| Author | Message | ||
     sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 440 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Let's make room for the "onrushing" torrent of ill literasy ... | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 1 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Greetings, folks. After 2 or 3 weeks in registration limbo, the powers that be on factnet finally OK'd my logging on. Hoorah. I've gotten a lot out of this board and the members posting here over the past month since I discovered this place. As someone whose tracked the non-linear logic(?) of LHL and the LC for over 30 years - though I was never tempted to join or send my brain to the laundromat - it has been a real revelation to get some of the inside perspectives posted by the veterans here. Eaglebeak, your dissections of the briefings and LarouchePAC texts are literally LOL. I look forward to more! And my appreciation to all the other vets: XLCr4life, sancho, Larouchetruth, shadok, earnest_one, and anyone else I'm forgetting for the moment. Your work in trying to shine the light of truth on the LC is heartening. Keep up the good work. I'll have more to say in the future, but for now, this will have to do. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 441 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Here and there: A shameless bit of kissing up to the PRC: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/11/29/who-dalai-lama.html I wonder how much dough that will bring in, $50? * Intro to the latest pulp fiction: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/11/27/noosphere-vs-blogosphere-devil-your-laptop.html November 27, 2007 (LPAC)--The cover 9-11 provided for the continuing world destabilization (um, that was a terrorist attck, Lyndon? on the shores of the United States, you shameless clod?), led by the FDR-hating British Empire (yeah, the Huns are still hurling their V-2s), has, by no accident (any psychopathologist will tell you) been exposed by Lyndon LaRouche and the continuing institution of the American Patriot (oh, is that the institution? is that the American Patriot Hospital in Nutsylvania?). It is no coincidence, either, that as erupting warfare threatens the potential (adverb, Lyndon) peaceful alliances (doesn't "erupting warfare" make peaceful alliances "potential"?) of the United States with Russia, China, and India, and, as the U.S. dollar collapses, taking along with it housing, banking, and the dollar-dependent countires of the entire world (so houses and banks will collapse with the dollar, Lyndon old boy? and what about the spelling? is that also the fault of the collapsing dollar?), many Americans are still sitting at their computers asking 'how' or 'why?' (as my house collapses about me - unlike Stalag Seven Teens). | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 442 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Part 2 of 2 But the unleashing of Dick Cheney's Permanent War Permanent Revolution (shades of Lev Davidovich) was always missing something crucial--the quiet support of American youth (so he had the vocal support, the demonstrative support, the kinetic support?). Thus, Mrs. Beastman, Lynne Cheney, (Lyndon, you old misogynist, you - are you sure you wouldn't be happier in the arms of those Tibetan monks you disparage?) deployed (by whom, Phil Rubenstein? Krusty?) to ensure an effective political silence at home ("Beastman Lynne, your job, should you decide to accept it, is to ensure an effective political silence at home" - but I guess to also get the quiet support of the yutes at the same time), and private armies thrived (anacoluthon never stopped anybody, least of all the Greatest Mind Since Ed Norton) abroad and our own nation's military was shredded (my bologna has a first name, it's L-Y-N-D-Y, ...). The last pamphlet produced by the LaRouche Youth Movement, 'Is Goebbel's On Your Campus?' exposed this Lynne Cheney campus operation, that was in full force at the time trying to suppress the youth turnout for the crucial November 6 Congressional elections (B.L. (Beastman Lynne) was working the phones day and night to do so). The mighty (irony! we knew ye had it in ye!) Lynne Cheney failed at her mission ("This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Lynne.), but the war is far from settled. And Lynne Cheney was forced to turn to others, to get the American people to accept Hitler (WHAT???? We didn't vote for you, Beastman Lyn, so we hardly support Schicklgruber). The way the British Empire would have it, the intended self-destruction of the United States could occur by a new form of terrorism, the 'suicide bombers of the West', mysteriously emerging from the otherwise promising institution, historically--the nation's youth generation (Yeah, the LaRouche yutes: fortunately they have a hard enough time with geometry and there's no money in the budget to allow them to purchase chemicals – cheap housing would be kabooming all over with their LaRouchian "science"). We invite you to study our introductory (there's more???) expose of this operation, with well-placed focus on Rupert Murdoch's MySpace, Microsoft's Facebook, and the latest generation of insanely popular (unlike LaRouche, who is insanely unpopular) violent video games (can’t you kids go back to Parcheesi, or Yahtzee?). The new pamphlet of the LaRouche Youth Movement, 'Is the Devil in your Laptop?', is not an attack on computers (just the post-1959 kind). This pamphlet continues to unravel the active operations of the British Empire to destroy the United States, and at the same time elicits the participation of the nation's youth in the (quiet or loud?) rediscovery of the principles fought for by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 2 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
A couple of lingering questions that I've had for years... perhaps someone here can answer them: Where did the vintage LHL notion of a dastardly "Black Guelph Aristocracy" come from? I seem to recall it arising out of nowhere, circa 74-75, and wondering "WTF"?? Originally it seemed like the LC's focus was all present or future tense, and then somewhat abruptly the odd nooks and crannies of history began to be threaded together into a Vast Conspiracy. Similarly, why has LHL always insisted on calling Latin America "Ibero-America"? What's the point? Does anyone else in the world use that nomenclature? | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 164 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Congrats scrimshaw on entering this pathway to help penetrate the LaRouche fog. To answer your last question first, the term "Ibero-America" was termed to encapsulate the Iberian peninsula which also includes Portugal, in recognition that South America in particular has both Spanish and Portuguese roots. Latin of course goes back to the evil Roman Empire so LaRouche didn't like Latinizing this continent. I remember LaRouche or one of the associates trying to make the case that Etruscan is the true roots of the "Latin" or Romance languages. As to the Guelphs that came from studies done in Italy, probably involving people like Muriel and others involving most notably Dante (who was a "white Guelph" who were the good guys) vs. the black Guelph who were the bad guys. There's more to it, but that's the best I can recollect at present. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 165 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
LaRouche never ceases to amaze. The apologia for China vis a vis Tibet ranks in the same vein as his apologias for the genocidal regime in the Sudan. Of course he parrots the Chinese line on how they "modernized" Tibet, omitting any mention how the gov't is promoting ethnic cleansing by forcibly allowing mass migrations of ethnic Chinese into Tibet. And whatever might be thought of the pre-"liberation" Tibet, it's interesting that this brazen liar omits any mention of the involvement of the Nazis in Tibet, including the fact that the Nazis borrowed a good deal of the 'mystical' aspects of Tibet in the more occult aspects of Nazi ideology. Of course, LaRouche takes anything having to do with Nazis and converts the word Nazi to British. The movie for instance, Seven Years in Tibet was written to glorify a Nazi ideologue, Heinrich Herrer, an Austrian who was an ardent supporter of the Nazis and the Anschluss. Of course, the Hollywood movie omitted to mention that Harrer was a Nazi. Rather than reprint an informative site, I include the link for those who wish to learn more. LaRouche's revisionist history would make Stalin and his hagiographers cringe. http://www.geocities.com/jacobzhu/harrnazi.htm | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 443 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Thank you, boris, for a very interesting link. I suppose Billington was very careful not to offend Der Helga's "nationalist" German sponsors whose ancestors persecuted gays as well as Jews. When I joked above that LaRouche had no problems with pre-1960 computers, I had not yet read the "Blogosphere" pamphlet. As it turns out, the history of the computer ends for LaRouche with Vannevar Bush (an admirable man about whom I had done much research while in the LC)! There is so much hysterical network tracing in this pamphlet, that it is impossible to isolate a single line of argument - if there is one. The argument seems to be: BAD, BAD, BAD - LaRouche, GOOD. But the basic impulse behind this rant is that of a guy who has progressively isolated himself behind a wall of sclerotic paranoia for almost forty years and thus finds modernity and sunshine ever more frightful. Gone are the comforting old days of vacuum tubes and the Lone Ranger. Thanks to the internet and its various platforms people are getting together, learning from one another across cultural and geographical boundaries, and have limitless, almost instantaneous access to the spiritual and intellectual wealth of the centuries. But, let us suppose for a moment that Facebook, H.G Wells, et al. all represent nodes in a vast web of evil concocted to enslave. Let us assume that everything in these pages is true: what is the alternative? Clearly, die LaRouchebewegung, the LaRouche movement. So if you are a young person, instead of whiling away your free time with video games or by chatting up friends from around the world, you should forsake all learning except that provided or approved by one uneducated man out of billions, an octogenarian, a convicted felon who cannot find a publisher apart from his own or another (D.C. Heath) vanity press, yet whose "writings" outweigh Euler's mathematical oeuvre by one order of magnitude, a man whose plan for you is to stand in public making a total fool of yourself with vulgar signs, singing hymns wrought from the pain of chattel slaves centuries ago with a monetary quota over your head like the sword of Damocles which defines your sole worth. That twenty-first century slavery is the alternative to laptops, friends, and lattes. Any rational person would have no trouble discerning which choice represents the path of irrationality and degredation. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 54 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
Welcome, scrimshaw. I think Lyn's obsessions with the Black Guelph arose when someone told him about Dante....  Even before that, though, he had many curious notions about the past. The only thing that changes over the years is who he's borrowing them from.... His "position" on Tibet recalls previous positions he staked out in which the enslavement or obliteration of a people was a "Good Thing"--anyone remember the reprehensible line put forth by Dennis Small and "IALC" (sounds like a dog choking) on the Yanomami Indians? The basic line was that these people were so primitive they didn't deserve to live, they really weren't a tribe, the Amazon wasn't theirs, so screw 'em. Hack down those trees! Plunder those rain forests! Anyone who tells Brazil different is ... Prince Philip! Coupled with the mean-spirited touch of IALC's refusal to capitalize the word "Indian" in any of their writings for New Fed, EIR, etc. Just extra work for the saner editors (no longer there) in those days, going through capitalizing it all. Lyn himself did the same thing with "Jewish" and "Semite"--it was revealed to him by an evil genie that those should be lowercase too, but he could never make that stick. Not even deep in the heart of LaRoucheland. What a guy! | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 445 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
In yet another shameless display, LaRouche comes to the defense of the mad tyrant Robert Mugabe: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/01/zimbabwes-mugabe-slams-uk-thousands-rally-support-him.html Lest one forget, Mugabe has progressively impoverished his people over the last quarter century, among other crimes - much like LaRouche himself. At the same time, Museveni was supposed to have been a "British agent" when an Ugandan opposition leader cottoned up to Fearless Leader, so there no doubt is another $50 coming into the coffers from a despotic regime eager for friends of any stripe. | ||
| boomersage New member Username: boomersage Post Number: 6 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 208.46.149.3 |
Of course the whole blasted history of the organization is riddled with craven •••-kissing of that kind. Did anyone else, while in the LC, ever receive the response from some bigwig upon raising questions or objections to that kind of thing in a briefing slug or published article, "You don't understand, we're not reporting on events or putting out balanced analyses, we're 'Running an Operation'"? Pressuring members to kowtow to this prostitution is one of the ways the organization morally corrupted people, and letting these things slide by is one of the ways people let themselves get morally corrupted. You have to wonder what the 30- and 40-year veterans say to themselves about this garbage. Could they be completely inured to it? | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 446 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
I don't recall that "running an operation" line, but I was dimly aware while in the organization how corrosive our ends-justify-any-means morality was to my character. When one follows someone who is "always right" then it is always wrong to contradict him or her. So trust-fund members had their pockets emptied and many elderly people died broke because the mobilization du jour was paramount. The young LaRouchites have to ask themselves at the end of each day how many lies did I tell, large or small, to manipulate passersby to squeeze a dollar out of them or to have them cough up their phone number? Nothing is of greater importance than one's own soul: not stopping the crash, not huge infrastructure projects, none of it. What I carried away from this cult was a boatload of self-righteous anger, bitter sarcasm, and indignation which poisoned my life for a long time afterwards. Thanks, Lyn, for having made me - for a time - in your own malevolent, mendacious image. | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 180 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Probably the most hideous example of condoning mass murder and genocide was LaRouche's attack on the Tutsi for the Rwanda genocide. Yes, I'm sure some of you remember, the organization backed the Hutu butchers, and blamed everything on the Tutsi, and their backer, Musaveni of Uganda. Al Douglas did a bunch of "intelligence" calls at the time to a number of people to come up "evidence" on how the Tutsi-Museveni alliance shot down the president's plane that was the trigger for the genocidal rampage of the Hutu group that did the killing. Why? Because Museveni was the perceived puppet of the British, particularly the Development Secretary, a woman whose name I don't recall. And this led, by the fall of 1994, to possibly most insane "thesis" in LHL's long career--that the greatest danger to world civilization lay in the great national parks of the world. They devoded an entire EIR issue and part of the subsequent one, to "documenting" this utterly insane claim. It was based, so far as I could fathom at the time, off of the fact that the Tutsi army that invaded Rwuanda and finally put an end to the genocide by taking over, had been holed up in a large national park in southern Uganda, on the border of Rwanda, and that they launched their invasion from there. From this, the "intelligence" staff managerd to discovery upteeump other supposed terrorist, British-run groups camped out in national parks around the world, poised to invade unsuspecting countries. Needless to say, no such attacks ever materialized. And after having devoted way more ink and paper to their charges than they did to the BAE scandal, this one died a quiet death really rapidly, never to be seen again. | ||
| boomersage New member Username: boomersage Post Number: 7 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 208.46.149.3 |
If you want to punctuate your (understandable) moral outrage and utter amazement with a little humor, take a gander at the LPAC Web site's ditty on the hostage-taking incident at one of Hillary Clinton's campaign offices in N.H. the other day (in LHL's home town, by the way). The Great Mind himself calls it a security "set-up" of HRC -- unavoidably meaning that some larger, nefarious force put this troubled guy up to this business for some ulterior intergalactically-signficant strategic reason. This unique and scathingly brilliant insight may quickly go by the wayside when nothing further is heard of this thing. Sometimes a cigar is just is a cigar . . . | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 137 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
I am extremely impressed with posts that provide personal, first-hand insight into LaRouchian psychological pathology -- the lasting, corrosive effects that the Org/Lyn has had on real people, decent people. I salute everyone who musters the courage to talk about painful issues. Further, these testimonies are probably quite efficient at reaching Yutes. Exposure and discussion of intellectual issues is interesting and, at times, extremely humorous; this is helpful, vital, essential. But honest introspection and frank talk about psychological experiences has a different "feel". In any case, I simply wanted to express encouragement and say that I have deep respect and great admiration for anyone willing to bare their soul in an attempt to help others. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 447 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Thank you, earnest_one, I agree. On occasion I detect on this message board a certain self-righteousness, as if it were not only by the grace of God that we still are not doing the same things as those other benighted individuals who remain or are being newly impressed into slavery. There also seems to be the tacit assumption that if one is no longer a member of this cult, then that person suddenly becomes absolved of all sin and is transformed into some sort of angel. I suppose taking time here every day to read and contribute is a small attempt to make amends for all the harm I caused as a loyal soldier for Lyndon LaRouche. By the way, does anyone recall LaRouche ever merely thanking his followers for all their hard work? I don't. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 138 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
Sancho asked: "By the way, does anyone recall LaRouche ever merely thanking his followers for all their hard work? I don't." I have never seen anything even close to this. He thanks people for introducing him to an audience. That's it. Graciousness -- acknowledgement of others -- is beneath him. All efforts are devoted to catapulting himself upwards. He acts like he has real disdain, if not disgust, for “the people”. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 3 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Sometimes I think that the best antidote to LHL is to actually witness him and entourage in person. I still recall the one time I saw him, when he came to town in (I think) 1980, as part of his presidential campaign. I knew a local guy who was a "supporter," but not directly an LC member, AFAIK. So we met up to go hear the "great man" (his words) speak in a rented room at a local hotel. Not only did this involve signing in (which took some quick thinking on my part - do I want these people to have my name and address?) and getting patted down by security, but once in the sparsely populated room, I was faced with security goons in the four corners of the room, apparently armed and dangerous. My acquaintance left me to my own devices, so I took a seat in an empty row and got to experience an LCer sliding down the row to the seat next to me, to pump me for why I was there and what I thought of LHL, etc. Man, that place was rippling with paranoia and hyper-altertness. LHL's actual speech was nothing special that I can recall, just the usual LaRouchian rant, delivered with a swaggering self-confidence and snarky belligerence, but the whole crazed scene certainly exuded the strong message to steer clear of these people if I knew what was good for me. I have to wonder how an LHL in-person speech would come off now, some 28 years later. (Message edited by scrimscraw on December 02, 2007) | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 139 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
"I have to wonder how an LHL in-person speech would come off now, some 28 years later. " Go to Northern Virginia for one of his "World Renowned WebCasts". If I recall correctly they used to be held in Reston, VA, about 30 miles east of Leesburg, closer to Washington. Perhaps they are even held in Washington itself. Power, Power, Power... this way, all those questions from "The Senate" can be hand delivered by special messengers -- carrier pigeons. The archives of these events appear on LL's sites. They look pretty tame (lame) compared to your experience which, incidentally, sounds pretty accurate -- there was madness, truly, 28 years ago in terms of security and bodyguards. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 4 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
As I've been reading through back postings on the board, I have yet to run into a clear explanation of the organizational set-up of the LC. Plus, it is not exactly clear what the initials NC and NEC stand for. For the benefit of those of us who aren't ex-members, can someone explain, please? | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 166 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Scrimshaw, the acronynm NC is simply National Committee, who are the regional leaders and heads of sectors usually (at least when I was in in the late 60s, 70s and 80s. NEC is the National Executive Committee. Think of it as the Soviet Politburo if you will, since the NCLC was more or less set up as a Leninist type "cadre" organization although pretending to be more oriented towards Rosa Luxemberg. But everything passes through Lyn or perhaps Helga and/or Jeff Steinberg. I don't recall an NEC member ever critiquing anything of Lyns since the early 70s. | ||
| timeforrepentance New member Username: timeforrepentance Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 129.7.107.97 |
Still not a semblance of written demonstration! There is more speculation going on in here than on the markets these days! Makes me wonder if the collapse of this environ is long overdue as well? Maybe in the future, I can meet any here on these boards in person because I would love to have a public debate... but for the time being I have a society to save. In complete finality Au Revoir! (Finally Truth has left the facts in this domain) All here ecstaticly: "YESSS! No more talk of "proving" assertions or any of that other bull that idiot "Timeforrepentance"/"Timefortruth" holds us to a standard of!" | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 679 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Borisbad wrote this abut his encounter with the LYM and a deadender. "I asked one of the kids about whether he knew what happened to Ken Kronberg and he had no idea of what I was talking about. He said he had heard about an incident of someone dying in Europe. After telling the guy to investigate the organization the older guy came over to tell me that only five people own the media in the US. I mentioned to him that I had thirty years experience with LaRouche lit. " Here is another encounter with the LYM , succinct and to the point. http://www.freestatepolitics.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=906 " The clueless Lyndon LaRouche zombies, . . . " What is both amusing and disturbing is how the cult has become extremely insular and controlling to the members. The lunacy from the basement is designed for usage on the LYM in scaring people away from learning about Larouche and the cult in places like the internet using a simple google search. The most common description of LYM I am finding is both how darn funny it is to listen to them for a bit and then how much they are Larouche Zombies. This could be just the public face put on by people, but I am not so sure. When I was in it was sometimes pretty scary to hear a member talk and not have a clue about anything in the "outside world". People would be attacked for mentioning another newspaper or magazine because everything you need to know is in the briefing. Elaborate stories could appear about anything lyn determined to be dangerous to the membership which pop the insular Bizarro world. Consider this paragraph from the basement. "*P.S.* Snippets of daily emails have been appearing on that wily, suicide-inducing website, factnet; so, please, people, don't share these e-mails with those bozos! And if you are a culprit, please call the war room, and apologize." LYM members are indeed "creepy" because they are being presented with a scary world of video games and google without any critical thinking involved. As the current drop out brigade is sent out daily to make the money it further and further becomes fully dependednt on the cult for everything. The entire outside world is scary and only Larouche can give you the protection you need to survive the New Dark Ages. The LYM has no idea and neither does Lyn about the different types of problems with sub prime mortgages. The fact that they can not undertand the difference between owner occupied and speculative ownership and how those are handled is a good example. A few weeks ago some LYM dimwit yaps about Pomona supporting the cult's bill. While the insular basement provides safety from Lyn's delusionary enemies, the real world has Arnold Schwarzenegger passing a bill for refinancing existing loans of owner occupied housing. http://www.gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/8147/ http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2007/new_america_foundation_praises_governor_arnold_schwarzenegger_s_leadership_responding_sub_prime_mortgage_loan_cri Even the Bush Treasury Dept has plans. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22080949/ | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 680 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
The cult is saying that it is the end of the world basically because housing prices may fall. Do a check on th ehousing market across the USA and you will find that many areas are not falling and if it is, that benefits the home buyer and punishes the speculator, which is what is supposed to happen. For yutes who are living like "Stalag Seven Teens" in a one room flat, WTF do they know about buying a house? If you have been reading the briefings lately, Lyn has made it quite clear that unless HIS BILL is passed, we are all doomed. I submit to the yutes that their first clue that they are in a crazy house is that anyone who tells you that about legislation is out of his f'n mind. However, if you are living in this crazy house for a few years and Lyn and the cult are your only sources of info, than you pretty much have lost your free mind. This is just another cheap parlor trick of Lyn who with every financial and rumour of war will whip up the yutes that ONLY his intervention in the world will save it. Just go back and read virtually any pamphlet written by him and it makes no difference what the year is or what the subject is. The same cheap parlor trick is used over and over to several generations of members. Freakin Under Dog was not as goofy as Lyn is yutes. This becomes pretty scary because some of us were in the LC when the Jim Jones cult committed mass suicide in 1978. We had quite a few members leave as the buzz among the members were about how the LC has increasingly become a cult or is now cult like. Lyn wrote a brief called "Now do You sleep with one eye open" http://wlym.com/PDF-SpReps/SPRP23.pdf What this brief was used for by Lyn and the LC was to make everyone else appear to be in a cult, except the LCers who are in a cult. What is very interesting to think about is exactly how much print Lyn spent attacking anyone who reported about cults, studied cults or was involved with leaving a cult. Many of the names of researchers and studiers of cults have all been named as mortal enemies of Lyn and just read the lunacy that FOUR DECADE cult member Tony Chaitkin writes about with his John Train lunacy to see how delusional this all is. The combination of yutes who have been in the cult for years and have swallowed every bit of Larouche lunacy to scare them from the real world into the Bizarro world and the sheer uselessness of the whole thing is cause for concern. When the words used to describe encounters with yutes revolve around "Zombies " and "Creepy", one does not know how sick this cult can get as Lyn sees the whole world not being conned by him except some drop outs and losers. xlcr4life@hotmail.com (Message edited by xlcr4life on December 03, 2007) | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 5 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
I'm interested if any ex-members have any insight into how the shift was pulled off between the era when LCers saw themselves as working towards socialism (and thus identified themselves as socialists and Luxembourgian Marxists) and when socialism and Marx were abandoned. As late as most of 1974, it seems that most sincere LCers still saw themselves as being on the left and tried to justify the LC in leftist terms. But after that....? Was this change a part of the general disillusionment felt on the left in the wake of the failure of the New Left, or was it an ideological shift engineered by LHL? Any ideas? | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 448 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
scrimscraw, I never abandoned Marxism while in the organization, though just about everyone about me had done so without a whimper. My impression is that LaRouche, as usual, saw more money potential on the Right than on the Left, so tacked in that direction beginning no later than the Watergate period continuing so far as to give aid and comfort to any number of antisemitic extremists by the late seventies. The "inner elites" hypothesis was dragged in to cover the transition on the grounds that there were pro-progress socialists and capitalists, and anti-progress socialists and capitalists, so that it didn't much matter which economic system you subscribed to - which is obvious balderdash as I thought at the time. I always found that American System racket strange, and it had nothing do with why I had joined the organization in the first place, which was to radically reorganize society from top to bottom so as to maximize the creative self-realization of every individual through the practice of science and classical culture. Capitalism of any type works to alienate the working class from its own labor, and the switch you ask about seemed to trash that class in favor of elitists like Hamilton, who may with justice nonetheless be said to have anticipated Marx on a few key points. By 1974 the NCLC had become a thoroughgoing cult of personality cut off from history, so anyone left at that point was willing to believe anything LaRouche said or did. No one at that point had any regrets about the demise of the New Left because LaRouche was now everyone's god. The New Left was nothing in comparison with this nattering baboon. And if you were of a mind to question these developments as I had, you were summarily charged with anything from "blocking" (i.e., having a mind) to being an agent (of the enemy du jour.) Perhaps others have a different take on this period, however. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 6 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
sancho wrote: "The 'inner elites' hypothesis was dragged in to cover the transition on the grounds that there were pro-progress socialists and capitalists, and anti-progress socialists and capitalists, so that it didn't much matter which economic system you subscribed to..." Ah, that explains a lot! Thanks. The LC transcended the left by LHL "reframing" the former left vs right dichotomy into a progress vs anti-progress dichotomy where he could define what was now progress or not. That helps me get a handle on it. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 681 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Scrimscraw, Lyn also uses another cheap parlor trick in this era on Marx. Lyn does the same thng with anyone in history whereby he announces that so and so , despite their accomplishments suffered from a "fundamental flaw". Of course this "fundamental Flaw" has only been discovered by Lyn and of course he has resolved it in a brand new 100 page opus you now have to distribute to prove to the world that he is a genius. The beaten down membership barely skims the cover and first few pages and moves on to the next end of the world mobilization and assasination threat. The briefing writers now declare that this new earth shaking document will cause a phase shift and off we go to the races. What is also important to note is that by the time this change on the LC occured, most of the original SDS LC left in disgust or were purged by Lyn. The 1974 era brought a consolidation in the cult of personality via phony brainwashing capers , mop up and other manipulations which chased out another level of LCers. Now Lyn is enjoying his time with Carto and other anti semites telling anti semitic jokes while security laughs along for the fun. We discover that you can make more money from boiling phone lists of professionals than standing at an unemployment line and attacking envoronmentalism instead of supporting Marx at a card table shrine in any US airport does make more money. The document which this revolved around is: "The Karl Marx, Karl Marx did not know" http://wlym.com/PDF-77-85/CAM7709.pdf I would also like to add that any characterization of Lyn and the LC as right wingers is a myth which we did not dispute. The LC and Lyn wnet wherever the money was and Lyn can whip up a new all night memo for the telex to "change Hats" so to speak on a dime. There is nothing of substance except what a member had inside them and mistakenly thoguht that the LC represented that. It was to our advatange to have us described as Libertarians or right wingers or left wing today because this means that no one caught on that we were a cult. Today with the web, the cult relies on naive cub reporters in podunk towns to call the cult "political activists". This no longer works on campuses as the cult is well known as a cult now. Finally, consider that part of the business plan of Lyn is that when you have LCers ebing burnt out and replaced by newer yutes aevery few years, no one knwos about the past and is pretty much kept ignorant of the past, until now. Thus, the cult has ordered a top down banning of using the internet to look up the cult and emailing or being engaged in any discussion of cult history. basically Lyn has a few hundred yutes in the dark cave who only see Lyn. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 140 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
There is an order NOT to use the Internet?! How do they check their own sites? Perhaps with all of W's InternetS, they simply use a small one... untouched by the real world. About a year ago, I did ask Chuck S. (from the old FEF) to simply get online and look into an issue. He mumbled something about "not being able to do that." Don't read books is next -- or was that order issued long ago too? | ||
| tuer07 Junior Member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 34 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
So, LaRouche has banned the use of the internet by the members? The man has no common sense and is completely self-destuctive. The hallmark of every restrictive cult or dictatorship in history has been the lack of free flow of information. From the NY Times in 2006 regarding North Korea: "At a time when much of the world takes for granted a fat and growing network of digitized human knowledge, art, history, thought and debate, it is easy to forget just how much is being denied the people who live under the veil of darkness revealed in that satellite photograph [of No. Korea]. While other restrictive regimes have sought to find ways to limit the Internet — through filters and blocks and threats — North Korea has chosen to stay wholly off the grid. " source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/technology/23link.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Then of course there was Jim Jones Jonestown where all access to newspapers, and radio was under the tight control of Jones and his security team. How fitting that LaRouche should herald the approaching 30th anniversary of the Jonestown massacre by providing the media with such an abundance of similarities between his regime and that of Jones..... | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Here's another thing I've wondered about. What's the deal with the briefings? It sounds like these are a kind of "agenda for the day" that are sent out to all local LC groups. Are these read aloud every morning or...? And Xlcr, you referred to "a new all night memo for the telex." Is the LC still using telexes?? Isn't that like pre-fax technology? "This just in, off the Wire!" as they used to say in radio news. Is this an example of the new cutting-edge technology they are always touting that society needs to develop?? | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Xlcr wrote earlier: "I would also like to add that any characterization of Lyn and the LC as right wingers is a myth which we did not dispute. The LC and Lyn wnet wherever the money was and Lyn can whip up a new all night memo for the telex to 'change Hats' so to speak on a dime. There is nothing of substance except what a member had inside them and mistakenly thoguht that the LC represented that. It was to our advatange to have us described as Libertarians or right wingers or left wing today because this means that no one caught on that we were a cult." While I agree that conventional political labels (left, right) don't really fit LHL and the LC - they are "Larouche-wing," if anything - still, there has always been a patina of some kind of ideology du jour, with which to bamboozle the followers. But that brings me to something that seems a bit self-contradictory: It has been remarked here that the main target for all the LC output is the LCers themselves. To give them something to get caught up in and deploy about. However that seems kind of contradicted by Xlcr's contention that "The beaten down membership barely skims the cover and first few pages and moves on to the next end of the world mobilization and assasination threat." If the membership isn't reading this stuff, and the people to whom it is handed aren't reading it, is *anyone* reading it? Haha. Well, I guess a few hardcores like brewncue and truthy are. But what an inefficient way to maintain the indoctrination! | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 167 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Sancho is right on about the "inner elites" however, there were a couple of other stages. Of course there was mop up when LaRouche, still claiming to be a socialist, declared "war" on the left, and particularly the CPUSA and the SWP. But I think LaRouche attempted to expound his "break" or "revolutionizing" of Marx with the work on the American System, which was inspired largely by ALlan Salisbury I think (xlcr4life can probably mention more). This purported to show how the "dirigist" economics of Alexander Hamilton which was rooted in earlier economists whose names escape me, or were later taken up by Henry Carey and Friedrich List were the real antidotes to British free market imperialism and not the Marxist outlook which Lyn disparages as based upon the British "agent" Friedrich Engels and wihch was linked somehow to people like David Ricardo, etc. I remember when the book the American System of Political Economy came out around the time of Carter's presidency that we began totally removing any mention of socialism from our literature and replacing it with "dirigist" economics. And while I think that there is validity in this conception that the state does have a rightful role in promoting the common good, which the rabid free traders and free marketers do not understand, LaRouche used this to try and combine a statist philosophy on economics with an authoritarian outlook on society, which smacks more of a fascist economic program than an American System one. Of course some modern day commentators like Tom Hartmann on Air America talks about the state's proper role all the time when arguing with those like the Cato Institute that want to do away with all gov't regs. But, as with so many things like fusion energy etc. LaRouche just borrows these ideas to weave into his own bizarre concoctions. I am beginning to believe him when he nowadays alleges he was never a Marxist, he probably just saw the marxist movement as a place for him to exound his own worldview, which in the early days required him to cover himself as marxist. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 682 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Scrimsaw, one of the hardest things for a member to admit and the one thing which will liberate him or her is to finally figure out that the whole bizarro world is designed NOT to succeed or work. The LC , after raising, stealing and emptying trust funds of nearly a 1/4 BILLION dollars over 40 years is composed of basically 300 yutes and dead enders. At our maximum recrutiment of full time members in the field offices and the National Center you may have been lucky to get a 1,000 people in a conference room. Every few years it looked like a good chunk of the membership left and was replaced with some new blood so that overall LC membership was usually in the several hundred range. The same thing happened with our subscriber base which would be built up with sales and then burnt to a crisp by the endless boiler room calls. If you added up the total subscribers we had over the years, it would be pretty much a few hundred thousand. Each year would have much less as subscribers. In addition, we jerked every one around and did not mail our subscribers what they paid for so that very few people recieved an issue on time and usuualy a few months late if at all. We concoceted oen story after abnother about a conspiracy with Kissinger and the US Post office when we really just did not pay the postage and diverted the funds to something else. If you were in the LC for many years you would see that we could start a front group over somethng half way rationale. Lyn was the Kiss of death because in the early 1980s he demanded that nothing exist without him being the star of the operation. The net result is that whatever you had going which was based on semi rationale thinking would soon be overpowered by Lyn's delusions. The briefing would make everything revolve around Lyn to the point that we always joked in the offices that our fundraisers have to put on a different hat each time they called. I mean, one call you wear the FEF hat, another is the anti drug hat, another is the anti Soviet hat etc. This got realy comical as we would call RTL lists and one of our fundraisers had to ask the NC if we were pro life or anti!. Once you understand that the whole thing is a delusional joke which is designed NOT to succeed, then everything the LC,LYM and LYN does will make sense. Right now I am reading a basement memo about the evil dangers of Dungeons and Dragons. Whoop dee doo! That game is like 15 years gone in popularity and no one plays it today like back then. Reading this stuff is like watching a comedy in real time, except this is not acting. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 168 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Please let us know if Lyn has made any pronouncements on the evils of Pacman and Frogger. I understand that many teens are becoming positively suicidal playing these games on their Ataris. | ||
| dave72 New member Username: dave72 Post Number: 22 Registered: 4-2005 Posted From: 75.54.13.14 |
Scrimshaw: “If the membership isn't reading this stuff, and the people to whom it is handed aren't reading it, is *anyone* reading it? Haha. Well, I guess a few hardcores like brewncue and truthy are. But what an inefficient way to maintain the indoctrination!” We used to read the briefing out loud in the car on the way to the deployment site. We always read the first paragraph with the summary of what was going on along with the marching orders for that day’s deployment. The rest we would mostly skim. However, the existence of the endless briefing and tons of literature was EXTREMELY important. It was really the only “proof” we had of the existence of our alternative universe (aka bizarro world). One felt mighty carrying around boxes filled with the printed “truth”. If you think of it in religious terms it makes sense. We didn’t have to read in anymore because we were already converted. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 169 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Yes, it definitely did give a sense of power having all that lit on almost any topic you could think of to "convince" the doubters. However, I remember one day at the airport feeling very powerless when someone walked by and noticed we had our literature in some dairy's milkcrate and contacted airport security. Apparently the guy was an official of the dairy and demanded that the airport police take the crate away, leaving us with a pile of potent lifesaving literature on the floor. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 170 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Yes, it definitely did give a sense of power having all that lit on almost any topic you could think of to "convince" the doubters. However, I remember one day at the airport feeling very powerless when someone walked by and noticed we had our literature in some dairy's milkcrate and contacted airport security. Apparently the guy was an official of the dairy and demanded that the airport police take the crate away, leaving us with a pile of potent lifesaving literature on the floor. | ||
| tuer07 Junior Member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 35 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Selling decades old, dirty, shabby magazines certainly doesn't lend to a feeling of power. How do the older LC'ers rationalize this? From the descriptions posted here, it seems as if the organization is starting to resemble the legions of homeless people in NYC who cart around old newspapers and magazines. Have the LYM'ers started "borrowing" shopping carts yet? | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 683 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Hey you cool cat yutes. Winter is fast approaching and the Holiday Season is here. Card table shrines not hitting quota? Forget about that and get ready to hit street corners in upscale areas with some new hits to sing for spare change. Just get that big tin can cleaned up and put a picture of Lyn on it and get ready to light up the holidays with these two new number one hits on your favorite Bizarro Basement station *********** WLYM ****************** Start rehearsing in the local LYM clubhouse/soup kitchen after the nightly briefing , around 10 PM or so. Start singing for spare change yutes. This cannon is sung to the tune of "Wir Kommen Al Unt Gratulieren" aka "the birthday cannon": 1) What's that smell Cong-ress? 2) It sure stinks i-n here! 3) That's the mis-leadership 4) of Nan-cy Pelosi! I want to emphasize that people put certain stresses on certain words, since, as in the Ave, it doesn't make sense just to emphasize whatever note is highest in pitch, but the notes which are highest in content. Thus: "What's that {smell} Congress? It sure {stinks} in here! It's the {mis-leadership} of Nancy {Pelosi}. This is the proper manner in which to sing the lyrics. Danke, Ian Angels we have heard on High Congress said the dollar?s high, Echoing Bernanke?s lie; Then the housing bubble crashed, they look like a donkey's •••! REFRAIN: (x 2) Gloria, Lyndon Larouche was right Get your Children Halo 3, watch them turn into Nazi?s; This is Cheney's fantasy, train your kids for World War 3; REFRAIN: Homeowners protection act, keeps you out of paper shacks; worked in 1933, time you study History; REFRAIN: THANK YOU Ian for getting the yutes ready for another great holiday season in front of a GeorgeTown Starbucks, Trader Vics in LA , the Seattle fish market and anywhere else we can pick up loose change for Lyn. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Er, I'm having an Onion moment, here. Are those two song lyrics actual ones being disseminated to LYMers to sing? This singing thing is just so patently ludicrous. It's reminiscent of both the Hare Krishnas (who seemed to eventually move beyond it) and the Up With People cult. But then the whole self-labeled "youth" movement is also peculiar. I have to imagine that a good portion of the yutes are over 21, and I have a hard time imagining that they are still thinking of themselves as "youths". But maybe they are. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 449 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Tonight I was present for a keynote address by former Treasury Secretary John Snow, and during the Q&A entirely forgot to ask about "Lyndon LaRouche's Homeowners and Bank Protection Act." Shucks. Well, the food was good. | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 181 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Timeforrepentance, please don't leave us. Your spoof, in your "first" post, of the plunging intellectual (or, as you so wittily misspelled it, "intillectual, evoking the sense of either until-lectual or intittlelectual) level of the current crop of LYM members was too masterful not to merely whet our appetites for more of the same. Following on the heels of the genuine item, the LYM member writeup of a "basement" class on world history posted by xlcr, your spoofed inability to spell, write a coherent sentence, or express a single coherent thought, captured the spirit of the writings of the new crop of LaRouchians, clearly far more anti-intellectual, poorly educated, and inarticulate than the generation represented by most of us on Factnet. In particular I enjoyed your feigned critique of a post of mine, where you comment on my assertion that LaRouche always talks about Kepler with respect to a narrow domain, but never mentions anything about the rest of the vast output of Kepler, that: "When something said such as this goes uncontested one knows the beings in the general area of activity are less than dead! What needs to be done here so the brainwashing generally reflects itself less aggregiously in this "DUNGEON for the WALKING DECEASED" is for a "magnum opus" of sorts to be collugated from all the scraps of "written waste" secreted on these posts!" First, I really like your neologism "collugated," or is it a paleologism? Sort of a conflation of "collected," "collated" and "corrugated," though I must profess I'm not sure I understand what the significance of "corrugated" is in this context. And "aggregiously" for "egregiously" evokes "aggregate" as well as the intended word, which fits in with the unexpected, fresh, "collugated" to come later in the sentence. But beyond these humorous, if unintended word plays, is the marvelous sutlety of meaning, the deep significance of describing how "brainwashing" can "reflect itself," a sort of "self-reflexive brainwashing," I presume, a marvelous throw-back reference to Early LaRouche and the self-subsisting positive. And what a parody of LaRouche's own recent writings on a number of occasions, not to mention every item of "written waste" contributed by the sub-literati of the LYM writers in the briefings, to express a simple thought so convolutedly, so illiterately, that the meaning can be guessed at, but not determined with certainty. And then the crowning gem in the collection, the priceless "Google can not be used at all handicapping 100% of the zombies here but it will more than suffice to strengthen the intillectual aptitude image reflected here!" Meaning, please? "Handicapping 100% of the zombies," words, but what do they mean? And Google can "more than suffice to strengthen the intillectual(sic) aptitude image..." "Intellectual aptitude image"??? Way to go, timeforrepentance!! You will be missed, unless we can coax you to stay around and share your wit and ability to so perfectly capture the utter inability of LaRouche or his new crop of acolytes to even utter coherent, or often, even grammatical, much less correctly spelled, sentences anymore. The Old LaRouche did at least manage that much. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 684 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
"Er, I'm having an Onion moment, here. Are those two song lyrics actual ones being disseminated to LYMers to sing?" Hell yeah Scrimsaw. That is straight from the basement studio of the WLYM Hit Parade. C'mon everbody!!! Gloooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooria, Lyndon Larouche was right Gloooooooooooooooo ooooooooooo ooooooooooria, Lyndon Larouche was right xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 141 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
Larouchetruth, Was the "Timeforrepentance" prose real or machine generated? If the former, it appears that you have met your match (i.e. "Analyze THIS motherf..ker!"). You’ve made a beautiful attempt, however (bravo – you’ve lightened my morning by many orders of magnitude). Lyn must be in heaven talking to these kids. They are like sponges, soaking up 40 years of madness in one fell swoop. The regurgitation is hilarity cubed. That LIM Generator should be reprogrammed -- it should incorporate the speech patterns of today’s youth. How about some, “It was like…”, “he goes…”, “you know…”? Meantime, more, please! | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 685 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Scrimsaw, you ask about how the LC managed to include the Guelph in our lunacy. In the 1974 period Lyn had traditional enemies that usually were reserved for the John Birch types which meant the Trilats, CFR and THE boogeyman, the Rockefellers. Occasionally we mentioned the Bilderbergers. If you look at the delusional enemies of Lyn, it is just another cheap parlor trick of Lyn to get whatever recruits he can based on his supposed insider knowledge of these people. If you wanted to compare the CFR/Trilats of the right wing groups in the USA, they were light years ahead of Lyn in publishing and money raising as well as influence. For a cult of personality, you have to have more bait. The bait Lyn used was increased in a very interesting way. Instead of just writing about the CFR and such, Lyn made it a personal issue with members by making the members think that they were targeted not by local police, not just a FBI, but the CIA, the KGB, the Mossad, East German Intell ,every other intell service as well as the CFR, the Trilats as well as the left. In this environment of extreme paranoia, circa 1974, Lyn now has a small cadre force for the cult of personality as the original Marxists recruits left and another set of yutes looked at Lyn as knowing who runs the world. If you are going to be competing for money and manpower in a cult of personality, you have to have a better story. Lyn and security were at this time meeting with many far right people via Willis Carto who had a paper with a few hundred thousand PAYING subscribers, a list to make money from, a few dopey congressmen and officials, a publishing house, friends in Europe AND a German Wife. What is interesting is that some people who know a lot more of the menutia of this than I do have found a few cases where Lyn adopted something wholesale from a book or contact to use in his retail cult of personality. I will try to see if I have somewhere the person who was big on Rocky who we adopted in the beginning. Once Lyn met with Carto , I suspect he felt inferior and had to N+1 up Carto. It was at this time Lyn gave the world HIS version of the Holocaust, the endless conspiracies running the past, present and future of the globe and what I think is most important. Lyn now made HIMSELF the center of what every conspiracy on the face of the Earth was now trying to kill or stop. If you are dealing with a few hundred idiots like us back then and yutes today, it makes LYN the center of the universe. The enemies are now all conspiring to assassinate Lyn which IS a big moneymaker. I looked at this back then and joked that what we are doing to save Lyn's life in raising money will keep Lyn alive in a very good life, but kill of most of us. As you can guess, I never was considered for a LC leadership track. The Campaigner Special Report in 1978 which got this whole money, er assasination threat machine going was : "The "Black International " Terrorist plot to Assassinate Lyndon H. Larouche Jr." http://wlym.com/PDF-SpReps/SPRP19.pdf (Message edited by xlcr4life on December 06, 2007) | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 686 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
This was Mother of All conspiracies against Lyn and involved all of your favorite plotters to take over the world and obliterate mankind. But they ALL had to come together to kill Lyn first. Here is but a few pages of villains out to get Lyn. -Heritage Foundation -Eli Lilly Foundation -Zionist ADL -Evelyn De Rothschild and the British Round Table -The Kennedys -Institute for Policy Studies -National Lawyers Guild -Phillip Agee -Cong Larry McDonald -KKK -Communist Labor Party of Michigan -Baader Meinhoff Gang -Red Brigades -Maltese Order -The Order of St. John of Jerusalem -The Mount Pelerin Society -The Royal Families of Britain and Holland -The Hapsburgs -The Zionist Branch of the Maltese order, The Jerusalem Foundation -Lawyers Nahum Bernstein of the Law Firm Bernstein, Seawell and Kove. -Attorney Fredrick Block -The City of London -Disque Dean of Lazard Freres. -Henry Bloch of Warburg Pincus -IISS , International Institute for Strategic Studies -The Whore of Babylon -Order of Malta -Queen Elizabeth -The Duke of Glauchester -Lord Caccia -British Protestant Nobility -The heads of state of Lichtenstein and Luxembourg -Admiral Stansfield Turner, a Rhodes scholar and Royal Institute of IIntl Affairs mbr -International Red Cross -Max Fischer -Murray Koffler, a Jerusalem Foundation associate -Mark Phillips, The Queen's son in law -Mr. MacDougall of the Bank of Montreal -Count Sebag-Montefiore -Henry A. Kissinger -Doug Fraser, head of the UAW -Ken Cokrel -CPUSA -Warsaw Pact Intell -British Intell -Shin Beth -Labor Community Interfaith Coalition Against the Nazis -CounterSpy -Jewish Community Council -Various Left book stores and the Bahai Faith in Detroit -Robert O Anderson and Rober Ingersol of the Aspen Institute -Zionist Lobby Head Philip Klutznick -Standard Oil of INdianna chairman George Meyer -Willy Brandt -Olafe Palme -Professor Francis M. Watson of Rockford College Institute -Baron Max Von Thurn and Taxis This can go on for a few more hours if you see every name and group which is involved in the incredible conspiracy to silence Larouche. What is very interesting is to read how much the word "Zionist " , "Jewish" or "Zionist lobby" is thrown around. Even the recently deceased Norman Mailer is described as part of the "Jewish Literary Mafia" in this brief. In my view, this whole brief and the events surrounding this are another cheap parlor trick by Larouche to further isolate the members in the cult of personality. What Lyn has accomplished here is much easier then using mop up to end any affiliation with the Left. The net result of all of this is that both the Left and right, liberal and conservative sides of the spectrum are now out to kill Larouche. There is no one out there who has any decency or does anything except the cult and of course a whole bunch of wily and sneaky Jews are after Lyn. In the Bizarro world of Larouche, there is no left or right, up or down or good and bad or criminal or non criminal as all critical thinking has been replaced with "Larouche says". There is no black, white or gray .......... matter left I suppose after you spend a lot of time in this crazy house. Check out this Larouche spokesmodel to see how the Bizarro world is governed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/robotclaw/526647989/ The rumour now is that shabby clothed yutes have signs in front of Kinkos with the caption: "Brother, can you spare a ream of paper?"  xlcr4life@hotmail.com (Message edited by xlcr4life on December 06, 2007) | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 55 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
Happy Hanukkah I want to wish one and all Happy Hanukkah in memory of Ken Kronberg and his devotion to human freedom, learning, and happiness. When a bunch of us went up to visit his parents in Peekskill many years ago, I was struck by the fact that they had in their living room portraits of the Maccabees, with the place of honor going to Judah Maccabaeus—Judah the Hammer—the leader of the Jewish uprising against the Graeco-Syrian Antiochus Epiphanes that is commemorated by Hanukkah. You will recall that Antiochus wanted to impose pagan religious practices on the Jews and defile their Temple. You will recall that, about 164 B.C., the Maccabees beat the pants off him and founded the Hasmonean Dynasty. Those who attended Ken Kronberg’s funeral will recall that among the musical offerings—chosen by Ken several years before his death, in discussion with his son—were some of Beethoven’s variations on the “See, Here the Conqu’ring Hero Comes” theme from Handel’s Judas Maccabaeus oratorio. Some people will also recall attending Hanukkah parties at Ken’s and Molly’s house many years ago. I imagine Molly has those portraits of the Maccabees to this day, and I wish the Kronbergs and the Newfelds a Happy Hanukkah too--and all the former members, and current members, in the organization, Jews and non-Jews, who look back with fondness on those days and those times, and who still believe in the ideals Ken believed in--which are, dear friends, so totally at variance with the idees fixes of the organization now. (Message edited by eaglebeak on December 06, 2007) | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 56 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
On a Lighter Note (I guess) Has anyone seen the photo that was lately on the LPAC site, the photo taken at Lyn's triumphant address to the Chinese whatever-it-was? Anyone but me, that is? I direct your attention to the leering senility of the expression, the slack jaw and sagging mouth, the malignant glint in the drooping eye. Yoicks! One thing's sure, Dorian Gray--you aren't getting any younger. Do you think the LaRouche Youth Movement originally involved Lyn's drinking the blood of babies to stay young? Well, I can tell you this: Whatever it is, it ain't working. | ||
| howie Member Username: howie Post Number: 88 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 192.220.136.182 |
Back up a bit. What is with this? “*P.S.* Snippets of daily emails have been appearing on that wily, suicide-inducing website, factnet; so, please, people, don’t share these e-mails with those bozos! And if you are a culprit, please call the war room, and apologize.” #1: Factnet is inducing suicidal thoughts in the mind of the author of this note. #2: The author of this note cannot get away from the events of last April. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 57 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
Also-- Call the warroom and apologize? That'll work. In my experience, apologizing was all that was necessary to get right with Lyn. "Agape" was his middle name. Am I right? | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 58 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
It may be that FactNet is said to be "suicide-inducing" because it is widely believed that Molly Kronberg posts on FactNet, and LaRouche decided in August, I think it was, to take the position that Molly Kronberg induced Ken Kronberg's suicide by giving $$ to the Bush campaign. It was an idiotic ploy, but the best Lyn could come up with, given the hand he'd been dealt. Or dealt himself. Plus no doubt he was working with the advice of his cook-lawyer.... Whatever the case, the "warroom" would never know. They write the missives, they don't think 'em up. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 451 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
At a certain point commentary becomes entirely unnecessary, what with the gales of laughter and all: (The following is a LaRouchePAC.com pre-publication release) Our U.S.A. Needs A Real Candidate!: Let There Be a Time of Thanksgiving by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. With no less than the humility with which the author presents this report to the deserving, intended next President of our United States, I present him, or her the following. etc. You know the drill. http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/06/our-u-s-needs-real-candidate-let-there-be-time-thanksgiving.html | ||
| brewncue Member Username: brewncue Post Number: 58 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 72.161.0.16 |
"I want to wish one and all Happy Hanukkah in memory of Ken Kronberg and his devotion to human freedom, learning, and happiness." Your words are appropriate. My heart goes out to Ken Kronberg's family and friends, whose Hannukah is inevitably, deeply saddened by their loss. However, eaglebeak, if all of what you have posted on this board reflects your true thoughts, how can your words respecting Ken Kronberg be honest? Ken Kronberg was apparently devoted to LaRouche. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 59 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
No, Brewncue, Ken Kronberg was devoted to human freedom, learning, and happiness. His devotion to LaRouche eroded considerably over the years, as attested by what he said in the last two years of his life, and by his final act. A time may come when I and others who knew Ken, maybe even Molly Kronberg, will go into more detail, to make clearer how Ken had come to understand who LaRouche really was. For now, let me quote from the sermon given at Ken's funeral--were you there? were you listening closely?: Some time ago, Ken told Molly and Max something very significant, that shed light not only on his life, but on his death, and the manner of his death: he said, I used to believe that conflict – attacking everyone all the time – was the way of the universe. I now know that the universe is run by love. Actually, I have been told that what Ken said was,"When I was 23, I thought the universe was run by the polemical method. But now I know it's love." This was cleaned up for the homily, because, my understanding is, Molly and Max did not want to attack the Labor Committee. And if the words "polemical method" had been used, everyone would have known what Ken was really talking about. It's good and appropriate that your heart goes out to Ken's family and friends, but it would be even better if you knew and appreciated the real Ken, a man of high intelligence and a certain capacity for independent thought, a capacity sometimes overwhelmed by LaRoucheism, but ultimately worlds away from it. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 142 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
brewncue, Wives are often "devoted" to abusive husbands. Husbands are often "devoted" to abusive wives. Workers are often "devoted" to abusive bosses. So what?! Perhaps they are wishing/praying that conditions will improve, despite the evidence at hand. The ex-members who post on this board are extremely impressive individuals. Almost everyone states that, at one time or another, they believed that LaRouche was a good person, fighting for the "common good", and not a completely self-centered freak-show-level charlatan. At some point they changed their minds. Each case is different, but practical moves are rarely instantaneous. Acting upon changed views and extracting themselves from day-to-day obligations, commitments, and relationships is difficult. The amount of sunken "capital" is rarely small. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 171 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
I think that the level of commitment of some of the posters on this site to even be able to spend the time trying to decipher or interpret the increasingly incoherent gibberish Lyn writes is a sign of the commitment of members on this site to 1) make sense of our own involvement for however many years we were in the org. in the belief we were doing something good; and 2) obviously to try and educate LYMers and perhaps more significantly the significant others (family and friends) who are trying to either prevent others from slipping into the fold or to present a way out to those already in. (I apologize for the LaRouchian length of the above sentence). I know that sometimes I feel I am wasting time trying to go back and read old Campaigners, briefings, etc. since that is no longer a part of my life, but it is useful just to be able to show to the newbies the devolution of Lyn's thought processes. I was amazed when I read Lyn's "Thanksgiving homily" and found one sentence with eight commas! The comma seems to be LaRouche's favorite punctuation mark since it permits him to string together a multiplicity of unrelated and disjointed ideas or facts into what he considers a coherent whole...as he writes... "Specifically, most of the campaigning by the candidates so far, has either expressed simple ignorance of the actual policies on which our republic's survival urgently depends, or, is a victim of his, or her disqualifying habit, of avoiding those issues which "the big campaign financiers," who seem to own most of the candidates, might consider unpleasant." | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 172 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
I should add that half of those commas appear to be misplaced. Is "most of the campaigning by the candidates so far..." an independent clause, a dependent clause or just a fractured phrase. I see no reason for the comma after so far,... As does the phrase "has either expressed simple ignorance..." modify the word campaigning in which case at least there would be subject/verb agreement in that has is for a singlar noun. If the word "candidate" is supposedly the subject, then "has" should be have. Since the next prhase "is a victim of his, or her disqualifying habit" (whatever that means) it would appear that candidates is the intended subject, in which case why didn't Lyn write "have either expressed..." instead of "has either expressed..." And why the comma after "the big campaign financiers", that is not a clause that needs to be separated? And can Eaglebeak or LaRouchetruth interpret the following: "A candidate who fails to change what has been heretofore that prevalent failure shared among all visible (as opposed to invisible?) leading candidates, would be remembered chiefly for his, or her part in bringing that both monstrous national, and global tragedy for which our people would suffer for generations to come." I have no idea how the last phrase "..in bringing that both monstrous national, and global (again why a comma between national, and global?) tragedy for which our people would suffer flows from the first part of the sentence. I would assume if he submitted his work to an English High School teacher, the phrase could be rewritten as: "Any candidate who fails to overcome the shortcomings currently shared among all the leading candidates would be remembered chiefly for his or her part in leading both the nation and the world into a tragedy that would cause our people untold suffering for generations to come." But the whole structure of that sentence is ridiculous because he is saying that any candidate who acts like the rest of the "visible" candidates who does what all the other "visible" candidates are doing will cause future generations suffering. He could just as easily have said that "all the current leading candidates reflect the same inability to deal with this (you pick the topic) world shattering problem." Trying to decipher Lyn's giberrish may make good subject } Lytton has been used to exemplify florid and verbose prose. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 173 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Lastly, I began looking at Lyn's use of footnotes. In scholarly circles a footnote would largely be used to actually cite a reference that is mentioned in the regular text. Instead, LaRouche seems to be using the footnotes to simply further rant on his points. At one point he references an idea that he supposedly states comes from Leibniz which is followed by a footnote (16 if you care to follow along). I expected that the footnote would identify a book and page from which LaRouche located the pertinent idea. Lo and behold rather than identifying a source he simply goes on to say in footnote 16: As explicitly and absolutely contrary to the incompetent underlying assumptions of such haters of Kepler, Leibniz, et al., as A. de Moivre, D'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Lagrange, Laplace, Cauchy, Clausius, Grassmann, Lord Kelvin, et al. Lyn certainly proves his contention with that reference. A psychologist or logician would probably call it circular reasoning. | ||
| tuer07 Junior Member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 36 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
I think that Nick Benton’s blog hits the mark on the Larouche-internet-ban question: [http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=26626298&blogID=335707671] Thursday, December 06, 2007 AU REVOIR, YOU POOR LURKING SOULS… By Nick Benton Friendly or not, an average of 80-plus new sets of anonymous eyes have visited my blog entries here every day since last summer. That was until this past week, when the number dropped dramatically and has not rebounded beyond its pre-summer average. Then I learned from a reliable source that the sudden downturn corresponded with a new edict by Lyndon LaRouche banning his minions from the Internet, North Korea style. My razor sharp mind surmised a correlation, confirming to me what I’d surmised all along, that a lot of the lurking into my personal MySpace blog came from folks still trapped inside the LaRouche cult. The interest arose since mine was the first news organization to break the story of the relationship betwen the suicide of Ken Kronberg last April and his decades-long association with LaRouche. I followed that with an autobiographical piece in my newspaper, the Falls Church News-Press, entitled, “How I Explain LaRouche,” documenting my experiences, dating roughly from the mid-1970s to the late-1980s, associating with LaRouche. I followed that with a number of autobiographical blog entries posted here on my first-hand experiences with the LaRouche nightmare. It is clear now that this peaked interest came from people still tied to that unhappy LaRouche association, including perhaps some who were once ostensibly friends of mine who originally affiliated with LaRouche as I (and Ken Kronberg) did as young, serious civil rights and anti-war activists in the late 1960s and early 1970s era. So now it is suddenly “lights out” for them, not only on my blog entries, but on all the blessings of the Internet, including the access to such a boundless wealth of knowledge, science, art and culture. LaRouche has thus certified himself, beyond earlier confirmations, as a petty dicatator, cult leader, thug and wicked abuser of his own most loyal followers. Turning off the light to the world’s knowledge is no different than Hitlerian book burners and their ilk down through history. Forced ignorance is the ultimate tool of every evil tyrant in history. So, how are LaRouche loyalists going to take this one? Those I once knew have most likely been so beaten down by 20 more years of LaRouche abuse since I left that that they’re hardly ready to wake up now. At this point, it may be too much for them to face up to the fact that they’ve been wrong, and that they’ve thrown their lives into the toilet only to benefit a mean-spirited petty con man. But I’d remind them, as I tried to in my blog entries that clearly they were reading here, that there still is a lot of life for them in the wonderfully rich, technicolor, if admittedly imperfect, world outside of cult despair. They need to know that what holds them in the cult is nothing but themselves, their own internal fears and lack of nerve. That’s it. If they want out, they need to devise a plan, and stick to it. It may take some time, as it did for me. Once outside the LaRouche cult, they will see how invisible and irrelevant it is to the real world, which was the biggest, most shocking discovery I made when I finally left. Also, there are huge opportunities to make a significant difference in this real, technicolor world, where tuna sandwiches can taste really, really good. [also posted on Skull-Bones] | ||
| brewncue Member Username: brewncue Post Number: 59 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.90.131 |
For what I'm worth: eaglebeak, I accept, and I respect your response. We should all try to remember that love is the ultimate issue, always. earnest_one, I do not accept, nor do I respect your response. (Message edited by brewncue on December 07, 2007) | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 452 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
The old divide-and-conquer routine: ho hum. I agree that much of the inertia in the older members who want out is owing to the bulk of that sunken capital. I have found the waste of my years in the Bizarro World useful in several respects now that I am out: I have much more joy in every day living knowing how bad life can be (i.e., in an abusive cult of personality) plus it has taught me humility in that (1) I now know I am not anywhere near as smart as I used to think I was sitting on bowed and pinched milk crate with all the answers before me on the ratty card table and (2) I was forced to admit to myself and others that I was wrong. You would not believe how rare it is for people to say, yeah, I screwed up big time: nothing improves your character as much in that regard as having squandered your youth to a felonious, antisemitic, uneducated, narcissistic madman with an inferiority complex, a guy who thinks that if he yells loud enough no one will notice where he distributes his com,mas. So LaRouchite guys and gals, just pick up and leave already. You'll be so happy you did. Dum spiro, spero. | ||
| brewncue Member Username: brewncue Post Number: 60 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 69.29.90.131 |
Oh yeah, I forgot I was only trying to conquer three or four cynics. Ho hum is right. Pardon the interruption. Yep, you're silly. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 143 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
brewncue: Are you now, or have your ever been, a member of... | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 182 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Doesn’t anyone else remember that some time in the 1980s, Lyn actually wrote and circulated internally a catechism on the “proper” (sic) use of commas, where he laid out some cockamamie justification for putting them in all the wrong places (and skipping many of the right places)? Damned if I can remember exactly the rationale he used at the time, something about using commas to highlight content, without regard to cadence, how anyone actually speaks in terms of pauses (even Lyn is too smart to speak, putting in pauses, where he would write commas—it would sound just too silly), or any of the grammatical rules that mandate where commas are supposed to go. I recall at the time, in real time, thinking this was bats—which recognition wasn’t great enough to send me out the door, but I didn’t drink the koolaid on this one, either. The result has been highly comical ever since. I can well imagine, though I have no intention to spend a single well-earned second of my time researching it, that the manifestation in LHL’s writings of his quixotic use of commas has gotten tangibly worse since he lost his last editor and now gets his unedited schlock published just as he writes it (umm, that last editor wouldn’t, by some highly ironic quirk of circumstance, have been Molly Kronberg, now, could it? Or was that the devil’s pact, implicit to be sure, where he let her stay on the NC, and she made him readable, or at least, more readable than otherwise. Actually, of course not, he probably cursed her every time he read something of his that she had edited—her “favor” wasn’t to him, but to the membership, and the readership (both readers), that made LaRouche more readable). Anyhow, badBoris, I can’t resist your invitation. Actually, in these two sentences that you dissect, we have two different types of cases. The first one is relatively acceptable in terms of word order and basic semantic meaning: "Specifically, most of the campaigning by the candidates so far, has either expressed simple ignorance of the actual policies on which our republic's survival urgently depends, or, is a victim of his, or her disqualifying habit, of avoiding those issues which "the big campaign financiers," who seem to own most of the candidates, might consider unpleasant." If the commas are fixed, it actually reads semi-literately. Yes, you are right, there should not be a comma after “so far.” No, there is no verb mistake between “has” and “have”—the subject of the sentence is “most” followed by two prepositional phrases, perfectly acceptable grammatically, and “most” can take either a plural or singular verb, depending on whether it refers to plural objects (“most of us have…”), or most of a single object (“most of the bread is moldy”)—in this case, it is the latter type, “most of the campaigning.” Things get dicey when he comes to “or,” both because no comma should follow that, but also because he has put his “either” in the wrong place. His construction reads: “has either expressed…or is…” that is to say, “has expressed…” as the first of the pair linked by “either,” and “has is…” as the second. But you can’t say that something “has is” anything. The “either” should have preceded the “has.” And, the commas after both “his” and “habit” are ridiculous violations of sense, cadence and grammar. Isn’t it deliciously poetically just that this nattering nabob, who prates constantly about beauty, especially in music, has chosen to use commas to make written speech, if ever anyone paused where he puts commas, as ugly as possible. He who prattles endlessly about truth and meaning puts commas in places that render his own prose meaningless. | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 183 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Anyway, on to the specific challenge that badBoris put to me, the second of his two examples: "A candidate who fails to change what has been heretofore that prevalent failure shared among all visible leading candidates, would be remembered chiefly for his, or her part in bringing that both monstrous national, and global tragedy for which our people would suffer for generations to come." You are right, BB, this almost defies untangling. Though, not only because of the commas, in fact, the commas are the least of the problems here. But they surely don’t help. But this one is a true howler. The second two commas, after “for his” and after “national” are superfluous. But LHL makes a more important error in misusing the word “that,” since in this context, use of “that” demands some sort of elaboration as to what the “that” actually is. If you were to say something like “that prevalent failure which has destroyed previous candidacies,” or something to that effect, you could get away with it (it’s still an odd locution). But “that” is specific, and can only be used where the readers, at least, know what is being referred to. Hence, in the second use of “that,” where he is speaking of a future hypothetical (as opposed to a “failure” that presumably has already happened) condition, “that” requires that the readership already know and accept the truth of what follows the “that,” which, manifestly, they don’t, and wouldn’t. The hilarity continues: who but Mr. Mouth himself would say “change…a failure.” You can change a failed policy, or a failed anything else. But you don’t change a failure itself—you actually can’t change a “failure.” The “failure” is the state of having failed. And failing is like death in being permanent. If the nature of the failure doesn’t kill you, you can recover and go on, but you don’t erase the fact of the failure, whatever it was. You can only change the things that led to the failure. And “prevalent” can’t be used to modify “failure” either. Failures (plural) can be prevalent, but a discrete singular cannot be prevalent. That’s why the whole first phrase reads so funnily. Actually, the Great Brain presumably means to say “failing.” Genius Runamuck really let one rip in the last part of this great sentence. Surely, he meant “bringing about,” not just “bringing.” Doesn’t he reread his own stuff? This is so obvious. Secondly, he has “both” in the wrong place, creating an incomplete sentence. You can’t say “both this.” But he does. He presumably meant “bringing about that monstrous tragedy, both national and global, for…” What’s amazing about his writings is how little he ever attempts to even nominally actually prove, and how much he merely asserts with such intended “authority” that people are supposed to just believe him, not because he has given them any reasons to do so. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 144 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
"Genius Runamuck" is still in business; this alone is proof that he need not "even nominally actually prove" his assertions. He still has a following, locution failures notwithstanding. Indeed, he is speaking to Yutes using THEIR thought patterns (scrambled minds). We are witnessing pure genius. Agility abounds -- he is simply adapting to new circumstances. Given LL’s advanced age, it’s a world historical feat. Fossilization is not extent -- he's becoming younger! | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 453 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
To convince oneself of what a lowlife LaRouche is, one need go no further than this sophisticated caprice: Barney Frankly Masturbates with Fascist Rohatyn and Paulson’s Scheme; Blocks the HBPA Increase Decrease http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/07/barney-frankly-masturbates-fascist-rohatyn-and-paulson-s-sch.html In response to Frank's despicable behavior, Lyndon LaRouche commented, "The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things. Barney Frank is an idiot. The poor guy, in whom we placed trust, has proven himself to be an idiot. He is a lap dog for chaos. Barney Frank masturbates. We offered him a reasonable discussion, and he responded by making depraved statements about us. He is an •••••••. He is an important ••••••• in the Congress, but still an •••••••. He betrayed us by refusing to accept the dialogue we offered him." LaRouche has been stridently slandering and backbiting people morning, noon, and night 24/7 for over sixty years - and then when someone finds fault with him in even the most innocuous manner, he whines and carries on like the insignificant little b--ch he is. What a wimp. I wonder how mama Jessie likes the potty mouth on her little darling. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 687 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Lyn, besides, channeling FDR, is also, having a flashback, to the Beatles Magical Mystery Tour Album, as part of the British, attack, on the USA. Check this out when clueless yutes try to take world power. http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/07/barney-frankly-masturbates-fascist-rohatyn-and-paulson-s-sch.html "Meanwhile, a nervous-looking Rohatyn stood off to the side without saying anything. Frank did the same thing to the second LYM member, who wanted to ask him to expand on the need for investment in infrastructure (which Frank had briefly referenced during his opening remarks). In response to Frank's despicable behavior, Lyndon LaRouche commented, ", "The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things. Barney Frank is an idiot. The poor guy, in whom we placed trust, has proven himself to be an idiot. He is a lap dog for chaos. Barney Frank masturbates. We offered him a reasonable discussion, and he responded by making depraved statements about us. He is an assh*le. He is an important assh*le in the Congress, but still an assh*le. He betrayed us by refusing to accept the dialogue we offered him." Whomever is in the LC/LYM and writing this stuff and posting it, I salute you. "The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things" "Walrus"? Let us see if there are any clues about the LYM in this song. I am HE as you are not he as you are me and we are all together. See how yutes run like pigs from a gun, see how they fly. I'm scheming. Sitting in a card table shrine, waiting for the LYM van to come. Corporation filthy tee-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday quota. MAN, you been a naughty boy, you let your facebook grow long. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob Mister City Steinberg sitting Pretty little security in a row. See how they spy like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run. I'm crying. I'm cry------------ing, I'm crying. Yellow matter custard, dripping from Helga's dead dog's eye. Crabalocker fishwife, pornographic priestess, Papert, you been a naughty girl and you let your Knickers down. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob. Sitting in Ibykus garden waiting for the sun. If the sun don't come, you get a tan from Standing in the English rain. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob. Expert texpert choking smokers, LCers Don't you think Larouche laughs at you? (ho ho ho, he he he, ha ha ha) See how they live like pigs in a sty, see how they snide. I'm not crying. Semolina Cheminade, climbing up the Eiffel Tower. Elementary penguin yutes singing Hare Krishna. Man, you should have seen them licking Edgar Allan Poe. I am the eggman, they are the eggmen, I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo goo (rhythmical speaking along with juba's). Juba juba juba, juba, juba, juba, juba, juba, juba juba. Juba juba..... (speaking) Lyn certainly laughs at you yutes when he see you falling for this lunacy hook, line and sinker. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 145 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
Perhaps Lyn is a rich BlueBlood A..hole and the NCLC is simply Lyn's private comedy club, designed soley for his own entertainment (sadistic f..k). | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 454 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
I thought the wimp was referring to Chumley. "Gee, Tennessee." | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Even better than the Beatles song, LHL was actually quoting from "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in Through the Looking Glass: "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." The whole poem is here: http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html and well worth a revisit. What next? Will Lyn start quoting from the Mad Hatter? | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
One of things I appreciate about this board is the perspective it has gained me on the NCLC's evolution and working mechanism. As a long-time observer, but with relatively little insight into how the LCers perceived their own world, I just saw the LC as a kind of ideological machine that churned out wacky conspiracy theories that mutated regularly for unfathomable reasons. But thanks to the decypherings of Xlcr, larouchetruth, eaglebeak, and others, I've increasingly gained a sense of how one delusionary emergency replaces the previous one: a kind of willful ADD process ushered in from the top ranks (LHL, Jeff, and co.) After a certain point, it seems so obvious that it is hard to fathom how the poor LYMers are so stuck in the system. But of course it is the hardest to get that objective perspective when you are Inside The Machine. Too bad. | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 184 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Slight correction, Scrimshaw. Things are not "ushered in from the top ranks." They are ushered in from the top rank, the Big Cheese himself. Jeff is nothing but an imnplementer and facilitator. He originates nothing. | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 185 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Whoa, Boy, as our erstwhile Great White Father once penned. Great finds from LPAC, friends, but lack of energy in discussing them. These two pieces, his “Thanksgiving” phillipic and his attack on Barney Frank are both notable. “Thanksgiving,” first. Just the quoted intro to the prolegomena: Our U.S.A. Needs A Real Candidate!: Let There Be a Time of Thanksgiving by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. With no less than the humility with which the author presents this report to the deserving, intended next President of our United States, I present him, or her the following. I invite all and sundry to ponder what the f**k is going on in just these very few lines. A lot, my friends, and it is all pretty kinky. I supposed the first line is par for the course. But the second line…. What, pray tell, is the Old Geezer suggesting there should be a time of thanksgiving to be thankful for? Only two candidates come to mind, both of which suggest a level of self-assigned self-importance to Lyn that would beggar the meaning of “hubris.” He is either calling for people to be thankful for the economic crisis that he says will lead to a New Dark Age if not stopped (echoing his “Millenium” statement on the occasion of his own birthday, when he welcomed the present crisis with open arms), or saying that people should be thankful that he has written the treatise that follows, his instruction manual to the child-candidates who, he urges, should finally listen to Daddy. But the juxtaposition of saying the U.S. needs a real candidate, which is to say that it doesn’t now have one, suggesting e have a real problem, with requesting, as if he were God himself (“Let there by light…”) that there be a “Time of Thanksgiving,” is eerie: what, in God’s name, is the connection between these two sentences?? That we should be thankful that we have no candidate? What? And all of this pales beside the hyper-hubris of calling for a “Time of Thanksgiving,” on Thanksgivings Day, as if the day didn’t exist yet, and he is calling it into existence for the first time, like he was Lincoln or something. Is this bizarre or what? But it gets better, if that is possible. The next sentence almost defies exposition. First of all, it is redundant, in a very funny way. He presents the report “with…humility” with which he presents the report. Let’s try to drop all grammatically extraneous words to make clearer how peculiar this oddly circular construction really is: “With…the humility with which [I] present this report, I present [this report].” I am staring at it, and I can’t unravel it. This sentence is to good writing what Andy Warhol is to Leonardo and Michelangelo. A mere mortal would have said something like “With humility, I submit this report to…” And that is not to point out the weirdness of the phrase “with no less than the humility.” Using the definite article “the” implies that the humility in question has already been identified, which is of course not the case. With WHAT humility, we may rightly ask. And of course, in LaRouche’s case, this takes on a hilarious connotation, as TOM hasn’t a humble bone in his anatomy. (continued) | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 186 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
And then we come to “to the deserving, intended next president…” What in earth is this all about? “Deserving”?? Remember, Lyn is writing this, not someone who thinks at least one candidate is good. His whole thesis is that not one candidate comes remotely close to measuring up. So, how could he be calling any of them “deserving?” Beats me. And “intended”?? Intended by whom? An intention requires to have a subject, he/she who intends the intention. How can any of the candidates be called the “intended” next president? And the weirdness continued: he is addressing this to only one of the candidates, not all of them presently running now. He is presenting it to the winner of the November election, not even just the Democratic nomination winner (though in his mind one can assume he is thinking only of the Democratic field. Which is to say that he assumes that a Democrat will win, an odds-on assumption, but hardly written in stone, especially if Clinton is the candidate.) But which one? Of course, this can’t be known. So to whom is this report intended to be presented to, and when? Taking it literally, it is not to be presented to any of the candidates at least until one of the Democrats wins the nomination and becomes the presumptive next president. So, as written, this report should be presented to nobody. Of course TOI (The Old Idiot) has no idea what a humungous semantic, syntactic and grammatical jumble he has made of this. Now, on to the Barney Frank atrocity (read the entire piece, http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/07/barney-frankly-masturbates-fascist-rohatyn-and-paulson-s-sch.html . This piece certainly ranks with the most despicable pieces Lyn has ever penned. It would be a fools errand to read LaRouche’s entire corpus to identify the other contenders, but I think this piece tops the Pelosi as Cheney’s condom several times over, and that’s saying something. First, to the headline: Barney Frankly Masturbates with Fascist Rohatyn and Paulson’s Scheme; Blocks the HBPA The most obvious, disgusting, aspect is the use of the word masturbates, in the context of Frank being gay. And in the last paragraph, Lyn returns to the same scatological gutter by calling Frank an “as*h*le” not once, not twice, but three times—which of course takes on a putrid connotation in this context. There is no doubt in my mind that both references were made with Frank’s sexual orientation front and center. Beyond this feature, the first sentence is completely odd for another reason. Like I’ve pointed out before, Lyn simply doesn’t do antecedents. In this case, his problem is with post-cedents, but the principle is the same. This sentence says either “Frank masturbates with Rohatyn and with Paulson’s scheme,” or “Frank masturbates with Rohatyn’s and Paulson’s scheme.” Either way, the result is risible. “Masturbate” is an intransitive verb. Meaning, it doesn’t take an object. And for a male, you only “do” it with one object, the obviously indicated part of the male anatomy. So, if one masturbates “with” someone else, it can only mean that both of you are masturbating, and that you and that person are doing it in the same location—you are “with” each other while you do it. Somehow, I don’t think this is the intended meaning here, but who knows, maybe it is? But then we have “and Paulson’s scheme,” which admits of only one meaning, that the scheme itself, not Paulson, is also masturbating, a strange piece of transmorphic metaphorical transference. I mean, can you believe. He really, actually wrote this sub-drivel. (continued) | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 187 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
And the final sentence, “Blocks the HBPA” isn’t funny for the reasons the rest is funny, but it is completely without context. To be properly included in the same headline as the first part, it logically and semantically must be a consequence of the former, but how is masturbating, with or without Rohatyn, and with or without Paulson’s scheme, responsible for blocking the HBPA? But enough on this. The whole article should be read. It’s last paragraph follows: In response to Frank's despicable behavior, Lyndon LaRouche commented, "The time has come, the walrus said, to speak of many things. Barney Frank is an idiot. The poor guy, in whom we placed trust, has proven himself to be an idiot. He is a lap dog for chaos. Barney Frank masturbates. We offered him a reasonable discussion, and he responded by making depraved statements about us. He is an as*hole. He is an important as*hole in the Congress, but still an as*hole. He betrayed us by refusing to accept the dialogue we offered him." Scrimshaw, you are of course correct in identifying the source as Alice in Wonderland, a not inappropriate reference for most things about LHL these days. But the funny part is how inappropriate the reference is. The quote is what the Walrus says to the oysters just before he and the Carpenter prepare to eat all the oysters that trusted them and followed them out of their burrows (hmm, a kind of pre-metaphor for what LaRouche does with his new recruits, metaphorically eating their minds?). And what the Walrus then says is complete nonsense: "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." So, if Lyn really means to liken himself to the Walrus, he is, to be sure inadvertently, announcing that he will talk of things fully as nonsensical as why the sea is boiling hot, whether pigs have wings, etc. Which, of course, is actually true. But one senses this is not what TOI had in mind. To drive home the irony, having said he will talk of “many things,” he proceeds to basically talk of one thing, that Barney Frank is an idiot. LaRouche is merely “reference dropping” here, without rhyme or reason. Some odd perturbation in his mental universe caused an internal time warp to open up, and in popped this reference, and out it came on paper. What a fool! Next, we have his reference to Frank’s “despicable” behavior. Which was (read the paragraph two previous) that he didn’t let two LYM members take over his press conference. He told them that they couldn’t ask questions because they weren’t credentialed reporters. Which, I’m sure, they weren’t. Like Frank, or anyone, could be expected to hold press conferences where anyone at all who showed up could ask questions? Refer to how LaRouche himself brushed off the very first question asked him in his last webcast, with nothing but invective for the questioner, whose question he refused to answer. Of all people to be upset when a question wasn’t responded to!! (continued) | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
But, for LHL, this is “despicable.” Then we come to the “Barney Frank is an idiot,” sentence. Amazing. Absolutely no context. On what basis is any reader expected to know why LaRouche is calling him an idiot? He hasn’t said what harm Frank has done LaRouche, or anyone. Not answering a question hardly makes one an idiot. We have here a manifestation of a disorder that has been progressing rapidly in LHL over recent years, HEID (Hyper-Ellipsis Incoherence Disorder). Actually, HEID probably explains most of the points I highlighted in the first article as well. LaRouche has conclusions which flow from a long daisy chain of points, but he, in his solipsistic cocoon, increasingly fails to realize that no one else but he (and probably most of the members, who already know the plot), certainly no one else “outside,” can possibly follow the reasoning and supply the large number of steps of the argument that must be inferred. In this instance, one assumes, Frank is an idiot because he knows what the solution is, the HBPA, and is too stupid to adopt it, or some such thing. But none of this line of argument is presented. Then we have “the poor guy.” What? You have just slimed him, accusing him of masturbating, and you are about to repeat that, and call him an as*hole, but suddenly he is also “the poor guy.” That phrase suggests someone who is a victim of something, but that’s not a possible reading in this context. There is no intelligible reason for Lyn to call him that here, in this piece. Then we have “in whom we placed trust.” What?? Who, pray tell, is “we” in this context. Surely not Lyn, or the “org.” I can’t imagine Lyn means to ‘fess up that he has been a secret fan of Frank’s, trusting him, until now. One can infer that Lyn meant to say that “the people” trusted Frank, in the same sense that they trust all elected officials, to look out for their best interests. If so, HEID has struck again. Then, Lyn repeats himself with the same non sequitur about Frank being an idiot. Next, Frank is “a lapdog for chaos.” Curious personification of chaos. Calling him “Rohatyn’s lapdog” would at least make his meaning clear. A lapdog is one who slavishly obeys a master. So, chaos is Frank’s new master, giving him orders? If TOI had called Frank an abetter of chaos, or a facilitator of chaos, he could have been coherent and made sense. Not today, I guess. Now, next, we have a new descent into worse than obscenity. Without even the context of linking him with Rohatyn, we have “Barney Frank masturbates.” End of sentence. Follows from nothing. Leads to nothing. Just sits there, gratuitously, screaming out that the author of this sentence has to be the biggest boor on the planet, if not the solar system. What political point does TOI think he is making here? Which becomes doubly hilarious juxtaposed with the following sentence. “We offered him a reasonable discussion.” “Reasonable”?? Like this present diatribe is “reasonable?” Like any discussion with a LYM fanatic can be reasonable (actually, that’s not fair—in fairness to some LYM members, as certain reports that have come to light document, some of them actually shut up, or temper their outbursts, when in the real world—not all of them have been so totally deadened to the effect on those around them that they have when they behave the way LaRouche wants them to, ranting, imitating his scatological epithets, etc., that they can’t come off as “reasonable” sounding at first hearing)? (continued) | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 189 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Now, note also that the “reasonable discussion” that was offered was the LYM member charging Frank with taking advice from the man (Rohatyn) who has allegedly been engaged in destroying the physical economy of the U.S., as evidenced by his helping to destroy the Delphi parts company. This is LaRouche’s meaning of “reasonable” discussion? Yes, of course it is. But that operates only inside the confines of his head bones. And further, he doesn’t mean “reasonable” at all, but “reasoned,” as in “reasoned argument.” Something that LaRouche simply doesn’t do, and neither do his followers. “and he responded by making depraved statements about us.” OH, COME ON! Can he really be so totally, utterly, out beyond the reach of the solar wind, on beyond Pluto, that he can fail to at least sense, if not see clearly, the hypocrisy of accusing Frank of being “depraved” when his own language is 100 times more disgusting than anything Frank said. And what, in truth, did Frank say that was so depraved? We can assume it is what was put in the article, since if he’d something else that was worse, you can be sure they would have reported it. It was: "I know that Lyndon LaRouche has had an obsession with Felix Rohatyn for a very long time.” THIS is “depraved.”?? Methinks LHL hasn’t a clue what this word means. But to repeat, can he really, truly be so self-unaware that he doesn’t notice the irony of his attacking Frank for being “depraved” for pointing out a simple fact (that LaRouche has been harping on Rohatyn, granted not continuously, but frequently, since the early 1970s—and you want to claim that isn’t an obsession?), after the language he used to describe Frank? I’ve already mentioned the “He’s an a-hole,” repeated three times. Other than being an intentionally homophobic epithet, what is Lyn’s point? Is Frank that because he shut down the LYM from wrecking his press conference? Is it because of Frank’s “depraved” statement of Lyn’s obsession with Rohatyn? Who knows? HEID strikes again. And THIS, what Lyn has written, IS “reasonable [sic—reasoned] discussion?” Then we have the concluding insanity, “He betrayed us by refusing to accept the dialogue we offered him.” Words fail me (actually, not really, or this would be the end, wouldn’t it—but they’re threatening to do so). So now it’s “dialogue” Frank was offered, not just “reasonable discussion.” Like anyone in Labor Committee has done “dialogue” in the last 35 years? As the saying goes, “it just isn’t done.” And even more comical, now, Frank’s refusal to let the LYM wreck his press conference is a “betrayal.” How, pray tell, could Frank betray LaRouche if he never committed anything to him. You can’t betray what was never committed or promised. Had Frank committed to support LaRouche, and now he went back on his word? Hardly. The ability to charge that Frank betrayed Lyn is just one more incidence of the wildest, most solipsistic, self-absorption of anyone I have ever had the misfortune to know. (continued) | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 190 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Finally, we have the core instance of the effects of Lyns’ case of HEID. The big pole in the tent. The HBPA. Nowhere in this article is it even spelled out. But it is the hidden story that makes anything coherent here, except that you have to know everything about it first. The ellipsized content is that, by backing Bush’s latest plan, or the Democratic intent to build on and expand on it, Congress will be wrecking chances for the HBPA to be passed. Guess what? If the HBPA had ever had a showball’s chance in hell of getting introduced in the House, this might even be true. But here’s the irony. Bush’s proposal IMPLEMENTS A PORTION OF THE HBPA. Yep. Yessiree! It calls for freezing some mortgage payments at their present levels. The HBPA calls for freezing ALL mortgage payments, of everybody, including those of the 98% of homeowners not facing foreclosure. So, logically, shouldn’t LaRouche and the “org” feel vindicated, take this as a sign of Congress moving toward his view, you know, one step at a time, like things work in the real world? Oh, no, because clearly, if a partial implementation can work, or at least help, it means that Lyn on his White Horse (not House) are superfluous. And of course, none of this addresses the main guts of the HBPA, which is drying out all derivatives, putting all the banks into bankruptcy, etc. So, a proposal to help some struggling homeowners, which most people would think is better than nothing, and a step in the right direction (and which is precisely the Democratic Party position, by the way, that Lyn is so vicious in attacking Frank for supporting), is totally opposed by LaRouche. He would rather no homeowners get any relief, until such time, millennia from now, as LaRouche’s HBPA would finally be enacted to save them. Which highlights, among other things, LaRouche’s completely heartless, unfeeling, uncaring true attitude toward the victims of the present mortgage crisis (not to mention all of humanity in all contexts), who are really just pawns, props, in LaRouche’s hoped for scenario that things get so bad, they have to turn to him for his hyper radical “solution.” His Final Solution to the financial system. And this is what fuels his animus toward Frank—by entertaining an alternative to the HBPA that carries out just a small fraction of the HBPA, and thereby in effect sidelining the HBPA, Frank is ensuring that the HBPA will never be brought up and adopted. But of course, this pushing out of the HBPA is, also, like so much else, nothing but an intracranial event for TOI. Frank isn’t consciously or unconsciously moving against the HBPA, or in any way counterposing a pale reflection of the HBPA for the full, hearty HBPA. The contest is purely fictional, playing out only within the LC. Time to let this one go. Good night, all. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 60 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
"The Jaws That Bite, the Claws That Catch" What's most interesting to me about the Barney Frankly piece is that Lyn has entirely let himself go over the recent months--he never had a very good internal censor, to say the least, but now would appear to have none at all. That is, he says the first thing that pops into his head. The title of this press release is one example: Apart from the revolting aspects that larouchetruth so well dissected, there is the "Barney Frankly" business--a classical (clinical) LaRouche "pun," exemplary of his tendency to schizophrenia of some kind--as uncontrollable punning often is--obsession with the sound of the word, with no regard for the meaning. So, even though "frankly" is basically irrelevant, it's there, because he thought of it. A second example is "the Walrus said." Who knows if LaRouche ever read Lewis Carroll? I very much doubt it. But in any case, he knows that when you say "the time has come," in certain literate/literary circles from years ago, the follow-on is "the Walrus says"--for those familiar with the nonsense rhymes of Lewis Carroll. Although I doubt that LaRouche is familiar with them, he knows this sequence. And so, even though it has zero to do with the content or even with the "word-play" of the Frankly release, in it goes. In LaRouche's world, if he thinks it, he has to say it. This is his form of magical control of the outside world. In other words: NOMINALISM, all surface, all the time. That is one dirty secret to Lyn's psyche. There is (pace Gertrude Stein) no there there. It is all about the surface, the sounds, the incantations, the long Name Lists--magic charms, manipulation of word-objects (remember "thought-objects"?). All objectified, all dissosciated. This press release gives insight--if more were needed--into the violent obscenity of LaRouche's inner mental life, a kind of constant assault on the minds and souls and persons of Other People. Meanwhile, it's not in the interests of the LYM or the LC or the NEC or ... to have Lyn unleashing such sewage. For example, no one in the Democratic Party is going to give house room to someone so abusive of speech. How can you, with a straight face, ask an elected official to work with you when this is your guru's work product? | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 688 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
"How can you, with a straight face, ask an elected official to work with you when this is your guru's work product?" Eaglebeak, that kind of logic works in the real world, not in the Bizarro world. Lyn as history shows has never wished to play with anyone, except himself. In the SWP he submitted reams of papers with the hope that they would all bow down and anoit him King.As long as his wives were working and paying the bills, he had plenty of time for that. I guess that once he saw how other gurus in the 1950s were setting up their own operations with devotees from scratch, the business plan became clear. The formula is you send out someone else to make the money, get hurt, broke and then get lost. Whether it is your wife, supporters or cult recruits, everyone is expendable as long as Lyn believes that he is the alpha and omega of it all. I can think of countless projects we began in the LC when we contacted some group using a reasonable issue. The sub prime mtge mess to Lyn is really no diffferent then the late 50s recession, Nixon/Watergate, drug usage, farm foreclosures, high interest rates, musical tuning, plant shutdowns, globalization, water shortages , CO2 or any number of foot in the door thingies . The end product is to never actually work with someone or something, but to use Lyn cheap parlor trick for the members, raise money/recruits and find some supporters to worship Lyn. No matter what the issue is, Lyn will always rant and rave that no one else can solve this crisis except him. Elites are supposed to be seriously debating the "Fill in the blank Larouche Plan" to keep the members thinking that their card table shrining and boiler room hijinx are accomplishing something. During any of these initiatives, Lyn will ALWAYS end up writing that he has seen how the others are responding to the crisis and they all have failed for whatever reason. Thus, Lyn is the saviour and only saviour the yutes and last gasp hangers on should believe in. If your whole world is based on everyone and everything being inferior to Lyn, then Lyn ends up as number one without ever having to seriuosly discuss a da*mn thing. Scrimsaw, the whole show never ends and if you were in the LC for any period of time your head got dizzy at how the crisis would just overlap endlessly and soon be forgotten with a newer crisis. No problem existed unless Lyn begat it. In the old dayas each morning you had a pile of paper from the telex machine on the floor. If the pile was bigger than normal, you had a new initiative Lyn was starting. Today, all this is done by email and a call in cell phone briefing. The LYM may be wondering how come after spending tens of millions of dollars and going 24/7 Lyn is nothing but a bad joke on the Dem Party and they are not recieved with open arms? That is why you have what is called a "Support Team" who makes the local calls to find some one who has not heard of Lyn and the cult to get bamboozled by a nice sounding member over something like sub prime mortgages. If you make enough phone calls you will find a few people by default. Occasionally you will get someone like a John Conyers who lost his mind and entertains a member and speaks at a Larouche event. After his office gets calls from people asking WTF he is doing, he backtracks. Later, his name will pop up in the briefing and he will be described as someone who fully supports Larouche. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 689 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
The recent election in NJ is a good example of this. The NJ official gave money and listened to a toned down version of events . We could do this any time and that is what you had to do to make money and sell this lunacy. Once it became public what he was doing, all hell broke loose as every paper and the whole Dem party in NJ basically denounced the cult. What's a yute to do after seeing his or her slalery ending up being sh*t canned and their master Lyn called "Psychotic" or an anti semite ? The yute does not do anything. IF they had any critical thinking , they would not be a yute. Since Lyn knows this is a cult and they do not, Lyn reaches into the cheap parlor trick bag and declares that everything is a massive operation by the oligarchs because of how important HE is. To a drop out yute, this makes sense and it is on to the next crisis. This stuff can be so powerfull with certain people that you can see it's long term effects on Howie G. Howie G was a member who dropped out of college and spent most of his time moving either leafletts or furniture as he was evicted so many times and was sent around to different locals. Even after he left, he still believes that this is all serious and not a cult of personality designed not to work. The funny thing in all of this is that on numerous occasions our members would be meeting with some official and told that they had a lot of brains and energy, but were wasting it working with a madman like Lyn. A good deal of members kept that inside them and eventually left to either start up their own lobby group or do serious legal , political, non profit and other endeavors with serious people. Reading what Lyn is writing makes me think that he still will run in 2008. I sense that because the LPAC money is down, running again can fire up the yutes for another dance with matching funds. When Lyn spends so much time denouncing everyone, creating another end of the world crisis and writes delusions for a future president, I get LC dejavu. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 455 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Even the most dedicated supporter cannot deny that, no matter how good he may once have (falsely) appeared, LaRouche is becoming entirely unhinged and deranged: December 9, 2007 (LPAC)--Access to Facebook, the 1984-styled Big Brother social profiling company exposed in LPAC's pamphlet, "Is the Devil in your Laptop?," has been blocked by the Syrian government. According to the International Herald Tribune, residents of Damascus said that they have not been able to enter Facebook for more than two weeks. An AP reporter got a blank page when he tried to open Facebook's home page Friday from the Syrian capital. Lebanon's daily As-Safir reported that Facebook was blocked on Nov. 18. Upon hearing this news, Lyndon LaRouche said: "Great! Good idea! Get those pigs out of there. And if someone comes up with Deface Book, don't allow that either." http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/09/syria-blocks-facebook-damascus-larouche-says-great.html Start calculating your exit strategy: you don't want to be around only to be found liable to the government or others for his mess once he kicks the bucket. Get a Facebook or MySpace account and start your job search. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
larouchetruth wrote: So, if Lyn really means to liken himself to the Walrus, he is, to be sure inadvertently, announcing that he will talk of things fully as nonsensical as why the sea is boiling hot, whether pigs have wings, etc. Which, of course, is actually true. But one senses this is not what TOI had in mind. To drive home the irony, having said he will talk of 'many things,' he proceeds to basically talk of one thing, that Barney Frank is an idiot. LaRouche is merely 'reference dropping' here, without rhyme or reason. Some odd perturbation in his mental universe caused an internal time warp to open up, and in popped this reference, and out it came on paper. What a fool! LHL's "writing" has always read to me as if he dictated it and someone just typed it up and, when he was lucky, cleaned up the transcript a bit. This would account for the convoluted sentence structures and the odd conversational interjections. I somehow have trouble picturing LHL sitting at a computer and writing his stuff in MS Word. Does anyone have any insight into this? | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 62 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
Scrimshaw: Lyn types it, all right. He used to type it on an old typewriter and then go through it and make handwritten emendations. Now he types it on a computer. The stream-of-consciousness quality is the way he thinks/writes, not the result of his speaking his thoughts and someone else whipping them into "shape" for print. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
By the way, in one of those interesting coincidences that sometimes occur, the S.F. Chronicle today ran an analysis (by some lawyer) of the present Mortgage Meltdown that saw the whole situation in pretty apocalyptic terms: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/12/09/IN5BTNJ2V.DTL I don't propose to distract us into a discussion of the Mortgage crisis details (aside from dissections of LHL's proposals, which dissections have been interesting so far), but I thought I'd toss this into the mix, as it has an angle on it all that I'd not seen before. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 174 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
It was my belief, and in the early days I think LaRouche actually discussed the topic, is that the convoluted word style either comes from his earlier involvement in the writings of Kant and Hegel which he used to hold up as examples of the expression of classical education and his distate towards the simple expression of the "pragmatic" writings of ideas as especially found among American writers of the 20th Century. The more florid and diffuse the better for Lyn since I think he considers this an expression of intellect. Try reading Hegel or Kant as translated in English and you will often find yourself awash trying to locate subject and object agreement. Whether he wrote anything specifically on this topic I do not know but I remember how he or his sycophants would justify this type of writing. Now I am not trying to equate Hegel and Kant who are obscure but not obtuse with Lyn's writings but I definitely think it linked to his fondness of all things German. I also remember Lyn pointedly attacking Ernest Hemingway specifically on the issue of his style of being completely direct and simple in his sentence construction. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
I wrote: But thanks to the decypherings of Xlcr, larouchetruth, eaglebeak, and others, I've increasingly gained a sense of how one delusionary emergency replaces the previous one: a kind of willful ADD process ushered in from the top ranks (LHL, Jeff, and co.) And Larouchetruth wrote: Slight correction, Scrimshaw. Things are not "ushered in from the top ranks." They are ushered in from the top rank, the Big Cheese himself. Jeff is nothing but an imnplementer and facilitator. He originates nothing. I get your point and of course, overall, you are correct. LHL is the origin point for all the madness. Still, particularly at the peak of LC production when the LC writers were cranking out an EIR and two 8-page newspapers per week, they were pretty active collaborators in the ushering.  And, moreover, the point has been made here more than once that LHL often has taken the work of others and appropriated it as his own. In many cases, others have done the heavy lifting and Lyn has skimmed off the buzzwords and brief summaries and used those to give the appearance of having mastered a subject area. So, I think it appropriate to give people like Jeff their due (heh) as co-producers of the B.S. I don't know if the organization will be able to survive the inevitable death of LHL, but if it does I don't anticipate any let-up in the production of nonsense. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 63 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Actually, I think Jeff and a few others play an important role in manipulating Lyn, particularly around his terrified obsession with the threat of assassination and his obvious obsession with betrayal. Jeff and his cronies dragged a huge number of "consultants" and "spooks" in to "protect" Lyn and pass on "intelligence"--all characters with their hands out. They walked off with major money, thanks to Lyn's fears. Lyn is, as a matter of fact, a very easily manipulated individual. (And Jeff knows this better than anyone.) Have you noticed that Jeff has his own audio report whatsis on the LPAC site now? Presumably the recordings of those over-the-top Saturday morning pep rallies. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 175 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
As to LaRouche's literary output, and I pointed to it in looking at his footnotes in his Thanksgiving address, can anyone recall any one time when LaRouche actually cited a source that he references with quotes, page numbers, etc.? I know that he would say that is the disease of academia to actually have to back up what one says with footnotes and other references, but I recall other writers at least in the old days of publications like Fusion actually attempting to do factual citations. LaRouche cites the walrus from Lewis Carroll (of course without citing him) but he could have referenced Humpty Dumpty since to him words mean whatever he chooses to mean; and the opinions he ascribes to other people in his Manichean world of good and bad seems to be also totally of his own warped construction. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 456 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
On Larouche Planet there are many gems of early LaRouche history, including two I had never seen before: -- a 1954 piece by L. Marcus on automation: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.Automation1 -- Christine Berl's resignation letter which not only exposes the roots of the LaRouche cult within the organization with which we are all by now familiar, but, more importantly, which expresses the Marxist-Humanist ideals of many of us who had joined at that time: http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=Library.BerlWeinfieldResignatiuon1 Berl's intense idealism is especially healing as it makes me realize that I wasn't entirely insane for having joined at that time, although the conspiracy nonsense should have been a big red flag for any intellectual. * I also happen to agree that LaRouche's convoluted syntax (which now has degenerated into merely obscurantist chaos) owes as much to his solitary wrangling with Kant and Hegel over many years as it does to his lack of formal education. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 64 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
Kant and Hegel are limpid as pools of clear water compared to LaRouche. Someone remarked above on reading K&H in English--it may interest you to know that German Kant scholars famously learned English in order to be able to read Norman Kemp Smith's English translation of Kant, widely believed to be clearer than the original German. In any case: The difficulty of Kant and Hegel is commensurate with the subject matter--whereas the LaRouchean quagmire (as it were) has nothing to do with the inherent difficulty of the subject matter (not especially difficult), and everything to do with the confusions of the author. The difficulty of a passage of Hegel or Kant is a function of the density of the ideas expressed (whatever you may think of those ideas)--whereas the convulutions/convulsions of LaRouchean writing are a function of the degree of obfuscation necessary to cloak a fundamental lack of ideas. And also a reflection of the weakness of the author's attention span. | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 191 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
I don’t think Lyn was nearly as convoluted in the early days of LC as he has become now. He also didn’t write, and continually rewrite with just minor emendations, the same thing over and over again. Sure, there was repetition, but I recall waiting with high anticipation for each new Campaigner because of the fresh, significantly new article by LaRouche that was to be expected. Let’s not forget the changing subject matter. It was only in the late 1970s, basically demarcated by the “Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites” document, plagiarized in its central thesis from Criton Z who did the research on Plato v Aristotle, that LaRouche began weaving in all of human history, and picking out figures going back beyond the 17th century, if I’m not mistaken. It was at the same time, the late ‘70s, that Riemann became central in his writings, and that, actually, I believe, marked the beginning of his weaving in, in ways that I now recognize to be cockamamie, of supposed “science” with history. Think about it. He manages to go seamlessly back and forth from what he claims is math (Riemannian manifolds, shock wave mathematics, spirals, golden ratios, etc.), to physics (least action principle, Bournoullis, etc.), and the history of the titanic faction fight between the Platonic faction and the Aristotelian faction—even if the actors themselves had no idea they were in one camp or the other. I believe that the most important aspect of what made us feel we were light-years behind Lyn in understanding in those years was precisely that we didn’t know Riemann or any of that other stuff, and we believed he was applying advanced math to a higher-order understanding of economics than we had ability to emulate. Since none of us could begin to imagine becoming conversant with Riemann, suddenly attaining anything close to Lyn’s level became impossible, making our dependence on him for our guidance total. In the earlier years, the same effect was generated not by what Lyn himself wrote, but by telling us we didn’t really understand anything until we had mastered Hegel. I recall that he said that until you had read Hegel’s Phenomenology, History of Philosophy and Philosophy of History (the latter two being two volumes each), twice each, you couldn’t begin to really master anything else, including Marx. This was in addition to trying to master Marx directly, including all 3 volumes of Capital and 2 volumes of Theories of Surplus Value. So, the obfuscation wasn’t in Lyn’s own writings, but in what he challenged us to read. Oh, and of course, Kant’s two Critiques (of Pure and Practical Reason). Of course, all of us, assuming Lyn had mastered these things, naturally felt totally inferior and unable to ever catch up, especially since few of us could progress beyond the Introduction to the Phenomenology, giving up as our sense of following anything Hegel was saying dwindled toward the zero mark. By the mid to late ‘80s, I would say that Lyn had perfected the drill, involving not just Plato, but Cusa (earlier it was Ficino), who is also not the easiest person to understand, Kepler (that began in 1982), and weaving everything together in a total mumbo-jumbo that made history appear to be Hegelian, the playing out of the evolution of the spirit—also Manichean, as the continual battles between Good (Platonic tradition) and Evil (Aristotelian tradition). | ||
| larouchetruth Intermediate Member Username: larouchetruth Post Number: 192 Registered: 8-2007 Posted From: 71.171.94.115 |
Which allowed Lyn to do something akin to anthropomorphism. If anthropomorphism is embuing animals or inanimate objects with human characteristics, Lyn embued historical figures with consciousness of their role in the World Historical Battle as Lyn had defined it. Let’s call it LaRouchepomorphism (if endowing gods, animals, or things with human traits is “anthropomorphism,” then LaRouchepomorphism is endowing humans with views and outlooks of LaRouche’s invention). Let’s not underestimate the importance of this, to steal xlcr’s favorite expression, “cheap parlor trick.” It’s easy to claim that someone no longer living ”meant” such and such. Or even that he said such and such a thing, if you make no attempt to source the quote. This technique creates an insurmountable barrier to any member challenging Lyn. Because it implicitly forces anyone who would challenge him to read literally everything by, and much of what exists about, any given figure, like Leibniz, Kepler, Riemann, Plato, etc. How else could anyone safely tell Lyn he disagreed, that Leibniz did NOT say or mean such and such? Since one would have to devote the time that a scholar with lots of time on his hands would devote to this, attaining that degree of knowledge would be frankly totally impossible. And also, LaRouche usually found some quote to hang something on making his broader assertions seem plausible. And at the end of the day, how does one prove a negative, that Leibniz never said something that Lyn says he said. Any of us could easily hear Lyn’s voice in our heads reaffirming that Leibniz, or whoever, absolutely did say and believe what LaRouche said they said and believed, and that we just had to go out and find it. And of course, it never crossed our minds that Lyn might lie, might not have read lots of writings of whomever he was citing, etc. So, this approach of his created a perfect storm engendering dependence on him for the truth about history, math, science, etc. Needless to say, it made all members feel hopelessly inadequate, hopelessly behind Lyn in being able to understating everything that Lyn understands, and fundamentally not as intelligent as Lyn. But I also don’t buy that he knows it’s BS. I think he really does believe his own stuff, including his forecasts. I don’t agree with xlcr that Lyn know’s it’s a cult and the members don’t. I think it’s his imagined greatness that keeps him going. He’s not in it for the material life of Riley, which he didn’t have for most of his life, and didn’t have the prospect of until the late ‘70s when “security” concerns justified moving to Sutton Place in NYC, and enough money became available to make it real. Unless he really thinks he’s world historical, there’s no point to it, it doesn’t stroke his ego, which is what this is all about. On the point I responded to Scrimshaw about, I stand by my assertion that everything new, every “policy” shift, comes from Lyn. To be sure, members’ research fuels his writings, but only the way twigs adorn a bird’s nest—the bird appropriate them and puts them into his own creation. And Jeff and others can play Lyn, manipulate him for certain purposes, true. But they don’t have any causal role in which lurch Lyn takes the “org” on next. | ||
| scrimscraw New member Username: scrimscraw Post Number: 15 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 69.107.127.153 |
Very interesting observations, larouchetruth, about LHL's uses of historical figures. Slowly, slowly, all these things that I'd wondered about for years are beginning to come into perspective. Thanks. You said: "But I also don't buy that he knows it's BS. I think he really does believe his own stuff, including his forecasts. I don't agree with xlcr that Lyn knows it's a cult and the members don't. I think it's his imagined greatness that keeps him going. Well, clearly someone knows the LC is a cult and has been running it as such for decades! Since it was Lyn, with the "Beyond Psycho" analysis and ego-stripping methodology, who put the brainwashing mechanisms in place and who was fixated on accusing every other group under the sun of being a cult, I'd suggest that Lyn both believes his own stuff and knows he is running a cult. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Perhaps Lyn doesn't admit to himself that the LC is a cult, perhaps he still thinks of it as a cadre organization (or whatever), but I have to imagine that somewhere in his subconscious he is aware that he has settled on running a cult operation. LHL's "genius", it seems to me, is that he is a full-blown paranoid as well as a sociopath and yet he has managed to make these work to the extent of sending hundreds of followers scurrying around raising money and stirring up mischief. By all rights, he ought to be a slovenly fellow sitting on an urban doorstep talking to himself and yelling at people to stay away from his shopping cart. But instead he has learned the knack of bamboozling a hard core of lost souls into believing that the sky is constantly falling. It's impressive.  | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 65 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Not all of the members felt inadequate. But for those who did not feel inadequate (because they knew that Lyn was talking through his hat about things he didn’t know and didn’t understand—Plato, Aristotle, mathematics, whatever), a tremendous tension was created nonetheless. This was because they were being forced to say that Lyn was the greatest genius in human history, the true Renaissance man, the new and superior Leonardo da Vinci, blah blah blah, when they knew perfectly well he was nothing of the sort. This terrible tension persisted for decades in some small but important percentage of the membership. This was the sort of tension that affected Ken Kronberg for years, for example. I’ll never forget his look of utter disdain (this was sometime in the mid-1990s) as he read something Lyn had newly written, which contained a sentence that said something like “those who don’t know Ancient Greek, will not be able to understand my point.” Ken, who had studied Ancient Greek, knew that Lyn couldn’t tell an alpha from an omega. He read the sentence aloud and said, “Ah—in the simultaneity of eternity, Lyn has learned Greek.” I do agree with larouchetruth’s point that Lyn is the trigger for every change, every new policy, every turn. But he is played like an old piano by a number of people who want to inject those new policies or turns into the org, and have gained his ear. They are his eminences grises. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 146 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
I note two comments, post an interesting link, and say a few words: First Larouchetruth: "So, this approach of his created a perfect storm engendering dependence on him for the truth about history, math, science, etc. Needless to say, it made all members feel hopelessly inadequate, hopelessly behind Lyn in being able to understating everything that Lyn understands, and fundamentally not as intelligent as Lyn. But I also don’t buy that he knows it’s BS." Eaglebeak responds: "Not all of the members felt inadequate. But for those who did not feel inadequate (because they knew that Lyn was talking through his hat about things he didn’t know and didn’t understand—Plato, Aristotle, mathematics, whatever), a tremendous tension was created nonetheless." I (Earnest One) simply wish to point out a simple fact: At least ONE member, someone with regular contact with Lyn, WAS a genuine expert in mathematics, certainly Cantor and Riemann et al. Here I don't mean Bruce Director. See the following: http://www.mscand.dk/article.php?id=2386 I would like to know if ANYONE in the org, other than the author of the above paper, had one hundredth the technical proficiency and knowledge about mathematics. I posit that, in principle, the author could have told Lyn that he was full of it about Riemann and/or any number of other "scientific" issues. Mathematics is one of the only intellectual areas where bullshit can be detected and COMPLETELY exposed by someone with genuine knowledge and competent training. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 690 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
We have some real great blogs on the cult and how Lyn and the LYM are viewed. Read the comments as well because after you spend nearly a 1/4 BILLION dollars and 40 years on this lunacy, this is what you end up with. This one is a continuation of the epic struggle between LPACMAN and gamers. http://gamepolitics.com/2007/12/08/in-larouche-view-lieberman-is-a-video-game-defender/#comment-285923 BTW, you can play a larouche video game right here, right now. http://laroucheplanet.info/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=LaRouche.LarouchePacman Here is how the LYM are viewed on a college campus after showing up. Fun comments. "making fun of larouchies is like hunting dairy cows with a scope and high powered rifle (to borrow a phrase from p.j. o'rourke). just let them be and laugh at them. anything more really is not worth your time." "I make it a point to laugh for at least two minutes in the faces of every LaRouche Douche I see hawking their wares." "I concede, you may be right. The fact that they came into my science class to not announce, but sing about the evils of MySpace and the Internets would make anything further too easy..." http://community.livejournal.com/libertarianism/2181345.html All across the globe you find a similar theme when someone comes across the cult and attempts to read a pamphlet or web article. http://lairofnotpigeon.blogspot.com/2007/12/larouche-stupid-politician-or-stupidest.html xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 457 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
I would like to know why if there were people at the top of the organization who knew all of this at the time, e.g. the fraudulent nature of LaRouche's claims, they did not feel it incumbent upon themselves to take a stand against LaRouche or drop out; why they would allow others more innocent than themselves to have their lives consumed by this collective stupidity; why they would allow libelous charges to be made against any and all; why they would be complicit in criminal activity and all the many lies? Either they did not entertain more than passing doubts, or they did entertain more than passing doubts but were cowards, or they did leave eventually. I knew many fine people in the organization almost all of whom were no doubt true believers such as I, but there were many evil people as well. None of us certainly were saints however, and I am very disturbed by hagiographies of former members when what is required is the taking of responsibility for having assisted LaRouche to become and remain the monster that he is. To the extent that we were in a cult, our responsibility beyond the act of first joining is perhaps somewhat mitigated: but if there were people who knew what was up all along to one extent or another, then shame on them. Let's stop pretending and start getting honest about the hatred and ignorance we contributed to the world. | ||
| xlcr4life Advanced Member Username: xlcr4life Post Number: 691 Registered: 9-2005 Posted From: 65.34.144.5 |
Sancho, many members who have left contribute with information and details of how the LC and Lyn operated the cult in many ways. For many people, they left as victims, even if they conmributed to the life of the cult over their tenure and did bad things. Most have recognised and have reached out and apologised to people they knew in the LC for wrong doings. None of this would have happened if not for the internet and members being able to communicate amomg themsleves and scratch their heads wondering "what the hell was that all about?" Quite a few over the years have left small messages on blogs which mention the cult, but never wish to admit their membership. Telling the world about YOUR abuse is much harder than telling people about the abuse of others. Also, many people have to erase these years as a way of continuing with their lives. Since most ex lc have kids, this aint something to regail your kids with like other parts of your childhood. In the end, I do have to thank the many former members whom I and others have been in contact with who offer a slice of the LC and Lyn. I say a slice because that is how lyn has the cult set up. In the end, people do what they feel comfortable with and no one is turned away at the email inbox. On a daily basis, this site contributes to many people who run like hell away from the cult and to the people who just laugh in the faces of yutes since now they know how the cult and Lyn works. Millions of keystrokes by ex members have made Lyn's nearly 250 MILLION dollar expense to make his life something of value worthless and just a bad joke and footnote in the dustbin of kook history. xlcr4life@hotmail.com | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 458 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
I was aware of plenty wrong in the organization, but my mantra was, "if only Lyn knew," as I was not in daily contact with him and therefore naively viewed him as nothing less than he represented himself to be. Now thanks to this and other sites it has become abundantly clear that not only did Lyn know, but he ordered it, whatever "it" was. If I had had the benefit of direct knowledge that this was a racket, that Lyn was bogus, etc., then I would have had much better things to do with my time than run down the CPUSA, the Tavistock clinic, Nelson Rockefeller, and all that followed, much better things to do than derail my own life and destroy my own family, much better things to do than scream and yell and fight and argue eighteen hours a day OVER SHEER NONSENSE and live in squalor to support some crook. So I'm not buying all of this smug, supercilious I-told-you-so s--- now about this freak LaRouche. The more one knew about what this guy was up to at the time of one's membership, the more culpability one has for the destruction this cult has caused - and continues to cause - the membership and their families. In any event, take a gander at the latest drool from Grandpa Simpson, er, Lyndy: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007/12/11/are-you-wikipediaphile.html which closes "The problem we have, to combat that, is, how do you combat an absolute idiot on the question of an argument?", LaRouche asked. "So therefore, you have to make the idiocy of this thing, the issue. And thus, you say, `Oh, you poor idiot. You're a Wikipediaphile.' Hoo Hoo. Don't you Google! Don't you Google at me! Who are you, Barney Google?" Uh, Grandpa, no one under thirty-five has ever heard of Barney Google. You're dating yourself. This is preceded by this masterpiece of reasoning, which I believe leads to the interesting proposition 'Wikipedia is a satanic cult": "Remember that George Orwell was the guy, who, together with the two crazy brothers--Aldous and Julian Huxley--the three of them were the guys who took the Kool-Aid, in this case, LSD. They took the natural Kool-Aid, LSD, and they were all conditioned under the direction of the patronage of Wells, who was their patron, but under the direction of Alistair Crowley. So it's a Satanic cult." His belief seems to be that reliance on Wikipedia shortens one's attention span (!), I suppose with entries like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29 | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 66 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 71.171.75.19 |
No one's attention span could be shorter than Lyn's, a fact which I think is adequately demonstrated by the "Wikipediaphile" press release in question. Sancho: As to why people stayed if they knew Lyn was a fraud--the premise hidden in that question is that people act rationally, but that's not the case. The comparison Earnest One made earlier to the abused wife or child is an apt one. One can know something with one's rational intellect and still be unable to act on it, still be bound by far stronger bonds than those normally forged by the rational faculty. Fear is a great factor in people's inability to leave--including fear of losing one's friends, one's surrogate family--and the Labor Committee is nothing if not one big (dysfunctional) family. I think it was Durkheim, in "Suicide," which Lyn has lately rediscovered, who spoke of "ego death" as the underlying drive, or an underlying drive, in suicide. The fear of "ego death" is also a huge component of the psychological chains that bind otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people to LaRouche. Clearly, if you recall Ken Kronberg's remark to his wife a few days before he died that "We will be vilifed like you've never seen" (which was quoted in the Avi Klein article and elsewhere), you can see that the fear of that unbridled, vicious attack from LaRouche was a contributing factor to Kronberg's suicide--along with the preceding unbridled and vicious attacks, and the famous April 11 morning briefing. It was a desperate act to break away, which shows you how strong the hold LaRouche has on even the most highly intelligent members. But the hold has little to do with LaRouche, who is, to put it mildly, unimpressive, and much to do with the image people have created for themselves of him. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 67 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Because, as Skull/Bones so often says, the world needs to read more LaRouche briefings We have... Yesterday's briefing lead. (Emphases below are added.) Is there a doctor in the house? BY: WILLIAM WERTZ/LYNDON LAROUCHE/HELGA LAROUCHE/KRN MORNING BRIEFING Tuesday, December 11, 2007 LaRouche: In a Revolutionary Period-- We Need To Provide a Calm and Steady Hand In discussions yesterday, Lyndon LaRouche emphasized that given the fact that we are in a revolutionary situation, what is required is a calm and steady hand. The world is not particularly sane at this time. There are a lot of things running around. People are desperate. Those who thought Lyn was wrong are going to become unstable. Now they have to reckon with the fact that they were wrong. But they won't admit it. Therefore, look out for hysteria from our own ranks. And outside of our ranks, expect rancorous behavior. The situation is going to be wild. People will go wild. What we need is a calm and steady hand. No panic, no screaming. In this context, Lyn stressed that we have to take a non-inflammatory approach [isn't it a little late for that?], because if our enemies catch us trying to be inflammatory, they will try to pick up on it and take advantage of it. [Do I make myself clear?] On the financial crisis, we have to be coldblooded. Rather than report the predicates of the ongoing collapse, as if they were scandals, we have to say that if you want to go on suffering, if you want to go to Hell, then continue doing what you are doing. If not, then you have to follow LaRouche's lead and force the Congress to implement the HBPA. Lyn continued to make the point that we must represent the people in the lower 80% income brackets against the corrupt bastards who have betrayed them by not acting to promote the General Welfare. In this context, Lyn emphasized that Nancy Pelosi is not stupid. That is not her problem. Her problem is that she corrupt (sic). There is no excuse for her behavior. Pelosi and those who go along with her are going to go down. They are laying a trap for themselves. Don't be opportunist by attempting to ameliorate their hatred for us. The people who hate us are going down. Public opinion will turn against them. A lynch mob will form against them. You wouldn't want to be one of the politicians getting that treatment. They are going down. Everything is working against them. People popular at the top now will be at the bottom soon. Continued... | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 68 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Moving Right Along... As Lyn has said before, we have two pamphlets, "Is the Devil in Your Laptop?" and Lyn's "Let There Be a Time of Thanksgiving" pamphlet. [Presumably for the devil in your laptop.] These are two satellite creating products. [See?] The first takes on the problem and the second develops the solution. Other things are subordinate to these two pamphlets. In the case of the HBPA organizing, as of now, it is associated with the Thanksgiving statement. [We're canning it.] On the killings in Colorado on Sunday, Lyn stated that the whole thing is becoming epidemic. There will be a lot of copy-cat killings. If someone wants to kill somebody, the tendency will be to use the epidemic to try to cover up for malicious murder. [How's that work again?] He said that he is suspicious of people with hard facts. [No ••••!] They are trying to experience an orgasm with a hard object, but not succeeding. [Don't slip on that banana peel, Dr. Freud.] On the situation in Ibero-America surrounding the founding of the Bank of the South on Sunday, Lyn said Argentina is tricky because of the Bolivarista nonsense. There is no longer one Bank of the South. There are two banks of the south. The Bolivaristas are falling into the trap of Britain. We have unfriends in that area. It is not so simple. Watch it carefully. (Message edited by eaglebeak on December 12, 2007) | ||
| tuer07 Junior Member Username: tuer07 Post Number: 37 Registered: 7-2007 Posted From: 70.169.167.73 |
Thanks Sancho for the posting on LaRouche and Wikepedia. LaRouche states: "Wikipedia is the H.G. Wells program. You have something which everybody cites, essentially. It's on the internet, and it's the dictionary. You Google. And when you Google, you go to Wikipedia. This becomes truth. And you find that Wikipedia changes its definitions of references as it evolves. It eliminates what it said before, and it says something different. The opposite thing, or something different." This shows how out of touch he is. He apparently is not aware that Wikipedia is by its very nature a self-written encyclopedia. Most astonishing is the fact that he doesn't appear to know, or remember, that his people are the ones most active in writing the Larouche entries, i.e., they are the ones "saying something different." What puzzles me is why Larouche is so upset over google when EIR seems to dominate google with EIR stories. Yes, there is a lot of exposure of the inner workings of LaRouche's organization, but all Larouche is doing by whining about google et al is admitting that his ideas and his stories are not powerful enough to defeat the truth about his abuses and con games. How typical of Larouche, when he can't win an argument, he resorts to underhanded tactics. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 147 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
On December 11th, Dennis King posted the following document: http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-computron-split.PDF His intro to the link reads as follows: “# Dec. 11 posting: Documents of the Computron-LaRouche split, Dec. 1980-Feb. 1981. Compiled by the late Dave Phillips. Numerous interesting parallels with LaRouche's treatment 26 years later of Ken Kronberg and PMR. Includes powerful statements denouncing the LaRouche movement by Don and Alice Roth, Paul Teitelbaum, others. (Note: the underlining in these documents is not by DK and does not reflect his judgment as to what is most important therein.)” The document is long (27 pages) but it provides truly fascinating insight into Lyn and the organization. I was deeply impressed with the various "Letters of Resignation", where members called LaRouche a liar, said that he was turning the org into a cult of personality, and urged OTHERS to resign. My apologies for not mentioning the name of another site that posted one of these letters (or a similar one). I’ve temporarily forgotten the name of the site -- I think it’s the one with the LIM Generator. The urging of others to resign is of great interest to me because the evidence/reasoning presented appears lock-tight and, looking back, the letters of resignation are wildly prescient. Questions: 1. How many ex-members on this board (and/or members in general) were aware of these letters in real-time, or shortly after they were written? 2. If you read the letters, why didn’t you resign too? 3. What is your reaction now to seeing these documents? I was never a member, only a (very concerned) relative of a long-time member. But a close reading reveals (at least to me) that little has changed during the past 26 to 27 “odd” years. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 69 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Well said, tuer07. The LaRouche trolls are so active on Wikipedia that the Ken Kronberg page has been protected from further editing pending resolution of all the twaddle they have been saying and trying to post, and the same for the LHL page. If you read the "talk" pages, you can see the slugfest between a raft of LaRouche trolls and D King and C Berlet and someone called Hexham. Doesn't LHL know this? I'm sure Barb is deploying the LYM to rampage through Wikipedia endlessly. And all those LaRouche folks who post on every blog they can find? Honestly, someone should brief the old boy. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 459 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
Wow, I had never seen these - or any - resignation letters. There is so much here. Alice Roth's remarks on the so-called "LaRouche-Riemann model" are especially apt, particularly as she cites Luxembourg to establish the necessity of the (creative) development of financial instruments, all of which LaRouche trashes in his obsessive fetishism of tangible plant, property, and equipment. I worked on that model at that time and I honestly never knew what the hell was going on. The impression I carried away from that project was that Goldman et al. just fudged forecasts using conventional, rudimentary modeling techniques while they tried to get the fancy L-R model in gear. It was like the crazy aunt in the attic allowing her grandnephew exclusive use of an old hassock that she received as a wedding gift in 1952, that she insisted the nephew take, with the result that the nephew is standing in the living room having no idea what to do with the fusty thing. In a more sinister vein, there is included a clear restatement by LaRouche that not only did "only" 1.5 million Jews die as a result of antisemitism in Europe during the war, but he covers Germany's a-- by putting blame at the feet of "Anglophile-linked Goering." There is lots here, none of which again will contribute to the eventual canonization of the post-1980 leadership. And again, too, in the resignation letters one can see expressed the core ideals of the original LC which is so inspiring. There was something to all of that madness - but, because LaRouche went mad, the whole thing went awry. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 176 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
It's hilarious reading LaR talking about people with fractured English when his own writing and his continued misuse of commas (I'm sure somewhere Lyn wrote that EB White and the NY Times Guides to Writing English are Aristotelian if not downright Satanic) and fractured writing in general boggle the mind. Plus his mention of Barney Google, I don't even think a 35 year old would know who the hell Barney Google is. But I'm sure in Lyn's mind he thinks that this pun is downright Promethean in its humor. And his order that people not be too inflammatory coming days after his downright filthy attack on Barney Frank really takes the cake. Does he think perhaps that members of Congress will be so braindead as to be unaware of his attacks on Pelosi and Frank which border on straight pornograghic imagery? Or does he fear that his LYM members are going to be parading around the halls of Congress shouting (or singing) about Barney Frank the a*hole! I am sure that a psychiatrist could find some discussion of why Lyn writes with his penchant for improper punctuation, but I would suggest that Lyn is merely becoming commatose! | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 70 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Earnest One: I certainly saw those Computron letters in real time. I had worked closely with Gus (Costas Kalimtgis) and was pretty sure that Lyn was lying about what Gus had done, and about his (Lyn's) not knowing anything about it. I refer to various illegalities committed during the New Hampshire primary campaign of 1980, which Lyn was certainly cognizant of, involving the FEC, extra money, cash flowing, loan sharks, etc. However, the internecine fight between Gus and various other members of the NEC and NC and Computron etc. was extremely complicated--Lyn exploited it for his own purposes, but nothing about that internal warfare was completely cut and dried. EXCEPT the 1.5 million Jews. That issue was completely cut and dried, and the publication of that 1978 article and of LaRouche's later outrages represented the moment when a number of members, Jews and non-Jews, began to wonder what on earth was happening in Lyn's mind. In 1981 or thereabouts, shortly after all this, Lyn began to retract, or reformulate, his line on the Holocaust, now vectored toward the "Green File" (sic) and the claim that, maybe these people were killed--the 6 million--but NOT because they were Jews--rather because they were communists, trade unionists, whatever. It was the beginning of a long process of climb-down that has resulted, now, in Lyn's trying to portray himself as the champion of the Jews still in the org. Disgusting of him, and pathetic of them to believe it. However, to ask why people didn't quit when they saw these letters is essentially, as I tried to indicate above, to ask why people in the grip of irrational dependency don't treat it rationally. My reaction now when I see these documents is nothing particularly strong one way or the other, except to note with amusement that Lyn is here promoting Dalto, who less than a year later would lead a walkout of much of the field organization. On the question of the Holocaust, my reaction is not strong, because I had been saying since 1978 that we were printing anti-Semitic crap--but because I foolishly still believed in Lyn's fundamental good will at that time, I thought he was being misled by "Security," or "Security contacts," Jeff and Paul, Willis Carto, into saying things that he didn't really believe and would not say if he could be made to see their true content. I wrote Lyn a variety of memos on this subject from 1978 forward.... So I guess I think, looking back, how naive and stupid and brainwashed I was to think that Lyn was somehow better than the garbage he was saying. | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 148 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
Sancho wrote: "And again, too, in the resignation letters one can see expressed the core ideals of the original LC which is so inspiring. There was something to all of that madness - but, because LaRouche went mad, the whole thing went awry." Indeed! I'm happy that you took the time to read them. They are extremely interesting; someone should "port" them over here, as the original document is long and it takes much time/effort to find the resignation letters amidst all the other stuff. Then again, the other stuff supplies context. It's clear that those folks were truly idealistic and, moreover, principled. They had guts too. I hope others chime in on this topic (perhaps they will if/when these letters appear here). If no one else makes a move, I'll see what I can do in the nest week or so. | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 460 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
I like the format too of these little infantile "press releases" of Fearless Leader's least alcohol-induced rants: December 12, 2007 (LPAC)--"Ouch," world's leading economist Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. said this morning at 3:00 AM as he stumbled toward another bottle of Rheingau. "That reminds me, the grass needs cutting. And Rupert's mother is a mother. Let me check my horoscope." Mathematics instructor for the LaRouche Youth Movement Bruce Director has been applying the Keplerian method in astrology to assist LaRouche in the formulation of his forecasts, which owe as much to his subcontinental predecessors Bal Gangadar Tilak and Yogi Berra as to anyone else. LaRouche continued, "Not only are my forecasts, perfect, but, my four cats are, equally, outstanding." After another quaff, LaRouche concluded to no one in particular, "I wonder what's for breakfast. Rupert, you son of a gun, I'm gonna have my damn breakfast! See?" | ||
| earnest_one Intermediate Member Username: earnest_one Post Number: 149 Registered: 6-2007 Posted From: 69.207.169.246 |
Thanks for the feedback, Eaglebeak. It is sad indeed that something with so much potential -- idealistic, creative people working TOGETHER to make a better world -- became a dictatorship of madness and mendacity. In 1997, Robert McLaughlin put it kindly: "The NCLC has DEVOLVED into a non-creative bureaucracy". | ||
| sancho Intermediate Member Username: sancho Post Number: 461 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 66.65.115.71 |
A Visigothic Christmas carol: http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/12/myspace-song-set-tune-felix-mendelssohns-hark-herald-angels-.html What they accuse the internet of fostering are the very qualities they themselves possess of unfunny vulgarity. The glee they exhibit is that of a third grader who's been given permission by mommy and daddy to say naughty words in public. Compare this quality of mentation with that of the young scientific socialists of over thirty years ago to see how base this organization has become as of December 2007. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 177 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Sancho there were similar examples of this type of simple-minded puns substituting for political analysis going back to Fearless Fuzzdick cartoons in the old New Solidarity (sounds like a TV sitcom). I wonder if somehow the organization thought that they were imitating the ribald and often raunchy humor of writers like Rabelais and Boccacio who used to be commended as great pioneers of Renaiassance values in the times of the Black Plague. Of course I find no similarities but I'm sure the organization finds some high-minded reason to convince the yutes that this is really some type of sophisticated type of psychological warfare against their perceived enemies. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Sancho there were similar examples of this type of simple-minded puns substituting for political analysis going back to Fearless Fuzzdick cartoons in the old New Solidarity (sounds like a TV sitcom). I wonder if somehow the organization thought that they were imitating the ribald and often raunchy humor of writers like Rabelais and Boccacio who used to be commended as great pioneers of Renaiassance values in the times of the Black Plague. Of course I find no similarities but I'm sure the organization finds some high-minded reason to convince the yutes that this is really some type of sophisticated type of psychological warfare against their perceived enemies. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 71 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
Fearless Fuzzdick came from Lyn's memory too--of Fearless Fosdick, from Al Capp's Li'l Abner cartoon. Fearless Fosdick dated back to 1942--before the memory of the boomers. I think in almost every case, it wasn't the organization as a whole, it was Lyn personally who pushed this puerile tripe. | ||
| borisbad Intermediate Member Username: borisbad Post Number: 179 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.125.93.18 |
Just as an aside to Eaglebeak, while you are right that it dates back to the 40s, they were showing the Fearless Fosdick shorts (they were puppets not cartoons) on the Sandy Becker show in the 50s and early 60s, so baby boomers did catch it. And I believe that George Turner and Stan Getzoff were the main "humor" people on the NS staff at that time as I remember them being the ones behind most of the cartoons and coming up with the punny headlines. Although of course it is possible that Lyn first suggested these cartoons as his "psyops" against the FBI. | ||
| eaglebeak Member Username: eaglebeak Post Number: 72 Registered: 4-2007 Posted From: 70.164.43.2 |
|
