| Author | Message | ||
     sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 112 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
new thread | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
CALLING ALL LC/LYM MEMBERS TO THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY: LAROUCHE V. LAROUCHE (or is it LaRouche v. LaRouche v. LaRouche v. LaRouche?) I invite you, and everyone else, to ringside seats as LaRouche refutes himself, changes his line, and contradicts himself, all in the space of weeks, starting the day of poor Ken Kronberg’s tragedy. But first a word of introduction. There is a price of admission, albeit a small one, to this fight, for those who still think Lyn walks on water,. Without paying this price, this fight will not be fun for you, will hold no interest, might even induce mental illness (or worsen any such already present). The price is this: you must concede that Lyn is mortal, and therefore that he is not perfect, has made mistakes, and will make more of them, and that you agree to be open-minded enough to grant that if Lyn is shown, in his own words, to be blatantly contradicting himself over a span of a few days or weeks, that this will give you pause and open at least a crack, if not a deeper fissure, in your kneejerk belief that whatever he says, in all situations, has to be true. And you really must pay this price, on pain of admitting that the LC/LYM is a cult, and you are a willing member of it. Because your whole mantra is to seek the truth, find universal principles, think for yourself, be creative. If you confess to believing that Lyn is incapable of error, you elevate him to a higher pedestal than the pre-1875 popes, you affirm that, like the modern popes, he is incapable of error, infallible—and in all matters, not just matters of theology. Do you really believe that is true? Do you really want to be telling that to the world, and to potential recruits? If you do, you will be gate-crashing the big fight, and while I can’t throw you out, you will be missing out on the fun. Now, to the big fight. In one corner we have LaRoucheApril11, as transcribed by Tony Papert, the infamous briefing attack on “the print shop,” aka Ken Kronberg. (See http://dennisking.org/kronberg3.htm) In a second corner, we have LaRoucheApril18, Lyn’s first-known written reaction/response to the Kronberg matter, in a probably narrowly circulated memo. (See http://dennisking.org/kronberg6.htm ) In a third corner, we have LaRoucheApril 20, in a second, perhaps slightly more public, memo on l’affaire Kronberg. (See http://dennisking.org/kronberg5.htm ) In the fourth corner, we have LaRoucheAug3, the memo reported previously on the previous Larouche thread, which I can’t find anywhere else on the web, so see post 163 from xlcr4life near the end of the LaRouche Continued thread. The issue concerns Lyn trying to keep his stories straight on the PMR situation before, and after, Kronberg’s suicide. The line was straight-forward on April 11: in the context of a screed against Baby Boomers, summarizing what appears to have been a multi-hour rant by LaRouche to an audience of LYMers, BBers were guilty of a “moral breakdown in leadership,” and “the print shop (aka Kronberg) was the worst.” (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
In typical LaRouche fashion, there are lots of missing parts without which this is not an intelligible argument. In 1994, when Lyn came out of jail, “he presented his solution to the sales force….People went screaming out of the room.” What it was that LaRouche proposed to them is not stated, nor implied, and one has to wonder a) what it was, and b) how Lyn could be so impotent that he couldn’t get the sales force to do it. But most importantly for today’s fight, Lyn clearly said that Ken argued, against Lyn, that “the economy won’t go under,” and “there will always be money there for people smart enough to grab it,” meaning, that commercial enterprises, of which PMR/WorldComp was the only one in the U.S., could always make a profit. Ken, as the only person in the “print shop” who was on the NC and could have represented any policy issues to Lyn, was clearly targeted. (Parenthetically, it is beyond dispute and known to numerous members, that this was in any case far from the first attack on Kronberg—it was rather the last straw for him.) To doubt that Lyn’s message was that Kronberg was to blame for his leading role in sabotaging Lyn’s strategy—whatever that was—of overcoming financial problems, is to be really self-delusional. So much for LaRoucheApril 18. Parenthetically, as is well-known, LaRouche had no response to Ken’s death. Nancy Spannaus penned the creditable encomium posted on the website. It was only under pressure that he finally wrote Ken’s wife, Molly, the letter that was then posted on the website—amazingly, given what a dreadful, spiteful, awful letter it was, which LaRouche and the leadership apparently don’t even “get.” But it turns out that, like Stalin after the start of Operation Barbarosa, when Stalin was absent from the public eye for two weeks not because he was in shock, but because it took him that long to figure out how to spin the debacle to deflect blame from himself, Lyn’s absence from the field in terms of honoring Kronberg’s contribution, did not mean Lyn wasn’t working on the problem. An internal memo has been revealed from April 18, the day before the funeral, and before his letter to Molly, which is very interesting. So, in LaRoucheApril18, suddenly, Lyn knows what absolutely nobody else thought they knew then, or thinks they know now with any certainty, namely, exactly why Ken committed suicide. LaRouche states that “Evidence presently placed at my disposal has now shown me the actually determining personal factor in the suicide.” This little gem must be read in its entirety (it’s very short, less than a single page, please read it now) to be believed. Lyn knows, but won’t tell. But the evidence, “not so much [revealing] the cause of Ken’s suicide,” but certain “aggravating factors” traceable to the ‘90s when “Ken was under the misdirection of Fernando Quijano and Uwe Friesecke,” is there, only needing certain final additional research, before it can be revealed. Bingo. I mean, that really nails it. Ken committed suicide in 2007, 8-13 years after he was allegedly being misdirected by Quijano, long gone as of 2007, and Friesecke, under attack for years and finally gone this spring. How’s that for causality? Now, we all (I should say, many of us) knew Ken. He wasn’t easily dominated, he was supremely well-educated and intellectually secure. How anything from Quijano and Friesecke years earlier could have had anything to do with his suicide this year is a mystery we will have to wait for Lyn’s promised partial revelation of what this influence was…though don’t hold your breath, I strongly doubt it will ever appear. But this, some weird spin where Lyn can claim definitive knowledge of what allegedly drove him to suicide, is Lyn’s first response to the suicide. (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Oh, and he says that Nancy’s piece “truthfully in respect to what it includes” “should be the only official reference to Ken’s passing made publicly by our association at this time.” And Lyn has the effrontery to talk of agape? LYMers, Kronberg was a member of Lyn’s association for over 35 years, most of that time as a leading member, whom Lyn knew extremely well. He didn’t quit, at least other than as his suicide can be so interpreted. But since Lyn doesn’t choose to publicly understand it that way, how are we to understand Lyn’s failure to write a public item expressing his sorrow, and his gratitude to Ken for his devoted service to Lyn’s cause. His letter to Molly doesn’t count. He was talked into writing it, and publishing it was not his idea. LYMers, and you think LaRouche cares about you, thinks you are the future of humanity? Like we thought he thought of us 30 years ago? Like Kronberg thought Lyn cared about him? If he treats a devoted, loyal leader like Ken Kronberg as not even deserving a personal, public statement of sorrow and condolence, how can anyone believe that what Lyn means by agape is practiced by him. This point is not germaine to the LHL v LHL fight we are covering today, but just had to be made. To return to ringside, in the third corner we have the LaRouche of 2 days later than the above memo, LaRoucheApril20. This one, a little longer but still pretty belief, should also be read in its entirety. Several times, if the full effect is to be experienced. Elementary logic is nowhere to be seen, as this not only contradicts the April 11 briefing message, but contradicts itself at several points—and the illogicality grows on one only on second and third reading. First of all, it is now specified that Quijano and Friesecke (does anyone know if it is even remotely likely that these two were working together on anything—without knowing the particulars, but just their personalities, I would find this highly unexpected) wrecked PMR from 1990-1999. In fact, PMR’s demise was “a virtually inevitable calamity” since possibly as early as 1994. Then, in the same paragraph, having outlived this forecast by 6 years, an ill-advised investment in 2001 “meant the end of PMR's ability to continue to exist for long,” even though PMR actually lasted for 6 more years. LYMers, is this making sense to you? Do you think what LHL has written here does not constitute an incoherent mishmash of charges that don’t make sense as a whole? If so, you make a mockery of saying that you base yourselves on a belief in the importance of fundamental scientific principles (which Lyn talks incessantly about), since science above all requires a modicum of reasoning ability and clear understanding of cause and effect—these rantings by Lyn do not partake of rationality, and crumble at the merest examination as the cranky charges of someone who isn’t used to people actually thinking about what he says—or he would have been called on such absurd, non sequitur-ial statements long ago. But it gets better. After blaming Quijano and Friesecke for mismanagement, Lyn then credits “the minds of many of our associates” for being “corrupted” by the belief that “there will be lots of money being passed around for those clever enough to tap into the flow." Now, this is the mindset of “many of our associates,” where earlier, on April 11, this was the mindset of Ken, aka “the print shop.” But with Ken’s suicide, oops, “I guess we’d better change our public tune.” But not that much, really, as Lyn continues, that this ideology, and “its effects on policy-shaping in the printing operations as in the organization itself,” contrived to put PMR into a “ruined situation” in 2000. (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
OK, fast forward to 2007. But how can we? How did PMR get here at all? If PMR was ruined in 2000, at the onset of the Bush recession, and had just moved to major new quarters it couldn’t afford, how did it survive at all until 2007? LYMers, you need to pay close attention here. You are watching a verbal magician. Or perhaps a verbal three-card monte expert. Now you see it, now you don’t. If you are not watching carefully, Lyn appears to be making sense. But if you actually try to find the thread of a coherent argument, that lives in chronological reality, you will begin to see the sleight-of-hand at work here. Let’s retrace our steps: • By 1994, it was clear that PMR was doomed. This was before the 1994-1999 period when the mentality of making money was predominant. • From 1990-1999, Quijano and Friesecke mismanaged business affairs creating special problems for PMR (not clear if these were the same problems caused by wrong ideology on the ease of making money). • In the same period, some members thought that money could be made easily, which ideology was crucial in ruining PMR. • In 2000, PMR was in a ruined state. So, was it Quijano-Friesecke mismanagement, or Boomer money-making ideology, that doomed PMR by 2000? Or was it the bad decision to expand operations just when the market was tanking in 2001? Now, granted, all three could have been involved. But LaRouche doesn’t care to state an intelligible argument. It is enough to throw up a bunch of “stuff” in the knowledge that his acolytes never apply a single brain cell to the task of asking themselves if what he is saying actually makes sense. LYMers, as presented, it doesn’t, it really doesn’t. And then the crowning anomaly: PMR stayed afloat for another 7 years after having been ruined, taken on (anticipating the Aug. 3 memo) huge new debt service and greatly raising its costs of production, and faced a destroyed market environment. How exactly was this possible, unless the stated facts about PMR c. 2000 were not as Lyn stated. (What, are we to believe that Ken was actually a business genius to keep this hopeless derelict afloat? Which is it, Lyn?) Lyn is so used to just saying stuff like this, that doesn’t hang together, and relying on an uncritical audience to get away with it. But this memo has more to say. Suddenly, we are informed that despite being doomed from as early as 1994, and being in a ruined state in 2000, having expanded just as the market collapsed in 2001, and having miraculously stayed in business for the succeeding 6 years, there was now a potential solution in sight. This can’t be fairly paraphrased, so I reproduce the quote in full. Lyn writes: “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 This solution depended chiefly on matching PMR's and associated potential with the expansion of the market for LPAC operations.” This is fairly opaque, you must admit. Since PMR was a printing company, and since it presumably wasn’t working to capacity, the “expansion of the market” for LPAC operations (so “operations” are now being sold in a market?) must, translated into English, be intended to mean that LPAC was supposed to so greatly increase its income generation that it could afford to print huge amounts of literature that would bail out PMR? (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 12 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Leaving aside the unreality of such a “new conception”—that LPAC had the remotest possibility of raising, what, well over a million dollars, in a few months, or that LPAC could possibly make use of a million dollars worth of literature—which unreality suggests no such “new conception” in fact existed, but be that as it may—what follows takes the cake. It requires an extended quote, to take in the full enormity of blameshifting this sudden invention of a last-minute possible “fix” for PMR enables Lyn to engage in: “With the failure to support that LPAC program by parts of our assoc'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 . “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. However, your failure to muster to the challenge which I and others posed to you, could have been helpful 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.” I get sick every time I reread this. So, there was a solution to PMR that would, presumably, have meant that Kronberg wouldn’t have committed suicide, but the BBers sabotaged it by refusing to support this LPAC program, whatever that actually was. So, the BBers “did not actually kill Ken,” but clearly contributed. Lyn’s bugaboo of the moment, the old-timers in the LC itself, were to blame for Ken’s death!!! Truly stunning. And the only way BBs can atone for this crime is doing now what they refused to do then? Whatever that was? And what was it, precisely, that the BBs didn’t do? As usual, “he don’t say.” And, of course, we have the new added supposed information, nowhere previously mentioned, that Ken was stuck in “pessimism,” which Lyn, and unnamed others, were trying to help him overcome? Exactly what was Lyn doing to help Ken overcome his pessimism? Let me guess. I’ll bet being cited on April 11 for being the “worst” offender in destroying the present fundraising performance was item number one on Lyn’s list of therapeutic interventions. LYMers, and other LCers, have you eyes to read, minds to comprehend, and souls to feel? LaRoucheApril20 asserts that Lyn was trying to help Ken overcome his (alleged) pessimism. Do you attack someone who is pessimistic, which sounds like a euphemism for depression (clinical depression, not economic depression), by saying what Lyn told the April 10 LYM meeting about Ken’s responsibility for wrecking the prospects for saving humanity from extinction, and then having it reported in the daily briefing? A briefing in which, don’t forget, he also posed that BBers who can’t get with the program might as well commit suicide? These two assertions, the one from April 10-11, and the one about trying to help Ken overcome his pessimism, simply cannot live in the same universe. If Lyn had been trying to help Ken, he simply wouldn’t have attacked him at all, in any context, must less have it reported publicly afterward. Since the April 10-11 attack is consistent with many previous attacks of a similar vein, there is no question: Lyn is simply lying in LaRoucheApril20. Probably lying about everything, not just this, but this for certain. I will leave LaRoucheApril20 for now, due to the length of this extended post, but the final four paragraphs would merit additional commentary in their own post. (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 13 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Which brings us to the final corner, LaRoucheAugust3 (I don’t know if this was exactly Aug. 3, but it was apparently around that time). Eaglebeak has fully commented on this, proving, in summary, that most of it is lies to begin with. The biggest single point to repeat is that even if LPAC and other political committees had to pay market prices to PMR (for FEC legal reasons, not mentioned by LaRouche)—if that is even true, these payments were only a small part of the work that PMR did for Lyn’s entities: the vast bulk was printing/mailing EIR, New Fed, Fidelio, 21st Century, various pamphlets and books, and leaflets. It was these that were not paid at all, or well below the cost of production, that ensured that PMR eventually had to fold. Here, LaRouche is in his eye-gauging mode. I say LaRouche, because it has his ring, but it could have been a flunky on his orders, which wouldn’t change anything. But I vote for LaRouche. Anyway, for openers, we have his tired stock in trade: tell lies about who is doing something, create a strawman, and attack the strawman, hoping to divert attention from the real issue. I don’t know from nothin’ about whether the AFF has any connection to FACTnet, and don’t much care. Dennis King doesn’t post there, to my knowledge. John Train, oh, come one, what a tired whipping boy. LYMers, do you even know who he is? The bogeyman? Do you believe in bogeymen? What I do know, and any medium- to long-term ex-members know, is that every ex-member posting here is basing themselves on what they experienced and knew from their time in the LC, plus whatever they may have heard since. To glibly say that King “and others” never knew Ken and have no idea about the financial relationship between LC entities and PMR, could well be true, and is totally irrelevant. We DID know Ken, some of us pretty well. And we also knew—everybody knew, pretty much from day 1 for PMR and WorldComp—that LC was NEVER able to pay PMR even for costs of production of LC literature. This is the crux of the matter, period. And Lyn knows it, and only in this memo does he finally acknowledge what this is all about. The operative admission comes in the first paragraph, where Lyn says that “King and others…claim that the movement “looted” PMR to ruin.” Well, those “others” include many people posting here, and we know it from personal knowledge while we were in, and second-hand knowledge from those still in who have passed that information to some of us, confirming that nothing changed after each of us left. LYMers, you can be forgiven for not knowing this undeniable fact. How could you? Boomer members reading this, YOU do know it. How can you say you base yourself on truth, and then let Lyn get away with this lie? How do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? Because, to wrap up this first LHL v LHL contest, here is the nub. PMR was doomed by the organization’s refusal to pay even cost of production to PMR for most publications it printed. To cover up this reality, LaRouche has had to shift the blame—starting well before Ken’s death—to others, including Ken himself, the BBers who sabotaged Lyn’s “new conceptions” on how to raise money, Uwe Friesecke, Fernando Quijano, ex-members, etc. It was clear that with PMR clearly about to shut its doors, making it impossible to continue printing much literature at all, including even EIR, the main money-maker for the LC since the mid-80s, something had to be done, and presto, a “solution” was found: the web. (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
I don’t know how many people know, but in the same April 11 briefing, or possibly a couple of days earlier, was an extensive discussion of shifting all EIR subs to web subscriptions, hailing this as a major advance. It detailed how all possible EIR subs were to be converted to web subs, and that no new print copy subs were to be sold, so they can phase out hard copy EIR as quickly as possible. So, with PMR going under, and the ability of LC to have much printed material, even for the card table shrines, about to disappear, a scape-goat was needed, and Ken, and PMR, was it. Hence, the clear message of the April 11 briefing. While no one will ever know Ken’s exact motivation, or motivations, it is likely true that at the very least, Ken knew that his suicide was the last thing that Lyn expected, and would function after his death as the Cranes of Ibykus functioned in the Schiller poem. Everything Lyn has written since (that we know of) has been his desperate attempt to deflect from himself his role in driving Ken to suicide as part of his ham-handed effort to cover his own behind for the demise of the ability of his movement to print anything again. The Cranes of Ibykus are air-borne, and Lyn is scrambling to keep ahead of the blow-back from his own mis-deeds that sent them aloft. Another literary reference is apt here: “Oh, the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” LaRouche’s web is getting more and more tangled with every new memo on the subject. Surely, especially those who have only invested a few months to a few years to his cause, can still manage to see this web for what it is. For if Lyn is capable of blatantly lying on this matter, then where else is he lying, or at least, not telling the truth? There is a cost for claiming to be Infallible. One proven case of fallibility, or even worse, outright lying, leads the whole edifice—can I call it “lattice”—to crumble, hopefully freeing those able to escape the falling rubble. End of Round 1 of LHL v LHL. Stay tuned for later rounds on this same channel. | ||
| howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 53 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 192.220.136.118 |
Of interest: http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=1778 Scott McLemmee. | ||
| borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 51 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
I caught this on youtube. There are two videos, one is a "straight" video of Helga of a Buso video, the other includes Helga and a dead-on impersonator. It's in German so you may need to get a translation but the image is clear. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_4bgnfBLU | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 113 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
HAHAHA Hey, gang, are we all getting together at John Train's later? Dennis is in London getting his instructions, so he won't be joining us. Rule Britannia! | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 174 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
This is all very interesting LTruth. What is happening is pretty much how Lyn runs the cult with variuous subcompartments which are kept at each other's throats. Lyn then pleads ignorance whenever money is missing or people leave and then comes right back saying that he knew the operation which was going on all of the time. The members are kept so busy that there is absolutlely no internal discussion of anything , just rumblings. Soon, another big mobe is created and everyone is whisked away to their next appointment with Lyn's delusions. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, hell any two bit dictator has a system like this in place. I can pretty much count on one hand the meetings we had called "Internals" which were conducted after a regular ICLC conference. Looking back we had one in NYC where a cheap newsprint budget for the USLP was approved and the org was run by Lyn to the point not a single peep of debate or question would ever be raised again. It was so laughable that we would laugh and take bets on the over and under for standing ovations for Lyn and how every question about anything would be framed with Lyn yelling about how blocked you are when you ask it. I must say LTrth that there is a component of what you are saying which has not been mentioned. The cult functions as a Mafia/Cult with Lyn as the boss of bosses. There is a hidden element of financial doings and trickery which most people will not understand unless they know how this cult is run. There is another whole level of activity which a yute will have absolutely no idea about. I know I pronmised the yutes a score card of the scam artists and that is in production now. You yutes deserve to know where tax free cash is being sent to. Just ask for a computer summary of the ICLC budgets for the past 10 to 15 years and do the math yourself. You yutes love to squawk about math, so here is your chance. I surely can not talk about some of the fun stuff which is unravelling these days. that has to wait for the right time. For now here is a letter from one of your biggest LC leaders who everyone knows. I may have posted this last year. Since almost a year has gone by and it is from Europe, I get this feeling that a few USA versions are being prepared now. Back in the day any resignation letter given by a member , unless it was photocopied and mailed to every member was enver made public. We would have people just vanish without a trace and no mention of them at all. There would be an official line issued and then some if us figured out why Lyn had a hard on for Joe Stalin . Read this again and see if you can figure out why Lyn ranted against Uwe F for doing something with almost 9 million or so dollars in his memos last year. Ask the local NCs what ever happened to that 9 million Lyn was yapping about. In reading this consider that Dino himself does not have all of the story, no one does except Lyn. Nothing happens in any part of this mafia/cult without Lyn. He has nothing in his name and if you read a little bit about gangsters and how RICO works, you will start to get the picture. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 175 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Hannover 9.12.2006 > > My memories about the Larouches > > From Dino De Paoli > > > Given that in a recent "answer to H. Cramer" neither Lyndon nor Helga Larouche have shown a sign o minimal truthfulness concerning the "Fernando" issue, I feel released from any bond or reserve implicit in my relation with them. I will talk only of the political implication of events which I directly experienced between 1985-2003 while I was operating as "fact-totum" around the Larouches. > > 1985->1988 > I moved from Jeff Steinberg house to the Larouches guesthouse. Fernando, at that time, was already very close to the Larouches and shared with them the rightwing catholic contacts. I was directly involved in delivering a letter from Fernando-Larouche to a "special person" in Castelgandolfo, accompanied by Cristina Fiocchi. Most of Fernando-Larouche italian contacts are today the controller of the terrible "fascist" Antonio whose article caused the expulsion of the french Fusion. > In that period Helga was also super active in attempting to fight the "blase", that is: the supposed influence of "CIA" agents on Lyn, mediated through Paul Goldstein and Jeff Steinberg. > Given that I had had experiences in handling the intelligence community in France, and that I had a good working relation with Paul and Jeff, Helga asked me to "infiltrate" the american security sector. I refused and I told her that I would work WITH her whenever I had reason to agree, but that I would not work FOR her. > I came to share her view that indeed Lyn was not so perfect and that he was "manipulable", and indeed manipulated in paying idiots or double agents like "Frick and Frack" or "Carpet"( who to my knowledge still today get his monthly 5000$ from Larouche). > > In 1988 after the Boston trial Lyn wrote a 10 lines memo "for eyes only" where he nominated Fernando and Helga (given their proven leadership), as vice-presidents of the ICLC. This is the "famous" memo which is making Lyn hysterical like a dog caught by the tail. > He at first denied he had done it, then he admitted but added that he "had not signed it", then that he had written it "under the influence of Warren", then that he had written it in 1989(sic) "to defend Helga from Ed Spannaus", tomorrow he will say something else. > Fact is, he wrote that memo, his secret motivations are irrelevant for the moment. Lyn can blame but himself for giving so much power to a "fascist", who was also so close to his wife. > > 1989-1990 > Lyn went into prison. Helga-Fernando were officially on top of the organization: Helga in Europe Fernando in the USA but in daily telephone contact. > They thought they had not enough power an so tried to "shape the & lt; BR>organization for the after Lyn" and get full control by eliminating the "CIA faction". > Among other things, the very first act was to write a "resolution" for the February 1989 ICLC conference to force the adoption of a "catholic" God. I intervened at that conference saying: "please do not do to God what you did to the golden mean".> | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 176 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
> Lyn, from the prison in Alexandria, wrote a manuscript letter authorizing Fernando to cut the 5000$ for Carpet and to "reduce" the power of Paul, Jeff and Michelle. Fernando acted accordingly during a meeting with the three. This action was slowly reversed by Lyn once he was moved out of Alexandria into Rochester. > > Helga and Fernando proceeded with their reorganization of the organization: > 1) Inside the NEC power is redistributed (for ex. Warren moves into Legal, etc). > 2) Open factionalization in Leesburg and in the regions. This was ac companied by a wave of "conversions" to Catholicism (Warren, Will, etc). > At that time the "enemy" regions were: California and Philadelphia, although Helga later tried to "recruit" Steve, who like many others was invited in Europe to be tested by Helga herself. One of the most pathetic example of such recruit was, Joe Brewda who came back from Europe and told me: "I am now part of Helga faction and she told me I must work with you". I had Ambrose to chase him out of Ibykus Farm and told him that I was part of no faction.> 3) Helga-Fernando formed their "secret government" with: Warren, Gerry, Webster, Mel, Will, D.Small ( to be put in the NEC)and even madame Debra was part of the list. > Warren, Gerry, Webster, Mel and Fernando were meeting regularly in Warren's house. Helga in this period was not coming in the USA, and therefore Renate Müller-De Paoli, who was Helga "assistant" and "friend", represented her at such meetings in two occasions. I refused to go and told Helga that this was insane. > > Helga was not handling the American situation through Renate (except for the message to be given to Lyn in prison) but DIRECTLY with Fernando. Fernando was constantly in contact with her by telephone, or he was coming in Europe to meet her without that any other member of the EEC attended or was even informed!. > > Fernando was playing also his own games, especially in Latin America or even in Rome. He ( with Helga?) acted against the Italian local, he tried to sabotage operations in France and tried to get rid of the EEC. In this context he did an obscene tape to induce Lyn to attack Michael Liebig. And, as often was the case, Lyn followed Fernando. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 177 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
> The issue was Saddam Hussein: Fernando was 100% pro Saddam another "golden souls", especially because his Argentine an fascis t friends had deals (petrol, arms?) with Iraq. > > September 1990, Fernando made his "speech" at the ICLC conference. There were protests: among others K. Kanter wrote a letter of protest to Lyn, letter that Fernando himself brought to Lyn in prison. Lyn did not say a thing against Fernando. > I myself send a letter to Lyn (through Renate) warning that Paul, Fernando and Philip G. were destroying the organization, all of them being manipulated by outside forces : i.e. French secret services (Philip), CIA (Fernando and Paul) +Senaldin forces (Fernando). > > 1990 ( or first half 1991?) an italian secret services man (Colliandro), delivered a message through Fiorella saying that "the number two in the organization is probably a traitor and there is the risk that Larouche will not get out of prison". > We had a meeting in Ingelheim (Anno, Bruno, Helga and ?) we discussed th at Renate should deliver the message to Lyn, Helga thought this message would be referring to Paul and Jeff. I said to be careful, because in the famous MEMO of 1988 Lyn had named Fernando and Helga "number two"!. The message was delivered to Lyn, without the mentioning the last part. > 1991: Fiorella went in the USA, in Leesburg got briefed from someone in the LALC (Fernando or Dennis?) about contact with right wing terrorists in Latin America. She came back freaked out, among others she called and briefed me. She was enraged against Fernando and HELGA. The entire Italian organization left, but that has little to do with what Lyn says today. One problem in any case was that Helga had the absolute monopole of the relations with the italian organization, no other member of the EEC were allowed to speak with them ( Muriel in particular). > > 1992 : There was the crazy conference in Mexico under the slogan Larouche-Senaldin-Chavez etc. Not only I and Elisabeth intervened against the Argentinean "fascists", but I did also an improvised undercover to spot out the now famous "synarchist" networks around Fernando. Lyn never acted upon it, before 2003. > > 1993 > Steve, in Philadelphia, launched his "own method" of collecting money. ( At least only then became an issue, and it became known to me). > Lyn himself started attacking the method of the "specials" indeed pushed by Fernando, D. Small, M. Billington etc. I have no knowledge if Uwe was part of that debate. > End 1993, Gerry Rose ( one of Helga-Fernando man in the NEC) went to talk to Lyn, and because of the issue of fundraising, Lyn indeed intervened "calmed Helga out" during a meeting in prison whose detailed content his not known to me. > > 1993/1994 > Crises in the Los Angeles local, with Kushro an d Luise dr opping out. Paul Goldstein who was working very closely with Kushro, got scared and made a tape asking Lyn to defend him and to construct a cover for him. Lyn promptly obeyed and blamed the Los Angeles disaster only on Fernando. > > 1994 > Lyn came out of prison, but Helga was so unsure about Lyn reactions, that she did not come in Leesburg (the excuse was security!) to meet him. I and Renate had a very long discussion with him the evening he arrived at the farm.> | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 178 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Lyn was very upset and felt betrayed by the "Catholics" and raged against the uses of "specials" because he could go back to prison. Apparently he had signed some paper to be able to get out of prison. Helga finally came few days later for the ICLC conference. > > ->Starts the counter-reaction of the "CIA" > > Paul Goldstein made a tape, saying that Mr. "X" advises Lyn to kick out all the Catholics from the organization, "Carpet" makes a trip in Europe ( Italy and Germany) supposedly to make investigation but probably to get a paid holiday . In any case, I told Lyn that I would never accept that someone is kicked out if based only on intelligence sources. > Mel, Warren and Webster left the organization, but Fernando stayed! He did not attend the NEC meetings but at least once a week he had a phone conversation or a meeting with Lyn. In the meetings which I attended, Lyn was normally very positive and pleased with Fernando work with his Argentinean friends. > > 1997: Lyn made his public attacks against Helga ( it is in the briefing!!!). Soon after, he got sick and Helga got again in a position of command, this time without Fernando "influence". > How did she behaved now that nobody was influencing her? > Precisely as usual, she look ed to get more Power, she "protected" Lyn so much that, finally he himself smelled that the protection was not due only to pure love. > In 1999 when I went to Malaysia and subsequently tried to organize a meeting between Lyn and Mahathir in Davos, Helga got furious with me, because I did not organize the meeting for her! > In 2000, Lyn got out from Helga "protective love" and he told me that now he was again ALONE in command. Helga went into a "depression" and then finally I SUPPOSE she got "green light" to operate in Germany, but she had to stay out from the american organization. > Helga, even without Fernando, went in her usual modus operandi: faction building. This time there was no more CIA to be stopped, but "Erbenheim" and this time Lyn would support her. When I spotted her "secret" deal with Frank on the back of the Hannover local in 2002, I realized that that was the beginning of the end of the Europ e an organization if nothing would be done. I warned Frank, and in a steering meeting in Hannover, said that Helga this time with the support of Lyn would make a mess inside the European organization. This motivated me to intervene in the 2003 EEC-EC meeting. > The rest is present history. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 179 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
> Therefore if in the world there is a sufficient reason, I ask: was Helga only a dupe of Renate Müller De Paoli, of X and Y? Or could it not be that she is a bit neurotic and moreover pathetically infantile? And, is not true that Larouches "household struggles" have determined most of the problem in the recent history of the organization? (and I was not present in 1980-81) > > Most o f the people recognize Helga neurosis ( I am sure the american are laughing about what Lyn says about the poor manipulated Helga), but the same people have difficulty to see that she is also a victim of the "I am unique" in Lyn. > The present destructiveness in Lyn, like in the famous Goya's painting "Saturn devouring his son" cannot be reduced only to the frustrations derived by the fact that ALL of his "vice-presidents", ALL of his "number 2s" and moreover ALL of his wives (at least the last 3) betrayed him. The real problem, which is shaping his character since long, is terror. > Terror to admit that he has a flaw, terror to admit a that he makes mistake, terror to recognize bad judgments. Terror to recognize that he is a normal man. > If it is true, as Lyn says that God cannot be at the same time omniscient and omnipotent, than this is even more true for Lyn himself. But, Lyn seems to have chosen to try to be omnipotent, at least inside his small group of follower. He would destroy even the world if the world shows sign of disagreement with his fantasies. > > Lyn does not represent an y danger for the world, but the people who will accompany him in his last days, will get a very different experience than the sublime experience of the followers of Socrates facing death. > > > > p.s. I am ready to explain any point which is not clear ***************************************** Rereading that I get a kick out his writing about all of Lyn's "Number 2s". Committee Member: “We deplore your spirit of disharmony.” No.6: “That's a common complaint around here, isn't it?” --A Change of Mind xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 17 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Thank you LaRoucheTruth, please keep posting. It's remarkable how long LaRouche can keep a grudge. He cherishes them, nourishes them, and brings them out when he needs to explain his latest failure. LaRouche's grudges? Dalto, Computron, Typaldos, Axios, Friesecke, Quijano, now PMR and Ken Kronberg. Probably not the full list. LaRouche reminds me of the divorcee who blames her ex-husband for every wrong in her life--decades after the divorce. Not unlike the mother in Tennessee William's The Glass Menagerie who constantly reminisces about her 17 southern suitors decades earlier. This was sent to me recently: In a posting on Nick Benton's Wikipedia website, someone from the LaRouche organization posted the following this week: "As a member of the National Committee, he was a trusted friend and associate of Mr. LaRouche. It seems that Mr. Benton has never adequately explained his departure from trusted leader, to unflagging adversary." How ironic that LaRouche and company do not understand why Nick Benton, and Factnet and others are outraged over LaRouche's failure to accept ANY responsibility for the deaths of Ken Kronberg and Jeremiah Duggan, and outraged over the continuing deception of the LYM, and outraged over the continued abuse of the older members. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 58 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 66.98.164.40 |
Thanks 2 xlcr for bringing to our attention this letter from Dino whom I remember quite well - he was very inspirational in his speeches and articles and somewhat genuine, as far as one can be in the cult (he knew it was cultish). Were I aware of all these pathetic petty intrigues for so-called "power" - I probably would have left then! SO Yutes, if you don't leave by now I am sorry for your moral integrity (and sanity)! Lots of important stuff posted recently here. Interesting article on larouche brought to our attention by Howie- the author of this article is obviously an exmember and uses info posted on facnet (no wonder lar et al worry) Thanks! And thanks to ltruth for his/her very good analysis that helps us to understand how lar manipulates facts. Case study: Ken K/PMR/WorldCom. Very good. And don't forget Eaglebeak's point by point response to this recent internal memo against facnet - very crucial info indeed. (thanks to xclr for posting this memo btw) and of course thanks to all regular contributors like borisbad, sancho, kheris, and many others that make this site worry lar and the security... | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 59 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 66.98.164.40 |
To conclude this post on a lighter note: here is another version of LAROUCHE V. LAROUCHE, or rather LYN V. HELGA, the match of this century? Boridbad's link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_4bgnfBLU) to youtube's satirical video on Helga/Bueso is hilarious (although i dont understand german very well but it s a punt about "back to the future", and back to the Reichmark... if my german doesnt fail me...) The comedian is a real professional btw! probably paid by the G.H.T.F. (= the "Get Helga Task Force")... SO heeere is the match: Lyndy's Homer Simpson's satire (at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU4Rf2u1nwg) that managed to have 3,819 viewers in 7 monthes VERSUS: Helga/Bueso who got 3,133 viewers in FIVE weeks only! it seems Helga's Lunacy is highly appreciated in Germany (it s in German!!). Will Helga overtake Old Lyndy in the Lunacy category (this, in itself, would be an outstanding achievement in her life) and if so... when? The tension is at its peak (and hardly bearable)... When this happens, Lyndy won't be amused... Would he then file for a divorce?... Only time will tell. Stay tuned, we ll keep you informed on this channel...  | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 18 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
I just came across this blog/article: http://thedaily.washington.edu/blog/article/2007/7/17/laroucheVsTheMariners It appears not everyone believes Larouche made a right wing turn in the 70s, the article says: "That’s when I started thinking: what if the Mariners played a mid-season invitational against the LaRouche Political Action Committee (PAC)? You know, those crazy pseudo-communist/creepy political activists who waylay us on the way to and from the HUB and other strategic points on campus with their folding table checkpoints? I’m sure you know what I mean, and have probably been accosted on several occasions. My personal favorite is the caroling LaRouchers that appear in late November (to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas," imagine something like "on the fourth day of Christmas, my true love sent to me, an impeached Cheney and a defeated Hillary, lalalala…" and so on). Now, I’m all for free speech and expressing one’s opinion, and the LaRouchers have every right to their collective (if slightly weird) point of view. A little background info is in order. Lyndon LaRouche (1922 - ), is a perennial candidate for president and leader of the movement that bears his name. Although he seems a little, well, nuts, his voice is important in the American marketplace of ideas. That being said, there are some disturbing elements of this "movement," as reported by the Washington Post, with its odd marriage of far-left and far-right ideology. But come now, who are we to judge, right? That’s why it’d just be good, old-fashioned fun for the local UW chapter of LaRouche PAC to take on the Mariners. Think about it. President Emmert could umpire the game, which would take place on a gloriously sunny Seattle Friday afternoon. The smell of freshly cut grass fills the air. The crowd of students (for this is a free game open to the entire UW community) murmur with excitement. Suddenly, the LaRouche team take the field, and proceed to set fire to first, second and third bases, all the while chanting, "take-me-out-to-the-capitalist-ball-game! Down with the bourgeois, up with the proletariat! Join us in our glorious crusade!" The Mariners, standing in a line for the national anthem on the green grass, are in shock, and only Ichiro appears relatively unaffected by what he sees (he merely frowns, in his Vulcan-Zen-like way). President/umpire Emmert tries to calm the LaRouchers down, but they’ve already set up their ever-ready checkpoints in all the aisles in Safeco Field, trapping tens of thousands of people and giving them a literally captive audience. Black smoke from the burning bases drifts through the stadium. Crazed shouts of political mongering drown out the groans of the disappointment students. It’s going to be a long day. Ok, so maybe that’s more of a nightmare than a game, but hey, at least it’s free. And it’d make a good story. " ****} | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 114 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
The Leesburg LaRouchites would lose, 143-0: The asexual LaRouchites would be unable to get to first base, would toss only screwballs at the opposition, and one after the other would get tossed out for the liberal use of pine tar "in the tradition of" George Brett. Of course, they would afterwards celebrate their grand victory over the Mariners. | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 15 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Boy! Thanks, xlcr4life, for reprinting Dino's report. I had never seen it before, and most of what he reported was unknown to me, at least in detail. The Catholic v Security (CIA) faction fight was clear enough in real time, but the specifics he reports were not. Talk about Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites! I have some things to report on the Fernando story in another post, but Dino's recounting suddenly brought me far enough away from the trees to see the forest in another respect. LYMers reading this, you think you base yourselves on history. And well you should, as should we all. But the history that is the most important thing to you in the world right now, is LaRouche's own history. When many of us met him, he had almost no history leading an organization. His history, all of it through his own reporting of it to us, was of a lone individual finding his way to the exit door of the organized Trotskyist movement, until fate led him to having influence over a faction of the Columbia University strike in 1968. In other words, he didn't have much history. Today, almost four decades later, he has four decades of history leading an organization. Four decades of which you, almost for sure, know next to nothing, if not absolutely nothing. For you, LaRouche probably is a tabula rasa--what you think you see is what you think you get. In the early days, we were proud of our organizational history, and even published a pamphlet "history of the Labor Committees," and used it as an organizing tool. Today, a history of the Labor Committees would be pretty embarrassing report. LYMers, one of the most interesting, at least to me, topics that LaRouche wrote many papers on in the early 70s was the history of the Trotskyist movement, more specifically, on the history of the fractionalization of that movement. How, pretty much divorced from significant political influence or activities, already small Trotskyist organizations would split and split again over doctrinal differences that seemed to the outside world to be pretty minor compared to the areas of agreement. But in the superannuated world of hot-house Trotskyism, maintaining a totally pure ideology was more important than anything else. What suddenly hit me reading Dino's report, is that the LaRouche organization, internationally, has carried on this Trotskyist tradition, only in this case, the groups that split off from LaRouche, with two exceptions, didn't attempt to set up their own shop, but just evaporated. But the sheer number and magnitude of the splinters that have left over the years should give any current member pause. Surely, at the very least, explanations should be provided--and you should demand them--for why so very many people who once were just as dedicated to LaRouche and everything you now think he stands for as you are now, decided to leave, and frequently in significantly sized groups all at once, over the years. The composite picture is really quite stunning. (see next post) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
To assist the LYM member in getting some perspective on this, I list below all of the significant group departures that I can think of. I invite the rest of you to supply any that I have missed, or to correct any dates or other particulars that I may be misremembering. How the following list of "leaveniks" can fail to concern present, young members, I don't know. 1970: Steve Fraser faction, at least 1/3, possibly 1/2, of the membership left, set up a rival organization, lasted for about a year 1971: (year uncertain) the entire Greek organization broke off association with LaRouche 1980: Ken Dalto left with about 1/3 of the organization, set up a rival organization, lasted about a year 1980: Computron circle, at least 10 people, left 1984: about 8 members of the Asia intelligence sector left 1991: the entire Italian organization left 199?: Almost the entire Mexican organization left (which year) 200?: Didn't much of the French organization leave? (which year) 2007: Most of the German organization left (or were expelled). Others: I am sure I have missed some, weren't there some more mass exoduses in Europe and Latin America? Can others please fill in this timeline? Anyway, every LYM member should ask themselves what might induce people who once believed exactly as you do now, to decide to leave. Doesn't that suggest that not everything with LaRouche is on the up and up. And they should ask, how is this any different from the constant splintering of the Trotskyist movement? LaRouche represents a rigid ideology, and as soon as one questions any part of that, there's no longer any room for one in the organization. | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Someone at marco.org posted the following. It's extremely, fatally damning. Is it true? QUOTE: FACTnet stands for "fight against coercive tactics." FACTnets’s longstanding argument against LaRouche is founded on the accusation that LaRouche uses coercive tactics. There is no proof for that accusation. On the other hand, FACTnet is a website owing its existence to the American Family Foundation, which was funded largely by grants from Richard Mellon Scaife, who is well known as the major source of funds behind the attempt to destroy the Clinton presidency during the 1990’s. One of the leaders of the American Family Foundation until his death in 1999, was Dr. Louis Jolyn West, who is notorious for being a leading CIA asset in the infamous MK-Ultra experiments, which used massive amounts of LSD in an attempt to control the minds of thousands of their victims. Apparently, Dr. West’s career was dedicated to various techniques of mind-control using drugs and other methods of torture. Among the active board members of the American Family Foundation is Margaret Thaler Singer who was also a CIA, MK-Ultra asset. Dr Singer is now an advisor for FACTnet. When I think of FACTnet, I think of Dr. West, Dr. Singer, MK-Ultra, and massive, coercive, and destructive mind-control. However, FACTnet remains small and insignificant. Perhaps they should go back to LSD. :ENDQUOTE If this is true, my whole world is turned upside down! What will I ever do? | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 115 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
"FACTnet remains small and insignificant" Ah, but the power of - the INFINITESIMAL! MWAH-AH-AH! By the way, where's my check from the AFF? They're late again. LSD = LaRouche Sucks ... Cheney etc. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 116 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
The same "TC" who posted the above conspiracist interpretation of what we critics of the World's Greatest X since Y do here mostly for sheer fun also posted this on marco.org (a site which in fairness it should be noted is one critical of Fearless Leader and his epigonoi): "It’s really about the axioms and the epistemology. I believe that anyone who is capable of reason, and who is willing to do the work, will probably come to the same conclusions that I have about LaRouche. If you don’t know what epistemology means, perhaps your work should begin immediately, because once one has a firm understanding of LaRouche’s epistemology, negative or derogatory criticisms of LaRouche become absurd." Words of the typical LaRouche drone. These uneducated, semiliterate barbarians (i.e., the LYM) can never state CLEARLY (1) these much-vaunted "axioms" or (2) their presumably unique "epistemology." To state these matters CLEARLY would enable rational discussion, which no LaRouchite (including myself, when I was under their fetid penumbra) can manage, immediate assent being their only expectation in any argument. (So much for the so-called Socratic Method.) Until such time as one of you cultists can get it together to respond CLEARLY, perhaps you should take the time to address a more managable task: address LaRoucheTruth's chronology of defections above. Were ALL of these former devotees - including myself and others - defective with regard to "axioms" and "epistemology?" Or perhaps was it the case that many of us were simply tired of being kept as trained animals and being complicit in both outright criminal activity and quasi-legal shenanigans? Perhaps we were exhausted by the unremitting atmosphere of hatred fostered by this impotent character LaRouche. Perhaps we grew to appreciate reality and understand that typical cult tactics were being practiced on us to keep us divorced from the world of reality. And anyone who says coercive tactics are not used in the LaRouche organization has either never been a member or is just lying. Why do you think that the "boomers" take the LYM to distant points for these cadre schools? That's right out of the Hare Krishna playbook. From what I observe, being in the LYM is much scarier than when I was in the NCLC. Run for the hills, kids! (But avoid the Autobahn.) If you question too much, you might end up like Mr. Duggan. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 60 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
ERRATA in one of my previous posts (August 11, 2007 - 8:04 pm) I wrote erroneously: "Interesting article on larouche brought to our attention by Howie- the author of this article is obviously an exmember and uses info posted on facnet ..." I meant "the author of this article is obviously in contact with exmembers and uses info posted on facnet " - the author is of course NOT an exmember of the lar org! Sorry for the confusion - next time i ll be less hasty when posting!!! | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 61 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
to brewncue soooo "who s behind facnet", right? This post on marco org is so ludicrous and stupid, it s beyond belief!!! I had to pinch myself 1/ larouche is NOT the center of interest/concern on facnet site; there are hundreds of other cults being discussed 2/ facnet's supposed powerful and wealthy sponsors (yet insignificant): for your info they recently nearly closed this site down for lack of money and asked people like us to give some contribution from our own pockets! So now you know where the money comes from. 3/ as for this "conspiracy theory", concretely speaking, it requires a top-down control of all the individual posts throughout the entire site... Get real pls! THE FACT IS THAT CULTS DON'T UNDERSTAND ONE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE: THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND SPEECH (...which is embedded in the 1rst Amendment of the Constitution) IN OTHER WORDS, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PLACES ON THE NET OTHER THAN FACNET WHERE PPL LIKE US CAN DISCUSS FREELY ANY TOPIC, EVEN LAROUCHE's ! As a reminder: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
I don’t get it. I googled everything that TC said about the American Family Foundation and those doctors that were involved in MK-Ultra, and it’s all true. Why should I trust FACTnet if it’s being advised by doctors who are into mind-control? What is this thing about epistemology? It just seems to me that there must be a "method to the madness" so to speak. The more I look into it LaRouche, the less convinced I am that he’s all that crazy. I kind of like what he says about population control. It seems like everyone nowadays thinks the world is overpopulated. Then there’s this guy LaRouche who gets into big fights with everybody because he says we need to let the population grow with technology and stuff. That seems like a good idea, because I never really believed in global-warming and all that. And I think it’s wrong to use LSD to control the population like those FACTnet people did back in the MK-Ultra days. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 62 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
brewncue Before jumping to these conclusions (MK-Ultra = AFF = FACTnet = ???), answer me: 1/ what s the evidence factnet is controlled by the AFF? (other than larouche's gratuitous assertion) 2/ So what? Who cares? It s a free forum, we dont do LSD and we, unlike larouche, dont brainwash. People can disagree here without being psychologically or physically bullied. Is that bad??? Before joining larouche and wasting your life, google more and read these thousands of posts here on factnet most written by ex members who know what they re talking about! At least, and unlike most of ex members, you ve been warned. Friendly advice: use what s between your ears! | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 117 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
brewncue, I agree with you regarding population. It is a position maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, among others. (see Paul VI, Populorum Progressio) I also agree with you regarding LSD. Let's assume that what "TC" states about the ultimate originators of this message board is true: how does that invalidate anything critical of LaRouche that is posted here? For me, this is a message board, nothing more, and I have no truck with any who are into mind control. The one cult with which I have any experience is the LaRouche cult, and it is that experience and reflections thereon that I report here. I happen to agree with many positions taken by LaRouche. The point is that one does not have to be party to criminal activity, a cult of personality, and antisemitism to support scientific progress and the revival of classical civilization. At the end of the day, Lyndon LaRouche is just another fallible human being, no better - and demonstrably much worse - than the average Joe. Hope this helps. sancho | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 19 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Back in the day, in order to try and maintain the illusion of his own greatness, LaRouche spent a fortune going after John Mintz, Pat Lynch, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Brian Ross, all journalists who wrote articles exposing LaRouche. What a nightmare the Internet must be for Larouche now: Factnet, Skull/Bones, LaRouche Watch, marco.org, myspace, youtube, LaRouche Planet, etc. etc. etc. - all exposing LaRouche with the postings of former members with insider knowledge. LaRouche trying to stem the flow of such information on the Internet is akin to using chewing gum to stop the dam from leaking. Eventually, the dam bursts. It's only going to get worse for LaRouche. 2008 is not only a presidential election year, but it is also the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown massacre. The three most discussed cults in the U.S. today, scientology, the polygamous movement, and LaRouche will all be front and center. Sancho, Borisbad, Shadok, LaRoucheTruth, xlcr4life, Eaglebeak and many others are posting factual evidence that demonstrates LaRouches's perfidy, and instability. Historical truth doesn't change. no matter how many insults and threats are thrown at it. Bottom line here: LaRouche et al, if you don't believe the truth is being posted here, post what you think is the truth. Otherwise, what is it you think you are doing? Scaring the LYM away from this site? Scaring the posters? Using chewing gum to stop the dam from bursting? | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 63 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
larouchetruth filling the gaps... the EEC (in fact the German leadership) resigned en masse before and after the U Friesecke affair, aka the "Kingpin", in Nov-Dec 2006. Lyn's internal memo was posted on factnet at http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/4/358.htm on December 02, 2006 by xclr. As for the other countries i dont really know. I dont think there were massive departures in France. Their Fusion mag team left when lyn decided to shut it down because they werent mentioning his name enough... That was about the same time when the german leadership left. But lets face it, apart from the German and the US orgs, the size of their operations is so... infinitesimal that losing a member there is like losing an entire local in the States!!! | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well I’m not joining LaRouche, but from what I can tell by "using what’s between my ears," he has good ideas. All that stuff about the American Family Foundation and MK-Ultra is on the internet if you just look. Margaret Singer was in MK-Ultra, and she’s the FACTnet advisor. So was Dr. Jolyn West. That’s funny what you said about having to pay for FACTnet out of your own pocket, because some people are always calling LaRouche a cult because they don’t get enough money. LOL Howcome it seems like you are the one bullying me, if I’m just curious and trying to find out for myself what’s really going on? | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 64 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
ANOTHER ERRATA ...from my same hastily written post (August 11, 2007 - 8:04 pm): Eaglebeak's response to this recent "factnet" internal memo was not about factnet, BUT about the content of this memo whose intent was to "rectifiy" what s being posted here on Ken Kronberg/ PMR / WorldCom. Thanks Eaglebeak! | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 20 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Brewncue, Curious is good, please keep being curious. The more you investigate, the more you will understand that your life is your most precious asset. Please don't give it away. As for who is advising Factnet--so what? Did you have to get Margaret Singer's permission to post your message? Or Dr. Jolyn West's? Did anyone tell you what to post? It doesn't seem like it. Why don't you try posting your last message about not joining LaRouche on the WLYM or LPAC website. Do you think those websites will allow this type of debate? As for "people are always calling LaRouche a cult because they don’t get enough money." That's not what is said. What is said is that the members are deprived of a living wage, while LaRouche and his leaders are not. When LaRouche was raking in millions during the 1980s, he spent those millions on his lifestyle and on his con-artist security advisors. He did not use that money to insure that the members had proper housing, proper food, or proper healthcare. He still doesn't. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 65 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
brewncue sorry if I appeared "bullying" you, it wasnt my intention. Bullying in the lar org is far worse than my words. You d be under pressure and eventually ego-stripped if you appear "blocking", ie don t swallow the "line" You ll be under sleep deprivation and fed with junk food, packed like sheeps in small appartments and working 7/7, 365d/y, for decades... THAT'S what I call "bullying". Now, could you please answer my questions: 1/ what s the connection between the AFF and FACTnet (otherwise all this connecto thread, leading to MK-Ultra, Tavistock and what not falls apart) 2/ So what? Why would it matter anyway? It s a free forum like any others - no posts are monitored or suppressed or rewritten. There is no "Big Brother" and many who disagree had their chance... before eventually vanishing. Moreover this whole discussion board could be moved at any time to any other place! What matters is what s being said here, not "where". Btw, there isn t such a thing as "where" on the internet, but "what"... | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 4 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well, to tell you the truth, I know someone who used to work for LaRouche for a long time. He still likes LaRouche and told me that I shouldn’t believe any of the slanders against LaRouche. He’s the one that told me about the population control, and it all makes sense to me. If we just go along with popular opinion, we are all in trouble. Somebody has to fight for the people on this planet. That’s what LaRouche is doing, so I think we should give him a break. When I think about what it must be like working for LaRouche, I’m thinking it must be just like working anywhere else. Some people are going to get mad about something and leave no matter where you work. I’d rather take my chances working somewhere where you do something good for the world. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 118 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
"... some people are always calling LaRouche a cult because they don’t get enough money." Does that make any sense? Do you really think that's why the LaRouche organization is regarded as a cult? I find no reputable report on the Internet connecting Singer and MK-Ultra. The only people making this connection are conspiracy nuts such as the LaRouche cult. Margaret Singer appears to have lived her life to good purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Singer By the way, I happened upon this excretion from the "Christian" Tony Alamo group which demonstrates the rabid hatred FACTNet engenders in some cults: http://susangroulx.blogspot.com/search?q= Note that here FACTNet is dismissed not as an MK-Ultra offshoot but as one of the "... covert Vatican interlocking anti-religious organizations dedicated to spreading false and maligning information on various religious organizations and Churches ..." So FACTNet must be doing much good if it can elicit such evil. | ||
| borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 72.225.156.215 |
There were a few other splits that occurred apart from those LaRTruth mentioned, if you include for instance the Fred Newman, IWP a/k/a Center for Change group which happened in the 70s (although whether they were ever really "in" the NCLC is questionable). There was also the group around The Next Step, a paper formed by ex-vets who were centered I thinkin Wiesbaden, the neo-Maoist group that briefly joined the NCLC also in the 70s, etc. This was many moons ago so my memory is vague, and again these were more like moons that spun into the NCLC's orbit and then lost their attraction and spun away than actual internal faction fights. The only memorable thing about the Frasier split was that at that time there was actually some opportunity for internal debate and opportunity for people to say things other than the official line. The issue brewncue says was well-addressed by Shadok. If you look throughout the Factnet site, you see major attacks on the Scientologists, various "churches", AA, Al-anon, etc. This kind of "expose" is so typical of LaRouche, if you find some "villain" donates money to some group or idea, you denounce the idea by saying so-and-so gives money, and hence controls the ideas of the group. And as Shadok points out, the fact is, the site almost went bankrupt. I'm sure that Scaife-Mellon could easily have kicked in the $20K. Opposing ideas, including by LC moles have regularly appeared on this site. Let brewncue find out whether LaRouche tolerates any type of dissent or altnerate opinion from the drones who raise the money for Helga and himself. | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 21 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Brewncue, I wish I could tell you to go for it, that it is the same as working in a bank or a department store or an office. If I did that, however, I would be guilty of a crime against you. What is sad is that our culture and educational system has been so shallow and so lacking that bright people like you believe there is no where else to go to have a meaningful life. You have read what living conditions are like in the LaRouche organization, that there are forced abortions, that LaRouche lies to his members, that he breaks the law and then is outraged when caught. Imagine how shocked and disappointed we all were to discover that not one dime of the millions raised for LaRouche to save humanity actually went to save humanity. If you think this life is for you, and you are prepared to sacrifice your life for it, including your freedom if LaRouche and company, including you, go to jail, then investigate thoroughly. Ask where the money goes, every non-profit has an obligation to disclose that information. Ask how long you will be living as a "volunteer" on a stipend of $5-7 a day. Ask if you are allowed to date, see your family, and have kids. Ask if you have to deploy at card tables every day, how many days a week you are allowed to read and relax, how many hours a day you have to sleep, whether you can bring your computer with you to keep posting messages, whether LaRouche et al will protect you if the FBI raids their offices again. Or whether LaRouche will offer you to the government in exchange for his own immunity, as he tried to do in 1989. Ask all of these questions, please. | ||
| borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 53 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 72.225.156.215 |
As to coercive tactics, if Messieur brewncue can track down Chris White, Alice Weitzman and some of the others that LaRouche claims to have "deprogrammed", or attended an all-day or weekend "retreat" with members hammering the person to stay on, or gotten the chance to talk to Jeremy Duggan then we can talk about coercive environments. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 119 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
brewncue, Now I know that you're a troll. What you read here mostly is EXPERIENCE with - not slanders of - LaRouche. Assuming you are just a simple soul and not a troll, ask your friend why he "used to" work for LaRouche. Why do you assume that Lyndon LaRouche is the only guy "fight[ing] for the people on this planet?" Isn't that a tad grandiose? Working for LaRouche also is not like working anywhere else. First of all, LaRouche does not pay a living wage (at present it is at best about $1.67 per hour.) Second of all, on an ordinary job I am not required to socialize exclusively with my coworkers WITH WHOM I ALSO LIVE. Thirdly, my employers do not ridicule me for a choice in books and music which may vary from an employer-approved list. And so forth. sancho | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 66 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
brewncue ok, now the truth is coming out... I was right, wasnt I, when I suspected you joining larouche? I dont know of course your "source/ex member" but suspect he wasnt a long time member. I know no ex members who spent decades and would say that! They know lar and his org far too well and stayed long enough to realize what it s really all about. Your ex-member friend should come here and explain us what are "slanders" and what are "facts". It s easier to dig your head in the sand. It s easier than facing the fact that (maybe) you were used, probably screwed and sometimes abused. Listen to tuer07, it is a wise advice. BTW: if you do the total sum of the time spent by all ex members on this discussion board, you would reach several CENTURIES of direct experience with the lar cult. Who would you trust: centuries of experience or a few years from your friend? | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 22 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Another note: If LaRouche and his leaders break the law, and the LYM goes along with that, there is no "free pass" for the LYM. If an LYMer commits fraud by misrepresenting where the money is going, or is a party to harming another LYMer, i.e., by not allowing him/her to leave, by physically abusing him/her, by forcing her to have an abortion, the law will find the LYMer just as guilty as LaRouche. | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 17 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
A quick google search turned up the following, dated from just as FACTnet was getting set up, it appears from context to be just before 2000, presumably in 1999. http://www.whyaretheydead.net/misc/Factnet/FACT794.TXT It confirms here that Margaret Sanger is one of 6 member of the Board of Advisors. Three other people are listed as the Directors: Jon Atack, Lawrence Wollersheim, and Bob Penny, all described as "victims of coercive mind control who, having successfully survived, are now dedicated to educating the public." I don't recognize any names other than Singer's. Contrary to what was posted (by TC?) on Marco.org, AFF is described not as in any way a financial backer or involved in organizing it, but thusly: "FACTNet's goals are supported by one of the world's leading and most credible resources for research on coercive mind control and the destructive organizations that use it, the American Family Foundation (AFF). The AFF is providing fourteen years of accumulated research and work to be scanned, computerized, and made available through FACTNet's telecommunication services." Sanco, I couldn't find TC's post on Marco.org on epistemology, nor on the AFF-Factnet connection posted by Brewncue. Could each of you post the link to exactly where to find the original. I think generally we're pretty good about posting sources, but can we all agree to always post links to anything we cite of any interest? I particularly want to see if TC said anything more on epistemology. When a LaRouchie brings this up, I say, "make my day." That's the core area where LaRouche is most blatantly exposable as a charlatan and sophist. One more point to add to those above in answer to Brewncue. It's right to bring up what you did. If this were an actual organization, it would definitely matter who was running it, and who we were associating with. But it's a blog. Thnk about it. There are literally millions of blogs, and billions of people post on them. Many blogs list dozens to hundreds of other blogs, and people click on these, and go to blogs they've never heard of before, and post on them. They don't have any way of knowing who might behind a given blog. That's the nature, and the beauty of blogs. Once up, as long as it is not monitored to screen out comments that the blog owner disagrees with, it becomes common property, like the village green in old New England villages. And think about this. LaRouche obviously disputes that he runs a cult. But he and the LC have been denouncing cults since day 1. They did all the Tavistock Rawlings Reese research in the early 70s, and were very big on the importance of opposing cults. Well, FACTnet has threads dealing with hundreds of cults, not just LaRouche. If you are going to say that FACTnet is inherently bad, or even evil, then you must stand against the help FACTnet has given people in groups that LaRouche DOES consider cults, to escape. In effect, if you denounce FACTnet as a whole, you are supporting keeping people prisoner in groups that LaRouche agrees are cults. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 120 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
larouchetruth, TC's "axioms" passage is in an August 8, 2007 comment at http://www.marco.org/203 sancho | ||
| borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 54 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 72.225.156.215 |
Some of the earlier gems from LaRouche, posted on publiceye.org A LaRouche Sampler This "LaRouche Sampler" of LaRouchian quotes was first published in the Chicago Lawyer newspaper, April 1986 It was compiled by writer Chip Berlet, editor Rob Warden, and other staff who relied exclusively on primary (original) documents and transcripts. Defenders of LaRouche are urged to explain and defend the following statements... Judaism "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 selfsustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim." "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., (under pen name L. Marcus), The Campaigner, December 1973 "America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry, and labor." "A War-winning Strategy", Editorial, New Solidarity, March 1978 Jazz "Jazz was foisted on black Americans by the same oligarchy which had run the U.S. slave trade, with the help of the classically trained but immoral George Gershwin and the Paris-New York circuit of drug-taking avant-garde artists." "The Racist Roots of Jazz", Back Cover, The Campaigner, September-October 1980 Zionism "Zionism is the state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of international Jewry." "Zionism Is Not Judaism" Editorial, The Campaigner, December 1978 Harold Washington "Washington was elected with a strong homosexual vote, backed by the pro-drug, pro-pornography Playboy Foundation." "AIDS is More Deadly Than Nuclear War", Authorized Statement, National Democratic Policy Committee, October 1985 The Beatles "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence." "Why Your Child Became A Drug Addict" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Campaigner Special Report, Copyright 1978 | ||
| borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 55 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 72.225.156.215 |
More tidbits from publiceye.org A LaRouche Sampler "The Beatles "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence." "Why Your Child Became A Drug Addict" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Campaigner Special Report, Copyright 1978 Adolf Hitler "The first, and most important fact to be recognized concerning the Hitler regime, is that Adolf Hitler was put into power in Germany on orders from London. The documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive." "Humboldt Versus Hitler", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, August 1978 The Rockefellers "The Rockefeller designs for fascism are essentially identical with the Hitler and Mussolini forms of the past." "The Conceptual History of the Labor Committees", Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., (under pen name L. Marcus), The Campaigner, October 1974 "Nelson A. Rockefeller is a raving fascist presently pushing as rapidly as he is able to impose a fascist police-state in the U.S.A. before the 1976 elections." "The Guts Needed to Survive", Editorial, The Campaigner, August 1975 Britain "Britain has in fact two governments, the first a parliamentary charade for the edification of the credulous, the other the real monarchial government." "The Secrets Known Only To The Inner Elites" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, May-June 1978 "We shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of 'democracy.'" (see longer version of this quote) "Creating a Republican Labor Party" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Citizens for LaRouche Policy Statement, c. 1980 "Henry A. Kissinger "Under Henry A. Kissinger's two terms as Acting President of the United States, agencies committed to genocide were made institutions of both the National Security Council and State Department." "The Frameup of Harrison Williams", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, September 22, 1981 "Episcopagans" "The inner hierarchy of the Episcopagan church is properly viewed not merely as something within the established Church of England, but as a coordinating agency for an array of forces with arms not only among Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern autocephalic denominations....It controls, with complicity of Venice, Libya's psychotic Colonel Khadafy, and most of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, as well as the psychological warfare and assassination arm of British intelligence, the London Tavistock Institute." "Why the Anglicans Want to Eliminate the Pope", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, June 2, 1981 Harvard and MIT "Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are among a handful of leading centers of fascist social engineering research and development throughout the post-war U.S. Other universities of comparable status include Columbia University, Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of California at Berkeley, and Leland Stanford University." "What Happened To Integration", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, August 1975 | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 67 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
borisbad i am posting something i recently read from "The Racist Roots of Jazz", Campaigner, (September-October 1980) When I came across the following quote (never highlighted before by chip b et al, unfortunately), I couldnt believe my eyes: Sub title: "Jews, Blues and Jazz" , p 56 We are now ready to peek into the most revoking irony of popular music in America during this century, an irony which would be laughable were it not for the seriousness with which it was pursued by the protagonists. We are referring to the bitter struggle between the black and Jewish portions of the entertainment industry over which of these two ethnic minorities constituted the rightful proprietors of the racist and pornographic wreckage known as jazz and the blues. We will present the grotesque spectacle of individuals and sections of the pop music business competing in racialist self-identification, tribal genealogy, and racist psychosis--the psychological truth of the whole affair being perhaps best summarized in the racist and anti-Semitic adage of the old South, "Jews are only ••••••••• turned inside out." and the rest of this article is to prove this adage to be right!!! The whole article is utterly insane, under the apparent cover of "anti-racism" it is, in the end, thoroughly racist and its "artistic" stance (anti modern art, anti jazz, anti pop/rock music etc) has only one historical precedent to my knowldege, and it is the Nazi propaganda exhibition "Entartete Kunst" (Degenerate Art), with a poster showing a "••••••" playing saxophone and wearing a "Star of David" badge... That says it all. (larouche could have used that poster for the frontcover of that Campaigner!!) sorry for the ••••••, factnet doesnt allow that racist word but it s a pejorative way to call afro-americans and other dark skinned people.... http://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/thirdreich/arts/music.cfm | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 68 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
you can access this Campaigner at the wlym website at http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM8009.pdf | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 23 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Hmm, so LaRouche thinks that all those cults listed at factnet.org [http://www.factnet.org/coerlink.htm] are listed solely for the purpose of discrediting him? What's next? That the Jonestown massacre was a shadow op designed to discredit him. Oh wait, he did say that.... | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 24 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Thanks Shadok, Count Basie, Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Helen Forest, Dinah Shore, Glen Miller and others, helped to get America through World War II. Hitler hated the fact that he was losing the war to a west dancing to the music of Jews and African Americans, music that was influenced by Klezmer and Southern Spiritual music. What I don't understand is how what LaRouche wrote in 1977 comports with the Schiller Institute's new found love for African-American music [http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/fid_011_spirituals.html] | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 180 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Enough, enough, I am now prepared to spill the beans so Tony Chaitkin can write another article. Here is the Confession of xlcr4life on the real insider secrets about Factnet.org so it can be revealed in a new xeroxed copied mass pamphlet. Years ago the LYM had a website called "Academy2004" which I found one day googling Larouche. I soon registered and began to simply raise some questions about the history of the LC and what I went through when I first joined. For some crazy reason that I did not know back then, bringing up things like the Chris White brainwashing hoax or how we were doing dirty tricks for Republicans like Dick Cheney for example was not a good message starter. Why I became even more confused and saddened when proudly recounting our credit card fraud and promisorry note adventures were not met with open arms like I expected. On top of that, I mentioned Jeremiah Duggan's death and asked the LYM if they caught on why certain people who were with Jeremiah were soon in the USA and a certain LYM member in France was never to be seen again. We were all having a great time and I really developed a close kinship with LA yutes. I even posted some of this a few years ago on Facntet.org. . One La yute was all set to be my close bud until he was sent out to do walking tours in rough LA streets and was beaten pretty badly. I am so silly that I kept on thinking that there was some type of error on my part instead of the LYM part which kept purging me from their forum. All I kkow is that I kept on getting many emails from LYM members asking me to keep the stories coming in about the LC and to explain so many things which Phil and Harley just could not seem to do. Then one day, poof, no more Academy 2004 LYM site. A few weeks later there is a yahoo site called "antidummies" which I joined proudly and soon again found that I was having a hard time posting and some of my posts were now being eliminated. I never made the connection, but maybe something I wrote was unapreciated. It sure looked like I was now "blocked". Being blocked in the LC/LYM is not a good sign. Still, like the nice guy that I am, I wanted to offer so much to the LYM and explain how things work, how they will be living, tips on survival, why the old person next to them is so mad and depressed at times and show them so much LC memorabelia like internal memos, old Campaigners to check out and real high lites like Debbie Freeman calling an African American Senator named Parren Mitchel a House Nig**r for the Baltimore Jews. Well, one day no more LYM came to their own yahoo group site and soon all the LYM had was a site with spammers posting. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 181 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
With all of this LC experience just waiting for a LYM to enjoy, what could I do now? Now here is the inner secret for Tony Chaitkin about all of this. One night I had nothing to do and just typed in "larouche and former members and cult" into google and one of the choices was factnet.org. I never knew the thing existed and on April 17, 2004, this appeared: "Yo Yo Yo, XLCR4life in da house! " I think I read the home page of factnet.org once in three years. The only reason I post here is because it is available and is found by people who want to find about the Larouche cult of personality. The only reason people post here is because many of us have witnessed or been part of the many things written about here. Call up Tony Chaitkin and ask him how much of the money we borrowed from old people was repaid. He is one of the smarter people in Leesburg. Surely he can provide you with a nice spread sheet , fresh from the Wang which clearly shows how he made sure that every single debt was paid off. Surely after more than TWO DECADES since borrowing that maney, Tony Chaitkin can proudly wave that list to us . Brewncue, if your friend was in the LC for a long time, can you ask him about the role Nancy Spannaus played in LC women and abortions. I still have a hard time believing that we put out a Fusion magazine with the cover "No limit's to growth" and set up a farce called the Club of Life with Nancy running it when you find out about how many members had abortions. Anyone wish to figure out why so many LC women adopted later in life? This whole cult is sick and you really are not yet at the end of the sickness when you add Jeremiah Duggan and now Ken Kronberg to this nightmare. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 69 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
tuer07 these are typical "concessions" done to African-Americans the same way "concessions" were done to the Jewish members of the org. It s psychological trick, a carrot for desperate members, to keep them quiet, to let them hope larouche isnt racist. For the "Jews for larouche", the carrot was the so-called "higher, real Judaism" of a minor intellectucal Jewish figure Philo of Alexandria (purified from bad judaism by to the superior Greek philosophy). Some other names of jewish figures were added later to the list of "authorised Jewish figures", thanks to relentless efforts of late Ken Kronberg. For the African-Americans: larouche tells them that Jazz (and all its descendants) is bad, evil and is a creation of the racists (British and Jews), just like Zionism (and bad Judaism) are. BUT, like Philo for the jewish members, there are the Spirituals... to save their souls from that evil Jazz influence. Read this D Speed article, trying to connect the Spirituals to... 5th Century AD (African) theologian St Augustine and then to... Dvorak and concluding in praise of (racist) Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan! http://www.schillerinstitute.org/music/rev_10_9_95_dhs.html | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 5 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Wow! All I did is say a couple things, and here comes this flood of stuff, and people start calling me a troll. I’m not joining LaRouche for nothing, but I don’t really trust the people who are against him, because I agree with LaRouche on all the things I’ve found out about for myself, and my friend who used to work for LaRouche is the only person I know that makes any sense about a lot of things I wonder about. People complain all the time about places they used to work. That’s why they don’t work there no more, so why should I really give all the credit to the all of the stuff you guys are saying. There’s probably a lot of people that are happy working for LaRouche, and there is just so much stuff on the internet about Margaret Singer, Dr. Jolyn West, and MK-ultra, that its seems dumb to try to say it ain’t true. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 121 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
It's your life. Don't come crying to us in thirty years. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 70 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
brewncue you seem a very confused person who needs answers more than questions and I understand why larouche appeals to you. I prefer questions. And here are some questions for you: ever wondered why your "friend" is not a member of the Lar org anymore? Why don't you ask him? You don't realize that there is NO "in-between" status in the Lar Org, no "special cases": you're either "in" or you're "out"; you're either "good" or "bad". So, did you friend leave and why? or was he expelled (and why?) Why does he think his time is too precious not to be a full-time member to save the world from this "ongoing genocide" he's complaining about. Where is his "morality"? I personally wouldnt trust people who don't mean what they are saying... But of course it's about your life, not mine. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 182 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
No none is "Against Larouche". People are against fraud, criminals and mind control masquerading as a cult of personality. When you ask a simple question at a card table shrine about Lyn's conviction for tax fraud and other crimes you get an immediate side story about people who are "out to get Lyn". Simple yes or no. Does one wish to follow a convicted tax cheat who lived off the cash in a muti millionaire lifestyle who paid his field hands 5 bucks a day and then declared that he has no income to the tax man/woman? Does one think it highly odd that an org which expended endless manpower and fundraising in promoting more people ends up sending it's female members to abortion clinics in number which may approach hundreds when finally tallied. Does one think that the many elderly who signed over their entire life savings to Larouche run outfits made this all up? Does one wish to sign over one's life to a group which has these credentials? Does one wish to be in a group where the leader claimed an elaborate brainwashing plot against a member when it all turns out to have been made up? Lyn just may believe all of his lunacy, let him and save yourself from watching time evaporate in front of you when you finally figure it all out. Being "against Larouche" is a laughable premise. I would think most of us here are "Against organised crime" and "Against racists". If Larouche did not run a cult which hurt, abused, stole, defrauded, scammed and wasted people's lives, no one would give a rat's •••. Because we witnessed this over the decades and gave a damn about people is why we spend a few minutes writing this stuff and making it very public. I see people all of the time who do silly things and people can make decisions by themselves. When the person gets hurt or has something stolen from them is when it is no longer silly. Lyn knows that he running a cult, most people know that as well. For those who do not, well, you came to the right place for starters. If one enjoys reading Lyn's speeches, then ask the office to provide you with Lyn's greatest speeches which is his cross examinations at his trials. The Leesburg office or local soup kitchen/LYM CLubhouse has plenty of copies for you to read at your leisure. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 71 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
btw the AFF connection to FACTnet, ie Dr Margaret Singer died in 2003... I had a peek at some of her writings re mind control/cults etc. Interesting stuff, no wonder larouche hates her. All this cult=anticult conspiracy concocted by the org for... decades is more than suspicious (as usual). It is interesting to note that lyn moved the org towards a cult/mind control org (ie during the BP sessions) at about the same time he was desperately seeking CIA connections. In other words, the same "pattern" behind the so-called MK-Ultra project. There is little doubt (in my mind) that the intelligence community was interested to use cults for its own ends (eg Moon). Of course, the org goes far beyond that and describes the whole thing as not just LSD/mind control experiments (especially to understand how american soldiers were brainwashed by the Koreans) but as a titanesque conspiracy involving ALL the cults with ALL the anticult orgs (CAN/AFF etc) + FBI/CIA/Kgb + ADL/JDL/Mossad, the whole thing being under control of the (anti-authoritarian) Frankfurt school of H Arendt/adorno and... Tavistock/MI6 etc... Gosh! and here at FACTnet we didnt know all of that! I think, to this day, some spooks find lunatics like the larouchies as a useful channel to leak crazy stuff. And there are also these scam artists looking for cash the LYM-ers slaves are raising day and night. After all lyn is so easily manipulable, his psychological profile is very readable... | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
The main thing I’m really confused about is why you guys just want to attack LaRouche. You say all these things about cults and stuff, and talk only about the bad things you think LaRouche did. But then I look at LaRouche’s writings, and his websites for myself, and I feel like I’m learning more than I ever have about the economy and history, and what’s really going on with the war, and so on, even though it‘s tough reading. I mean, if we are really interested in the truth, don’t you think we should talk about some of the good things? For example, I think the economy is going pretty bad, and the war is all based on lies. Don’t you guys want to change the economy like LaRouche wants to, so we can have more people living better? Is it because you guys think the world is overpopulated too? It just seems like with all the environmentalism, and population control going on, what LaRouche is doing is good. When I was little I used to believe the world was overpopulated too, because that’s what everybody said. LaRouche is the only one that changed my mind, and what most people believe about overpopulation and other things seems stupid to me now. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 122 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Gee whiz, Beav'. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 72 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
brewncue you don't understand that ex-members spent decades of their lives understanding/arguying/defending the "good ideas" of larouche and we know them by heart. I could lecture you about Malthus etc, no problem. The thing is: you don't catch a fish with a bare hook! That's how cults operate. J. Duggan was attracted to the org because he was anti-war... And as for "overpopulation" , since this seems what "hooked" you to larouche, maybe you ll start thinking again when you ll share an appartment packed with 5-10 of your colleagues: no private life anymore. Then you ll start wondering how to "double the square" of... this appartment ;-) I have a paradox for you: never wondered why the highest birth rates are found in the poorest countries whereas here in our rich countries, these very birth rates are the lowest... Larouche theories dont always match the facts - reality is not as simple | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well it seems like if anyone would spend decades arguing for LaRouche's ideas, they must be worth a lot. I'll spend the rest of my life arguing with anyone who says the world is overpopulated. I already have some friends I've argued with who believe me now when it comes to population control issues. The point that LaRouche makes is that you need more people to develop the economy. You have to have a lot of guts to say that when almost everybody else believes just the opposite, and seems so passionate about reducing the world's population. That's some pretty deep stuff. That's no bare hook. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 183 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Some of the best looking pictures of kitchen, bathroom and other home improvements is used by crooked contractors in their wonderful ads. Most people do not get past the color copy ad in their local magazine to find out the liens, judgements, bankruptcy filings, arrests, multiple business fronts and other problems of their new contractor friend. After you lose some money and waste precious time do you become more critical in your hiring practices and check things out more closely. Lyn can promise you anything. In fact, he has promised an end of the world economy as we know it for 5 DECADES. It is cheap parlor tricks which get changed for different times. It works on yutes who want quick solutions for sometimes inaginary problems. When you live in the real world and gain knowledge of life you find that a one paragraph solution does not answer complex problems. I can read an interview by Lyn where he states to yutes who never ran a business that shipping cargo by Maglev is the cheapest way to ship. Really? I do not see UPS, DHL, Fed Ex, air freight, railroads, trucking firms or ocean shippers telling stockholders that they are wasting their investments because a maglev will make them go broke. Instead, we find all of these companies and millions of employees who spend each day trying to compete with each other to get business by offering the best rates and quickest turnaround. In fact, if one looks at international shipping and all of these businesses we find that they have all expanded dramatically as WORLD TRADE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH INCREASES. The world's greatest economist is completely ignorant of container shipping which revolutionised world trade by standardising containers so they can be used on ships, trains and trucks. That and so many other things which were invented have increased the world economy every year. I like maglev trains myself. I have been following their development before I met the LC in the early 1970s. As an adult and a taxpayer I find it silly to think that spending several trilion dollars to take a Maglev from Seattle to NYC which at a few hundred miles per hours is still a long trip makes sense when one can find a flight on Orbitz for a few hundred bucks right now. That is the parlor trick. You are supposed to get excited over Fusion power, Maglev trains and other things. That is the same hook as the nice pictures of the kitchen cabinets you were looking at in the glossy ads. Once you hand over some money and your home, then the real game begins which you had no idea of. Same principal here. I can think of several ex members who went into special education and helped thousands of kids who otherwise may have been thrown away who have become productive people. The teachers did that, made money and did not have to join a cult of personality. Those now retiring ex members are known by the several THREE DECADE card table shriners we posted recently. We have more to post next week. You can spent THREE DECADES in a cult of personality or you can find real orgs and real things to do. The one thing I am very certain of is that almost everyone who joins as a yute has no real idea of what they are good at or what talents they have to make things better. You find that out as part of growing up. A cult takes that away from you and puts you years and dollars behind in finding out what goals you have that are there to be discovered. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well, I'm not gonna go out and work at a card table or anything like that. There's no LaRouche people around my neck of the woods that do that anyway. But I'm not gonna go along with you guys either, and I don't really care about all the stuff you guys complain about LaRouche. All the complaints that have ever been registered in the history of the universe don't amount to a pile of beans. No one can ever make me believe the economy is going good. Most everyone's standard of living keeps getting worse in this country, and we need ideas and solutions instead of complaints. I can't find anyone else that has ideas as good as LaRouche. | ||
| earnest_one New member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 8 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
BREWNCUE: Of course LaRouche says some reasonable things! He HAS to in order to attract idealistic young people and get them to commit their lives to him and his various world historical "ventures". It is no easy matter to start a business and pay people pennies per hour, working 6 to 7 days a week. You need to have something special, something that touches people deeply and makes them feel like they are truly extraordinary. Most people on this board happen to agree with many of Lyn's core positions. Sadly, however, these core positions are simply window dressing, designed to pull you into his slave labor camp. If Lyn truly cared about humanity, he would never treat people so badly. The inhuman treatment proves that his core positions are not real: They are fake and he is fake. He does not hold any truly decent human principles. All the wonderful words are simply words only and they existin order to attract and then trap idealistic young people. The whole scam is evil beyond measure. Lyn runs a slave labor camp. His core positions are incidental -- he would drop them in an instant if he found something more efficient to trap people with. Again, it is altogether nontrivial to set up a business where workers are paid pennies per hour. Lyn's idealism is only a pawn in his evil scheme to steal your time. Yutes: Demand to see the books, demand payment for your time. Don't be treated like cattle, like sheep, like sh.t. | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well, if most people on this board agree with LaRouche's core positions, why don't we try to do something about it instead of complaining all the time? If LaRouche is doing a bad job with good ideas, why don't we try to do a good job with good ideas? You guys never even talk about the good ideas, you just say how bad LaRouche is. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 87 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 |
Brewncue-- A couple of remarks. 1. Who cares who runs FactNet? When I write something here, it doesn't matter to me who the Mastermind Behind It All is, because I am saying what I think and also what I know for a ... Simple Fact. Jolyon West and Margaret Singer and all the others simply don't enter in. 2. I don't agree with LaRouche's core ideas, and I'll wager you can't even identify them. What are LaRouche's ideas that are UNIQUE to LaRouche, not cribbed in distorted undigested form from someone else? 3. If you're interested in someone with ideas as good as LaRouche, you could start with the pre-Socratics and work your way forward to Pope Benedict--for example--and find a multitude of ideas much better than LaRouche's. First of all, those ideas would be rigorous, coherent, and transparent. Even in your neck of the woods, there must be books. And if you can find books, trust me, you can find ideas far better than those of Mr. Dialogue, Lyndon "I never met a man I could actually talk to" LaRouche. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 88 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 |
LaRouchetruth-- It wasn't just the Mexican organization, it was the whole Latin American Labor Committee that left at the end of the 1990s. In tandem with that, the Catholic members in Leesburg were driven out in the second half of the '90s, culminating with the LaRouche-dictated, Tony Papert-signaled witchhunt of the fall of 2000, which finally drove Fernando Q out. 2006--Entire staff of French Fusion leaves. Fall 2006--German leadership--EEC and EC--plus most of the organizers--leaves/is driven out. What's left is the dregs of the American expatriates and a bunch of members of Jugendbewegung. It's been brewing for months, but LaRouche's suspension of Uwe F starts the endgame. And let's not forget the collapse of the Swedish organization in the mid-1980s, after the Olof Palme assassination.... But the most interesting mass defection is that of the NEC in the years 1994-1998 or so. LaRouche comes out of prison in the beginning of 1994, and spends the next two years in a drunken rage (really drunk--falling down on the floor drunk). The weekly NEC meetings at LaRouche's house are needless to say unbearable. When the dust has cleared, the following NEC members have left the organization: Carol and Chris W. Mel K and wife, longtime API intelligence officer Kathy K. Webster T. Warren H (and wife NC member Nora H). And finally Fernando Q and wife NC member Robyn Q. Who's left today are Nancy S (and formerly Ed S, but in LaRouche's memorable words he has been busted to rank private); Will W, Jeff S, Tony P, Gerry R, Dennis S. So there are six NEC members today, but before LaRouche came out of prison and tore everyone to shreds, there were twice that many NEC members. Now, if you look at all the other NEC members who quit over the years (Kostas, Criton, Uwe H, etc., etc., not counting Dalto), you realize that the people who really can't stand LaRouche are the ones who have to meet with him. (This doesn't include the tremendous attrition rate of the NC members--topic for another day.) | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 89 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 |
Brewncue-- Which idea of LaRouche's do you like best? The one wherein he said there was no holocaust? The one wherein he accused Jeremiah Duggan's mother of responsibility for his death? The one wherein he called Benjamin Franklin a stupid tinkerer? (yes, he did) The one wherein he called Plato the philosopher of becoming? (read the book) The one wherein he said a newborn baby wasn't a human being till its parents recognized it as such? The one wherein he salivated over Descartes? The one wherein he denounced Ed S and Uwe F as enemies of Helga? Which one? There have been so many... | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 10 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Man you guys just keep doing the same thing over and over. I don't know about all that factional in-fighting you guys talk about, but that kind of stuff goes on everywhere. That's just human nature. You guys just keep complaining about old fights and stuff instead of talking about solutions. I guess you're right when you say it doesn't matter who is running FACTnet, but it does matter how it's being run. It seems like there is a blog for every cult in the country, and many are them are churches. What are you guys gonna do, shut down all the churches because you think they are cults? Even if you shut down LaRouche, we would still have all the problems in the country to deal with. For the supposed majority of us who agree with LaRouche's core positions, we might be the only one's left to do something about those problems. What are you gonna do? If you can't even identify what those core positions are, or you don't agree with them, then you ain't gonna be no help. So if you don't agree, you must have some better ideas. If you have some better ideas from the pre-Socratics, or Pope Benedict, then let us in on it. I guess my favorite idea from LaRouche is that we need to focus more on scientific and technological development, so the economy can grow faster, and more people can live better. We need more people to agree with that, so we can change the government policy to implement bigger development programs. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 90 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 |
Hey, Brewncue-- Here's what DOESN'T go on "everywhere." Leaders of businesses don't viciously attack their colleagues for months, refuse to pay their bills, tell their high-ranking execs to kill themselves, and then when they do, spend months writing self-serving garbage about how it was everyone's fault but the Leader's who told the guy to kill himself--and then--do it again! Repeat the same venom that drove the guy to suicide in the first place. THAT'S what doesn't go on everywhere. Here's my better idea from Pope Benedict--and the whole Judeo-Christian tradition: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neigbor as yourself. NOW--I have let you in on it. Does Lyndon LaRouche do that? No, he does not. Does he love God? Only insofar as he thinks he IS God. Does he love his neighbor as himself? Hardly--he hates almost everyone who ever worked for him and helped to sustain him-- Jeez--did he love Ken K? Jeremiah D? Uwe F? Fernando? Ed Spannaus? Carol? Chris? All those lenders who put millions into his operation in the 1980s and were snookered bigtime by Lyndon "If you want your money ask Henry Kissinger" LaRouche? Think he loved them? Even though they were putting food on his table, wine in his glass, and horses in his stables? As to population growth--I would be WAY more impressed with LaRouche's pro-population stance if I didn't know that virtually every woman in the LaRouche org had at least one abortion, often more, and almost always under extreme duress from the leadership. The world needs more people, but it evidently didn't need the children of Labor Committee members. At least one woman was forced to have an abortion when she was FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT. Nope, not too impressed with LaRouche's population policies. Finally, you ask me what I'm gonna do? Well, Brewncue, here's what I'm gonna do: Work every day, support my family, give all I can afford to charity, vote and organize politically for the candidates of my choice, AND -- I am going to work to expose Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. as the hate-filled banana he is. Oh, and I'm going to warn the kiddies away from Bad Uncle Lindy. And since I told you I don't agree with LaRouche's core positions, and since I told you that he doesn't really HAVE core positions, I don't have to rush around trying to implement his stupid, unworkable, megalomaniacal, grandiose schemes. But--here's the thing--LaRouche followers don't try to implement his ideas either. They try to raise money. That's the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the name of the game. Money. As those poor LYM kids are finding out now. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 91 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 |
Hey, Brewncue-- Here's what DOESN'T go on "everywhere." Leaders of businesses don't viciously attack their colleagues for months, refuse to pay their bills, tell their high-ranking execs to kill themselves, and then when they do, spend months writing self-serving garbage about how it was everyone's fault but the Leader's who told the guy to kill himself--and then--do it again! Repeat the same venom that drove the guy to suicide in the first place. THAT'S what doesn't go on everywhere. Here's my better idea from Pope Benedict--and the whole Judeo-Christian tradition: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neigbor as yourself. NOW--I have let you in on it. Does Lyndon LaRouche do that? No, he does not. Does he love God? Only insofar as he thinks he IS God. Does he love his neighbor as himself? Hardly--he hates almost everyone who ever worked for him and helped to sustain him-- Jeez--did he love Ken K? Jeremiah D? Uwe F? Fernando? Ed Spannaus? Carol? Chris? All those lenders who put millions into his operation in the 1980s and were snookered bigtime by Lyndon "If you want your money ask Henry Kissinger" LaRouche? Think he loved them? Even though they were putting food on his table, wine in his glass, and horses in his stables? As to population growth--I would be WAY more impressed with LaRouche's pro-population stance if I didn't know that virtually every woman in the LaRouche org had at least one abortion, often more, and almost always under extreme duress from the leadership. The world needs more people, but it evidently didn't need the children of Labor Committee members. At least one woman was forced to have an abortion when she was FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT. Nope, not too impressed with LaRouche's population policies. Finally, you ask me what I'm gonna do? Well, Brewncue, here's what I'm gonna do: Work every day, support my family, give all I can afford to charity, vote and organize politically for the candidates of my choice, AND -- I am going to work to expose Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. as the hate-filled banana he is. Oh, and I'm going to warn the kiddies away from Bad Uncle Lindy. And since I told you I don't agree with LaRouche's core positions, and since I told you that he doesn't really HAVE core positions, I don't have to rush around trying to implement his stupid, unworkable, megalomaniacal, grandiose schemes. But--here's the thing--LaRouche followers don't try to implement his ideas either. They try to raise money. That's the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the name of the game. Money. As those poor LYM kids are finding out now. | ||
| howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 54 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 66.206.87.117 |
Well, folks. The word is out on where Avi Klein is coming from! http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/08/12/vast-right-wing-conspiracy-it-again-new-twist.html Hm. Oh. Kay. Your guess is better than mine, I hope. | ||
| tuer07 New member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 25 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Avi Klein's article could be cancelled, Myspace could shut down, Factnet could shut down, and LaRouche would still be ineffectual and in trouble. There is no European organization, no Latin American organization, no printing, no presidential campaign. What's left are a handful of oldtimers and young people. There is no "get LaRouche" conspiracy. LaRouche's response to [and responsibility for] the deaths of Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg horrified a number of former and soon-to-be former members. Although silent for many years, these people stepped forward, individually, one by one, on his/her own initiative, to tell his/her story, in order to prevent more deaths. As the stories were told, and as ex-LYMers contributed their stories, it became clear that LaRouche had gotten more coercive, more abusive and more pyschotically self-centered over the intervening years. Such realization caused even more former members to step forward, haunted by his/her own ghosts of forced abortions, forced malnutrition, ego-stripping, and so, in order to prevent this from happening to yet another generation of bright, well-meaning young people. LaRouche et al's response to the growing number of individuals telling his/her story is revealing: according to LaRouche et al, these individuals could not be acting individually; rich, evil, oligarchs must be controlling them. This is because LaRouche does not believe in free will or he would understand each person contributing to Factnet and elsewhere is operating on his/her own. The increase in autobiographical stories posted here has caused Avi Klein and others to investigate LaRouche and to write journalistic exposes. The story is out, and getting bigger every day. Nothing LaRouche says is going to stop it. No person in this society has the right to take another person's life, whether physically, through killing, or psychologically through a coercive cult. Factnet is not LaRouche's biggest enemy, nor is Mellon Scaife, the British aristocracy, Rupert Murdoch, Kissinger, or Cheney et al. Free will is LaRouche's biggest enemy, thank God for that. | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 11 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well I have to admit those are some pretty serious accusations, but I really don’t have any way of knowing they are true. It reminds me about a little history I learned about the early Church when the Christians were always being accused of this and that, and being thrown to the lions. Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome, when he’s the one that did it himself. They even accused the Christians of killing people in their ceremonies, and it turned out to be just some fool named Simon Magus doing crazy things and calling it Christianity. Maybe LaRouche has some Simon Magus people working against him? But pretty soon more people started reading or hearing the simple words of Jesus himself, and a lot of them became real Christians. You know, stuff like "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself." That’s a great idea. I agree with stuff like that, and I agree with LaRouche’s economic programs. You guys are just being silly when you just go around and around like Nero making accusations that most people don’t even care about. The only thing I see burning is the economy, and the only one that seems to be saying enough about it is LaRouche. Then you go say things like "here's what I'm gonna do: “Work every day, support my family, give all I can afford to charity, vote and organize politically for the candidates of my choice." That’s cool, but who you gonna vote for? Another person like Bush who tells all kind of lies and sends our troops to get killed for nothing? So far I haven’t heard anyone talking about good things that really matter to everyone like LaRouche does. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 73 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 86.6.4.234 |
brewncue You re so naive, beyond belief- I think what you need is a serious reality check. All that is being warned friendly to you isnt taken into account, it means one thing to me: you have very little experience in life (and politics) and all of this means nothing to you. These are empty words. You really need a serious reality check. You said in a previous post: "Well, I'm not gonna go out and work at a card table or anything like that. " Wanna bet? That will be your first contact with reality: you WILL be deployed to sell literature. Then, after years of going nowhere politically (because the lar org is NOT a political organisation- in case you didnt get it), maybe you ll remember our warnings. Good luck (and please, dont argue with them, you may end up like Jeremiah) | ||
| tuer07 Junior Member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 26 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Well folks, I think brewncue has made up his mind, and he "ain't" going to change it. Thanks for your input brewncue. It's been an interesting few days. I, for one, intend to move on with other issues. Isn't it great that factnet.org is so open to everyone? | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 12 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
You just throw around insults and accusations, and now your saying I need a reality check. I don't know what makes you think I'm going out to sell anything. I surely ain't buying what your selling, because it ain't worth a thing. You guys don't seem to have any real ideas about anything. It seem like all you are ever gonna do is complain about LaRouche instead of thinking about anything important like he does. Then when somebody says, wait a minute, LaRouche has a good idea, you just start flaming at the mouth, and change the subject. That's all so wierd, it makes me think you guys are the real cult. | ||
| tuer07 Junior Member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 27 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Well folks, I think brewncue has made up his mind, and he "ain't" going to change it. Thanks for your input brewncue. It's been an interesting few days. I, for one, intend to move on with other issues. [intentional duplication] | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 92 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Browncue-- Accusations that most people don't even care about? Hmm, let's see. Forced abortion, induced suicide, thievery, fraud, death, destruction, brainwashing.... Dumkopf, the point is, LaRouche devours his own. Just like those Goya pictures he was so taken with.... So you may not care about mayhem, death, destruction, and mind control, but to dismiss them and charges of them as irrelevant and petty is an act of real oafishness. Or fear. You're still pretending you're not in the LaRouche org? Gimme a break. I do like your line about "flaming at the mouth," though. A malapropism freighted with irony. | ||
| dking New member Username: dking Post Number: 2 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 208.222.71.17 |
This is to let you folks know that the much-maligned "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" (Doubleday 1989) is now available for free in a revised HTML version (replacing the PDF version) at http://dennisking.org/newamericanfascism.htm. All 40 chapters have now been converted to html, with links from each chapter to the corresponding chapter notes. I have done some stylistic cleanup, fixed typos, and corrected a few minor errors re dates and names. My thanks to certain ex-ICLC members for their help with this project. I welcome input from ex-members--and others with special knowledge--for additional footnotes and citations, appendices, and additions to the text. You can sent your input to dennisking@safe-mail.org or simply post it on FactNet, or both. (Message edited by dking on August 13, 2007) | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 74 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
Browncue you say "It seem like all you are ever gonna do is complain about LaRouche instead of thinking about anything important like he does." A very basic reality check for you: this site is called FACTnet, it s about coercitive cults and this particular thread is about larouche. What did you expect??? btw: what we are discussing here are not larouche's ideas per se but indeed what he does... IN REALITY | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 13 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Mayhem, death, destruction, and mind control? What planet are you from? Just because I read some LaRouche, and listened to some speeches, doesn't mean I'm "with" LaRouche, whatever that's supposed to mean. You seem paranoid or something. You say things that are just plain bizarre, and I'm not so "naive" that I can't tell the difference between someone that says things that make a lot of sense like LaRouche, and someone like you that just flames at the mouth and makes no sense at all. I don't believe anything you guys say, because it doesn't even seem like you know how to talk right at all. Mayhem, death, destruction and mind-control? Were you in that MK-Ultra experiment? That's what they did! The people that run FACTnet! Now I get it! | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 75 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.86.54.130 |
Browncue lol... yeah alright we were brainwashed by MK-Ultra (in the 60s?) and by factnet (who s the guru? damn' I forgot his name!) Before you join , read D King's book on larouche which is now available online at http://dennisking.org/newamericanfascism.htm. You dont realize your luck, to live in the age of the Internet where the information is much more accessible, at least for those who want to know and can read... When it came out in print the book was verboten in the org but many who read it left... because what s in there confirmed what they suspected was utterly wrong with larouche | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 184 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Brewncue sounds just like I did when I entered my first year of college after reading LC lit for a few months. 4 years to a degree sounded soooo long when I could join a revolutionary cadre org which was full of energetic young people who did not smoke pot, listened to Beethoven and were emphatic that they could achieve state power in a few years. I had visions of leading the masses in 4 years instead of studying for a Calculus test. The real thing which scared me is that after finishing college or just entering your 20s, you are more scared of what it means to be a real adult who has to make a living, take care of children for ever , find an area to reside in, pay adult bills and face the world. God it was just so easy and cool to be able to not think about that and just walk into a meeting and disrupt it by showering the audience with what ever lunacy we had at the time. It made no difference who we were targetting because we could creat any connection we wanted. That article about the Avi Klein article is not for the masses or anyone except the yutes and whatever is left in Leesburg. It has always been like that. You have to imagine a life where every day begins and ends with some endless collections of connections and invented conspiracies which are designed to scare the bejesus out of you. Before joining I was really a dummy and had no idea of how many ways there are to change things and first hand make your life better. Every group and every music or artistic or lit type association always had to be under attack by the cult to scare YOU, not the tens reds of millions of people out there who get things done and enjoy their lives. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 185 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
I was watching a Brando movie last night on DVD when this all hit me when Brando talks about being a preliminary or Prelim fighter instead of the main eventer who ends up a bum. You grow up and are scared of what is going on in the real world. Instead of learning how things change and what groups or parties or associations are doing, you take a detour to the guy who is promising you all of the answers. You get taken advantage of by a person you think is smarter than you. When you get mesmerised and fall for the parlor tricks, you become a PreLYM bum so to speak. As a PreLYM bum the cult knows more than you do. As a PreLYM bum you are weak as you really do not have any connections to the many places where things get done. It is so overwhelming that anyone who can make it simple has you hooked. Lyn ain't the only one who knows this and there are plenty of outfits which know the tricks. A PreLYM bum will take the path of least resistance, not knowing that is all leads into an endless circle. Think I am kidding yutes? We have a few more stories of THREE DECADE memebrs who started off like you and all eneded up at card table shrines or sucking on exhaust fumes for Lyn. Now for people who think that they will avoid it, think again yutes. Remember when Jeff S . came to your local office and said that Leesburg is now looking for people to staff the publications. What publications is he talking about? Do you really think that you are going to get a job? You guys are "volunteers" as far as the IRS goes. Everyone of you thinks the other yute will end up in the street. If you pay attention to the list of THREE DECADE members who were far more educated than you drop outs you will figure it out. Being in the Larouche Movement means that you move out of the way of cars yutes. http://flickr.com/photos/ciscel/874949457/ http://flickr.com/photos/jdunlevy/202146750/ http://flickr.com/photos/jdunlevy/202146751/ http://flickr.com/photos/vegbrain/352475465/ Up next is a fascinating find from one of the numerous WABAC Machines operating around the globe. Just wait until you read something attributed to Lyn 43 years ago which is the business plan for the yutes. It was the business plan for me when I joined. Once the transcriptions are completed, the SWP Lyn unveils his plan for the Trotsky yutes. What is it that Lyn always used to spout at conferences? "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". I feel like Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space" telling you PreLYM bums that you are "Doomed, Doomed I say". xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| brewncue New member Username: brewncue Post Number: 16 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.89.107 |
Well I think I should say something to shadok because you didn't really say anything as crazy as that other guy, and I guess, to answer your question, I shouldn't have expected anything different these last couple of days. But I'm just looking at things a piece at a time. I'm probably not gonna read that Dennis King book because I'd rather spend my time reading something that really matters, because when somebody says LaRouche is anti-semitic, I'm alarmed. That's one of the reasons I don't believe all the stuff you guys say on this message board. You say LaRouche is anti-semitic. I don't believe it. There's no reason for anyone to be anti-semitic. We all have friends that are Jewish, and they are just like anyone else. When people say "He's anti-semitic," they're just using a word to try to make someone look bad for some other reason. It's just low budget mud-slinging. So I'm thinking, why would he say that? The main thing I have to go on is what I know about population control, environmentalism, and all that. The scary thing is that most people believe the world is overpopulated. How did they get to believe that? To have so many people believing the world is overpopulated is the most evil thing I can imagine. LaRouche says it's some "oligarchs" that just want to keep people down so they can control resources, and they don't have to worry about things like the American Revolution. That sounds way out there, but it's the only thing that really makes sense! So I'm thinking, maybe this Dennis King guy works for one of them "oligarchs?" I mean, people that run, or used to run this message board handed out LSD all over the place during the MK-Ultra days. What the heck is going on? (Message edited by brewncue on August 13, 2007) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 18 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Brewncue, I appreciate the cross-currents you are caught in, and am especially glad that you have continued to post, and speak your mind. I intend, perhaps as early as tonight, but it might have to wait until tomorrow, to begin to address your biggest issue--what about LaRouche's "core positions." I for one feel that you deserve a serious discussion on them, and I intend to start one, in hopes that others will contribute. In response to your post above, I also want to say that I find the charge of anti-semitism to be one I have never subscribed to. I agree it makes no sense, and even given everything I think LaRouche is out to lunch on, being anti-semitic is not one of them. Some of the quotes that people have reported, most of which I either never saw, or have long since forgotten, are pretty damning, but other arguments, starting with his pro-Palestinian position vis a vis Israel, is shared by the vast majority of humanity outside of the U.S., who are not anti-semitic in general, because it happens to be true. Attacking what Israel has done for the past 40 years is absolutely not proof of being anti-semitic. So in my book, anyone who includes that charge in their list of items of evidence, is prima facie not credible to me. And I don't think it can be denied that the Anti-Defamation League did pick a fight with LaRouche, I think starting in 1975. I don't know whether they profiled him to know he would counter-attack in ways that would appear to bolster their claims, or whether they were just doing what they do, keeping the entire American electorate in line, above all the Congress, to ensure that Israel is never criticized, no matter what barbarity they perpetrate against the Palestinians. And Dennis King, well, I've never read his book. I've read some things on his website, and some charges, and some information, I consider correct and fair, and other items I consider not true. I do think he is not an objective observer, but someone who has an axe to grind. He's made his career out of going after LaRouche. And to me, the biggest irony is, I don't think he has comprehended squat about why people join LaRouche, or stay with him for years, decades, and entire lifetimes. I can well imagine that a member who already has largely figured it out, could read King's book and find enough justification for his/her misgivings to decide that's the final straw, and leave at that time. I doubt that King says anything that could sway a regular member, or even a new LYM member. Hopefully, what we contribute on this site can/is doing that, because, as we have all been telling Brewncue, this isn't about doing what LaRouche does all the time, ad hominem attack (attack the man to avoid discussing what he stands for). It is about reporting on our experiences with the man and his organization, a very different thing. Brewncue, you ignore the first-hand experience reported here at your peril. (to be continued) | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 19 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
That said, you are also due a discussion directly on what you call LaRouche's "core positions." Because, while I freely concede that he says some things that make sense, the things that "make sense" do not govern anything that LaRouche does. And these "things that make sense" are accompanied by so much that makes no sense, much of it utterly illogical, self-contradictory and absurd. His method is pure sophistry, because he draws you in with his seemingly sensible overall positions and broad approaches, and those who get to the point of thinking that, "Wow, LaRouche really has things together, he is so incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent, way more so than me," then are prepped to believe everything that LaRouche says, and very soon, LaRouche deviates from the "sensible" generalities (that are usually not as unique to him as he claims they are anyway, at least the valid ones), and the new recruit eats up the absurdities and in his mind they must also be true, just like the original generalities that attracted him. All of that said, you deserve very specific particulars to back up my assertion that under the hood is mainly illogicality, self-contradiction, faulty reasoning, appallingly bad history (never documented), incredible objuscation, elevation of trivial concepts to the pinacle of high philosophical truth, etc. You shall have that shortly. Stay tuned. | ||
| earnest_one New member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
Everyone: Note that "core positions" do not necessarily mean "original ideas". I readily concede that many of LAR's core positions are completely reasonable and sane. I do NOT believe, however, that LAR has produced anything of value in terms of original thought -- certainly not anything of real scientific value or merit. He uses words without thought(s). Wait... there is one item. The idea of forming a worldwide political-intelligence cult-of-personality “may” be an original idea, albeit hideous and odious. Perhaps others can comment on whether LAR actually came up with something new, or whether he simply lifted the above "idea" from someone else. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 93 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 |
I disagree with the idea that LaRouche is not anti-Semitic. I do agree that he is not only anti-Semitic, and not even primarily anti-Semitic, but to say he is not anti-Semitic is absurd. The question is not that of Israel and Palestine, the question is that of such abominations as the favorable citing, in Dope, Inc., of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a reliable source, or the vile anti-Semitic jokes (yes) that used to appear in New Solidarity, or the famous centerfold that said that Auschwitz was not a death camp, and that the deaths there were not primarily deliberate. Or LaRouche's insistence for years--until it got too embarrassing--that there was no Holocaust, followed by his modification that "only" 1 million Jews were killed, followed by his "insight" that they were killed not because they were Jews, but because they were trade unionists, communists, etc. His attacks on the Old Testament are deranged, and a case in point. His vision (later deep-sixed) that Judaism was a derivative of medieval Christianity, developed to create and maintain a usurer class, is another case in point. His famous joke about Moshe Dayan as "the only Jew with b--ls" will be remembered with distaste by early ICLC members. The appearance in ICLC publications of such tripe as Jeff S's centerfold on the Joint Distribution Committee is another case in point--there Jeff claimed that virtually every Jewish immigrant to the U.S. was an "agent" of the Joint. Are you familiar with the book that Jeff S and Paul Go published in Japan on Jews? Probably not.... How about LaRouche's rants against the Talmud? Or his endless jokes about Jews and circumcision?--talk about "pathetically sexually obsessed" and concerned about matters of virility. (Will someone please tell LaRouche Muslims are circumcised too? Maybe then he'll shut up about it. He is courting Muslims.) There is the oft-cited Feuerbach Campaigner, which I commend to all of you. There is the "Zionism is Not Judaism" Campaigner, ditto. All in all, LaRouchetruth is in error on this--I don't believe anyone takes LaRouche's position on Palestine as the marker. It's his entire history and oeuvre that make the point. As to Dennis King's book, it contains extremely useful information and insights. It is true that, since King is not a former member, there is plenty he misses, but it seems to me, judging from his recent work, that he is fast rectifying that. | ||
| howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 55 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 66.206.87.117 |
Hey! Nick Benton has a myspace page! That has to be a double-fer for Larouche... an ex-member, and a myspace page. And he has some more things to say about Larouche. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26626298&blogID=299284419 | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 94 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Speaking of MySpace, I suppose I am the last to read the absolutely STOOPID "MySpace" jokes on the LaRouche PAC website, but if not, here you go--they're too awful to reproduce here, but if you want an insight into the inner workings of the Collective Mind of LaRouchedom, you can use this URL: http://www.larouchepac.com/jokes/myspace-joke-page.html What's the epxression? Dumb as a bucket of hammers? or something like that. One reason I put the URL up here (aside from providing a glimpse into the Greatest Mind of the Eon) is because the "jokes" remind me of some repulsive leaflets issued in 1975 in NYC by the "LaRouche Youth" of the day against the Puerto Rican Socialist Party (about whom LaRouche wrote his famous Part 3 in Beyond Psych, the "Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party" Campaigner). And speaking of "pathetically sexually obsessed," as that frothing end-of-July "Simple Facts" memo did, if you go back and read the PSP Campaigner, and then dig up the leaflets from 1975 (good luck), and then read the LaRouchies' jokes about MySpace, I think you'll see some seriously pathetic sexual obsession going on here. What do all those things have in common? Only one thing, and one person: LHL himself. Maybe it's useful to analyze his core ideas--although they barely exist, beyond a nod towards technology and grandiose Stalin- or Hitler-style Great (=Huge, =Powerful) Projects; and a hallucinogenic tour through the History of Philosphy without benefit of the texts. Anyhow, maybe it's useful to analyze his core ideas, and I am all for it, but I think it's essential to expose the fetid, furtive, slithering, sexually vicious nastiness that emanates from LaRouche to the minds of young, impressionable followers and comes out in these "jokes." Even 40 years ago, his supporters cringed at this stuff--but were too insecure to say "You're bats" and walk out. No reason for today's yutes to drown in the same river (twice). | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 74.52.25.2 |
I agree with eaglebeak Larouche stance on jews/zionism/israel etc smacks of antisemitism. I posted that stuff monthes ago but let's have a quick reminder of his alledged recent "pro-semitism". Todays' "absolute evil" of the org is called the SYNARCHY. What's all about? Well it is a historical reference to a conspiracy theory of the 30s and 40s that was concocted in pronazi Vichy France, which said that some factions of the Vichy regime and consequently the French econony were under control of the Jewish bankers family owners of the Banque Worms. That was then called the "complot synarchique d'empire", very similar to its russian equivalent the Protocols of the Elders of Zion... Now, that is not what larouche says, he goes FAR BEYOND what the racist fascist Vichysts were saying! The larouche's "Synarchists" are (without the slighest evidence as usual) a conspiracy of international bankers who, like Felix Rohatyn, Lazard Frere, Andre Meyer etc, appear to be most exclusively Jewish and who, acc to larouche, PUT HITLER INTO POWER, and are now behind Dick Cheney, P Wolfowitz, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore and want to unleach a genocide, start a ww3, destroy the US and German economies (Helga calls them "locusts", a term that outraged the Germans given their past - btw the Iranian regime had a revisionist antisemitic exhibition in Tehran called "Ho-Locust"...) So, here you have lym yutes, who are probably not antisemites, calling Jews like Rohatyn, Meyer "nazis", which is a de facto hate campaign targetting explicitly jewish bankers... People of course are confused because they can't imagine that, in larouche's sick mind, Jews=Nazis=British... Here is a recent lhl quote: "Well, Felix Rohatyn is essentially a Nazi. That's no exaggeration, that's no mistake, no caricature. That's what he is. Felix Rohatyn is a protégé of a fellow called André Meyer. André Meyer was a kingpin of an organization known as Lazard Frères, in Paris. Lazard Frères was an integral part of the Nazi takeover of Continental Europe! And Meyer personally trained Felix Rohatyn. Now Felix is not bright. As a matter of act, he's very uncouth, very stupid in many ways. He's not an intellectual, he's a thug! He's like a mafia hit-man who is not known for his intellectual characteristics. He's a thug, equivalent to a murderer. Now, what Meyer represented, and what Lazard Frères represented, then, and now : Lazard Frères was the key Continental center in banking which brought Adolf Hitler to power, and launched World War II, and the crimes that went with it." (http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/speeches_files/2006/060609_webcast.htm) | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 77 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 74.52.25.2 |
lar antisemitism (cont.) And what about the Zayed centre in Abu Dhabi where lyn, helga, cheminade were guest? It was eventually closed down due to internatioonal pressure (especially jewish orgs) because it drifted towards a center for propagating antisemitism, revisionism and the 9/11 conspiracy theory (aka the jews are behind it). For your info: “In August 2002, the Los Angeles Times quoted Mohammed Murar, the executive director of the Zayed Center, saying about Jews that "the truth is they are the enemies of all nations." His comment came on the heels of a Zayed Center report stating that "the Zionists are the people who killed the Jews in Europe." Rings a bell? (http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003591) In may that year, lyn was their guest and was reinvited the following year. Now, did larouche complain about this? Yes, of course he did but NOT about the fact it was spreading antisemitism and revisionism. He OPPOSED its closing down... and said about this center's role that "the world has had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the Arab world most immediately, and, implicitly, with a larger part of the world of Islamic cultures". So, antisemitism and revisionism aren't an issue to him and shouldnt prevent us to engage in a dialogue with the Muslim world, even on that basis. When interviewed about his antisemitism, he answered that's "garbage... from C Berlet", and when asked to say something good about Israel, he hardly could answer anything... (http://larouchein2004.net/pages/interviews/2003/031024nolan.htm) | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 78 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 74.52.25.2 |
lar antisemitism (end) In conclusion, are we supposed to believe lyndon larouche jr. when he says he s not an antisemite, simply because he says so? Some other links: http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/2006/060720_webcast_announce.htm http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2006/3327berlin_conf_pres.html http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060816-090707-7869r http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR01603 http://www.larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2003/030831defend_zayed.html Lieberman = fascist/nazi at http://www.new-fed.com/lar/2002/2922_mem_day_qanda.html By the way, Larouche called recently Himmler, the author of the Final solution, merely the "Nazi concentration camp boss" (no "extermination camps"... just in case you have doubts about his revisionism - revisionism is exactely that: it denies the "extermination" camps but agrees on the existence of "concentration" camps and so denies a voluntary policy of systematic extermination, which is the REAL meaning behind the word "genocide", not "schachtian economics"...) http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:olSV3XPz4eMJ:larouchein2004.net/pages/interviews/2003/030302stockwell.htm+larouche+lieberman+nazi&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4 | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 95 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Shadok is 100% correct. The LaRouche take on Nazism and the Holocaust has always been that it was purely an economic phenomenon--that was the point of the infamous Schacht Campaigner of so many years ago. LaRouche's line was that "Schachtian economics"--looting--was the entire point of the Nazi exercise (that and attacking the Soviet Union on behalf of the British aristocracy, esp Winston Churchill). That's no doubt why Hjalmar Schacht wound up in a concentration camp--because he was running Hitler. In LaRouche's view, the death of 6 million Jews (a) didn't happen and, when he was forced to admit that it did, (b) didn't happen because they were Jews but because they were worked to death, or were trade unionists, or some such. Hence he insisted on regarding Auschwitz as a giant labor camp, and blatting on and on about I.G. Farben plants next to it, slave labor, etc. He categorically refused to admit that there was a DEATH camp, EXTERMINATION camp, KILLING center at Auschwitz, whose only purpose was to kill people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Jews. LaRouche is the ultimate historical revisionist: Hitler wasn't the fault of the Germans, but of the Americans and British, and of the American and British Jewish bankers. (At one point in his career, LaRouche even claimed Hitler had been raised in a "Warburg orphanage," but dropped that after his source was shown to be rather embarrassingly mistranslated.) Next, in LaRouche's revisionism, the Jews weren't exterminated, they died (those of them that actually did die) in the maelstrom of war, "just like" everyone else. In LaRouche Thought, Nazism wasn't a crazed racialist cult, but a physical-economic looting mechanism. This is the communist view, more or less--because, translated, it means that Nazism is the final stage of capitalism, and that was communist theory. So please discard any ideas you may have that LaRouche's attitude toward Jews is merely LaRouche's attitude toward the problems and failures of the Israeli state. It's just not the case. Granted, LaRouche has always hated Israel, and used to support the terrorist PFLP of Georges Habash, before he and his minions (Michele S) decided Arafat was "sublime" (as an article of hers once said). Every terrorist attack on Israelis in the Mideast or anywhere else has been blamed on ... the Jews. (E.g., Ariel Sharon created Hamas.) Blamed on the Mossad. Hence the special twistedness of LaRouche's recently announcing that journalist Avi Klein's obvious joke--signing himself "Special Agent, Mossad" in some letter or other--has been escalated to the highest level by the ICLC, which has communicated with the Israeli embassy to "warn" them. Of course, Klein's joke makes more sense if you recall that LaRouchite Anton Chaitkin did "research" to "show" that Avi Klein was a "Mossad agent." That appeared in the Morning Briefing some time ago, but I don't think it has made its way into any publications.... What a malevolent clown LaRouche is. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 96 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
P.S. I notice that the LaRouche interview Shadok cites has been moved by the industrious little creatures in Leesburg--within a few hours of Shadok's posting it. If you go to the link Shadok posted, http://larouchein2004.net/pages/interviews/2003/031024nolan.htm, you will note that, strangely, you can't find the webpage.... Hmmm. Lots of work being a LaRouchie, cleaning up after the mother of all elephants. Frankly, folks, you might as well erase EVERYthing the great man said, because sooner or later it will all come back to haunt you. | ||
| shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 79 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 74.52.25.2 |
that s funny, eaglebeak! the whole larouchein2004.net isnt working...., maybe under heavy maintenance or they decided to cancel it all... anyway the link is still available because google has cached the page at http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:L00oL7Iamw8J:larouchein2004.net/pages/interviews/2003/031024nolan.htm+larouche+nolan+interview&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk&ie=UTF-8 On a more sinister note for those who believe that rumor that larouche has softened his line on the Jews, think about this British Jewish student coming to attend what he innocently believed to be an antiwar conference and who, acc. to his parents and friends, was nothing like a Jew involved in his coummunity, a zionist or even religious, this student felt he HAD TO stand up in front of the LYM audience and larouche to tell them: "But I AM a Jew...." What was said that day such that he had to defend himself for being... Jewish! Of course you know this student was Jeremiah Duggan, found dead a few days later, a hundred yards from Larouche's HQ in Wiesbaden, Germany. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 123 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
The funniest damned thing about this aptly described "malevolent clown" LaRouche is that he regularly condemns himself out of his own mouth. He has an almost perversely lucid self-knowledge, but it only finds expression in his wholly inapt invective against others, to wit, from the above: "Now [Lyndy] is not bright. As a matter of act, he's very uncouth, very stupid in many ways. He's not an intellectual, he's a thug! He's like a mafia hit-man who is not known for his intellectual characteristics. He's a thug, equivalent to a murderer." | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 186 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
brewncue, people who gravitate towards the LC/LYM usually have motives which are based on things they depply believe in. In my case, what made me very happy and what made me very sad was not just a motivation to persue more knowledge , but also a weakness. That is part of what happens to you when you'r relationship to events and the way things change seems more like an abstraction than something a person can just do by themselves. Something like overpopulation was an issue which effected me before I joined the LC. I was riding in a bus one day and overheard two people talking about how if they were in charge they would enforce a strict 2 child limit to replace the parents . This was when ZERO population Growth was a big issue in the early 1970s. Now overhearing that bothered me when I was maybe 12 because I asked myself how do you enforce that and with so much space on Earth, how is this a problem? Now ask yourself why would someone think about overpoulation in the first place? There are so many reasons that it is not a simple recipe because the motivation is often for different reasons. You may be talking to a person who spends 2 hours stuck in traffic each day and sees rapid development of what was once farmland. Another person may have had one too many Sally Struther's commercials or solicitations to feed starving kids in overseas areas. Other people in the era I grew up in were upset over seeing people on public assistance getting more money automatically for each additional child. Some people do not like the Catholic Church's stance on birth control. There are plenty of reason why someone can say in passing comment that there are too many people. If you think any issue is clear cut than just try to follow the many arguement sin the immigration law debates. When I was in the LC I was piled into an apt which had me moving aorund a lot. Now I own a home and reside in the real worls. When you have kids in the public school system and a builder proposes a 1,000 homes and you see the local government has no plan to handle that influx of people ,of course you are against more people. Once you start paying property taxes and take an interest in your kids schools and follow funding of infrastructure you change your tune real fast about people, growth and development. When you live in a depressed local economy your problem is people moving out. These are all things that people debate and fight over using many tactics and eventually budgets are passed and bond issues are voted on. All of this is something you will never do in the LC/LYM because that is not why issues are presented to you. In the LC/LYM this is merely the bait and the bait changes depending on who is biting and what the issue of the day which can be molded to include how LHL and his delusions views it. You will not have any debate over policy and there has not been any thing remotely considered a discussion of substance since the early 1970s in the SDS LC when you talk to older members. People here who were in the LC and post material were in for years. You can't blame them for being very concerned when a person starts to dance with Lyn. We know how this always ends and there are a few thousand ex members who joined for very good reasons and left for even better reasons. We almost never recruited older people as they were far more savvy about us then we were as yutes. I participate on other forums where people as for advice in purchasing varuous goods and servies. In this day people can get instant feedback about a product or service and what the downfalls were. I don't find fault with people who join the LC/LYM based on their reasons to do good. I can only show you history and explain how and why things work in a certain way. | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 187 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Last year I received pretty angry emails from LYM members who said I was full of it in stating that they will soon be manning card tabel shrines full time and inhaling exhaust fumes. The writing was not on the proverbial wall, but in Lyn's own memos and NC conference calls where he said clearly that the boomers are no longer pulling their weight and the LYM will be taking over the production, writing and FUNDRAISING. For fun loving yutes who had visions of listening to music, rehearsing plays, doing math and occasionally going to an intervention and a college campus for name gathering, this party was never going to end. Since they did not the history of how Lyn works they would not know of Lyn's famous dictum when sending people out to the streets "This aint no debating society". The HARDEST idea for someone to understand is that the whole show is designed NOT TO WORK. This formula Lyn has for yutes is pretty much over FOUR DECADES old. For older members here who have been around I ask you the following question. Why was the LC so unsuccessful at joint work with so many groups and never had a coalition of sorts last more than it took to boil the membership lists? It seems that the only remote success theLC had was with NUWRO (National Unemployed Welfare Rights Organisation) and that came to a quick end with Mop Up. Lyn does not want coalitions or joint work, just FOLLOWERS. IN that short span of time between Mop Up and the phony Chris White brainwashing hoax the LC transformed itself in a cult of personality. I came in after this and found that my hubris in wanting Fusion power, world wide development , projects galore blinded me to the lunacy I would soon be in the middle of for some time. I saw what I wanted to see and did not believe what people I knew who saw the whole picture and warned me of my future folly. The heavy criticism of what I think I loved was turned into a seal of approval since in a cult of personality, one is built up to be a superiour intellect to the surrounding masses and experienced critics. There was no internet to check this all out and the only people who semed to be upset by the LC were leftists groups whom I did not like anyway. Was I a naive idiot? Damn right. Were my internal beliefs and philosophy and motivation wrong, absoluteley not. Pick better friends to work with and you will get farther towards the goals you want to see. The big secret is that Lyn only needs followers as the rest is not important. To see the first inkling of this, we use one if the greatest inventions ever devised by one of the greatest baby boomer cartoons ever made........ The incredible WABAC MAchine from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show! In many emails I recieved from Leesburg, LCers were referring to Lyn as "Fearless Leader" in how he considered Leesburg his kingdom. Fearless leader also had a "LYM basement " of sorts called "Central Control". This stuff began to get hysterical as Fearless Leader had two bumbling security spies and Lyn had Michelle and Jeff. Fearless Leader answered to a man named "Mr. Big" who ran him while Lyn has "The Major" to send him on wild delusions. Fearless Leader's head was very big and so is Lyn's cranium. If you want to see how close the two are, consider this scene in the show with Fearless Leader and his closest collaborator, Boris Badenov from Wikipedia. "The nicest thing Fearless Leader ever wrote about Boris Badenov was sending a picture of himself to Boris with the words "Drop DEAD Signed Fearless Leader'." On the show was an invention called the WABAC machine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayback_machine | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 188 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
The WABAC machine is your friend yutes and the cult's worst nightmare because we can post and find so many things for people to read and figure out for themselves. Evidently, quite a few LYM are just doing that as the THREE DECADE LCers are being sent around the country to try to get the yutes really excited about card table shrines and inhaling carcinogens daily . There are a few dozen WABAC machines working around the globe by people who know what to look for. This is not done around the clock as everyone has families, hobbies and things to get done. For all of the yutes who think that they are special and unique, we have a surprise for you. This has all been done before by Lyn and you just happen to be the latest set of yutes who have been hijacked out of college. I thought this process began with the SDS days by Lyn, but it seems to go back even further when Lyn developed a business model which may have begun in 1965 in the SWP. An email came in a few days ago and I thought it was fan mail from some flounder until I read it closely As best as I can put this together, Lyn was in the SWP and writing endless reports which no one read or cared about. In the SWP was a guy named Wohlforth who has some brilliant quotes about Lyn which are right on the money. Wohlworth had a splinter groupcalled the American Committee for the Fourth International or ACFI. ACFI published the "Bulletin for Intl Socialism" or BIS. BIS The person(s) who were doing some research seem to be very familiar with Lyn and were shocked when they found a copy of the October 4, 1965 (Vol2 # 15) on the shelves at a major US University and were intrigued when they began to read it. Now we can read one of the numerous WABAC machine generated fun. Here is some of the details known by the people who have uncovered this document. Thee quotes are from the researchers who know a lot more than I know about this. "Wohlforth set up the ACFI after his group was expelled from the SWP in the early 1960s. It later became the Workers League. Larouche became a supporter of the group and after he quit the SWP he briefly became a member before leaving it first to join the Sparticist League for a few months and then to form his own group which became the Labor Committee." "The Wohlforth ACFI group published the Bulletin. Larouche wrote for it while still a member of the SWP which is why he wrote anonymously. He then officially joined the group after his resignation from the SWP." "On October 4, 1965, the Bulletin (Vol. 2, No. 15) published part II of "Special Report on SWP Convention : How Trotsky's 'Heirs' Celebrated the 25th Anniversary of His Death." In it the author, almost certainly LaRouche, devoted a section to the role of "youth" in the party. The "youth" were from the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), the SWP version of the LYM. The SWP leadership at the time was headed by Farrell Dobbs with support from Tom Kerry." Whoa, what I thought was some junk email is from some people who have been reading factnet and did a double take when they found out Lyn was still alive and up to his old tricks. So what we have is a document where the researchers are pretty well convinced that Lyn Marcus wrote an article about how to use Trotsky yutes in a small org. (Message edited by xlcr4life on August 14, 2007) | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 189 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Here are exerpts sent to me with their comments. **************************************************************************** "The conservativism of the Dobbs-Kerry tendency had an obvious contradiction. Old cadre members were gradually lost by attrition. Even to continue to pursue the course of organizational conservativism, the Dobbs-Kerry group required "new blood" for the party to fill the emptying chairs in the branches and -- more important to any trade union bureaucrat -- to reduce the danger of red ink in the party's financial accounts. Even the most conservative organization can not exist unless it reproduces itself." [In other words: ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS] LaRouche then continues a bit later on: "But faced with the contradiction of a declining old cadre membership, Dobbs-Kerry sublimated their anti-youth prejudices and forced themselves to accept and exploit the youth movement. The attrition in the old SWP cadre left them no other choice." LaRouche next observes: "The first instinct of the leadership was to turn thi s youth into a political labor contingent, best fit to run itself ragged in door-to-door subscription campaigns, collect petition signatures, wear itself to exhaustion in meaningless, WPA [Workers Project Administration], "Jimmy Higgins" work ["Jimmy Higgins" was a name for a type of slavish cadre willing to do anything, the more menial the better, for the party], and begin to refill the empty coffers of the SWP treasury." [To repeat: ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS] Next LaRouche writes: " "Activism" and not political qualifications became the standard of youth leadership and membership. The perpetual exhaustion of youth driven to superactivism was easily turned into bitter hostility against "older" comrades who could not maintain the pace and still maintain their responsibilities to their jobs and families." {SOUND FAMILIAR?} We continue to quote: "As the numbers of these superactivism-dragooned youth increased in the party's ranks, they became the social layer whose frenzy was the tool for effecting the expulsion of political minorities, attacking all critics of the regime, the instrument which destroyed the last vestige of democratic centralism in the SWP." ["SUPERACTIVISM-DRAGOONED YOUTH'/"ATTACKING ALL CRITICS OF THE REGIME" -- Plus a change . . .] We continue to quote: "But this youth proved to be a two-edged sword. The rage of the party youth against political minorities was extended to "older comrades" in general. As these youth came, in the past two years, to outnumber the older comrades in many branches, they began to make menacing gestures towards sections of the Dobbs-Kerry combination itself. As Kerry repeated at this convention, the youth have "built a fire under me" and Kerry does not intend to lose his position, he announced, explaining the need for more and more expulsions and active suppression of internal political life." | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 190 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
LaRouche then inserts a subtitle "Problems of Internal Party Life" before he continues: "As the SWP's equivalent of a trade union bureaucracy, Dobbs-Kerry face not only the insurgency of the youth, but also the continuing problem of party finances and the problem of the uneasy coalition of the "squirearchy" and youth on which the regime itself rests. Dobbs needs as much of the older cadre as he can hold in order to keep the party youth in check. He must impose a lockstep discipline upon the youth to prevent it from throwing up political factions which could overthrow the Dobbs-Kerry regime itself in the relatively near future. He needs to keep the youth as a club over the "old cadre" members of the "Cannon school" [Jame Cannon] who are not entirely happy with the present state and course of internal affairs." [So the youth are really a "club" to be used against disgruntled old cadre. Curiouser and curiouser.] LaRouche continues: "He [Dobbs] wants to get rid of the political minorities and yet he needs to have a political minority through which to divert the rage of the youth from his own old cadre supporters. At the same time,& lt; B R>youth recruits to the party in the past two years have just balanced off the membership losses from expulsion, resignation and other inevitable forms of attrition. Minorities, in total, still represent about one-quarter of the total membership and, consequently, a significant part of Dobbs' all-important budget. Under these circumstances, Dobbs is compelled to resort to the most awkward organizational maneuvers in his efforts to contain this mass of explosive interrelated problems." There it is. We have "an all-important budget," a need to "divert the rage of the youth" by using the "most awkward organizational maneuvers" to play the youth off against the dissident older factional members in order to "contain this mass of explosive interrelated problems" so the leadership can continue to generate money. Sound familiar? ************************************************* | ||
| xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 191 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
This is a pamphlet that I have not seen and I admit no knowledge of SWP affairs. I do know this though. Boy ,these people are pretty familiar with Lyn when he was a Marcus, when he was a Larouche and now as Fearless leader. This stuff may may be too esoteric for the yutes and people who just stumble into these posts. What I got out of this explained a lot to me about why we were such abysmal failures in anything we tried to do. The secret is that Lyn wants followers and each revision in the LC is designed to create a more intense follower where the line seperating cult from group was crossed many times over. I think I have the story straight now. It seems that Lyn smelled an opportunity to try to either take over an existing group and the splinter group. I guess he thought that his brilliance would cause everyone to leave and join him enmasse. When that did not happen the idea of starting his own group seemed better as everyone else thought of him as an idiot. When I was in this was our strategy in almost everything we did. We would find the different sub stratas of politics or causes and start in by writing things to support their view. After finding and contacting the leaders and getting a membership list we tried to get the whole group to welcome Lyn as their saviour. Almost everyone figured out how loony we were and things came to a halt. If we picked up the membership list we could call them for money and if out of that we recruited some people it was a success. We did this with RTL, the opposition to environmentalists, the GOP and Conservatives, military people, farmers, business owners with high interest rates, churches, black churches now Dems. In each case we presented them with an elaborate report of who their enemy is who is opposing them. We sent in our "support" staff to meet and sell some subs and eventually build the idea that only Lyn can save them . It really is an insane plan because it forces them to quickly get rid of us after seeing Lyn up close. Most normal groups would conduct workshops and joint conferences and meetings to address an issue. Here the issues is just the way to get into the door and then the issue is Lyn and nothing else. Being in the region it was really wacky because whenever we heard of some new initiative with a new layer of people we all joked that we probably burnt out the last group and now are on to the next group we will burn out. In all of these cases the dominant theme is that Lyn and only LYN can save them from the oligarchs. After they reject him, Lyn then launched into a denunciation of the group and why without him they are impotent and will fail. Now the resemblence to Fearless leader makes sense. http://www.jrj-socrates.com/Cartoon%20Pics/Jay%20Ward/Fearless_Leader_300.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9f/Boris_natasha_fearless.jpg Now Moose and Squirrel are part of conspiracy against Larouche. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 20 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Wow, xlcr4life. What a gem! Lyn himself described in early written documents how he determined that the SWP was hopelessly centrist (a term he coopted and gave his own meaning to) from probably the late 50's, and how he basically vegetated there, just waiting for an opportune moment to split and create his own organization. In 1965, Wohlforth left to form the Workers League and Tim Robertson to form the Spartacist League. Lyn describes how when he finally left the SWP, he spent a month in the Workers League before being shown the door, and then a month in the Sparpacist League, before being shown the door. Memory fails on what exact issues he said he was rejected on, but his own clear intent to take them over was probably the real reason. He then got involved in some tenant organizing, and through a few activists involved with that who were also in SDS at Columbia, he ended up giving some sort of lectures to members of the Labor Committee of the Columbia SDS chapter, and when Columbia exploded in the spring of 1968, a number of members of this "labor committee" played leading roles, suddenly greatly expanding its membership, and the rest is history. As for this document, xlcr, it's a gem. There is absolutely no question that it's genuine, and written by Lyn. It's his style, and while I don't recall exactly those words, much of what the document says strikes me as vaguely familiar to points he himself made about the SWP in written documents he produced. But boy, looked at from the perspective of the LYM, did he nail what is wrong with the "business model" the LYM is based on. With the dwindling number of Boomers being targetted by Lyn for the LYM to go after, to "revive" them, while still keeping the Boomers in the game, since they still raise almost all the money on phone teams, is precisely the tightrope that he so aptly described Dobbs and Kerry as doing. How delicious. | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 21 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
At the risk of being considered “soft on LaRouche,” a charge which I hope my previous posts would shield me from, I want to engage on the anti-semitic issue. I will state my general question, and then some quibbles small and large with some of the evidence provided in response to my original post by Eaglebeack, Shadok et al., before returning to the broader point as I see it. Basically, being a conscious anti-Semite doesn’t fit LaRouche’s profile, as I see it. I guess it boils down to asking whether you all think that in his private thoughts, LaRouche believes himself to be an anti-Semite—is he, subjectively, an anti-Semite? I won’t attempt to dispute that the quotes and other information as you have assembled it make a strong prima facie case that he is objectively anti-Semitic. But in my book, being anti-Semitic requires being conscious that one is so. The obvious candidates today— Ahmadinijad of Iran, the KKK, the Liberty Lobby (do they still exist?), European skinheads, other kooky right-wing cults in this country—they are anti-Semitic, and aren’t ashamed to affirm that fact in public. LaRouche is obviously not like them at all. So, if he’s anti-Semitic, he is a sui generis form thereof. In fact, think about this. Whenever confronted, he of course denies it, as well he would have to, on pain of losing probably his entire membership, no one of whom would stay with an avowed anti-Semite. So if he’s an anti-Semite, he would have to disguise that fact. But then we come to the reality, that he certainly says things that create the impression that he is, and that he has permitted other even more graphically anti-Semitic things to get published by others (e.g., Protocols, other references in Dope, Inc.) in his organization. So let’s follow this through. If LaRouche were really a conscious anti-Semite, but one who also knows full well that if he openly avowed such he would lose his organization, I can’t escape the conclusion that he would be careful to disguise this fact, rather than appear to flaunt it. If, on the other hand, he, in his own mind, is NOT anti-Semitic (meaning, he does not believe that being a Jew is anything different than being a Protestant or any other denomination), it is pure LaRouche, and fits the profile that I have of him, that he would flaunt his refusal to be cowed by the normal constraints of “political correctness” and feel he can go after Jewish bankers, among others, as responsible for putting Hitler in power, and go after Rohatyn, and invite the charge of anti-Semitism, secure in his belief that he is not one. Because LaRouche is like the boxer who intentionally sticks out his chin inviting a punch, and he usually gets it. He relishes the negative publicity of being a “bad boy,” who says things that violate the norms of accepted political dialogue. Look at his frequent use of scatological slurs, and his general name-calling. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks. It seems to me that the same principle must be at work here. He doesn’t mind appearing anti-Semitic only because he doesn’t believe he is one. And if he doesn’t believe he is one, is it still accurate to say that, objectively, he is? What would that mean? Let me now list my quibbles, which I believe respond to many, though not all, of the points cited above as evidence of his anti-Semitism. | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 22 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
A very small quibble: I distinctly recollect it was the DPFLP (Democratic PFLP), a split of and opponent of George Habash’s group, that we were trying to ally with in the early ‘70s. I don’t recall enough now to know if that is a distinction without a difference, but I do know that at the time I was in favor of working with them, and since I have never opposed Israel’s right to exist, I apparently didn’t think that the DPFLP were intent on driving Israel into the sea. Maybe I was wrong, does anyone know? No one has mentioned LaRouche’s repeated claim, including in public, that he had a back-channel relationship to Abba Eban, and tried to broker a Middle East settlement between Israel and Iraq in 1975. I am unaware that Eban, before he died, ever attempted to dispute the claim, and I have tended to assume LaRouche may have actually had the relationship he claimed. If anyone has definitive information on this, it is obviously relevant, since if true it argues against the anti-Semitic charge. Plus, also not mentioned by anyone, and this has been a constant for 40 years, LaRouche has always held that the basis for lasting Mid-East peace is an Israel within the ‘67 borders, at peace with the Arab countries, and serving as the driver to share their technology and help green the deserts of the region and bring development to it. I have trouble imagining a conscious anti-Semite ever proposing a leading role for Israel along these lines. It just doesn’t compute. By the way, I mentioned the Israel vs. Palestinians issue in my original post because one or two posts on this subject in the previous thread had included among their arguments the points I was arguing against. It sounds like we all are now agreeing that his opposition to how Israel treats the Palestinians is not by itself evidence of anti-Semitism. Let me address one other charge, from Shadok, and possibly others, that suggest that the Duggan murder was driven by anti-Semitism. I find the reasoning that would suggest that illogical. If killing Jews was the agenda, why did it take them over 30 years to kill their first one? Duggan’s phone call to his mother the night before he died provides strong evidence that he was not drinking the Kool-Aid. If there was a motive to have him dead, wouldn’t the likely motive be that he was threatening the controlled environment by his probably public questioning of things? THAT motive I could well believe, and it seems far more plausible than simply that he was Jewish. I haven’t previously seen the report that he stood up and said “but I AM a Jew,”—how do we know this?—but if true, it certainly suggests that Jews were being attacked for something, but his standing up, again, would have been disruptive of the controlled environment they depend on establishing. My biggest quibble is on the 6 million vs 1 millions Jews killed issue. My memory is very clear on this. In the late ‘70s, LaRouche and Security, above all via Scott T., were in bed with the Liberty Lobby, Willis Carto’s organization, who were definitely anti-Semitic. This was the height of the “right-wing” period before LaRouche self-transmogrified (is that redundant?) into a “conservative Democrat” after the 1980 election. | ||
| larouchetruth New member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 23 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
|
