, since he failed to knock Hillary out of the race, and is in real trouble himself now. And of course the empty assertion that this is "all to bring in Bloomberg," the same Bloomberg who has said he isn't running.

And I have to wonder how many Americans have actually said "I knew it," when briefed on this insane scenario.

The penultimate sentence is classic LaRoucheSpeak for creating the appearance of offering members a way to believe that they are really having an effect in the real world, without the slightest actual indication that that is the case. That item and the Operations Bulletin in its entirety, display unmistakable signs of the mass effect. "That item" refers to the distribution of 19,000 of the Romney Walks Out leaflests (an incoherent mishmash of "ideas," by the way) and 10,500 Devil in your Laptop pamphlets. So, the claim is made that the distribution of their lit, plus the reports in that day's ops report, show evidence of a "mass effect." Which is totally tautological. The cause cannot be the evidence of its own effect. The effort, the distribution of leaflets and the contacts made in one day's field activities, cannot also be the "mass effect." Something else, some activity that people do in response to the activities, would have to be the effect.

But this level of reasoning, to be expected by children before they enter High School, at the latest, is clearly beyond the reach of the LaRoucheMind, which is much more comfortable in the pre-K world of total fantasy where anything can be believed, and is.

03-07-2008, 02:51 PM

xlcr4life

5 Attachment(s)
A PSA for the remaining members

We will be right back with our irregularly scheduled deprogramming after a very important PSA (Public Service Announcement) for the few hundred remaining yutes who are busy raising money for Lyn.

In reviewing material about "LaroucheCare" it becomes painfully obvious that one major reason for Lyn's endless attack on the Boomers and love of his new children is that Boomers cost a lot of money in health care expenses. When you finally figure out this whole crazy scheme of disinformation and uselesness, your health problems are now yours and not the cult's and certainly not Lyn's to worry about.

I have been quite surprised by the death toll among older members who have died because of cancers and heart issues. The deaths occur from a few things like lack of medical care at early stages of disease and life style in the LC. The endless 24/7 hysteria takes a toll on a person who is also living undernourished with little sleep and being exposed to numerous conditions without receiving adequate health care or health insurance.

When you are manning card table shrines around the clock ,it is not just a mental issue of perpetuating Lyn's delusions, but an exposure to many elements such as carcinogens via exhaust fumes and long term exposure of skin cancer based solar radiation.

I would urge current members to read this very informative article in US News and World Report

http://health.usnews.com/articles/he...lth-risks.html

about what happens to you when you are in a traffic island or a card table shrine . Note that the LA LYM are in line to have the worst long term outcome of the current crop of the Children of Lyn. Besides the inhalation of toxic fumes the LLA LYM also braqgged about how great it is to be able to organise at a card table shrine year round with no rainfall or cloudy weather.

I myself can think back to how much time Lyn spent on attacking any suggestion that pollution or smoking can cause cancer. We had a conference once where someone from the floor suggested an end to smoking at national conferences. Lyn replied, as he lit up his pipe that there is nothing to suggest that smoking caused cancer. His answer was that cancer is rising because people are living longer. This also went with the general belief ( I do mean belief as you suspend that when you are in the LC) that industrial wastes and links to cancers and health issues are part of the oligarchy, the British or Rockefeller's plot to deindustrialise the US. Any idea that maybe there is some reason to look at environmental concerns as being a legitmate issue were met with disbelief and ridicule.

Besides the emotional issues which the LYM and remaining LCers have to deal with, there is a physical breakdown. In a purely anecdotal look, it shows that there may be a higher illness/death rate among LC members as they age due to the long term side effects of Lyn's cult of personality control due the health risks.

Your analytical skills are being erased. Your critical thinking skills are being erased . The mind is being slowly Larouchefied while the body is aging faster and taking on incredible stress levels.

Time goes by much faster than you think and the longer you stay in this Bizarro world, the harder it gets to recover. Think of the members in the pictures below who are inhaling these particles day in and day out as Lyn demands more and more to feed the beast.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-07-2008, 04:35 PM

scrimscraw

The Toll Road to Hell

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcr4life
Time goes by much faster than you think and the longer you stay in this Bizarro world, the harder it gets to recover. Think of the members in the pictures below who are inhaling these particles day in and day out as Lyn demands more and more to feed the beast.

Sorry to say those attached photos don't blow up to full size.

The health issues you cite are very real and problematic. But I've also been thinking about the mental health toll of catering 24/7 to a madman. Insanity is contagious. Even if the long-run NECers were "just in it for the money" (ha), the hard work of perpetuating Lyn's delusions year after year, decade after decade, amounts to self-programming oneself with second-hand paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and passive-aggressive behavior. No wonder that Jeffrey, Nancy, et al, are sticking it out with the freak show. What alternative do they really have at this point?

And sadly, the same goes for the dead-ender table shriners. Manning a literature table is one thing when you are a 19-year old idealist. But one really ought to move on to a better use of one's time once one graduates from college (assuming one does, though doing so runs counter to LYM practice).

Astute dissection of the Feb 27th briefing, larouchetruth. I especially liked this observation:

Quote:
The cause cannot be the evidence of its own effect. The effort, the distribution of leaflets and the contacts made in one day's field activities, cannot also be the "mass effect." Something else, some activity that people do in response to the activities, would have to be the effect.

The same holds for the LAPpac site's sad little reports of LYMer's intervening at this or that political event or collaring some politician for a one minute harangue. If the net effect is nil - which I assure you it is - then the effort is totally wasted. :(

03-07-2008, 10:59 PM

boomer70

i can't dismiss the org' entirely http://larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080228sperry_letter.html

03-07-2008, 11:56 PM

hecker

Yes, the pics are from 1979, and the new years party took place at tipaldo's apartment in NYC.
2. Wasn't Fran married to Ed Podhorn?
3. To my knowledge, helga's home is in Ingelheim. The "castle" in the hunsrueck hills is long gone.

03-08-2008, 12:48 AM

eaglebeak

Cranes of Ibykus II

As mentioned earlier, in preparation for the first anniversary of Ken Kronberg's death, now only five weeks away, I'm going to be reprinting various items.

But first, a reprise of my previous post on this topic.

Chronology

April 11, 2007: Infamous Morning Briefing written by Tony Papert and reflecting the NEC "discussion" the night before (Tuesday night) at Lyn's house. This was the briefing that declared that "the print shop was the worst"—the print shop being PMR, meaning Ken Kronberg—and suggested that the Baby Boomer members should commit suicide. (To be reprinted in full later.)

April 11, 2007, 10:29 a.m.: "Controlling Your Rage!" This memo directly from Lyn has the effect of confirming that the content of the April 11 Morning Briefing, with its obsession about member suicide, was straight from Lyn. (Reprinted above, Thread p. 7, in its original form, not the cleaned-up form in which it appeared in the April 12 Morning Briefing, with the word "suicide" redacted—a real Cranes of Ibykus moment.)

April 18, 2007, 10:21 a.m.: Lyn's "Policy on Ken Kronberg Suicide" memo, his first public statement on the matter, fully a week after Ken's death, made on Ken's 59th birthday. (Reprinted on p. 7 of the present Thread.)

April 19, 2007, 12:18 a.m.: The morning of Ken's funeral: Lyn replies to the anguished message of a member, begging him to break his silence and send a message of condolence to Ken Kronberg's widow Molly ("whatever one may think of her, personally and politically"). Lyn tells member in effect to drop dead, he has his reasons for saying nothing. (Namely, he can't think of what to say, and he knows Molly loathes him, so he doesn't want to make a misstep. Oh, well--blew that one.) (Reprinted above on an earlier page of this Thread.)

April 19, 2007, Time unavailable: Later on the day of Ken's funeral, Lyn does in fact write to Molly Kronberg, a ludicrous letter in which the subject is not Ken, nor Molly, but, unsurprisingly, Lyn.

The next day, the letter is hand-delivered to her house by Jeff Steinberg (who has called ahead to announce what he is bringing), but she arranges not to be home.

Subsequently, Molly suggests to Nancy that Lyn's letter be printed as part of the EIR package on Ken and his death; one can't be sure, but my hunch is that Molly wanted the letter to get the widest possible circulation for its psychosis content. Once printed, it could never be denied.

Nancy seizes the suggestion with alacrity. The letter is reprinted immediately below, with the eyebrow-raising headline given to it by Lyn (emphasis added).

The Immortality We May Share

Dear Molly:
For all among us, the realization of the purpose of a life lies within a certain continuity which is centered for each in both our forebears and in the outcome of the lives of those who come after we have passed on. In all the storms of life, our connection to that process and its outcome, is the durable immortal meaning of our having once lived. In moments such as these, we either cling to that dedication of our living, or we were no more than virtually beasts

The ugly, horror-stricken moment must pass. To this end Nancy's memorandum on a selection among certain aspects of Ken's life as part of us serves a certain, essential purpose, for this passing moment. What is left out of her account, is the reference to what is even more crucial now than Ken's past life as such: what does his having lived mean for the future of mankind?

He was struck down by a sickness, amid more than a decade and a half of both persecution by our enemies and betrayal by not only many among our former friends, but truly evil forces of those who had already been not only our own enemies, but, in fact those who are still, dead or living, among the enemies of humanity today. What counts most, therefore, is what Ken's living contributed to the future of mankind.

Therefore, put aside the oppressive circumstances and the inner torment, betrayals of trust, and sickness which Ken endured during recent times. Grasp the essence of his life. That which is immortal is what is left in our living hands, to defend.

What are we doing, therefore, for the future of mankind? That is a crucial part of Ken's future now that he is gone. On that account, the worst effect of Ken's passing is that on those who have abandoned efficient expressions of hope in that future for which Ken dedicated decades of his life. As long as I live, and hopefully, beyond, that banner, his banner, will remain unfurled.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Chairman,
On behalf of the International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC)
April 19, 2007
Let's see. In the letter, Lyn says to the grief-stricken widow:

1. Ken's individual life is not what's important; it's the continuity of lives, the "meaning" of "our having once lived." If you don't agree, you're an animal.

2. The horror of Ken's death ("the ugly, horror-stricken moment") will pass—at least for Me, Lyndon. I mean, what's the big deal? Get over it. (Imagine telling a widow a week after her beloved husband has killed himself that "it will pass.")

3. Meanwhile, the "passing moment" (that would be all the specificity, all the concreteness, all the individuality—all the unique human soul that was Ken) is served well enough by Nancy's ho-hum "memorandum."

4. But the real point is what I, Lyndon, will deal with: "What does his having lived mean for the future of mankind?" (Lyn really means, "for the future of Me, Lyndon"). No recognition of what we used to call the "concrete universal" here—Ken, Schmen—the point is what his existence means for Me.

5. Lyn blames Ken's death on (a) Ken's "sickness"; (b) "persecution" by enemies, members, former members, whatever—notice he does not blame Molly at this juncture (even though by December 2007, he's saying the only reason he didn't expose her years ago as an agent for John Train was his consideration for Ken)—and says again that the real point of Ken's life wasn't Ken, it was its meaning for the future of mankind/Me, Lyndon.

6. So, "put aside the oppressive circumstances"—forget that your husband just leapt off a bridge in despair over the collapse of all he'd built—and "grasp the essence of his life"—get with the program and realize that the meaning is … Me.

7. Then, of course, there's the signature—Not Lyn, or Lyndon, or Yours, Lyn—it's signed LHL, King of the Universe. This in a letter about the death of someone he'd known for over 35 years, to someone he'd known for 35 years. Perhaps a touch of dissociation here.

No wonder Molly wanted this letter printed and seen by the world. No doubting Lyn's lunacy now.

April 20, 2007, 10:28 a.m.: The next day, April 20, having sensed that somehow he hasn't said it quite right, Lyn's back again, this time with an "Internal Report" to ICLC associates on PMR, on Ken, and on Who Was To Blame. (Memo reprinted directly below.)

  1. 161 20-APR-2007 11:13:37.34 MAIL
    From: PGM::IF_
    To: @DIS:NC,WIE,HSE
    CC: IF_
    Subj: Internal memo from LAR

TO:@DIS:NC,WIE,HSE
FROM:LAR " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "
CC:HZL
SUBJ:INTERNAL REPORT TO ALL ICLC ASSOCIATES
April 20, 2007 (10:28am) EDT

On the subject of our printing operations.

The collapse of PMR has been a virtually inevitable calamity, since some time earlier than 2000, perhaps as early as 1994. [When Lyn, erupting from prison, took on PMR and the "PMR lifestyle" as one of his first targets.] The effective termination of our operations' (sic) 2nd-Class mailing privileges, which were sacrificed for an ill-advised investment by PMR, meant the end of PMR's ability to continue to exist for long, except by shifting emphasis to a (sic) the new business orientations of our political ass'n [??], which I began to put into place as soon as I was legally free to begin that much-needed, already long overdue reform from the follies of 1990-1999. [Note that PMR had nothing to do with losing the second-class mailing permits—the printer is not responsible for mailing costs and mailing payments—that's the customer's obligation. The investment referred to was PMR and WorldComp's 2001 office move, for which Lyn "legal adviser" Bruce Director—by the way—did some heavy fundraising, and which Lonnie Wolfe pushed for all he was worth, only later turning on a dime when he realized he'd just given Lyn another excuse to hate him.]

The special problems of PMR created during the 1990-1999 interval, under the Friesecke-Quijano mis-management of the principal business and related affairs of the U.S. operations, have intersected a catastrophic situation in the traditional graphic arts business practices of, in particular, the entire region of this northeast corner of Virginia, and elsewhere. (sic)

Uwe and Fernando were controlling (somewhat rapaciously) the business affairs of the U.S. association, at that time. [Balderdash—especially vis-à-vis Fernando.] The first crisis of PMR was created for Ken Kronberg by Uwe's overreaching direction of the financial affairs of the U.S. ass'n as a whole. [No, the first crisis, and every subsequent one, was caused by the org's failure to pay. That imposed the necessity, for example, to sell "Ibykus Farms" to pay PMR so PMR could pay the IRS in the early 1990s. Lyn was in prison, and boy was he mad when "they" sold "his" house.] During 1994-2000, the minds of many of our associates here were corrupted by corrupting delusions typified by the "Winstar" hoax. It was said, then: "Lyn is wrog (sic) about the economy; there will be lots of money being passed around for those clever enough to tap into the flow." The collapse of the Y2K bubble, during 2000, showed us that it was those who doubted my authority in such matters, who were behaving as stupidly as they were behaving gullibly. This ideology, and its effects on policy-shaping in the printing operations as in the organization itself, was a crucially important factor in producing the ruined situation in which PMR found itself in 2000. [What's he talking about? Who knows?—He certainly doesn't. Strange is the constant comparison of PMR and Winstar—let's not forget that LaRouche lifers like Zeke Boyd and Michele Steinberg worked for Winstar—but the most mysterious allusion is to the ruinous effects on PMR, as of 2000, of the "get rich quick" ideology. Anyone—anyone at all—who knew Ken Kronberg, knew that wasn't what was going on at PMR. All PMR needed was for the sticky-fingered LaRouche org to pay its bills. And no matter what Barbara Boyd says in her "Simple Facts" fantasies, that's just what the LaRouche org didn't do.]

The only last-minute hope for saving PMR came from the new conceptions agreed to between me and Ken Kronberg et al. during recent months. [Not a new conception. At a January 2007 meeting with Ken, Barbara Boyd, Lyn, and a few others, the idea was put forward, again, that LPAC and LYM had to reeelly, reeelly organize this time, to get out those pamphlets, to get PMR enough work. But it didn't work. It never did.] This solution depended chiefly on matching PMR's and associated potential with the expansion of the market for LPAC operations. With the failure to support that LPAC program by parts of our ass'n, the lack of support from among our veterans, removed the last hope of success for our collaboration with Ken Kronberg on this basis, and, thus, created a hopeless situation for an already, otherwise doomed, PMR . [Now he's blaming Baby Boomer members.That's refreshing.]

The failure among far too many among our BBs, to find an adequate response to the challenge within themselves, did not actually kill Ken; there were other causes.[To be revealed some day, when it becomes internally factionally necessary. I'll come up with my just-in-time line then.] However, your failure to muster to the challenge which I and others posed to you, could have been helpful (sic) to those among us trying to help him overcome his pessimism. You owe it to his memory now, to honor the lesson which you should have learned while he still lived. [That is, support Me. In all senses of the word.]

This lack of support for that program, during recent weeks, from among our senior ranks, despite the growth of the LPAC's important functions, is, therefore, the most relevant consideration in thinking about what happened to PMR. [Ken? What Ken? What's relevant is that I can take his death as the excuse to beat you all up again.]
Where do we turn to fill the vacuum left by PMR's crisis? There are remedies, which center around the potentials provided by the need for relevant forms of support fr (sic) the currently accelerating importance of the work of LPAC.

The sabotage of the income of LPAC from among parts of the ranks of the Baby Boomer generation, was perhaps more a reflection of a knee-jerk instinct to sabotage, than a willful attempt to wreck LPAC; but, it doomed a precariously situated PMR, nonetheless. It is this largely subliminal "attitude" among BBs which must be urgently corrected.

What is currently, the accelerating importance of our work, both in the U.S.A. and abroad, is approximately comparable to the SDI period, when I led in pulling our association out of the ruins left by the Gus-Andy and "Three Fingers" Dalto swindles.[You wouldn't know from reading this, that they were his closest confidantes, would you?] The relative, and growing importance of our role, internationally, as in the USA itself, is presently greater than during the 1981-1983 interval.

Therefore, the question now is no longer "can be (sic) save an already virtually doomed PMR?" [No, I wouldn't think so. But frankly, who really cares? I mean, the important thing is Me.] The question is: can we do our essential part in contributing to the rescue of civilization? There is nowhere to run. There is no place outside the civilization now in immediate jeopardy. There lies the meaning of the personal life of each among you, your past and future life, and, most of our the (sic) worth of your present mortal existence. [Me.] Can you now correct the relevant error which mislead (sic) you during the recent years and months? Can you find in yourself, the moral and intellectual qualities (sic) which humanity [that would be Me]now demands from you?

30-30-30

Well, we've made it through April 20--nine days after Ken's death. And believe me, there's much, much more to come. The great thing about Lyn is that he just can't shut up.

(Not to mention, more to come from the period preceding Ken's death, including a never-before-printed communication from Lyn to Ken. Hmmm.)

03-08-2008, 12:50 AM

eaglebeak

Hecker--

Fran was married to Ed Podhorn first, then left him to marry Henry Moss....

You're right, the house is in Ingelheim.

It was Typaldos--Andy Typaldos's place.

03-08-2008, 08:07 AM

scrimscraw

Locations of previous posts are relative...

Eaglebeak wrote:

Quote:

(Reprinted on p. 7 of the present Thread.)

It is probably worth pointing out that pointers to positions of posts in threads are relative to each registered member's settings for viewing threads.

For instance, I have my settings set to show 40 posts per page in a thread, thus I'm only on page 4 of this thread.

A better marker for locating posts is the posting # on the top right of a post.

If you want to edit your settings for post displays, go to: User CP > Control Panel > Edit Options > Thread Display Options > Number of Posts to Show Per Page.

In other words, it is both a blessing and a curse that the new bulletin board software is so customizable by individual members.

As for the fascinating yet horrifying communications you reprinted above, I think your analysis is spot on. Indeed, it is all about me-me-me (Lyn). Probably the only good thing that can be said about Ken's suicide is that in taking that route Ken managed to throw a big monkey wrench into the org's machinery and their reactions to his death exposed the leaders' real concerns, at least for those with eyes to see.

:(

03-08-2008, 09:33 PM

boomer70

more on display formats

is there a way to view the forum in the same format as the archive, i.e.,posts in first to last order by date, all on a single page? the problem with the archive is that it does not highlight quotes as on the regular display, nor does it keep the title of a post.

03-08-2008, 11:40 PM

scrimscraw

You have control - up to a point

boomer70 wrote:

Quote:
is there a way to view the forum in the same format as the archive, i.e.,posts in first to last order by date, all on a single page?

There are two places to look. One is the UserCP link at the top left of this page. That takes you to your control panel (if you are registered, which you are) where you can change your settings. You want Linear Mode, which puts all posts in consecutive order, unthreaded, from oldest to newest.

The best you can choose for length of the page is 40 postings. As far as I can tell, there isn't an option to show all of a thread's postings in one long page, ala the old forum.

The other way to quickly change how you view things is to use the Display Modes menu at the top right of the thread window. Choose Linear Mode there, although that won't give you control of how many posts to show at a time. For that you have to go to the UserCP...

The somewhat frustrating aspect of this is that the defaults on the forum are set to threaded mode, I think, which probably really scrambles the linear (Yutes! Take note!) nature of the threads' discussions. Though, I guess it could be argued that this digression into display issues is proof of nonlinearity! Whatever.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled demolition derby. :cool:

03-10-2008, 06:07 AM

larouchetruth

Bloomberg On the March

The latest from beneath the basement. Keep on diggin', fellas.

March 8 -- The plot led by fascist Felix Rohatyn to install the fascist Michael Bloomberg as president next November is fully on target, as Bloomberg is now being positioned to be the Democratic Party nonimee, from which position he could easily wipe McCain off the political map, even if McCain manages to somehow finish the campaign. The precise way that Bloomberg will become the Democratic nominee began to take shape this week in the wake of the March 4 debacle for Obama, just as Lyndon LaRouche predicted last November 7. As all the insiders already know, Bloomberg's renunciation of any plans to run as an independent was done to clear the way for him to run on the Democratic ticket, something that an announcement for an independent bid would have made impossible.

Mr. LaRouche, in discussing how he alone had forecast how Bloomberg would become president in 2009, noted that "with Clinton and Obama locked up in a virtual tie, precisely the kind of outcome I predicted would happen, as Clinton and Obama would neutralize each other, and begin to attack and destroy each other, the only way out for the Democratic Party, whose nominee will be determined by the all-important super delegates, will be to deadlock the convention by having enough super-delegates vote for no one on the first ballot, or perhaps some selected third person, clearing the way for subsequent rounds of ballotting where delegates will no longer be pledged to Obama or Clinton. Since to award the candidacy to either Clinton or Obama would inevitably enrage the supporters of the other, and guarantee that many of them would sit out the election, dooming Democratic chances against McCain, the only possible solution would be to nominate some third candidate, thus satisfying both sides. Bloomberg is the ideal, and only, person available who could unify the Democratic Party and satisfy both Clinton and Obama supporters," LaRouche specified.

"The conversations now going on behind closed doors, especially about how to seat delegations for Michigan and Florida, among the two campaigns and the DNC, is actually the venue for talks led by the Democratic Party backroom boys, whose minions' strings are being pulled by Rohatyn and his clone Nancy Pelosi, are actually delivering the message to both candidates that neither will be the presidential candidate next fall. Clinton's public almost-invitation to Obama to join her ticket as vice president is understood to be the signal that Clinton is prepared to be vice president to Bloomberg, while Obama's saying he won't be a candidate for vice president is said to be his signal that he won't accept the vice-president slot," LaRouche continued. "The difference in their answers reflects their differing standpoints and ages, where Clinton is banking on stepping up to run for president in 2012, whereas Obama figures he has time to make another run in 8 years, and thinks the vice president slot would be a dead end."

"What neither of them remotely understands is that this will be the final presidential election in American history, if they permit Bloomberg to become the nominee. Various signals indicate that while Hillary is inclined to accept the deal, Bill is adamant against it, and may yet find the means to throw a monkey-wrench into Rohatyn's plans. Some insiders think Hillary is just playing along in order to eliminate Obama, intending to make Bloomberg her vice president nominee, once Obama throws in the towel," LaRouche added. "This would be a dangerous mistake," he cautioned her.

"Both candidates are expected to start softening their attacks on each other, so as not to destroy the Democratic Party's chances for Bloomberg. The increasing amount of mud-slinging, especially by Obama against Clinton, in recent weeks, has begun worrying the party string-pullers, who want them to maintain a sham fight, to prevent people from catching on, but nothing dangerous enough to drag down the Democratic Party itself," LaRouche stressed.

With the latest unemployment figures showing steep declines in employment signalling the rapid deepening of the collapse that began last July 25, our marching orders are clear. The role of the LYM in the coming days and weeks is to get out the news of Bloomberg's impending fascist coup within the Democratic Party, to bolster Hillary's determination to resist the deal, and to highlight Bill's resistance which can be used as a pole around which to rally the country to stop Rohatyn's and Schultz's fascist coup plots dead in their tracks.

03-10-2008, 06:20 AM

scrimscraw

Pin the tale on the donkey

Quote:
Originally Posted by larouchetruth
The latest from beneath the basement. Keep on diggin', fellas.
March 8 -- The plot led by fascist Felix Rohatyn to install the fascist Michael Bloomberg as president next November is fully on target, as Bloomberg is now being positioned to be the Democratic Party nonimee, from which position he could easily wipe McCain off the political map, even if McCain manages to somehow finish the campaign....

Larouchetruth, if this is another of your close copies of LaRouchian analysis, you've succeeded in duplicating it so well that it is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Or, it might be something actually from the Basement. I sure can't tell, but I'm not sure what the point is. If it is the "real deal" then a link to the source would be appreciated.

03-10-2008, 08:16 PM

eaglebeak

The Real deal

What follows is the Morning Briefing Lead from Sunday, March 9. The quintessential LaRoucheian mix--Jeff Steinberg and some LYMer.

Of note are the lines about bringing the hammer down on the Baby Boomers--again. And talking about moving the LYM closer to Windy Hill (LaRouche's "residence")--wow! That'll certainly isolate them. Good thinking, Agent 99.

BY: JEFF STEINBERG/WARROOM/LYNDON LAROUCHE/AP/KRN
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| MORNING BRIEFING |
| |
| Sunday, March 9, 2008 |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

WE ARE IN A PHASE-SHIFT TOWARD OPTIMISM— THIS IS WAR AND WE HAVE TO WIN... OR WE LOSE CIVILIZATION

{Here is the update from Jeff and Hector for Saturday, March 8, 2008.}

JEFF: The LYM members in Leesburg, and several of us from NEC met with Lyn this morning, and he had a very precise message to deliver to the organization. First of all, the results of the primary election last Tuesday in Texas, represented a critical turning point for the situation in the United States, which we were absolutely pivotal in assuring. Had Hillary Clinton lost the Texas primary, and of course, she only won it by a very, very small margin, but had she lost, a massive operation was set to go, that, regardless of whether she dropped out of the Presidential race or not, was aimed at destroying any chance of her candidacy's going forward to the Democratic Presidential nomination. As the result of that victory in Texas, which we were responsible for in ways that very, very few people, even at this point appreciate, we have a process in motion that will shape the directionality of things for the period ahead. [Did we predict this, or what?] As Lyn said, we don't know how long this will be a shaping factor, but wheels are in engaged, and we're now in a situation that is forecastable, but not predictable.
[But of course.]

Obviously, the Presidential race for the Democratic nomination will now continue, under very different terms than were being set up, had Hillary lost Texas on March 4th. So now we've got a dynamic going forward, in which Hillary's campaign is both very credible, and will tend to become more and more a dominant factor as the boom comes down on Barack Obama, through the Rezko trial and other things. Had Hillary been knocked out, and had Obama been brought down in the immediate weeks and months ahead, the stage would have been set for the Bloomberg option to move in with a vengeance. And that has been, at least for the time being, dramatically set back: It's the new political equation, and Lyn was absolutely right about defining the dynamics and shaping our intervention into this situation. [Did I tell you?!?! Did I say that if Bloomberg didn't run, Lyn would claim victory?!!? Is Lyn predicable or what? Not to mention forecastable.] Had we don't (sic) anything else other than what we did, with the interventions in Texas and Ohio, New England, around this Bloomberg flank and had we not provided a critical margin of conceptual intervention, to determine the outcome in Texas, we'd be in a big pile of trouble right now, as a nation and as a world. [Whew. That was close.]

Lyn's message coming out of this, is that we have to be right. No more bull**** inside in the organization, especially no second-guessing on whether or not Lyn is not doing the right thing. [No indeedy.] We are in a period of dire crisis, with the fate of the nation at stake, and Lyn's role in this situation is to run these critical political flanks. As Lyn said: This is war, and we have to win--or, we lose civilization. So a lot of the Boomer tendencies that have been up till now more or less tolerated, as organizational practice, can't be tolerated. [That's it--No more Mr. Nice Guy.]

We're in a new phase, also, with the plans for the entire LYM Editorial and War-Room to move out to quarters closer to the Windy Hill site. [Yikes. Leesburg Boomers, the axe is about to fall. Again.] Further insulation against the Boomer impulses, and a tighter hands-on grip on the entire operations and deployments of the organization. [Further insulation against the outside world, and a death-grip on the LYMers.]
Lyn said: Look, the system is coming down. We are in a real hyperinflationary phase. Disregard the monetary theories and the little deals that are being made to fool people and buy a few days one way or the other. We are going into an accelerating phase of the crash. It's like an avalanche process. There are quadrillions of monetary nominal assets that are all coming down. And if anybody wants to consult with the experts on this, then contact the Carlyle Group, and they'll tell you what it feels like to be swept up underneath an avalanche of collapsing nominal assets. So what Lyn said: It's coming down and either by two means--either we erect the firewall, and bring this bubble down through an orderly bankruptcy reorganization, or it's the avalanche. And there are far too many idiots who though that Lyn was being too sharp, and who introduced elements of fudging negotiations even into some of the work on the HBPA.
So, we had a near-miss in Texas. Hillary's margin of victory, in Lyn's words, "saved the nation from a plunge into Hell." And when Lyn utters a policy initiative, it's really essential that the whole organization move on it. He said, we are intellectually at the center of whether the human race makes it or not. And he said, the lesson of Texas, is that civilization would have been lost, but for what Lyn is doing. He said, we could have faced a cold shock in Texas. We've got to move forward on the HBPA, but in the form as it was originally defined. He said, in the middle of battle, there is no room for debating about whether war plans are good or bad, or whether there's better alternatives.

Lyn said, otherwise, we're doing well. Our work product is improving, there's more activity around the animations and the videos on the website, which enables us to bring in an element of irony and surprise, which is a key factor in education. We've got a new technology, these web-based publications [We don't print anything any more], which enable you to integrate text with animations, and you can do things that are a lot more effective in altering how people think through this advanced technology, and there's a lot of good work that will go on, on that.

Now, again, Lyn went back and said, we came very close to losing it in Texas, we could have lost it all. Hillary would have been knocked out of the Presidential running, even if she would not have formally dropped out. Lyn said, the webcast midweek is going to address things on two different levels, that will pose a tremendous pedagogical challenge for him: Number 1, there are certain key international conceptions that must be gotten, and there's a lot of stupidity among leading circles internationally, who really don't understand what's going on. So one task of the webcast, will be to give a very high-level, strategic assessment and convey certain key concepts that must be grasped for this thing to work.

Secondly, we have to address those people who are with us, working in the boondocks: The city councilmen, the state legislators, to see that their impact is occurring at a higher level, and that they've got to think in a way that avoids any tendency toward smallness, or any sense of powerlessness. The key is to convey a leadership concept.

So these are going to be some of the key conceptual issues Lyn is addressing. Lyn said, Hillary is now implicitly carrying the ball in the Presidential race, per se, with Obama going down. He said, obviously she's not able to do everything. But Lyn is going to be doing what he has to do, and the two processes will tend to run in parallel, and will intersect in a lot of key situations. He said: Look, the situation around Hillary Clinton is much more clear. The unclarity is overcome--the question of whether or not she was going to be easily dumped is passed (sic) us; and now the focus, even among people around Obama, is the recognition, the growing sense that he his (sic) doing (sic) down. Now, one of the consequences coming out of this Texas-Ohio-Rhode Island victory, is that there is a certain element of optimism that has been reintroduced into the situation. There is not a sense of desperation and hopelessness, around the Hillary, and McCain, and Obama campaign stuff.
There's now a factor of optimism, and as long as she continues doing what she's doing, especially addressing the needs of the lower 80%, then that'll be positive. We, on the other hand, are providing true leadership in this slightly tilted, more optimistic environment. We are not defeated, and now the other guys are going to be worrying about us a lot more.
And he said: Look, therefore, the thing is we are not "supporting Hillary." She does what 's (sic) doing, we do what we're doing.[Sheesh! Get a proofreader!] We're both, in different ways, appealing to this new upsurge in optimism. She's a real candidate now, she's emerged as that, fighting for the lower 80%, and we're directing policy motion from the top. Now it's been for us, because we're operating in an environment of optimism, and the Clinton factor is now moving within that environment as well. Many of Obama's following are now responding to us, because they see the leadership, and the policy direction that we represent, and they see their own guy starting to slip away.
So as Lyn said, Hillary has her duty, we have ours, they are independent, and they interact. He also said, that we are in a period of "positive organizing." We have to have a positive orientation--that's not to say that we're not going to be nasty as hell to the Rohatyns and the Shultzes and to the Bloombergs, and that we're not going to do it with an edge of devastating humor.[Their hallmark, for sure.] But the issue is, that what we are going to do, is concentrate on the fact that there is a tilt towards optimism, and that we've got to therefore, give people the positive sense of what can be done, and so we're in a new phase-shift in the situation, and everybody should be, by all means, keying off from Lyn's initiatives and Lyn's leadership: We have the webcast mid-week. Tomorrow is everybody in the office from 11-2, because we want to do a massive callup of this extensive network of new contacts and others that we've developed in the Northern Virginia area, and we'll be seeing before the end of the day today, in all likelihood, the completed version of Lyn's new document on the Brutish Empire.
So, on that note, I'm going to sign off and turn it over to Hector from the War-Room.

JUST ASK MOUSE-LINI WHAT IT MEANS, WHEN WE SAY `WIN'

HECTOR: Okay. Well, I guess carried on from that, on the LYM side of deployments, we had a really good discussion with the squad-makers call last night, which produced, I think, a real revolutionary product, in terms of how we're going to be operating from the War-Room and how the locals are going to integrate themselves with the work that we have to do out here. And a lot of it was typified by these documentaries that we produced, which really, really works as a crucial organizing tool, both in the field, in state legislatures, or with the city councils. Because the concepts that we're trying to get across with the whole Bloomberg option, what that represents explicitly is very well conveyed, even though it doesn't go into deep elaboration, but the point, the idea of what this is, is made clear. And if they want more elaboration, too, we can give 'em that! But at least the point that we want to make is conveyed. And with the supplemental videos that we'll have done by the next couple of days--part 2, not part 3--part 2, that that will get more into it, and the upcoming part which will go more into the Mussolini aspect of it.

But, I think that's the only thing that we really want to get at, is at this point there's a heavy discussion, and I think there's just an acknowledgment, that we know throughout the country that we have to escalate the fight on Bloomberg. And to carry on with what Jeff talked about, and what Lyn even said, that we're in sphere of optimism, and that we're going to operate on an optimistic orientation, that this necessitates that we intervene, that we escalate the fight, not in the sense of just something purely physical, but that this necessitates more creative ideas from everybody. You know, if you think it's stupid or not, we'll let you know that, but put it out there, put it on the table.

This is being said, especially with the LYM, anything you got. For example, you have things like--like what I would say is I'll give credit to what this Mouse-lini skit provoked. Because now you have a drama skit being produced in Seattle, for example, where they're going to have one of the LYM members there dressed up like a Bloomberg, and speaking in his annoying [very nasal whiny], "I'm Michael Bloomberg. Love me!" type of voice, you guys can imagine what that's like. I had the unfortunate opportunity to listen to this all day yesterday. And they're going to go into downtown--as far as I understood it, into a major intersection where people walk about and cross the street. And they're going to have this annoying Michael Bloomberg set up a toll road. [laughter] And the idea is, they're going to block the road, and not let anybody pass until they've decided to pay a toll. This kind of thing.

And in Boston, one thing that they're going to do which I was briefed about this morning, they're going to have a skit where they have Bloomberg, Mouse-lini, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. And the idea is that Mouse-lini and Arnold Schwarzenegger, they're going to go around with whoever is going to play Bloomberg, and they're going to go campaign for Bloomberg all throughout the city--just walking around promoting this guy. You know, exactly what they're going to do, I think we'll see it--hopefully they'll record it. It was suggested that they do that, and hopefully we do get it.

But that kind of thing. And the more of this type of thing that we can come up with --and this is just an example, there's other things we can do. And I think if people just get into a simple discussion about it, all sorts of ideas will come up. But you know, the more of this, I say "{magnifique!}" This is the kind of thing we need: This is what's going to escalate and make our interventions a lot more powerful.

Now, apart from that, we're in the process of organizing a conference call. Because now what we really want to get at, we've made some achievements with the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act, and very clearly, the more support we get for this, from where it comes from in the United States, {this} increases a slap in the face for the Michael Bloomberg option. Because the whole intention of setting up Bloomberg is to make sure we don't have a LaRouche alternative.
So we have to escalate the fight on that. We're doing good work, but we've really got to move faster. And I think the contacts that we've made with the legislature and the city councils, particularly those who's introduced the bill--whether it passed or not but they had the guts to take it to the full extent--whoever they may be, we should actually get these guys involved in some type of discussion where it's made clear to them, and it's very to them, that they themselves should become part of the organic organizing, and get the HBPA down. You know, you're seeing this kind of thing with this guy Joe Almeida from Rhode Island, where they now got him organizing some of the state representatives in New York City, things of this type. And so, we're setting up a conference call, initially, which we can hopefully set up by the second half of the following week. And all the locals are being--as you know, since we called you guys up--briefed, that you should get a list of the {best} representatives that we have, and put 'em on this conference call. And we plan to take it a lot further after that, and see where that goes.

But the idea of this is we really want to integrate these representatives further into what we're doing and really recruit them to our movement. I think that just the fact that they introduced the resolution is a certain type of commitment of them putting on the wedding ring to take this on further--and hopefully that's where it goes.
So, on that note, I think that's what we've got here, strategically planned.

03-10-2008, 08:38 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
Larouchetruth, if this is another of your close copies of LaRouchian analysis, you've succeeded in duplicating it so well that it is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. Or, it might be something actually from the Basement. I sure can't tell, but I'm not sure what the point is. If it is the "real deal" then a link to the source would be appreciated.

That may have come from the daily briefing. If Ltruth made it up, then he or she proves that if you spent enough time in the LC or reading the lit, you can write this stuff in a way which is indistinguishable from the real lunacy.

In reading some earlier posts using Lyn's own writing , it is clear to me how the cheap parlor trick works in a cult. What Lyn has to do is to absolutely convince a member that there is not a single person or institution on the planet who is working on a problem or has a workable solution. You have to do this because it is what keeps a naive drop out to believe that they are not just raising money for Lyn's to blow on the good life, but that pasing out briefs which people throw away and have a rip roaring time making fun of on blogs actually means something.

Take a recent LPAC explosion by Lyn on Rep. Barney Frank. It is cult 101 that the LYM have no idea that Rep. Frank heads the Finance Committee in the House. You have to get members riled up about a legitmate problem and then steer everything towards a Bizarro world where only Lyn can solve the issue. The issue can not be something which is of a limited concern , but must always involve the end of humanity or a New Dark Age or some sort of Apacolyptic disorder that requires 24/7 hamster on a treadmill activity.

You can disagree with Frank on many issues, in the cult, you hate, hate, hate, hate Frank.

You can read about real bills and real people doing something for real problems without worrying about The Queen of England or a New Dark Age.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2008/03/01/news/news4.txt

If I go back and review every thing we did in the LC and our front groups, it always worked like this. I think Lyn learned his lesson with the McCormack Fusion Bill in the 1970s. YOu could generate interest and money over this. But, and this is a big but, the interest was for Fusion and the money was for the FEF. Adding lyn to this made damn sure that his lunacy would overpower anything rationale and pretty soon, we moved on to other things where Lyn was the center of attraction and nothing else mattered.

The problem for a LYM member in that after you go through a few years of this, you will not be in a position to undertand that all of your work was for Lyn and nothing else. Campaigns come and go and things are changed at the drop of a hat. I could say that this all on a whim by Lyn, but, this action is so predictable that some like LTruth can write a few paragraphs and you can't guess if it is real or imaginary.

It's all imaginary yutes.

Even if the LC/LYN/LYM are on the right side of something,, it is always a short breather for you because a broken clock is right twice a day and the lunacy can't be kept in check as there are no internal mechanisms for this.

EIR runs a page by a banker and the LYM are overjoyed. Yippee! 45 years and 250 million dollars gets you an exec in a small bank along with several nobodies around the world who are impressed with Lyn?. I would question their judgement if they give a cult the time of day and do not do due dilligence beforehand.

Next up we will have another selection of writing to see if it is real or delusionary, or both?

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-10-2008, 08:50 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
What follows is the Morning Briefing Lead from Sunday, March 9. The quintessential LaRoucheian mix--Jeff Steinberg and some LYMer.
Of note are the lines about bringing the hammer down on the Baby Boomers--again. And talking about moving the LYM closer to Windy Hill (LaRouche's "residence")--wow! That'll certainly isolate them. Good thinking, Agent 99.

Wow! I was just going to use this briefing lead as an example of something which can be real, imagined or both.

You have to imagine a Bizarro world where every day you read this and tune out the real world. You leave an office and go out to slay Lyn's delusions and bring back enough cash to make it go another day.

Read that briefing intro a few times to fully see how the cult works on members.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-10-2008, 09:28 PM

realme

deja vu

That briefing of March 9 gave me chills. This won't come as news to any oldtime member on this site, but almost word-for-word it could have been written 30 or 35 years ago. xlcer, one correction please. It's not a cheap parlor trick, it's a very expensive one; it costs some people half their lives or more.

03-11-2008, 01:13 AM

scrimscraw

xlcr4life wrote:

Quote:
You have to imagine a Bizarro world where every day you read this and tune out the real world. You leave an office and go out to slay Lyn's delusions and bring back enough cash to make it go another day.
Read that briefing intro a few times to fully see how the cult works on members.

How it works appears to be that in order to keep them constantly in crisis mode, you have to now and them back off briefly and give them a bite of the carrot (i.e., praise), before shifting gears to the next crisis. Of course there are some crises and villians which just seem to get lost in the shuffle or are dropped without explanation...but this pulling back briefly seems to be part of a common cycle.

03-11-2008, 06:38 AM

larouchetruth

LaRouche Switches Gears Again (no, just kidding)

The following REALLY IS from LPAC 3 days ago (http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/07/ali-bloomberg-and-his-forty-thieves.html) , which I found by googling "Texas" and "Clinton" on their website, after reading the March 9 briefing published by Eaglebeak. This even more boldly states that LaRouche and the LYM made the difference, not only in Texas, but also in Ohio and Rhode Island, than Jeff said in the briefing. It is just as cogently argued, and just as fact-supported, as the item I posted last night, that I pulled out of my butt. In fact, if the two competing analyses (Lyn's, that the pressure is now on to add Bloomberg to the Republican ticket, and mine, that the pressure is now on to get Obama and Clinton to both step aside so Bloomberg can be the Democraticnominee), are lined up side by side, the parallels are eery. In both cases, wild speculation and preposterous claims are made. Actually, in the preposterous claims department, the claim of having been decisive in Texas, Ohio and RI surely takes the cake. But you get the point. Both make firm predictions for what's going to happen in what reality-based observers recognize as a "non-linear" situation where what will happen simply cannot be predicted, both impute plans to the Rohatyn fascist cabal as if Lyn had the merest whiff of a hint of a clue as to what anyone outside his own head is actually thinking, and both are about as arrant as nonsense can get (until Lyn outdoes himself, as he surely will do, most likely soon).

I must note that a primary motivation in composing my piece last night was to teach an object lesson to any LYM members of other members reading it, of whom I hope there were many. If you were taken in, or even significantly uncertain, you need to quit now, because that very fact proves that Lyn is on a different planet, and that you are gullible as any pre-schooler who still believes in tooth fairies and Easter bunnies. It proves that Lyn is no more based in reality than the Flat Earth Society. It proves what every one of us has said in a thousand different ways, that Lyn is completely disconnected from the real world, that he makes everything up, that no matter what happens in the real world, he finds a way, after the fact, to claim that it confirms his previous analysis (even when it manifestly and utterly disproves it), and that none of it is even remotely close to being true. If Lyn were based on reality, you would have known in an instant that what I wrote couldn't have been from Lyn, because it wasn't based on anything except whimsical invention of a preposterous option (to think that Obama or Clinton could be convinced, at this juncture, that it was over between them, and it was time to prepare to step aside for a third "dark horse" candidate, is to confess to one's 100% submersion in a kind of Berkeley (the British empiricist philosopher)-like subjective world where nothing outside of one's own feverish imagination is real). Note, please, that your case is different from that of ex-members, who thought Lyn capable of writing this, but who never believed it was true--but if any member thought this was from Lyn, or thought it might be from Lyn, you immediately had to begin trying to make yourself believe it WAS true. And THAT'S the object lesson here.

Anyway, here's the real item (I will note just a few points, of the very many that suggest themselves):

Ali Bloomberg and His Forty Thieves (And who would THEY be, pray tell?)

March 7, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche made the following comments to the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) yesterday (curious, but who exactly would that be? It's not like there is a collection of concrete individuals who constitute LPAC, so to whom were these comments actually made??), following the March 4 Presidential primaries.

"Our actions in Tuesday's primary elections in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, which crippled the drive to force Hillary Clinton out of the Presidential race (there was an unfulfilled suggestion that Jeff was about to give some hint of what it was that Lyn & LYM DID in Texas, even though he never delivered--here, there is not even a suggestion that Lyn intends to suggest in any way exactly WHAT IT WAS that they could have done to have tilted the election to Hillary--I mean, what do the members reading this think they did that could have so strongly shifted the election outcome. To believe this is to believe in oobleck, in magic wands, in Mommy's kisses that make booboos get better. Harry Potter, bring it on, your world is LaRouche's world.) , have thrown our London-centered enemies into a real state of panic (please, Mr. Lynnie, just a li'l smidgeon of evvie [evidence] for us to hang our belief in this claim on, just a wee bit, pretty please with strawberries and cream on top?). Now, we are going to see massive money pressure brought down on John McCain, pressure to buy Michael Bloomberg's way into the GOP vice presidential slot (what? Money pressure to "buy" Bloomberg. Didn't he mean that Bloomberg will offer to buy McCain with money??). This latter operation goes way beyond Bloomberg's own advertised willingness to kick $1-2 billion of his own ill-gotten gains into the race. It involves the whole fascist crew, from Felix Rohatyn (who will be working to wreak havoc against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party), to George Shultz, and to the whole City of London gang behind them. ''

LaRouche described this pack of creatures as "Ali Bloomberg and his forty thieves."

"The Texas and Ohio victories in particular now assure that Hillary Clinton will remain in the race for the Democratic nomination. It means that the upcoming April 22 Pennsylvania primary will be a real showdown moment. By that latter date, the international monetary crisis will have hit with further force, and the Rezko-Auchi scandal will have devastated Barack Obama (aha, a firm prediction, that Obama WILL be on the ropes because of the Rezko scandal by them. Can we catch ole slippery eel at last on this failed prediction??), to the point that, by then, we will be in a whole different political ballgame.

"The entire Bloomberg-Rohatyn fascist apparatus is becoming increasingly vulnerable (whaa?? Again, not the merest hint of what in the real world represents evidence that this is so, indeed, what does it even mean, since vulnerable in most contexts is transitive in content, hence requires a grammatical object, as in "vulnerable TO (something)", as their drive against the Clintons (excuse me, but WHAT drive)echoes the proportions of the battle, of the right-wing apparatus in the Democratic Party in 1932 (which was what, exactly? Who was the right-wing candidate being pushed against Roosevelt? It was William Randolph Hearst who helped swing the votes to nominate FDR in order to stop someone considered an internationalist, as I recollect. But this represents actual, fact-based history, in which futile arena Lyn disdains to trod). That was the right-wing effort from within the leadership of the Democratic Party, then, to stop Franklin Delano Roosevelt from getting the nomination, at all costs. Who are the right-wingers today? They are Rohatyn, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi (OMG, will the insanity never cease getting worse and worse? You can (well, no, YOU can't, but HE can) call Gore, Dean, Pelosi nogoodniks, even fascists, but NOT "right-wingers," since, unlike "fascist" in today's political landscape in America, which has no real referrent so it can mean anything you want, "right-winger" DOES mean something. I mean, really. LYM and other members, this is a Damascas Road moment for you. If you can't see what is preposterously wrong with Lyn calling Dean and Pelosi "right-wingers," in the context of not only the obvious right-wing nut jobs like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and a dozen knock-offs, but the much more serious right-wingers, above all the neo-cons from Dick Cheney to Wolfowitz, and the whole kit and kaboodle who got us into Iraq to impose an American imperium on the Middle East, none of whom get mentioned here, then you really owe it to yourselves to concede that you're in a cult, and that's where you want to be, where Lyn does your thinking for you (or what passes for thinking within the cult), and that reality simply doesn't interest you, because it doesn't). They are hanging out there, fully exposed; despite them, by our finishing off the Bloomberg option in the immediate days ahead (and since the latest twist of the scenario is that Bloomberg will try to buy his way onto the Republican ticket, what possible leverage can LaRouche claim to have to prevent this??), we can fundamentally alter the course of the Presidential election and secure the survival of the United States."

LaRouche also said that we should refer to the ongoing criminal case in Chicago as the "Obama case".

"With Obama already beginning to sink under the weight of the Rezko-Auchi scandal, we can look to a situation where Hillary Clinton re-emerges with the Pennsylvania primary in April as the probable Democratic nominee. McCain is weakened, as we know, and Bloomberg is something described in extremely ugly terms within leading financier circles of his type (what, what in tarnation do the preceding 13 words mean, I surely have no idea. Could he possibly have meant "some times" rather than "something"? That would help a little, but it is still incoherent, a total non sequitur, but if Bloomberg is their baby, their chosen instrument, what sense could it make to say that the very financier interests promoting him describe him "in ugly terms," whatever that means? Such utter tommy rot, incoherent garbage, that members eat up. Amazing! Truly amazing!). He is a mask without a face.

"Remember, that Bloomberg fled in horror from the LaRouche Youth Movement intervention, when he dared to come down to Washington and surface publicly with Mayor Fenty, and days later, he dropped out of the presidential race, and the repositioning to install him as McCain's VP began immediately."

This fascist wimp has a vast pile of dirty money behind him, LaRouche noted, and we have got to finish off this latter day Mouse-olini now. Doing that will reverberate all the way back to London.

As I have pointed out before, my command of the English language is insufficient to capture the degree of insanity that this pronouncement from Lyn embodies. And follow the link--this one, folks, is the real McCuckoo.

03-11-2008, 06:40 AM

larouchetruth

LaRouche Switches Gears Again (no, just kidding)

The following REALLY IS from LPAC 3 days ago (http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/07/ali-bloomberg-and-his-forty-thieves.html) , which I found by googling "Texas" and "Clinton" on their website, after reading the March 9 briefing published by Eaglebeak. This even more boldly states that LaRouche and the LYM made the difference, not only in Texas, but also in Ohio and Rhode Island, than Jeff said in the briefing. It is just as cogently argued, and just as fact-supported, as the item I posted last night, that I pulled out of my butt. In fact, if the two competing analyses (Lyn's, that the pressure is now on to add Bloomberg to the Republican ticket, and mine, that the pressure is now on to get Obama and Clinton to both step aside so Bloomberg can be the Democraticnominee), are lined up side by side, the parallels are eery. In both cases, wild speculation and preposterous claims are made. Actually, in the preposterous claims department, the claim of having been decisive in Texas, Ohio and RI surely takes the cake. But you get the point. Both make firm predictions for what's going to happen in what reality-based observers recognize as a "non-linear" situation where what will happen simply cannot be predicted, both impute plans to the Rohatyn fascist cabal as if Lyn had the merest whiff of a hint of a clue as to what anyone outside his own head is actually thinking, and both are about as arrant as nonsense can get (until Lyn outdoes himself, as he surely will do, most likely soon).

I must note that a primary motivation in composing my piece last night was to teach an object lesson to any LYM members of other members reading it, of whom I hope there were many. If you were taken in, or even significantly uncertain, you need to quit now, because that very fact proves that Lyn is on a different planet, and that you are gullible as any pre-schooler who still believes in tooth fairies and Easter bunnies. It proves that Lyn is no more based in reality than the Flat Earth Society. It proves what every one of us has said in a thousand different ways, that Lyn is completely disconnected from the real world, that he makes everything up, that no matter what happens in the real world, he finds a way, after the fact, to claim that it confirms his previous analysis (even when it manifestly and utterly disproves it), and that none of it is even remotely close to being true. If Lyn were based on reality, you would have known in an instant that what I wrote couldn't have been from Lyn, because it wasn't based on anything except whimsical invention of a preposterous option (to think that Obama or Clinton could be convinced, at this juncture, that it was over between them, and it was time to prepare to step aside for a third "dark horse" candidate, is to confess to one's 100% submersion in a kind of Berkeley (the British empiricist philosopher)-like subjective world where nothing outside of one's own feverish imagination is real). Note, please, that your case is different from that of ex-members, who thought Lyn capable of writing this, but who never believed it was true--but if any member thought this was from Lyn, or thought it might be from Lyn, you immediately had to begin trying to make yourself believe it WAS true. And THAT'S the object lesson here.

Anyway, here's the real item (I will note just a few points, of the very many that suggest themselves):

Ali Bloomberg and His Forty Thieves (And who would THEY be, pray tell?)

March 7, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche made the following comments to the LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) yesterday (curious, but who exactly would that be? It's not like there is a collection of concrete individuals who constitute LPAC, so to whom were these comments actually made??), following the March 4 Presidential primaries.

"Our actions in Tuesday's primary elections in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, which crippled the drive to force Hillary Clinton out of the Presidential race (there was an unfulfilled suggestion that Jeff was about to give some hint of what it was that Lyn & LYM DID in Texas, even though he never delivered--here, there is not even a suggestion that Lyn intends to suggest in any way exactly WHAT IT WAS that they could have done to have tilted the election to Hillary--I mean, what do the members reading this think they did that could have so strongly shifted the election outcome. To believe this is to believe in oobleck, in magic wands, in Mommy's kisses that make booboos get better. Harry Potter, bring it on, your world is LaRouche's world.) , have thrown our London-centered enemies into a real state of panic (please, Mr. Lynnie, just a li'l smidgeon of evvie [evidence] for us to hang our belief in this claim on, just a wee bit, pretty please with strawberries and cream on top?). Now, we are going to see massive money pressure brought down on John McCain, pressure to buy Michael Bloomberg's way into the GOP vice presidential slot (what? Money pressure to "buy" Bloomberg. Didn't he mean that Bloomberg will offer to buy McCain with money??). This latter operation goes way beyond Bloomberg's own advertised willingness to kick $1-2 billion of his own ill-gotten gains into the race. It involves the whole fascist crew, from Felix Rohatyn (who will be working to wreak havoc against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party), to George Shultz, and to the whole City of London gang behind them. ''

LaRouche described this pack of creatures as "Ali Bloomberg and his forty thieves."

"The Texas and Ohio victories in particular now assure that Hillary Clinton will remain in the race for the Democratic nomination. It means that the upcoming April 22 Pennsylvania primary will be a real showdown moment. By that latter date, the international monetary crisis will have hit with further force, and the Rezko-Auchi scandal will have devastated Barack Obama (aha, a firm prediction, that Obama WILL be on the ropes because of the Rezko scandal by them. Can we catch ole slippery eel at last on this failed prediction??), to the point that, by then, we will be in a whole different political ballgame.

"The entire Bloomberg-Rohatyn fascist apparatus is becoming increasingly vulnerable (whaa?? Again, not the merest hint of what in the real world represents evidence that this is so, indeed, what does it even mean, since vulnerable in most contexts is transitive in content, hence requires a grammatical object, as in "vulnerable TO (something)", as their drive against the Clintons (excuse me, but WHAT drive)echoes the proportions of the battle, of the right-wing apparatus in the Democratic Party in 1932 (which was what, exactly? Who was the right-wing candidate being pushed against Roosevelt? It was William Randolph Hearst who helped swing the votes to nominate FDR in order to stop someone considered an internationalist, as I recollect. But this represents actual, fact-based history, in which futile arena Lyn disdains to trod). That was the right-wing effort from within the leadership of the Democratic Party, then, to stop Franklin Delano Roosevelt from getting the nomination, at all costs. Who are the right-wingers today? They are Rohatyn, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi (OMG, will the insanity never cease getting worse and worse? You can (well, no, YOU can't, but HE can) call Gore, Dean, Pelosi nogoodniks, even fascists, but NOT "right-wingers," since, unlike "fascist" in today's political landscape in America, which has no real referrent so it can mean anything you want, "right-winger" DOES mean something. I mean, really. LYM and other members, this is a Damascas Road moment for you. If you can't see what is preposterously wrong with Lyn calling Dean and Pelosi "right-wingers," in the context of not only the obvious right-wing nut jobs like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and a dozen knock-offs, but the much more serious right-wingers, above all the neo-cons from Dick Cheney to Wolfowitz, and the whole kit and kaboodle who got us into Iraq to impose an American imperium on the Middle East, none of whom get mentioned here, then you really owe it to yourselves to concede that you're in a cult, and that's where you want to be, where Lyn does your thinking for you (or what passes for thinking within the cult), and that reality simply doesn't interest you, because it doesn't). They are hanging out there, fully exposed; despite them, by our finishing off the Bloomberg option in the immediate days ahead (and since the latest twist of the scenario is that Bloomberg will try to buy his way onto the Republican ticket, what possible leverage can LaRouche claim to have to prevent this??), we can fundamentally alter the course of the Presidential election and secure the survival of the United States."

LaRouche also said that we should refer to the ongoing criminal case in Chicago as the "Obama case".

"With Obama already beginning to sink under the weight of the Rezko-Auchi scandal, we can look to a situation where Hillary Clinton re-emerges with the Pennsylvania primary in April as the probable Democratic nominee. McCain is weakened, as we know, and Bloomberg is something described in extremely ugly terms within leading financier circles of his type (what, what in tarnation do the preceding 13 words mean, I surely have no idea. Could he possibly have meant "some times" rather than "something"? That would help a little, but it is still incoherent, a total non sequitur, but if Bloomberg is their baby, their chosen instrument, what sense could it make to say that the very financier interests promoting him consider describe him "in ugly terms," whatever that means? Such utter tommy rot, incoherent garbage, that members eat up. Amazing! Truly amazing!). He is a mask without a face.

"Remember, that Bloomberg fled in horror from the LaRouche Youth Movement intervention, when he dared to come down to Washington and surface publicly with Mayor Fenty, and days later, he dropped out of the presidential race, and the repositioning to install him as McCain's VP began immediately."

This fascist wimp has a vast pile of dirty money behind him, LaRouche noted, and we have got to finish off this latter day Mouse-olini now. Doing that will reverberate all the way back to London.

As I have pointed out before, my command of the English language is insufficient to capture the degree of insanity that this pronouncement from Lyn embodies. And follow the link--this one, folks, is the real McCuckoo.

03-11-2008, 05:49 PM

scrimscraw

The Amazing Criswell Predicts

Was Lyn always so preoccupied with his version of "the Amazing Criswell Predicts!"? Sure, the New Dark Ages were always around the corner and some disaster or other was always in the offing - the better to mobilize the lit seller cadre. But I don't recall this intricate level of scenario-spinning as the norm in the past. (However, it may just have blessedly faded from my memory, and I admit I am too lazy...er, busy...to plow through old New Solidarities to confirm or disprove this.)

It reminds me of sitting around in college, smoking doobies, and talking ourselves into things we just knew were going to happen. "And then Nixon will round-up all us longhairs and put us in concentration camps, so we better go build our cabin deep in the woods so they can't find us." (Which isn't to say that I don't find the present administration even scarier, in many ways, than back then; and I can still sit around (sans weed) and spin dire scenarios ("then Bush cancels the elections and..."), but I'm not hawking my fantasies to a group of followers, much less the world at large.) :confused:

03-11-2008, 08:41 PM

boomer70

discuss positive influence?

I am wondering why there is not more discussion in this forum of the positive influence the org' has had on us, and of the positive qualities within ourselves which drew us to the org'. I believe that only with the development of this positive content can we be completely free of the org's destructive influence.

03-11-2008, 09:46 PM

eaglebeak

Positive?

I don't mean to sound flippant or snippy, but for many of us the organization's impact can be counted in:

Ruptured relations with families

Forced abortions--not physically forced (as far as I know), but emotionally and mentally forced

Deaths of loved ones (whether induced suicides or deaths due to lack of health insurance or deaths brought on by unbearable stress)

Stress-related illnesses of all kinds

Psychological breakdowns of selves, loved ones, friends, or just "comrades"

and on and on and on.

Not to mention the onus of representing "politics" that are shot through with hatred.

If you want to argue that you never would have read a book without the organization, I put it to you that once you join the organization you never read a book--or rather, there is tremendous pressure brought to bear to ensure that you don't "bother" to read what Lyn has already interpreted for you.

In general, the people who read the most, left the earliest, either physically or mentally. The people who are still in are those who spend their pathetic few "days off" reading ... Lyn.

I'm assuming you weren't in very long, but I can assure you, if you had been in a long time, you would be hard pressed to find the positive impact.

Some of us are not as concerned with being personally free of the organization--some of us have been free of it for years, including many of the years we were in it--as we are concerned with exposing a tremendously destructive operation.

It may be that Sancho's thread on FactNet about political organizing is a place where you will find more discussion of the positive aspects of the org--really, what was positive was our idealism and our commitment to creating a better world. The org itself was just a ditch we fell into along the way. I think Sancho's thread is a discussion of how to make a better world, and that would be the point. The org is irrelevant in that.

Otherwise, I want to call people's attention to an interesting phenom on the Skull/Bones blog-- http://www.struat.com/election/2008/03/09/rubber-necking-some-audacious-fools-in-a-boiler-room-in-loudon/ the return of Revenire, plus the advent of "Jonathan Wilson"--Revenire especially funny in protesting that no LaRouche supporters read these terrible message boards and blogs.

03-11-2008, 11:40 PM

borisbad

My question is Bloomberg considered fascist because he's the type of technocrat that can run a corporativist gov't, smash trade unions and other independent organizations, and impose top down authoritarian control or is it because he's Jewish therefore, he must be fascist in Lala's mind? Or does he think that because he's anti-trans fat and anti second hand smoke that makes him a fascist? Or that he wants to go after the unbridled sales of handguns and other weapons in states like Virginia? LaRouche never ever defines what he considers fascism to mean except as an epithet. If it's endorsement of slave labor what better model than the LYM?

03-12-2008, 02:03 AM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
I am wondering why there is not more discussion in this forum of the positive influence the org' has had on us, and of the positive qualities within ourselves which drew us to the org'. I believe that only with the development of this positive content can we be completely free of the org's destructive influence.

Boomer70, I have often stated that the positives in people's lives was there before they met the LC or whatever incarnation existed at the time. The sickness of the cult is in the exploitation of that for something other than what a person thought they were getting into. In talking to many former members I find that most are the same today as they were many years ago in their hope, dream, desire or whatever you want to call it for a better world. There may have been naiviety back then in this, but that is not a crime . Members who have left have persued whatever they thought was good at every level of their interests. Many became lawyers, educators, health professionals as well as economists , scientists and found most of their joy was having a family. There are of course many personal differences in execution and detail which is why I do not bother to talk about that here.

I am very friendly with people I met over 35 years ago in the LC and find many people who are very knowledgable about topics which interest me. What I would suggest and EagleBeak brings this up is that you never had the chance, time or funds to persue what you were interested in the first place when you joined. You don't discover and enjoy what life has to offer when you are in an endless 24/7 mobe around the clock for a madman. Lyn has to spoon feed something to people and that is why there is endless opuses of commas and words to fill a library, but nothing of substance to fill a tea spoon in the final analysis.

The whole thing is a farce which was never designed to work by design, except as a cult of personality. People found some thing which interested them , they may have found their spouses, but I can't erase the abuse of members and finding out how sick the whole thing was.

30 years ago we released the first edition of Dope Inc. For years I thought that there was a select edition which had the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in it. I was duped for decades about this because it was the very first edition, the grand prize, the premier of all of our work and it presented the Protocols as the culmination of why we joined!

The madness of the LC was such that the firestorm of including the Protocals was not discussed at local levels as a general rule by the LC. How is it that we sold tens of thousands of these books with the Protocols in them and you never saw a peep in the brieiing of dissent? Well, for one reason, people hardly read the book and Lyn wrote that there was a "kernal of truth" in the Protocols. I had hardly a clue of anti semitism knowledge in my naive mind back then since I was not from a highly Jewish area and had no clue how this all worked. In the LC we were fooled and told years later that the editon with the Protocols was a version printed by the breakaway Detroit printing operation before they left as an "operation agaisnt Lyn". This allowed the cult to wipe away the Protocols on one hand and then blame it on Dalto and Detroit.

You need to be in an endless madhouse where the only compass available is what came out of the telex machine to review what we printed, did and disinformed to see how scummy this whole thing was, is and will be.

On the scales of justice, I have more apologies to make to the people we hurt, slandered, abused, misled, stole from, destroyed and time we stole than what I consider to be the benefits of the time I spent in the Bizarro world.

The LC is not unique in this as there are plenty of other outfits, jobs and people you will meet who can do the same thing in different variations. I just happen to know this one the best The one thing the LC has prepared me for is when I run into the same tactics and personalities in the real world.

The only thing I can offer people who read these posts is what I saw, what I read, what I heard and what I did, and that is not going to be a full picture as no one has the whole story except Lyn, and in his delusionary mind, everything was done to him and no one is hurt.

Be scared of that Sunday briefing. Lyn is abandoning his older family and taking the youngins with him who are raised like veal.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-12-2008, 03:12 AM

eaglebeak

Taking off from what XLCR says above--the younguns are going to a place separate from the oldsters--like the Pied Piper, leading the youth away forever. Or perhaps like veal indeed, calves or lambs led to the slaughter.

He wants to keep LYMers away from the Boomers, and away from everything--and by the way, to save some $$$ too, because it will be way cheaper to put "LYM Editorial" and the "Warroom" out in the boonies near Windy Hill (windy indeed) than in Leesburg, where the costs are considerable.

True, they're renting warehouses instead of offices, and all the ministrations of Lonnie Wolfe's once and future construction company couldn't make those into anything but warehouses--but warehouses or not, they certainly cost more than a ramshackle "office" near Windy Hill (please note, I am scrupulously not saying what hamlet Windy Hill is in, even though it's appeared in the press).

03-12-2008, 04:00 AM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
I am scrupulously not saying what hamlet Windy Hill is in, even though it's appeared in the press).

well i am saying where he's at exactly: he's out there west of Leesburg off Snickersville Pike, with the rest of the quality. "windy hill", "snickersville" ... where does the material stop :eek:??

03-12-2008, 03:24 PM

borisbad

Positive influences?

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
I am wondering why there is not more discussion in this forum of the positive influence the org' has had on us, and of the positive qualities within ourselves which drew us to the org'. I believe that only with the development of this positive content can we be completely free of the org's destructive influence.

I would disagree in saying that everything was negative, at least in the early days of the org. I never really would have been exposed, for instance, to classical music, other than through the organization, my experience mostly having been from watching Looney Tunes when they had Lizst Hungarian Overture or pieces like the 1812 Overture. I did read many works of Rabelais, Milton, Shakespeare, Dante, etc. and it was those kinds of things that I didn't necessarily read in college and that made me believe that this was a real workplace of ideas. Of course my readings of these works may never have jibed with LaRouche's interpretation of their significance, but there was this idea that ideas were more important than just immersing ourselves in TV, sports shows and movies.

Despite considering myself on the left, I still have some questions about issues like nuclear power, space travel and the like that too many in the environmentalist movement dismiss out of hand, which is also a lingering influence.

Of course, in general I second the idea that whatever positive ideas we might have been drawn too, they were overwhelmed by the negative, just as one could say that Marx had some commendable ideas but they were warped in implementation by people like Stalin, Mao and Kim Il Jung.

03-15-2008, 08:01 AM

yamabkad

Classical music, Kepler's (not so) new astronomy, Schiller, Plato, Leibniz, all were influences that I found intellectually stimulating to a high degree, but when you're in you have to put up with all sorts of ridiculous implications of the "political" language that is supposedly in these works. ("political" not necessarily because of a lack of politics in the works)

The intellectual benefits of the youth movement I would say are misleading at best due to a lack of systematical immersion, as well as the cult of personality's tendency to bend mental space and time to the point where every recruiting season you end up making "breakthroughs" in some area of knowledge that you have 0 background in, and the next week/day/hour you wake up only to find yourself unable to answer the simplest of questions a contact/friend/relative has to ask you about said subjects which some of those evil universities might have been able to provide, "creativity" lacking and all.

03-15-2008, 04:12 PM

xlcr4life

A good example of this is Mars and space explorations. We had a few Fusion magazine articles on going to Mars, but, the whole thing revolved around two spheres.

-Larouche, where anything which had some merit ultimately went cookoo as Mars became just another footnote to battling the Queen of England, economic apacolypse and Russian world wide domination.

-Nazi rocket scientists where we gave slaps on the back and hugs and kisses to the Nazi slave labor friends we had at Penumunde whom we adored.

Contrast that to Bob Zubrin who was on the History Channel this week in another repeat of a special on mars exploration where his ideas are prominently features. We gave flowers to Nazi rocket Scientists and held dinners in their honor while Zubrin left this madhouse and holds several patents on rocket engine design research , meets with people who spend the money and write the budgets, does endless interviews in real media instead of vanity press, is considered a recognised expert in the field instead of a cult leader kook and writes books which people buy instead of being given a bundle of Kinko's reprints which get tossed to the curb.

What often happens in the LC and post LC is that if you do not recognise the lunacy and how mind control works, you will be infected with the larouche virus and it will effect everything you do .

Good example is Webtser Tarpley who claims to have left, but Lyn's DNA and Beyond Psycho sessions have impregnated him for life. This is a good example of "connecto gone wild".

http://www.rense.com/general80/bz.htm

There may have been something which the LC had an influence in sparking an interest in , however, the few degrees of sanity soon get overwhelned by the inferno of lunacy spewed by Lyn and friends which obscures and defaces soemhtign which you may have really enjoyed. A common comment by former memebrs to me who have left is that while in the LC they were under the cloud that there were no other cultural , scientific or other groups which had the knowledge we had and they were all impotent as well.

Keep that word impotent in memory for a few days.

Once they left the LC and cleared their head, they found a virtual endless parade of gorups who shared the interests that they had and were not a cult. There are of course always going to be differences of opinions and work, but you will find that you do not have enough time to persue everything you want because there are so many choices for you.

I really get a kick out of reading that Tarpley article in Rense becuase it starts off with an LC basic writing intro right out of New Solidarity and the briefing:

"Events of the past few days...."

I crack up at that because we once had some type of anniversary celebration for new Solidarity with Nancy Spannaus. Ya know, the one where she keeps on dreaming that we were going to make NS a daily newspaper. Right Nancy, we were not even mailing out the twice week version for several weeks at the time and we all joked about how far behind we would get with a daily paper.

One of the fun moments in this celebration was a contest to pick the most overused intro to a NS article, and what Webster used in his intro was the winner about 25 years ago.

For the students and professionals who study cults and offspring, keep Webster for a chapter on how Lyn has perhaps permanently effected his children.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-15-2008, 06:38 PM

scrimscraw

Whatsa matta wit Logic?

There's an EIR transcript of a speech by Lyn from 1980 that Dennis King posted at his site, which has the following passage:

Quote:
After the child's mind has been given a foundation by learning the music of Bach and Beethoven the next thing is geometry, but not the way it's taught in school. We're talking about geometry taught without Q.E.D., without logic, without Aristotelianism. Because Aristotelianism destroys the mind.

Can anyone concisely explain to me what exactly is Lyn's beef with logic and Aristotelianism? (Aside from the fact that if you toss logic out the window, then you are free to drive your clown car anywhere you wish, without having to give a logical reason.)

03-15-2008, 08:15 PM

candor

Logic is very inconvenient for a cult leader.

The cult leader and the cult's subluminaries who enslave and master the drones derive their authority from their putatively superior insight, creativity, hypothesis-making-faculty, or whachacallit. Without logic, which is well defined and readily available to all, it is impossible to successfully challenge such Wizard-of-Oz poofery.

So LaRouche knows that if you agree with him - which can only be done on the basis of you surrendering your critical faculty in deference to his authority - then you are ready to do anything for him.

Lyn is right again! :D

Also, logic requires hard work and patience whereas LaRouche is all about instant gratification and feeling good all the time.

Logic sucks!

Also, a logical disposition makes it difficult for an intelligent person to accept emotional abuse, shabby housing, and empty pockets.

I'm gonna take three dollars from the deployment and hit the McDonald's dollar menu!

03-15-2008, 09:00 PM

borisbad

Logic

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
There's an EIR transcript of a speech by Lyn from 1980 that Dennis King posted at his site, which has the following passage:
Can anyone concisely explain to me what exactly is Lyn's beef with logic and Aristotelianism? (Aside from the fact that if you toss logic out the window, then you are free to drive your clown car anywhere you wish, without having to give a logical reason.)

My idea of the problem with logic from my days in the LC was most associated with the character Spock in Star Trek. He was the perfect infallible logician who would operate like a computer carrying out a program to do a mathematical calculation. Capt. Kirk would however be the one who thought outside the box and came up with the "creative hypothesis" if not the hypothesis of the higher hypothesis and rescue the Enterprise. Of course he would also be the one who usually wound up with the pretty alien girls. Of course, I also knew LaRouche "and he is no Capt. Kirk!"

03-15-2008, 09:32 PM

scrimscraw

...connects to the carburetor

Thanks, Candor, and welcome to the board. I think you are correct on the strategic reason for a cult leader to chuck logic. What I still don't get (probably because I'm lazy and haven't poked around in LHL's outpourings deeply enough) is his ostensible reason for demonizing logic. I'm guessing it is all tied up with the monads and the manifolds and the negentropy.

Borisbad, I like that Kirk vs Spock analogy, and certainly logic has its limits. But only a Great Thinker like LHL would argue to ditch it altogether. And even in doing that he seems to contradict himself. He is forever touting science, yet where would science be without logic?? :confused:

03-16-2008, 01:01 AM

candor Apart from his inability and unwillingness to make the simplest deductive inferences, LaRouche's original rationale for ditching logic was that it was "linear" and therefore incapable of getting the mind and the physical economy from state n to qualitatively distinct state n + 1 - though he would deny it, this is very similar to Thomas Kuhn's concept (1962) of a paradigm shift (except for Kuhn's relativism.) LaRouche mangled Riemann, Cantor, Vernadsky, and Kubie to make the simple point that there is a defining qualitative difference between the inorganic realm and the organic realm, i.e. the biosphere, and between the biosphere and the noosphere. He also interpreted such leaps in late Beethoven (among others) as representing a similar nonlinear process. Of course, LaRouche, by making this dogma, has his drones repeating all of this in the most linear and uncreative manner so that while they spend a lot of time talking about creativity, none of them - including LaRouche - has ever done anything remotely creative. A case in point is the way the organization trumpets the LYM animations as "breakthroughs." I suppose that it is a triumph for anyone in that Luddite bunch to make pretty pictchuhs with a computah, but for the rest of us it's like watching an infant bubble up with pride for putting one block atop another.

BTW, note LaRouche in his most irritatingly avuncular manner telling Obama to distance himself from his allegedly racist pastor. C'est a rire.

03-16-2008, 11:15 AM

yamabkad

For the putative reasons why a LaRouchite would ditch logic On Common Sense generally details the position, in Lyn's characteristically unclear manner. Its also the one that is still used as a textbook, part of his prison "opus".

The point, at least as I grasped it, and such as it could exist, runs essentially along the lines that logic is not useless but subordinate to creativity. Logic can draw a circle around something and say that the essence of the thing lies within the circle but cannot tell you what that thing is as substance. The substance, the matter of the subject, lies in (relative to various viewpoints: -between the notes, -complex domain, -heaven, -hypothesis of the higher hypothesis, the ideas/monads), is accompanied by (the light, beauty, etc), is expressed as (love through technology-aka crucial scientific experiment, crucial artistic achievement), is opposed to (oligarchy, entropy).

These statements in the org. might be interpreted as a "blocked" way of expressing the point, and typically in a "class" are deemed worthy only as the introductory paragraph before the attempt to demonstrate the ideas through [an animation, choir, constructive geometry exercise], which is where one is supposed to gain insight. After the thing is over people are combed for insights and money.

In other words knowledge is gained through a kind of mystical experience, and one is constantly seeking _it_ in that frame of reference. Not that people would stick to this thing verbatim but that's how I understood it. The rest of the book goes on to detail in lyn's mathematically illiterate manner his devotion to attacking euler/newton/cauchy/lagrange for their uncreative and therefore evil form of mathematics (where in org. publications from just a couple of years before that euler is considered a genius and quite worthy of praise), among other things. The only virtue of the book is that its short.

From this point you can then dig into various materials and create some ideology for yourself and your contacts, so long as at does not contradict the axioms of Lyn:

- is the only one who _knows_

The ideology can then be reworked as needed for the appropriate political season.

03-17-2008, 12:27 AM

eaglebeak

The Road to L-Ville--or, The Dustbin of History

Hi, Candor--welcome to the board, from all of us.

For those who don't regularly read the Skull/Bones blog (http://www.struat.com/election/category/the-larouche-challenge/), let me call your attention to the latest posting in The LaRouche Challenge, and to the continuing adventures of revenire.

Here I have compiled all the recent postings by revenire, to give our Constant Readers a sense of the mind of the LaRouchean in its native habitat. Interspersed with the revenire stuff is a posting by Rachel Holmes on revenire, which seems to me to be very much to the point--and then of course, we have revenire's "snappy comeback," his/her/its/their witty repartee.

(As an aside--sometimes I think revenire is a pixilated Lyn's snickering idea of psychological warfare, and sometimes I think no, surely Barbara and Jeff would unplug the Old Boy before he deteriorated so badly, and other times I think jeez, whoever's writing this is as drunk as a skunk.)

Anyhow--read the latest posting at Skull/Bones LaRouche challenge, and here we have:

Case Study in Dumb--And Bile, Too

1. revenire Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 8:08 am
King is a joke, like this blog. It is comedy for people and for bitter dead-enders (like the Dick Cheney reference to the Iraqis?) it is their daily meal. How many people even read it? 100? 200? 500? 1000? Nope. No one bothers except the same people… I came back today, after months and months, and this clown is still on the same subject: nothing but nonsense.
Duggan is done. The guy is dead. DOA. Okay?
King might be trying his hardest to get some mileage out of the kid's death but it isn't going to fly if King's bosses think LaRouche is going to get indicted, or someone else is. It will never happen. [No one thinks LaRouche will be indicted, you moron. People think LaRouche will be exposed.]
Who cares about it? He is dead, let the kid rest is peace.
His mother is just a tool at this point and she's going mad.
Anyone would after losing a child.

2. revenire Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Kronberg's "memorial" site is a sick joke. [referring to www.kennethkronberg.com]Stew never liked his cousin, everyone knows that. Stew hated LaRouche… so when his brother (sic)jumped he was happy. That's just well known, except apparently to the few who peruse this soap opera site.

3. revenire Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 8:11 am
I meant his cousin, brother in the sense we are all brothers, lol. Mea culpa.

4. revenire Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I am sure the Iranians care. After all, Cheney wants to kill 100s of 1000s of them in a bombing attack. They don't want to die. They won't be "jumpers" either… although they would respond to any attack with suicide bombers I am certain. Imagine a Jew being treated like the Queen of England in Iran… not that she would get in the country mind you but you know what I mean. Jeff was given the red carpet treatment… it was almost as if Cat Power appeared there.

++++++++++ 1. revenire Says:
No one reads your blog. I see "no comments" over and over. I've been away a looooong time and see the same few bitter losers posting. You need me to get some traffic. I can see that.
2. Justin [blogger at Skull/Bones] Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 10:22 am
None except for the audience I have. Excepting the usual Larouche-commenters, and I you will note that I had taken a one month hiatus from that topic, let's see… my last few comments go like so: [whereupon Justin quotes large number of comments]

3. revenire Says:
March 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
For all I care you can jump off a bridge.
Okay?
Ban me… I know a teeny weeny bit about IP etc.
Or, better yet, call the cops.
Go ahead, jump… because you're a nothing and the rest of your soap opera characters are empty husks… dead souls.
Go ahead, ban me. You can't handle the truth so you would probably be best to go ahead and ban me.
Notice the recent Tremonti (Italian Finance Minister, former lol — do excuse me) book? Read Italian?
Scan Italian websites… a dozen and counting: it is the HEADLINE story. It's your pal LaRouche — he seems to have some influence in Italy. Wonder why? I thought it was all over there.
Later, gotta go listen to New York by Cat Power (love that song by her).
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/11/tremonti-new-bretton-woods-key-proposal-my-book.html March 11, 2008 (LPAC)–Former Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti's call for a New Bretton Woods has become the headline story in at least a dozen websites in Italy as of today, based on an interview Tremonti gave to Italyglobalnation, a service run by the national press agency ADN-Kronos, entirely focussed on the new Bretton Woods. Ign's headline reads: "Tremonti: a global agreement to avert the crisis - The former Economics Minister to Ign: `We need a new Bretton Woods. We must govern globalization with new instruments if we do not want to be overrun.' (…)."
"A new global agreement like the one in Bretton Woods 1944, an attempt to establish a world government architecture to govern globalization after a decade in which 'the economy ran politics'. This is Giulio Tremonti's recipe for facing the economic crisis which is arriving in Europe."
Tremonti is reported as saying that the responsibility for the crisis is to be found "in a comprehensive structure that started from the world of culture and ideas, that produced the ideological motor of this whole process. Those who built their fortunes on an ideology such as that based on the market, now find that the crisis comes from the very depths of the economy, from America, from the financial structure of the economy."
Speaking of his new book Fear and Hope, Tremonti says: "The key proposal in the book is the proposal for a new Bretton Woods, that is, a new global agreement on the terms of currency exchange and trade. This is exactly the opposite of anti-globalization [i.e. Tremonti is not against "global" trade, he wants to save it from the crisis -ed.], is the opposite of a chain of errors that would lead to a crisis which I want to avert with instruments for governing globalization. In 1944, in New Hampshire, those responsible for politics and economics in the world agreed on some issues that remained in place for half a century. This is what I believe we must do: understand that the crisis is not banal, but fundamental; it is not conjunctural but structural."
Interest rate cuts and tax cuts do not have "great effects on the current crisis. Liquidity injections are not a radical cure; it is a counterproductive way of keeping sick people alive. Now, I believe that we need new instruments. The paradigm has changed… it is fundamental that we understand the intensity of the crisis and change the paradigm to avoid it: Bretton Woods."
Readers familiar with Lyndon LaRouche's proposal for a New Bretton Woods, of which there are many in Italy, where the parliament has twice passed resolutions in favor of such financial reorganization, will recognize his influence in Tremonti's proposals.

4. Justin Says:
March 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Can you read? Why are you going off about "banning" and "calling the cops" (What?).
Key phrase:
I'm not going to do anything about that.
But, whatever.

5. Rachel Holmes Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Thought I'd post this here, too–just in case revenire missed it where I put it originally:
Personally, I welcome revenire's remarks.

Now, that may seem strange, since I knew/know Ken and Molly Kronberg very well, and was and am very close to both of them.

HOWEVER, it's my view that every time revenire opens his/her mouth(s), or sets pen to paper or finger to keyboard, he/she makes a HUGE mistake.

I mean, Good Lord! Even if you thought all those crazed things, most people would try to hide it and come across as more moral, charitable, etc., than they really are.

But that's the great thing about revenire. He/she is like a walking billboard, a proof that LaRouche and his crowd are as nutty as we anti-LaRouche types say.

It's the sort of thing Lyn always does. Says something so hair-raising that even the loyal last few make a face, and go get more work.

(I notice from recent briefings that Lyn has been beating up the NEC for working at "outside" jobs and shirking their duties to him.)

The thing that strikes me about revenire is that he/she/it/they may be drunk. Because some of that invective is just so UNBELIEVABLY unhinged.

Revenire, old thing–or maybe young thing, but aging fast: Do you really think ranting and raving about jumping off a bridge is going to have a positive effect? Going to recruit those masses to Lyn?

Do you really think throwing some LPAC URLs up there makes any difference? I mean, who CARES if Lyn hornswoggled some dignitary into something? Just remember Indira Gandhi: "Never bring that man here again." As witnessed by people still in the org, my friend.

I say, have at it! Revenire. Keep impressing us with your Power of Reason. You're hot, don't stop now! I mean, from my perspective, there's a crane flying out of your mouth every time you open it. Know what I mean?

The gratuitous attacks on the Kronberg cousin whom you call "Stew" were, at first blush, a bit much–but then I thought, Bingo! This revenire guy/gal/gang is NUTS! This is great!
He/she/it/they doesn't know Ken's cousin from a hole in the ground. So let's have those attacks on Ken's family keep on coming. They're so classy. They impress people so much….

The dumb bile of revenire's posts is so strong I can hardly decide which one of the idiots still in the org wrote it–or which team of idiots. But when I close my eyes, I can almost see it/them/he/she furrowing his/her/their brow(s) and looking for that perfect psychological zinger that will reduce all us LaRouche-dislikers to jelly.

What can I say? If revenire didn't exist, we'd have to invent him….

Say, d'ya thnk….?

Nah! Couldn't be….

But still….

1. revenire Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/13/alabama-house-representitives-passes-homeowner-and-bank-prot.html March 13, 2008 (LPAC)–Today, March 13, the Alabama House of Representatives passed HJR213, a Resolution Urging Congress To Enact The Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007.
yes, the larouche associated folks are all crazy, crazy enough to know how to jump on the only lifeboat available to them, as they did in alabama — where they passed larouche's act HJR213
any jumpers ready yet?
kronberg is dead and all your whining isn't going to resurrect him — ask benny hinn for help or maybe dennis king — high times writer — to help you folks must be frustrated at all the success larouche has well, you know the old saying… if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen ps - by all means censor me Big Man… it would only prove the fear you and i know you already have of larouche's influence worldwide

2. revenire Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
rachel you're close to ken?
i sure hope not because he is dead… don't do it > not worth it help molly out: she needs help or go to duggan's mother and console her because her son's "investigation" isn't going anyplace fast i am amazed how many are crazy here

3. revenire Says:
March 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
no one knows why ken jumped — we do know stew hated larouche though. how is the duggan affair going?
i see no new news since nov 2007 and that was hardly news no thing except what german authorities already concluded a pity rachel do you contact the dead? if you do say hi to my dad

Comments:

Okay, I think that gives you a flavor of revenire. I heartily endorse Rachel Holmes's remarks, and I'm glad that revenire--like Ole Man River--just keeps rollin' along. Talk about a sucker punch. And in this respect (see above) he definitely reminds me of LaRouche--especially LaRouche on the witness stand. The dude just didn't know when to shut up.

Next Up:

Moving the LYM (or, The Dustbin of History)

03-17-2008, 01:59 AM

eaglebeak

Moving the LYM, Eviscerating the NEC

You will recall that a few days ago, I posted the Jeff Steinberg Saturday morning National Office riff that appeared in the Morning Briefing of Sunday, March 9, and you will recall that somewhere in that dense thicket, there was the standard Lyn-attacks-the-Baby-Boomers followed by the announcement that "LYM Editorial" and "LYM Warroom" would be moved closer to The Residence (as Lyn sometimes likes to call it) at Windy Hill, to get the LYMers away from the influence of Boomer members.

What appears below is the followup, in the Morning Briefing of March, where Lyndon lays out his "thinking" on this policy, and in passing lets the NEC have it.

The briefing writers that day were William F. Wertz and David Cherry.

Morning Briefing
Monday, March 10, 2008

TIME TO SHAPE UP!
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 9, 2008

Since nearly every NEC member but Gerry Rose and I, and also relevant others [there are only six NEC members left, so if you count the "relevant others," who else is there?], have been tied up with time-consuming personal or similar distractions from their managerial responsibilities in the Leesburg National Center, and since, also, the Jersey region [duck, Dennis, here it comes again] and some other places are not reacting to the real-world crisis engulfing the actual world in which we are actually living, it was urgent that I intervene to make a declaration of a moratorium on such negligent behavior.

We have just recently taken an action, on my personal initiative and responsibility, which has served as a contribution to the possibility of preventing our immediately imperilled nation from plunging immediately, this current month so far [eh?], into an (sic) calculably (sic) impossible existential situation. The behavior, especially of the relevant boomers, in the national office, the Jersey office, and elsewhere, is that of people who are fleeing from the immediate reality of the situation presented though them as the threat to our nation and also to ourselves. People who seem to be fleeing from a manageable, if threatening situation, into a personal niche in which the prospect for their personal future is hopeless under the kind of stubborn indifference to leadership responsibilities which I have assessed in the circle around me this past week or so. [Why were they fleeing again?]


As August 15, 1971 had approached [don't you just love his verb tenses?], I was operating on a now memorable long-range forecast, stated first at the beginning of the 1960s, in which I had warned, repeatedly, over a decade, that unless certain changes in current economic-policy-shaping trends were corrected, the U.S. economy would enter a crisis-phase during some part of the second half of the 1960s, and the threat of a breakdown of the present world monetary system by near the close of that decade. This warning was spread in and around our political association and its activities during the interval 1966-1971; my standing long-range forecast was fully confirmed, contrary to the outlook expressed by every known relevant other economist on July 15-16 (sic), 1971.

At that latter juncture, I uttered a report which forecast that the mid-August action of the Nixon Administration now threatened the U.S.A. and more with a takeover by fascism as the meaning of that term "fascism" had been established by the record of the Mussolini and Hitler governments. The same type of threat of fascism, is threatening, as from fascist Felix Rohatyn, to take over the Democratic Party and other relevant institutions.

During the ten years beginning with that forecast of August 30 (sic), 1971, the U.S. economy was wrecked, first, chiefly, by the monetary policies of the Nixon Administration and, secondly, by the thorough wrecking of the internal structure of the U.S. economy, by the Trilateral Commission, under President Carter, during 1977-1981. The crisis of October 1987 which I had forecast in June and later to occur in approximately October, happened exactly as I had forecast, expressed in a stock-market crash of 1929 characteristics and magnitude [nope].

Shortly after that, the collapse of the Soviet system, which I had forecast, in February 1983 as likely for "about five years ahead" [he didn't forecast any such thing], happened. That general forecast from 1983 had been supplemented, in a forecast from Berlin, on October 12, 1988, stating that the world was on the verge of a general collapse of the Soviet economic system which was to be expected to begin its eruption in Poland during the period immediately ahead.

My presentation of the "Triple Curve" forecast [not a forecast] as the galion-figure of the launching of my 1996 campaign for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination, has now been borne out fully, in the present hyperinflationary world crisis, in the terms I forewarned, not only for the U.S.A., but for the world at large. The inflationary breakdown-crisis of the trans-Atlantic segment of the world's present monetary-financial system has so far evolved exactly as I had forewarned.

Also notable, is the fact that the current U.S. Presidential-nominations campaign has followed exactly the guidelines (sic) I had specified.

On these, and related accounts, our association is a most remarkable success in its avowed mission. Unfortunately, alien influences seizing the gutter of the "Baby Boomer" section of the membership of our association, have tended more and more to act as professional losers, but [but?] have done so in explicit hostility to those policies of mine which have been at the center of all those stated and related successes, in the choices of outlook and methods which I have defined for our association.

Nancy Spannaus should produce that record, immediately. [Ouch.]

Now, when the fate of this nation depends upon the factor my leading role represents, why are so many among the leaders of the association fleeing from their executive responsibilities? I do understand the motive for that foolish behavior among us; but that is no excuse for failing to impel the nominal leaders of this association to get back on the job, raising the funds needed to meet the obligations of our association, not only what they might perceive as their own [swipe at various NEC members who are trying to cope with difficult personal and family situations]. Some veterans among us ought to be ashamed of themselves, if that sense of shame prompts them to remedy the reckless behavior seen over, especially, the course of recent months.

Our role in service to this nation, and its future, is now of crucial importance to not only our republic, but other parts of the world. This is a situation tantamount to war [isn't it always?]; no personal considerations are moral [the biggest of the Big Lies], if they represent flight from duty on front-line matters of the association itself on this account. Large issues must not be neglected for the sake of the pettiness expressed by some small minds in Leesburg and other locations which I could name.
—Lyndon
[Notice he signed it twice? Now that's narcissism.]

Comments:

Two things occur to me.

1. The NEC is "failing" Lyn because now even they find themselves compelled to take care of personal matters—parents, relatives, deaths and illness, old age—and so can't dance attendance on Lyn the way they did in those faraway days of their youth. That's why he thunders against "personal considerations"—they're deserting him for moral obligations he cannot begin to understand.
2. Moving the LYM out of Leesburg nearer to Windy Hill might just be the beginning of the Kool-Aid phase. If I were a LYM member, I'd want to think long and hard about that.

Or maybe it's the oldsters who will be invited to get out of the way. Lyn makes Richard Lamm look like a teddy bear. And he makes King Lear look like Solon.

Next: Another Papert Briefing…

03-17-2008, 02:37 AM

dking

For those who don't regularly check my site at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-newest-postings.htm , I've posted a lot of new archival stuff re the Laird of Windbag Hill over the last few days. These items include, among other things, a CIA report to the DDI on Lyn's 1983 trip to Langley to volunteer his great wisdom on national security matters; a 1940 Nazi German anti-British pamphlet (in English) targeting isolationist Americans (eery similarities to Lyn's rants); S. Bardwell's devastating 1984 attack on Lyn's Star Wars fantasies; and (a real trip down memory lane) Debra Hanania Freeman's 1978 pamphlet on her plan to take back Baltimore from ZOG. Enjoy.

03-17-2008, 02:59 PM

xlcr4life

Reading what Eaglebeak posted about what is on "The Larouche Challenge" comments page reminds me of running into long time members. The word is

Creepy

In the mean time, take a look at this video and see how a New Dark ages will be averted.

http://www.strmz.com/Channel2860?link=http://youtube.com/?v=CQTHGMIHfwk

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQTHGMIHfwk

Lyn, did you notice that you blew 250 million dollars and not one of these ungreatfull yutes mentions your name and does not make you the center or saviour of the Universe?

These LYM have been spoken to by the LC boomers. Have you noticed how Jeff no longer mentions your name when he meets with people? The joke in Leesburg Lyn is that Jeff's outside writing and speaking interests are rated "PG", after your former security guy who you F'd with and made cry. The LC/LYM need an audit Lyn, not the Scientology kind cause you know money is being held back. You are on the right track in NJ. There are two Lyns (different spelling) in the LC, the one in NJ is high maintainance and three years ago you caught what they were doing.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-17-2008, 06:36 PM

eaglebeak

Candor--There was a time, about 100 years ago, when Lyn was very taken with Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. But of course, that was before he discerned his own unutterable superiority.

Meanwhile, here's one of those says-it-all facts.

Here's to the 'Lower 80%'

In the days when Lyn was still going out to restaurants, he never tipped. Ludicrously claimed that his "time studies" (right) demonstrated it was "inefficient" (absurd). Even then, he never believed in paying what he owed.

03-18-2008, 01:13 AM

boomersage

LHL/Wright

In its continuing, craven efforts to brown-nose the Hillary Clinton campaign, LHL's rants on larouchepac.com rail in mucho decibels about the weirder statements of Barack Obama's former minister, Jeremiah Wright. Well, some of Wright's worst are pretty far-gone, but there are a couple of little, um, problems for LHL's latest tactical zig: for one, some of Wright's fringey riffs -- e.g., on 9/11 having been a hoax, on AIDS having been unleashed or allowed to spread in Africa as part of a global racist plot, on the US government being complicit or an active participant in spreading drug use in America's inner cities -- are pretty close to formulations the LC itself has pushed in the past; and second, they're definitely no more nutty or abrasive, and maybe somewhat less so, than the similar crap that was emanating from the Nation of Islam when, prior to its unrequited love for HRC, the NOI was the object of the LC's major suck-up operations.

Do the over-35 set in the Org have any memories, or any consciences, left?

03-18-2008, 03:04 AM

candor

Thank you, eaglebeak. Of all that I have heard and seen of LaRouche, the last thing I would have expected is that he is a poor tipper - especially since he has spent the last forty years living on someone else's dime.

Does this guy have any redeeming virtues at all?

03-18-2008, 09:15 PM

boomersage

My memory may be vague on what LHL said nearly 40 years ago, but I think he disdained Thomas Kuhn, even assigning him to one of the worst seats in Inferno, for not having the dialectical method down just right.

Also, when it comes to verbs and other parts of speech, I'd defend LaRouche as an equal-opportunity abuser. (How about sprinkling your mumbo-jumbo prose with two insertions of "relevant" in every paragraph, or never saying "economic policy" when you can say "economic policy-shaping tendencies" or some similar high-flying, third-order locution instead?)

03-18-2008, 09:30 PM

eaglebeak

Structure of LaRouchean Devolution

Yes, boomersage, you're right that LHL ultimately denounced Thomas Kuhn, but before he denounced him, he cited him--as he did, over time, with all sorts of folks, from Sigmund Freud to that most obvious example of all, Karl Marx.

(Not to mention Ludwig Feuerbach, about whom Lyn uttered the deathless phrase that he had been "misbriefed on Feuerbach"--a howling, if tacit, admission that he had never actually read Feuerbach.)

Anyhow, along the way Lyn appropriated for himself bits and pieces from these and many other figures in the landscape of intellectual history, creating an amazingly disjointed final effect when he put on all the bits and pieces (emperor's new clothes).

Boomersage is right that LaRouche's current denunciation of Jeremiah Wright rings a bit hollow, since Lyn himself has said pretty much every nutty and violent thing that Wright has said, and Lyn himself did cozy up to Farrakhan for a long time, and Lyn has had absolutely idiotic things to say about 9/11, etc. In fact, you could say that you know Wright spells trouble with a capital T because he sounds just like Lyn.

03-18-2008, 10:31 PM

howie

"zog"

Speaking of Larouche's Successful Fighting of ZOG...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CEEDD1730F93AA25751C0A967958260

The Persian Gulf war has led to a boom in book sales on all aspects of the Middle East. And once again among the best sellers are books about a subject that has long held a fascination for Japanese readers: the influence and power of Jews. [...]

One new book published in December, "Counterattack of Hitler," is a best seller at many book stores and has sold 30,000 copies. It denies the existence of the Holocaust and asserts that a Jewish conspiracy is being thwarted by Germany, Arabs and other groups.

Another new book, "Confessions of the Jews," by Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg, two American followers of the political extremist Lyndon LaRouche, says the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish group, engages in organized crime and drug-trafficking. The book has sold only 5,000 copies but is a best-seller in those bookstores carrying it. Author of Anti-Semitic Books

The author of the first book and the translator of the second is Masami Uno, an Osaka man whose books denouncing Jews have long sold well and are widely available. His book, "If You Understand Jews, You Can See the Whole World," has sold 540,000 copies since it was published in 1986.

03-18-2008, 11:39 PM

borisbad

At first I thought the Schwarzenegger character in the video at least had the accent down. But you could hear the paucity of any ideas in his humor as he kept on repeating "you know, you know, you know." Bloomberg sounded like a Ted Kennedy interpretation. How the hell did they let this mess continue in the LA City Council? This is worse than the worst guerilla theater we used to have in the 60s.

03-19-2008, 03:17 PM

eaglebeak

A Class Act

Could not resist posting the beginning of an article that appears in the March 21st EIR and of course on the website. (In fact, who knows how many EIRs are actually printed these days...?)

I am posting this because as I see it, the headlined quote from Lyn says it all--all that need be said about Lyn's character, his judgment, his taste, his ability to function in any leadership capacity--the guy is a total 100% lowlife, and whatever errors the American people have made in the past or will make in the future when it comes to voting for President, you can be absolutely certain that they never will elect, and never could have elected, a crude and vulgar buffoon like him.

LaRouche Declares:
Paulson Is 'F**king Incompetent'
by John Hoefle

Within the space of a week, the Federal Reserve announced the emission of $400 billion in cash to bail out the bankrupt U.S. banking system, and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson released a report by the President's Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG) which maintained that the system was fundamentally sound, except for a few excesses which need to be curbed. These actions, taken together, reflect a case of axiomatic blindness so profound it boggles the mind. The bankers and their regulators are acting on impulse, not intellect, and their impulse is to try to save themselves and their power at all costs. It is stupidity on a world-historic, civilization-killing scale.

"Paulson is f**king incompetent!" exclaimed Lyndon LaRouche in response to the PWG report. "They all are. It must be said directly: They are f**king incompetent."

Strong words indeed (sic), and entirely warranted, because what Paulson and Fed chairman "Helicopter" Ben Bernanke are doing, is attempting to have the Federal government bail out the U.S. banking system by transferring the losses to the government and, ultimately to the American people. Among the many problems with that approach is that the banks' losses are so large, that creating enough dollars to plug the hole would destroy the value of the already plunging dollar through hyperinflation....

03-19-2008, 03:59 PM

eaglebeak

But Wait, There's More!

Meanwhile, over at the Skull/Bones blog

http://www.struat.com/election/2008/03/17/meanwhile-from-within-the-org/#comment-31242

that inveterate LaRouche-booster revenire (the one with so much venom towards Ken Kronberg's cousin) has posted LaRouche's dictum that the Bear Stearns bailout was illegal.

That post reads as follows:

revenire Says:

March 19th, 2008 at 4:53 am

LaRouche: Bear Stearns Bailout Was Illegal
18 Mar 2008

March 18, 2008 (LPAC)–The bailout/takeover of the thoroughly bankrupt brokerage house Bear Stearns was illegal, and represented a case of money laundering, that should be prosecuted, Lyndon LaRouche charged today. LaRouche noted that there is no basis in law for the Federal Reserve to have stepped in and bailed out a brokerage house, which is not a bank, and therefore not covered by any existing laws. The Emergency Banking Act, passed by Congress on March 9, 1933, provided for government assistance to protect vital banking functions, but was restricted to commercial banks. Chartered banks make up a vital part of our overall economy, but brokerage houses like Bear Stearns are strictly part of the speculative apparatus that has looted the economy and the population blind. The idea that the Fed stepped in to provide tens of billions of dollars, or more, to save Bear Stearns, is prima facie criminal. It probably constitutes violations of the existing money-laundering laws.

"It smells like another filthy Goldman Sachs scheme," LaRouche added. "I think it is time to increase the social staus of our Federal prison population–by sending all those responsible for this abomination to jail."

In response, Rachel Holmes, who posts frequently on Skull/Bones and with whom I almost always agree, posted this (excerpted):

Rachel Holmes Says:

March 19th, 2008 at 7:37 am

Hi, folks–and especially you, revenire...

...I don't pretend to be an expert–but I thought the Fed used Sections 13-3 and 11(r)(3)(ii)(l) of the Federal Reserve Act to do the bailout of Bear Stearns. Section 13-3 broadens the Fed's ability to lend beyond banks to "individuals, partnerships, or corporations."

So Lyn's twaddle about the Emergency Banking Act of '33 would seem to be irrelevant.

Hey, Rev–I'm starting to suspect that Lyn doesn't know up from down. Could it be?

Indeed--could it be?

03-19-2008, 05:32 PM

xlcr4life

1 Attachment(s)
I found this blog

http://xdell.blogspot.com/2008/03/bormanns-ghost-and-mr-marcus-grim.html

and started to read it since it was mentioning the cult. Here is one section with comments.

Monday, March 10, 2008
Bormann's Ghost and Mr. Marcus: The Grim Pilgrimage
Erica and Hugo Duggan flew immediately to Germany upon hearing news of their son Jeremiah's passing. In addition to reclaiming his body, they wanted information about how the police could rule his death a suicide, especially in light of the frantic telephone pleas for help that Erica received two hours before it happened.

On March 29th, they met with a Herr Schaecher, the Wiesbaden police detective who investigated the case. Schaecher explained that the drivers of the two cars that hit him told him that Jeremiah lunged out in front of them in an apparent attempt to get hit. Furthermore, other drivers attested that he had jumped out in front of them a half hour earlier, one of which just barely clipped him.

While the Duggans might have understood their son taking a mad dash into traffic to escape pursuers, and thus getting run over by a car, what Schaecher told him next set off their BS alarm. The detective said that Jeremiah's history of mental illness, and his gir lfriend's worry that he would drown himself in the river during that weekend made him a prime candidate for suicide.

Maya, young Duggan's girlfriend, had received a mysterious telephone call from a LaRouche associate named Sebastian Drochon at about the same time Erica received her frantic call from Jeremiah. During the odd conversation, she asked if there were any rivers nearby, and this formed the basis of Schaecher's supposition that Jeremiah wanted to drown himself. But as she has clearly indicated, Maya only wanted to know of a nearby river so that she could look up Wiesbaden on a map, for she didn't know where it was.

As for the history of mental illness, the Duggans had no idea where that supposition came from until Schaecher pointed out that Jeremiah had been a patient at the Tavistock Institute, a facility that (as you could probably guess from the previous posts) held a special meaning for LaRouche and his followers.

The real story: in the process of divorcing, Hugo and Erica decided that they should seek family counselling, and include Jeremiah in the process. They understandably sought the best help they could find, and the Tavistock Clinic certainly fit that bill. The period the Duggans attended there was brief, and no one diagnosed Jeremiah as depressed, suicidal, or so much as mildly neurotic. There were no indications at all that he suffered from any suicidal tendencies.

While most suicide victims don't leave notes, they tend to leave a clear indication that they have self-destructive thoughts. For example, many actual suicides have a history of unsuccessful attempts. Most usually have seen a therapist of some stripe for depression long ago. Many of them are on anti-depressants. Virtually all of them at least have a clear motive, which if not painfully obvious during the run-up to the event is certainly clear in hindsight. None of this applied to Duggan.

It's extremely difficult for someone to hide depressio n and appear well adjusted to people who see him everyday. They would have seen some sign of it—apathy, loss of appetite, increased appetite, self-destructive behavior (e.g., drinking or drug binges, reckless driving), or reclusion. Duggan had a girlfriend and other pals, who would have noticed anything strange.

Thus, Schaecher's supposition that Jeremiah had a long history of mental illness just isn't correct. Yet, he clung to this story despite all evidence. In fact, the Duggans would later find out that the German cop didn't seem to have much use for evidence at all.

Meanwhile, in her initial investigation of her son's death, Erica Duggan noted one horrific irony. The police said that Jeremiah met his death crossing Berliner Strasse in Wiesbaden. This street held a special significance for Erica, for it was the road her father travelled to escape Nazi persecution in the 1930s. Until 2003, the road served as a family metaphor for freedom from totalitarianism. Ever since, it has represented the ultimate enslavement to totalitarianism: death.

Posted by X. Dell at 10:01 PM
Labels: assassinations, cults, mind control, NCLC, new world order
15 comments:
Rayke said...
Is Schaecher "in on it", or really that misguided?
I thought the whole "is there a river nearby" thing was weird in one of the original entries...but the detective deduced that he was suicidal from that one little line?

10:20 PM
LADY LUXIE said...
1) Hello there Mr. X Dell..Would you like a cup of green tea?

2) It can be, at times, quite difficult for me to comprehend that such horrific events truly happened.I am just entirely grateful that I did not live through a time of deep persecution or war.Our world may be in such a frantic state..but to think of the grave injustices of the past is just shuddering. At least now, technology makes it possible to see...to hear..to witness...

I watch it on the screen..this war between our government forces and various militant groups in the deep south of my country..It's just..so like a movie...I see it on TV and can't believe that that thing is actually going on here..It is far different..far removed from my life. I must seem cold..

When you think about..this world is a dangerous place..you just never know really what's going to happen next. You live your life the best way you think and in a moment some sinister someone will claim that your son committed suicide. It's so sad...for that mother...

3) About the driving. Yes, I do drive. But it has been almost two years now since I have been behind the driver's seat. Our streets are dangerous...very dangerous...veeery dangerous...You have no idea how dangerous. I witnessed a horrible accident- two motorbikes and a taxi cab - I can still hear the crash. Ever since I had a hired someone to drive me around.

A couple of weeks ago I got sick of it and decided to just drive again.

10:39 PM
SJ said...
Luxie, You don't have the drive to drive most of the time :)

X, Not directly related but the word suicide sometimes the motivation is not clear reminded me of this not the kind of issue we are talking about here... http://www.newsweek.com/id/117749

4:59 AM
Crushed by Ingsoc said...
It could be a split second decision, like a trapped rat, not knowing any way out of the horrors he had found himself up to his neck in.

It was possibly a high state of panic, even hysteria.

It reminds me a little of the Ipcress File, perhaps.

10:58 AM
foam said...
conceivably i could see somebody committing suicide without leaving much indication that they actually would. however, there appears to be no cause to think that he was suffering from mental illness at all.
... and i'll leave my opinions on how german police can be to myself...

1:21 PM
X. Dell said...
Rayke, what Schaecher was doing in ruling the death a suicide is the point. In the next post, I'll go over his methods for gathering information, and let you form your own opinion.

Lux, I'm always in the mood for green tea: hot or iced.

It's interesting that you feel distant from calamity, and I'm actually glad for that. I've seen a bit, but nothing compared to what the Duggans have. And, as you point out, the story given that their son committed suicide is downright frustrating when you have evidence to the contrary.

I understand about the driving. Although I've driven taxis and limos in New York, I wouldn't think about owning my own car here, or driving from point A to B because it is excessively dangerous. In fact, five of the US' most dangerous roads are nearby.

SJ, since I raised the issue of suicide, your link is both helpful and on topic.

I would agree that the motive for suicides are sometimes not clear, in a linear sense. But the examp le that you link to shows precisely what I mean. There were indications, in hindsight, that the rash of suicides alluded to in the article would happen, although those realizations occurred in HINDSIGHT, which, as we know, can often be 20/20.

For example, I have little doubt that the parents and other adults around the girl who committed suicide two days after her friend deliberately pointed to her cheerfulness, and mistook it to mean that she was cheerful about life. But in the context of the events, she was actually cheerful about her friend's death, as odd as that sounds. This alone should have raised a warning, for cheerfulness isn't a typical emotion when grieving someone close, at least cheerfulness over their actual passing. It could further indicate, again in hindsight, that she had made up her mind to off herself at that point, in essence, joining her companion in a romantic notion of eternity, Suicide victims often display a calm or euphoria after making the decis ion to do the act. The fact that others she knew had taken their own lives was another big sign, again in retrostpect, because, as SLT would posit, we take cues on how to act from our enviornments, and from the authority figures in our lives--and sometimes the peer group is a commanding authority (ever hear of peer pressure?).

Crushed by Ingsoc, when it comes to suicide, there are no rules, only odds. So it's possible that the scenario you suggest could be true. It's just not the case here, for reasons that will become obvious in the next post (namely, the forensic evidence).

Schaecher could have thought it's possible for him to have committed suicide because of panic. But it's also possible to win the lottery ten times in a row. But the odds of winning it once are so crushingly infintesimal that one could live a million years and never see a string of ten wins in a row (probably not even two). With this in mind, one would have to ask why Schaecher came to this decisi on, almost immediately, with no real investigation, when there were much more plausible scenarios.

Foam, I would agree that it's possible for people to take people by surprise by committing suicide. I'll give you an example. Stefan Timmermans' book Postmortem: How Medical Examiners Explain, a series of case studies, looks at the instance of a successful businessman, with a solid family, and a close relationship with them, numerous friends, and a bright future, and no history of depression committed suicide. This man:

"...was supposed to join his wife on vacation. Instead, he bought a handgun, waited the required seven-day period before picking up his pistol, and shot himself in the head after firing a practice shot in the yard. The entire family was in shock, and the death was treated as a possible homicide until records revealed that the man had great financial debts. No one interviewed by police or the scene investigator seemed to have a clue that the busines sman had even contemplated suicide."

So yeah, in real-time a person can commit suicide without leaving much indication. But as the investigators learned, there would be a reason for it that would show up after his death. As I mentioned to SJ, the reasons are often seen in hindsight.

Here in New York, I've watched police carry out thorough investigations for the death of a cancer patient, and even more thorough investigations for causes of death that were unclear--and this is a town with a high rate of homicide, and where detectives are swamped with cases. So you'd have to expect that a smaller town, with a lower homicide rate, would do more to investigate a death, especially a suicide, than Schaecher actually did. And as the forensic evidence will show, suicide was not a possibility in this case.

4:58 PM
Libby said...
i was thinking that there were way too meny questions about it to be ruled a suicide so quickly & quietly...

10:00 AM
foam said...
i guess it would depend on the bureaucratic ingrained stubborness and rudeness and callousness of the german cop. you are probably right though. actually, my brother died alone in his apartment. because that happened and there were no witnesses to his death he could not be cremated until police ruled out suicide or homicide. it took a week, which is about as long as you can legally leave a body unburied or uncremated in germany. it was not fun visiting the federally run morturary with my mother for a week ..

4:33 PM
X. Dell said...
Libby, that's the point. Out of all the scenarios that were possible, and given that Duggan didn't really fit a typical pattern of suicide, one has to question coming to that particular determination so quickly, especially in this case, where there was little evidence.

Foam, I can only imagine that would have been about the worst duty one could do in life. I don't even want to contemplate being in your shoes. Yet, your example is instructive. I didn't know about that law in Germany. It certainly doesn't apply uniformly here, as I've had experience with police keeping bodies for months on ice.

5:49 PM
foam said...
x.dell,
that is how i understood that particular law to be 13 years ago. you couldn't be buried before 48 hours were up and you had to be in the ground after about a week .. perhaps a few days more. german funeral laws are some of the strictest although i hear that some of the laws are changing. what i'm trying to say .. i'm no expert on this at all.

6:49 PM
Ray said...
X. Dell:
Did you ever see the movie The Quiller Memorandum? I caught the last part of it on TV a while ago. Released in 1966, it took a more realistic approach to the spy game. George Segal portrayed an American agent investigating Berlin's neo-Nazi movement. I don't know how accurate the way Berlin at the time was portrayed, but there was a sense of unease, one didn't know if a friend was really an enemy. I get that feeling from this post -- which, of course, is what you intended.

Ray

8:31 PM
X. Dell said...
Actually, Foam, you are sorta an expert on this because you lived through it. I don't doubt that laws, even in Germany, don't change. (I can especially see that with the 48 hour rule--after all, what if you're Jewish?) I'm actually grateful that you brought up the subject, for it didn't dawn on me that there could be other issues involved in wrapping up the case as soon as possible.

8:32 PM
X. Dell said...
Ray, the confusion of friend and enemy is definitely an issue in the Duggan case. Jeremiah thought that he was with friends, and that he could voice a simple disagreement as one does with friends. He didn' realize that as much as they wanted him for window dressing because of his heritage, they probably would never trust him as friends do.

So the vagueness is interwoven into the story.

BTW, I've read the chapter in Archetects of Fear that you sent. First of all, thank you. Secondly, I will be bringing up some of the issues in a later post. I checked out the table of contents, and the books seems to be more about the perniciousness of conspiracy theory--which works out well, for me, for I'm also reading George Marcus' Paranoia within Reason and Jodi Dean's Aliens in America. The second books is turning out to be a really good critque of conspiracy theory.

8:38 PM
Behind Blue Eyes said...
As usual, the comments are so interesting that they greatly adcd to the post. It would be awful to be at the mercy of stupid or evil, or stupidly evil people at a time like your sons death.

6:48 AM
X. Dell said...
Behind Blue Eyes, I agree with your observations concerning the comments. The insight of others is exactly what I hoped for when I started this blog.

I also agree that there's nothing scarier than being in the hands of people who are both stupid and evil. Of course, since we're talking about a political cult, they're not necessarily evil so much as they are brainwashed. Perhaps that's just as scary.

BTW, Ray, I'm going to see if I can find that flick.

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

Last Sunday's blog offered something interesting to speculate on as to who he is. I should say that the cult burnt out most of their contacts over the years and is a shell of the old. The cult apparatus is more intense though. The peer group still is composed of fellow anti semitic lunatics around the globe as well as other conspiracy outlets who find them usefull. For the rest of the world, 250 million dollars got lyn a footnote as a cult leader, convicted criminal, anti semite with a few hangers on and laughable yutes.

Here is an example of one conspiracy site which has a use for the cult. This is 1980 retro Larouche lunacy at work as the Knights of Malta were Lyn's "Secret Team" out to stop him. BTW, we did meet with Fletcher Prouty as he was part of the Spotlight crowd at the time. Here is a hint on how to look at these sites. Go down a lttle bit to the map of Europe see how in a miracle, a Star of David is produced ! I once saw a Nazi propoganda film on a History Channel special which had the same map drawn by Nazis about how where Germany's enemies were from. WHen they connected all of the points, they got a Star of David as well. Below you should see OUR pamphelt cover to see how this tradition is carried on by Lyn. http://pimpinturtle.com/2008/03/18/movers-and-shakers-of-the-sovereign-military-order-of-malta.aspx

Now on to this interesting blog .

http://xdell.blogspot.com/2008/03/bormanns-ghost-and-mr-marcus-ties-that.html

Sunday, March 16, 2008
Bormann's Ghost and Mr. Marcus: The Ties that Bind…and Gag
A November 2007 Washington Monthly story, written by Avi Klein, pointed out the extraordinarily high overhead that LaRouche and his organizations operated under. The LaRouchites claim to have spent $2.5 million per annum in printing costs alone, approximately 60% of their operating budget.

At least, that's what they claim. Some suspect that they have a bit more wherewithal. After all, printing pamphlets to place on card tables around the world represented only part of their financial obligations. There's LaRouche's travelling, for one. Then there's this annoying habit that he and his followers have of running for elected office. He's also got the Schiller Institute to take care of, and a burgeoning youth movement to groom. And someone's got to pay the private eyes and goons that he uses for "security consultants." As one former member, going by the handle 'x clr4life,' posted in a recent fact.net forum:

If Lyn [thought] this was all a crock, he would not have any reason to pay Carpet, The Colonel, MR Ed , Frick and Frack, Roy Frankhouser and the rest of the scam artists over 13 million in cash to reinforce his delusions around the clock. Lyn knows full well what happens to the members, but probably feels justified [since] he is saving the world [emphasis original].
And that's not even mentioning his wife Helga Zepp's fabled shopping trips. All of these things cost money. And that's some budget stretching, considering approximately $4.2 million in the kitty.

Rumored ties to Nazi gold, the remnants of Aktion Adlerflug, are speculative for now. Yet if we take a look at the LaRouche organizations' known sources of revenue, a very interesting picture emerges. While they irresponsibly accused many of duplicity in the international Jewish conspiracy by making spurious allegations of their funding, the finances of the NCLC seemed a tad more ominous.

In addition to hawking their pamphlets on the unsuspecting public, and constant fund raising through phone canvassing and the like, the NCLC found a couple additional ways to make money. The first was stealing. They had several ways of bilking people. In some instances, supporters who had made contributions to the organization, and were foolish enough to pay by credit card, found that they had accumulated scads of unauthorized charges when they opened their statements.

The more aggressive and personable LaRouchies decided simply to pressure more well-to-do members into advancing them a short-term loan of one or two weeks, loans that the organization had no intention of paying back. Many of the duped were single, divorced or widowed elderly women, who had accumulated a lifetime of savings, or had received inheritances from their spouses and other relatives. NCLC member Michael Billington proved especially adept at charming little old ladies out of their money, prompting prosecutors to characterize him as "ruthless." Even his mother testified in his federal trial that he "can talk you into or out of just about anything."

All told, these schemes gained them an additional $34 million dollars between 1984 and 1987. Whoever said talk was cheap didn't know this bunch. But the criminal justice system did. In December of 1988, LaRouche and several followers (including Billington) were convicted on charges mail fraud, conspiracy, obstruction of justice and tax evasion over a series of two federal, and three state, trials. Klansman Roy Frankhouser was convicted in a separate trial for his role in the credit-card thefts. The judge sentenced Frankhouser to three years and a $50,000 fine. LaRouche received a sente nce of fifteen years, of which he only served five. Billington, not quite savvy enough to accept a plea deal that would have limited his incarceration to time served, insisted on becoming a martyr. So the judge sentenced him to seventy-seven years, of which he served only eight.

The title of one of their organs, The Executive Intelligence Review, might give you a bit of a clue as to what constituted another source of income: the buying and selling of privileged information. As Dennis King wrote in Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism:

The NCLC's intelligence-gathering prowess of the mid-1980s was the fruit of hundreds of members working at it devotedly for over ten years. LaRouche had first raised the idea of an NCLC intelligence arm in meetings with his top aides in 1971….

By 1976 the NCLC had established a smoothly functioning intelligence headquarters in New York, with branches in several European and Latin American cities. Three interlocking units emerged: the intelligence division proper, which mostly did telephone research and monitored the foreign press; the science unit, which operated out of separate offices through the Fusion Energy Foundation; and the security staff, which worked on sensitive matters such as the harassment of LaRouche's opponents.
During the aforementioned trials, the prosecution successfully convinced a jury that one of LaRouche's security consultants, namely Frankhouser, wasn't connected to the CIA at all, as he had claimed, but simply a con man who mi lked LaRouche for what proved to be useless information. Yet, the ties to LaRouche and Intel were quite real. As King further notes, he had enjoyed the private counsel, and maintained relationships with the likes of such people as Rear Admiral Robert Inman, former head of the National Security Agency (NSA) and second-in-command of the CIA under William Casey (Reagan administration).

When authorities arrested LaRouche for the fraud and conspiracy charges, the Admiral publicly distanced himself from LaRouche's minions, claiming that they sorta forced their way into his life to "give them importance." Yet LaRouche had other connections, among them former National Security Council (NSC) Senior Director Norman Bailey, who told an NBC documentary crew that the LaRouchies were "one of the best private intelligence agencies in the world." They also had the ear of Richard Morris, executive assistant of Judge William Clark, President Reagan's National Security Advisor. Morris introduc ed LaRouche to other NSC officials, among them Dr. Ray Pollock. He even had the admiration of Intel officials outside of the United States. Brigadier General Paul-Albert Scherer, former West German counterintelligence chief, became impressed with their inside dope on such diverse topics as Eastern European military movements and the drug trade.

In his federal trial, LaRouche's legal team tried to convince a jury that he was, in fact, a CIA asset, whom the Company dumped as expendable once his usefulness dried up. While he didn't convince a jury, his mouthpieces remained convinced that the Agency set him up. In a 1995 letter to then-Attorney General Janet Reno, one of the lawyers handling his appeal, former US Attorney General Ramsay Clark, wrote that his conviction represented "a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in m y time or to my knowledge."

In fact, anyone who has known LaRouche has seen his connections first hand. When sharing a cell with him at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, former televangelist Jim Bakker observed the daily calls LaRouche received in prison, conversations held in German to keep them confidential. Bakker witnessed how LaRouche knew detailed information about world affairs that would be officially announved days later, and wrote about this and other LaRouche-inspired intrigues in his autobiography, I Was Wrong.

The reverend speaks the truth concerning Mr. Marcus. I should know. You see, I also witnessed the daily intelligence gathering for almost a year. Actually--I'm ashamed to say--I participated in it.

I cannot give details at this time. But suffice it to say that when you find yourself shuttling envelopes stuffed with cash from point A to point B, and you have to rely on the photocopied chart in your wallet to keep everyone's aliases straight, you're probably in way over your head. I certainly was.

I can tell you, however, that LaRouche and his organization have people everywhere—in industry, finance, the military; and as you know from this and previous posts in intelligence, government, and fascist/white supremacist organizations around the globe.

If you're wondering why intelligence agencies would maintain a dialogue with LaRouche, and perhaps even cooperate with him, think about it this way. LaRouche has his ear to a lot of stuff, in a lot of areas of society and parts of the world that government intelligence agencies find difficult to penetrate. Thus, I've always suspected that their relationship to such entities as the CIA and West German Intel constituted more of a quid pro quo type of deal, where the LaRouchies weren't simply pawns of any one government, but rather occa sional bedfellows.

I also suspect that all of these ties that LaRouche forged over the years had something to do with the death of one Jeremiah Duggan.

Posted by X. Dell at 8:09 PM
Labels: assassinations, cults, mind control, NCLC, new world order
19 comments:
Anonymous said...
Your one whacking conspiracy theorist. Taking this "LaRouche is the evil master mind pulling the strings" thing WAY too far. Maybe your association with him resulted in his conspiracy proneness rubbing off on you. Either way, seek help man, your obsessive.

9:10 PM
X. Dell said...
Anonymous, name calling doesn't contribute to the conversation. Neither does poor writing. If you think I'm taking something too far, you owe it to me to tell me why. Otherwise, trolls are a dime a dozen.

11:13 PM
benjibopper said...
just shaking my head at the craziness of some people. i find all these connections fascinating. and for it all to come down on some poor kid who thought he was protesting another war.

7:42 AM
st. patrick said...
Blessings upon you, lad. ive come to banish all snakes from this place -perhaps trolls as well. thar are none in ireland anymore i can tell you! i lay here a bouquet of shamrocks and bells of ireland in this place i like so very well.

7:44 AM
X. Dell said...
Benjibopper, what can you do? I too find the connections fascinating. And no matter what your perspective, these are issues that LaRouche and his people really need to address. As it is now, they do disquise their agenda and purpose, as they did to Jeremiah Duggan--and just about everyone else--and they worked hard to establish and maintain connections to some very unsavory people, whom they've openly defended.

St. Patrick, welcome to the X-Spot. Thanks for dropping by and leaving the shamrocks and shells. Since your track record of expunging snakes is a matter of record and legend, I also thank you for the blessing. Hope you enjoy your feast day.

8:07 AM
SJ said...
Nazi funds didn't find their way to the UNICEF did they? The receipt of such funds alone casts aspersions on the org.

Anonymous, Our man X is one whacking conspiracy theorist and we like him for that. Be gone Troll.

8:29 AM
foam said...
ditto, the bottom part of sj's statement ..
maybe st. partrick works on trolls too..
the connections are fascinating ..
and, of course, my curiousity radar is up since you mention a personal connection .. my, what an interesting life, indeed at times ..

1:50 PM
X. Dell said...
Um, SJ, I've never heard of that. I think you're confusing the issue with suspected rumors of the Easter Bunny's past in the Hitler Youth.

Or was that the Pope? I can never keep those two straight.

Foam, I do think the connections are curious, and merit examination--especially if one contemplates spending on'es future hawking pamhplets from a card table somewhere.

The personal admission is in the interest of full discloser. My position on this group is no longer neutral, and has never been positive.

2:35 PM
Anonymous said...
Oh no, anyone who attacks the author is a "troll"! I'm sorry I didn't know the comments section was where everyone got together to agree with each other and talk about how great we are. I will keep my comments within that format. I apologize...

10:20 PM
..................... said...
nah...
it's perfectly okay to disagree... ... from what i've seen in the past, x.dell loves a good disagreement..
but you can't give good feedback on a comment if it is primarily based on an insult. i'm always amazed at commenters who insult but can't handle an insult themselves.

3:18 AM
Smartphone said...
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
3:44 AM
X. Dell said...
Anonymous, in two comments to this post you have yet to give us a reason for your opinion. Specifically, what's taken "too far?" What dispute do you have with very well-documented connections between LaRouche and elements of Intel or neo-fascist groups? What evidence can you offer to counter the claims of Dennis King, Jim Bakker, or even myself, who has seen the organization up close?

These could be legitimate reasons for disagreement or discussion. Someone who simply comes onto someone else's board, calls the poster names, makes assumptions about the poster without evidence, cannot elaborate or discuss the nature of his or her disagreements, or cannot suport them doesn't show themselves to be either knowledgeable, intelligent, or mature. In fact, there is a term for people who make a habit of doing just that: 'troll.' As I stated before, they are a dime a dozen. And if the shoe fits.....

If you have a legitimate beef about what I write, then by all means I encoura ge you to voice it. But if we simply get more of the same from you, I'll simply delete your comments from now on.

Foam, I'm just going to let that lie there.

11:26 AM
Rayke said...
I, for one, think that you've weaved this together very intricately. It's pretty cool to see how it all comes together like this.

And X IS a "whacking conspiracy theorist". That's his role. His niche. And he's apparently captivated a large audience by doing so.

Keep up the fantastic work.

3:25 PM
Enemy of the Republic said...
Anonymous---reveal yourself, you gutless twerp.

Good retort, X.

4:27 PM
X. Dell said...
Rayke, thanks for the support, and for sticking out the series. We'll be ending it soon.

Thank you too, Enemy. I actually don't mind anonymous posters, actually, especially on a board like this. But I find it fascinating that people will take up different handles, personnas or remain anonymous for the sole purpose of "attacking" others, without facing consequences.

7:35 PM
X. Dell said...
BTW, Enemy, it's great to see you.

7:36 PM
eric1313 said...
LaRouche lit on my old campus is a chief source of heat for the homeless around here.

Good handling of anons. I would get rid of anonymous commenting, but I like it that the occasional non-blogger surfing the blogs might one day use it to shout out. Or for our friends who can't log on at work but still cheat and read.

I can't wait to dig into this one.

And the rest of the archives, such as the MK ULTRA series.

And by the way, you have the most on-the-level conspiracy oriented blog I know of. Which is a good thing, because there are an awful lot of conspiracies out there. Just think of how many are yet to be discerned.

Aren't we the people perhaps the greatest conspiracy of them all?

10:06 PM
X. Dell said...
Eric, welcome back. That's an interesting notion that we, the people, might be the conspiracies. Unfortunately, with all the government wiretapping and all, it seems that someone considers the conspirators.

I see you've run into LaRouche during your college days. I first heard of him in grad school, decades ago, and must admit that the street display made me curious about him. So I began digging around. It didn't take too long before I got to the part where he advocates sending all gays and lesbians to the moon or Mars, and that pretty much left me uninterested.

Heating for the homeless is a much better use of the propaganda lit.

Thanks for the compliment. We hope to end the series soon. Hope you enjoyed your hiatus.

4:42 AM
Enemy of the Republic said...
I'm too busy to give this series justice; I remember the LaRouchians in Illinois were once very powerful, and if I were in a better intellectual spot, I would engage this more fully.

As for Anon--I kept the feature for a long time because I had friends, people I knew, who wanted to post, but didn't want to leave their name or get a blogger account. Then the trolls came around; I noticed they were either anonymous or had fake screen names. Like X-Dell, I enjoy a productive debate, but insults are a dime a dozen, particularly when they are all about attacking. And the pronoun/contraction is "you're", not your.

8:04 AM

03-20-2008, 02:56 AM

kheris_0

Thanks XLCR, I read the entire series and linked to it from my blogs. Worth reading.

03-20-2008, 04:51 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by kheris_0
Thanks XLCR, I read the entire series and linked to it from my blogs. Worth reading.

There is another one for viewing below

http://xdell.blogspot.com/2008/03/bormanns-ghost-and-mr-marcus-mothers.html

What is a puzzle is trying to figure out who this may be. This was probably in NYC when we were doing a lot of work with people who were supposed to be our enemies and doing dirty tricks for them. King covers some of this in his book about Roy Cohn , Ed Koch and others. In NYC we had rented a few "safehouses" in run down lower Manhattan neighborhoods to use as mail dorps and for security people to take contacts to. The amount of money which was being used up in this is staggering when you relive that whole era. Some of what happened is so funny as Mordechi Levi had a great con on Jeff and Paul. He had a friend who worked at the NY Times printing plant I once read. His friend would read him the first edition headlines from the first run which was hours away from being delivered. Mordechi would call up Jeff and Paul and they in turn would run to a filthy NYC phone booth to call him back. Whatever Mordechi told them would miraculously appear on the next days NY Times and the security guys and Lyn now had a real "insider" to go along with Frankhouser and the ever growing army of con men ready to take Lyn , Jeff and Paul for a ride.

Mordechiawas so good at this that when he turned out to be working for the JDL or JDO, I can't remember, Paul G wrote an article in EIR which called him a "Platonist"! God I wish I saved that EIR issue as it was so funny to read that lunacy where Paul was trying to save face by saying that Mordechi was a golden soul who became tarnished by the ADL and whatever was our enemy at the time.

The crazy thing about the LC was that we had a crazy cult leader running it while the lower class members and many of the execs were actually trying to do productive actions. As the cult was ramped up, the money increased in huge amounts , Lyn's ego grew exponentially and the amount of money being drained by the black hole of security was skyrocketing. To the field hands getting 5 bucks a day, every day was a crisis. Those same field hands had no idea of just how much money Lyn was spending in his lifestyle and was siphoning off to the scam artists from the very same people Lyn and security were having orgasms meeting with as "insiders".

Here is the latest X-Dell blog.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Bormann's Ghost and Mr. Marcus: A Mother's Struggle against Fear

The cult aspects of Lyndon LaRouche and his organizations had become apparent to many members early on. Like other cult leaders, LaRouche relied upon fear as a mechanism for controlling his followers. In some instances, fear of deprogramming, shunning, "ego stripping," or some other disciplinary action inhibited tendencies to disagree with leadership. But in many cases, fear could also quell dissent among the rank and file simply by distracting them. In his 1983 book Architects of Fear, a blistering attack on conspiracy theory and theorists ("whacking" or otherwise), George Johnson wrote of LaRouche:

'The fundamental tendency which holds the [party] together...is mania,' according to a statement given to reporters by a group of defectors in 1979. 'Since 1973, LaRouche has continuously announced a series of 'deadlines,' no more than three months in the future, by which time some horrible catastrophe will occur unless prevented by [the members].'

When the disasters failed to occur, the former members wrote, the organization was credited with successful intervention.

'The result of this continual mania is to prevent members from having any time to think or question. The leadership, LaRouche in particular, maintain an atmosphere of psychological terror.'
The organization's feeling that doom was always around the corner, and that salvation lay in swift, direct, and sometimes even violent action, explains Jeremiah Duggan's murder. Duggan's refusal to yield to the organization's need for domination of everyone within their sphere stoked that very sense of crisis, which required immediate, brutal action. The connections mentioned in the previous (and earlier posts), offer possible insight as to why authorities in two different nations only reluctantly pursued the matter.

Yet, two additional observations better explain what led Jeremiah Duggan to Wiesbaden in the first place. First of all, LaRouche's hold on his flocks began to slip over the years. Linda Ray, the aforementioned 1979 defectors, and others of the old guard grew up. No longer college kids fawning at a learned guru, some began to hear LaRouche's inconsistent pronunciations as the lunatic ravings of an embittered old man. While a number of them remain loyal to this day, many insiders and former insiders began to notice LaRouche distancing himself from some of his longest supporters.

Some feel that LaRouche's loss of control over older members prompted his increasing alienation from them. Other, more cynical types attributed attributed this to the fact that older people simply weren't as vigorous as younger ones. They didn't have the same energy. They suffered from more health problems, which not only undermined their fundraising efforts, but drained their pocketbooks as well, and thus hampered their ability to give to the organization.

Whatever the reason, the Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement (WLYM) became the top priority. To Lyndon, these represented a new guard of activists, tender young intellectuals ready, willing and able to be molded into his ideological clones. The old guard, the one that had sacrificed so much for him since the 1960s, could just off themselves, as far as he was concerned. In fact LaRouche actually said as much in a "morning briefing" dated April 11, 2007, writing, "...the [Baby] Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you're the real world, and they're not. Unless they want to commit suicide."

Hours after the dissemination of that briefing, Ken Kronberg, a long-time associate who headed PMR, the organization's print media publisher, and who was cited in the memo as one of the worst failures of the Baby Boomer LaRouchies, apparently decided to become part of the real world by jumping off an overpass to his death.

The last missing piece of the puzzle is Jeremiah Duggan himself, and he's not that difficult to understand, really. By all accounts he was a moral, rational, intelligent, and well liked young man who possessed a sense of social responsibility and justice. The idealism so often found in the newly adult opened his mind to the possibility that maybe the answers to all of the world's problems had been found by one man. He wasn't so naïve to believe anything willy-nilly. But he would go as far as Wiesbaden to find out the truth about LaRouche and his organization.

Unfortunately, he did discover the truth.

LaRouche and his followers obviously have much to lose with respect to future recruiting were the facts of Duggan's case publicized vigorously. They have understandably relied heavily on the spurious police report to wash their hands of responsibility. As reported by the Schiller Institute:

Jeremiah Duggan, a 22 year-old British student, died after being struck by traffic on a road outside Wiesbaden, Germany on March 27th, 2003.

At the time Duggan was studying at the University of Paris, and had travelled to Germany to attend a conference sponsored by the Schiller Institute. Several hundred other people also attended the conference, which centered on the Eurasian Landbridge: a solution to the global strategic crisis.

German police concluded that Duggan committed suicide by running across a two-lane highway, the Berliner Strasse, and colliding with two private cars in the early hours of March 27th. According to witnesses interviewed by German police, Duggan physically 'leapt' into the path of the cars, suffering fatal injuries to the head when he was struck.

German police found no evidence of any third-party involvement in the incident. The forensic evidence cited in earlier posts flatly contradicted the findings of local authorities, upon which the above statement is based. Thus, if the evidence says Duggan's death didn't happen this way, Erica and Hugo Duggan have to find another explanation.

I don't think that anyone can fully explain what went on except for Duggan's actual attackers. Nevertheles, one can guess.

I speculate that Benoit Chalifoux, a member of LaRouche's New Solidarity Movement discovered Jeremiah Duggan, and recognized him as a good recruit for the WLYM. Not only did Duggan respond positively towards the issues of fair play that serve as the organization's false face, but he was bright and articulate as well. Duggan's Jewish heritage was an added bonus, for that fact alone could help deflect the charges of anti-Semitism the group frequently encountered. I believe that Chalifoux carefully groomed Duggan over a period of months, slowly indoctrinating him to the cultural and political beliefs of the WLYM. Once he felt that Duggan was ready, Chalifoux sent him off the Schiller Institute for further indoctrination, under the pretense of an anti-war demonstration.

I further speculate that Chalifoux erred in his assessment of Duggan, and that Jeremiah had not yet developed the malleability required for further indoctrination. So when he stood up against an irrational, racist diatribe, Duggan faced a mob's efforts to "ego strip" him, or in other words, to harass him into some type of conciliation. When verbal threats didn't have the desired effect, they tried physical ones.

I don't believe that the security goons present intended to kill Duggan, but rather mop him up--to use their words. After all, Jeremiah would have been an excellent, perhaps even an invaluable recruit for the Youth Movement. Furthermore, kicking the stuffing out of someone, and other forms of torture, are recognized methods of indoctrination. Had Jeremiah survived, members of the Schiller Institute might have possibly had the opportunity to adjust his indoctrination schedule, and completely turn him by the time he recovered from his injuries. If so, Duggan would have most likely cited another source for his wounds--a vehicular accident, perhaps--in order to explain them. As her son became more a part of the WYLM, Erica would have only noticed him growing distant, or cold, and would have perhaps felt that he was never the same after that trip to Wiesbaden.

All this is moot, however, for Jeremiah Duggan did not survive the beating.

I reckon that in those first "ach scheiss" seconds following his death, Jeremiah's attackers knew they had a problem. Furthermore, the whole of LaRouche's empire had a major problem. It's one thing to have blood on your hands. It's another thing for the whole world to see the blood on your hands. So, relying on friendships and alliances forged with the dormant or latent fascistic circles of Helga Zepp's home turf, sympathetic authorities conducted a quasi-investigation that absolved the organization and its members from all responsibility. Meanwhile, dealing heavy-handedly with LaRouche wasn't the first option of some British authorities, for they relied upon their intimate intelligence connections with the US, which itself had relied upon LaRouche's information sources on an ad hoc basis.

Despite the official denials, Erica Duggan presses on. She has since found legal representation in Germany, and on May 24, 2007, they managed to raise the issue of reopening the investigation in the Bundestag (Parliament). In November of last year, 100 British MPs called for a new inquest in the case.

Where these developments might lead remains unclear. But one thing's certain: the investigation has come a long way since a German cop summarily dismissed Duggan's death as a suicide, and a British pathologist performed a perfunctory post-mortem on the body. We'll just have to see how this turns out.

If you'd like to keep abreast of future developments, or help Erica in her search for answers, click here and bookmark the official Justice for Jeremiah website.

Figure 1. A BBC report on the Jeremiah Duggan case

go to the blog to see the video mentioned

That concludes this series on the NCLC. Thanks to Ray for e-mailing me the LaRouche chapter of Architects of Fear. Thanks to the rest of you for your comments and for hanging in.

Posted by X. Dell at 4:00 PM
Labels: assassinations, cults, mind control, NCLC, new world order
3 comments:
foam said...
well, i just watched the video for right now ..
depressing ..

6:18 PM
X. Dell said...
What happened is definitely sad, Foam. But I do take heart in that people can know more about this organization because of it. They can run from this, but I'm hoping they cannot hide.

10:13 PM
SJ said...
When the disasters failed to occur, the former members wrote, the organization was credited with successful intervention.

Now that's convenient. See how the world DIDN'T implode? I did that.

2:14 AM

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

I have some more comments for lyn to read and see how the 250 million dollars he spent to promote his delusionary legacy is doing these days.

From Tacoma, some of Lyn's children went to a city hall open mike night like in LA and tore the house down. Here is a review

http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics/2008/03/19/tv_tacoma_peanut_gallery_strikes_again

TV Tacoma Peanut Gallery strikes againPosted by Jason Hagey @ 10:34:12 am There wasn't much material for artist/commentator RR Anderson to work with from last night's Tacoma City Council meeting, aside from a couple of Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

They showed up to talk about a resolution on the agenda to increase contracts with a couple of firms that provide investment management services for the city's retirement fund.

Or at least that's the item they claimed to be commenting on when Mayor Bill Baarsma interrupted to explain the rules.

Unless it's the first meeting of the month, public comment is supposed to be limited to items on the agenda.

The LaRouche boys seemed more interested in getting some face time on TV Tacoma to talk about current events in the world financial markets. They mentioned Bear Stearns.

Here's the commentary:

http://i.feedtacoma.com/NineInchNachos/tv-tacoma-peanut-gallery-city-001/

This comment, from DC event has by far The best wise crack I have read yet in a looong time about Lyn

http://blog.althippo.com/2008/03/19/everything-i-ever-needed-to-know-i-learned-from-tba/

"Yesterday, I went to an actual press conference. With actual reporters from the Washington Times, Fox Noise, Politico, etc. And it wasn't even all that icky. Except for the Laroushie who asked about how right Lyndon Larouche was when he predicted the upcoming (current?) recession. Robert Borosage, one of the organizers of TBA, countered with: "Lyndon Larouche has predicted 100 of the last 2 recessions." The Politico article that was largely the result of the press conference: here. "

Bravo Mr. Borosage, we have our catch phrase for the yutes to put on a card table shrine.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-21-2008, 05:48 PM

eaglebeak

The Ducks of Ibykus

I urge everyone to go to Dennis King's site and check out his recent (3/20) posting of LaRouche's "poems."

You can do your own psychoanalysis on these. Let me just say that they are puerile and they are prose--this isn't even remotely poetry.

I invite you to consider Lyn's fascination with the hawk, and his absolutely characteristic mistake in confusing hawk and duck. No wonder he loved the term "chickenhawk" (also, no doubt, because of its other, homoerotic meaning).

What's also fascinating is that Lyn "allowed" these things to be circulated in the org in the early 1970s--to be precise, 1972. It's remarkable that someone so self-centered should so entirely lack self-awareness (what he would call, erroneously, "self-consciousness").

The response was more or less underwhelmed. I remember my old friend Ken Kronberg reading aloud the one about the man from a dead planet and saying, "This isn't very good. In fact, this is pretty bad." Time: summer 1972. Before a DE class by LaRouche at in a class building at Columbia.

Anyhow--unrelenting prose--prosaic. Tone-deaf.

The "poems" can be found at King's site at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-poems.pdf

Looks to me as if someone has dumped his entire ICLC archives on King....

03-21-2008, 05:58 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
I

Anyhow--unrelenting prose--prosaic. Tone-deaf.

The "poems" can be found at King's site at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-poems.pdf
Looks to me as if someone has dumped his entire ICLC archives on King....

Someone has to put this to music for the Broadway production of

"Springtime for Helga"

I can see the audience not only getting a program with the lyrics, but a promisorry note and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in it as a collectors keepsake.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-21-2008, 06:08 PM

eaglebeak

More--Poetry in Motion

Excerpt from the March 15, 2008 "Morning Briefing" (briefing writers Dennis Small, Jeff Steinberg, and JWS)

FROM: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
SUBJ: TWO WAYS TO AVOID FAILURE
March 14, 2008

WHY SOME LEADERS WITHIN OUR ASSOCIATION
OFTEN FAIL—STUBBORNLY

There are two most frequent causes of the failure among our associations' (sic) leaders:

First, our representatives are often more motivated by their sense of their own desires, and perceived needs than those of the nation—out there—which we are presumed to be dedicated to serve.

Second, as in the case of dropping my name from the title of a recent EIR piece, they capitulate to the corrupting practice of psycho-sexual political impotence.

What a hoot. More to come—these are just the first couple of wonderful paragraphs.

03-21-2008, 06:22 PM

realme I have a dim memory (thankfully all of my memories of the LC are dim) of expressing an interest in poetry to someone some 30+ years ago. This was considered a weakness in the regions back then (in the pre-Dennis Speed Poe-mania era), and I was urged to purge this poetic desire lest I start to exhibit other traits of psycho-sexual political impotence. Then someone (I'm almost certain it was either Ted A. or Doug M.) told me, you know, Lyn used to write poetry but he stopped because he wasn't a very good poet. At last--one thing they got right!

03-21-2008, 08:22 PM

boomer70

Lyn is not the only one to be blamed for the current horrors.
It should be stressed again and again that beneath all the sabotage of the org by lyn, there is the lack of accountability of lyn to the membership. Imagine what a different space could have been created if people had required this simple, fundamental quality in the org. Instead, whenever a few people would rebel against the goosestepping, the majority of the org ignored and persecuted them. Lyn is not the only one to be blamed for the current horrors.

03-21-2008, 09:54 PM

eaglebeak

Trapped in Lyn's Head

You're absolutely right, boomer70, but of course many or most of the leaders of the organization were totally incapacitated starting with Lyn's Beyond Psychoanalysis sessions in c. 1973, followed by being locked up under armed guard during 1974 and the "Chris White brainwashing" business.

In my personal experience, most people in the organization are absolutely terrified of Lyn.

That doesn't absolve them of moral responsibility, however, it just explains why they never exercise it. That's how they can stand there stupefied while Lyn blames the Jews for the Holocaust, the British for Hitler, the Yanomami for existing, women for everything, "Mother's Fears," sexual impotence, and whatever his other ailments are on someone else, Erica Duggan for Jeremiah's death, Molly Kronberg for Ken's death, etc.--and then pile on, even though many of them (individually and privately) know better and act better.

As a highly intelligent former member once said to me, in 1989 or thereabouts, "The NEC has all the credibility of an East bloc dictatorship." Of course, this person left the org years and years ago.... Said we should have secret ballots at conferences to elect the leadership, realized that would never happen, and split.

03-21-2008, 09:57 PM

candor Just the other day, I happened to have found this L. Marcus poetic fragment out in the utility shed in the bottom of an old birdcage:

I.

I eye I.
I eye
I.

II.

Pants browned in a
Green field - I eye
And the FBI.
III.

The hug
In a chug
Of wine.

IV.

Cry, s. out of luck???
This is a truck.
It is stuck

V.

In mud.

VI.

Cloudy, cloudy.
Sunny, sunny.
Cold, warm.
Autumn, winter, spring, summer.

VII.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday,
Saturday, Sunday.

VIII.

Kids laugh
At ugly, drunk,
Old duck.

03-22-2008, 12:02 AM

scrimscraw

candor,

Actually, I think your poems are better than Lyn's! I guess just goes to show that if you are a genius in economics and higher math [ha], it doesn't make you a good poet.

03-22-2008, 01:10 AM

candor

Thank you, scrimscraw, but I think the random editing of ancient birdlime gets all the credit for having improved the poem, probably by having deleted expressions such as "presently onrushing" and "competent."

One time Lyn was in the back seat of a car when everyone was chatting and he rolled down the window to caw at the passing crows, I guess in his mind to satirize the chatter. Something about that guy and birds, bats in the belfry, and other winged creatures.

Circulation of "Poems ..." (the ellipsis is the best line) provides evidence of how delusional LaRouche was with regard to his creative "competence" even as early as 1972. Hard to imagine that someone fifty years old either composed or felt fit for circulation such adolescent rubbish.

03-22-2008, 03:56 AM

eaglebeak

The Point Is To Derange It

From the Morning Briefing, March 11, 2008. Written by Helga Zepp-LaRouche (some statement or other), Tony Papert (Tony, Lyn, and the Ouija board) and "edited" by Kathy Notley.

As promised—a Papert briefing. Once again, Tony Papert channels Lyndon LaRouche, and the results are staggering—not as fatal as those of April 11, 2007, but it's only March 11 this year. Give him time.

Best line of all? "F**k the reality!" Pithy, piquant, penetrating—Lyn all over.

Leadership Deficit Ends Now!

If you accept the idea that there's a "housing crisis," you're full of it! There is no housing crisis; the so-called housing crisis is only one symptom of the systemic crisis. And just because we understand this, there's no leading circle that can defend the U.S. but us. Thus, when the HBPA campaign is done properly, as in Rhode Island, it works! When you do it this way, you often get a result, and we are getting important results!

The world monetary system and physical economy have been collapsing for about a quarter century, so that now we're at the stage of general collapse. If the U.S. goes down, then Europe goes down, China goes down, India goes down, and the whole world goes into a dark age in which 30-80% of the population is wiped out over the course of one to two generations. [And there you have it]

This is the world situation; this is reality, but there's not a politician in Congress who's willing to carry that ball. Apart from LaRouche, there are no Franklin Roosevelts in the Democratic Party today. But a few are beginning to move to approximate it, to come around step-by-step, after realizing that LaRouche was right. Thus, Hillary Clinton's Iowa defeat, and the effect of our campaigns through Meghan Rouillard and in other ways, brought Hillary around to basing her campaign on the lower 80%. [You know—the people Lyn refused to tip.] She's the only candidate who has done that; all the rest are running the other way.

Don't talk about the housing crisis; there is no housing crisis; there's a systemic breakdown. Hundreds of quadrillions of dollars want to be cashed in, but what is the size of the economy underneath them? It's just like Germany in 1923. [Except for this and that.]

It's not a U.S. dollar any longer, since 1971-75. It's a Eurodollar controlled through the Amsterdam spot market. It's no longer controlled by the U.S. government, but it's a Eurodollar controlled through the Anglo-Dutch spot market. [Let me say it one more time. If I say it three times, it's true.] There's no value in those dollars, until the U.S. government steps in to give them value. We'll decide what is paid and when it's paid, just as we handle private Chapter 11 bankruptcies. You want to keep the business going, assist its getting credit, protect it from foreclosures, and decide how much is to be paid, and how much written off. [The way we did with PMR.]

The HBPA is the necessary first step; you're wasting your time if you don't pass it. You have to keep people in their homes, keep the chartered banks functioning, and preserve and revive the tax-revenue base, all under government protection. Otherwise, you have no economy. There's no inherent value in all this paper. In our fundraising and everything else, that's what we should be telling them. Only we can give value to the dollar, and no one else; the others just want to kiss bankers' a**holes! [Neatly put. And our history with giving value to dollars is unparalleled.]

A stupid manpower policy with the NEC and NC is key. [How's that for a non sequitur? Plenty more where that came from.] How much work is each of the leadership doing each day? How many are on the job, versus how many away from work? There (sic) work is here! Why are they not on the job? The leadership required to run things is not on the job. Why not? They have jobs on the side! We have non-functioning leadership,--misleadership. The organization is slipping around with no leadership. NEC members attend a meeting from time to time, but they're not out there working in the organization. The sales people are working without supervision and direction, so they tend to flounder into incompetent things with no idea, no clarity. The organization around the country is not as bad as it looks. How bad is it? It's not really that bad, it just lacks effective leadership. [Sounds to me as if the NEC finally got the right idea.]

No sales scheme or anything will work without the axiomatic features which are unique to us.

We must have a tough roster of field deployment which will be reaffirmed and backed-up without evasion. That's leadership.

Without us, the country won't make it. And if we don't do it right, it still won't make it.

People don't know how to sell; this is how. There's more support for us out there all the time, but they don't want it. Only support for MY pitch, MY way!

For example, Lyn's statement on Hillary on the eve of the Texas primary, activated a number of people who acted on that basis. Significant forces went to work: "If this is the situation, I'll help her." Do it my way, said Lyn, it works! Not all the time, but sometimes, and that's enough.

You have to appreciate the situation we're in; most don't. [Oh, but I do.]

How does it work? People believe what the columnists say, what the newspapers say. But where did foundations and globalization come from? Felix Rohatyn didn't invent fascism. Destroy the nation-state, and go back to the foundations of the Lombard League. Local pirates who seize the banking systems of cities and use them to finance the crusades, for loan-sharking for war. This is the Venetian system which led to Mussolini and Hitler. But, these are bulls**t ideas which have no basis in reality! The orders say: talk about them! Push them through! Are they ideas? Are they science? No, they're masturbation! "Get everyone to agree with THIS!"

All this was pushed by the Anglo-Americans after Roosevelt's death. And we had the "science affliction," which became computer games much later. Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Series." L. Ron Hubbard's e-meters. This was the talk of the town. It's not a recent development. It makes no sense, and it won't work, but the New York Times and the Washington Post agree on it. It's a cult around this verbiage.

A cult of madmen is running society, with crazy medieval fantasies running around in their heads. How do they manage it? Most people are sophists. They don't believe in the truth; they believe in what they want to be overheard saying. We have to bring reality to a world of sophists. How do we do it? With truth! Unlike so many of us who ask, "What can I adjust? How can I say it this way, rather than that way?"

By telling the truth, we join a tiny minority in society. Most people are stupid [how he loves that lower 80%], and what they say is stupider than what they think. Virtually everything they say, is only said to appease popular opinion. We must oppose popular opinion and go with the truth. How can we win? Only in a crisis which destroys the credibility of popular opinion!

Lyn crafted the HBPA, and told us not to try to recruit U.S. Congressmen. We'll talk to them, of course. But stick with the lower 80% at the state level. A mass movement of the lower 80% at the state level will control Congress.

The crisis which the HBPA addresses, grows worse every month. Time is on our side! Recruit the natural organic leadership of the lower 80%. With very few exceptions, Congressmen are not real people. There are more clear thinkers on committee staffs, than among Congressmen. Experienced committee staffers know what they are talking about; most Congressmen don't. They talk only to get re-elected, or for some other heteronomous (sic) reason.

It's when he's running from a political lynch-mob, that the Congressmen will say, "of course I support the HBPA!" How do you think Franklin Roosevelt did it? [I dunno. Lynching people?]Our members will repeat the bulls**t that most people believe. But we must be truthful and accurate. Tell them the truth no matter what! That's the only way to win a revolution, not with a formula or a pitch to put yourself over.

The youth organization is entering a new phase of mass organizing. With a faculty which has been through the basement process [well, it's better than e-meters. Maybe], and can help others through it. A mass movement, a repertoire of programs, like a university. Our university!

With the dying out of Lyn's generation, the Baby Boomers lost all competence in science, because they were no longer under pressure from a rational population. Scientific discussion also died in our organization. Thus they have no conception of economy, and don't believe in reality. Because a real economy is a physical economy. But there has been no physical economy after the 1970s. It was destroyed under Nixon, and especially under Carter, from 1969-1971. Since then, the Boomers have no conception of reality. And we've had mostly fake, --unnecessary, employment. Social work jobs which keep people occupied and controlled.

They get their beliefs from newspapers and entertainment, especially entertainment, and they've lost contact with reality. The 50-65 year-old generation doesn't function; they've lost it. We must bring the lost elements back through the Youth Movement. Our education drive has problems, but it's working!

How do you talk to a Congressman! In such a way as to educate his constituents. "I don't agree with you," he says. "That's because you're ignorant. We're trying to educate you, so that you'll give up the environmentalist swill." The poor constituent hearing that is remoralized. "I'm smarter than he is!" Speak the truth! Cut out the bulls**t!

Understand what real politics is. It's what Lyn practices, not fantasy. The world needs guidance. There's no part of the world which understands the whole world. And Lyn has earned that position of leadership, first of all by rejecting Euclid. [C'mon, he had to start somewhere. Not understanding geometry is one place.] If you don't have authority, you succumb to the authority you decide to accept.

We represent Westphalian principles. We're responsible for every part of the planet. We care about all of the people of every part of the planet. [You can tell by the way we talk about them.] We know what's right, and we support it. We don't choose sides; we get people to stop fighting each other. [Sure. I've seen Lyn bring amity a hundred times.] And the FARC should be totally eliminated,--but do it the right way! Put them in the U.S. Congress. That way, they'll all become totally impotent! Anyway, as a result of our deliberations, we have dealt with this successfully.

The late Raul Reyes was a representative of the drug mafia which runs Wall Street. Why should your tax dollars pay to bail out banks which are involved with the drug trade? And how many of them are there in France? That's the only reason Reyes was allowed to exist.

Lyn is confident in our mission, but we have to get the leadership functioning. Leadership must be fully employed on the job; we can't have the leadership going out and getting jobs. The leadership says they must do it because there's no money, but there's no money because the leadership is AWOL. [Twaddle. We've never made money. We can't make money selling this swill because it's swill.]

And the absence of the EIR leadership has created a problem that the LYM and the rest of the organization have not been effectively integrated, which has led to confusion in the LYM. [Well, it was obviously something….]

But still, we've screwed the agenda. Now they can't simply go ahead and run their crazy mayor (no stallion). [Yep. As predicted. Bloomberg's not running, and Lyn's claiming victory.]

People support us for what we're doing, not for saying silly things on the phone. [Although we do that too.] We're doing a good job, but not enough of it. Don't say, "adapt to the reality." F**k the reality! We have to change it!

03-22-2008, 04:59 AM

candor

"Don't say, "adapt to the reality." F**k the reality! We have to change it!"

What a profound restatement of the last of the "Theses on Feuerbach."

What a guy.

03-22-2008, 04:43 PM

borisbad

As to LaRouche's poems, as Mr. Spock would say "Fascinating". I'm sure LaRouche conceives himself as the hawk grabbing the poor ducks to become pawns in the cult or more likely contributors who could be "fleeced" or "plucked". He is the mighty hawk who knows no laws or strictures of social conduct, a law unto himself. The poor chickens were possibly members with some vestiges of conscience who felt pangs of guilt with the bloody hawk unleashing his talons on the flock of ducks, or more likely "silly geese" as Rosa Luxemberg used to say.

03-22-2008, 04:54 PM

scrimscraw

LC = New Age thinking

One of the mainstays of the New Age movement over the last 20-30 years has been the slogan "you create your own reality." And what better demonstration of that phenomenon than Lyn and the LC? For instance, here's a posting from yesterday at the LARpac board:

Quote:
March 21, 2008 (LPAC)--Below is [sic] Lyndon LaRouche's nine forecasts which he discussed in a June 1994 paper, 'The Coming Disintegration of Financial Markets'. Since the financial disintegration of Bear Stearns on Monday and the illegal reaction by the Federal Reserve to bailout the large investment firm, LaRouche's ninth forecast is now undeniably true.
"LaRouche as a forecaster
"About my qualifications: I have introduced relatively few forecasts of critical events during my 40-odd years as an economist (not counting my repetitions of some of those warnings). [Daily repetitions for 40 years, one might add.] To date, every forecast which I have made on the basis of my LaRouche-Riemann method has been confirmed by timely developments. [Timely, eh? See below...]
[snip 8 dubious "forecasts"...to get to the now "true" No. 9]
"Out of that same unequalled competence, I say to you now, as I informed various relevant scientific institutions of Russia during the last week of this April past: The presently existing global financial and monetary system will disintegrate during the near term. The collapse might occur this spring, or summer, or next autumn; it could come next year; it will almost certainly occur during President William Clinton's first term in office; it will occur soon. That collapse into disintegration is inevitable, because it could not be stopped now by anything but the politically improbable decision by leading governments to put the relevant financial and monetary institutions into bankruptcy reorganization. That is LaRouche forecast No. 9—the addition to the list of eight, above."

So, let's see. This was made in 1994. 14 years ago. And what was he predicting?

Quote:
The presently existing global financial and monetary system will disintegrate during the near term. The collapse might occur this spring, or summer, or next autumn; it could come next year; it will almost certainly occur during President William Clinton's first term in office; it will occur soon.

In short, he was forecasting global disintegration to come in 1994, but "almost certainly" before the end of '96. Now, in 2008, the LC is claiming that this has been fulfilled, even though this is years and years past the time frame of his "forecast" and this ever-promised global disintegration has still not occurred, as of today.

At this point, even were global financial disintegration to set in in the near future, it would not be a fulfillment of LHL's forecast any more than a weatherman predicting rain "for next week" would be considered accurate if rain finally came 14 years later.

F**k the reality, indeed.

03-22-2008, 08:28 PM

candor

Lyn's remarks on the NEC (a shadow of its former self) show that the higher-level "boomers" are setting in motion their exit strategy, while they intend to leave the rudderless "boomer" organizers and LYM adrift in their wake after his presently onrushing death.

Will the LYM disperse or will a cult arise around Sky or one of the other youthful illuminati? It won't be too late for them to pick up the pieces of their lives, but it is certain however that the aged "boomer" organizers will most likely wind up in refrigerator boxes near the very intersections where they squandered their own youth.

03-22-2008, 11:23 PM

boomer70

Quote:
What I'm going to present today, in order to be an effective presentation of what's important to be heard, is far-ranging in some respects. And therefore, with some precalculation, I have sorted out how much I will say here, pending the question period, to a number of topics which are essential. That leaves out many things, that many people do not know, which are pertinent to these subjects. However, much of what is needed to be known, which I will not introduce here in the opening remarks, is already available in several public sources, largely through the Internet; through EIR itself, a magazine, weekly; and also through the LPAC website, particularly the research features of it, more even than the current breaking developments. And my own work in these areas, in EIR, published on the website, as longer feature articles, do cover, in depth, the principal considerations which everyone must know, in order to competently address the subject before me .

"More on this in the Q&A and from my websites." :eek: ??!!

03-23-2008, 12:13 AM

scrimscraw

Boiled Down

In other words, "I know way more than I'm going to say -- much of it which you don't know, haha! -- and I'm not going to say a lot of other stuff which is already 'out there.' So, if I end up not saying much at all, I'll make up for it in the Q&A later or you can read it in EIR."

Hmm. Boomer70, I think you managed to boil it down even more concisely.
Is LHL getting paid by the word?

03-23-2008, 12:38 AM

boomer70

by the mumble, i believe. what did we ever do to deserve this kind of thing?

03-23-2008, 10:53 PM

boomer70

mumble, mumble, it's all gonna tumble.

I knew a community of monks at one time, and I suppose a monastic order could be called a kind of cult, but one thing about them was that anyone could laugh and make fun of anyone else, and it was, if not encouraged by the superiors -- usually the main targets of the brothers' humor -- at least very OK, as long as the joke was not to inflict pain. The only such behavior I can remember in the org was the folks higher on the food chain laughing at those lower down, often without regard to the pain of the target. And this area it seems to me is tightly bound to accountability.

03-24-2008, 12:23 AM

howie

Okay. Read this and answer me this.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=30634

"Phil Ossifur" reads an awful lot like my special own "revenire". I won't say they're the same guy, but the thumb of Larouche sure presents the same... quirks.

revenire, incidentally, is sending me greetings such as this as of late:

<i>your lack of morality is not at all astounding, or even of any interest — you're just a jumper… and the day will come when your personal collapse will arrive — much as the collapse of bear stearns did</i>

I don't think it's doing his cause well, but what do I know?

03-24-2008, 04:02 AM

eaglebeak

Froot Loops

Speaking of Revenire....

Here's the latest from the rev over on Skull/Bones, in a two-pronged "lunge" at Dennis King and Molly Kronberg. (Say, did you ever consider how absurd it was to hear Nancy and the rest of the NEC sitting around talking about the "lunge" of an article? No? Maybe you're too lowly a drone....)

oh dennis,

how do u know who were the most gifted people in the king of the universe's org?

vulcan mind meld? or were you doing a piece for high times and sampled some of the drugs they had available

HE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR DRUGS AWAY, lol

good headline and gives you amazing credibility

i would lose the mustache or does it catch certain items and i am not talking about food?

you'd look so much better i'd even pay for the shave! honest

anyway

didn't cia guys and nsa guys testify that larouche met with them? was it for his delicious spaghetti recipes? i believe norman bailey had a few things to say about the old man & your own book states larouche had foreign intelligence contacts doesn't it? want the page number?

i forget all this ancient history… it is always a new crisis and the quotas are killing me… i work 34 hour days and there are only 24 hours in a day! how does that happen? i get paid in old eirs… the print copy editions (very valuable on eBay BTW… i sold one for 50 trillion canadian dollars the other day > don't tell the IRS please)

considering larouche works with leadership in several nations… i sort of doubt he has to read newspapers published in other nations > i read the turkish journal of gastroenterology (that is my assignment from frau helga — after getting her dogs filet mignon of course and some nice outfits for those cold winters at the castle)

i mean larouche and his willing slaves (the best kind) talking to every nation's leadership from a-z does tend to discredit your above statement that all larouche's slaves do is read papers & those papers have junk in them that isn't important (like kissinger being indicted in connection with the murder of aldo moro)

the USA media didn't consider that one importan

i could cite story after story that IS news but the usa media blacks out because they don't want the people here to know

portillo's meeting with old man larouche is a prime example — i mean larouche meets with portillo and then portillo goes ahead and nationalizes mexican banks (taking the advice of larouche)… a little thing like that doesn't belong in the news with the stories about all those cats up trees

take care dennis — i understand you are undergoing some sort of emotional trauma at the moment and i wish you the best

WHATEVER YOU DO — DON'T JUMP IN FRONT OF A CAR LIKE JEREMIAH DID… AND PLEASE DON'T JUMP OFF A BRIDGE EITHER, LIKE KEN DID (OR DID MOLLY PUSH HIM?)

i am just a lowly drone so i wouldn't know

nice to see you hear with the other 20 people that read this blog

how do you like the effectiveness of larouche's act to save the people's homes from being foreclosed on? i know you dream of larouche too (i do, everyone does) so you know what he's up to and it still bugs you… wonder why?

my opinion? i think you are jealous he made the best dressed list this year & sexiest man alive on people magazine's cover

it just riles you up

Comments:

1. Lyn's obsession with homosexuality makes one more Return Appearance. I guess we'll all be living with that as long as the old boy's around. (You know what they say about obsessions, don't you?)

2. Note the all caps bit. Don't you just know this is supposed to be the special "Gaslight" section? Devastating, no? Can't you see the n +1 of them, bouncing "ideas" off each other? "I got it! I got it! Ooo Ooo Ooo!"

Well, well, nothing but chuckles. And of course, geometrical objects. Good job you rejected Euclid, Lyndy--a 7th-grade insight that catapulted you to the top.

03-24-2008, 11:36 AM

shadok

dangerous times?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
With the dying out of Lyn's generation, the Baby Boomers lost all competence in science, because they were no longer under pressure from a rational population. Scientific discussion also died in our organization. Thus they have no conception of economy, and don't believe in reality.
(From the Morning Briefing, March 11, 2008.)

There are obviously some concerns here about the remaining deadenders LCs versus the LYM, and talks of restructuring the org. It reminds me this infamous April 11 2007 Briefing, that marked the last day in Ken Kronberg's life. Jeremiah Duggan died on March 27 2003. There are also loads of obsessions from LYM sympathizers (like revenire) with "jumping off bridge"s or on cars...
Are we entering a dangerous time zone: between the end of March and early April?
What is sure is that if you disagree with larouche and/or cost money (worse if you are Jewish), it could be dangerous times for you now. Check your brakes or your back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
It makes no sense, and it won't work, but the New York Times and the Washington Post agree on it. It's a cult around this verbiage.

ooops I thought for a moment the briefings' editor was talking of Lyndon's LYM...

03-24-2008, 02:34 PM

shadok

Petition for Jeremiah Duggan

http://www.petitionthem.com/default.asp?sect=detail&pet=4181

this will be presented to British PM Gordon Brown. You don't have to live in the UK to sign it (and you can hide your name and contact details from the web if you wish so)

03-24-2008, 05:48 PM

scrimscraw

Gone to Church

Quote:
Originally Posted by borismaglev
As of now, it has been THREE DAYS since larouchepac.com posted anything in the "Breaking News" section aside from a postdated letter by Amelia Boynton Robinston written FOUR DAYS ago. What gives? Is it possible for LaRouche and Co. to run out of words during the world's final, final, super-final descent to the New Dark Age and onrushing hyperinflationary collapse?

Maybe they were busy going to Good Friday and Easter services? :)

03-24-2008, 09:24 PM

boomer70

[QUOTE]With the dying out of Lyn?s generation, the Baby Boomers lost all competence in science, because they were no longer under pressure from a rational population. Scientific discussion also died in our organization. Thus they have no conception of economy, and don?t believe in reality.
(From the Morning Briefing, March 11, 2008.)[\QUOTE]

And from the people who brought you Jim Crow, Joe McCarthy and the treaty of Versailles, the Superboomers and their parents.

03-24-2008, 09:26 PM

boomer70

Quote:
With the dying out of Lyn?s generation, the Baby Boomers lost all competence in science, because they were no longer under pressure from a rational population. Scientific discussion also died in our organization. Thus they have no conception of economy, and don?t believe in reality.
(From the Morning Briefing, March 11, 2008.)

The 'rational population,' you know, the ones who brought you Jim Crow, Joe McCarthy and whose parents brought you the treaty of Versailles.

03-25-2008, 04:14 AM

dking

Replies to revenir's nonsense

oh dennis,

how do u know who were the most gifted people in the king of the universe's org?

vulcan mind meld? or were you doing a piece for high times ***[a piece that exposed LaRouche's ties to heroin traffickers such as Carlos Marcello and the Meli crime family; seehttp://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/teamsters.htm ***and sampled some of the drugs they had available

HE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR DRUGS AWAY, lol

good headline and gives you amazing credibility ***[Please provide any evidence that I ever wrote an article with that headline. I didn't, and such evidence doesn't exist. Seehttp://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/biglie.htm]***

i would lose the mustache or does it catch certain items and i am not talking about food? ***[Haven't had a moustache in ten years, so your people don't know what I look like--I infiltrate all sorts of interesting meetings of yours--perhaps I may even have posed, in a very artful disguise, as one of those senior citizens who sit on the front row a few feet from Lyn]***

you'd look so much better i'd even pay for the shave! honest ***[see above]***

anyway

didn't cia guys and nsa guys testify that larouche met with them? was it for his delicious spaghetti recipes? ***[to read what top people at CIA really thought of LaRouche's spaghetti mind, go to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-cia1.pdf Clearly, he was not regarded with the seriousness that he tells his followers he was.]*** i believe norman bailey had a few things to say about the old man ***[that was almost 25 years ago--and EIR ended up denouncing Bailey because of his failure to support Noriega; Bailey has made no further remarks praising the LaRouche organization since 1984]*** & your own book states larouche had foreign intelligence contacts doesn't it? want the page number? ***[do you really want to get into a discussion of what LaRouche did for cocaine trafficker Noreiga's G-2 military intelligence unit? or what he did for similar agencies in Guatemala and in Mexico's Chiapas? or for the Argentine junta during the Falklands war? or his and Herb Quinde's role in encouraging the Spanish Ministry of Justice to set up the GAL death squads and Operation Mengele?]***

i forget all this ancient history… it is always a new crisis and the quotas are killing me… i work 34 hour days and there are only 24 hours in a day! how does that happen? i get paid in old eirs… the print copy editions (very valuable on eBay BTW… i sold one for 50 trillion canadian dollars the other day > don't tell the IRS please) ***[nonsense--this sarcasm makes no meaningful point]***

considering larouche works with leadership in several nations ***[like the Sudanese regime? Mugabe's Zimbabwe? the Chinese regime currently butchering Tibetans? and assorted dictatorships going back over 30 years--like apartheid South Africa as well as the regimes cited in the preceding paragraph?]*** … i sort of doubt he has to read newspapers published in other nations > ***[does that mean he does NOT -- and his EIR staffers do NOT -- read foreign papers? Why then do they cite foreign papers all the time in their articles?]*** i read the turkish journal of gastroenterology (that is my assignment from frau helga — after getting her dogs filet mignon of course and some nice outfits for those cold winters at the castle) ***[more sarcasm--no relevance to the truth or falsity of my posting above]***

i mean larouche and his willing slaves (the best kind) ***[the best kind of SLAVES???--I wonder what Amelia Robinson would have said about that if she had heard it before she underwent your Senior Citizen Indoctrination Program]*** talking to every nation's leadership ***[EVERY nation's leadership--are you serious?]*** from a-z does tend to discredit your above statement that all larouche's slaves do is read papers & those papers have junk in them that isn't important (like kissinger being indicted in connection with the murder of aldo moro) ***[I never said that reading papers was ALL the intelligence staffers did, but only that it was the reason LaRouche was able to trick Rev. Bakker into thinking he had deep and mysterious sources. I specificaly discussed in my posting above the role of the intelligence staffers in interviewing all kinds of officials, labor leaders, etc. in countries like Brazil. And obviously many of the EIR staffers who haven't yet left in disgust (taking their sources with them) are today spending more of their time on the phones raising money from senior citizens than gathering intelligence for LaRouche to misinterpret and merge into his fantasy-Hitler scenarios.]***

the USA media didn't consider that one importan

i could cite story after story that IS news but the usa media blacks out because they don't want the people here to know ***[I said as much in the my posting above, albeit in less conspiratorial language. But there is a big difference between making public legitimate but unfairly ignored news stories from overseas--and weaving fantasies about Prince Philip killing Princess Diana or national parks in Latin America being set up as staging grounds for eco-guerrillas.]***

portillo's meeting with old man larouche is a prime example — i mean larouche meets with portillo and then portillo goes ahead and nationalizes mexican banks (taking the advice of larouche)… a little thing like that doesn't belong in the news with the stories about all those cats up trees ***[The truth about Portillo's nationalization was almost the opposite of what LaRouche claimed--go to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-lopez-portillo.htm and read what the distinguished economist Tom Naylor said about this curious and short-lived episode in Mexican history.]***

take care dennis — i understand you are undergoing some sort of emotional trauma at the moment and i wish you the best ***[meaningless abuse]***

WHATEVER YOU DO — DON'T JUMP IN FRONT OF A CAR LIKE JEREMIAH DID… AND PLEASE DON'T JUMP OFF A BRIDGE EITHER, LIKE KEN DID (OR DID MOLLY PUSH HIM?) [meaningless abuse]

i am just a lowly drone so i wouldn't know ***[if you don't know, why speak as if you do?]***

nice to see you hear with the other 20 people that read this blog ***[the number of people who read something on a blog is not proof of the inaccuracy (or accuracy) of the information presented on that blog]***

how do you like the effectiveness of larouche's act to save the people's homes from being foreclosed on? i know you dream of larouche too (i do, everyone does) so you know what he's up to and it still bugs you… wonder why? ***[You "know" I "dream of LaRouche"? How would you know that?]***

my opinion? i think you are jealous he made the best dressed list this year & sexiest man alive on people magazine's cover ***[huh?????]***

it just riles you up ***[Don't worry about riling me up--worry instead about the jury in a federal civil rights suit against your organization for its role in the deaths of Jeremiah Duggan, of dozens of Basques in southern France and Spain, and of 45 Mayan Indians, mostly women and children, and three unborn infants, at a chapel in Acteal, state of Chiapas, Mexico.]***

03-25-2008, 06:20 AM

scrimscraw

Re Revinir

Revinir is just a classic troll trying to push buttons and trigger responses. I wouldn't give him the time of day. The time you spend posting LHL-related documents at your site is too valuable, Dennis, to waste any of it in responding to Revinir. At least that's my 2 cents' worth. :rolleyes:

03-25-2008, 12:54 PM

eaglebeak

Another Night of the Long Knives vs. the NEC. Yawn.

Not too long ago I posted the hilarious beginning of an internal memo by Lyn in which the Great Man assailed the leadership of the org for sexual impotence, as manifested in some poor schnook in Editorial (do they still have Editorial?) leaving his name off some article of his in EIR. That was a March 14 production, appearing, as I recall, in the briefing for Saturday, March 15. From the next day's Morning Briefing, Sunday, March 16, 2006, we have…. (da da da dum) ….The Briefing Lead.

[i]Loyalty to the Cause
Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 14, 2008
(my, my—March 14 was a memo-rable day)

During late 1971, beginning President Nixon's sinking of the U.S. Dollar, this association defined its membership in terms of commitment to the perspective which I outlined during the weeks immediately following my August 31st statement on the implications of President Nixon's actions. The Queens College debate, later that same year, defined our association's international outlook and commitments with respect to the then current and subsequent course of history. Since then, there has never been a moment of continuing history in which the course of developments has not corresponded to those characteristics which were identified by me as the continued unfolding of the perspective which I had set forth since August 31, 1971, as qualified by the warning I presented as the core of my debate with Professor Abba Lerner at Queens. [You realize he's saying he's never been wrong for one moment since August 31, 1971. Yikes.]

Since then, there have been many who have abandoned that commitment which had united us; but that commitment has always remained a valid one, despite the customary intellectual and moral decadence and defections and the incidence of the phenomenon of the "Summer Soldier." Only a virtual "Gideon's Army," as strengthened by such as those young adults who have come to refurbish our battered ranks more recently, represents our association and its commitment today.

Cowardice, and related forms of personal moral corruption, among former associates, as exemplified by the case of the Molly Kronberg who, in 1989, went, like Benedict Arnold, out of corrupting fears under threats from government, over to the cause of civilization's and our own association's leading adversary, the British Empire, have taken their toll in such forms as virtual treason to that cause of our republic and humanity generally which we continue to serve.

Now we have reached the great historic hour of decision which I foretold nearly thirty-seven years ago. Never has there been a moment during that interval, when, except for the political or moral equivalent of victims of either sexual ejaculatio praecox or rage provoked by fears of sexual impotence, that that perspective I set forth between August and December 1971 not been the most crucial feature of the way in which history since that time has actually unfolded, up to the present moment.

It is important, especially for us, who remain troubled by the morally disappointing patterns of personal behavior among some former and some present colleagues, that we understand the deeper implications of the indicated pathological tendencies.

Liberally Corrupted!

The most important cause of the moral decadence experienced among members of Trans-Atlantic society today is the cancerous effect of Anglo-Dutch and related forms of Liberalism. A Liberal is, typically, a representative of modern European culture of the type associated with some outgrowth of the Anglo-Dutch empiricist, positivist, or, in the extreme, the existentialist corruption of the natural potential of the human individual personality (as, for example, a typical editor, or devotee reader of The New York Times). On this account, the difference between a Liberal and an outright fascist, is, as those of us who saw the change toward moral decadence in the U.S.A. which emerged after the Allied breakthrough in Normandy, is a very thin, and highly permeable tissue. [Now he can't even wait for World War II to end before weighing his generation in the balance and finding it wanting.

The essential effect expressed, on this account, by the modern European Liberal, is seen most clearly from the standpoint of the teaching of so-called physical science. The typical example of this is posed by the issue of the essentially two-phased discovery of gravitation by Johannes Kepler. The most precise expression of the failure of the typical empiricist or his like is the denial of the existence of the ontologically transfinite of Leibniz (and, also Kepler earlier) by the pervert [see what I mean about obsessions? See Comments below] Leonhard Euler and such followers of Euler on this account as Cauchy, Clausius, Grassman, Kelvin, and the followers of Ernst Mach and worse later. The conflict of Max Planck and Albert Einstein with the systemic incompetence of their opponents among the modern positivists on this issue, is exemplary.

For the actually moral personality, the universe is organized in terms of discoverable universe (sic) physical principles, as this is conveniently typified by the uniquely original discovery of the principle of gravitation by Kepler. This view, expressed, on the one hand, by physical science, is also the same principle which defines true artistic creativity, and the literate form of language which the New York Times style-book order attempts to forbid.

This distinction of the presently popular preference for a Liberal style in political thinking and other analysis, is the lack of any firm principle in the Liberal's thinking. Stubborn, but irrationally arbitrary tastes and related conceits, are not principles, but more in the nature of negotiated, intrinsically irrational social contracts of the type all too frequently encountered in present U.S. legislation and notions of the law.

Among Liberals, including fascists [doing this for 45 years and he STILL doesn't know what fascism is], the law is power contributed to the cause of popular opinion, without tempering by consideration for truth. The case of the organizer of England's leading role in the English international organization of slavery, John Locke, is typical of such Liberalism, and British control of the international slave-trade in Africans, through their Spanish accomplices, during the Nineteenth Century, is an illustration of this. The Ku Klux Klan was fully an expression of British Liberalism's intrusions into the U.S.A., as expressed by perfervid Ku Klux Klan booster and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, and by the Agrarians, as in politics in certain Southern U.S. Federal states up to the present day. Liberalism tolerates differences in opinion, but neither has, nor condones, true principles. Liberalism substitutes mere factitious opinion, however irrational, or even morally obscene, for principles.

For example: the case of slavery and its expressed outgrowths in the U.S.A., as by right-wing fanatics of the types which we were compelled to expel, found commonly among Spanish-speaking apologists for the Grand Inquisitor Tomas de Torquemada and his present-day followers.

Our Association

Our association was founded, and, essentially, created by me on the foundations of the implications of the central feature of the work of mathematical physicist Bernhard Riemann.[Balderdash. Lyn's famous "Dialectical Economics" mentions Riemann four times, never substantively, always in a list of mathematicians that, amusingly enough, also includes Felix Klein (wow! How did THAT happen?) and even (good Lord!) James Clerk Maxwell.] The significance of that, as I have recently emphasized this in my summary of the case of the Monadology and related scientific works, is that Riemann was the first modern scientist to explicitly rid physical science of that vicious residue of Sophistry which had remained since the corruption represented by the influence of Aristotle and the follower of Aristotle's method known as Euclid.[What about Kepler? What about Cusa? What about the fact that Lyn never read a word of Aristotle, and never a word of Euclid? His rejection of Euclid is based on his 13-year-old's incapacity to do plane geometry. Too "logical."]

Since Riemann's work, no truly competent science continues to tolerate any form of a-priori definitions, axioms, and postulates, either in formal mathematics as such, or in the practice of physical science. [Distressing example of total ignorance. Thought, including science, is not possible without a priori assumptions, which we do indeed examine to understand their influence on the thought process and its products.] My unique success as a long-range economic forecaster, as contrasted with the relatively incompetent performance of any known notable other economic forecaster, is a reflection of my adoption of a scientific competence lacking among all of those putative [I've often wondered what he thinks "putative" means] professional rivals. This is key to the moral, as much as merely formal superiority of my work; all those putative rivals rely upon an intrinsically incompetent definition of the nature and objects of forecasting as such: hence their incompetence in what is actually long-term forecasting. Even the most recent day's proceedings at the Hamilton Institute demonstrate that distinction between my own work and that of putative rivals. We are presently gripped by the onrush of a terminal phase of a general, actually global breakdown-crisis, and they are chattering about either a mere recession or a crash of the 1929 type. [If Trotsky was all about the Permanent Revolution, Lyn is all about the Permanent Explosion. Now it's 100 times WORSE than 1929.] They do this for reasons of political opportunism: popular opinion among the virtual lemmings prompted them to continue to agree to run over the edge of the cliff to impale themselves on the waiting rocks below.

Among us, therefore, there are those whose moral weakness would have prompted certain members of the crew on the Titanic to argue: "Yes, the Titanic is sinking, but not all of the passengers are ready to hear that news. Therefore, we must keep them happy until the ship is making the lurch which signals its final plunge, when the situation becomes totally hopeless, when they will then be ready to accept our fore-warning." [Unpack this analogy and see how it works. It doesn't.]

The point is, that the very fact that so few in leading positions are capable of telling the truth about the presently onrushing sinking of the global economic ship, means that our mission is our full commitment to saying what the foolish other people either do not recognize, even now, or, if they did, would not dare to say publicly.

Now, the meaning of the life of each among us, hangs upon our willingness to serve humanity by warning, while there is still time, of the actions which they must urgently take. [The word "reductionist" was coined for Lyn. Can you imagine anything more reductive than to find the meaning of a human life in being in the Labor Committee warning the world of whatever it is? Serving humanity in the form of serving Lyn? The word "narcissist" also comes to mind.]

Our urgent duty now is not to beg for our succor (sic) [we seek succor, we beg for our supper; Lyn confuses and opposes both] .Our duty is to mobilize humanity to act in defiance of the still-popular beliefs by which our nation, and much more besides, would be self-destroyed.[i]

Comments:

1. Only a virtual "Gideon's Army," as strengthened by such as those young adults who have come to refurbish our battered ranks more recently, represents our association and its commitment today. Translated, this means what? That only a virtual army, not a real one, represents us today? That the original organization is a battered mess (an "empty husk," to quote Lyn from other locations), deserted by almost all the original and post-original members, and held together (if it is held together) only by the LYM, a weak reed at best.

2. Cowardice, and related forms of personal moral corruption, among former associates, as exemplified by the case of the Molly Kronberg who, in 1989, went, like Benedict Arnold, out of corrupting fears under threats from government, over to the cause of civilization's and our own association's leading adversary, the British Empire, have taken their toll in such forms as virtual treason to that cause of our republic and humanity generally which we continue to serve. Molly's date of desertion keeps getting pushed back—but of course, if she was responsible for the 1988 Federal trial, she would have deserted before 1989.

Presumably the 1989 date and the "threats from government" refer to her own trial in 1989, the New York trial—where she memorably tried to keep LaRouche off the witness stand by filing a motion to sever from the other LaRouche defendants (Bob Primack, Lynne Speed, and George Canning), on the grounds that LaRouche's testimony was not in her interest. (George Canning filed a similar motion, but has spent the next 20 years atoning for it in Legal.) The judge denied the motion, the late Bob Primack brought LaRouche to the stand, and the rest is, as they say, history. Perhaps the worst—and in many respects the funniest—45 minutes of testimony ever given by a world-historical genius.

What made the whole business even more memorable was the meeting the night before between LaRouche and the defendants, held at the New York Attorney General's office (LaRouche was a Federal prisoner), including only attorneys and defendants—no one from Legal, for once—in which Molly and Lyn got into some rather testy exchanges—shouting, you might even say—and at least one of the lawyers demanded of Lyn, after listening to Lyn's scheme for what he would testify to, whether he planned to get on the witness stand and "confess to uncharged crimes."

Thereafter, including during the days when the jury was out, Lyn and the then-head of Legal, Warren Hamerman, denounced Molly as a traitor all over the organization, including in briefings in the National Center. Lyn issued a hilarious tape to the defendants in New York explaining why he had been a great witness. Primack had a shouting match with Lyn over the phone (Lyn by then back in Rochester Club Fed/Med), in which Primack told Lyn he stank as a witness; Primack later had the same conversation by phone with Helga, who begged him not to tell everyone. She didn't know Bobby.

So you see, Lyn and Molly have a long history of distaste for each other.

3. Never has there been a moment during that interval, when, except for the political or moral equivalent of victims of either sexual ejaculatio praecox or rage provoked by fears of sexual impotence, that that perspective I set forth between August and December 1971 not been the most crucial feature of the way in which history since that time has actually unfolded, up to the present moment. Syntactically liberally corrupted…. Grin….. Significant item: obsession with "sexual ejaculation praecox," which of course dovetails with Lyn's obsession with sexual impotence in the same day's memo on his stupid EIR byline, and dovetails with his obsession with homosexuality, as reflected everywhere and always in the org, including in the revenire rant I posted earlier and the repellent vituperation of its attack on Dennis King (who doesn't happen to be gay).

Well, you know what they say about obsessions. The awful, embarrassing truth is that Lyn's breathtakingly self-revealing ravings all these years have given us a pretty good roadmap to what he worries about.'Nuff said.

4. Our urgent duty now is not to beg for our succor. This malapropism is an attack on the NEC for getting outside work. The conundrum posed to the leadership (except for those few, those happy few, who have access to other sources of income) is that they can't get paid a living wage, or even an unlivable stipend, as the org sinks into the bog, but they're not supposed to abandon ship by working. So they are either to (1) starve, and believe me, Lyn would regard that with equanimity, or (2) rip off relatives, run up credit lines, declare bankruptcy (is it legal to do it over and over again?)—anything to "serve humanity" in the incarnational form of LHL.

03-25-2008, 01:31 PM

dking

Regarding trolls

Scrimshaw, you're right about not wasting time on trolls (I have a suspicion this particular one infests Wikipedia also). But for the record, I'm posting here my comments on Skull/Bones that apparently pushed Revenir's button:
Rev. Bakker was probably right that LaRouche knew about some events around the world before they appeared in the U.S. media. But the reason is very simple–members of the EIR staff were multilingual and read many of the world's major newspapers on a daily basis along with many relatively obscure newspapers from Argentina to Slovakia. (I saw this when I visited their NY intelligence offices in 1977, and they made no bones about it.) Thus, given the lag between when an event occurs and the time when the parochial U.S. media deigns to recognize its significance (if indeed they ever do), it is inevitable that LaRouche would appear to have access to secret information. Of course, in the early 1990s he still had a lot of EIR staffers traveling around interviewing obscure but well informed government officials, labor leaders, etc. in such countries as Brazil and Malaysia, so this gave him an additional source of information. Since then, many of the brightest of these EIR writers have left his organization, taking their "sources" with them. So now Lyn has to just make up his intelligence analyses out of whole cloth, but the end result is still pretty much the same: Even when he had a vigorous flow of raw intelligence, he would distort it so wildly in his interpretations that it might as well never have been collected.

03-25-2008, 04:10 PM

poe

Quote:
Originally Posted by dking
oh dennis,
how do u know who were the most gifted people in the king of the universe's org?
vulcan mind meld? or were you doing a piece for high times ***[a piece that exposed LaRouche's ties to heroin traffickers such as Carlos Marcello and the Meli crime family; seehttp://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/teamsters.htm ***and sampled ->some of the drugs they had available
HE WANTS TO TAKE YOUR DRUGS AWAY, lol
good headline and gives you amazing credibility ***[Please provide any evidence that I ever wrote an article with that headline. I didn't, and such evidence doesn't exist. Seehttp://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/biglie.htm]***
i would lose the mustache or does it catch certain items and i am not talking about food? ***[Haven't had a moustache in ten years, so your people don't know what I look like--I infiltrate all sorts of interesting meetings of yours--perhaps I may even have posed, in a very artful disguise, as one of those senior citizens who sit on the front row a few feet from Lyn]***
you'd look so much better i'd even pay for the shave! honest ***[see above]***
anyway
didn't cia guys and nsa guys testify that larouche met with them? was it for his delicious spaghetti recipes? ***[to read what top people at CIA really thought of LaRouche's spaghetti mind, go to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-cia1.pdf Clearly, he was not regarded with the seriousness that he tells his followers he was.]*** i believe norman bailey had a few things to say about the old man ***[that was almost 25 years ago--and EIR ended up denouncing Bailey because of his failure to support Noriega; Bailey has made no further remarks praising the LaRouche organization since 1984]*** & your own book states larouche had foreign intelligence contacts doesn't it? want the page number? ***[do you really want to get into a discussion of what LaRouche did for cocaine trafficker Noreiga's G-2 military intelligence unit? or what he did for similar agencies in Guatemala and in Mexico's Chiapas? or for the Argentine junta during the Falklands war? or his and Herb Quinde's role in encouraging the Spanish Ministry of Justice to set up the GAL death squads and Operation Mengele?]***
i forget all this ancient history… it is always a new crisis and the quotas are killing me… i work 34 hour days and there are only 24 hours in a day! how does that happen? i get paid in old eirs… the print copy editions (very valuable on eBay BTW… i sold one for 50 trillion canadian dollars the other day > don't tell the IRS please) ***[nonsense--this sarcasm makes no meaningful point]***
considering larouche works with leadership in several nations ***[like the Sudanese regime? Mugabe's Zimbabwe? the Chinese regime currently butchering Tibetans? and assorted dictatorships going back over 30 years--like apartheid South Africa as well as the regimes cited in the preceding paragraph?]*** … i sort of doubt he has to read newspapers published in other nations > ***[does that mean he does NOT -- and his EIR staffers do NOT -- read foreign papers? Why then do they cite foreign papers all the time in their articles?]*** i read the turkish journal of gastroenterology (that is my assignment from frau helga — after getting her dogs filet mignon of course and some nice outfits for those cold winters at the castle) ***[more sarcasm--no relevance to the truth or falsity of my posting above]***
i mean larouche and his willing slaves (the best kind) ***[the best kind of SLAVES???--I wonder what Amelia Robinson would have said about that if she had heard it before she underwent your Senior Citizen Indoctrination Program]*** talking to every nation's leadership ***[EVERY nation's leadership--are you serious?]*** from a-z does tend to discredit your above statement that all larouche's slaves do is read papers & those papers have junk in them that isn't important (like kissinger being indicted in connection with the murder of aldo moro) ***[I never said that reading papers was ALL the intelligence staffers did, but only that it was the reason LaRouche was able to trick Rev. Bakker into thinking he had deep and mysterious sources. I specificaly discussed in my posting above the role of the intelligence staffers in interviewing all kinds of officials, labor leaders, etc. in countries like Brazil. And obviously many of the EIR staffers who haven't yet left in disgust (taking their sources with them) are today spending more of their time on the phones raising money from senior citizens than gathering intelligence for LaRouche to misinterpret and merge into his fantasy-Hitler scenarios.]***
the USA media didn't consider that one importan
i could cite story after story that IS news but the usa media blacks out because they don't want the people here to know ***[I said as much in the my posting above, albeit in less conspiratorial language. But there is a big difference between making public legitimate but unfairly ignored news stories from overseas--and weaving fantasies about Prince Philip killing Princess Diana or national parks in Latin America being set up as staging grounds for eco-guerrillas.]***
portillo's meeting with old man larouche is a prime example — i mean larouche meets with portillo and then portillo goes ahead and nationalizes mexican banks (taking the advice of larouche)… a little thing like that doesn't belong in the news with the stories about all those cats up trees ***[The truth about Portillo's nationalization was almost the opposite of what LaRouche claimed--go to http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larou...z-portillo.htm and read what the distinguished economist Tom Naylor said about this curious and short-lived episode in Mexican history.]***
take care dennis — i understand you are undergoing some sort of emotional trauma at the moment and i wish you the best ***[meaningless abuse]***
WHATEVER YOU DO — DON'T JUMP IN FRONT OF A CAR LIKE JEREMIAH DID… AND PLEASE DON'T JUMP OFF A BRIDGE EITHER, LIKE KEN DID (OR DID MOLLY PUSH HIM?) [meaningless abuse]
i am just a lowly drone so i wouldn't know ***[if you don't know, why speak as if you do?]***
nice to see you hear with the other 20 people that read this blog ***[the number of people who read something on a blog is not proof of the inaccuracy (or accuracy) of the information presented on that blog]***
how do you like the effectiveness of larouche's act to save the people's homes from being foreclosed on? i know you dream of larouche too (i do, everyone does) so you know what he's up to and it still bugs you… wonder why? ***[You "know" I "dream of LaRouche"? How would you know that?]***
my opinion? i think you are jealous he made the best dressed list this year & sexiest man alive on people magazine's cover ***[huh?????]***
it just riles you up ***[Don't worry about riling me up--worry instead about the jury in a federal civil rights suit against your organization for its role in the deaths of Jeremiah Duggan, of dozens of Basques in southern France and Spain, and of 45 Mayan Indians, mostly women and children, and three unborn infants, at a chapel in Acteal, state of Chiapas, Mexico.]***

I don't like what LaRouche is doing and saying these days. The attacks on Obama and his minister, which Lyn is more or less endorsing (if not helping to instigate) are exactly like the kind of attacks that you have waged on Lyn, Dennis, where you take a short quote from him, out of context, and repeat it over and over and over again. You should be ashamed of doing that with Lyn quotes, and Lyn should be ashamed of doing that with Jeremiah Wright quotes. But, despite my embarrassment over how Lyn is behaving today, I have to point out that , according to my memory, you are being very much less than honest about your "Drug Lobby Big Lie" accusation. I was still in the organization at the time that you and Chip Berlet had anti-LaRouche articles appearing in High Times, and I distinctly remember carrying with me, when I organized, an issue of High Times, with an attack on LaRouche's Anti-Drug Coalition in it, that had, in bold letters on the front cover, the words, "They Want to Take Your Drugs Away". I remember raising lots of contributions for LaRouche by showing people this article. Now, I believe that you are probably telling the truth that this was not the title that yourself gave to the Teamster ties expose you contibuted to that issue. But, by my memory, you are not telling the truth when you claim that these words dod not appear in that issue of High Times, because I remember showing those words to people in order to clinch sales. I am pretty sure that the phrase,"They Want to Take Your Drugs Away" appeared, either on the cover of the issue, or on the first page of your article or Chip's article in the same issue. I left behind all my archives when I left the organization, but somebody out there must have a copy of that issue that they can scan and post. Your posting of the text of your article proves nothing, one way or the other. Someone should post a scan of the entire relevent issue of High Times. Either you or one of your friends, to prove your point, or ICLC Boomers to prove theirs. Some complete copies of this issue must still exist somewhere. I went to the High Times website and could not find it. Someone needs to post it somewhere. Now, while I'll admit, my own personal memories are not conclusive, memories are indeed fallible, but, after reading your, "Big Lie" post, I did a Web search and found a Wikipedia article about Chip Berlet that described him as the former Washington bureau chief for High Times ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet ) . This is in contrast to your attempts to downplay the ties you and Chip have to High Times and the rest of the Drug Lobby. So, while I am quite embarrassed to have been a former member of an organization that is treating Obama and Wright the way they are, I am still a bit proud that I was a member of an organization that people like you and Chip hate. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I'm right. I do remember. while I was still in, showing people an issue of High Times that had a headline somewhere saying, "They Want to Take Your Drugs Away", and I remember it helped sales quite a bit. I am not sure whether this headline was on the cover or inside the magazine somewhere, but I do remember it was there somewhere, and I showed it to people. Can anybody out there either prove me right or wrong by posting a scan of the whole issue somewhere on the Web? King groupies, Chip groupies, LYM members or Boomers? Anybody? Prove me right or prove me wrong! I am pretty sure, though, that my memory is correct, and that, whatever. LaRouche may be, or may not be, Dennis King is a compulsive liar, and so is his buddy Chip. King's text post of the article doesn't prove anything, but posting a scan of the whole issue, cover and all will prove who is really telling the truth.

03-25-2008, 06:47 PM

earnest_one

Drugs?

Slightly off-topic:

I was never a member (only a relative of a "high" [ranking] member). But:

I do remember -- and remember well -- an argument (sic) given at the time of the anti-drug "crusade" that alcohol was NOT a drug!!!

The argument posited was sophistry of the highest order, and self-serving, to put it mildly.

Take your drugs away? If alcohol was put on the list, then surely the NCLC would have switched positions instantly.

Besides, what's the matter with drugs (again, an off-topic comment)?

Why does the government have to step in and dictate what people can or can't do with their own bodies?

Finally, note that the NCLC was, ostensibly, anti-abortion (pro-life!), yet they certainly "sponsored" plenty of THAT activity!

Hypocrites, one and all. Rotting, from the top down.

03-25-2008, 08:06 PM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
The judge denied the motion, the late Bob Primack brought LaRouche to the stand, and the rest is, as they say, history. Perhaps the worst—and in many respects the funniest—45 minutes of testimony ever given by a world-historical genius.

Is a transcript of the testimony available anywhere on the web?

03-25-2008, 10:49 PM

eaglebeak

Lyn on the Stand

Regrettably, I don't think a transcript is available on the web of LaRouche's marvelous New York trial testimony.

However, all interested LYMers can ask Barbara Boyd for a copy--they have it in Legal--and can put it up on the web.

LaRouche, in a rage at the snipings at his testimony, announced in September 1989 or thereabouts that it had been great testimony and that we would therefore print a pamphlet of just his trial testimony to prove it.

That would be direct examination (by Bob Primack's lawyer, Jeff Hoffman) and cross-examination (by prosecutor Dawn Cardi, whom Lyn, as I mentioned earlier, attacked as a "dyke" for her eviscerating of him).

Well, Lyn's direct testimony got into EIR--and heaven knows, that was crazy enough. So that may be on the web somewhere.

But mysteriously, his cross-examination never got printed anywhere. One of the editors of New Federalist (who within the year had quit) told Nancy Spannaus it was unprintable, and unfortunately Nancy instantly agreed, and the Lyn-mandated pamphlet was never published.

As I recall, Molly Kronberg, also a New Fed editor at the time, urged them to print the whole thing in a pamphlet (she was a bit machiavellian, eh?), but couldn't convince them.

It may be that it's available from the New York court system. The case was captioned People of NY vs. Robert Primack et al., and was tried in 1989 in State Supreme Court before Judge Stephen G. Crane, and LaRouche's testimony occurred towards the middle of August or end of August of that year.

I'm sure it would be a snap to raise the $$ to pay for the trial transcript, if people are interested. I sure am.

03-26-2008, 12:56 AM

scrimscraw

Ye Olde Brainwash Plot

A bonanza of new postings of vintage '73-'74 LC material at LaRouchePlanet.

I especially recommend viewing the boffo front page illustration from a New Solidarity hysteria-fest re a "Worldwide, CIA Takeover, Brainwash Plot."

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.NS0111741

Just another instance of the golden souls emparting Beauty to the world, I guess.

03-26-2008, 01:40 AM

boomersage

The transcript of LHL's 1989 testimony might also be in the files of defendants' lawyers, especially those who handled appeals or other post-trial proceedings. It's so long ago that it may be past the time that they would be obliged to hold them, but some might have it socked away in the warehouse in Brooklyn.

03-26-2008, 03:36 AM

eaglebeak

The Full Monty

As promised in my March 21st post of the tantalizing first two paragraphs of this excerpt from the March 15, 2008 "Morning Briefing" (briefing writers Dennis Small, Jeff Steinberg, and JWS), here is the full thing.

Thesis: Two ways to avoid failure—although he doesn't say what either one of them is.
Antithesis: Why our leaders fail all the time—two causes: 1. Motivated by their own desires to eat, they get jobs. 2. They commit outrages like leaving his name off something, thereby capitulating to the psycho-sexual impotence that for decades has haunted the writings of Lyndon LaRouche.
Synthesis: Lyndon LaRouche—that name you sexually impotent losers left off—turns out to be the only name of the remedy for all mankind's ills.

Anyhow, here it is, every word a bullet aimed at the heart of the enemy….

FROM: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
SUBJ: TWO WAYS TO AVOID FAILURE
March 14, 2008

WHY SOME LEADERS WITHIN OUR ASSOCIATION
OFTEN FAIL—STUBBORNLY

There are two most frequent causes of the failure among our associations' (sic) leaders:

First, our representatives are often more motivated by their sense of their own desires, and perceived needs than those of the nation—out there—which we are presumed to be dedicated to serve.

Second, as in the case of dropping my name from the title of a recent EIR piece, they capitulate to the corrupting practice of psycho-sexual political impotence.

The crucial fact is, as Wednesday's webcast illustrates more clearly, there is no present possibility that this nation and its economy are not doomed very soon, unless it is conceptions now uniquely associated publicly with my name which are pressed forward for widespread adoption.

What are you doing for the person, for example, on the other end of a phone call? Not just in their opinion, but in reality? Are you confronting them with: 1.) The idea which, adopted, as in my design of HBPA, which(sic) will save the nation's butt—whether they agree with you immediately, or not? 2.) The idea of the persons whose initiatives might be capable of actually doing that job?

Look out there. There is no one visible, who is committed to doing what is absolutely necessary to save the U.S. nation and its population from the greatest, suddenest [sudden? How could it be sudden? I thought it started years, if not decades, ago?], and earliest [early? How could it be early? I thought it was forecast in 1971?] financial breakdown-crisis in all modern history.

It is not necessary, and usually not productive to say to the citizen: "You will not make it, unless…" [although I still keep saying it] It is correct to present the evidence for which he or she might draw that conclusion. It is more important that the conception of both the danger and the remedy be the subject of a rational deliberation. [Rational discourse--you know, like "If you think there's a housing crisis you're full of it."]

Since my name is the only name of the actual remedy available, taking that name out of an author's assigned title of a relevant piece is a clear example of what is tantamount to impotence, and, probably a moral failure in practice. [Yeah, probably so.]

Comments:

It must be worse than ever in "Editorial" now.

03-26-2008, 05:44 AM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
It may be that it's available from the New York court system. The case was captioned People of NY vs. Robert Primack et al., and was tried in 1989 in State Supreme Court before Judge Stephen G. Crane, and LaRouche's testimony occurred towards the middle of August or end of August of that year.
I'm sure it would be a snap to raise the $$ to pay for the trial transcript, if people are interested. I sure am.

i've sent an email inquiring to the ny supreme court.

03-26-2008, 06:13 AM

larouchetruth

Dumber than dirt, but I insult the dirt

Boy, they just can't seem to keep a website up for more than 24 hours before rejiggering it, shifting things off that were featured just hours earlier. Yesterday, the first item one encountered was a total howler, now no longer on the front page, but accessible when one clicks on their "breaking news" link which is, of course, not as advertised, as much of what's there is NOT breaking news, but whatever--posted for March 21. Which means that it will daily sink lower in the list, very soon being so far down that no one will see it. And their google tool is kaput, since it failed to bring it up. Which means, that if this was important enough to get front billing for 24 hours, you'd think they'd keep it, or at least a link to it, somewhere where people could see it for some time. But consistency, logic, rationality, what are they but Aristotelian tricks as deformed by Paulo Sarpi, and not based on the principle of universal gravity.

I refer to the piece headlined "LaRouche's Ninth Forecast; an Inevitable Truth." (See http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008...ble-truth.html ) The first, second and last paragraphs say it all. First paragraph:

LaRouche's Ninth Forecast; an Inevitable Truth

March 21, 2008 (LPAC)--Below is Lyndon LaRouche's nine forecasts which he discussed in a June 1994 paper, 'The Coming Disintegration of Financial Markets'. Since the financial disintegration of Bear Stearns on Monday and the illegal reaction by the Federal Reserve to bailout the large investment firm, LaRouche's ninth forecast is now undeniably true.

What follows is in quotation marks, and is evidently from the 1994 paper. Second paragraph:

"LaRouche as a forecaster

"About my qualifications: I have introduced relatively few forecasts of critical events during my 40-odd years as an economist (not counting my repetitions of some of those warnings). To date, every forecast which I have made on the basis of my LaRouche-Riemann method has been confirmed by timely developments. I now present a summary listing of those forecasts, for the purpose of identifying my authority for designing the indicated test of economic sanity. "

What follows is a listing of 8 supposed forecasts. Analysis of these will have to wait for another occasion, so as not to derail the central point here. Now, for the last forecast, which as written is not numbered 9), but is clearly the ninth forecast. Mind you, this is 1994. You got it, NINETEEN NINETY FOUR, FOURTEEN LONG YEARS AGO Enjoy:

"Out of that same unequalled competence [referring to the above 8, supposedly confirmed forecasts], I say to you now, as I informed various relevant scientific institutions of Russia during the last week of this April past: The presently existing global financial and monetary system will disintegrate during the near term. The collapse might occur this spring, or summer, or next autumn; it could come next year; it will almost certainly occur during President William Clinton's first term in office; it will occur soon. That collapse into disintegration is inevitable, because it could not be stopped now by anything but the politically improbable decision by leading governments to put the relevant financial and monetary institutions into bankruptcy reorganization. That is LaRouche forecast No. 9—the addition to the list of eight, above."

Have they set their calendars to Pluto? Can they not read that the ninth forecast called for the big crash, the one that the first paragraph says the Bear Stearns crash emblemizes in 2008, "this spring (spring of 1994), or summer, or next autumn; it could come next year; it will almost certainly occur during President William Clinton's first term in office; it will occur soon." Surely they cannot be telling people that 14 YEARS is "soon." The first paragraph says the forecast "has been confirmed by timely events." \\TIMELY?? As in, perhaps, "the rescue of the holdouts at the Alamo in 1835 by the timely annexation of Texas by the United States in 1845" perhaps?

This piece breaks a cardinal rule of LaLunacy, which is, it gives you the specifics that are normally at best alluded to, right there, for you to compare and see the idiocy. This piece, which was King for a Day on the website, screams out "LaRouche Got It Totally Wrong," yet THEY think that it PROVES HIM RIGHT? This piece gives the expression "dumber than dirt" new meaning.

03-26-2008, 07:03 AM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
[quoting larouche] Since my name is the only name of the actual remedy available, taking that name out of an author's assigned title of a relevant piece is a clear example of what is tantamount to impotence, and, probably a moral failure in practice.

.

portrait of the Hubrisness coming apart.

03-26-2008, 02:14 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
Thesis: Two ways to avoid failure—although he doesn't say what either one of them is.
Antithesis: Why our leaders fail all the time—two causes: 1. Motivated by their own desires to eat, they get jobs. 2. They commit outrages like leaving his name off something, thereby capitulating to the psycho-sexual impotence that for decades has haunted the writings of Lyndon LaRouche.
Synthesis: Lyndon LaRouche—that name you sexually impotent losers left off—turns out to be the only name of the remedy for all mankind's ills.

Boy oh boy do we have a lot to see in what Lyn is going through. The last time I read something like that was in the 1980s when Detroit left and the FEF/NADC/EIR people were making the mistake of trying to run a half way real outfit which was not worshipping Lyn on every page. Lyn put the jack boot down and made clear that the only reason those entities exist is because ofhim and only him and nothing else matters. I have to see if that memo is somewhere to be posted.

We lost more members after that and each front group became nothing more than a vanity piece for Lyn and the LC was rapidly going to an around the clock cult with the next step being criminal activity with fundraising.

lyn has to notice that Jeff is spending an awful lot of time with Paul G instead of kissing his behind with Jefff on one cheek and Michelle on the other. Lyn also must notice that during the Winstar lunacy, where Lyn thought he had a half billion dollars ready to be signed over to him that Michelle spent a lot of time working to get herself a paycheck and not signing them over to the LC. Lyn also may have forgotten that he made Paul G cry like a bit*h when he went after him for his marital problems. After Lyn worked Paul G over in private, the whole org soon knew what was going on and Paul G was no longer the same man. Lyn muist alspo notice that he is not seeing the same money being signed over by the LC boomers who work at the computer company.

Payback is a bit*h Lyn when it sure looks like Jeff is making his move to do his own web based operation with a few smart LYM after you kick the bucket. Don't be surpised at how all of those security pictures and notebooks become the basis for a book deal about you, after you are 6 feet under.

Lyn's response to all of this is to boot the boomers and their health care costs out to pasture , one step from the glue factory so to speak. This in turn is making things really depressing for Leesburg deadenders who now see that as they approach 65, they only have a measly SS check to look forward to. Lyn once really blew his top when some members suggested that the LC set up a retirement account by purchasing real estate at rock bottom prices and setting up a REIT which would appreciate over 30 years and then proved an income stream for members. lyn screamed a the top of his lungs along with the local NCs that any talk of this is crazy as the human species will be soon dead and you will not be around in 30 years to need any money unless we win and Lyn is in the WHite House. I guess King of the Universe does not count. WHat the LC had a was reverse 401K plan where members took out loans which of course we did not pay back which kept Club Ibykus going for a few years.

Let me show you folks how we did this in the 1980s to get mathcing fund money. We first asked our members to empty thier bank accounts to "donate" to the presidential camoaigns to get matching funds. After we tapped that we then had them call their parents for medical money for some ailment and then ha dthat signed over. Nwo what do you do if you have some poor lumpen LCer with not a dime to their name? Predatory credit my friends. We had our members take out credit cards and linked them to their new checking accounts. We then had the LCers and tapped out contacts write a check to us which then bounced, but was covered by the CC account linkage. We then told the person that we would pay them back as we got our mathcing funbds money back at the next FEC payout.

You can all guess how that turned out.

Now back to the 1980s and what to do with older members. Not every leader was on the same page with Lyn in his Laruuche/Schacht economics plan with the LC.

Yes folks, some of our members had pretty good business sense and created a plan which involved investments of a few million to purchase distressed office towers for almost nothing. The plans included spread sheets which had the original investors being paid off in a few years and the projected rental income and appreciation providing a huge sort of endowment for the LC. The response of Lyn and the top people was to demand that the member have the investors just send the cash to Leesburg and they will decide how to spend the money to save humanity. It took just a short time later for this person to leave the LC for good after seeing what was going on at the time.

Lyn's latest actions with his children to have them move closer to him is two fold.

-It gets LYM away from depressed deadenders, their old lit which is not to be viewed and seeing first hand what happens after you devote your life to Lyn.

-It also ends this somewhat bizarre idea of a favoratism with LYM who are in "Lyn's basement" as being special since they are not outside inhaling carcinogens. This made for an unwittingly funny moment when a Lym who was born in the mid 1980s suggested that the new apt cluster being rented near Windy Hill be referred to as "LaroucheTown" to make a clear break with Leesburg.

Now here is something quite amusing. This is a book store where Christopher Hitchens is speaking and a LYM decids to do what we called an "Intervention" to make a world historical impact on the world and win people over to our revolutionary fury.

Watch it a couple of time because Hitchens has some really good lines.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-26-2008, 02:39 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcr4life
Now here is something quite amusing. This is a book store where Christopher Hitchens is speaking and a LYM decids to do what we called an "Intervention" to make a world historical impact on the world and win people over to our revolutionary fury.
Watch it a couple of time because Hitchens has some really good lines.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

The editing function here needs to last a bit longer as it times you out. This is the video I wanted to include in the previous post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpdRHHmUNfo

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-26-2008, 03:53 PM

eaglebeak

Here ya go, revenire

I noticed that revenire over on Skull/Bones was insisting that LaRouche was never arrested for, charge with, or convicted of fraud, and was badgering Rachel Holmes about being a liar and a moron for saying otherwise, and for posting excerpts from the org's "Railroad" book which showed that LaRouche was in fact charged with 13 counts of fraud in the Alexandria trial.

Revenire demanded that Holmes or someone post the court documents, to "prove" that they were all lying and LaRouche was never tainted by fraud.

So okay, revenire--here's a little something for you.

Opening remarks by lead prosecutor Kent Robinson in LaRouche's 1988 Alexandria Federal trial.

I have boldfaced a few of the times "fraud" occurs, for easier reading.

Sorry about all the weird numbers popping up in the middle of sentences--a function of the technology, and my laziness.

Also of interest--Robinson's calculation of what percentage of the total overall org income--not really income, since it was all loans, but intake--was going to LaRouche personally.

Well, as more than one person has said, the International Caucus of Labor Committees, LPAC, and LYM are Lyndon LaRouche's personal IRA.

IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF.
VI Alexandria Divisio

X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
-vs-LYNDON

LaROUCHE, et al,,
Defendants.
X-■X
Monday, November 21, 1988
Alexandria, Virginia
Transcript of Opening Statements and testimony of
ELISABETH SEXTON on the first day of trial in the above-
captioned matter.
BEFORE:
The Honorable ALBERT V. BRYAN, JR., Judge United States District Court
APPEARANCES:
O.JO
FOR THE UNITED STATES fm
■Q
%
nor*
KENT ROBINSON, ESQUIRE Assistant u. S. Attorney-and-MARK D. RASCH, ESQUJRESpecial Assistant U. S. Attorney1101 King Street, Suite 502Alexandria, Virginia 22314
JOHN J. E. MARKHAM, ESQUIRE JOHN
P. FITZGERALD, III, ESQUIRE U. S. Department of Justice P. O. Box 972, Ben Franklin Station Washington,
D. C. 20044 * * *
DON McCOY, RPR

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 683-3668
APPEARANCES: (Continued)
FOR THE DEFENDANT LaROUCHE:
ODIN P. ANDERSON, ESQUIREROBERT L. ROSSI, ESQUIRE OF: ANDERSON & ASSOCIATES One Longfellow Place Boston, Massachusetts 02114
FOR THE DEFENDANT WERTZ:
BRIAN P. GETTINGS, ESQUIREOF: COHEN, GETTINGS, ALPER & DUNHAM1400 N. Uhle Street Arlington, Virginia 22216
FOR THE DEFENDANT SMALL:
WILLIAM B. MOFFITT,
ESQUIRE LISA KEMLER,
ESQUIRE 655 S. Washington
Street Alexandria,
Virginia 22314

FOR THE DEFENDANT BILLINGTON:
JAMES C. CLARK, ESQUIREOF: LAND, CLARK, CARROLL & MENDELSON600 Cameron Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314
FOR THE DEFENDANT ;
DANIEL S. ALCORN, ESQUIREOF: FENSTERWALD & ALCORN 1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 900
U. S. A. Today Building
Arlington, Virginia 22209

-and-
MICHAEL W. REILLY, ESQUIREOF: HAUSSERMANN, DAVISON & SHATTUCK176 Federal Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 APPEARANCES: (Cont inued)
FOR THE DEFENDANT SPANNAUS:
R, KENLY WEBSTER, ESQUIRE
THOMAS HILL, ESQUIREOF: SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE2300 N Street, N.W.Washington, D. C. 20036
FOR THE DEFENDANT :
EDWIN A. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
246 Maple Avenue, East
Vienna, Virginia 22180

  • * *
    INDEX GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION WITNESS
    ELIZABETH SEXTON
    GOVERNMENT
    EXHIBITS

10
Exhibit No. 1-A
11
Exhibit No. 1-B
12
Exhibit No. 1-C
13
Exhibit No. 1-D DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS 107 168
RECEIVED IN EVIDENCE paqe number 110 112 120 123
14 Exhibit No. 1-E, page 1 124 15 Exhibit No. 1-F 126 16 Exhibit No. 1-G 127 17 Exhibit No. 1-H 130 18 Exhibit No. 1-1 131 19 Exhibit No. 1-J 132 20 Exhibit No. 1-K, page 1 145 21 Exhibit No. 1-K, page 2 145 22 Exhibit No. 1-K, page 3 and 4 146 23 Exhibit No. 1-M, 1-N, 1-P, 1-Q,157 1-S and 1-T
24
Exhibit No. 1-u 161
25
Exhibit No. 1-V, 1-W 164
4'
•--!!2CEED U G S
2
MR. ROBINSON: Thank you.
3
Members of the jury, this case is about money. It's 4 5 about how the defendant got money, and to a lesser 6 extent, what they did with that money when they got it. 7 First, I would like to tell you what we are going 8 to prove about how the defendants got money. Here are a few 9 examples of what you will be hearing from witnesses in this 10 case: first, you will hear about a woman by the name of 11 Elizabeth Sexton. Mrs. Sexton over the cours e of a period of 12 months in 1985 loaned in excess of $100,000 as a result of 13 certain solicitations and promises made to her by the 14 defendant, . IS Mrs. Sexton got back about $750 from that 16 over-$100,000 loan. The rest of it was lost. 17 This case is also about a witness you will hear by 18 the name of Martha Van Sickle. Mrs. Van Sickle loaned 19 $250,000 as a result of promises made to her by the 20 defendant, Dennis Small. She got back some interest payments 21 on that amount, but she never recovered any of the principal. 22 This case is also about a woman by the name of 23 Dorothy Powers, who loaned in excess of $30,000 as a result 24 of promises made to her by the defendant, Michael 25 Billington. She, too, got back a few interest payments, but that's all. This case is also about a gentleman by the name
5
of Jerry Corbin, who you will hear loaned $10,000 as a result of promises made to him by the defendant, . He, too, did not get back any of that money.
This case is about how those people came to loan money to the defendants. It's about in particular the actions of the four defendants I just mentioned, , , Mike Billington, and Dennis Small, and about how those four people solicited loans from people over the course of the years 1984 through to the beginning of 1987.
It's also about how the other three defendants, Lyndon LaRouche, William Wertz, and Edward Spannaus, directed and controlled the fundraising efforts of the other four defendants.
Now, we are not here simply to determine who owes who money or how much is owed. We are not here to try to get that money paid back. That's not the purpose of this trial. This is a criminal case. The defendants, all seven of them, are charged in engaging in a scheme to defraud. That is, to obtain those loans by making false promises, false pretences, saying things to the potential lenders which they knew weren't true.
Count I of the indictment is a conspiracy charge, and it charges that all seven of them agreed together to carry out' that scheme to defraud. Counts II through XII charge each of the defendants in various combinations with defrauding specific individuals out of specific money at specific times. Here is how we are going to prove those charges: firsta little bit of background. The defendant, Lyndon r LaRouche, ran for the presidency of the United States in 1980 and 1984. He is the leader of an organization we will prove, which first came into existence back in the 1970's. That's an organization which has-gone by a variety of names. Primarily it has gone by the name of the National Caucus of Labor Committees, also known as the NCLC. It's gone by a couple of other names as well, one of which is simply the LaRouche organization. That is an organization which has devoted itself to promoting the views of Mr
9
LaRouche, the political views, the economic views, the 10
sociological views, and also promoting his personal welfare. 11 Now, let me hasten to add that we are not here to 12
question those political views. We will not ask you, the 13
members of the jury, to pass judgment on Mr. LaRouche's 14
political views or the views of any of his followers. This 15
case is about money. It's about their fundraising practices. 16
Now, this organization that Mr. LaRouche headed over 17
the course of the years between — in the 7 0's and the early IS
198 0*s — gradually became more and more highly structured 19
and came to operate just as if it was a corporation, with 20
Mr," LaRouche as the person in charge, the man running the 21
entire organization. 22 23 24 25
7
1 You will hear that directly below Mr. LaRouche in charge 2 of this organization is a group of people called the national
3 executive committee, also known as the NEC, You will 4 hear that Mr. LaRouche appointed the members of the NEC, that they 5 served just like the board of directors of a major corporation. 6 They were the people who operated this organization on a day-to-day 7 basis. And two of the members of the NEC are defendants here. One 8 is William Wertz. You will hear that he became the NEC member in 9 charge of all fund-raising for the entire LaRouche organization
20 during the calendar year 1983. 11 A second member of the NEC is also a defendant. That 12 is Mr. Edward Spannaus, and you will hear that he was in charge 13 of the legal operations of the entire LaRouche organization. 14 In addition to the NEC, there was another level in the 15 command structure, people called the National Committee members, 16 and below them are the fundraisers, such as the other four 17 defendants. IS You will hear that that chain of command worked in all 19 circumstances with the orders coming from Mr. LaRouche passed down 20 the command structure directly to the fundraisers 21 Now, this organization, the LaRouche organization, has 22 operated under the names of a couple of corporations. I just want 23 to mention them briefly to you, because you will be 24 25
1 hearing about them. They are Campaigner Publications, Incorporated, 2 Caucus Distributors, Incorporated, the Fusion Energy Foundation. 3 These are a series of corporations which operated to do various 4 things in furtherance of the LaRouche organization's goals, such as 5 publishing literature and so on. But it is also those three 6 corporations in which most of the borrowing took place, most of the 7 lending that I mentioned at the beginning.
8 In addition, there were several campaign committees
9 established to push forward Mr. LaRouche's candidacies for the 10 presidency. And you will hear some about those campaign 11 committees, and also about their fundraising practices, but for 12 reasons that will become obvious when you hear the evidence, they 13 didn't borrow anywhere near as much money as the commercial 14 corporations did. 15 Now, this organization underwent a transformation in 16 1983, and that's where the charges in this case really begin. You 17 will hear that in a nationwide meeting of the entire LaRouche 13 organization in the summer of 1983, Mr. LaRouche, as he had done 19 before and did continuously throughout the period of this 20 conspiracy, told his fundraisers told his entire organization, that 21 they had to raise more money. He spoke to them then and at many 22 other times in the following terms:, he told his people that the 23 population at large, the people who didn't give money to the 24 LaRouche
25
9'
1 organization, were not morally fit to survive. He said those 2 people don't deserve their money. We deserve their money. And 3 he told his fundraisers to get that money4 He told them to use anything short of thievery and 5 thuggery to get money from the public at large. We will show 6 you that that is exactly what they did.
7 At about that same time, Mr. LaRouche appointed the 8 defendant, William Wertz, to head his fundraising operation,
9
and this organization was transformed under the direction of
10
Mr. LaRouche and Mr. Wertz. You will hear that many people
11
who previously had been engaged in writing books, doing
12
research, other activities, were suddenly reassigned to fund
13
raising and were required to devote their full efforts to 14
that fundraising. That proposal for transforming the organi- IS
zation was one that was made by Mr. Wertz, and it was 16
approved by Mr. LaRouche. It. was carried out by the command 17 structure I discussed earlier.
18 19 What Mr. Wertz did, in addition to assigning people 20 to fundraising, was to dramatically increase the requirements 21 on the members of the LaRouche organization to raise money. 22 He did that by setting quotas. Each person in the organiza23 tion who was assigned to fundraising was required to raise a 24 certain amount of money every week. The organization as a 25 whole was required to raise a certain amount of money every week. And you will hear that those quotas were enforced
11
money to the LaRouche organization, it would get repaid, and we will prove to you that that wasn't true, that they knew that money would not be repaid. That is, the defendants knew that.
Here is how we will prove that: first, we will prove that it was the articulated policy of this organization not to repay loans. It was just.that simple. You will hear that Mr. Wertz actually said that to a group of fundraisers back in 1984. He stood up and said, "It is the policy of this organization not to repay loans. We will only pay money back to people under the following circumstances: first, if by paying them back some money, we can get more money out of them? second, if they can provide us with some sort of political benefit; or third, if they are suffering such extreme hardship such as medical emergencies, that we have to give them a little bit." That was what Mr. Wertz articulated as the loan policy of the organization.
And needless to say, that's not what was told over the phone by the fundraisers to people they were trying to borrow money from. We will show you that that policy came from the defendant, Lyndon LaRouche and was passed from Mr. Lailouche to Mr. Wertz by the defendant, Ed Spannaus, by the NEC members of this organization.
We will show you that aside from the fact that that
12
was the articulated policy of the organization, that is in fact the way the organization operated, from 19 84 right through to 1986-At no time did this organization make routine loan repayments- At no time did they simply repay people who were owed money. They only repaid people if it would get more money out of those people or if those people complained or hired a lawyer or managed to fall into one of the few categories where a little bit of money would be made available.
It's important to note that throughout this period of time when people weren't getting repaid, the defendants kept right on borrowing money.
We will show you in particular that the fundraisers, defendants and Small and Billington

and , knew very well that loans weren't being repaid. We will show you that, because they were in a position of having to go to the organizational people in charge of the finances and try to get money for the people who had loaned money in the past. So even though they knew that, they were continuing to borrow money throughout the period of time of this conspiracy.
We will also show you that through the testimony of a person who was in fact a fundraiser during this very period of time. You will hear the testimony of a gentleman by the name of Chris Curtis, who was himself on the telephones, who was himself borrowing money, who was up to his neck in
13
1 precisely the same conduct that these defendants were engaging in.
2 He is different than those defendants in only one respect and that
3 is that he left the organization in the early summer of 1986,
4 because he could no longer be a part of what he was involved in.
S Another way we will prove to you that these promises
6 were false is that we will show you that the NEC members, Mr.
7 Wertz, Mr. Spannaus, and also Mr. LaRouche, were put on notice no
8 later than March of 198 5, that the entire loan situation had
9 gotten out of control. By that point in time, the organization had
10 raised $10 million by borrowing it, and were averaging only $30,000
11 or $40,000 a week in repayment. We will show you that the
12 organization became aware that that wasn't even enough to pay off
13 the interest on the loans that was accruing on a day-to-day basis.
14 And what did the defendants do once they were put on
IS notice? We will show you that they kept right on 16 borrowing money. 17 There were several other occasions in xrfiich'"the 18 executive members of the organization became aware of the loan 19 problem. In fact, you will hear that in the fall of 1985, Mr. 20 LaRouche put a ceiling on how much additional loans could be raised 21 on a weekly basis. He put a ceiling of about $150,000 per week in additional loans that the organization was allowed to raise. 23 24 25
14
During that same period of time, however, we will show you that the organization was only repaying loans at the same rate, about $30,000 or $40,000 a week. So they were continuing to go deeper in debt by a rate of more than $100,000 a week.
Once again, in December of 1985, we will show you that the executive was advised that by then, the debt of this organization had reached the point of almost $30 million, and that the organization had only been managing to pay off that debt, actually had only been managing to pay some of the interest due at again a rate of $30,000 to $40,000 a week.
We will show you that by that point in time, everyone had to know there was no way that that $30 million in loans could be repaid. But the defendants kept right on borrowing more money.
The other way we will show you that the defendants knew that these loans were not going to be repaid is by showing you how the organization spent its money. And that's what I meant when I told you at the beginning this case was about both how they got money and what they did with it when they got it.
This organization, aside from borrowing money, also had perfectly legitimate activities, publication of books, publication of magazines, It had revenue other than the loans not enough to pay off $30 million, we'll show you, but enough
15
1 2 that they could have devoted more money than they did to the 3 4 repayment of loans. We will show you weeks in which this S 6 organization had $600,000 to spend but spent no more than 7 8 $30,000 on repaying loans. This organization consciously 9 decided how it was going to spend its money and consciously 10 decided not to spend it on repaying the money to people they 11 had promised to repay. 12 We will show you that Mr. LaRouche is the person 13 who set the organisational priorities about who was going 14 to be repaid and who wasn't. 15 That brings us to Count XIII of the case, which is 16 the tax charge. In Count XIII, Mr. LaRouche himself is 17 charged with a conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue IS Service, to impair and impede the Internal Revenue Service. 19 And that charge is based on this: among that $600,000 a week 20 or so that this organization had to spend, an enoruous 21 percentage of it went directly to the support of Mr.
22 LaRouche. During this period of time when the
23 organization was only spending $3 0,000 or so a week on
24 repayment of loans, we will show you that for example, the
25 organization purchased a property out in Leesburg, Virginia, for more than a million dollars. They came up with $400,000 in cash to put down on that property and spent another $600,000 improving it by putting in a swimming pool and a satellite dish antenna for the television and so on.
16
1 We will show you that one of the first things that
2 got paid out of the budget every week was a $2,500 amount
3 that went to one of the security personnel who accompanies
4 Mr. LaEouche, and that that person out of that checking
5 account paid for Mr, LaRouche's clothing, paid for his hair
6 cuts, paid for his books when he wanted to buy a book, paid
7 for his every need.
8 We will show you that another one of the first
9 things that came out of that budget was an additional 10 amount of about $3,000 just to run the household that Mr,
il LaRouche was living in, to buy groceries, to buy wine, to 12 pay the cleaners, and so on. 13 Now, Mr. LaRouche obviously was controlling and
14 working for this organization just like those of us who 15 earn salaries work for our employers. But rather than take 16 a salary out of the organization that he controlled, 17 instead Mr. LaRouche set up this other scheme that I have 18 just outlined for you, 19 All of the money that he needed to survive, instead 20 of coming to him as salary, instead of being
21 reported to the IKS, instead of having taxes withheld from
22 it, went through a middleman and got commingled with all
23 kinds of other corporate expenses. As a result of that, even
24 to this day, it's impossible to figure out just how much
25 money was spent by these corporations on Mr- LaRouche personally, and that's
17
because of the whole way the system of paying him was set up. That's what the evidence will show about the tax charge against Mr. LaRouche.
Now, one thing I forgot to mention is that these loans that were made to this organization, when people made loans, what they got back from the organization were documents through the mail. They got promissory notes, or they got something called a letter of indebtedness. We will show you that all of those documents went through the mail, and that's why these are mail fraud charges, because this is a scheme which was executed through those uses of the mail.
It's interesting to look at those promissory notes, because they repeat the false representations that were made over the telephone to people. Specifically, they state that the loans will be repaid within a certain period of time and at a certain interest rate and even that there will be quarterly interest payments in many cases.
And we will show you that the person who designed those promissory notes and those letters of indebtedness and approved their use was the defendant, Edward Spannaus.
Now, we'll also show you what happened to people after they loaned money to the organization. First, as I have already mentioned, there were some token repayments made, particularly, we will show you, in an effort to get further loans from people. But once the payments stopped and people
18
started to complain about the money, further false statements were made to them by the defendants. First, the defendants said, "We are planning to pay you. It was just an oversight, just a mistake." Well, we'll show you that those statements were false, also. We'll show you statements just like that made by the defendant, LaRouche and the defendant, Spannaus, who wrote letters to lenders of this organization, saying that there was a loan repayment program in place, saying that they were scrambling to repay loans, when in fact that wasn't the case. They were not repaying loans.
Second, we'll show you that the defendants said, "We just don't have any money that we can repay loans with. All of our funds have been taken up." And as I have already mentioned, we'11 show you that that1s not true. In fact, the organization was spending millions on Mr. LaRouche, as well as its commercial publishing activities.
Finally, we wil show you that when people complained the defendants tried to shift the blame for the failure to repay to other people, to try to do anything they could to avoid confronting their failures to repay.
Let me give you just an example of that: one of the Government witnesses, as I mentioned, will be Elizabeth Sexton. She loaned more than $100,000 to these organizations After she loaned that money, after she asked for repayment, after she was told she would get repaid, after all of that,
19
then suddenly she was told, "The organization can't repay you because one of our bank accounts was seized in the course of an action brought by a bank up in New Jersey."
Well, we will show you that that did not result in the failure to repay Mrs. Sexton, because first of all, the bank account that was seized was held by one of the campaign organizations, and as a matter of Federal law, that money could not have been used to repay Elizabeth Sexton, who had loaned money to one of the corporations, but more importantly, we'll show you that
20 that action I just referred to, the seizure of the bank account,
11 occurred before Mrs. Sexton ever loaned one dollar. She didn't hear
12 about that seizure of the bank account before she loaned the money.
13 She didn't hear about it when was promising her
14 repayment. She only heard about it after she wanted her money back.
IS You will hear in this case a number of excuses brought
16 by the defendants throughout the course of the period of time that
17 this conspiracy, but the important thing to remember is that we
18 will show you that they continued to borrow money even after these
19 things which they now try to treat as excuses occurred.
20 This scheme ground to a halt in early 198 7, when as a
21 result of some Court actions, these corporations stopped borrowing
22
money. 23 As I mentioned to you, by that point in time, the 24 25 20
1 organizations had borrowed more than $30 million, and only 2 some token payments, perhaps $3 million, had been repaid on 3 all of that debt. 4 At the time that the organizations were shut down, 5 we'll show you that their total assets, the total amount of 6 money involved in Caucus Distributors, Campaigner Publications 7
8 and Fusion Energy Foundation was less than $300,000, or only
9
one percent of the total debt that these organizations had
10 acquired.
11
We will show you from the testimony of other
12
witnesses that as a result of that, Alan Rither lost more
13
than $100,000 that he loaned out of a trust fund set up by 14 his father that he controlled.
15 We will show you that Lita Witt lost $10,000 in part 16
because of the promises made to her by Mike Billington. We'll 17
show you that Cecillia Landeggar lost $25,000 in part because 18
of the promises made to her by We will show
19
you that Max Harrell lost more than $10,000 in part because of 20 the promises made to her. Excuse me. Made to him by \\21 G . And Alan Rither, who I mentioned first, in part he 22
was solicited for loans by the defendant, Dennis Small.
23 For their role in obtaining this money by false\\ 24 pretences, by making false statements in their 25
solicitations, at the end of this case we will be asking you to return a \\21 verdict of guilty against the defendants , Dennis Small, Mike Billington and

And for their role in supervising and directing that activity, we will ask you to be returning verdicts of guilty against defendants La Rouche, Wertz and Spannaus, and also for his role in setting up a system of being paid for his services which prevented any accounting of it being made to the Internal Revenue Service, we will ask you to teturn a verdict of guilty as to the defendant LaRouche on Count XIII for defrauding the Internal Revenue Service-

03-26-2008, 03:55 PM

eaglebeak

Addendum:

The names of defendants who subsequently quit the organization have been removed from the above otherwise unedited opening arguments from Alexandria.

03-26-2008, 04:14 PM

xlcr4life

After everyone reads that opening statement, mosey on down to the King site to see why this really is a Mafia/Cult with Lyn as the Boss of Bosses.

This is the first time I ever read his letter.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-hudson.pdf

We took him for at least a Hundred Thousand back in the 1980's. I think Jeff's wife said "F him" on paying him back.

Enjoy yutes, I heard that there are a few thousand more pages to go.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-26-2008, 05:37 PM

scrimscraw

That Ninth Forecast...

Quote:
Originally Posted by larouchetruth
I refer to the piece headlined "LaRouche's Ninth Forecast; an Inevitable Truth." (See http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/21/larouches-ninth-forecast-inevitable-truth.html)

larouchetruth, I quite agree. In fact, I made nearly the same points back in posting #211 http://www.factnet.org/vbforum/showpost.php?p=343394&postcount=211!! Great minds think alike. ;)

03-26-2008, 09:25 PM

realme

Christopher Hitchens
Yeah, Hitchens does a good job dealing with the LYMer but I really felt bad watching the clip. I felt so sorry for the young guy. That could have been any of us once a long time ago. It was painful to hear everyone laughing at the guy. He deserves it for sure, but the saddest part is that he's the only one who can't hear them laughing.

And what's with the shaggy hair and beard? No more tirades about mother's public hair on the face?

03-26-2008, 09:26 PM

realme

Uh-oh. LaRouchian typo. I meant "pubic hair" of course.

03-26-2008, 10:27 PM

eaglebeak

Nosirree, No Fraud Here

This one's for you, revenire.

Here are excerpts from Federal prosecutor John Markham's closing arguments in the 1988 Alexandria Federal trial.

Oopsy-daisy. No fraud here. Guffaw.

Please forgive all the weird presentation, typos, ellipses, etc. Also--names of defendants who have since quit have been deleted. Also, I have boldfaced some of Markham's remarks for interest's sake.

Now, with this posted, Barbara M. Boyd will shortly be telling you that Markham was in a cult. You can riposte, "Hey, aren't we all?"

Say--I don't even see any mention of Molly Kronberg's testimony setting up the whole thing and sending Lyn straight to jail as part of her British-driven creation of the 1988 trial. Hey, Lyn, what's up with that? Are you SURE Molly Kronberg was the architect? Hmm?

MR. MARKHAM: In this country, we don't try people in criminal Courts for their ideas. We don't bring them to the bar of justice to determine the sincerity with which they talk about AIDS, SDI, world recovery, world famine, or anything else. You are sitting in what we lawyers refer to as the jury box. The three of you in the front are for the purposes of this in the jury box. You are not in a ballot box. This case, and you sitting in the jury box, is for the purpose of looking at the issue which Mr. Robinson raised in his opening statement, the way in which the LaRouche organization raised its money.
The ends, however noble they may be, and whatever you believe of the sincerity of the defendants, whatever credit you wish to give them for the ideas that they were talking about, is not the point. It does not however noble, justify lying to people to get the money to do what you want
43
to do. Elizabeth Sexton's money belongs to Elizabeth Sexton Lita Witt's money belongs to Lita Witt. And so on. If those people want to give money for the most noble cause in the world, fine. If they want to give money for the stupidest cause in the world, fine. That's another American principle. It's ours to give if we have earned it. But if on the other hand Elizabeth Sexton and all the rest of them say they can't give it, they need it, it's theirs, but they are willing to lend it, then you cannot under our law lie, make misstatements, tell half truths, fabricate, in order to induce them to loan by not telling them the whole truth. Your Honor, may either I or the Marshal put up the first of the charts that was referred to yesterday- Thank you. (Whereupon, the Marshal set up the referenced chart.) ….
MR. MARKHAM: You have heard from some of the victims of the borrowing, but this case involves a scheme to borrow large sums of money. In fact, the charts prepared by the defendants show the extent of the borrowings.
If you look where the orange is, you are looking at the scheme. In 1983 there was a modest increase in borrowing over 1982. That is the orange figure. In 1984 the borrowing skyrocketed. 1984 was when Mr. LaRouche brought Mr. Wertz into the head office to orchestrate a national fundraising effort. The loans skyrocketed.
You will have the exhibits to look at when you go back into the jury room, and you will see that by March of 1985 the man who was then responsible for trying to manage whatever loan repayments could be managed, Wayne Hintz, who testified, wrote, he wrote a memo in March of '85 to Mr. LaRouche and Mr. Wertz and Mr. Rose. Mr. LaRouche, the evidence is, is in charge of this organization. Mr. Wertz was in charge of fundraising. And Mr. Rose was in charge of loan repays, to the extent that there were any.
Those are the three people, by the way, who lived on Ibykus farm. That memo in March of 1985 by Wayne Hintz says, 51
1 1984, that big orange column there, was the year of the loan.
2 We borrowed $10 million, approximately, in 1984. Now, their
3 expert's chart says $12 million, but the Wayne Hintz■ memo
4 warned of $10 million in early 1985. And he warned that
5 90 percent "of that $10 million was coming due within a year,
6 and that something had to be done.
Attached to that, memorandum of his were memoranda from two of the fundraisers, or at least which had been seen by two of the fundraisers: P G and J R Those two memos which were attached to the primary memo, set forth their concerns about people who had not been repaid.
So that as of 1985, with the first skyrocketing — I'm sorry, as of 1985 that's the second skyrocketing, they knew they had problems with the 1984 skyrocketing. They kept on borrowing. After that memorandum they borrowed a lot of money from Elizabeth Sexton, a lot of money from Mrs. Landegger, a lot of money from Dorothy Powers, a lot of money from Goodwill Post, and on and on. And Goodwill Post, and Elizabeth Sexton, and Dorothy Powers, and everybody that you heard from is but a very small portion of the unrepaid loans that you are looking at up there.
This is a case about the total borrowing. The callousness used when people wanted their money back.

52
The failure to call them up with the common decency to say, "Yes, we have your $112,000. Yes, we assured you that it was safer than in a bank. Yes, we assured you you would get it back on time* But there has been a problem." Elizabeth Sexton didn't even get that kind of a phone call. Instead, they kept on borrowing. And those orange figures kept on getting taller, and taller, and taller.

Just to make it clear that they were not simultaneously paying back everything that they owed, I would ask if the Marshal could put up the second chart that they prepared.
(Whereupon, the Marshal put up the referenced chart.)
MR. MARKHAM: On this second chart that they prepared, orange is again the rate of borrowings. You can see that from the time Will Wertz was placed in charge of fundraising by Mr. LaRouche that the orange line looks more like a cliff than anything else. You will also see that they have on that same graph put in their loan repayments, and that is the green line. It is self-evident that it is nothing like the orange line.
They weren't giving back what they were bringing in. They weren't keeping their promises. Most of these loans, according to the Hintz memo, are one-year loans. And '85 was
53
as bad from the standpoint of loans as '84. The '84 loans became due. They weren't being paid back.
Incidentally, that green line, however lower it is than the orange line, is inflated, because in it is included not only money actually given back but the amount of money that they could get people to forgive under their loan forgiveness policy. . You will remember the testimony that it was decided that the policy would be that once the loans were received the people would be called back when they became due and asked to forgive. Not one of the victims that you heard from, not one, said that when they were initially called and asked for loans that they were told about this forgiveness policy. Not one of them said that they were told that, "We have financial problems that might make it impossible to pay you back or to pay you back on time.11 Not one of them was told that these people were so dedicated to Mr. LaRouche and to their perception of his security needs that if it was decided that some costly outlay had to be made —
MR. MOFFITT: I object. Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. MARKHAM: That if some costly outlay had to be made, that that would take precedence over paying them back.
54
They weren't told about any bank seizures, or that people were asking for the loans. They were just given a false, rosy picture, with assurances that the money was safe.
There comes time for the money to be repaid. The picture has changed. Oh, well, now, let me tell you a few things. And the stories begin. If in fact they bothered to call back-J R called Elizabeth Sexton virtually every day in early 1985, asking for money. She got over $100,000. When it was gone, when there was nothing left, she asked her to go and borrow from the bank. When the bank

called Caucus, because the bank knew, the testimony is that the bank knew that if it was loaning money it was loaning it to her to give as an investment to Caucus, and that Caucus was going to be responsible, according to J 's plan, for the repayments. The bank called J . J. called back Mrs. Sexton and said, "Forget the bank loan. They are becoming too inquisitive." Banks do that. Banks ask things like, "Tell me of your financial situation. Prove it to me. Send me documents. What is your repayment rate?" All those things that maybe Mrs. Sexton should have asked, and certainly in hindsight she should have asked, but the law of mail fraud, the law of scheming to defraud, protects everyone, not just sophisticated banks.
55
It protects Elizabeth Sexton from falsehoods and half-truths. It protects Goodwill Post. It protects Audry Carter.
The defendants are charged with three, with two separate crimes. And Mr. LaRouche, as you know, was charged with the third crime. The third crime is the charge that he conspired to cover up his tax liability. And Mr. Robinson will be addressing that when I close.
The charges relating to the loans break down into two: the first is that all of the defendants are charged with conspiring to commit loan fraud. In the second, the defendants are charged with scheming to use the mails to commit the loan fraud. A scheme is a pattern of conduct, a course of conduct, or a plan, and I submit to you the evidence is that there was a pattern of conduct.
It started every day at 9 o'clock. They came in, They got their briefing. If they weren't in the head office, they got a briefing through the mail and they picked up those phones and they started with the rosy promises that if you give us your money, you will be repaid. And it went on, and it went on past the point when they all knew that there were problems of repayments.
Richard Yepez told them early in the game before he left in the summer of 1984 that the repayments weren't being made. They kept on borrowing. Wayne Hintz alerted them in
56
writing in March of '85, and they kept on borrowing. And . they kept on borrowing pursuant to a plan or a pattern of conduct.
Obviously, a scheme to be illegal" under the mail fraud statute has to be fraudulent. Fraud is simply dishonesty. It is the intentional misstatement of fact known to you to be false, or it is facts stated by you with reckless disregard of the truth. The facts, of course, have to be material. No one here is charging any wrongdoing because they may have said something about a political belief that may or may not be true or may or may not be viable. Those are not material to why people lend money. Materiality is something that a reasonable person

would rely upon, and reasonable people rely upon statements 15 like, our money is safer than the bank. We always repay 16 people. You heard a tape recorded conversation of Mike 17 Billington saying to Audry Carter, in February of 1986, two IS years after this mess, "Audry, don't worry about it. I know 19 your interest means a lot to you, but not even our enemies 20 have ever said we don't repay people on time." 21 That is a material statement. The evidence is that 22 that statement is false, it is knowingly false, it is a lie, 23 by their own documents* He said it to induce a loan. 24 But in addition to out and out knowing falsehoods,
2
you are not allowed, you are simply not allowed under this
57
law to make baseless, false, misleading statements that have no basis in fact.
We are as safe as a bank. We are safe. You will get repaid on time. People are lining up. Why the book alone will make enough to pay you back, no problem.
Those are baseless, and given the financial circumstances with which all of. the defendants are aware, were aware, those were reckless, and they shouldn't have been made
An example, I am trying to insure my barn, and I tell the insurance company I want it insured for fire. If at the time I am on the phone talking to him from my kitchen, my barn is on fire, and I don't tell him, and I know it, I have committed an intentional misstatement. If the barn has been on fire five times in the last year, and I am sitting in my kitchen and I ask for some barn insurance and I say my barn is the safest fire-free barn in the world, and I don't even look out the window to see whether it's burning, that is reckless, and that is precisely what these defendants did and precisely why you have two orange towers on the chart behind that chart, two tall orange towers. It is not reasonable to conclude that those orange towers would be constructed unless people believed that they would get their money back, And if you don't think that these people who testified and the others didn't want their money back, read
58
the letters that they wrote. I will not read all of them, but I will read some of them.
After Elizabeth Sexton had given J or at J 's request given Caucus everything she had, $5,000 first, then another $5,000, then 525,000, then another $25,000, then another $25,000, then $14,300, then $5,000, then $4,000, then-$2,000, then going to*, one.-bank-..and that didn't work and then going to another bank and borrowing $4,000, After it was gone, and it became due, and Elisabeth Sexton wanted the promise fulfilled, she didn't even get a phone call. Jo was out in Chicago helping some woman get elected from Indiana, working on the phone team. If there is one thing the evidence will show, they had access to phones. And they could have called, and they didn't.
Then Elizabeth Sexton wrote, "Dear J , since you were the only one that I have had financial dealings with, 1 am directing this letter to you. I am a confused patriot. I tried to help, and it appears was destroyed in my effort." This is in evidence. It is one of the Sexton exhibits, and you will have it.
"You cajoled me steadily and relentlessly by phoning nearly every day. You told me my money would be safer and worth more with CDI than in a bank or in my investment house. You said the more money I would lend CDI, the more money I 59
would make."
I am skipping parts of it. "When you were sure I had reached the bottom of my money last summer, you asked me to borrow $50,000 from the bank and laughed at me when I said I didn't approve of borrowing, because I was afraid of being in debt. You replied, there was nothing to fear, that CDI would faithfully meet each monthly obligation. I tried borrowing the money and as you know, when the bank became too inquisitive, you called it off."
"When April 13 arrived, the day my $100,000 note was due, no one was honest or courteous enough to get in touch with me."
According to Mrs. Sexton's testimony, shortly after this letter was sent, P G called her and said, "J is out now. She got your letter, and she cried.11
P G assured Mrs. Sexton that somebody would take care of the problem. No one did. While it may have been fine for J to have cried, Elizabeth Sexton wished she had cried before she took every dime that Elizabeth Sexton had.
Getting no money as a result of this letter and only yet one more fake promise over a phone to P G , she wrote Mr. LaRouche and said, "Are you aware that CDI holds my money, and that I gave it to them, and that they loaned it, but it's money that I had been living on. I need 60
it back. Can you do something?"
Mr. LaRouche writes back -- these are ail in evidence -- "Dear Elizabeth Sexton" — I am quoting — "Be assured there has been no reneging on promises by J or anyone else linked to me."
I respectfully submit that is a false statement. There had been reneging, there is a whole orange tower of reneging by the time this letter was written. By the way, this letter is written in May of 1986, and the letter to J was written in April of 1986 after the money became due.
Mr. LaRouche goes on to say something else, after he explains that it's his enemies that got him down and they couldn't pay and since 1984 we have been under attack and they have taken all of our money. Of course, none of that was told by J to Elizabeth Sexton when they were milking her. Now, of course, it's very convenient to blame everyone else in the world, He says, quote, "Constant audit and other monitoring shows that there is no voluntary avoidance of loan repayments by CDT."
You have heard of nothing but voluntary avoidance of loan repayments. They have money. They have money for the purposes that they want to spend it on. One of the exhibits in evidence is Richard Welsh's documents, their 61
auditor, the one who worked with their expert, the one that marshals all the financial records on the computer. Exhibit 15-0, which you will have, is, it's got both a yellow and a red sticker on it. It talks about Ibykus improvements, money spent, on Ibykus at a time when Mr. LaRouche is telling some nice woman in Connecticut that they can't even pay her back a dime of her money, not all of it, not a dime, not so much as a postage stamp will they give her, at a time, ladies and gentlemen, when they are listing the same period of August of 198 6 the following improvements: cattle facilities for Ibykus, $3,900; fencing for Ibykus, $11,000; high-tensile fence gates, $4,000; land preparation, $6,000f pond construction, and I repeat, pond, p-o—n-d, little water in the ground construction, $97,000.
And he says constant audit and other monitoring shows that there is no voluntary avoidance of loan repayments Who made them put that pond in? No one. They chose to put it in. They chose to spend almost the entire amount of money that they borrowed from Elisabeth Sexton to put in a pond instead of paying her back. It goes on. The horse barn cost $82,000. The cattle cost $20,000, the fencing cost $30,000.
By now, ladies and gentlemen, if this money had been spent, we would have repaid Elizabeth Sexton, Lita Witt and Dorothy Powers.
62
Fish stock, that's only $700; rock wall is $15,000; landscaping, $33,000. By now we have paid off yet more of these people who were told, gee, we can't because the enemies are all over us. Landscaping?
Now, we have taken the position in this case that we do not dispute their perception of the risk to Mr. LaRouche's security. Some of these are security expenses, but wouldn't it have been nice if these individuals going into this scheme had been told, look, our perception is this guy is in a lot of trouble, and if we think there is somebody coming to get him, then all bets are off. If people make a loan under those circumstances, then they deserve the risk because they have been informed of it. But none of these people were told about it. And even if they were, what bogeyman coming to get Mr. LaRouche is scared away by a well-landscaped property? By a pond? By a swimming pool? By a riding track? Those are costly items. That money wasn't theirs. That money was the people that you heard from, and the many, many, many other people up on that big orange column. I keep referring to it as the one behind. [b]The painting of the house was $38,000; a new furnace is $10,000; driveway is $33,000; garden installation is $13,000; swimming pool construction is $19,000; the deck next to the swimming pool is $6,500; the riding ring was $4,600. The recreation barn cost $88,600; $4,100 and $400 for the
63
different things. The guest house cost $15,000, $9,000 and $8,000. The road cost $67,000. The farmland improvements totalled $309,000. There is no any evidence that they ever earned a dime from that farming or from the landscape or the road or anything else.
Now, in addition- of course was the hundreds of thousands of dollars put into the Ibykus property. You heard that they used Terry Anderson to borrow the mortgage money until they could pay it off. But they paid off $900,000 to him, and in addition they had to put up some $400,000 apart from all these expenses that I have read, just to get it* It's acres and acres and acres. in fact, only one of which acres was made secure, according to their expert. The rest of it you could walk across. Anybody could walk across. It wasn't needed for security. And 199 acres of prime Leesburg farmland would have gone a long way towards paying back some of the principal that was owed or certainly could have set up a fund to start paying back the principal. But they didn't do that. And they didn't do it for the reason that you heard from the witnesses who were former members.
Mr. LaRouche has instilled in his followers an arrogance about how right they are and about how wrong everybody else is, and people don't deserve their money, and it's ours, not theirs, because we are saving the world; and 6'4
Mr. Wertz would say how/dare they demand their money back. And Mr. Spannaus would say how dare they demand their money back, given all the wonderful things we are doing.[/b[]
Again, I do not want to debate with anyone whether what they were doing was wonderful. In this country, they have the right to do it* But they do not have a right to do it while they are lying to people to finance their operations, their trips overseas, their trips to go to India, their trips to Europe, their trips to South America, their accompanying foreign governments to help with the eradication of drugs is all fine and even laudable if you are doing it with your own money. But if you are doing it at a time that these nice people who trusted you are waiting by a phone that no longer rings, then it's a crime. And it is a crime to write somebody and say, "Constant audit and other monitoring shows that there is no voluntary avoidance."
She writes Mr. LaRouche back, and she says, "It's gratifying to know that there has been no reneging. Where is my money?"
And Mr. LaRouche writes back to her and says — this is his second letter -- "I should inform you that I have had no financial interest or executive authority over the affairs of Caucus Distributors." You heard their expert yesterday. Mr. LaRouche is switching of course. In his first letter he is telling her,
65
gee, our enemies are all over us and we couldn't pay.
…MR. MARKHAM: He tells her that he has no executive authority over or financial interest in the affairs of Caucus Distributors. Yet you have heard from witnesses testifying before yesterday; you have heard from Charlie Tate. You have heard from Mr. Bardwell. You have heard from Mr. Yepez. You have heard from Mr. Curtis that Mr. LaRouche dictates the finances of this organization through Will Wertz. As Pan Cowdery, and I am not even going to try her Italian name, Francesca-sontething or other said from the stand, when a couple of people from New York were at Mr. LaRouche's home performing one of the many serenades for him, they had flown down to do that. They had flown down with money I suppose that Mrs. Sexton would have wanted to have back rather than to have Mr. LaRouche have a concern, but that aside for the moment, Pam Cowdery and some others said, look, do you know what Wertz is doing in New York? Everybody is spending every
67
hour on the phone. They are working themselves to death. It's not good* And Mr. LaRouche said, Will is doing what he is doing based on my authority. He has my authority to do this. You people are stupid and Will is acting with my authority in doing what he is doing.
Yet, when it comes time to talk to somebody about the little matter of the -$112,000 that was promised, he has no executive authority over anything. Mr* Anderson referred to him as a square peg in a round hole. I respectfully submit he makes himself a square peg when he sees trouble coming in the form of a round hole, and when the trouble coming is in the form of a square hole, he makes himself into a round peg. He makes himself whatever is convenient to duck the moral obligation on his organization, and the legal obligation of his organization. He goes on to tell her, "Any nonperformance in loan repayment has been solely the result of wicked operations by adversaries of CDI."
What about the pond? What about the pool? What about the property in Southern Virginia that they purchased with hundreds of thousands of dollars? What about the purchase of Ibykus for $100,000? What about the garden? What about the guest house? Those are funds that would have been available, and those are not the result of wicked moves. Those are the result of something that they wanted to do.
68
Fine with their money, but not with his, with hers.
He says there has been no discretionary nonperformance. I respectfully submit that the evidence is that there has been nonperformance. He ends this letter with the following -- this is now three full months since her principal was due, the principal that she said she needed to live on. This is now long since she has ever had an interest payment from these people, and he says: "I will pass" — I am quoting — "I will pass the letter along to GDI for their information. That is my only authority in the matter. \\Otherwise, all I have to recommend is that you let your conscience guide you."
The way J treated Elisabeth Sexton shows that she had no conscience* The way Mr, LaRouche responded with his assurances that there was no money around shows he has no conscience with respect to this matter. It shows the very arrogance that the former members talked about when they said that Mr. LaRouche would exhort them to use any means short of thievery and thuggery, that Mr. LaRouche Would tell them people don't deserve their money. We do.
When people would come to Mr. Wertz and say, "What are we going to do about loan repays? People are calling in?" Wertz would say, "This is war. In war there are casualties."
Well, they treated Elizabeth Sexton and the others as their casualties, only they didn't tell them going in that 69
that was going to happen. Going in, they simply said, "You will get repaid." Because of that, and because of all the evidence in this record that shows that they knew when they were calling these people about the bad financial situation and the loans piling up, we ask you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that when they made the representations that they made, over the telephone, the assurances that they made, that they were acting with intent to deceive in order to get the money in the first instance.
Alternatively, we are asking you to find that in making the representations that they made, they acted with reckless disregard of the truth, with a conscious avoidance of finding out what the real situation was, with a failure to. look out the window to see if the barn is back on fire for the fifth time this year, because had they looked, they would have seen massive debt, massive failure to repay, and as of the time that the bankruptcy froze everything, they had $25 million of unrepaid loans, and they had assets of $300,000 tops, plus some subscriber lists.
And for people to be on the phone taking the money of other people in that circumstance is baseless and reckless And given what they had put in their own memoranda, it's also intentional.
Now, before I go into some other specifics, talking
70
about the fundraisers, I want to step back for a moment and talk about the indictment.
Count I, as I said, charges the conspiracy count. Count II through Count XII charge mail fraud counts, and each of the mail fraud counts articulates a separate mailing that was placed in the United States mails, in order to further the scheme. You have heard that there were many, many mailings in this case to the victims. The Grand Jury in returning the indictment selected one mailing that related to each of the loans about which you have specifically heard testimony-1 and the exhibits that show those mailings are in evidence.
The United States Government through the Congress has outlawed the use of the United States mails to further a scheme to defraud, and one of the things we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is in fact that the mails were used to further the scheme. In each of the cases, in each of the counts that we charge the mail fraud count, the substantive mail fraud counts, we charge that a particular letter was deposited in the mail and sent to one of these victims with a particular promise to that victim, therefore furthering the scheme.
In most instances, the mailing involved is the letter of indebtedness or the promissory note, which clearly furthers the scheme. One exception to that, and that is
71
Count XII, the last of the substantive mail fraud counts, specifically charges Lyndon LaRouche with furthering the scheme to defraud, the entire scheme including both of the orange towers, by a specific mailing to Elizabeth Sexton, the last letter I read to you, where he tells her that there was no discretionary nonpayment/ that there was no money available, that he had no executive authority over CDI, and that she should let her conscience be her guide.
That letter with those falsehoods sent to her in order to induce her to try to forgive that debt at a time when there were swimming pools being built and all the rest of it, we have charged as a separate substantive mail fraud count. That is Count XII.
Count I, as I said, is the conspiracy count. We will be addressing that in a little while. Counts II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI are substantive counts charging the individual fundraisers who had responsibility for making the false statements to the lenders that you heard from. For example, there is a count charging J with sending or causing to be sent through the United States mails a letter of indebtedness or a loan form to Elizabeth Sexton.
The Judge will tell you in his instructions that in order to be responsible for the mailing you have to be a participant in the scheme but you don't have to be the one\\ 72
who actually goes over and drops the letter in the mailbox. If it is reasonable for you to assume based upon the practice that a mailing would be sent out to further the scheme and you do something to cause that to happen, you are guilty if we prove that beyond a reasonable doubt and the other elements. And in connection with each of these defendants, the solicitors, it is clear from the evidence that the practice was that if a loan was received, the machinery would crank up, a loan request form would be filled out, the initials of the exhibitor would be placed on it, and that paperwork would result in a loan form going to that person. And so we have charged the individuals for these mailings. And you will see when you go through the counts which individual was charged with which mailing in connection with which lender, because it's all listed there on one page. I believe it's page 33. Of course, there is evidence that there were more loans taken in that just those specific notes referred to in the indictment. There were more loans taken in with each of the victims referred to. For example, I think the one on Goodwill Post talks about $15,000. She loaned $45,000. Elizabeth Sexton I think talks about one of the, one promissory note, but she had many promissory notes.
In addition of course, this scheme is broader. It's alleged to be broader than the victims that you heard from. It is alleged to include the orange post. It is alleged to
73
include the massive year of the loan, $10 million that Wayne Hintz tried to warn them about. The similar figure for 1985, and the somewhat reduced figure for 1986.
Now, in addition to charging the individual solicitors on the mail fraud count, Lyndon LaRouche and Will Wertz are charged in every mail fraud count because the evidence in this case is -that they set this in motion.
They ran the organization. They determined the fundraising quota. They insisted the quota be met. They insisted these fundraisers get on the phones and make their quotas at a time when they had been told the loans were not being repaid, and they knew the fundraisers were getting loans because they monitored the loan situation. The fact that at sometime in 1985 they put a ceiling on loans doesn't matter, because they never started to reduce the loans at the rate that they were bringing them in. The first priority was, quote, "Get the money."
That's what they told the fundraisers to do. When the fundraisers didn't do it, they were humiliated. Their sexuality was attacked. They were held up to ridicule. Get the money. Your job is to make the money.
And because of that, because they were pressing and pressing and pressing for the very acts that occurred at a time when they knew that there was a loan problem, they are charged as aiders and abetters. Aiding and abetting is -
74
the Judge will give you a longer definition of it and obviously what he says on that controls, but I am giving you an encapsulation of it -- aiding and abetting constitutes willful association with the crime and doing some act to help carry out the crime, to help the crime occur.
Mr. Wertz everyday got everybody together in a meeting, read them Paton,. told them this was a war footing, told them that Lyn's life depended on it, told them that they had to raise this money because Lyn said the money had to be raised. He raised the quota from $300,000 to about $600,000 over the course of two years. He demanded that it be met. They kept on borrowing. And he kept on making them borrow. And he kept on telling them to make their quota. And they kept on doing it. And when J n was on the phone to Elizabeth Sexton and and thereafter Dennis Small were talking to Goodwill Post about Dope, Inc., they were doing it because Will Wertz had said that was a fine idea, and Will Wertz was their manager and he controlled them and they responded to him and this is a hierarchy.
If nothing else has been shown beyond any doubt, it is that these people adore Lyndon LaRouche, and they do what he wants. When Will Wertz comes to New York on Mr. LaRouche's authority and Will Wertz sets up a program because Lyn says it has to be set up, and you don't have to take just Mr.
Bardwell's word for that or just Mr. Curtis' word for
75
that. The Spannaus notebooks that you have heard a little talk about, the testimony is that he writes down what Lyn says and what other people say and that when he is talking to others, he refers to what Lyn has said. He refers to Lyn as Lyn. You have heard these identified as Mr. Spannaus1 notebooks. They have Ed written on the front of them.
In the notebook covering the period of December '83 to March of '84, on a January 14, 1984 meeting, Mr. Spannaus writes in his notebook, "Lyn, parenthesis at Sunday meeting, $200,000 to $210,000 operating budget, 40 a week TLC. Set priorities to repair infrastructure. Consolidate NCR fund-raising. Don't let sectors slip back into old ways. Will plan good."
Your Honor, may I have Exhibit 7, I believe it is, P, the Robert notebook? THE COURT! It's apparently in evidence, but you all retrieved them, we are told.
MR. MARKHAM: Well, we'll have that for you when you go into the jury room. That is a notebook in which Robert wrote down the following: "Will Wertz:, Will W.:" \underlined in the upper left-hand corner and the testimony was that that is where Mr. G attributed his source, "Will Wertz: question for LHL." And this is in June after the plan had been in effect according to the testimony of the
76
witnesses in this, first notebook.
Six months later, the question from Will, "Questions for LHL," and of course the question would go to LHL, because he dictates the finances- "Question for LHL from. Will. Need strict guidelines on repayments. Proposal forget or forget indefinitely." You can read it.. You will read it. It's been clipped. Incidentally the portions of these voluminous notebooks that we wish to give you to refer to, we have clipped, and we have tried to make the little arrow part go to the part we want, but look at both sides of the page.
That conversation occurred in June of 19 84. I believe it was June 14th. It was the first entry in Robert 's notebook of that day. In Mr. Spannaus' notebook, an entry later on in the day, at least it's not the first entry, Mr. Spannaus writes, "Lyn, loans. Forgive or forget."
Mr* Wertz and Mr. LaRouche controlled the operation, what was written in the notebooks says what they wanted to do about the loans, what each of the witnesses who took the stand says happened to them. We were asked to forgive, and if we didn't forgive, we might as well forget.
And so, they are charged with aiding and abetting. Mr." Spannaus is charged with aiding and abetting, not on every count, because he did not have the daily operation with
11
1 fundraising like Mr. Wertz did or the ultimate authority and
2 ultimate dictation that Mr. LaRouche had and exercised by
3 saying forgive or forget; but he is charged with those counts in which the form that he devised was used to make the false promises to the lenders. You remember that Mr. Yepez went to Mr. Spannaus and talked about a new loan form, and Mr. Spannaus said no, we don't want something too formal. We don't want these people to think that we are in the business of making loans, which they were in the business of borrowing\\ 10 money. That's what they were doing.
11 We want to do a letter of indebtedness. You will 12 hear that Mr. Spannaus, or you heard that Mr. Spannaus went 13 to a lawyer about the wording of the letter of indebtedness. 14 Didn't tell that person anything about the underlying loan
15 problem, devised a form which was used, and every single time
16 a letter of indebtedness that Mr. Spannaus devised was used,
17 he is charged, because his handiwork containing his
18 phraseology of the promise to be repaid went through the mail. At the time he made those promises, he had already
20 written in his notebook, "Loans, forgive or forget." 23 And that's not all he had written. He wrote, "Loans
22 are our curse."
23 He wrote, "None of the companies have ever made a
24 profit except" — "None of the publishing companies have ever
25
made a profit except EIR. " He wrote that, and so he knew
78
that.
He had written about a conversation with Shelly Asher in which someone is quoted as saying, "We don't pay back loans."
He had written many different things in his notebooks that show his knowledge, in his own handwriting, that they weren't paying back loans, and they are marked, and you can read them.
Not only that, he was a legal adviser for this organization, and people would come to him with complaints of lenders to be repaid. You heard of one example where somebody came to him in 1984 and said there is a lender complaining about their money, and Mr. Spannaus toeing Mr. LaRouche's line about how people don't deserve their money back said quote, "Who does he think he is?"
And that's the arrogance with which these people treated other people.
You heard a tape of Mike Billington. In the short remaining time, I am going to replay that tape and make some comments about it again. Before I do, I wish to point out to you that the evidence of the solicitors that we offer against each of the solicitors in not only the extraordinary promises that they were making, given the financial situation, but the fact that J had written a memorandum, which indicated that she knew about the loan problems, or at
79
least if she didn't write the memorandum, it's copied to her, and it involves her lenders. She had been told by Mr. Yepez that there was a loan problem. She kept on borrowing. The same with Mike Billington. He kept on borrowing. P G had been told; he kept on borrowing. P G wrote a memo about his problems. He kept on borrowing. Dennis Small .— take a look at the Dennis Small contact card, which is in evidence. It's about eight or nine pages of millions of dollars of loans that he raised, and they are all listed in whole numbers.
For Van Sickle, he lists 200* She got $200,000. For Post, he lists 15, She lent $15,000- The numbers are in thousands, and therefore the totals are millions. And you heard his assurances to people that they would be repaid at a time when there was no business to make those assurances.
You heard all of the witnesses testify about the assurances. And I submit that there is no evidence in the record to contradict that testimony, but there is evidence that corroborates it. And that is because Mr. Billington taped some of his phone calls, and here is one of them which shows you a little freeze frame picture of exactly the kind of assurances that each of these citizens took the stand and said they received from these solicitors who were making the calls at the request of Mr. LaRouche and Mr. Wertz.
{Whereupon, counsel played an excerpt from the tape.)
80
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) If they are due, they will be coming out. They didn't. And he said it as casually as if oh, yes, that's absolutely no problem.
(Whereupon, the tape excerpt was resumed to be played.)
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) The letter of indebtedness he referred to is the form crafted by Mr. Spannaus. Now, Mr. Spannaus went to a lawyer for the phraseology of that form, but Mr. Spannaus, the evidence is, didn't tell that lawyer anything about the rotten state of their loan repayment plan. But instead he kept that to himself, got the legal phraseology of the form, which included a promise to repay and then sent, had the organization use that form in connection with Counts III through Count XII and a lot of other counts and a lot of other mailings that are in evidence.
(Whereupon, the tape excerpt was continued to be played to the jury.)
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) Oh, yes, absolutely.
That1s not a problem. I hear you saying that you really need the interest payments. Absolutely. That was false. Listen to what he says next.
(Whereupon, the tape excerpt continued to be played.)
MR. MARKHAM: (Interposing) Nobody has ever tried to imply that our loans are not good. Wayne Hintz had already tried to say that directly. Richard Yepez had said
81
it. The complaints were coming in. Will Wertz was screening the phone calls so these people wouldn't have to be bothered by the little matter of people saying they needed their interest back.
Everybody was saying that the loans were a problem. They were obviously a problem. That was obviously a lie.
So you have heard one little freeze frame of what each of these victims told you were the assurances made to them and by which, in which they placed their trust and by which they got burned, and burned badly, and burned by a group of people who just think thatthey are better and can use the money better than anyone else.
One moment.
Since we are splitting up the argument, I needed to consult.
I want to very briefly touch on Count I, which is the conspiracy, which charges all of the defendants with conspiring together to commit the loan fraud, which is shown on the two orange towers over there, and which is referred to apart of it referred to specifically in Counts II through XII.
A conspiracy is an agreement of two or more people to do an illegal act. The illegal act in this case is the fraudulent solicitations and the mailings.
The agreement involved does not have to be written
82
1 down, although loans, forgive or forget, comes pretty close 2 to written down. The agreement doesn't even have to be 3 expressed. It can be tacit. It's just a common understand4 ing among individuals that they are engaged in a course of 5 conduct to defraud. If you find that there was a common understanding, and we submit that the evidence is overwhelmingly that there was, loans forgive or forget, and that's what happened and that's what they did, and that is what they didn't tell people.
If you find that, that there was a common agreement, that alone does not equal a conspiracy, because there has to be, and the Judge will tell you more about this, one overt act to further the conspiracy. If two people agree to rob a bank, that alone is not a conspiracy, but if one of them in furtherance of that agreement, goes to a hardware story to buy a hammer to break into the bank that night, the act of buying a hammer, if it's done in furtherance of the conspiracy, makes it a crime because it's being done in furtherance of an illegal conspiracy, even though the act itself, going to the hardware store to buy a hammer is in other circumstances legal. The evidence about a conspiracy, I have addressed in the context of the other evidence, the common understanding about who needed the money, the common understanding
83
about how the money was to be raised, the common understand ing about what was to be said to lenders when they called back in, that they were to be screened and all the rest of it
The overt actions in furtherance of the conspiracy are listed in the indictment. The Court will tell you we only have to prove one. We have proved scores. Each of the mailings is an overt act.* The statements made over the phone are overt acts. The letters that went to and from are overt acts, and they are all listed.
I respectfully submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, that the totality of the record, the evidence in this case shows that these defendants got together to advance their goals, and they did it with the common understanding that they were going to do it with other people1s money, and that they were not going to be honest when they tried to get that money. And that as a result of their misstatements, their overstatements and their omissions of material facts, a lot of people lost a lot of money, and as a result, we ask you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty of the charges. Thank you.

03-26-2008, 11:41 PM

dking

Background on the Michael Hudson reports

xlcr4life kindly posted a link to the Hudson documents (http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-hudson.pdf), which explain LaRouche's scams step by step and in clear layman's language. The following is the introduction to these docs at http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-newest-postings.htm:

March 19: Economist Michael Hudson clearly explains LaRouche's fraudulent schemes (1986). Apart from the light shed on LaRouche's career as a white-collar criminal, these unpublished documents stand as a reproof of former U.S. attorney general Ramsey Clark and his hypocrisy on the LaRouche issue. Hudson and I had been contacted by Clark, who claimed he wanted to raise funds for investigating and exposing LaRouche. Clark's main interest was LaRouche's alleged involvement in nefarious U.S. government schemes, but Hudson wanted to concentrate instead on LaRouche's financial crimes. To this end Hudson presented Clark with the three documents included in this pdf file. Clark lost interest not only because Hudson and I were not down for a narrow CIA-bashing campaign but also because the U.S. government proved its seriousness later that year about prosecuting LaRouche (by, among other things, conducting a massive raid on his headquarters pursuant to federal search warrants). Still, we were not suspicious of Clark's initial expressions of concern, since Clark had represented German Green Party leader Petra Kelly in a bitter legal dispute with the LaRouchians, and had himself been the target of smears by LaRouche's publications. Hudson even retained Clark to represent him in an unrelated civil matter. Both Hudson and I were surprised when we heard that Clark had visited LaRouche in jail after the latter's 1988 conviction and had signed on as his appeals attorney. Clark began asserting that LaRouche had been the victim of a giant government conspiracy, but it was clear to Hudson and myself--based on our knowledge that Clark had read Hudson's 1986 reports and discussed them with him at length, and on Clark's own filings and public comments re the Petra Kelly case--that Clark knew perfectly well (a) that the LaRouche movement was fascistic in character and (b) that LaRouche was guilty as hell of the frauds for which he was convicted. In retrospect, I think that Clark--who had become closely associated with the Workers World Party, a cult-like Stalinist group--took the case because, among other things, he saw it as an opportunity to demonize the U.S. government.

The complaint in First Fidelity Bank's civil RICO suit against LaRouche (the subject of one of Hudson's docs) was posted on March 17 (see my "newest postings" link above).

03-27-2008, 02:56 AM

eaglebeak

Lyn to the NEC

Based on the review above of the millions lavished on Lyn's personal living expenses, I'd say that Lyn could tell the NEC today, when they try to sneak out to get jobs, "You cowardly traitors! Who needs a job?! I never did! You should be more like me."

But, as we shall see (an upcoming post), Lyn claimed total ignorance of who was paying for him.... The greatest economic genius of the millennium couldn't figure out who was paying his way, and couldn't infer that those lavish payments had something to do with all the loans apparently going unpaid, to judge from Elizabeth Sexton's letter and whatnot.

Yet he is the greatest mind on the planet, whose economic and financial nostrums are the only possible solution.

Strange, isn't it?

03-27-2008, 04:59 AM

boomer70

one of the horrors

Thanks, Eaglebreak, for the material from the Virginia trial. The means are the end, and history loves irony. If the Hubrisness actually came to power, he would be I suspect one of the horrors of the New Dark Ages.

03-27-2008, 01:06 PM

eaglebeak

Into the Abyss

What follows is a recent press release (yes, a PRESS RELEASE) uttered (or was it emitted?) by LaRouche and posted on the LPAC website.

I have boldfaced a few especially demented passages.

Why Jeremiah Wright Is Not A Christian!:
The Presidential Touch
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 25, 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of the selection of a U.S. President.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I pledged my support to U.S. Senator John Kerry's Democratic nomination for election, in July-August 2004, I had also resolved to remove myself from the roster of U.S. Presidential candidates, but to retreat to the higher-ranking, more cumbersome, but more appropriate position of a defender of the constitutional institution of the U.S. Presidency for the sake of heroes past, and generations yet to come. This was no mere sentiment, no mere posture. It was a role I had adopted in full awareness of the immediately growing danger to not only our republic, but the world at large for generations yet to come.
I know what it means to be President of our U.S.A. I know that our republic is encumbered with a unique mission for all humanity, by virtue of the very special qualities of that heritage of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa who first committed those who heeded his counsel to reach out from a Europe unable to fulfill its mission, to go across the oceans to build bastions to correct the failure of a sick European political system.
I thus serve this republic whose establishment Benjamin Franklin led in defending, that for the sake of generations of mankind to come. The enemy remains, chiefly, despite the corruption of our institutions, that British Empire against whose global corruption our patriots have fought since the February 1763 Peace of Paris which established the Anglo-Dutch financier oligarchy as an empire in fact. Since that time, still today, our mission as a republic which gained its freedom in combat against that same old empire, still is a sacred mission for all mankind. That is the mission of being its true self as the conspiracy once led by Franklin, and which Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt after him, had defended. Our function was, and continues to be, to be the sovereign nation-state republic which is committed to transform this planet as a whole into a community of respectively sovereign republics, free of the evil which the British Empire still represents today, nations united into a single fraternity of respectively sovereign powers by the single banner of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia.
We who are wise enough, and also good enough to lead, know that our nation's foe is not a nation, not a people, not color of skin, but the same old "principalities and powers." That enemy, today, is chiefly today's Anglo-Dutch Liberal financier tyranny, which has ruled so long, and so often, by putting one part of humanity into campaigns of hate against others, as the British Empire-in-fact is acting at this moment: a British Empire which plays our nation's foolish press and popular opinion like a fiddle, that they might need no greater ally than the folly of our own public opinion and corrupted institutions of government and finance to cause our people to destroy their own nation for the advantage of our tormentors.
Christianity thus comes, unlike the message from Jeremiah Wright's congregation, with a message of love of mankind, not venom.(sic) We fight, when it is required; but our object in any war we are obliged to fight, is an object modeled upon our President Abraham Lincoln's final great public address on the repairing of the damage which had been done to our nation by the actions of those within our nation who had been manipulated by the British Empire into imposing both the system of slavery and the civil war upon us.
Cheap-shot politicians are those who dole out bribes to the electorate, as the three notable present candidates for the Presidential nominations now have done, perhaps because it seemed that that was the way to become elected. The competent statesman thinks differently, as I do, as I emphasized, at some length, to an assembly of my associates this past Saturday morning. I spoke as follows:
- On The Subject of Immortality -
The essence of true statecraft is recognition that the human individual, unlike the beasts, is essentially immortal. As it was written of the Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt, he did not live to experience the result of the mission to which his life had become dedicated. The mission of Jesus Christ, that he would die for the future of mankind, is the same.(sic) It has been so for nearly all significant leaders of society, as it was for the Jeanne d'Arc who was cooked to death(sic) by the evil Norman Inquisition.
The creative powers of the human individual mind are a quality of existence which is utterly lacking in all forms of animal life. We have, indeed, an animal body, which we shall each lose, soon enough. It is that part of us which is not the animal, which should be the expressed chief motive of our passions, and the purpose for which we may hope to serve by the manner of our living.
Of all those immortal treasures we may enjoy on this account, the most precious is that we find in our attachment to missions whose outcomes we shall, chiefly, not live to see within the span of our mortal lives. We use our own personal bodies with this goal in view, as should any official who has reason to think about sending men and women to suffer and die in war: for what is their life being expended so? So, we are not winning a war in Iraq, but, rather, we are actually losing our republic and probably much more besides, by the folly of continuing that war like an ego-trip. A military commander who does not agree on that point, is not morally fit to be a military commander.
True virtue lies chiefly in devotion to goals which we, as actors, shall not experience in our lifetimes.
For example. I am presently eighty-five years of age, and would be eighty-six in about another half-year to come. At this time, my passion for the future experience of our nation and of the world at large, is more intense, more impassioned than it has ever been before. The thing I hate the most among my associates, is either evidence of cheap ambition for personal gratification in the short term, or shirking needed commitments to more long-ranging goals, where their passion should be a gloating satisfaction in the benefits which none of us may live to experience, but which we are working to bring about. All really good individual persons, or groups of persons think like that; they think like persons who really know that they are immortal, and know that their future lies in the outcome of their devotion to the future of mankind.
Most important of all, is devotion in impelling people with bad morals and perhaps worse behavior, to become better people. Our duty is not the gospel of hate, which Jeremiah Wright expresses, but to improve the sinners as a mission for improving ourselves, and ourselves even more, and more necessarily, than others.
That is the way a real statesman thinks. Never support a Presidential candidate who thinks about such matters differently than I do.
Meanwhile choose your candidate carefully. Don't you wish that that terrible thing had never happened?

Comments:

1. Of course, anyone who thinks our bodies are "animal" thinks Joan of Arc was "cooked." One reason Jews, Christians, and Muslims emphasize the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit, is to defend against maniacs like LaRouche who objectify human beings and hold the body in contempt. But Lyn's grasp of those religious concepts is lacking, to say the least. Jesus didn't die for the "future" of mankind....
2. "The thing I hate most among my associates"—that says it all. In fact, that's the reason I'm posting this. The thing is, he just plain hates them. Isn't that obvious from the way he treated Ken Kronberg?

Isn't that obvious from the way he treats the Spannauses?

What cheap ambition do the poor slobs still with him have? To get out from under his boot? (Cf. his memorable comment, when Ken was being "reined in" by Barbara and Bruce in 2006: "Now we have our foot on Ken's throat"? Molly has been telling people about that one ever since it happened….)

Lyn, who is in the grip of a malignant and overpowering, devouring ambition, hates his poor associates for some pathetic attempt to retain their selfhood ("ambition")

Oh, and he hates their "shirking": Don't get a job, you traitors. I didn't! Be like me!

3. Gloating satisfaction? Lyn still doesn't know what words mean.

Diagnosis: Something's SERIOUSLY messed up in LaRoLand.

03-27-2008, 03:11 PM

candor

Two things about that piece suggest that the end is near for LaRo:

(1) Its brevity. LaRouche pronouncements have overall been getting shorter and shorter over the past year.

(2) While it is not unusual for LaRo to falsify or otherwise misrepresent people (he does it regularly with his heroes), here he shows no direct familiarity at all with Wright's statements, which were more those of righteous anger than "venom."

Of course the purpose of this piece is to curry favor with the Monster and her grifter husband, both of whom have shown their true, primary colors as racist, win-at-all-costs carpetbaggers. An antisemite who sides with racist connivers should not be accusing others of hate - but then neither LaRouche nor the Clintons have any shame.

03-27-2008, 04:37 PM

scrimscraw

Reclaiming wasted lives

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
2. "The thing I hate most among my associates"—that says it all. In fact, that's the reason I'm posting this. The thing is, he just plain hates them. Isn't that obvious from the way he treated Ken Kronberg?
Isn't that obvious from the way he treats the Spannauses?
What cheap ambition do the poor slobs still with him have? To get out from under his boot? (...)
Lyn, who is in the grip of a malignant and overpowering, devouring ambition, hates his poor associates for some pathetic attempt to retain their selfhood ("ambition")

It seems clear that what gets Lyn's goat is that his long-time "associates" no longer have their youth (or even prime middle age) to throw away in the service of his paranoid hysteria. It sounds like it is beginning to dawn on "the boomers" that they need to scramble to survive into their old age, and that the more time spent on trumpeting the virtues of an 85-year old crazy man (technical term) is less time spent on paying the rent and putting a little away for the future (if that's even possible at this late date).

Bottom line: yes, rough times ahead, though not the "New Dark Ages." No matter what the LC or LYM do, what will happen will happen. Any further effort on Lyn's behalf is good energy wasted. Run for cover!

03-27-2008, 05:34 PM

eaglebeak

The Taxman Cometh

Okey doke, this morning we're going to read excerpts from Federal prosecutor Ken Robinson's closing statements at the 1988 Alexandria Federal trial.

Again: 1. I apologize for the messy presentation. Couldn't be helped. 2. Names of certain people have been redacted. 3. I have boldfaced significant things again, especially the marvelous excerpt from LaRouche's deposition in the NBC case (remember that dog?), in which NBC lawyer Kavaler took Lyn to the woodshed.

Note that the most brilliant man in the world didn't know where his food came from, and didn't know how his expenses were paid, as I suggested in an earlier post. Strains credulity, it does. And THIS guy talks about integrity? And slams the NEC for wanting to make a few bucks for FOOD?

MR. ROBINSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am going to talk to you just a couple of minutes about the tax charge….

Turning to the tax case, Mr. LaRouche is not charged with tax evasion. He is not charged with failing to file a tax return. And there is a simple reason for that. We don't know how much money he made. We don't know what his income was. Instead, he is charged with conspiring to hide his money from the Internal Revenue Service. He is charged with conspiring with other people to pretend that he had no income Now, basically he is charged with trying to fool the Internal Revenue Service. Now there are a couple of things that have gone into evidence that you haven't heard yet. Let me just read two of them to you. These are transcripts of some sworn testimony that Mr. LaRouche gave back in 1984, when he was asked about his circumstances. It will just take me a few minutes to read it.
"Question: Do you pay the rent at Woodburn Farm?"
"Answer" — and this is Mr. LaRouche talking — "I personally? I personally do not pay the rent at Woodburn Farm."
"Q Does Helga LaRouche pay the rent at Woodburn Farm?
A I do not believe so.
Q Do you know if anyone pays the rent?
A I assume someone does.
Q Who do you assume pays it?
A I don't know.
Q Where does the money come from?
A What do you mean?
Q Where does the money come from which pays for your stay at Woodburn Farm?
A Obviously, I don't know, do I.
Q Did you eat dinner last night?
A Yes.
Q Where did you ea-t?
A At the house.
Q Was there food in the house?
A Yes.
Q Did you buy it?
A No.
Q Did Helga LaRouche buy it?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Who bought it?
A I don't know.
Q With what money?
A I don't know.
Q How do you take care of daily living expenses, Mr. LaRouche?
A I don't know.
Q Do you live free?
A I don't know."
Here's another excerpt from his testimony.
"Q Who paid for the suit you are wearing, Mr. LaRouche?
89
A I don't know, Mr. Cavalier (phonetic)" — the name of the lawyer. \\"Question: You just found it in your closet, did you?
A No. It was a gift by persons associated with me some years ago.
Q Are the other suits in your closet ones that you went out to a store and bought?
A I have on no occasion gone out to a store and bought any articles of more than a haircut, a $5 price in the past ten years.\\ Q Do you know who pays for all the suits in your closet?
A I do not, Mr. Cavalier. I do not know in detail. I have some general idea that they are gifts from people associated with me or other."
The point is, he is denying any knowledge of his financial circumstances. He is trying to pretend that this money just kind of filters into his life without him having any idea where it comes from, and that's obviously absurd. And you saw the absurdity of that in this trial.
Rick Magraw bought his suits. Rick Magraw testified that he did. Rick Magraw bought his suits with money from the LaRouche organization. And Mr. LaRouche knew that. But when he gave that sworn testimony, he had to try to hide all
90
of that, because he was trying to hide the fact that he had income. And he did a good job. That is exactly why we can't figure out today exactly how much income he had.
Let's take a little bit of a look for just a few minutes at what the income did show -- excuse me — what the evidence did show about his income.
This Rick Magraw checking account, the budget for that was $2,500 a week or thereabouts. The accounting records that resulted from that that the expert witness was looking at yesterday showed that more than $200,000 were billed to something called advisory expenses between July and December of 1985. That is just part of the year. More than $200,000. We don't know how much of that went to Mr. LaRouche. We tried to piece it together the best we could with the minimal incomplete records that Mr. Magraw and his wife kept, but we don't know how much of it went to Mr. LaRouche.
And remember this, he only had to get $1,081 in 1985 to be required to file a tax return. Maybe that's why when they asked him where his clothing came from and who paid for his housing, he said I don't know, because he had to try to distance himself from it. That was all part of the scheme to hide his income from the Internal Revenue Service.
Ladies and gentlemen, the practice of paying all of Mr. LaRouche's personal expenses standing alone is enough to
91
show that he had income during the years in question. We don't even have to get into Ibykus Farm and the housing and everything else. That is enough to show that he was getting income, and he was doing it in a way that was trying to hide it.
But let's talk about the housing and the meals for just a second. Mr. Markham went into great detail about how much was spent on Ibykus, I don't need to do the same. There is a question about whether or not that's taxable income to him. The Judge is going to instruct you on what the law says about that. And what the law says is that under certain circumstances, and employee of a business doesn't have to report income for housing provided to him. Well, the first problem with that with Mr. LaRouche is that every chance he has gotten in the past, he has distanced himself from this organization. He specifically said he wasn't an employee. He has specifically said that he wasn't affiliated or associated with Caucus Distributors or Campaigner Publications.
Now, all of a sudden, we are in Court on trial on a criminal tax case, and the defense says he is an employee.
It's a little bit too late to make that change of course for Mr. LaRouche. He is not an employee. If he is not an employee, then housing and the lodging is taxable to him.\\ 92
Second, the housing and lodging has to be provided for a noncompensatory purpose. All I mean by that is, you can't just decide not to pay somebody's salary and give him a house instead. There has to be a business purpose for it. Well, we submit that on the evidence in this case, it's clear that what this organization did, what Mr. LaRouche and his associates did was enter into a scheme to avoid paying him a salary, to avoid paying him normal wages like your normal person gets, for doing things like writing books. And instead, gave him a house.
In effect, what they did was just try to circumvent the normal procedures so that there would be no way of figuring out how much he had really gotten in the way of income.
Now, as I said it's not just a question of whether or not he had income but it's also conspiracy to conceal that income. First of course he didn't file tax returns. Second, when he was asked about it, you have heard the testimony he gave what can best be described as misleading answers to the questions asked of him. You have seen the records, what little of them there are. They don't show how much money went to Mr. LaRouche, and there were a lot of different people involved in that record keeping process….
93
When Richard Magraw takes the witness stand, all of a sudden he is describing things that have been given to Mr. LaRouche, like clothing as gifts. Isn't it curious that that is exactly what Mr. LaRouche said when he gave the sworn testimony that I read to you a moment ago. Obviously, these people were working in concert, obviously, they were working together to try to create this false impression that Mr. LaRouche doesn't have any income.
A few other specific instances: ____________ goes to talk to Murray Altman in the early 1980's, to prepare tax returns. He tells him that Mr. LaRouche is living with friends. That wasn't true. New Benjamin Franklin House Printing Company was paying $5,000 a month rent for an apartment for Mr. LaRouche. He wasn't staying with friends….
Two other things I want to mention to you: there are two specific exhibits in evidence.
Could 1 have 20-R and 20-S?
These are two exhibits I ask you to take a close look at when you get back in the jury room. These are some vouchers that were submitted for the purchase of things at Ibykus Farm. You will see right up here it says, "Title," and it's whited out there, and after that it says, "Entertaining," and over the white-out somebody has written in "VIP," Well, if you hold it up to the light just right, and those of you who have ever tried to read what was under white-out before will know what 1 mean. If you hold it up to the light just right, you can see what it says underneath that white-out. It used to say, "LaRouche." When it was originally typed up somebody typed up, "LaRouche entertaining. This is for formal china and silverware for Ibykus. Somebody whited that out and put VIP over that.
That is the kind of records they kept. They did everything they could to conceal when expenses were being paid for LaRouche. They whited out what little records there were. 20-S the same way. Exactly the same thing happened.
95
Lastly, you will recall there was testimony that a whole series of letters was sent to Mr. LaRouche by the IRS asking him where his tax return was, and asking him to explain why he hadn't filed a tax return.
You will remember ______________ testified that he received a letter back from IRS at the post office box that he had given them, but that's not the only evidence that Mr. LaRouche received those letters back.
Exhibit 7-D, Ed Spannaus' notebook, page 217 — sorry -- page 204 — here's what it says; "IRS, three letters, standard form letter, LHL, care of CFL, Citizens for LaRouche, request of info about tax form. We have not received 1040 for period ending '81, '82, '83."
Ed Spannaus saw the letters that the IRS wrote to Lyndon LaRouche asking him about his tax returns. You can infer from that that Lyndon LaRouche knew that the IRS had written to him asking him about his tax returns. You heard from the IRS witness that they never got a response back to that.
Now, if Mr. LaRouche's status is so aboveboard/ if Mr. LaRouche has been open and up front about his status, why didn't he just write back to them? He didn't write back to them because he couldn't, because he was involved in trying to conceal his income. It would have been simple to write a letter back, but he didn't, and that, I submit, is the final piece of evidence showing that there was a conspiracy to defeat the Internal Revenue Service, to try to fool the Internal Revenue Service, and Mr. LaRouche's involvement in it with several other people.

03-27-2008, 08:23 PM

boomer70

Eaglebreak,

thanks again for your work in presenting the stuff on the Virginia trial, but why are there names omitted from the documents?

03-27-2008, 10:01 PM

shadok

Five years

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadok
this will be presented to British PM Gordon Brown. You don't have to live in the UK to sign it (and you can hide your name and contact details from the web if you wish so)

It's been five years today Jeremiah Duggan died because of Larouche and his Yutes Bewegung.
The ongoing petition that will be presented next week to Gordon Brown has already gathered more than 500 signatures in just a few days.
Thanks to everyone.

03-28-2008, 01:08 AM

eaglebeak

Why Names Are Omitted
Boomer70--

The names omitted are of people who have left the organization long since, who were more victims than perpetrators, and who were forced to be defendants.

They're deleted because I thought it was fairer to them.

Anyone who knows them and reads this closely can figure out very fast who they are. In my opinion, anyone who doesn't know them doesn't need to know.

I am a great believer in protecting the identity of people victimized by LaRouche, including victimized by having been--or in some cases still being--a member of his cult.

Thus I have tried not to reveal names of current members in my posts, unless they were people I believed to be seriously morally culpable or so obvious I couldn't help it. I have slipped up several times and identified someone I didn't want to, but do try to avoid it.

03-28-2008, 01:47 AM

Michael J. Rowland

I was only part of lym for barely a week but I am still curious about the organization. I've heard of interventions being done on members and those thinking of joining. What does this entail? Can I get some info about that? Thanks in advance.

03-28-2008, 03:57 AM

candor

All the people I know who quit did so out of overwhelming disgust. No intervention was necessary. The organization once touted the case of a Central American member from a wealthy family who had been subject to a forced intervention and who made it back to the cult only to quit on his own years later.

If you are concerned about someone you care about, just stay in regular touch, do not give them money, and don't hector them. Just provide them a loving connection to reality so that when it dawns on him or her just how dire their situation is, they'll be able to leave. The LaRouche cult always tries to cut recruits off from family and friends by demonizing the latter.

03-28-2008, 03:14 PM

Michael J. Rowland

To Candor
Thanks. What do you mean by hector?

03-28-2008, 05:18 PM

scrimscraw

Quote:
What do you mean by hector?

Hector \Hec"tor\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Hectored; p. pr. & vb. n. Hectoring.]

To treat with insolence; to threaten; to bully; hence, to torment by words; to tease; to taunt; to worry or irritate by bullying. --Dryden.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

You know....what we do to Lyn on this board. ;)

03-28-2008, 10:48 PM

borisbad

Bloomberg and Obama. It's interesting that all the nonsense that LaRouche has trumpeted about Mayor Bloomberg trying to set up Obama to destroy Hillary Clinton and then to come in as the Bonapartist "white knight" to build a fascist gov't is totally belittled by the recent appearance at Cooper Union in NY by Barack Obama where he was introduced by Mayor Bloomberg, who while not endorsing Obama seemed to be warm and friendly enough. Of course a LaRouchie can weave this into the type of Machiavellian conspiracy whereby Bloomfield first befriends Obama only to destroy him and I'm sure that LaRouche has already come up with some such explanation, but my question is, where is the fascist movement that Bloomberg is building? Fascism is not the same as a right wing dictatorship or military gov't, it requires a dedicated shock troop movement to destroy institutions like liberal parliamentary democracy, trade unions, and the like. The only shock troops I see besides things like the right wing militia and skin head type movements is the LYM movement.

03-29-2008, 02:43 PM

eaglebeak

LaRouche Does Shakespeare
Or, An American Tragicomedy

Readers may (or may not) remember that in past discussions of the numerous ways in which Lyn hammered and harassed Ken Kronberg over the years, one that was cited was Lyn's profoundly ignorant and outrageously vicious hostility to Ken's work on Shakespeare.

Of all that assaults that Ken had to endure from Lyn in the last year or two of his life, one of the most pernicious was Lyn's decision, based on the whisperings in his ear of the oleaginous Tony Papert, to ban Ken and his colleagues from doing any Shakespeare work. This meant no classes to youth, and no work on putting on plays.

Ken, of course, had directed Macbeth, perhaps the most successful drama the organization ever did, which was performed in New York, and on the road up and down the East Coast, and which to this day remains in my view one of the best performances--probably the best--I have ever seen of that play.

But of course Lyn hated Ken, and hated the fact that Ken was brilliant, highly educated, and a loving teacher.

So, on the way to the first anniversary of Ken's death, let's all remember that Lyn dealt a death blow to Ken with his banning of Ken's Shakespeare work.

Below, one snippet out of the whole long, sad history.

But first--I boldface the most egregious insanities. This item was written as a "mail message" to a member of Editorial--someone still a member--who was trying to get a piece on Shakespeare printed in New Federalist and Fidelio (both now, of course, dead and gone). This Editorial individual had cc'ed Ken Kronberg and Nancy Spannaus on his/her original mail message to Lyn, so the return message also went to Ken and Nancy. Ken saved it.

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

TO:XYZ [inter alia]

FROM: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
SUBJ: CHANGES IN EDITORIAL POLICY
May 21, 2005 (2:18am) EDT

You should be informed that I have changed our editorial policy in some crucial respects, to give it a strategic focus some issues of EIR, for example, have lacked at times, even recent times. EIR is not a revolving door where articles line up waiting for their turn in the barrel. It is not a periodical representing sundry opinions.

Hereafter, the leading topic of EIR, for example, will be a "cover story" with the leading political strategic focus EIR is supplying to readers in the U.S. Congress or some political institutions of similar strategic significance. Each issue must have thorough congruence with that quality of action-oriented focus, rather than offering news and opinion on sundry topics. The quality of political/philosophical implications and current relevance of the issue as a whole must determine the selection and content of each element included in that issue as a whole.

This policy spills over into other publications.

The issue of Shakespeare is very, very political. First of all, I am campaigning to kill all abortive attempts at performing or interpreting Shakespeare's dramas which tend to appeal toward an artsy-fartsy taste, as has been the tendency among some of our would-be directors from these precincts. Thus, I have sought to ban dramatic performances on the East Coast (which have tended to make me sick!) for the present time, except that being done in the clinical way in which work is being assisted by a qualified professional. [That would be Robert Beltran. A professional, certainly. Qualified? A matter of dispute]

The essence of Shakespeare, and also Lessing and Schiller, is historical specificity, not morality plays. [Lyn's then-current hobby horse, based on his incapacity to relate to art sufficiently universal to have no blatant, obvious, usable "political" meaning] The current training from the West Coast on the nature of the historical specificity of the opening of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, and of the openings of legend as history, such as Lear, Macbeth, and Hamlet, are typical of the way in which the relevant problems of interpretation and performance are to be addressed. [West Coast, of course, equals Robert Beltran] The essence of Shakespeare plays of both types is the pervasive reek of the evil permeating cultures which are morally insane, such as Lear, Macbeth, Hamlet, is the "lesson" of these dramas, rather than some illustration of a "moral principle." It is on the latter account that most of the specialized education in Shakespeare, for example, since my university says, (sic) reeks of the Romanticism of Coleridge and Bradley. [Let's not forget that Lyn's university "says" consisted of two freshman years at Northeastern in Boston—and of an inability to get past freshman year.]

For example, in the opening of Hamlet, as Macbeth and Lear, the audience must experience a gripping sense of the sheer psychopathic streak of insanity throughout the kingdom, the tragic quality which is that culture. Then, the unfolding of the drama is an exposition of the consequences of the existence of that specificity of insanity shown in various colors by all of the characters in the drama. In Julius Caesar, the moral rottenness of an entire people, as shown in various colors common to that wretched society, must be established in the audience's mind first, before Caesar himself is brought on stage, such (sic) as the common lunacy of Denmark must be established before a psychopath appropriate to that society, Hamlet, is brought on stage.

"Seven Against Thebes" is a useful point of comparison. [Unfortunately, unfamiliarity with the play makes him unable to be more "specific" ]

Our standard is not opinion, but historical truth, as situated always in its peculiar historical specificity as demonstrated by Schiller's relatively early Don Carlos and later character of the actual Jeanne d'Arc and the actual France, and Europe, of her time. When the issue of historically specific historical truth is left out of the view of tragedy, the less said about the performance the better. [Never mind that Schiller's Joan of Arc bears almost no resemblance to the real Joan—nor need it, because what Schiller was doing was art, not reportage]

Mark's personal insights were, and remain always pertinent, because they express Mark, who was a special kind of person. He had a natural talent for Classical drama merely in being what he was, and what he remains. [This was written after Mark Burdman's death] I can hear Mark saying, "The first thing I must tell you about this guy" with whom he had spoken, "is that he is really insane:" or, something to similar effect. [Just another instance of someone forced into pandering to Lyn's misanthropy] He had a natural sense, of that type, for the smell of real-life tragedy.

Now, to round out this report, I emphasize the following.

I have come to live in more millennia of mankind's development than history knows. There is a flow in what should be known, as what is presently known, of the origins and development of human culture. [L'univers, c'est moi] Each place and moment in that supernal flow of evolution of cultures has a specific place and quality. Thus, there are very, very few Classical dramas which can be competently performed or apprehended otherwise as "morality plays." The moment I hear of a lesson in morality as comment on any Classical drama, I shudder and flee the premises where such transactions are in progress. It is the historical specificity of the actual situation in the entire skein of the development of human existence to date, which is the only subject of any play worth performing, or reporting.

Since it is the political purpose of all our work to enable people to capture themselves in their historically determined situation, in entirety of the actually historical experience of our species, anything which tends to distract attention from that point of view is not to be promoted by us.

As Always,

Have fun!

- 30-30-30 -

Comments:

1. For a short item, this has a huge freight of dishonesties and stupidities, but I will point out only a few: "Thus, I have sought to ban dramatic performances on the East Coast (which have tended to make me sick!)" Yet Lyn had NEVER seen a single one of these dramatic performances on the East Coast. His informant here was Tony Papert--who ALSO had NEVER seen a single one of these performances.

That's how policy gets done in the org, kiddiewinks.

The main point is that any time Lyn became aware of an avenue opening up for creativity or learning in the otherwise-arid landscape of his cult, he closed it down. Without discussion.

2. Note how as far as Lyn can tell, the point of every play, from Athens to the Globe to Weimar and beyond, is to depict sheer screaming insanity and rottenness.

Another moment of self-revelation.

3. And then there's "I have come to live in more millennia of mankind's development than history knows."

This, constant reader, is what is known as megalomania, malignant narcissism, folie de grandeur--breathtaking in its delusional qualities.

My advice? Call a shrink. Call the Rescue Squad. Call a qualified professional. Write a play on the gripping sense of the sheer psychopathic streak of insanity throughout the organization, the tragic quality which is that culture.

I'm sure Ken would approve.

03-29-2008, 07:43 PM

borisbad

His Royal Emptiness's theories of clasical drama are on the same plane as the Stalinist agitprop, i.e. that art is either simply an expression of petit bourgeois 'artsy-fartsyness" as Lyn so elegantly writes, or it serves an immediate political purpose. And yet, even under Stalin there was some actual creative enterprise, i.e. Sergei Eisenstein's movies, Berthold Brecht's dramas, etc. When someone in the org. tries to be creative, they simply replicate pre-existing artforms such as music drawn from the days of Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven, or produce wretched poetry such as we have seen from the Master himself.

03-29-2008, 08:12 PM

xlcr4life

Evryone should understand that nothing is done in the LC unless it leads to money or to further consolidate an iron fist grip of cult control. This becomes self perpetuating when the only interests a member has will be based on a sort of "offering" to Lyn to please him. Lyn just has to make a few public examples of a person whose interersts start to move away from Lyn being the center of the universe to get the members back in line.

When Lyn complains about the "focus of EIR" , he is merely reinforcing a standard policy of where only he occipies the front cover and the inside pages. I witnessed this in many conferences, especially one in Va where somes one asked about making EIR and Fusion covers with somehting more exciting instead of just pictures of Lyn at a podium raising his fist. This all led to his command that nothing exists in the LC without him and nothing is to be put into print unless it promotes him.

If I had more brains back then instead of good intentions, I would have taken that as a clue to get the hell out sooner

Having been in the LC I find sections of what Eaglebeak has been posting to be blood curdling. Lyn has constantly preached to the LC that suffering , losing your life and going to prison for a noble purpose is the highest accomplishment one can do, except when it involves him. Lyn would be the one ordering members to go into fights with other groups and take a beating or get shot to save humanity from one of his delusions. He now has the LYM assembling his final version of "LaroucheTown" to be close to him as he enters his death spiral.

Years ago I got horror chills reading a LYM Q/A where new recruits were asked if they were ready to die like Joan Of Arc to save humanity

http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/l/larouche-movement/no-joke/

"Speakers at the three-day conference returned again and again to the martyrdom theme, LaRouche-posted transcripts of their speeches show. Elodie Viennot, a LaRouche leader in France, asked the young people present if they could be as brave as Joan of Arc if they were taken to Guantanamo Bay and interrogated mercilessly "because you are associated with Lyndon LaRouche?"

She urged her audience to heed LaRouche's call to take Joan of Arc as their role model and make their bid for immortality: "They burned her alive, and she didn't flinch at all . . . Are you willing to put your life on the line? Because your life might actually never die if you accomplish those matters . . . If you know you are fighting for the good, nobody can touch you. They can't get you to flicker.""

When you read the opening statements and soon, the actual trial testimomy, always keep in mind how General Patton's autobigraphy is mentioned and how the membership was performing and viewing the Marlowe play "Tamburlaine" as the fundraising boiler rooms were being ramped up. It no longer was important to think about ethics or the short and long term effects of burning out our members and contacts, but to just raise the money . What happened after the money was raised was no longer a concern, as that would raise questions . The only thing to be raised was the weekly quotas. As you self destructed the org and burnt out supporters the 24/7 frenzy exploded with no end in sight. Some people joked with me that the good thing about the raid on our offices was that it gave us a few hours off of the phones.

The LC was run in a way in which a member would be slowly turned from a person with ideals to a person who would not question the criminal work they were doing for Lyn. Lyn's operation was a mafia cult where nothing is in his name , yet he controls everything and every penny. He expects you to throw the punch, take the beating, take the gunshot, go to prison, starve, abort your fetus, skip seeing the doctor, hate your parent, lie to a Grand Jury, skip the country and destroy your life and others.

While Lyn was denoucing your parents at one national conference after another, we had several people in the Boston local whose job it was to take care of his parents. Boston local members spent more time and money on Lyn's parents then Lyn did!

A few years ago, Lyn hopped and skipped through the Leesburg office telling the members that he was sooooooo excited to be a grandfather as his son Danny was now a father. Lyn sang and danced his way past female members who had abortions to save humanity 20 years earlier. You think he had a drop of concern or even a memory over the female members in the office at the time who had abortions ?

When you read about the expenses for Club Ibykus in the trial, the typical LCer was getting 5 bucks a day if they were lucky. At least the people in the field could take some of the cash to hit a McDonalds during the day. I began to plan my departure as I saw both the excesses of what was taking place in Ibykus and the utter horrors of seeing people around me become further impoverished and physically/mentally ruined.

There was no morals in the LC when you have a bizarro world of Lyn as reality and everything else is nothing but an abstraction. Everything was designed by plan or default to control the thinking so one erases the past for the next crisis. Does anyone think that Lyn has a single care for what happend to Tom Ascher after he was shot at Lincoln Detox in the Bronx over 30+ years ago? The whole horror show of the LC has been a perverse world of a delusional saving of humanity while the members were used and discarded after everything was taken away. For this version of the LYM , Lyn made it real clear a few years ago when he wrote in an internal NC memo that it is foolish to invest in a boomer member when he can get 50 years of work out of a 20 year old LYM recruit.

Instead of keeping this all inside, many of us just write what actually happened during our tenure. Sooner or later, a current LCer or LYM member finds this site or Laroucheplanet.info if they are scared of justiceforjeremiah.com or King's lyndonlarouchewatch.org site.

Lyn spends 250 million on his delusions, we spend a few bucks for maybe some blank CDs for files and a few bucks for bandwidth.

Lyn, when you see Jeff today, remember that when he smiles at you, he is sorting out how to expand "The Steinberg Report" , not the "The Larouche Report" as you age. People in Leesburg don't see him and Michelle selling their townhouse for the org and moving to LaroucheTown.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-29-2008, 08:56 PM

candor

What eaglebeak has posted of LaRouche's remarks on drama show what a fearful, resentful, and envious individual LaRouche is:

he FEARS self-knowledge (of the type that literature conveys);

he RESENTS adherence to any standard of normative behavior for himself (such as a "morality" play might present to his much withered conscience);

he ENVIES well-educated and cultured individuals (such as the late Ken Kronberg, people who instantiate all that is good and great in the human spirit.)

A comparison of Kronberg to LaRouche reminds one of the B horror film Swamp Thing: both the good guy and the bad guy imbibe a substance which transforms each individual's physical appearance to reflect their true character. The good guy becomes a compassionate giant while the bad guy becomes a simpering, twisted hobbit. It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out who is who in LaRo Land.

I hope the LYM soon acquire the maturity to see that LaRouche - rather than a hero - is nothing but a small, ignorant, demented, evil dwarf. The "boomers" who remain are probably incapable at this point of such moral clarity.

03-29-2008, 11:04 PM

boomer70

re: ll's drama pearls
so the Hubrisness is saying that the events, say, in 'MacBeth' are historical fact? sort of like with 'Karl Marx Refuted'?

03-29-2008, 11:29 PM

scrimscraw

From the sublime to the ridiculous

What gets me is LHL's fluctuation from lofty pretensions of intellectual superiority to the demented "humor" of an eight year old. For the latter, witness the current incisive demolition of scapegoat Al Gore:

Quote:
LaRouche on "Jello Head" Al Gore
March 28, 2008 (LPAC)-- Al Gore Classified
By Lyndon H. LaRouche jr.
The approved technical term for Prince Charles' lackey, Al Gore, is "Jello Head." This conveys the image of aspic fruited with sundry vegetables from the Prince's harem, otherwise known as that brutish royal garden maintained as a fog-fed substitute for an orangerie. [What the f*** is he talking about??]
Do not forget, whenever you think of Al Gore, hum "Sixteen tons and the Company Store." As you can plainly see Gore, of late, is well on the way to living up to that part about the "sixteen tons." [Good to see that Lyn is keeping the concept of "Company Store" well in mind as he sets up the LYM on a nearby LaRoucheLand.]
Question of the Day:
"Why should Al Gore kiss a polar bear?"
"The bear is very hungry."
"The term of affection for Al Gore among mint-julip soused visiting Polar Bears is "Blubber."

Methinks it isn't visiting Polar Bears who are mint-julip soused!

My vote of appreciation to the gleeful gremlins in the LARpac website Basement for putting this stuff online for all to see! Awesome!

03-30-2008, 12:27 AM

candor

The mother of all forecasts:

1976-larouche-reagan-sdi.wmv
http://wlym.com/video/1976-larouche-reagan-sdi.wmv

at http://wlym.com/video/

Abstract: The election of Jimmy Carter = global thermonuclear war by no later than summer of 1977. :eek:

Reality check: Jimmy Carter became president and it is now 2008.

Have fun!

03-30-2008, 02:25 AM

xlcr4life

Anyone else pick up one of Lyn's favorite words, "sundry" in many of the opuses and memos?

Instead of the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Lyn's 4 high horses of the Apocalypse seems to always have :

- Thermonuclear war, not just nuclear.

- A global depression.

- A reduction of 2 billion people. The race depends on the audience.

- A New Dark Ages.

Lyn can pull any combo out when needed or use all 4 at a web cast or LYM session.

Here is Lyn on Jan 31, 2008 on the upcoming Apocalypse.

"LAROUCHE: Well, anyone who doesn't see the apocalypse as actually happening, does not understand the situation in their own country. What's in process is a general breakdown of the world economy which is only comparable to what happened in Germany between 1921 and 1923. The entire world is in a process of a general, global financial breakdown crisis, which is remarkably similar to what happened in Europe in the 14th century, when the Lombard banking system of that period collapsed, and Europe fell into a long dark age.

See, it's not a U.S. crisis, it's a world crisis, but the U.S. is the most important economy in the world. For example, if the U.S. dollar collapses--as it very well could, under President Bush's present policies--you will have a global, chain-reaction collapse of every economy of the world beginning within a few months. All you have to defend yourself against it, from that standpoint, is denial of reality.

The present world system is finished: It's gone, it's dead now.

The LYM should broaden their musical horizons and bring in a new genre of music from the Islands and combine it with Lyn's 4 pillars of lunacy and call it "Apocalypso".

"Come, Mister Larouche man, tally me quota.
Night time come and me wan' go home.
Come, Mister NC finish de briefing.
Night time come and me wan' go home?

Here is a video by "LAROUCHEYouth".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQtpqHJ-hKQ

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-30-2008, 06:53 AM

jimmy-o

Quote:
Originally Posted by candor
The mother of all forecasts:
1976-larouche-reagan-sdi.wmv
at
Abstract: The election of Jimmy Carter = global thermonuclear war by no later than summer of 1977. :eek:
Reality check: Jimmy Carter became president and it is now 2008.
Have fun!

Of course, Jimmy Carter is one of the 'good guys' now: I Defend President Jimmy Carter http://www.new-fed.com/lar/2006/061210lar_jimmy_carter.html by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

03-30-2008, 08:34 AM

scrimscraw

Like father, like son...

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcr4life
Here is a video by "LAROUCHEYouth".

It's uncanny how Tony Chaitkin has come to resemble Lyn. A little more scared-looking, perhaps, but...still...!

03-30-2008, 12:17 PM

boomersage

A propos LaRouche's inner-party purges and campaigns regarding Shakespeare and culture, I can't help but note, as a side-matter, that there's a certain irony in his invoking Mark Burdman's name. Mark was an exceedingly bright and well-meaning guy -- as were, and undoubtedly are, many people who gravitate into the NCLC -- but he probably wasn't the best person to judge the sanity of others, and the same goes for other members whose mental processes and judgment got systematically undermined by their years in the sect. I hesitate to speak ill of the departed, but it's meant to serve a useful purpose. Over the years, Mark developed a habit of writing in a kind of unmistakable mimickry of LaRouche's idiosyncratic and tortured prose style that you could only describe as bizarre and cringe-inducing.

03-30-2008, 01:08 PM

eaglebeak

Reprise, Towards April 11

What follows is something I posted before, but in the lead-up to the first anniversary of Ken Kronberg's death, I am revisiting a number of documents which show the nightmare the organization had become for Ken--andthe insanity that raged after his death, as Lyn and others tried to offload the blame for Ken's death onto Tom, Dick, and Harry. And Fernando, Linda, Uwe, and Molly.

Here, for a second time (those of you who have read it before can ignore this post) are excerpts from a conference call Lyn held with the NCs in November 2005--a conference call on which Ken Kronberg was present, and one which "the NEC"--that is, Lyn--directed to have transcribed and reprinted in its entirety in the Morning Briefing.

Significance? This is the conference call in which Lyn declared that PMR--that is, Ken--was a scam ripping off the organization.

November 2005--18 months before Ken's death. I have boldfaced the relevant part.

The rest is worth reading because it's another example of just how %^^$##@*() crazy Lyndon LaRouche is.

LYNDON LAROUCHE NC CONfERENCE CALL, Nov. 21, 2005

- I DON'T ALLOW VETO POWERS OVER ME: -
- I'M OUT TO WIN THIS FOR HUMANITY -

The following is the full transcript of an NC conference call with Lyndon LaRouche held yesterday, which launched a renewed assault on the problems we must solve to achieve victory in this period. It is a discussion which the NEC thought should be shared with the membership as a whole.

Note: At the conclusion of the call, Lyn called for us to immediately begin a mobilization toward the next webcast, which is being scheduled for January 11, 2006, two days after Congress returns. He explains why.

LYNDON LAROUCHE NC CONFERENCE CALL, Nov. 21, 2005

Here is the conference call with Lyndon LaRouche and the National Committee in the United States. [unproofed]

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we're coming into a very interesting period. It's Thanksgiving. The turkey is running around town, in very short visits and saying "gobble, gobble, gobble!" It's like the thing, today.
I don't know if Cheney's wife's going to take him back, or not. But in any case, the situation is, we are now--, shall we say, I don't think that most of our people really know where they are, in the universe at this time. You get that, particularly from our phone team members in Baltimore, in New Jersey, especially in California, where you've really got the pits, the furthest from reality! Chicago. Because there, in the Baby-Boomer generation there really is not an understanding of reality. What happened of course, is that, in the course of the '90s, there was a certain amount of mismanagement by Fernando, {and} others, who restructured the organization in a way which eliminated the field, in the sense. That is, it eliminated our face-to-face contact with the human population, and restricted the outreach to a select list of phone screened people, a phone bank. Now a phone bank is not human. And particularly as the use of phone banks becomes more and more and more common, when you're calling a number, you're calling the same number that's being besieged by perhaps 50 to 100 different other calls, which are doing funny kinds of solicitation. And therefore, by coming in that way, you run into the worst side of the U.S. population, the side that's reacting to that, and you are somehow placed in that, and that really is a terrible place to be.
Now, in the course of the 1980s and early 1990s, we had supporters who were members of my generation, leading toward the older side of my generation. And these people died out, or became infirm. And often people over 70-75, a significant percentile of them in our population becomes infirm. And therefore, by relying on that part of the population for our support, of people who had known us back in '80s and so forth, what actually happened was that the sales force in various parts of the organization died. It died--well, in Los Angeles, it died, of course from Khushro diseases. It died in Jersey, for similar reasons. It died in Baltimore--it became senile in a sense, politically senile. And similarly.
We fought it in the National Center with special efforts, and therefore we have a fairly good performance in the National Center, barring the effects of infirmity, illness, and whatnot hitting--and family troubles hitting, as they come along at about this time.
So, there was no outreach. As a matter of fact, in 1994, in April of 1994, there was an {hysterical} reaction, both in the United States from Leesburg, and in Europe--absolutely hysterical! Screaming, yelling, raging, against my insistence that we get back with real outreach by going out of the offices, and going out and shake hands, and talk to real people on the streets, in a normal situation. So, that happened.
And you should see the scene: Remember, in April 1994, right here at the residence, we had all these people here. And I gave a presentation on outreach. The faces grew gray, and purple, depending on which type--some got gray, some got purple, some got {red}. When they went out of the meeting, they were out {SCREAMING}! All of them--different issues--but, screaming. And they wouldn't do it, they wouldn't do outreach.
Finally, in very recent years, we got some real outreach going--well, actually, about 2000 on we began to move in that direction. And the development of the Youth Movement was the key to the outreach. And people found out there were human beings out there. All of the human beings were not limited to the population of phone banks: Human beings were also walking, so forth, really out there in society. And the response was very good, generally. It varied, but it was generally very good--much better than the contact from the phone team. The phone team contacts were people you knew, they'd talked to before, many times. That's different--but, to talk to a stranger, by a telephone call? That's a terrible thing to do. But, you talk to somebody you've met in the flesh and discussed in the flesh, they identify you, you're a real human being, you're an acquaintance! You're not a stranger calling them, you're an acquaintance. And that worked. Except the phone teams are against it.
They're so conditioned, they're like Struldbruggs: They're so conditioned to a certain habit. And we would have people who would even do stupid things, rather than simply doing a simple thing, of calling somebody. Rather than call somebody they're supposed to call, on a follow-up, they'll go on the phone for half an hour, or an hour, to gobble up the time, to make sure they won't have any time left to talk to these {stra-a-a-ngers}. (Did your mother tell you, never talk to strangers?) This is the kind of situation.
So, actually, many of you--not you fine ladies and gentlemen--but many of you, similars, are {clinically insane}. Now, this insanity also took another form. About this time, we'd gone into a period, where after 1990, 1992, sections of the world population of your age, that is, the Baby-Boomer age, went into a new phase of insanity, which is called "the end of history." History is over, you were past the age--that is, your generation--in which you were looking for promotions. You weren't looking for promotion to stepping up to the head of the corporation or something like that. You had passed promotion eligible age. You were still adults, you were still adults out in the street, turned loose, but you had no more promotions--there was no future for you, that is, no upgrade. You were stuck where you were. And it was like being at the end of the trolley line, and living out at the end of the trolley line service, when the service was cut down; and you're living in someplace that can't get repaired, because there's no place to get in, the trolley isn't reliable any more.
And along came a guy who said, "Well, Lyn is wrong. He says, there are crashes. Well, I've seen some crashes around, but I don't believe it. Yeah, we had a crash--but I don't believe it. I think Lyn's wrong. Maybe there'll be more crashes--but he's still wrong. They may have happened, but they never happened. Not as far as I'm concerned. Because I know, because somebody told me, and they told me at our print shop, they told me at Winstar, they told me at other places: We had a miracle in this country! It's call the IT, or Y2K Revolution. {And there's money out there--LOTS OF MONEY!} But you have to know how to get it." And so, we had a scam at PMR, and they almost bankrupted us, and nearly bankrupted themselves with this crazy scam, believing that they were going to get this great contract, and they had no contract. But they went deeply into debt, and they dragged us into debt, pursuing a pussy-willow, that didn't exist. [When Lyn says "pussy-willow," presumably he means will-o-the-wisp. The man is nothing but one giant Freudian slip.]
And Winstar--the same thing. And back as late as 1999 and 2000, people were saying, around us, were saying, "Lyn is wrong. Where's the crash?"
And you look at the figures, the physical figures of crashes around the country, and every time I've predicted a crash, or forecast one, it's happened! But they keep saying I'm wrong, there's no crash. Why? Because they wish to believe, there's not a problem: "The {money} is out there! You just have to know how to find it."
And so, what they do, is they say, "We are not going to change. We are going to do, what we have always done. We know, the money is out there. And we'll get it {our} way! It will come to us--leave us alone, it will come to us.
"Lyn is wrong!"
And that's what we're getting.
Now, you get to a situation, in which our impact in the world, to some degree in Europe, but much more in the United States where there's more confidence, especially as you get into those brackets of people who are much more politically active, who don't feel as impotent--like people in the Congress, for example, don't feel as impotent as people in some parts of the country. So, more optimistic, or disposed to be optimistic. And we find, with our Youth Movement in particular, because people see youth coming with us--the only thing, {intelligent} youth! Imagine that? Intelligent youth, intelligent young adults, talking to them? "Hey! There's life! It's not the end of the trolley line! There's still something beyond the end of the trolley line! Lookit, young people! Hey, this organization is alive!"
And so therefore, we have been successful in what the youth do. If we had the resources to support more, we'd have many more! And the youth, with me, as you've seen especially since Boston in July of last year, {we have changed the course of history.} We have changed the destiny of the world: Because the United States is the center of the world. This is not the umbilicus of the world, it's actually a higher position. The British are the umbilicus of the world--you can tell, by their waistlines. Their diets show it to you.
But anyway, here we are with this irony, that I, personally, and we are shaping world history. There's no guarantees. But we have a winnable position. We don't have a guaranteed victory, but we have a winnable position. And you see, with our relationship to the Senate, our relationship to some of the House of Representatives, our relationship to key parts of the institutions out there: We are in the center of changing world history.
But if you go to our Baby-Boomers in the offices in New Jersey, or Baltimore, or, especially that lowest of all places! That pit, the Khushro pit, out in Los Angeles. Or Chicago, where a little bit of insanity reigns--and you find complete pessimism. Complete cultural pessimism. They're still waiting for their sperm count--the girls, too! In Los Angeles, the girls up to the board and they look for their sperm count!
But somebody says, "You haven't got a sperm count" and they say, "Oh God! I've got a sperm count--I feel like it."
DEBRA FREEMAN: The only thing lower than the income!
LAROUCHE: Is the sperm count! Yeah, exactly! Hey! That's great! The only thing lower than the income in Los Angeles phone team, is the sperm count!
Anyway. But, we have an excellent situation, for us, for our mission, for winning a war: We've almost got Cheney out. And if we get Cheney out, we have won, not a war, but a battle. If we've won that battle, then a lot of us, not just us in our organization, but in partnership and in collaboration in our institutions, are going to {change} the United States' direction, and we're going to change the world. And we're going to do it. Now, in our organization, if you look at the organization and you discount the youth, the young adults, you'll find that apart from the National Center where we have some concentration of people who are actually still alive, that have high sperm count, even the ladies--but in other parts of the organization there actually is a {very small fraction} of even our total so-called adult organization, our middle-aged organization, only a tiny fraction is actually functioning. Most of them are non-functional. They are {emotionally} non-functional. They get on a phone, or they get into some other activity, and after a short period of time, they go politically dead: They lose their ability to function effectively. Because they believe that they have reached the end of history. They believe they're on the verge of incipient retirement, where they concentrate on their sperm count. And they're sitting there, in the dustbin of history, at the end of the trolley line, trying to do housekeeping in their dollhouse, at the end--. And they're trying to change their sex lives, and so forth, things like that. It's like changing furniture.
But, here we are: The fate of humanity for hundreds of years to come, depends on the crucial element that we're supplying to the situation. You look around at our old Struldbruggs, and you say, {"They're not in the real world!"}
We have youth that are in the real world. They're very promising. But, we have a {tiny handful, a tiny fraction of our total nominal membership, that is actually functional.} That is not unusual in history. But it happened to us. That's our problem! So, that's the situation.

- DIALOGUE -

DEBRA: Lyn, you know, one thing that I know goes on, even where people will go out into the field and will go out reasonably happily--I think you have a slightly different conception of the role of the field organizing than some of our organizers do, because, what's happening now is that--I think it varies from day to day, and the field organizing is up and down. Sometimes we do very, very well, and sometimes it's kind of mediocre. But, the prevailing view that people have, is still that the field organizing is outreach, but it's outreach in the form--it's just a slight difference in technology than what we used to do. Whereas before you would call a cold list, and among those people, you would look for people who then become your fundraising contacts. And I think that there still is this idea, that the reason why we go out into the field is to "mine" for new contacts.
LAROUCHE: Ah!
DEBRA: In other words, just replacing what used to be a cold call, with going out there and collecting contacts, and still coming back and taking the same approach; that the operation is principally a phone-based operation, and you just out on into the field to find people to supply the phone teams with.
LAROUCHE: That's true-- DEBRA: And, when I've talked to you, you've indicated that, while certainly you want to do the phone follow-up, we'd be crazy not to, that it's the field presence itself, that constitutes a certain degree of outreach. And I don't think people get that, at all.
LAROUCHE: They don't want to get it.
DEBRA: I agree. But, I think we've got to be really emphatic about it. Because otherwise, it still is--otherwise, the mentality is still that we're a "phone boiling operation" and we just have to find ways to feed the monster. It's like the plants in "The Little Shop of Horrors," that just cries "Feed me! I'm hungry!"
LAROUCHE: Yeah, yeah, sure! Exactly that. That's exactly what it is. I mean, it's obvious.
We've gone brain dead as an organization, over this idea that the organization {is} the phone bank--absolutely correct. That's what it is.
And you get this in California, the very worst case--I mean, for example, you get in California, they fake. The adulterated people fake. They get a lot of contacts--they don't follow them up, they don't want to! They say they're following them up. We know they're not. Or, sometimes, they'll follow them up to burn them, hmm? To prove that it doesn't work, they'll burn it. They blow the contact.
So, we have {thousands} of contacts, probably tens of thousands of contacts that are not maintained, because the Baby-Boomers don't want to maintain them. Because they {do not WANT} anything different, than a phone bank operation. They don't want it! They don't want mass organizing. They're afraid of it, they're afraid it'll get us into trouble or something. They want us to be {impotent}, because as long as they feel impotent, they feel safe. Nobody's going to bother them. Just our little impotent mice.
And so, you've got a real psychosis. You've got in Europe, too. You've got--there are a few people, who are active, who are trying to do something. But they're constantly dragged down by people who are {completely}--they're really like Struldbruggs! They're so {depressed}, they're depressed in a terrible way. And Los Angeles, the phone team--my God! This is a depressive ward. Baltimore, the phone team, is a depressed ward! DEBRA: Yeah, it's true.
LAROUCHE: Jersey, depressed! I mean, morally, emotionally, everything! Depressed! It's boring and depressing. There's no sense of vitality, no combativity. Here we are, changing history ... and they don't like it! It gets us into trouble!
LARRY FREEMAN: Well, you know, if you have a low sperm count, you always have to fake it.
LAROUCHE: [laughs] No, you save money on condoms! LARRY: Yeah, "We're not buying any anymore, we don't have enough money for 'em!"
DEBRA: That's okay, in Baltimore, they give 'em out for free.
LARRY: The thing is, the mentality that we've developed into, what Debbie was saying on one level, is the list. We think in terms of the "list," one "list" versus another "list." And the point is, as you and I were mentioning a little bit yesterday, they see this as another "list," and they call it the same way, with these predicated, long histrionic briefings, and they don't get a response--because they just think they're replacing one list with another, instead of realizing we're in a total different political geometry.
LAROUCHE: Yeah, exactly. For example: Our contacts, and you see this with what's happening with this Saturday job, which is not fully functioning, but when Sue's there, it functions. But, what it demonstrates is that, people who were neglected in California for two years, are still active contacts. The name was up, and address and so forth, was there two years ago--and they follow it up, and that person is still an active contact, because it was a face-to-face contact.
Now, the reason that works, is--just to make to your point, Larry--the reason that works, is because we have a very active youth organization in the field in California. We were key in the question of the fight against Schwarzenegger's coming in in the first place; we've been key in every major operation in California. And out on the West Coast generally. We're everywhere--especially in the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area. Now, in Jersey, we don't have that. New York City, yes, when we do it. Steve has something in the Pennsylvania region, he's got a tight little ship there. It functions as a tight little ship, fairly well. Baltimore, we really don't have it, and the resistance to integration with the youth operation in Baltimore, killed the possibility of running a youth operation out of Baltimore. Because the miasma was just too strong. LARRY: Yep, that's right.
LAROUCHE: In the case of Washington, Washington is tremendous, but that's because--and it's not tremendous because it just happened: We had to make it happen. But, we brought it together, to the point that we now have a very effective operation in the nation's capital.
We could have something in Jersey, but they just don't want to do it. They're old folks, retired. We don't have a field around the National Center: We have an old folks problem in the National Center--too many people that work at PMR, or having been working with that kind of environment. They're just sort of brain-dead when it comes to politics.
So, but we have a Youth Movement, which is out there, and the Youth Movement is {us}, plus a handful of us who are actually running it. And except for the National Center, where we have a special situation with the phone team, generally most of our adulterated population is a drag! Politically, they're a drag--they're just not engaged with the real world! Cheney could be fired tomorrow, and Cheney could go out there, screaming that I did it to him, and they would still pretend that nothing had happened, we hadn't accomplished anything.
LARRY: Yeah, they'd say, "LaRouche is wrong, again!"
JEFF STEINBERG: Lyn, as I see it, our collective problem--and the point of having this call today, because you're going to be busy with things over the course of the next month, is that --
LAROUCHE: Oh, I'm going to be watching--I'm going to be on top of you guys! Don't spread the rumor that I'm not on top of you! [they laugh] I'm on top of you guys, don't kid yourself. You may try to duck me, but I'm there. There is no vacation. Don't plan your vacation now!
Go ahead.
JEFF: I mean, I know, from being involved in reviewing the finances, on a day by day basis, that we're at the point already, where certain things that we absolutely should and must be doing, aren't getting done, precisely because of this problem. And so, I think we've just got to figure out some way, that we as a body are going to make some substantial progress in solving this thing. Because, I think what you said in the opening remarks, the characterization of the problem I think is pretty well universally recognized at this point, at least among us on the call.
But in terms of making progress on it, that's where I'm concerned.
LAROUCHE: Well, the key thing is, to have a policy. Now, the policy I've been fighting about, where there'd been some resistance to, is the way you organize: You organize with....

There's more--isn't there always?--but you get the idea.

I suggest that LYMers and other members go back and read the whole thing in the Alpha in the briefing from November 2005.

03-30-2008, 01:27 PM

eaglebeak

Lyn vs. Shakespeare, Round 2

Here I'm posting another offering, excerpts from the transcription of a conference call Lyn had in October 2005 with the West Coast LYM, under the watchful eye of Harley Schlanger.

That it's the West Coast is significant, because that's where Robert Beltran, recruited by Harley, held sway--perhaps still does, who knows? And Beltran was the "professional" whom Lyn habitually cited as the only Authorized Director in the organization.

You will see that here again, Lyn announces that he has banned people on the East Coast from doing Shakespeare. That was Ken and two colleagues, whose names I omit because they're still in the organization and may not want to have attention called to them. (In Lyn's world, as in Stalin's, if he notices you, you're dead.)

Of course, you can imagine that Ken found this conference call also very painful.

Also please notice the obscene and in fact psychotic animus Lyn exhibits against Baby Boomer members. The whiff of insanity that permeates all these documents would be enough to tell even the meanest intellect that Lyn is nuts, wouldn't you think? But the people still in have been beaten down into a kind of dull, desperate submission. They hardly notice this stuff any more.

I have boldfaced relevant passages, and also some that just seemed to me especially crazed.

- CAN YOU SAVE A BABY-BOOMER FROM HIS FATE -
- AS A PUTATIVE, POTENTIAL STRULDBRUG? -

bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PM{Lyn addressed the West Coast cadre school on Oct. 15, 2005.} [unproofed]
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMHARLEY SCHLANGER: We're all ready, Lyn, are you ready?
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMLYNDON LAROUCHE: I'm ready.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMSCHLANGER: Well, we're up here in the Santa Barbara Mountains, so you have the floor.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMLAROUCHE: You are? Okay, you got 'em up in the mountains, to get away from the smell of the Baby-Boomers. Say when--Okay:
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMWell, let's do something a little different than I often do, today. Because I've often done, what I've often done, and therefore, maybe it's time to do what I have not often done.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMAll right, now, I want to refer your attention to a book, which was intended to be the first of two volumes, but only one was produced--for nasty reasons.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMWe had a former associate, deceased recently, Graham Lowry. Now, Graham Lowry was not only a professional historian, unusually accomplished as a thinker about history, American history in particular. That is, unlike most so-called historians, he actually relived the history not merely as a history of facts, but as living history. For similar reasons, (sc) I have forbidden people on the East Coast of the United States to produce plays. Because their conception of drama is Romantic. It's a fantasy life, it's like a Hollywood escape from reality into an imaginary place in the past. And you would use for your--like doll-play, in a doll-house, you would use the names and some descriptions of actual figures from the past to play doll-house with a past part of history. Particularly like Shakespeare's plays, or those of Schiller.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMThe Baby-Boomer generally, who's a Romantic, can not understand history, and always tries to play it like a game of doll-house, taking the names of actual living people from the past, and putting them in the doll-house, and playing with them, and imagine that they were changing the game. This doll will do this. This doll will do this. I will intervene, I will change the way this doll plays. And everything will then work out just fine! Because I've changed history. And so, they do that.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMBut, Graham was not like that. Graham was a person who lived history, as I do. I mean, my attempt is always to relive the experience of the history which happened. Not to try to change it, but to learn from the experience to understand it, and to recognize that that history is a part of my past. The Romantic never really understand, accepts the fact that it was part of the past. They like to live in a fantasy world of escape from real life--as with a Hollywood film.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMBut, Graham was a real historian, who really lived history. One day he came to me, in 1983, and said he'd made a discovery in history. He said, the question that bothered him, was, since the American Revolution, and he knew a good deal about it, because he knew the history of the 17th Century in the United States, or what became the United States, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony and so forth; and he knew some later history. And he knew the role of the Leibniz in making the American Revolution. The question that was posed in his mind, was how did the ideas of Leibniz, as transmitted after the beginning of the 18th Century, how were these ideas actually transmitted into the life of the United States, in the circles of Franklin and so forth? And how was the United States, how was it born?
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMSo, understanding that, he did research into the history of England at a particular point between 1688, and 1716. And this formed the core of what became this book, which is called {How the Nation Was Won.}
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMIn the process, he came across the one figure in English history which was most typical of the link between the Leibnizian tradition of the Continent, and the Leibnizian tradition of Benjamin Franklin, in founding the United States, and defining the economic policy of the United States. The figure he discovered was Jonathan Swift. Jonathan Swift is somebody you should find out about for yourself. We've written a good deal about it. Graham's book refers to it.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMBut there's one particular thing I would like to call to your attention. In one of the volumes of Jonathan Swift's {Gulliver's Travels}, the Voyage to Laputa, which is itself a joke on the question of the Spanish and so forth, the 7th, and 8th, and 10th chapters, which have some interesting references in them, which you will understand after you read it. [Lyn does all this "historical specificity" to try convey the notion that he's read the book. Trust me, he hasn't. But he did become aware at a certain point that certain members were saying on a regular basis that he hadn't read most of what he talked about, and he became even more defensive, if such a thing were possible, about his intellectual atttainments.] But let me call your attention to the 10th chapter of A Voyage to Laputa. In this, Swift introduces a very ugly, but interesting type of character, which he calls the "Struldbrug." Now, these are people who actually correspond to what many of you might describe as the forerunner of the typical, modern Baby-Boomer. Particularly the Baby-Boomer who is now past 50-55 years of age.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMThese Struldbrugs are so-called quasi-Immortals. And Swift has some real fun with this. Because, at first, he says, "Ah! Immortality! How wonderful!"--this is his character, Gulliver--"how wonderful, these people live a long life! Why don't I find more of them around advising the monarchy here, the local monarchy? They must have a tremendous amount of experience, and are able to give good advice, from the lessons of history, to the monarchy." But the leading people of that kingdom that he was visiting--heh-heh-heh!--said, "You don't understand." bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMAnd therefore, Gulliver, the character found out about the Struldbrugs. And he found out they're born with a certain patch over the eye. But then, at the age of 40, they're put under special prohibitions, because they begin to become senile. And they keep on living up to 200 years of age, they become just a real, mean-spirited nuisance, hanging around. And they have all kinds of restrictions on them, to make sure they don't have too much influence over the younger generation. As a matter of fact, none, is preferred. The Struldbrugs--a very tragic--.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMYou're reading this, you will say, "Ah! This is the typical, modern Baby-Boomer!"
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMNow, the question is: Can you save a Baby-Boomer from his fate as a putative, potential, Struldbrug? I have a great deal of experience in trying to do that. It is extremely difficult labor. We do, however, have a few successes. And we do try to rescue as many of our own Struldbrugs in our association as possible. I'm not a Struldbrug. I'm mortal. But, you know, as I've described earlier, when people get past male menopause, which comes about 52, 53, 55 years of age, the whole tribe, all these families approaching this part of life, they suddenly go into withdrawal from reality. They go into a kind of Purgatory, where they sit, knitting, to pass the time of day: Because, they've entered the end of history, just like the Struldbrugs in Gulliver's story. They don't believe in the future.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMNow, the problem, the practical problem this represents, is this: In any society in which we are composed of mortal people, that is, we all die, the meaning of our lives as human beings, as distinct from monkeys and some kinds of Baby-Boomers, is what we pass on in terms of ideas and institutions and experience from our lives and the lives of those who have gone before us, into the work and the continuity of history, society, culture, the progress of humanity, represented by the coming generation. And not only do we depend upon young children, babies, children, adolescents, who are part, of course, of the biological history, the other history, of our society; but we look especially to people who actually reach about the age of 18 to 25.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMNow, in that generation, 18 to 25, which is the nominal age-interval of most of our LYM members, you reach the highest level of creativity, of adult creativity. That is, prior to about the age of 18 in adolescence, people may have a high potential for creativity--often do; very active young minds. But they don't have a sense of adulthood. So, the age-interval from 18 to 25, is the interval in which we usually find the most gifted adult minds in terms of {rate} of creativity. After the age of 25, about 27 or so forth, normally in society today, the creativity begins to die away. Learning is accumulated, but creativity wanes. About the time a college graduate goes through the master's degree program, gets a degree, gets a job; or goes through the doctorate, which is even more destructive. They lose their creativity.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMThere's a famous series of writings on this, by a famous psychiatrist, Lawrence Kubie, on the {Neurotic Distortion of the Creative Process}. I'm a specialist in this area, and have written a great deal about it: That you observe that somewhere between 25 and 30, the rate of creativity among adults, tends to drop off. Not necessarily. There are lawful exceptions to that drop-off. When I found people around me, for example, of my generation, who were actually creative, when I knew them not only as adolescents but as young adults--and I watched their creativity vanish, and drop away.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMI've seen the same thing in our association: That people who came to join with me, back in the 1970s, for example, came in as young, fruitfully creative people. And as the 1980s came on, their creativity began to drop precipitously. We still had a lot of creativity. We had selective creativity among creative personalities. We had, for example, Professor Moon, a very creative person up until the time he died. A great scientist. So, creativity does not {naturally} die out as you become older. But in our society, it tends to die out, for cultural and biological reasons.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMI would say that, if you have the biological capacity for creativity, from my own experience and my own work, that if you do your creativity constantly, if you {work} at it, constantly, you keep your creativity alive. But once you begin to slide off, and say, "I have no new ideas to learn. I have facts to learn, not ideas. I am perfected. I don't have to develop myself anything. I'm a developed personality, whom I admire very much! And I wouldn't want to tamper with this perfection I've already achieved" Hah-hah! The biological processes of creativity seem to vanish, too, gradually. They erode. Whereas people who maintain a high degree of creative activity, into their 60s and 70s, and beyond, tend to remain {biologically} mentally active. Whereas people who do {not} do that ... fade away, intellectually, and morally.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMNow, what happened, because of what was done to us, in terms of persecution--you know, they tried to kill me, they sent me to prison, that sort of thing--that a lot of people associated with me, began to lose their creativity, in --oh, shall we say--about the middle of the 1990s. And, it began to vanish. And of course, this coincided with the time that many of them who had joined the association back in the 1970s, were now past the age of male menopause, which is very dangerous. Female menopause is not intrinsically dangerous. Male menopause, intellectual menopause is {very dangerous}: and we had a lot of it.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMSo, you had a phenomenon. So, when you read this Chapter X in the Voyage to Laputa, you're going to think about the Struldbrugs, and realize that we have some of them among us, in society! For example, you take the case of these guys who are now going to jail, they're being marched to jail from the highest ranking positions of corporations, and so forth, hmm? These are Struldbrugs! They're moral Struldbrugs: They have no morality whatsoever, no creativity, they're absolutely useless, parasites! We could manage GM better if we got rid of whole top management, and let some of the trade unionists who work in the joint, leading trade unionists, take over and run the place. It would run much better, because they're capable of doing the job. Whereas the top management, the financial management with the big retirement bonuses--these guys are absolutely useless parasites, who couldn't care less! And many of the stockholders are just as bad. They're in there, not to invest in the future, by building the future through the corporation's progress: They're in there, hit-and-run from one stock to the next, one day to the next, "where can I get a little more? Where can I get another inch of profit out of this thing?" Completely parasites.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMSo, the danger is, how do we deal with a society with all these Baby-Boomers, who tend to behave like Jonathan Swift's Struldbrugs? And that's our problem.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMSo, a characteristic, which I can advise you on as a personal psychological advisor: You don't want to become a Struldbrug. Now, if you don't want to become a Struldbrug, you have to start being a non-Struldbrug today. And that involves being creative, actually creative, as we define creativity. This means actually mastering physical science, not {learning} in a university, what they {teach} you, but actually living, as Graham lived history, as living history. {Relive} the experience of discovery. You don't want anything, unless you have relived it. Don't be a Romantic, playing with what you pick up, as second-hand ideas.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMAnd also, take the challenge. Take the challenge, sometimes, of a dangerous situation, as I've done many times. I find danger is very stimulating. Not masochistically, but it's stimulating because it forces you, to respond to the challenge of a threat. And that is very good for keeping your creative juices going. You take the case of a very famous fellow, Moltke--Old Moltke--who ran the Prussian military, with quite some success and retired, I think it was about the age of 88--and he was pretty effective all the way through. Someone may criticize, as Bismarck might have done, criticize some of Moltke's enthusiasms for war; he sometimes carried it too far. But, he was very excellent at military science, understood how a military had to function. And he kept his juices flowing, and was still active, and said, about the age of 88, "You know, I've got to retire?" He was still the commander-in-chief of the Prussian military and the German military!
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMSo, what I would say, is, don't get to the idea of being a practical person. That's the worst thing that can happen to you. Don't be {im}practical, be concerned with the reality of life. But never try to pass yourself off, as a "practical guy" who knows how to do things. Always accept the fact that you are insufficiently developed, that you're still a little bit childish--and that's a good thing. To be somewhat childish. To feel that you are imperfect, that you have to struggle, hard, to overcome your ignorance, to master the challenge you thought you couldn't master before. If you think you're an expert in physical science, {master Classical music}; if you think you're expert in Classical music, {master physical science}! If you think you're an expert in history, {master it, relive it!} And so forth and so on.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMAnd that's what I think the LYM should be. I believe that one of the missions of the LYM, is, from time to time, to try to rescue a member of the Baby-Boomer generation or two. It'll be very useful to do that. If we can get some of these old fogies, who've gone into quasi-Purgatory, where they knit, waiting for the trapdoor to be sprung on them; if you get them back, active again, they do have a few things they can contribute, to the process of getting society moving ahead. If you can inspire them to come back to life, you're doing a good job.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMNow, take for example, what happened in Washington, this week, on Thursday. We had a pack of trade unionists, who were in for the webcast and for the events of the day following. Because of this, we had appointments on Capitol Hill, with members of the Houses of Congress, and in which a few trade unionists and the like, together with a pack of youth, of singing youth, of about the 90 we had there, went in in teams into the Congress, into Congressional offices. Now, what happened is this: A good trade union leader, of the type we have, is a very valuable person, much more valuable than the typical management type. Because they've come through the trade union movement, and if they're not corrupt, they really have learned the business of organizing society. Now, over the course of time, many of them have become worn down, because the labor movement has been worn down. It hasn't been too much. But they kept alive the spirit, the organizing spirit, the political organizing spirit and other things, of the best of the labor movement.
bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:46 PMNow, when you get them, together with a mixture of energetic young people, of the type of the 90-odd we had going into the Congress this past week, they come back to life, full life, because they understand {fully}, what our Youth Movement typifies. They understand that our Youth Movement, represents the life, the future life, or prospect of life, of this society. And they know, that when you take experienced people, who have not gone dead, who have become Struldbrugs simply by the virtue of age; when you put that together, those types of people who are alive, feisty, leading, together with the Youth Movement, and when these people have the understanding--that is, the older ones--have the understanding {to turn youth loose}--not to turn them loose in a wild way--but to let them express themselves. Because the habits, the culture of the young adult generation is {different} than the culture of the adult generation; and therefore, when people from the Tweener or Baby-Boomer generation as trade-union movement people with experience, encounter youth, they treat it, the way they treat organizing: You let the energy....

blah blah blah. Just another day in the life of the most brilliant man on Earth, although, by some strange twist of Fate, not brilliant enough to know who's paying for his meals for the last 30 years, and by some strange glitch of DNA, not intellectually curious enough to find out. (See previous, Alexandria-trial-related, posts.)

03-30-2008, 01:46 PM

eaglebeak

Oh, and Let's Not Forget This

Then, of course, we have the June 30, 2007 philippic Lyn prepared for the Morning Briefing in which he revealed that the Baby Boomers weren't going entirely meekly like lambs to the slaughterhouse. Apparently they were resisting the message of his June 21 webcast, whatever that was. Was it BAE? Or Impeach Cheney? No matter, it's been dialectically superseded by now.... Boldface is, as always, mine.

Note that Lyn has the magnanimity and the charity, the greatness of soul, to attack Ken Kronberg posthumously in this one. Later on, Ken was posthumously reinstated as a Good Member, not a F--k-Up, and it was Molly Kronberg who assumed the position of Ogre, along with countless other former members who, in one way or another, had told Lyn to stuff it.

x x
x [A7-26-7/BFG001]:BFG:L [BRIEFING FOR SUNDAY JULY 1 2007 ] [06: ] [1]

+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| |
| MORNING BRIEFING |
| |
| Sunday, July 1, 2007 |
| |
| |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+

MESSAGE FOR AM BRIEFING
FROM LYNDON LAROUCHE
June 30, 2007 (5:52pm) EDT

- A MOTHER F....KER'S FEARS -

I have noted, from e-mails sent to me, and otherwise, that typical Baby Boomers and others have reacted with clinically characteristic expressions of psychopathological denial (of the "what mushroom cloud" variety) to the principal point of the message contained within my June 21st webcast. This has included some current typical cases from among our associates.

It is clinically significant that this is the type of psychopathological denial, which echoes the leading pathological trait of many among the PMR leaders, as also the Win-Star psychotics of the 1995-2000 years prior to the mid-2000 crash of the Y2K bubble. We recall the hysterical denial expressed against forecasts of the crises which later occurred, "on schedule," denials such as the crash of the "Lyn's forecast is wrong; the money will be there" psychobabble, even among our own circles during those years. This was especially notable among the folks in the footsteps of perennially bankrupt Andy Typaldos, who argued that we were being unbusiness-like failures in putting priority on political organizing,

As our own experience of the results of such cases has shown us, such forms of hysterical denial of reality can be deadly.

Such types of reactions are almost always associated with certain clinically significant kinds of hysterics in manner of speech, facial expressions, and "body language" generally. These usually have forms of body-language and related expressions we would associate with efforts to "shout down" anything which frightens the victim of such pathological incidents. Sometimes, literal shouting occurs; but, as we know from experience, there are other varieties of this, such the kind of bare-faced lying which Hartmut Cramer showed in his broadcast lie in defense of Uwe's complicity with Fernando Quijano, in resigning from his post of treasurer. The case of the not-always-candid, money-grabbing Uwe Friesecke's essentially habitual practice of such bare-faced lying, is also notable as among clinically relevant typical expressions of witting lying as an habituated form of denial of obvious reality.

Those examples are also related to the kinds of hysterical attempts at denial which we encounter now from those who are either denying the BAE reality or clinging hysterically to the refusal to permit the impeachment of Cheney.

The important thing is: never capitulate to such forms of denial. Do it compassionately: "I am sorry to learn that you are too frightened to face reality in this matter. We can discuss this later, when you have thought over the reasons for your denial of this reality."

- 30-30-30 -

Comments:

1. Molly Kronberg reported that when she asked Barbara Boyd, Nancy Spannaus, and others what the hell was the meaning of this reprehensible attack on Ken ("PMR leaders"), at least one of these individuals--I leave it to you to guess which one--had the effrontery to say that Lyn wasn't attacking Ken, he was attacking "other PMR leaders." This was so stupid as to require no rebuttal, but if anyone reading these posts is interested in further discussion, write me privately.

2. Please note the sick and sinister reference to how "our own experience" shows us that this defect "can be deadly." This obviously refers to Ken, not "some other" PMR leader, as Ken was the only one who was dead. It is the statement--the gloating statement--of a deeply disturbed individual, who as of late June was blaming Ken for his own death--and lying in the most egregious way about Ken at the same time.

I ask all of you who knew Ken--was he runing around saying "the money will be there"? Risible. A LaRouche Big Lie.

3. The overall message to Baby Boomers who were, apparently, less than bowled over by Lyn's webcast: Shut up, or I'll do to you what I did to Ken, to Fernando, to Uwe--lies and calumny.

4. Finally--great headline, eh? Lyn's surpassing vulgarity and infantilism never ceases to amaze.

03-30-2008, 01:53 PM

eaglebeak

Replying to Boomersage on Mark Burdman

Mark was a lovely man who, exactly as Boomersage says, was trapped in the organization in a way that made it difficult, if not impossible, to get out.

The organization, with its intense pressure and artificial sense of crisis, its constant demeaning of individuals and demanding of total self-immolation, was and is a frightful place for most, if not all, members, Mark emphatically included, as those who knew him know.

03-30-2008, 03:17 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
[i]bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:55 PMBut, Graham was not like that. Graham was a person who lived

history, as I do. I mean, my attempt is always to relive the experience of the history which happened. Not to try to change it, but to learn from the experience to understand it, and to recognize that that history is a part of my past. The Romantic never really understand, accepts the fact that it was part of the past. They like to live in a fantasy world of escape from real life--as with a Hollywood film.
->bProfiles? August 07, 2012, at 12:55 PMBut, Graham was a real historian, who really lived history. One day he came to me, in 1983, and said he'd made a discovery in history.

WTF!

The "Discovery" was not made by Graham , but was made by Lyn , some of the NEC and a few NCs who were shocked upon hearing some of the problems occuring in Boston. The Boston local had a few jobs and one of them was taking care of Lyn's parents and sending LCers as non paid nurse's aides to work shifts and keep Lyn's mom happy while her son was too busy sending milions to scam artists who fed his delusions.

The Boston local had some severe problems where members, from what I was told, were being beyond psyched by Graham to a new degree. A few members were sent into his office and told to disrobe as they were being yelled at for their "problems". on a few occasions, some member or members were put over Graham's knee and spanked!

This was met with disbelief by the NYC National Office until it was confirmed by the Boston local members. Graham was taken out of Boston and sent to NYC where Lyn had the story locked down and not to be discussed. From what I heard recently, Lyn had a private sesson with Graham and had him do whatever research he wanted and no one was to ask him to participate or be involved in fundraising or any organising. For anyone in the LC who wondered why Graham no longer was in Boston, that was the story and the adventures of the naked historian were not known by the majority of the LC.

There should more to this story as Lyn historically had problems with Graham who was from a much better family pedigree in New England then Lyn's . One thing they both had in common was a love for the bottle which should explain a bit about Graham's departure from the physical world.

You will find a few secrets like this in the LC where a problem involving a leading member is resolved by Lyn where the person is sent somewhere, a side story is told and Lyn orders the one or two leaders who know about it to never discuss or mention the problem.

Another similar, but far more perverse problem which Lyn and maybe two leading members at the time knew about had the offending person sent out to another region for a bit and the problem to never be discussed or acknowledged. One of the leaders who knew about this passed away several years ago. All I can say is that laws today are much different and do not allow charges to be dropped or not filed by law enforcement.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-30-2008, 03:27 PM

kheris_0

@Eaglebeak

As of January this year Beltran was still a player in the org, although I suspect that his role is limited to the workshops. The organization never did take the workshops to the next level of actual public performance. I assume lack of funds is the primary reason. If you listen here (about 1.5 hours into Harley's spiel) you will hear the reference. This is from January according to the date stamp on the recording.

I'd be more inclined to think Harley is the puppet-master in terms of dethroning Ken, and he used Beltran's celebrity to do it. Beltran publicly stated he was a Larouchie during an interview that was posted on the web, was trained in Shakespeare and had a passion to make it relevant. That passion had its origin in a comment from Sir Anthony Quayle to Beltran while he was still in college. Beltran asked if Shakespeare was still relevant and Quayle told him to make it relevant. Add the luster of celebrity (i.e. Beltran's attachment to a respected TV series/genre) and you get a whiff of star power that Ken lacked. That may have been the real reason Ken got booted, despite his ability. It may also explain Beltran's attachment to the organization and the workshops: he's making Shakespeare relevant.

Beltran's a smart guy and a decent actor, but he wasn't smart enough to see through Lyn and his career has stalled at the very least. I saw something on the web, and I can't remember where, that talked about Beltran lobbying one of the local Congressmen on some issue, so apparently he is busy with more than the workshops although not acting.

03-30-2008, 05:40 PM

realme

Lyn's made the big time!

News Flash:
Not since Lyndon LaRouche was mentioned by Homer Simpson many years ago has the organization achieved such an impact. In today's Washington Post crossword puzzle (the Sunday magazine puzzle), the clue for 15 down is "Quadrennial hopeful Lyndon" and the correct answer is "LaRouche".

Wait! Could this be a signal from the oligarchy that they're at last ready to adopt LaRouche's policies? It is significant that the clue is for 15 down. Does that mean that on April 15 Lyn is going down? Assassination threat! Full mobilization!

Basement crew, stop packing up for your move to LaRoucheTown and get to work analyzing this crucial world-hysterical breakthrough.

The puzzle can be found at http://crosswords.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/crosswords/sunday/front.htm

03-30-2008, 08:23 PM

boomer70

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomersage
. . . Mark developed a habit of writing in a kind of unmistakable mimickry of LaRouche's idiosyncratic and tortured prose style that you could only describe as bizarre and cringe-inducing.

This is a phenomenon present in every cult: the husks are filled by the 'leader' slime, mentally and in external behavior.

03-31-2008, 01:32 AM

eaglebeak

One Against the World
(With apologies to Aeschylus)

Posting a few more Lyn dicta from 2005--the first a standard vituperation against Boomer members, the second another rant about Shakespeare and getting sick (first it was that the East Coast productions made Lyn sick--even though he never saw them--and now it's that he was vomiting back in 1946-47 over the Romantics' take on Shakespeare).

We note other recurrent themes: Cowardice, Rage, etc. Urgh.

P.S. Don't you think he meant kick in the ass? Guffaw.

I. August 9, 2005 (4:32pm) EDT

An Internal Kiss In The Ass:

ANGER WHICH CONCEALS COWARDICE

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

August 9, 2005

For mandatory AM Bfg & related internal circulation only:

Former President Bill Clinton's interview with a French publication is a panicked flight from reality which reflects the impact upon him of a typical wave of cowardly fear radiating around many parts of the world, including the expressions of anger against me from the more cowardly members of our own regions and elsewhere lately. This should point out the importance, for today's realities, of President Franklin Roosevelt's famous warning that we have nothing so much to fear as fear itself. And I have just witnessed an epidemic of such gutlessness among a number of leaders of regional organizations and elsewhere during the recent days.

Take the case of the frustrated veterinarian whose most stubborn patient was an acutely hypochondriacal donkey. In protest, the veterinarian installed a glass window to facilitate the frequent inspections which the donkey demanded. This case became famous in medical science as "the pane in the ass." The time has come to consider similar procedures for dealing with the special kind of cowardice characteristic of the sales performance of regional leaders and their phone teams. especially those who express their personal rage against me, by pointing to the pane which they have installed in themselves.

Typical of such disorders, is the "fear of speaking to strangers." For decades, the existence of our organization depended upon contributions and other forms of support from representatives of my pre-World War II generation. During the recent dozen years, my generation has been dying out and at an increasing rate, leaving the "Baby Boomer" generation in charge of leading public and private institutions in the Americas, most notably the U.S.A., and western and central Europe. Meanwhile, although Fernando Q. is brain-dead and gone, his sales and field policies, installed internationally in our association during the early 1990s, remain. with relatively rare exceptions, as the self-destructive lunacy of the regions' phone-teams and local leadership.

Lately, we have demonstrated relatively great and rapidly increasing openness among not only youth, but, under appropriate conditions, "Tweeners" as well. To these manifestations, the Baby Boomers tend to react with panic-stricken rage against the insult to their perceived identity which even the mere existence of these young people represents. This takes the form of the "pane in the ass" syndrome among a large ration of the Baby Boomers, who lament, loudly, and filled with rage: "You are not looking at my pane."

The essential cause of current attempts of Baby Boomers and their dupes among youth, to deny that the threat to civilization must be fought as an immediate threat, is such a case of the "pane in the ass." However, the matter is much worse; it is a symptom of that kind of cowardice we should recall from the mood of the German population during the run-up, during February, to Hermann Goering's setting fire, Dick Cheney-style, to the Reichstag, after which German cowards turned very, very nasty, and ended up paying a dear, dear price, for their participation in the "pane in the ass" syndrome. We hope, of course, that Germans would not repeat that folly, as some, even in our own ranks, are doing today.

As Robbie Burns said, so I say to all of you today, you should forget your silly, immoral spates of rage, and see yourselves, shamefully, as I see you on this matter.

II. [The following was written in response to a letter from a member, which is printed below Lyn's response -- BFG ed.]

Classical Drama is Always History:

- SHAKESPEARE & SCHILLER -

- by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. -

August 11, 2005

The reason I have banned all drama excepting that undertaken with RB [that would be Robert Beltran], is that our people are so corrupted by the influence of Romanticism of "interpretation," rather than study of the actual principles of the history referenced by the playwrights, that the engagement in attempting to put on a drama undermines their political judgment on matters in general. RB has proceeded from insight into the relevance of actual history, as most actually competent actors will tend to do, often even despite their admiring audiences.

Take, for example, the attempts even among those of us who ought to know better, to represent Shakespeare and Schiller as "teaching moral lessons." For example, the incredibly silly sort of Romantic interpretation of Schiller's Wallenstein as demonstrating the tragic error of Wallenstein in violating an oath, even in direct opposition to Schiller's own explicit detailing of the exact contrary of the silly, and morally corrupt "oath violation" argument. For example, the attempts to ignore the fact that such plays as are responsive to such legends as Macbeth, Lear, and Hamlet, have no morality factor as such within them, but are demonstrations of the tragic principle of mass insanity of the culture among the Celts and Danes which are the real-life subjects of those legends.

[b]Unfortunately, some people make a painful emotional investment in their university induced, or comparable, wrong-headed assumptions that they have understood the principles of such drama. To insult their prejudices with a dose of the truth of the matter only produces explosions of unpleasantness. Better to keep our amateur and comparable stagings out of sight, thus to avoid the relevant social unpeasantness.

"Hamlet," for example, is a drama of mass-insanity of an entire Danish culture of that period, from beginning to end. The attempt to go back in history, to fix a culture for a proposed "happy ending" outcome, is, for me, among the most morally disgusting enterprises conceivable. [No happy endings here, that's for sure.]

The composition of Classical drama, as the work of Shakespeare and the thorough work of Schiller, both in composition and on the subject of composition of drama, both attest to the adducing of the characteristics of actual history, such as the pervasive depravity of the actual Rome of "Julius Caesar." The mistakes of the characters were, simply, essentially being actual Romans of that time and place. It is the yearning to put our distance from that entire past culture, which is the sense of tragedy which must prevail in the work of the playwright and the acting company.

For example, since the common feature of Macbeth, Lear, and Hamlet, is the depravity inherent, as a kind of mass-cultural insanity, in the historical cases of the populations to which both the legends and Shakespeare's work pertain, is the mass-insanity of an entire culture, a culture to be viewed from the standpoint of a Shakespeare and his audience conditioned by a view of the historical plays of the Norman ultramontane system, through Richard III. The standpoint of Richmond (Henry VII), and, implicitly, the Venetian decadence which actually prevailed in the real-life England and Shakespeare's drama, from Henry VIII on, is presented to an audience which stands in both historical apposition and historical opposition to Shakespeare's audience.

The tendency among our associates has been to use drama as a mode of escapism, to relive the battles of the past, like a voyager in time, returning to advise the ancients to act in ways to make "things turn out good" in that past. That masturbatory view of the stage on which to display one's own sexual or comparable fantasies about the past, is the root of all the principal evils of today's professional stage and its admirers. Our job is to make the future turn out good (sic), by recognizing the past as the warning of the urgency of entering the future.

I wrestled with these matters since about seventy years ago, and met the prevalent English Romanticism school of Coleridge, Bradley, et al. in 1946-47, at which point I vomited [here we go again] and have had nothing to do with such "standard curriculum" of that period, through the 1960s continuation of the same stinking refuse in our standard relevant curriculum, since. It is only historians such as Schiller, but not some professed admirers of Schiller, even among us, who have shown comprehension of the repeated warnings I have made against the error of the exhibitions they have produced for my eyes and ears. (sic)

- - Lyndon.

Comments:

1. As Robbie Burns said, so I say to all of you today, you should forget your silly, immoral spates of rage, and see yourselves, shamefully, as I see you on this matter.Not even remotely what Robert Burns--who is known as Bobbie Burns, not Robbie Burns, Lyn--wrote. Burns was being self-reflexive--"to see ourselves as others see us." Note that Lyn turns it outwards, not inwards. How clinically characteristic....

the special kind of cowardice characteristic of the sales performance of regional leaders and their phone teams. especially those who express their personal rage against me--Jeez, it's always the same. It's always cowardice, and the definition of that cowardice is always the coward-in-question's rage against Lyn. Has there ever been a man more self-involved?

3. On Shakespeare, per se--the productions banned by Lyn's dictum, those romantic, vomit-inducing East Coast productions--were the ones directed by Ken working with two colleagues still in the org (one of them still on the NC, if that body still exists). Now, the most important thing to remember is that Lyn never saw any of these. That's what makes his conclusion, the exhibitions they have produced for my eyes and ears, especially hilarious. Ken's Shakespeare work was never intended for Lyn in any way, shape, or form, because Ken wasn't interested particularly in Lyn's jejeune views on Shakespeare.

What Ken hoped for from Lyn, was to be left alone to teach and to learn. But as I said before--living under Lyn was like living under Stalin. If he noticed you, you were dead.

4. On Shakespeare, part 2: Notice how according to Lyn, every Shakespeare play is about the same thing? Insanity, corruption, and Norman "ultramonanism"--Vocabulary check! What kind of banal mind could possibly think that all of Shakespeare, all of Schiller, all of Aeschylus, etc.--all about the same thing? Insane societies? How trivial can you get?

Remember when the received wisdom was that all paintings were political cartoons? Same thing--what an empty, reductive, sterile mind.

03-31-2008, 02:03 AM

candor

"Hermann Goering's setting fire, Dick Cheney-style, to the Reichstag" -- so LaRouche subscribes to main rationale for the 9/11 "Truth" movement?

I don't see why LaRouche can't see that an historical drama can represent an intersection between individuals and historical processes. Rather, I do see - but I choose not to look too closely.

And we know who the ass in the pane is, seeing in a mirror drunkenly.

03-31-2008, 04:23 AM

scrimscraw

the reductive mind

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
4. On Shakespeare, part 2: Notice how according to Lyn, every Shakespeare play is about the same thing? Insanity, corruption, and Norman "ultramonanism"--Vocabulary check!What kind of banal mind could possibly think that all of Shakespeare, all of Schiller, all of Aeschylus, etc.--all about the same thing? Insane societies? How trivial can you get?
Remember when the received wisdom was that all paintings were political cartoons? Same thing--what an empty, reductive, sterile mind.

That's the triumph of the paranoid mind: ferreting out a pattern that unites disparate elements in a malevolent plot that one needs to battle. No enemies = no adrenaline. And that adrenaline rush is what the paranoid craves. The constant crisis mongering is partly a cult control mechanism, but it is also a glandular stimulant. ;)

03-31-2008, 12:49 PM

eaglebeak

Annals of Rage, Hatred, What You Will...

Another entry in the nearly endless catalogue of Lyn's hates, rages, rants, and raves.

Notice that August 2005 was a particularly bad period for the LaRouchean psyche (ego, id, whatever). Does anyone remember what was going on in the org then? I mean, aside from the usual destructive, abusive, sadistic horrors?

From: LAR
Subj: Not Exactly Arcana
3:50 PM 8/26/2005 EDT

TAVISTOCK TRUTH-SERUM

It was sometime during the early 1960s, when an adolescent Baby Boomer wrote in his Biology-class notebook: "Today, we learned you can have sex with almost anything!" The spread of that belief among that generation became known as "The Great Species Jump."

They jumped on him, they jumped on her, they swung from limb to limb, of almost anyone's limbs. No longer was hate and lust limited to the targets chosen from the opposite sex; the whole world of species, even trees and some of the Bushes, were permitted targets of hate-love lust. No longer were they controlled by hunger; they had discovered the glorious purity of lust. So, they freed themselves from the mores of the older generation, and became a new degeneration, all their own.

They were the peace people, who used the bodies of those they hated, as temporary entertainment-centers, even sometimes married them, in order to achieve the acme of cheating on one's own spouse with someone else's spouse. So, peace came, occasionally, in these frequent unions of hate and love.

It has been a grand festival of de-generation ever since. It had begun, as a failed experiment with the "Beat Generation," also known as the "Lost Generation." The primitive Big Beat of the Rock Age, tongue lolling from the head, timed to the twisting arsch of the revellers, was the Spock which ignited the coming degeneration, the Baby Boomer generation, from among the children of the dancers to that 'fifties Suburban Beat.

So, an older, now balding degeneration, sitting growing moss in their underpants, became the Baby Boomer degeneration, whose ideas were uttered as shattered fragments of the rock litany sung by such as the friends of Ma Krud, all to the throb of LSD and cheap wine laced with pot on the preceding academic evening.

Alas, that great Baby Boomer degeneration is now passing into a special kind of limbo, a special Purgatory from which the generations of their parents and their offspring are excluded. It is a generation which screams while going sullenly insane. Yet, behind that facade of pathetic, yellow-lace decadence, there is sheer hatred, a sense of triumph over their parents'generation, and sheer fear and hatred of any and every young adult between the ages of 18 and 25. It is,after all, a species hatred -- Don't you see.

Comments:

Talk about self-revelation! There is a special kind of obscene and obscenity-filled rage and fear that permeates Lyn's vile attacks on the people who have been his only supporters for so many decades.

It's embarrassing to read; it's cringe-inducing.

Doesn't Lyn, the great creator of Beyond Psychoanalysis--well, it wasn't too creative, being enraged 12th-rate Freudianism, but still--doesn't Lyn, with all his supposed psychological insights, realize how ugly and debased his thoughts are?

Forget Lyn. How about you, LYMers and others? Read what the man writes, and try to square it with anything to do with "agape."

It simply cannot be done.

03-31-2008, 02:12 PM

shadok

1 Attachment(s)

"Quadrennial hopeful Lyndon"

Quote:
Originally Posted by realme
News Flash:
->In today's Washington Post crossword puzzle (the Sunday magazine puzzle), the clue for 15 down is "Quadrennial hopeful Lyndon" and the correct answer is "LaRouche".
Wait! Could this be a signal from the oligarchy that they're at last ready to adopt ->LaRouche's policies? It is significant that the clue is for 15 down. Does that mean that on April 15 Lyn is going down? Assassination threat! Full mobilization!

Quite funny! I m sure the completed crossword puzzle contains many hints the Security will be able to decipher... This is NO accident! Somebody "out there" is trying to send a "clear message" ;-)

I also attach a pic of Beltran at the "Klyndon Institute".
I m not sure where is the "Shakespearian spirit" in Star Trek series...
larouche has been playing King Lear for decades.
Lear plunged into madness after his daughter Cordelia refused to flatter him ("Which of you shall we say doth love us most?" he asked) Well, Lyn's madness started long time ago.

03-31-2008, 07:15 PM

boomer70

re: tavistock truth serum
no bucks, no bubbles.

03-31-2008, 07:23 PM

xlcr4life

Time for one of lyn's favorite catch phrases when he wanted to go after the FEF for not signing over the checks fast enough.

"Crucial Experiment"

Consider the mass effect Lyn has had since he embarked on burning through 250 million dollars to declare himself the saviour of humanity. What he now has is the ability to place any deranged thought on the web in an instant, well, after the laughter dies down from the remaining members who put this stuff on.

Here is Lyn on a recent decision involving actor Richard Gere in India.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/03/31/larouche-nazis-high-gere.html

"LaRouche: Nazis in High Gere!
Increase DecreaseNazis in High Gere!

by Lyndon H LaRouche, Jr.

The latest from Shangri-La, is a parade of little gerbils, each wearing a Swastika brassard, and in Union Jerk trunks goose-stepping in single file out from the anus of actor Richard Gere, and singing "Heil Dalai Lama."

Some Hollywood sex freaks will do almost anything for the sake of a cheap thrill.'

Hmm, what does Lyn think of Tibet and when the Chinese crack down or ban something? Amazing how Lyn can ban anything and order anything, yet there is not a paper or document which enpowers him to authority . On the witness stand, lyn controls nothing and says he has nothing and has no power to pay a loan. How come none of us ever thought of just evicting Lyn as a squatter?

Now what happens when a few people encounter the cult and know very little about it ?

What we find out is that there is an inverse ratio between your distance to the singing voices of the cult and what happens when you actually step within a speaking distance of the cult.

It seems very clear that presenting some LYM carolers is a very important part of the ensnaring of the unsuspecting. Once the music stops, it is a different story. It was the same way with our FEF and anti drug work. We built the trap to get a target audience and quickly found that the more you made Lyn the center of attention as he demanded, the faster you burnt people out.

Consider this encounter at a Dem convention

http://misswildthing.blogspot.com/2008/03/democratic-convention-calif-style.html

"Why are the Larouche people always at Democratic events? They are nuts but they sing well. I got sucked in to the their booth because they had, what I thought, was an interesting name, something Roosevelt club. So I wandered up and some guy was on a rant, just talking to hear himself. He was saying he is against abortion so I said, "Well don't have one" and walked away from those two."

Then we have this which is from a distance:

http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/03/when-matt-locks.html

"We were entertained by political street entertainers, like the guy in the Bush mask and the chorus of Lyndon LaRouche supporters who serenaded the Democrats in the convention center lobby (they were actually pretty good, but I probably wouldn't say so if I'd been able to make out the lyrics)."

Now we will prove our theorem for Lyn by this encounter which was card table shrine style and the full expanse of Lyn's 250 million dollar arsenal is unleashed on someone.

http://anlashok-98.livejournal.com/9963.html

Interesting.

I was getting some work done this morning, and then I heard a loudspeaker down on the sidewalk below. Some police announcement? I wasn't sure. But it kept up for a while, and eventually I went down to see what was going on.

The LaRouche cult. They had a guy in one of those puffy fake sumo suits, with an Al Gore mask and a megaphone. He was mocking Gore, going on and on about how global warming was a hoax designed as a cover for policies to wipe out humanity. Natually, I couldn't let that slide, so I argued with them at length for quite a while. They promised to call the cops on me when I wouldn't leave their area, and I really wish they had, because I wasn't breaking any laws. I don't know how they see themselves, but they're calling global warming a hoax, so I lump them in with the right-wingers. They inevitably got around to calling me gay, which only cemented my belief that they are right-wingers. So I spent a lot of time wasting their time; I knew I wouldn't get any work done as long as they were there down below my window. I did interrupt several of their conversations with passers-by, which made me happy.

And in talking with them I got to realize just how weird and cultish they are. They're all very young (18-24, I'd say). Nobody old enough to grasp LaRouche's lack of consistency. And, as with Nader voters, those in their first election cycle often don't understand just how much of a difference there is between the parties, so someone outside the system sounds more appealing (I know this, I voted for Perot in 1996). They're also like machines for repeating things that, upon researching, I should have known they'd say. Peer-reviewed science has no legitimacy, the only real scientists are Leibniz, Kepler, and LaRouche (he has made major advances in physical science didn't you know?), Sir Isaac Newton was a fraud and "Kepler proved Newton was a fraud before Newton was born," Margaret Thatcher invented the global warming hoax, and so on. LaRouche really hates the British. Viciously. The cultists couldn't believe it when I said that the U.K. was more liberal than the U.S. At one point, they called me a nut.

I do wish I knew how to go about deprogramming a cult member. I don't expect it can be done with dozens of their buddies hanging around. But I will look into any anti-LaRouche groups in the area that I might be able to support in some way.

Current Mood: somewhat belligerent

3 comments | Leave a comment
( Post a new comment )
pmoc on March 31st, 2008 12:25 am (UTC)
Cultists

You should never mess with cultists. The next thing you know, you'll be dragged into a white van, disappear from your friends and family for months, and be sipping kool-aid that suspiciously tastes like almonds. Seriously though, they aren't going to change and you're just going to feel "somewhat belligerent." I lived with a born again christian, and while a nice cultist, his fervent belief that I wasn't saved never wavered, despite the many long talks we had.

Did you do Earth Hour? We did down here, was kinda cool. I timed it so right as I was eating dinner, we turned out the lights. I can't wait to see what the global impact was.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
anlashok_98 on March 31st, 2008 01:32 pm (UTC)
Re: Cultists

Yes, well, it felt good when they complained that they were trying to sign up people and I was getting in the way. Wouldn't have done it if they hadn't been right outside my apartment. Probably wouldn't have gotten in their faces if they had some coherent argument to make against global warming -- but all they had is mockery.

Their Dear Leader has never been right about anything, ever. What is so scary is the intense desire that many people have to be led.

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

I like the comment about the white van. No sh*t, there was once a blog entry written about a white van the lYM have in DC. I have that somewhere and will try to find it. The key part of the blog was that in DC, the LYM run a few card table shrines around town with the choir. If they find someone who responds they call up another lYM who drives around in a van and takes them to the local office for an eveing meal and briefing. I thought this was right out of the Krishnas manual where they also had an eveing dinner and a "lecture" in their office. The guy found that since he was there without transit back home, he was somewhat trapped. As he questioned eeryhting about the cult and the history, he was not liked at 8 PM as he was at 4 PM.

Kids, it is not designed to work. We all found that out eventually. What it is designed to work is to get you into a cult of personality. When you read about Putin and a tunnel, you could be in school getting some type of education where you can actually work on something like that. Instead, you are programmed to think that something which has been around since Czar Nicholas and talked about every decade for a century is a tribute to Lyn.

You know what lyn has produced in a similar concept? The ever increasing lunacy of Lyn has created a sort of "Underground railway" for the past few decades where a member who is trapped in the LC contacts a friend who left and gets advice and help in leaving. Why do you think that there are several hundred less members who are no longer around and you kids are the last replacement crew before he kicks the bucket?

Make sure your friends who are going to LaroucheTown have several ways of contacting you for help.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

03-31-2008, 09:18 PM|| boomer70

the Hubrisness on cults
Does anyone remember a piece by the Hubrisness in which he claimed that every group which has made a positive contribution to humanity -- e.g., Christians -- would be called a cult by the liberals? It appeared in the early '70s I think.

04-01-2008, 01:40 AM

candor

That August 2005 Tavistock rant suggests the following howl on the LaRouchites, with apologies to Allen Ginsberg:

I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, dragging themselves through the walking-tour streets at dawn looking for an angry fax, angelheaded organizers burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night, who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of cities contemplating the quota, who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels staggering on tenement roofs illuminated, who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Venice and Britain-light tragedy among the scholars of war, who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene briefings on the windows of the skull, who cowered in unshaven rooms in underwear, burning their money in real estate and listening to the Terror through the wall, ...

04-01-2008, 01:45 AM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer70
Does anyone remember a piece by the Hubrisness in which he claimed that every group which has made a positive contribution to humanity -- e.g., Christians -- would be called a cult by the liberals? It appeared in the early '70s I think.

I am thinking it was this:

http://wlym.com/PDF-SpReps/SPRP23.pdf

This came out after the JonesTown mass suicide. I remember everyone in the office looking at each other with a faint grin and a face which was trying to believe that the LC was not a cult. Since Lyn's last directive for the LYM is to move to LaroucheTown, it would be interesting to reread this and see how Lyn drops a ton of names and creates a massive conspiracy which somehow evades fundamental questions of how mond control works in cults.

The bottom line for us in the LC at the time was that every one outside of Lyn was in a cultic world and we were the only ones who were not.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-01-2008, 07:29 AM

larouchetruth

The Sophist, the Sick Sophist, De-Generate Sophist

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglebeak
TAVISTOCK TRUTH-SERUM
It was sometime during the early 1960s, when an adolescent Baby

Boomer wrote in his Biology-class notebook: "Today, we learned you can have sex with almost anything!" The spread of that belief among that generation became known as "The Great Species Jump."

They jumped on him, they jumped on her, they swung from limb to

limb, of almost anyone's limbs. No longer was hate and lust limited to the targets chosen from the opposite sex; the whole world of species, even trees and some of the Bushes, were permitted targets of hate-love lust. No longer were they controlled by hunger; they had discovered the glorious purity of lust. So, they freed themselves from the mores of the older generation, and became a new degeneration, all their own.

They were the peace people, who used the bodies of those they

hated, as temporary entertainment-centers, even sometimes married them, in order to achieve the acme of cheating on one's own spouse with someone else's spouse. So, peace came, occasionally, in these frequent unions of hate and love.

It has been a grand festival of de-generation ever since. It had

begun, as a failed experiment with the "Beat Generation," also known as the "Lost Generation." The primitive Big Beat of the Rock Age, tongue lolling from the head, timed to the twisting arsch of the revellers, was the Spock which ignited the coming degeneration, the Baby Boomer generation, from among the children of the dancers to that 'fifties Suburban Beat.

So, an older, now balding degeneration, sitting growing moss in

their underpants, became the Baby Boomer degeneration, whose ideas were uttered as shattered fragments of the rock litany sung by such as the friends of Ma Krud, all to the throb of LSD and cheap wine laced with pot on the preceding academic evening.

Alas, that great Baby Boomer degeneration is now passing into a

special kind of limbo, a special Purgatory from which the generations of their parents and their offspring are excluded. It is a generation which screams while going sullenly insane. Yet, behind that facade of pathetic, yellow-lace decadence, there is sheer hatred, a sense of triumph over their parents'generation, and sheer fear and hatred of any and every young adult between the ages of 18 and 25. It is,after all, a species hatred -- Don't you see.

Oh, My God. Just when you think you've read it all, that he can't dig any deeper into the depravity and sophistry that is the sum and substance of his soul, he exceeds expectations and excavates another subterranean floor. Truly stunning.

Since this kinda speaks for itself to everyone not yet sucked beyond the LaRouche Event Horizon, I want to point something out in this context that pervades absolutely everything else he writes, but has never been more clearly demonstrated than here. LYM members and aging LaRouche Boomers alike, take heed. If this doesn't convince you that something is amiss, then you may be beyond help.

Ask yourself, what is Lyn describing here? The closest I could come to it was some of the broadcast images from Woodstock, with couples stripping and screwing in the bushes. Now, they were all heterosexual, at least all that I saw, no animals involved, so even that wasn't at the level of depravity that Lyn describes here. I mean, of the entire generation of Boomers who came of age in the late '60s, what, 10 million, maybe more, how many individuals out of them engaged in sex with animals, much less trees and bushes (pray tell, how, exactly is that done, will you please explain in full graphic detail, Lyn, since my poverty of imagination prohibits me from seeing it in my mind's eye)? Probably a few hundred, if that.

Leaving aside everything else to be said about this entire piece, Lyn is here giving new meaning to xlcr's favorite term "cheap parlor trick." Lyn is describing behavior that very few, if any, members of our generation engaged in, and asserting that that, possibly fictional, behavior, characterizes the entire generation of 10+ million individuals. WHAAAT??

LYM members and others still in LaRouche Orbit, THIS IS SOPHISTRY, of the first order. What is sophistry? If you believe Lyn makes any sense, you not only have no clue, you are under the thrall of a master sophist. He says or writes almost nothing that isn't employing sophistry. That's what he does, that's all he does.

Sophistry is a misuse of reason to make falsehood appear truth. And there are various means to do this. One of the most basic, and transparent to anyone who hasn't self lobotomized, is what Lyn does here, known as GENERALIZATION. You attribute a characteristic of one or a small number of members of a group to the group as a whole. Lyn has of course been doing this vis-a-vis the baby boomers for years, taking characteristics of the most radical leaders of the 1968 student actions on campuses, such as Mark Rudd, and attributing them to the entire generation. But there were more people like Mark Rudd, by far, than there are people engaging in what Lyn describes here. Yes, there were advocates of "free love," but nothing as perverted as the fictional orgy with inanimate objects that Lyn describes here.

The second to last paragraph, writes off the entire generation today as the degenerated remnants of people all of whom did LSD, cheap wine and pot. And what in tarnation is "Ma Krud?" or did I miss out on some once-well-known band? It is the most simplistic, the most transparently absurd, employment of sophistry in the arsenal of sophists.

Apart from the sophistry, this piece is a verbal Hieronymous Bosch imitation (a cheap imitation, to be sure). It is pure id, where the primal, sexual core of Lyn's perverted soul is spewing out incoherent filth. What, for heavens sake, is he even talking about in most of it: he ties lust to hate--what's with the hate part? Cheating on one's spouse? If the Kinsey Report is to be believed, that was Lyn's generation, those who were married in the '50s. He's mixing his metaphors here--in free love, no one is married, so you can't cheat on a spouse by definition. But I digress into a reasoned statement.

He seems to be developing one long description of what Lyn imagines an orgy to be like, people jumping on and off people, of either and both sexes, their minds rotted with Rock, acid and pot, rageballs all of them whose lust was really uncaused hate. And now he pictures them today, sitting growing moss in their underpants, where does that image come from? And they all have a "species hatred" of everyone between 18 and 25? Like their own children, including some present Boomer members whose children are still in that age range?

This is the product of a deeply disturbed mind. Find no problem with this, and you are far, far gone.

04-01-2008, 03:55 PM

borisbad

What remains constant is that Lyn's mentality really is stuck and rooted in the archetypes of the 50s and 60s (and of course his interpretation of the Greatest Generation from WWII that he now praises and extols but used to berate as having given up great ideals for a home in the suburbs and raising their children on Dr. Spock). Then he creates these fantastical constructions of his view of the Boomer generation which he believes to be so perceptive, although, as LaRouche truth rightfully points out, he just creates some imaginary red herring perception of the counterculture and takes it to an extreme position and of course the LYM members fall in line thinking what a great genius this man is. He used to do the same things with nationalities, Hispanics and Italians were dominated by the madonna/whore complex, the French by their fascination with "merde", the British were all homosexual fops, Russians loved the mother Church and the Third Roman Empire, etc.

But aren't the Clintons the ultimate baby boomers? Clinton at Oxford comfortably protesting the War, Hillary at Yale, etc? Only now does LaRouche come to consider their ethical and political lapses, probably after some rebuff of his so-called Homeowners Bank Protection Act.

04-01-2008, 05:16 PM

scrimscraw

Ma Krud vs Limp Marcus

Quote:
Originally Posted by larouchetruth
The second to last paragraph, writes off the entire generation today as the degenerated remnants of people all of whom did LSD, cheap wine and pot. And what in tarnation is "Ma Krud?" or did I miss out on some once-well-known band? It is the most simplistic, the most transparently absurd, employment of sophistry in the arsenal of sophists.

My best bet would be that "Ma Krud" is a pun on Mark Rudd, though if that is so, it is a reference that would be lost on most LYMers.

I agree that this piece by Lyn is a new low which says more about his own psyche than anything else. Part if the problem I suspect is that Lyn is at a point where his "analysis", his "jokes", and his vituperation have all become interchangeable and on equal footing. Thus, the line "the whole world of species, even trees and some of the Bushes, were permitted targets of hate-love lust" amounts to a joking aside about "tree huggers" and from that to a punning Bush family reference, all in the service of a critique that amounts to a drunken rant.

The dilemma for LHL's handlers is clearly going to be how to handle a ruler as he slips into dementia. Is there some line of looniness in the sand that he must cross in order to be shipped off to the rest home? Must his every gibbering utterance see print? At what point will the chasm between LHL's decline and the putting forth of LHL as the only solution become too great to leap? The nifty thing about the shifting of operations to the Web, is that we have a ringside seat to the instant posting of stuff that probably would have been filtered out in earlier days. (Of course considering that this was a an internal email from three years ago(!) I guess it wasn't intended for public consumption and was filtered out - until now.)

BTW, nice Howl riff, candor!

04-01-2008, 08:21 PM

boomer70

another piece?

xlcr4life,

Thanks for the url, but I think I am remembering s'thing else. The piece I have in mind actually argued that the LC was a cult in the sense that early christianity was a cult. The genre was the Hube's "f*ck you" stuff: "oh, so you say my org' is a cult, do you? Well take this!"

04-02-2008, 03:05 AM

eaglebeak

Howl
Yes, Candor, thanks for the Howl. Wonderful. (also lost on the LYMers, I'm afeard.)

Yes, do bear in mind that the latest squib I posted was from 2005. Yikes. Imagine what monsters lurk down deep in the roiled waters of his mind now, their sinuous Loch Ness Monster-like heads breaking the surface now and again. Or again and again.

As that old parody of Time magazine once said, "backward reels the mind."

04-02-2008, 03:10 AM

eaglebeak

Sophism

The difference between Lyn and the Sophists of old, those whom we meet in Plato's dialogues and elsewhere, is that the Sophists of old could indeed use reason to make falsehood look like truth.

Lyn, in contrast, doesn't use anything remotely resembling reason, and when he's done, the falsehood doesn't look at all like truth.

What he does succeed in doing (now as then) is to corrupt the youth, and tell lies about the gods/God. Socrates was wrongly accused, but by the Dog (as Socrates liked to say), what Socrates was wrongly accused of, Lyn does all day long.

04-04-2008, 12:28 AM

howie

I find the observation on the absence of Jeff Steinberg's column fascinating. But then again I also find that the rss feed has slowed down and now is sputtering even more suggestive of internal going ons in Leesburg -- collapse, if you will.

04-04-2008, 03:47 AM

candor

Eaglebeak, excellent observation regarding Lyn's self-disqualification as a Sophist. The Sophists at least recognized that arguments were expected in order to support a proposition. The Socratic character he most resembles is Thrasymachus in the Politeia who argues that the true is with the strong. Of course Thrasymachus meant actual - not imagined - strength. LaRouche is and always has been a laughably weak character who is soon to enjoy an equally laughable demise. Let's pray that he be given the grace to repent before it's too late.

04-04-2008, 04:06 PM

xlcr4life

We have some strange news from the cult via Australia. Read this and try to figure out how the cult takes one event and places themselves into the middle of it to atttack one of their enemies.

This URL has a story about how political contributions form developers have caused problems in the integrity of decisons being made involving land use.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=157990

In the article, the Premier of Australia is quoted in the following context:

"The NSW government has already outlined some changes it will make to the donation process following an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) inquiry into allegations of bribes for development approvals at Wollongong City Council.

Premier Morris Iemma has indicated he's examining the possibility of banning all political donations.

Ms Hale said she wanted changes made immediately.

"The purpose of the bill is to, in one simple step, remove the vast majority of conflicts of interest that have brought the state's planning system into such disrepute," she said.

"This bill will provide the test of whether the Labor and Liberal parties are serious about cleaning up the political funding system."

The bill has the support of Green Ban campaigner Jack Mundey, who has been fighting against inappropriate development since the 1950s.

He said the Labor Party had been "captured by developers"."

What the cult does is take this discussion of politics and money which virtually every town has to deal with in the USA when it comes time to rezone something and creates an entirely new Bizarro world for the cult. This is full of the usual Apocalypso gyrations, dancing in Lyn's head as they have for nearly his entire adult life.

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2008_03_27_Iemma_attacks_LaRouche.html

Iemma attacks LaRouche, pushes fascism The unspoken target of NSW Premier Morris Iemma's call to ban all political donations to political parties is the Citizens Electoral Council, the Australian associates of American physical economist and statesman Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

The global financial system is disintegrating by the second, as witnessed by the recent collapse of Bear Sterns, and the financial oligarchy for which Iemma speaks—wittingly or not—is desperate to keep LaRouche's ideas for dumping globalisation in favour of re-establishing the sovereignty of nation states anchored on national banking, out of the political debate.

One has only to ask, "Who decides what parties get public funding, and how much?", to see the scam. The privately-owned mass media of Rupert Murdoch and other oligarchs determine what parties are "relevant" to be covered, and largely determine how many votes they get, as well.

Were Iemma's fascist wet dream to be adopted, for instance, the Citizens Electoral Council, which is funded by thousands and thousands of ordinary Australians, would no doubt be judged "not worthy" of public funding, and therefore would not be able to carry out its present life-or-death campaign for the Homeowners and Bank Protection Bill (HBPB) to protect Australian homeowners from the mass foreclosures now underway, and to keep the Australian banking system from simply disintegrating. The HBPB is modelled on similar legislation first proposed by LaRouche in the U.S. in 2007, as a "firewall" to protect ordinary citizens against the ongoing global financial collapse.

The choices we have are the same as the U.S., Germany and other nations faced during the Great Depression:

The installation of fascist dictators like Mussolini and Hitler by the oligarchy, with brutal austerity against the population and probably war, or; A national and international recovery program based on the precedents of U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which put the citizenry above the interests of those Wall St. and London forces whom he denounced as "the economic royalists." If Iemma is so big on "public funding", how about massive public funding for urgently-needed state and national infrastructure? Instead, he and the NSW Labor government are the world's leaders in pushing "Public-Private Partnerships" (PPP); these were initiated by Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and their purpose is to loot the public to the benefit of private financiers.

Could there be another reason why the cult hates Iemma?

Maybe this all has something to do with what Iemma has said publically about the cult and their hate speech and dirty tricks in Oz.

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20010625015

"In addition, the Community Relations Commission and B'nai B'rith will establish a "Courage to Care 'Fair Go' Award" which allows the community to nominate individuals who create goodwill and tolerance. The Premier will present the award to an outstanding New South Wales citizen or community group. There is a lesson here for all honourable members—whether Government, Liberal, National or Independent—about the duplicity of racist groups. For instance, the recent experience of the honourable member for Monaro emphasises the need to be vigilant in dealings with extremist groups. Last week he publicly acknowledged that an extreme right-wing group had duped him. It transpired that he had signed an international petition by the Citizens Electoral Council, the Australian wing of the infamous Lyndon LaRouche group from the United States.

LaRouche, who has served a prison sentence for fraud, is a well-known conspiracy theorist who espouses economic theories. For instance, he claim s to believe Queen Elizabeth is involved in drug trafficking, Henry Kissinger is a British intelligence agent and the United States should colonise Mars. While we may not have credible information regarding a firm Ku Klux Klan presence here, the LaRouche organisation is both real and active around Australia. For instance, in the 1999-2000 financial year the Australian Electoral Commission published information which shows that the LaRouche affiliated organisation, the Citizens Electoral Council, raised nearly $1.5 million. That is more than the $996,000 raised by the Australian Democrats. Fortunately, when the document I referred to was brought to light last Tuesday the honourable member for Monaro said that he had been duped and immediately admitted his error. He told Australian Associated Press:

A lot of stuff comes across our desk and anything that is to do with some economic reform has some interest.

In addition, he told ABC radio:

It was a busy time and one has these things thrust in your face. I guess that's where it lay, but having found out more information I have contacted these people and have had my name removed from this petition.

There you have it. It is a warning for all honourable members that they should not sign everything that comes across the desk. Extremist groups are enough of a problem without their being able to claim that they have the support of respected public officials.

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

Words for the wise and US elected officials who get conned by the cult using the concern about home forelclosures and now become endorsers of the cult for further recruitment.

This blog has something which looks interesting.

http://www.thenewdominion.net/123/following-protest-xinjiang-suddenly-makes-international-news/

Go down a bit and see this:

"Finally, I should note that the PRC-funded Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee, a paramilitary group involved in the construction of a New World Order under the leadership of the Sino-Jewish Cabal (that's irony, folks), suggests that the protests in Xotän were, in fact, incited by Amnesty International under the control of British intelligence agency MI-6. Their pigtailed puppet, Rabiyä Qadir, justified and encouraged the splittists' acts of inharmonious violence with her snake-tongued lies. See? Now even crazy people care about Xinjiang."

This blog is referring to this LPAC release.

http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/04/01/london-calls-uighurs-rise-against-china.html

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-04-2008, 07:12 PM

scrimscraw

Lyn-less USLP

I was looking through an old issue of New Solidarity from Nov. '73 and was struck by the almost total absence of Lyn's name from the 16-page newspaper. I think there was one mention in passing of "L. Marcus" but that was it, and that was in reference to a forthcoming paper. Lyn may have been pulling the strings behind the scenes to a certain degree, but the NS certainly gave the impression of a self-propelled and motivated LC.

Of course, most of the content of the issue was still belligerant and hysterical, but it wasn't yet solely in the service of erecting Lyn as humanity's savior. Kind of charming to see one headline in the issue refer approvingly to an USLP candidate as "Communist". Of course, that was back in the Mop-Up era when the USLP/LC was trying to establish itself as more revolutionary than the CPUSA or SWP.

04-05-2008, 01:16 AM

Xandufar

I spent twelve years in the LaRouche organization. I deployed at post offices and DMVs more times than anyone would want to count. I did pick-ups. I did phone-work. I did accounting. I even worked on security. I went through all the trials and tribulations: Late deployments; Sunday deployments; the cold; the heat. Quotas! I went through sleep depravation, but I even taught classes.

I left the organization. I am now happy, and I will never go back. However, I have also been intermittantly reading this message board for years. I've been reading it since long before I left the organization. I sympathize with much of what has been written on this message board, but I always find it very difficult, nay, impossible to empathize with anything that has been written here.

Here is my point: After all these years on the inside and the outside, and upon careful and sustained reflection, I have come to the profound conclusion that the general scope of discussion on this message board is the most pitiful discussion I have ever witnessed.

04-05-2008, 03:56 AM

candor

Ouch. I guess. *yawn*

04-05-2008, 04:25 AM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xandufar
I spent twelve years in the LaRouche organization. I deployed at post offices and DMVs more times than anyone would want to count. I did pick-ups. I did phone-work. I did accounting. I even worked on security. I went through all the trials and tribulations: Late deployments; Sunday deployments; the cold; the heat. Quotas! I went through sleep depravation, but I even taught classes.
I left the organization. I am now happy, and I will never go back. However, I have also been intermittantly reading this message board for years. I've been reading it since long before I left the organization. I sympathize with much of what has been written on this message board, but I always find it very difficult, nay, impossible to empathize with anything that has been written here.
Here is my point: After all these years on the inside and the outside, and upon careful and sustained reflection, I have come to the profound conclusion that the general scope of discussion on this message board is the most pitiful discussion I have ever witnessed.

With all due respect, you are not the primary audience.

I can say with the utmost in sincerity that the numerous ex members and members who became ex members have expressed a deep thanks for what is written here. There are also many, many people around the globe who have found the information , links, descriptions and unraveling of the workings of this multi decade circus of hate to be very valuable for their research and for their personal lives. There are tons of students who have been able to run away and not be hoodwinked by the cult who have stayed in school and not lost a small fortune as well as prime years of their life they would never get back.

There are countless writers and people who know someone who has come in contact with the LC/LYM and at first were under the impression that they met an org which fulfilled their search for an exciting org. They do something which was not available when you or I joined and which was not even imagined which is the ability to search with your fingertips in seconds instead of months with your shoes trying to find some information.

Every week Lyn directs anywhere from $125,000 to $175,000 to be spent on continuing this nightmare with a long list of hurt, bankrupted, abused, and now dead cast aside without a worry in the world.

We have reprinted memos, briefings and conference calls by Lyn and the LC which clearly show how sick this all is. You have access to private letters by Dino and resignation letters from different eras as well as scans of old NS, Campaigners and descriptions of every front group and tactic we had.

No where else would a member, current or former know how you and many others may have worked your ass to an early grave to send 13 million to con artists who fed Lyn's delusions daily.

I can't begin to count the members who learned so much about the real estate shenanigans Lyn and a few LCers were involved with when I posted a Leesburg real estate guide.

Available here with maps and directions for those without a GPS .

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=LaRouche.FriendlyTourGuide1

Even the idea of a digital library called

http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage

which has more info and content then can be posted is something Lyn could not imagine as he fought the early inventors of computers in his mind.

People who died or were destroyed by the cult earlier did not have something like

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/ or

http://www.kennethkronberg.com/

Lyn counted on all of this to just disappear since most people do not care about how cult's grind up their people.

Many of us do.

I have stated many a time that no one will have the whole story. The more people share what they know which both the inside and outside world can find and read, the more worthless Lyn's 250 million dollar dreams vanish.

There is also a contingent of peope who are involved with the legal system and tax system who read what is printed here which is why there was no money available on several occasions in the LC/LYM.

We really have only scratched a little of what actually happened.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-05-2008, 05:15 PM

earnest_one

Propose a "Scope"

If the "general scope" is truly pitiful, then please propose an alternative discussion theme.

Or is ANY discussion pitiful?

That thought object seems in line with Lyn's idea of a dialogue. Ask him a question and wait two hours for the (continuous) rambling to end. Then take a few aspirin...

And he calls himself a Platonist. Now THAT is pitiful!

And so is remaining silent in the face of injustice gone awry. Is that a proper discussion theme for this board -- all the different methods that can be used to NOT communicate with other human beings?

04-05-2008, 05:38 PM

candor

X. is just a LaRouche troll and, like Lyn, likely an ugly troll - an ugly troll soon to be living under a bridge.

That's the LaRouche "method": either you're with me or I p--- on you - or worse.

04-05-2008, 06:23 PM

borisbad

Having wasted twenty years of my life in the organization, although thankfully still maintaining some of the ideals I originally thought I was supporting when I joined, I can say that it took me a couple of years to really reassess what I had been involved in, so maybe that is how xandufar is going thru right now (giving him the benefit of the doubt, although it seems strange that this would be true if this was his first and only post). When I first left, I still attended a couple of conferences and subscribed to the newspaper (I won't waste the money on the EIR). I stil supported what I thought were some of the org.'s objectives and even rationalized that the FBI operations against Lyn were no different than what had been done to genuinely leftist organizations since Cointelpro and before. Then I started recognizing that the leadership of this org. were by and large miserable sadists who enjoyed putting down the members while ingratiating themselves with Lyn. Lyn always talked about inner versus outer directedness, but not one member or so-called leader ever had the audacity to call LaRouche out on any issue until after they left the organization, so how inner-directed are the members.
While the discusion may be generally focussed on the scandals and horrors of organizational life, I have also seen many interesting posts on issues of genuine interest when people here have presented some real analysis on issues like mathematics, history, science history concerning people that LaRouche loves to trumpet but not understand like Kepler and Gauss, etc.
But to each his own.

04-05-2008, 09:57 PM

scrimscraw

Obstacles to discussion

Since the switchover to the new board platform, I think one obstacle to discussions might be that the way we've been used to posting in the past is in one long linear thread. This works fine if you go into your user control panel and set it up to view that way ("Linear Mode").

But when someone first comes upon the board - or if they don't register and change their settings - the default view now is "Threaded Mode" ("In this mode, a tree is shown along with every post. This tree allows you to see the relationship each post has to others, in terms of who responded to whom. Only one post is shown at a time.") I think that may confuse matters somewhat for newbie viewers.

Or maybe not. I just know that I got used to the Linear Mode and still read and post in it.

04-06-2008, 02:50 AM

candor

Hysterical, borismaglev. How does one see the timestamp? Have you checked larouchepub.com as well?

Recent photo of Jeff Steinberg: :cool:

04-06-2008, 12:39 PM

shadok

1 Attachment(s)

"inner-" v. "other-directedness"

Quote:
Originally Posted by borisbad
Lyn always talked about inner versus outer directedness, but not one member or so-called leader ever had the audacity to call LaRouche out on any issue until after they left the organization, so how inner-directed are the members.

Don't we say a picture is worth a thousand words?
(from laroucheplanet.info)

04-06-2008, 01:47 PM

eaglebeak

Borisbad:

In general, what you say is true--to confront or denounce or even disagree with Lyn is a social death sentence in the organization--and long after one has left the org, too, because Lyn in those late-night Rheingau-fueled soliloquies rehearses every wrong ever done him.... as he sees it. As a result, precious few do it.

However, some did tangle with Lyn while they were still in the org--of course, it meant they were shunned and ridiculed and all that, but:

Carol White had the audacity to leave Lyn; she also argued with him on a number of issues, and memorably, in 1978 or whenever it was that the whole org was supposed to be experiencing waves of joy over Lyn's and Helga's wedding, she said publicly and in my hearing that Lyn's behavior over a previous relationship was reprehensible.

I think it's obvious what Carol (and Chris) reaped as a result of Carol's leaving Lyn--if ever any two were targeted for unrelenting psychological warfare in the org, it would be those two.

Ed Spannaus argued with Lyn on a number of things. This got him thrown off the NEC twice, once in the '70s and once in 2006, it got his marriage broken up a few times (Nancy left him twice at Lyn's direction), and it bought him vicious attacks over the years (I may post a memo or two in that line). It even got his work on John Marshall attacked by Lyn in 1990, just a few months after Ed's and Nancy's son died in a car crash--one of Lyn's most outrageous displays of malignant narcissism.

Uwe Henke/von Parpart--whatever--had a few go-rounds with Lyn, but didn't get attacked much, then or later. Maybe Lyn's afraid of him?

In the fall of 1987 Criton confronted Lyn on the fact that Lyn's "Soviet menace" theme was hogwash because the Soviet Union was in a death spiral economically. Lyn's response was to flee, literally, physically. To leave town. Criton was also never really attacked by Lyn--again, maybe Lyn's afraid of him? Without Criton and to a lesser extent Uwe, the whole Platonist turn in the org would never have happened, because you can bet your bottom dollar that Lyn never had the attention span to read Plato. Or Aristotle. Or Euclid, Aristarchus, Eratosthenes, etc.....

Fernando and Lyn argued on numerous things while Fernando was in the org. Why do you think Lyn spent so much time, energy, and venom driving him out?

Molly Kronberg and Lyn had a shouting match in New York during the New York trial of 1989--a set-to at the Prosecutor's Office (Federal prisoner Lyn was "staying" at Riker's Island in order to be able to testify at the trial, so dedicated was he to the concept of getting on the witness stand) which was occasioned by Molly's challenging Lyn on every point on which he proposed to testify. And of course, in the New York trial Molly made a motion to sever from the other defendants if they called LaRouche to the stand, on the grounds that having LaRouche on the stand was against her interests.

Since Lyn had been yammering away about how vital it was that he testify in the New York case, all of this earned her the label of "traitor," delivered in the National Office at the morning briefing, and frequently thereafter, accompanying her for the next 18 years in the org, with Lyn, in his cups, ranting and raving about how she was a British agent, but that was okay because Nancy would "manage" her.

Paul Goldstein always claimed that he told Lyn off on numerous occasions. Who knows? Maybe it's true. But Paul was part of the golden "security" fantasy Lyn entertained, so that was a shield to him. And he can be quite a fantasist, so it may not be true. I never witnessed such a faceoff.

Lastly, before the European Exec Committee dropped out, or was forced out, or whatever it was that they did, a number of EEC and EC members told Lyn to shove it, starting at least as early as an EEC meeting in spring 2006 and continuing till that fall when they left. That included Uwe Friesecke, Renate Mueller, and Michael Liebig. LaRoucheplanet http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php has or had posted the audio of the May 28, 2006 meeting, which is pretty funny, with various members of the European leadership telling Lyn he has his head wedged.

04-06-2008, 01:51 PM

eaglebeak

Where Alph, the sacred river, ran

Dear Xanadu (or whatever)--

My thinking is that if you find this thread, or this series of threads, on the LaRouche cult meaningless, or pathetic, or pointless, or whatever it was you said you found it, then you could certainly save yourself a lot of time by not reading it.

Especially if, as you say, you've been reading it for years. Because otherwise, if you've been reading it for years and find it so futile, I must say you are a glutton for punishment.

Yours truly,

Eaglebeak

04-06-2008, 06:27 PM

scrimscraw

Always Crashing in the Same Car

Quote:
Originally Posted by borismaglev
We have now completed 48 hours without postings at LaRouche PAC. Two emergency posting from Germany (Helga and Amelia) whose time stamp is deceptive because they are dated with German time which is 6 hours ahead of US time.

Unless we've got an inside line into the doings (or non-doings) of the upper reaches of the org, I suspect that our trying to deduce an immediately impending Crash of the LC based on web-site activity is all too akin to Lyn forever deducing an an immediately impending Crash of the Global Economy based on his Triple Curve. ;)

Perhaps the Web gremlins took the weekend off or got the flu.

04-06-2008, 09:24 PM

xlcr4life

The cult has managed to sorta get coverage in Tehran!!!!

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=165453

King's four helpers have gone in a variety of directions. Jackson returned to Chicago to expand his Operation Breadbasket into the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition; he also ran for president twice. Young became a U.S. Congressman, Mayor of Atlanta, and UN Ambassador, and now is co-chair of an international consulting firm. Kyles remained proudly moored to his Memphis ministry, Monumental Baptist Church, and speaks of his experiences worldwide. Bevel remained a grassroots activist, and even ran for vice president with Lyndon LaRouche. Recently, however, he was charged with incest and is expected to stand trial April 7, although he maintains his innocence.

I shocked, shocked that Lyn has not released another bloviating opus about himself and "Martin" for the yutes to oooh and aaahh over.

April wil bring many things for members to ponder.

-Bevel's trial

-The one year anniversary of Ken Kronberg's death.

-April 15th when taxes are due.

On Bevel you have the case where his main job was to reshape the PR for Lyn when he was in prison in the same manner that was done with Rev. Moon. A collection of names is organised to appear on ads to declare that Lyn is a political prisoner and nary a mention of the actual criminal actions like tax fraud and theft. Moon had the same "commisions" set up and ads run , though on a far greater scale than Lyn.

I think in April we should be seeing more, a lot more trial testimnoy for everyone to read and enjoy since Barbara is not giving it up to those who ask. You only get the edited versions which do not have the fun.

Lyn must be kicking himself in the head for not running for president. He has to get the LYM whipped up to raise LPAC money. But the problem is that the LPAC money goes to Leesburg and THEN is returned back to the locals for expenses. This means that immediate expenses are always the last thing to be paid which is of course the LYM. In Leesburg, don't think that the money is getting to the remaining deadenders. Most of them are off to part time and now full time jobs to get some cash and health insurance while they can.

The cult managed to gross 3.5 million dollars in their last filing.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00309567

Now this may seem like a lot of money, but this is to run the whole gig which when spread over several offices and a few hundred people is squat.

At opensecrets.com you can peruse the filings and see the income

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave.asp?strID=C00309567&Cycle=2008

and the expenses.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expend.asp?strID=C00309567&cycle=2008&sort=A

On the income side you can pretty well see how much money is coming from members who are getting money from their parents still, or signing over their paychecks.

On the expense side you can review the information a few ways. You can see how much is going back to the LYM and how much is now spent on printing.

The kicker is that ZERO has been sent to any candidate! The whole reason for LPAC to exist is to keep a few hundred people from starving to death and being homeless.

Now since April 15th is coming soon, I would suggest that the IRS look for the following problems. If you look at the filings a good deal of money is paid to a LYM member as "per diem". In many instances it is like a weekly pay when you see the dates. Another thing is how large checks are sent to the LYM and then smaller checks are sent to utilities and landlords. If you look at articles about the LYM, they have either two ways of describing a LYM member. The writers who find factnet.org and do research will describe this as a cult, preying on people to drop out. The ones who do not do any research get fooled by the cult and LYM are described as "Volunteers". I find this so often that I think it is going beyond what one would expect. In some cases, "political activists" will appear, but "volunteers" is more common.

The LC uses front groups for tax purposes as well as to fool people. I would wonder if we are seeing something funny where a LYM member has their living expenses, rents, utilities, car payments/insurance etc paid out as an expense instead of as taxable income. We did this in the 1980s when we set up businesses in each region to issue paychecks. What happened is that after a few weeks, the leadership noticed how much was being spent on FICA, state and local taxes . This was costing the LC a good 20% each week in doing this. This also made members semi independent which then allowed many to leave for good once they had a few hundred bucks a week in their checking account. This all ended and what was created was a never ending mobe of one crisis after another with 5 bucks a day going to members. The living expenses were paid by the businesses and this dramatically reduced the taxable income of a member.

In other words, one can issue a check for $300 and have $75 taken out for FICA and taxes to give a LYM $225 . If you bypass this as income and pay the car payment via one of the companies, you save $75 and reduce the income of the company and the member at the same time. We did this when I was in . Do this for just rent, car payments and insurance and you can see several hundred thousand dollars a year escaping taxation on top of escaping minimum wage laws.

Here we have a few businesses set up like SE distributors, Midwest Distributors, SW Lit Sales, American System Distributors, Hamilton Systems and the Philly office who raise the money and send it to LPAC. We should be seeing a tax filing for each corporation, each entity and each member. By classifying a LYM member as a "volunteer" and then paying him or her a per diem, one wonders about how this treated as taxable or non taxable income. At the local offices what happens if you do not list LYM members as on a payroll, but instead have their weekly expenses come out of LPAC as per diem payments directly to and indirectly to the LYM LLC ? In this model I could take a LYM member in a high cost area like LA and pay him or her the equivalent of several hundred a week by breaking down every part of their expense as not a wage, but as a per diem expense for LPAC, a business expense for the local business via utilities and vehicles and create a person with basically no or very little income to report.

This is all speculation and only a LYM member can see what happened last year when they file. I know what we did when I was in and when I started to receive my yearly SSI report with estimated benefits, there was a big gap for a few years and very little or zero income reported.

Somehow I expect to see a major increase in LPAC income when the 300 dollar rebate checks are mailed out to the remaining LYM and they are signed over.

Go after that money Lyn! Some of the LYM may use that to escape!

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-07-2008, 11:50 AM

boomersage

Having recently praised Robert Mugabe as an exemplar of opposition to British imperialism, they may have figured that there's nothing left to say.

04-07-2008, 05:28 PM

borisbad

Death Watch

Quote:
Originally Posted by borismaglev
It is now 44 hours and 45 minutes since LaRouche PAC has posted anything on its website

While interesting as an observation on the inner workings of the LaRouchePac, I would hesitate to call it a death watch. It reminds me of the Cuban-Americans who have been trumpeting Fidel's death for the past forty years. It seems the longer they insist death is right around the corner, the longer Fidel goes on. So maybe the same will be true of LaRouche.

04-07-2008, 07:34 PM

boomer70

Boomersage,

be nice on the Mugabe thing. they're kind of an old fart's club.

04-07-2008, 11:25 PM

candor

Well, there's life at larouchepac once again. Sources say the key was found to the basement, which allowed the little keplerites up to breathe. Diligent tadpoles that they are, they got a start on tackling Pasteur's work on fermentation. After quickly scarfing down some mac and cheese they're going to animate as it were their underthings (assuming they had any to work with) and claim a breakthrough.

I wonder if Econometrica, Physical Review or Cell now accepts video submissions? I suppose they too are agin Lyn by demanding people know how to read.

04-08-2008, 02:43 AM

xlcr4life

In the middle of all this everyone can follow the trial of Lyn's VP candidate and a man who Lyn ordered everyone to love.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1382412

Daughter's Testimony Implicates Civil Rights Leader April 7, 2008 - 7:33pm
By MATTHEW BARAKAT
Associated Press Writer

LEESBURG, Va. (AP) - A daughter of a civil rights icon who served as a top lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr. testified that her father regularly molested her beginning when she was just 6 years old.

The Rev. James L. Bevel went on trial Monday for incest in Loudoun County Circuit Court. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

While the criminal charges revolve around a single incident that allegedly occurred in the early 1990s when the daughter was a teenager, Monday's testimony indicated a pattern of abuse.

The daughter said that she grew up in a communal lifestyle in which she regularly saw her father having sex with women and she came to perceive her own molestations as normal.

An ex-wife of Bevel also testified that Bevel instructed his family and followers in the commune that it was parents' obligation to "sexually orientate" their children - meaning in her mind that they were to have sex with them.

"I felt very repulsed by it," said the ex-wife, who is also the mother of the daughter who testified that she was molested.

The Associated Press generally does not identify the victims of sexual abuse. The daughter is one of at least 14 children Bevel has with several different women, according to her testimony on Monday.

Bevel, 71, was a leading figure in the civil rights movement and was with King when he was assassinated 40 years ago. He also is credited with helping to conceive and organize the Million Man March.

In the 1960s, Bevel was a leader in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), two of the stalwart organizations that led efforts to desegregate the South.

In the 1980s, Bevel became active in Republican Party politics and unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 1984.

He later became affiliated with political movements outside the political mainstream. In the late 1980s he supported causes affiliated with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

In 1992, he was vice presidential running mate to political maverick Lyndon LaRouche, who has a home in Loudoun County but at the time was in a federal prison for a tax conviction.

Prosecutors have said that incest occurred numerous times and in numerous places, but that charges were brought in Virginia because it does not have a statute of limitations for incest. Prosecutors also said in pretrial hearings that they have received calls from around the country since Bevel's arrest in June from women who claimed they were victimized by Bevel.

During opening statements, public defender Bonnie Hoffman urged jurors not to focus on Bevel's unconventional lifestyle, or whether he may have committed crimes other than the single incident for which he is charged.

"Get rid of your preconceived notions about how things should be," Hoffman said.

Prosecutor Gigi Lawless told jurors that the testimony "is going to be one of the most horrific things you've ever heard. ... This case is about betrayal."

The daughter testified about an unconventional life in which she and her siblings did not call Bevel "Dad" but instead referred to him as "Rev" or "Jim." She said she told her mother in a written letter that her father was molesting her.

The mother "handed (the letter back) to me and said I spelled 'molest' wrong," the daughter testified.

Circuit Court Judge Burke McCahill previously has ruled that much of Bevel's background as a civil rights leader is irrelevant and need not be discussed at trial.

Still, during jury selection a panel of more than 60 prospective jurors were asked if they had ever heard of Bevel. None had.

The daughter is expected to continue her testimony Tuesday.

We have in prior threads gone over how Rev bevel at the time this was going on I believe was in Nebraska running a campaign about child molestation which turned out to be a hoax.

Lyn also runs his mouth about Molly being scum for giving money to the GOP when his VP ran as a Republican and ran from the Moonies to Leesburg. Once in Leesburg, Rev Bevel ran the rehab of Lyn which was a low budget version of how Rev. Moon was rehabbed from tax evasion and a prison cell.

Bevel also assisted in the Million Man March with Farrakhan . Dennis Speed was involved with that as well. Now here is something to ponder. How is it that the LC went from being against the NOI when we had out Detroit Anti Drug conference with one Black Muslim group in 1979 to being in a love affair with the NOI in the 1990s?

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/larouche-noi/

You can read the NOI publications and see a lot of EIR and LC material in it over the years.

King has a section with some new material.

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/bevel4.htm

You will find that Rev Bevel's tenure in the LC is somehting very few members like to talk about.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-08-2008, 03:35 AM

eaglebeak

Money Matters Especially to Lyn.

Looking at the LPAC filings, the most interesting and obvious things are:

(1) LPAC saved a bundle by having Ken Kronberg commit suicide and having PMR go under. Not printing regularly is a HUGE savings.... Of course, it's a trifle harder to do that ole mass organizing, but still-- (current printing is reflected in payments to that Maryland outfit. The rest is probably printed at your local Kinko's).

When was the last LPAC pamphlet? Or "mass" leaflet? When and what? Was it Mitt (Romney) Splits? Or Hell is in Your Handkerchief Drawer?

(2) LPAC $$ are sent by LPAC secretary treasurer and LYM duenna B. Boyd over to the LYM avatar, and thence doled out for "stipends," gas money, food money, doctor money (lots of that, I'm told), xeroxing, Kinko's, cell phones, oil changes--the "infrastructure" which keeps the tiny number of LYM vagabonds moving around whatever tiny number of places they move around.

(3) LPAC sure is getting a lot of money from members and oldtime (40-year) supporters. Doesn't look as if that mass breakthrough is working for them. The money comes from members who have jobs, or members who have trust funds, or members who have other inheritances.

Those members also get to support the other members--their spouses--who work for LHL for free. Because you have to be something really special these days to get a "stipend" if you're a Baby Boomer.

The ROI (quick, Lyn, what's that?) just isn't great enough.

Now of course, there may be many a member who has inherited a little something and hasn't forked it over to the org, and hasn't breathed a word to the org about that little tiny cache. But (with luck) no one will ever know.

Lyn's own expenses, of course, get paid in other ways--non-FEC-regulated entities.

(4) In future postings we can discuss the Computron Model that Lyn's always raving about--that is, the LaRouche Looting Mechanism applied to Computron, and to regions, and to members, and to lenders, and probably to Winstar, and to the radio station, and to the bookstore, and to PMR and WorldComp, and--better watch out, Levit and James.

Meanwhile, as to Ed Spannaus. Let's look at some history, boys and girls.

04-08-2008, 04:37 AM

eaglebeak

"Steady Ed" The animosity between Lyndon LaRouche and Ed Spannaus goes back to the early 1970s. Ed is stubborn, pigheaded, and has numerous other, related, not entirely admirable qualities.

But the good side of them, is that they drove Lyn wild. Plus Ed had the temerity, or perhaps the foolhardiness, to argue with Lyn from time to time.

Ed was a hatchetman for Lyn on many occasions--there was something very Stalinist about the org in the old days--and it got worse from there.

In any case, at various points, to punish Ed for being unimaginative, uncreative, and insufficiently wildly enthusiastic ("steady Ed," as Lyn derisively called him, when he--Lyn--wasn't making stupid Ed-related jokes about Lake Placid or flatulence), Lyn forced Ed and Nancy to split up. Or rather, Lyn induced Nancy, who is easily induced, believe me, to leave Ed on two occasions.

In 1975, Lyn threw Ed off the NEC for some reason or other--ask Nancy, LYMers, and watch her turn beet-red. And Nancy left him--can't remember if that was the first or second time. Of course, Nancy remained on the NEC. She was Lyn's biggest fan--and to this very day she remains, no matter how vile he is to her.

Anyhow, in the 1970s, Ed and another founding-member-turned-basketcase-who-had-been-thrown-off-the-NEC--I refer, of course, to Tony Papert--were deployed to Computron, a sort of exile from the National Center and the Exec Committee and the nerve center of the international movement and all that fantastical stuff.

Ed managed to claw his way back on the NEC in about 1980, as I recall--after Gus and half of Legal had left. Ed thereupon became the NEC member in charge of Legal, much to Barbara Boyd's disgust.

In 1984, Lyn flew into a series of rages about the NBC case--that it was being sabotaged, deliberately mismanaged, etc. First, his attorney, Mike Morganroth, refused to sue NBC and was replaced as Lyn's attorney by the ineffable Odin Anderson. Next, the lawyer Barbara Boyd had hired, one Mike Dennis, was ascertained to be a KGB agent or a British agent or an FBI agent or something.

And the case was being "sabotaged." So, in a memorable meeting in July 1984, at his Virginia "residence" Woodburn, Lyn (1) threw Zeke Boyd off the NC as punishment for his wife Barbara's behavior in Legal; (2) threw Barbara out of Legal and sent her to Chicago to stand on a street corner and hawk newspapers (we had newspapers, back then); (3) spent the rest of the evening raging at Ed Spannaus for allowing Legal to be such a bunch of saboteurs.

Immediate consequences: the psychological end of Zeke Boyd. The terrorization of Barbara. (This contributes to the way she is nowadays.) The origin of Lyn's longrunning meme about Legal-as-saboteurs, and about Ed's blameworthiness.

Flash forward: It's 1988. Barbara's back in Legal (but Zeke's not back on the NC); Lyn has managed spectacularly to lose the NBC case (in 1986); Ed is running a Legal office whose position on loan repayments is recorded in one of his notebooks as "Lyn: loans. Forgive or forget." (That is, the lenders forgive the loans, and/or we forget the loans.)

Wham! In October 1988, the Alexandria Federal indictment comes down, bringing in Lyn, Ed, Will Wertz, Dennis Small, and some others.

In a matter of moments (it is, after all, the rocket docket), the trial is over, the trial is lost, and all the defendants are headed off to Federal prison.

Lyn thereupon conceived his deepest hatred for Ed, I'd say. He concluded that it was all Ed's fault--never mind that Ed and the others were just following the idiotic loan policies and indefensible tax postures that Lyn had insisted on adopting.

That's pretty much the deal. Lyn hated Ed ever after, and to be quite frank, Ed wasn't too crazy about Lyn, either. But Ed was married to Nancy, and Nancy was and is nuts about Lyn, so....

ANYhow, here is Lyn's memorable memo of July 6, 2006 throwing Ed off the NEC for a second time. This time, Ed was being blamed for changing some stupid headline on a pamphlet that he hadn't changed. But when people told Lyn Ed wasn't the "culprit," Lyn brushed that aside. Ed had to go.

Note also that in this brief memo Lyn lets fly at a few other hate-objects--Ken and Molly Kronberg (as in "Ken's mollyfication") and Nancy Spannaus, whom Lyn delights in beating up, for some reason. All these people could also be included under the rubric of the hated "Editorial" about which he writes to this day.... All in an endless Legal-Editorial conspiracy against him. Monstrously unfair to Nancy, of course, who would lie down and die for Lyn--and sooner than that, would kill--but hey! whaddya gonna do?

P.S. Just about every "fact" in Lyn's memo is flatly false, in general and in detail.

NOTE: The following memo is for the information of members only: (wfw)

From: PGM::HSE 6-JUL-2006 09:41:41.63
To: @DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
CC: HSE
Subj: ON ED SPANNUS' STATUS

From: HSE
To: @DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
Subj: ON ED SPANNUS' STATUS

TO:@DIS:NEC,WIE,HSE
FROM:LAR " Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. "
CC:HZL
SUBJ:ON ED SPANNUS' STATUS
2:48 PM 7/6/2006 EDT

To make things clear, as they stand at this moment. Ed Spannaus' clear-cut violation of trust, was to use the occasion when Jeff Steinberg and I were out of the country, to insert an utterly absurd,and malicioius lie, the myth of an "Al Qaeda" factor, rather than Synarchism, behind Rohatyn, into an edition of the morning briefing. This offense by him led into a pattern of sabotage of our work over more than two crucial weeks, which led to my suspension of him from the NEC on clear- cut, necessary grounds.

His persisting malfeasance on that specific point, then served as a thematic feature of a series of actions, in the course of which Nancy Spannaus resisted one attempted [sic] to sabotage our coverage of the current looting of the U.S. economy by Rohatyn, et al., but capitulated into Ken Kronberg's mollyfication of Nancy, that by unlawul changes in the material presented for printing: an action for which printers are customarily denied payment on the product thus changed, as is the result in this present instance. [Lyn means he is not paying PMR for the pamphlet, because the headline was changed. Not by Ken, of course, but what does that have to do with anything?] Many questions remained unsettled. 1.) Why did Ed lie in the first place, in inserting and then continuing to promote his "Al Qaeda" hoax? 2.) What is the background and motivation for other attempted sabotage of the publishing of the material assigned for publication? [To this day, no one knows what Lyn is talking about here.] 3.) In what degree did this intentional sabotage of the most crucial current factors of our work affect the relevant operations in Europe?

The fact remains, that in light of the ricocheting consequences of Ed's intial, fraudulent action in the AM Bfg, and his persistence in asserting his innocence in the affair as a whole, it is clear that Ed should have no voice in the deliberations of the NEC at this time. He is, so to speak, "reduced to the rank of buck private" until such time as a different status might be generously bestowed upon him. [He can lick the floor in the National Office.]

The following additional remarks are needed to situate the discussion of the foregoing matter.

The complicity of various persons in various ways, either aiding the violations, or abetting their perpetuation by inappropraite [sic] silence, is to be recognized as a reflection of the continuation of period 1990-1999 that avowed pro-fascist Fernando Quijano used my impaired legal status to wreck our association, and to perpetrate immoral acts. During that period, many among our associates became accustomed to tolerating many disgusting actions by the circles, either explicitly upholding known fascist ("integrist") Quijano, or avoiding an overt expression of resistance to his financial and other irregularities in the management of our affairs.

This tendency was reenforced by the effects of a population, our own, which was afflicted by the combined effect of being ageing Baby Boomers and a tendency toward the sophistry which became typical of much of the ageing ranks of our association during the 1990-1999 interval. The often hysterical reaction against the development of the youth movement, as seen on both sides of the Atlantic, was a correlated symptom of this tendency toward intellectual and emotional decadence.

We have now entered a time, when the fate of civilization depends significantly on commitment to defend civilization where even the majority of the member of the U.S. Congress lack the wont, or simply lack the guts to act patriotically. It is crucial, that the stink of Sophist cowardice expressed by complicity with the intention of Ed's lies, be extirpated, and that we mobilize in a spirit of a combat situation in defense of civilization. We are now closing ranks, and demanding a higher sense of moral responsibility for one's opinions among ourselves.

Well, there you have it. To me the wonder is, not that there are no more Ed Spannaus bylines now, but that even after this absurd memo and several more like it, Ed continued to try to lick the hand that whipped him.

Maybe Ed finally said the hell with it. Or maybe (more like it), he can't be "politically trusted" to get the line "right."

04-08-2008, 02:49 PM

xlcr4life

Ed Spannaus has a few other problems with Lyn. I can't believe that he and Nancy having two kids was not bothering Lyn as he was giving his "we are too busy saving humanity to have kids" routine. I always wondered if that is why Nancy was so hell bent on being gung ho about taking pregnant LC woman to the abortion clinics.

Nancy also was keen on having Ed get a vasectomy according to some friends who were very close to them when they were in.

Ed also made a major error when he placed a slug in the briefing which identified a San Diego newspaper story as the origin of romours of CIA involvement in crack cocaine. Lyn ripped him yet another A Hole because he violated a basic rule in that you never allow anyone to get credit for something except Lyn in the briefing.

There is I believe a whole other story about the trials involving Ed and Lyn. Ihave heard a few versions, but the basic story revolves around how Lyn was going to protect his booty by letting the LC members take the rap for everything as he pleads ignorance.

Ever notice that the only time Lyn says he does know something is when it involves taxes and looting?

In one version of this legal tale it seems that Lyn wanted to make a deal with the prosecutors to be a witness against the LCers on trial to avoid a jail sentence. Lyn would say that he was completely out of the loop and knew nothing, nothing about what was going. Poor Ed, a self proclaimed legal expert as his wife's editing of NC always seemed to declare, was caught in the middle of explaining this to lawyers and the defendents. I really do not know the full story, only that Ed eventually was to be blamed by Lyn for everything going wrong.

You really can see how beaten down Ed is by his taking this for decades and decades. He should be in his 60s now with not a dime to his name and Lyn's longevity genes making sure that he will be beaten some more when he cashes his first social security check, if he makes it that long.

Just think yutes, a leader of the LC who joined at around the age you did who devoted every day of his adult life to pleasing Lyn .He ends up mentally beaten like an abused wife in a marriage with Lyn that he could never break away from because of so many fears and how Lyn whipped him in the first Beyond Psych Session.

In quite a few talks I have had with friends who are former members, the prediction that one would end up old and broke while clinging to this lunacy scared many people to leave the LC as they wised up.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-09-2008, 02:14 AM

xlcr4life

I wonder if the slow down in the LPAC web site was so the LYM can get the leafletts supporting Bevel from Kinkos on time for the distribution.

Here are some of today's highlights about a man who went to Nebraska to continue a Satanic child abuse hoax with Al D to "save the children" around the time this all was happening.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040802521.html

Phone Call Played at MLK-Confidant Trial

By MATTHEW BARAKAT
The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 8, 2008; 6:09 PM

LEESBURG, Va. -- Jurors at the incest trial of civil rights leader James Bevel listened to an hour-long recording of a phone call in which he appeared to offer a convoluted defense of a sexual encounter with his daughter.

In the phone call between Bevel and his daughter, Bevel never made an explicit admission that he had sexual intercourse with his daughter. She testified Tuesday that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was 15 in the early 1990s after he pressured her by saying the sex would relieve him from demons that were sapping his strength.

Bevel, a top lieutenant to Martin Luther King Jr. who later was credited with helping conceive and organize the Million Man March, was arrested in June and charged with incest with his daughter while the two lived in Leesburg.

After his arrest, prosecutors said they received calls from across the country from women who said the were victimized by Bevel.

During the phone call heard Tuesday in Loudoun County Circuit Court, Bevel refers to "our interaction" and seems to blame the daughter at various times for weakness by refusing to resist him.

"You ain't made the decision not to (fornicate)," he told his daughter in vulgar language. "You can't know who you are until you decide not to (fornicate)."

At another point in the conversation, Bevel says the encounter increased his knowledge of how men and women interact, and improved his ability to teach others about proper marital relations.

"I want to thank you for contributing to the body of knowledge," Bevel tells her in the October 2005 conversation, which was recorded by the Leesburg Police Department.

Bevel says during the call that it's his duty to teach the world the difference between "emotional-sexual romance and constitutional intimacy."

During the call, Bevel constantly compares his actions with his daughter to his actions in the 1960s, when he was a leader in the drive to desegregate the South. Frequently when his daughter asks a question, he responds by asking her about his efforts during the 1965 march in Selma, or his confrontations with notorious Birmingham lawman Bull Connor.

In trial testimony Tuesday, the daughter and two of her half-sisters testified that the family confronted Bevel in 2004, concerned that a young daughter Bevel had fathered with a new wife in Selma might be at risk. At the meeting, Bevel said he did not dispute the facts of the daughter's allegation, according to the testimony.

On cross-examination, though, the sisters acknowledged that Bevel still claimed he was innocent despite his acknowledgment of the daughter's allegations. Bevel said the dispute stemmed from a difference in perceptions, according to the testimony.

In addition to the alleged intercourse when she was 15, the daughter has said that Bevel routinely molested her beginning at age 6.

The Associated Press generally does not identify the victims of sexual abuse. The daughter is one of at least 14 children Bevel has with several different women, according to her testimony on Monday.

In the 1960s, Bevel was a leader in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), two of the stalwart organizations that led efforts to desegregate the South.

In 1992, he was vice presidential running mate to political maverick Lyndon LaRouche, who has a home in Loudoun County but at the time was in a federal prison for a tax conviction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/07/AR2008040702532.html

LOUDOUN INCEST ALLEGATION
Civil Rights Leader Hears Testimony by Daughter

By Bill Brubaker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 8, 2008; Page B07

A daughter of James L. Bevel, a leader in the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s, testified yesterday in a Loudoun County courtroom that she was sexually molested by her father about 10 times a year in early childhood, a time when she said he also invited her to watch as he had sex with her mother.

The adult daughter told a jury that sexual activity was so frequent in their communal lifestyle in Cleveland and Chicago in the 1980s that "I didn't feel there was necessarily anything wrong with it."

Her testimony came on the first day of Bevel's trial in Loudoun Circuit Court on a charge that, if proved, could send the 71-year-old Christian minister and confidant of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to prison for up to 20 years.

Bevel yesterday pleaded not guilty to a single charge of incest with one of his daughters on an unknown date when they lived in Leesburg between Oct. 14, 1992, and Oct. 14, 1994. Virginia does not have a statute of limitations for felonies.

The incest charge was prompted by a discussion some of his grown daughters had at a family reunion about experiences with their father when they were younger, prosecutors have said. The daughters confronted their father, who said he performed sex acts to guide and train them, prosecutors said. In September 2005, one daughter filed a complaint with Leesburg police.

The Washington Post generally does not identify people who have alleged they were sexually abused. The accuser testified she is one of Bevel's 14 children, including nine daughters.

In an opening statement, Bevel's court-appointed attorney, Bonnie H. Hoffman, urged the jury to "close your eyes, take a deep breath and get rid of your preconceptions about how things ought to be," seemingly preparing them for what she warned would be graphic testimony. And it was.

Hoffman said the evidence, which includes a taped phone conversation that the daughter had with her father from the Leesburg Police Department in 2005, will show that Bevel did not have sex with his daughter when they lived in an apartment on Fort Evans Road in Leesburg. Bevel will take the stand to testify "he did not have sex with his daughter," Hoffman said.

Bevel is best known for playing a prominent role in some of the most high-profile civil rights protests in the United States.

He was a leader of the Freedom Rides to desegregate public accommodations in the South in the early 1960s, and he organized the 1963 Children's Crusade in Birmingham, Ala. He also helped conceive the March on Washington in 1963 and the Selma-to-Montgomery march in Alabama in 1965. Along with civil rights icons Jesse L. Jackson and Andrew Young, he witnessed the April 4, 1968, assassination of King.

Bevel was trained as a Baptist minister and later became pastor of the Hebraic-Christian-Islamic Assembly in Chicago. In 1992, he was the running mate of perennial presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr.

Yesterday, the bespectacled, gray-bearded Bevel sat quietly in Courtroom 2A, listening to his daughter allege that he entered her bedroom when she was as young as 6 and performed sex acts on her.

The woman said her family's communal life included "meetings" and "informal classes" in which Bevel taught his philosophy of nonviolence and offered instruction on "overcoming shame and lust and guilt about sexuality."

As a young girl, she said, "I did see my father have sex with my mom. My only thought was they looked like a cricket."

Earlier, her mother, Helen Williams, said her former husband espoused a philosophy "that parents need to sexually orient their children."

But, she said, when Bevel once suggested she have sex with their son, "I was shocked and repulsed by the idea."

Hoffmann told the jury that the daughter called her father from the police station in 2005 "to get him to say" he had sex with her when they lived in Leesburg. But he never said that, she said.

"Every time [the daughter] asks him specifically about penetration, his answer was no," Hoffman said. "Every time [she] asks him specifically about intercourse, his answer was no."

In the end, Hoffman said, the jury must decide "is this a misperception, or was this misconduct?"

OK now, go on and ask Nancy, Ed and Barbara or whomever is still alive in LaroucheTown about Rev Bevel and why many people found him "strange". but Lyn demanded you love him.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

04-09-2008, 02:34 AM

candor

Meanwhile Helga is downing one more goblet of Rheingau for another evening of "No Sex in the City" ... :mad:

04-09-2008, 02:35 AM

howie I do think "Death Watch" is too spurious a choice, but nonetheless I do believe -- and note that I noticed it independent of reading FACTNET -- that the stop over Easter Weekend -- slow drizzle from then until -- stop from Thursday through Sunday publishing of Larouche Inc is significant, showing signs of... I guess we just have to say "Stupid Manpower Shortage", or something. But I figured it to be a blip which could be overcome relatively easily -- and thus a flood came pouring in today.

04-09-2008, 08:00 AM

shadok save your genitals!

Quote:
Originally Posted by xlcr4life
Nancy also was keen on having Ed get a vasectomy according to some friends who were very close to them when they were in.

Maybe Nancy was inspired by Indira Gandhi... To quote from an Indian blogger http://www.kamat.com/vikas/blog.php?BlogID=203:

Quote:
I believe the year was 1977. By now Indira was the self-proclaimed Amma (motherly figure) of India and she came to our town of Honavar for campaigning for the election. (...) As she left, some in the audience started shouting the slogans "Indira Hatao, Indri Bachao" (Avoid Indira and save your genitals!). See, in the name of family planning...

Indira Gandhi and her son, in order to control the population forced millions of poor men to undergo vasectomy. This was one of the reasons she lost her elections. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946765,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

From larouche world-outlook, she was the perfect living proof of the existence of an "evil castrating Ishtar/astarte/isis mother-figure" imposing (fascist) birth-control policies, wasn't she? Yet the larouches met her in 1982 in the name of the "Club of Life"... while the org. was imposing abortions on female members... thanks to the same Nancy?

04-09-2008, 05:07 PM

scrimscraw

The Power of Reason

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadok
From larouche world-outlook, she was the perfect living proof of the existence of an "evil castrating Ishtar/astarte/isis mother-figure" imposing (fascist) birth-control policies, wasn't she?

Yet the larouches met her in 1982 in the name of the "Club of Life"... while the org. was imposing abortions on female members... thanks to the same Nancy?

One of the things that always struck me about the org down through the years (and I say this as an outsider) is that on nearly every issue and on nearly every public figure, Lyn & co. invariably took the exact opposite position from what seemed to me to be logical and common sensical. And even if they did target someone (say, Kissinger) who could be considered a legit villain, they went about it in such an over the top way that it almost made one sympathize with the target. Baffling.

04-09-2008, 08:21 PM

xlcr4life

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrimscraw
One of the things that always struck me about the org down through the years (and I say this as an outsider) is that on nearly every issue and on nearly every public figure, Lyn & co. invariably took the exact opposite position from what seemed to me to be logical and common sensical. And even if they did target someone (say, Kissinger) who could be considered a legit villain, they went about it in such an over the top way that it almost made one sympathize with the target. Baffling.

Scrimsaw, from your vantage point you it all seems baffling because the assumption is that we were in an org which was trying to do something to either grow or make long term allies and amount to something.

When you are inside the org and figure out it is a cult of personality and your main job was disinformation and supporting the cult of personality, then it starts to make sense. After most members leave the LC they finally figure out that nothing was designed to succeed in the real world. What you will always find is that the more people learned of us, the more they ran away from us for being nuts. Cults operate on this principal of not wanting anyone to pay attention because of what will be found. Just look at what is being found in Texas with the Polygamy sect.

Lyn's delusions just have a unique version to create a Bizarro world where the laws of reality really were altered by Lyn and the cult.

I am having a great time reading original documents like this:

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-frogmen.pdf

Aahh the days of each local having a gestetner press , ink and a few reams of paper. Maybe the LYM can find one of these on Ebay and relive those crazy days of frogmen assasins. Maybe all of the fumes from the ink effected the LCers who were doing this in basements and filthy apts.

Go on LYM , ask the present NCs like Harley, Larry, Debbie, Phil, Dennis, Steve and whomever else was around to explain why this is was done by Lyn and later exposed as a hoax? In reading the doc, I had a chill run up my spine as it reads as if Lyn was justifying someone going out and murdering Chris and Carol White to save him from his "current leadership role". This reads like a Hollywood script where a scenario is set up where if Chris or Carol make a sudden move and revolt, the jacked up LCers will stop them as they view this as an assasination attempt on Lyn. Considering the William E in this doc was taken to Belvue and how many LCers at the time were running around screaming "deprogram me" and another woman, ALice W was kept against her will in a NYC apt, I wonder how lucky it was that something of a firery nature where cults shoot it out did not occur.

This is pure madness when you read and relive how this whole crazy thing existed.

For some more madness.

Lyn's VP Rev Bevel was on the stand today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040902318.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803228_2.html

Civil Rights Leader Bevel Testifies in His Incest Trial
Christian Minister Was Confidant of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

By Bill Brubaker Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 9, 2008; 1:26 PM

James L. Bevel, a Christian minister and leader in the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s, testified today in his incest trial in Loudoun County that he did not have sex in the 1990s with a teenage daughter in Leesburg.

"Fornication to me is unlawful," he said of a charge that, if proved, could send the 71-year-old minister and confidant of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to prison for up to 20 years.

Bevel was asked by his public defender whether he ever rubbed the daughter's chest.

"Generally, I could have," he said.

Later, he said, "Yes, I have engaged in rubbing [her] chest in an educational context."

Earlier today, a brother, a son and two daughters of Bevel's testified that they each twice heard him admit he had intercourse with the daughter.

On Tuesday, prosecutors played a tape for the Loudoun Circuit Court jury of a phone conversation in which Bevel never fully admitted or denied having sex in the 1990s with his daughter, despite her repeated attempts to get him to make the admission.

Instead, Bevel responded vaguely to her explicit questions about their alleged sexual encounters.

The daughter had earlier told the jury that she saw her father, a Baptist minister, trying to "brainwash" residents of communal "clinic houses" he set up in which his daily 12-hour meetings focused on overcoming lust. He taught the "science of marriage," in which open sex was often the solution to problems, she said.

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Nicole Wittman played the 1 1/2 -hour tape that Leesburg police recorded without Bevel's knowledge Oct. 31, 2005, in an apparent attempt to show that Bevel had acknowledged having sex with his daughter.

In the phone conversation, Bevel at times seemed close to admitting that he had sex with his daughter.

"So you're saying all your sexual experiences with me were scientific processes?" his daughter said.

"That's right," Bevel replied.

The daughter testified that she had sex with her father as a 14- or 15-year-old in Leesburg after years of sexual abuse during a childhood in which she said she lived in communal "cultlike" homes and was a "functioning alcoholic." As a child, she said, she was suicidal.

Bevel has pleaded not guilty to a single charge of unlawfully committing fornication on an unknown date while he lived with the daughter in Leesburg from Oct. 14, 1992, to Oct. 14, 1994. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

The charges arose out of a complaint that Bevel's daughter filed with Leesburg police in September 2005. The woman said she decided to take action against her father because she feared he would sexually abuse his youngest daughter. She said she filed the charge in Leesburg because Virginia does not have a statute of limitations for felonies.

The Washington Post generally does not identify people who have said they were sexually abused. The accuser has said she is one of Bevel's 14 children.

The woman told the jury that Bevel presented himself to the people who lived with him in the "clinic houses" as "the successor of Jesus, and he was carrying out the work of Jesus."

On Monday, she testified that she was sexually molested by her father about 10 times a year in early childhood, a time when she said he also invited her to watch as he had sex with her mother. Nudity was common in the communal houses, she said.

Bevel's court-appointed attorney, Bonnie H. Hoffman, urged jurors in her opening statement Monday to "close your eyes, take a deep breath and get rid of your preconceptions about how things ought to be."

Bevel's daughter told the jury she did not resist her father's sexual advances because he was "the dominant leader, teacher of the group."

She said her father "would say he was the only man who knows the science of marriage on the planet" and that "he had to teach women" by having sex with them.

Bevel was a congressional candidate in the 1980s and the running mate of perennial presidential candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. in 1992. He was a leader of the Freedom Rides to desegregate public accommodations in the South in the early 1960s. He also helped organize the March on Washington in 1963.

xlcr4life@hotmail.com

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

04-09-2008, 10:26 PM

howie

I point this address out:

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=22d0c349-f4d4-4e43-918c-e0f83c47318b The Larouchian trolls have their talking points down, don't they?

04-09-2008, 10:41 PM

howie

Also pretty interesting, from this anecdote on dealing with Larouchi