SEARCH

edit SideBar

NO CATHOLICS ALLOWED

On November 1, 2000, Anthony Papert, a member of the National Executive Committee of the U.S. branch of the LaRouche organization, the International Caucus of Labor Committees (ICLC), dispatched the following “internal memo” through the cult’s e-mail network: 1

BETWEEN FRIDAY AND MONDAY
Many of us have been noting the repeated sharp deterioration in intelligence and morale of the Leesburg Labor Committee, which is seen almost every week, deteriorating rapidly over the period between each Friday evening, and the succeeding Monday morning. What is the reason for it? Is it that people have had a day off? No. On the contrary, there are many members who participate in Sunday activities which actually sharpen their minds, and lift their spirits.
The problem is not the day off, but the fact that many of our members go to area Roman Catholic churches on Sunday,-- as they have, in most such cases, ever since Fernando Quijano 2 and his patsies disorganized them into these divided loyalties, beginning about a decade ago.
Now I am far from wishing to frame a blanket condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church. In fact, that church is a very mixed institution, the product of a long historical evolution,--if, in fact, it should even be called one single institution in the first place, rather than several institutions. But, we have to be honest about the American Catholic Church, which many of our members were encouraged to join, that through its dumbed-down catechistical route. The American Catholic Church is a case of false and misleading advertising. That is, while for better or worse, it does indeed hold the territorial franchise for this country, yet at the same time, the goods which it peddles here under the borrowed label of “Roman Catholicism,” are, too frequently, not even Christian. Compared, for instance, to the admittedly imperfect Italian church, the American Catholic Church is actually not even a Christian denomination at all,--with the exception of the usual exceptions, of course.
And yet these members of ours, not understanding that they were being totally misinformed by Fernando and his dupes, and perhaps not believing that Lyn 3 was qualified to address these questions, 4 -- these members accepted the damaged goods of the American Catholic Church for the real article, and dumbed down their own minds, down from the level of the superior teachings available to them from Lyn, all the way down to the low level of a pseudo-Christian cult. And now, they dumb themselves down all over again in the same way, every Sunday.
Two more, mutually related problems, make these weekly brainwashing sessions still much more damaging. The first is the fact that we are located in the Northern Virginia area, whose Roman Catholic pulpits are largely dominated by the Christendom College kook/spook cult, headquartered in nearby Front Royal. This perverted, oligarchical outfit, linked to the very worst elements of the U.S. military in Washington, is almost certainly targetting these unlucky members as individuals, when, naively and trustingly, they attend services in churches under the cult's control. Many of the homilies are in fact written exclusively for the effect they are calculated to have, on even merely one or two targetted Labor Committee members among the parishioners!
Is this surprising? When were houses of worship not at the same time arenas of political struggle, and loci of politically-motivated brainwashing? Churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, and so forth have always simultaneously served these other functions, throughout at least all of known history.
And can these members imagine that their political commitment, and indeed a lot more about them, is unknown to anyone in this area with a reason to want to know it, after they have lived and worked here for a decade or more, in many cases?
Making the picture still worse, is the particular brand of oligarchical pseudo-Christianity which Fernando's controllers used him to seed throughout the Labor Committees in Leesburg. 5 I mentioned earlier that, as we all know, the Roman church is a mixed institution. We all know as well, that Pope John Paul II is one of the very few contemporary statesmen whose love, knowledge, and commitment can be compared to Lyn's. 6 I think the same has been true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all of his predecessors, save only one, going back to include Leo XIII.
But Fernando's brand of Catholicism, so-called, rejects precisely this line of Popes extending back to Leo XIII. I know from my own personal knowledge, that Fernando considers the present Pope, along with all these predecessors of his back to Leo XIII, as badly in error, as compared with Leo's pro-oligarchical predecessors, like the Pius IX who supported the British against the Irish, and the Confederacy against the Union, and who was the only head of state to refer to Jefferson Davis as “President” Davis.
As I say, I know personally, that Fernando considers all these modern Popes to have been badly misguided. What I don't yet know, is whether he believes them not actually to have been Popes at all (i.e., false Popes); or to have been the Antichrist; or to merit assassination. If those questions make you smile, it is only because you never learned, that many, or perhaps most who share Fernanco's ultramontanist variety of so-called Catholicism, believe {precisely} those things of all these Popes.
It gets worse. In Fernando's view, one of John Paul II's most unforgiveable crimes, is that he was recently the first Pope ever to visit a synagogue,--(namely, the synagogue of Rome). 7 This goes to the bestial-like anti-Semitism of Fernando's controllers, which closely resembles the fervent anti-Semitism of the Benedictines who trained Adolf Hitler.
Fernando's controllers, like some of the luminaries of Christendom College, attempt to disguise this anti-Semitism, of a sort which would be utterly shocking to any of you who saw it,--they attempt to disguise it under the cynical, pseudo-theological argument that “gnosticism” is a product of the Jews.
Please don't think I am writing this to make a case against Fernando,--that's not my purpose. My purpose is that we assess this Friday-Monday problem as described. The case against Fernando would require a book-length treatment to be complete. How many of you know that he openly supported the incineration of the Branch Davidians by the FBI at Waco,--openly chortling at NEC meetings as this was played and replayed on television,--as any honest then-NEC member could tell you?
And so, in conclusion: if you're a Jew here who is not a {converso}, you're in trouble!

After reading Papert’s memo, several leading members of the organization remarked that he had most probably written it under direct instructions of LaRouche. They said that many a statement in the memo was taken verbatim from LaRouche’s private rantings against the Catholic Church and those members of his organization who had converted to Catholicism or come back to the Church.

On November 2, 2000, Lyndon LaRouche himself sent off the following “internal memo” to all of his organization:

FROM: LAR
SUBJ: FERNANDO REPORT
November 2, 2000 (9:04am) CET (MEZ)
I have just read a memo issued by Tony Papert on the subject of the corrosive impact of a cabal which was originally organized by Fernando Q. over the course of the recent nearly dozen years.
This activity by him was known to me directly into early 1998,and continued relevant effects have been evident since, to the present time. It is important that I state the following, so that there is no avoidable confusion on this or related matters:
1.) that, respecting all matters which Tony states there respecting one, concerning Fernando's expessed views, I know directly, and most emphatically, of my own first- hand knowledge, that all of those are true beyond any margin for interpretation.
I know, specifically, that Fernando's views have been specifically anti-semitic, as he has represented that anti-semitism, repeatedly, to me personally, and has manifested this also in his practice toward other members of our association. He represents the only case, to my knowledge, who, during the recent ten years, but contrary to his own earlier views and practices, has personally lent credibility, by virtue of his past positions held, to the charges of anti-semitism against our association.
It happens that I did not witness F. sitting before TV set in Leesburg during the Waco events referenced; however, what is described by Tony is consistent with views expressed to me on that and analogous matters, by F. during the relevant period.
While I have no direct knowledge of F.'s direct role, if any, in the more recent matters to which Tony refers, I know that he was and remains historically the central point of reference for the launching of malicious operations against me and others at the close of the 1980s, and that the networks which he involved in those activities are still operating with some corrosive effects, and that he remains still a living symbolic reference-point for those continuing activities.
2.) As to the continuing corruption radiating from certain parishes in the Northern Virginia region and beyond, I know this to be true as to fact, including the targetting us by currents within churches which are in fact self-avowed enemies of me and our association, and are typified by elements usually associated with gnostic scoundrels of the sort identified within such tainted figures of the American Church as Michael Novak, Antonin Scalia, et al. I know that the fact that we have members attending those churches has been used wittingly by priests and others for evil doing against me and our association. I am familiar with the evidences of a degree of divided political and related loyalties on this account, and a corresponding tendency toward significant personal duplicity.
3.) I also know that I am better qualified, and more trustworthy in theological and related matters than any of those who have made apologies for our politically motivated enemies in these parish organizations. As one with long experience in dealing with persons who, like witless parrots, mutter the “party line,” I have, as most of you know, a refined instinct for looking beyond such patter, to seek out the quality of soul which lies behind such screens.
4.) I do not meddle in religious organizations except when they represent, like the “millennial fundies” relevant to the “Temple Mount” operations, the kind of political or cultural force which must be addressed on that account, but I will not condone or tolerate the use of any religious association for the purpose of a political targetting of the association of which I am the leading representative, or for simply meddling, directly, or by indirection in our internal affairs.
5.) Therefore, I find Tony's issuance of that memorandum to be justified by the circumstances, and both pervasively truthful and relevant, as well as a necessary clearing of the air, hopefully to bring to an end the duplicitious “snit-picking” which has undermined the spirit of collaboration so necessary for the efficient functioning of the national center.

In the storm that followed LaRouche’s endorsement of Papert’s memo, several members of the organization issued protests, both privately and openly. But the discussion didn’t last long. About 48 hours after Papert’s issuing his memo, LaRouche abruptly closed the debate (except that he hasn’t stopped issuing dozens of “internal memos” on this matter since then). On November 3, 2000, in a new “internal memo”, LaRouche stated:

Since no factually relevant response to the specific content of the memos of Tony Papert and me has been received thus far, the further discussion of the case should be put in the reference files, as a matter of policy which is now settled for the forseeable time immediately ahead. This action is taken in light, once again, of the absence of any factually relevant response to the memos as presented.
If any component sort of relevant material on the subject is submitted, we would decide on the basis of the merits, whether or not any useful purpose would be served by further discussion.
As to the eruption of this issue in this form, it has been inevitable since the relevant, disgusting and fraudulent conference address a decade ago. It was inevitable that this would come up in some form, as soon as the relevant members of the NEC were at liberty to discuss among themselves a matter which, under normal conditions, would have been fought out ruthlessly even a decade ago. The notion that the issue could be quietly buried, was, at best, a wishful delusion. The facts of the matter would be either acknowledged by the relevant parties, as a morally suitable way for putting the relevant past offenses into the past, or, if the would-be defenders of Fernando's offenses refused to concede to the central facts of the matter, the nasty matter would have to receive the kind of airing Tony's memo has brought into being…

On November 6, 2000, Fernando Quijano, until then a leader of the Latin-American branch of the LaRouche movement, severed its relationship with it:

Open Letter to LHL
Dear Lyn,
It is a vile and malicious lie that I am an anti-semite as anyone who knows me knows. That I am opposed to John Paul II in his relations with the Jewish community or most other parts of his papacy, or to past papacies is an even bigger lie, if that were possible. (I do disagree with JPII's implicit toleration within the Church of economic liberalism and the "American heresy"). ->Furthermore, it is incomprehensible to me that having a family and/or being a Roman Catholic would be considered a sign of disloyalty. I could answer the disloyalty charge and the other myriad charges one by one but that is really pointless. The accuser, the judge and jury are all one person and no defense is permitted. In effect I have been expelled—therefore I am "resigning", effective immediately.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you and the organization for all you have done for the independence, industrialization and sovereignty of the Ibero-American nations. I also want to thank you for all you have done for me, including the part you played in my return to the Church. It is obvious to me that the person I am today is a far better person than the one that met you in 1967.
A dear old friend of mine in New York used to say that not only should you pay attention to what the mouth was doing, more importantly the hands and feet should be watched. I can't imagine that this witch hunt was mounted just to get rid of me—I'm not that important. Hopefully, this last rumination of mine is the result of just plain old paranoia.
Finally, I am truly saddened by having to leave my life's work but I am even more saddened by having to witness someone of the caliber of Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. having Tony Papert as his alter ego or Iago as the case may be.
I wish you success and the best of health.
Respectfully yours,
Fernando Quijano

The witchhunt continued, indeed. Catholic members whose children attended Catholic schools, as well as those members, Catholics and non-Catholics, who simply refused to parrot the official line about “the Quijano case,” have been targets of relentless harassment. Many have left the organization. A few, regretably, have succumbed to the pressures. Still, LaRouche wants a complete “house cleaning” and keeps opening “security investigations” on the purported “enemy operation.”

The following interchange between LaRouche and two members of his National Committee will give an idea of the climate inside the LaRouche cult. The interchange took place on or about May 20, 2001, during a conference phone call, and a transcription was circulated among ICLC members:

DEBRA: 8 Exactly. The only question that I'm ever asked is, what you have to say about it, what are your thoughts on this, what are your thoughts on that. The other stuff is interesting as a predicate of what your activity is. What happens is that people get confused…
LYN: They don't get confused. They're still stuck in the theology which Fernando emphasized back over a decade ago: This is the post-Lyndon era.
DEBRA: Well, but I think that that is the point that we have to keep hitting on. Because…
LYN: That's what you got with this whole -- this whole crazy recruiting, this business of getting people into the Christendom College gnostic cult, and calling themselves Catholics. That was the way it was done. A surrogate authority, which would help protect those who joined that authority, which would not be me. That I was a relic of the past, and this was going to be the new wave. And they were going to change the lifestyles, have a family lifestyle, have this, have money, have a phone team work all the time to raise the money for the people who were making babies on Saturday morning... That was the ideology. Now, it looks pretty shabby and shoddy when you look at the effects of it 10 years later, but that was what was happening between 1990 and 1993. And that's--
JEFF: 9 You mean pregnancy was a large special? 10
LYN: Yes, exactly. It was a large special. Save money on condoms, become pregnant. 11

To include here many more of LaRouche’s memos would be tiresome. But perhaps it will prove to be useful to close this documentation with a particularly telling one:

CAUTION ON HANSSEN CASE
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
Mar 13, 2001
It is important that no simplistic spin on the Hanssen/Opus Dei/Christendom College/St. Catherine's of Siena case be permitted to slither between the cracks on either allusions to, or avoidance of that case, in our thinking, or the implications of what we publish. All the crucial indications are that this is not the kind of case which the prosecution's actions imply thus far.
All crucial indications known to us presently, are: That we are dealing with an Opus Dei operation which reflects the attempt of some parts of Opus Dei circles to play the role of a superspook rival to both NATO and the former Soviet system. Notably, our association was among the notable international targets of such an Opus Dei operation, run, in significant part, through Christendom College's St. Catherine of Siena. Numerous among the exotic operations against me personally, from inside the greater Leesburg circuits, were reflections of such superspook games run against us since the early 1980s. We know, in these and related ways, of the reasons a significant part of the FBI/Justice Department apparatus would wish to clean its own skirts of certain crucial implications of the Hanssen scandal.
What we know with certainty, which accounts for the smell of Falange-like, e.g., Hispanidad- like, ideology sometimes encountered in the darker alleys which our own associates have sometimes passed, is that the spread of gnosticism among nominally Catholic circles is more or less as much a problem as the spread of a related sort of "fundamentalist" gnosticism among the obvious Protestant "barking" and kindred cults. Like the Armageddon freaks, these kooks view Christ not as God, but as a kind of king of an invisible empire, or "Middle Earth" fantasy, or a kind of secret "freemasonry," to which their higher, earthly forms of political loyalties are delivered.
Imagine a case in which a high-level member of the U.S. intelligence community confesses, that he was working against the interest of both the U.S. and Russia, in service of the cause of Satan. That is a fair analogy for the kind of investigative challenge which the case of Hanssen represents. Now, assume that Hanssen's confederates, associated with Opus Dei, are at pains to scrap him in expedient ways which tend to clear their skirts of continued suspicion. Think of the long- standing resistance in our own greater Leesburg circles to my repeated warnings against the enemy influence being exerted from circles associated with Christendom College. We almost lost our association because of the years-long blocking against my warnings of the threat from that quarter. Let that experience be a lesson to us, in thinking about the implications of the Hanssen case.
Read 1 Corinthians 13 again; and never again be taken in by the delusion that "single issues" 12 represent the acid test of either Christianity, or morality in general. Leave "single issues" to the Pharisees, where they belong.

Notes:

1. All typos and grammatical mistakes in these documents are courtesy of the original authors.
2. At that time, Fernando Quijano, a practicing Catholic, was still a member of the LaRouche organization’s leadership. LaRouche, however, had been assailing him orally and in writing for some years. As many witnesses recall, Quijano’s coming back to the sacramental life of the Church had greatly infuriated LaRouche, who often said, “religion is for peasants.” Quijano also enraged LaRouche when he and his wife decided to adopt a child and began opposing other organization leaders’ “suggestions” that couples should avoid having babies so that they be able to dedicate all of their time to LaRouche.
3. Lyndon LaRouche.
4. LaRouche has written that he is “the highest authority” in theological matters.
5. The National Center of the LaRouche American organization is in Leesburg, Virginia. LaRouche himself spends most of his time in Europe.
6. LaRouche and his sectarians often make these disingenuous references to the Holy Father. As a witty guy has remarked, LaRouche thinks John Paul II is great, except for his being a Catholic.
7. This was a novel attribution at the time. LaRouche, Papert and a few others have bent over backwards for years attempting to produce credible evidence of Quijano’s purported anti-Semitism, with no success. They often put words in his mouth, without any documental support. At times, they based their charge of anti-Semitism on the fact that this or that person opposing Quijano’s political views had Jewish ancestors. This reminds us of the man who was riding the NY subway and, on being pushed and elbowed like everybody else, he accused the others of being anti-Semitic, because he was a Jew.
8. Debra H. Freeman. She has been the national spokesperson of the LaRouche presidential campaign for several years.
9. Jeff Steinberg. He is a member of the National Executive Committtee and the chief of security of the LaRouche cult.
10. That is, a large money contribution to the cult by a supporter.
11. Female members of the cult were often encouraged to get abortions. In some cases, money was allocated to that purpose.
12. LaRouche alludes particularly to the fight against legalized abortion.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on November 08, 2010, at 01:44 PM