LaRouche Continued 2

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post LaRouche Continued 3 earnest_one 8  1  9-29-07  11:49 am   Start New Thread

Author Message   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 63 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 5:59 pm:        *** NEW THREAD *** NEW THREAD *** NEW THREAD Folks, the last few days, it has taken forever to load the LaRouche Continued 1 thread, so it seems like time to start yet another one. In hopes you all agree, I have started this one. Thanks.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 65 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:20 pm:        Quick response to Eaglebeak on LaRouche and ideas. Yes, on how he appropriates the ideas of others, misuses them, fails to understand them, lacks the attention span to really understand them, and everything else you said. To which can be added that he applies sweeping generalizations to draw fallacious conclusions about both those he considers "good" and those he considers "bad," needing, for some Manichean reason, to categorize every important person in history as either "with me or against me," on the side of the angels or on the side of the devils, with no room for people who simply didn't know any better, or who did some positive things and some not--not to mention all the false reasons LaRouche has to put people on his sh*tlist. I laughed at your simile about magpies and crows, but it's a bit too facile: there is method in his particular brand of madness, it's not just bright, shiny intellectual objects he likes. In terms of intellectual/philosophical history, he does have a relatively consistent (for him) rule of thumb in deciding whom to put in heavenly circles, and whom to condemn to Dante's Inferno--is someone a reductionist, a nominalist, or a platonist, a non-linear thinker. In politics, you have to have somewhere opposed either the British, the Venetians or the bankers to get on LaRouche's good side. Where it gets hilarious is when you examine LaRouche's own writings, and find out that they are not only extremely reductionist, very simplistic, nominalist, even numerological at times, but also that LaRouche is a complete and total sophist. The very school of Athens--the Sophists--that he has taken to railing at (especially as he characterizes Baby Boomers as sophists) characterizes to a tee his own every writing in recent years (whether that was always the case, which at first thought I don't think so, is up for debate). But that's a story for another post (and another day).   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 153 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:42 pm:        I would think an Aristotelian or empiricist is more of a "nonlinear thinker" than a Platonist: after all, an Aristotelian is more open to experience and the constant reevaluation of hypotheses in the light of that experience. It may be more exciting to be a Platonist or other like visionary, but for sheerly demonstrable truth - never LaRouche's concern in any of his phases - one can do no better than Aries Tottle, and others of his ilk. While we're at it, it was Galileo's empirical observation of the phases of Venus that established once and for all the truth of the heliocentric model - not the geometrizing of the astrologer Kepler. It is not surprising that LaRouche fears reality (what Peirce termed the brute facticity of the world) as that would require self-knowledge, and he fears that most of all.   shadok Member Username: shadok Post Number: 100 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 66.98.186.40 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:42 pm:        C=256 as i remember this campaign, the "fundamental/deeper" argument was that the c=256 pitch was consistent with "register-shifts" in the human voice, itself consistent with some "riemanian" concept of "phase-shift" in the physical Universe (aka "shock-waves"), itself consistent with larouche-riemann economical concept of "technological change" itself consistent with the Laws of the Universe (aka "neguentropy"). Some even tried to make "connections" between c=256 and the Golden Mean (0.618...). When I asked god himself about this, that I didn’t see such connection between Golden mean and the musical scale at c=256 or even the well-tempered scale, he answered me with some Mumbo Jumbo about the curvature of the Universe… That is the mystique behind the whole story. We are not far from Kepler’s numerology. Kepler was, by the way, a paid astrologer working to the Court. How were these artists approached and convinced to sign for c=256? Well, it s so easy! The fundamental rule is: NEVER address the question directly (as lyn did to my questions). For example, when trying to “organize” artists, musicians, NEVER talk about music (they might soon realize how incompetent you are), instead talk just a little about music and a LOT about “science”, “politics”, “history “etc. Same thing with scientists: NEVER talk about science with them (at least in a detailed way), but instead about “arts”, “music”, “culture“, “religion” etc. So, in the case of the c=256 campaign, the emphasis was about the pseudo-scientific proof that establishes c at 256 Hz. That impressed many musicians who hardly knew anything about maths, geometry, physics etc Then add a bit of politics (aka the Nazi pitch at A=440 - http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/972_lar_behind2.html). Now, the key was to get one “big” name to sign first. Once this was done, since they all know each other (it s like a big family), the others followed… et voila! On bankruptcy reorganization: If larouche were in power, I am afraid the US economy would have the same fate as PMR’s with similar consequences for the American people as Ken Kronberg’s…   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 101 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 66.98.186.40 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:55 pm:        Welcome to Helga: Good news, it s official, you have beaten your Lindy in the hit parade of lunacy. Congratulations! Quite an achievement! The Youtube polls indicate that your German satire has hit 4,401 views against only 4,167 views for Homer Simpson about your dear husband. Now you ve got serious arguments to defend your case in the battle for succession… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_4bgnfBLU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU4Rf2u1nwg   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 66 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 9:56 pm:        Ah, register shifts, yes, I had, somehow, completely forgotten that particular bit of lunacy. Of course, since not only are there at least 5 or 6 distinct major voice ranges, and I believe a few more secondary ones, the notion that any one pitch would optimize the register shifts for all voices is bit far-fetched. But actually, it gets more bizarro than this. It is all coming back to me now, in full technicrud. The first question is, what difference does it make where the register shift takes place? Well, it’s true that the same note sounds very different depending on which register it is sung in, especially true for the upper female register. So the real question is, how sensitive were composers to where the register shift would occur for their singers as they composed music? A fair question, until one considers… …what I presented last night. That the pitches used at any given place and time varied all over the lot, certainly by as much as the difference between C256 and A440. So IF composers were consciously calculating this the way the LaRouche campaign for C256 claimed they were, then their music would only work the way they wanted it to IF SUNG AT EXACTLY THE PITCH THE COMPOSER HAD IN MIND when he composed it. But dear friend, we see that whatever this pitch was, it a) wasn’t C256, and b) wasn’t the least bit stable, but varied all over the place. So, HAD this been the concern of composers, it would have a losing battle, no matter how hard they tried. However, we were treated to a most delectable illustration taken from one of the later sections of Gulliver’s travels, the one where, if memory serves, people were all busily engaged in all manner of utterly useless activities, like gathering moonbeams and weaving them into cloth, or whatever. The activity that Kathy W. in particular spent a lot of time doing for some period of time was in “determining” the precise meaning of EVERY REGISTER SHIFT in a given piece of music. And by “determining,” I mean, she would have a verbal explanation such as “here, he emphasizes passion by shifting to the middle register,” or “here the shift to the upper register is to show a shift of mood from serene to worried.” I kid you not. I can’t even come up with made up examples. She came up with hundreds of such “explanations.” How she “knew” that’s what the composer had in mind, ah, that’s a question for another day. But, all in all, highly creative, in the same sense that naming every flower in one’s garden with an original female-sounding name could be called “creative”—and totally, utterly, mind-numbingly stupid. To rephrase the argument, C256 couldn’t possibly be “consistent with register-shifts in the human voice,” since what matters is what notes the composer chooses to use. Whether one uses C256 or some other value, the composer still chooses a) which scale to write the music in, which alters where the register shifts will be relative to the base of the scale, and b) which notes to write, which determines which notes will require a register shift. How any “natural” value could apply here, given the role of the free will of the composer, is beyond me. Thanks, Shadok, for your deeper and more specific recollections, and your sense of how the campaign actually recruited some noted opera singers. As for your analogy to PMR, come on. PMR hung on for nearly 25 years. The entire economy would collapse within hours in the worst and deepest panic in history if people thought for a moment that LaRouche might get anywhere near the levers of monetary and financial power.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 67 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 10:03 pm:        Sancho, please. Who's talking about a real Aristotelian? When on this blog, we're talking about LaRouche Aristotelians. You know, straw men. Caricatures. LaRouche Aristotelians are whatever LaRouche says they are. If he says they are linear thinkers, well, they're his creations, he gets to say what they are. It's the same with political figures. We now have LaRouche Truman, who set out systematically to wreck everything FDR stood for. No matter that he launched the Marshall Plan, began desegration in general and desegregated the Army, and did a number of other things that might at least give him a shot at the lowest circles of Purgatory. But here, we aren't concerned with historical Truman, just with LaRouche Truman. Oh, and LaRouche Eisenhower, the great savior who made (or kept) the great democrat Allen Dulles as head of the CIA and his brother John Foster as secretary of state. The great Eisenhower who was clearly a much better president than Adlai Stevenson would have been. But again, this is not about historical Eisenhower, but about LaRouche Eisenhower, and LaRouche Eisenhower, like LaRouche Truman, is whatever LaRouchs says they are. They are his creations, and he can do what he wants with them.   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 154 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 1:50 am:        Right. Like LaRouche Catholics. When that one didn't fly, he now ends up with LaRouche infinitesimals. Marcos was a LaRouche tyrant, so he was OK. My dog has a LaRouche lamppost he likes to go on. Perhaps the word LaRouche could become an adjective synonymous with "broken." Instead of saying "my DVD player is broken", one could say "I have a LaRouche DVD player", etc.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 208 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:04 am:        You have no idea of how close you are in describing the final legacy of Lyn in the age of the internet. On countless blogs and web sites things chug along until someone posts some absolutely bizarre and kooky idea that stands head and shoulders above everyone else in sheer lunacy. That poster is usually described as using "Larouche Logic" in creating a "Larouche styled" or "Larouchified" piece of work. On the floor of the US Congress I think a Senator used those words to describe some colleaugues statement on some issue. This may also be a clinical sign for psychologists and cultural anthroplogists to study about group dynamics. The yutes should merely look at how any Leesburg deadender or THREE DECADE card table shriner will adopt a personal version of Larouche Logic to explain any current or past event. You can also use Larouche Logic in completely forgetting the past and what ever you wrote or said in formulating the new conspiracy of the month club delusion. Fearless Leader will get his legacy yet and the least he can do is thank those who use the WABAC Machine to help his final quest for a footnote in history. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 155 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 9:27 am:        Fortunately, it will be a LaRouche footnote.   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 102 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 69.93.250.74 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:48 pm:        The C256 tuning is an important issue regarding the Cult MIND CONTROL. Cults have this technique using choruses and chants for a get-together fusion sort of ceremonies, which bond members to the “group”, identify themselves to the "group", in this case the Larouche-Youth Movement. The c-256 in that sense is key, a sort of justification for all members of the LYM to be TUNED harmoniously… to the laws of the universe. And believe or not, when they sing Bach in the streets, they really think they are doing some kind of connection between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Speaking of lunacy? That’s their little secret. The c256 is also very revealing on how un-creative, if not anti-creative the organisation is. Indeed the classical composers weren’t that obsessed with that sort of issues. They had more important job to do: to create, to compose. I am fascinated by the fact geniuses like Beethoven or Mozart spent more time (and were paid for it) to IMPROVISE and be part of improvisation competitions than sitting in their room trying to adjust to the “laws of the universe”. They were truly free minds and there is no creativity without freedom (I agree on that point with larouche…for once) Some of these improvisations were eventually integrated in their written compositions. No ICLC/LC/LYM member ever wrote any piece of music (except some timid attempts from Jonathan T). I remember once a German member wrote something that was played at an iclc conference but he soon was patronized and criticised by “expert” Anno Hellenbroich. Creativity isn’t welcome because it requires freedom. Have a look at this extraordinary little film about mind control and... "how to start a cult"! it ll ring a very serious bell!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNSe5XYp6E   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 103 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 69.93.250.74 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:50 pm:        and that s a link about Bruce Director trying to intimidate the British MPs who signed for the Early Day Motion to discuss the Duggan case at the House of Commons http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=54898&ATypeId=1   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:54 pm:        I guess LaRouche is really playing to the Putin crowd now - this just floored me: Q: I was doing some studying, and I was studied up on Stalin and they say what he was doing, was calculating catastrophic mistakes. And I would like to ask Mr. LaRouche about that, and also what he thinks about racism, and how they handle racism now? LaRouche: It was Stalin, you're talking about Josef Stalin? Q: Yes. LaRouche: Okay, there was just a little confusion. No, Stalin was Stalin. He was actually provoked—he was what he was. That's a long story, but he was what he was. But at the end of the war, he was provoked. He had no intention of attacking anybody at that point. His intention at that point was to take a country which had lost a tremendous amount of life, at that point, and build it. But he was provoked. And when he provoked, his nasty side really came out, and we got ourselves into a mess. He beat us, in terms of getting an effective arsenal of nuclear weapons. He beat us in getting a thermonuclear weapon. For that reason, they dumped Truman, because Truman's idea didn't work. And he went on and the Soviet system produced some very classy qualities of modern technological weaponry with a very poor economy. So we could have dealt with that in a completely different way, if Roosevelt had lived. But then, when you make somebody nasty, they get nasty, and don't complain if they get nasty if you made them so." http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/interviews_files/2006/060517_lane_interview.htm And then from the same interview there's this whopping lie: "Q: I'm a truck driver, and I'm one of your faithful listeners. I had this white driver gave me a tape and some literature with Mr. LaRouche's name on it. The farthest I get to reading that literature, it was about the Rothschilds, you know, and who was behind the race riots of the '60s and stuff like this. I had this information over a year, and I haven't really had a chance to really look at it. Can he elaborate on that literature that that guy gave me? LaRouche: I'm not sure what you're referring to. It's a little bit of a problem. We mention a lot of names and a lot of things in the things we publish, but I don't know in what context it was said, or what the issue was. Q: Well, I think the issue was, like a one-world government and everything's perfect. But, Mr. Ambrose, if you want me to fax you some of that information, I will. I just haven't had a chance to go through it. It was something like—I thought it was one of those far-right leaflets. LaRouche: No, no. You won't find far-right around me. The far-right don't like me one bit. They don't like what I write, either."   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 157 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 2:56 pm:        But what would a Lyn interview be without a liberal dash of healthy megalomania: "Q: Okay, I'd like to ask you a couple more quick questions so someone else can get in here. I can get them in here. Can you comment on the problem that went down between you and George Bush Sr.? The conflict that went on between you and him? LaRouche: Yeah, sure. It was big. George came after me. He didn't like me when he was CIA director, because I was on on the other side of the CIA factions, at that point. I was much more traditional. And then George came after me. I was running for President, for the nomination for President as a Democrat. He was running as a Republican. And his campaign began to do dirty tricks against my campaign. I said, "George, cut it out. Tell your people to get off it. Otherwise, I'm going to have to take you on." So I, in a sense I destroyed him. He otherwise destroyed himself. I exposed his involvement with the Skull and Bones operation, but, more importantly, with the Trilateral Commission operation, because people at that point were very unhappy. Because the Trilateral Commission had ruined the United States.... Lane: Lyndon, Lyndon, I know you've got to go. And thank you so much for being with us all the way from Germany. And we're going to have to have you again. LaRouche: Well, it's good. All right. Thank you. See you." This character is too much.   realme New member Username: realme Post Number: 4 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 71.62.45.125 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 6:49 pm:        Shadok said, "No ICLC/LC/LYM member ever wrote any piece of music." Claudia G., AKA Claudia A., a marginal member at best because she was flaky, not in a LaRouche-flaky way but her own flaky way, composed several Lieder while still a member. She had a nice voice and sang them herself at certain LC events, but not much was made of her efforts because she wasn't tight with the John S./Kathy W. music mafia. Note that neither John nor Kathy nor any of those music wannabees ever composed a single note. Later, after she quit, Claudia became an accomplished poet and poetry editor in the real world. I went to one of her readings at a bookstore some years ago. Her poetry didn't appeal to my taste, but so what? At least she writes real poetry. You see, Brewncue and others, nothing gets done while under LaRouche's thumb, but once you quit you have half a chance to become a real person and compose music and write poetry instead of just blathering about what dead people on LaRouche's approved list did 150 years ago.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 209 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:00 pm:        We are going to show our readers how a madman or mad woman can issue a memo about Kronberg's widow giving several hundred dollars to the Republican party with a straight face as being the cause of Ken Kronberg's death. I had to reread that memo a few times and wonder exactly how much booze do the remaining NEC and NC have to consume to erase their memory cells. We know they erased their dignity and honesty a few decades ago when they began to hijack funds from the elderly. Forget the yutes cause their parents were not even dating in the 1970s certian things occured. OK, Nancy, Gerry, Tony, Jeff, Dennis, Larry, Debbie, Harley, Phil , Small and a few others read that memo and nod their heads in unison with Lyn. They read that memo and continue their worship of Lyn and go to sleep without a worry. The WABAC machine has been busy and has some funny things to report to the yutes and the rest of the gang as to who is THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY in the LC in both funds and support. Why Lyn of course!! Let us all set the WABAC Machine to 1976 when we ran Lyn for president as a US Labor Party candidate. Almost everyone in Leesburg and every current leader in the LC at this time. In the course of our organising there is a word being used to describe very conservative thinking Republicans in the Mid West, Texas and far West. We called thse people "Yahoos" and they were on our briefing networks and we would call them up about the Trilateral Commission, the CFR, the Bilderbergers and of course the Rockefellers. Our 1976 campaign for some people was a let down because after all, the LC was supposed to be THE Communist hegemonic power committed to socialism. What our 1976 campaign was about was going after Jimmy Carter and pulling for Gerald Ford to win. Now how did we get to that stage? Go back a few years and you will find that we had regular conversations with a yahoo from Wyoming named Dick Cheney! The person you want to ask in Leesburg is Susan Kokinda who according to a few former leaders in the LC was her "contact". If you look back at who were our major enemies in all of the publications you find these people. Nelson Rockefeller Henry Kissinger James Schlesinger. All were in the Ford cabinet . Who were Dick Cheney's target of anger? Nelson Rockefeller Henry Kissinger James Schlesinger. In the LC we had many people who were calling conservatives and attempting to portray Lyn as the anti Trilat leader while the whole Marxist charade which Lyn used to recruit on college campuses in the late 1960s and early 1970s was hidden in the basement for ever. All of sudden we were now "American System" clean cut anti Trilat/CFR leaders. In NS we wrote many articles about the CIA and who was to blame for it's demise. Another of our contacts supposedly was also a very young Donald Rumsfeld.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 210 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:01 pm:        Understand that this is going on without many members knowing it. We had a very primitive fundraising operation going where we would meet with these people and bulk sale our special reports about the Trilats/CFR and other conspiracy theory favorites. The difference between the rationale and the insane usually involves Lyn. While we had local meetings with Yahoos, as soon as you brought Lyn to the party, it was over. Lyn bgane to imagine that he was the king pin and he was gthe real power. In 1975 when Gerald Ford fired parts of his cabinet in what was called "The Halloween Mssacre", Lyn began a delusionary spiral into darkness where he firmly beleived that he was now running the USA. Now what happened after The Haloween Massacre? James Shlesinger was fired, Colby was out at the CIA, Kissinger was off the NSA and Nelson Rockefeller was no longer a lock for the VP slot in 1976. Now who benefitted and what did Lyn committ the LC to supprting? Why a young Yahoo named Dick Cheney became the Chief of Staff Rumsfeld became Defense Sec. and George Bush Sr became the CIA head. At this time in the regional offices we were told that Lyn is now leading a force of Yahoos and Military people who are secretly supporting us. During the 1976 campaign our sole purpose was to turn voters against Jimmy Carter and we purchased antional TV time with a 15 minute spot a week or so before the election and a 1/2 hour spot the night before. The theme was "Pulling the lever for Carter will triger Thermo Nuclear war". Carter won the election and now the next step occured in our support of the Rpeblican party. There are always going to be election day problems. This time Lyn in the election night meeting in the national office said that the election was stolen. Not only were his millions of votes stolen, but they were given to Carter and thus Gerald Ford was the true winner. This was brilliant by Lyn because it both saved face for our vote totals and then let us start to really raise money and work with republicans. We put out brief after brief about the Trilat cabinet of Cater culminating with waht was callet the "PIT Brief" or "Carter and the Party of International Terror". Now our enemies were Ramsey Clark, IPS , CounterPunch and other assorted leftists. We began to really boil conservative phone lists we were given to raise money and we also did something very few people remember. The day after the 1976 election we urged the Ford people to challenge the results and go to court in several states to overturn the election. In Michigan we had a local in Grand Rapids set up and soome of our people were on the phone with Ford's brothers urging them to get the election challenged. Among the local Detroit leaders I was told were involved were Art and Pidge. This is really very cloudy history because Detroit was run by Ken Dalto who had his own cult of personality going and ran a slick operation with all sorts of people you can read about in the King Book. In several states we started lawsuits with Republicans and Conservative Party members to overturn the election due to vote fraud. Lyn had the LC set up a Legal Fund where everyone I mentioned at the beginning RAISED MONEY FOR THIS. You can't pretend this did not exist. Go ask them how much money they raised in their locals to fund this. We did this with Republicans when Ford did not want to challenge the results.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 211 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:02 pm:        Needless to say, there is a whole history of Lyn, the LC and mobsters with bags of cash to buy an election and to pay a loan shark which will eventually be explained. Our sole existance for being was to support what ever the Yahoos asked us to do which was to usually screw the Dem party. Running Lyn as a Democrat was a great way to do damage internally as Lyn's loonyness was now being used by many people. You see, we could print and do dirty tricks in an untraceble way where anyone else would be sued for slander. We could put out leafletts, find dirt and buy TV time and say the most outrageous things and get away with it, for a while. Where this all falls apart and becomes a farce is as usuall, all about Lyn. What typically happens is that we can send some of our talented people to meet with specialists and gather info and provide info we picked up. At a certian point we had meetings with friends of friends which led to meetings in places like LA, Michigan, Texas, Atlanta, East Side NYC and DC with pretty high up think tank people. What always happened is that Lyn demanded to be the main focis of these meetings as of course, he ran the USA! In every case where he met a normal person, they would immediately figure out that Lyn was bonkers with massive delusions and quietly exit the meeting. The contact would tell his staff to never let us back in while Lyn would further feel that this proves that he is part of "The Privy Council" running the USA. The full story is maybe some day going to come out, and it will be a doozy, worthy of the best scam artist hall of fame honors. Along the way in our doing dirty work for the GOP somethign happened where Lyn and the LC security staff were handed off to a whole circus of anti semites in the Liberty Lobby and a guy named Mitch Werbell. At this time we droped Rocky and the Trilats and started up with the British and became much more vocal in the Holocaust lunacy and supporting virtually any WW 2 Nazi as a "patriot". Along the time frame we now have Lyn being really profiled as a paranoid nutcase who has sucker written all over him. How much Jeff and Paul G contributed to this whole episode is for them to discuss with you members. Molly gives a few hundred to the GOP, how much did Lyn give in CASH and property besides committing all of the LC manpower and resources to screwing the Dem Party and supporting the Republican party???? If you can, email or walk into the legal office of Babara and George and ask for THE transcripts of the Va trials. You know, those transcripts which never seemed to make it to the LC and in the books published about the cult's innocence. In THOSE transcripts are pages and pages of testimony by then Gov witness Rick McGraw. A person was meeting with Lyn, Jeff and Paul all of the ime who was called "The Major". The Major named Murdock or soemthing like that and played Lyn like a C=256 tuned instrument. The Major was presented as a CIA agent/liason to Lyn who would consult with Lyn about National Security issues and would relay Lyn's important multi hundred page drafts to "The Privy Council" which Lyn was now part of. Along the way, the Major would warn Lyn of many assination plots which he could avert, but that would cost money of course. There was no way the USA CIA could officially protect Lyn with taxpay er funds and since Lyn was so crucial to US National Security, he would have to figure out how to pay for it himself.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 212 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 8:03 pm:        The project was called "SOVA" or Southern Virginia and involved McGraw collecting cash to give to The Major. We also got involved in a land purchase where I was told he ended up with a Farm we paid for. The farm was a joint LC security / The Major project which used the cover of a farm. I was told that The Major came back to ask for more money to stock the farm with animals so as to make it a real good CIA/LC cover and not raise eyebrows. The grand total from THE transcripts shows that somewhere between 8 to 11 MILLION dollars went to this scam. Lyn and the boys were so delusional that they beleived that the CIA of Bush Sr and Cheney actually working with them in promoting Lyn in his Leesburg move to be close to the White House of Reagan! The defense strategy by Lyn it seems was to make these payments come out during the trials to prove that Lyn is part of the CIA and that the only reason he was on trial was because the enemies of the CIA - The British, ANTI SDI Dems were were going after him. Indeed, when I was in the LC I would here a lot of talk about how the CIA was going to get all of the indictments squashed. Excuse me for a second as I have to laugh hysterically after typing this. Lyn in essence gave what he thought was the CIA anywhere from 8 to 11 million dollars in a scam operation with tax free cash which not even a Hollywood writer on a coke high could imagine. Please ask your local NCs and THREE DECADE card table shriners about our work with the Ford election team. Then ask about how all of that cash was accounted for. Go to legal and ask for THE transcripts. As a bonus, you will find out about the cash we sent to Boston to repay a loan shark for money we borrowed to "buy" the 1980 New Hampshire prinmary. Of course what you read here is subject to refinement and change. Very few people have the full story and a few have parts of the story. Keep on inhaling those carcinogens for Lyn yutes. The weekly budget still has a section for certain cash payments each week. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 213 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 9:38 pm:        To refresh everyone's memory. Here are a few pages of our joint lawsuit with the Republican and Conservative Parties in NY State to overturn the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter. Ask the legal staff for the rest of this as it is quite a large file to post here. Then ask for the guesstimate of how much money we raised to help the GOP and how much LC resources Lyn committed the LC for this . ********************************************** Warren DONOHUE, Sandra Weissman, Valda Bramwell, Roy G. Vanasco, John T. Stewart, Nicholas A. Long, Lyndon LaRouche, the Rockland County Conservative Party, and the Labor Party, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF the STATE OF NEW YORK, Board of Elections of the City of New York, Secretary of the State of New York, Betty Dolan, and Hugh Carey, Defendants No. 76 C 2142 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 435 F. Supp. 957; 1976 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11966 December 7, 1976 COUNSEL: [**1] David S. Heller, New York, New York, Heller, Kleinman, Wray, Wagner & Tabakman, New City, New York, for plaintiffs; David M. Wagner, New City, New York, of counsel. W. Bernard Richland, Corp. Counsel for the City of New York, New York, New York, for defendant Bd. of Elections for the City of New York; Mark Schwartz, of counsel. David E. Blabey, Sp. Counsel, New York, New York, Edward R. Patrick, Deputy Counsel, Albany, New York, for defendant New York State Bd. of Elections. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. of the State of New York, New York, New York, for defendants Hon. Hugh Carey, Governor of the State of New York, and the Secretary of State of the State of New York; A. Seth Greenwald, New York, New York, of counsel. JUDGES: Mishler, Chief Judge. OPINION BY: MISHLER OPINION [*960] Memorandum of Decision and Order MISHLER, Chief Judge. Plaintiffs, who include Republican and Conservative Party supporters of President Ford, and members of the Labor Party, bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3) and 1988 1 seeking an order: [*961] (1) enjoining the Secretary of the State of New York and the Governor from certifying the Democratic Presidential electors; (2) declaring [**2] the Presidential election conducted in New York on November 2, 1976, null and void; and (3) directing that a new election be held. Plaintiffs allege that state officials, acting under the color of state law, committed fraudulent acts in the conduct of voter registration and the subsequent general Presidential election which served to deprive them of their constitutionally protected right to vote. Plaintiffs also assert a claim premised upon a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment, 2 arguing that jurisdiction is conferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a). That claim, couched in general terms, is that the ballots cast by legitimate voters were debased and diluted by the illegal votes cast by thousands of unqualified voters. ************************************************ Now you understand why we shifted people out of USLP locals into Republican/Yahoo areas of potential money in LA, Texas, Atlanta and went to Airports in Denver, St Louis and other areas to make Yahoo contacts for the boiler room. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 68 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:57 pm:        Wow, xlcr4life, I knew parts of that story, but not all of it. I clearly remember our raising money to get Lyn's half-hour ad on election eve against Carter, and then working with right-wing Republicans to try to challenge the election in a number of states, and our claiming there was vote fraud. Then, during the Carter years, it wasn't just Carter, it was the most progressive Democrats, starting with Ted Kennedy, who were on our sh*t list. Then, when Reagan won, and Judge Webster became, wasn't he the head of Reagan's National Security Council, and he actually liked LaRouche, until he was sacked after about two years in office, as I recollect it (I wonder if that was why, or part of the reason why), we thought we were really on the inside track. As the Sandinistas came to power in Nicaragua, I'm trying to remember how that played out, since Mitch Werbell was, of course, part of the anti-leftist apparatus, but I recall that we claimed to have convinced him to not be opposed to the Sandinistas, but it's all a but fuzzy. But then, in 1984, I remember clearly that we opposed Mondale as a fascist, and we somehow linked him to the FBI, and callted them both fascists. We clearly supported Reagan in both elections. And then the legal attacks came, and the trial, just around the time of the run-up to the 1988 election. Did we call Dukakis a fascist too? We clearly supported Bush, and expected him (at least, LaRouche expected him) to intervene and save him from prison. And when he did no such thing (what a shock!), the Security faction (Jeff, Paul et al) went into sudden free fall from grace, and the Catholic faction suddenly was elevated, Lyn went to Rome shortly before he was sentenced, attended the wedding in the Vatican of Louis duPont, and began relying on the Pope to save him. In the summer of 1992, in the run-up to the election, in the summer of 1992, around the time of the Democratic Convention, Clinton was labeled, in an article by LaRouche, and in the EIR and New Fed, as a "southern fried fascist." Clinton was not seen positively--I guess we didn't endorse anyone that year, since I don't think we were backing Bush--I know we were individually rooting for Ross Perot--until after he was inaugurated. There was some relatively insignificant thing that Clinton did or said vis-a-vis the Britihs, presumably Major, I think he was still in power--that LaRouche hailed as Clinton breaking with the British, and from that moment on, the "line" on Clinton became strongly positive, and it has stayed there ever since. No matter that Clinton was as strong a free-trader and NAFTA supporter as he oculd be (rationalized as "he doesn't really believe it, but he feels he must go along"--what hogwash), that he did nothing for weeks after the beginning of the genocide in Rwanda (or rather, worse than nothing--he prohibited the U.S. from letting it be labeled genocide so the UN was hamstrung), etc., etc. Clinton was straight DLC, and still is, but he is the darling of the LaRouche Movement. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 69 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Saturday, August 25, 2007 - 11:59 pm:        So, poor Molly got stuck in a timewarp, she missed the early 1993 flip-flop, and stayed a Republican, as LaRouche had been for 15 years. Ah, the LaRouche the LYM will never know. LYM members, if history is important, as LaRouche makes out it is, HIS history is vitally important for you. You have a good right to ask, why didn't these dramatic flipflops bother us, as we experienced them. But beware the answer. The answer is, we thought just like you think now--we simply ignored the evidence before our eyes, with the same rationalizations you have now. Wasn't it Marx who said that Hegel observes that history tends to repeat itself, but that he forgot to add that the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Our experience was the tragedy. With our experience before you, your time will be the farce, if you don't learn the lesson we are trying to pass on to you before wasting some of the best years of your life. Look, you only get one shot at this game called life. The less of it you waste in a cause you will later regret, the more you will have to realize yourselves in. I've got so many fewer years left than you have to do whatever I can with my life, because of the nearly quarter century I wasted there. Just to complete the quotations for the night, it was Santayana, I believe, who said that those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Please learn from this. And ask yourselves. How could LaRouche have gone from being a Marxist overnight during 1974 to hanging out with the far-right wing of the U.S. political spectrum, such as the Liberty Lobby, attack the more progressive of the Democrats as fascists, strongly support Reagan twice, and then flipflop and support the DLC member Clinton for 8 years? What sense does that trajectory make? And then to attack Molly Kronberg for driving Ken to suicide because she continued to back Republicans through 2004?   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 214 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 1:17 am:        The least Leesburg could do is publish a nice spread sheet of who got what and when via Lyn, Jeff, Paul, Rick and others. It is hard to figure out who got what out of the 8 to 11 million in supposed cash which was handed out. Between Carpet, Mr. Ed, Roy, Frick and Frack you need a Larouche Program to keep score. How about it Lyn? A program all of us here can support and widely distribute , free of charge. After that we need a local map of all of the Leesburg Real Estate properties Fearless Leader controlled via our companies which of course was lost when you are the world's greatest economist. This would be a sort of Beverly Hills type map of the Stars for Leesburg tourists. Still later we can reopen the book store on King Street as "Larouche's Believe it or not Museum". The feature could be a wax dummy of Lyn and Jim Bakker in a prison cell . Will Wertz could have a cameo as Lyn's prison B***h. Another exhibit could say: "Lyndon H Larouche Jr was treated for colon polyps and had his cult issue a press release that the colonoscopy in prison to treat him was in reality, an assasination attempt" "Believe it or not" Believe it, of course that was true . http://www.subgenius.com/subg-digest/v0/0088.html xlcr4life@hotmail.com (Message edited by xlcr4life on August 26, 2007)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 70 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 1:31 am:        A MODEST PROPOSAL I would like to propose sort of a non-competitive contest: Let's see how complete a picture we can compile of LaRouche forecasts, from the late '60s to the present. Since he is publishing that a) some Boomers are doubting his claims to have never made a wrong forecast, and b) that he has never, in fact, been wrong in a forecast, I think it might be instructive to all to list, eventually with citations as to date and location, as many of these forecasts as we can collectively come up with. Just from memory, I have the following to start us off, even though several need documentation and precise dates, which I don't have on hand. So, can everyone please comb their brains, and their archives, and let's see how many we can put together. And if all you have is a general sense of one, put it out, as I have done, in hopes that others can fill it in. So here's my list, which I know is vastly incomplete, and imprecise in some cases, but I want to start this off. • 1972: England was going to go fascist within the year • Early 1988, after the stock market crash: this was the beginning of a 1929-style crash, and this was put on TV in one of his presidential commercials • Spring, 1994: the total implosion of the U.S. financial system would happen most likely in a few weeks, might possibly hold off until the end of 1994, but absolutely without fail would occur before the end of Clinton’s first term • Feb. 28, 1995: the bankruptcy of Britain’s Barings Bank the day before was the beginning of the end, this failure of Britain’s premiere bank, the Queen’s bank, would bring down the whole system. It was a headline in the first issue of New Fed after Feb. 27 that announced this (can anyone find the exact headline) • About 2001, in the summer: a forecast that the “smart money” knew the big crash was coming, and they were going heavily into commodities, and that Weimar-style hyper-inflation was on its way • Early 2006, in the Jan. 11 webcast, he forecast an absolute financial meltdown for that year   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 71 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 3:02 am:        And while people are wracking their brains, I would love to tap your collective recollections of two more types of items that I think it is useful to list in as complete a form as possible. The first is LaRouche's list of enemy of the day (hmmm, could it have been modeled on Queen for a Day?). Meaning, the major targets of the day. This suggested itself to me on reading Eaglebeak's correct observation that LaRouche has no attention span. This is even true in whom he chooses to say is the evil incarnate at any particular time. The value in this list, for LYMers in particular, is to realize the absurdity of the entire list, since if it keeps changing, without warning or explanation, by the way, then clearly at any point in time, all of the earlier villains, who in most cases still exist, were evidently not the right guys to go after. If LaRouche was correct, say, to go after the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Society in the last 1970s, why then did that fade and get dropped, without any discussion of why, at some point a few years later? Surely they weren't defeated? Where did they go? Why did we drop our campaign against them? When the long succession of "enemies" is lined up end to end, in chronological order, I think a powerful point is made to LYM members. By the way, LYM members, surely you recall just a few short weeks ago how the campaign on the BAE was to the be all-consuming activity for the foreseeable future, the key to bring down the whole rotten edifice. Where is that campaign now? LaRouche doesn't mention it even once in his 50 page paper on "the end of our delusion." Neither does he mention synarchy, the broader name for evil he has used for the past several years. Where did these enemies go? Surely they were not defeated. So why did LaRouche drop all reference to synarchy in recent months? That ought to strike any member as extremely strange. Hence, my suggestion that we compile this list, to drive home how ridiculous every "enemy du jour" is. So, here is my best attempt. For some reason, I remember many of the leading enemies campaigns of the '70s, and some of those in the post-2000 period, but I am largely drawing a blank on the '80s and '90s. So please help me fill in this list. Here's what I have so far: Until 1973: Capitalism 1968: Ford Foundation, “poverty pimps” Jan. 2004-? Rockefeller 1974 on: Tavistock 1975?: Harriman-Ball faction 1975: Hilex 75 1974: The British Round Table (Quigley book, etc.) Mid-‘70s: Felix Rohatyn Mid-‘70s- ??: The ADL Late ‘70s: Trilateral Commission, Bilderberger Society Late ‘70s: Dope, Inc. drug lobby Late ‘70s: Carter Administration and the Party of International Terror (PIT Brief) Late ‘70s: Ted Kennedy 1994: Club of the Isles, WWF, national partks (as training grounds for terrorists) ?? – present: Congress of Cultural Freedom 2005: Leo Strauss 2005-2007: synarchy 2005-present: Baby Boomer generation 2005-2007: Cheney et al as the Children of Satan Spring, 2007: BAE   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 72 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 3:51 am:        My final request is for us to compile a list of the major "great projects" type of nostrums that LaRouche has presented over the years. Here, I see a different kind of interest. That is, it is here that I find, at least, some of the most positive things that LaRouche has ever stood for and advocated. Some of these projects still should be done, in my opinion. What's interesting for LYM members to see is how LaRouche cannot stay with anything for very long. No matter that it never gets done. It's one thing, and then suddenly, it's no longer mentioned, and something else has come up to take its place. So, this list, which will probably be much shorter than the others, is I think valuable first for showing how a) when he had good ideas for major infrastructure projects around the world, he dropped them for something new after some period of time, and b) how in some instances, his projects were really of at best of marginal value, or in some cases outright stupid, certainly as world priorities. Here, I suspect I have already thought of a majority of them at least, but again, please fill in what I've left out. 1971: Emergency Reconstruction Program (not a bad inventory of useful investments) Early ‘70s: World development bank Early 70s: India water project—linking all of India’s great rivers with canals Mid-‘70s: Great projects—India, Africa, Latin America ?? (late ‘70s?): NAWAPA (bringing fresh water from northern Alaska to Colorado R. basin) Early ‘80s: Kra Canal (canal across the neck of Thailand) Mid-‘80s: Ibero-American development program (water, rail and power projects) Early '90s: Productive Triangle in Europe Late ‘90s-present: “Land-bridge” across central Asia 2007: Bering Straits bridge Intermittent during 2000’s: US Infrastructure rebuilding 2007: Save the auto industry by converting it His project for India water was probably overkill, but some version is probably still needed; his project for diverting water into the Sahel is probably sound, at least in principle, since, if there is excess water in central Africa, it needs to get to the drought areas; the Ibero-American development program had a lot of good ideas for water and rail projects; the European Productive Triangle concept I thought then, and I still think, was a wonderful idea, a great way to jumpstart the economies of the newly liberated Eastern European countries; rebuilding U.S. infrastructure is desperately needed; as is saving what remains of our auto industry. Of marginal use was the Kra Canal, which simply didn't save enough time, and hence money, to make it economically viable; and NAWAPA was overkill, with enormous environmental impact and probably damage, but it was, of course, devised by Parsons company, not LaRouche, and I suspect that a mini-NAWAPA will be needed to bring water south to California from the Columbia River in Washington State, given the deepening drought there. Saving the auto industry in order to save the skills of American skilled machinery workers is also a very good idea. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 73 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 3:57 am:        The crackpot ideas are the so-called "land bridge" mallarkey, and this latest on a Bering Straits bridge. These two areas are about the least populated in the world. Why, in heaven's name, would it be such a priority for the entire world, to invest in a new southern route for the Trans-Siberian railway, and develop mainly raw materials out of the project. When 3 billion people are in desperate need of investments in urban housing, water, sanitation and mass transit? Why isn't a massive city building and rebuilding campaign not the constant of LaRouche's great projects, where billions would be the beneficiaries. I have never even begun to understand the rationale for this absurdly misnomered "great project." And the Bering Straits bridge, yeah, sounds nice, but realistically, won't the economic benefit be marginal at best? It certainly won't help hardly any actual people, since there are so incredibly few people who live on either side of the proposed bridge. So, folks, what projects of this type have I left out. I know I've left out several instances of calls for major nuclear plant construction, led by Marsha, and for Mid-east desalination, at various points. Can anyone date these, and help me with anything else. Thanks.   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 158 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 4:56 am:        Don't forget this year's retro forecast that the collapse has already occurred. There was a frantic mobilization c.1979 around the situation in Vietnam: we were told WW III was imminent, i.e. that thermonuclear war would start in a matter of hours. That would be another list: predictions of WW III. I don't think such predictions have been made since the eighties, but they were briefing fare as standard as the economic chicken-littlism. At least the Jehovah's Witnesses have only predicted the end of the world four times, so they appear a tad more rational than our boy Windy Lyndy. Wasn't WW III supposed to start in 1982 after the deployment of the Pershing missiles in West Germany? LYMers, if any of LaRouche's predictions had come true, the earth would be a dust bowl. The only economic collapse that has taken place is your own. If you want a prediction of your future, just take a look at your "boomer" comrades.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 215 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 9:18 am:        "If LaRouche was correct, say, to go after the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Society in the last 1970s, why then did that fade and get dropped, without any discussion of why, at some point a few years later? Surely they weren't defeated? Where did they go? Why did we drop our campaign against them? " LTruth, Lyn is very cunning in how he does this. The whole history of the LC is in LYN causing short attenton spans on THE MEMBERS. There are endless mobilizations which get dropped and repleaced with another and another and another. The only common policy seems to have been Lyn's transfer of cash made by his sweat shop boiler rooms and regions to several delusion dealers which feed Lyn's delusion habit. Lyn appears to be no different than a crack addict who needs to inject an everincreasing concentration of delusions into the corotid arteries feeding his brain. Like a junkie with an ATM card, he will drain the LC/LYM in a frenzy to keep the delusions going. As far as the Tirlats and Bilderbergs go. Consider Lyn's new friend in Italy, former Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti. Tremonti is a member of the Trilateral Commission and the Aspen Institute Italia. He is part of every evil Lyn had the entire LC organising against for decades. I will tell you what his answer may be. "See, I am now running the world with the elites" Key word in any friend of Lyn is "FORMER" in front of their name. ALL of what Lyn claims as his was found by the Asia staff when they read magazines issued by The MItsubishi Heavy Industry Group. http://www.mri.co.jp/E/ I posted a link a while ago where you could see where Lyn absconded with MRI's word wide projects and claimed them as his. Kra canal, Euro trains, Mid East desalinization, Panama canal, it's all there. Lyn and the cult keep their yaps shut about MRI today becuase much of its work is on reducing pollutants, global warming, recycling, green energy production and things which do not exist in the Bizarro world. In your list of predictions by Fearless Leader, do not forget a speech in Reston Va in the early 1980s where he said that at this very moment, East bloc tanks are crossing the borders as part of our "Global Showdown" mobe. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   realme New member Username: realme Post Number: 5 Registered: 3-2006 Posted From: 71.62.45.125 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 10:50 am:        Re: LaRouche's forecasts: The prediction of fascism in England I believe was in 1973 or early 1974. If I remember correctly, there was a coal miners' strike which left the UK with a shortage of heat and electricity in mid-winter. Then in the first half of '74 something happened at Heathrow. Maybe a terrorist attack? I can't remember, even though I "organized" in the street about it. And of course, let's not forget MC14-4 in May or June 1974. (Was this a precursor to HILEX 75?) Unless NATO changed some policy regarding missile deployment in Europe, there would be nuclear war in 30 days. I'm fairly certain that there was no nuclear war in 1974. And yet, when 30 days was up, we went on "organizing" as if nothing happened. Amazing! As for L's enemy du jour: don't forget the Knights of Malta and something else (Templars?) in the mid- to late-70s. Oh yeah, the Black Guelph too. Maybe we can get all this information from looking at the pathology report from L's prison colonoscopy.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 216 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 12:33 pm:        Ralme, at the time you describe us mobilizing about fascism in Britain there were giant NS headlines for. We went from UE centers, to plant shift changes to evening walking tours with NS featuring bold headlines about saving the British pound and why we must dump the dollar. The solution was a convertible ruble which would foster our "IDB" mini campaigner sales. The IDB in turn, along with the convertible Ruble would Judo Rocky's slave labor mining shale oil in Colorado, shipped there by the fascist Humprhey-Hawkins employment bill, which in turn used methadone clinic lumpenized inner city as a labor supply to make David Rockefeller and Chase Manhattan bank the rulers of the world in between the Rockeffllers promoting Nuclear war via MC14/4 first and later , after we stopped nuclear war, Hilex while in the middle of this Lyn was busy deporgramming Members in both Europe and the USA who were sent by the CIA/East Bloc to assasinate Lyn with Cuban Frogman emerging form the Hudson river to a NYC now run by Felix Rohatyn and BIC MAC into a new depopulated Manhattan, controled by a lesbian conspiracy led by Bella Abzug to stop Tony Chaitkin from becoming Mayor which led to the next plan to deindustrialize the USA by the formation of FEMA which then created the Three Mile Island meltdown which being in Pennsylvania , home of the Quakers began to plot the assination of Lyn via a secret telex to Venice where the Knights of Malta forwarded the message to St John's Cathedral in NYC where Margaret Meade recieved the call on a party line connected to the ADL which ultimately caused Lyn to send 8 to 11 million dollars to his delusion dealers who then gave it to the CIA which is why Lyn was now in Gethesmane on his knees wondering how can he keep this bizarro world going in perpetuity with a straight face. No wonder in Leesburg the way to call a mass meeting is to have it at a liquor store parking lot instead of the Sycolin office. The only other meetings with members is at funerals. Yutes, this is your Messiah, instead of inscense you can breathe in exhaust fumes and then worship at a card table shrine before singing for spare change on street corners. xlcr4life   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 74 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 2:42 pm:        I just discovered that I still had the original, 1978 edition of Dope, Inc. I had been consulting a later reprint, actually, from 1992, it turns out. Did we republish it at all in between these two dates, does anyone know? Anyway, the two books are almost completely different. The 1992 reprint is 50% longer, but is also completely restructured in terms of its chapters and major parts. I didn't take the time to see how similar some of the actual text might be, but given the huge variation in chapters, it appears that the later edition is virtually a total rewrite. I had forgotten that. Anyway perusing the 1978 version, sure enough, the Protocols item was there. So was a lot of other stuff that I had forgotten about. In addition to everything recollected so far on our enemies list of the time, the chapter that mentions the B'nai Brith was set up before the Civil War by the Rothschilds, and that in 1870s or 1880s, a group called the Order of Zion was set up by them. It then goes through the entire supposed lineage by which the Rothschilds created Hitler, financed him, etc. And here is where it says, in Rumania, there was a secret society that produced the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was intercepted by the Okhrana (czarist secret police) and published. Elsewhere in the book, there is lengthy coverage of a whole nexus of enemy groups no one has mentioned yet in response to my post from last night: the freemasons, especially the Scottish Rite, the Italian P2, the Illuminati, etc. Oh, and the first edition of Dope, Inc., unlike the second edition, is extensively footnoted, so that in principle, if some one had nothing better to do with their life, they could track down these footnotes and see if there was anything to any of this. Out of curiosity, I tried to see if I could find the Order of Zion on the web, and lo and behold, I was brought right into the center of a nest of Illuminati conpiracy buffs. I even found three websites discussing this stuff that quoted Dope, Inc., as their authority for the creation of an Order of Zion as part of B'nai Brith after the Civil War. But there were other Orders of Zion tied up with the Templars, and later the freemasons, and I couldn't find any reference to a U.S. group by that name in the 19th century. But, then, I didn't do an exhaustive search, nor follow up on Dope, Inc's footnotes. My reason for bringing all this up now is to confront the LYM members with the real issue for them: if the stuff put into Dope, Inc. (first edition), was true when the book was written, then it is still true today, the Scottish Rite Freemasons are still a major danger, along with P2, all the stuff about who backed Hitler (his latest take on that puts the blame on Lazard Freres and Andre Mayer, not the Rothschilds, as he used to do). So, was LaRouche wrong in 1978, and if so, doesn't that demonstrate that he can be off the wall wrong? Or if he was right then, then why did he drop discussion of these true issues? You can't have it both ways. Since he never claims that later versions of who "the enemy" is supercede and correct earlier versions, he can't be let off the hook this way. He simply quietly drops reference to previous enemies, and digs out a new one. Again, let me ask, what happened to synarchy? Even to BAE? There is something, LYMers, about this progression that should profoundly bother you.   howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 59 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 192.220.136.165 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 4:13 pm:        Is the "Conceptual History of the Labor Committees" anywhere online? I'm looking through old NY Time artciles about the Columbia University strike circa 1968, squinting to try to see any ghostly images of one "Lyn Marcus" (one brief reference to Tony Papert! Though I do see the two factions of SDS -- "Action Faction" and "Praxis Axis", as he named them... and why his little clique was appealing in comparison with them), and that "Conceptual History" I'd imagine covers his self-proported role circa 1974.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 217 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 5:16 pm:        Howie, go to the LYM web site and many campaigners and special reports are there in PDF form. http://wlym.com/PDF-68-76/CAM7410.pdf what is always interesting is which ones are not. Put on a bow tie and smoke a pipe when you read the issues for that authentic aura. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   earnest_one Junior Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 30 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 Posted on Sunday, August 26, 2007 - 10:15 pm:        Bow ties, pipes, and "that authentic aura" of yesteryear/wonderland? Drop some LSD too while you're at it. And say hello to Alice. Ask her about the frequency...   joesixpack New member Username: joesixpack Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 67.83.180.108 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 2:59 am:        hello gang...i am very much surprised that the kremlinologists here gathered have not yet mentioned a recent development in the larouche organization, one that may be most significant...those of you familiar with my posts may recall that i regularly monitor the audio file postings on the lym site, and over the last 2 or 3 weeks i am seeing helga promoted as never before...beginning with her august 11th appearance on the larouche show, she is represented half a dozen times: a speech before a cadre school on the 12th; an interview with jeff rense on the 13th; a speech to the ecuadoran lym on the 17th; a speech to a detroit cadre school on the 18th; and an appearance on the butch valdez show out of the phillipines on the 26th... all of this, mind you, solo, without lyn...in the same time frame no other member has appeared more than once in the audio files, and lyn, not at all...a situation without precedent over the last 3 or 4 years that i've been paying close attention to the group... and, of course, perhaps even more significant than helga's sudden omnipresence is the absence of lyn..not one posting since august 4th, when he addressed an la cadre school... incidentally, there are TWO postings from helga on that date, speaking before the mexican lym, one in english, the other in spanish... so what is going on here?...is lyn sick?...are we witnessing a new leader, clawing her way to the top?...or is lyn simply pre-positioning helga to be the face of the movement when the other helga, hillary clinton, takes center stage? your thoughts, citizens?   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 218 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 7:04 am:        It was Helga's birthday on Saturday. Considering how the yutes are not doing "Sustainable Delpoyments" and Lyn still needs to feed his delusion habit, cash is tight. You can give her a few weeks of the cult spotlight for no money down and then send her Gucci bags packing. I do not know if she brought her dogs with her on this trip. If she did, the yutes dropped down a notch in the pecking order and the food chain. Maybe Lyn will bring his son Danny to run the show. Nawwwww. Lyn did not put his kid through his cult of personality and the LYM, that could be considered child abuse by some State agencies. Looks like adopted son Jeff will be the heir and will face off against Helga for top dog. I do not think Jeff is ready for Helga's legendary beer farts to return with vengence. On the other hand, you could also have something called "Weekend at Lyn's" with a stuffed Lyn being dragged around while someone writes LPAC press releases for years. The technology does exist and we have it right here. http://laroucheplanet.info/memo_engine/nonsense_lhl.htm Just click on "More Memos" and you can post this as a LPAC release and no one will know the differense. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 104 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 74.52.206.50 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 8:27 am:        I found some interesting stuff on larouche and his former lawyer ramsey clark... he is involved in an "impeach cheney" campaign (see at http://www.impeachbush.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5054&news_iv_ctrl=1061) but also to impeach gw bush, Condoleezza Rice, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales! This is not the first time that larouche's ex-lawyer's campaigns coincide with larouche's... Remember the anti-OSI (office of special investigations) from the US Justice department? lar compared his case not only with socrates' trial or jesus' crucification but also with nazi war criminals like John Demjanjuk (http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1996/larouche_testimony.html)! Clark started campaigning (in 1986) against the OSI while defending war criminal Karl Linnas. This was before larouche's indictment! The org was then accusing the OSI for being a KGB operation to undermine the (larouche's) SDI. earlier in 1983-4, lar friend Dr Winterberg took the defense of another Fusion Energy foundation friend, Arthur Rudolf who not only was a key scientist at the Peenemunde/Dora nazi concentration camp but was a defendor of this cheap schachtian slave labor solution to build the V2s and the atomic bomb... R Clark was also the lawyer of Serbian genocidalists Milosevic and Karadic or Saddam Hussein dictator... and of course the lawyer of humanist genius Lyndon Larouche.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 132 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:22 am:        Joe Sixpack-- I agree completely. In fact, on the previous thread (LaRouche Continued 1), I had a modest post (actually, series of posts on Aug. 22) noting her sudden emergence and her appearance all over the place, from cadre school to interview to briefing lead to Amelia birthday saccharine, and wondering what had brought her to the U.S. -- I figured, as I think we all do (Joe Sixpack, XLCR, etc.), that this has to do with the succession fight. Helga doesn't have much to bring to the table from Europe--we assume--although some have suggested that she is still in touch with the former EEC/EC that dropped out last fall. So perhaps that's why she needs to be in the U.S. right now? She has to contend with Jeff, who has the U.S. NEC, such as they are (and they barely are) in his corner, along with the legal department (which I previously described as tiny but hyperactive--and certainly essential for whatever comes next). After all, without the legal department, what oomph would anyone (esp. European members) have in the insane battle the organization is waging against Erica Duggan? So maybe Helga thinks she needs to be here to shore up her claims vis-a-vis Steinberg. Or maybe Steinberg has inveigled her here for murky oneupsmanship that we outsiders can't imagine. Or maybe LaRouche is ill, which means the issue moves toward a crisis. As to XLCR's "Weekend at Lindy's" theory, this makes sense--don't forget that after L. Ron Hubbard died, no Scientologist knew of the fact for years (except the tiny inner core). For all I know, they still don't. After Lenin died, they mummified him and Pravda ran the banner "More Alive Than All the Living." Maybe we could get that on New Federalist--except Oops! New Federalist is more dead than all the dead. But they could put the slogan on the websites. Heck, LaRouche could run for President after all.... No one would suspect. Or care.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 133 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:50 am:        LaRouchetruth--the one additional thing I would say about LaRouche's ideas, or LaRouche's use of others' ideas, is that it becomes perfectly plain when you read LaRouche's characterizations of the ideas he is pirating, that he has never read a word of the philosopher, scientist, or other individual he is using. He uses the same words to attack the "bad guys" year after year, but the "bad guys" change in an inchoate fashion--so that today Descartes may be nominalist, reductionist, Aristotelian, empiricist (Descartes??), etc.--but 30 years ago, he was a breakthrough philosopher and scientist, with his insistence on the primacy of clear and distinct impressions/ideas conveyed to the virtually self-subsisting ego. (We can see why LaRouche might have been attracted to that. Cogito ergo sum, indeed.) LaRouche has always been very big on the Self, when it's the right Self. Other selves--not so much. But my point is that, while I agree with you that the same themes constantly recur, they are so misapplied as to be philosophically meaningless. In politics, to get on LaRouche's good side you mostly have to pay attention to him. There was a time when LaRouche was sending mash notes to Margaret Thatcher for her courage in blasting Europe 2000 as an anti-nationalist globalist plot. Honestly--go back far enough, and you will find his open letter(s) to Maggie. So I think there is less consistency and less "principle" there than first appears....   borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 63 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:36 am:        Helga's rise should create a market for the Teutonic impressionist on youtube. Funny I don't think anyone's ever done a LaRouche impression. If Helga's making a rise we should see increased polemics against American pragmatism and anti-intellectualism. I remember hearing Helga's proteges from Europe, like Leni Rubenstein, attacking American culture while praising European culture but it was always norther European or Aryan culture if you will. Lyn of course always hated the French, who he psychoanalyzed as being infatuated with "merde", just like he used to denounce the Hispanic and Italian culture as being dominated by the mother/whore infatuation. On the great projects, there was an earlier program to convert the war industry (this was during the Vietnam War) to peacetime production and I think Steve Frasier became a big proponent of this, although it was first floated by a professor at Columbia U. whose name escapes me at the moment.   borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 64 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:48 am:        xlcr4life did a great synposis of the Republican shift although he left out some of the momentous history. For instance, on the one hand Lyn praised Reagan's invasion of Grenada and used it to attack Mondale as a Soviet agent, while on the other hand he denounced the invasion of Panama, calling Noriega a Platonic humanist and defender of Panamanian sovereignty. Of course he was right that Noriega was a CIA asset although he made the DEA very angry with his drug connections. And let's not forget Lyn's support for the Peronists in Argentina during the Malvinas (Falkland Islands) War which became a focal point of Lyn's campaign against Perfidious Albion. However, he did raise an interesting point as to whether the Monroe Doctrine should have been applied to a British invasion of the Western Hemisphere. Of course, Lyn had a habit of taking what might be a valid point and generalizing it into part of his incredible web of conspiracies. The major break the org. had with the neo-cons though was with the Iran-Contra affair. The org. was correct in its exposure of this affair which involved key neo-cons like Ollie North, Adm. Poindexter and current members of the Bush Jr. crowd like Eliot Abrams, John Poindexter and Robert Gates. But in the NCLC universe, the official interpretation was that these were the bad guys surrounding good guy Reagan (who after all adopted "LaR's SDI". Interestingly, although Caspar Weinberger was also part of the Iran-Contra affair, Weinberger got a pass from Lyn.   dking New member Username: dking Post Number: 3 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 208.222.71.17 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 4:37 pm:        I agree with eaglebeak that LaRouche probably hasn't read most of the books he quotes. But I suspect there are two books he does NOT quote that he skimmed pretty carefully. One is "War! War! War!" by "Cincinnatus" (pro-Nazi promoter of British-Jewish conspiracy theories circa 1940--LHL probably borrowed the book from dear old dad). The other is Mein Kampf.   earnest_one Junior Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 31 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 5:00 pm:        Perhaps LaRouche can write the forward to a new and improved "translation" of Mein Kampf. This might bring in big money -- limited, signed, first editions. Maybe something with cartoons and lithographs.   boomersage New member Username: boomersage Post Number: 1 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 208.46.149.72 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 5:35 pm:        Friendly cautionary word regarding a previous post's note about enumerating or categorizing LaRouche's 40-year trail of analyses, predictions, prescriptions, betes-noires, icons, suck-up operations, etc., etc.: This process carries a substantial danger of producing vertigo, whiplash, or uncontrollable gales of laughter, albeit of a somewhat guilty, cringe-inducing kind, based on the feeling, How did I tolerate this stuff for so long, probably a good deal longer than I really believed very much of it?   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 75 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:45 pm:        Conceded, but if we can contribute to rescuing even a few LYM members from following in our footsteps by getting out now, or even help a deadender see the light while at least a few good years remain, it becomes redemptive and acquires a precious purpose. Speaking of gales of laughter, xlcr, you outdid yourself in your phenomenal piece yesterday, I was laughing out loud. Oh, and if you want some more laughs, check out the LPAC home page lead item entitled "The Focus: LaRouche's Platform for the U.S. General Election. Cut to the section, about 12% into the article, entitled "The Matter of Money." Read to the next section. Start paying especial attention as soon as you come to the short paragraph that reads: "Now, a new page in world economic history is being turned." The four paragraphs that follow are mindnumbingly inane, idiotic, impossible, absurd--words don't exist to capture the lunacy therein expressed. Gales of laughter are inevitable, especially if you have anyone to whom you can attempt to tell what he is saying. And, hey, folks, laughter is good. You see, even old Lyndy can do some little iota of good once in a while. I'll be posting on this soon, but I'd rather not spoil the effect of reading this for oneself the first time. My exposition is only necessary to help LYM members be able to appreciate it.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 134 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 10:53 pm:        Welcome, boomersage! The more sages among us, the better. Now, on the matter of Helga that has preoccupied some of us lately. Perhaps LHL isn't sick at all. Perhaps Der Helga (Das Helga?) perceived an opportunity for factional advantage in the fact that the ineffable Farzad Darui has hit the skids (he appears to have been indicted in June. Ooops). Perhaps Helga perceived that the apparent Federal indictment of Farzad Darui (that's Carpet to you) has left his proteges in the U.S. organization rather more vulnerable than previously (you know who you are, and pretty soon everyone else will know who you are, too). Perhaps Helga remembered that Farzad has been the Key Guy since Danny Murdoch and Roy Frankhauser and all those colorful people slipped away. And perhaps she saw that with his eclipse, she had a little leverage. And maybe THAT's why she's all over the U.S. organizational map these days. (She celebrated her birthday with a radio program with Butch Valdes, it is said.) And maybe THAT's why the U.S. faction is so intense these days. Maybe it's not just the Kronberg case and the Duggan case that are driving them nuts, maybe it's the Farzad case too, hm? And the prospect of the Return of Helga. Der Blau Engel becomes Der Totenengel, eh? For those LYMers who never saw that classic movie, I heartily recommend it. Fresh insight into the interesting relationship between Herr Lyn and Frau Helga. Get a Boomer friend to translate for you so you make sure to get the right DVD. Meanwhile, out at the house, creative fermentation proceeds.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 135 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 11:31 pm:        We have a little something sent in by Constant Reader. Another story of love across party lines, this one set in Hollywood. Only someone as cocooned as Lucky Lindy (or his aides and servitors) could possibly think the giving-money-to-Bush hypothesis works as a credible motive for suicide. Let's test it on the Sheriff, shall we? ************************************************** Anyhow, here's the offering from Constant Reader: Clark Gable's marriage in 1939 to his third wife, successful actress Carole Lombard , was the happiest period of his personal life. They purchased a ranch at Encino and once Gable had become accustomed to her often blunt way of expressing herself, they found they had much in common. This was despite the fact that Gable was a conservative Republican and Lombard a liberal Democrat.   boomersage New member Username: boomersage Post Number: 2 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 208.46.149.72 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 6:09 am:        Eaglebeak, Any attempt to help people ensconced in the NCLC avoid misinvesting more of their effort than they already have is laudable, but it's possible to miss the target sometimes. LaRouche's politics, of course, are and have long been generously sprinkled with folly, contradictions, opportunism, etc. But as important as it is to shed light on those, it's also important to keep in mind that the NCLC doesn't consistently and predictably espouse bad causes or spout idiocy --(though there are generous amounts of both and then-some); they sometimes make just enough sense to take people in and thereby makes themselves insidious (though LaRouche is almost never as earth-shatteringly original in anything he says as he implies he is). One of the issues, of course, is that given the nature of the organization as a whole, and its paranoid-messianic-apocalyptic ways, even when it's arguably reasonable or "right" in political position A or B, it's singularly ineffective, or even counterproductive, in its efforts. It's important because humans sometimes work in strange and self-deceptive ways -- for years (and years and years) in the LC, I mentally focused on what I thought was useful or insightful or positive in its politics and its work, putting (or trying to put) out of mind the other stuff, which of course I felt desperately powerless to affect. Only over time did I realize that the hopeless weirdness at the core of the group made it so useless, or worse, in pursuing the noble goals and policies I and others joined it for, and which kept so many of us cleaved to such a self-defeating enterprise for so long.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 136 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 7:26 am:        Boomersage-- I agree, and certainly understand how people in the org practiced "internal emigration" for years, having done so myself. However, it seems to me that, although the rightness or wrongness of the various positions is irrelevant for the reasons you say, the principal reason it's irrelevant is the viciousness that is shot through the entire operation--a malignant, bitter, and hostile attitude towards human beings which characterizes all the sayings and doings of the org, the internal as well as the external "polemical," and which distorts all the people trapped in its field. This radiates from LaRouche and never changes. It is the one invariant in the whole picture--other people and phases come and go, but the internal hatred/self-hatred remains, and can invariably be traced to the dominant figure, the unchanging center around which all else revolves. So it's not just that it's weird or ineffective/counterproductive; the Labor Committee is actively destructive of all that stray into its orbit.   earnest_one Junior Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 32 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 9:17 am:        "...the viciousness that is shot through the entire operation--a malignant, bitter, and hostile attitude towards human beings which characterizes all the sayings and doings of the org, the internal as well as the external "polemical," and which distorts all the people trapped in its field. This radiates from LaRouche and never changes. It is the one invariant in the whole picture--other people and phases come and go, but the internal hatred/self-hatred remains, and can invariably be traced to the dominant figure, the unchanging center around which all else revolves. So it's not just that it's weird or ineffective/counterproductive; the Labor Committee is actively destructive of all that stray into its orbit." Wildly and sadly truthful. Psychological disorders writ large.   borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 65 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:32 am:        Eaglebeak, I wasn't sure in your post whether you meant to say Lucky Lindy was cuckolded instead of cocooned although both terms may be applicable. It is true that we all found "positions" in the organization that we could support. Even after I quit I continued to read the newspaper for awhile until it stopped getting mailed altogether (I think I remember that there was about a two year gap between issues) because there were some xposes that I found interested. But now with the internet when there is a political matter I wish to dig into, I can find a wealth of independent material, although it is interesting how, even without using the term larouche, larouche sites will often come up on exposes of things like Iran Contra, Iraq, etc. Obviously today many people support ending the war in Iraq and/or impeaching Bush. Does that mean we have to join LaRouche, who seems to take credit for everything going on with respect to anti-war opposition or anti-Bush organizing? Absolutely not! Just like LaRouche used the anti-war movement of the 70s he uses the anti-war, anti-Bush movement today. But even during the heights of the anti-war movement in the 70s the organization still never had more than a few hundred members and I don't think ever reached over a 1000 members. At leat in the 70s LaRouche didn't take credit for ending the war in Vietnam, although he did take credit for preventing nuclear war a few years later during the famous Operation Hilex episode.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 137 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:33 am:        New developments in the Jeremiah Duggan case, as reported in the Jewish Chronicle: http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=54898&ATypeId=1   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 138 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 3:34 pm:        Remember how LaRouche used to carry on about how he, Clinton, and Pope John Paul II were the trinity that were going to save the world and eradicate all bad things now and forever? Constant Reader has sent in another item worth mulling over: "When people think they possess the secret of a perfect social organization which makes evil impossible, they also think that they can use any means, including violence and deceit, in order to bring that organization into being. Politics then becomes a 'secular religion' which operates under the illusion of creating paradise in this world." --John Paul II Centesimus Annus   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 219 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 6:14 pm:        LTruth, I really tried to read Lyn's Platform for the Democratic party. Yutes, I beg you to please run the xerox machine overtime and hand that out to the Dem Party so you can take over. Reading that I found myself constantly doing a Grandpa Simpson voice as it is something worthy of a "Tree Top of Horror" spoof. It reads like something where Lyn is in a nursing home and some underpaid employee has to sit through his endless banter about the world he took over for hours as her punishment for being late. I read the passages about building the Bering Straits Maglev and then extending it so that you could ship something from the USA to Africa via a Maglev. WTF! Just dial 1-800 UPS or FED EX or DHL and tell them you want to ship something and they will do all of the logistics for you and your company. Then I read about his problems with autos and it hit me like one of Helga's legendary Beer Farts during OktoberFest. There is an probable FOUR DECADE member who has sold more cars in the Philly region than any slick talking salesmen in the area. http://www.flickr.com/photos/devilboy/413762789/ This is a guy named Bob Fow I think who has been a street walker for Lyn since maybe the SWP days. He really has no place to go so the LC does need to be around for a while. The reason I say Bob sold more cars than anyone else is because he would be deployed on busses and trains for years and years. He would get on board and then stand up and announce the latest conspiracy of Lyn at the top of his lungs and walk up and down the aisles. After going through this I bet there were thousands of people who went out and bought or leased a car to get away from this. Fow is basically a harmless guy from people who know him. With out the LC and Lyn I have no idea what he could do by himself. Each region it seems had their own version and every day they got up for Lyn just as Lyn was going to sleep after another night of Rheingau. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 76 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:47 pm:        Oh, man, I haven't thought about poor Bob Fow in ages. What a shame he never found the right door out. And, irony of ironies, he was probably the only voice which couldn't be silenced standing up for Judiasm and Jews, and Israel, no matter what anybody said to try to shut him up.   earnest_one Junior Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 33 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 10:49 pm:        XLCR, Are you saying that Lyn runs a day care "facility" for boomers?   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 77 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 - 11:16 pm:        SANITY IS A RELATIVE THING--LYN WAS SANER THEN Xlcr, thanks so much for the link to the LYM site with the back Campaigners. They have the full text of over 20 of the early ones. The list, which seems to be coded by date, is on http://wlym.com/PDF-68-76/. You can even search for words or phrases, so it's not just an image, but searchable text. Anyway, I followed xlcr's link to Conceptual History of the Labor Committees, and it was an eye-opener. With the exception of its targeting of the Rockefeller family as the enemy of the day, and the whitewashing and downplaying of Operation Mop-Up, most of what is in there comes across sounding sane, plausible, and at least arguable, even if ultimately incorrect. For instance, LaRouche in the days before 8/15 (August 15, 1971, when the collapse of the dollar forced Nixon to float the dollar and wreck the Bretton Woods fixed exchange regime) talked of his economic research, which he claimed had correctly anticipated the 1957-58 recession, and the mid-60s recession, and he was calling for "the big one" for early in the '70s. Well, 8/15 WAS big, it really was. Now, LaRouche said the crisis was caused by the huge debt overhang, which would inevitably cause a new great depression unless LaRouche was brought in to save the day, whereas in fact it was caused by the relative weakness of the U.S. economy which caused the dollar to collapse--not quite the same thing--but we "LYMers" of that day could hardly be expected not to see the crisis as the full confirmation of LaRouche's powers of prediction and economic understanding. And even though I can't find it online, I recollect the Emergency Reconstruction Program pretty well, and it was quite down to earth--perhaps too aggressive, but basically called for some good, reasonable stuff--fix the infrastructure, especially our rail system, nuclear power while we work on bringing fusion power on, etc. Unlike the absurdities of today like the "land-bridge" or the Bering Straits maglev tunnel. And a great deal of what it says in that pamphlet are things I still would agree with, as principles of what is right, or what should be done. Folks, that's what WE joined, and it was a hell of a lot saner than what the LYM members have joined today. And of course, we joined in a period of "left" resurgence, in the sense of the socialist left, where you weren't taken seriously unless you were a Marxist of some sort, and in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed Lyn was king--we DID join the best of the lot, for the time. LaRouche abandoned us, really starting in 1973 with the run-up to Beyond Psychosis, the 1974 Rockefeller coup plot scam scare, and the rise of Security and the internal terror of saying anything unapproved--"you're blocking." Anyway, just a few notes from Memory Lane.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 78 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:02 am:        HELGA’S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal This issue has been sticking in my craw for too long. It’s time to lance the boil (mixed metaphor intentional). First, how does LaRouche get off praising the pre-1971 Bretton Woods system? That system was THE bad guy, before it became the good guy. (Psst, anyone notice when LaRouche first gave the Bretton Woods system positive billing? Late ‘80s? early ‘90s? I have no recollection one way or the other.) And for good reason. Bretton Woods created the IMF, which LaRouche still strongly opposes (though, come to think of it, I can’t recall having seen it mentioned for the last several years—surely, if asked, he would, of course, still rail against it, but curious how it’s dropped off the radar screen, isn’t it?). And it created the World Bank, which he also has always opposed. And leading into the 1971 monetary crisis that forced the end the fixed-exchange rate system, he blamed the Bretton Woods system for creating that crisis. And, don’t forget, the two leading protagonists at Bretton Woods were John Maynard Keynes, for the Brits, and Harry Dexter White, for the U.S. bankers. Two such nasty guys surely were up to no good. So, LYM members, you need to ask Papa Lyndy, was he wrong to criticize the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, and if not, when and how did that system suddenly become good? And if so, how could he have been so wrong about something like this. But he can’t have it both ways. Hmmm, let me guess: after the hard-right turn in the mid-70s, after the Reagan turn in the ‘80s, after the Clinton-DLC turn in the ‘90s, we come to the FDR turn of the ‘00s, and since FDR set in motion the Bretton Woods system, ahh, I think we have it. OK, down to brass tacks. What is it about Bretton Woods that LaRouche suddenly likes so much. Well, it appears to be two things. First, he is fixated on restoring fixed exchange rates. Never mind that in the 1970s, it was simply impossible to maintain them (every dollar of reserves in every Western central bank could have been drained propping up weak currencies in a matter of days, had that practice been maintained), much less today, with electronic transfers and where money is infinitely more volatile; never mind that that begs the question of what level to set them at: imagine trying to arbitrarily determine a “fair” exchange rate of every currency in the world with every other one—and every country would have to agree. I mean, really, close your eyes and try to picture a monetary conference, with delegations from 200 countries, trying to decide what exchange rates every currency should have to every other currency. If the idiocy of the attempt doesn’t overwhelm you, do not pass go, go directly to the Leesburg National Center, you deserve it (or a card table shrine in a region, if that’s your preference); and that’s just for openers—every country would have to set up exchange controls, knowing they don’t work; and how would it work when a currency gets speculated against? Who would prop up the currencies. There was agreement coming out of World War II because there was no currency exchange—most currencies were inconvertible in 1945—there was no general volatility in exchange rates, so it could work, for a while. In fact, every post-war monetary crisis was caused by the instability created when the currency of a major country needed to be devalued, and couldn’t be in an orderly way. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 79 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:03 am:        HELGA’S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal (Part 2) Second, is that LaRouche wants a venue where the leading powers get together and decide to do all the other things that he wants them to do. None of any of this has the slightest thing to do with Bretton Woods I. For LaRouche, other than playing King Knute and ordering the currencies to fix themselves and remain constant forever after, in the vain pursuit of the currency metastability that Bretton Woods achieved for 25 years, the call for a new Bretton Woods conference has absolutely zero, zilch, zed, nought, to do with the historical Bretton Woods conference or system. He doesn’t even call for a return to the gold standard (hmm, I wonder if that just slipped his mind?) What he does call for cannot be paraphrased. It must be quoted. Here, we are blessed with a very recent reissue, which bears Dame Helga’s ineffable stamp, of the Schiller Institute’s (whatever that institution is today—whatever it ever was) call for a New Bretton Woods Conference. Now, I say reissue, because on April 29, 2005, a previous version was issued (http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/otherartic_files/2005/050429_nbw_now.htm ). While the two versions are similar, I present both to illustrate the subtle changes over 2+ years. April 29, 2005: 1. There shall immediately be re-established fixed exchange rates. Just like that. Do they fix themsevles? 2. A treaty shall be enacted between Governments, forbidding speculation in derivative products. ALL derivatives? Including ordinary futures, such the ones farmers depend on? And by what legal authority will this be done, pray tell? And is there any concern that cancelling what the front matter to these points says is $2 quadrillion dollars of speculative financial paper might have some negative effect on the banks and the rest of the economy. Just a thought! 3. The debt shall either be cancelled, or reorganized. What a useful, precise formulation!! “The debt.” What debt? All debt? Bank debt? Treasury debt? What an utterly bizarro, flippant, cement-headed thing to propose. 4. Fresh credit lines shall be opened by the State, to create full employment by investing in critical infrastructure and technological innovation. By “the” State—I thought this was an international conference of many States. Just open credit lines, just like that. Snap your fingers, and poof, instant credit lines. And you’re gong to employ the entire unemployed population of the world on “critical infrastructure and technological innovation?” Given the guaranteed total shutdown of manufacturing production worldwide as soon as all the banks collapse after the financial system is shut down and all derivatives vaporized, this will represent nearly the entire population. “Let them eat infrastructure.” If that rallying cry was good enough for Marie Antoinette, it’s good enough for me. Except that cake is at least edible. Oh, well. 5. The building of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as the keystone for rebuilding the world economy, is the vision that will bring about not only a new "Wirtschaftswunder," (economic miracle) but peace in the 21st Century. Talk about “mother’s magic.” Kiss it and it will get better. Snap Helga’s fingers, and the Eurasian “Land-Bridge” (sic), presto changeo, becomes the “keystone” for rebuilding the world economy. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 80 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:05 am:        HELGA’S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal (Part 3) 6. A new Peace of Westphalia will ensure that for no less than the coming half-century, raw materials shall be extracted and processed for the benefit of every nation on this planet. So, hmm, it was really all about raw materials all the time? Yeah, wow, how did the rest of us miss that little detail, that all conflict since the end of World War II has been about fights for raw materials. And how, pray tell, will this come about? Will the countries that have the raw materials just give them away, or sell them, and if so, for what price, who will develop and extract them, and what are they, anyway? Oh, I get it, this is like the notion of the village commons in old New England, this new Bretton Woods conference, where the lion lies down with the lamb, and where every nation’s raw materials become international common property, to be shared how?, how about, “from each according to his work, and to each according to his need?” How peaceful. Oh, and just preceding the 6 points is the call to adopt them, which includes this gem: The world financial system is about to implode. Gross production worldwide stands at a mere forty trillion dollars, over which looms gigantic a bubble fifty times that size, viz., two thousand trillion dollars' worth of financial liabilities. The impending bankruptcy of General Motors and potentially, of the entire U.S. automobile industry, is but one of many factors that could well lead to the collapse of the U.S. dollar, and thereby, that of the entire financial system. Finally, I understand. It all becomes clear. I simply hadn’t realized that the size of the financial bubble was 50 times the mere $40 trillion of world wide production. If I had, I surely would have pulled out of the stock market long ago, while the going was good. Let’s do a little math, eh? Since this $2 quadrillion in “financial liabilities” is out there, presumably, earning someone some money—hey, otherwise, why would it have been created?---let’s just be conservative, and assume that the average interest rate on these financial liabilities is a modest 5%. Fair enough? OK, 5% of $2 quadrillion is a mere $100 trillion. Oh, my God, LaRouche is more than right. With interest on these financial liabilities eating up 2 ½ times the entire output of the globe, no wonder we’re in trouble! And, clearly, it’s the $2 quadrillion that the New Bretton Woods conferees from 200 nations will agree to just…vaporize. Never mind that the present crisis teaches us that banks get involved in things involving financial instruments, and if you simply vaporize every derivative, just issue a fiat that they have zero value, or whatever, the banks might have some slight difficulties keeping their doors open. Oh, and to guild the lilly, there is of course the p r e t t y firm forecast of an “impending” bankruptcy of GM (this was April, 2005). Close, but no cigar, at least not yet. Oh, and “the world financial system is about to implode.” I guess it boils down to what the meaning of “about to” is. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 81 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:06 am:        HELGA’S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal (Part 4) Folks, and especially any LYM members, have you eyes to see and brains to read, and to think about what you read? Don’t you see what this is? This is pure insanity, the most flippant, absurd, mind-numbingly moronic statements, just tossed out there by Helga and Lyn, as if reality didn’t exist, and the wildest, free-associated, superannuated delusions can be passed off as the latest gems from the oracle. This page is still available to the public on the LPAC website, folks. This is current LaRouche policy program. Only it gets better in 2007. As I said, you can’t make this stuff up. So, now to the new version, just posted on August 12, http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/08/13/schiller-institute-call-ad-hoc-committee-new-bretton-woods.html and explicitly issued as written by Helga, as the previous one surely was also: 1. The current world financial system must be declared hopelessly bankrupt and be replaced by a new one. (This point is new from 2005.) Child’s play, really. No need for details, here, specifics about how this might actually be accomplished, or what it might actually MEAN to say the world financial system is bankrupt—such as, what, exactly, is bankrupt: the banks? Stock markets? Derivatives market? Central Bank or Treasuries? Oh, and of course, setting up a new system, ask any toddler, how to do this is second nature for any properly educated pre-K student. 2. A system of fixed exchange rates must be agreed upon immediately. Carried over. See commentary above. 3. Derivatives speculation must be prohibited through an agreement among governments. Same as 2005. 4. There must be put into effect a comprehensive reorganization, or, as the case may be, a stretching-out of debts. Presumably means “reorganization of debts,” this replaces “cancel or reorganize the debt” of 2005. Phew. This, at least, resolves this one. Don’t outright cancel any debts, just reorganize or stretch them all out. Even the non-problem debts? Oh, good point, with LaRouche’s draconian program, there won’t be any non-defaulted debts, nobody will be solvent. ‘Nuff said. 5. There must be put in place new credit lines, through state credit creation, in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton and the American System, which will make possible productive full employment, through investments in basic infrastructure and technological revival. Same basic point as 2005, with Alex Ham and the Am Sys thrown in for dramatic effect. 6. The completion of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as the kernel of the reconstruction of the world economy, is thus the vision which will not only bring about an economic miracle, but also can become a system of peace for the 21st Century. Huge changes here. “building” of the “Land-Bridge” is now replaced by “completion.” And “keystone” is replaced by “kernel.” And, holy of holies, a down-draft of honesty, for a change, this L-B is actually a “vision” that will bring about “an economic miracle.” At last, we at least know what we’re talking about. Miracles. Granted, it will take more than a miracle to make the lunacy in these 7 points become practical, but at least this admission is a start. So, it was about “mother’s magic” after all. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 82 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:07 am:        HELGA’S TURN: The Idiocy of LaRouche’s New Bretton Woods Conference Proposal (Part 4) 7. A new "Treaty of Westphalia" must guarantee the opening up and development of raw materials for all nations on this Earth, for at least the next 50 years. Also “corrected,” no longer sounds quite so communistic, just says “open up and develop raw materials for all nations on earth.” At least that’s progress. “Nuff said” on the 7 points. Except that in the intro it says that this will be brought to all the same important personages around the world they claim that the 1997, 2000 and 2005 versions were brought to, supposedly, with rave reviews and support from “thousands of prominent personalities from all over the work, among them former heads of state, members of parliaments, unionists, entrepreneurs, city officials, church members, members of the military, and so forth,[who] demanded a reorganization of the world financial system,” which is hard to believe. Unless they weren’t actually shown the 6 points from 2005, just the principle of a monetary conference. Who knows? Actually, the 2005 version promised that it would be posted, with signatures, on the web. Since it’s not on the web, perhaps the word “thousands” is off just ever so slightly, by, perhaps, let us guess, 3 orders of magnitude. That seems more reasonable. One final humoresque: that Helga wrote this is also clear from how she describes, in the front matter, the state of the world today—this is NOT a LaRouche formulation. She says that the neo-cons of the Bush Administration, by their policies in the world, have accelerated by “decades” the “process of cooperation” of the nations of Eurasia and Latin America, meaning, they have come together in opposition to the neo-con-controlled US. But doesn’t that pose a certain risk to the success of a New Bretton Woods conference now, with Bush & Co still in charge? Not to worry. Helga to the rescue from this dilemma. Again, you can’t make this stuff up. The other nations of the world are asked to: “declare ourselves in favor of cooperation with the "real" America, in the tradition of the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, that America which is connected with names such as Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King, and which is inspired by Lyndon LaRouche today. America must be a part of the new community of principle of sovereign republics, which is bound together through the common interests of mankind.” Let’s see, if we can’t deal with the America we have, we will make up another America more to our liking, and deal with it. Hey, why didn’t we apply that approach when the Soviet Union was threatening us before 1990? That would have so much easier than dealing with the real Soviet Union. And it’s so heart-warming to learn that the U.S. today is “inspired by Lyndon LaRouche today.” If the news media just didn’t lie so much, everyone would know that everyone else supported him. If I knew any Latin, I’d close by simply saying, in Latin, “words fail me.” #   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 105 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.84.208.234 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 3:59 am:        Wow larouchetruth! Impressive, but I m afraid it ll go far above the LYMers heads whose economic problems are: will I raise enough money today to eat my sandwich? For them, thousands, millions, trillions, quadrillons are mere abstractions. The "real money" are the few bucks they might raise today... As for Helga's reputation as an "economist" who has the "miracle solution" ... again have a look at this, although in german, it says it all! http://www.factnet.org/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?4/33628 On Youtube, polls show she has beaten old lindy in the nuttiness category... As I wrote in a previous post, helga is now in a strong position for the battle for succession ... and will surely be greeted as a hero at their next iclc conference in wiesbaden this 15-16 sept.   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 106 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 70.84.208.234 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 4:01 am:        sorry, the link on helga was this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_4bgnfBLU   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 139 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 7:35 am:        The recent speculation about LaRouche being sick (or locked in a closet again by Helga) must give way to hard facts: He is replying to his email--for example, he speaks to an Italian economist of the "rapidly unfolding weeks ahead" (they're moving faster than usual in this crisis? unfolding more fully?) and adds that the crisis will develop "in phases." What insight! What powerful fermentation! So ein kerl! It bears the authentic stamp of LaRouche's thinking, so we must conclude that he is alive, well, and forecasting up a storm. But still, Helga remains resolutely at the forefront, with yet another conference call leading off the briefing (after LHL's history-making email, of course). Not only that, but the Ibero-American Labor Committee had a meeting some place where 15 people showed up. Watch out, world!   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 159 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 8:07 am:        I saw a guy locally pick up a pamphlet from a long-time "boomer" organizer, and it was only after a full three blocks that the pigeon tossed the "literature" in the trash! Times they are a changin'. As to the Conceptual History of the Labor Committees which I have also just reread, while I can see superficially what it was that drew me initially to the Labor Committees and that perhaps Lyn was not totally off his nut at that point, the following was just as true then as now: (1) the broad, sweeping statements which are never substantiated, (2) the pretense to universal wisdom whereby everything is related to everything else and Lyn assesses each thing with the truthful clarity of a god, (3) the LYING megalomania whereby he imagines his own actions and those of his cult followers as critical players at each juncture (a formerly favorite word in the NCLC, but the concept informs daily LYM practice today), and (4) the ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with Prince Albert (who belongs in the can) together with the childish conspiracy theories which at that point revolved solely around the Rockefeller family. I dare say that despite how they earned their money in the first place, the Rockefellers subsequently have done far more good for humanity than LaRouche could ever imagine having done. The elements of insanity were already fully in place, but Lyn was more connected to reality (i.e., other people) then as well as to socialist history than he is after over thirty years of isolation.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 140 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:09 pm:        The isolation/self-isolation is undoubtedly key to the deterioration over the years. This is a man who has had almost no contact with the outside world since January 1974. He is whisked from place to place in the middle of the night. When the Concorde flew, he flew to Europe in that sleek rich man's toy. He never runs into anyone he dislikes or fears--he sees only those invited, pre-screened, called to his house. When he travels, at home or abroad, only Security and perhaps a fraction of the pathetic "inner elite" of the NEC or the real inner elite knows--it's apparently a security risk for regular members to know. Want to see "Lyn"? Want to talk to him? Been in the organization for 300 years slaving for him? Your chances of actually seeing or talking to the great man are very slim (as will be shown subsequently in a posting). You may want to "brief" him on something of great pitch and moment--but if he doesn't want to hear it, you're out of luck. You may want to argue with him, to fight with him--Aha! That's it! That's why you'll never get in to see him. The challenge of day-to-day reality, the tremendous psychological pain of having to confront the Other, of being treated like simply another human being, is far too great an inner agony--and I am not speaking sarcastically here, I am speaking clinically--to be borne. That is why in the old days LaRouche did not hold jobs, but sat in his apartment while his partner worked to support him--sat watching TV ("Mission Impossible") and withdrawing from the world.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 141 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 2:12 pm:        That is why the moment he could use the events of January 1974--his creation--to retreat/withdraw forever, the world never saw him again, except on webcasts or TV half-hours or on a distant podium surrounded by "security" at conferences. If you ever get in a fight with him, Constant Reader, you will see that he has no idea how to have an argument with another human being. He is frightened--disoriented--by the experience. He may appear passive and almost apologetic. But don't be fooled. Later, when it's safe, when you are gone and he is again surrounded by the Praetorian Guard of those poor guys on "security," he will rail and rave and fulminate and vituperate about you--and not for an hour or a day, but for years and years and years. And what he says about you from the safety of his windy fastness, will have a far greater effect on your life than your yelling at him will have on his. For years this anomic, autistic lifestyle was justified as "imposed on" him by security considerations, the danger that "they" (from Rockefeller, as Sancho says, to Baroness Whoever) were out to get him and to kill him. Bu the lie was given to that in 1989, when LaRouche was led off in handcuffs to prison. All his followers (well, almost all) expected him to be assassinated immediately. It was the greatest disaster imaginable. Except he wasn't assassinated. He wasn't even roughed up. He wasn't ... anything. The Federal government, run by the "administrative fascist regime" of George H.W. Bush, didn't lay a hand on him. In desperation, LaRouche and an NEC member (who has since quit--no wonder) concocted a series of exquisitely embarrassing press releases charging the Feds with an attempt to assassinate him by colonoscopy. Even those who were deeply concerned about his situation could hardly suppress a giggle. But really, it was madness--they should have been rushing for the exits, not smiling to discover that even the great are "human." LaRouche's problem isn't that he's "all too human," it's that he is passionately hostile to a humanity in whose swirling, disorderly masses he feels constantly threatened. It's true that bullies are cowards. But what he fears is not so much physical danger, though he is frantic about that--it's the emotional and psychological danger posed to a fragile, brittle sense of self by the rough and tumble of the outside world. And hence his decades-long escape, alike from those who hate him and those who love him.   borisbad Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 66 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 5:40 pm:        Lyn must have gone conservative in the past few years, I thought that the driving force for the new economy would be setting our sights on a manned mission to Mars and colonizing space, not simply building maglevs across the Bering Straits. Much more mundane than a fusion based colony on Mars with fusion powered space travel within fifty years!!! As to the fixed exchange rates I was almost going to pose whatever happened to fixing the rate of world currencies on gold but he raised that rubric. Now does he answer how a world financial system in the hundreds of trillions of dollars is going to operate based upon a fixed supply of gold? Or perhaps we'll create more gold with a fusion torch. But we needn't worry about who will fix the rates of currencies since Lyn and Helga will be in charge and like the Queen of Hearts the value of currencies will be whatever they say they will mean. And I guess the same procedure wil be on how we prolong the debt instead of simply collapse it, Lyn and Helga can decide how long (perhaps using the Ben Franklin notes as their model for repaying the loans). Seriously though I don't think even Joe Stalin figured he could single-handedly organize the whole Soviet economy to carry out his famous five year plans, he had a whole cadre of bureaucrats who he could routinely order executed or imprisoned when they failed to meet the quotas that Uncle Joe imposed. Lyn doesn't even suggest who's going to plan all these new changes in the world economy.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 220 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 6:03 pm:        LTruth, in reading a summary of Lyn's yearly delusions I noticed something called "The Club of Isles". I vaguely remember coming across that years and years ago and wondered where I heard of that. Then pow! It hit me like a one of Helga's legendary beer farts during OktoberFest. On wild anti semitic web sites one can find praise for Lyn and the cult's theology of "The British = The Jews" . Try this one as an example. http://www.savethemales.ca/000447.html Looking further down the posts someone mentions an anti semitic book in Japan which Lyn's closest security staffers had a hand in. For quite some time, before the age of the internet, it was impossible to track this stuff down. But someone with a WABAC machine found a reference in a book review of the history of Japanese anti semitism where it jumps out at you. In Leesburg it seems that after the death of Ken Kronberg, Lyn has a welcome wagon of sorts where security chief Jeff Steinberg and Paul Goldstein knock on your door and sit down to chit chat. At first glance this seems a bit odd as Paul Goldstein claims to everyone that he is "out" of the LC while in the next breath claims that he is the man who made Lyn. When your turn comes up to get that visit from Jeff and Paul ask them if they can autograph a book called "Confessions of the Jews" which was published and translated by a Pastor Masami Uno who is one of the most prolific anti semitic publishers in Japan. Protocols of Zion, The Club of Isles, Satanists. I wonder if Lyn is channelling Henry Ford instead of FDR at times. http://72.14.209.104/search?hl=en&q=cache:-Vc6FYtG88MJ:http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_contemporary.asp http://72.14.209.104/search?hl=en&q=cache:5bEXija0umgJ:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D990CE7D81E38F936A35751C0A963958260 http://72.14.209.104/search?hl=en&q=cache:3-hoQkFTSBQJ:http://antisemitism.tau.ac.il/asw97-8/japan.html   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 221 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 6:04 pm:        I am certain that Jeff and Paul will gladly explain how close they are to Masami Uno and even share laughs about how all of them were involved in book projects with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as feature. Why if you serve some Starbucks coffee you might just get them to jointly autograph "Confessions of the Jews". If they both claim amnesia, just take them or your local leaders to this web site and ask for a clarification. http://books.google.com/books?id=R_PQLj2D1DQC&pg=RA1-PA231&lpg=RA1-PA231&dq=masami+uno+and+larouche&source=web&ots=VGBYl-kpFw&sig=Ha968_gz6u63xe8i_btbWq3p9n4 Why Jeff and Paul, those two wild and crazy guys might be so honored by you bringing up "Confessions of The Jews" that may just break down and do a skit for you and relive telling those famous 'Jew Jokes" from the 1980s which caused an Exodus of LC Jews from the 304 W58th St office. There is a lot for these two happy campers to explain. We need to make sure that we have our books straight as there is another one published by Victor Marchetti for Japan by Paul and Jeff about the ADL and Zionism. Who knows what else there is out there in this murky world. http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:m3IyTOiEDfUJ:mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty3.txt+paul+goldstein+and+marchetti&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us I and others are wondering if those two are planning a post Lyn party of sorts and getting their people together to battle Helga. Here is something for Larouche's Believe it or not Museum". "Paul and Jeff tried to convince Lyn in the 1980s that the safest place for him to be safe from the never ending assasination threats was in prison" Believe it or not. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 83 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 9:08 pm:        Get a load of this. Xclr, thanks for the link to "savethemales," it really is quite funny to see the kook right-wing conspiracy theory Illuminati, freemasons, etcs., networks using LaRouche, EIR, Steinberg, and New Federalist as authoritative sources for information they are weaving into their story. This particular instance sounds very much like Labor Committee of late '70s vintage, caught in a time-warp while LaRouche has "moved on," at least as to particulars. I recall the Club of the Isles quite well. It was first mentioned (and almost last mentioned--this one sank from sight pretty quickly after being ballyhooed as the mother-lode (or is it mother load?) of the enemy oligarchy) in the EIR in early fall, 1994, that was entirely devoted to blaming the genocide in Rwanda on, get ready, the Tutsi's, the catspaws of Uganda president Museveni, in turn controlled lock, stock and barrel by the British Commonwealth secretary, based on their use of a large national park as their training and staging area. The same EIR identified the large national parks in much of the world as the locus for a world-wide terrorist international poised to strike at nations, which was camping out in these parks, training in them, etc. And it was all led by Prince Philip, in his role as head of the World Wildlife Fund (you know, national parks, wildlife, get the connection?), deployed on behalf of the Club of the Isles, described as composed of mainly the largest European banks and corporations wielding $10 trillion (in 1994, this was a lot more than it would be even today)in assets. Well, I always intended (at least, until I forgot all about it), to try to research this "Club of the Isles," and find out more about it, seeing as how it kind of emerged out of nowhere, unlike folks like the Bilderbergers, Trilats, etc., who were verifiably real people. So, prompted by xlcr's post, I did a simple Google search. Well, over 700 hits, which I have no intention of checking out all of, but I went through about the top 30 of them. Bingo. This is really great. There turn out to be a few folks out there who openly cite LaRouche's stuff, like it, and weave it in to their stuff as corroboration. A number of these types picked up Club of the Isles from this 1994 EIR or a New Fed coverage of the same topic. Then there was at least one covert LaRouche online sales outlet, American Almanac, identified as tied to Suzanne Klebbe. The name is familiar, she was defintely a member, so she either is still, or was, and is making money (or trying to) peddling LaRouche secret info. Go for it, Suzanne. (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 84 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Wednesday, August 29, 2007 - 9:11 pm:        But what I could not find was any source that independent of LaRouche-linked sources, had ever heard of it. Then I found a site, interesting in its own right, called "Project for the Exposure of Hidden Organizations," apparently in Europe by its URL, and clearly not a LaRouche cutout. It actually lists information about a large number of organizations, categorized as follows: 1. Existence known, albeit in (very) small circles 2. Existence known, although it can be (and usually is) denied 3. Existence uncertain and possibly made up 4. The classic secret societies 5. UFO-related groups Three guesses which one hides the Club of the Isles? But it shouldn't take more than one. If you guessed number 3, you are right. Here is the notation: The only (vague) information about this group comes from EIR. It is not to be confused with the 1001 Club. November 1994, Executive Intelligence Review, 'The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor', p. 9-11: That's enough for me. Whoever, probably Jeff and Paul, or actually this one could have been Al D., since he was deep into sources telling him all about how the Rwandan genocide was set up by its victims, simply made it up. Out of whole cloth. And now, it has become a stock item of evidence in these nutwing circles, endlessly recycled, with a probably permanent life of its own. Truly amazing. LYMers, if you can only make it one day to the Big House (the National Center in Leesburg), and kiss whatever the right posteriors will be at that time, maybe you, too, can aspire to create an entirely fictitious organization at the center of the oligarchy's 3000-year unbroken conspiracy against humanity--and watch it thrive in the hothouse world of LaRouche's coreligionists for his particular brand of historical fantasy. Or you could head for the hills. Your call.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 85 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:37 am:        The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974? Part 1 Eaglebeak’s discussion of LaRouche’s isolation since 1974, combined with my own knowledge, and what I’ve heard over the years from others, provokes a really key question. I want to throw out the question, and then later, perhaps tomorrow, provide the answer that I find compelling, which if correct would unravel in a profound way that I, at least, have never heard suggested before, the real driving force in what LaRouche has become in the last 35 years. I have not previously thought of LaRouche as being cut off from almost all contact with anyone but a tiny handful of brownnosers for the past 33 years, in quite the way he (Eaglebeak) lays it out. But I did, more than once, ask myself, why doesn’t he come in to the office occasionally. Certainly unscheduled visits couldn’t be security risks. It takes foreknowledge and lots of time to plan professional hits. It never made any sense. What Eaglebeak added that I was not aware of, is how Lyn responds to criticism in private, that he acts actually frightened, disoriented. If true, that’s quite something. Not, to put it mildly, a match to his persona. But I do not believe that Eaglebeak is correct in saying that he was always like this. I can’t comment on whether he sponged on his partner “in the old days” and hung out in his apartment, nor is it clear which years “the old days” covers. What I do know, and some of this comes from first hand stories from other, older exers at the ex-member gatherings held once a year at Ken and Janet M.’s house in Jersey for a number of Labor Day weekends in the ‘90s, is that LaRouche prior to 1973 did b{not} hide himself the way he did post 1974, members could sometimes go back with him to his apartment in the East Village after one of his classes or a conference speech, even have a meal with him, he was relatively accessible, and of course, he kept giving his 6-session classes on Marxian economics, which, curiously, completely stopped over the same time period (I just thought of that one). In fact, that course was crucial to expanding the early followership, especially in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Boston. And, equally relevant, there b{was} an internal life in the organization, one b{could} disagree with him in a meeting, even strongly so, and argue one’s case, and he would argue back, but he really b{would} argue, unlike what Eaglebeak reports for later years. And there was no sense of disgrace, or fear, to do so. The internal terror of appearing to differ from the latest “line” that LaRouche put out, was absent. LaRouche was not the God relative to us peons, that he shortly became by 1975, neither in our minds, nor in his own mind. Yet, by 1975, he had become our God. In order to appreciate the issue, which I believe is really central to advancing our understanding of him—and us—I want to review some of the predicates of that. We all remember the basic chronology: Operation Mop Up was launched in March, 1973, and went on for about 4 months until it was abruptly stopped, in the alleged service of stopping the Communist Party from disrupting our NUWRO events. Around the same time, several brave members risked their lives to organize some genuine ghetto gang members, with some apparent initial success.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 86 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:38 am:        The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974? Part 2 But the most ominous development was the aftermath of Lyn’s trip to Europe, when he announced he had assembled the leaders of our fledgling European group, mainly from Germany, Italy, France and Sweden, I believe, for a weekend-long “session,” at which he had successfully put them through an intense psychological experience and by the end, had, in this crucible, allegedly helped them make tremendous leaps of psychological understanding and strength, based on LaRouche tearing down their old “selves” and helping them forge new ones (the specifics are fuzzy on what we were told actually happened, but this is close enough). It was called the “Munchrat experience” or something close to that, being held in a city by that name. The moment he returned, he a) promised that he would do the same with the members of the NEC and NC, and they would propagate it to the broader membership. And b) he began a series of writings, the first several mimeographed, subsequent ones appearing in Campaigners culminating by the end of the year or the beginning of 1974, with Beyond Psychoanalysis, the first of which, I believe, was “Mother’s Fears.” I don’t propose to take the time here to say much about the specifics. LYMers, the Campaigners are available on your own website, I imagine somebody still has the old mimeographed items, but they’re hardly accessible. The simple gist of the series was (and others, feel free to fill in what I’ve forgotten or overlooked) a) everyone was “mother dominated,” which made them impotent, both politically and sexually (not that they couldn’t necessarily get it up physically, but that even if they could, the sex they experienced was degraded), b) people needed to “confront” these internalized fears put there by our mothers in order to become liberated from their debilitating influence, c) the Latin “macho” was the poster child for the effect of this mother domination in creating a sexist, but inwardly insecure, impotent, person, and d) that that inner self was labeled as “little me,” the true identity that was too timid and insecure to face the awesome responsibility that history required of our tiny group to lead humanity through the present crisis. I don’t recall if this next came from LaRouche in his writings, or as repeated by his minions—I recall hearing it as coming from Tony P in a New York LC meeting, the charge that one was “blocking”—the perfect weapon for someone one or more rungs up the leadership food chain than you were, to put you down in a way that left you no defense. It was perfect. It no longer mattered what anyone said, if it disagreed with something coming down from leadership. Your argument could be simply ignored because you were “blocking.” This, of course, only worked down, not up. No one could get away with charging someone above them on the leadership food chain with blocking. That would be a contradiction, and would imply that the leadership food chain was not an accurate reflection of the relative level to which each person had progressed in his ability to “potently” follow LaRouche’s latest dictum. So, it became a self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating bit of trickery. All authority, all wisdom, suddenly flowed in one direction, down from the top, from Lyn through the NEC to the NC, to the lowly member. And it all happened very quickly. And it worked like a charm, because a) who among us wasn’t insecure about his sexual potency, especially if someone who “obviously” was ten-times more potent than we were was telling us we were impotent, b) he held out the (illusory) promise that “help was on the way,” just hold a little longer, and Lyn will reproduce the Munchrat process here, and pretty soon, you’ll all be way more potent than you are now.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 87 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:43 am:        Part 3 Now, overlaid on that was the following sequence of events: I believe that Rockefeller was just starting to be singled out as the leader of the enemy side. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that we had such a defined, personified, feindbild (picture of the enemy) prior to that. We had the Fraser frameup case in 1969-70, then the monetary crisis and ERP of 1971, then the anti-Zero Growth, Club of Rome campaign of 1972, as our leading focuses for activities, in addition to fighting for “left hegemony” in what remained of the anti-war and left ferment of the country. Secondly, in the fall of 1973, we were told that one of our leading Greek members in Europe had been being brainwashed in East Germany over a period of months by the Stasi, acting on Soviet orders, until LaRouche discovered it, and rescued the member, whose name I am forgetting. As I recollect, this coincided, for the first time, in identifying the Soviet Union as specifically out to “get” LaRouche, seeing him as an enemy, I guess because we had supplanted the Communist Party by wresting “left hegemony” from them, so we were a real threat to their leading asset in the U.S. But didn’t we begin attacking them and claiming they were out to get Lyn right about this time? I am a bit fuzzy on the chronology of one other thing, which is when the real ego-stripping sessions, the most notorious being those conducted by Kostas K in the New York and some other locals, took place, but I believe they took place starting in late summer and into the fall of 1973. Rich F was a particular victim out in Detroit, an extremely aggressive, self-confident field organizer in the previous several years, induced to have a virtual breakdown from which he never recovered his self-confidence. Apparently, this so obviously got out of hand that as suddenly as it started, it ended. But clearly, enormous damage was done to the entire membership’s ability and willingness to think for themselves, question leadership, or do anything but adulate Lyn. All of which set the stage for the most bizarre several weeks in the organization’s history. Which were arguably the “tipping point,” or “point of no return,” between the old LC, which might have remained free enough to retain some internal political life and not put Lyn on the pedestal that he mounted during 1973 and never came down from, and the new one, which removed all checks and balances from the now paramount Leader. The National Conference over Christmas-New Years 1973-74. Lyn’s opening address to the public conference, to which a number of members had actually invited their parents to witness and be convinced by their new guru, was a fiasco, at least vis a vis the parents. I don’t recall that many specifics, but it was like no other public speech by LaRouche then or since, being largely a collection of sexual references, of which I remember only the claim that policemen’s billy clubs were phalluses, and policemen in general homosexuals. We, or at least I, as best I can remember it, related everything he said to the BP campaign and “made sense” of it that way. Non members, needless to say, were freaked, not to mention grossed, out. Then we had, and I forget whether a session or two got cancelled or postponed, but we got the news, that filtered in piecemeal, that Chris and Carol W., who had been in England, had just arrived overnight, during the Conference, and that it turned out that Chris had been brainwashed over a period of months previously, and that when they tried to fly back, on a secondary airline, it was already in the air and was recalled for some reason involving them, the CIA and possibly the KGB, but that somehow they got back safely, and that LaRouche spent all night the moment they arrived “deprogramming” him. As I recollect it, Lyn did not return to the Conference, and the internal wasn’t much, as NEC members just reported what they knew.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 88 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:44 am:        The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974? Part 4 Then, on New Years’ Day, 1974, we arrived in the national office on 34th street, to be told to listen to a tape recording from the previous night’s NEC meeting, including Lyn. This was the first “morning briefing.” Within a few days, it was being typed up and passed around, and the briefing has remained a constant every since. But more important, we were instructed that the brainwashing plot was part and parcel of a plot by Rockefeller to pull off a coup in the near future, and we had to go out and leaflet the general population to warn them of this. I believe that carrying out such a campaign was a major departure from any previous M.O. This was a real critical moment. The first one, I believe, where any significant number of members decided Lyn no longer made any sense. I don’t recall how many left in the next several months, but it was far from negligible, including one person, whose name I forget, who’d been with Lyn since the beginning, but had been out of the country on some academic activity for a while who returned, but didn’t stay long. And I recall that I had real trouble believing the substance of what we were handing out. This wasn’t what I had signed up for. I don’t recall how I ended up rationalizing it, and how successful I was. I am certain I was highly relieved when we at least stopped the mass leafleting after a relatively short period. (I guess it worked, since Rockefeller never launched his coup.) OK, to wrap this up more briefly. As part of the Chris W. brainwashing story, we had the revelation of the plot to send Cuban frogmen and kidnap or kill Lyn at his apartment. I believe that was the genesis of Security. I believe that whatever access people had to Lyn up to that time, it became very much more rarefied after that. There were NEC meetings with Lyn, I believe, nightly, which were attended by designated regular members, one per night on a rotating shift basis, whose job was to take notes in order to write up the next morning’s briefing, and these were browbeating sessions. Ed S was a particular target, “Lake Placid,” Lyn called him, so I was told by somebody, but it wasn’t only him who was targetted. The final piece of the picture was the rise of Security. Jose T, the early head of security activities, seemed to be a ringleader, but actually, as I learned from him at one of the Labor Day get togethers, he was a lone voice of sanity, who saw right through the brainwashing, recognized immediately that Chris wasn’t brainwashed, and was probably just on drugs, and tried to convince Lyn to stop maintaining this story. He soon left, when he concluded that it was hopeless to try to change Lyn’s mind on this. What then happened with Security, from the standpoint of older members, is that much younger, newer, politically naïve or inexperienced, members, including people with no political credentials, who somehow managed to get assigned to Security—Jose’s younger brother Phillo comes to mind, but there were others—suddenly wielded inordinate power. The analogy to how Stalin created the OGPU, the ancestor of the NKVD (later the KGB) to intimidate the old-line leaders, came to my mind at the time, and it remains a very apt comparison. It all seemed surreal. But suddenly, one could get in trouble for an “errant” thought that deviated from “the line,” and be accused, not just of “blocking,” but of endangering Lyn. And there was no appeal, no discussion, nothing to do but accept the new regime, or quit. Which some did. From that point forward, in fact, we always had a “party line” in a sense that I don’t believe we did previously.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 89 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:46 am:        The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974? Part 5 From that point, in early 1974, I believe dates Lyn’s almost total seclusion. After all, he was under attack from the CIA b{and} the KGB. They had already brainwashed two members, and possibly more. What Eablebeak reports dates from this moment forward. So, I posit that 1973 was the pivotal year, starting with Munchrat, and culminating in what I’ve described as occurring in early 1974. A mildly “democratic centralist” organization which still had room for internal debate, and even criticism of LaRouche, became a LaRouche worship society, in less than a year. Ironically, the only ones, as far as I know, who ever disagreed with LaRouche subsequently were members of the NEC, such as Fernando Q., including long before he left. In fact, there was a weird period when he removed from the NEC because of his disagreements, and later brought back on. That is, a few of the NEC leaders, but only behind closed doors, actually spoke up on rare occasions. Internal conferences were rubber stamps for voting in whatever leadership “slate” LaRouche hand-picked, and nobody ever put up a rival slate. A complete “democratic centralist” internal dictatorship in all but name, where all wisdom flowed from LaRouche alone. And LaRouche himself, in person, vanished from visibility to members, except at the then twice-yearly conferences. He gave no more classes. He all but never visited the offices where his organization’s members worked. And, in support of Eaglebeak’s characterization of his difficulty in handling himself in situations where he did, on occasion, have to interact with real people in the real world, I want to merely mention that this accords with LaRouche’s disastrous meetings with foreign heads of state and other foreign dignitaries. His meeting with Indira Gandhi was a disaster, as was his meeting during the same Asian trip with top Japanese industrialists—those were, I believe, his first such meetings, but not the last. Details of his conduct will have to wait for another occasion. I have heard third hand reports of similar disasters when he visited Eastern Europe 6 or 7 years ago. I encourage others who know the results of any other of his high-profile trips to share what they know, but I’d be willing to bet that the pattern will persist. (And granted, he does make a favorable impression on a few people, but I’d be willing to bet it tends to be people who start out already so favorably inclined that Lyn feels adulated in their presence.) Andway, in the cases I’ve heard about, he shows absolutely no awareness of his surroundings, no ability to listen to the people he’s meeting, he is simply totally self-absorbed with his own importance, and spouts nonsense, or what his interlocutors take for nonsense. He does not interact with them. He is not really there. He is in his own world, his own delusional world. And otherwise, his only contact with people is with Security, and occasionally with NEC leaders. He never attends NEC meetings, even. Until Eaglebeak’s post today, I hadn’t ever put it together, and realized the depths of his self-created isolation from virtually all people, other than his scripted and tightly controlled public appearances, in the form of (until they were cancelled) conference speeches and Q and A from the floor, campaign ads during quadrennial presidential contests, and in the last several years, his webcasts, where he has only a small live audience, and all questions can be tightly controlled. And it all began at the same time that the organization was radically transformed, in a manner that doomed it, and doomed the possibility that LaRouche might actually achieve some good in the world.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 90 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 1:47 am:        The Great Divide: What Pushed LaRouche Over the Edge between 1972 and 1974? Part 6 So, the question is, why? What happened in 1973? I believe that actually, it was something that occurred in late 1972, in England, to which LaRouche reacted extremely badly. And I believe that it at least plausibly might explain everything laid out above. Any takers on what that 1972 event might be (or alternate theories)? Stay tuned.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 222 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:44 am:        The only thing which makes sense to me about 1973 is that Chris White banged Carol so hard in England that she saw stars besides Big Ben every night. Lyn Marcus became Lyn Who? And the rest is history as they say. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 223 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 6:19 pm:        People have often wondered why Lyn spends so much time hating and despising mothers, strong women , feminists and any female who does not prostrate her self to worship the ground he walks on. I thought about that and what happened to his first wife Janice. From all accounts I read it seems that Janice pulled the load while Lyn was a load in a NYC apt writing 200 page documents for the SWP to throw away. That seems to be a skill to this day which Sancho observed in NYC recently. Lyn must have been such an influence on his ex wife that she became a pretty successful part of the woman's rights movement, a role she may have found when Lyn left the premises. Could there be any connection between lyn's endless spewing of hate in those early Campaigners about Mothers and feminists and his personal life? This was in a local Montclair NJ newspaper last year. http://www.parentpaper.com/link2pubs/montclairtimes/page.php?page=13479 Here is an exerpt for people to read: ************************************************* The author of Janice LaRouche’s Strategies for Women at Work, printed in 12 countries, Janice LaRouche is a ca-reer counselor who has been featured in the New York Times and in such diverse magazines as Forbes Magazine, Glamour and Cosmopolitan. She was a columnist for Family Circle and McCall’s and has been interviewed on ABC-TV and CBS Radio. LaRouche spent all of her adult life living in Manhattan before moving to Montclair three years ago. “I love living here and, happily, everything I need is in close proximity. It’s like New York. I can walk to the public library where I’m involved with a wonderful writer’s critique group and have made some very good friends.” Back in the 1970s and 1980s, thousands of women were part of LaRouche’s women’s consciousness-raising, ca-reer strategies and assertiveness training groups that sometimes ran morning, noon and night in her New York City apartment. “As part of the Women’s Movement, we fought to change laws and c ustoms, to change the objective reality of our sexist society into an egalitarian society,” said LaRouche. “To an impressive extent, we did. A new national con-sciousness swept the country: the concept of women as equals in a relatively brief few years was accepted into the mainstream.” “But over the last couple of decades, many of these issues faded into the background because of a feminist backlash and political forces that have greatly diminished the movement and have pushed back many of the gains women have made in our society.” LaRouche says that she is planning future groups to provide the effective tools, techniques and strategies that women can utilize in every aspect of their lives. Mary Kay Rosteck is a Montclair resident. ********************************************** For the yutes, reading the LYM cadre school reports it seems that the best thing a yute could do for the cult is be willing to take some flames for Lyn. Really, just read some of the stuff from Debbie and the messed up yutes . This stuff is real CREEPY. I guess this had to be done before you sent out the yutes to inhale daily doses of carcinogens and toxic smoke for Lyn at intersections. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 160 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:06 pm:        What a steep downgrade from Janice to Der Helga. Glad to see Ms. LaRouche is far more successful than her erstwhile manchild.   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 107 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 66.98.162.34 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:07 pm:        Sex & politics 1 larouchetruth/ eaglebeak these pages on larouche and the evolution of the org since 73-74 is very fascinating... The “Munchrat experience” was a defining moment in the LC history. I remember once attending an iclc conf in Europe where some European memebrer complained about this “Munchrat” thing, obviously feeling cast away from the European leadership... Gabrielle Liebig answered: "But WE are “Munchrat”..." meaning the EEC. Now this “Munchrat gang” were ousted last November! There is this other fascinating document from L Marcus: THE POLITICS OF MALE IMPOTENCE - (NCLC Internal Discussion- Aug. 16 1973) that can be read at http://www.publiceye.org/larouche/more_quotes.html. This summarizes it all. My point is this: from that time on, Lar has associated SEX and POLITICS. Today if one looks at some of the slogans used by the LYM-ers or even one is trying to engage a discussion, soon enough they ll attack you on your sexuality! There is something we don’t talk much about and I need more info on that: it's the relationship between larouche and Fred NEWMAN. According to the “ex-IWP” website (http://www.ex-iwp.org/fn008.php) they met in the mid-60s at the Alternative University. Newman officially joined the NCLC in ’73. Was he behind the scenes (as a “psy” consultant?) when lyn wrote his BP and started the ego-stripping sessions? Dennis King has a lot of info on these two characters. In his book LL&NAF he wrote (in the “Manchourian candidate scare” chapter): “That LaRouche knew exactly what he was doing was charged by Dr. Fred Newman, a Stanford University-trained logician-turned-Marxist-activist who worked with the NCLC during the Manchurian Candidate Scare. Newman was the author of Explanation by Description (1968), a study of how we believe what we believe. After splitting with the NCLC in mid-1974, he wrote a pamphlet analyzing how LaRouchians believe what LaRouchians believe. He charged that LaRouche had a "systematic plan" to transform his followers' ordinary middle-class values into an explicitly fascist consciousness, chiefly through the generating of an artificial paranoia at every level of the organization. (Newman went on to build his own political cult, the New Alliance Party, which through the years has mimicked LaRouche's tactics to an uncanny degree.)”   shadok Intermediate Member Username: shadok Post Number: 108 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 66.98.162.34 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:27 pm:        Sex & politics 2 I have the impression that lyn became a “beyond psycho-analyst” under Newman’s impulse or influence. (Otherwise, where did lyn caught this “psy bug“ from?? …not from Hegel or Feuerbach for sure!) Now, what is also fascinating is lyn’s obsession with “male impotence”… Knowing the guy, to me it seems to be a defensive line, maybe reflecting his own private life and insecurity. Could the fact Chris White “stole” his wife have triggered a deep hatred against this British (hence his “deprogramming” as a revenge?), and from there he developed an Apocalyptic world where ALL the British are conspiring against HIM? This “British-dominated” Weltanschauung started in 1976-77. This was also the time he was under the influence of Willis Carto and his Liberty Lobby. Now lar's anti-British obsession irritated Carto et al. For them the “problem” was the Jews and the Jews only… However, what fascinates me is how close and intimate Carto and larouche may have been… Not only lar espouses Carto’s revisionist ideas, he was also inspired by A Rosenberg’s “Myth of the 20th Century” published by Carto (where there are so many familiarities with the post’77 org new ideology), etc When they met, probably in 1975, Carto began the publication of The SPOTLIGHT and in 1979 he founded the Institute for Historical Review, which sounds a bit like… Executive Intelligence Review. Maybe a coincidence. Fascinating is the fact Carto’s wife is… German! When did lyn start dating with Helga? I just wonder how much larouche’s private (sexual) life has determined his “political views”. So, it seems to me that larouche was more influenced by certain shadowy figures like Newman or Carto than, say Plato or Leibniz... that his private life has determined much of the history of the LCs... as Dino has suggested in his Open letter to the ICLC (see previous posts from xlcr) After Eaglebeak's very interesting comment about larouche's asocial life and isolation: in such a situation, private (sexual) life becomes VERY important indeed. The World becomes a fantasy. It would make sense.   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 161 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 7:58 pm:        "So, it seems to me that larouche was more influenced by certain shadowy figures like Newman or Carto than, say Plato or Leibniz ..." Absolutely correct, not to mention by historical cranks like Alfred Rosenberg and the pushers of the Atlantis myth. LYMers should take careful note. Sancho_Everyman@hotmail.com   kheris New member Username: kheris Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 76.197.249.85 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:04 pm:        Has anyone seen the most recent Washington Monthly? The new one is out, and I am curious as to whether Avi Klein's article got published. It doesn't appear to be on the website.   howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 60 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 192.220.136.193 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 8:38 pm:        I think you will know when the Washington Monthly article comes out, and won't have to ask. No... September is the annual "college ranking" and assorted material issue for Washington Monthly. Next best guess is... October issue?   kheris New member Username: kheris Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 76.197.249.85 Posted on Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 9:45 pm:        The suspense is almost killing me.   howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 61 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.57.126.19 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 12:24 pm:        Hm... http://youtube.com/watch?v=aG6MUBAkFQg Yeah, that dastardly Dutch-Anglo "Grain Cartel"...   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 91 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 1:08 pm:        Howie, what a find!! To think that I certainly saw that, and worse (or rather, more that was equally insane), and didn't leave on the spot, is somewhat disconcerting. And the connection between the KGB, the "left social democrats" (whoever they are, and of what nationality(ies) ), and the grain cartels, is, exactly, what, again?? In hopes of finding some other gems, I just put in Lyndon LaRouche to Youtube's search, and most of what came up, some of what appears to have been put in by them ("senior statesman Larouche..."), was longer than I have to time to look at right now, but a short item came up that is too priceless not to pass on. http://youtube.com/watch?v=Csp24j-fcyU This is 26 second snippet from the Sept. 6, 2006, webcast, on the boomers. I won't spoil your fun by preempting it, but will only say, right, coming from someone whose organization has had, exactly, what policy, on their boomer members having children? And forcing them to have abortions? And he can stand there and slander them with this disgusting lie (which he's repeated in a number of other webcasts) that boomers don't care about their children? And the audience doesn't jump up and run screaming out of the room? More on LaRouche's Boomharangue later tonight, I hope.   howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 62 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 192.220.136.93 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 5:34 pm:        http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/08/29/italian-magazine-exposes-john-trains-anti-larouche-slander-c.html Okay. Help me out here. What is this? http://www.lavocedellacampania.it/   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 224 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 6:32 pm:        Tales from the Bunker, er Basement in the last days I guess having the Avi Klein article come out in October is part of an October surprise of sorts. October also is the time for Halloween and Oktoberfest, two things dear to Leesburg. In Europe, some of the Security people are getting ready for escorting Helga to OktoberFest and are taking precautions to handle her legendary beer farts. Just take a look at the new uniforms Helga's detail have just bought and are testing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10571802@N08/sets/72157601006982963/show/ Halloween is also a big deal and we have a real big problem in Leesburg bewteen Jeff and Al. Since today is the 10th anniversary of Lady Di's death, both wanted to dress up like Lady Di for the occasion. This turned into a real cat fight as Al told Jeff that he deserves to wear the Lady Di costume because he was the one who made some money of of it. Jeff countered that he is the one who does the media interviews, is an NEC member and if all goes well, will be the boss when Lyn bites the dust. Al had nothing to offer and grumbled that he was going to make himself a Dodi Fayed costume. The nightly NEC meetings with Lyn may me turning into a cruel joke of sorts. The only depression going on is within the cult of personality sycophants who will follow Admiral Larouche straight to the bottom. Either that or someones words are being garbled by the Rhiengau . Take a look at this upcoming EIR cover and notice a few things. http://www.larouchepub.com/eirtoc/2007/eirtoc_3433-34.html The last time we had Goya on the cover of something was in the Beyond Psych days when Lyn was particularly crazed and the LC was being put through intensive insanity. Something else looked funny. Take a view of the language written here and figure out what drop out from basic English 101 wrote this sentence. "Instead of the delusions of many, the only concern of people who are still capable of reacting sanely to the present crisis is, LaRouche states, "how to dump the present world monetary-financial system, and quickly replace it with an echo of the original Bretton Woods system."" But wait, there's more! (Message edited by xlcr4life on August 31, 2007)   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 225 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 6:34 pm:        Look at the EIR cover from a distance and notice that this reads like a declaration and Confession of Lyn to everyone as he is getting ready to say goodbye. "The State of our union The end of our delusion" The Goya art work is called "Cheerful Fools" OMG!, Lyn put the LYM on the cover and told them outright that this is all a bad joke. Yutes, I do not think that you print anymore EIRs, you just email them. Can someone print that cover up and pose with it for a picture nest to a card table shrine? That would make a great cover picture for more articles on the cult. You can't get more goofy than that. I did find out that there is a rationale explanation for all of this. You see at the NEC meeting Lyn began to pound the table and yap about how he is under attack by Al Gore via the internet through Rupert Murdoch. Lyn began to scream "Look what we are doing to Al Gore. He is desperate. " and "By the way Nancy, I want that Disperate Alegre by Goya on the next cover of EIR. The LYM members at the meeting, clueless as usual thought that Lyn said "I want that desperate Al Gore guy on the next cover of EIR". Unbeknowst to the LYM, the joke is on them and they do not yet get it. xlcr4life@hotmail.com   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 142 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 10:57 pm:        Howie-- I don't know what the Voice of the Country/Countryside/Campania is, but the author of the article you asked about, Claudio Celani, is a bitter-ender or dead-ender or whatever, an Italian national, who lives in Wiesbaden and works in the Wiesbaden LaRouche org "center." He has been the author of a few other startling exposes (sic) over the years, and is also a cartoonist for LaRouche publications. Wait! Are there any LaRouche publications?! Well, when there were, he was. Meanwhile, LaRouche's obsessions about John Train also found expression recently in this psychedelic offering from LaRouche and LPAC: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/08/30/larouche-urges-caution-russian-train-salon-speculation.html   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 143 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Friday, August 31, 2007 - 10:58 pm:        Here's the text of LaRouche-on-Train: LaRouche Urges Caution on Russian "Train Salon" Speculation August 30, 2007 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche today urged caution, in attempting to sort out the complicated circumstances, surrounding the murders of a number of prominent Russian and Russian-based journalists. LaRouche was responding to reports from several well-placed U.S. intelligence sources, who said that some of the journalists who have been lionized by the John Train Foundation and like-minded Anglo-American spook circles, were not, during their lifetimes, necessarily "Train salon" assets. The sources singled out two murdered journalists, Anna Politkovskaya and Paul Klebnikov. Politkovskaya was gunned down outside of her Moscow apartment in Oct. 2006. She was the recipient of a John Train "civil courage" award shortly before her murder, and the British media, led by the London Economist, has tried repeatedly (as recently as the Aug. 30, 2007 issue of The Economist) to link her assassination to her critical coverage of President Vladimir Putin. However, sources reported that she was working on many other stories at the time and during her career, and such simple-minded links are always wrong. Paul Klebnikov, who was the Moscow bureau chief of Forbes magazine, was assassinated in July 2004. He devoted much of his work to exposing the Chechen separatists. Klebnikov was married to John Train's daughter. He, too, the sources cautioned, was not necessarily a part of the Train project democracy efforts, and was a highly respected Moscow-based reporter and editor. Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that such cautionary notes are of particular importance at this moment, given the British oligarchy's hysterical campaign to drive a wedge between the United States and Russia. One senior U.S. intelligence official noted that, if the U.S.-Russian strategic partnership, proposed by President Putin at Kennebunkport, is adopted as U.S. policy, it will lead to continental Europe also opening up deeper collaboration with Russia--and "this will finish off the British." Lyndon LaRouche agreed, emphasizing that the U.S.-Russia partnership is an existential issue for the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy, and they will go to any length to stop it. Sensitive issues, like the Politkovskaya and Klebnikov murders, in this context, must be treated with a cautionary note. LaRouche said: follow the facts of the cases, but do not jump to hasty conclusions. Just because John Train tries to exploit these two murders for an Anglo-Dutch "new Cold War" political agenda does not mean that people have to be stupid enough to take it on face value. ************************************************* Jeepers. Since LaRouche has already accused Dennis King and Avi Klein of being part of the "Train salon" of journalists, what should we interpret this outburst as? A threat? Or just another case of LaRouche blowing smoke (or smoking blow)?   howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 63 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.57.126.19 Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 3:02 pm:        Here's something depressing. http://ibykus.blogspot.com/2007/08/slandered-by-own-father.html   earnest_one Junior Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 34 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 Posted on Saturday, September 01, 2007 - 6:11 pm:        "I am part of the LaRouche Youth Movement & the more I see such idiocy in society, the more I realize that Lyndon LaRouche was right. For more info..." LL is/was always right. It is an axiom, proposed by Kepler. Remember: Lyn successfully predicted the outcome of a coin flip 594,375,820,001,1593 times in a row. What more needs to be said? He is above all possible reproach. Everything boils down to ignoring statistics and concentrating on world historical events. Pick your favorate flavor of Kool Aid. Choose something sensible, something that brings joy to the palette. Then drink until the white light calls you home.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 92 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 12:35 am:        Loopy Lyndy's Latest Lunacy Folks, the cavalry has arrived, help is on the way, Loopy Lyndy has made a 10-minute address to the nation, on his website. I kid you not, he has issued a rallying cry for people in their millions to rise up and demand that Congress pass his emergency legislation to prevent the New New Dark Age from starting in September. Now, I couldn't get the video link to work, so I had to content myself with the transcript version. But to hear him tell it, the bill, the The Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007 http://larouchepac.com/files/pdfs/070822_save_homeowners_banks.pdf, must be passed by no later than the end of September, or all hell will break lose, and then get worse, starting on October 1. Which means, in the unlikely, but still possible, scenario in which both houses of Congress do not pass veto-proof versions of LaRouche's bill by September 30, that we will have an airtight prediction to hold old Lyndy, and his followers, to. If, God forbid, the bill is not passed, and we collectively take that gamble that LaRouche is wrong and this is the not financial crisis to end all financial crises, which requires putting all banks under Federal government "protection," freezing all mortgages until the values of the properties decline to their true worth and all derivatives are gone, etc., we can all hold our breath as Sept. 30 passes over into October 1. And if nothing happens, I propose we can afford to be generous, and we can give Lyndy days, perhaps even a few weeks, for the dire consequences of failing to pass this bill by the end of September to manifest themselves. If he's right, he's right. And if he's wrong, and nothing much happens in October that was much different than whatever happens in September, then we will have a real-time "crucial experiment" on the validity of Loppy Lyndy's prognostications, predictions and other species of buncombe and baloney. So, let the forecasts begin. The new speech, video, if you can make it work, and transcript, are both on the front LPAC page.   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 93 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 2:05 am:        THE LAROUCHE PARADOX OK, folks, the time has come to unveil the hidden paradox within LaRouche’s latest pronouncements, though, in truth, this has been operative for a long time. But the present conjuncture (wow, that phrase rings a bell, didn’t we use to have a “conjunctural crisis”?) is a perfect time to excavate this paradox, dig it up, wipe off the dirt, assemble the pieces, and present it to the world—especially to any members of the LYM who haven’t completely lost their critical faculties. Because the LaRouche Paradox doesn’t require one to disbelieve anything that LaRouche is saying, either about how deep he claims this crisis is, or about any of his drastic proposals to prevent the collapse of the millennium, it cannot be ignored or rejected by LaRouche followers--it is a thought experiement that accepts their premises. It’s really a fascinating paradox, and probably not all that shocking to those who haven’t crossed over the LaRouche event horizon, and ultimately, even those who have will implicitly recognize its validity. Anyway, with this introduction, let’s let ‘er roll. To appreciate the paradox, one has to join with me in a thought experiment. The first premise of this experiment is that everything LaRouche is claiming about the present financial crisis is true: that barring his proposals today, this financial crisis will unravel, destroy the banks, lead to millions being evicted, social chaos, and a financial unraveling so great that it destroys most economic activity and creates another New Dark Age. I believe that’s a fair description of what he claims. The second premise is that the only way to avert this dire fate is by passing the Home Owners and Bank Protection Act, which calls for: putting all the banks under federal protection, freezing all mortgages, writing off the “cancerous debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities and derivatives,” and related provisions. The third premise, expressed in his web address to the nation tonight, is that this bill must pass Congress with veto-proof margins, in the next 29 days, before the end of September, or it will be too late to avert the crisis. Here’s the paradox. Nobody, but nobody but LaRouche presently believes that the present financial crisis has even the remotest potential, much less the certainty, to unravel as far and as deep as he forecasts. So, the only way to get his legislation through must first be to convince a 2/3’s majority of Congress (and the American public) that it is necessary--and that extremely quickly, since we have exactly four weeks to a) convince enough members, b) draft an actual bill, in both branches, (c introduce the bill in both branches, d) consider the bill in committees in both branches, e) report the bill out, discuss it, and pass it-- which requires proving to them that the present crisis is, in fact, as serious as he says it is. However, it is intrinsically impossible to “prove” a forecast like that. At least in the present situation. What evidence could one possibly adduce? The world believes that there is a significant quantity of bad mortgage debt around, and there are lots of proposals on the table from Congress to the White House, to mitigate the impact of that on the banks. The stock market has gone down some, but hasn’t in any sense yet truly “crashed,” it’s only back to where it was not long ago (and all of the run-up in recent months has been due for a “correction” anyway). With governments standing by to provide liquidity as needed to prevent a panic from setting in, what in the world could LaRouche point to convince them that nothing they are trying to do has any chance of working? Even if, ultimately, he would prove to be right? (continued)   larouchetruth Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 94 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 2:13 am:        THE LAROUCHE PARADOX, part II In short, the paradox is that nothing short of letting the crisis unfold, and seeing it blossom into the depths of collapse that LaRouche has forecast, could possibly convince people—at that point, of course, after the fact—that his analysis had been correct. The only conceivable way that things could turn out differently would be if a group of very respected economists, even if a minority, were to come forward, and show, with detailed data on the depths of exposures that banks and other financial institutions had that could never be covered, why they believed this, and if they were to quickly convince a consensus of experts. But there is zero sign of this happening. LaRouche’s Paradox is that he is compelled by his own analysis to say that Congress must pass his bill in September, without providing any mechanism, any believable scenario, by which any of the members, much less 2/3 of them, could be expected to suddenly become convinced of the truth of LaRouche’s forecast, and then of the viability and necessity of his proposed solution. It is so utterly obvious to anyone who hasn’t sunk out of sight beneath the LaRouche event horizon that of course, not a single member of either branch of Congress from either party will even seriously consider LaRouche’s bill, much less support it, much less that 2/3 of members in both branches will support it, in September or ever, that the notion that even a hard-core LaRouchie, much less a newer recruit, actually believes that LaRouche has a chance to get this passed in September, beggars the imagination. And, in fact, it is hard to believe that any of them really do. Among other things, if LaRouche’s prediction comes true, and the crisis hits as predicted, even what limited ability the LaRouche organizations have to raise money now will dry up as their base comes on hard times. So, the LaRouche Hypothesis dictates that if LaRouche proves right in his three premises, there is no possibility of convincing the policy makers, above all Congress, to act in time to avert it. In which case, all is already lost. Sure, the exercise of trying to warn them must continue, but nobody should have the slightest illusion that it will be successful, and members should beginning to plan how to “sauve qui peut,” which is French for “save themselves who can.” A footnote: LaRouche has no apparent awareness not only of the existence of the Paradox, but even of the issue that the Paradox brings up. For, unlike a hypothetical instance where a group of economists who held LaRouche’s views how might try to convince others with a detailed, data-based anslysis, he (LaRouche) doesn’t even make any attempt to convince anyone of the truth of his contentions. For LaRouche, it is enough for him, who has no credibility on Capitol Hill (according to everyone but LaRouche and his organization) or some credibility among some number of legislators (according to LaRouche and his organization), to just state his dire prediction, bringing not a single shred of evidence or other reason why believes that, to the table. So, not merely is he claiming something that the rest of the world would utterly disbelieve on the face of it, he doesn’t even attempt to indicate why they should believe it. He simply states: “We are faced with the greatest financial crisis, globally, which has been known to humanity in centuries. This goes far beyond the experience of the immediate period following the World War, such as the Great Depression of 1930s, but we can handle it.” That’s it. “We are faced…” Like it’s so self-evident, he has merely to say it. Right, like it’s so self-evident that no one else in the world agrees with him. LYM members, the above demonstration poses you the challenge: smell the coffee, or drink the cool-aid. Your choice.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 226 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:05 am:        Howie, the German yute who loves Lyn more than his father is a part of the picture which does not get mouch airplay. The reason is that this brigns up certain parts of life which influence younger people into making decisions. On many occasions I have said that people often go into the LC/LYM to also get away from something. I think yocan find that true in many things in life. In talking to many former members I find that certain relationships people have with their parents, pressures of school and uncertainty over what to do with your life make choosing the LC/LYM seem liek a rationale choice. It appears ratioanle because their is what one thinks is a defined direction and goals and let's face it, a psuedo father figure of authority. Most cults and sects work on the same principal to a degree. Also working in a yute's mind is that joining the cult is a way of saying FU to many people, including your parents. One of the worst thing a parent can do is to ridicule your kids beliefs when thay show a concern over an issue. I am by no means any kind of therapist or expert, howver, I liken this to telling your kids that it is OK to make friends, just be very carefull in whom you associate with. Many of our members have entered different associations and professions after leaving and have found a home for their talents and concerns. If anyone here thinks that what I am saying here is somewhat autobiographical, you are correct. In my discussions with many former members you find out that uncertainity of life in the 1960s, economic disruptions in the 1970s coupled with family issues will cause an 18 year old with zero life experiences to make decisions which are later regretted. I can make fun of yutes and insult them all day long, howevr, I was once a yute and I certainly spent more time in the LC than many of them have been in the LYM. Thus, I will critique and will cajole, but I understand why some will cling to this blanket till letting go once and for all. Intersetingly, in the internet world we find that the LYM. contrary to what the yutes father figure Lyn tells them, is not viewed as a potent force of world historical figures, but more as bafoons, losers and now, sad and emotionally troubled individuals. Consider this statement from one of Lyn's mortal enemies , the infamous CFR. http://http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2007/08/resist-bullies.html "When troubled young followers of radical Lyndon LaRouche tried to break up a meeting on international banking, they were effectively escorted from the premises. We never gave in to bullying."   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 227 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:07 am:        You see yutes, Lyn really understand this principal and tells you over and over that for him to rebuild his cult of personality, he needs 18 to 25 year olds who do not know anything, but have some issues. You rarely recruit members older than that. When you do, you find out that they are often running away from different things like being a father, bad marriages and being ridiculed for always thinking in wild conspiracies of fancy. Sadly, the only older generation which clings to Lyn and his delusions are a hundred or so deadenders in Leesburg and the regional NCs. They are in a paradox where they have decades invested in this lunacy, not a dime in FU money and not ready to face the mirror and say that they made a mistake in their life. All of their friends who joined with them in the early years left at least 20 years ago and have careers, children, houses and most importantly, another chance at life. Yutes, when you are at a card table shrine or a carcinogen filled intersection with a THREE DECADE member, ask them if thirty years ago what they imagined their future to be. For some of the THREE DECADE members whose pictures I posted, they were told by Lyn on that fateful morning in his Sutton Place Town house that they would be at card table shrines and intersections for ever. LTruth, I submit that as a 100 % accurate prediction of Lyn. xlcr4life@hotmail.com}   sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 162 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 12:09 pm:        "I was once a yute and I certainly spent more time in the LC than many of them have been in the LYM. Thus, I will critique and will cajole, but I understand why some will cling to this blanket till letting go once and for all." This touches on something I have been thinking for a while since I have read a former member disclaiming his long LaRouche period as if it were merely an unsightly blemish on an otherwise sterling career. I get on this message board and act as if I had no role in any of this LaRouche nonsense. But when I was a LaRouchite I was a habitual liar, hater, thief, slanderer, bully, and prideful know-nothing steeped in sarcasm, fear, and self-loathing. I would hide behind a frontgroup like the FEF to raise money for LaRouche, I would ridicule what remaining friends I had who thought I was in a cult and I occasionally hounded them into forking money over for some mobilization or other, I made antisemitic jokes and other hateful remarks, I divorced myself entirely from my family and all my benefactors, and above all I squandered whatever talents I had so that I could imagine myself a genius while spending twelve hours a day in public or on the phone selling subscriptions to whacked out and often undelivered periodicals. So I am no innocent when it comes to LaRouche's criminality as I took a willing hand in it. Just thought I would state that for the record so that perhaps I will have more humility in continuing to comment upon the demonstrably evil LaRouche cult.   xlcr4life Intermediate Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 228 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 7:26 pm:        LTruth, if you want a real humdinger of an interview with Lyn, check this one out. http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/interviews_files/2005/051028_georgetown_interview.htm "Q: What's not doubted? The veracity of Dick Cheney being a child of Satan? LaRouche: I think that's generally understood what that means, exactly as I described it. Exactly. I don't just use words: I'm a scientist. When I use a term, I qualify what I mean by it, and my qualification of that terminology, the way I've gone into depth on this, I think is probably very high grade, in terms of veracity. Q: I—I apol. You're a scientist. I apol—I, um. Q: We apologize for not telling our audience. That's actually our lack of foresight. We forgot to introduce your credentials. But, because I don't really know them, you're welcome to share them with the audience. LaRouche: Well, I happen to be the most successful long-range economic forecaster in the past 30 years. Q: And you're a scientist. LaRouche: When everybody else is wrong on this one. When the opposition has been wrong. So, I think my—the issue of 1971, some of the issues of the middle of the 1970s; my role in, for example, the SDI. One of the things I'm most unpopular for, is, I sold the idea of SDI to President Reagan and his circle, and we worked on it, and I became very unpopular because of that. ..." "Q: Do you believe in private property, sir? LaRouche: What do you mean by private property? Q: Property owned by private citizens and not subject to government interference. LaRouche: I do not believe that private property is a self-evident right. I believe it is a right provided by society. It is not a right which is independent, but is inferior to and subsumed by society. In other words, if we, in society, decide that the general interest, the General Welfare is served by promoting private property as one of the options working in society, that's it. Therefore, it is—private property is not a primary right, it is a derivative right. Q: [overtalking] Well, you're living in a heavily guarded mansion in Virginia— LaRouche: [continuing] It is not a right under natural law. It is a right under positive law. Q: Well, sir, you live in a heavily guarded mansion in Virginia. Does the government have a right, or does some outside force have a right— LaRouche: I never had a heavily guarded mansion!" There are so many great things in this interview to read. The clueless LYM place this on the LPAC web site not knowing how funny this one is. Yutes, go ask your local NC what the phrase "Ibykus Farm" means and read this before you ask. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/cult/larouche/larou3.htm xlcr4life@hotmail.com   earnest_one Junior Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 35 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 Posted on Sunday, September 02, 2007 - 10:19 pm:        RE: The Georgetown interview All in all, he actually held up fairly well and sounded semi-reasonable, here and there. Obviously he could have done far better, but the kids doing the interview were skewering him big time. Without those precious SDI delusions, his status would probably revert back to equilibrium level -- he'd simply be a "normal" paranoid schizophrenic living in a cardboard box.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 144 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 1:14 am:        Well, if it wasn't heavily guarded, it wasn't for lack of trying. In other words--if it wasn't heavily guarded, it just means all those guards wandering around were incompetent. There's a marvelous moment in Ghostbusters in which Bill Murray says to someone who questions him, "Back off,man, I'm a scientist!" There you have it--back off, folks, he's a scientist. And he doesn't just use words, he violates them.   boomersage New member Username: boomersage Post Number: 3 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 208.46.149.72 Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:05 am:        Re LaRouche's latest rescue plan to stop the Apocalypse, you could safely say one thing about all his searing analyses, firm predictions and visionary policy initiatives of lo, these many years: Never in doubt, frequently in error. But their real purpose of course is to recruit or galvanize or string along a few more faithful for a few more rounds of frenetic activity masked as world leadership.   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 145 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:23 am:        My last post concerning LaRouche, Ken Kronberg, and PMR included excerpts from a 2005 NC conference call--a conference call on which Kronberg was present, as indicated elsewhere in the transcript--in which LaRouche denounced PMR (=Kronberg) for running a scam against the organization--this from the man whose "entities" had racked up hundreds of thousands, ultimately millions, of dollars in debt to the man he was attacking.... That was November 2005--but, as I think has been made clear, such savage attacks against Kronberg were commonplace. Today's post features excerpts from the transcript of LaRouche's May 28, 2006 remarks to an internal conference Wiesbaden, at which EEC members and EC members were present (the European equivalent of the NEC and NC). Before we get to that, however, let me note that (1) what was transcribed for the briefing did not include LaRouche's viperish attacks on Ed Spannaus as an "enemy" of Helga's; (2) it also did not include the arguments between LaRouche and varius members of the EEC and EC--clearly auguring the mass exodus (or purge?) of the EEC/ EC six months later; BUT (3) the entire internal conference is recorded on CD, and the CDs are drifitng around the organization, so kids, if you want to hear it all, ask the grownups to share the CD with you. See what happens then, in terms of open discussion and free exchange of ideas. Just for atmosphere, the present post includes a good deal of LaRouchean verbiage not immediately related to the topic of interest. TO BE CONTINUED   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 146 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:28 am:        ***************************** - LAROUCHE'S OPENING REMARKS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMITTEE - {Here are Lyn's opening remarks in a lengthy meeting with the European Committee, on May 28, 2006. The subsequent discussion will be forthcoming as soon as possible. *UNEDITED*} [ellipses--this post comes from the middle of the remarks--ed.] b~~~~LAROUCHE: …So, the change in the organization is a result in the U.S., and the improvement is spectacular. The change comes first of all, from the fact that the Youth Movement changes the organization. As long as the Youth Movement is done the way I've prescribed, it works. Any other approach to a Youth Movement {doesn't} work. It's a failure. b~~~~Because, you must deal with this population, remember, you're dealing with three generations. You're dealing with a Baby-Boomer generation, largely now concentrated between 55 and 65 years of age. They're about to go out of power, hey're at the end of their professional careers. And they were brainwashed. They were brainwashed and mentally destroyed by the Congress for Cultural Freedom, which was a deliberate intention of the British and certain people in the United States, at the end of World War II, to eliminate Roosevelt. They couldn't eliminate the effect of Roosevelt's success, with the older adult generation, our generation. They couldn't do it. They could corrupt them, they could intimidate them, but they could not make them essentially rotten. They said, "We're going to make their babies rotten! We're going to make the children born to the returning veterans rotten." How? "We're going to have a social studies and art program, based on existentialist conceptions of sophistry."[Emphasis added--highlighting features of a true paranoiac--ed.] b~~~~So you had the entire population of Western Europe, and the United States, and other parts of the world subjected to brainwashing in this form: the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Based on the existentialist model, which was known here in Germany in terms of the Frankfurter Schule. Or [schulen?]. And that's what was done. So therefore, you had a population which, by sophistry, by adapting to the mood of "you have to be an anti-communist." "You have to be a passionate anti-communist! You have to be totally irrational about it! You have to be pure rage about it. You have know that you can be crushed if you don't think in a certain way. If you talk differently than the other guy in the class, you're going to be suspected!" [More true in the Labor Committee than in your average office, to say the least...ed.] And it was started at the little kiddie level, with things like Dr. Spock's book on how to raise a child. So there was a systematic {brainwashing} of an entire generation: And this came out as the 68er phenomenon. TO BE CONTINUED   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 147 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:41 am:        LAROUCHE (contd): Now, the 68er phenomenon had certain specifics. The specific is, first of all, concentrated in the United States, on the universities which were associated with Ivy League standards, that is, universities which are regarded as the places from which product is emitted to enter the professions, government, and so forth. The leaders of society. So the 68ers, the ones who went through these educational institutions, in higher education in particular, these are the ones who are the most rotten, the most hip in this process. Because they were targeted.... b~~~~That's exactly what the Cult of Delphi did to the families of the Greeks of Athens, that led to the Peloponnesian War. This is sophistry in the extreme. It's a study of sophistry, applied to modern society. These people have no morality whatsoever. None! They have pragmatic morality. And the typification in science of course, as I referred to again today, this thing, is this Einstein-Born correspondence. In which Born, who was technically qualified as a scientist, was actually an anti-scientist by the time he got into the debate. He'd lost his soul. And there was Einstein, who had been one of his teachers, and he's on the other side. He no longer believes in the existence of principles. He believes in the existence of mathematical formulas, of tricks, of procedures. But not in an idea, as such…. [Let's see--from 1968 to the Cult of Delphi and the Pelopponesian War to Einstein-Born without pausing for breath--some might think this shows a profound mastery of the sweep of world history, but some might think it's indicative of profound mental disease--ed.] b~~~~So therefore, the point was with the Youth Movement, to deal with this problem, you have the Youth Movement is--. The adult movement, the Baby-Boomers are generally immoral. [Emphasis added--just to highlight LaRouche's respect for the people who have been with him for decades--ed.].... b~~~~The only chance we have for civilization, is with the education of young adults. Now, what we have, is not the ability to take the entire young adult generation and educate them, directly. We don't. We have to develop a cadre of people who exemplify, and spread the disease that we're creating. We have to infect them with the disease. [A better metaphor than he knows--ed.] b~~~~And this has made a fundamental change.... We have people in the Youth Movement who are a key factor in educating the Congress. Who are working closely with the members of the U.S. Senate and committees of the Congress; who are influential all over the United States in their functions. The entire auto industry thing, centers around us: no one else. The question of the reorganizing the U.S. military now centers around us.[Another clinical example, this time of megalomania/narcissism--ed.] b~~~~And the youth are the means by which we do it. Because, as you know, there are only a handful of us, who are really senior in this area, and can handle it. And it's the youth who make the difference. Why? Because we did the right thing about developing them. And the right thing about using their talents. That is, don't try to swaddle them with education. Forget it.[I think we can consider this part of the approach a total success. Swaddled with education they're not--ed.] Concentrate on the development of the creative powers of mind, in these two areas: physical science, and Classical singing, choral singing. TO BE CONTINUED   eaglebeak Intermediate Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 148 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.254.31.79 Posted on Monday, September 03, 2007 - 10:54 am: