edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Part III - Page1



kheris (kheris)
08-26-2005, 04:06 AM
Does the phrase 'ad hominem' mean anything to you Steve? You wish to impugn the credibility of XLCR, but seem quite happy to accept the obvious contradictions between what LHL's followers claim and what LHL's own publications reveal. The information from the old Campaigners and the cites from court cases must be too much to handle.
Rather than deal with the underlying issue about LHL - Is this man someone that people should trust as a leader; a role he has publicly assumed - you would rather focus on one of the people raising questions about this alleged leader's capabilities.
Shifting the focus from LHL's claims and assertions to one of his antagonists seems to be SOP. Schlanger tried that with me by impugning my intelligence in an email after a post that quoted LaRouche. I don't think they teach you that at Yale, at least I hope not. Because when you take that approach you have given up the argument and have lost.
Sorry to see that happen with you Steve.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
08-26-2005, 04:30 AM
No one deprogrammed me, and I can read and examine LaRouche's scribblings for myself.
You still refuse to address the impoverishment (intellectual, emotional, spiritual, as well as economic) of the rank-and-file NCLC member. Don't fool yourself that you have any kind of intellectual life in that organization: all you people do is handwave, you don't actually read or study anything, just apply a patina of LaRouche's autodidactic dementia to your own wilfully blank slates. This extreme poverty is all you need witness to give the lie to the organization's putatively "humanist" platform.
And to the best of my knowledge none of the people who were witnesses against your god murdered people, killed cats, slashed tires, libeled and detracted against others, made cowardly anonymous phone calls, Jew-baited, consorted with known criminals and/or Nazis and/or KKK-sympathizers and/or corrupt politicians while grubbing for handouts. (LaRouche must be a true child of the depression, the way he grubs for loose change like a miser.) If you want the story of a brainwashing, why don't you read what LaRouche did to Chris White in the early 1970's: even a sub-par mind like yours should be able to see how loony that was. And all because Lyndy Marcus lost his girl ... bathetic. What a man.
Lastly, I have a file in the local police precinct detailing my involvement in this cult, with express instructions that if anything at all of an outre character should occur to my family or me, the first place they should look is LAROUCHE, STEINBERG, ET AL. I suggest those of you who post against these fascist creeps do likewise for your own protection, so that you don't become another Jeremiah Duggan. (
(Message edited by lyndylalush on August 26, 2005)
(Message edited by lyndylalush on August 26, 2005)


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
08-26-2005, 08:48 AM
One of the most penetrating analyses of the intellectual fraud of Lyndon LaRouche can be found at
George's point that LaRouche discusses ideas in terms of persons (e.g., Maxwell) rather than ideas (e.g., electrodynamic potential) is particularly insightful and pertinent. He is also quite correct to recognize the adolescent character of that mode of argumentation.
As an ex-member, the last shreds of my respect for LaRouche's work have been inspired by some of his "ideas," but now I am left wondering what his whole life has been about, anyway, if not (evidently bogus because never-peer-reviewed) ideas? The truth is that the International Caucus of Labor Committees (LaRouche's core huddle behind all the front groups) is nothing but 100% criminal enterprise.
I know how sorry I am to have squandered five minutes on this cult: I can't even imagine George's sorrow and regret that his own son continues to waste his whole life in a criminal gang.


xylm (xylm)
08-26-2005, 04:33 PM
If the topic in controversy is Larouche's credibility, then why are you using his book as your sources, isn't this bias, if not stupid!
And as Kheris pointed out, you are shifting away from all the evidence we have provided by singling out Chris Curtis. The rest of us have posted evidence as well and It should'nt be so difficult to look into, just scroll up and click on the anti-semitic quote links i provided. We are all waiting for your response to these quotes, and don't give us a lame metaphor. I want you to explain to me how these quotes are not anti-semitic. You see, this is very relevant because this is what ignited the "psychotic ramblings of King and media outlets".
Oh and you really got us there with the Cult Awareness agents, was that a front setup by the Fabian Society?
By the way, you should really read the link lyndylalush posted above on intellectual fraud.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
08-27-2005, 06:16 AM
Of course LaLush, Inc. claims this and that about the sponsors of FACTNet (about whom I otherwise know nothing). Let's assume that that's all true, that the sponsors of FACTNet are Tavistock-linked blah-blah-blahs. They do however identify seven coercive mind control tactics which, what, were invented just to thwart the grandiosity of LaLush's dying organization? See:
If you are a member of the LC and have the capacity to be honest with yourself, you will easily see that you have been subjected to Tactics 2 through 7: that's SIX out of SEVEN, boys and girls. What we have here is a CULT - if you still have rudimentary powers of deduction available to you, or value yourself as a person of infinite worth, as an end in yourself, and not a means toward the end of supporting the maintenance of Helga's canines.
Oops, my Anglo-Zionist-Jesuit-Freemasonic-Venetian-Oligarchical controllers are calling me ... gotta run. Ta ta.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
08-27-2005, 07:59 AM
Since October is approaching, Steve brings up a question of Halloween fun.
"An unbiased court could only dismiss these witnesses' testimony as worthless. The final blow to their credibility was delivered when witnesses Steve Bardwell and Charles Tate were forced to confirm descriptions of a Halloween Party held on October 31, 1986, in which former NCLC members celebrated the huge FBI raid, earlier that month, on the offices of LaRouche-associated organizations." (another source circulating) "
Steve, let me review some of this for you. We were working around the clock to raise money for TV spots during the election. Or so we thought. Convicted felon Will Wertz ran our fundraising operations with full blessing of Lyn. Let me emphasize that NOTHING in the org's coffers or writings or anything is done without Lyn's approval. The only documents Lyn does not review are the resignation letters from soon to be ex members.
Money was coming in from several sources. Card table shrines sold lit and subscriptions and generated "contacts". We also purchased and in some cases "borrowed" lists of right wing subscribers from the Liberty Lobby and other outfits. We would call cold lists of Reagan contributors for example. The whole org was now a fundraising machine where we went from making 150 K on a good week to now making a half million and sometimes 800 K whenever Helga sent a new memo.
In the middle of all of this was another thing we set up called a "specials" team. There job was to cull our lists and find people who could give us some huge bucks. During this, we came across people who had money locked up in stocks and other investments. The idea came about to access that money by offering them something better. You could now support our efforts and make some money at the same time. We then had numerous meetings with people who invested money with us in a real estate operation which purchased land in Leesburg and was going to develop it with office buildings. Since we would occupy some of this, we could guarantee certain rental income.
I wonder if Lindylush ever knew about this as he may have been in when we did this.
We also had our numerous companies issue promissory notes with 18 to 24 % rates for people who had CDs or stocks that they could liquidate and then invest with us.
More money was being raised, but, Lyn has a nice taste of the good life. We found some guy to buy us a huge estate where Lyn and Helga coronated themselves as King and Queeen of Leesburg. The parties started and we would fly in our top money prospects to have a word with Lyn over cases of Rheingau wine while the Schiller Institute minstrels put on a show.
While the bubbly was flowing, members like Lindylush were given 5 bucks a day. While the loans were coming in, members of the finance office saw the numbers and how there was no way we could pay this back since we were diverting huge sums of money to Lyn and the security black hole. Many people in the finance office took off.
Over time, people would call us up and ask where there quarterly payment was. We did a song and dance about death treats to Larouche and how could they be such swine for asking for money. They were treated with as much contempt by the King and Queen of Leesburg as the field serfs were being treated.
The holders of these notes then called Lawyers to get their money back. Many of the people who were in the legal office saw the avalanche of Law Suits and also took off.
People in security were also seeing this screwy nightmare of endless bubbly with other people's credit cards and investments and saw how Lyn was being fleeced by con artists who had Lyn better profiled that anyone else. These guys would feed Lyn's enormous ego's with endless made up plots and stories which only made Lyn real feel like athe Philospher King of the Univers he imagined himself to be.Some of the security people saw the writing on the wall and took off.
So now we have hundreds of complaints filed with state and local offices around the US over these notes and CC problems. The investigations start up and Lyn now appoints a guy named Ed Spannous as the legal genius of the org. Never mind that real lawyers who were in the LC took off earlier as they saw what was going on.
During these times, we talked tough, but many members were wondering if they would enjoy a life in prison for Larouche. So now you did some dirty work in raising money, saw your contacts getting screwed, and then saw the liquor bills for Lyn's estate.
Remember Steve, while we were telling the serfs that all they could get was 5 bucks to prevent nuclear war, Helga's dogs were flying acroos the Atlantic for 5 THOUSAND bucks.
People talk, people gossip, people get calls and invitations from Grand Juries. A lot of people came to their senses and left.
Steve, don't you think that in prosecuting execs from Enron, World Com and Adelphia that people who worked there would be good witnesses
Steve, are you willing to go to prison for Lyn? You are being manipulated for this every day when you start off your day by singing Slave spirituals and worshipping Joan of Arc. We did the same thing in our choices of classes, play and NS centerfold subjects.
Here is a story about how Lyn was fooled and why some security people left. A guy showed up who was a friend or something like that of the security guys we were hiring from Georgia. He convinced us that for a few hundred thousand, Lyn could be placed on a list of "protected assests" of the National Security Agency and have virtual immunity from problems. The members were told that Lyn's friends in the CIA would "fix" the grand juries and just like in the cheap Spy novels security read, the problem would "disapear". We syphoned over two hundred thousand to give to him. This guy then bought a farm in Virginia with a nice house and told us that it would serve as an outpost and safe house. He came back to us and got thousands more by convincing Lyn that he needs to buy some cows to make the place "fly under the radar". After a few months, the guy never came back and we were out a cool quarter million.
Now lets talk about Halloween. Steve, that was a hell of a party son. About 30 or so members who left the NYC operations were keeping in touch with each other. People did this as support as what the hell does one do after leaving a cult which took several years of your life. People swapped plans about going back to school or business. For a while, a few people had get togethers over holidays like the 4th of July or Labor day and Halloween.
Lyn and other members were indicted. I think the Wertz screwed some people real bad with his bravado and lunacy that people decided to do something big one year. Rather than have a party with a Dracula outfit. it was decided that the theme would be the LC. God this was funny as people's creativity came back to life and people showed up in hilarious costumes. I can't remember every costume, but we had:
Lyn in prison stripes with a ball and chain.
A Knight of Malta.
A couple dressed up as credit cards.
Helga as the Bride of Frankenstein.
It was a kick ass party and one which will go down in history Steve. You see, the worst thing you can do to the King of the Universe is make fun of his lunacy. Go back several months and see the kids in Seattle who did the same thing on a college campus
Speaking of Halloween specials. Steve, did you see The Simpsons Halloween special "Tresshouse of Horror VII"?Here is the part where Lyn is mentioned.

  • Kodos explains that they're on a mission of conquest, and need to
    locate Earth's leader.
    Homer: I guess you mean President Clinton. He usually hangs around
    Washington, D.C.
    Kang: President Clin-Ton? Excellent.
    Homer: Except, um... there's this election next week, so after that, it
    might not be him anymore. It might be what's-his-name, uh...
    Mumbly Joe, uh... I saw him on TV the other... uh... Bob Dole!
    -- The well-informed American voter, "Treehouse of Horror VII"
    This election complicates matters a bit, so Kang and Kodos decide to
    abduct both candidates.
    Their first target is Bob Dole, who's walking out of the Republican
    National Committee.
    Ugh, Bob Dole doesn't need this.
    -- Bob Dole being abducted by aliens, "Treehouse of Horror VII"
    Next is Bill Clinton, who they pull through the roof of the White
    House, still in bed.
    Wha-wha-wha what's happening? Is it noon already?
    -- Bill Clinton being abducted by aliens, "Treehouse of Horror VII"
    Dole and Clinton are stripped bare naked (urgh!) and pushed into some
    kind of tube.
    What the hell is this, some kind of tube?
    -- Bob Dole, in some kind of tube, "Treehouse of Horror VII"
    Dole's tube quickly fills up with some sort of fluid which stops his
    movements, yet keeps him alive. Clinton thanks Kang and Kodos for
    taking care of Dole for him, but he soon goes through the same
    The aliens link themselves to the tubes, and initiate a
    bio-duplication. In other words, Kang and Kodos take the shape of Dole
    and Clinton, respectively.
    Oh, no! Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies... Oh my God! Lyndon
    LaRouche was right!
    -- Homer, "Treehouse of Horror VII"
    Kodos: What? Are you still here? I'm afraid we'll have to dispose of
    you... [pushes a button]
    [out of somewhere comes a cannon, which reveals a smaller
    cannon, which reveals an even smaller one, from which emerges a
    tube, spraying Homer]
    Homer: What are you spraying me with?
    Kang: Rum. So no one will believe your story.
    [Kodos kicks Homer off the saucer]
    Kodos: And don't come back.
    -- That should take care of him, "Treehouse of Horror VII"
  • **
    Now let us move on to something Steve mentioned concerning Nuclear war. Steve, did you notice the words that Ron Bettag used in the Appendix I posted about dealing with a person who wants his money back on a promissory note hustle?
    Nuclear war, like the "impending economic crash" is just one of the magic trickls Lyun can pull out of his hat. You see, it all started back in the mid 1970's when we came across some think tank's article about a Nato maneuver during the Cold War. It was called "Hilex" or MC14/4. Lyn has ALWAYS used the threat of nuclear war to make your ass move a little bit faster at the card table shrine and to cut your money back. You whip up the members into a mass panic and have them mobe like rabbits 24/7. Lyn begins to issue numerous press releases from a safe house. (A Larouche safe house means that it has a wine celler)
    The call is issued for a million run leaflets and you have the members calling more people for more money to prevent nuclear war.
    We did the same thing during the Jimmy Carter elections of 1976 and 1980. We did the same thing during the Mondale and Dukakis elections. We do the same thing during the Cheney years. A nuclear war mobe also becomes the best way to divert questions of the org. Leni in Glendale is famous for having her own catch phrase. "Don't you know that a nuclear bomb can drop down on us any minute now?".
    Steve, this stuff is so predictable that I could write the briefings for you every day and you would never know the difference. I could spin a wheel with:
    -Nuclear war.
    -Economic collapse.
    -Threats to stop Lyn.
    -Building a mass movement.
    -Baby Boomers now. (It used to be Yuppies, environmentalists and the counterculture)
    -Satanists and the Dark Ages.
    and give you your marching orders without missing a beat.
    So what is your take on the "Mars Society"? Surely the org must have a view.
    next time we will get together about the org and gays.

sancho (sancho)
08-27-2005, 12:03 PM
"Rather, I would like to take the opportunity here to give my counter-thesis, an antithesis it would seem, by nature and not by my design, which should reveal my best approximation of a truthful reality concerning the current subject."--"Steve"
Methinks Steve is a troll from _The Daily Show_ since one could not do a better parody of the patented LaLush prose style; either that or he gets to log in once a week from a State institution of higher mentation.
If there's another such Halloween party, I'd like to go as Ramsey Clark, painted half-black and half-white as was Frank Gorshin in the "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" episode of the original Star Trek television series. Clark was evil incarnate (prior to Lyndy's homoerotic fixation on Kissinger) - until of course Clark came to Lyndy's defense, after which the former was bleached of all sin. (


taavis_doc (taavis_doc)
08-27-2005, 03:11 PM
Actually, the main point of interest in this discourse is the astonishing severity of your own myopic delusion. It is you who turns a blind eye to any meaningful cultivation. You have been presented with much proof--including documents from St. Larouche himself--that tends to support the claims being made here regarding the LYM. Yet you evade this evidence repeatedly in favor of focusing on Mr. Curtis's (entirely understandable and reasonable) role in the legal proceedings against Larouche. You are fooling nobody; address the evidence offered or admit that you have nothing (or at least nothing but silly and pretentious rhetorical mannerisms in homage to the great one). What about the overt anti-semitism from The Campaigner? The Star of David as somehow emblematic of the international heroin trade? The "mommy fears" that preclude radical activism? ("Beyond Psychoanalysis," a.k.a. "Freud for 7th Graders") The credit card shenanigans? The Nixonesque "dirty tricks?" (oh, but then Watergate was all a ruse perpetrated ON Nixon according to Larouche, right?) How can you align yourself with an ethos so deranged Steven?
It is worth noting that the one flash of honesty in your apologist/propagandist offerings here has been the conspicuous, i.e. "out of character," rant that included:
"We need to educate the average ignorant citizen of the reality which is controlling world affairs in general. Follow my footsteps. Come to my home. Come with me, follow me . . . You guys are in an absolute dream world . . . The average citizen is a hopeless cause, unless he or she is confronted by a "LaRouchie" in a college campus, at a bank, outside of a Wal-Mart, etc. Prove me wrong. I would love it if you did, but the scientific fact is that no one is willing to. In terms of acadamia and intellectual integrity, not one person here has had the ability or even the will to answer the tough questions. I do. So I fight."
The arrogance on display here is typical of the young and partially educated. You have been puffed up by your handlers to believe that you are some kind of elite truth-teller, a co-holder of the "secrets of the inner elite," to borrow the title of a particularly dubious bit of fluff. When presented with evidence that contradicts--indeed demolishes--this insular world view (which nonetheless swears an allegiance to "humanism," i.e. non-insularity) you simply attack the speaker, impugn his motives, or declare his intellectual ignorance. This conveniently moves you past the actual issues at hand. You are fooling nobody.
Steven, it is not so much that a particular cabal has persisted throughout history, e.g. the "black Guelphs," or "sydicalist-oligarchists," etc. but rather that a METHODOLOGY --one which calls for equal parts sophistry, belittlement, scapegoating, rabid self-promotion, and monomania--has persisted throughout history. It has changed hands many times, and one is right to be wary of it. Indeed, this historical tendency is only one of several that is easily discernible. What you don't understand, Steven, is that St. Larouche is not OPPOSING this tendency so much as he is happily partaking of it. He is a symptom of the evils he occassionally accurately describes, not a solution to them. There is nothing even mildly original in his program.
I will repeat my earlier point--one of many that you won't or can't--address: Larouche is a run of the mill fascist, a "little Hitler" as the ADL accurately described him. He is also a reasonably shrewd businessman; he knows where to find the cheapest labor and how to manufacture the illusion of satisfied needs.
Again Steven, where are the other public intellectuals who might sign up for the Larouche plan? Is his genius really so singular that he has no peers? And what exactly are you learning at Yale about citing sources? You offer as counter-evidence a Larouch publication? The card table shrine may be grooming you for a career in used car sales, but I'd advise you to stay away from practicing law.
The youthfulness that blinds you may yet prove an asset; after all, you have plenty of time to wake up and redirect your efforts toward some more promising endeavor.
I sincerely wish the best for you. Let the successes of the other defectors--generously cataloged above--be a testament to this possibility.
P.S. I will trade you my Nassau 78 Grateful Dead bootleg, featuring over 4 hours of the instrumental "Space," in the correct tuning of course, for any Dead tapes or Beatles mixes that you might be grooving to this semester, man. Peace-out and happy harmonizing with those Yale SOBs who are perpetuating the Tavistock mind control program.
Really, stuff like this is hard to make up:


sancho (sancho)
08-27-2005, 08:27 PM
$100 to anyone who can explain clearly what the "Dirichlet Principle" is after reading Bruce Director's rambling at :

  • What Does LaRouche Mean by `Dirichlet Principle'?
    Director: Well, it comes out of an investigation that began initially with Leibniz, into the question of basically: How does one know how the physical universe operates? And essentially, how can we investigate not only the physical world, but also how can we investigate the way we investigate the physical world? And Leibniz deals with this, in a particular context, having to deal with the question of "powers," but Leibniz's investigation goes back all the way to the ancient Greeks. And this investigation by Leibniz was continued through Gauss, and Gauss's collaborators, Dirichlet and Riemann.
    Probably the best way for people to get a sense of it, is to look at it from the standpoint that Lyn is approaching it, which is from the standpoint of economics. If you look at the situation that we face right now, as Lyn has emphasized: We are in a global financial collapse. There are two things happening here: One is a financial collapse, which is the collapse of derivatives markets and financial systems and so forth. And that in itself poses some political problems, but that's not the biggest problem we face. The biggest problem we face, is the effect of over 40 years of a policy of deindustrialization and collapse in the physical economy. And so, we have to look at, now, what are the principles of economics, that we have to understand and come to some agreement on, so that we can develop those kinds of economic policies which will have the greatest impact in shifting the direction of the physical economy as a whole.
    Schlanger: Now, Bruce, this idea of physical economy, actually LaRouche identifies as a discovery of Leibniz.
    Director: Correct. And Leibniz is the first one to enunciate the idea of physical economy. But, of course, you can already see the epistemological implications of physical economy, in the subjects that Plato is treating in his dialogues. Because this really is the question of what is the nature of man, and what is man's relationship to the universe as a whole?
    And so, with Leibniz, you have for the first time a self-conscious investigation, or self-conscious understanding, of how this process works, with respect to man's relationship from the standpoint of society to the transformation of the physical economy. But it really doesn't get clarified, until Lyn's groundbreaking work in economics, which has come to be known as the LaRouche-Riemann Method of Economics.
    But this is precisely what we have to look at right now. Because, you've got a collapse of the physical basic capacity for the development of mankind occurring globally right now. And the question is, what kind of projects can we implement? What kind of policy initiatives can we take, that will give us the greatest shift in the entire direction of the global economy as a whole? As opposed to trying to deal with little problems, one by one by one.

  • $1,000 to anyone who can explain what this has to do with the work of Dirichlet: history/Mathematicians/Dirichlet.html (

kheris (kheris)
08-28-2005, 11:18 AM
There must de a shortage of college kids to man Chicago's local card table shrines. School is back in session, but the shrine I saw was parked outside a Walgreen's on Michigan Ave by the Water Tower. The two LaRouchies were Boomers and they had the picture of "Cheney's Guns of August" on the table. I guess they want to ride on Cindy Sheehan's coattails since LHL isn't getting the media exposure that she is. Still no sign of a Labor Day conference, at least at the usual sites, so they have to find something to do.
The location is a tourist mecca. I don't expect them to get much action aside from bemused looks. Most tourists are too busy running from store to store, and looking beautiful at the same time, to pay much attention to strangers with signs. Just ask the homeless who hang down there, complete with paper cup and sign. It's a tough way to make a living.
If you can't play an instrument you won't get the tourists' attention. Maybe Steve can talk the SOBs at Yale into coming to the Windy City to sing bel canto in front of the clubs on Rush St. The Yalies might do it too, seeing as there are 3 universities in town, and at least one is a 'party' school.


sancho (sancho)
08-28-2005, 03:32 PM
Yes, a marriage of convenience between the Peace Mom and the Peace Con ... excellent ...


sancho (sancho)
08-28-2005, 07:59 PM
Manifoldly both and neither interesting nor and perplexing that Mr. Steven aka alias Mr. Reddon hath not nor hath chosen neither to recircumabulate among the desiccated flora faunaque of the deprogramees cum animo contra LaLushem with the semi nor half noble intent of slaying the badees with his refulgent wit, o'er brimming stores of wisdom and christian economics together with his wholly strategical sense of superiority over each puella who doth catch him out at his every attempt to organize or, as it were, to decompose his stentorian essays.
Ah, lackaday.


xylm (xylm)
08-29-2005, 01:16 PM
I just read the LaDouche article you posted and i couldnt stop laughing at their attempted explanations. But since you already established this, let me transcend into the following loophole from that article:
"Now, of course, ideas don't exist out there in the ether, floating around in empty space. Ideas exist inside and through the process of deliberation and discussion by individual human beings, who make individual discoveries—unique in some cases; revolutionary discoveries; in some cases, the replication and re-discovery of previously made ideas—and the ability to communicate those ideas both among our contemporaries, and also to future generations."
Notice that LaDouche emphasizes the 'replication' and 're-discovery' of 'previously made ideas'. This means making revelations or break-throughs is nothing short of spreading Larouche's predisposed notions. Hmmm, maybe this is why those larouchies are yet to make any discoveries of their own or at least broaden what larouche has taught them.
No, instead they all speak, think, and act alike. The great irony is that their beloved Socratic Method of truth and discovery is construed through debate & dialogue. Well, if they all speak, think, and act the same –how are they going to make the same intellectual filtration Socrates did by surrounding diverse conceptions in his quest to truth? Certainly, the larouchies don't expect to have any intellectual breakthroughs conversing with the masses on the streets, since they are of a degenerate bread of the Cultural Congress of Freedom. Socrates didnt talk to himself in the mirror nor did he talk to a wall to come closer to truth– but maybe this is the groundbreaking humanist clarification LaDouche made of Plato.


sancho (sancho)
08-29-2005, 02:00 PM
Yes, xylm, LaRouche's signal contribution to the Platonic tradition, solipsistic Socratic dialogue, alternates with his Hegelian Consciousness, Self-Consciousness, Self-Self-Consciousness, etc. which was followed by his hypothesis, higher hypothesis, higher higher hypothesis - at which point the nurse and attendants come in to apply the restraints.
N.B. He has also established that Harvey in the eponymous Jimmy Stewart movie was a Platonist city-builder, which is why the Hollywood Jews wouldn't let him (i.e., Harvey) be seen, so as to make Ellwood P. Dowd appear a lunatic like LaLush for pointing out his existence. N.N.B. Mr. Dowd was a souse like "Mr. LaRouche."
I don't know Dirichlet's work, but I am fairly well-versed in Leibniz, and all the crap the ignorant LaRouchites put in the latter's mouth is enough to make your head spin. Physical economy, indeed. (


erin_b (erin_b)
08-29-2005, 05:31 PM
Toward the end of last semester you called me at home. You first presented yourself as an "ex-member", then tried to tell me "It's not a dangerous group".
I'm really sick of members coming in here, trying to act like anonymity isn't necessary when one of your contacts died. This isn't about having different opinions than the rest of society.
This is about what you'll do in order to get people to think the same way you do.
Don't you think there's something wrong with yelling at people that they're about to lose their jobs? Yelling at people who are just trying to go to work? Why should they stop and talk to you?
If anyone actually goes to one of your meetings, it gets worse than being yelled at.
Hundreds of people who think you have to think the same way they do. Hundreds of people who have lost the ability to think line up to tell you why your life is worthless without them. Without LaRouche.
People who defend him make me sick.
How can you just pretend that everything negative that's printid about LaRouche is fabricated?
Maybe they don't pick on you as much as they did me because you're a guy and you're from Yale.
Did you ever think of that?
If there's anything good in LaRouche's policies, it's lost in they way his supporters treat other people. They way LaRouche treates his own supporters while pretending to care about "humanity".
Oh. And he's anti-Semitic. Maybe that's what you love about him so much.
Don't call me again.
Erin Belcher


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
08-29-2005, 08:02 PM
The LaLu*es are surprisingly cowardly. There once was a Tom who would try to brandish a torch for his hero, but as soon as it was mentioned that the LaRouche organization was raising funds by applying their collective computer expertise to spamming on the other side of the law, not a peep could be heard thereafter - except by the odd devotee who would wander in, have his brains bashed and conscience bruised, and wander dazedly out.
Their silence (together with their crimes) is damning. (


anon127 (anon127)
08-29-2005, 08:15 PM
steve...ex-member ???
first college, and now ex-member.
what's next....getting a job ???


kheris (kheris)
08-30-2005, 03:40 AM
steve...ex-member ???
first college, and now ex-member.
what's next....getting a job ???
More likely Steve went to California for his summer vacation trying to recruit, unless he was manning a phone bank. Obviously Erin wasn't buying what he was selling.


xylm (xylm)
08-30-2005, 09:24 AM
I remember Harley preaching that an economic collapse would be good, good because it would ignite a new belief system and replace the current. The kids then ran with this and became giddy every time a larouche news brief foretold signs of economic depression. They have been expecting larouche to be right so bad that they even wish other's destruction. There not willing to save anybody behind closed doors, Larouche would have deaths for recognition, and it's rubbing off on the kids. Soon, they will ascend their patience like larouche, waiting for inevitable disasters to place their politics over. This is why the LYM can never make a real turn once Larouche dies, that, and because they haven't learned anything but conspiracies. Poor kids…


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
08-30-2005, 09:46 AM
I learned from a post here long ago that Mel Klenetsky, among others, had tried to develop contingency plans for the physical demise of Fearless Leader, and that Klenetsky was alledgedly booted out for even considering such things. If LaLush were concerned with truly changing the world, wouldn't he have built an institution to survive him, to propagate his world-changing ideas into the future? Plato's Academy lasted over eight centuries and assured the continuity of what Plato sought to do, even if later Academicians were Stoics, etc. It took a long time for Aristotle's work to get a broad hearing because his Lyceum - just as the NCLC shall - went into the toilet, together with his writings for the most part.
Next weak STH (small-time Hitler) will be 83: suppose you are now 21 and squandering your youth standing all day next to a card-table shrine. STH will easily be dead within 20 years, at which point you will be 40+, a "boomer." As committed as you at present are to endure a squalid existence of abuse and economic deprivation for Lyn, which of these "boomers" now will you be willing to throw the second half of your life away for? For Helga? Steinberg? Nancy Spannaus? Harley? Phil? For whom? It won't be one of you: I don't know if you've caught on, but there's no promotion within the LC outside of the ranks of the boomers. They guard their little fiefdoms the way Sancho would his island - had he ever gotten one.
It's your life, do something useful with it before you get that indelible _New Federalist_ newsprint odor worked into the world-famous NCLC BO.


xylm (xylm)
08-30-2005, 09:53 AM
"You've seen and heard them. They say things like LaRouche is a leader of a cult, or that he is anti-semitic, or some other vile epithet. Invariably, those repeating these lies, when challenged, can never back up what they say."
"These very same Foundations which run the slander mill against LaRouche are behind what is, in fact, the most dangerous cult in the world today. A cult of utopian military lunatics, typified by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, Henry Kissinger, or the current Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. These lunatics are the real masterminds behind the attacks of September 11. Watching their power crumble under the weight of the collapsing financial system, their aim is to drive the world into a racist global religious war, that Huntington calls a "Clash of Civilization". They are the ones who engineered the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, then concocted the Osama bin Laden hoax, sending the U.S. military off to fight the "Clash of Civilization", and diverting attention from their own culpability in an ongoing coup against the interests of the United States. This powerful and crazed utopian cult is the greatest real security threat to our nation."
Hey people, he is catching on to our 'utopian military' plot…how did he know we were behind Sept 11? (By the way, notice that the people he named are predominantly Jews)
"That's who is spreading lies about LaRouche. You hear them repeated, often by people who don't know their source, but who would rather be overheard repeating these lies, because they think it will make them popular."


sancho (sancho)
08-30-2005, 10:46 AM

  • it WON'T make me popular???*

xylm (xylm)
08-30-2005, 10:51 AM
Hey Sancho,
I believe you mentioned that your well versed in Leibniz...can you share with us any of Larouche's contradictions or misuses of him.


sancho (sancho)
08-30-2005, 12:03 PM
First of all, notice that LaRouche and his principal puppets rarely say anything in particular that any one of their icons avers, because no one on the NC reads anything at all, let alone reflects on it. Do you know how children play house? In precisely the same manner do the LaRouche people "play ideas."
It is true, of course, that Leibniz was a coinventor of the calculus, that he had a Grand Design involving Egypt, that he was an ecumenist, and that he was one of the greatest minds in human history. The reference above to Director's claim that Leibniz had an understanding of the "physical economy" apart from the concept commonly available in his day is ludicrous, but not as ludicrous as the idea that there is some genetic ideation from Plato through LaLush on the matter.
In the unlikely event that something is published by the crazies with actual reference to something Leibniz putatively said, then I will respond as to whether or not it has support in surviving manuscripts. Of course that brands me in Bizarro World as an academic - the type of person they fear, because they just want complete liberty to say whatever fool thing pops into Lyn's head and call it genius.
On the other hand, in all fairness, I must say that Phil Valenti always writes well,
and while all he says in particular about Leibniz's work is as accurate as one gets in that organization, the spin he gives it is so perverse as to make Leibniz look like a LaRouchian. Leibniz, unlike LaRouche, made substantial contributions to human knowledge and was above all things a man of faith, i.e., he was not a "LaRouche christian." Leibniz like LaRouche, however, was often a toady and sycophant, and what Valenti represents as Leibniz's city-building politicking was just more a product of Leibniz's own venality and overweening ambition. No one, after all, is perfect. Except, of course, for Lyndy.


sancho (sancho)
08-31-2005, 08:40 PM
The founder of FactNet outlines five steps to assist with the healing process once you have broken free of the LaRouche cult:
The only difference between the LaRouche and Scientology cults is that Scientology is successful as a cult: so LaRouche in addition to being a failure as a son, as a husband (at least twice), as a father, as an economist, as a political figure, as a humanist intellectual (whatever that is), is also a relative failure as a cult leader. Some legacy.
There is more material on the LaRouche cult at (


anon127 (anon127)
09-01-2005, 02:10 AM
no conference announcement...i guess Little Hitler finally ran dry out of credit.
not much news of beltran the org, u learn that if u start grabbing headlines from Little Hitler, u won't be around much longer.
which is why every sentence must end with some reference to "Lyn".
ex-member Steven...hv u left us like u left the org?


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-01-2005, 10:41 AM
hello, my anonymous friend. I am alive and well and having lots of fun, as I am sure my LYM friends are also. Do you get out much, Mr. Anonymous? If so, I hope you are having your share of the fun out there.
Best wishes,


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-01-2005, 11:32 AM
The Song of the LaLu*e
It's FUN to be a crook
With a foe in every nook;
It's FUN to be a pompous ass
And hob nob with Abbas;
It's FUN to play at Walter Mitty
And treat the old folks pretty *ty;
It's FUN to spout at ivied Yale -
And someday FUN to weep in jail!
It's FUN!
That's why in jail one has the hope
To have one's soap upon a rope -
It's FUN!


xylm (xylm)
09-01-2005, 02:22 PM
I'm really curious to learn and receive some feedback on everybody's awakening towards the lunacy of this movement. I couldn't imagine a full time member convincing himself or being convinced in one sitting since they are also programmed to repel everything and anything that appose them. I find it intriguing yet sad to deal with the psychology of one who has had their way of thinking revised and their vocabulary redefined. Additionally, its shameful penetrating a dialogue with a larouchie to the point where they fall into a meaningful but absurd corner of refutation –for instance claiming that the intranet is an anti-humanist device that compounds the humanitarian problem of today or neglecting Larouche's quote that "Judaism is a by product of Christianity and hoax" is anything but anti-Semitic. Their inability to register the absurdity is shocking! Trying to imprint any realization is like drawing in the beach sand…it'll imprint for a while but only until the tide comes in and washes it away again. I'm not trying to be so skeptical…maybe someone can correct me ..


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-01-2005, 05:54 PM
xylm, yours is a good and thoughtful question.
In a nutshell:
I became involved with and persisted in the LaRouche movement because (1) I believed the solution to human suffering lay in the work of Karl Marx, (2) I believed in the promotion of generalized scientific and technological progress, and (3) I believed in the promotion of a renaissance founded on classical principles in all areas of thought. I also (4) came from a dysfunctional family background and (5) found a surrogate family in the NCLC. I never bought into most of the conspiracy stuff, but went along with it because of the commitments (1)-(3). But from almost the start I had a high resistance to the cult-coercion tactics to which I was subjected, and just left eventually because I couldn't tolerate any longer the brutally animal "human" relations that obtained in that organization. This was all the more painful as I still believed in the "ideas" of Lyn, and in Lyn himself: I felt, "if only Lyn knew" what was going on - but of course I "knew" that the lower downs would just brand me as an agent of some sort, whatever the enemy du jour was, so I left and was libeled afterwards as all sorts of (contradictory) things, things that made no sense to anyone of even moderate intelligence. Then, as I learned more, I increasingly realized how full of s--- was Lyn both as a man and as a thinker. What finally tied it was when I began to learn a great deal of standard capitalist economics which - however flawed I agree it is axiomatically - makes a great deal of common sense, in that one can follow the flow of ideas, whereas everything in LaRouche is mere assertion.
As to the antisemitism: I never saw it at the time because (1) most of the people I knew in the organization were Jewish and (2) I knew about bigotry generally and just figured, some don't like Jews, others don't like Germans, or blacks, or Aleutian Islanders - but I knew nothing at the time of antisemitism per se apart from what everyone is supposed to know occured in Germany, 1933-1945 and earlier. The one and only time I confronted the real thing was in some of the Ohio locals, and in the person of Mike Billington's brother (whose first name I've forgotten): they were all blatantly crude, classical antisemites. I used to stare at them and say, you don't mean this, do you? I thought it was all a big joke. But they seemed serious. My impression at the time was that they wanted to impose this kind of overt racism on the organization as a whole, that their locals were going to do it, or some such. I never otherwise encountered anything like that except for the infamous Volkswagen joke, which likewise puzzled me. But again, everyone told ethnic jokes, even if I regarded that one as in poor taste. Now however that I am more familiar with antisemitic literature thanks to Dennis King and others, I can easily see the patterns, how LaRouche is/was playing in code to the Willis-Carto-types - and worse.
So getting out was a process. When I was a true believer, I half believed the attacks on the organization - except for the antisemitic stuff which I really believed a Big Lie against the organization - but I was so brainwashed into believing that Lyn was humanity's only hope for survival that out of a misguided love for said humanity I persisted.
I guess what one has to understand is that if a group of people (1) perceive dire dangers to humanity (2) whom they "love" and wish to "save" and (3) they believe that X is the "only" (final?) solution then (4) ANYTHING done in the name of X is justifiable, including murder, lies, and harassment.
Now I can only pray for my sometime abusers, and for their victims, including Jeremiah. (


sancho (sancho)
09-01-2005, 07:59 PM
By the way, I would really like information on the LaRouche spam, pornography, and other illegal computer activities. How much money would you estimate they rake in annually by providing these services?
Also, aren't they bankrolled by several old German families?
I think financial investigations into their shenanigans would be much more disruptive to them than all of this talk about their "ideas." They have almost always earned their money at the expense of victims: lets find out who the new victims are. A project for the anti-LaRouche hackers who read this board ... bring them down!


anon127 (anon127)
09-02-2005, 03:28 AM
"hello, my anonymous friend. I am alive and well and having lots of fun, as I am sure my LYM friends are also. Do you get out much, Mr. Anonymous? If so, I hope you are having your share of the fun out there."
yes, i do get out every now and then...but not with a table by the sidewalk.
and is fun...especially when the outing has nothing to do with making this week's financial quota.


sancho (sancho)
09-02-2005, 07:10 AM
Yes, it's fun to lie, cheat, and steal.
Yes, it's fun to make a public ass out of yourself by being a grown man and standing on a public street overtime at a card table with amateurish end-of-the-world-style sandwich boards one otherwise only sees in a _New Yorker_ cartoon.
Yes, it's fun to believe you have the key to all of science and human history without having to exert yourself as most scientists or historians do to establish even the smallest truths about reality.
Yes, it's fun to believe oneself to be more than a man - especially when one is not even half a man.
Yes, have fun, the NCs say. But you know in your cowering heart that there's no fun at all about any of it.
But keep lying to yourself, kiddo. And have fun. It's only your face you have to look at in the mirror each and every morning.


listbrowser (listbrowser)
09-02-2005, 07:49 AM
I read here of Mike Gelber's passing a few years ago. I knew Mike, we got lost in Canada in the early AM driving from Detroit to Buffalo in the early 80's. We made it back OK, I was behind the wheel since Mike was a self confessed awful driver. His driving skills apparently never improved. He described me as a 'tarnished Silver Soul' because of my refusal to commit body and soul to the LC, even after hearing the Truth from Great One his own self. Maybe so, but I don't need to define BS, I just need to smell it for what it is.
RIP Gelber.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-02-2005, 10:43 AM
A show just aired on the Science Fiction network entitled "The Belzer Connection: the Diana Conspiracy" hosted by Richard Belzer with guests Ice_T, Liddy, Musto, et al. Well, who do you think Belz had present the case for the conspiracy side? Steinberg, of EIR. No mention of LaRouche. Another instance of the fact that even his own representatives don't want to drag the old man's name into conversation so as not to embarass themselves. I guess Steinberg will never lose his rigor mortis, although that might make him a candidate to appear on _Law & Order: Special Victims Unit_ with Belzer and Ice-T.


kheris (kheris)
09-02-2005, 02:21 PM
Went cruising to see if The Great One had any words of wisdom on Katrina. But of course! So here ( is the word from On High. It includes the prediction of economic collapse about to fall upon the world.
Naturally it's all Bush's fault for not foreseeing at the beginning of August that Katrina was going to make mush of the Gulf Coast and taking aggressive measures to prepare. Not even the Weather Channel, the HQ for meteorological prognostication, had that much foresight. One can question, as Molly Ivins did, the confluence of government policies over time that made such a catastrophe possible. She made a hell of a lot more sense than LHL's ramblings.
The forecast of economic catastrophe is overblown to some degree. Without a doubt we are going to pay an economic price for this, but I seriously doubt we are going to fall totally on our face, let alone the rest of the globe.
I guess LHL needs this diversion since Iran is still standing. I am waiting for him to pronounce that this was God's judgement.


sancho (sancho)
09-02-2005, 02:45 PM
And he will contribute not ONE CENT toward the relief efforts, as that cent must be allocated to combating the oligarchical Dark Side, blah, blah, and blah.
Of course the rank-and-file LYMers have been experiencing post-tsunami conditions for several years now, so perhaps they can empathize with the looters and the homeless.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-02-2005, 07:00 PM
If one were to view Larouche's writings from the late 1970's you would find another of his crazed conspiracy epochs on FEMA.
When the Three Mile Island Plant experienced a failure, FEMA was the agency which was created to direct efforts to assist local disaster areas and help in evacuation planning.
In our crazed world, FEMA was part of a Rockefeller plot to seize control of the US population via a coup of the government. We printed massive exposes of how FEMA was an Oligarchical agency and how Three Mile Island was a "HOAX" designed to dumb down the US Popualtion and discourage Nuclear Power. Only us youthfull forces in the USLP and NCLC would be able to organise the population against this British Dark Ages plot which was a hundred times worse than Hitler.
We sent members to FEMA meetings to take pictures, denounce everyone there and declare that ONLY through a Larouche led mass movement would the world survive "The worst economic collapse of the 20th Century".
We had mass pamphlets of how the banks would be taken over by Rochefellers Chase Manhattan Bank and we would all be slaves working in shale oil fields in the Alberta Tar Pits while under Methadone.
FEMA was the way how the Trilateral Commission would take over through the brainwashed President Jimmmy Carter. I myself attended FEMA meetings and surreptitiously photographed FEMA documents which would prove the plot. The documents were actually about how power would be restored during an outage. But, since it wasn't Nuclear power which would be used, then the plot was real.
Steve, every thing you are doing, we all did over three decades. Every line you hear, every speech and conference you attend, is the same thing we went through.
We were all you age which is why we bother with this stuff. In fact Steve, the photo EIR runs for the Guns of August with Cheney's head in the middle of a mushroom cloud is a carbon copy of our 1976 USLP presidential campaign poster with the head of Jimmy Carter in the middle of a mushroom cloud.
Bill Ferguson has reservations for you and another LYM at a card table shrine waiting for you. Ask him how he gave up a Princeton math scholarship 25 years ago to join Larouche.
When you meet him, ask him if he thinks there is a market for a bumper sticker that reads:
Steve, do you feel solidarity with Nazi rocket scientists who complain that Hilter did not give them enough resources to "finish the job"?
Care to swear by Larouche's Holocaust figures?
Have you joined Skull and Bones at Yale yet? Do you know that Lyn thinks that only degenerate gays attend Yale? Google "larouche and Yale" and see the results.
Steve, do you think that the Three Mile Island meltdown was a deliberate plot of the US through FEMA to destroy nuclear power in the US and unleash a dark ages?
This should be easy for you as you can ask some of the deadenders for their copies of "Fusion" magazine and NS from that era. Since Lyn is a genius, they should be prominently presented to you.
Ask Bill about the "Mars Society" and see what he says. What do you think?
Some people have briefly covered what happens when you leave the bizarro world and actually studt things. In the LC, one would get the notion, repeated endlessly by Lyn and sycophants that there was not a single Britich scientist who existed. After I left and detoxed myself I took some basic classes on electricity and science and lo and behold, many discoveries were actually made by British and Scottish scientists. THe trick is that by using a few names and phrases, one can make a LYM believe that only through Lyn can the truth be revealed.
This lunacy is based on the mistaken notion that there is something to hide. Just read the history and study the timelines and it is not as mysterious as it seems.
Card table shrine at eight.
Steve, don't be late.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-03-2005, 08:00 AM
I wonder how many casualties occurred, how many suicides, how many unfulfilled promises, aborted children and dreams, bankruptcies, substance abuse and other behavioral disorders, broken families, shattered marriages, apostate religionists, how many people soured on any form of politics or volunteer work - how much grief - how much sorrow - how many tears - have been wrought in the wake of hurricane Lyndy blowing through the lives of well-meaning people? Who can count the toll?


borisbad (borisbad)
09-03-2005, 01:11 PM
The hallmark of every cult leader is that he has all the answers, and if you just listen to him long enough and offer complete obedience without question, then you may share in the Secrets of the Inner Elite like Lyn pretends to do. One point, it wasn't John Asher who got to mumbling on street corners it was his brother Tom Asher whom I used to know as a pretty decent fellow in the early days of the "Movement" before he was shot outside Lincoln DeTox, which we had some type of campaign against because it promoted Rockefeller's killer drug Methadone, which was invented by the Nazis.
Of course LHL can't give to any relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina because the Red Cross was founded by the infamous Knights of St. John of Jerusalem and the Knights of Malta who were engaged in a centuries long battle with the neo-platonic Knights Templar. To get an idea of the lunatic theories that LaRouche uses to decipher history just read the DaVinci Code for simlar stuff.
I'm glad Steve is having so much fun. I'm wondering if the dead enders from the 70s, 80s and 90s are having such a glorious time.
And lastly having read the infamous account about how LaRouche was "tortured" in prison when he had a colonoscopy, who wants to guess how many over 50 year old members even have enough money to get a colonoscopy done? What's the current LaRouche health insurance plan?


borisbad (borisbad)
09-03-2005, 01:18 PM
Was also wondering, and I didn't hear Steve respond to it, or does he just pretend that the anti-Semitic jokes never happened, does he believe that Israel is the source of all the problems in the Mid-East and that they along with Britain are the main destabilizing force in that part of the world, or in fact all parts of the world?
I also recall not just the awful anti-semitic jokes that were told, especially those by Jewish members like Paul Goldestein, but I remember how AIDS was used to attack homosexuality in the most vicious and evil ways. How many jokes did we tell about Rock Hudson and Liberace when they were dying from the disease. This is the compassionate humanism that Steve etc support. I'm sure that it fits in nicely with LHL's apocalyptic visions where he and his fellow travellers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson could go around saying that homosexuals were getting what they deserved, etc. Anyone remember the watermelon jokes we used to put on signs about AIDs when we wanted to make fund of Rock Hudson who's publicists were saying he was sick and losing weight because of the watermelon diet?
Of course, I admit that I went along with it, and thought it was being so polemically fashionable. You have to swallow a lot of sh*t when you front for LHL


sancho (sancho)
09-03-2005, 01:47 PM
The latter I missed out on, but only goes to demonstrate LaRouche's latent homosexuality (not that there's anything wrong with it), as does his bizarre dismissal of all of classical ballet as "crotch play." Weird. Another illustration of the maxim that when you point a finger at someone, you have three pointed back against yourself. His characterization of Henry Kissinger as gay is further proof of Lyn's own less-than-subterranean impulses. Also, now come to think of it, all that stuff about "mother" in _Beyond Psychoanalysis_. Too weird.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-04-2005, 06:34 AM
The hallmark of "The Hostile Fantasy World of Larouche" is to have an endless stream of enemies ready to inflict harm on Larouche first, the world later. If one were to review the writings of the LC as Steve should do, one will see a pattern of lunacy that has encompassed several decades.
The Homosexual hatred which Lyn has is something Steve will now be carrying the torch for as he spreads the Larouche Gospel across the Yale common Square.
When I first came in the group, the word Gay was not used, but faggot was thrown around like a debris during Hurricane Katrina. Lyn would constantly scream at the members during the infamous and phony "Chris White" brainwashing that homosexual rape was used to break him. Lyn also has a fscination with eating manure in his writings as well. Go figure.
During a conference in NYC in 1974 we had a member name Bill ** end up in the Belvue mental facility. Bill was supposedly brainwashed and was attached to the genatalia of a stuffed pig by his CIA/KGB handlers.
The writings in the beyond psych series expound the fear of anal sex in brainwashing young LYM members back then. Lesbianism was the main reason why the female members could not do more for Larouche in saving the world from the Rockefellers.
Our writings in our paper repeatedly called police and FBI agents as faggots and the worst kind of anal sex abusers. We would print that one of the ways to become an FBI agent was to engage in anal sex. We used to print many jokes about the FBI as being dirty filthy fags in our publications. There was the standard Larouche Joke of "How do you sit 4 FBI agents at a bar?" "You turn the stool over". We had a cartoon character called "Agent FuzzDick" appearing in our paper weekly. During "Mop Up" we fired up our goon squads by showing how the CP and SWP were now a bunch of fags who supported Fag Rights.
Mind you that Lyn himself lived on Morton Street in the heart of a Gay GreenWich Village for many years. Lyn also was a real man as he never worked and his wives make the money for the house.
During the NYC elections we printed posters of Ed Koch dressed as a flaming Gay character performing oral sex on the Empire State building.
We attacked a NYC West Side council person as a lesbian. Later. A person named Lix Holtzman I think became one of more dearest enemies as she was involved in persuing Nazi war criminals in the US whom we were defending at every turn. The Lesbian line was uses again.
In local cities where we had offices, we would do durty tricks like calling the neighbors of our opponets as drug dealers, faggots and child molestors. We were sued a few times for this and settled out of court quietly. Just look at how the cult created a group hate against Dennis King once he started to print articles about the cult's inner workings.
Kissinger became another target of our rabid anti gay hysteria as Lyn wrote a NS centerfold called "The politics of Faggotry". We spread endless leafletts and rumours about Kissinger as a molestor of young boys around the world. We also printed stuff up that Kissinger killed a young mexican boy in a resort with a wine bottle to the head when he resisted Kissinger's advances. There is a famous incident where one of our airport table crews was fighting with Kissinger's wife.
In retrospect, I can only come to the conclusion that we were using this effectively in our Mexican and Suuth Americian organising to play up the machismo anti home hatred of these places.
In NYC, our campaign against Roy Cohn took on monstrous proportions as we had endless fag attacks on him and anyone associated with him. It later turned out that in security, we had contacts in the Gay world who hated Cohn more than us and would supply us with stories from his private life. In the typical Larouche twist of events, we later worked with Cohn behind the scenes to attack some other NY politicos.
Lyn would constantly pepper his talks with his diatribes against "faggots and sodomizers" to whip us up.
During one of our campaigns we published a pamphlet called "The Aquarian Conspiracy". Now we were calling Right to Life groups and religious people to support Lyn. Part of our polemic was that Homosexuality was Satanic in nature and part of the evil oligarchy's plan to bring on the Dark Ages. We linked Homosexuals to Babylonian cults, Aristotle, Jesuits, Tavistock, every British scientist and every evil in the world.
What is intersting in retrospect was how we always denied any Homo sexual eroticisms of the Greeks, especially Plato. It was a surreal night in our offices when one of our NC's would give a class on Plato, read direct writngs about gay things and either pretend it was not homo or just say that it was a "metaphor" for somethng else. In the end, the best plan was to blame the fag stuff on Aristotle and his Satanic offspring.
Aids became a great fundraiser for us and further escalated Lyn's hatred of Homosexuals. Writing after writing, meeting after meeting was about how the fags were going to detroy civilization as we know it. Gay sex was now directed by the oligarchy to wipe out 3/4ths of the world so that the Elites could rule.
Now imagine if your were a Gay member during this. Go up several posts and you will read about our Gay adventures in New Orleans. We had a few Gay members who became asexual in public. They quietly dropped out. This was nothing to bring up at a confernce when your sexuality is now part of an evil plot akin to nuclear war.
Lyn ran with AIDS as best he could, which is to make money off it and scare the hell out of people. We created sopmething in California called "Panic" which was our attempt to pass a ballot initiative called Proposition 69 in the 80's. Do a google search of that and see what we did. Our approach had nothing to do with real health care and was based on locking up people we attacked.
Lyn would give more anti gay speeches and now took credit for predicting AIDS! We published some lunacy in the 1970's about how the Rockefellers would create conditions of disease which would kill 3/4ths of the world. The Club of Rome, the environmentalists and anyone promoting a solar panel was now a mass murderer. Religous cults use the same math in their fundraising as well. Of course in real life, highly contagious lethal diseases do not act this way as they kill the carriers before it spreads. We were not health professionals, but we pretended to be. OSHA guidelines written by real health professionals arae credited wioth reducing Hepatitis and other blood borne diseases.
Lyn would scare the bejesus out of his members and supprters about mosquitos being flying syringes and how we would all die a puss and pock marked death for the oligarchy.
These plans were based on Ebola or other diseases increasing at a rapid rate. We used a basic exponential growth model which through basic doubling would kill everyone on the planet.
Lyn now took this stuff and declared that he alone predicted AIDS as the super disease which was going to kill us all. During this we also were attacking Mondale and Kennedy as KGB agents. So to help the Dmeocratic party,we now attacked them as part of a Russian plot which engineered the AIDS virus to destroy the West for the Russian Orthodox Church under our "Third Rome Thesis".
I assure you that I am not making this stuff up as I am not that creative in fiction writing. I kept a lot of our writings for a while and would occasionally look at it to see how crazy we were back then.
We picked up Medical people along the way to work with us. In typical fasion, we burnt most of them out but got a few "marks" for Larouche. Since these people were MD's and such, they of course lent us money and we emptied them.
Fot those of you who like doing research of this, google this name, "John Grauerholz". He was a Medical examiner in Long Island when the TV show "Quincy" was popular. He became Lyn's medical side kick for a while and lived the good life. But, as usually happens with friends of Larouche, you fall pretty deep. Do the google search and look for his name in Virginia, NY and NJ. There was some sort of problem we had in Leesburg invovling our MD's which NO ONE wants to talk about. Enough of that, I will let the investigators here do their work.
We not only did some card table shrines about Rock Hudson, but did another trick very few people know about.
For several months during our AIDS campaign, Lyn would speak cryptically about how another Hollywood ladies man was nothing more than a diry filthy faggot who picked up AIDS during his numerous adventures with young boys. Some of us heard the name Burt Reynolds during this. Since most members never were in the real world, the name did not click.
Find a copy of a Burt Reynolds auto Biography and you will read a fascinating section about his medical problems. The section I am refering to was either in his bio or in a full page in one of the national celebrity magazines a few years back.Burt lost a lot of weight and was dignosesd finally with TMJ, a serious jaw disorder. Since he could not chew food with out extreme pain, he was eating less and losing weight. We were spreading his name around our card table shrines as the latest Hollywood faggot to bite the dust.
In Reynold's book, there is a section where he refers to a political cult which used him for their purposes by spreading rumours. He writes that he does not wish to give the cult any publicity and tells about the dirty tricks they did. One trick which I would hear rumours of but could never pin down was this. A look alike of Reynolds was hired and was paid to got to numerous Hospitlas in podunk towns and check himself in as Burt Reynolds and declare that he has AIDS! This went on for months.
The bottom line for you Steve is that you are now in "The Hostile Fantasy World of Larouche". Even if you never join full time and graduate form Yale, you have served humanity by allowing us to write about this stuff for students and intersted parties.
I am wondering if you are acting as a double agent against Larouche as we can't get LYM people to stick around here for a while.
Will you be confronting the Gay student chapters at Yale about how they are Aristotelian Satanists who are part of a British plot to wipe out 3/4ths of the world's population?
Are you ready to make phone calls to lyn's enemies co workers and friends that he or she is a "dirty filthy sodomizing fag" like we did ?
You still have not commented on the Mars Society and how the LYM views it.
(Message edited by Xlcr4life on September 04, 2005)


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-04-2005, 07:18 AM
Maybe Lyn will come out on his birthday. Mistress Helga is an evident man-hating dominatrix. Sordider and sordider.


sancho (sancho)
09-04-2005, 07:36 AM
From a LaRouche speech, 1974:
"How do you brainwash somebody? Well, first of all, you generally pull a psychological profile or develop one in a preliminary period. You find every vulnerability of that person from a psychoanalytic standpoint. Now the next thing you do is you build them up for fear in males and females of homosexuality, aim them for an anal identification with anal sex, their mouth is identified with fellatio. Their mouth is identified only with the penis -- that kind of sex, and with woman. Womanhood is the fellatio of the male mouth in a man who has been brainwashed by the KGB; that is sucking penises. . . ."
"First they say your father was nothing, your father was a queer, your father was a woman. They play very strongly on homosexual fears. It doesn't work on women... Most women are to a large degree homosexual in this society. The relationship between daughter and mother is homosexual, so the thing is not much of a threat."
"But to young men it is generally a grave threat... fears about masturbation... They say, 'See that sheep. Wouldn't you like to do that to a sheep?'"
"It's not the pain that brainwashes, it's forcing the victim to run away from the pain by taking the bait of degrading himself. This persistant pattern of self-degradation, self-humiliation, is what essentially accomplishes the brainwashing."
"Any of you who say this is a hoax -- you're cruds! You're subhuman! You're not serious. The human race is at stake. Either we win or there is no humanity. That's the way she's cut."

  • LaRouche, I would aver, is an avowed Satanist. Not only based on the above specimen, but on the fact that he is almost childishly transparent in his attacks. He accuses Jews of being Nazis (as he is), he accuses anticult people as cultists (as he is), and now he accuses people of being Satanists.
    You be the judge.

outlast (outlast)
09-04-2005, 04:46 PM
Worried about grammar sick bunch of twisted idiots.....with nothing better to do than post on this site....pretending to be the poor victims....of what....your own guilt....your own deviant invasions of privacy....perpetrator....creeps like you and your sick twisted jokes and fun of getting back at people don't deserve the time of day......let alone the lung capacity of a air bull*....sick twisted bitches and sick twisted *faces...with nothing to do but sit there blame other people for one or two people's are that the right spelling, right grammar....oops a piece of hair just feel in my food, freshly cut hair too....I wonder which little creepy stalker put it there. You might not be implicated in such despicable acts of terrorism....if you didn't participate directly in time try having a mind of your own, a conscience, a life outside of stalking people....and tormenting people....and apparently you get paid a salary to do pathetic!!!!!! Get a real life!!! Stop bothering people who will not even so much as bother to look at your ugly faces, and your ass-poo whatever you posted earlier that is the most digusting.....Little big man mocker....fitting name for a perp! Anti-Christ....another fitting name for a stalker. Gangstalker gives you a sense of belonging...almost't award you that luxury you sick bunch of pricks!! Do you know the difference between right and wrong?....if you did you would not post here. Keep your distance while I try to pretend that none of you ever existed and erase your faces and your ignorant comments from my memory. Just remember ass comments were general, yours were targeted, for a purpose, and extended outside of work in a vicious circle of harassment, continuous, you sick *ing pieces *...YOU YOU and YOU are terrorists, only a terrorist sits there and thinks they can violate someone to their face all day long and expect someone to sit there with a smile ear to ear!!! Sick perps....I feel like I should be letting you take my place here...I feel so sorry for the likes of all of you who had so much fun. And yes....I am retarded according to Miss Muffet and 2+2 actually does equal 5. You're my *ing heros.....what was it a 11000 to one. Winners!!!! Sick pricks....don't post here ever again.


outlast (outlast)
09-04-2005, 04:48 PM
Worried about grammar sick bunch of twisted idiots.....with nothing better to do than post on this site....pretending to be the poor victims....of what....your own guilt....your own deviant invasions of privacy....perpetrator....creeps like you and your sick twisted jokes and fun of getting back at people don't deserve the time of day......let alone the lung capacity of a air bull*....sick twisted bitches and sick twisted *faces...with nothing to do but sit there blame other people for one or two people's are that the right spelling, right grammar....oops a piece of hair just feel in my food, freshly cut hair too....I wonder which little creepy stalker put it there. You might not be implicated in such despicable acts of terrorism....if you didn't participate directly in time try having a mind of your own, a conscience, a life outside of stalking people....and tormenting people....and apparently you get paid a salary to do pathetic!!!!!! Get a real life!!! Stop bothering people who will not even so much as bother to look at your ugly faces, and your ass-poo whatever you posted earlier that is the most digusting.....Little big man mocker....fitting name for a perp! Anti-Christ....another fitting name for a stalker. Gangstalker gives you a sense of belonging...almost't award you that luxury you sick bunch of pricks!! Do you know the difference between right and wrong?....if you did you would not post here. Keep your distance while I try to pretend that none of you ever existed and erase your faces and your ignorant comments from my memory. Just remember ass comments were general, yours were targeted, for a purpose, and extended outside of work in a vicious circle of harassment, continuous, you sick *ing pieces *...YOU YOU and YOU are terrorists, only a terrorist sits there and thinks they can violate someone to their face all day long and expect someone to sit there with a smile ear to ear!!! Sick perps....I feel like I should be letting you take my place here...I feel so sorry for the likes of all of you who had so much fun. And yes....I am retarded according to Miss Muffet and 2+2 actually does equal 5. You're my *ing heros.....what was it a 11000 to one. Winners!!!! Sick pricks....don't post here ever again.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-04-2005, 09:27 PM
I don't think "outlast" is connected to LaRouche. He has posted elsewhere on FactNet and is a person deeply disturbed. He's in need of help, not abuse, and probably posted to this board in error. Best of luck to him and his family.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-05-2005, 07:03 AM
Mr. Curtis,
I don't know how the LYM views the Mars Society. You would probably do better to ask individuals in the LYM, for example Sky or Cody or Nick or any number of studied youth. They would probably have some insight to offer. I have never had a discussion about the Mars Society, nor have I ever been refered to it. In fact, I am unsure of what you would like to discuss about it. Please, since you sound familiar with its activities, would you like to open a discussion with a more directed comment and question and perhaps reference a particular article?


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-05-2005, 07:24 AM
I read the purpose and mission statements and am now among over 19,000 signators for the petition calling for the promotion of Mars exploration and settlement. And I refered them to you, Mr. Curtis; I hope you don't mind. I was not sure if you had signed the petition yet as well.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-05-2005, 11:08 AM
"I have never had a discussion about the Mars Society, nor have I ever been refered to it. In fact, I am unsure of what you would like to discuss about it. Please, since you sound familiar with its activities, would you like to open a discussion with a more directed comment and question and perhaps reference a particular article? "
Steven, you have given me an opportunity to show the difference between a sycophantic cult led by a meglomaniac and a group started by an individaul who REALLY wanted to change policies. There is a big diffenence between groups which work towards goals rather than cults of personality.
There is a reason why you will not find LYM talking aboput the Mars Society. M.S. has ben around for several years and is considered one of the leading organisations which promote manned exploration of Mars and the universe. The group has had an endless stream of positve coverage in journals and press which are part of the evil oligarchy which is suppressing science.
Poular Science/Mechanics,Discover, Scientific American, Time, US News, The NY Times, MPH and many many weekly and monthlies have featured the Mars Society.
They have a long term relationship with many public officials and people in the Space Business. You can see coverage of their conferences and spokespeople on C-SPAN, CNN and other outlets.
You can also see throught their web site how many chapters and people who are both civilians and very sophisticated researchers have been drawn to the group.
There is also much respect in DC from law makers who actually plan budgets and determine where NASA goes.
Now what does this have to do with why many of us are concerned when an Elmer Gantry like Larouche attracts people like yourself in your prime years? Because you will later find that several of your prime years have been feeding a meglomaniac rather than getting real things done.
The founder of the Mars Society is a chap named Robert Zubrin. Mr. Zubrin is someone quite a few people who left the org knew from many years ago. Mr. Zubrin joined the LC when he was a college student in the 1970's and spent a few years in different cities. He eventually ended up depressed in NYC from some people who knew him. Depressed because the group was no longer what he thought it should be or was. This is quite similar to what many members have thought after seeing the transformation of the LC into a personal cult of Larouche.
Zubrin was sent to the national office in NYC and worked in the FEF sector for a while, down the hall from me. If you go to the 21st Century web site you can see his name listed as an author of some articles. Some of these articles are nothing to be proud of as he has one in the Campaigner I remember attacking Science Fiction as a British operation to stop people from learning into science. I can never forget the end of his article. "America needs science and fiction, but not science fiction".
However, this story has a happy ending. Zubrin left quietly according to people who knew him because of certain "irregularities" he was witnessing. Faced with being older, pennyless and a college drop out, he took off from NYC and went as far away as he could to get away from the lunacy of our cult.
He ended up in a North Western state where he enrolled in school and received a degree in either math or physics. He continued and eventually became a PHD in rocket science. If you remember him, he always had a 5 o'clock shadow and was barely over 5 feet tall. His pictures today are very similar to how he looked 25 years ago.
The guy had a rough time in the LC as he always seemed to have legal problems and has the distinction of being one of the first people that yippie Arron Kaye threw a pie at. I found his name one night on some yippie nostalgia site about how Kaye threw a blue berry pie into Zubrin's face.
So even after all of this lunacy, Zubrin was able to become a PHD and recieved patents for rocket engines and astronomy awards. His books are best sellers and unlike Larouche books, he does not have a vanuty press and young kids giving his book away at card table shrines.
His book on the case for going to Mars is considered a masterpiece in how to get to and colonise Mars. The approach is quite different from what the cult and shows how Larouche works.
In Larouche speak, you pick a problem, any problem and say that you need a crash program for millions, billions or trillions (depends on which decade he writes) to solve the problem. You always pay for this with low interest two teired credit from a gold standard based bank. Larouche will never answer questions about details like budgets, taxes or such as he will demean you by calling you a Philistine (I thought that was Leni's husband) or trivializing his great breakthrough. This is typical of Larouche as you can take anything he talks about and use the same formula. Larouche economics works in his mind because he has never had to pay a bill or spend his own money in his life.
The LYM get dazzled real simple by Lyn as he is an experienced Carny Barker and not a yute. One day on the LYM web site they had a dialogue with Lyn and the LA office where some one asked Lyn how they could pay for a larger office with the associated expenses. Lyn's responce was "How can you afford not to?" The naive yute thought that he witnessed the genius of the Larouche/Rieman economic model.
Now back to Zubrin.
Dr. Zubrin as he really does have a PHD, started the Mars Society to generate public support for the space program and continuing the adventures of man. His approach to Mars is not a quatrillion dollar approcah , but one based on sipmple facts of life. Expeditions which brought everything with them required huge expenses and manpower to sustain. The bulk of this type of plan requires bringing every thing including the kitchen sink with you. Not efficient, expensive and time consuming. Zubrin's apporaoch was more like Lewis and Clark with a few people, few supplies and the ability to "live off of the land". One of Zubrin's genuine discoveries, unlike Larouchian self grandeur, is inventing a procees whereby a visiting explorer can make fuel and air for the team to survive and return to earth using MArtian soil. The book is really quite good and has inspired many people to assist the Mars Society. They even have a simulated Martian base in a barren area where they work on this.
Zubrin also has other books under his belt including a well reviewed novel.
Steve, as long as you and others stay in school, we can look at all of this as a farce rather than tragedy. The tragedy is when you leave Yale and blow sevral years of a prime, energy filled youth to allow this delusional man to continue this sick joke.
Not everyone ends up like Zubrin. I know of quite a few succesfull ex members who got their life together and have moved on. Zubrin has a marriage with kids and travels around the globe persuing his dreams. I also know of many who have put guns to their heads, became substance abusers, developed depression and were so financilly devastated that they never recovered.
Regardless of what you think of us, Steve, you have provided many people who do research on Larouche a basis for making decisions. The printouts of this site are read by many people in the org. It took a while for me to figure out why cults exist and how a huckster can use it. You see, unlike most institutions, ex memebrs of cults are often very embarrassed to come forward. This is quite painfull for people to admit that they were taken for a ride. The cult can count on very few people filing complaints or ever having a desire to relive their nightmares.
When you think of how I and others know of hundreds and hundreds of ex members who suffered, it is quite brave for the people who post here to do so.
The Jeremiah Duggan case changed a lot of that. Many of us were in your shoes Steve, but we were not dying by the side of the road.
Keep going to class and posting here Steve, you are doing a lot for people.


erin_b (erin_b)
09-05-2005, 12:48 PM
People like Steve like to think that all anyone outside the cult cares about is being popular. Not only that, spreading lies about LaRouche will make them popular? We actually do know our source, you just have the audacity to say the ADL is lying. Now, back to spreading "lies" about LaRouche making someone popular. I assure you, nothing will bring down a party faster than talking about LaRouche. I assure you I do not post these messages so I can be popular.
Oh yeah, I'm an ex-member of the LaRouche cult, and they kicked me out because they couldn't brainwash me completely, but that's not the story you'll hear from them. What on earth gives you the impression I'd tell people about this in order to impress anyone? I wish I could forget about it and never talk about it or think about it again.
I'm sorry but that is the most idiotic thing I think anyone could ever think. "They think it will make them popular." Get a clue about the outside world before you try talking to people!
Erin Belcher


erin_b (erin_b)
09-05-2005, 01:18 PM
I discovered LaRouche's hatred of gays by accident. I was a contact of the organization, not really in it for a few months. Montez kept asking me to get friends to come to a meeting. One of my best friends was gay. She asked me to ask them what LaRouche thinks of gay people. She probably had some idea, not being under their influence, had simply looked up LaRouche on google.
When I asked members, they first told me it was a "single issue" and refused to even answer me. I got a lecture about how lobbyists were causing gridlock at congress with all these single issues, there were all these unnecessary laws being put on the books, etc.
Then the next thing I heard about this issue was LaRouche "doesn't agree with gay people" but he understands that they should have rights. If he wasn't such a hatemonger I'd accept someone just "not agreeing with" homosexuality, or not understanding it. It was also that they'd had this discussion; why are people gay? One of the members had known this guy who was gay and he'd turned straight. If they thought my friend was going to turn straight, they were going to be disappointed, I was pretty sure. I wasn't going to ask her again to come to a meeting so they could experiment with her. It all just sounded really disrespectful the way they'd talked about it. To them, if someone is gay, it's another thing about the person that's up to them to change.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-05-2005, 02:26 PM
Very good. I also think this discussion is good for people to read, but perhaps for a slightly different reason.
I do consider Mr. laRouche to be one of my best professors and a great statesman. And yet, at the same time, I have a great appreciation for many people who study the universe, whether they study social principles like historians, or if they study physical principles like rocket scientists.
Mr. Zubrin sounds like a well-meaning/doing person, at the topical level (because I have yet to read substantially on the subject).
And so, as I have mentioned before, one can have great appreciation for Mr. LaRouche's work, as well as others. And in fact, if one had truly non-cultish appreciation of Mr. LaRouche, one would have much appreciation for many people: doctors, academics, the Pope and priests, gays (not because they are gay, but because they express human qualities, like I do not appreciate straight people because they are straight, but because they are human and to the extent that they express more humane emotion) and endless numbers of groups of people.
So I extend my grattitude as well, in you giving me the opportunity to shed some reality regarding those who support Lyndon LaRouche's efforts, in and out of the formal organization.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-05-2005, 04:31 PM
Steve, as long as you are enrolled in Yale and attending class, then you experimentation with larouche will be a great head slapper 10 years from now. "What was I thinking back then?".
Remember that your future with the cult is not basewd on how you look at Larouche. Larouche will be looking at you as either a yute to steal from an IVY league college like Bill Ferguson, or , a kid with a trust fund and access to mre money like many of our former members.
I would not even remotely compare the real discoveries of a PHD like Zubrin with the lunacy of a bloviating Larouche.
Larouche does not even know when he is being played by people to screw other people. His ego is so huge that he fits the description of most con artists who eventually are manipulated by other con artists. There are many people in security who made hundreds of thousands off of Lyn's ego that you will never be told of.
As far as being a Democrat playmaker, you were not alive when we screwed the Democratic party.
Your praise of Lyn is making the cult's mouth water. We had people like this on our target sheets for BIG money. You may be our next sugar daddy depending on how much you can come up with for the next inevitable nuclear war/end of the economy crash.
Your handlers have thirty years of experience pulling strings Steve. That they are experts at.
If you don't have a dime leftlike Erin and raise questions, then good bye from Lyn and co.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-05-2005, 05:43 PM
How much do the good folks at LaLush, Inc. take you for on an annualized basis? As long as you pay the wolf, he will leave you be with your studies - but as soon as you draw shut the purse strings, everything you've ever told them about yourself will be thrown back at you as so many darts. Try saying no to the next request for cash, and see what reaction you get. Just try it as an experiment, as a test of what we've been saying here.
Give us credit for at least being concerned enough about you to share publicly our painful experiences to keep you and other young people from throwing your youth away. We're not making this stuff up: we've seen it all before.
Be careful.


sancho (sancho)
09-05-2005, 06:15 PM
"And so, as I have mentioned before, one can have great appreciation for Mr. LaRouche's work, ..."--Steven
Did you READ the above quote on brainwashing?
Did you READ the above quote on Judaism provided by xylm?
Can you explain what "Dirichlet's Principle" is from all the drivel that has been written about it? Can you truly?
The 1974 quote alone (which has not been repudiated by "Mr. LaRouche," and which is similar to many to be gleaned from the _Beyond Psychoanalysis_ series you claim to have read) should strike any person of conscience as profoundly demented, if not demonic.
Let me spell out what "Mr. LaRouche" once claimed:
"Most women are to a large degree homosexual in this society."
"The relationship between daughter and mother is homosexual, ..."
"Womanhood is the fellatio of the male mouth in a man who has been brainwashed by the KGB; that is sucking penises. . . ."
THIS is your LEADER???
Have you no CONSCIENCE?


sancho (sancho)
09-06-2005, 10:20 AM
Once againe, the O studens studiosus refuseth to answer a direct Query regarding the Sordidnesse and Depravitee of the States Man he admireth so. Only if the Topick be one of Neutralitee, or if he be flattered as a Scholare doth he provide fit Reply. He knoweth the Fishe doth stinke from the Heade, but he stoppeth up his Orbes and Eares lest any thinge contradict the ever High Opinion he doth maintaine of himselfe and his Master. Pity he weren't an honourable Yute, but what else is one to expect from a Knight-errant of Lalusherie, but all manner of Falsehoode and Basenesse, Drunkenesse and vile Dependencie on Mommie and Daddie.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-06-2005, 10:29 AM
Very well then. Let us do this proper. Let us address the concerns in context.
Quote, cite, and analyze, and I shall respond in kind.


kheris (kheris)
09-06-2005, 11:51 AM
Quote, cite, and analyze, and I shall respond in kind.
Did I miss something earlier? From August 15-17 xylm posted several times regarding LHL's anti-Semitism, including direct quotes regarding the origins of Judaism. Xlcr posted several times about his direct experiences and pointed out sources of documentation. On September 2 I posted the link to the EIR article on Katrina.
Evidently that just doesn't work for you since these are real life examples and events. You appear to be more interested in a rhetorical discourse than really dealing with real world events, including past musings of LHL. Let me fill you in on a little secret; if you can't move past rhetorical argument then you cannot expect to prevail. You will ultimately be dismissed as an 'ivory tower type' who has no understanding of how the real world functions.


sancho (sancho)
09-06-2005, 01:33 PM
Quotations, citations, and analyses you have in abundance. You still refuse to address the issue of the squalid living conditions of the average labor committee member, the daily pressure under these circumstances to "meet quota," and the issue of whether ONE man has ALL answers - among many other issues.
I, for my part, happen to wonder what goes on in that pea brain of yours to deny the obvious, why you can't choose to pursue a profession and help humanity the way most other folks seek to help others, without all this _Confederacy of Dunces_ bloviation you exhibit. I have a real, classical education in several disciplines which you thus far lack, and as an older man to a younger, learn now that nothing so ill seems youth as a pretension to emotional and intellectual maturity. Humility is always a virtue no matter how much or how little one knows. We're talking about people's lives here, people who have been driven to desperation and worse through association with the LaRouche cult - and you want to sit back and pretend everything is coming up roses.
Grow up.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-06-2005, 01:47 PM
Since anti-semitism has many predicates and definitions for different people, and since unique expressions of anti-semitism have occurred in history, will you please present a case for how these texts originate from and promote whatever predicates of your definition of what anti-semitism is, so that I may better understand your thesis?
I believe now is a good opportunity to begin a decent academic discussion, as if we were in a seminar and concerned about a similar topic. And if we come to the conclusion that Mr. LaRouche is an anti-semite then we can be confident it came from honest dialogue. And if it emerges that accept the thesis that he is not an anti-semite, then we will be just as confident. Please, I bid no one harm, and am just as young and curious as many of you have suggested. So, I welcome our talk, leaving animosities aside.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-06-2005, 01:52 PM
and so, with comments like sancho's, it will be ever more difficult to do as I have wished all along. I just hope these comments do not again sour the potential for discussion.
I am but one person, and am trying to focus the discussion so that we might actually achieve something with rigor. I do have a full schedule, so I hope everyone attempts to focus and not ask me to hold a hostile interview with numerous people, all at once.
Thank you.


sancho (sancho)
09-06-2005, 02:24 PM
Who does not have a full schedule? Answer the question for starters about living conditions in the labor committees and how that comports with a "humanist" agenda?
Secondly, address xylm's citations which demonstrate that "Mr. LaRouche" tries to nullify, among other things, millennia of Jewish fidelity to the Torah.
I genuinely apologize to you, Steven, for my at times strident remarks as I truly wish you only the best, but please understand that it is you who are now fronting for a fascist antisemite and cult leader, no longer I.
All the best.


xylm (xylm)
09-06-2005, 02:45 PM
You obviously do not know about the "many predicates and definitions of anti-Semitism" since anyone knowledgeable of them couldn't conjure such a stupid statement. Also, you are not Plato so please stop disgracing him with your misguided impersonation. You are using sophistry and are in clear attempt to setup the use of semantic tricks. You embarrass me, by answering your question I'm dignifying stupidity. I'm sorry if this sounds hostile, but it's nothing less than a learning lesson of 'intellectual honesty' and something I like to call common-sense. I find your request to truncate these citations rather than dealing with them in its entirety a contradiction to Larouche's educational theory. I also smiled at your "lets get academic" suggestion since Larouche loves to outburst "that's academic" to berry the credibility of any real discussion. I'm sure you are comparing my response hitherto as a resemblance to one of your platonic dialogues and I also predict that when we are close to the finish line in this discourse, you will shout as a last resort, "but Phil and Harley are Jewish"…but that won't save you, it is a common theme by the cult cronies for this reason.
Now, let's start playing your stupid game:
"Judiasm, which developed as a by-product of the emergence of early Christianity."
Need I even comment on how laughably wrong this is! Need I Steven?
"We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion."
How bout we site the case of that influential hoax known as the Larouche Youth Movement! Hey, I am not being hostile Steven…seriously…because for some reason in which you will explain, this is a compliment to both Judaism and your cult.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-06-2005, 04:05 PM
Snapple "Real Fact" #185:
"A male kangaroo is called a Boomer."
I guess that's why, according to _Beyond Psychoanalysis_, they have pouch envy.


kheris (kheris)
09-06-2005, 04:06 PM
Oh do allow me to narrow the field of inquiry here;
It is not necessary to give special treatment to Judaism here, since it never existed except in myth, but as a by-product of Christianity, and could not exist except as a special predicate of a Christian or Muslim culture, principally Christian. There is no autonomous "Jewish Culture", but only a special variety of (especially) Christian culture.
As for "Jewish Culture" otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim.
We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion.
Every one of these statements, on their own, flies in the face of the historical record. The second is as insulting as it gets. In my book, they qualify as being insensitive at best, the products of an ignorant mind that does not know, or does not care to find out the truth about Judaism and its many contributions to this world. However, these originated with the very organization, nay the very man, that the LYM believes to be the leader of our time and whom they argue is not anti-Semitic. Either the LYM is unaware of these statements, or has willfully turned a blind eye, despite the fact that they are found on LHL's own websites.
And Steven, before you answer any of this, might I respectfully suggest you avail yourself of the resources at the Yale Divinity School, beginning with Dean Attridge. You might learn that LHL has at least some of his facts wrong.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-06-2005, 07:10 PM
Alas, I am mistaken that actual conversation might be achieved here. I will check-in in a few, but for now more pressing matters call attention.
I wish you all the Good in your endevours. Perhaps we will meet again in a scenario where people do not feel the need to satisfy themselves.
Again, I wish the best.
God bless,


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-06-2005, 07:57 PM
The truth hurts.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-06-2005, 08:22 PM
No worries, Sancho.
I do not care much for apologies, personally, just honest discussion. I wish the best.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-06-2005, 09:06 PM
The end of a radio interview on a LaRouche website,
Singer: Sir, we're coming down to the end of this, and I'm going to read you something that I wrote, and then I'm going to allow you to make your comments 'til the end of the show.
Sir, in reading your writings, I don't see anything on democracy or the rights of the individual ever taken into consideration. There is only a call for mass uniformity. There's no call to the pioneer or entrepreneurial spirit that has made this country great. You don't write about human rights, or the fact that this country from its origins, has been eclectic. This is a diversified nation, and it's diversified ideas that's made this the land of opportunity for all. In your writings, I see a messianic message, sir, of demagoguery, in the form of a LaRouchian national socialism.
Your turn, sir, and you have two minutes to continue.
LaRouche: Okay, well, national socialism is represented in this country today, by the followrs of Professor Leo Strauss, and his French associate Alexandre Kojeve. These are the people called the Chickenhawks, and they've been called the Chickenhawks by others, because many of them did not serve in Vietnam, when they had the opportunity to do so, but now they're the biggest warmakers we have.
Now this crowd of clowns, around, especially around the vice-president and Rumsfeld, and also the Attorney General as well, this bunch of clowns represent the closest thing to national socialism, fascism, this world has seen since Adolf Hitler. We're trying to stop them. I don't think the Democrats are doing enough. I think many Republicans are getting nervous. We have to stop them. We have to stop them now. Because if this country were to go Nazi, in the way that Cheney's present policies would carry us, and the Chickenhawk policies would carry us, I don't think we'd be having any free speech on radio programs.
Singer: Is there anything else you want to say, sir? You have another 30 seconds.
LaRouche: Well, have fun.
Singer: Well, I thank you very, very much for coming on, sir. I appreciate the time you've given me, and I wish you good luck in the future, with your campaigns. Thank you very much, sir.
LaRouche: Thank you. Have fun.

  • So, as Steven rides off into the sunset, who can blame him? His master too dishonestly evades a direct question by pointing the finger at others and concludes by reference to some nebulous "fun." If only we who speak the truth about the one we may term the World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates - including the above interviewer - were having more "fun," then we wouldn't be wasting our time and energy blocking human progress the way we do. "Fun" must be the thought-stopping operative word these days, much as the accusation "you're blocked" used to be.

kheris (kheris)
09-06-2005, 09:23 PM
Sorry Steven, I don't believe that you are interested in honest discussion. You were just given an opportunity to explain and possibly refute the evidence of anti-Semitism documented by xylm. Xlcr put forth quite a lot of info regarding the Mars Society and how its founder's success differs so profoundly from LHL. Two opportunities to engage, but you ducked and ran. Again.
It is plain now that you can't, and consequently won't, engage in any discussion focused on topics that aren't approved by LHL or that fail to follow a preconceived format. This isn't about theories, but at the very least I would have expected you to resurrect Leibniz or Reimann, and God knows who else to defend and explain why we are all wrong about the two topics I mentioned. Not even that from you.
Too bad. It would have been interesting to hear the LYM version of the Mars Society, led as it is by a former member who has left his master behind. Then there is the documented anti-Semitism with its implications for the world LHL wished to lead. I am sure Nicky, Cody or Sky could speak to that as well. Perhaps you should invite them to speak up since you don't know how.


xylm (xylm)
09-06-2005, 10:58 PM
Haha, yes you should invite Cody Jones. For all of you who are not familiar with Cody Jones, he is the peacock of all peacocks. This guy claims to be the first youth member when he is in fact not, and sadly he makes more contradictions than Larouche himself. He tried proving to me that 'just-in-time inventory' was the epitome of our economic collapse. When i unravelled his facts using sheer knowledge of the real business world, he was left with the outcry that "it just doesnt work because computers are not reliable for businesses". I also recall him trying to explain to me that the internet was taking away from humanity. The best was when he tried advocating the abolishment of psychology, claiming that the whole field and practice should be thrown out of our country. I found it most amusing when i later learned that he was a psychology major who dropped out for the LYM. Also in his pre-larouche years, he spent his free time doing an array of drugs out of boredom while aspiring to become a white rapper! And if you ever talk to the guy, you will notice from his weird social presense why he chose psychology as his major and why his white rapper aspiration was such an irony! Being the great loving platonic he deems himself as, he cheated on his long time larouche-member-girlfriend with another larouche-member-girl who was "better looking". But it was okay, they just shipped his heartbroken ex to another state like a package. He feels good about himself, knowing that he is spending his life fighting 'free trade' and not to mention exposing smear campaigns about shameful pasts like his!
He is about to hit 30, very close to dead ender territory for a LYM. And all he has to show is ....wait ...NOTHING! I guess he is a dead ender, he has no car, no place of his own, no credit (in heavy debt to the movement), no degree, and i have a hunch he still wont make it as a white rapper.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-07-2005, 03:55 AM
"Being the great loving platonic he deems himself as, he cheated on his long time larouche-member-girlfriend with another larouche-member-girl who was "better looking". But it was okay, they just shipped his heartbroken ex to another state like a package."
Some things never change. This was a common part of LC life. People would be shipped around the country like a UPS package. Often, with just the clothes on their back.
In certain cases, this was done to get rid of burnt out members who were financial trouble for the local. Other times, it was done when you wished to split a couple by sending one of them out for a long session in another town. We broke up many a marriage doing this
We also shipped out many an unsuspecting member to skip out on utilities and bills in their name. A lot of deadenders skipped out on student loans and CC bills.
The real mental cases were sent to our printing office in NYC where it was a common joke that those were burnt out Larouche Zombies. John Ascher and a few others come to mind.
This is a cruel and hearltess collective. They screw their own and had no trouble screwing their supporters for millions for Larouche.
Lyn just existed as the philosopher master of the universe during this and proclaimed ignorance. What a load of filthy crap. He knew where very dime went and could host elabrate 15 course banquets with the Schiller Institute minstrels performing for leftovers.
Steve, you are the "Mark's" "Mark" in carny talk.


sancho (sancho)
09-07-2005, 07:10 AM
"If an organisation builds itself up on education and morals ( which is why Lyn is attacked a lot of the time too, because he says things are right and wrong), it is incapable of hurting people."--Rastro
Your attempted rebuttals are a veritable cornucopia of illogic. Where to begin ...
(1) The accusation "you are blocked" was (is?) used often to silence dissension on the part of lower-downs. For example,
NC: Your quota today on this deployment is $200.
Rank-and-file LCer: But the site is at the Unemployment Office - how can we raise that much money?
NC: You're blocked.
You claim somehow that that's the equivalent of criticizing a poor worker. I have never heard or read the term "you're blocked" in any context outside the LaRouche cult.
(2) The point is not members' poverty per se (although that is troublesome), but why shouldn't the same ascetic standard apply to Lyn and Helga? You will say they need security, whereas we in the know know that it is casks of Rheingau which are required most urgently.
(3) As to morality, LaRouche et Cie were convicted of mail fraud, etc. You will say this was a frame up: how convenient.
(4) Your entire methodology is ad hominem: nasty people outside do nasty things x and y, therefore we are justified in doing z. No one can accuse the Hitler Youth of lacking for zeal and idealism, and in many respects they were more "moral" than the many post-World-War-I Berlin decadents. But they were after all Hitler Youth ... and now we have their successors in the LaRouche Youth Bewegung.
(5) The LC only encourages thinking in its line. If someone were to speak positively about some passage in Aristotle's _Metaphysics_ or of Stravinsky's _Sacre du Printemps_ you know very well that they would be shouted down and ridiculed. On this point you are particularly mendacious.
(6) Funny how you ignore LaRouche's well-documented antisemitism. Just for your information, the first edition of _Dope, Inc._ reprinted the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which by that time was widely known to be a forgery. Among many other questions you may ask yourself is why the "Zionism is Not Judaism" _Campaigner_ does not appear anywhere on LaRouche's website.
(7) You speak of education. You harrass people out of colleges and claim they will get a real education in the LC. When does this occur, at midnight, after tending a card-table shrine for twelve hours and then surrendering to a two-hour - frequently abuse-laden - briefing? If a member were to get up and declare that he/she was going back to college, you know the amount of arm-twisting that would be applied - don't lie!
(8) How you can possibly defend those 1974 remarks of LaLush on brainwashing in ANY context is entirely beyond me. So much for your putative morality. I suppose the antisemitic citations of xylm above are likewise to be understood in a particular context, much as _Mein Kampf_ must be set in its proper Wagnerian context.
Just admit it: you're in a cult. Be honest, and stop trying to buffalo callow youths otherwise.


xylm (xylm)
09-07-2005, 11:20 AM
The Larouche interview you posted for us on Sept 7th is a perfect conveyance of what this movement is about, nothing but bundled conspiracy theories. But more importantly, Singer (interviewer) actually makes a very profound point that should be retraced for discussion.
In response to Sancho's Sept 4th citation posts,
If a Larouche reader opened his eyes a bit wider he or she would realize the horrid paranoid tempo, far beyond what we may label cynical. Next the reader should focus on the chosen words and inferences. Our great past leaders like Martin Luther King never used Larouche's vocabulary to describe the enemy nor the turmoil of their time. His choice in words is sadistic at the least; these topics can be discussed and "anti-humanist enemies" can be described without these sick childlike descriptions. You can refer to any of Larouche's writings in scrutiny to reveal his fear instilling tone and his malicious vocabularly:
Like all the other larouchies who come in and out of this message board, they dodge real discussion, particularly our evidence of anti-Semitism. That's fine, im very confident our discussions will clearly show any outside inquirers that Larouche is a nutcase.
Here is a link to that "Zionism is not Judaism" campaigner Larouche is hiding from everyone:


sancho (sancho)
09-07-2005, 12:08 PM
Wow, xylm hit gold!
The first paragraph that pops out is entirely descriptive of the LaRouche cult. One reason that it is reasonable to accuse LaLush of now being a Satanist is because LaLush always only characterizes others as what he is fact is:
"Zionism is a hideous doctrine, a cult in the strictest most rigorously restricted usage of that characterization, It ought to be opposed merely on the grounds that no human being's mind should be destroyed in the way that Zionism degrades its individual cultist."
And how's this for CLASSIC antisemitism:
"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the "holocaust" thesis; that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to "Jewish survival" that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists, in memory of the "six million." This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive "appropriate technology" for the employment of "inferior races," a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today The point is that Adolf Hitler was put into power largely on the initiative of the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and Oppenheimers, among other Jewish and non-Jewish finan*cial interests centered in the City of London."
Scary, scary that I did not see this for what it was at the time. And sad. But thanks to the Internet, you LYMers have no excuse now for not looking at it and acknowledging it for what it is, particularly if you are Jewish, or have Jewish friends or family.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-07-2005, 05:43 PM
Rastro is a patented antisemite: NO ONE SAID Jews were special, rather that 6M Jews WERE murdered by Adolph Hitler BECAUSE they were Jews - a demonstrable FACT LaRouche DENIES. Once again your inability to reason shines: NO ONE said that because of the Shoah OTHER people did not have a holocaust.
It appears you are the one obsessed with video games and magic as you do not exhibit even the most elementary powers of reasoning. Because the Lu*es are "doing" something, then I should "do" along with them, even if I am going to school to better myself, say? Absurd. So if I think it a good idea to sweep sidewalks and I'm not sweeping a sidewalk then I should support Jeffrey Dahmer because he may be sweeping a sidewalk? Or Kim Jong Il? Please.
Oh, and the thing earlier about people buying jeans for $200? That's called FREEDOM - something you know nothing about because you like all your answers neatly packaged by others for your easy digestion.
Can't you people come up with someone who knows how to construct a simple grammatical sentence, let alone one airtight syllogism?


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-07-2005, 06:35 PM
"The question in organising is actually get [sic] people to act in someway [sic], even if it is taking a paper or wanting to research more."--Rastro
Is that what Phil tells you when your deployment comes in with $9.37 for the whole DAY? Does Phil ask for your stats on ACTIONS? Does Phil say, "Rastro, how many people did you get on the deployment who want to research more?"
Amazing how you people appear to have a literally (bad) infinite capacity for lying to yourselves.


kheris (kheris)
09-07-2005, 07:46 PM
I would like somebody that is NOT in a cult of Church, Fashion, Hollywood, Sport, Video Games, Magic the Gathering and other card games, Cars, Music to make a comment as well, it would be interesting.
That would be me.
In regards to the comment about Lyn and Helga livving lavishly or whatever. I can honestly say that i dont care because i never got political for money and if you really want to be solid about that complaint then you must also hate Red Cross, Churches, Sporting teams, etc..... but honestly, does it matter? You are involved for your reason to change things aren't you? It is not as though you will starve as many in the world right now are.
The issue at hand is the economic and financial disparity between workers and leaders. If you have been paying attention to the real labor issues in this country, then you know that many of our best known CEOs (UAL Inc. is a good example) are receiving millions of dollars in compensation packages while the front line endures pay cuts and loss of benefits that may make the difference between paying the rent or paying other bills. In my opinion such a disparity is downright immoral, and nothing that I know of can justify such excess. Given LHL's pious pronouncements I feel justified in expecting him to set the example for the rest of the membership. That is what real leaders do. If I am to believe the former members who post here, LHL is no more moral or upstanding than the most despised CEO in the country. I'll let the readers decide who fits that bill.
This country is awash in leader wannabes floating out of the debris of Katrina. LHL is no better than any of them. Organizing people by having them buy a newsletter is just the beginning. You have to take the next step to real action. Is the LYM represented down in New Orleans right now? Are they feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and helping the displaced find their loved ones? Are they executing LHL's vision of the complete human? There are thousands on non-LYMers who are taking action and who have demonstrated more Christian love in a week than those LYMers who speak so reverently of agape. Believe me - I have met such folk.
You think organizing is sufficient if you get folks to research more? Ok, research this: Back in February of this year we heard from Harley how Beltran was going to use Classical Drama, and Beltran himself mentioned this, as an organizing tool across the country. The idea was to use Classical Drama to wake up the populace to how they were being manipulated by the political elites. Well so much for the organizing. Beltran is busy signing autographs and ingratiating himself with his fans at a series of conventions. No evidence of any interest, on his part or the LYM's, on going any further with the concept. Why drop this organizing tool from the arsenal? Could it be Beltran decided to bail out? Or was he pushed out for resuming his connections to popular culture? Did LHL et al run out of money in getting the repertory troupe off the ground? Or was it just another load of LHL hogwash to impress the LYM and others? I have no idea. Perhaps astro can fill us in on this spectacular failure in organizing (Beltran had a built in audience of worshipful fans as his starting point) and respond to my comments above.


kheris (kheris)
09-08-2005, 03:54 AM
.( and i never knew that good grammer was a sign of moral behavior, probably just more intellectual masturbastion on your behalf)
Ah the thrill of yet another personal attack, this time from the southern half of the globe. And using one of LHL's preferred putdowns too. I am sure he will be very pleased.
Still no response to whether you actually wanted to change what is going on in the first place. If you did. have still not said what YOU are doing for humanity.
Direct action - which means actually interacting with people and helping implement real solutions right now, today. Currently it involves folks who are losing their jobs due to layoffs. It's much more involved and personal than manning a card table shrine and handing out or selling leaflets. These folks don't much care about axioms or Leibniz when they are worried about paying the rent and getting groceries. You might try reading some of Maslow's work as to why that is so.
( dont bother with reply as my "fling" with message boards is over.)
Oh do indulge me since past experience with LHL's sycophants suggests otherwise.
(Message edited by kheris on September 08, 2005)


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-08-2005, 04:43 AM
Funny how the moral albeit ungrammatical LaLu*es like to talk about masturbation. They evidently have a great deal of experience in this area, as can be demonstrated by Rastro's most recent ramblings.
Oh, and Rastro? Selling magazines and talking is not "changing the world." Thankfully LaLush has no influence on any one except the semiliterate youth and boomer drunkards he retains as his personal posse.
Hey, it's Lyn's birthday today! Maybe the two of you on deployment can split a pack of twinkies (with money stolen from the deployment) to celebrate at the card-table shrine your inability to write well as a sign of moral superiority.
Have fun.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-08-2005, 04:48 AM
And have fun all day with your bigotry against Jews as well, you Nazi m-fer.


sancho (sancho)
09-08-2005, 07:08 AM
Why did I ever think that the LaRouche people were of above-average intelligence? All the gifted ones must have left long ago, leaving the directionless dead-enders young and old. It's not even worth one's while to make arguments when they are in such steep stupidity and/or denial. It's a good sign for humanity though that when the WGJSS (World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates) kicks off in a few months or years, there will be no one of even moderate learning and intelligence to replace him, leaving his foundlings to dither away into a decrescendo of nattering obfuscation and senility.
Ho hum.


sancho (sancho)
09-08-2005, 01:23 PM
Rastro pulled his posts! I guess the org doesn't want any more of its Jew-hating dirty laundry available for inspection by outsiders. Too bad. They were refreshingly good 2005 specimens of LaLushian antisemitism in its unadulterated form - just in case you thought the WGJSS had mellowed on the topic. (


taavis_doc (taavis_doc)
09-08-2005, 04:30 PM
I can't imagine that the LYM smiles upon glue-sniffing (though it is appropriate to an LYMer's budget for recreation), so then . . . where did "rastro" come from?
Steven betrays yet more ignorance (and blithe evasiveness) regarding LHL's actual history:
It's nice that you count the Holy One as one of your best "professors," but (a) no institution has ever conferred this title on him, and (b) he holds no advanced degree(s). Indeed, isn't the burdensome, block-inducing, "weight of terminal degrees" (as he ascribes this condition to ACTUAL SCHOLARS) one of LHL's favorite put-downs?
To set the record straight: the man occasionally gave a free lecture in borrowed, empty--and publically available--rooms at Columbia in the 60s. This does not make one a professor any more than selling year-old newspapers at a card table in front of the post office makes one a "world historical individual." (And Steven, Columbia is in NYC, which is assuredly not in New England as you earlier suggested.)
Again, no peer-review + no non-vanity publishing + no original ideas = charlatan.
Also, instruction with regard to video game playing and dildo usage (hey, you really ARE getting a Greek "classical education"!) doesn't really count for anything, either.
Why are Larouchies so averse to drawing simple deductions from a bit of reality testing?
Steven seems unable to actually *respond* to any of the supportable provocations offered above. Regardless, I would like to offer another: ask any professor of economics at Yale if "FDR style" economic policies could possibly be lifted from their depression era context and seamlessly installed in our present cultural-economic moment. Ask more than one individual, and be sure to tell them that Lyndon Larouche sent you. They will surely be familiar with such important work in their area of expertise. Please do share their perspectives on this board.
I mean, really, everybody at Microsoft should just put those silly computers aside and just start smelting iron or something . . .
Despite how often you sign off "respectfully" and "sincerely," you have been nothing of the sort. If, however, you achieve a fleeting glimpse of the intellectual honesty you most likely once possessed, do reconsider some kind of genuine response.
Steven maintains that their are NO other public intellectuals who are: (a) addressing the important issues that LHL is, and (b) in possession of a sufficient range of influence to make a difference anyway (see Steven's incredulity that nobody else "webcasts" or addresses "cadre schools" and such).
Steven, real scholars and public intellectuals publish in major newspapers and journals, address various colloquia and focused workshops, broadcast in a variety of media, and do their best to educate the curious and receptive.
To take but one example: if you truly believe that NOBODY has ever pointed out that global hegemonic capitalism has its less savory elements other than LHL, then you are truly blind. Have you never heard of Noam Chomsky (BTW, LHL's summary of Chomsky's linguistics in "Secrets" is beyond laughable), or Howard Zinn, or Susan Sontag, or Naomi Klein, or Thomas Frank, or . . .
You might also look into what became of the other individuals who were either in or around the early SDS. What kind of important work--teaching, law, community activism, etc.--did they move on to (as actual "humanists") compared with St. Larouche's (curiously protean) self-promoting apotheosis?
If you find the "fun" abating for even a moment--you might try honestly responding to any of the evidence or suggestions that have been offered to you. However, do spare everybody the pat dismissals; you know, those evasive moments when you offer a bit of flattery to the poster who seems the least contrary to your views, and then you move on to some rhetorical hilarity in imitation of your idol. That's hardly a reasonable effort on your part.
Aside to Lalush:
In my study of LHL's history, which ties into a larger interest regarding the fate of the New Left generally, I find the shift away from Marx and toward Reaganite/Cold Warrior status in the org to be striking. You mentioned that your original motivation in the LYM was informed by your faith in Marxist solutions to the world's problems. Could you possibly say a bit more about where you saw the break between Marx and fairly standard conservatism in your own LYM day? It's odd to note how many conflicting ideologies LHL has been able to synthesize--however haphazardly--in the pursuit of what is, in the end, basically a cult of the ego (and, of course, a predatory financial scam as the courts have proven). This may seem tangential to the focus of this board, but it does take up the question of LHL's motivations and (in)sincerity. I do appreciate the willingness of ex-members to share their views here. Thank you.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-08-2005, 06:05 PM
Hi, Doc,
I don't want to spill the beans too much on my own history here as I well know how vindictive these "humanists" are and thus do not want to contribute to any further cat murder - or worse. (The police here know where to look first should any of that occur.) Your observations otherwise are very much to the point.
I will say that I arrived at Marxism on my own as a solution to human suffering through reading and reflection. I then looked around at who best exemplified Marx's work in the U.S., and somehow missed people like Paul Sweezy, whose _Monopoly Capital_ I did not read until I was in the cult. LaLush quoted Marx chapter and verse which many on the left did not do who were active: I believed him a more rigorous Marxist than others who were politically active, although not more so than some mere theoreticians to whom I was opposed because Marx himself said that the point was not to understand the world but to change it (i.e., the idea of Praxis.) Bottom line however, in retrospect, I was drawn to LaRouche precisely because he "had all the answers" - shameful to admit, but true. Marx, Beethoven, and Gauss were already my heroes, the first two of whom they then vigorously promoted - so what could be better? But overall the main reasons I joined were for the same reasons that any poor soul joins any cult. Thankfully I rarely did anyone harm by my participation, so my main regrets are the time squandered and the way I would rave about at friends and family. But it is what it is, and now I have a life of sanity beyond my wildest dreams. Although I haven't read it for ages, I still maintain a high regard for _Dialectical Economics_ - and was heartbroken when he started peddling that American System crap. It was at that point that I put the blinders on and insisted on remaining a Marxist minority of one - blinders which I suppose too contributed to my wilful dismissal of his now evident hatred of Jews and all things Jewish. I now view him as a gangster not even in the same moral class as Tony Soprano. I hope these rambling Erinnerungen help supply some understanding.
Please keep posting as your intelligence is a welcome relief to the graffiti of these Neanderthal Lalushians. I wish I could supply more information, but choose not to with Steinberg et al. tuned in.
Be well.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-08-2005, 07:41 PM
According to LaLush, by the way, Guglielmo Marconi was a Venetian agent who stole the Neoplatonic science of wireless transmission from one Giuseppe Jabroni. Jabroni pioneered the use of "Dirichlet's Principle" to political nation-building under the direction of the Conte di Cafone in whose tradition LaLush campaigns in Italy.
Interesting ...


taavis_doc (taavis_doc)
09-08-2005, 07:55 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful response; the movement from theory to practice, as exemplified in the quote from the "Theses," is indeed attractive, and the allure of a program that seems to address every contingency must be strong. I can see how well-meaning people in the org must feel a genuine charge while defending their views passionately. Without question, the LYM youngsters have identified some worthy problems, e.g. the Iraq fiasco, an overly speculative mania vis a vis the economy, the lukewarm reality of most mainstream politics, etc., it's the bizarre solutions--and the hateful, paranoid rhetoric-- they endorse that are the problem.
If the card table folks were honestly interested in a vigorous and sincere discussion about politics, I could probably learn to view them as intelligent people with whom I happened to disagree significantly, but nonetheless respected. Unfortunately, it is clear that they are interested in nothing of the sort; all is focused on abusive recruitment, beggary, and the ludicrous ego-puffery that sustains the whole tawdry affair. Sad indeed.
What pains me, and what keeps me reading this board, is the WASTE that such good intentions will come to in this organization. (I'm sure that I went through a self-destructive phase myself as a young man; I now work with similarly troubled young people and try to steer them toward something better. It's gratifying work, and I'm heartened to see that so many ex-LYMers have done well for themselves. Good for all of you.)
I have to say, not one Larouche advocate on this board has represented his/her views in a way that is not disingenuous and overtly propagandistic. In short, none of their arguments, or platitudinous "axioms," have been even remotely convincing or effective.
Their distinctive rhetorical affect is akin to a damaged record that keeps skipping endlessly.
I understand your hesitation to identify yourself too clearly; the higher ups who occassionally intervene here are obviously unhinged. As it turns out, I had some indirect contact with them many years ago in NH when I was loosely associated with the Clamshell Alliance (we were busy trying to depopulate the globe in advance of an oligarchic imposition of 1970s classic rock . . . no, really). There were a lot of people protesting the Seabrook nuclear powerplant's opening. I remember thinking of the Larouchies as standard Reagan-supporting lunatics, though of the variety willing to scream themselves hoarse. It's hilarious to think of those people advocating Trotskyist internationalism some decades earlier. But then perhaps it's not so odd given the hard right turn taken by so many 60s defectors; it's just that Larouche's turn is one of the hardest--and weirdest.
P.S. I still considers myself rather unapologetically beholden to Marx for much of my political education. I don't see that the substantial questions he raised are in any way nullified by the alleged "victory" of late capitalism. As diagnostic (if not prescriptive) tools, there is much of value in CAPITAL and THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. I don't find LHL's "discovery" that brain power is the "real" metric of labor to be very convincing; how does this view jibe with his emphasis on a resurgent material productive capacity? It's as if he can't decide between the promethean thinker/philosopher king on the one hand, and the productive material laborer on the other. I see nothing in Larouche's vague program to suggest anything but a society of elites and slaves--presumably with himself as the "only one qualified to lead." Where, exactly, is the "humanism" in this view? There is much prima facie silliness buried underneath an avalanche of disconnected references in the typical EIR rant. I think you and the other vet posters have figured it out: these pieces aren't meant to be understood, only obeyed and recited. Confused, and confusing, I think.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-08-2005, 08:49 PM
One of the things that made me suspect that the brutal human relations in the Labor Committees were indicative of a deeper evil there - and these were persistent thoughts while I was in the organization - was that if creative mentation is the distinctive characteristic of a human being qua human, then what of the retarded? The senile? The maladaptive or emotionally challenged (as nearly all members are)? The undereducated (again, the members including the LaRouches)? By his own definition, such people organically incapable of generating or even assimilating creative ideas are less than human. That was a tenet I could not accept. Also, the reality of human finitude which makes each life ever so precious as opposed to this endless PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS for its own sake. I still support the Idea of Progress, but only insofar as it helps to enrich human life.
I agree that Marx remains a rich source for the reformation of human life globally. The question is how to begin organizing.
It is impossible to read LaRouche at all now: his writing is strictly non-sense. And like a true fascist he always speaks of this or that "tradition" rather than this or that specific idea. Funny too how fascists like Pound and LaRouche think that the world can be cured if only everyone were to follow the same plan of reading.
Lastly, I did not buy into the conspiracy theories much, but paid them lip service as it was the ideas and programs for development I was more interested in. But there were some people I enjoyed going after, people such as Roy Cohn with his hypocritically anticommunist persecution of many well-meaning Americans decades earlier.

  • I looked up Helga on Wikipedia tonight and discovered this nugget:
    During the January 1979 broadcast in Germany of the NBC television mini-series Holocaust, Zepp-LaRouche wrote the following in Neue Solidarität:
    "Whereas nobody in the USA has the slightest illusions concerning the power which the Zionist lobby exerts especially upon the current administration, in Germany only a few political persons in the know are aware of the influence of a more secretly operating undercover Zionist lobby, but not the German public. And therefore we must take the hypocritical bogus Holocaust-spoof as an occasion to get rid of these foreign agents." Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ("Der zionistische Holocaust heute ("The Zionist Holocaust today"), Neue Solidarität, January 25, 1979). [4]
    In German: Waehrend in den USA niemand auch nur die geringsten Illusionen ueber die Macht der zionistischen Lobby ueber vor allem die gegenwaertige Administration hegt, ist der Einfluss einer verdeckt operierenden zionistischen Lobby in der Bundesrepublik bisher nur wenigen eingeweihten politischen Persoenlichkeiten bekannt, nicht aber der breiten Bevoelkerung. Und deshalb muessen wir den scheinheiligen Holocaust-Schwindel zum Anlass nehmen, um diese auslaendischen Agenten auffliegen zu lassen.

  • I am beginning to think that at least one reason Lyn turned his back on Marx was for the simple reason that Marx was a Jew.

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-09-2005, 04:06 AM
What happend to the Larouche Jabroni named "ASTRO"? Just as I read his posts I get goose bumps of the Dejavu variety as I heard this all before going back to the mid 1970's.
Please come back Astro as I have a lot of info for you on what you posted. IF anyone has saved his posts, please Email them to me or repost them. There was a world of memories from the Jabroni from Australia.
Doc, I think that the reason Lush likes saying Rastro is because he was a big fan of the Jetson's carton growing up.
To read more about Larouche jabronis from Australia, google "CEC" and read how they took over a bankrupt party and spread the anti semitic kookery thousands of miles down under. There are numerous articles about families who lost kids and people who had their bank accounts emptied by the cult for Larouche. A good deal of money was sent to Leesburg so at least two people can enjoy steaks each night with the bubbly.
The Aussie Jewish orgs have a great article on the cult for viewing which describes the spread of the Larouche Jewish problem over the globe.
I wonder if any money was ever repaid to our supporters in the US who invested in us from these proceeds?


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-09-2005, 04:16 AM
Yes, the family dog was Astro. The dog pronounced his own name "Rastro." I think their home was powered by nuclear fusion.
Now get out there kids, have fun, and fight in the tradition of Jabroni, Larry, Moe, and Curly! (Shem was an agent.)


xylm (xylm)
09-09-2005, 11:22 AM
I personally do not give Larouche any credit for unfolding and addressing world problems. I view Larouche from the standpoint wherein an inceptive decision to "move people" and organize them with paranoia was made and never broken. In other words, he doesn't study world problems to solve them; he SEARCHES for world problems to manipulate his self proclaimed prophecy. It would be quit difficult for a conspiracy theorist not to have a few real problems in his bundle. Our true present problem with Iraq, Bush, etc. is much easier and convincing to work with than his 70's Rockefeller thermonuclear warfare advocacy. Accompanied with the fact that youths are more susceptible to manipulation, the Larouche movement can exalt more appeal than ever.


sancho (sancho)
09-09-2005, 12:13 PM
The point is, one can fight Bush without being a Nazi; one can support Mars colonization and nuclear fission and fusion without being a Nazi; one can cultivate Beethoven and Bach without being a Nazi; one can write Socratic dialogues or classical drama without being a Nazi - or one can do all of these things without being a Nazi.
For LaRouchites, they have a tough time recruiting people and resources precisely because of the, um, being-a-Nazi part.
Otherwise, they're just a swell bunch of guys and gals. Ya know ... except for the being-a-Nazi part. Which is rough. (


taavis_doc (taavis_doc)
09-09-2005, 12:43 PM
xlcr raises an excellent point about the CEC shenanigans. If you haven't looked into the org's doings in Australia you should have a google. There's a very thorough court summary explaining just why the CEC's resurgence can be traced back to cult machinations. It's worth reading in its entirety (plus, it contains some hilariously dry wit that an American might be surprised to find in a legal document--at least the Aussies have a sense of humor about this kind of thing).
xylm- you're right about LHL NOT deserving credit for "unfolding and addressing world problems." Certainly the tiny grain of truth at the heart of the org's conspiracy theories is the only truth they are familiar with. This ignorance extends to an absurd unfamiliarity with basic historical timelines--as the "Judaism is a fraud" statements cited above show. I agree that the exploitation of current events and imminent dangers is ALWAYS about focusing attention ON the org, vs. ON the issues themselves. It's all about confrontation, obfuscation, and self-promotion. I suppose that if personal trauma makes one susceptible to such appeals--in that vulnerability often produces receptivity to approaches that one would normally resist--then the LYM has a winning formula. Hence the predatory focus on college students and their nascent identities (not to mention dad's checkbook and those student loans--now that's a lot of castle upkeep!)
You also raise an interesting point about the quality of the conspiracies cited now by the org vs. those of the 70s and 80s. The Rockefeller stuff must have been a harder sell, but appeals made today: Iraq is a mess, Bush is a brain-dead chimp, Cheney seems like a sinister fellow, the right is squandering billions in a neo-colonial drive (aka "The Project for a New American Century"--terrifying reading), etc. Many reasonable Americans already believe these things. There must be a special quality in the LYM mark, say, vulnerability, narcissism, a sense of futility, that makes the more ridiculous stuff seem palatable. Lalush makes the point well regarding his/her own experience: one can overlook the chinks in the org's logic in the service of some more specific--or more important--goal.
Finally, the desire to join up is understandable. The LYM has adroitly adopted the trappings of revolutionary activity, but it's all so much affectation: the org is "revolutionary" in its reactionary pursuits just as Newt Gingrich describes deregulation as "revolutionary." It's the same 3 Card Monty -- only with Army surplus jackets and provocative slogans substituted for cheap suits, flowby haircuts, and that robotic Capitol Hill manner of gesturing. That some young people today view the rigidity and hatefulness of the LYM as somehow *progressive* is just plain mind-boggling, but, again, understandable given that so much of the mainstream political discourse is such obvious pap. A difficult state of affairs, but certainly there are leaders and activists more worthy of attention from idealistic young people.


xylm (xylm)
09-09-2005, 02:39 PM
The Case of Nietzsche and the LYM:
The fact that they think there is only one right way of considering a matter is only evidence that they have become inflexible in their thinking. Such intellectual inflexibility is a symptom of saying "no" to life. A healthy mind is flexible and recognizes that there are many different ways of considering a matter. There is no single truth but rather many. Just as we cannot get the full picture of what an elephant is like simply by looking at its leg or looking at its tail or looking at its trunk, we cannot get a reasonable picture of any truth unless we look at it from multiple perspectives.
A truthful intellectual leader would facilitate these multiple perspectives, not suppress them! Larouche, understands this, thus he preemptively lies and redefines the multiple perspectives down to a dense state so he and his theories can never be discovered as 'intellectually suppressing' by one of his youths. The fusions of multiple theories and perspectives should never be deemed as the fight between humanists and anti-humanists and a solution should never be the overwritten way of All other. Rather, these theoretical oppositions lay the multiple perspectives to compliment renovations, revelations, and discoveries! This, however, is a whole different topic; let me stop it here to expose the philosophical fraud dregs like Cody Jones profess:
Faster than Cody Jones can say, "I escaped reality as a quick-fix to my present self denying psychological decadence", the entire LYM will teach recruits that these anti-humanist (Jews) are Nietscheans! According to them, it is with Nietzsche where they found their immoral foundation to suck blood, in fact, it is his philosophical "will to power" that gave Arnold Schwarzennegar his drive to body lifting and will to inflict pain on others:
"[In The Will to Power, Nietzsche wrote, "I assess the power of the will by how much resistance, pain, torture it endures, and knows how to turn it" (that is, the pain and so on) "to its advantage."Now, this is a quote which appears in a number of weight-lifting manuals. Also, as we saw with "Conan the Barbarian" earlier, the opening of "Conan the Barbarian" includes a quote from the "Twilight of the Idols," another piece by Nietzsche: "What does not destroy me, makes me strong.]" --LaDouche:
Any educated philosopher would laugh at the twist Larouche places in the above quote and article on Nietzsche. For one, Nietzsche's philosophy is not comparable to Hitler's idealogy, it was Nietzsche's Nazi sister who tried fabricating some of his writings as a tool. Nietzsche was strongly against nationalism, anti-semitism, and discounted Germans more than any other ethnicity. There is abundant information on this if somebody would just take the time. Further, Larouche lies about Nietzsche's superman, here is a brief but TRUE interpretation:
Nietzsche contends that humanity is a transition, not a destination. We ceased to be animals when we taught ourselves to control our instincts for the sake of greater gains. By learning to resist some of our natural impulses, we have been able to forge civilizations, develop knowledge, and deepen ourselves spiritually. Rather than directing our will to power outward to dominate those around us, we have directed it inward and gained self-mastery. However, this struggle for self-mastery is arduous, and humanity is constantly tempted to give up. We come to see life as blameworthy or meaningless as a way of easing ourselves out of the struggle for self-mastery. Nietzsche's concept of the Superman is the destination toward which we started heading when we first reined in our animal instincts. The Superman has the self-mastery that animals lack but also the untrammeled instincts and good conscience that humans lack. The Superman is profoundly in love with life, finding nothing in it to complain about, not even the constant suffering and struggle to which he willingly submits himself.
In conclusion, I really hope people can see the convenience Larouche finds in 'redefining' things and the Case of Cody Jones is only to exemplify how his self denying decadence before he joined was nurtured and compounded with Larouche's brainwashing and redefinitions to the extent where he can never realize the most obvious counter evidence against Larouche.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-09-2005, 03:10 PM
"Such intellectual inflexibility is a symptom of saying "no" to life."


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-09-2005, 04:24 PM
First, I would like to state that I do have sympathy and understanding on why yutes would find the one stop approach of science, culture and politics in WANTING to see the org be soemthing productive. The long stroll down to the cult of personality took several years, but always uses the same methods and axioms with yutes.
What I do not have patience for are the deadenders who knowingly saw the hurt and criminality committed and chose to not do anything about. Even a token of conviction in their hearts would have helped some people before they shot themselves or drank themselves to forget, or lived in fear and self worthlessness over how their lives were wasted by a heartless anti semitic cult.
The larouche Jabronis are the yutes who think that I and others were born yesterday and know nothing of how this group operates. We were there, we saw what goes on and we left. We came back via the internet and we see the same lunacy go on with the same age group targeted. Faced with an endless avalanche of quotes, web pages, personal experiences, Larouche's own words, the groups own criminal convictions, Jabroni's think that we are a 20 year old scared drop out who cowers with fear when an NC puts us in a room and screams that the a nuclear bomb can drop on our head any minute and we are jeapordizing the human race.
This is for you Larouche Jabronis.
Astro began to revel in how the popular culture is evidence that only Larouche can save humanity from destruction. His mention of video games and movies etc is NO DIFFERENT than what every potential recruit from the mid 1970's was told to today. The only change is that the popular cultural measuring stick is a changing variable while the fixed part of the axiom is that only Larouche can solve these problems.
In the mid 1970's when I came aboard, Elvis just died. We had a great run on how the fact that people were effected by Elvis's death was prrof that the culture was bad and that we need a new species of man to run the world with Larouche as the Philosopher King.
Before this time, we were convincing ourselves that Lyn was the ONLY Marxist on the planet and every other Marxist was evil or an agent.
There is only so much money you can extract from wealthy yutes trust funds who wish to be Marxists. The money was in mainstreaming ourselves as clean cut kids who love progress.
Tavisdoc, what we did was a a few years of transforming ourselves into a money making operation which used whatever was the politics of the day to get us over with the masses. We began to publish a lot of material we wrote about US history which virtually no real historian could read and not break out laughing over. Whatever interesting works we referenced were always overshadowed by a new conspiracy of the month by Larouche. The security team and Lyn were meeting with various far rightwing outfits who between Jew jokes looked at us as both a money gravy train for themselves and a way to spread some more of their Gospel. One of these money deals is how we ended up puting the Protocals of the Elders of Zion in the early Dope Inc.
Jabroni's. please ask your few remaining stunt Jews about the Protocals. Look them up yourself and ask yourself what type of lunatic would include this in book supposedly on the drug trade? Oh, its because the Jews run dope. I see.
In the 80's we took out Elvis and used Yuppies, MTV, Disco and other current events to also convince you that the world was doomed.
Did you guys know that we used to put signs on our airport card table shrines which glorified the assasination of John Lennon? We had a poster which said, "How many Beatles does it take to crew in a light bulb"? The answer when you came up to our table was "Obvioulsy less than 4".
Later, we would use rock music as being Satanic and would create a whole conspiracy about how hundreds of thousands of kids were being kidnapped by Satanists. Environmentalists were a hundreds times worse than Hitler. If you opposed pesticides you were part of plot to kill 3/4ths of the population.
In short, Larouche truly understands that a cult needs an enemy to get recruits and your yutes need a reason to go non stop. The underlying message was that why can other people have fun when the world is going to hell and only Larouche can provide the answers.
The last thing we could tolerate was a supporter having fun while we suffered. Just listen to the phone calls when a contact has plans to go to a movie or relax. "How can you think of that when Lyn's latest memo shows that nuclear war is on the verge of breaking out".
If you stay in long enough in a group like this you will see how people get very angry at other people who are having fun. It is not allowed. So the typical yute will retort to talking jibberish about Boomers, masturbation and what not. You can do a search for Larouche and find one story after another when a person ran across a card table shrine and simply disagreed with them. It is part of the process where you will not flinch when a contact has his credit card double billed.
Just reread the Canadian Banai Brith report about how contacts and subscribers were blown off by us when they asked about their charges. WHen I was in the different offices we truly began to hate the people who called us asking for interest payments.
It is so typical of the cult to attack every single former lender or member in a similar fasion. The King book has comments from people who blew off a guy named MIchael Hudson who lent us hundreds of thousands. "He was stupid to lend us the money" or something similar.
This attitude is what allowed people like your current LYM leaders in Glendale to let people be thrown out of houses and live like bums. Even today we get reports of members from 20 years ago around the country who are now grey haired, teeth rotted out still telling people that Larouche wants to build a mass movement.
For the Jabronis, these same members were being starved with 5 bucks a day while Lyn and Helga lived like millionaires every day. The delusion of many of us was "If only Lyn knew". Lyn knew and knew quite well.
As long as Lyn can count on Jabronis to believe this non sense, than he will always have a warm place to sleep.
You yutes are going to be yesterdays trash when your upkeep can't be met.
The lines do not change. The nuclear war mobes do not change, the economic collapse does not change, leaving school for Lyn does not change, the role of Lyn does not change.
What ever will be the method which people have fun will always be attacked.
This circus will go on as long as you Jabronis let it go on. After you leave, you will find out that the only thing you know is what you knew before you went in, everything else was a charade for Lyn's ego. The only thing you really believe is what you truly believed before you joined. You will not believe how much mush you had in your head from Lyn.
Eventually you too will read about how you played in part in being a dirty trick against some thing or someone. Next spring expect a new Exploratory committe for Larouche 2008 to start up.


erin_b (erin_b)
09-09-2005, 05:13 PM
The problem with the LYM is that it thinks it has some civil duty to decide and tell people what it means to be a human being. I've been a human being all my life, Steve. The L.A. LaRouchies had enough of a problem with me because I was a comedian. They don't accept anyone for who they are when they come in, and you know that. Don't pretend you don't. Being a human being in the LaRouche cult is defined only as working at a LaRouche table shrine every waking hour and making quotas. You know that.
What a bunch of bull*. Sidestepping the issue. Not that I blame him. Yes I do.
I believe now is a good opportunity to begin a decent academic discussion>
Why would you start now, Steve?
No, don't leave, Steve. Tell me again why rock music and pop art are satanic and why I should decorate my apartment in all neutral colors to aviod upsetting LaRouche. It sounded preposterous when I was in the cult, but you're so damn charismatic, it might make sense the way you explain it. No, no, I'm totally interested, two years after being traumatized by the cult. Cult, cult, cult, cult, cult. That upsets you when I call it a cult doesn't it?
Anti-Semitism does not have many predicates and definitions for different people. It's a hatred of Jews. LaRouche teaches people to think that if someone can explain something in three words, that's not enough, that they're not smart enough, but it is enough. LaRouche uses entirely too many words. And, so do you.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-10-2005, 06:03 AM
Reports on Jabronism down under:


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-10-2005, 01:55 PM
Once again, you ignore the above statements of Lyn and Helga LaRouche on Jews and the Holocaust, the statements by Lyn on women, and the poverty of the rank-and-file LC member.
To what ecumenism of LaRouche do you refer? No official Roman Catholic or Jewish dialogue has ever been conducted by the organization.
Oh, and the Sabbath is spelled "Shabbat."
Pax et bonum.


kheris (kheris)
09-10-2005, 04:24 PM
Ah Steven - too bad you didn't share your hero's comments about Judaism with your hosts.
So the point where Sarah wanted to come in on, was the idea of forcibly kidnapping members of cults and using sophisticated psychological techniques (ranging from physical stress to using drugs) to fundamentally alter the belief system of an individual.
While I doubt Erin would claim forcible kidnapping or drugs in her case, I am sure she could dialogue quite nicely with Sarah regarding the psychological techniques used by the LYM and LHL. I'd pay real money to watch that conversation. I happened upon an old post elsewhere on the web that details an experience Erin had with the LYM and LHL. Quite revealing.
"LHL" is quite a monster and runs a cult, that is, the "LHL" as he is described in the Curtis Bizarro World. But the Lyndon LaRouche who has provoked me to understand Goodness as a lawful principle of action in this Universe, is no such man.
Your willful determination to ignore the direct quotes from LHL himself, documented at LHL's own websites that <u>support</u> him is quite breathtaking. Chris Curtis doesn't have to create a "Bizarro World" out of his imagination, LHL's own words (and those of his sycophants) documents the existence of that world.
LHL is the very same person who described the rabbi's religion as a hoax.
We cite the case of that influential hoax known as the Jewish religion.
I hope this isn't an example of LHL's ecumenism. Perhaps you can explain more clearly how LHL provoked you to understand Goodness as a lawful principle of action in this Universe. While you're at it, you can also explain why the many quotes, posted by xylm and others (from LaRouche's own sites and documents), are not representative of the man you admire so much.


erin_b (erin_b)
09-10-2005, 04:36 PM
Anger and frustration has not attacked me. You called me, remember. And you lied to me and told me you were an ex-member. The LYM attacked me for everything from who I associated with to what I wore until I was insane. You know for a fact that the organization does this to people so stop lying about it.
The only reason some rabbi and his wife would be interested in the things you just discussed would be because they've never been exposed to LaRouchism before and wouldn't recognize it for the pre-programmed unoriginal crap that it is coming out of your mouth at the dinner table.
I have never seen a LaRouchie treat another human being or talk to them as if they were created in the image of the creator, or act as if they actually beleive that. You all have to either stop saying that, or get some idea of what it means. I've seen you all "discuss ideas" and it's very ineffective, so it would be best if you all just shut up.
You have to turn to Leibniz, something LaRouche has approved for you to read to begin to think about what creativity is. I don't have to do that. No one else posting on this board has to do that. How sad for you.
Steve, you can learn about Plato at Yale. What do you need to be part of the LaRouche Campaign for? I do not understand this, having been out of the campaign for two years. You must have a deep need to give and receive psychological abuse. If that's the case, no one on this board can help you.
Erin Belcher


erin_b (erin_b)
09-10-2005, 05:07 PM
Steve, that stuff you're hearing at the campaign about the CAN kidnapping people is hype designed to scare you out of looking at the cult objectively.
To say that we won't consider the possibility that LaRouche is anti-Semitic is just stupid. Most of the people on this board are actually ex-members and not pretending to be ex-members in effort to re-convert real ex-members like you did, Steve. We all at one time gave LaRouche a chance. We're on this message board posting about what happened to us because we were screwed.
I did, at one time, consider that he isn't anti-Semitic. I did consider that the campaign wasn't a cult. You need to consider that he is, and it is a cult.
They told me not to read any mainstream newspapers, or anything on the internet that talks about LaRouche that isn't LaRouche-controlled. And from the beginning I almost completely stopped paying attention to anything besides the campaign. I hated every minute of it.
Not only that, I missed a whole other side of the story. I didn't even know about Jeremiah Duggan until after I left. I get a different response from members about this each time I ask about it, and they all get more and more disturbing. I can post some of them on my web site if you're really interested.
One of them was, "You need to grow up and realize that your friend died..." It isn't childish to care when something like this happens and you were part of the group that, excuse me, may very well have been responsible for it. It's human. This happened less than a month before I got involved with the cult and it freaks me out. Right when I met them they would say without anyone even asking, "People say we're anti-Semitic, but we're not. People lie about LaRouche because they're afriad of the truth." This is downright scary.
Then to have to see the campaign tables set up where I go to school. For you to call me. For the police to tell me there's nothing I can do about it.
It doesn't matter what you say, Steve. I know what I saw and heard when I was in, and I'll never forget it.
Erin Belcher


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-10-2005, 07:42 PM
The LaRouche method is to talk. Talking about ecumenism means "LaRouche is an ecumenical leader." Talking about economic forecasting and predicting economic collapse for over forty years means "LaRouche is a/the leading economic forecaster in the world." Very childish. It's called magical thinking. I talked about the weather today with someone: that makes me a meteorologist.
I extolled _Dialectical Economics_ the other day and started yesterday to reread it after many years to see if my earlier judgment were correct. It has not one single argument that I could see, rather was ALL assertion buried under hot, steaming piles of verbiage. What I found scary was not only my earlier gullibility but how I allowed myself to be bamboozled by all of the Marxist-sounding craptrap. The LaRouche Method is all empty assertion and high-flying associations among apparently unrelated "predicates" if you will: the zanier the claim, the greater a sign of the author's genius. Disturbing his insanity and my lack of judgment.
The only time they evidently do not just talk is when they are killing cats, slashing tires, or chasing Jewish youth out onto Hitler's Autobahn. (


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-10-2005, 11:15 PM
"his son Lewis Du Pont Smith, a supporter and associate of Lyndon LaRouche (in fact, the best man in Lewis' wedding)"
The main reson Lyn was at Dupont's wedding was because Dupont had a ten million dollar portfolio trust fund. The org had much success in breaking trust funds of its members when we were leftists on college campuses. One guy who emptied his trust fund is in Virgina where his kids qualify for and recieve State and Federal assistance since the couple has no money after 30 + years of LC life.
Dupont is a good example of what Lyn means when he talks about a "Two tiered credit system"
Dupont was a school teacher I think when we ran into him at a post office. He bought some of our American System lit and subscribed to our paper. I heard that we had him in one of our small promissary note deals. When we found out who he was, he became one of our "Specials" supporters who was handled with kid gloves to get more cash.
From what I heard, he had ten million in a stock trust which we wanted. In one of his court papers he mentions that he wanted to cash that out and buy our notes.
We did this with many supporters, especially widows with what were called "widow and orphan" stocks which paid dividends. We had a stock broker contact who could sell the securities for us after the person signed them. In some cases, we had our so called member/accountants do some ciphering and gozintas about how the person would make more money selling other shares and buying our promissary notes which paid more interest.
This was the basis for how some elderly became destitute after we cleaned them out. There is a Washington Post article and a Woman's Day article from the late 80's which covers this.
TavisDoc, you see now that there is much more money from conservative fundraising lists than Marxist lists. The leftist yutes bodies is what Lyn needs as they have little cash.
Dupont's father did something hilarious as he had his son declared mentally incompetent by a court to keep Smith from getting his 10 million.
People like Dupont were the ones who were regulars at the Larouche Estate during the wining and dining extravaganzas. A Dupont, a Grauerholz a Beltran perhaps would be handled by only a select few individuals and always made to appear that they were "insiders" in what Lyn was up to. There are a lot of insiders who usually end up being an "insider" into bankruptcy court.
One of Lyn's original European members named Webster Tarpley has succeeded in getting his own bankroll as well. Tarpley sells a version of Lyn with crazed 9/11 hysterics in a travelling show.
The Dupont Smith show in Leesburg has interested some journalists as there seems to be a chunk of the story missing.
In either case, Steve has mastered Lyn's skills at name dropping and writing in an absorbed way in which not a whiff of the cult's history and anti semitism seems to effect the olifactory senses.
We always called up Rabbis and Jews to find one who would give us the time of day. The nature of what we do is that we will enter into an exchange of info with political opponents who see us as a crazed cult who can do damage and not be traced.
I think Anon once wrote about how the people who hate Sharon in Israel will give us some info to use against Sharon. Ed Koch used us to screw a guy named Frank Barboro in a NYC race. Roy Cohn's enemies hates Cohn so much that they were willing to share stuff with us.
There were Reagan people who loved how we were Democrats and could screw Dems on a scale that no dirty trickster could imagine. WE were so gullible that Lyn and Security were convinced that the indictements would be squashed by the CIA and NSA.
Kerry got the kiss of death with a Lyn endorsement.
This really is a fun game as Steve may or may not have the funds which the group lusts after.
Lindy Lush, I am glad you picked up DE. There is always this bug in ones head that maybe there was some good that we could uses later. After one leaves the Bizarro world and reenters the real world, what we printed in most occasions is laughable. Even the work which some person did which was based on sound principals will always have a crazed "Larouche spin" which stands out like a red headed step child.
That explains why we never recruited a yute who stayed in school. The more they used our material and had it scrutinised, the quicker they left the orbit.
Steve, you are just the beginning of how your life will be effected. Talk and write all you want, we know where Lyn's eyes are fixated at.
Erinm, of course you were never told about Jeremiah Duggan. Remember on the LYM site where there was a declaration that NO ONE is to talk about this "Hoax" except Lyn?
LYM had no idea why they suddenly saw all of these European members now in the US after his death. Most of our members had no idea what we were doing as they were busy 24/7 and praying that they would get 5 bucks at the end of the day. Most members had no idea why a dozen members in the US were shipped out to Europe when the Grand Juries were under way.


dave72 (dave72)
09-11-2005, 12:10 PM the greatest financial crisis in modern history is now about to descend upon, not only the U.S.A., but the world as a whole."
--Larouche 8/31/05 ( at the end of a memo about hurricane Katrina, but of course he could have been talking about anything
"We're going to have to generate a way of thinking, the mental attitude, needed for scientific progress: That is coming from this Youth Movement. The grounding of developing a cadre, that can educate a population, a youth population, is coming not from our universities, but is coming from our LYM (LaRouche Youth Movement)."
-Larouche, 9/3/2005
The reasonable response to this if you believe in Larouche as you say you do is to drop out of school and join the LYM full time. My guess is that you hedging your bets ( always a good idea ) that the collapse wont happen too soon. Don't worry, it won't.
Let me talk about the whole cult issue which for me is a little more complicated than most people give it credit for. Nobody conciously joins a cult, nobody ever admits that they are in a cult at the time, and for that matter no actual cults consider themselves to be cults. Now, if you call your parents tomorrow and tell them that you dropped out of Yale to join Larouche and save humanity, guess what, they're going to quite reasonably fear that you've joined a cult. They will be upset and will not hide that fact from you. Using all of your Platonic reasoning, you will not be able to convince them that you've made a good decision about what to do with your life. Unfortunately, this is where the long term members get a chance to shine. They will make you feel small and will lead you to the precipice, and let YOU make the following simple choice. Do you want to please mommy and daddy or do you want to save western civilization from collapse? You believe that Larouche is correct and you trust in your superior power of reason after reading Liebniz, Plato, Rieman etc.
What choice do you make ? Were you forced ? Have you just joined a cult ?
As for cult "deprograming", I have serious doubts about the whole thing. I do understand however the desperation of parents who believe that their childeren are in cults. It seems entirely reasonable to me that Luis Dupont Smith's parents would use whatever means they have at their disposal to get their son out. One doesnt need any conspiracy theories to explain their actions.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-11-2005, 01:53 PM
"Let me talk about the whole cult issue which for me is a little more complicated than most people give it credit for. Nobody conciously joins a cult, nobody ever admits that they are in a cult at the time, and for that matter no actual cults consider themselves to be cults."
So very true Dave72. When I was Steve's age it seemed like the crisis facing the US was unsurmountable through normal politics and human activity. We had just gone through Nixon resigning, energy and raw material shortages,, the Vietnam war, racial problems and an increasing drug problem. For my first few years I sincerely believed that we were in the forefront of thinking by supporting Fusion power and being a proponent of rapid science R&D to "invent" our way out of the crisis.
The transformation of the LC to a cult of personality by Larouche was a trigger for me to step back a bit. My geographical situation was such that direct contact with Lyn and other people did not exist yet. We ran our local more like a bunch of hard working yutes who never quite understood what was coming from the National Office. The farther away, the less it seemed crazy. The transformation into a cult came in stages for different people.
I for one should have paid a lot more attention to the Chris White frogman caper. Mop Up was explained as us defending against the CP/SWP which was attacking us. In typical Larouche fasion, Lyn drinks coffee and chews on oreos in the village writing endless tomes of his life while other people take gun shots and fists. Then, Lyn says that he is the one who is facing the fire.
I wonder if Lyn ever sent a get well card to LA LYM member Ed PARK when he was assaulted in Compton? Steve, check it out for us will you?
It is very hard to describe this emotion, but it will help you. There is a point where one can mentally "cross over" in a cult. AT that point, you have accepted everything and question nothing. Each axiom of lunacy leads into another "proof" that Lyn is right and the world is wrong.
The era during the 1980 New Hapmshire campaign was important as this made wholesale upheavals of people's stability in the locals. The motto in New Hampshire was "shut up and do what you are told".
The self sacrifice people made was extreme and for many people was a part of running a campaign. The net result was a blow out and rejection of Lyn which was now documented for us via the voters. Until then, we coasted on the belief that when the masses see LYN, they will be moved and we will be running the show leading the sheep.
The reality was just like today, 25 years later. People see and read Lyn and the majority look at him as crazy man and his jabronis as bad jokes.
Following New Hampshire, we went more and more nuts and brazen as LYN declared that the org only exists to promote him. No other vector of work which people had in the different sectors was important and he was the final word.
People left and we would hear rumours and stories, usually procaliming that person an agent or morally weak with the blood of many poor people on his or her's head.
In my case, I made the mistake of thinking that the overall good of what we were talking about was what mattered. The anti semitic lunacy and all of the other things I write about were shoved to the back of the line in my head.
One does come to the obvious conclusion that with out a cast of bright people like us, Lyn is a bad pathetic joke. Our job was to make him look rationale as we rewrote the scripts for the field work.
Each ex member seemed to reach a point where the lies were too much to take and left. You tend to keep your history private as you restart your life.
What does become quite interesting is how ones senses of white collar crime and cultish activity is now much more refined when confronted by people and groups.
A kid like Steve is like a wide eyed attendee of a no money down real estate or MLM operation. You believe because you want to believe, regardless of the history of failure. To admit failure of the MLM scheme is to admit your personal shortcomings, which is what the cult actually wants. This is why most scams and hustles are never reported.
It's Steve vs Elmer Gantry vs Steve.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-12-2005, 07:06 AM
Recently, after demonstrating he doesn't know what a hedge fund is, the World's Greatest Economist ominously warns
"The really bad news is, that the longer the market does not collapse, the worse the financial collapse becomes; that, at an accelerating rate."
How convenient for his helots. In other words, don't worry that there's been no evidence of a general economic collapse of the type I've been predicting since at least 1965 because, brother, when it does hit - watch out.
This has nothing to do with economics, but everything to do with cultic mind control.
A new ring of the inferno will have to be created for the exclusive use of this guy. (
(Message edited by lyndylalush on September 12, 2005)


xylm (xylm)
09-12-2005, 10:20 AM
"In short, the "why" question; why is it thus and not otherwise? So we are identifying a cause-effect relationship. The effects we can see and logically poke around. The cause is not so material, in fact, according to Leibniz, not material at all, but has its effectual material consequences." --Steven
Please don't tell me that this is your epiphany! You will find more substance on cause-effect relationships in chapter 1 of any relevant text, including your earlier rambling definition of a 'hypothesis'. This 'why question' you so brilliantly pose, where did you learn it? Haha! For somebody who finds brilliance in the 'why' at your adult age explains why you cannot see your own absurdity. Cause-effect relationship contradicts Larouche's universal principle theory; it proves in of itself that these 'universal principals' are not knowable outside the limits of our present time and place. For instance, you cannot prove your present hypothesis (on earth in the year 2005) that X will again create Y on Pluto or 10,000 years from now, thus dissipating the universality in your logic. Since you have limited substances to hypothesize against (limited to time and place), there is no way you can deem any hypothesis universal…unless of course you are "creative" hahaha
So you want to teach or emancipate others' creativity? I'm sure you would agree that in doing so you, the emancipator, must be creative. Well then, can you please list a couple of your creative ideas for us? Creative ideas that are not reiterated, particularly from Larouche, since otherwise would contradict your definition.


erin_b (erin_b)
09-13-2005, 10:38 PM
Steve, you said you were at the July 2003 Cadre School. I assume you heard LaRouche's telecast. Remember when he compared himself to Jesus Christ. What did you think of that? Steve?


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-13-2005, 11:36 PM
"Christianus alter Christus." -Pope John Paul II, among others
("The Christian is another Christ.")


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-14-2005, 03:58 AM
LaRouche is not a Christian, therefore he is not another Christ.
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's: somehow LaRouche's tax evasion does not square with this.
Jesus does not murder, lie, libel, harrass, con, swindle or otherwise harm human beings, nor did he ever live in a mansion, nor ever send Peter and Andrew out to the Galilean shore to watch for Cuban frogmen assassins.
All Jesus did was give; all your god does is take. (
(Message edited by lyndylalush on September 14, 2005)


xylm (xylm)
09-14-2005, 10:46 AM
To the eye of any potential LYM recruit, Stevens divergence from practically every single serious discussion posted will expose the Truth about LaDouche. A recruit has already experience the inexhaustible imposition by a Larouchie towards any argument, whether strident, strong, academic, or weak and will find Steven's selected weaving and often complete silence extremely uncharacteristic and strange. This will then go to question Steven's actual purpose on this message board; washing away his acting job and showing his naked means.
Not only had Steven wiggled past philosophical, psychological, political, and anti-Semitic evidence, he also had never responded to any of the contradictions we uprooted in his own perambulating logic.
We have already gone through a handful of Larouchie's on this message board, each one of them had exercised the same impotence towards our posts. This may be surprising for any Larouchie to witness, since they have never failed to make their impositions (when dialogue is 1-way).
I request that we thank Steven for his exposition and leave him be (unless he finally addresses our claims) so we may focus more on the exchange of our personal discoveries for the present and future benefit of any inquirer.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-14-2005, 11:44 AM
Last night, from the balcony of my 4th story room, I saw a cat sauntering down the dimly lit pathway, apparently on his way to the Cross Campus green.
At least I think it was a cat. I saw that the figure in the distance looked like a coordinated mass of some sorts. Sure there was obvious material all over the place. There is the stone pathway, the blades of grass planted in soil that would lead to well-grown trees on either side of the pathway. Obvious signs of life everywhere. But there was something a bit paradoxical about how four furry legs, a tail and a curious little head seemed to remain attached to a body in rapid motion, relative to the slower change in position and makeup taking place among the surrounding environment (the grass slowly growing, for example). There was an obvious discontinuity in relationship, between the rest of the environment and the figure that I saw. In fact, I acknowledged that indeed I had witnessed an unusually mobile "monad", as its material evidence made it apperceivable.
To observe something empirically is to SENSE the material in question. To apperceive something is to view the material, by looking passed the material, so to speak, and isolate the idea of a principle of change which is the reason for the state that the material is in at any given time.
So what I did was, I perceived the figure at different states of time, until I discovered, (hey lush, I CREATED in my mind) an idea, and that idea is the subject of the apperception.
An idea, properly understood in terms of Leibnizian Platonic philosophy, is a metaphor, which expresses a universal relationship, which is lawful no matter how you perceive it, because it is an apperception, which is provable by a critical experiment, not a universal experiment where you have to test EVERYthing, which perhaps only God can do.
So, whereas absolute truth we will never fully be knowledgeable of, we do know it exists (in fact, God is a metaphor, in theological terms: thanks Lyn) and we are able to prove ever higher understandings of truth, through this type of critical experiment.
And in this way, I am unequivocally able to say hello to that cat's soul (the monad) and smile because I am reminded of God's process of creation.
That is one example of a creative idea that I have had. I created the idea of the soul of Mr. Kitty.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-14-2005, 12:04 PM
By the way, I can't figure out if this quote came from the fascist anti-Semite "LHL" or from the ecumenical Mr. LaRouche. Maybe someone can help me out:
Q: My question about what happened in the Middle East, I mean between the Palestinian and the Israeli people. As we know, if there's peace between the Israeli and Palestinian people, that could bring peace in the Middle East and maybe in the whole world. Just, my question is, this conflict at first, this conflict is not easy, at all, as we know—it's too difficult. Do you think that if Mr. Kerry wins the election, he is able to solve this problem?
LAROUCHE: Yeah, sure. It is possible. And you are typical of those who can solve it. [applause]
The point is, the first thing is, look at the case of Umayyad culture in Spain, prior to Tomás Torquemada, the first Beast-Man, the first Adolf Hitler: Torquemada the Grand Inquisitor. He destroyed a culture, in which Christians, Jews, and Islam lived very peacefully, and profitably together! Happily and peacefully together!
Then, you look at the greatest writings, for example, the Jewish writer Moses Maimonides, from Spain in that period. Who had a great influence on Europe, in general.
So therefore, these are precisely the kinds of questions that were dealt with by the greatest scholars and theologians, under those circumstances. The question is, you start from principle: Ignorant people will always tend to oversimplify things. You younger people, you are going to become leaders of society.
Your job is, in a sense, to give leadership and hope, to uplift the people you're working with; to get them out of the feeling of nothingness, of fear and desperation. And get their fears of the world, out of them. To give them a sense of beauty.
And so, you have these religious beliefs in the United States, which are absolutely obscene. Religious hatred is obscene. It's wrong! What's difference? I mean, we're all human beings. We all have the same—I mean, what I said here, generally, I've made reference to Christianity here. But, it's applicable to anything. It's applicable to Islam. It's applicable to Judaism. It's the same thing! So, therefore, the basis of society has to be ecumenical. To recognize that certain fundamental principles are primary, and they must be the basis for relations among people. The rest of the things, we can argue about. And the argument will be rich: It'll keep us busy in the coffee houses, at night.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-14-2005, 12:16 PM
Oh, and sorry about my timing. I am doing my best to prioritize responsibilities.
Until next time,


xylm (xylm)
09-14-2005, 01:59 PM
You have finally responded, we appreciate it, don't let it stop here…we must continue our dialogue.
Now your Sept 14, 2005 post attempts to convey your creativity, but I shall show you that it is your prejudiced imposition.
As soon as I read your use of the word, "monad", it was clear to me you were taking this logic straight from Leibniz which made it no surprise that you ended with, "An idea, properly understood in terms of Leibnizian Platonic philosophy". The point here is that you did NOT create this idea, you engulfed the philosophical bias of Leibniz and worse, you were instructed to read it by the influence of Larouche. "I created the idea of the soul in Mr. Kitty". – You did not 'create' anything; you reiterated someone else's idea of the soul and then imposed it on that poor cat. You are the innocent confession of another philosopher. I don't see your creativity. At least Leibniz was a co-creator of calculus, what have you even co-created? Oh you haven't been there long enough? What about anybody in the LYM? Or how about Cody Jones, he has been there for years, ask him what he has created other than the idea of a cat's soul of course.
And to your embarrassment, apperception can stem from empirical experience. Apperception is defined as the comprehension that newly acquired observed qualities of an object are related to past experiences. The significant difference between empiricism and metaphysics is the question 'what past experiences?' Metaphysics believe one was born with this 'past experience' divinely through a priori. Empiricists don't see anything logical about this claim (this is why a priori is defined as unsupported examination) and purport that we are blank slates that perceive the world after we are born (which is supported reasoning). Without continuing, we can already see why somebody as religious as Larouche would accept Metaphysics. This is the classic God vs Evolution Theory type controversy. Anyway, empiricists don't stop with their sense perception, they just claim that this is our foundation, and will continue logical analytic reasoning past the foundation of sense perception. Larouche teaches you densely that empiricists stop with sense perception –this is outrageously wrong.
"I made reference to Christianity here. But, it's applicable to anything. It's applicable to Islam. It's applicable to Judaism. It's the same thing!" Again, you innocently don't realize that you are conjuring Christian Platonics against all these religions and variegated cultures. The reason you THINK Larouche pertains to all religions is because he cleverly picked Christian Platonics from each religion's history: Avicenna from Islam, Philo of Alexendria from Judiasm, etc. Larouche then goes on to dismiss all counter figure heads or philosophies from these religions and what makes it racist beyond doubt is that these religions don't practice Christian Platonics or else they would be Christian!!! It's beyond me how anybody claiming to be an intellectual cannot fathom this.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-14-2005, 07:10 PM
Leibniz does not attempt a simply logical argument. In his finest moments, he invokes the ontological. This is precisely what I attempted to isolate as creativity.
Leibnizian Apperception.
Indeed, Mr. Kitty's soul would be there whether or not I discovered it. But since I did create the idea of his soul in my mind, it demonstrates the process of creativity, the process of Leibnizian apperception.
In fact, the idea of Leibnizian apperception is based on the human mind's power to discover the idea of an appetite. An appetite is a funny word. When we are hungry and want to eat something, we say we have an appetite. Well, imagine that a soul has an appetite. The soul doesn't want to eat anything, but rather has the desire to precipitate an effect. For example, I existed one second ago and I exist now. My soul one second ago had the appetite to precipitate me now. To apperceive is to look passed my body and see my soul.
To apperceive is to not make generalizations of where my body has been and perhaps where it will be; rather, to apperceive is to discover that I have a soul.
What you did, was you superimposed on my argument an empiricist's definition of apperception, actually what I was disproving, and claimed my embarrassment because I did not agree with your empirical definition of apperception. I realize that Leibnizian-Platonic philosophy is not a mainstream idea, and a mainstream dictionary would probably ignore Leibniz's apperception, of which I am referring to; otherwise, I would not be here trying to create a New Renaissance founded on this principle. In fact, you simplify Mr. LaRouche's definition as well. You splice one sentence on empiricism, which would be a snippet of his thesis, and you ignore his ontological proof.
I explain.
The essential empiricist believes that all knowledge originates from sense perception. These perceptions of sense shoot to our brain and we are able to make a one-to-one representation, word-to-sensed perception: this word "here" represents this sense perception "there". We then make generalizations of correlations, as if on a plot graph, of frequently common characteristics of many sense perceptions, past and present. And we can make even more complex generalizations of these generalizations; why this stuff sensually occurs, we cannot know, but we can generalize what will probably happen in the future. And we can trace all this analytical knowledge to simple sense observation gathering. This stuff, especially when looking at David Hume, will get very rigorous and has many predicates. I sincerely applaud his diligence, however wrong I think he is. But my point, I believe, is across.
You give the empirical process of making generalizations of new and old observations the name apperception: "Apperception is defined as the comprehension that newly acquired observed qualities of an object are related to past experiences."
However, the idea of creativity that I recreate here is the human mind's power to pinpoint causation; that is, instead of saying, "When this sensation occurs, usually this sensation follows," instead of saying, "A true apperception should discover One actual principle of change, which is the Reason why one sensational event preceded another sensual event."
Creativity: Discovering and Rediscovering Principle.
Once one becomes familiar with the process of creativity, one thinks in terms of causation. Creativity is a method of reasoning the cause. Once one begins to be creative in everyday life, one looks around the universe and views empirical evidence in terms of causation and makes insights into the relationship of observed evidence. Then one becomes very ripe to make original discoveries, such as breakthroughs in astronomy, science, even history, etc. That is called educating youth of the creative process, so that they will be originally creative when they are adults or of reasoned maturity. I have many creative insights, as do countless others, as I look around. Once I believe I have made an original breakthrough, expect a published book by Steven Rendon.
But even a so-called original creative idea simply refers to a discovery. "I discovered this. It was here the whole time, but until now, it was unknown. Because I was creative enough to understand an exponentially higher reality of the cause here, we now benefit and are able to exert more order with this knowledge." And so, we must replicate the great discoveries that have been made in the past, and also study the failed attempts at discoveries, to familiarize ourselves with the method and process that is required to be creative and make original discoveries.
I did not plagiarize an argument. I concurred with the principle idea, and demonstrated that I could provide an ontological proof of that idea using various critical experiments.
Mr. LaRouche likes to bring up the critical experiment demonstrating universal physical principle using Kepler and Leibniz, but I will leave that to the mathematicians, and I will tackle that specific question as my studies allow me the time.
But I do know something of social universal principles, which implores us to consider the principle of human reason, which is made possible by the phenomenon of creativity in particular.
Love as a Social Principle.
Persons throughout history sacrifice their mortal lives for the Good of mankind. There are many cases from all cultures. This is bewildering in a sense. It does not make sense, in a hedonistic-empirical sense, unless viewed as one of those observations that was unnatural and outside of the line of correlation of evidence for selfish human action.
Nonetheless, as a Leibnizian, I am compelled not to ignore these discontinuities and simply be satisfied with the generalization; I must inquire further as to what is the Reason or cause of these sensual observations. I notice that Christ did this. Some may say, "Ah ha! So the cause is being Christian!" Well, was Christ Christian? What about Socrates? What about the endless list of Muslim and Jewish martyrs? Asian martyrs? African martyrs? Irreligious martyrs exist as well.
The empiricist might look at social trends, and perhaps psychological neurosis comparisons that might have occurred in similar biographies of cultures and of people. Endless theories will develop and I do not see how this will get me closer to discovering a powerful principle of change.
Let us take one example and try to pinpoint the action: Martin Luther King.
One could go through the list of biographies that attempt to obscure his achievements. Some calling him a Communist sympathizer, while others say he cheated on his wife. But if we single out the agenda he was promoting, we see that whatever real problems he had he came to the conclusion that he must fight for the advancement of his brothers and sisters, including his "sick white brothers" that needed "medicine". He understood the universality of mankind and announced that he would die for it and he did die for it. He is immortal because he created a universal idea of humanity, and he loved and defended the best implications of that knowledge. Creativity and the selfless love for this universe, which contained in it the universality of mankind, is what DROVE King to ACT as he did. The appetition that is Love existed before King and after him. But for the time of King, Love acted materially in a powerful way that MOVED mankind.
And so this principle of love in fact acts as a PHYSICAL principle! Because of its existence, we are able to explain the Reason why sensual events took place, as if King's body was utilized as a powerful tool by the principle of Love.
The principle of Love does not care what you call yourself, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist. Love will use anyone who wants to do Good for mankind and this universe implicitly, if not explicitly.
Culture Expressing Universal Principle.
Again, Platonic Christianity is merely an imperfect cultural creation, which attempts an ever-perfecting approximation of Truth.
All cultures attempt to understand reality or universal Truth. Some say there is no universal truth; but then again, they are saying that that's true reality, that there is no universal Truth. So the point is aside from creed and semantics. Cultures try to explain reality.
Mr. LaRouche explains that he comes from a specific American culture, a strain of that culture. Look to Ben Franklin, Clay, J.Q. Adams, Lincoln, Careys, FDR, JFK, MLK. I read these guys and though different in many specific ways, many approximate the same universal respect for the general welfare of mankind and natural law, in their writings if not in today's revisionist's text book.
So I agree with the principle thesis and also am proud to say that I am in that tradition. I have a culture, which attempts to understand universal truth and works to order in a like fashion.
So I look around to other cultures and I put my mind in their culture, as best I can, to see how the best currents of their culture approximate reality and lawful action in accordance to that reality.
I place my mind in my own specific American culture and attempt to do the same. In fact, many people who are nominally Christian I would suggest are not in that Platonic Christian tradition. I say, "Hey, Christian. Are you really? Prove it."
What we should do is promote universal natural law, and promote those traditions in all cultures that work to this aim. We do this not to through certain groups of people in concentration camps, but to call them out to discussion. "Hey, buddy. You think you're right. I think I'm right. Let's see if we can make each other more right."
That is ecumenism. Any reduction of Mr. LaRouche's philosophy to creed is inherently a fraud, since the principle thesis in all his work proves that universal truth is King.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-14-2005, 07:38 PM
If anyone knows of a good "deprogrammer" I could use a heavy dose. This love for humanity and natural law based on reason is really starting to weigh me down. Say, is Don Moore still in the business? How about Galen Kelly? Mr. Curtis, if you have any information on the subject it would be much appreciated.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-14-2005, 08:07 PM
Where is love in LaRouche's unretracted remarks enumerated above regarding
(1) Jews
(2) women
or in his behavior towards his own rank-and-file members who not only live in abject poverty, but as they age have no health care or pension - no provision of any kind? Explain the love in telling young people to drop out of college to sell magazines and do telemarketing for sixty hours per week on five dollars a day and then to have the nerve to tell them that they are changing the world thereby.
These are questions you have been asked repeatedly, and yet you persist in ignoring them. Curious.
For more information on the criminality ("love") of the LaRouchists: (
A word to the wise: a sloppy writer is a sloppy thinker. Study Greek and Latin to improve your English because, as it stands, no peer-reviewed journal is going to accept drivel from one who cannot distinguish between "principle" and "principal," or comes up with whoppers such as "That is called educating youth of the creative process, so that they will be originally creative when they are adults or of reasoned maturity" or "I did not plagiarize an argument. I concurred with the principle idea, and demonstrated that I could provide an ontological proof of that idea using various critical experiments." The only place I have ever seen such confabulations is in _The Confederacy of Dunces_ which those of you who care about poor Steven should actually read this weekend if you want a good laugh.
Lastly, I would suggest that the "specific American culture, a strain of that culture" out of which Mr. LaRouche extrudes is that of our own (indigenous if not aboriginal) CRANK culture "in the tradition of" nativist and Jew-and_Catholic-hating S.F.B. Morse and his epigonoi.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-14-2005, 08:23 PM
I composed this four pages of "writing" in less than an hour.
Also, I agree wholeheartedly about your comment on Latin and Greek; too bad public education was so bad that neither were approached in high school nor emphasized in my college curriculum. That comes next.
Until next time,


erin_b (erin_b)
09-14-2005, 09:20 PM
When I was in, every class meeting came with betweein 2 and 5 recommended books that we were to read in order to really understand the material. I didn't know enough history, I didn't know enough math, I needed to learn languages. This was because the education system was so bad, but I was responsible for making up for what I'd missed immediately. Not only that, I had to learn everything the LaRouche way or else not know what anyone was talking about. Of course I hardly got any of the reading done they expected me to. And they'll use this as an excuse for why I had a problem with them.
I was homeless fairly recently before I met them. I'd already been through a lot just to have what I have and they never had any right to make me feel guilty about it.
I told them I have bipolar disorder. Many of them tried to tell me it isn't real, that none of the experiences I'd had with it mattered. That they knew better. It didn't matter that I was homeless because of it. They knew better. They would get to the bottom of it. What was my real problem? They would ask me questions about it and innocently I talked openly about it. Their objective was to get me to stop treatment. Nick Walsh even told me my meds were what was causing my problems. I went to my first meeting perfectly stable, with every intent to just check them out and if I didn't like them, leave. I stayed for half a year and ended up very confused.
After I was expelled there was a time when I was still confused about whether it was a cult. I still didn't know what the organization was about. I thought they should take me back because it was just Montez that was lying about me because he didn't want me there.
I thought the campaign was this great thing I had a right to be a part of. That's what the brainwashing did to me. It didn't just change the way I thought, it changed the way I felt. The way it affected me, I didn't feel right when I was away from the campaign office. They didn't succeed in changing my core values or beleifs, but there was an unexplainable change in the way I felt when I was away from the office. It got to the point where I couldn't be away. I wasn't convinced LaRouche was going to save the world from an impending economic collapse, but I was convinced I couldn't function outside the campaign office.
It took me a while after leaving to start to feel more like myself. It really took a long time. There's a part of me that always wants to stay and fight in situations like this. It took me even longer to realize that some fights just aren't worth it.


neoprocrustes (neoprocrustes)
09-14-2005, 11:41 PM
I am genuinely curious on what grounds Larouche feels that the math education in american universities is "occult" (the words of the youth signboards). It is one thing to attack philosophy, modern philosophers do it all the time... but math? Granted some math on the edges *might* be worth questioning, but the stuff taught in a standard undergraduate education has been around for a long time with very few critics. To attack that, Larouche ought to have a clear argument, yet if you read his articles about math they tend to include adhominems (rather uncouth for mathematical arguments) and devolve into political ramblings.
So I submit to you:
1. show me something in math that is wrong... i.e. something which makes math contradictory or not reflective of the real world. Where is the occult?
2. How would you resolve this issue.
I ask because I feel that math is 100% consistent at the undergraduate level, and reflects the world nicely. There are philosophical arguments about math at times.. but no one suggests that math is "occult".
I also ask because I have asked this of larouchies before and they ALWAYS dodge the question. this is suspicious dont you think?


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-15-2005, 12:30 AM
Actually, as I mentioned before, I am not well studied in advanced calculus in today's universities, nor am I well studied in the constructive geometry tradition that Mr. LaRouche so often refers to. However, I understand to some extent what the philosophy is behind it.
Although I have not seen Mr. LaRouche cite Poe's Purloined Letter, in order to demonstrate his point on mathematics I will point out to you a funny quote because Poe actually calls mainstream mathematicians of his day Pagans!:
"I dispute the availability, and thus the value, of that reason which is cultivated in any especial form other than the abstractly logical. I dispute, in particular, the reason educed by mathematical study. The mathematics are the science of form and quantity; mathematical reasoning is merely logic applied to observation upon form and quantity. The great error lies in supposing that even the truths of what is called pure algebra, are abstract or general truths. And this error is so egregious that I am confounded at the universality with which it has been received. Mathematical axioms are notaxioms of general truth. What is true of relation—of form and quantity—is often grossly false in regard to morals, for example. In this latter science it is very usually untrue that the aggregated parts are equal to the whole. In chemistry also the axiom fails. In the consideration of motive it fails; for two motives, each of a given value, have not, necessarily, a value when united, equal to the sum of their values apart. There are numerous other mathematical truths which are only truths within the limits of relation. But the mathematician argues, from his finite truths, through habit, as if they were of an absolutely general applicability—as the world indeed imagines them to be. Bryant, in his very learned 'Mythology,' mentions an analogous source of error, when he says that 'although the Pagan fables are not believed, yet we forget ourselves continually, and make inferences from them as existing realities.' With the algebraists, however, who are Pagans themselves, the 'Pagan fables' are believed, and the inferences are made, not so much through lapse of memory, as through an unaccountable addling of the brains. In short, I never yet encountered the mere mathematician who could be trusted out of equal roots, or one who did not clandestinely hold it as a point of his faith that x2+px was absolutely and unconditionally equal to q. Say to one of these gentlemen, by way of experiment, if you please, that you believe occasions may occur where x2+px is not altogether equal to q, and, having made him understand what you mean, get out of his reach as speedily as convenient, for, beyond doubt, he will endeavor to knock you down."
I suggest to read the whole story, because the experience leaves you with an aftertaste of the idea of Mr. LaRouche's polemic.
On another note, mainly Gauss and Riemann are cited, especially for epistemological purposes. If it sounds cliche, you should probably give it some more thought, but I think the point is the same as it is when he emphasizes in all fields of academia: study from the standpoint of ideas.
Ideas are primary, formulas and models are secondary.
Also, I have asked my friend from medical school to opine on this issue; he is much more apt to answer your questions than I. Hopefully, he will soon post here.
I appreciate your honest curiosity.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-15-2005, 01:07 AM
Dishonesty, dishonesty, and dishonesty ...
Yet again, avoidance of the issues mentioned above. This is all getting to be a sick joke, gassing about mathematics when people are suffering at the hands of LaRouche. For example, nondoctors volunteering medication advice. Shameful.
I suspect that much of the rationale behind the mathematical topics chosen for emphasis by the LC are determined by Lyn's limited range in this area. Remember that Lyn himself is a dropout and thus has the crank's typically tendentious approach to all areas of which he knows little or nothing. I am sure for example that Gauss would have had a good laugh had he heard he was somehow demolishing the evil work of Euler! I did not know how poorly informed LaRouche was until I got out and got myself a real education. I suggest you people drawn to LaRouche look at how the typical member lives and compare this to the ostensible ideals of said organization.
LaLush is the guy at the party who knows everything, has all the answers, and whom others increasingly avoid until he gets drunk and loud enough to require forcible expulsion. Then from outside by the garbage cans he curses the revelers for having conspired against him when in fact it is his own obnoxious behavior which got him rejected in the first place. The best way to understand LaRouche is that he is a Haight-Ashbury-style dropout whose drug-of-choice is Rheingau.
Respectfully, (


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-15-2005, 01:22 AM
Mr. Rendon has been through all of this before with others and remains incorrigible - it's his life to waste - but clearly the poor chap has a screw loose:
He doesn't even try to console Jeremiah's mother, but prattles on about being a disciple of John Paul the Great. A disturbing instance of a nonintegrated personality.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-15-2005, 08:00 AM
Lush. A child screaming, "Look at me!" as he throws a tantrum, should be given more attention than your dishonest "arguments". Kick and scream all you want. Those who are honest, and it is obvious in the questioneering, will recieve what they give: discussion.
Relax, buddy. You would do your position a favor if you stop screaming through the door and just open it.


sancho (sancho)
09-15-2005, 08:28 AM
Haven't you ever heard the rule, "i before e except after c?"
Those weren't arguments to which you were asked to respond, they were antisemitic and misogynistic statements of your god as well as his criminal practices.
You have a distinct talent for malapropisms: I suggest you take over for Norm Crosby on the standup circuit.
What kind of medication are you supposed to be on anyway? You are otherwise so dishonest in every facet of your life that it is difficult to imagine how you navigate through daily life without some sort of (massive) chemical support.
When did you last see your family therapist? I think it might be time to get reacquainted as you're not doing too well in the real world, Stevie boy.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-15-2005, 10:59 AM
I'm not going to splice Mr. LaRouche's words, to satisfy the piecemeal sloganeering that governs popular opinion's idea of critique.
Beyond Psychoanalysis is a single idea. Within this paper, there are other ideas, metaphors that developed. And finally, Mr. LaRouche develops his ideas with predicates of a Socratic experiment. The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites is another one of his ideas expressed in this way.
One unfortunate side effect that I have noticed of the organization, is that it produces the most rigorous sophists. Sophistry igores metaphor and idea, and quotes predicate to serve their own purposes. And that is called masturbation; it is not an attack. Masturbation, as used as a metaphor to express a relationship between a human and his decadent behavior, is characterized by satisfying oneself for the sake of oneself. If you are offended by the word masturbation then substitute is with a "drier" term, "selfishness".
If you would like to discuss ideas, I am all ears.


xylm (xylm)
09-15-2005, 11:10 AM
"But since I did create the idea of his soul in my mind, it demonstrates the process of creativity, the process of Leibnizian apperception."
You are exemplifying 'imagination', not 'creativity'; any yahoo can "create" some idea in one's mind. To keep unaided imagination from manifesting the belief system in which you portray as creativity or more lucidly, from creating a sloppy mess of baseless "ideas", we need sensual filtration. Now before you jump out of your seat, please understand that the sensual filtration is only used as a standing point or a place to begin the hypothesis process. This sensual filtration is inescapable as we all have had some level of sensual impact and experience with the world. Therefore, it is inescapable to apply your sensual experience, whether you find an experience credible or ludicrous, you are nonetheless being impacted by it. The hypothesis process must start with solid half truths through our senses (in which we already inescapably do) before you can take off with 'non-sensual' thinking to come closer to the other half [of absolute truth].
"The soul doesn't want to eat anything, but rather has the desire to precipitate an effect. For example, I existed one second ago and I exist now. My soul one second ago had the appetite to precipitate me now."
Again, your maxim lacks greatly here and finds no better place than in parody. I am not here to discredit Leibniz, but these reiterations you are posting are from 'belief systems' developed through unaided reasoning. Remember, your soul appetite thesis starts with the presumption that souls are immortal (our imagination) and concludes that it's continuity is through an "appetite". There is no relationship between your premise and your fact. And this chapter of 'believing' in Leibniz's philosophy is what influenced Kant's a priori –another baseless/spiritual presumption that has been ridiculed and stripped naked for a philosophical learning lesson. You would have more understanding if you were not stuck on Plato.
"The empiricist might look at social trends, and perhaps psychological neurosis comparisons that might have occurred in similar biographies of cultures and of people. Endless theories will develop and I do not see how this will get me closer to discovering a powerful principle of change."
This power of creativity is laughably not limited to the Larouche Movement, it is obviously used in every single field as psychologists, philosophers, engineers, et al create as well. Even if we set aside the behind the scenes empiricism and metaphysics, your means to provoke creativity is already there, it's everywhere! I'm thankful somebody created "psychological neurosis" and "cultural metamorphism", not because of my opinion on them, but because it is creative and would only be ignorant to establish a linear explanation of high principles without considering everything. You think this is a cake walk? You honestly think you know more than the fields you discredit to dismiss them?
Again, what have you created? NOTHING, One more time…what have you created? NOTHING …and yet you know more than the people who actually did create.


erin_b (erin_b)
09-15-2005, 12:17 PM
If you really are looking for help, I hope you find it and I really sympathize with you.
It's just that I cannot talk to someone who is going to tell me to read the literature, or if I talk about something I disagreed with the organization on, and have already gone 50 rounds over, isn't going to start arguing with me about it again, trying to convince me why LaRouche thinks the way he does. There's no reason for me to care.
My experience with the campaign caused some major interference in my life when I didn't need it. Entertaining someone who is under so much influence by LaRouche is not something I need to do.
If you really intend to leave, leave. Find a good exit counselor. Don't call an ex-member on the phone who was traumatuzed and tell them you're an ex-member unless you're actually an ex-member.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-15-2005, 01:28 PM
I am not a member of the LaRouche formal organizations. I subscribe to EIR online. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I was and am sincere. I want to get to the bottom of things just as much as everyone else. We have just come to different conclusions and that's why I gravitated toward you and even this website. I hope the best for you Erin, in or out of the organization, whatever the case. Good luck.


xylm (xylm)
09-15-2005, 01:29 PM
"One unfortunate side effect that I have noticed of the organization is that it produces the most rigorous sophists. Sophistry ignores metaphor and idea, and quotes predicate to serve their own purposes. And that is called masturbation; it is not an attack. Masturbation, as used as a metaphor to express a relationship between a human and his decadent behavior, is characterized by satisfying oneself for the sake of oneself." – Steven
We have been asking you continuously to address the anti-Semitic quotes by Larouche. This is probably the most serious allegation towards Larouche since it directly and blatantly labels him as a fascist, consequently, I cannot imagine why somebody so proactively concerned about truth and 'our awakening' would not want to address this thoroughly. You mentioned several times that your duty is for the intellectual enlightenment of our populace, so please, apply the premise you just created in the above quote with the anti-Semitic ones we have established in this message board.
I am not being sarcastic Steven, I am genuinely asking you to show us and all future inquirers the "masturbation" and misinterpreted terms in these quotes. Please do not divert away to Jewish dinner stories and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for that will still leave a harmful grey area towards the allegations.
Since you are a busy man, I have reposted (below) one of these anti-Semitic quotes only:
"Judiasm, which developed as a by-product of the emergence of early Christianity, and was molded in its further evolution as an appendage of Christianity, is also in its general form a truncated reflection of the Christian type of ideology in general. It has also been transformed through specifically feudal, semi-feudal mercantile-capitalist, and capitalist forms. It is not necessary to give special treatment to Judaism here, since it never existed except in myth, but as a by-product of Christianity, and could not exist except as a special predicate of a Christian or Muslim culture, principally Christian. There is no autonomous "Jewish Culture", but only a special variety of (especially) Christian culture." -- Lyndon Larouche it's on page 32 bottom footnote.


neoprocrustes (neoprocrustes)
09-15-2005, 04:25 PM
Well a quote from poe isn't really enough to call mathematics "occult"... again, I agree that there is room for debate in mathematics. There are philosophers devoted to the philosophy of mathematics. But poe, for all his great literary works, was not a philosopher of science (to my knowledge) so I hardly think of his opinions as holding any special weight.
The argument that two chemicals mixed together can produce a liquid of lesser volume than the sum of the two is no mathematical paradox... scientists understand all of this stuff... understand it with mathematics to boot! You must know that that argument is silly if you have taken any chemistry class...
Mathematical logic and formulae derived from mathematics have emperically worked for ages. Now oyu can get down to the philosophy of "what is true" and "does empirical edivance truly imply truth" etc... all great philosophical questions and ones not unique to larouche. But so far, as far as I can tell (and I invite you to prove me wrong), the math I have been taught is true. and that the math being taught to students in highschool and college is true.
And so the term "occultist" is nothing more than slander.
So again, please find me an instance where:
1. Our current mathematics fails to capture the truth of the matter.
2. How Larouche would fix this in a way that oculdnt equally be questioned.


kheris (kheris)
09-15-2005, 06:17 PM
"Christianus alter Christus." -Pope John Paul II, among others
("The Christian is another Christ.")
I have been away on business, so just now catching up. Too bad I was unable to access the net - it has been an interesting discussion. However I must respond to this, in view of Erin's reference to LHL's comparison of himself to Jesus.
The phrase Christianus alter Christus is not, and was not, intended to suggest that the speaker is 'Jesus'. No Christian worthy of the designation would confuse the admonition to live our lives in a way that exemplifies and honors Christ's teaching, with becoming Christ Himself. The most you can expect is to become Christlike.
LHL's past pronouncements regarding his value to this world and how it is at risk without his guidance (and yes I have the quotes from the speeches) makes it quite easy for me to believe that he characterized himself as Jesus, in the form of a modern day prophet being persecuted by his enemies. He is no prophet. Modern day prophets, while aware of the risks they may be taking (King and Gandhi come to mind), don't spend much time recounting the evils being perpetrated against them. The true prophets, instead, identify the evil that separates us from each other, and ultimately God, and then work toward outcomes that affirm life and the relationships binding us together. They don't talk out of both sides of their mouths, as LHL has clearly done on the matter of Judaism.
Xylm has just quoted the relevant anti-Semitic comments, against which I share the comments so thoughtfully provided by Steve:
Religious hatred is obscene. It's wrong! What's difference? I mean, we're all human beings. We all have the same—I mean, what I said here, generally, I've made reference to Christianity here. But, it's applicable to anything. It's applicable to Islam. It's applicable to Judaism. It's the same thing! So, therefore, the basis of society has to be ecumenical.
A prophet would be consistent, and a Christian would certainly know and appreciate Judaism's contribution to the faith. I submit that LHL retooled himself to be acceptable to a generation raised with very different expectations regarding human relationships. Comparing himself to Jesus, when he lacks understanding of what it means to be Christian (or Christlike), is pure arrogance.


anon127 (anon127)
09-15-2005, 07:35 PM
steven is no larouchie.
he is just hanging around cause he likes all the attention he's getting when people try to persuade him otherwise abt larouche, etc.
he only quotes larouche because he thinks it makes him sounds smart.
steven is nobody in the org. he is not even in the org. he's a self-professed ex-member who drops in on the org every now and then for kicks, but is smart enough to know that there is a future in a college degree after all.
have fun yale.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-15-2005, 07:49 PM
In Roman Catholic theology, the priest in performance of the Sacraments is to be considered an alter Christus. One is especially reminded of this when one approaches the Sacrament of Reconciliation so that one's potential embarassment in telling certain things to another person is mitigated.
Our deluded Yale friend seems to believe that it is possible to maintain at the same time (1) that Jesus is Lord and (2) that what is important in at least the major faiths is some neoplatonic agape they are alleged to share in equal measure. (2) would imply that Jesus is not Lord, but at most a Lord (together with LaLush, patron of wine bibbers), whereas (1) would imply that the Church has at least one thing of importance which other faiths do not. This type of logical miasma is encouraged deliberately by LaRouche to fog the thought and feeling of the mentally and emotionally ill whose pockets he then proceeds - most lovingly to be sure - to pick. If one cannot think, one cannot find one's way out of the LaRouche cult. Making people develop the habit of entertaining simultaneously contradictory thoughts as true based on the authority of the leader alone is a principal (not principle, Steven) tactic in brainwashing.
A look at _Dialectical Economics_ from thirty years ago demonstrates that for at least that long Lyn has not been in the habit of adducing arguments for anything he says. "Believe what I say or shut up and have fun" is the gist of the anti-intellectual life of the LaRouche organization. In other words, mere opinion does not an intellectual life make.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-15-2005, 07:52 PM
anon127 is 100% right
and Steven is too easy a target, poor soul


ropes (ropes)
09-15-2005, 09:10 PM
what's up fellas. well there is a lot to say, but where i can be of best help, i think, is neoprocrustes's post.
i know what you're talking about ad hominems, but it not pejorative to say an alchemist is not a scientist; and it would in fact be folly to claim one.
to be honest, larouche did not start calling euler and legrange and their descendents frauds -- gauss did, most emphatically one the question of root -1, or i. Root -1 comes out of the paradox at the heart of algebra: x(squared) + 1 = 0. this function cannot be accounted for in terms of numbers. yet, we know that this is a real function, as it is emplyed in solving certain cubed functions and other stuff. What Euler and Co. did (Euler ascended to head of Berlin Academy after Maupertuis, who slandered Leibniz, died) was characterize root -1, give a symbol, declare the rules by which this symbol can be manipulated, an just threw it in back in the back and continued calculating. Gauss called "bull*", he straight up called them out on that chicanery. Gauss accounted for the existence of root negative one as a particular action, or rotation in the complex domain.
Hey, when they taught you physics at Berkley, did talk the discovery of the orbit of Ceres? If not you should look it up. They really did bury Leibniz as much as they could, but Gauss and Riemann, for example, are undeniable. Here's a shocker for you, YOU DON"T USE NEWTON'S CALCULUS.!!! you couldn't, it doesn't work. the calculus you know is Leibniz's calculus, down to the symbols and notations and *. Of course, it was changed by Cauchy, which is another story. But it's funny that they say newton created calculus, then they don't teach you newton's calculus, they teach leibniz.
I gotta get crash out right now, but to be continued tomorrow. I am in medical school, which reminds me:
From these remarks, something which seemed ironic: For those who talk smack against larouchies saying they are a cult and they all drop out of school, then why do you badger someone who is in school and still supports the movement?


neoprocrustes (neoprocrustes)
09-15-2005, 11:57 PM
I still fail to see where the "occultism" lies. You could maybe claim "history revision" about not giving liebnitz proper credit (although we learned that liebnitz had a substantial hand in it too in school... intrestingly enogugh a russian guy I talked to said it was a russian who invented it... education under the iron curtain perhaps?).
But truth be told, all in all there is little focus on the history of math in math classes.. it's not like teachers sing newtons praises, they just present the theory. And also, with regards the the integral there are various formulations. The reimann integral (standard), the Lebesgue integral, and even the not so popular but interesting Gauge integral. All invented/worked on by different people.
but when it comes down to it the math we are using/learning is correct (until you prove it wrong). All you have argued is that the wrong name is on the paper...
as for the i = sqrt(-1) thing. I am not a big expert on complex stuff.. it is used alot in physics though I believe. I don't know enough about complex numbers to debate you on it... but it seems that at best you are claiming that they are taught wrong? They should be taught as rotations and not as sqrt of -1? I would have to hear you argument since what you say sounds more complicated but in the end the argument is one for ecuation reform... it is hardly that our current math system is faulty.
I was a math major (not a physics major) so I didnt hear about ceres...again.. aside from giving proper credit, I hardly see anything occult...
Finally... mathematical philosophy is interesting. What does it mean to prove something? WHy is this true? etc...
But its not like Larouche is the only one raising these questions. There are philosophy courses on mathematics at most major univrsities...


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-16-2005, 01:01 AM
Reality Time
To provide a different - even improved - interpretation of an algebraic manipulation is not to expose a "fraud": it is simply to provide a different interpretation which may perhaps constitute an advance in knowledge. This geometrical interpretation of complex numbers was in fact discovered by Jean-Robert Argand and ADAPTED by Gauss. So I suppose to be accurate (a quality of which one can rarely accuse a LaRouchie) we must say that it was Argand who exposed the "fraud" of Euler et al. Gauss held Euler, Lagrange, et al. - together with Newton - in the highest esteem. To use your polemical approach to the history of ideas, I suppose Cantor's transfinite number theory exposes the "fraud" of Fourier - but of course you don't get into that because one can only has time to learn some high-schoolish Euclidean geometry after a day out by the ol' card-table shrine. It's enough though to dupe the kids yanked out of college that they are getting an "education" - which in the LaRouche context is just the developed ability to throw around names from history without any understanding of their actual ideas. Get real.
Leibniz' notation was adapted as it was easier to use than Newton's, that is true and is well known - but to say "Newton's" calculus doesn't "work" is ABSURD: it's the SAME as Leibniz' with the exception of the varying METAPHYSICAL interpretations given infinitesimals later by Lazare Carnot and Cauchy among others.
Let's assume that Maupertuis (all of whose work on the Least Action Principle is rooted in the work of Leibniz) "slandered" Leibniz: what does that have to do with the truth or falsity of any of his scientific results? This is typical LaRouche network tracing. It works as follows (since as we know LaRouche is a poorly self-educated crank): X says A and our hero du jour Y says not-A so X is wrong because his brother-in-law is a member of the Royal Society and/or he says he doesn't like Y's necktie. That is typical LaRouchian "research."
But thank you for providing a good benchmark example of the tendentiousness referenced above as characteristic of the miseducated crank. It is a good clinical specimen of LaRouchian "thought" on matters far beyond the scribbler's ken.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-16-2005, 01:12 AM
P.S. For neoprocrustes: EVERYONE in mathematical physics knows that linearity-in-the-small probably hampers solutions to things such as the Navier_Stokes equations, but can only bypass this inherent weakness through statistical methods of approximation. LaRouche only RAILS AGAINST linearity, but has proposed NOTHING - USEFUL OR OTHERWISE - to replace it. It's the same as the weather (related to said equations by the way): everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it. Here's a mathematical relation for you: the intensity of LaRouche's screaming, drinking, and yelling is in direct proportion to his intellectual, political, (and personal?) impotence.


kheris (kheris)
09-16-2005, 03:45 AM
From these remarks, something which seemed ironic: For those who talk smack against larouchies saying they are a cult and they all drop out of school, then why do you badger someone who is in school and still supports the movement?
Two items for you to consider:
1 - People who voluntarily show up willing to argue in favor of the organization and its founder can hardly complain about being badgered.
2 - Using direct quotes from the fearless leader and the personal experiences of former members is not talking smack. Out of all that have come conclusions, which you may or may not agree with.
I agree with Anon127's assessment of Steven, especially when I consider Steve's post over at the CSD board. It struck me as the expression of an immature individual who wants to be taken seriously. His references to Rep. Conyers and contributing to the organization reflect the sort of puffery one hears from those who have been noticed and want the world to know it. It is a badge that sets them apart, even if only for 15 minutes. He'll grow up eventually.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-16-2005, 05:09 AM
Lyndon LaRouche never grew up - but there's hope for him too, I suppose.
Dum spiro, spero.


sancho (sancho)
09-16-2005, 06:42 AM
The power of mathematics lies in its generalizing, in its ceaseless subordination of seemingly disparate cases to higher, more general, and simpler concepts, relations, or structures.
Complex analysis today on a theoretical level is developed almost exclusively on the algebraic basis. Algebra, by the way, the IMPROVEMENT Muslims and Greeks after Diophantus made OVER classical Euclidean geometry is SUPERIOR to Euclid. That continues all the way through the present. What the Bruce Directors play at falls, at best, within the domain of recreational mathematics. There is nothing wrong with this and I dabble in it myself - but to claim it is somehow true mathematics as apart from that developed largely in academia is worse than absurd. It's as if people were at the beach striving to build ever better sand castles - no problem with that - but then turnung around and saying that the architects and builders of skyscrapers are all frauds because they don't know the principles of sand-castle building ... well, you see the point.
LaRouche mathematics, like LaRouche Catholicism, LaRouche economics, LaRouche wine-tasting, LaRouche epistemology, etc. is all part of the shell game designed to keep LC members' eyes off the misery of their own lives while making not a whit of a contribution to human culture.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-16-2005, 09:15 AM
My next post will discuss the direct citations of Mr. LaRouche, concerning Judaism.


ropes (ropes)
09-16-2005, 10:39 AM
kheris: there was a discussion started about larouche (not by a supporter). now read you statement again. a person who gets on this site and defends larouche should be badgered? i didn't follow your reasoning. my goal was to point out that you are calling the one's that drop out crazy and the ones that don't hypocrites. and for those who detest ad hominem, let's cool it with calling eveyone immature. one of the most immature things kids do when growing up is constantly calling others immature, as if they are the standard to campare against. I remember eveyone, including myself, called the Children of Satan an immature title, but it turned out to be right on...
ok, now for the question of recreational mathematics: I point people to what's been called the most important theorem of the 20th century, in the form of Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem. Algebra is a formal system, based on certain axioms of number, and certain postulates about how their relationships, as a set of rules by which to manipulate these numbers. that's all. when trying to explain physical phenomena algebraically, you run into inconsistencies and discontinuities. this is not deniable, as it is a formal system in light of the completeness theorem. the root -1 is an absolute point of discontinuity in this system. even simple functions, dynamic functions, non-linear functions, cannot be expressed algebraically. This does not mean that you can't approximate the trajectory of motion with algebra. What this means is that the conception of the universe concordant with algebra is not concordant with the universe. so what are you trying to cling to? And Euclid was not the Classical method. Euclid came out of the scholastic movement, which basically took the work of thales, the pythagoreans and Plato and his academy and basically formalized it and wrote it in a book. The clearest way to see this is to look at the order of the Elements vs the discovery of those things discussed in there. The pythagoreans/Plato did not start with points, build lines with them, then build shapes, then solids. They started with the concept of the sphere as a demonstrable least action form (what is the shape of the idea which would maximize surface area while minimizing volume?) From this they explored teh qualities of the space carved out by this idea. The proof of the 5 and only 5 unique solids constructable from the sphere led to the notion that there is a structure to space and this structure can be descerned by the actions, or boudary conditions, which create shapes. From there, a plane across these solids craeted 2D shapes and an intersection of vertex accounted for the points. THIS IS TOTALLY REVERSED IN THE ELEMENTS, as if points which have no extension can be put next to eachother to create a extended magnitude. so Euclid is not Classical.
Look, we know newtonian physics is incorrect. if you think not, look at the orbit of Ceres, where everyone used newton's method and said Ceres will show up here, while Gauss said no, it'll be there. you can guess who was right. Most recently Einstein's work completely derailed newtonian gravity, and quantum mechanics explicitly throws newtonian mechanics into disarray, as Leibniz/Gauss/Riemann's work had done so implicitly.
Here's a question for you (you as in everyone on this site):
is physics a subset of math, or is math a subset of physics?


sancho (sancho)
09-16-2005, 11:04 AM
You have very little idea of what you're talking about:
(1) Goedel's work applies to any formal system, including that of geometry.
(2) Mathematics and physics are distinct branches of knowledge, but at different times and in the work of different researchers, one field will inspire work in the other, e.g. Weber's physics lab supplied inspiration for Riemann's work in analytical function theory and Levi-Civita's work on tensor calculus supplied Einstein just the language he needed to articulate the latter's General Theory of Relativity.
(3) Einstein's work supersedes Newton's work by subsuming it. Newtonian mechanics still is very accurate in describing much macro phenomena.
(4) Whether or not Euclid is "classical" is moot. The point is that the _Elements_ is a handy compendium of much geometric work done up to that date in that part of the world.
(5) Gauss' method for discovering Ceres was an advance WITHIN Newtonian mechanics.
(6) Lastly you say (rather maniacally) "the root -1 is an absolute point of discontinuity in this system. even simple functions, dynamic functions, non-linear functions, cannot be expressed algebraically." Um, there's this branch of knowledge called complex analysis? Read up on it and get back to us.
Don't you see what your method is here? You get from Fearless Leader a list of heros and a list of villains. Anytime a "hero" corrects a "villain" or improves upon his work (or vice versa) you see an "attack." This is a reflection of LaRouche's immature view of reality which I do not have the bona fides to discuss in a competent manner. I wish you would acknowledge your similar lack of expertise in mathematics and physics and do us all a favor. I can't stand all this typing up of what is obvious to even tyros in these fields.
And read, above all, (


sancho (sancho)
09-16-2005, 11:17 AM
Let me be clear about all of this posting on ivory-tower topics:
I correct LaRouchites' poor English and worse information together with the wit and wisdom of Lyndon Hermyle FRAUD, Jr. not at all for pedantic reasons, but to thoroughly document the thoroughgoing stupidy and obtuseness of LaRouche and his acolytes. Not only is the World's Greatest Jailbird Since Socrates NOT a genius, but he would evidently have great difficulty in completing any sort of postgraduate degree where argument, truth, and proof are of paramount importance. LaRouche attacks academics because he fears and envies them their high level of intelligence as well as their academic accomplishments.
My posts are largely intended to challenge LaLush's putative intellectual authority with the sole aim (1) of helping people out of a nasty cult of personality and (2) helping to prevent other callow individuals (as I was) from getting involved in the first place.
If I save one soul from a lifetime of hell in that hellish outfit contemplating Lyn and Helga's Platonic solids, then I will have succeeded.
May God enlighten these blighted minds, hearts, and souls, I pray.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-16-2005, 02:55 PM
Growing up in Fresno, one of my early memories is of my hereditary association with the Catholic Church. I was the fidgety one in the pews, either fidgeting or sleeping in my Sunday's best clothes.
I remember being told to memorize a few pieces and understand etiquette, though dreading the thought of going to these sessions, particularly in preparation for my first Holy Communion. And as did everyone else, I followed the rules nonetheless. (At that point I knew little of other religions or philosophy for that matter.)
I remember not being impressed by any answers on important questions (except of course for my father's emphasis on education) until I was vaguely introduced to Ben Franklin in intermediate school social science courses. Come to think of it, all of the history, literature, and English courses were homogenized under one of several AB (academic block) teachers, where the exact same curriculum, including text books, were used.
So, according to these text books, Ben Franklin was a deist; I thought highly of his operations and reasoning and so I too considered myself to be a deist. (Though the reasoning was immature, it was scores more productive than dedicating myself to the worship of a decadent celebrity on MTV, which I always understood as pathetic.)
In high school, other skeptics made sense to me, mainly in saying that fundamentalist religion made no sense, and so even arbitrarily believing in a deist God seemed to be a wishing-it-were-true enterprise. I became an avowed atheist.
At this point, I considered religion to be a cult, a group of people "believing" in something arbitrary. So, Christianity was a cult to me. Islam was a cult. Judaism was a cult. Buddhism was a cult. Hinduism was a cult. Just out of curiosity, in order to get a feel for everyone's varying understandings of say anti-Semitism, since I thought Judaism was a cult, did that make me a 17 year old anti-Semite? Or even a fascist?
At that point, my method was to hear arguments and look for holes. I agreed with good arguments, disagreed with ones that did not make sense, and took what I could from all these arguments. My conclusion was that Judaism (among the others) was a cult. My opinion is that the use of the term anti-Semitism is more of a political tool, rather than an honest way of discussing reality. The only real use of the term anti-Semitism that I see useful is in describing a person who understands the goodness within Jewish culture and, in spite of that knowledge, hates, despises and works to destroy that culture.
This is not to be confused with simply academic discussion, as Mr. LaRouche described how a discussion would take place in "a coffee house." Things like the development of culture, which subsumes religion in fact, should be discussed in a dialogue that considers the powerful influences on that culture in historical context. In the 70s, intellectual fervor and curiosity was incredibly active in the Vietnam-era college population, and "coffee houses" were filled with provocative, even devil's advocate, dialogues, nothing of which is remarkably remnant in the "shoot the *" Starbucks culture of today, visible around your corner and mine.
After much of my own "coffee house" debate, I even saw Athiesm as a religion, because it BELIEVED that there was no God! And so I retreated into the comfortable realm of agnosticism (where I BELIEVED that I could not know either way), where I remained until my good friend debated like hell with me some of the ideas that are principal in Mr. LaRouche's organization. That is when I began to understand metaphor as a substitution for blind faith. Metaphor considers the infinite amount of predicates as being subsumed by a single idea.
Many of the people who post here claim that "LaRouchies" say you are either a humanist or an antihumanist, and that this is absolutism. Unbeknownst to them, they are really giving us a clear example of what they claim "LaRouchies" do, when they say you are either a LaRouchie or an anti-LaRouchie, without truly understanding the predicates of each individual's particular development. The irony screams louder than "lush".
And I look around today, and am able to see true anti-Semitism. I take the metaphor of a person, because in theological terms a person IS a metaphor. The soul is the idea, which subsumes all the predicates of that person and his or her actions. So I study the idea of the key players in current world history, I consider the predicates of what people write (the predicates somehow are actually SCATHED here!, and some have the misguided belief that this is some sort of "6-degree" conspiracy method!), how they change policy, and what that policy promotes. Then based on the result of the action of an individual I give my working thesis of how that soul is operating at that time. The intentions could be good, but maybe the actions do not match with the intention. Or a person may have a disgusting megalomaniacal intention, perhaps Dick Cheney, and his intentions do match with his actions. That person is rightly metaphorically understood as an antihumanist, because his intentions and actions are coherent in acting against the general welfare idea for humanity.
The policy for "spreading democracy" via pre-emptive nuclear war is a demonstrably antihumanist policy. That policy, if played out, will most likely provoke a general asymmetric nuclear war, which will lead to the destruction of the Middle East, including Israel. I think some people know this. Smart people, well-intentioned and not well-intentioned know this, particularly those who understand the principles that govern universal history. Those who understand that this policy will lead to Israel's destruction and act to implement this could provide us for the best case of anti-Semites.
Small time Hitlers (without the funding that Hitler had) who have little magazines and pour out White pride are not even worth calling anti-Semites. They are sideshows, people who are completely wrong in their perceptions of reality, and should probably be getting voluntary help at a mental hospital. But the larger picture helps us allocate our time more wisely, so that the Jewish culture is not destroyed, as well as civilization's culture in general.
Mr. LaRouche addresses the most powerful action needed to improve mankind: politics, the highest form of art (not silly debate, but the idea of forming a more perfect society).


sancho (sancho)
09-16-2005, 03:28 PM
You have an infinite capacity for self-delusion. Why don't you take your little dog-and-pony show somewhere else? Isn't there, for example, a discussion board somewhere for illiterate, adolescent blowhards?
Respectfully, (


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-16-2005, 03:38 PM
It is my hope that people here can discuss reality, without assuming that which firstly needs to be proved, and to behave themselves.
You may be right; perhaps I am deluding myself.


xylm (xylm)
09-16-2005, 04:00 PM
"At this point, I considered religion to be a cult, a group of people "believing" in something arbitrary. So, Christianity was a cult to me. Islam was a cult. Judaism was a cult. Buddhism was a cult. Hinduism was a cult. Just out of curiosity, in order to get a feel for everyone's varying understandings of say anti-Semitism, since I thought Judaism was a cult, did that make me a 17 year old anti-Semite? Or even a fascist? At that point, my method was to hear arguments and look for holes. I agreed with good arguments, disagreed with ones that did not make sense, and took what I could from all these arguments. My conclusion was that Judaism (among the others) was a cult."
This has to be the poorest explanation ever conjured to defend Larouche's anti-Semitism. You're personal theory labeling all religions cults as a desperate bid to innocently encompass Judaism as one is very cute, but Larouche consistently singles out Judaism as a cult (if not hoax) and is very religious which completely takes our evidence out of the parameters of your logic.
"My next post will discuss the direct citations of Mr. LaRouche, concerning Judaism."
I honestly thought you were going to DIRECTLY discuss the CITATION. Your illogical "discussion" (above) yet proves again that these claims are undisputable; maybe this is why Larouche wants his youths to be "creative", unfortunately for him, you poorly demonstrated your creativity. See people, even a creative Yale attendee cannot dispute Larouche's anti-Semitism half-logically. It didn't take long for you to forget your "masturbation" thesis a day ago, why did you make the argument if you could not apply it to our evidence? Once again, here is the quote:
"Judiasm, which developed as a by-product of the emergence of early Christianity, and was molded in its further evolution as an appendage of Christianity, is also in its general form a truncated reflection of the Christian type of ideology in general. It has also been transformed through specifically feudal, semi-feudal mercantile-capitalist, and capitalist forms. It is not necessary to give special treatment to Judaism here, since it never existed except in myth, but as a by-product of Christianity, and could not exist except as a special predicate of a Christian or Muslim culture, principally Christian. There is no autonomous "Jewish Culture", but only a special variety of (especially) Christian culture." -- Lyndon Larouche it's on page 32 bottom footnote.


kheris (kheris)
09-16-2005, 06:59 PM
kheris: there was a discussion started about larouche (not by a supporter). now read you statement again. a person who gets on this site and defends larouche should be badgered? i didn't follow your reasoning. my goal was to point out that you are calling the one's that drop out crazy and the ones that don't hypocrites. and for those who detest ad hominem, let's cool it with calling eveyone immature. one of the most immature things kids do when growing up is constantly calling others immature, as if they are the standard to campare against. I remember eveyone, including myself, called the Children of Satan an immature title, but it turned out to be right on...
I think xylm has called it correctly. The most recent example par excellence: Steven proposed to discuss LHL's citations on Judaism directly then avoids them in total. It is hardly badgering to call him out on that now and earlier. This thread, which is at least 3 years old, was started by a party who had questions about LHL. Steven is a relative newcomer and has demonstrated a propensity for dodging issues presented to him in favor of topics that he prefers. Real life is seldom so accommodating. In any case, those discussions have been dissected to the nth degree by parties far more knowledgeable than myself.
As far as the Children of Satan, so called, are concerned; as I recall, LHL used one of the pamphlets associated with that nomenclature to bash Jeremiah Duggan and his family via a supposed timeline that demonstrated the involvement of Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration as actors against LHL and his supporters. I have no particular love for the current administration, but it is a far cry from thinking them overpaid dunces to concluding that they are engaging in some sort of conspiracy to rob LHL of his rightful position as a world leader. True leaders, in my most humble opinion, don't resort to such name calling in lieu of focusing on the issues and solutions.
As for my description of Steven as immature, would you prefer a characterization of "fanboy extraordinaire?" If his comments here (and at the CSD blog) are any indication of his true beliefs, then I should be forgiven for thinking that Steven worships at the LHL altar, with no consideration that his hero is a)mortal and b)therefore not omniscient. Fandom has far too many examples of such behavior.
Steven reminds me of an ex-brother-in-law who has a Grad degree in Public Administration and remains seriously underemployed. He made sure everyone knew just how smart he was and how stupid the rest of us were based on his academic credentials. I was the one fly in the ointment because I had not finished even a bachelor's program at the time we met, and I was (and remain) employed at a fairly high level in the government. This went against what he believed should happen in a just world. Steven's comments at the CSD site resonated with me as the sort of commentary I heard from my very intelligent, albeit emotionally immature, ex-brother-in-law. Ad hominem on my part? I'll stipulate to that on the basis that Steven's comments were (and remain) nothing more than the immature rantings of a youngster determined to prove he and his hero are right regardless of the factual evidence in opposition.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-17-2005, 04:28 AM
Steve, I need to thank you for your continual writings on this site. I sometimes feel like Sonny in the Godfather movies where just as I wish to leave, I get drawn back. There are several things to cover for you and the worldwide audience here. Too much for one post as I have real world responsabilities like kids, work, school and trying to get some Katrina victims jobs.
Several days ago you mentioned that you would like to see your future as writing for EIR. Good luck and make sure you have a good line of credit.
The lesson to be learned is that a potential yute has been sized up by a very experienced member as to what will make that person react in positive ways. Salesmenship 101, except, you will not get anything substantial in return.
If one has the time, go into the LYM audio files and find a speech made by Jeff Steinberg from this summer to the Glendale crew about The British and Larouche method of counterintelligience. Several minutes into the speech, Steinberg tells the yutes that there will be several "openings" for new writers and researchers for EIR and the publications in Leesburg. Listen close enough and one will hear the "oohs and ahs" comparable to a QVC/Home Shopping Club call in shopper.
The trick here is over thirty some years old. The members in the field locals were out in the streets every day. We set up a National Office and staffed it with people who did the research and writings. Many of us were also tempted with the promise of an easy gig and life in the "intellectual" part of the org, rather than the dirty street life part.
Quite a few early National Office people gave up huge trust funds and were honored to be part of the start up so to speak. Another group of yutes we had were college educated and into the theoretical portion of our org and frowned on manning card table shrines. IF you flipped out and suffred a nervous breakdown, then you were sent to the printing operation to be a low paid printer.
Amazing how Larouche economics is always based on looting the labor and stealing from his workers.
For many people, working in the National Office was our own Nirvana. Some people would threaten to drop out if not taken out of the card table shrine work, while others would complain that their full potential as a Larouche thinker could not be realized in the field.
This carrot worked for many years until Will Wertz came to the NO and now made it into a boiler room for Lyn.
So for the people who frown on the card table shrine and see LYM activities as being too rough, the promise of an EIR or FEF gig was just enough to keep them roped in.
For other members we had our computer operations and graphics outfit which kept angry spouses in the org while the other spouse manned the card table shrines.
If you were a little older and considered card table shrine work beneath you, then we had you give classes, write stuff for the paper, marry one of our members and generally keep a semi private life. But, you did empty your bank accounts and exhaust your credit lines for Lyn.
If all went well, you got an invite to the big house, a roast beef dinner, a glass of Rheingau and a song routine from the Schiller Institute singers.
Keep that dream of being an EIR writer alive Steve. Ask Bill Ferguson how close he came to a desk job in the 20 years or so after he dropped out of Princeton.
BTW everyone, Jeremiah and other potential recruits in Europe were also promised that they could be writers for our publications as we were undergoing a rapid expansion.
Everyone gets a promise Steve.
More later


shadowvonschiller (shadowvonschiller)
09-17-2005, 06:16 PM
So is LaRouche like Hitler, who took Nieztsche and twisted his philosophy around to support being anti semitetic when he takes Schiller and twists his words into liberation of the minds of our generation and support being an anti smite?


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-17-2005, 07:47 PM
The LaRouches use Schiller's work to support a Nazi-style ideology when they appropriate his notion of schoene Seele - beautiful souls - to reinforce their pangermanic notion of "golden souls." See borisbad's post above on July 24, 2005 for more background.
When I first read Schiller I was in the organization and felt myself greatly ennobled by his life and work - but daily I would compare it to the tawdriness and brutality of Labor Committee life and think how foul and unbeautiful Schiller would find these people who contradicted his every sentiment towards freedom and human liberation. Helga in particular struck me as a really dumb mutt.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-17-2005, 11:51 PM
Shadowvonschiller, you ask a good question. Most new yutes will see just one version of the org's chameleon like changes covering every single part of the spectrum. Stick around long enough, and one will see wholesale changes. Stick around too long and you usually leave and wonder what happened to the group you thought you joined.
Erin brings up a conference from July 2003 where Lyn compares himself to Christ. I can take that back easily to the early 1980's when we were persuing right to life groups to support Lyn for the White house. To see how this evolved is quite interesting as the same pattern will work for virtually any Larouche thought or writing if you look back far enough.
The key issue is that we changed our thinking when it became time to move on to harvest another crop of yutes and supporters. Lyn is very crafty at feeling where the wind blows and setting his sails to catch the yutes and the cash. The usage of historical figures is selective in both "proving" that Lyn is absoluteley right about whatever conspiracy he favors at the moment and in showing drop outs that he knows more than they do.
Let me explain religion to Steven and how Lyn uses it.
Back in the 1970's the org was based on a leftist profile and targeted college yutes from the traditional leftist campus arena featuring the CPUSA, PLP, SWP,YAWF and what ever existed.
Lyn was now the self declared world wide expert on Marxism for this strata. The Quaker backround of Lyn was kept in the back room and we were hard core Communists who carried around German critical philosophy books. Fueurbach's "Essence of Christianity', Marx, Engels, Trotsky and what ever secular thinking was now our domain.
We in fact would pride our selves in viewing Religion as the opium of the people by leafletting church services on Sunday to prove ourselves. Since many of our members were Jews, Judaism was also sneered on as Jewish ,leftist leaning yutes on colleges were not exactly weekly Temple attendees. Our 1976 campaign against Jimmy Carter was full of many attacks on Carter's born again life. Lyn used to start off the campaign interviews by telling people that "Carter was born again because the first time did not work".
We also attacked Margaret Meade and Bishop Moore along with the Cathedral of ST John the Divine as being evil and plotting to kill Lyn.
AS we made our transformation from left to right wing fund raising, we had a big problem. Many of the phone lists we were boiling of conservatives were also Christians and Right to lifers.
In South America and Mexico, we used to talk and write about the "Whore Madonna complex" of the Catholic Church and the leadership of those countries. This also leads to problems.
Lyn now wrote about his Quaker upbringing and how he views life as sacred. This charade is occuring while Nancy Spannous (the US Club of Life head) is leading our female members to abortion clinics as you can read in last years posts.
Lyn has a hard on to attack anybody or group whom he feels has snubbed him and not recognised his genius. It is quite revealing to read over the years who Lyn has named as his enemy as he desperately requires a coronation of his genius. He is smart enough to know that if you create a band of sycophants, then you are king of the Biazarro Universe.
Reading into Lyn's backround on wikpedia one night it appeared that the Quaker based American Friends Service committee some how crossed Lyn. Thus, they too became part of the world wide assasination plot against him.
Remember that in the 1980's we were running as Democrats, but calling Reagan supporters for cash. Reagan supporters were not generally atheists, so we now discovered God through Cusa adn St. Augustine.
Black groups generally hated us in cities as they read what we wrote about black culture and viewed us as police agents. Read that Debbie Freeman pamphlet I posted and see how we viewed Black politicians.
We did hit a gold mine with a front group we set up called the "National Anti Drug Coalition". NADC featured our Protocols of Zion reprinting in the early "Dope Inc" editions. We had a slide show using a black coroner from Philly who allowed us to go into Black Churches for speaking engagements.
We did not view blacks as having enough money,but , we did like having Black bodies at events. We were able to get some Balck preachers on the payroll for a few bucks and set up meetings for Lyn.
Where before Martin Luther King was a non entity for us, we now embraced King. In the 80's we bussed several thousand people, usually black to Washington DC for a MLK day rally.
This was hilarious as we told the preachers that we were honoring King through the Schiller Institute, but instead, we gave their kids signs to hold supporting particle beam weapons. Now, Lyn always says "Martin" when referring to MLK as if he was a room mate of King.
"I have a dream, build the beam!" was the sign we had black kids hold as we were also courting Reagan as supporters of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI.
Later, we parlayed this opening with Black churches into getting a Rev, named James Bevell to run as our VP with Lyn. Through him and others we also met Amelia and others who were generally not in the news anymore. Bevell, according to some people had a dispute with the org over bouncing checks. He left Leesburg when he knew the cash was tight and hooked up with the Moonies.
Now there is no way we were going to be non believers with this type of action going on. Lyn got him self a photo op with Helga at the Vatican and we were now Catholic as well.
I am surprised Lyn does not drop Ratzinger's name now as Ratzinger was always mentioned in the daily briefing as part of the battle against Satanism in the Church.
Again, Lyn went to town and created a whole Catholic conspiracy with Opus Dei, Jesuits, Knivhts of Malta etc. The Catholic life became the number one religion as some of our members now became Catholics in Leesburg.
Jews hated us and who can blame them. Our own Jewish members who have not seen the inside of a Temple for 20 years now became "Jews for Larouche" during fundraisin calls when the anti semitic stuff was brought up.
Muslims were also on the Larouche Docket as well. In Detroit, we worked with either Elijah or Wallace Dean Mohammed of the Black Muslims. I can't remember exactly, but, we did make it a point to tell the members that these were the "non crazy Black Muslims" to seperate them from Louis Farrakhan of the NOI.
That lasted for a while till burnt that bridge and lo and behold, we are now meeting Farrakhan. The NOI has used Larouche writings and work about the Jews and how the ADL runs dope in their publications. Many a wacky NOI speech has used Larouche materials.
Arab Muslims were also on our conversion list as we wrote a Campaigner about Aviciena as well. The beauty of the Larouche method is that you can find a conspiracy to fit any group. You first find some history which proves that it part of a multi thousand year conspiracy and then call the groups for support using the article we just printed.
What Steve thinks is Larouche ecumenicism is really a way to expand the Larouche fundraisng lists to boil.
With the born again crowd we laid off the abortion stuff and tried to hit the gold mine with our attacks on paganism, the Playboy company,video games,sex education, child kidnapings, drugs and rock music by placing them under the umbrella of Satanism.
You will see a common theme in the lit about Satanism as we put out one pamphlet after another about Satanism. Don Phau has a great brief on the Satanic roots of Rock and Roll you should find. It is reprinted on many Christian web sites.
In LA, we made friends with the top guy in the LA FBI office, Ted Gunderson. You can see his site here:
Gunderson would meet with our LA security head and other big wigs for quie a while. He was hog wild about satanism and child killings at one point creating incredible numbers of children killed per year whose numbers were later discredited. This was during the McMartin pre school hysteria over a satanic sect using kids for satanic rituals and sacrifices.
You can see clearly how we went to town on Satan and opened up another way of calling people in telling them that ONLY LAROUCHE can stop the economic collapse and the Devil. The trial was a bust and he then went on to start his own outfit. He runs his own web site now and occasionally one can see EIR type material on his site. There is a whole crop circle of people who crib EIR and cross breed alien area 51 stories along with NWO oligarchy type musings.
The best is David Icke who seems to blazenly take EIR and use it as his own research and make his own business. Since he seems to send no money to Larouche, he is attacked by JFL (Jews for Larouche) member Jeff Steinberg for plagiarism and himself being an agent.
Steve, that is an idea for you. Start your own web site and just copy EIR online for your content.
Also remember that every part of your life is controled. Your readings, classes and social activities are done for a reason.
During our drive to fleece people we had members read the Patton autobiography about winning at any cost. Plays were performed at conferences such as the "The Tragedy of The Rich Jew of Malta". Tamberlane was also performed as to how we need to be ruthless in dealing with people.
During this, the strangest change in Lyn took place in his constant reference to Gethsemane.
Some people like Erin and others have brought up how they have noticed the many ways in which Lyn refers to himself as Christ like. This is no accident and originated during our trials for white collar fraud.
One conference featured a performance of Webster Tarpley as Socrates facing death for "corrupting yutes". This may have hit too close to home as now Lyn would constantly refer to his Gethsemane over his upcoming trials for tax easion and fraud.
Lyn would endlessly preach this to members about his upcoming sacrifice and how the other indicted co conspirators are also facing theirs.
In other words, "don't turn state's evidence".
You can also find even more bizarre stuff as Markham the prosecutor and his assistants were now being recast as the equivalent of the people who turned Jesus in, ie, the Jews as some Christian sects have preached.
Mary Sue Terry, the VA prosecutor was portrayed by our propoganda campaigns in VA as both a lesbian and a Satansist.
To illustrate how this was the main focus of Lyn and the remaing members, I offer this exerpt from a Jan 27th, 1989 Larouche pamphlet on Satan.

  • **
    Now, Save the U.S.A.
    A nation which tolerates such Satanic influences and their
    corrupting influence on the judicial process will not survive for
    very long. We must rid ourselves of these Satanic influences
    within our Liberal Establishment, or this nation of ours is
    doomed to virtual extinction before the end of this century.
    You may begin to resist Satan with such small steps as
    driving Satan-rock videos from the television, and even by simply
    destroying any astrological materials which fall into your hands.
    You may take a bolder step, by ridding our nation of the satanic
    epidemic of drug-use, and saving as many as we can from the
    scourge of pederasty. If you find in yourselves the courage to do
    this, join ranks with my many friends from many parts of the
    world, in the new, world-wide anti-Bolshevik movement now
    Now, you know what the trial in Alexandria was really all
    about. If I am to be martyred, as the Satanists intend, I would
    greatly appreciate it if you would do me the favor of killing
    Satan, which you could do if you only realized how that can be
    done. For myself, I have nothing to fear. If you, too, keep the
    image of Christ in Gethsemane before your eyes, you will
    understand how I deal with my enemies, the emissaries of Satan.
  • *
    AS you can read for your self, this is quite a demented man who can count on Steve for lifelong support.
    I read this a few years ago before Steve posted last month.
    I had to reread it to fully grasp what was being said about Germany by a current LYM.
    Maybe Steve can get married with Lyn as his best man in front of a holy place like an ATM machine.
    The final word is that we can be what ever we needed to be, for anybody we needed to get a warm body or a non maxed out credit card from.
    A review of almost any cult will find the same methods in total fear of everything with only one leader who can run the world.
    AFTER you leave a group like this does one shudder at how this is done to people. Some outfits are very tiny, some are very big. Each has an angle, but uses the same general techniques.
    (Message edited by Xlcr4life on September 18, 2005)

lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-18-2005, 08:17 AM
The irony being, of course, that LaRouche is an ardent follower of Satan, the Father of Lies.


taavis_doc (taavis_doc)
09-18-2005, 03:58 PM
Friends, neighbors, and strange bedfellows:
I typically read this board with a mixture of bemusement, incredulity, outrage, and sympathy--but for the first time yet, as I read xlcr's last post . . . I found myself laughing so uncontrollably that I nearly fell out of my chair! Thanks for that surreal juxtaposition of such blackly humorous moments.
(One of you HAS to write a memoir, I know that a publisher would be interested. Think Patty Hearst and the SLA-- incidentally a REAL instance of kidnapping vs. the quite reasonable CULT interventions that concerned family members are sometimes forced to resort to. It's worth considering how many of the intervened-upon choose to return to their former lives. Not many, as it turns out.)
It's disconcertingly appropriate to account for such sweeping--and unintentionally hilarious--shifts from left to right and from conspiracy to conspiracy (depending on the fundraising moment's exigencies) in such a breathless fashion. Somehow the narrative pace of your account has finally matched the frantic and (mal)adaptive absurdities and non-sequiturs of the LYM as I understand it. Perhaps the most bizarre incarnation of the org is its present "phony left with right-wing ideas" pose. A great many of the young people I work with can't really discern a reactionary from a progressive argument; I can readily see how the LYM exploits this limited comprehension.
Steven, and other apologists/propagandists: how can you possibly continue to defend such an organization given this history? Given that the org believes in nothing, do you also believe in nothing? What can the org supply you that you couldn't have gotten elsewhere? (and spare us the part about your world historical place in the impending revolution; you've had thirty years to get that going and, um, well . . . maybe you can just keep moving the date back? The idea will seem fresh to the newest yutes, right? Unless the supply of yutes dries up, and then . . . )
As somebody posted early in this thread, Hannah Arendt's definition of fascism is perfectly exemplified in the LYM. The org is a curiously blank slate, adapting to the moment and audience as necessary. As with Nazism, there is no real intellectual content--the org offers only a tangled network of names (but never IDEAS) to be deployed in support of whichever dubious conspiracy du jour needs puffing. As others have pointed out, such rhetorical posturing is not quite the same thing as argumentation; and it's a long way from the kind of honest response that well-informed parties on this board have been soliciting from Steven. (And speaking of Steven's preferred modes of response: the conflation of Leibniz with Hallmark platitudes is particularly unseemly. Is a belief in the best of all possible worlds--often at the expense of understanding anything about the one you share with others--really the basis of the LYM's "New Renaissance"? Best of luck with that.)
But then--any disagreeable citations or lines of argumentation can just be casually dismissed as "satisfying oneself," as if to imply, conversely, that Steven's chronic masturbation on this board was itself producing anything even remotely viable.
And yes, Schiller--truly one of the great humanists, and one who understood the pedagogical value of art--would have pitied these poor shriveled beings who rant about nothing from behind their stacks of inane "literature."
Finally, a brief update on my social life:
I had dinner the other night with some of my Jewish neighbors. Well, things were going swimmingly and I was just feeling like the brightest beam of enlightenment in the room; that is, you know, I was getting lots of attention from smart people who made me feel important. Well, we were talking about our favorite Philip Roth novels and then breezing into Benjamin's messianic Marxism and how odd that collision could be at times when I finally contributed the most important thing to the conversation that I could come up with: I explained that according to my esteemed professor, Lyndon H. Larouche, Jewish "culture" was really just a "residue," a fraud that had endured on behalf of propping up some predatory Zionist instinct that the Black Guelphs had ultimately implanted in Kissinger's cerebral cortex via some nano-technological maglev-derived mind control unit. Sensing a bit of a lull in other sub-conversations that were happening in the room--I mean none of those could be as crucial as what my professor and I were disclosing--I went on to say that this "residue" was really just whatever is left over after the businesslike jews sell everything else to the non-chosen. I figured my dinner companions would already know what I was talking about, given that salesmanship is always the primary mode of social interaction with regard to Jewry, all that silly "culture" stuff aside. Well . . . the room got really quiet, but I just figured they needed a minute to let this stuff sink in, to really get a sense of the "fun" that I cultivate daily. It was sort of awkward, but I gotta do whatever's necessary to engender the New Renaissance and to get my fellow humans--who are only human insomuch as my cardtable "confrontations" afford them the slim possibility of recognizing their human qualities--to buy a pamphlet explaining to them that the very cultural milieu they inhabit is merely a "hoax." The truth hurts, but at least I've got professor Larouche to guide me! But back to my discourse after dinner: My dining companions nodded thoughtfully, and I could even hear them inhaling and exhaling slowly as they took the measure of my wisdom.
Coffee and dessert seemed a bit perfunctory, but then I suspect that some of my interlocutors are a bit blocked; however, when the New Renaissance comes, we shining youth cadres will have "solutions" for dealing with them.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-18-2005, 04:27 PM
Speaking of Philip Roth: for any remaining Jewish adherents to LaRouche, Roth's novel _American Pastoral_ may provide some insight into how they became the self-hating fanatics they are. Roth's fellow New Jerseyan, William Carlos Williams stated in "To Elsie" (the model for Ginsberg's _Howl_)
The pure products of America
go crazy-
LaRouche is very deeply in the American grain in the sense adumbrated by Richard Hofstadter in _The Paranoid Style in American Politics_ and the earlier _Anti-intellectualism in American Life.
Perhaps the price we must pay to be a nation of laws rather than one of blood and culture (e.g., Estonia) is that there will be always here some irreducible grasping by a few for the absolutes that the next huckster is peddling.
Freedom is frightening to such a type as LaRouche. The bottle therefore comes in very handy - to sleep, perchance to dream.


shadowvonschiller (shadowvonschiller)
09-18-2005, 07:00 PM

SO there are not to many people on this board and most of you seem to be anti- LaRouche. Me? I am just curious, and I was refered to this board by a friend. What I want to know is what is wrong with his policies?
Like take his support of the Bretton Woods program of FDR. Sounds good to me, fixed exchange raes and fair trade. Sure the pricing might not be all up to speculative manipulation which will make it alot harder to gamble on the stock, but it seems to support growth better than the current system.
So my questions are:
1.) Is free trade bad?
2.) Was the American System or New Deal better?
3.) Is there really an economic collapse?
4.) Is there really a housing bubble?
5.) Is the stock market in trouble w/derivatives?}}
More questions to come....}}


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-18-2005, 07:23 PM
Please read the entire board before reposting. LaRouche is a convicted felon, and many of us are former victims of his criminal cult. Do not fall into the trap of arguing over this or that point: the point for you to focus on is the LaRouche organization as a criminal cult - and to therefore stay as far away from it as you can if you positively value your sanity and finances.
All of this is more than amply demonstrated above.


kheris (kheris)
09-18-2005, 08:56 PM
Are you suggesting that you lack the intellectual wherewithal to answer questions 1, 3 and 4? As for 2 and 5 - that requires far more understanding of history and current economic activity then I would profess.
In any case, remember that while LHL favors FDR's solutions, those solutions were developed within an historical, economic, social and political set of contexts that no longer exist. Perhaps the question to ask is whether FDR's solutions are appropriate for a new century operating under a vastly differently array of economic, political, social, cultural, and technological variables, which did not exist in FDR's time.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 11:25 AM
Another reason one shouldn't engage LaRouchites in debates over "ideas" or "policies" is that not only don't they have any idea what they are talking about, but they don't even try to develop convincing arguments. They just throw a lot of trash at you, hope you'll get tired, and then nod your head silently in assent when you have even less of an idea of what they are talking about than they do. If you do try to think about what is being presented to you and to seek any sort of clarification they then progressively raise their voices at you and ultimately dismiss you as a "crud" if you don't come to agree with them. Of course, it's hard for people who don't really say anything in particular to agree: their notion of agreement with LaRouche is that you stop thinking and start making LaRouche-sounding noises. Sociobiologists, come to think of it, may be able to provide insight into life in the Labor Committees.
The LaRouche website is a goldmine of such follies, and one does not have to go to anyone other than the Great One Himself to see this hyperirrationality at work. Since questions were raised of an economic nature, examine this clinical specimen:
LaRouche has a simple question to answer: how do you value a nation's currency? He provides no clue as to how one is to measure a "power," which is what the question asks: valuation is a measure. As you carefully read and try to understand his answer, I am sure you will feel more and more like the AFLAC duck listening to Yogi Berra talking about "cash, which is almost as good as money."


xylm (xylm)
09-19-2005, 11:28 AM
If a man with no economic credentials except the adverse communist education in which is opposite to our economic structure went around declaring that he is the "world's greatest economist" (not even the 2nd or 3rd greatest) with the claim that he has "never" made an incorrect economic prediction; would you believe him?
What if he actually did make predictions, for instance, predicting in the 70's that the economy will "soon" collapse…but never did.
What if he claimed in the 80's that the "Fed held off the collapse by feeding it more destructively" excusing his former false prediction in the 70's and to reinsert a more deadlier and immediate collapse …which never occurred.
What if he made the same claim and excuse in the 80's for the 90's and even our present decade….but it still has not occurred! Would you still believe him?
Mind you these economic collapse projections were not depressions and he never predicted the impending doom would take this long (and still not occur), he only effaced his false projections by allocating them in his new allegation, for instance, "Our economy has been on the road to collapse for the past 30 years".
Try coupling this pattern and adversity to the pattern he had alongside with thermonuclear war. What ever happened, for instance, to the Rockefeller thermonuclear threat that would reduce our population to 2 billion by 1990?
So honestly ask yourself what the two essential drives behind your platonic pattern changing missions are in the field: I bet an observant Larouchie would conclude the words "economic collapse" and "nuclear warfare" are still in frequent use today to pass along the same fear in the 70's that made the youths then dead enders now.
Oh and by the way, for the man who rants that the British is controlled by an evil oligarchy (Jews) is it as surprising as Larouche's 2005 economic collapse and nuclear warfare prediction that the guy whom he projects to cause the next Sept 11 is Jewish.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 11:48 AM
The earliest jeremiad against economic ruination available on the LaLush website, 1967:
He doesn't appear quite so nuts yet, but his observations are entirely pedestrian.


ropes (ropes)
09-19-2005, 01:01 PM
xlym: he's not saying the next 9/11 is jewish, but of course, you would say that.
on the question of the orbit of ceres: gauss's work was NOT within the frame of newtoniam mechanics-
newton says the thing which causes the motions of these bodies is the pair-wise interaction of one mass with another. you have a mass (using the center point for calculation) which emanates a force, which pulls in another mass. this determines the orbit. the problem is that calculating this for any more than two bodies (necessitating a non-linear interaction between, for example, body 1 and 3 through body 2) results in a breakdown and the paths of motion do not correspond to the orbits (in fact they don't correspond to ORBITS at all!). Now this discrepency, although existent, is negligeble between two bodies, say Earth and Sun (see newton was a genius!) But, as the universe is not two bodies, this mechanical "action at a distance" approach could not handle the dynamic interaction of sun, ceres, and jupiter (o, wait so it corresponds to something, but not reality!). I won't say more on this -- it was called the Three Body Problem. A challenge to solve the three body problem (implicitly assuming the newtonian mechanics which make this even a problem) led to Henri Poincare's work on chaos theory. Those who know, know about this problem, and those interested can easily look this up.
Gauss's approach was completely different. It's not that he added 2 plus 2 and got 5. The difference is exactly the difference between Leibniz's "dynamics" and Cartesian/Newtonian "mechanics". Gauss, obviously looking back to Kepler, started with gravity as the organizing principle which governs motion in space, and thus it is the orbit (or the motion template) where Ceres will go. Staying within this mental frameowrk, instead of imagining gravity being a string pulling on ball, imagine the motion primary, and the location of the bodies along these orbits as interaction of the orbits. THIS WAS THE KEY. the real genius of gauss was the analytical method used, but his conceptualization of a physcial process which made no sense under newtonian mechanics. so how do you resolve the tug and push of three centers of mass on each other? well, gauss imagined the mass of jupiter not at a point, but as distributed along its orbit in an infinitely thin ring, such that the density of this ring was proportional to the time the planet spent there. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE BRAKE FROM NEWTON. and that's the point.
cases like this are undeniable. I realize mapertuis, euler, legrange, cauchy etc were perfectly capable mathematicians. There excellent at moving around in very clever ways through formal-deductiove systems. for example, look at euler's work with a deck of cards, the possible knight moves on a chess board, etc. -- they are great symbol manipulations which seem to untie gordian knots. THEN LOOK AT THEIR APPROACH TO ROOT -1. this is why i say it's a discontinuity in algebra, or a formal numbering system. NO ALGEBRAIC ANALYTICAL METHOD CAN SOLVE THE ALGERBRAIC PROBLEM OF ROOT -1. and, whoever said this before, you're right: geometry (i.e. Euclidean geometry) is axiomatic, and if explored thusly, will yield a formal system to things and rules by which to move those things around. Gauss's approach was not GEOMETRY. his method was creativity. it's creativity which allows you to solve the problems in a formal system, which appear to a someone IN the formal system as paradoxes, disconituities, infinities, etc.
so it's not geometry vs. algebra. When you approach geomtery axiomatically (a line and it's parallel do not meet), you will run into paradoxes (what aobut parallel lines on a sphere, which all meet, or those on a saddle shaped surface, which never meet?) This is the question explored by Abraham Kaestner in his call for an anti-Euclidean (anti-axiomatic) approach. For those who don't know, Kaestner was one of Gauss's teachers, so it shouldn't be a surprise that Gauss's method, and the methods of his students, are the led to discoveries -- because that's what they were meant to do. To take your method as finding the paradoxes of formal systems and creatively solve them is to discover! Look at the method of Einstein, it's the same thing. He asked a simple question, with no regard for the formal constraints.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 01:28 PM
Everyone knows that it is through addressing paradoxes that emerge in a received body of knowledge that qualitatively new insights are best generated. (This especially true in mathematics and physics, less so in botany, say.) If one didn't know from his or her own scientific practice, then Thomas Kuhn's well-known book (much maligned by LaRouche, but one of the secret sources of his "original" ideas) _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions_ argues this. None of this all is original to LaRouche, and certainly is not important enough for young people to abandon formal education and man a card-table shrine or telemarketing boiler room for twelve hours a day, nor for Phil Rubenstein to whore his first wife to raise funds. You have no idea of the depravity of that organization - so why don't you examine the axioms of your own behavior in an immoral and criminal organization? Solve the problem by changing your own axioms and get out while you still have the chance. The sun shines much more brightly out here, and the air is much fresher.
P.S. Ropes, your last post was much better written than your first. If you could just drop the inane conspiracy stuff, your thinking would be much clearer. Good work, otherwise. If you are really interested in the three-body problem, may I suggest looking at V.I.Arnol'd and symplectic geometry?


xylm (xylm)
09-19-2005, 03:38 PM
"xlym: he's not saying the next 9/11 is jewish, but of course, you would say that." – Ropes
It's one thing losing your patience conveying how baseless their assertions are, but its another when you have to organize and teach them the foundations of their own rhetoric! I found this problems many times, many of the members are misguided, misinformed, or just plain stupid when it comes to the fundamentals of the Larouche-rambling-association.
Above was the two fold idiocy displayed by Ropes.
First, he grammatically misinterpreted what I had stated, but this is something you would expect from one with no real education so ill let it go…
Next and most importantly, he hasn't read the pamphlets, for if he had he would be familiar with the name, Rafi Eyton, whom Larouche has been using to dish all kinds of "sequel Sept 11 attack" threats every since the real attack occurred.
Additionally, Larouche has convicted abundant Mossad involvement in the Sept 11 attacks, with the heavy insinuation that it was Ariel Sharon's Israel who committed the act. Larouche then went on to throw his enemy, Dick Cheney, in the mix and warned us continuously to watch out for the next Sept 11 attack from Rafi Eyton, a mossad spy deployed by Ariel Sharon factions.
Here, read this Larouche article, he is completely and fully blaming Israel for everything and I personally witnessed this "Israel, Mossad, Rafi Eyton, Zionist, Jewish conspiracy" theme in their office:
This message board is meant for people who know something about the Larouche Movement, apparently you are in the movement and still know nothing – people like you were born for cults. Please, send us a more competent Larouchie for our discussions..


shadowvonschiller (shadowvonschiller)
09-19-2005, 05:07 PM
Okay N no more playing dumb,
So I really didn't expect anyone to adress my questions directly, and well only you have, but that is good enough to get another response out of me. I just wanted to see what you guys thought, but you sumed it up nice by saying you think Lyn uses half truths. This Rafi is not the Jew I was refering to when we spoke on the phone, that was Uri Geller the spoonbending magician who was sent in to train special forces in our millitary, "if you read the lit you would know that".As for this Anti semite thing and the sept. 11 article I read into. He anticipated you would make this arguement almost as much as I did.

I guess the Anti semitical Fox news tipped them off,
Rafi's name cannot be found in this article but he does mention a Mossod guy working for AMDOCS;

This is a funny article. I heard about these Isreali art studentspy ring investigations, because i was acused of being one back in college. We got assigned to take pictures of local city buildings as a history/photo project, and I was told to come into the precinct office for questioning while taking pictures of City Hall. Good thing I have a squeaky clean backround besides the fact that I have Hebrew blood in me with relatives in Isreal. Another kid in my class who actually was 100% yamika wearing Jewish was arrested and we never saw him again. Iwas told he dropped out.
I think the funniest part is that you take a conspiracy theory and stretch even farther to make laRouche seem anti simetic. Come to my class Wednesday to see what this isrealite has to say about Jews, you are all invited.
I got another question though, and I don't want any disrespect, like everyone else who has even remotely defended the "Lword" get on here, that would be hypocritical of you. my question is this, and it is adressed to each of you personally, and I don't mean it as a way of you proving yourselves, I just mean it's your chance to give me some guidance:
What will we, or should we do with our lives?
<font face="arial,helvetica"></font>


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 06:01 PM
We should drop whatever we are doing, give all our assets to LaRouche, stop taking our medication (and stop going to doctors or other specialists), report no earned income so we have no Social Security or Medicare at the end of our lives, do and think and say whatever we are told, distance ourselves as much as possible from our family and friends, allow our private lives to become the subject of conversation at briefings, stand all day in front of a supermarket on Thanksgiving manning a card table, knock on doors in strange neighborhoods at twilight, call people on the telephone until 10PM (later, if they are being harrassed for posting on this message board), subject ourselves to all extremes of heat and cold, shame and disgrace, study Euclidean geometry, read Vernadskii, and save the world.
What else could any moral person do at a time of such crisis?


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 06:07 PM
P.S. You are not a Jew: yarmulke is not spelled "yamika." You have been exposed as another filthy antisemite. Get a life.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-19-2005, 06:34 PM
Some people think that an economic collapse means that money disappears. These people are half right, but half right never got anybody higher than an F in class.
I refer briefly to my post on July 15th, excerpted here:
"To address Mr. LaRouche's forecasts. Every time the monetary system experiences a shock, a point where income is exceeded by debt-service, a NEW system is needed, even though it may have the same name. For example, after the 1987 October stock market crash, the system collapsed, except for under new arraignments which made necessary the mathematical liquidity to keep any real debt reorganization from occurring, to allow for real productive stimuli.
In effect, the economy has "collapsed" several times, even monetarily, since the postwar period, when Mr. LaRouche made his forecasts. But MOST IMPORTANT again is the PHYSICAL consequences. While we sit here and debate whether or not the economic system has collapsed look at the PHYSICALLY looted sections of the WORLD (Africa and South American as easy case studies perhaps) population. The reason why we have been able to maintain monetary integrity to any degree has depended on our ability to loot the physical wealth of practically all nations of the world.
The point that Mr. LARouche makes now, is that the monetary system is successfully globalized now under the dollar with know where else to loot but Mars (joke). Except, now, the REAL Nazi looting is taking place. Africa is a good example of an advanced look at the possible near future of, say, South America."
The U.S. economy was finished a long time ago; no one can really dispute this, as every one is in love with the phrase, "We live in a globalized world, where information can be zipped across the world to every village (they must have wireless)." It moved on to be the globalized economic dollar-based system. It is dollar-based for many reasons, most notably the fact that the vast majority of derivative holdings are denominated in said currency.
What we are experiencing now is not a hiccup in this great system. We are seeing what happens when GNP is exceeded by debt-service. This is a classical collapse economic function, one that even the simple accountant can recognize.
But politicians cannot respond to this thing without first figuring out what the heck the square root of -1 is. Go figure.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-19-2005, 07:06 PM
Or if you would like the Alan Greenspan version of how the economy is doing, I refer you to Mr. Curtis' (xlcr4life) post on Monday, July 18, 2005 - 2:32 pm. Both are interesting enough! Both ignore the fact that everybody and his or her mother are hopelessly bankrupt, except the CEOs (and their friends)who pull their money out, that is, if they don't go to jail afterwards.


ropes (ropes)
09-19-2005, 07:32 PM
firstly, i don't know what happened. i don't think anyone talking knows fully. i don't know who was involved in what. the mechanics of it are not important. look at the dynamics of the situation and the mechanics can be subsumed.
but i tell you, even some wacky ass stories are more plausible than the current alibi. as the time to grab power approaches, the circle gets closer and closer, and former accomplices will look out for number one. how many cronies and co-workers have been sloughed off so far, like that proverbial fat?
you act like this is craziest thing ever. most of histories shaking inflection points started out as widely and officially disputed rumor. in most parts of the world (places still bleeding from that which you deny exists) a lot of this is well known. maybe not in detail and in terms of having records of memos. but even here, is there currently a federal investigation against larry franklin, who worked for doug feith, who worked for paul wolfowitz? is it for passing along classified info to israeli diplomats? and did they find this because they has been watching steven rosen as part of jon pollard's clique? and who's jon pollard anyway?
you know all this. you know this and you act as if it ain't so (like euler and root -1). that's why i said "he's not saying the next 9/11 is jewish, but of course, you would say that."
...and don't worry about my education. if i told you, you would not bring it up again.
hey sancho, did you see my last post?


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 08:09 PM
Are you drunk when you post? Or is that an eighth-grade education you're now brandishing? You're back to writing like an illiterate.
Lastly, ever wonder why you people are hung up on Jews? Perhaps you should think about that instead of symplectic geometry.
Lyndy (


shadowvonschiller (shadowvonschiller)
09-19-2005, 08:12 PM
I knew I would get attacked on this thing, I guess I called that one, and by ladylush it is no suprise, i think if I can't get a coherent answer out of you guys than i might just talk to some other people for help on these ideas. I am not an anti semite. I will submit my report on the subject of judeaism or however you spell it later. This is worse than going a pro life message board and asking about keeping the already living alive. thanks xlym for reffering me to your message board here, it has been really helpfull. Oh and miss Lush thank you for being an offensive hypocrit and attacking me personally like we LYMers are supposed to be famous for.


shadowvonschiller (shadowvonschiller)
09-19-2005, 08:15 PM
I knew I would get attacked on this thing, I guess I called that one, and by ladylush it is no suprise, i think if I can't get a coherent answer out of you guys than i might just talk to some other people for help on these ideas. I am not an anti semite. I will submit my report on the subject of judeaism or however you spell it later. This is worse than going a pro life message board and asking about keeping the already living alive. thanks xlym for reffering me to your message board here, it has been really helpfull. Oh and miss Lush thank you for being an offensive hypocrit and attacking me personally like we LYMers are supposed to be famous for.


lyndylalush (lyndylalush)
09-19-2005, 09:22 PM
Don't let the door hit your Nazi ass on the way out.
Y'all come back now reel soon (how due yuo spel kkk anyhow!)


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-20-2005, 11:02 AM
No one is more vituperative and unfair in his attacks on others than LaRouche or one of his minions. They are accustomed to thriving in the dark where they brook no opposition. On this board, however, they try to creep carefully into the marketplace of ideas only to find their coin debased and their wares damaged. They then whine like the cowards they are that others are vituperative and unfair. What really disturbs them is that they get preempted in the real world which does not conform to their hostile fantasy life.


xylm (xylm)
09-20-2005, 03:35 PM
Shadowvonschiller, Steven, & Ropes,
A couple years ago, I personally witnessed Harley Schlanger teach a class about the consequences of a sequel Sept 11, the only difference was that he used Rafi Eyton instead of Uri Geller as the mastermind. I am not pulling this out of my ass and I can dig up proof if it becomes necessary. The point however, still stands, the mastermind spy Larouche claimed is a Jew and you have thankfully dignified this truth for Ropes.
The reason I posted that 'Sept 11 Larouche' article was to convey the theme; I have already posted the evidence. Let's by pass the evidence for a minute and focus in on the theme. I want you to read the below facts and honestly confess whether you believe one would find an anti-Semitic theme:
-Larouche claimed that "only" 1.5 million Jews died in the holocaust
-Larouche is publicly anti-Zionist
-The anti-humanist perpetrators or conspirers often happen to be Jewish names
-The non-Jewish anti-humanists were taught by sadistic professors like Leo Strauss (Jew).
-Catastrophe literature is ALWAYS full of Israeli involvement, such as Sept 11 articles.
-The Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence Agency, and their sub factions are the enemy
-Israel is behind the drug trade, particularly Ecstasy smuggling
-Ariel Sharon or any past Israeli PM for that matter has and is an imminent nuclear threat.
-Israel spy rings in our government! Larry Franklin Affair!
-Every Jewish defense organization such as the ADL is an enemy.
-Israel is benefiting most off the Iraq War.
I can go on and on, but this is already overwhelming evidence of an anti-Semitic theme irrelevant from the credibility of each statement. Anti-Semites don't walk around with a shirt stating, "im with Hitler", they first conceive their messages to fellow anti-Semites who understand the jargon and then attempt mass appeal beneath the noses of innocent, susceptible youths. Jeff Rense is a great example, he has the infamous 'Protocol of the Elders of Zion' on the front page of his website! For those of you who don't know it is probably the most anti-Semitic document out there, and Larouche gave it "merits". By the way, Larouche has been consistently on the Jeff Rense Show, go to his site ( and search Larouche, but while you're at it, take a look at allllll the anti-Semitic articles he has on there and then ask yourself why Larouche would associate himself with an anti-Semite...hmmm....


dr_ritter (dr_ritter)
09-20-2005, 05:33 PM
How does it feel to be owned by right wing media? Do you get off on talking to the few LaRouche defenders on this site about your anti- anti-semite spew? I don't think LaRouche is an anti semite. What does that even meen? Do you think LaRouche wants to kill Jews, to frame them up and throw them in jail, to recruit more like me into his movement so he can enjoy the irony. Harley and Phil must be traitors then too, a disgrace to their own people for supporting Lyn, right? What about his claims on the ADL, Franklin, who was indited I bleieve, and LaRouche's uncovering of Schultz and other financiers who just happen to have Jewish names are wrong? Can you disprove his accusations?
You guys are seriously predictable in your honorable revolt against the revolution, you respectable anti-anti-establishment campaign you are running here. You guys would be a poor excuse for an operation even if you were trying to destroy the evil Lyndon and his (minions?) as you call them. Tell me, do you think he is a lizard? You stand for nothing but to go against someone elses policy. What do you plan to do that would be better than this movement? Tell me! I'll drop everything and join you! Hahahaha. Oh man you guys are so funny. I bet you are going to say how this is a typical response. And I hope you don't forget to discredit me, even though none of you know anything about me but what I have stated thus. Oh and call me an anti semite again just to be more cliche.
This must be the highlight of your existance. If this is the voice of defiance no wonder I never heard of it before. This is lame. If I suddenly stopped supporting this millionaires drug habit, and funding his expensive yacht club tea parties ("look Nade, he doesn't even deny it, we got him!") and gave up my precious card table shrine, then this would be the last anti- LaRouche group i would ever join. I would probably start my own splinter cell operation and start bribing members to join my modeling agency, offering them money, because of course they have none, and take naked pictures of them that I could use as black mail if they didn't drop out, or something fun like that.
But this is lame. Some message board where we swap even more unbelievable conspiracy theories about the most myth bust conspirafile according to you in the world? His Quaker backround must be where he got the anti semtism from, or maybe he picked it up when he fought in WWII, in India. Or maybe all this is just a front so he can start his real cult, where they are involved in every dirty rotten trick that they ever tried to expose and rid the world of. Maybe we are prostetution ring, or a crime syndicate, oh no wait, what if we worked for the FBI, and that's why they recruited me, for my prior milltary experience. That would explain that cop that came up the other night, or those lights being shined into your bedroom, or the fact that I am watching you all right noW!!!


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-20-2005, 06:26 PM
This message board has made clear previously that LaRouche supporters are usually some combination of being of low intelligence, needy, carping, vicious, antisemitic, unbalanced, paranoid, and illiterate.
But you - whatever you care to call yourself - you have it all! Congratulations. Now, crawl back into your hole.


kheris_again (kheris_again)
09-20-2005, 08:53 PM
Pause Discussion
I don't know what whackjob seriously thought they could create much more than an annoying disruption. Probably a bored script-kiddie did it, but I guess we'll never know for sure.
Resume Discussion
Ropes or shadowvonschiller (or should I call you Dr?)
Would either of you fine gentlemen (presumably you are male) care to comment on the obvious disparity in the quotes below? I said on 9/15 that LHL retooled himself to meet the expectations of the current generation he is recruiting. I have yet to hear anyone truly dispute that, especially given these two quotes. In view of dr_ritter/shadowvonschiller's claimed Israelite heritage, perhaps s/he can best explain why we have two obviously contradictory statements, one of which calls into question the basis of Judaism. Both quote LHL and are from his sites and publications, so it can hardly be said that these are the creations of slander bent imaginations, or was LHL misquoted in the LYM document?
My fundamental problem with the LYM document is that the quote clearly flies in the face of the historical record, regardless of which angle you examine it from (archeological, theological, etc.) I have to conclude that Larouche (who is being quoted) must have a problem accepting Judaism's contribution to history and the Christian faith, at the very least. But I leave it to you to educate me on my misperceptions.
Have at it.
From Steve Rendon's post of of 9/14/05 at 3:04 PM.
Religious hatred is obscene. It's wrong! What's difference? I mean, we're all human beings. We all have the same—I mean, what I said here, generally, I've made reference to Christianity here. But, it's applicable to anything. It's applicable to Islam. It's applicable to Judaism. It's the same thing! So, therefore, the basis of society has to be ecumenical. To recognize that certain fundamental principles are primary, and they must be the basis for relations among people. The rest of the things, we can argue about. And the argument will be rich: It'll keep us busy in the coffee houses, at night.
From xylm''s post of 9/15/05 at 4:29 PM
"Judiasm, which developed as a by-product of the emergence of early Christianity, and was molded in its further evolution as an appendage of Christianity, is also in its general form a truncated reflection of the Christian type of ideology in general. It has also been transformed through specifically feudal, semi-feudal mercantile-capitalist, and capitalist forms. It is not necessary to give special treatment to Judaism here, since it never existed except in myth, but as a by-product of Christianity, and could not exist except as a special predicate of a Christian or Muslim culture, principally Christian. There is no autonomous "Jewish Culture", but only a special variety of (especially) Christian culture." -- Lyndon Larouche it's on page 32 bottom footnote.


dr_ritter (dr_ritter)
09-20-2005, 10:37 PM
From xylm''s post of 9/15/05 at 4:29 PM
"Judiasm, which developed as a by-product of the emergence of early Christianity, and was molded in its further evolution as an appendage of Christianity, is also in its general form a truncated reflection of the Christian type of ideology in general. It has also been transformed through specifically feudal, semi-feudal mercantile-capitalist, and capitalist forms. It is not necessary to give special treatment to Judaism here, since it never existed except in myth, but as a by-product of Christianity, and could not exist except as a special predicate of a Christian or Muslim culture, principally Christian. There is no autonomous "Jewish Culture", but only a special variety of (especially) Christian culture." -- Lyndon Larouche it's on page 32 bottom footnote.]
Yeah I thik this about the best that you got so far. But I seem to agree with it. Maybe that is because I am a Christian. I can find you better references than this guys, come on, you need to do your homework. If you keep up LaRouche he talks alot about how Socrates was one of the founders of monotheism, and also refers to what moses did with the "cult of Isis" or the egyptian priesthood that had messages about a one true god imbedded in it's hyroglyphics, and than transfered that knowllege into what we now know as Judaism today. I think he pulled alot of these ideas from Schillers Mission of Moses, which I shall read again right now with a group of my LYM buddies.
We are watching you XLYM. Thanks for the tips. Until next time Gadget, until next time, muhahaha.


kheris_again (kheris_again)
09-21-2005, 03:49 AM
Socrates as a founder of monotheism? I think not. Who else, besides LHL, is getting behind such a claim? As for Egypt, as I recall, the worship of Aten began and ended with one Pharaoh, and polytheism returned after his death. Has LHL become an expert on reading and interpreting Egyptian heiroglyphics, or does he have a source he is relying upon for the claim about embedded messages? E. Wallis Budge never saw such messages, and he was an early expert on heiroglyphics, Egyptian religion and its practices.
Read what LHL says very carefully - if he is to be believed then Judaism owes its existence to Christianity, not the other way around. Certainly the Vatican would not agree with such a reading of the record, not to mention the many who have carefully examined the origins of Christianity as well as Jesus' life, including Eisenman, Wilson, Nolan, Macoby, Frederiksen, Pagels, Crossan, and Robin Lane Fox (to name the few on my bookshelf-there are many more). Just why should I believe LHL over the rigorous study completed by these fine folks, several of whom went back and reviewed available ancient texts? Not one of them would agree with that quote. What are LHL's sources? Does he have any other than his own statements?
And just because you agree with it doesn't make it true. Since you're so familiar with his writings on the subject let's hear just what the basis is for LHL's claim, other than he has spoken.


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-21-2005, 04:33 AM
Wow, what a maroon. You tried to pretend you were a Jew, now you try to pretend you are a Christian. No Christian I have ever known - certainly no Roman Catholic - would agree to anything like that statement. St. Paul said "salvation is of the Jews": hardly a marginalizing remark. The creed states "et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas" and the Gospels repeatedly show Jesus and others tying his arrival to prophecy in the Tanakh. Jesus moreover said that he came to fulfill the Law (i.e., the Torah) not to displace it. The Mass is a seder, etc., etc., etc. Only Marcion tried to do what you do, which is to divorce the New Testament from the Old - and his views were roundly CONDEMNED in the early Church as a heresy.
Of course none of the above will mean anything to you, because of your Neanderthal antisemitism.


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-21-2005, 12:34 PM
2003 Iranian Radio Interview with You-Know-Who
As the world mourns the passing of the great justice-fighter, Simon Wiesenthal, perhaps we should remind ourselves why every generation needs such a mensch, such a human being:
"Question: Mr. LaRouche, you said that Schwarzenegger is pro-Hitler, but in one article, I read that he is one of the contributors to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a center which is against the pro-Nazi and pro-Hitler personalities and that also campaigns around Holocaust issues.
"LaRouche: It's these circles that helped to make him a rich man. He lists his holdings as $200 million personally. These fellows, including some organized crime people, are very close to him, and helped him get his fortune. He's tied in sonally to McCain, Senator McCain. He's tied into Joe Lieberman, who is really very bad news. He's tied into this fellow Bustamante, a Democrat, who's actually an asset of Arnie Schwarzenegger, through the same financial connections. So this fellow went to the Wiesenthal Center, and cut a deal with these fellows, who are not necessarily what you might think they are. They are essentially gangster mentalities, and they are involved with organized crime types of financial figures, which Arnie is. But Arnie is essentially, his personality is that he's a Nazi.
Now make a comparison. Sharon is supposed to be Jewish. Is Sharon a Nazi? Of course he's a Nazi. Is he a member of the Nazi Party? No, he doesn't have to be a member of the Nazi Party. He's got his faction of the Likud, which is the same thing as a Nazi Party. So sometimes you find that the fascists cling together, and these other little things are secondary to them.
But there's a big Jewish support for fascism in the United States. There's a division among Jews in the United States on this kind of issue, a deep division, as there has been historically, as there is a division on the question of Israel. So that Arnie's affiliation with the Wiesenthal Center helps him financially, but it doesn't change his character."


xylm (xylm)
09-21-2005, 02:39 PM
As I mentioned earlier, Larouche has associated himself via shows and interviews with a popular anti-Semite by the name of Jeff Rense on (
The following defines Jeff Rense from a credible source:
Jeff Rense has often been identified with anti-Semitism and Holocaust revisionism. He believes that Zionists are "in control of the world" and trying to "control civilized society" in order to bring in a "New World Order", and criticizes the Jewish religion, including repeating false quotes from the Jewish Talmud. He frequently gives airtime to Holocaust deniers such as Ernst Zundel, and backs theories that the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated and used in various ways by "Jewish supremacists" for political power and that "Jewish financiers and bankers were ultimately responsible for hostility towards Jews."
Here is an interview Larouche did with Jeff Rense:
When reading this you won't find surprising that the two purported anti-Semites are speaking about Judaism and the Israel problem. Now here is where it gets interesting and for those who are members, play close attention here as the following is often by-passed through superficial reading.
After deliberately linking Israel to all world problems, Larouche and Jeff Rense both agree and conclude that Israel is being used as a hand grenade by bankers. To the reader who has never suspected anti-Semitism, you would'nt allow the notion that Larouche is blaming Israel or is anti-Semitic. But read further and more carefully! –Larouche then goes on to name who these bankers are, who is controlling Israel, and who is to blame: "names such as: Lansky, Brofman, Marc Rich, Michael Steinhardt." You know what all these people have in common? –They are Jews!!! Every single one of them are Jewish and I beg you to diligently read this interview for I am not fabricating or twisting one beat. For the sake of honesty, I also beg that you research Jeff Rense as I did and realize what he is and what he stands for…if you fear fabrication, research his website ( and you will see crystal clear anti-Semitism.


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-22-2005, 10:37 AM
Observations on "Inflation Runs Wild!"
(1) The gobbledegook term "wave-front of a Riemannian type" means nothing to any mathematical physicist. If it did, Fearless Leader (FL) should define what it means for non-specialists (his audience) - but of course he cannot. You are supposed to be shocked (pun intended) and awed in the first sentence into stunned admiration of the World's Greatest Economist (WGE).
(2) There is at present no hyperinflation gripping the world. In fact, there is only a mild therefore nonhyper- inflation in some primary commodities.
(3) There is no hedge fund crisis. Hedge fund returns are not what they were one year ago because it's a case of a maturing industry ripe for a shake out and consolidation. Many - if not most - hedge funds are not even into exotic derivatives and function simply as mutual funds for rich people.
(4) FL contradicts himself: first he says that primary commodities are the 'spear point" of the hyperinflation and then he goes on to say that "[t]he leading edge of this rising hyperinflationary panic is the hedge-fund crisis." Make up your mind, WGE.
(5) Arguments by analogy are necessarily fallacious, although they are often useful for pedagogical and/or humorous purposes. Here, FL makes two: a discrete, stochastic phenomenon (inflation) is identified with a continuous, noncompressible one (a wave front) and taking oil inflation numbers from one place and time and superimposing them on another place and time and then inferring that what therefore happened in the first place and time will happen in the other place and time.
I could go on in my ongoing expose of this fraud, but I'm tired of typing out the obvious. There are many other critical observations one could make: I leave it to you kids out there to find some more.
Not only is this guy not the WGE, he doesn't even qualify as an E.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-22-2005, 01:59 PM
I guess I can start by explaining to Steve and others that who are in the present day Larouche world, that it is the same as the old Larouche World.
Steve, the exact same arguements for an upcoming economic collapse are the same ones that I was telling college friends and faculty back in the 1970's.
When I was reading our paper called New Solidarity, Larouche was big on quarterly financial figures for the US economy. The method was pretty simple. A multi trillion dollar, complex, free flowing mass of activity was simply reduced to a simple axiom of whether there would be enough revenue to pay off a loan each quarter. What Lyn was ranting about for several months in 1978 or so was that on March 31st, the whole US economy would collapse.
Not only would the US economy collapse, but the whole world would collapse and the battle was between Rockefeller and larouche over who would have political hegemony. Since I was a reader of NS since 1974, I was keenly interested in how this historic date with destiny would be met.
Not only were we predicting imminnent collapse, but we had a date that I would wake up and see the whole shebang collapse. For months I was warning my dorm and frat members that this date was the day larouche would be proven right and and the US Labor Party would sweep elections as the proletarians of the world would unite behind us.
I entered the hallowed offices of economic depts and told them that their theories were all over and the US economy would be over and cash would be like toilet paper. We had rallies in downtowns urging people to sell their houses and give the money to the Labor Party while it was still worth something.
How did we come to that conclusion? Lyn and the economics staff simply added up all of the debt of the US and simply figured that there was not enough revenue to pay the quarterly interest payments on that fatefull March day.
The era was led by inflation of the 1970's and a hike in gold prices. Cities were having trouble in their finances with layoffs of employees. Some major US companies like a retail chain named WT Grant went under. Larouche knows very well how fear can make people do things. So, he tapped fear of the unknown in creating this mother of all collapses.
This also was an era where not many people understood capital, debt, investing and business. Foreign exchange rates and financial instruments were not part of the everday vernacular.
So, MArch 31st was THE DAY for the collapse.
Mrch 31st came and went and now it was April. Many of us were looking like idiots. Lyn came up with another round of updates stating that the collapse did in fact occur, but through bookeeping tricks, the Rockefellers were keeping it quiet as they were buying up debt for a nickle on the dollar. Pretty soon, the Rockefelleers would own all of the municapal debt and would then run all of America's cities.
We quickly mobilized and called up city chamers and offered Lyn's solution, Debt Moratorium. Even though any city which stoipped paying its debt would have its bonds downgraded and placed under a financial control board, we found some old timers who went with us. In Boston we addressed the city about the collapse.
Hysteria is where Lyn works his magic with you. You will never understand how every day economics works because you are not in the every day world. The idea of a Grant's going bankrupt was an event signaling the end of the US. The idea that maybe Grants was mismanaged, sold inferior products, had a bad business model and deserved to go under never entered our minds.
The idea was that with Grants closed, you would have no other place to buy things. It never occured to us that maybe you could just drive over to that new mall that opened up and took Grant's business away.
We did the same thing during the 1978 to 1980's era over interest rates. We made Paul Volker a Child of Satan as well and made him the object of hatred and bile. We even got a car dealer named Helstoski I think to set up a "national commision on interest rates" and we then boiled car dealers across the US with our message of Larouche. Only through Larouche would interest rates fall down.
IS this series of events sounding familiar?
Lyn has a way of making thousands of statements in every direction so that when something comes true, he can proclaim that he alone made the call.
We took our debt show to South and Central America and began to make a big deal about how the debt of third world countries would explode and destroy the economy. The word "Debt Bomb" was now in every magazine and report we published. It even made the cover of Time Magazine which made us feel like world class players.
Lyn previously proposed private banks and what not to take over the finanical system. Now anyone who was in the banking business understood that lending money to countries takes risk. The World bank was funding projects which had no rational financial basis and no checks and balances over fraud. It never occured to us yutes that maybe the endemic watse and corruption of some sectors caused money problems. Just like it never occured to still leftist leaning yutes 6 years earlier that maybe municipal corruption and ancient kick back jobs were draining the cities coffers.
In every case, we yutes deluded ourselves that only Lyn knew the problem and the answer. SInce we never read other financial magazines and lived on a few bucks a day, finances to us were a mystery. Kind of like how yutes today think that clasical and quantum mechanics are a mystery until Larocueh straightens it out for you. Never thinking of how vurtually any product a yute uses involves Newtonian mechanics and quantum physics if it has a magnet and a motor.
Our basic economic work depended on the yutes perspective and who we were targeting for money and support of Lyn.
In the early 1970's, we were Marxists and thus only Marx, Luxemburg, Ricardo and such were talked about. When the Marx pool dried up and we moved acroos the spectrum, big business was our friend and we called up big companies to get money for the FEF and EIR.
To impress our new friends we now discovered that Marx was wrong and the capitalism was right. We abhorred consumer industry as the smoke stacks were where US Labor Party members would be selling papers, not Nordstrom card table shrine, not yet.
When we mad move to copy the moonies, we went to the Airports with our EIR and FEF signs and hid the Larouche books under the card table shrine. You would have problems if a crazy NS headline was seen on the table. We bought the members suits and now were clean cut boys and girls against the enemies of big business.
When interest rates effected consumer spending and smalll businesses, we bought lists and called them for presidential support. It seemed that most of the right wing Liberty Lobby types were small business owners. Now we were friends of small business people like farmers and small machine shop owners.
Now do you think that we ever addressed concerns like taxes, OSHA, energy, health coverage, ISO9000 compliance? Hell no. Support Larouche and you will help small business.
The net result was that we now had enough lists to boil that covered people with money who could support Lyn's presidential TV campaigns.
There was more debate here about economics in the past week than you would ever see in the National Office. We never debated or discussed policy or serious finances. The older memebrs from the early 1970's will tell you that the org was much more vigorous when it was the SDS Labor Committee and we would have nightly fights over policy. Lyn simply announced one day in the 1974 era that this was no longer a debating club, MOP UP was launched and Cuban frogman were ready to rise from the Hudson river to kill us, after we were brainwashed by the joint CIA/KGB operation.
There is also one other key part of the Larouche method. You have to attack and make every group and person who potentially may make a yute ask questions part of an world wide oligarchical conspiracy.
Since Reagan supporters were giving money to think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, The American Enterprise Institute and pro defense lobbying groups, we had to make them bad guys.
This all started when we would call old ladies on the lists and they would tell us about a letter they got from a conservative fundraiser or group. Since this was cutting into our take and making us look like fools against real people, we got our intell and security wheels rolling.
The way things work in the org is that Lyn would issue a paper over the telex and your job was to show how right Lyn was. You did not question this since the answer would be you out of a nice desk job and now at a card table shrine. Even among the beggers there is a pecking order.
We began to publish books about Buckley and the Heritage Foundation with the same vigor we used to attack the left wing think tanks and foundations. What you do is to link every group to what ever was our enemy at the time. There are enough interlocking pieces to link everbody within six degrees.
During the mid 1970's , Rockeffeller ran every thing, Then the oligarchy/Olympians, then the British, always the Jews, and finally a grand daddy of Russians through the Russian Orthodox Church. When we ran out of real opposition, we now had the Devil and Satan as the enemy.
Think back to that 1989 documnet of Lyn I posted about how the Stanists are his enemy and the Bolshevicks are ready to run the world unless Larouche is freed from Jail.
That pamphlet was written in 1989. Seve, didn;t lyn state that the US would not survive the end of the century unless Lyn was in power so to speak? Lets do some non Eclidian math using a negentropic Reimanian manifold.
The Year 2000 less 1989 = 11 years till the US collapses.
It is now 2005, 16 years after Lyn's revelation under Gethsemane, 5 years after the year the US was supposed to end.
When you are in the Bizarro world, it all makes sense. We are now in our fourth cylcle of Lyn finding yutes who are leaving school and thinking that they will become EIR writers and insiders. Phil ,Harley and Debbie have screwed more yutes than you can imagine. Their economics has brought misery to Larouche yutes and created a class of dead enders with no savings or resources except for the local welfare and Federal SSI pay outs.
It used to be "Die for Rockefeller or take power with Larouche".
Now your power is taken away and you die a paupers death for Larouche.
Steve, will you be donating a liver when Lyn needs a new one?
This stuff never changes yutes. We all heard the same thing. You guys are worried about globalization and war. Lyn knows that and has you figured out better than you have. Lyn makes a sometimes hard to figure out life seem easy.
We know the plot and the ending. You guys just know how this story begins.
So let us review today's lesson.
Early 1970's- Lyn needs yutes. Best source of people who want to leave school is among the leftist strata. Economics will revolve around Marx and Ricardo with some Trotsky and Luxemburg thrown in. Yutes trust Lyn, Lyn takes their trust funds.
1972 to 1974- NUWRO and RYM are formed for inner cities. Economics is now based on our "Strategy for Socialism" in urban areas. WE attack the "Poverty Pimps" and make enemies in ghettos. Move to factories where people have disposable income.
Mid 1970's- US Labor Party formed. Plant gates are safer than ghetto marches and more profitable. Economics is now geared toward conversion of Auto and Steel plants where we will stop Rockefeller from sending drugged up ghetto youth from inner city methadone clinis from taking Union jobs.
-Late 1970's- Effects of inflation and gas shortages lower workers tendency to give us money. Cities are poorer. We now urge cities to not pay their bills while we now persue suburban bourgeoise via new economics breakthru. Go after suburban moms with anti drug money and then their spouses with FEF nuclear power publications.
-1980- Interest rates rise, Lyn feels pain of business. Marx is now put to pasture and we are now American System clean cut boys and girls who want cheap credit for large projects. EIR is pushed and we begin to copy moonies with airport card table shrines. EIR now tries to solicit consulting work. Even though interest rates are sky high, Lyn and the NC's have members sign for and cosign for endless loans and credit cards. It does not matter what the rate is as members are told that with the upcoming collapse, the would not have to repay their loans.
Early 1980's-Reagan in White House and now we pull of our biggest fraud and get Lyn and the org viewed as conservatives. Boiler rooms go on line and we now support endless credit for defense research SDI spending to kill the Ruskies. To go with our Democratic charade, we form NDPC which now wants endless big projects for every square mile of US. Net result is that the same boiler room can now call both wings and claim that only LYN can solve the problems.
Debt moratorium is suggested to Mexico and Argentina. Lyn shows them what cowards they are and does his own debt moratorium and stops paying members and supporters. Lyn denounces IMF for austeruty and shows how it is done by having a ruthless enforcer of squeezing every dime from members named Phil Rubinstein. Jews leave org because of anti semitism, but new faction of "Jews for Larouche" is formed and every dime is sent for Lyn's expenses.
New economic collapse erupts in US. Strangely, it only effects Larouche members and never reaches Lyn's mansion.
Mid 1980's-Lyn decies that in his equation S/C+V, that economies are dragged down by unproductive costs like Lawyers. Lyn now creates a legal operation that spends gazillions on lawyers. Lyn attacks oligarchy financing using refinancing notes. Lyn and Wertz now have promissorry notes to finance us. L
Lyn notices that farmers have problems and may have their lives shattered. Lyn hooks up with a farmer named Billy Davis from OK. Billy Davis is Lyn's VP running mate and adopts Larouchian economics. A few years later, Davis is broke, his family estranged and he lost his retirement money and farm. Larouche goes on.
Lyn bellows against real estate specualtion. Supporters are lined up to invest in a limited partnership we set up which buys thousands of acres of Virgina land years before it takes off in value. Lyn declares a debt moratorium against our supporters and investors and banks. Land is foreclosed and poor Lonnie Smith is blamed as the fall guy. Land is now worth almost a hundred million dollars and Mcmansions occupy Lyn's former farm.
Mid 1990's Lyn now is upset over layoffs and consolidations in industries where services and output is cutback to meet actual usage. Lyn now has the paper go from twice a week to once a week. EIR is barely mailed out and just printed with cheal paper and drop shipped to an office. 21sr Century goes from monthly to once in a blue moon. Fidellio is a year behind in mailing. Leesburg employees are sent out to forage and now teach part time and do odd jobs to not starve. After 25 years of work, you burn out every subscriber so you have no renewals. Even the Communist Party and KKK have a better record of mailing their hate lit.
Late 1990's-Lyn rails away against computer industry as being worthless and not worthy of his FDR plans of make work jobs. Lyn also seems to have a problem with Enron type CEO's who loot a corporation. Lyn and the org do not mention to yutes that we had a company set up called Computron with members as employees and execs. No mention that we looted the place for our presidential plans according to many who were there. No mention that Lyn in the late 1990's had his blood thirsty eyes on a former member who had a potentioal multi hundred million dollar IPO for a computer venture with big outfits like IBM. Venture falls apart and paper money vanishes. Lyn now knows to go back to a tried and true formula. Get unsuspectiong yutes to devote lives to him and support him in another political swing which has yutes asking questions about war and economics.
Lyn has problems with Social Security and old people. LAROUCHEYouth is set up and old members are cast to the wind to forage for themselves. Lyn rails away on health care. Old timer larouche members are now dying of curable diseases and withering away. Net result is that Lyn now has the correct ratio of a few hundred yutes to him and Helga to keep lifestyle going.
We went from the US Labor Party to the Leesburg Party!
The bottom line to sum all of Larouche economics policy is this:
Your current economic policy is based on who the cult is calling from the boiler room next door.
After hundreds of milions of dollars, two dozen National 1/2 hour TV spots and a few thousand members burnt out, you are STILL trying to build an org?


anon127 (anon127)
09-22-2005, 07:36 PM
the criminal michael billington was playing the same game in south east asia.
first eir would back suharto (ex-Indnesian prime minister), then the signs were too clear to ignore (or better profits coul dbe had elsewhere), eir backed megawati (who was initially a "british agent", then became a "nationalsit's daughter"). then when megawati ran out of steam (or was it subscription money), the tone shifted.
same game played in the philippines. tried to be frieds with that filipino actor who became the president, didn't work out, then tried to be friends with gloria arroyo -- no luck so far.
played same game in malaysia, thailand, etc.
micheal billington is a failed main. failed in everything he did in well as his whole life.


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-22-2005, 08:40 PM
They also tried to curry favor with many criminals of all stripes from John Demjanjuk to Harrison Williams, and concocted convenient conspiracies to account for the charges. Then they say that the people at the Simon Wiesenthal center are gangsters when the Teamsters were supposed to be heroes.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad how many of us did - and continue to - fall for the confabulations and prevarications of this congenital liar and intellectual fraud, Lyndon LaRouche, and his lemmings. Mike Billington is just a little guy trying to get ahead albeit in a Nazi organization - and with an aging spouse who is hardly a trophy wife.


dr_ritter (dr_ritter)
09-22-2005, 11:29 PM
Alright yall have fun on here, I kind of realised I can't have decent conversation with you guys. What do you plan to do about us? Can't you get Dick Cheney to sponsor you guys to tear us down? I am calling you out, what are you going to do about these anti-semites? Talk * about them on this blog for eternity? I'm shivering with fear. The millitary is running better operations on me than you guys.
Xlcr4life- "I guess I can start by explaining to Steve and others that who are in the present day Larouche world, that it is the same as the old Larouche World."
You guys are so 80's, your arguements are old, you have nothing against his half truth policy, because you agree with it. Please correct me if I am wrong, I will excuse myself if any of you are free traders, environmentalists, anti- industrialists, right wingers, neocons, religous fundamentalists, Bush supporters, or stock jockeys who support Grenspan as god. If so then maybe you have a valid quil with LaRouche, but if not you are just vomiting up the same old anti-semite, ADL, CCF, line and you know it. I am reading through these campaigners and laughing myself to sleep. Do you guys ever email LaRouche about these claims, I was thinking about it, requesting he answer it or I drop out, wonder how he would respond... I keep giving you guys new material in my new thread, how come you guys don't get with it, or can you not think up any new arguements? I will post just the latest from the L man, and if you ca refute any of it, I might just give your words some stock.


sancho1 (sancho1)
09-23-2005, 03:55 AM
Riposte to dr_ritter aka shadowvonschiller
"Inflation Runs Wild!" is from September 21, 2005, dingus, and thoroughly refuted above without any reference to antisemitism.
The Iranian interview above is from 2003.
The Rense interview above is also from 2003.
Face it: your god just likes to run his mouth, and he can only convince poorly educated people - like you - that he is some kind of genius. He is also a liar - like you: readers of this board will not forget how you first presented yourself as a disinterested party, then as a Jew, then as a Christian, then made menacing remarks to a poster. You are just one sick puppy, and it warms my heart that your god has such a clown to represent him. You think you hurt us with your BS? YOU're the one who lives in a squalid CULT, dummy, not us.
xlcr charitably demonstrates for the likes of you time and again how LaRouche has been orchestrating the same song and dance over and over and over again for decades - but you are either too dumb, too fearful, or too evil to get it.
Have a nice weekend, card-table-shrine boy. Light a candle for the National Anti Drug Coalition, will you?


kheris_again (kheris_again)
09-23-2005, 05:01 PM
I do believe I answered you. If LHL is ready, willing, and able to play chameleon where Judaism is concerned, why should I trust anything else he has to say?
At the end of the day, neither you nor Steve have provided a defensible reason why I, or anyone else, should fall into line behind LHL given his willingness to twist himself into a pretzel in order to get the support of the current generation of youth. The man does not have a consistent message aside from his claim that he is the only person who has the answers that matter.
I hate to use Beltran as an example, but hey, the man put himself out there so why not. Beltran got behind LHL because he believed (and he spoke specifically to this in an interview with Harley) that LHL was speaking the truth. That was in 2001. It's 9/2005 and Beltran is no longer a fixture at the LYM site aside from past work done, and there is no evidence that the LYM or any other Larouche organization, is supporting a theatrical troupe to go out and organize the masses. Now mind you that commitment was made at the President's Day conference in 2/2005. So I have to ask the obvious, where is the troupe and where is Beltran's public support? What happened that suddenly he is no longer visible in the group, but very visible in the realm of pop culture - the very culture LHL so despises? If a self proclaimed standard bearer has disappeared from the scene, what does that mean in terms of the claimed commitment to use classical culture; i.e. drama and music, as organizing tools? If the organization has lost the support of a genuine, notable artist who publicly proclaimed his support, what happened to create that situation? Is it possible Beltran woke up and smelled hypocrisy instead of coffee?


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-23-2005, 08:33 PM
Quite a few things are being raised by an angry young man over how we cover the history of the various Larouche yute operations.
I myself can never get angry this way because I was a yute for a while myself. What happens to people in the 18 year old frame of mind explains why you will see people defend vigorously the L Man and not pay attention to the whole story.
When you are out of high school, the world is still a flurry of unexpained events which one does not seem to have a handle on. The impulses one has as a yute are for a certain direction of life. It is nice to be wanted. It is a noble virtue to wish to see justice in economics and to see scientific progress as the basis of that growth. Wandering a cultural mine field at times makes a home where Beethoven and poetry are thrown about seem like the place to be.
There was a very powerfull rush when one can shut down a meeting like we would do. We had an org deplolyment called an "intervention" for those who were around back then. Experienced members would take new members to various meetings where we would bust open the doors and shout the latest end of the world, stop Rockefeller polemics before being thrown out.
Even though we generally had no idea of what we were talking about, it was a sense of power for an 18 year old who felt powerless in a cold world. In just a few issues of the paper, you had all of the info you needed to know that something sinister was controlling everything.
After all, it could not be that the world was a complex domain of never ending vectors of opinions, mistakes and corrections. It HAD to be run from behind a curtain. IF you went to a local meeting and a conference, your eyese were lit up by the supposed mysteries of secret knowledge that the org was revealing.
School was a bust as college turned out to be hard work. After grinding out of High School, now you had to start the whole process all over again. Here is a group of people who tell you that academics is for losers. Why waste your time learning corrupt knowledge from hack academics for a global economy where your job is not guaranteed?
Real life is hard work. Real people make real decisions. Think of this forum as the equivalent of "Consumer Reports" for cults. Many of us bought the product and found out one way or another what really was behind the packaging. What we thought we were selling was not what we bought.
I really don't expect an 18 year old whose parents paid the bills and footed the tuition to fully undertand financial matters of how trade and business work. It is so easy to attack environmental concerns when you are 18 and have grown up with better air, water and less chemicals than your parents. Lyn used to be a heavy pipe smoker and would scoff at any concerns about tobacco carcinogens. See him with a pipe lately? We also used to laugh at the idea of lowering pesticide levels and called people who supported this mass murderers. The only meat for Lyn was red meat, and lots of it. Have you checked his diet since he had his prison assasination plot, er colonoscopy exam?
Take the case of the yute who thinks that this is all a right wing backed plot of Republicans against larouche. Lets go to the video tape as Marv Albert says.
I would first suggest that you reconsider that any light shed on the L man is right wing based. Lyn, has been one of the best friends of what ever you consider to be the right wing in politics.

  • We were the main charge against the CP,PLP and SWP camps. We disrupted their meetings and physically assaulted them during OPERATION MOP UP. FBI files reveal that we worked with some of the local "red squads" in keeping tabs on local leftists. Lyn himself was always under suspicion of either being crazy or an informant for the FBI by leftist groups.
  • Our 1976 USLP campaign of Lyn for the presidency featured our full propaganda attacks on Democrat Jimmy Carter as a drug using, brainwashed zombie of the Trilat commission and CFR.
  • After the 1976 election we worked with Republicans in lawsuits where we showed that Carter won the election through vote fraud.
  • The 1980 election was another full attack on Democrat Jimmy Carter and we basically worked to elect Reagan as we were friendly with many of his supporters, especially the California Republicans. Cater was now a Pro Soviet stooge.
  • In the Reagan years we supported the SDI program and conducted a PR program through our publications.
  • In 1984 Lyn ran as a Democrat and proceeded to use the org to attack Mondale as a KGB candidate.
  • In 1988 we set up Michael Dukakis with a story of his mental health by leaking his medical records and setting up Reagan with a question from an EIR reporter.
    During this era we spied on and did reports for the South African Apartheid government on anti apartheid groups around the world. We also did reports on environmantal groups for the police. These are hardly Republican bases of support.
    We also had numerous ties to the Liberty Lobby and Klan outfits which are well documented and would be hardly considered liberal outfits.
    Ramsey Clark was also an enemy of ours and we regularilly featured reports on him and the whole leftist crowd and funding apparatus.
    In short, when the FOIA documents are released on us, you may be surprised at who are friends were and still are. Maybe this sounds exciting to yutes. It did to me when we would get special insider briefings from higher ups about our contacts.
    Where this all leads to is an increasing level of make believe where the stories get bolder and the waste of talent and lives is swept aside.
    This also leads to the grotesque EIR article which states that Jeremiah Duggan was dead of a hoax set up by Cheny and the English Crown.
    Carry that proudly and think about who you wish to spend some of the prime years of your life with.
    I really am lousy at quoting historical poets. The best I can come up with is from The Who, and I don't know if it was Roger Daltrey or Pete Townsend who wrote the lyrics. This is the last stanza of "Won't Get Fooled Again".
    I was driving along and thought of a card table shrine one day and this was on the radio.
    There's nothing in the street
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are replaced by the bye
    The parting on the left
    Is now the parting on the right
    And the beards have all grown longer overnight
    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
    I won't get fooled again!

sancho1 (sancho1)
09-23-2005, 09:24 PM
While perusing the copious literary output of Mr. LaRouche at
I came upon this EIR item
June 24, 1994 (Vol. 21, No. 26): The Coming Disintegration of Financial Markets, feature article;
followed by this gem:
December 16, 1994 (Vol. 21, No. 50): Organizing a Recovery from the Impending Collapse, keynote speech to a conference of the Schiller Institute in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 30.

  • That was over TEN YEARS AGO guys: what th-the hell happened? Huh? Well, nothing, except that the markets were entering into their most ROBUST period EVER!
    O O O
    OK, guys, its Saturday! Hit the pavement with signs and string and rally the nation behind LaRouche to prevent the "impending" "disintegration of financial markets" - again.

xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-24-2005, 07:50 AM
Dr. Ritter, you bring up some interesting points of discussion. Please elaborate on your methodology and L man ideology in these matters.
"You guys are so 80's, your arguements are old, you have nothing against his half truth policy, because you agree with it."
Excuse me, but the bulk of the leadership which is directing your blossoming as an intellectual is composed of dead enders like Phil, Debbie, Dennis, Harley, Larry, Mike B, Steinberg etc who commanded over a criminally convicted and well documented cult of personality. WE left because our stomachs could not take this level of abuse. Maybe you can take more abuse than we witnessed.
"Please correct me if I am wrong, I will excuse myself if any of you are free traders, environmentalists, anti- industrialists, right wingers, neocons, religous fundamentalists, Bush supporters, or stock jockeys who support Grenspan as god."
- Please correct me Dr. Ritter and tell me why an envioronmentaly friendly power source like solar is unacceptable in a Larouchian world.
- I mentioned our dancing with the right wing last night. Were you aware of this history before you graced this site?
- Is it possible to be a Bush supporter, right wing supporter and a Larouche person at the same time?
" If so then maybe you have a valid quil with LaRouche, but if not you are just vomiting up the same old anti-semite, ADL, CCF, line and you know it."
Of course I know it. I lived it and experienced first hand the anti semitic rantings of Jew jokes, Holocaust death denials and the worshipping of Nazi rocket scientists who ran labor death camps at Penemunde. The difference was that I was INSIDE the org at the time and had a Larouche gyroscope directing my bearings. AS time progressed and I reread what we were doing, I was horrified by what we were pushing.
A few years from now, I suspect thay quite a few present yutes will also look back in abhorrance at what they were supporting. I will tell your members right now that you will eventually find out how the spread of the org's anti Israeli lunacy over 9/11 is used by the most vile networks of Jew haters around the world to justify their hate.
Here is just a glimpse of this from the Aussie org:
From The Australian:
Muslim leaders turn to party of extremes
Greg Roberts
17 September 2005
AUSTRALIAN Muslim leaders, disillusioned with mainstream political
parties over the toughening of anti-terrorism laws, are turning to
the extremist anti-Semitic Citizens Electoral Council for political
The CEC, a registered political party, believes world finances have
been taken over by a cabal of Jewish bankers known as the Oligarchy,
and that the September 11 terrorist attacks were orchestrated by the
US military.
Although its vote was less than 1per cent in last year's federal
election, the CEC reported receipts of $2.34million last year.
The spiritual leader of Australia's Muslims, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali,
recently held a meeting with the CEC leadership at the Lakemba Mosque
in Sydney.
Sheik al-Hilali and Victorian Muslim leader Sheik Fehmi Naji el-Imam
signed a CEC petition published in newspaper advertisements last year
opposing the "police-state" anti-terrorism legislation.
The CEC received $1500 from the Australian Federation of Islamic
Councils before the federal election, when Muslim Azmi Johari stood
as a CEC candidate in the Perth seat of Swan.
CEC chairman Noelene Isherwood said it was logical for the Muslim
community to support the CEC. "We are mainstream Australia," she said.
" I am reading through these campaigners and laughing myself to sleep."
We are very much alike Dr. Ritter. I read them and also laugh myself to sleep. Start with the Campaigner called "On The Track of my Assassins" by the LONG TIME Larouche Intell chief Chris White. HE was the young guy who took Lyn's wife Carol from him and was the star attraction in our phony KGB/DDR/CIA/Rockeffeller brainwashing plot in 1974. Phony, because quite a few members have been told that by people years after the fact. Ask Phil and Harley about that and what happened to Chris and Carol White. Carol retired now while Chris still runs a real estate business in Leesburg. A business which they have had for 10 years or so.
If you want a jolly good laugh, check out the testimonials from the person who bought a town house in a development called "Tavistock".
I really do not wish to see yutes end up as wasted trash in a few years. We're giving you plenty of resources and places to see for your self. Even the larouche Jabroni's have my concern's as they are being led by some real hard core, cold blooded people who have not a single drop of shame over the many victims of our schemes.
It is a hard world out there. But, there are plenty of groups and orgs who do reputable work and do not require a cult of personality as a prerequisite.
There is nothing more gut wrenching for people to look back and wonder how they missed the clues. We're making it easy for people to make up their minds. The last thing I wish upon you yutes is to look back and see how you blew many opportunities and lost prime years.


borisbad (borisbad)
09-25-2005, 05:18 PM
I read with a good deal of interest on the recent postings. I will not get into the math as that is not my forte but I know LaRouche like to pose abstractions like Riemanian and Gaussian manifolds and wrap himself up in the contributions while pretending he is the only person upholding their continuation (except for perhaps some remaining Nazi War criminals that came over from the Pennemunde-Nazi V2 projects). I remember LaRouche saying how the German scientists are so much more advanced than their American and British "empiricist" rivals.
I notice that Steven mentions Einstein but I guess you know that Einstein has been condemned by such geniuses as Larry Hecht as in league with such evil monsters as Bertrand Russell.
And although LHL mentions a few prominent Jews like Maimonides and Felix Mendelsohn when the heat of the charge of anti-Semitism gets too fervent, and he pontificates that he is for peace in the Middle East, you never see him denouncing blind acts of terrorism, and he will always equivocate by bringing up some atrocity committed by the likes of Sharon or the early Stern Gang to justify Arab bombings, etc. to excuse the violence directed against Israeli civilians.
And since Steven appears to be still in school, I wonder if he is allowed to contact his family and friends from his former life.
And as for doing something, I think there were thousands marching in Washington against the war in Iraq. I don't think many were brandishing LaRouche banners.


borisbad (borisbad)
09-26-2005, 03:16 PM
I was reading Dr_Ritter's posts on an alternate site apparently set up by LaRouchies, but so far he's the only contributor. He posts a LaRouche message about the evil Neo-Con-Trotskyist conspiracy and then dares people to find any anti-semitism. Apparently not knowing much about the history of the socialist and communist movements, he names Leon Trotsky, Max Schactman, a right wing renegade Trotskyist, Irving Kristol another Trotskyist turncoat as originators of the Neo-Conservative movement of today. Apparently he doesn't seem to realize that everyone he named with the exception of Cheney were Jews. Of course, he probably also doesn't realize that one of the slanders of the Stalinists against Trotsky and other socialist rivals that they were parts of a worldwide cosmopolitan Jewish conspiracy.
And having found an earlier writing on Trotsky and Parvus that LHL wrote in Aug. 2002 where he almost comes out and admits that he originally claimed to be a descendant of thinkers like Lenin and Luxemburg he again links Trotsky's American supporters to the "Nazi" Jacobtinsky and the right wing Zionists. He then goes on to declaim against some of the leaders who left his cult denouncing their degenerate nature, especially those who go back to their Jewish heritage upon leaving LHL
From Trotsky to Steinhardt:
Crossing the Exes
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
August 1, 2002
There is a fundamental difference between a poor fellow, who has not yet discovered the principle which sets people apart from beasts, and the decadent wretch who has sought to eradicate the existence of that principle. The Communist who no longer believes, but seeks to retain his position of power within the Soviet system, or the monsignor who, having lost his belief, fights to exert power against John Paul II within the Church, are merely typical of this class of moral degenerates.
"As now-deceased former Socialist Workers Party leader Farrell Dobbs once observed, "There is a difference between those who leave, and those who stop to crap on the floor on the way out." The latter type often turned out to be police-agents or the equivalent; and some, or their chldren, moved on to become notable fascists today.
If you are such a wretch, and have rediscovered a Jewish ancestry, you are likely to choose a Zionist cover for your fascist affiliations, and thus become a backer of such Jabotinsky clones as Sharon, Netanyahu, or Shamir. Perhaps Michael Steinhardt would explain the details to you."
So Dr. I suggest you do a little reading on the history of the Russian Revolution and left movements in the US. Schactman, Eastman,Burnham and others that LHL regularly denounces (the fact that many of the neo-cons are of Jewish descent of course is coincidental) did become the forefathers of the neo-cons but all of them had long earlier split from any resemblance to Marxism, Trotskyism or any other form of progressive ideology.Just another way for LaR to blame problems on the Jews or Zionists if you will.


xylm (xylm)
09-27-2005, 03:13 PM
The following article has been the most thorough convenyance of Larouche brainwashing i have read. It was recently written by an x-member from France and i highly recommend everybody to read it...the writer really nailed it!


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-27-2005, 05:19 PM
Here is the whole piece. Very good and shows how this works. After reading it, perhaps some comments will be in order.
I thought after I left that things would stop, but, evidently not.
Steve, the organising is going the same way it has for thirty years.
Now I understand why Lyn hates Aristotle, among every other person on the planet he hates.
My Experience of the LaRouche Organization: "A LIVING PRISON"
April, 2005.
What I write here is based on my personal experience of being a part time and then full time member of the LaRouche organization between the years of 2001-2003 in France.
LaRouche leaves behind him a trail of noisy scandals. LaRouche was protected for a while by various authorities. The EAP (German Branch of the Movement) was under observation by counter-espionage forces for a while, but the surveillance of the group was stopped. The conclusion that the group was an extreme right-wing movement was rejected in 1980 because they stated "the group was lacking in an extreme stand for nationalism." It is in these terms that the president of the German counter-espionage authorities, Heribert Hellenbroich, expressed himself. (Spiegel, 1984)
But how could an investigation be properly initiated by this federal administration of counter-espionage when the president of this administration himself was the very own brother of the general secretary of the LaRouche related EAP, Anno Hellenbroich?
When an organisation sells its information to the highest bidder, it is no wonder that in the long-term it would obtain the "official" favours from different levels of the Government (including the military quarters) or receive financial backing from businesses.
Unfortunately many people have been duped by the "front names" of organisations founded by Jacques Cheminade and its associates in France in the 80's. To name a few: The European Workers Party, Drug Alert, The Schiller Institute, the Academy of Humanistic Studies AEH, the Foundation for Energy Fusion FEF, the Life Club, France and its Armed Committee, the CATTANOM Committee, the EIR, Culture and Tradition, Beethoven and the Great Masters… These groups were destined to infiltrate the political, scientific, military, religious and cultural arenas. This is how this network finance themselves.
A living prison:
The problem is that when you are a member of this movement all criticism is seen only as a vast conspiracy against LaRouche; in other words, the snake is biting its own tail…
This is where it becomes important to understand the cult phenomenon, the living prison that prevents you from thinking for yourself and which binds you to thought patterns that deny your past, your emotional safeguard, your intellectual and moral standards, everything that has moulded your own identity and uniqueness since your birth. This in other words, is all about making a change of personality. It becomes then impossible to question the Guru, the leader, the Guide. This is LaRouche. These are his ideas. You are not allowed to live in the "other world" anymore, the world of the ungodly and the world of the enemy. You have crossed to the other side, and to go back now would mean self-betrayal and self-denial, it would be like "jumping into a minefield" (dixit LaRouche).
One becomes completely child-like again and subject to the groups teachings and the leaders wishes. The irony of the matter is that LaRouche himself, who had studied mental manipulation, when he was thinking of deprogramming members who he said had been kidnapped by the CIA (actually a lie), describes very well how one can, in three short days, change the "axioms of a person's thinking", and "tear off the mask of the persona bourgeoisie" by intensive sessions that he called "psycho sessions" or "ego stripping", as well as "school for managing executives," using a much milder term.
Please refer to his brochure called "Beyond psychoanalysis" published in the 70's in the United States. In short LaRouche in my opinion and from my experience makes his money from selling methods of mind control!!!! (One cannot help but recognise the similarities between the LaRouche organisation and such parties as the Nazi Party or the Soviet Stalin Party, and one can conclude that he has made use of some of their methods.)
One must also demystify what one thinks about cults. Most people do not think that they could become a victim of a cult. First of all, because they have no idea of what a cult looks like. The media most often depict a guru as some type of mystical, weird, and stoned person wearing a turban. Secondly, the cult phenomenon has only been properly studied in the last thirty tears. And it is takes a lot of work…
People often say that one must be very naïve, or have a serious problem, to fall into a cult, but most cult victims are highly intelligent, idealistic, and educated people, even if some of them were not completely comfortable when they first met the group. This is what is not realised by the general public and should be understood. From what I have seen it is so often the case that the new recruit is so often deceived and misled.
It is all about how gradually one loses one's own way of thinking, one's ability to question, one's own will, under the pressure to fit a mould, a frame that was not ours to begin with.
This is why, around the age of twenty, when one still has the time to ask oneself good questions, and one does not yet have many responsibilities to consider, one becomes the ideal prey for cults, in particular those who tend to be more of a politically alternative nature. But even in later years, when one is 30, 40, or even 60 years old, the same thing can happen. It is my belief that the human spirit is vulnerable at all ages.
What happened to me was that little by little I lost touch with who I was and the problems I had to deal with.
You do not take time out anymore to look at all the angles of your problem. The wheel has been set in motion, and you have been taken in. At first the contradictions between yourself and the group are clear and evident, but the more the group intervenes, using psychological pressure, compulsory physical presence, meetings and indoctrination…the more your critical faculties and your immune system is breaking down. You can no longer come out of it alone. This is where I CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH it is most important for family, friends and teachers to act quickly at that particular time, in order to avoid what may come next. You have swallowed a bit of the bait, and they will not let you go. Luckily, most do not go beyond this stage, and are able to retract soon enough. For others, a long "unlearning" process will need to take place but with feelings of guilt nevertheless, proof that the manipulation was already effective in them.
At the early stage some members can become quite euphoric. One feels as if one is becoming freer, throwing everything away from our youth; in fact, they have seduced you and are making you feel "loved" in a nice cosy cocoon. They will tell you that you are exceptional, that you don't need to sweat over all your old problems, that people have always lied to you because you are the best…and that in fact, people have stolen the best from you. Your parents have robbed you, "just look at the world that they have left you…your teachers have let you down, see all the things that they did not teach you, and look at your friends, it is about time that they changed, and anyway, they don't understand anything about anything." These statements will be readily understood by most people especially young people, but taken to the "ninth" degree by cult members.
At the first encounter, The LaRouche recruiter will screen you and have established a small file on you, which will be useful by them in order to recruit you; this file will enable them to find out what YOUR PROBLEM is. They will then label you and may declare that you have "potential", in which case you will be undergoing a close scrutiny in order to make you CHANGE.
The recruiting techniques revolve around the problems that the potential member would be experiencing at the time, and the need for him/her to change, "using violent shocks if necessary", and the taking on of a new personality who will lead the "inner battle" between the old and the new "self". In other words, if you are "smooth" as far as the cult is concerned, you are of no interest to them. To be smooth means to not ask disturbing questions, not contradict, argue, or discuss matters, and to accept all appointments without reluctance.
In general the people who are "smooth" are not all simple-minded but can be used to do small jobs like distribute leaflets outside underground stations or to stick posters up on the streets. But usually these people do not stay long in the group, as they become too much of a burden or "unable to understand what the organisation is really doing."
As far as those who "stay", whether they want to or not, they are now part of the elite, the new Martin Luther Kings, the new world leaders, potentially of course, and when there is a confrontation or difference of opinion, they must never open the debate or argue, but "show the way". This is what they will try to teach you, using whatever means they can.
As one of the ex-members of this group expressed so well : "If you do not agree with LaRouche, then it is you that has the problem and the task is to try and find out where your problem lies".
As weeks go by, you become more and more estranged from the outside world, and more and more lonely inside the group, but you do not realise this right away. You feel like you are part of a group of friends, an army of revolutionaries, a humanistic academy, a political party unlike any other…You are alone to face your doubts and your fears which are omnipresent, but you cannot share your concerns and questions with your peers because this would arouse suspicion in them or would come across as a lack of commitment to the group.
In other words, you are trapped.
There is no-one, either in the group, or outside the group, who understands you. You are isolated. It is then that you must make a choice. If you leave the group, you feel like the whole world is collapsing under you feet, but if you remain in the group, you are fighting against yourself.
In any event, you have been trapped by this method. You have been broken.
They have used your own identity against yourself.
Let me explain: Specific methods are used on you to get you recruited.
These methods induce you to share a part of your life, of your experience, a recollection of some event, a certain trait of your personality. By doing this I came to trust some of the members of the group and in the end I was cornered by the leader Cheminade and asked very private and personal questions about my family and my past experiences. They were deeply personal questions. In another case I know about a member was asked about whether he was having sexual relations with his wife. If the member can answer then you prove your loyalty and this is the way you have passed the test.
So there is a concentration on making you reveal or expose your inner most secrets. It may sometimes have to do with "psycho-sexual problems." They will attempt to portray it as something extremely negative, a horrible sight in your eyes, and you will start feeling guilty about it. This makes you feel that yes you do need to change. Sometimes your "problem" is exposed publicly to the whole group in a meeting in order to further humiliate and inhibit you even more.
To make things public is the best way to make them taboo. The purpose of this is to make you fight against yourself, no matter what is happening.
Even if you are able to be stronger enough to resist being emotionally manipulated or to withstand the mental assault on your identity and then you do decide to renounce being part of the group, you will still be changed. You will have to live with this monster that they have created within you, and even if you join the group you will have to keep the monster within you quiet.
I consider that you do not join the organization as such – its more that you have given in to the pressures and "have been recruited."
In other words, you do not have a choice, and the harm has already been done.
I consider that I did not join the LaRouche organization – I was psychologically kidnapped by the movement. It is a very perverse thing. A very dangerous thing that operates like an attack on everything that allows you to be yourself.
They made me believe that I had a choice in whether I was going to join or not, but this freedom of choice is only an illusion. I thought that I decided to join of my own free will, Therefore I found myself getting more involved and then becoming a full-time member I believed I was making my own autonomous act of your will. But looking back now I see that this was not the case. I was taken down a path of deception that led to my recruitment.
How is this deception accomplished?
You are quickly made to take actions like selling newspapers on the street so that you will be drawn in. Selling the newspapers has a powerful influence on making you more convinced and convincing. This whole process happens very quickly, over a period of a few weeks or even just a few days. New recruits are deliberately and as soon as possible sent out into the streets to meet others. It is a way to make them confront their own doubts. This is a very subtle and effective way of recruiting, since you meet people who may have the same hesitations as yourself, the same interrogations, the same criticisms, but since you are in the position of the person who does not need to be convinced, you take on the role of the one supporting the organization. Even if you know little and are not really convinced of what you are saying, you are led into a situation where you try to convince someone else. You are saving the world and you get a rush from this. The other person becomes your double, and you will be able to experiment on him as on a guinea pig. If at this point you hear any outside criticism like you are in a cult or are fascist this only intensifies your resolve. This is because you are offered no answers to these criticisms and only encouraged to despise the people who criticise you. You feel more one with the organizers because you appear to be criticized.
Added to this you find that you have less time for yourself and the organization cultivate a permanent sense of urgency. The end result is that one spends ones entire time organising a system which is purposely disorganised.
"The practical aim of the movement is to train as many people as possible in its organisation, and to set them in motion: the political aim of the movement, which would serve as its aim, is simply non-existent." (Hannah Arendt : the Totalitarian System, ed. du Seuil, ).
On a practical level, members of the group do not do much. They attend meetings, go out in the streets, travel or make phone calls. But all of these activities make up a lot of work for the member, and can become a real slavery. The draining is mostly of a psychological nature. As a hamster spinning its wheel in its own cage, a cult member has no real understanding of the consequences of his actions.
So everything I did was done and it was actually not what I intended to do in the first place. I was following the movement, adopting a passive attitude and behaviour. I see now how it had the affect of making me give up on my sense of having my own initiative, as well as self-confidence and sense of humour.
Mental manipulation:
Apart from the harassment and the psychological pressure involved in my recruitment, I was also influenced in other ways. This is why the organisation holds choirs in each of their branches, where members must learn to "embellish their soul" with the "great Genies" of German classical music or with nationalistic war tunes. These choirs meet during conferences using a form of mystical liturgy that is supposed to have the effect of inciting the younger "contacts" to share the enthusiasm created by the group in "harmony".
The long conferences, the processions, and the singing all replace times of free discussion and deliberation.
There was never the time or the encouragement to read other books or study alternative viewpoints - You are told only to read books written by LaRouche. Nor was there time to think.
The movement emphasises the fact that while out in the streets, it is important to find the right "pearl", to be able to "touch" someone in order to "turn him around". In this way the members rapidly become experts in mental manipulation with the people they encounter. They have learned to "target the problem", to "discover the flaw", to "feel the potential"… These procedures are then automatically reported to the leader who will consider them and monitor the advancement of his small troops. That is as long as they bring in the money.
If the person approached does not give any money this means that the member is not taken seriously. It is also through guilt about doing nothing to help with world problems that the leader and recruiters put pressure on the younger potential recruits to interrupt their studies and give up their university courses.
You are told constantly that you do not learn anything in the Universities.
The better performing students who achieve success in their studies, are systematically put down and treated as "careerists", "sophists", "idiots savants"…
Helga Zepp Larouche encourages members to approach underage students on school premises. Some of the members of this organisation were recruited at the age of 15, 16, 17, or 18 years old.
Some of these young people have spent their life in the group. I know of cases when the organisation convinces members to leave their jobs, and to make false statements to the ANPE in order to obtain unemployment and social benefits or minimum wage.
So how do members of the group survive financially?
It varies from one to another.
For the younger members there is hardly any option other than receiving their small allowance to eat at lunchtime and in the evening. Some members do not even have social security coverage. The savings or income of their parents is rapidly reduced in the unfortunate event that the parents decide to help their child financially whilst in the group. In fact you are encouraged to ask your parents for money so that the organization will not have to pay you all that much. Even told to take out a loan and even get into debt because it did not matter you were doing work to save the world. At first the fresh recruit is always assured that he will not lack anything, and that a small allowance will be given to him each month (an approximate and irregular amount of 200 Euros. Many parents are in fact trapped into a situation where they give money to their children because they don't want see their children so deprived of basic needs.
I believe there is fraud, since on one hand the organisation is making considerable profits in the USA (one only needs to look into their campaign accounts), and on the other hand, they deliberately give less money to the recruits in order to make them more dependent and vulnerable. It is because if they have less money they are less likely to take a train to go home for instance or to survive on their own. In other words, the poverty of the members is paramount to their subservient and dependant attitude to the group. The little money that we had served to pay the rent and even with this there were problems.
I was exploited, stripped financially, and in the end completely dependant on the movement. I saw the same thing happen to others.
Sympathising members of the organisation are solicited to give financial support, but rarely are they aware of the sectarian and totalitarian aspects of the group. There are therefore several levels of fraud involved. Sometimes the LaRouche movement portrays itself as a "Press agency" which sells information to enterprises on a "cold" list, other times as a Political lobby exchanging information for the possibility of infiltrating various political or other networks, or even a Political party that supports its followers…But what is it really that is the question?
The main obvious cover of Larouche in France is the political party: "Solidarité et Progres" It is my opinion that it is a real shame that the French authorities stubbornly refuse to admit that yes it appears to be a political party but my view is that it also has in many respects all the regular aspect of a cult. This means that it can operate without restraint and families are left unable to do anything.
The indispensable fiction.
Fiction comes first and foremost through a line of coherent but lying declarations that are thrown at you by the members.
One feels portrayed as right versus wrong. This simplistic view of things, which seems strange at first, does not refer to a specific problem within the organisation from which one could develop an opinion. The aim is that the "system" which will encompass their whole way of thinking would be as acceptable and irrefutable as the Truth. In other words they will make you feel like you have the gift of proving the truth, and that the conclusions of their theories are irrefutable. But what is worrisome is not so much the content of their dubious and repetitive texts, as much as the method with which they will bombard you with loads of information and postulates that will not allow you to take the necessary time and distance to realise how deceptive the organisation is.
The sheer amount of information, they bombard you with is relentless. There are so many meetings and improvised appointments. During these gatherings, the leader constantly increase the level of tension within the group, beginning with strong declarations such as : "we are at a crucial point in our history", or "history does not serve the same plate twice" or "some people here today do not understand how important we are…"
The use of language is also derived from fiction.
It is frequent for members to engage in discussions or speeches whose real meaning they do not master, making use of rigid/frozen expressions, word-of-mouth statements, a mixture of watered down soup, humanism, and financial crashes…so much so that the member will completely lose touch with the reality of their own speech. I look back and see myself being overcome with all these declarations and thoughts. I think back to how my reaction was to respond and regurgitate all this. It came as words out of my mouth like I was preaching a sermon from which there would be strange and straightforward opinions.
The "organisage" (Anglicism) does not indicate dialogue, political discourse, or propaganda, it simply describes the process of "self-recruitment", whether conscious or not, that a member of the group goes through as he or she approaches a potential or new member. Maintaining the cohesion of all the members of the organisation rests upon a fictitious world-wide conspiracy. Followers become suspicious and hostile towards the outside world and do not consider differences and divergence of opinions. Society's pluralistic approach to life thus becomes a source of intolerable confusion for the formatted mind of the disoriented and unstable member. Therefore whoever is not part of the organisation is against the organisation.
In order to reinforce the idea of a conspiracy, it is also necessary to cultivate the idea of secrecy within the group. This is where it becomes important to create an artificial hierarchy based on criteria of loyalty to the leader. His disciples never know everything…and in any case they will be taught only what they should ever need to know. This defiance in regard to the "base" of the structure will from time to time require a pseudo court case, or what we could call "purges". The vulgar ways in which some of the members are approached in private, especially females, have the effect of electro-shocks designed to break down their moral values and confuse the criteria of respect that belongs to humankind. The follower will feel mistreated, but instead of reacting against this, will continue in the denial of own self. The purpose is to destroy the integrity of the individual.
Consequently the member will not be able to exist as an autonomous and free individual, but first and foremost as a "member" of the LaRouche organisation.
The person will see himself or herself only through what he can bring to the movement. This "shrinking" of the individual's uniqueness and personal concerns conveys the sense that you have sacrificially given yourself up for the good of the organisation and ultimately for the leader himself, who regularly sends his secret police to test the loyalty of his followers. In this regard I suggest you read Aristotle's writings on tyranny : Les Politiques, V11,1313-a (not recommended in the group).
Within the organisation, a feeling of terror and tension is permanently maintained in order to avoid any creating of bonds and trust between the members.
Terror leads to isolation and isolation to more terror. Not knowing right from wrong anymore, not knowing whom one can trust, not even knowing if one can trust oneself: this is the end result that we can see in young people after a few months spent inside such a destructive organisation.
Coming out of such a destructive organisation can be described as an "unravelling" of oneself: in order to breathe and to be free once again, it is necessary to "untie" ones anxieties, traumas and taboos. It is clear that it is harder to come out of a such a group than to join one, but I can say that ex-members can find freedom and their true self again. The most important thing to remember is that you will need help to come out. It is crucial that you share your experience with others, and must not be ashamed of it. Listening to your relatives or specialists in the field as they have the best tools to come out of such a group. If you can only open one eye to begin with, eventually you will see more and more clearly, and one day your vision will be complete. Be confident, and do not give up.
French Student (This student has made her statement legally verified to the Lawyers of Erica Duggan.)
Beware of going to places where you are in Isolation:
It was in the Winter of 2002 we just came back from a cadre school, which was in a very isolated place in the mountains. Some people at this cadre school who were new contacts wanted to leave and they managed to leave. Then Jacques Cheminade was upset by this and then on our return I overheard the following conversation:
Cheminade said he was upset that recruits had left the conference. He made the suggestion that in the future cadre schools should be organized in even more isolated places and he mentioned a little island in the area of Brittany. This was so that the cadre people would not be able to leave once they were attending the school. Looking back on this it is my opinion that Cheminade knew what he wanted – he wanted to trap people – stop them from leaving until he had done his job of subjecting them to their methods of recruitment.
At these times you have to endure long hours and little sleep. Exhaustion makes new recruits more open to suggestion and influence.


kheris (kheris)
09-27-2005, 05:44 PM
I particularly liked this part;
You are told constantly that you do not learn anything in the Universities.
The better performing students who achieve success in their studies, are systematically put down and treated as "careerists", "sophists", "idiots savants"…
Steve is a Yalie, and who knows what academic institution his med student friend attends. Wonder what the group thinks of Steve, despite all his posturing and defending here. He doesn't sound like a good candidate based on the foregoing.


kheris (kheris)
09-27-2005, 06:41 PM
And this piece is priceless too:
Cheminade said he was upset that recruits had left the conference. He made the suggestion that in the future cadre schools should be organized in even more isolated places and he mentioned a little island in the area of Brittany. This was so that the cadre people would not be able to leave once they were attending the school.
I have been to numerous conferences and training sessions, and even when attendance was mandatory there was still a way to leave. Guess the European LaRouchies need a way to make sure the new recruits are sufficiently indoctrinated before they leave. I have to wonder what went wrong at Wiesbaden. At least now we have some specific insights as to why the German police establishment is so reluctant to pursue the Duggan Affair. A real investigation might turn over some rocks and goodness knows what might crawl out!


xylm (xylm)
09-28-2005, 02:29 PM
I recall during a briefing, Harley Schlanger mentioned how he had a lunch meeting with a KKK affiliate and before starting discussion he boldly told mr.KKK that he stands against everything the KKK is for.
As everybody looked on proudly, I asked myself, how did this happen? Why would a KKK member want to discuss ideas with the "young martin luther kings"?
Well I now know why Harley and the movement are approached by fascists, I just wonder if Harley knows??


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-28-2005, 06:04 PM
Hello all,
My friend asked me what he thought about the following article: 2-1798944%2C00.html,,,2-1798944,00.html (
I pasted my response below.
Since I place such emphasis on Mr. LaRouche's teachings, I wanted to see if people here could point out any underlying criminally cultish tendencies in my response. Thanks.
My response:
I found the study to be like so many today, trying to desperately find correlations for a cause of the world's miseries. The method, however, falls apart again on definitions and ideas.
Key assumption: The belief in a creator is the same thing as knowledge of the Good Creator. This is not true.
I am sure anyone who has had a ten minute conversation with me already has an inclination as to the way I might respond.
A religious fundamentalist might approach someone, "Do you believe in God? No? Ok, to hell you go."
In contrast, someone who understands the necessity of the Good Creator might approach someone, "Did you know that there is a Good Creator? No? Well, do you not see how the universe is organized with intention? Do you not see how human beings have the ability of reason, so that they will understand the universe and its dynamics ever better? Do you not see that if man was to ignore his responsibility to responsibly organize the universe and do Good then he would fall into decadence, war and famine?"
A better study might ask, What type of nation is more morally and technologically productive, one that is based on knowledge of a Good Creator and the necessity to do Good, or one that is based on existentialist, social Darwinism?
Or better yet, What type of individual would make more loving decisions to benefit mankind, one that understands the Good Creator and necessity to do Good, or one that views Goodness as arbitrary? No? (Religious fundamentalism, I think, views God as arbitrary as well, since it does not emphasize the coherence of the Universe with its Good Creator.)


kheris (kheris)
09-28-2005, 09:17 PM
Steven, whether you realize it or not, you talk to some degree like a fundamentalist without understanding fundamentalism, at least as it's practiced in this country. This article ( may help you with the historical origins of American fundamentalists and the current context that they operate in.
The study you referenced doesn't address the fact that the ills described are generally treated as a failure of spiritual or religious discipline, rather than as symptoms of a more serious problem in our view of relationships and our purpose in being here. As a group, American fundamentalists and traditionalists appear unable to step very far beyond the biblical texts in regards to acceptable moral behavior. On the one hand we wish to emphasize relationships and our moral obligations to each other (rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics by the way), yet are unable to effectively do so because of a dependency on a poorly conceived Divinity and His rules.
Your statement;
Do you not see that if man was to ignore his responsibility to responsibly organize the universe and do Good then he would fall into decadence, war and famine?
assumes that God put us on this world to exercise power over creation; else why the need to organize an already organized universe? In this respect, you fit right in with the fundamentalists and traditionalists. Is it criminally cultish, no, but it is naive and simplistic since it fails to truly address the issue of relationships between all life, including those between humans. And it plays very well to the American notion that we can fix anything once we break the problem down to a set of processes or procedures that we can deal with.
My suggestion to you is that you spend some time reading Meister Eckhart.


xylm (xylm)
09-29-2005, 03:37 PM
It just occurred to me that when Dr. Ritter responded to the anti-Semitic "Judaism is a hoax and by-product" quote from LHL by stating, "Yeah I think this about the best that you got so far. But I seem to agree with it. Maybe that is because I am a Christian", he was acting no different than the General Boykin, "my god (Christian) is better than theirs (Muslims)" quote that the Larouchies so heavily attacked and sadistically exemplified.
One can defend Boykin's quote with the same logic Dr. Ritter used – it's because he's Christian, of course he will say that. When such clear contradictions occur, it only reassures us that the brainwashing allegations are dangerously true.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
09-30-2005, 09:54 AM
I am convinced: Sancho is an agent of influence of the Height of Absurdity. Or at least he is as unproductive as one.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
09-30-2005, 04:03 PM
Let me explain to Steve and the Yutes why you are to be against fundamentalists. Our first crack at born again Christians was with Jimmy Carter and his Evengelical support. They liked Carter and ignored us, case closed.
We then called up pro life Reagan supporters in the 1980's while we were herding female members to abortion clinics. We raised some money, but Lyn denounced them as being "one issue" people. That meant that they found Lyn to wacky and hung up on our late night fundraising.
During the 1980's, we ran into Jay Sekulow in Atlanta. He became a contact of ours and we called him up for support and legal work. He handled a case for us involving a free speech issue with a member named Kokinda. It went to the US Supreme court as the issue was over setting up a card table shrine at a US Post Office. (
Sekulow lost that case but then became a lawyer for our financial head named Don Phau. Phau was a guy who was in charge of writing the checks in the National Office in NYC. His wife Gerrance was in the European file doing French work. Finances in NYC had a public and private side. Very few members had a clue of what or where we sent money around the globe. Lyn was the boss, regardless of what he says.
Phau was sent from counting the money and moving it to making the money once he got to Leesburg. He was convicted in the Roanoke Virgina trials.
Here is an experpt from Barbara Boyd, our legal head about the case:

  • **
    Don Phau's Roanoke trial, which followed that of Billington, also involved lawyers rolling over and playing dead--in this case quite literally. Phau was assured by his attorneys, Jay Sekulow and Pat Monaghan, that they understood the political nature of the prosecutions, and that they were uniquely qualified to present Phau's defense. According to this presentation, no stone would be left unturned in defending Phau's innocence. Both lawyers had been associated with the defense of the Right-to-Life Movement and Operation Rescue. Sekulow was at the beginning of a masterful public relations campaign in which he puffed himself into overblown national prominence as the First Amendment guru of the conservative movement.
    Phau's federal habeas petition now pending in the Eastern District of Virginia before U.S. District Judge James Spencer, shows that Monaghan and Sekulow withheld several critical facts about themselves in their initial discussions with Phau.
    Monaghan never told Phau that he had been in-house counsel to an organization which publicly attacked LaRouche during Monaghan's tenure, and which claimed to be fully mobilized against LaRouche following victories of two LaRouche associates in the March, 1986 Illinois primaries. Sekulow never told Phau that his familiarity with securities fraud charges stemmed, in part, from the fact that he was being sued for securities fraud, as the lead defendant, by disgruntled investors in a real estate and tax scheme in the Northern District of Georgia. Neither disclosed that they were beholden to financial angels on the Christian right, Paul and Jan Crouch of Trinity Broadcasting and religious charlatan Pat Robertson.
    At the time of Phau's trial, both Monaghan and Sekulow were about to sign on as lead players in Pat Robertson's newest fundraising gimmick, the American Center for Law and Justice. Neither told Phau that they had profound religious disagreements with the LaRouche movement, viewing LaRouche's idea of the perfectibility of man and the universe as the heart of evil.
    Ultimately, Sekulow did not even show up for Phau's trial. He claimed he could call the shots in the courtroom by telephone, long distance, after being briefed by Monaghan and a young associate. Monaghan bungled his way through the entire trial from jury selection forward, either not cross-examining prosecution witnesses or reiterating the prosecutor's points through his cross-examination.
    Although the transactions at issue in all of Phau's charges were completely exempt from the securities laws, Monaghan argued the wrong statutory exemptions and otherwise did not pursue this complete defense to the charges. When LaRouche was summoned from federal prison by Phau's lawyers to Roanoke for testimony in the case, the charade completely collapsed. Monaghan confessed that he endorsed the prosecutor's view of LaRouche and would not call LaRouche to the witness stand. During a scheduled meeting with LaRouche, Phau and others, Monaghan arrived and promptly rolled himself up into a ball in the corner of the room, refusing any entreaty to discussion.

  • Now where this gets funnnier is that once Lyn was convicted, his cell mate was Jim Bakker of Jim and Tammy Bakker fame who also ran a promissory note scheme and took in millions. Bakker was impressed with Lyn, but had no idea that he had hundreds of people writing and doing research for him and sending it to him in prison. Bakker did note in his auto biography that Larouche was the most paranoid person he ever met in his life.
    On a side note, we had a National Executive Committe member named Allen Salsibury who used to joke that we should turn the org onto a religion to avoid taxes. Somone must have heard his wishes as Allen died of prostrate cancer while on LaroucheCare in Leesburg.
    Don Phau was released from the Big House and then wrote a mass pamphlet about the Satanic roots of Rock and Roll. You can find this work on a lot of Christain sites. Especially those that feature NWO, Y2K and whatever conspiracy works that day sites.
    Here is an example:
    Sekulow left and hooked up with Pat Robrtson who has his own conspiracy business of books and special reports.
    Since Larouche aint geting a dime from any of this, you better believe he hates fundamentalists who will take some stuff from our pamphlets and never consider Larouche as anything but a competitor and flake.
    Here are some exerpts from Don Phau's work.

  • For the past thirty years, Western society has been under the gun of a deliberate plan of cultural warfare, with the purpose of eliminating Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. These plans must not succeed. So that the reader can better combat this evil, we'll go back nearly thirty years, when those four innocent lads from Liverpool, England, the Beatles, were just starting out.
  • *
    I guess the roots of rock and roll from African American R&B do not amount to much in Larouche world.
  • *
    While in Hamburg, in June of 1962 the Beatles received a telegram from their manager, a homosexual named Brian Epstein, who was back in England. "Congratulations," Epstein's message read. "EMI requests a recording session." EMI was one of Europe's largest record producers, and their role in promoting the Beatles would be key in the future.
    Under the the strict guidance of EMI's recording director George Martin, and Brian Epstein, the Beatles were scrubbed, washed, and their hair styled into the Beatles cut. EMI's Martin created the Beatles in his recording studio.
    Martin was a trained classical musician, and had studied the oboe and piano at the London School of Music. The Beatles could neither read music nor play any instrument other than guitar. For Martin, the Beatles musicianship was a bad joke. On their first hit record, "Love Me Do," Martin replaced Ringo on the drums with a studio musician. Martin said Ringo, "couldn't do a [drum] roll to save his life." From then on, Martin would take the simple little tunes the Beatles would come to him with, and turn them into hit records.
  • *
    More examples of the love the org has for Gays.
  • *
    In 1964, the Rolling Stones appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show, as the Beatles had done earlier. This time though, the coast-to-coast audience beheld the spectacle of the television studio being ripped to shreds by Stones fans. Sullivan said on the air afterward, "I promise you, they will never be back on our show." The publicity, however, was exactly what was wanted. Within a few months, the group's records were selling millions of copies.
    The plan was now to use both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones as the means to transform an entire generation into heathen followers of the New Age, followers which could mold into the future cadre of a Satanic movement and then deploy into our schools, law enforcment agencies and political leadership.

  • There is a conspiracy to explain everything here. The trick here is to be able to both call the fundamentalists for money and to also denounce them to other people when we call secularists and political friends. There were some articles like this a few months ago in EIR about Right wing Christians support of Bush.
    Don later wrote about video games and their evil conspiracy. Though, evil Joe Lieberman's work on rating video games does not mean much since he is part of the neo con conspiracy.
    The only conspiracy Don never figured out was when his wife left him and the org with their kids. I have no idea where she is, but, I hope she is doing well. IF she stayed in, there would have been a good chance that Don would have his kids at a card table shrine instead of playing Super Mario Brothers racing on Nintendo.
    Dr Ritter, don't forget my three questions.

stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-01-2005, 04:41 PM
Mr. Curtis,
I am a bit confused and was hoping you could help. Why do you think lush and sancho (among others) are so eager to antagonize, as if they were schoolyard bullies, making fun of outfits and haircuts. You obviously serve a bit of a different role here, and seem a bit more calm and collected. I'd imagine that is probably since you have legally dealt with these issues (being a lead prosecuting witness for one) and know the thesis that you agree with so well.
What could possibly explain these grown men (women?) acting as they do? Is it a result of the obvious trauma they have experienced in their lives? (You would say trauma from being in a cult, I would say trauma from being brainwashed about the group, but we both agree about the presence of trauma.)
Or do you represent an integral type of operation, where you play the grandpa storyteller, and they play the role of wild-eye bullies, attempting to bully the weakminded into being afraid of the outlash that they represent (of which I am unaffected)?
Your thoughts please.


taavis_doc (taavis_doc)
10-01-2005, 07:31 PM
Once again Steven trots out the very tired all-purpose explanation for opposition to Larouche:
You've all been "brainwashed about the group"
This despite the repeated postings of LAROUCHE'S ACTUAL WORDS, followed by readings of these words that highlight the disagreeable ideas. Steven's repeated attempts--along with those of Dr. Sputter and the inebriated medical student--to relocate the discussion to Larouche passages that he finds more agreeable (or "ecumenical" in some redeeming way) is as transparent as his other efforts to evade the hard truth about this ridiculous organization.
Speaking for myself--all commentaries ON the LYM are supplemental material to be taken with a grain of salt; I will continue to go straight to the source for my information, and since the source is completely bat* crazy, predatory, anti-semitic, devoid of worthwhile ideas, and frankly pretty despicable, I will continue to post here. This is for the benefit of curious lurkers who want to know what your foolishness is really about. I have personally directed many of them to this board.
Making fun of you, which is almost too easy to be any fun, is merely a fringe benefit.
As for Mr.s C's roll on this board--you are right to try to neutralize his contributions by pandering to his "level headedness," etc. He absolutely has the goods on your hero.
Oh, and about the "outfits and haircuts"--yes, it is hilarious that the LYM ostensibly opposes the empty, boomer-derived "counterculture," yet appears in its garb. It is hilarious that video games and satanic drug-sex-rock are the height of stupidity, yet your most visible celebrity spokesperson is from, ummm . . . Star Trek!!?? It is hilarious that 60s icons like the Beatles and the Dead are part of some "New Age" conspiracy, yet Steven lends his holy pipes to singing their songs with his Yale buddies.
That's almost as funny as a Trotskyist claiming to have have invented the Strategic Defense Initiative for Reagan.
Steven, for as long as you and yours beg for ridicule, you will receive it.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
10-01-2005, 09:21 PM
Steve, there are a few possibilities here. It would be presumptious of myself to speak for other people. I myself enjoy a reasonable and productive life as well as many other former members. Other people who show up here enter because they themselves, or have seen others become confused over what type of cacaphony the Larouche org brings to their lives.
My personal nature is to never hate, just inform. I have gone through pretty well what an environment of hate can lead to. Overall, I left the org pretty much the same way I went in. My beliefs never changed in principal. This only means something because for the most part, my life is rich with family, an enjoyable career, reasonable financial reward and an active life of civil affair involvement.
For every me, there is an ex member who lost everything. People can lose many things and it is not the same as sacrifice. People have had things taken from them.
There are members who were left with incredible credit card bills and loans. Their money stayed with Larouche but the debt stayed with them for life. The org was glad when they bit the dust and rode off. Do you think that Phil or Harley rode after them and offered to repay them?
How about Lyn's former VP candidate? Family farmer Billy Davis lost his farm, his family, his entire life of work. The farm which was supposed to grow every year to be handed down to his kids is gone. Every dime he had went to us. His family I heard basically left and went their own ways. Davis works in his 70's for the prevailing retail wage in Northern Virginia.
How about a man like Dr. John Grauerholz. He was the number 2 man in a Long Island county health office. A proud, cultured man who lost a lot more than money after the smoke cleared in Leesburg. He can't go back to what he once was. See how he started in the org's archives and google his name now. Can the org offer him his life back?
Each region had many wealthy contacts who wanted to help us. The amount of money lost was staggering. Many years later I have talked to former honcho's who retell stories about how their contacts were taken for everything. Each person says that the cold hearted greed of Lyn those close to Lyn who only wanted the cash and would say anything to get it drove them out. In many cases the same MO was done. Person X wished to finance something and get the org on a sound financial basis. The word came down to just get the money , spend it on something else and worry about paying it in another era. When the calls came in for repays, it was not a Larouche problem but your problem.
People spent years in jail because of this Steve. I showed you just some of the cases from Canada.
There are members who blew their heads off. Members who left and had to seek medical help for neglected ailments. Some members had to see psychiatrists since leaving a cult after spending many years in it while you are young and now old does lead to depression.
Depression effects people in many ways. You would be surprised at how many Leesburg members hit the bottle heavy. Leaving a cult, when you went in not thinking it was a cult is a massive life change for many people. Quite a few people carried on with their lives, went back to school or started jobs or businesses. I am very happey over the successes of many of the people I knew from the org.
There are women who have real pain from aborting their pregnancies. This has nothing to do with whether you are for or against abortion. The idea that you terminated a pregnancy because the org was too busy saving humanity and Lyn says so at a conference is pretty hard to take many years later. There are a few ex members who could not get pregnant after leaving.
Steve, do you think that this makes people pretty angry when they go throught this lunacy and then hear Lyn talk in glowing, teary eyes to female members that he is now a grandfather from his son David?
What I only wish to inform you and many others is that one of the most darkest experiences you may go through several years from now is how the hight of your energy, good will and virtue was carelessly spent supporting a master of a paranoid, deluded cruel man.
You have it pretty easy as you can read the malarky of the org and pick and choose things in which you agree with. Hell, we all did the same thing. You like it so much that your brain is cruising right through things that may not be so nice. The yutes had a very limited reworking of the past. Did Phil tell you that he was the President of CDI and oversaw the boiler rooms? Did he or Harley or Debbie ever tell you about the people who lost entire life savings to us? Does Debbie tell you about her "house nigger" campaign against Parren Mitchel when she ran for congress? I gave you the PDF.
Does Harley every tell you about his wife Suzie's sisters? They USED to be in the org many years ago. Both left a while ago, have kids and lives.
I can assure you Steve that when I was in, we only tolerated a guy like you for so long. If you gave us money, then we would not bother you about joining full time if you objected. If you were a full time student and had no cash or credit, then we want your body. We would tell you about how we want to build a mass movement, just like we are telling you now. If you join, do you think you will be at Yale? Only at a card table shrine for a few months on the campus square. We found that most people who drop out have problems when they return to campus, so we will be sending you to another local or region.
Lets relook at some of what the ex member from France wrote. You will be promised a certain amount of money. Everyone has the same story it seems when you read web articles from ex yutes. The way this work with you is that you will not be recieving a pay check every week. You see that is too dangerous.
We found out in the early 1980's that when we gave out paychecks for people, they had to not bounce and we had to pay taxes. Members actually liked the idea of weekly paychecks as it made it seem like less of a cult and more of a business. When you give people a chunk of cash though, they have a way of leaving. Also, Lyn has a way of needing huge sums of cash and security is the best way to swallow it up. If you hold cash back, then Lyn could be killed by the endless army of a 6,000 year old conspiracy against him.
What we did was to assign people to apts and pay their rent directly. The cars and expenses would be in members names and we would reimburse you for gas and such. Slowly but surely, your entire life was now determined by people higher than you. We could slow down the money by sending everything to the National Office. We had endless calls about how all money was to be turned in and your expenses were last in the line. The members were given 5 bucks a day, which I have shown is actually greater when adjusted for inflation than what yutes are given now.
The net result is that you are dependent on the org for food, travel and housing. Your time is decided by some one else. Your media choices are some one elses choices. Your ability to read other sources of things has been curtailed.
When members go through this Steve, they do not wish to hear about you galavetting in Yale. Of course they think your education is a waste of time. It was taken away from them and you feel better when you take it away from a college kid who won't leave school.
For the parents who read this site. Please, never send your kid money. The org just laughs at you since you are now paying Lyn's bills. We did the same thing every election time. We had members call up their parents about some medical or dental problem that needed a few hundred to solve. We took the check, deposited in the member's bank account and then had them write a check to Lyn's campaign account for Federal Matching funds.
I can go through the FEC web site and point out the members who seem to write 2K in total checks who make 20 bucks a week.
Lets examine another notion from the French member's self relfection.
"During these gatherings, the leader constantly increase the level of tension within the group, beginning with strong declarations such as : "we are at a crucial point in our history", or "history does not serve the same plate twice" or "some people here today do not understand how important we are…"
The only difference between now and when I was in is the wording. The phrase we always heard was this:
"Recent events in the last 48 hours confirm...."
"XXXX of XXX has echoed the Larouche plan in declaring ....."
"The clock is two minutes to midnight over whether nuclear war will be unfolding"
Let me correct that one. The local leaders used "nuclear war" Lyn always used "Thermonuclear war". You can find plenty of people who are in LYM who can tell you that when they went to Leni and asked about something, the answer was "Don't you know that a nuclear bomb can drop down on us any minute!"
Another thing to think about Steve is that many people who joined had limited contact with Jews. It seemed for many years that the anti semitic materials and white washing was tolerated because of a few things.
-We had Jews in the org.
-The members knowledge of how anti semitism works was not known.
-The history of the Nazis during the war was not well known.
Steve, I never saw Swastika or a picture of Hitler on our walls. I did see a chapter of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Dope Inc. I never was able to read the whole book because of the endless mobilizations and we later took that chapter out after protest. I did not see pictures of Nazi rocket scientists in full Nazi regalia. I did see that on numerous TV specials and books about Penumunde.
I never noticed our disturbing anti semitic vector until I left and read Jewish sources for years about anti semitism.
Many of us are deeply shocked in retrospect and ashamed of this.
I hope I have given you enough potential reasons why some people are pretty angry. People have different ways of basically saying the same thing.
One person may speak softly and warn of an upcoming problem in the roadway and politely ask you to take another route.
Another person may yell "Look out stupid, you're gonna crash".
Some times the passengers say the same thing at the same time to avoid a crash and burn.
Dr. Ritter may be busy Steve. Can you shed light on these questions?

  • - Please correct me Dr. Ritter and tell me why an environmentaly friendly power source like solar is unacceptable in a Larouchian world.
    - I mentioned our dancing with the right wing last night. Were you aware of this history before you graced this site?
    - Is it possible to be a Bush supporter, right wing supporter and a Larouche person at the same time?

dave72 (dave72)
10-02-2005, 12:14 PM
A turning point for me happened one day when I was "caught" by our local leader reading non Larouche-approved literature. I was slow to realize that I was in a cult so the harsh reaction I received came as a bit of a surprise. I was told to imagine a "what if" scenario where the whole organization but myself got blown up at a conference. It would be my job to carry on the movement, therefore I didn't have the luxury or time for "outside" reading. I didn't argue the point because, sadly, it made sense to me at the time. I did, however begin to imagine how I would carry on the organization. Without the LC behind me, how much of the crap I was spewing every day at the airport would I be willing to own? The worldwide economic collapse would be mine to warn the world about. The rock and roll conspiracy would be mine. The Russian Orthodox church's plans for a global showdown…. Mine. Aristottle bad, Plato good…. Mine. The poster we sometimes used that said " Stop the spread of aids, quarantine the queers"...Mine.
Environmentalists are worse than Hitler…mine. Quark scientists are fools…. Mine. Bertrand Russel is evil ( just look at that picture of him with the pipe, he must be evil !!!) … mine……etc….etc….etc….
When I took the time to evaluate what I was willing to stand for without the Larouche cult to back me up, what I had left was everything that I believed in before I joined. It wasn't much longer after that I quit.
Years later, it is interesting to read about the financial fraud and the anti-semitism but it really had no bearing on why I left. If I was still in the org I would assume that to be all slander anyway.
I would challenge the yutes to do the same thought experiment that I did. Remove the org and decide how much of the info in those books and pamphlets are you going to stand behind. What kind of movement are you going to create ? Do you really care about the British anymore ?


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-02-2005, 05:50 PM
Second question:
I was aware of some right wing people that you talked to. Quite frankly, I have never had an experience where I myself would not try to mobilize any part of the population, with their superstitions, prejudices, ignorance, etc.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-02-2005, 05:56 PM
and the third question:
"Is it possible to be a Bush supporter, right wing supporter and a Larouche person at the same time?"
LaRouche person? Supporter, you mean? If you supported Mr. LaRouche you are supporting policy; the two most compelling and overarching policies are 1) the promotion of nationalist economics in a global system and 2) using that policy to absolutely forget about agressive war, pre-emptive and nuclear.
A studied LaRouche supporter should not support Bush, because Bush is against both policies. A supporter of say a Pat Buchanan might make a more convenient ally, especially in the fight against war and outsourcing in particular.
Until next time,


sancho (sancho)
10-02-2005, 07:04 PM
LaRouche and his minions delight in calling people names, but when they get the same treatment they call foul. Interesting double standard. Fortunately, they are all illiterates, orthographical and otherwise.
Here is a recent interview with the Nazi Rense, where Lyn is doing his best Willy Loman impersonation. He sounds on the verge of a nervous breakdown of a Riemannian type:
Note how he talks about (1) hyperinflation and (2) hedge fund implosion - two things which are not occurring at all. One would have to be really dumb and/or uninformed to buy into all this. (I would elaborate, but I have decided it is poor form to ridicule the mentally and emotionally challenged.) (


sancho (sancho)
10-02-2005, 08:14 PM
Further, I wonder what sort of trauma this individual experienced:
Question My question is, why should we have nuclear power, versus solar power, and how exactly the gang-countergang operations work, with a lot of these modern leftist movements? So, that's my question.
LaRouche: Okay. Because solar power is idiocy. Actually, solar power is nuclear power. Where do you think you get solar power? From nuclear fission and fusion, in the sun.
You want to eliminate nuclear power? No solar power.
Also, this whole idea of energy is crazy. You know, I believe in Don Quixote when it comes to windmills. We need Don Quixote now, for a useful mission! He's an important character of fiction, but now he can be an important character of reality. He can get out there with his lance, and knock some of these things down, and get this ugliness off the landscape, uh? These ugly things, these monsters up there, sitting up there snarling, killing birds. They kill birds! Bird-haters! [laughter]
Now, the point is... Now, this goes back to a piece of scientific idiocy, which was understood already -- the problem was understood by Plato, already. The concept of power, as opposed to that idiot Aristotle's concept of energy. So, when people talk to you about nuclear energy, or solar energy, they're Aristotelean idiots, who shouldn't be talking. They should be monkeys, and not talk. They can chatter, but not talk.
Because, the issue here is power.
Now, power is reflected in various ways in terms of energy, relative to what people call energy. Power had two features, generally, descriptively, in the form of energy. This is not where power comes from, but this is what power reflects, in terms of energy language. One, is energy flux density. What is the intensity of energy, apparent energy, per square kilometer, cross section area of motion? It's called energy flux density.
Now, compare the energy flux densities of various modes of power generation. Solar power is the least efficient. As a matter of fact, the use of solar power is insane. Because solar power has a very important use on this planet. Light. Light. What we want is more vegetables. We want more foliage. We want the deserts to bloom. What we want to do, is we want to get areas which are too hot, to cool down. We want more moderate weather. We want to turn the deserts into areas where people can live, under normal conditions.
How do we do that? We increase the biomass. Increase the amount of growth.
Now, for example, trees will absorb about 10 percent of the solar radiation hitting the earth's surface. It's very good. Take 10 percent of the solar energy, in a certain area; convert it into trees. You moderate the climate, both for winter and summer. You take an area which is a quasi-desert area, or desiccated area, and you convert it into a place where people can live. You convert areas which are useless, into areas where you grow food. So therefore, we want to manage what we're getting in terms of solar, heat radiation. We want to manage it, for the benefit of living processes on the earth. Including man.
For example. If we plant enough trees in the high plateau, or relatively high plateau, of southern India, we would probably lower the average temperature in the summer time, by 5 to 10 degrees. They need trees. Mrs. Gandhi had a program for putting in these semi-hybrid mango trees, and they're planting them all over the place. Developed at the Delhi Agricultural Institute of India. You know, the Indian people -- I don't know if you know what mangoes are, really know what they are. But when the mango crop harvests in India, everybody shuts down, and they'll take all the mangoes in sight, and if they've got a bathtub, they fill a bathtub with water, get naked, get in the bathtub with the mangoes, and eat. Because a ripe mango is a very popular thing. This is particularly true in Bengal.
But, a mango would be treated by the Indian farm family, as a family heritage. The tree comes, these special trees, come to fruit in three years. And then they fruit every year. And the fruit is delicious. So obviously, if you give a farmer help in planning these tress, and maintaining them, the farmer's family is going to protect those trees, and they will be assigned to the children to maintain them. Because these trees are now a family heritage. of something they like. They're not going to chop those trees down for firewood, as they did before -- what happened in turning the Deccan area into a semi-desert.
So, we've got our western land. You've got the great American desert. Look at southern California. Look at what's happened to the aquifers. This is insane! Look at Northern Mexico; what we're letting happen there is insane. The conflict between Texas and Northern Mexico over water, is insane! And therefore the thing with the solar radiation, is to organize its use, in such a way, as to enhance the biosphere. Be kind to Mother Nature. Enhance the biosphere. Don't waste solar energy, to trying to power television sets.
All right. Now, therefore, the other aspect is, that if we use... We waste a lot of money, by taking gasoline as a fuel all over the landscape. This is insane! Why should we do that? We don't need to have gasoline as a fuel, or diesel oil as a fuel. We don't need that. If we have a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor... Let's take a very specific type of a nuclear reactor. The so-called UNIK model, developed by a friend of ours, who is now deceased, Professor Schulten. Which works. This model is a self-regulating reactor, which operates in a range of between 120 and 200 megawatt. That is, as the reactor becomes hotter, it tends to shut down the rate of reaction. So, it keeps the rate of reaction within a certain range.
With a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, you can generate in an area, or say, a complex of them... Instead of putting up a 1.2 Gigawatt reaction, you put up a bunch of 200 megawatt reactors, and you put them up quicker. Because the big thing about the large reactors is, you have to pour concrete, and you have to cure the concrete. So, therefore it will take you many years, up to 5-6 years, to complete the reactor, and you have to spend and invest all the capital in it. Why not build smaller reactors, which you can complete more rapidly, and make many of them, in an area? You can put these things, they're easy to put in, you put them, they're self-regulating.
Now, but with these kind of reactors, we can turn water into a fuel! Very simply. You use high-temperature reaction to disassociate water, producing a hydrogen, or hydrogen-base fuel. You can use fuel cells, you can use other vehicles, you can convert from the use of gasoline, or diesel fuel -- which is a highly inefficient fuel, relatively speaking -- to a much more efficient fuel, which is a hydrogen, or hydrogen-based fuel.
So now, instead of carting oil all over the county, with pipelines and natural gas lines and so forth, you use natural gas where you have it in excess, as a chemical feedstock. For fertilizers, things like that. You take petroleum, and you ship the use of petroleum to chemical feedstocks, which is what it's most useful for. Burning petroleum is very inefficient. Use it as a chemical feedstock, the benefit to humanity is much greater per ton consumed.
You would turn the Middle East into production, a chemical factory, to produce feedstock, which would be used by the world, rather than burning the stuff up, and polluting the atmosphere. Much better. Then you would produce the hydrogen-based fuels, in your local region, so you wouldn't be carting this stuff all over the place. The problem with other methods, is, they generate a lot of waste. Boiling oil generates waste. You can't really be too efficient with that. Coal is terribly wasteful. Hauling fuels all over the country is very costly, and very wasteful. Don't do it.
So, why not have a new system, which can generate the fuels where we need them, and have them available on a standard, in every part of the world, or in every part of the United States, in particular.
So, therefore, there is no problem with it. If you're afraid of nuclear energy, die. [laughter] Why? Because you have nuclear actions going on in your body. Radioactive potassium reactions, which are an essential part of life. You don't like radioactivity? Don't lean against a brick wall. You'll get more radiation than from a nuclear reactor. A brick wall will do it all by itself.
So, this whole idea... What happened is this, very simply. To sum it up. 1954, there was an attempt to turn the United States from being the great producer nation of the world, per capita, per square kilometer, into a parasitical consumer society, which would live by sucking the blood of other parts of the world, and destroying our own people, and turning them into a bunch of dummies, which has been done with our education system now. So, as a part of that, they attacked technology.
Now, the first attack was not on nuclear energy. The attack on nuclear enegy happened after 1972. But the rock-drug-sex-counterculture, a key part, a leading edge of the campus radical movement of the mid-to late '60s, was essentially based on "end of technology." "Destroy technology. Go to a consumer society. Which means a parasitical society, like the Roman Empire. And the attack on nuclear energy, was determined to stop progress.
Take the other case, the case of DDT. There was never any reason to ban DDT. The campaign against DDT was a complete fraud. People are dying today, because DDT was banned. It was one of the most efficient, most harmless types of insecticide available. You have people dying of West Nile virus, because of a lack of DDT. This was done to stop technology. It was done as part of the war against technology, to transform us from a producer nation, into an imperial consumer society, a predator preying upon the rest of the world.
And therefore this campaign against nuclear energy, was a massive campaign of brainwashing. And someone who's afraid of nuclear energy, and prefers solar or something, they have to be a brainwashed zombie. And they should be told that. Because only by knowing they're brainwashed zombies, can they free themselves of the slavery. [applause]

  • And once again, a direct question goes unanswered in any rational fashion.

xylm (xylm)
10-02-2005, 10:22 PM
If we remove the Larouche hinge on which your knowledge hangs, your logic would drop, shatter, scatter, and then devour in the replacement of any real logic. If the LYM was not a cult, you would have retained threads of your own logic to keep you atop, or at least, distinguished from every other Larouchie on this message board.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-03-2005, 06:23 AM
My old logic:
Democrats good. Republicans bad.
Religion bad. Agnosticism good.
Help people. Why? I dunno. Ok, so half-ass care.
U.S.A. is *ing * up, so to speak.
Dad, Mom, so what do I do now?
Text books boring. Lectures a drab. MTV is lame but I'll skim through the tube anyway.
Oh, and FoxNews knows the something about the news.
This "old logic" made sense before I was willing to challenge myself. In the first place, they were never to closely held by me. I was never passionate about anything except baseball and family, with the latter fading because there was no dinner table. I knew I did not have answers to important questions, unless they were on a scantron.
If you can, prove my old axioms to be truthful. And if you are like me, drop the axioms and live in accordance with principle, as much as possible.


sancho (sancho)
10-03-2005, 07:41 AM
That is not logic: those are opinions and dispositions.
Your new and old logic is solipsism.
P.S. One discovers that Scantron forms do not comprehend all of reality, so the necessary conclusion is to fall in love with an intellectual fraud, a moral bankrupt, and a convicted felon?
C'est a rire.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-03-2005, 09:54 AM
Well, obviously if one's conclusion has changed, so has one's logic.
The key point I made was that I was more passionate at pointing out how idiotic certain behavior was (particularly in the political arena) rather than being passionate toward any definitive goal. This is a result of the poor arguments, logical enough, found on the news, like FoxNews, but others as well. You want to find my past political logic? Look at the liberals on Fox, MSNBC, CNN, NYTimes, Post, etc. I even respected Tom Friedman until I met the guy on Old Campus, as he was helping his daughter move in.
As a matter of fact, one should always change one's "logic", or better put, one's hypothesis, so one may have the room to ever-perfect one's point of view. In fact, I am pretty sure my "logic" has significantly changed from when i was 4 years old. Sancho, has yours?


xylm (xylm)
10-03-2005, 10:03 AM
Lyndon Larouche wished to look away from himself — thereupon he created the Larouche Movement.
Intoxicating joy is it for Steven to look away from his suffering and forget himself.
There he mused to take paths by which to steal into another existence and into happiness! Then he contrived for himself Larouche's by-paths and long leaps.
Even in his folly and despising he serves the Self and his very Self wants to die, turning away from life.
To succumb --- wishes his Self; wherein he became a despiser of the body. For he can no longer create beyond himself.
And therefore is he now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of his contempt.
Larouche then speaks upon him, "A by-way for purpose --- I am the leading-string of your ego, and the prompter of its notions."


xylm (xylm)
10-03-2005, 12:01 PM
Cody Jones, the panel chairman, begins by stating that "students need to stop watching the shadows on the irregular wall of their professors' rectums, and crawl out to smell the reality behind the shadows." "If you want to run from your immortality, LaRouche will be waiting with his youth movement at the door."
Cody, the once drugged and aspired white rapper who dropped out of his psychology sessions for the movement is referring above to Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Putting the irony aside and giving his grammatical use the benefit of doubt, this braggart has babbled that our formal scholars do not exercise anything beyond the "imaginative state" in our classrooms. I can only fathom such a childish remark as something revealingly pertinent to a self confession ---namely, the imposition of his hallucinatory drug experience in HIS past classrooms. But what can we expect from somebody who has had to read Plato's 10 page passage several times to get it?
LYM along with their peacock leader impart undue influence to dissertate the "fraud of education". On this note, they are told on more than one occasion that they are and will be the educators of our "Renascence". Since the LYM is always right, the educated must not know what they are doing, and since the LYM is worldwide, people everywhere must not know what they are doing.
I suppose then doctors, e.g., are arbitrarily saving lives and healing the ill for our societies. And I also presume that when our fraudulent education is thrown out, Cody Jones and his philosophy kings will teach and create new doctors with their medical expertise. And I presume Cody and his zombies will also teach and create new engineers, architects, and builders with his 2 page passage from Larouche on the steam engine. And I presume he will also teach horticulture with Larouche's 1 page rhetoric "to green the desert".
I strongly agree with Cody and his cronies, that our "counterculture" is dumber than ever, especially with those dummies books touching every subject. This is why I want to join the LYM and have 2 page articles suffice for multiple decade-long formal studies of each specialty.
What a moron! What a desperate bid for self complacency! It is him and they who are in the "imaginative state".


sancho (sancho)
10-03-2005, 12:22 PM
Since you evidently have no idea what logic is as distinct from an hypothesis or an apple, whatever response you might receive would be meaningless to you.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
10-04-2005, 02:46 PM
LaRouche: Okay. Because solar power is idiocy
"Now, compare the energy flux densities of various modes of power generation. Solar power is the least efficient. As a matter of fact, the use of solar power is insane"
"And therefore the thing with the solar radiation, is to organize its use, in such a way, as to enhance the biosphere. Be kind to Mother Nature. Enhance the biosphere. Don't waste solar energy, to trying to power television sets."
" And therefore this campaign against nuclear energy, was a massive campaign of brainwashing. And someone who's afraid of nuclear energy, and prefers solar or something, they have to be a brainwashed zombie. And they should be told that. Because only by knowing they're brainwashed zombies, can they free themselves of the slavery." [applause]
Steve, this is pretty calm to what we went through. ANY body who proposed alternate energy sources to generate power was considered a "100 times worse than Hitler" by Lyn. We made clear to members that being an environmentalists meant that you were in favor of the mass killing of the human species.
Dave72 made an important point about how many of us, after leaving the org, end up thinking the same way. The main idea I wish to get across is that once you are in the Bizarro world of LYM full time, your method of thinking clearly through problems is changed. No longer are the entire range of options and choices which may have postive or negative results going to be important to you. You will simply accept simple answers for comlex problems via the Larouche method which is to ignore the complex and take a short cut. The short cut makes your life simple as you can now be a polemical windbag at a card table shrine without having to justify or prove that your ideas have validity.
In my own experience, I was always in favor of Nuclear Fusion. I read about a decade before I met the org in Popular Science and Scientific American. The Campaigner we published on Fusion was exciting to me since I deeply wished for a cheap pollution free source of energy for the globe. Never mind the details about how much per KWH it would cost, "Just look at the Sun, fusion works". All that was needed was a brute force project and a few billions and we would harness the sun.
Every LHL solution to a problem has the same answer. Depending on the decade, a several hundred million, billion or trillion dollar project through low interst credit in a massive earth moving job works will solve the problem. Don't worry about the tax and debt service because the econoomy will grow big enough to pay for everything. You name the project, Fusion, water, maglev trains, Beam weapons, Mars, canals, dams, the text following it is always the same.
What never shows up is CRITICAL THINKING. LYM wants 6,000 nuclear plants built. You guys are much brighter than we were because we only wanted 1000 plants in the US built. Have you seen any economic studies of fuel and waste transport costs, land aquisition costs, raw materials, labor costs, staffing costs, post waste transport and disposal costs? How much of this is Government subsidised? Environmental impact studies? What is the final KWH price? Just try to ask Lyn or part time school teacher Richie Freeman for some details and you will be met with a cold icy stare of disbelief.
"Melt down the neon signs of the whore houses to make the reactors" "We are in the Punctum Salien of history" "Anything less is genocide" and on and on.
I am still for Fusion power and we do have some critical large progects coming on line. But, even after spending billions and billions and using several countries worth of scientists and resources, the first light bulb to use fusion generated power has not been turned on yet.
We will not get into the cold fusion hysteria which the org also welcomed as the best thing since sliced bread. We will also ask some of the yutes if they were ever shown copies of our cold fusion quarterly we were publishing in the 1990's.
So why is it a problem for Dave72 to read some other opinion while in the org? Because the strung along yutes start asking questions which do not fit in the axiomatically challenged Bizarro world.
Before Lyn enters a room to denounce environmantalists as criminals and murderes, someone throws the switch to light and run the HVAC. In some California areas, upwards of 17% of the power running through that switch are from renewable sources.
For the yutes in Glendale, Lyn talks about the deserts. Any discussion of whether the desert is an ecosystem or has a purpose as a desert? We wanted to make money and friends in Brasil. We would denounce slash and burn crop techniques at the same time we called any one who wished to halt the Brazilian Rain Forest destruction as an enemy of Brazil.
Do the yutes in Glendale ever hear Phil and Harley talk about how solar power is worthless. Lyn was big on using the term "energy flux density" as if he is an electrical engineer. Anybody tell you guys and girls what a transformer is and how you change voltage and current to suit your needs?
Any discussion of a recent artiucle in Forbes and Business week on a Solar energy project in California? Lyn tells pou that solar energy is way too inefficient to use. Anyone take you guys to the Mohave desert near Victorville where there is a solar energy power station being constructed which will provide up to 500 MW of peak power for SoCal Edison? Any one tell you that the facility does not use photo cells but a 100 year old invention named after a Scott named Sterling for power? Each energy tree hits 30 % efficiency which is a major breakthrough.
Here is a quote from an article someone sent me.

  • ROOM TO GROW. California's new solar-power drive dovetails nicely with Stirling Energy's long-term vision. Osborn says 11 square-mile dish farms could produce as much electricity as the 2,050 MW from Hoover Dam. "We're already looking at a half-dozen square-mile sites in the California desert," he says, "and there's lots and lots more territory there."
    Better still, there's even more sunny, open space in the deserts of Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.
    Ultimately, Stirling dish farms with a total area of 100 miles square could replace all the coal now burned to generate electricity in the entire U.S. -- if some dishes get coupled to systems that can store solar energy for use after sunset, such as massive flywheels and fuel cells. Whether that remains a utopian dream or emerges as a viable plan probably hinges on Stirling Energy's success in delivering on its deal with SoCal Edison.
  • ** **
    Is it the ONLY solution? Of course not. Only in Larouche world does everything have only a Larouche Plan. In a few years, Lyn could be denouncing solar enrgy advocates and researchers as mass murders using solar generated power to run the mike while he runs his mouth.
    Now let me explain the ultimate goof on the yutes in Glendale. There are many ex members of the LA office who left the insanity. One of those members is not too far away from you. He left several years ago and has a simple job. His primary source of responsability is being the founder and CEO of a Solar Roof energy conversion business which grew out of his humble one truck roofing business he started after he left the org with nothing but debt and his shirt. This multi million dollar firm has hundreds of projects which replace traditional roofs with solar power panel roofing systems which generates power for either the owner or income by selling it to SoCalEdison. The business is in such demand that there is a international expansion underway.
    So let us ask the question of who makes more jobs, more wealth, more power, cleaner air, and rebuilds the infrastructure?
    A paranoid and demented bum who can impress drop out yutes, or an ex member who finally asked question?
    Steve, I already gave you the answer to who is doing more to get to Mars with REAL science and work. The same principal applies. Stay in the real world and you will go far. You will be the same person with the same concerns, but your life will actually mean something.
    Next we will show how a few years from now, many yutes will be scratching their heads wondering what they were thinking supporting lunacy.

ihavesinned (ihavesinned)
10-05-2005, 02:23 PM
I talked to one of these guys in front of the post office in seattle. I had seen their familiar red-marker posters in front of my college, but never taken the time to talk to them. It's total bull*. This guy kept trying to commit to voting for Larouche. When I said I don't know anything about him , he tried to sell me some books. I said if he wants to get elected, his promotional material should be free, then the guy became belligerent and insulting. If I wasn't driving a work truck I would have knocked him out. I don't know if it's a cult or a money making scam. I do know nobody in america is going to vote for a guy with such a french sounding name.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
10-05-2005, 03:30 PM
It is both. Speaking of Seattle. There was a hilarious spoof of the group done by some frat boys and girls. They probably are still mad at this parody.
Here it is. It was posted many posts ago, but I always keep a copy close by.
Seriously though. I think you may have run across a lonely man named Paul Glumaz. He used to use the name Paul Morgan for some reason in the early days. That is a another story as it was fasionable for us to have pseudo names for New Solidarity articles. Larouche had the pen name
Lyn Marcus
Since many of us started to smoke pipes as college drop outs because Lyn did so, I guess we wanted pseudo names for articles as well.
I remember Paul Glumaz as being a pretty serious guy who has been kicked around different locals for eternity. A guy like that has a hard time leaving as he has put in well over 32 years into this circus. He is still hoping to lead a mass movement, so cut him so slack if he gets angry. One member who left with the Detroit region saw him at a Seatle Post Office in the mid 1990's. The guy almost cried when he saw Glumaz. He was by himself at a card table shrine with books from the 1980's and three month old papers. It was winter and he was wearing the same parka he had from the 1980's. This guy felt like crying since he knew him and was hearing the same polemics as he heard in the early 1980's.
It is a hard feeling to describe when you meet someone 20 years later who has nothing and has been kicked around like yesterday's laundry.
Any one here rememember Glumaz? Sometimes it hurts when you see people who you got along with turn into dead enders.
Steve , add that to the reasons why some if us show up here.
I can assure you that Glumaz never made it to Lyn's parties as the worker bees do not mingle with the Queen Bee except to collect the nectar.


sancho (sancho)
10-05-2005, 04:18 PM
Paul, although somewhat eccentric in his mannerisms, is one of my favorite people in the LC. He's an intelligent, good, and decent human being which is why he remains at the bottom of the LaDouche dung heap: because he's everything they're not - decent, good, and intelligent. He is also - unlike Lyn - a college graduate, with a BA in anthropology from Columbia University.
If there is one guy I would want to help reestablish his life in society, it would be him. I once said that some of the best people I ever knew were in the LC - and it was true - but he must be one of the few remaining to judge by the illiterate, illogical, and profoundly stupid LaRouchites one observes posting here. Paul has never been stupid, just another misguided soul who long ago put his heart in the wrong place.


xlcr4life (xlcr4life)
10-08-2005, 11:24 AM
"Second question:
I was aware of some right wing people that you talked to. Quite frankly, I have never had an experience where I myself would not try to mobilize any part of the population, with their superstitions, prejudices, ignorance, etc."
How about their pure hate? Or, is it a place where you find the common ground?
The dilemma which Steve and other LYM members find themselves in is that they are not cognizent of what they are actually supporting. You see, the everyday member is often busting his or her rear end to create what they think is a viable and wonderfull gathering of like minded people. Projects in geometry and the arts are conducted by newbies who never give a thought to what the org does in other places.
In my time we too were busy performing Shakespeare plays doing soap bubble experiments and convincing ourselves that we really were Democrats. The behind the scenes meetings where we would offer to screw candidates of the Democratic party were not talked about. Our meetings with wild Liberty Lobby and Klansman were joked about. We too told the members that our unique approach to organising would allow us to work and talk to any group.
So, we campaigned against drugs but used the Protocols of Zion as our calling card. We told you that there was a drug business, but made sure that Jews were at the top of the list. We told people that we were against the Nazi's, but apologised for their history. We actually absolved much of the German contributions to Nazisim by blamimg it on the Jews and the British.
One by one , many members could not stomach this and dropped out.
I have this gut feeling that quite a few of today's yutes are going to be surprised when they look past their pedagogical building blocks and look at how the cult has created quite a name for itself in the Mid East.
This little piece comes from a group which monitors Arab media. They recently had coverage of how wild conspiracy theories about how THE JEWS run the US and pulled off 9/11 are now a feature on Iranian TV. There has been many articles and interviews about this and certain names seem to always pop up.
Here is an experpt.

  • **
    ".. year after the bombing of the World Trade Center, the canard that 11 September was a Jewish plot and that 4,000 Jews had absented themselves from the Twin Towers on that day was still prevalent. In fact, it became an unshakable conviction in most Muslim countries, as a Gallup Poll revealed. Most interviewees in nine predominantly Muslim countries rejected the idea that Arabs or Muslims were responsible for the bombings.14 Could an operation of such magnitude be carried out so accurately by an Islamic group receiving orders from a cave in Afghanistan, wondered Mursi `Atallah in the Egyptian al-Ahram al-Masa', despite all the evidence accumulated.15 The attacks were planned by Jews, it was argued, in order to provide them with an excuse to blame Islam for being a radical and terrorist religion and to destroy the Muslim world.16 Moreover, some papers even predicted another terrorist attack by "the Zionist entity" inside the US in order to push the latter into a war against Iraq.17
    To reinforce this thesis, Arab papers of all ideological trends extensively quoted western sources propagating similar views, such as US supremacists Lyndon LaRouche and David Duke, French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and French journalist Thierry Meyssan.18 The Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-Up (ZCCF), founded in Abu Dhabi in 1999 under the auspices of the Arab League, was instrumental in presenting their ideas in academic guise. The center organizes conferences and lectures with the participation of Arab and foreign intellectuals, journalists and politicians. It also runs a website which reports on its activities. Several lectures and symposiums held during the year dealt with the September 11 events, Zionism and the Jews. Meyssan, author of The Frightening Deceit (L'effroyable Imposture) who was hosted by the center, repeated his theory about American involvement in the September 11 attacks in support of Islamic terrorists. In mid-June the center organized a symposium on "The Jews in the Arab World," which was intended to diffuse "international Zionist propaganda intended to inculcate hatred in the hearts of Arabs and Muslims toward the Jews." Two months later, at the end of August, another seminar was held on "Semitism," "to expose the fallacious claims and concocted legends of the Zionists and to counter their nefarious propaganda against Arabs and Muslims after the September 11 events, in particular." Muhammad Khalifa al-Murar, executive director of the center accused the Jews of being the enemies of all nations, cheats and self-seekers, who resorted to churning out lies that they were Semites and were being persecuted, in order "to cover their heinous crimes… against the Palestinian people."
  • **
    Lyn's security chief, Jeff Steinberg (the guy who promised the Glendale yutes jobs in Leesburg) is a featured source for numerous articles about 9/11 conspiracies. This has to tickle the Muslim world as a having a Jew talk about how those pesky Jews control the US through the Neo Cons is a great gag. Lyn himself graced the podium at the Zayed center and also appears on Mid East TV.
    There was a hilarious situation a few years ago where Lyn appeared on Al Jazeera I think stating that Al Queda does not exist and that the US and the British run terrorists as part of a secret plan to destroy the Muslim world and 9/11 was a set up. At the same time, a tape of Bin Laden appeared on Western TV telling the infidels that he and Al Queda conducted 9/11 and we have declared war on the West.
    Go back to the 1970's and you will see that we published quite a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood and about the Nazi roots of certain Arab leaders and groups after WW2. We published a book called "Hostage to Khomenhi" by a guy named Bob Dreyfus. He and his wife dropped out a while ago and he is now an editor of "The Nation". Steinberg does like to brag to people how he feeds Dreyfus information even though he dropped out years ago.
    Lyn himself made a trip to Iraq and we often tried to get Iraq money. I suspect that we were "Usefull fools' for the Iraquis as we only got an EIR sub from their embassy. Our papers did like Saddam a lot though. We opposed the first Gulf War after Kuwaut was invaded and later ran a campign about how sanctions are wrong. During this period, one of our European members named Muriel Mirak Weissbach traveld to areas like Sudan, where woman are pretty much nothing, and we wrote many glowing things about certain people and countries. ALways remember that for the right price and photo ops, we will work with any dictator and thug.
    The org had a breakthrough when Lady Di died as Steinberg was able to be a Lady Di expert and seemed to snuggle up to Prince Dodi's family. You would often see Stienberg on British TV talking about the death and the Royal Family conspiracy in running the world to a usually laughing host. Things like this make contacts for further work though.
    Go into the 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry and you will find a lot of lunacy and articles which purport that Israel is behind it. Look further and you will see a lot of disinformation and not a word about any Islamic fundamentalism or mention of Al Queda style terror. Somehow, Israel is the puppet master.
    You may not find Larouche directly in these sites, but somehow, the words seem very familiar. How could that be? Look for Larouche material to be used via a person named Webster Tarpley. His ex wife is Murial Mirak. Tarpley has his own cottage industry going and has a millionaire backer of his. The speculation among some who monitor how anti semitsm and crazy views of Israel are spread is that Tarpley is merely a semi detatched limb of larouche these days. Lyn's reputation is so bad among many groups is such that the LYM can only be laughed at when they show up.
    That happend last month during an anti war rally in San Francisco where the LYM were viewed as a Laoruche cult. The joke was on them though as many had 9/11 articles which were based on tarpley's (larouche) work.
    Taprley was one of the original founding members of the Eurpoean LC. He partook in Beyond Psych sessions with his wife Murial. Lyn, Helga and a few others. He was so hard core that he even had his marriage ended Larouche style with the Euro LC execs voting on releasing Murial from him. She must have been so messed up that years later you can see her in EIR with a burqua telling us about how progressive Tunisia and the Sudan are today.
    In Europe, the anti Israeli sentiment is much more in the open. Where we call Muslims in the US for money for the campaigns, we have much more opportunity in Europe. Tarpley can meet with and cross pollinate this 9/11 conspiracy club with a lot of Larouche material and many will never think about it. There, TV shows about how the US blew up the WTC and the Pentagon are big. Meysonn's books have been translated into many languages. Look him up and see the world that exists. Tarpley enjoys a freedom to spread Larouche with out the baggage which larouche can cause. In many sites you can't tell where Tarpley ends and Larouche begins and vice versa.
    It was in this crazy world that Jeremiah Duggan found himself in. He thinks that he is going to a seminar on Schiller. He thinks that he is going to one day wtrite for the French paper. He finds out that he is among the worst blame THE JEWS for everything rally. He even stands up and disgrees and procalims that he is a Jew in a meeting. Wrong thing to say when Israel is the main reason the world is messed up.
    Steve is only giving money and lip service to the cult. His body is still in Yale. Every dime he gives make the trips and phone calls to spread lunacy about THE JEWS and 9/11 just a little more affordable. Does Steve think like Harley Shlanger and Lyn that the death of Duggan was "A HOAX" to stop Lyn form winning the White house? Does Steve think that this was set up by the British and Dick Cheney?
    This whole process takes some time. We have been through it and can now understand why we may not have made the objections when we saw the Protocols od Zion, the Jew Jokes and the Nazi Rocket Scientist club formed. Many of our Jewish members did and thus left. It took a while for some of us to catch on.
    Steve may be a slow learner. Look up the crazy 9/11 conspiracy stroies in the Mid East and see your money at work. Just like when we were working with the Liberty Lobby and Klansmen, after a while, you look the other way.

sancho (sancho)
10-09-2005, 11:05 AM
An instance of the pot calling the kettle black; a concentrated display of LaRouche's inability to handle ideas other than as banners under which individuals parade whom he happens for one arbitrary reason or another to detest. Even passing familiarity with the LaRouche cult however will enable one to understand his particular spite against the political genius, Hannah Arendt:
"To understand the human mind, we must know that we must despise, with extreme prejudice, the existentialist notion of "thrownness" in the doctrine of Hannah Arendt's sometimes beloved, Nazi co-thinker and active anti-Semite Martin Heidegger.[24] The essential relationship among the minds of the members of society, is regarded by the existentialists as axiomatically mechanistic, rather than dynamic. The denial of the existence of truth, even her hatred of the idea of truth, is her explicit contribution to the existentialism which she shared, to the apparent end of her life, with her sometime intimate, Heidegger."
"[24] A pair whose intellectual union was separated, in the end, by little more than the thin, slightly penetrated sheet of her official birth certificate, as "Jewish." Her hatred of truth was infamously codified, in cooperation with her culturally degenerated accomplice Adorno, in that pair's echo of fascist dogma, set forth on the subject of the alleged "authoritarian personality," on behalf of that synarchistic, implicitly satanical collation of scoundrels known as the Congress for Cultural Freedom. The essential, underlying quality of that doctrine, is traced most efficiently to the Thomas Hobbes recognized widely in and following his time as the incarnation of "Old Hob.""
From his most recent ramble, a wild concatenation of names and places which instantiates in words that upon which it purports to descant,,
an exercise at once as hilarious as it is shameful.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-09-2005, 02:29 PM
"Does Steve think like Harley Shlanger and Lyn that the death of Duggan was "A HOAX" to stop Lyn form winning the White house? Does Steve think that this was set up by the British and Dick Cheney?"
I'm not sure if you are asking me these questions or if it is simply part of your rhetorical storytelling hour. I will give you the benefit of the former proposition.
Well, the question is typical of your storytelling: pepper some facts and names, simplify an argument, and insert matter-of-factly made up intentions.
Mr. LaRouche and Harley Schlanger say that the "death of Duggan" was a "hoax" according to our trustworthy source Mr. Curtis. When I read articles by Steinberg and others the argument is clear: the death of Jeremiah Duggan is an absolute tragedy, as all deaths are, particularly from young people who are troubled. The "hoax" was not his death, but was a transformation of the circumstances of his death into a political bullet, by Baroness Symmons (sp?) and others.
I hope I answered your question, as briefly as I could.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-09-2005, 03:01 PM
To those concerned about the lack of respect for contemporary universities:
I found this passage in Cardinal Ratzinger's dialogue/book published in 2000. i see the same idea reiterated in a similar way by Mr. LaRouche.
"Even a simple person can know God quite well. It is not necessarily the case that a broad acquaintance with the scientific and historical knowledge we now have will make someone capable of understanding God better.
"You can drown understanding in facts. Anyone who fails to perceive the mystery at work within the facts of nature or of history is just stuffing his head and his heart with a lot of things that may even make him incapable of any breadth or depth of perception.
"A great amount of scientific knowledge can, on the one hand, lead to someone's being no longer able to see beyond the facts, so that he is hemmed in by facts. Because he knows so much, he is now only capable of thinking on a factual level and can no longer bring himself to make the leap into mystery. He sees only what is tangible. And, from a metaphysical point of view, in this way a person becomes more stupid. The other side of it is that sometimes, precisely by the breadth of our vision, in that we can see so many glimpses of divine reason in reality, this really does add breadth and scope to our image of God, and we stand before him with greater reverence and even with humility and awe."
I hope the idea is more tangible now.


sancho (sancho)
10-09-2005, 03:57 PM
Another brazen display of juvenile reasoning:
His Holiness (an academician and pastor of souls) correctly identifies a false approach to knowledge, therefore devotion to Lyndon LaRouche (a college dropout and cult leader) is vindicated.
Hasn't LaRouche a better advocate? This is too easy.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-09-2005, 04:19 PM
Your post does not demonstrate an understanding of what Pope Benedict XVI was even addressing.
Allow me to help clarify.
One can know the never-ending mountains of empirical detail of the universe, but if one has not discovered that these empirical workings are mere effects of the Creator's intention, then he is very "stupid" in a real way.
Contemporary universities do not teach in this way. The focus is on the empirical data, with little to no regard for truthful intentions.
Nothing here was remotely addressing the real problem of cult worship, as many demonstrate in King George W's base.
I hope the point is now more clear.


kheris (kheris)
10-09-2005, 06:22 PM
Mr. LaRouche and Harley Schlanger say that the "death of Duggan" was a "hoax" according to our trustworthy source Mr. Curtis. When I read articles by Steinberg and others the argument is clear: the death of Jeremiah Duggan is an absolute tragedy, as all deaths are, particularly from young people who are troubled. The "hoax" was not his death, but was a transformation of the circumstances of his death into a political bullet, by Baroness Symmons (sp?) and others.
Excuse me all to pieces here, but I have a news flash for you Steven. Jeremiah's death was transformed by the Schiller Institute in a desperate attempt to dodge any connection whatsoever to the events that led up to Jeremiah's death. It began with the false claim that Jeremiah was, using your wording, "troubled." It culminated in the alleged link between Jeremiah and Cheney. Any politicization occurred directly as a result of publicity by Larouche supporters and the campaign.
March 31, 2004 - straight from the Larouche campaign itself -
Now, the London press itself has presented evidence of a link to LaRouche-hater and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney as behind this smear effort.The London Independent story of March 27 identified Baroness Symons, "a Foreign Office minister" as scheduled to meet with members of the Duggan family, the Cult Information Centre, and MP Rudy Vis, a Labourite. According to Private Eye of Sept. 20-Oct. 3, 2002, Baroness Symons, in January 2001, gave a 300 million pound sterling contract to Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation, to deliver British tanks and other military hardware to frontline combat situations. At the time, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. was Minister of State for Defence Procurement. Symons is also Deputy Leader of the House of Lords and a member of the British Fabian Society.
The Private Eye story reported that in April 2000, while still CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney had chaired a conference in Oxfordshire, England, on the subject of his proposal to privatize the military. That session was attended by many top British Defence Ministry officials.
Read it carefully Steven. The allegation of a connection is based solely on the Baroness' activities within the scope of her duties. She was operating within the scope of her duties when, as Minister of Defence Procurement, she approved the Halliburton contract in 2001 and again as a member of the Foreign Office in 2004 when she met with the Duggan family. Only a conspiracy theorist could tie two totally unrelated events together and create this headline - Is Dick Cheney Implicated in London Dirty Tricks Campaign Against LaRouche?
The timeline ( published in Children of Satan II strings together a series of events, beginning with Jeremiah's death and subsequent news coverage, with Larouche interviews, notices about meetings held by Larouche opponents and so forth. Not one word is printed that clearly shows the connection between the Baroness, Cheney and Duggan, aside from the timeline's title A Concise Timeline of the Symons-Duggan Affair
Sorry Steve, but while you may find Mr. Curtis questionable as a trustworthy source, your own sources in the Larouche camp don't exactly inspire confidence. Especially when they engage in the sort of hyperbole and flimsy reporting I expect from Fox News (among others). A little critical thinking goes a long way on this issue. And it does not support the Larouche version of events.
Regarding Benedict XVI and your evaluation of what he meant -
One can know the never-ending mountains of empirical detail of the universe, but if one has not discovered that these empirical workings are mere effects of the Creator's intention, then he is very "stupid" in a real way.
The empirical workings of the universe are not "mere effects of the Creator's intention." The empirical workings of the universe are a direct reflection and expression of the Creator at work within the universe at every moment. We do not need to know or understand every detail to recognize the Creator's presence. This goes beyond 'intention.' We are talking about a living universe, alive because the Creator is alive within it, not standing outside of it and perusing its workings. Inventors have intentions but they don't create ex nihilo and live with and as part of their creation.


sancho (sancho)
10-09-2005, 07:16 PM
Your attempted clarification is a further obfuscation of your continued attempt to justify the words and deeds of an evil cult leader, would-be tyrant, and intellectual fraud.
I must say that I have rarely encountered a person as pathologically dishonest as you.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-09-2005, 07:42 PM
kheris. I corrected Mr. Curtis' mischaracterization of Mr. LaRouche's position. That is what I did. It is clear. I corrected the words that were put in his mouth. Dispute this, and I will question your knowledge of the English language.
As for your correction: I agree with what you write. I think you are looking for disagreement, when none are present in this issue. Great. Join the movement to create a new Renaissance.


sancho (sancho)
10-09-2005, 08:14 PM
New renaissance! Apt illustration of Post Number 51.


kheris (kheris)
10-10-2005, 12:22 PM
From Steven:
The "hoax" was not his death, but was a transformation of the circumstances of his death into a political bullet, by Baroness Symmons (sp?) and others.
From Kheris:
Jeremiah's death was transformed by the Schiller Institute in a desperate attempt to dodge any connection whatsoever to the events that led up to Jeremiah's death. It began with the false claim that Jeremiah was, using your wording, "troubled." It culminated in the alleged link between Jeremiah and Cheney. Any politicization occurred directly as a result of publicity by Larouche supporters and the campaign.
Since you say you were correcting Mr. Curtis' characterization of LHL's position, I suppose that my response is best directed at the folks in the Larouche campaign who politicized Jeremiah's death. I must ask however, in view of your efforts to ensure that LHL's positions are correctly characterized; have you bought into LHL's position on this matter?
As for whether or not I am looking for a disagreement where none exists regarding Benedict's statement; there is a definite difference between what I described and your characterization of it. In this instance, I corrected your mischaracterization of Benedict's view.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-10-2005, 02:25 PM
I can not imagine any maliciousness on the part of Schiller Institute or Mr. laRouche's associates. Some have brought up points like perhaps they offended and mistreated the mother. I don't know on that account. I think the question that concerns us, the reason why we even know of the name Duggan is because it reached here through people like those who are here on this message board, who somehow got in in the mother's head that Mr. LaRouche is at the head of a criminal cult. That is my preliminary view, not set in stone. When I have more time to look at the empirical facts I will do so, just as I want to do so with the LaRouche case.
Benedict XVI. Read the book. Take it in. He has a view, I have a view, you have a view. The more we communicate the more we can see where they converge/diverge. No need to show animocity just because some of us have become so casually difficult. I am glad in the first place to see more people appreciate the pope. Great.


sancho (sancho)
10-10-2005, 03:12 PM
Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest. You continue to choose to believe that everything former members here post about LaRouche wrongdoing is false. One thing about us: at one point in our lives we gave ourselves for years, body and soul to Lyn. We didn't sit on our asses like you in some ivory tower posting on an internet message board, we were on the phone and on street corners and in airports giving everything for LaRouche. You have never given to Lyn what we have, you little sexless weasel. Some of us, too, unlike you, are Roman Catholics and don't need to be lectured to by a lapsed Catholic such as yourself about the Pope. You're not all that. We are the ones who have shown heart and commitment - you slackjawed pansy.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-10-2005, 04:46 PM
I did not lecture, nor do I wish to. I rather want to invite the Pope's ideas, especially since such a wise and lovely leader (who can help us in our understandings) was missing from a relevant discussion.
Too bad you gave all of that to Mr. LaRouche. You really were in a cult, of your own making I might add. It now sounds like you wanted the group to be a cult for Mr. LaRouche. I am sorry but you are sorely mistaken. Those who give their services (like myself) to promote Mr. LaRouche's organization, promote ideas that are larger than mere personalities. You should have learned that in LaRouche 101.


sancho (sancho)
10-10-2005, 05:08 PM
I feel truly sorry for you. You are entirely hopeless. Nonetheless, no matter how profoundly self-centered, unintelligent, and uneducated (and therefore repulsive) I find you, I believe you have very good impulses. For the life of me however I cannot imagine why any decent person would hitch his wagon to the star of an ex-jailbird, Jew-hater, and fraudster when the world offers so many saner venues for noble thought and action.
May the Holy Spirit open your eyes and ears.


kheris (kheris)
10-10-2005, 10:01 PM
I can not imagine any maliciousness on the part of Schiller Institute or Mr. laRouche's associates. Some have brought up points like perhaps they offended and mistreated the mother. I don't know on that account. I think the question that concerns us, the reason why we even know of the name Duggan is because it reached here through people like those who are here on this message board, who somehow got in in the mother's head that Mr. LaRouche is at the head of a criminal cult. That is my preliminary view, not set in stone. When I have more time to look at the empirical facts I will do so, just as I want to do so with the LaRouche case.
I think it is long past time for you to suspend your graduate studies so that once and for all you can study those empirical facts and settle the question.
Have you so little comprehension of the emotional toll on a grieving parent when no one will explain the events surrounding the death of her son? I don't know any mothers who will sit still and accept such silence. It matters not whether the people involved are part of a cult; it is answers that are being sought. Mrs. Duggan did what any parent would do in the face of such stonewalling; she researched LHL herself and drew her own conclusions. Has she made common cause with those who call LHL a cult leader? Yes and that outcome was entirely predictable. Especially considering the subsequent actions by the Larouche In 2004 campaign.
If not maliciousness, then why would a political campaign drag Jeremiah's reputation through the mud to serve its own interests? Why cobble together events unrelated to his death and suggest they are all part of a 'dirty tricks' campaign against LHL? Are you really so naive that you cannot recognize actions that are, if not malicious, then certanly mean spirited and stupid? Can you not see that sort of behaviour serves to cement the worst expectation anyone might have of LHL? The Duggan Affair lives on precisely because of the silence of the Schiller Institute and the missteps by the Larouche campaign.
The campaign, and the Institute, feared the cold light of an investigation, and they weren't at all happy with the coverage by the British media. If you go back and read the campaign's own material about the Duggan Affair you will see the hyperbole at work in article titles, yet unsupported by the alleged 'facts' (empirical or otherwise) in the articles. The Institute set the stage for this, and until they are forthcoming with a full and candid disclosure of what happened over 2 years ago, the Affair remains open.


borisbad (borisbad)
10-11-2005, 01:32 PM
I truly admire Steven's tenacious holding to a "new renaissance". Where is the new renaissance LaRouchies talk about? What new music has been created by followers of LaRouche? What new poetry (for a LaRouche poem search above)? What great literature? All they can do is have people who perform some Beethoven or read Edgar Allen Poe and then pretend that they are the only people in the world today who still uphold their values. I know Kheris has posted some poems from her site. But point to one example of this great classical renaissance.
And getting into some of the crackpot theories, I remember for a time that LaRouchies were pushing the theory of the fall of Atlantis as real history rather than a myth fashioned by Plato to raise certain philosophical points. This was in line with theories pushed by an author named Barry Fell who wrote about the great transatlantic civilizations that predated the Norse and the later age of Exploration of Columbus. I also remember reading that Moammar Qadaffi was very into promoting the work of Barry Fell. Interestingly also, and perhaps some of this was in the Timaueus Campaigner, LaRouche's ideas also got into the Aryan origins of modern language and talked about the Dravidians vs. the higher cultured Vedic peoples. I remember this line of inquiry lasting perhaps a year in the organization and then dying out, nevertheless it shows what passes as completely non-peer reviewed "scientific thinking" in the eyes of LaRouchies.


stevengrendon (stevengrendon)
10-12-2005, 10:10 AM
hey Boris,
I think that a Renaissance flourishes when the political preconditions exist. It begins politically during the initial phase, reviving old discoveries from the past. Consequent generations will benefit from our having given them the time and capital that is required to foster scores of revolutionary thinkers. I think this goes without saying, since the primary and initial focus of the LaRouche organizations is a political one.


vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on July 24, 2012, at 07:29 AM