Library: FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued - Page 1

< FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche - Page 3 | FACTNET.ORG FORUM | FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued - Page 2 >


05-26-2007, 08:26 PM
new thread ...


05-27-2007, 12:50 PM
Can the moderator freeze the last series of posts about Lyn at ........... 666
We can start here to continue. Things are easier to follow when we stick to one thread. It is also easier for yutes and interested parties when they try to understand the Bizarro world of Larouche.
The editing of Larouche makes a huge difference Howie. We used to have a few people who were professional level editors who could correct all of the historical inaccuracies and make Lyn look reasonable as you noticed. Lately, it is basically unedited and that pretty much is reflective of how Larouche really thinks.
The most difficult concept to grasp with is that you have a delusional man who really believes what he writes while at the same time feeling boldy empowered by the surrounding sycophants. All this takes place while telling non stop whoppers and misleading people.
The best example of this is during the cross examinations during the trials. Larouche would tell an incredualous jury and prosecutor with a straight face that he has no idea of how things like cars, security guards, mansions, farm animals, cash for mobsters, SST first class tickets, food and clothing all magically appear for him.
The other thing to understand is that many years ago we had pretty bright people who did research and wrote thigns which Larouche then claimed as his own. The figure you should us is that if it sounds rationale, 90 to 95 % of it came from someone else. If it sounds crazy then 90 to 95 % came from him. If it is so over the top bat sh*t crazy, then give him a 100 % perfect grade.
Since so many members with real brains and skills left years ago, Larouche has basically cloned his delusions via the remaining deadenders like Jeff Steinberg, Tony Chaitkin, Wertz and a few others. The next tier are too busy trying to stay alive by teaching part time school and contributing a few stories as the LYM force them out the street.
The REAL undertanding of Larouche is from the numerous scam artist outside security people who know how to use Larouche's delusions and thievery against him. If you wonder how why a cult can gross several million a year and starve people, that will be answered later. Bunko artists themselves become victims to better bunko artists by playing up the greed and delusions of the mark. Lyn may not have the Mark of the beast on hius forehead, but, he definately has the Mark of silly guy with money and cult on his forehead when Jeff Steinberg and Paul Goldstein introduce Lyn to their "friends".
Considering how Jeff is very busy making his case for the post Lyn LC these days, one wonders if Lyn has calculated how much he has lost as Jeff sets up his own franchise among the LYM. Steinberg's wife's notebooks were big on evidence for prosecutors and investigators, but Lyn went to jail not them.
Just a thought.


05-27-2007, 03:19 PM
What xlcr4lief writes reminds me of the TV show Hustle with the Man 4 Uncle. You can always hook a greedy person to a scheme, and the NCLC seems to have fallen repeatedly for such people as Roy Frankhausen and Mitch Werbell and not to mention Carto and company and others I never knew. And just as the rightwing lunatics used the NCLC to get their views out in the past, I'm sure the Libyans, Iranians and others look at LaRouche today in a similar way, as just anotehr "useful idiot" as Lenin called them. Of course, if some Iranian or Russian intelligence agency thinks that Lyn has any influence in US circles they will feed him some info and some flattery as to how much they recognize his importance as a world leader, probably in the hopes of reaching some backdoor channels as was done back in the time of the Reagan Admin with the likes of Bobby Inman and others who believed LaRouche had a "credible" intelligence operation.
As to the language issue, having been in the organization where we actually encourage people to read things like Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind and Kant's Critiques of Pure and Practical Reason, I began consdering LaRouche's use of interminable sentences with myriad dependent and independent clauses a reflection of classical thinking a la the complete obtuseness of reading Hegel. But for one, I didn't read Hegel in the original German so I can't vouch for how impenetrable his language actually might have been. But I later learned that the ability to write interminiable sentences with no correlation between subject and object is not the sign of classical learning but just the classic trick of a charlatan feigning learning by being esoteric. Lyn always hated writers who wrote direct, straight ideas like Hemingway. Why sacrifice obscurantism for clarity? Because it's harder to detect what a fraud you are and people think that by being impossible to understand what you are saying must be significant.


05-27-2007, 04:28 PM
That show was called "The man from U.N.C.L.E." Borisbad. I guess the show with Jeff, Paul and the others could be called 'The Men from a Monkey's Uncle"

Now we are going to end this myth of how Lyn is either the developer or inspiration for so many things you see him huffing and puffing about to naive college drop outs. When you are in an insular world of a cult of personality you are cut off from so many sources and discussions of what takes place every day on this planet.
Lyn gives you tasks to do because he has to run your life and like a starving ghost writer, he can pay you nothing and add his name to your hard work. This has been going on for decades. We had a guy named Bill Engdhal who was so angry over this that he copyrighted his writings and then left with an FU.
Another guy wrote a book which we published which was printed in the tens of thousands for years. He got jack s**t for that and after leaving years ago he still sees the book sold. Seriously yutes, do you think you get royalties for going to Lyn's bunker, er basement and making him look good to other yutes? This is like a cult version of three card monte where after every turn you owe more and more.
Now onto destroying some myths.
A long time ago, in a country far, far away . A wealthy island of massive cash holdings do to massive exports called Japan was the new up and coming Money Empire. This was during the 1970s when almost all of you yute's parents were on their first date. Japan had so much in cash holdings that everyone thought they would rule and buy the world. This always happens when dollars flow into a place at a high clip whether it is Mid East oil nations or China today or SOuth Korea a few years ago. When the yutes live a few more years and read things like the WSJ or basic things like Business Week, Forbes, Fortune , The Economist or even Better Homes and Gardens instead of Larouche they will get the picture.
Since Japan had so much cash it was debated where to park it all. Out of this came Mitsubishi Heavy Industry and a division of theirs which worked with some other Japanese talent and set this up:
GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE FUND or GIF was known by a few of our bright talent who did research and found this to be a very positive plan. Look at the map and you will see The Kra Canal, Second Paname Canal, a train line from Russia to the US via Alaska and Mid East water projects.
All of this was a way in which Japanese cash holdings could be used to expand more Japanese business which would finance and build this. You see a similar thinking today where China invests in other countries to get a foothold on future business. A few days ago in the WSJ you could read about South Korea trying to build a Steel plant in India in which the locals are not too thrilled. The same WSJ also had an article on a real breakthrough in laying super conducter power lines below Manhattan. If you are not at a card table shine on Manhattan streets than you would know what is happening below the card table shrine This stuff happens every day of the year and depends on many factors including political stability, finance, need , environmental and other real issues. This work does not depend on an 84 year old cult leader who can make college drop outs ooooh and ahhhh over a shiny projector slide and a warning that HELL will appear if no one adopts the larouche Plan.


05-27-2007, 04:34 PM
Each of the items I mentions has been absconded by Lyn as his creativity as he hitched himself to that and added whatever local lunacy to fit the bill. When Lyn's forehead blood vessels pop about his demand that the USA, China and India must save the planet or we are doomed, remember that in the 1970s I other here were running around with copies of New Solidarity which had Lyn predicting the end of the economy unless the US saved the British Pound! A little later when we started to try to sell EIR subs to Russian contacts we were big on a transferable Ruble to save mankind. When we shifted and started to call up Reagan supporter cold calling lists Lyn demanded Gold Backed US Bonds to save humanity and make the gold bugs we called like us. When we courted old Germans and Helga felt left out we called for a Duetchemark based plan to have Germany export everything to the Third World to save.
Of course Lyn has to keep you busy with a never ending cascade of enemies, demons and conspiracies. If he didn't you would ask your self if this really is a cult or a bad joke being played out. Did you ever wonder how come there is never a day on the briefing without something coming to an end as we know it? Lyn figured this out with operation Mop Op, the Chris White brainwashing hoax and numerous other lunacies. When members found something worth supporting like the GIF project, he claimed it as his own but did invent the delusions to go with it to keep you going around the clock.
So look at that URL and see that this all came from real people which is why there is enough to make you want to stick around, but enough lunacy to make most of us leave.
If you stay in school and get into an MIT, then you can actually work on this
as a career and do something constructive instead of a career at a card table shrine. The people who actually have something to do with these projects would be laughed out of the room if they brought in Larouche.
Now that is yet another story for another day.

As you run through the halls of Congress and other places yelling about the Queen of England and doubling the cube, don't misinterpret what people in these offices tell you. I work with the public and meet a lot of elected officials. When we have a person which we feel is nuts, potentially disruptive, a threat or annoyance to our clients we all do the same thing. We put our arms out to the person and say "I understand what you are going through and will follow up on this. Take my card and stay in touch, have a great day" as we escort them to another room or the exit to defuse them.


05-27-2007, 07:48 PM
I would now like to move the discussion up again to the doctrinal level, namely to the pseudoscience of the "LaRouche-Riemann Method." On the website back when I was prepping up to join was some of the stuff on the Method. Supposedly this led to the capability for a "metric standard for cognition." This sounded pretty good and at the Spring '00 Conference in Reston I remember Lyn mentioning his "per capita/per sq kilometer" formulation. So I thought there was apparently something pretty heavy going on here and that it must be a scientific/philosophical breakthrough I'd come to comprehend better in due course.
Also around the time of the very first cadre schools Lyn had an essay on how the election of EITHER Bush or Gore would mean a quick plunge of the world into the New Dark Age; the essay stated that "the relative potential population density of the planet" was plummeting. I think this concept is or used to be central to establishing that Lyn is in truth the world's greatest economist.
Some of the Russians actually tried to pick up on this and define the "la" as the unit of PRP density. Lyn never developed this---I guess because it can't be developed. It's all basically blather. If some of the original member-posters know anything about the emergence of the Method and how it became the case that Lyn had ALWAYS been the master of Riemannian and relativistic physics, I'd like to hear it. And maybe the yutes can specify just exactly what IS the "LaRouche-Riemann Method."


05-27-2007, 09:35 PM
well gang, the forum has been fascinating the last couple of weeks, and not having ever been a member, i have been reluctant to add my own thoughts...but i am reading larouche's first " power of reason " autobiography, circa 1976, and was very surprised to come across this:
" By adopting the Bretton Woods agreements, the United States had committed the essential errors of Versailles in a new form. Granted, we did not go so far with "war-reparations " as Versailles had gone. We committed every other principled blunder all over again. We rejected the specific proposals of John Maynard Keynes, but we stuck with the Warburg monetarist line.
This folly ruined our management of the war-debt accumulation - which should have been handled as Alexander Hamilton would have handled it. "
well, it goes on from there - pages 80-81 if you care to look in your own copies...
if anyone can correct me on this, i would be thankful, but i thought that bretton woods was, according to larouche, the system that saved the world , and allowed for a rebuilding of the shattered economies of europe and japan...
for what it's worth, this book is no easier to read than anything larouche has written recently...but, to be fair, i am completely unschooled in either economics or mathematics, and perhaps it would make more sense to me were that not the case...


05-27-2007, 09:43 PM
one more thing has occurred to me: not one mention of FDR yet - about halfway through the book, and past the point where i would have expected to find one, since larouche does write of his life in a more or less chronological fashion...
interesting...not, of course, that this negates anything larouche is saying's just that larouche has been extolling the virtues of bretton woods and FDR for as long as i can remember...and since there are many here of late who have had long experience with the organization, i am wondering if anyone can tell me approximately when larouche adopted FDR as his patron saint?...and why?


05-27-2007, 10:42 PM
1. LaRouche-Riemann method does not exist. NEC members and others who tried to work on it in the 1990s discovered that there was nothing to it--and no wonder, since it was supposed to be the method that quantified and predicted the unquantifiable nonlinear creative breakthroughs and paradigm shifts LaRouche was always going on about. The notion of a "metric standard for cognition" fits right in with this--quantifying the creative (which, incidentally, LaRouche otherwise always insisted couldn't be done).
2. In first edition of Power of Reason, you see indeed that Bretton Woods system is everything that's wrong with the world. That was LaRouche's position throughout--emphatically so, for example, on Aug. 15, 1971, when Nixon took dollar off gold--until LaRouche's latter-day discovery that he was FDR made him re-think all that and promote New Bretton Woods.
3. When I joined the organization LaRouche was (absurdly) characterizing FDR as a fascist, with programs identical to Mussolini's. Later on, when LaRouche decided to become a Democrat, he had another breakthrough-discovery: Democrats liked FDR. So suddenly, he discovered that FDR was a god.
This started to happen in 1980, when LaRouche showed up as a Democrat, and picked up steam throughout the 1980s, to the point that some time in the early 1990s, a major LaRouche electoral vehicle was FDR PAC (name later changed to LaRouche PAC, when LaRouche discovered he was FDR). FDR PAC/LaRouche PAC replaced the NDPC, which had legal issues and needed to disappear.


05-28-2007, 03:13 AM
The larouche-Riemann "method", or model, was developped in the 70s by ppl like Uwe Henke v Parpart (who introduced Riemann to lyn) or David Goldman who, unlike Lyn, studied economics and maths. What I heard is that the model was eventually dropped by lyn, although it was claimed to be the best model of forcasting in the world. The reason I heard it was dropped was that it didnt predict what lyn wanted it to predict, ie the collapse of the US economy!
Maybe so BUT if this model of prediction was so good and authoritative, the org could have cashed in millions from governments and large corporate industries. That in itself PROVES it never existed.
As for the RPPD... the key word is "potential", and lyn uses it in a literary sense rather than in a scientific way. This is wonderful cos, in the end, he is the only one to "estimate" what this "potential" is. It resides in the etheral world of hypotheses (ie meta-physics) where lyn belongs, not reality. This "potential" is like you having a newer, faster car that potentially could drive you quicker from A to B. Now, obviously it doesnt mean you ll get there quicker, there are many other factors... This notion of "potential" purely limited to technology (or the "idea" of a techological breakthrough) is, in itself, wrong, far too simplistic... That s why the socalled larouche-Riemann method doesnt work. You cannot reduce economics to... physics (ie Riemann) The "physics" of economic processes are only one aspect of a far more complex reality.
But the key word is "potential" and indeed lyn could "potentially" be the next president of the United States.


05-28-2007, 04:06 AM
Charltonrom, after many years of either being a reader of LC lit or selling it, I found that "The Larouche-Rieman" method is truly the Alpha and the Omega of the many goofy things which are accepted and never challenged. Asking another member to explain it either brought the shortest response as no one ever could explain it or you heard some two hour long explanation then went around the word a few times in a local class. This is one of those things like asking about why the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was in the Dope Inc book. You get a shrug or you get a convoluted hour long dissertation which covers everything except what you ask.
If you stay in school you will notice that your grasp of something can be measured by how short you can summarise something for a person who asks you a question.
The real answer is that in a cult of personality the personality MUST have his or her name attached to something to impress. We had a Swarthmore Professor named Uwe Parpart as an NEC member who wrote a translation with others I think called 'The Cantor" Campaigner. My guess is that a guy like Lyn was getting upstaged by Uwe P. who was a degreed professional who could actually do serious math. Uwe P later dissed Lyn big time when he appeared on CBS news as an expert on SDI and not Lyn. Uwe P actually may be involved in financing development projects today.
I myself and the yutes should find it laughable to consider Lyn knwoledgeable of even basic math. My kids have a better concept of math since they can add and subtrtact and thus can deduce profit or loss. If you ever looked at how the World's greatest economist spends yutes money you see that this concept is clearly not known by him as every business associated with him goes bankrupt with a catastrophic loss.
We had a book store in downtown Leesburg which we bought and spent another few hundred thousand remodelling. At the time I thought it would be interesting to have a book store which could sell and trade in exotic original books and in basic books reflecting the many things we were interested in. That got run into the ground and people have told me that it ended up as a two story version of a card table shrine. There was a manager of sorts who eventually left the LC with her husband who would know some more.
I drive by plenty of bookstores run by "Aquarian Conspiracy" ex hippies and bored suburban moms which have more business sense and understand math better than Lyn.
If you were to figure out a real Larouche acclade for posterity I would suggest this:
"The Larouche-Schacht Method"
Lyn's breakthrough in economic was how to use vitual slave labor of the LC/LYM to prop up his master er Golden Soul race fantasies. He extracted whatever was of value from the Jews in his operations and then let the few Jews left alive inside to administer the remaining smoldering carcases of a starved membership. He ordered and laid plans to carry out a looting of senior citizen funds and then claimed ignorance of the matter. Whatever was needed but did not have cash for was simply gotten through taking. Lyn like Schacht tamed inflation to the point where in current dollars, a present LYM member works more for less than 25 years ago.
This joker must have used the "Larouche-Rieman visuals to be the only person in the history of Northern Virginia to buy thousands of acres of prime land cheap in the 1980s and then lose it all. Yutes, Walt Disney was a better economist when you see how he built Disney World real estate holdings.
Lyn was also maybe the only person who could buy a radio station in the 1980s and lose a small fortune after radio stations were deregulated. Ask your local NC about what happened to WLYN in Maryland.


05-28-2007, 04:37 AM
Charltonrom, on "per capita/per sq kilometer" formulation" let me give you my take. When we were publishing non crazy articles about Fusion projects around the Globe Lyn would mention something called "Energy Flux Density". What this was, was looking at how much energy could be concentrated per a fixed volume. This was then defined as how to determine whether an energy source was worthy of usage. In my mind back then it seemed plausible that a high amount of energy measured in BTUs per fuel volume was a valid metric to use.
However, in the Bizarro world of the LC, this was used to justify Lyn's usual hate think about something like solar energy of other sources. You did not just think that solar was not as efficient as a quadrillion dollar fusion project which has yet to make electricity to light up a bulb, but you must hate solar power with a passion. You must hate the people who promote solar power and then hate them some more because they are going to kill a few billion people by promoting solar power. All I know is that I have some nice solar lights in my gardens and in front of the house which were easy to install and cheap and do not cost me anything each month to run.
After I left the LC it occured to me that the only metric from the consumer was whether there was adequate electricity at a stable voltage and amperage with a continual supply at a set rate. That is what was important as the consumer could care less about the energy flux density. The final user determined the energy flux density with a transformer and capaciters.
In larouche think, the metrics are determined by the whims of Lyn to satisfy the dogma at that particular moment. Thus in everything promoted there is no real exchange of different requirements as the requirement is Lyn.
I got into trouble many a time by simply asking questions that to me seemed obvious. We had a woman named Shiela Jones run for the Mayor of Chicago. In her platform was a call for using a Maglev train to replace the existing CTA heavy rail. I asked the local NCs if this does not sound stupid as the cost of retrofitting an existing and operational subway line would be incredibaly expensive, massively disruptive, and a waste as who needs a Maglev to go 10 city blocks? "Why not just upgrade the rail and track systems and expand some lines?"
Whoa, that would not reverse the coming depression which need the infusion of three trillion dollars in gold backed bonds to reverse the New Dark Ages and thwart the upcoming KGB/Russian Orthodox Church takeover of the Dem Party and the West.
This to me is how the LC often works where a legit or semi legit concept is used which a person can recognise and then slowly be "Laroucheified" to the point of absurdity.


05-28-2007, 06:17 AM
Oh that is too good; the LaRouche-Schacht Method!
The yutes have been indoctrinated into the narrative that world history was forever shifted after Lyn's 1971 debate with Abba Lerner.
For there, Lyn had exposed definitively how operates the world oligarchy: namely through insidious Schactian-style labor recycling, as down in Brazil at that time. From this point, then, the oligarchy recognized Lyn as their primary foe and deadliest enemy, and determined to stop him by all means necessary---including death.
The ramifications of this world-historical, earth-shaking 1971 debate at Queens College percolate down to the present day; for the international oligarchy convened and "determined that they would never let another one of theirs face off against LaRouche again." If the LYM are indeed "turning into geniuses" as I was once told, aren't they too smart to eat this type of thing?


05-28-2007, 07:01 AM
The whole canard that is the "LaRouche-Riemann method" (so jarring to have the name of a charlatan yoked to the name of one of the most imaginative mathematicians in history - sounds rather like the Curly-Dalai Lama method) begins with all of this blather about "linearity." Linearity is a property of equations in which, if an equation satisfies two specific criteria, the equation is linear, and if not, it is nonlinear. Many if not most equations descriptive of real-world phenomena are nonlinear, and many of them do not permit of exact (so-called analytic) solutions, which situation makes this a fascinating field of research. Generally one can think of a linear function (an equation is merely one type of function or relation or operation) this way: let y (the dependent variable) be dependent upon x (the independent variable) such that any change in x effects a change in y. Let "a" be a constant, let "z" be an independent variable togther with x, and let "y=f(x)" denote y as a function of (i.e., dependent upon) x. Then a linear function (equation) is simply one for which it is the case that both y = f(x) + f(z) = f(x+z) AND y = f(ax) = af(x). A nonlinear function is a function which does not satisfy at least one of those properties. It is not at all fancier than that. THERE IS NO DEEPER POINT TO IT.
So then Lyn declares linearity is "bad." We must eschew all linearity. Well, for sane people, there's no getting round it. Now he has the current crop of young victims playing around with compass and STRAIGHTEDGE to avoid any need to simply state, say, the Pythagorean Theorem. The lie that they are swallowing whole is that somehow by constructing c^2 = a^2 + b^2 out of the gate each and every time they are sticking it to the man. Interestingly, it is that theorem which expresses the linearity in the small if you will which is at the foundation of calculus. It matters not a whit whether you regard an infinitesimal ontologically as a monad or as a truly vanishing entity - those are all sophistic considerations. But the perversity of this whole "nonlinear" project is all based on the most convoluted and twisted thinking that one can imagine. And, by the way, both Gauss and Riemann were the greatest admirers of Newton: I think their estimate of Newton is of far greater importance than that of Little Lyndy with his T-square, lachrymose puss, and failing grade in elementary plane geometry.
LYM: you are just playing around in mathematics. Go back to school and take a class in elementary group theory and let that open your eyes to a lot of what you are pottering around with at present. You will be truly amazed at the power of abstraction and generalization, not getting bogged down in individual cases like a chimpanzee with a stick poking for ants.


05-28-2007, 07:50 AM
Key to LaRouche's pathology in terms of Euclid is his telling remark somewhere that as a 14-year-old, he rejected Euclid's axioms and postulates. Of course he did! He is the ultimate oedipo-anarchist, rejecting all authority but his own. So OF COURSE when he was 14 and couldn't do plane geometry he responded by rejecting the basis for the Euclidean system. What a dreadful kid he must have been.
LaRouche dislikes linearity because it's testable and intelligible and repeatable. He likes quasi-mystical ineffable gobbledy-gook instead, and calls it creative mentation--and he likes it because it is unintelligible and therefore no one can call him on it.
It's impossible to discuss.
Speaking of discussion, here's a test to try with LaRouche, LYMers: Copy down verbatim something he said a week ago or a month ago, and then insert it into a LYM cadre school "dialogue" with LHL. Say, "I was just thinking about X, and I thought--" and then read, word for word, whatever it was of LaRouche's you copied down.
Then sit back and watch LaRouche say, "No no no" or "You're missing the point," or "The issue is" and proceed to tear apart his own dictum--because he thinks he's attacking what you said, and because LaRouche cannot possibly let anyone say anything without attacking it or correcting it.
More than one Labor Committee member has tried this, as a litmus test on the way out the door.
P.S. Another reason LaRouche hates Euclid is that he hates lines and points (see Sancho on LaRouche's insanity in terms of linearity). LaRouche likes things like vortices--he likes circularity (and how!), so has to make Euclid and the Euclidean system into a Babylonian/Aristotelian cult attack on Plato.
It's also fun to watch LaRouche go crazy over the Fifth Postulate, as if it made Euclid the Devil's Spawn.
Of course, Plato didn't see things that way, but on the other hand, Plato let Aristotle hang around with him for 20 years or so at the Academy, so what did Plato know?
Also--LYMers--if you want to satisfy yourselves forever that LaRouche knows squat about Plato, read the dialogues and ask yourself every few pages, "Can Lyn possibly be right that Plato is the Philosopher of Becoming?" The answer is, of course, NO, JUST THE OPPOSITE. As you will see.


05-28-2007, 08:13 AM
And let us not miss the doctrinal point (which may be different from the doctrine's functional/propaganda point, in holding together the organization from quick dissolution for a while longer): the yutes are engaged in forging a New Scientific Revolution! based on recovering the method of True Science, namely the method of Kepler which is also that of Gauss and Riemann and Planck (and Lyn) and such other few pure figures as Cusa and Plato.
You see, the Greeks had a true method, called Sphaerics; this was consciously attacked by Aristotle, one of the arch-fiends; the method was crushed by the Romans who utilized Ptolemy's fraud (Lyn buys the discredited thesis that Ptolemy's work was just a big fraud) to inaugurate the Dark Age. Only with Cusa, THE "founder of European experimental science" as Lyn puts it in his theory treatises, was pure method recovered. Cusa, Leonardo and Kepler, good; Galileo and Newton, not only bad, but LACKEYS of the oligarchy.
Perhaps the supremest doctrinal value: the work of Leibniz was also a victim of oligarchic machination. Leonhard Euler (one of the heroes/saints in the 80's) got dumped in the villain bin later, where he remains to this day, along with D'alembert and LaGrange. Gauss' critical remarks on their treatment of numbers, which was a field in rather a nascent state, reveal that they were actually mere agents, laboring along with Voltaire and "pretty boy" Francesco Algarotti to stop republics from forming while lowering a deadening cloak of Newtonian mechanism over the world.
Thus, education must recapitulate the original discoveries of the original discoverers. Members of Congress must master the Mysterium Cosmographicum and World Harmonies of Kepler, if the nation is to have maglev.
I will say that Lyn is a foil for reflections on the history of science, and I'm all for more of that, but his own doctrine has little beyond entertainment value.


05-28-2007, 10:52 AM
Lest anyone think I'm making up any of the above, just consult gems like "Non-Newtonian Mathematics for Economists"; Lyn's original explanations of why the LYM and the world MUST recover the 1799 version of Gauss' algebra proof; and recent yute reports from Capitol Hill. ( fid_91-96/954_Non_Newt_math.html speeches/2003/030713ecscover.htm
If I'm not mistaken much of the early 90's stuff like the Voltaire demonizing came to Lyn through Web Tarpley. It's true that Voltaire attacked Leibniz but it's amazing how the organization can find oligarchic tendrils everywhere.


05-28-2007, 01:15 PM
It may well be that Lyn attracted more intelligent recruits in the sixties and early seventies than the Visigothic LYM of today precisely because he himself was more intelligent at that time than he was post-1972 when no one was permitted to contradict him any longer in any fundamental way. By clamping down on free discussion within the LC, Lyn just screwed himself out of maintaining a truly intellectual life (even though people around the CP, SWP, and Spartacist League who knew him in the forties through early sixties said that he always was a megalomaniac.) But truth and justice have never been Lyn's goals, just decades of being allowed to act out through perpetual enactment of his childhood trauma, whatever that might have been. The characterization of LaRouche's scribblings as a Mad Libs game is scarily apt. I regret that I squandered so much of my life on this non-sense.
Consider the sheer childishness - and infantile rage - of this procedure:
Gauss is good.
Gauss disagrees with/improves upon Euler, Legendre, et al.
Euler, Legendre, et al. are therefore evil.
Therefore the memory of Euler, Legendre, et al. is to be trashed.
Perhaps someone with a background in psychiatry who reads this board can supply some clinical terminology for these behaviors of Lyn and his epigonoi. In the meantime, I'll just regard the whole thing as 100% nuts.
P.S. The LYM should know that Lyn became a true tyrant after he was cuckolded by a younger man just as Lyn Marcus was turning fifty. That is the simple truth behind the Chris White "brainwashing" affair. Is this the sort of man for whom you want to give your life? For whom you wish to neglect your education and your development into mature men and women? For whom you wish to drive your family and friends to despair?
Think about it.


05-28-2007, 06:06 PM
One more observation regarding linearity, as it is a good illustration of Lyn's confused "thinking": for years he has regularly conflated linearity in mathematics and the sciences with linearity in thought and creativity. As everyone knows, great creative advances usually do not result from linear, deductive thinking. That fact does not invalidate specific claims within a discipline in which are embedded linear properties. (Rules of logical inference come into play once it becomes necessary to prove and communicate the results of the creative process.) Since true creativity is nonlinear, one cannot predict the outcome of creative research or artistic production. Therefore no true creativity can exist under the aegis of LaRouche or any of his organizations, since everything has to fit neatly into his unusual worldview - or else.
More for the LYMers to chew on ... since they are rather short of food ...


05-28-2007, 07:55 PM
Absolutely true, Sancho, taking linearity to mean deductive reason.
Despite LaRouche's "ideas," the Greeks were not so hot on creativity as they were on understanding what Is. In the different kinds of thought Plato uses the Divided Line to talk about in The Republic, creativity is not his chief concern; knowing the Good is.
Totally opposite to Plato, quasi-pseudo-sorta-Marixst LaRouche concludes that man is called upon to play the role of God in creating the universe, or to be more precise, He, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., is tapped to be God.
When he used to blather about individual sovereignty, he was talking about his own Sovereignty. When he babbled about creativity, he was talking about his own, as you put it so nicely, unusual worldview and unusual thinking process.
LYMers: You don't think he's talking about you guys, do you? In LaRouche World, you are not sovereign, you are not individual, and you are not creative. You are the raw material that LaRouche in his divinity molds, makes, unmakes.
Especially unmakes.


05-28-2007, 09:09 PM
I think it was this issue that caused Eric Lerner to leave: once it became clear that Lyn was plastering a fixed, Platonic ceiling to human development (the development of the noosphere), Eric could see where this thing was going and got the hell out of there.
The incessant demand for "creativity" is a very nineteenth-century one. It also helps create an environment conducive to creative accounting, creative lodging, and creative mendacity.
LaRouche is a "Platonist" for all the reasons Popper decries Plato as a fascist in _The Open Society and Its Enemies_ - especially those reasons that have to do with lies and manipulation of others.
Apart from his truly magnificent prose style, I happen to think Plato was largely full of s---.


05-28-2007, 09:31 PM
Well, I don't agree on Plato--although I don't think he was an unalloyed blessing, either, and I do understand why you say what you say--there is some basis for it. There are some very strange and difficult things in Plato.
But I'm not sure Plato really believes in the noble lie and manipulation of others in the way that it's pitched--or seems to be pitched--in The Republic. It's not clear to me that The Republic expresses Plato's views of the matter at all (or Socrates'), except possibly at the very end--the Republic laid up in the heavens. And of course in The Republic irony is so thick on the ground you bark your shins on it....
Plato is an adept of ambiguity, and LaRouche is just an adept of confusion.
In any case--one of the dangerous (and this is fascist) aspects of the fetishism of creativity is that it marks as subhuman anyone whom the Master deems "uncreative." Because of LaRouche's ignorant insistence that the imago dei set forth in Genesis means creativity, he's basically saying if you ain't creative, you ain't made in the image of God and therefore you ain't entitled to be treated as human.
This of course accords with the way he is constantly categorizing his enemies (Kissinger, Cheney, Gore, Whoever) as subhuman, not human, inhuman, etc.
Dangerous thing to do. It's just a very good thing that LaRouche never got serious power.
You may well be right about Eric Lerner. I never knew exactly what the situation was there, although I remember him, of course.


05-28-2007, 10:53 PM
Part of the Eric Lerner Story can be solved not by Plato or Aristotle but the Godfather movie.
Eric was a very, very bright guy who had credentials,a degree from Columbia and was doing Grad level work. He came around the LC and was at home in the initial FEF building phase. It was at that time that I myself became attracted to the LC via the FEF since it complemented my younger desire for doing something to promote Fusion Energy. We started with a small Fusion Energy newsletter which became Fusion magazine. Along with that we had a quarterly I think called the IJFE - Intl Journal of Fusion Energy.
So far so good. except Larouche's "Golden Rule" came int play. Lyn's golden rule says that you do the work, I get the credit, the glory, the worship and I get the money, all of it. Lyn smelled money and Fusion magazine went from a nice magazine to our number one airport card table shrine product. It was like having Nuclear powered Krishna or Moonies at the airport where instead of a Moonie/Krishna book we had nice scientific magazines. Today the card table shrines go right to the self named LPAC, LYN books and of course self named LYM.
Now what happened from the snippets I heard was that Eric developed a process of desalinization which was completely contrary to Lyn's delusions. You see, Lyn always has the same formula in this field. You can not have small efficient and low cost anything without a kooky side show of cultic apocolypse only Lyn can hallucinate.
Think of it this way. The LC to this day froths at the mouth like a rabid raccoon at the mention of "Appropriate Technologies". Lyn's creative mentation demands "Appropriate Enemies". Lyn's mental condition also demands elaborate and complex temples of self worship to bring this to fruitation as a plan which would make Albert Speer pine with envy.
This process was invented by Eric and he applied for a patent on it. It had commercial appeal and this is where the Godfather comes in demanding his share. It has always been like that and whenever you see someone purged by Lyn, there is always a money dispute disguised by Lyn to keep the members in line.
In Eric's case, we were told that he had severe problems accepting Lyn into his life by not wanting to make Lyn the focus of the FEF work. There was also a dispute with FEF people over the amount of money in the FEF since they had a tax exempt status and took it seriously. But Lyn's history is usually to take with disregard to the aftermath and let other people worry about the debts, lawsuits and potential jail time.
This became very heated as Eric was on the NC and was soon denounced as a traitor and for leaving the LC and on the way out perhaps asking too many questions about Jews and Lyn. For this I recall him being denounced as an ADL agent. His salt desalinization process was not known by most LCers. He was called an idiot who "blocked" and the model he built of the salt process was called a Rube Goldberg piece of crap by several leaders when asked about it.
Soon after this episode was when Lyn issued his memo which demanded that ALL projects be prayer books for him to be in the White House.


05-28-2007, 10:57 PM
Regarding Larouche's plans for running for President in 2008, something just hit me. Is it possible he has found an opening to worm his way into the "Unity08" ( ) vehicle? [Current speculation has Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel thinking of using it, which was the basis of that Larouche statement, simply aping unity08's statemnt and political discussion surrounding 08.] But what is worth noting about Unity08 is it is a sort of presidential vehicle that Larouche could amass his supporters to pick through. It is Internet based which skews these results and makes it apt for such infiltration. I note as an example that in online Republican polls, Ron Paul polls well, based basically on how determined Paul's supporters are in such matters.
On second thought, that's a crazy thought. The old Republican consultants and Democratic consultants who set up that process will circumvent such a hypothetical scenario simply by throwing Larouche's name out. Besides, the rules of "Unity08" is that a Republican is paired with a Democrat. Who is the "Republican" that is campaigning with "Democratic" Larouche?
One more thing, about Larouche's balance sheet. I think it is largely beside the point. In the paranoid view of the world where you are destined to take over, you have to be making credit advances to be discarded when you gain control. For instance:
Adolf Hitler was a tax dodger in Weimer Germany.


05-28-2007, 11:01 PM
Well, like virtually everyone else who leaves the Bizarro world, life gets better when you are deLarouchefied. Eric has a patent on the process you can read here. BTW, a few FEF people who left have several patents for inventions.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,207,928, issued May 4, 1994, to E. J. Lerner describe generating, with compressed air, a stream of high-velocity saltwater droplets that vaporize without being heated. Salt precipitates from the vaporizing liquid and is recovered in a pan while the resulting water vapor is recovered by showering the water vapor with liquid water. Saltwater is mixed with compressed air. This mixture then is directed through an indistinct pneumatic nozzle that atomizes the mixture in a chamber where temperature and relative humidity are at ambient (room) levels. The volume and effect of compressed air mixed with the water and the high velocity of the mixture at the nozzle exit not only limits the volume of water that can be recovered, but diffuses the vapor inside the chamber by an entrained air mass that is approximately 30 times larger at a short distance from the nozzle's orifice. Diffusing water vapor into the chamber supersaturates the ambient air. At a relative humidity of 100% or more, air is unable to provide the energy necessary for evaporation, which impedes the process. Also, large amounts of air induce the diffused vapor to recombine with the separated salt particles.
Eric also has worked on fusion power plants in the real world instead of the Bizarro world of Lyn. He also has books which are sold in real book stores and published by real publishing houses. No card table shrines here or vanity press. Over 600 peer reviewed and popular articles have been written and published by him.
Here are two URLs to read more.

What is also important to see here is that a healthy society thrives when competing ideas and opinions are allowed to flourish. In the insular world of the LC/LYM the lunacy acts as a filter against thought which does not conform to Lyn's Rheingau fueled moonstruck orgies. You can disagree with some of Eric's cosmology, but it was published as theory and critiqued by recognised experts and not printed as a card table shrine door prize for not laughing after 5 minutes.
There really is a "larouche method" which I will post soon for the yutes using their own briefings to demonstrate.
Yutes, you getting the picture yet?


05-29-2007, 12:33 AM
Heya All.
Newbie here. Ex-member of the LYM, and having had read a whole bunch of the LaRouche threads here, decided to sign up and participate.
When I joined, it was because of what the LYM purported to be about. A bunch of things, a bunch of ideas that were (and are) neat. And while I left a fair while ago, no ill feelings (either way, believe it or not,) and only started to reconsider a bunch of things after coming across you guys, I'll share some of my relevant experiences.
It took a while for me to be convinced of LHLs 'genius'. In anything I read (the Children of Satan pamphlets were coming out at the time I joined) he would obviously ramble. Waffle, that's the word. The punctuation I didn't mind, but I'm pretty bad myself. Eventually I must have become convinced. Speeches, I never was. Other LYMers would rave about how LHL was the worlds greatest speakers. Um, huh? I'm sure as hell not the only one to fall asleep during a 'historic' webcast. And it was great having the work with Beltran, too. His workshops would include plenty of really basic stuff, about inflections and the like. The same people would eargly listen to Beltran, and fail to notice that none of these basics of orating were followed by the 'great speaker' Lyn.
The group readings were fun. 15-25 people (the number as dictated by LHL himself) sitting around the room read Lyns latest (or Plato, Schiller, or others sometimes, but Lyn primarily) out loud. Remember that most (all?) or the LYM are high-school or uni drop outs. Plenty of people among whom literacy not a strong point. I used to think that the reason so few people could read LHL out so it'd make sense was because few could understand the idea-content. A years break it took me, to realise that it didn't make sense because it couldn't.
Another thing I remember is how much better an article written by someone other than a LaRouche was. I always found the other 21st Century, or Fidelio articles much more useful. You could read them and come away with a bit of understanding on something, whoever small. But reading Lyn, it'd be coming away with confusion, and then after long enough coming away with confusion, and thinking that it was knowledge.


05-29-2007, 03:35 AM
Eaglebeak, this is what made me most queasy when I was in the organization: if it is our distinctive power of creative menatation, either to develop or assimilate new technologies say, that makes us human, what about someone with Downs Syndrome? What about the aged and infirm?
You hit the nail on the head. Think about what life would be like under a LaRouche government. Combine that with all the golden-soul talk and barely disguised antisemitism ...


05-29-2007, 10:59 AM
Fortunately there is ample kookdom in Lyn's history, that he could never come to power here in the US, despite his fusion-temperature desires. For me I think he has served as a clearinghouse of sorts for some neat ideas and notions, some high-level types like Lerner and Bob Zubrin; Larry Hecht's "Moon Model," and the Isotope Economy notions, are intriguing. The idea of economies as Riemannian-type surfaces, wherein a new technology escalates the dimensionality of the surface--- ahem---- is kind of interesting, if this is what Lyn means. He has said some fine things, one must admit, if you review his oeuvre. He's definitely kind of a magnetic force. Lyn is OK except for the paranoid megalomania and anti-Israel slant and contempt for the members of his organization and his financial chicaneries.


05-29-2007, 01:03 PM
...and helga...especially helga...


05-29-2007, 01:52 PM
speaking of witch, i wonder if any of the ex-members of the org have had any dealings with her...


05-29-2007, 03:31 PM
Remember that most (all?) or the LYM are high-school or uni drop outs.
That is the second reference I've seen, the first was last night on a repeat of Mike Malloy's radio talk show, to "high school drop out"s as part of Larouche's freak-show "Youth Movement". That is just pathetic and offensive.


05-29-2007, 06:00 PM
If you mean that this assertion is a distortion, you are right; who cares if they're college dropouts? One can argue that college is good but the fact that someone drops out shouldn't be used as a pummel. There are a lot of very smart young people in the LYM. That's what makes the phenomenon so astonishing, namely how smart people get drawn in to putative power and charisma, even when it comes with black teeth and proofs that Galileo was a reactionary lackey.
I'd like to see this forum kept free of disfact and mere vitriolic calumny. These bespeak a "Knock 'em Down" agenda, as opposed to a rational critique of a worrisome social phenomenon. Lyn and the org have plenty of closet skeletons to deconstruct their mythos, without people here having to misstate things or collapse into mere name-calling. Dissembling misstatements and name-calling are among the reasons I got out.


05-29-2007, 06:40 PM
Sancho--Couldn't agree more about the tremendous dangers inherent in fetishizing creativity--because to do so, to equate it with being human, means exactly what you say: To deny the status of human to those with Down's syndrome, those with Alzheimer's, or microcephaly, or traumatic brain injury, or a hundred other things.
It is precisely the slippery slope to euthanasia and ultimately genocide that LaRouche claimed to decry in any number of publications, but actually seems to endorse, perhaps unconsciously (by which I mean that he may not be conscious of the implications of what he says, because he is generally extraordinarily bad at imagining the outcomes and consequences of his actions or statements).


05-29-2007, 07:50 PM
Howie - I apologize for the drop-out remark. I honestly did not mean it as an insult, just as a relevant fact to a description of an experience. I can't think of a LYM member (who I knew) that didn't leave school or college. I imagine there would be at least a few, who like me never went on to tertiary education in the first place.
It really shouldn't be a surprise, either. If you join the LYM, you can't really go to college as well. That was something I was a little uncomfortable with while a member. I had someone ask what they could do to be a part of the movement, given that leaving college wasn't an option. Apart from 'give us money' or 'distribute our pamphlets' I didn't have an answer. Never found one, either.


05-30-2007, 08:44 AM
I think the significance of the "drop-out" factor is that the organization forces, induces, inveigles, seduces young people to drop out--either from high school or from college.
That forecloses a lot of future possibilities for them. Among the older members of the organization, the sizable number who dropped out of college to join the NCLC lived to regret it--because now they're in their 50s and they never got a college degree, so the possibilities are narrower. Many people who were encouraged to drop out are very bitter.
Of course, those who actually pursued degrees and, worse, graduate degrees were vilified for thinking they were "smarter than LaRouche," and for being impotent weanie-academics, or haughty, or epicene.
LaRouche likes people who are young and wide-eyed and idealistic--easier to seduce. He hates the older, more educated ones--they're harder-headed, harder-hearted, and skeptical.
So of course he wants people to drop out of school. And remember, he dropped out of Northeastern after one year--he doesn't want to be surrounded by people with academic degrees. In fact, it's vital to his self-image that academic degrees be spat on and held in contempt.


05-30-2007, 10:06 AM
It's definitely not the people on this site who've used the term drop out in the perjorative, it's the fact, as eaglebeak and others mention, that the organization drives people to drop out. Back when I was in, there was not the pressure to drop out, although we spent a good deal of time on campuses trying to recruit new members. But I'm glad I managed to get a degree that at least permitted me at a later stage in life to return to school and get one of those dreaded post-graduate degrees.
The biggest farce is LaRouche's mis-history about the Abba Lerner debate. Admittedly, Lerner did coming out as an apologist for Schact's economics, which he tried to differentiate from the Nazis, but Lyn blew this up into the total triumph of his views over the campuses while MopUp became the triumph over the left. Of course this was all fantasy in his mind. When we were in school we would always take one idea we picked up from the latest Campaigner, go in and denounce some professor and think that we have helped attain hegemony over the campuses. Of course, we were nothing more than another little sectlet among others arguing about ideas that were totally esoteric and of very little interest to most students who at that time were concerned about 1) ending the war; 2) promoting environmental causes; and 3) promoting civil rights causes.


05-30-2007, 04:30 PM
Just started listening to a briefing on the LPAC website from Lyn from a couple of days ago. Listening to Harley introduce Lyn as not only a statesman and world's greatest economist, but a scientist and philosopher as well was truly refreshing. Of course the usual blather was presented about how LaRouche was the living embodiment of FDR and how the Bering Straits tunnel was going to revive the world economy. Three minutes was about all I could take of it. Someone described a LaRouche presentation as a version of Mad-Libs-substitute terms like gold-backed dollar, convertible ruble, international dev'l bank, landbridge to Asia, etc. and finish with a flourish that noone else can accomplish what Lyn can and therefore, the World needs LaRouche in the White House!


05-30-2007, 04:31 PM
Eaglebeak states that "dropping out forecloses a lot of future possibilities for them." But what this view misses, you see, is this: the End of the System is at hand; the world requires a Cadre Force of leaders acting on the Stage of History, to organize the population to turn from its fatal path before it's too late. Beside this consideration, what matters your puny degree, or your retirement funds? Drop out and join the leadership corps; cough up those funds now, "while your money's still worth something" as we used to say.
In current concrete doctrinal terms this means the LYM has to move the nation's deadened boomers to act now to purge out Cheney and Bush. I don't think this will happen, but it might be possible, if the organization's deadened and exhausted boomers can be beaten and whipped into producing enough income over the next months.
The demons change, but the overall dynamic structure of the ideology persists: We must raise the funds to defeat the Bogey Man before the world ends. I recall a shocking briefing (for me, just prepping to join) from spring 2000, a Helga conference call: "We are weeks away from the end of the system!"
I don't think I ever filched retirement monies from anyone, but I saw it happen.
It looks like we may get another big financial shock/readjust in the credit markets, after all the recent overliberal loaning. And if Cheney is truly the great bloodyfanged demon, intent on hitting Iran/inducing Israel to do so, we may descend into another 30 yrs war. On the other hand that may already be here. And I see no way to stop the administration---even should one be inclined to do so. As for Lyn, he's all too happy to see Iranian nukes.


05-30-2007, 07:27 PM
Charltonrom, What you describe is basically the way it has worked for almost 4 decades with a very predictable script with a change of villains. There is absolutlely nothing you heard years ago which is differentfrom what I heard on th e 1970s, others heard in the 1980s,90s, 2000 and beyond. We worked around the clock to defeat Jimmy Carter adn then to impeach him. ALong the way we began to pick up how to make money off of things like being anti drug, pro nuke or whatever else we could find a hat to wear in the boiler rooms.
Back then we were all in favor of nuking Iran as we were making more money off of what we called "Yahoos" at the time. Those were conservatives who hated Carter and the Trilateral commission ,CFR etc. Lyn picks up this stuff and can flip the org on a dime with some mishmash where anyone who challenges it is considered to be "blovking" or an agent or suffering from some fears.
If you go back to the 1970s we made a fortune selling target posters of Khomenhi at intersections and had one article after another abpout the nazi international and the Muslim states in the MId East.
You do not see that today because of the death of Lady Di and being anti Cheney is easier to run a cult instead of explaining the intracacies of the Muslim Brotherhood to an 18 year old. In the Lady Di death Jeff Steinberg and Al Douglass have fed a steady diet of conspiracies to Dodi's father for years in order to try to get some cash and some contacts in the Mid East. A figure of 10K is what I heard was sent to us in exchange for doing an EIR report and Book on Tiny Rowland.
If you want to do a crazy job on someone, you find Larouche or we will find you since we can print any thing and be looked as a kooky cult and have a way to leaflet for almost no expenses. No one can get a way with the stuff we can do or put a few dozen kids on the streets shouting about Satan and the Queen and the someone in one sentence.
What is the hardest thing for anyone who leaves the cult is to understand that no one cares about Lyn , no one knows about the LC and if they do know about Lyn and the LC/LYM it is always as a crazy cult of lunacy. When ever people leave the org they wonder if someone knows about Lyn and in the back of their head wonder if Lyn is what he thinks he is , a major force. The truth is that after a few years out of the LC ypou wonder how you could be so stupid to have fallen for this charade.
Once in the insular world, you are at the mercy of parlor tricks. I looed at how brifings over time work on people and saw a neat trick Lyn does with association .
Lyn goes to Russia last week.
Clinton goes to Russia a few months ago.
British press run articles about investigation of radioactive killing in England.
Putin is good.
Russians talk about Bering Straight tunnel.
British articles raise questions about Putin and human rights, energy threats to Europe and KGB killing.
We end with a brifing which ties this all together and says now that:


05-30-2007, 07:31 PM
Clinton AND Lyn's trip are related.
Thus the British articles
The criticism of Putin is an attack on the Bering Straight tunnell
The Tunnel is the only thing to save the world economy.
Lyn is the reason for the Tunnel.
That is why the British attacks on Putin are in response to giving out a few hundred leafletts in different cities each day around the globe.
Never mind that when the Czar of Russia sold Alaska to the US, the first plan announced was to look at the potential to build a tunnel / bridge combo.
Never mind that the URL I posted
is where we first saw the proposals by the Japanese based Mitsubishi Company in the 1970s.
Lyn can claim anything he wants since the only audience he really needs to move is a member to raise more money for less.
Things are so delusional that Harley wants the maglev station on Alaska to be named "Larouche Station" to honor Lyn!
Lyn then gives the yutes a whopper like this in his latest hallucination pamphlet.
"For example, about fifteen years ago, my wife took the lead in the design and proposing a network of rail-like development throughout the continent of Eurasia and beyond, which is coming
back onto the agendas today. Since the 1980s, this has included a detailed proposal for a railway landbridge from Siberia, through a tunnel through the Bering straits, into Alaska, and down our hemisphere toward the southern region of Patagonia."
15 years ago Helga was busy shopping with other people's money and picking out a German mansion to set up house in. About the only person I can imagine having any thing of constructive mention is Jonathan Tennenbaum. After JT left last year he was denounced by Lyn as an idiot who had gone to college and had no real knowledge compared to the LYM leftovers in Europe. JT then shows up at a Russian conf about the Bering straights a few months later and the briefing now calls JT a larouche collaborator in glowing terms. Now Helga is the designer and Harley is busy selecting tile patterns for Larouche Station in Alaska!
I hope for Tennenbaum's sake that he finally left this madhouse because Lyn can sometimes have a Svengali effect on people.
Guys and girls, you have no idea of how much of your work, money and above all time has been wasted by Lyn's delusions of power. He is the perfect mark for scam artists who have taken the LC for tons of money.
The phony security consultants know how Lyn thinks and play to his delusions. Lyn knows how to play your dreams to feed his delusions. You will be shocked at how much money is involved.
Hey, instead of washing pots and pans for the LYM, maybe deadenders could have bought a dishwasher for the LYM clubhouse.
More, millions more to some later.


05-30-2007, 08:55 PM
Through all his protean transformations, then, from Kanto-Marxian Freudite Rockefeller Opponent, to Atlantis enthusiast/Fusion Proponent, to Walter Lippman analyst/SDI godfather & anti-Soviet Atlanticist, to American System/JQ Adams/FDR wannabe; through all these, we can perceive roughly the same basic structural/ideological dynamic: the world is essentially about to end, unless Lyn is brought in to be President, or at least to instruct the policy elites in what must be done. A new global system must be forged. "Lyn knows what to do."
But the Enemy of the season--- the Rockefeller system; the illuminati/British monarchy; the Jews; the Soviets; the Oligarchy; the CFR; the Satanists; the UN World Federalist Conspiracy; the Straussian Synarchists--- the Enemy, knows Lyn, hates and fears him. This is the fundamental doctrine. Only Lyn can save us, but the Enemy is committed to preventing that from occurring. Thus the blackout and silencing of Lyn's critical role in history, by the university/publishing/media system.
The Members of old, and now the LYM, are the key intellectual focal points in redirecting history. If the focal point loses focus, constraining forces come into play: the entire ideological system is held together in fascinating manner; not only by the Crisis/Savior model, but via other mechanisms to be outlined here in due course.


05-30-2007, 09:17 PM
With Ken Kronberg dead and PMR and WorldComp liquidated, it will be a lot harder for LaRouche to get webcast pamphlets and Bering Straits leaflets and impeach Cheney ravers and all that stuff out into the field.
LaRouche managed to destroy the whole printing operation Kronberg et al. built up.
Now it will be interesting to see how ole Lindy gets his stuff printed. How long can they pay an outside printer to do what they refused to pay Kronberg to do? How long will an outside printer print, if he doesn't get paid?
Note that in recent years, the organization lost New Federalist (Kronberg finally stopped mailing it, and then stopped printing it, because he couldn't get paid); 21st Century mag (now in some online avatar of no clout); Fidelio (Kronberg stopped putting it out, and since he was the only one who worked on it, that was that); etc.
Apparently the EIR runs have been cut drastically since Kronberg's death, too. So what are the yutes going to wave around while they sing Jesu, Meine Freude on street corners? How on earth will they get contacts if they don't have any literature to put on the card tables?
Speaking of Helga shopping with other people's money, xlcr4life, there's a great story about her in India a number of years ago, going to a fortune teller and asking to have her palm read and asking, "Will I be rich?" True story.


05-30-2007, 10:14 PM
Actually what I was trying to say was that it is understandable and slightly less morally egregious that Larouche would aim his recruitment at the college-aged than at any younger, who for one thing would presumably have to answer to parents and for another are legally less restricted on their life choices.


05-30-2007, 10:38 PM
I would propose that what Lyn needs is,
a. New blood, without a lot of health problems such as are likely to visit the Boomer members
b. Reasonably independent youth blood, full of vitality, bright but not too bright.
Collegiates and dropouts fill the bill nicely. Younger than that = too many parental issues. Collegiate age is good, vital, and educable in doctrine, plus getting some perks like no real job, bohemian type existence, some travel, getting to maybe schmooze around Capitol Hill; all this makes for generally pliable acolytes. It's true the stipends are miserable but maybe it beats an 8 to 5; and one can always point to the Great Financial Collapse of '05, er I mean '06, er I mean...


05-30-2007, 10:46 PM
'07 is the new target year for the Big One: the financial apocalypse and systemic breakdown that will lead to the genocidal outcome so avidly desired by the planet oligarchic class.
Having the yutes surely validates Lyn's megalomania too. He's ensnared a brood of yutes, of varying background. Defining the features of this particular cultic apparatus, is my agenda.


05-31-2007, 08:25 AM
My particular agenda is to get the Ken Kronberg story out; I think this will lead to exposure that could be a huge problem for LaRouche.
On the youth, there are a couple of considerations that indicate how LaRouche has perfected his technique.
When I and my age cohort joined, we were either college grads or in college or perhaps in grad school. We held jobs. In other words, we were independent, or could form an independent thought, and had to test those thoughts and our performance at work and/or in school.
We supported ourselves. We were able to buy clothes and food and books, and pay rent.
We were THE SAME AGE then, when we were doing all these "grown-up" things, that the yutes are today.
Now, this eroded over time, particularly in regions, where people's rent and medical bills, etc., began to be paid for them, so that they were infantilized and rendered dependent. When I was a member, however, we called this becoming lumpenized--that is, some part of us still recognized that it was a Bad Thing to live 6 to an apartment, eat all our meals together, live off what we made at field deployments, etc., share our cars (and have them destroyed in the field).
Today, what we used to criticize as lumpenization is held up as the ultimate politico-monastic existence.
That is the crux of the operation: Keeping the LYMers in communalist dorms, feeding them from communalist pots, paying all their bills for them, imprisons them psychologically and financially. They are absorbed into The Family.
The vestiges of independence that we older people retained is one reason LaRouche hates the Baby Boomers and their immediate successors so much. For those older members, no matter what LaRouche does, he can't impress them the way he can impress the LYM.
Also note that a couple of years LaRouche stopped the process of National Conferences in the U.S.--conferences attended by the old members as well as the young. Now in their place they hold LYM retreats, off in the mountains someplace in isolation.
There are NO conferences for older members--where someone might get up and say what he or she thought. And now the old members are taught by the LYM--very rarely is the LYM taught by old members. There are just a handful of old members "cleared" to teach--Jeff Steinberg, Harley Schlanger, Phil Rubenstein, Bruce Director, Michelle Steinberg, come to mind.


05-31-2007, 11:21 AM
Yes, the boomers in the organization are now in effect part of the Enemy class. There are 3 generational classes in Lyn's system, namely the "youth", including up to around age 30; the Tweeners, of dubious virtue; and the dreaded Boomers, who exemplify the most vile character features of any human grouping ever. It got to the point where exposure between the 3 classes was moving in the direction of being rationed. Never mind that the youth stipends such as they are, are paid by phone-team tortured slogging. Lyn alternates his description of boomers, from pitiable wretches to be saved, to fully wretched cowards and vile Agents even; older members who've dedicated their lives to Lyn, are said to be laboring to undermine him. "You are all treating Lyn like <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>!" I remember being told, as we worked and reworked the spreadsheets and card boxes.


05-31-2007, 11:26 AM
Actually as I recall Lyn has stretched out his approved class. It's now the 18-35 yr olds who embody the revolutionary vanguard. This is the approved-replacement demographic, to swap into position as the boomers drop off or croak out.


05-31-2007, 02:38 PM
Charltonrom, this whole thing is so screwy that when you read about who is directing Lyn's delusions like a remote controlled monkey you and others will understand how you can raise millions each year and live a soup kitchen life in the LYM.
The Bering Straights Tunnel is another thing which has been around for a century, in staging plans for decades and now just another tactic to impress yutes with no clue how this works.
Here you can find Rev Moon's claim to the Bering Tunnel and maybve start a bidding war between Moonies and LYM over rights to stalk bug people in DC offices.
Lyn has lost people to the Moonies including his VP running mate Bevel according to one report I read a few years ago. Maybe we can see a fight between Moon and Larouche in the DC Mall as a webcast.
Here is a great example of Lyn's delusionary thinking porocess. I can just call up my local VoTech office and find out how to be a welder.
Here is Lyn's way of doing it which explains why you never get anything accomplished in the LC becuase it is by design.
SCHLANGER: To follow that up, we have an e-mail question from
Scott from the LYM, who asks about the lack of training for young
people in such techniques, or such skills as welding or
machine-tool technology, and he's asking how would you go about
re-establishing these training programs that are needed for the
skilled labor these kinds of projects?
LAROUCHE: Don't try to start from a job skill level. The way to
do the job-- you want competence? Don't send a guy out to some
place to learn how to weld. He's going to have to that, perhaps.
But the way you do it, you do it the other way; you start from
the top. You take a project, of building something and making it
work. When you start to do something, and taking ideas, and
trying to put them together, as some people did with the
tetrahedral work in the project on the Kepler work, when you do
that, and start to build a project, you require yourself to bring
in some guy who can show you how to do it on this or that
technique, and you become familiar with it. And you begin to work
with them, or people like them.


05-31-2007, 02:39 PM
So, now, because you are part of
a project in which these particular skills are integral, you now
have to build a taskforce in which people who have some of these
skills will share it with other people, and people who want to
come in and learn it, will come in the context of that taskforce,
and they will also pick up these skills. And that's the way you
do it. You take a project, a mission-oriented project.
Look, we did that in World War II. It was done by the
Hopkins operation, and by Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. And
they were faced with a mission. The Hopkins group, which
Roosevelt brought in, included some famous generals, guys who
were leaders in World War II. It also involved Eisenhower, and
MacArthur in the 1930s, in their own role in this thing, in the
industrial development project. So, what Roo sevelt did, knowing
the day that he was inaugurated as President, Hitler had become a
dictator--Roosevelt knew we were headed toward World War II,
then. So, Roosevelt had two problems. The United States would
have to prepare for the fact that war was being threatened down
the line, probably within his time in office, and at the same
time, the U.S. economy had fallen by over 30% between the time
that Hoover was inaugurated, and the time that Roosevelt was
inaugurated, in that period. You had to rebuild the shattered
U.S. economy, rebuild shattered people, who had lost skills, had
lost jobs, had lost perspective. And you had to at the same time,
build up the biggest military force, as an economic force, the
world had ever seen, to deal with the threat of war which was
coming down the pike. We took people from the streets; we took
people into the CCCs, where we built skills. We organized them
around projects in which they picked up these sk ills, and we
showed that we could produce like no one had ever dreamed you
could produce before.
So, don't try to take it from the bottom up of learning a
skill, and learning a skill, and learning a skill. Take it from
the top down; take the mission. Build a bridge; build a
high-speed rail system; build things that are needed. You don't
have the skills? Well, develop them as part of the project, and
that's how you do it.
SCHLANGER: I think we need people to build that Bering Strait
tunnel, and I like the proposal that came out of the meeting in
Moscow, that we name the Alaska point on it the LaRouche Station.
So, Lyn, we have another question from the LYM in Germany,
on Iran, going back to the strategic crisis. Saundra wants to
know if there's any chance Russia would respond militarily to
protect Iran, given the escalation by Cheney to provoke a war


05-31-2007, 05:49 PM
Xlcr identified one of the reasons why Lyn has never accomplished anything of note: he lacks the humility, patience, and diligence to master the technique of any one discipline through which one develops the most fecund ideas. Flying in from the top and trying to parachute down into the world of accomplished people with the Good News of his perspective on what they are doing is insanely presumptuous. (A propos of this Jonathan Swift once satirized the Royal Society by describing a group of smart things who were trying to build a house from the top down.) Lyn could once bluff his way into a hearing by recruiting people who had real skills and sound knowledge and who could thereby gain some credence in relevant circles for him; now that he is recruiting the unskilled and uneducated, his group - as it peters away - will continue to become ever more a laughingstock.
Stay in school, kids. Be someone. Bluffing your way through life as Lyn has is very painful - and entirely unnecessary.


05-31-2007, 06:30 PM
My God there is more secret knowledge of value to be learned at a local APEX Tech welding class than found at Larouche University. I reread Lyn's methodology and ode to Platonic welding a few times to make sure that I was not imagining how goofy this crap sounds.
It hit me that this was like asking Grandpa Simpson a question about welding on The Simpsons TV show. But Grandpa Simpson makes more sense most of the time, though he did admit to being tricked to vote for Lyn in one episode.
There is a great story from Newsday which appeared on Sep 23, 2003 which has the writer meeting Lyn in person.
Here is a nice quote:

  • "In the flesh, LaRouche is more grandfatherly than grandiose. He is a peaceful-looking senior citizen, with soft blue eyes, brownish teeth and an easy, almost tender laugh. Kicking back in a plush brown chair, a glass of water in his right hand and a dog by his side, Lyndon LaRouche could easily be Fred Bartles or Ed Jaymes, sitting on a porch pitching wine coolers.
    Although his followers will describe a conversation with LaRouche as (pick one) "riveting," "enlightening," "life-affirming," or "world-defining," there is seemingly as much babble as substance. LaRouche talks endlessly, in diatribes that can last up to 20 minutes without going anywhere. It is like visiting a lonely grandparent in a nursing home after he just finished reading the newspaper.
    And yet, there is something disconcerting about LaRouche, and it's not simply his bizarre track record of intimidating those who disagree with his stances; of being labeled everything from a racist to an anti-Semite to a homophobe; of accusing Walter Mondale of being a KGB agent and Queen Elizabeth of smuggling drugs. No, the man who would be president projects a sense of self-importance that is unnatural, almost inhuman. It is one thing to win the presidency, then strut around with a barrel chest. But LaRouche seems to actually believe he is the president.
    "We already feel as if he's running things," says Angela Vullo, his press secretary. "People don't understand," she says. "But he's doing a lot of the wheeling and dealing behind the scenes in this country, and around the world."

  • Yutes, here is another cheap parlor trick Lyn uses on you. To tie Lyn to any current event the briefing writer or NC will use the word "echos" . When it is time to impress the yutes the briefing will say something like
    "__________ was interviewed in the ___________ and said ______________ which echos Lyndon H. Larouche's recent policy paper on _____________ which stated that unless policy makers adopt the ____________ Larouche Plan, the world economy is heading towards an unreversable (take your pick) full scale economic blow out or thermonuclear war."
    You get both if Lyn needs to send a bunch of cash to some people you guys do not know about.
    (Message edited by xlcr4life on May 31, 2007)

05-31-2007, 06:34 PM
Besides spending money on trying to buy elections, getting cleaned out by Carpet, "The Major" land purchases, Lyn has a fascination with farm animals for some reason as a hobby. Lyn has spent decades and a fortune feeding a favorite pet called "Mr. Ed" who people may have thought was a code name for Helga'a horse. Jeff and Paul thought "Mr. Ed" was a mare from Langley but was really a nightmare of their imagination which Lyn adopted enthusiastically.
While this circus was dancing in Lyn's head for years and years another project was undertaken by Lyn to breed cattle of all things on the Ibykus ranch I believe. Following his own dictum , Lyn ordered two special breeds of cattle which cost a fortune and from the top down, ordered that they be bred for some new master breed of cow.
The members were so starved that if they found about this in other locals I think they would have BBQed the cows to avoid starvation. Thank God Lyn went to prison as Uwe F. came in from Germany and sold off most of this in a "Going to Prison" fire sale.
I am sure that a few people who lurk here or are logged in have more Club Ibykus stories to tell.
Do the math yutes. By the time you figure out how you are being taken for a ride, you could have completed college, a few years of special school and be hired and paid to work on a project like the Bering Straights Tunnel instead of joining a poor man's Rev. Moon side show.


05-31-2007, 06:43 PM
I've posted before under another name, but I will use this name this one time only. Perhaps a few of you will know who I am, and you will kindly keep it to yourselves.
When I quit oh so many years ago one of the things that impressed me, as I'm sure it's impressed many others, is what a non-entity LaRouche is in the real world. Hardly anyone has heard of him, and the few who have heard of him know him as a fringe nut case. Power? Influence? Zilch.
But now I understand LaRouche's irrelevance in a deeper sense. Do you know what Intellipedia is? See It's the Intelligence Community's version of Wikipedia, much of it at the Top Secret level or above. Type "LaRouche" in Intellipedia's search engine. Can you guess how many hits there are?
Zero. Nobody cares. Not Cheney. Not the CIA. Nobody.
Sorry, boys and girls. LYMers, you can leave now before you waste any more years of your lives. Fellow boomers, you can leave now and try and salvage some joy in what years remain to you.


05-31-2007, 08:35 PM
Checking out the Bering Strait Bridge or tunnel on Google and you can find Discovery Channel programs on that as well as a bridge or tunnel to link Europe and Africa through Gibralta. Interesting ideas but of course Lyn wants to get all the glory as being the only one in the world who can put the political will together to push it. And of course this idea was being promoted back in the last century by an engineer who did a graduate thesis on it, or so I've found.


06-01-2007, 08:47 AM
The discussion of the demonization of the Baby Boomers and the creation of various classes inside the organization in Charltonrom's post raises a very interesting aspect of the way LaRouche runs things.
That is the phenomenon of the Enemy Within. There is always an Enemy Within, who is invariably tied to whoever the Enemy Without happens to be (BTW, I am indebted for this insight to a conversation I had with Ken Kronberg several years ago).
Thus, if the Enemy Within is Right-Wing Catholic spy and agent Fernando Quijano, the Enemy Without will be international Synarchism/clerical fascism. They are always tied together, so that LaRouche can mobilize all the fear and hatred the members feel against the Enemy Without to use it against the Enemy Within--and vice versa.
That way, as people inside the org are demonized, the LaRouche armies can feel virtuous and self-righteous in driving out their former close friends as Agents of an Enemy Power.
And that is no doubt what is going on now, with Baby Boomers at each other's throats, and Baby Boomers attacking Baby Boomers as the most immoral, slothful, impotent, vile x-y-z.
From what I hear, the Baby Boomers in the office in Leesburg are being pushed out, while the LYMers are running more and more.
The main thing LaRouche needs the oldsters for is the phone fundraising, because the LYMers can't possibly raise any money wandering around on the streets mumbling about Gauss's determination of the orbit of Ceres.
Without the old folks raising the $$ for the yutes' lumpen lifestyle, LaRouche's current crazy model for the organization couldn't work.
Meanwhile, on the Enemy Within/Without theme, look back at the Gus business--he was supposedly a Bulgarian (or Greek) Communist agent, remember?
Or Carol and Chris--Lyn hated them, wanted to destroy them, and came up with the outrageous 1974 brainwashing business, which almost did destroy them. Somehow, LaRouche managed to sell the idea that C&C were agents of some Dark Force that wanted to kill him. All they really wanted to do was get away from him, I think--speaking as one who knew them pretty well in those days.
What was done to them was monstrous. What was done to Quijano, ditto. Then there was the assault on Uwe Friesecke and the European leadership, where the lead issue was plainly that Friesecke wouldn't fund the German LYM, but the deeper issue was LaRouche's need to destroy everyone around him, one by one. (Also, since Friesecke was Helga's former lover, that made a doubly sweet revenge for LaRouche.)
And Ed Spannaus? A few months before he cashiered Ed from the NEC, LaRouche accused him of being an Enemy of Helga's.
Lastly, Ken Kronberg--LaRouche analogized Ken to some petty, venal businessman who wanted to make money and therefore pooh-poohed LaRouche's insane obsession with the 1929 Depression. Of course, if Kronberg had wanted to make money, he never would have done any of the things he did.
LaRouche's reported freakout when Kronberg killed himself--after a year or two of LaRouche's attacks--may be the result of his figuring out that even the dumbest (older) members will know those attacks on Kronberg and PMR were lies, perhaps mostly based on LaRouche's desire to put some distance between himself and PMR before it crashed--and of course, as all ex-members know, LaRouche cannot take the blame or the responsibility for ANYthing. So if PMR was gonna crash because the LaRouche org never paid for any of its printing, then you just KNOW that LaRouche would have to start attacking PMR to cover his own role in this.
Next installment: LaRouche takes aim at marriage and marriages.


06-01-2007, 08:59 AM
Here's some interesting reading. The comments for Dennis King's book at, and the single sentence that jumps out at me:
I read this book just to see what the other half says.
Other... half? HALF? The joke is that Larouche is barely a household name, murmured in an occasional off-hand joke once in a great moon, and King isn't -- as he has devoted himself to researching an item nobody thinks about, even as Larouchies have found their way into some gargantuan struggle. How we can dissect the two categories into "Halves" is beyond me. But I guess that's the world of Larouchism.
The whole thing mindset perplexes me. It seems that what Larouche has ended up doing is basically operating a Fantasy Shadow Government.}


06-01-2007, 12:09 PM
I don't think it's a "mindset". It's basically a CULT. Maybe one with theoretical elements that are more dense than normal cults: we DID read Plato's dialogues in group sessions; we DID work through various math/geometry pedagogicals; there WAS a sort of high tech-futurism aspect to the organization; and so forth. Lyn's texts and writings had a certain sort of rhetorical density which can be captivating to the philosophically/psychologically innocent. But it's cult-ic at the very least, because it centers on a charismatic leader who engages in unscrupulous political and financial practices.
Cults have certain constant structural features, such as:
1. Initiates/devotees, drawn from the sector of the population that comprises those in transitional states; those with insecure sexual identities; those in conditions of "anomie" or philosophical/existential uncertainty. Without initiates/devotees, there is no "organization"
2. An ideology that sustains the group, justifies its existence, rationalizes its activities. Typical are millenarian/revolutionary or end-of-the-world doctrines. Messianic delusions and exclusivity ("We are the worlod's leadership force" I used to say), as well as demonizing/dehumanizing opponents, or proffering up certain classes or types as the Enemy, are also typical.
3. Finally, a central, charismatic figure, often of messianic character or pretensions.
Sound familiar?


06-01-2007, 12:13 PM
hey speak of the devil - meaning king in this instance, though in this forum he's at least st. michael - i wonder if anyone on this board participated in the shows that king did with lenny lopate back in the 80's on wbai...they were hilarious...king would talk about larouche, and members of the org would phone in to call names and generally heckle king and lopate, who
seemed rather amused by it all...i would absolutely love to get my hands on copies of those shows...and for those of you who dont remember, back in that day, lopate's show ran from midnite to 5 am, and the fun never stopped...
while i'm at it, please let me tip my beret to sancho, xlcr, charltonron and eaglebeak - you guys are superb, devastatingly witty writers...i'm sure you owe it all to i have to tell you that you have pretty much eroded my semi-fascination with larouche...i come here now just to see what you guys have written...
one more thing: we need more anecdotes about helga...she has always struck me as a particularly vapid creature, a ventriloquist's dummy come to life as an avon lady from hell...


06-01-2007, 02:05 PM
I think we make a pretty grave mistake if we underestimate Lyn and Helga and just hurl invectives, and the like. They are charismatic figures in their own way. I was never in the inner circles so I never got to experience her beer farts but I will say that she came through with some decently impressive scholarship in the middle & later periods: her speeches on Abelard, Cusa, Schiller and other such topics, for example.
This cultic apparatus is kind of unique, perhaps, in that there is a solid veneer of science and philosophy overlaying the core of megalomanic paranoia and scamming. If we lose sight of this, lose sight of the appeal-aspect, I think we will fail to comprehend what's going on with the organization.


06-01-2007, 02:23 PM
well charltonrom, i have been reading helga's work for over 20 years now, first as a subscriber to new solidarity/new federalist, and then as a subscriber to EIR, and i have never found her to say anything at all original...she simply parrots her husband or spouts platitudes...and without breaking a sweat, i can think of at least half a dozen authors i've read in larouche publications whose work has greatly enriched my understanding of history, economics, cultural studies, etc...indeed, one of the things that has kept me believing that larouche was a genuine intellectual force, and not a charlatan, was and is the talent of the members of his organization... even lyn manages to occasionally sneak in a startling insight or two, though after reading the postings here, it is unclear to me whether those belong to him, or have been appropriated from others...
i can't comment on her scholarship, so i'll give that point to you...


06-01-2007, 02:42 PM
To charltonrom
of course they are charismatic, and their ideas are appealing (at least to some), that s essential for a cult: you don't catch a fish with a bare hook, you need something... (hey most of us here were recruiters!)
Yes there is something unique in the LYM/LYN cult, but the same can be said for hare krishna, moon, scientology etc etc... They are all "unique"... It s not about the content, it s about the box, it s about the method.
Of course, sometimes lyn would say something that makes sense, but it is irrelevant.
The method is cultist, therefore it s a cult.


06-01-2007, 02:47 PM
Cult v. Cadre organization
After reading Charltonrom's post along with Eaglebeak's I recall that in my time, we were able to make a distinction between cult and revolutionary group because in Leninist terms we always would figure the revolutionary cadre group would always have to be a minority group that "moves the masses." This was why, at least early on, we wouldn't be bothered if we didn't have mass appeal, since the point was to move bigger orgs. like trade unions, the anti-war movement, etc. Leninists would feel very comfortable with the idea that the individual subordinates himself to the will of the organization for the sake of "revolution." Of course, anyone familiar with the early history of the Bolshevik Party would know there was more active debate inside the leadership on key issues than ever existed inside the NCLC (at least pre-Stalin).
And certainly, as a leftist, we would assume there would be enemies within, since the FBI and various police agencies did run their cointelpro operations to infiltrate the left in the 60s and 70s.
Then, LaRouche drops the Marxism, moves far to the Right and begins supporting Reagan, attacking all elements of the left-environmentalists especially-and pretends that he is actually going to lead some mass movement to take over or rebuild the Democratic Party in his image. Of course the Democratic Party is not a Leninist organization, nor could the NCDC or whatever it was called be considered one, and we were basically trying to continue a "cadre" organization while pretending to be an organization to run the country through putting LaRouche in the White House or in charge of something. Of course, the organization always reflected a very non-Marxist attitude towards its enemies, which was no longer capitalism or imperialism, but good capitalists against bad capitalists, finance against industrial capitalist, etc. So Lyn believed he was going to run some faction of capitalists to back his plans "to save capitalism from itself." (A lot of this traces back to views expressed by Tim Wolfurth and others). This seems to be a classic fascist direction, if you look at the history of Mussolini. But all along I think members somehow believed that they were still operating as that Leninist cadre organization which could sustain any sacrifice, and the members have the same belief as someone who believes that world socialist revolution is around the corner.
I don't think the issue of sacrifice and living in miserable conditions is the issue, since plenty of people have sacrificed and lived in far worse conditions even when they might be a minority against a majority, look at the Valley Forge soldiers, or many other examples of sacrifice for a cause, maybe even a losing cause. The question is what is the cause you are being asked to sacrifice for. And if you look at the actual world view that LaRouche espouses, even though he talks about creativity, etc. it is clearly a totally authoritarian world view that's reflected in the treatment of the members themselves.


06-01-2007, 04:02 PM
Larouche said: it is a cult!
In his 1979 autobiography (p76), he wrote:
"Although I have profoundly respected Goethe's extraordinary skill in poetic composition, one poem of Goethe's which touched me with more than a special sense of admiring amusement was his Prometheus. Making men in my own image was the conscious articulation of my central purpose from approximately 1946. First, one must become adequately qualified to accomplish that purpose. That task, especially as I saw the methodological hopelessness of existing institutions known to me, prescribed assimilating and developing a body of knowledge adequate to the undertaking to come. In the immediate postwar period, I set myself the goal of acquiring the necessary degree of adequacy between my thirty-third and thirty-fifth birthdays.
The result of that approach was the National Caucus of Labor Committees."
In fact, for larouche, being "Promethean" means being "like God" who indeed created "men in his own image"...
It is not an accident that the members of the NCLC/ICLC would soon enough be called "larouchies".
This sense of "god-likeness" was brilliantly explained by psychologist Alfred Adler when he tried to understand what is now known as the "complex of superiority". He wrote that piece two years before Hitler took power..:
"Sometimes we find children who express themselves quite openly in this way, and remark, 'I should like to be God'. Many philosophers have had the same idea. There are also some teachers who want to train and educate children to be like God. In old religious disciplines the same objective is visible: disciples should educate themselves in such a way that they become god-like. This concept of god-likeness appears in a more modest form in the idea of 'superman', and it is revealing - I shall not say more - that Nietzsche, when he became insane, signed himself in a letter to Strindberg, 'The Crucified'.
Insane people often express their goal of god-like superiority quite openly: they will assert, 'I am Napoleon', or 'I am the Emperor of China'. They wish to be the centre of worldwide attention, to be constantly in the public eye, to be in radio contact with the whole world and overhear every conversation. They wish to predict the future, and to possess supernatural powers.
In a more moderate and reasonable way, perhaps, the same goal of god-likeness is expressed in the desire to know everything, to possess universal wisdom, or in the wish to perpetuate our life. Whether it is our earthly life we desire to perpetuate, or whether we imagine ourselves as coming to earth again and again in many incarnations, or whether we foresee immortality in another world, these expectations are all based upon the desire to be like God. "
Rings a bell?


06-01-2007, 04:13 PM
My opinion is that the content in Lyn's cultic apparatus is both different and important. I don't think the Moonies or Krsna's try to gain pull in the Democratic Party. The veneer of science and philosophy, of futuristic economics, of a new monetary system to empower a world of sovereign nation-states; the lure of being World Historical: all these things lend a certain contemporary revolutionary panache to the organization. Young people join up to fight for the future; not knowing Lyn's true wild, spotty history, they see him as a plausible leader in that. Who else is proposing a new monetary system and any sort of programmatic approach? I will admit that for quite a long time, Lyn was for me "the central figure in contemporary history," as I used to put it. It all came together; I felt sure Lyn was the great humanist of the age, matured over time certainly, but persecuted by the regnant oligarchy for his revolutionary views and actions, such as his counseling Lopez Portillo to repudiate Mexico's debt. (The story I was told on this by the way was that this nearly succeeded, but for the caving of Argentina's president from the repudiation-bloc.)
There are some common features with other cults, namely the preying on sexual insecurities ("You're psychosexually impotent!"), the demonizations, the groupthink. What sets Lyn apart for me is the Brobdingnagian, titanically vast bloating of his ego and his fascinating chameleonic quality over the decades, plus, again, this frisson of philosophy, science, and economics. That you won't find amongst the Krsna's or Moonies.
The key is not scattershot, piecemeal potshots and remembrances, though these are essential and instructive. The key is comprehending how LYN'S cult works/has worked; what is ITS method (basically the LaRouche/Schacht Method, see below).
Basically we hope some of this dialogue may get perceived by some thinking of joining or some thinking of getting out, that it may give them some perspective to resist the peer pressure and fearmongered intimidation. Next: the Lure of the Cult.


06-01-2007, 04:17 PM
I have here a quote from LHL given in an address in the barn at Ibykus farm on Monday Dec 21, 1987 before everyone in Leesburg. Read this a few times and you will see that he combines so much of his delusions with a future plan for the cult.
LAROUCHE Dec. 20, 1987: "Creativity is one of my obsessions. If you don't have creative insight, you can't see how we can win; if you can see how we can win, then we will win.
Only we can save the world; only we can do the job, because nobody else even knows what the job is. Would you like to be the savior of humanity? ... Yes, I was chosen. You were chosen. Not with fanfare, not with the blaring trumpets of archangel Gabriel. It doesn't happen that way. It happens as you walk down the street thinking about the problems of the world and realize only you can do the job ... You are chosen. Like John Scialdone's lawyer said to the jury: 'You poor schmucks'!

... Look around you. Who will support us? Who will rally to us? The ones who will rally to us are the emotionally crippled, the grey-faced, the neurologically impaired who, in rallying to us will do the only worthy thing to give meaning to their lives. Thus they will be able to say, 'I wasn't important but I contributed to victory

  • What happens in the LC/LYM is that by keeping your life filled with anxiety and fear around the clock, you never really read what you are selling or hear what you are hearing. To this day I can reread some of the lunacy we published about Jews and kick myself for suppressing that FIRST gut feeling that something was not right.
    We are going to be coming up to the 20th anniversary of that speech Lyn gave where he tells you what the plan is. For the past two years the LC Boomers and I have been reading the exact same briefings where Lyn outlines how he will get rid of the old and expensive and replace it with younger and cheaper yutes.
    Lyn uses the word "Win" in a context where only he will define it instead of any real paramters of success can be measured.

    What I start to think of is how the LC and Lyn spent so much time portraying the difference between Plato and Aristotle as a simple parlor trick he does by saying that the Aristotelian wants to see a chair while the Platonist is superior because he used causation to imagine the chair before it existed. I swear we had endless classs about this which because of portraying Aristotle as evil and Plato as good, it established the next level of where empirical knowledge is bad. This LC education has only one outcome which is to make you no longer ask for physical proof of something but by merely imagining it you can define it's existance in any way you wish.
    This allows Lyn to tell naive yutes that the USA has been in an economic collapse for 40 years while ignoring the simple empirical fact that the total USA population has 100 million more people since he first started yapping about this.
    Lyn can repeat an endless cacophony of real estate collapse when the only people who lost money in Northen Virgina real estate from 1980 to 2000 was Lyn himself!
    Another parlor trick Lyn and the cult uses is the word "Phase shift". You read the briefings and you find that used a lot to convince you that working around the clock for Lyn and giving all of your money has caused something to happen which you directly caused. The mumbo jumbo you will get is that this person "echoed" Larouche and a "Phase shift" has occured which has changed "The Dynamic" of the "political situation".

06-01-2007, 04:18 PM
Now you can do this mumbo jumbo in reverse too. We once had an anniversary party for New Solidarity in NYC and as a joke we asked what was the most common first sentence used in any article. The winner was:
"Recent events in the past 24 to 48 hours indicate that ___________ is now out of control...."

In the real world people do make sacrifices for things like elections. I have worked phone banks and have campaigned for people and worked on various campioagns which have a beginning and an end. In this asylum the end never comes and you can be reduced to giving up decades of your life to fund what Howie correctly called a
"Fantasy Shadow Government" or FSG.
What Howie does not yet know is that this FSG is inside Lyn's head and has been galloping at full steam by being fed a daily diet of delusions by very crafty con artists who know Lyn better than anyone I have ever met. We still have some more of this to find out about. But, when delusions go into Lyn's head money comes out of the LC.
So keep on working those phone banks and spread sheets of contacts because there are people to fund that you do not know about yet.
Next, I start getting into the prediction racket myself.


06-01-2007, 04:44 PM
Two years ago when some Lym yutes were sending me briefign exerpts they asked about why the big deal in denouncing LC boomers. I would get emails where I thought it was being punked by yutes. From several sources I was told that older Boomer LCers were involved in cooking group meals for LYM and in a few instances were breaking down in the office and sobbing "Why am I here. What has happened to my life?". This made sense since so many LYM who left have siad that part of the daily routine is to see and hear the local NC berate the older members at every opportunity.
Now in the briefings you can't help but notice how the quoats for locals are still in effect and wonder how much can the LYM be sent to sing on street corners before they have to pull in some bucks. I guessed that it would be a gradual turn of events with phone work for LPAC being done with LC boomers showing how it is done.
In the early 1970s when Lyn revved up the LC with Mop Op and the Chris White scam and assasination attempt fantasies, he said the LC, "This aint no debating society anymore". S the bills pile up you wonder how long can you afford to send card table shrines to college campuses intead of actual deployments for money.
The asnwer is when you have enough people to replace the boomers and need to start bringing in the cash. This was somehwat complicated by the fact that there was no lit to sell or subs to sell as most of the work was just giving it away. Howver, for the past few months I have noticed that the income of squads has been reported while the college deployments have been downplayed. The writers of the briefings have even written things like "Deploying is fun" and "we took over the town by raising 90 bucks and getting 20 contacts"
You might as well put up a sign at the LYM clubhouse saying "Work will make you free" as the latest escalation in the cult is called a "reading day". In one funny email I was sent a LYM member wondered how after busting your butt 6 days a week for 18 hours the briefing would quote some LYM member in esctasy over getting up at 6 AM for an authorised reading day to have even your free time controlled by the cult.
The card table shrine is Lyn's future for you guys and girls. Only a select amount of people will get the coveted "War Room" desk jockey jobs while the rest of you will be slowly put out to the streets to raise money. There will be some time for singing anf theatrics, but saving humanity comes with a price tag.
Here we have a blog about a return to intersection deployments. When you yutes start to wear signs and approach cars keep in mind that we did this a lot in the past. ALso keep in mind that you will probably not be in the LYM when the first cases of skin cancer from the sun and cancer from the exhaust fumes deposits carcinogens into your young, fresh, supple bodies.
Up next, the intersection squads come back.


06-01-2007, 04:45 PM


06-01-2007, 04:48 PM
"Well, it makes about as much sense as what you just said!" After which, she proceeded to tear the pamphlets from my hand and huff away in search of more kindred minds. But as I began to pull away (About time! Thanks for having my back there, traffic light!), I began to wonder if perhaps I was being unfair by summarily dismissing Larouche. Sure, he was the guy who thought that the Queen of England was a drug pusher trying to assassinate him, and he spent a little time behind bars. But who was I to judge? Was I being too hard on the guy? He referred to himself a conservative democrat, but Eddie Izzard once called himself a lesbian trapped in a man's body, so who's to say who's more conflicted?
So, I Googled my way over to Larouche's Wikipedia page and began my journey into the belly of the beast. I read all about his runs for president, his alleged anti-semitism, and the supporter who was allegedly brainwashed to assassinate him. I read about the Schiller Institute, and his plans for the Eurasian Landbridge.
It was then that I realized that the real story I was after wasn't Lyndon Larouche's story at all. What I really wanted to know was the story of the woman who had believed in him so much that she was willing to threaten a total stranger with a communicable disease. But I had driven away from that story, and perhaps for the better. So, I'm left now to wonder what the deal was with the strange little woman in her sandwich board, and hope that my sore throat isn't a harbinger of things to come. logID=270607734

  • We had Khomenhi target posters, you have Cheney. If you yutes want to get on the NC, suggest that you sell bumper stickers"

06-01-2007, 04:56 PM
The LaRouche/Schacht Method and the Lure of the Cult
xlcr4life has well-opined the basic Method. Lyn's true mission is not the furtherance of the work of Jesus Christ ("Jesus Christ & Civilization, 2000) or the attainment of a new monetary system, or a global maglev network. If examined honestly as a historical phenomenon in must be concluded that his goal is, in essence, self-aggrandizement.
He exudes a sort of philosophic halo or creedal penumbra, comprised of the doctrinal content enunciated this season. I.e., the political positionings are legion. Virtually every day, something new, some new end-of-the-system imminent crisis, some new Demon. The content of the noetic halo has radically shifted over time. Some of his proposals and notions are definitely not vacuous nor devoid of content; they are intriguing. The problem is that when one looks at his history you find radical transformation of commitment, such that you have to realize he's untrustworthy, especially when you factor in the scammings,the horrid treatment of his associates, the anti-Israelism.
Those Lyn draws in may be quite bright by some measures. There are some true revolutionary zealots, but mostly they are weak-willed devotees, of insecure identity, who I would guess believe like I did that they have found, in effect, the Messiah.
It's generally a big decision to join. Once In, the inertia of belonging is strong. The group imposes forms of behavior and thought control, such as seeking to limit family encounters; implying that failure to recruit or raise funds is equivalent to sexual impotence; plus spinning world events around the words and deeds of the Messiah. The net effect is rather powerful emotional enforcement in the Creed. I had conflicts about leaving. I had put in years of my life, after all.
Lyn will blow up your sense of importance for a while but the key is getting those funds in so he and the NC's can travel first class and the voice and drama lessons of the LYM can be supported. Therefore the Boomers and Tweeners in the org, those over the acceptable-age threshold, must be whipped continuously to produce the income needed to ensure proper functioning. The Boomers despite their exhaustion have really not much other place to go and so they continue to eat the ever-thinning gruel that Lyn and the organization are on the edge of a breakout.
This is the basic structure and method. As the older members are cast off and the LYM move into prominence, they will be forced to try and come up with fundraising schemes. Hopefully they will be legal, 'though I know that several of the LYM are not above scamming; there are a number who have reneged on student loan obligations.
I don't think the model is viable for much longer.


06-01-2007, 07:23 PM
"there are a number who have reneged on student loan obligations"
This is something which I have been hearing bits and pieces of for years. When I was in we had people who were pretty proud of having skipped out on their loans. Who needed to worry about Loan repays if the whle world economy was going to collapse and the dollar was worthless?
I can see an NC taking some yute into a room and asking if they can borrow some money on student loans to fund some "project" with a promise of paying it back. Once the check is signed over the friendly face changes and you will then be whisked into a room where someone like a Leni will look at you like you are crazy for asking for money to make this month's payment.
"Don't you know that a nuclear bomb can drop on us at any moment?"
What also happens is that you are trapped now as you are now in debt to the cult who have more reasons not to repay you then you have reasons to pay the note.
"What? You are worried about your credit report? There will be no credit when the crash hits"
"The political situation demands that all money be deployed to print the latest world historical brief by Lyn so cause a phase shift in the Democratic Party"
(No wonder Lyn writes a new brief at the beginning and the middle of the month when most payments are due)
The cult has another trick which is to make the yute's parents support Lyn. Here is how it works. You can promise a yute anything cause they really have no idea what it costs to live as this is the first time they are on their own. Lyn also has spent quite a few memos on why money is not worth anything and you need to be concerned about the physical economy. Well, everyone else's except yours. Next, once you need something like a coat or cell phone you are encouraged to contact your parents to get some money. Your parents figure that if they give you cash it will go to Lyn, instead pay your car insurance or phone bill. These are pretty cold blooded NCs you are dealing with. They had people evicted for not paying rent to send Lyn money and had members call up their parents to get cash for non existant medical bills. We usually got sick around the time the first presidential committee was set up and needed matching fund money.
No matter what the story, you are at the mercy of the cult for your news, reading material, media material, food, clothes, what time to get up, what time to go to sleep, who you will live with and when your day off will be and what you will do that day. You also can be sent to another region and can also expect some slimy old man to question your sexual secrets and life in a late night Beyond Psyche session. If you do not hit quota expect the world to end and then return to the office to see someone who is 30 years older than you but looks 50 years older be yelled at daily by the NC.
This has been a 35 year or so farce yutes. Are your qualifications to be with Lyn based on his 1987 WANT AD for today?
"Look around you. Who will support us? Who will rally to us? The ones who will rally to us are the emotionally crippled, the grey-faced, the neurologically impaired who, in rallying to us will do the only worthy thing to give meaning to their lives. Thus they will be able to say, 'I wasn't important but I contributed to victory "


06-01-2007, 09:30 PM
xlcr4life, that is good stuff; I think Lyn's public and shameless megalomania may have peaked around then. If you watch the video of the Celebrating the Year of St. Augustine or whatever it was, in '86 or '87, you'll see Lyn vociferously gesticulating, in real Il Duce form, as he raves that This is the Year of Destiny, it is THIS Year when the Great Decision must be made, when I must be allowed to Assume My Proper Role. Also around this time, and in the video, he was hinting in not-so-subtle ways that homosexuals could use a baseball bat beating or two. Once Harley started schmoozing with the gay guy in the LA Dem party leadership, Lyn mellowed out and gayness became OK. What had been a "disease with a specific etiology" as he wrote in the early 80's, became an acceptable lifestyle choice. Talk about phase shifts!
This is one of the things that really irked me. If only Lyn could have just fessed up and said, "Yeah, I was a Marxist, but I've seen the light; the American System is basically my new ideal." Instead of honesty, it's the Memory Hole: Lyn has ALWAYS been the Leibnizian JQ Adams FDR ur-patriot. Just forget all that other stuff...
Since 2000 the task has been to forge a new functional ideology. Not only was Fernando purged; for the next 5 years he was a veritable constant rhetorical companion. On and on and on went Lyn's diatribe against him. Most of the difficulties we had in organizing and fundraising were attributable to his satanically insidious corrupting effect as a plant/enemy agent in the organization. Lyn could never let it go. I never knew Fernando and could never make much sense of why he was so loathed, even after he was gone. Supposedly he had a photo of Franco on his wall... rather like Lyn's photo of Eva Peron, perhaps.
The LYM was forged as a goal, partly for structural-functional reasons and partly because I think Lyn really thought he could break through and create a revolution. Modeled on "Ben Franklin's Youth Movement" ---an interpretation that had it that a few 20 yr olds led the American Revolution; ahem...--- the LYM now represented the last hope for the nation and mankind. Thus, all organizational resources possible were to be devoted to recruitment of youth.
Now the LYM is founded as a notion, their number... 100? 150? Not enough to change history very much, but it keeps Lyn's ego flames pretty stoked. However the fundraising has gotten far harder as the old regular sources and contacts have begun to die off and as Lyn's press has fallen to absolute zero. Lyn continually attacks the senior members for their utter and tenacious failure to enact his policy of mass public recruiting. Given this ideological structure, therefore, the forecast looks strong: as the Boomers croak off or are forced to go seek jobs as Wal Mart greeters, the LYM begin to move into ... deployment-drone mode. It's QUOTA TIME, BABY!
The delusions would be hilarious weren't it so sad to consider that a lot of people's lives have been eaten up by the Messiah Ogre.


06-02-2007, 04:58 AM
Saturday is usually the day we sent out everyone to shopping malls and plazas to sell lit and hopefully hit quota early enough to call it a day. If your region was behind in the quota then you could figure that the NC was going to tell you to stay out till 9 PM and do a walking tour. The phone teams would go till 11 PM every night as we had a bright idea to have our people call early time zones. If by midnight the country was behind, then you could look forward to a Sunday fundraising emergency.
Today my Saturdays consist of working around the house I own and planning things to do with my childen.
In the course of my looking at how Lyn is able to take a rationale subject like Al Gore and transform yutes into frenzied , foaming at the mouth rabid street walkers, I noticed something which bothered me.
When I was in elementary school we lyp synched the Tennesee Ernie Ford song "16 Tons" in the 3rd grade. In a cadre school last month Lyn said the following which was again out into the briefings for yutes to swallow.

  • **
    LaRouche: Well, they're both fascists. Essentially, it's true, that Al Gore—and I try to get it out of the people—did you ever hear this song, this country song from Tennessee about the company store ["Sixteen tons"]? Now, who owned the company store? Who owned the company that ran the company store, which was made notorious by this song? The company store? Al Gore, personally. Al Gore is, essentially, a fascist. And he comes from the Tennessee swamps by pedigree. He is also a confirmed racist; he's done things which he is guilty of as hell. In Africa, he's a racist; he's a killer racist in Africa. He's also listed as a Democrat; so are many leading members of the Ku Klux Klan, and he comes from that particular pedigree. I don't know if it's mint juleps or something else.

  • Now 3rd grade was a long time ago for me, so I looked this up as I never heard of this.
    So did Lyn pull this out of a** as I could not find any mention of Al Gore or his father being the inspiration of the song from the people who actually wrote it.
    Yutes, what sort of mularky are you being fed daily?
    When I am finished with my little comments on how Lyn uses a sort fo 12 step formula to larouchify yutes, I will post it here. In the meantime, I have a lot to do with the family this weekend.

06-02-2007, 05:01 AM
Oh, I almost forgot. Reading about the company store and songs about slave labor popped a a few memory cells in my head. We had a company work song in the LC TOO!!!!!
It was created in the Detroit region in the late 1970's when we would send squads to stand all day at highway off ramps to sell bumper stickers, posters and lit while wearing the A frames. The field hands in Detroit created this little ditty in between sucking in exhaust fumes and absorbing incredible levels of sun light on their skin.
The song was called
"Buck a light Jones"
Buck a light Jones was a prototypical field hand LCer who was sent to the off ramps every day and had that as his destiny. He or she had a basic spiel about nuclear was, Jimmy Carter, Larouche which was timed for the trafiic light. If you got a buck at every other light you hit quota and had some cash to take so you could eat that evening.
If anyone from the Detroit region can recall the lyrics, please share. The NCs hated it because it depressed in a way our field hands, but they enjoyed the cash at the end of the day. Lyn enjoyed the cash at the end of the week. The people who controlled and filled Lyn's head and his Fictitiuos Shadow Government enjoyed it at the end of the month.
Start singing yutes.
Buck a light Megan, huuuummmmmm
Buck a light Cody huuuummmmmm
Buck a light Sky huuuummmmmm
(Message edited by xlcr4life on June 02, 2007)


06-02-2007, 05:45 AM
We used to be lashed for not getting all the lit out. I couldn't understand why Lyn would print 50 million copies of his every 3rd sentence. There was no way we could get that much out. A slight shortage of flu vaccine proved "Bush is a killer" as the leaflet said so Lyn printed millions of leaflets. The worst were the broadsheets which were awkward and on crappy paper. I used to throw away tons of aged lit, hauling it out of the lit room clandestinely to a dumpster to try and free up some space.
For a while in '03 or so it seemed like maybe we were getting somewhere. I didn't know yet that Lyn's narrative of his persecution was a crock nor how deep ran his pathology.


06-02-2007, 06:27 AM
Lyn was prosecuted, not persecuted.
This persecution nonsense was when he was on his "Mission from God" kick as we have quoted on many a time.
The Blues Brothers were on a Mission from God". Lyn is on a Mission from Odd.
Ask yourself if Lyn paid for those leafletts and pamphlets when PMR printed them up? If not, why were yutes told that there is no money for stipends and expenses.
Did the FSG get the cash?
Rise and shine yutes. You need to sing for spare change and dance between cars at stoplights. If the yutes have enough talent maybe they can improvise a new modern Buck a light Jones song based on a classical performer named Fred Astaire.
"I'm singing in the pain, just singing in the Pain!"


06-02-2007, 07:50 AM
I was particularly struck by the remark that was reportedly made by John Scialdone's lawyers to the jury. If true, that must be the worst case of malpractice (although I'm sure the NCLC thought it was great) in legal history. But it's typical of the condescension that Lyn feels towards the real live masses as opposed to his fantasy image of the American population rallying around Beethoven, Schiller and Gauss while triumphantly placing LaRouche in the White House (or perhaps putting him in some secret backroom position where he can advise the leaders of the world on putting together their maglev train network. Amazing that I ever believed in that crap and tried to sell it to others.


06-02-2007, 09:34 PM
OK it is time for some heavy hitting and ogre's advocacy now. Lyn WAS persecuted. What were the charges? It wasn't mail fraud and tax evasion; it was "conspiracy" charges! Conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and conspiracy to impede the functioning of the IRS, if memory serves. The loans weren't repaid because Justice declared involuntary bankruptcy on the publishers, and seized and shut down the publications and presses. This was even declared illegitamate later by a Federal circuit judge. As Bob Dole put it, Conspiracy is what they get you on when they can't get you on anything else.
Lyn WAS a megalomaniac, AND he <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> off the oligarchy. His work on the debt bomb, his public advocacy of a new international credit agency, his advocacy of SDI vs the Baker Republicans: these are the sorts of things that get the ATF bureau or Justice Dept permanent bureaucracy after you. Throw in fusion-power advocacy and he becomes a threat to establishment structures.
Whilst we carp Lyn engages the Moscow science establishment. This to me is the incredible irony: maybe megalomania is required to work on the World stage.


06-02-2007, 10:45 PM
Lyn is just one nut among many (e.g., members of the John Birch Society or or the National Alliance) who rail against elements of the so-called oligarchy. If there be such a class, I am certain he is of zero account. He most certainly was not engaging anyone at all in Moscow, let alone an entire establishment - scientific or otherwise. It was simply a one-hand-washes-the-other affair. Lyn is a nonentity - except to the individual lives and families he has destroyed.


06-02-2007, 11:17 PM
Hm. Foreign Dictators channeling Lyndon Larouche to try to tap into the American public. I noticed this :
June 2, 2007 (LPAC)--Ambassador Ukec Lueth Ukec will be the guest on The LaRouche Show, the internet radio program that is broadcast weekly from the website,, on Saturdays at 3 PM Eastern time. Ambassador Ukec gave a press conference in Washington, D.C. this week, just after the White House announced punitive sanctions against Sudan for allegedly not accepting a UN peacekeeping force--an allegation which is not true. In his press conference, where he shocked the Washington press corps with his defiance, the ambassador vigorously defended Sudan's sovereignty, saying, "The U.S. must not go beyond our sovereignty. We are the owners of our country. The sanctions are a recipe for disintegration.
John Ukec Lueth Ukec most recently ebbed his way into the news by holding a press conference where he threatened the US that if our government proceeds with sanctions, they will stop trading gum arabic, which is an ingredient in cola. Dana Milbank responded with a snarky line:
As diplomatic threats go, that one gets high points for creativity: Try to stop the killings in Darfur, and we'll take away your Coca-Cola.
The Sudan ambassador -- he does know what a non-factor Larouche is? Or is it a case of anyone who shows up who promises favorable coverage?


06-03-2007, 04:33 AM
Charltonrom, the revision of what happened is basically a Larouche Urban legend for the memebership. Most of this of for yutes who get a version where Lyn compares himself to MLK and ooohs and ahhhs yutes whose only act of civil disobedience was stomping their feet when they did not get a Nintendo 64 when it first came out.
The remaining deadenders , like everything else they have witnessed WISH to believe this and put on larouche specs to ignore the simple fact that two things happened.
-We had many instances of double billings of CCs during our fund raising marathons which never ended. Gee, evn PBS knows when to stop bothering people.
-We issued promisorry notes which went from simple 500 dollar loans to figures approaching millions on some individuals.
Almost every state and local prosecutor ignored this as like most INITIAL white collar scams it was considered a civil vs criminal matter. If you want to see how this happens every day, just look what happens between most individuals and contractors in home improvement squabbles. Police do not wish to chase contractors because these are often intensive paper trails and rather tell you that it is a civil issue.
Even with it being a civil issue we were sued all voer the country by people who lebt us money. I have some of this from Canadians who got tangled up with us in earlier , pre criminal investigations. I used those examples because it was a pretty fair example of that being multiplied many times over.
The criminal investigations began when several families of elderly supporters went to press and different regulatory office to file complaints and were tired of being jerked around by local police. In the initial phase of this we paid off the back charges and loans, usually by negotiating a payment plan which of course with our history is pretty useless.
To fund Lyn's ever increasing FSG side show in Lyn's head meant that whatever budget you set would be wiped out on a whim by Lyn.
A lawsuit against a NJ bank did not go as planned as too much of our tricks I think were revealed which opened up more questions.
WE were borrowing massive amounts of money and Lyn set himslef up as a nice Virginia gentlemen farmer on his estate. We used to fly our big money contacts to be wined and dined by our local minstrels. The word you need to know is
This was money beyond the normal quotas and was done by our top fundraisers around the country. Part of this involved using accountants or people who claimed to be accountants convincing old people that they should liquidate their portfolios and INVEST in us via promisorry notes at rates beyond what was a normal CD return. This opened up another level of income as we now could go after people who siad that their money was "locked up" in stocks and bonds.


06-03-2007, 04:35 AM
Keep in mind that the messianic end of the world as we know it and an imminent KGB takeover fo the world was being used against BOTH the fundraisers and the supporters to an incredible intensity.
In the NYC finance office some members who knew how to do spread sheets looked at this and got real scared as there was no way you could run this scheme and have it work.
IMPORTANT NOTE. This is a cult not a non profit. there is no CFO or any traditional checks and balances or balance sheets for member viewing. LYN is the boss and in situations like this you often call this a mafia style operation. Conspiracy comes in because , well, what else do you call it when you fly a whole region out of the country to evade subpoenas and investigators and have notebooks about the plans written by your security people.
Hasn't Lyn caught on to how Jeff and Paul have fed him a steady diet of FSG ghosts?
Read the stories of the victims and put yourself in my position when the day after the forced bankruptcy the NCs and fundraisers all say, "Great, this means we do not have to pay this back. When people call for their money, tell them to call the US DOJ or the Judge to get it back!"
Sure enough, we actually gave some people whom we considered to be pricks about THEIR money gov phone numbers.
The insanity of Lyn is that we could have avoided all of this by repaying some of the money and pleading somethign like no contest and this would have stopped. The total we blew on lawyers and expenses was way beyond what we were accused of stealing, but that is how Lyn operates in the real world when it conflicts with his lunacy.
There is a whole other world of this which is not generally known involvong plea deals by Lyn for him to go free and incredible testimony by him and others which is riveting.
THAT was not put in the books and briefings by us for a reason. Even the trial was a Potemkin village for members. You will notice another round of an exodus from the LC when bits of this leaked out to people.
Just keep checking in and eventually these thigns will be posted.
(Message edited by xlcr4life on June 03, 2007)


06-03-2007, 06:45 AM
One common theme in Labor Committee history is the defense of brigands, outlaws, dictators, Nazi rocket scientists or any other sort of reprobate - so long as they give Lyn a hearing, on whose behalf in return the LaRouche propaganda machine goes into full swing: Saddam, the Teamsters, Harrison Williams, Marcos and so on to the present. Lyn is very needy for attention and will get it wherever he can, clearly. Sick. After two weeks we'll know if Tony Soprano gets added to the list of humanist city-builders, or whatever the code name for the good guys is these days. To the extent that decent and accomplished people come round is usually in response to the good qualities of some among the membership (i.e., the dreaded "boomers.") Then the exaggeration-machine kicks in so that one legitimate actor's involvement is misconstrued to demonstrate how the "acting establishment" is being challenged. You see the briefings. Leaflets are not distributed, they are "snapped up." Ooo, a squad at X College sold $20 worth of lit and got thirty contacts and caused a firestorm of debate on campus. Oh yeah? Check the public trash receptacles within a fifty-foot radius of the card-table shrine.
Let's none of us trying to recover from this experience lapse back into participating in the Walter Mitty daydreams of a crazed and lonely old man.


06-03-2007, 10:27 AM
ok, well i just want to applaud charltonron's post of echoes some of my own, to which i shall thoughtfully provide links, for the interested:
and finally
now as i mentioned in one of these posts, i listen to the briefings while driving...and while on my way to the 7-11 for a daily dose of coffee, cigarettes, nubile scantily-clad women and god-awful love songs, i listened to a briefing dealing with the square root of negative one and dick cheney; where else but in the world of larouche would i find such a combination? education in mathematics is quite poor, and i don't expect to actually learn anything from such lectures...but i find it incredibly refreshing and stimulating to hear such topics discussed, both singularly and in juxtaposition...and it's hard for me to root for the extinguishing of the organization that can bring me such one time in this forum i asked in all sincerity for members to post credible alternatives to the EIR...some tried, but their suggestions were lame...which is why i wound up resubscribing, a decision i more or less regret now, since the magazine no longer arrives at really seems to me that the org is seeing the arrival of the grim reaper at its doorstep, and while some here will cheer, my world will be just a little bit less interesting...


06-03-2007, 11:19 AM
Again, one of the principal attractions of this - and many another - cult is that it offers one-stop shopping for those of a political and intellectual bent. That is also why this is a cult, because life is too rich and interesting to be reduced to the musings of one individual who is a proven liar, fraud, and intellectual and moral bankrupt. It is also a shell game: one learns something about the square root of negative one; then, as soon as one attempts to delve a little more deeply and finds that the presentation is at best sketchy, it's on to Dick Cheney, and then on to howling slave songs, and then on and on and on, always keeping one's eye off the pea as one's pocket is picked. There are many materials available online and elsewhere on subjects in which one is interested. The reason there is no alternative to EIR is that it is irrational to presume that any one publication is going to satisfy all of one's concerns. I would suggest we start to take responsibility for own intellectual development and make appropriate choices for ourselves rather than lazily cast our hopes on one person, no matter how wise and knowledgeable one may regard that person - most certainly if that person has repeatedly been demonstrated ad nauseam to be manifestly neither wise nor knowledgeable.


06-03-2007, 01:22 PM
For Joe Sixpack:
To each new mark, the organization seems refreshing and stimulating--until you actually get entangled in it deeply enough to realize that its members are brutalized and abused, defending their abuser just as abused wives do, or as the Stockholm Syndrome exemplifies.
Then it's way less refreshing and stimulating. It becomes sickening.
The average member of the LaRouche org is not unlike Patty Hearst after she spent months in captivity with the Symbionese Liberation Army--that is, nuts. She identified with her oppressors. So do Labor Committee members--that's why the Baby Boomers are still there, even though they are humiliated and attacked and derided every single day.
Your world may be a little less interesting if the organization goes under, but for those of us who once knew the late Ken Kronberg, and I'm sure for his family and friends, if that happens, the world will be a little more just.
The combination of the square root of minus 1 and Dick Cheney is bizarre, frankly, not educational--particularly since LaRouche will invariably fly into a rage at any mathematician who uses the term "imaginary number" (well, naturally; Descartes was the first to use it) and then fly into a rage at Lynne Cheney as a lesbian witch who is running the world (one more unpleasant expression of LaRouche's conviction that it's always the woman's fault).
This is not the stuff of intellectual stimulation, unless you mean to include studies in abnormal psychology--because that's what and who LaRouche is. How else explain his venom against Euler, Euclid, "Synarchism," Aristotle, and Lynne Cheney, all in one demented package?
What you're getting here is the secret language of a crazed secret society, and unless you know the right code words and chants, and unless you bring forth the right formulas and spells at the right time, you are not a member of this Inner Elite. And if not a member, you are a worthless excuse for a human being, salvageable only if you have the great good fortune to encounter the Singing Youth of the LYM.


06-03-2007, 02:00 PM
Sancho: well said, indeed; but allow me please to wistfully stroke one more time my cracked chain.
For me the organization has still some appeal, because Lyn, despite his decades of chicaneries and absurdities, remains a focal point for certain necessary concepts that I don't really see coming out of any other voice or forum; at least, there's no one PERSON giving personal leadership in these necessary directions, viz:
1. It does feel to me somewhat that we are in a crisis period of history--- of course, when hasn't it been a crisis, but the question, Where are we going? How will we attain any sort of species consciousness that will permit us to achieve the sorts of physical powers to do things like stave off asteroids, which would be immensely challenging technically but is unthinkable in today's world. What is our destiny? At SOME point, we have to either move out and attempt to gain such powers, or we resign ourselves, in the end, to extinction. Maybe that, or collapse backward is soon, if Cheney and his ilk are pushing for expansion of war... In this sense even if his details are wrong, something resonates in his discourse; perhaps this "eschatological" dimension helps to explain his appeal.
2. Chicaneries and incongruities accepted, I wonder if part of this is that Lyn had forged or at least stumbled upon/cobbled together a sort of ecumenical theism, with the forwarding for consideration of such classical concepts as imago viva dei/capax dei, and the insistence on the fundamental importance of the species-distinction between man and ape, based on our ability to transform our environment in ways no other animal can.
In brief then, Lyn for me can't be trusted nor directly followed as a leadership figure; but at the same time, he did collate a considerable mass of interesting doctrine and proposals. If you read his speech in Warsaw from '03 or so, in which the topic is basically sanitation and basic economic infrastructure-building, I think we have to admit that there is more to him than just a shyster---though he does, too, seem to well capture that appellation. Lyn is (unwittingly) instructive and epochal, even, because he instructs us in the mixed-character-of-man difficulties we face in forging a philosophy for the future.


06-03-2007, 02:03 PM
Well I posted my last before seeing Eaglebeak's, and feel justly sillified. Further comments appreciated.


06-03-2007, 03:24 PM
Charltonrom, you're undergoing a process of disabusing yourself of the godhead of LHL, and it will take time. If you go back several years on FACTNet, you will see I did the same: you will see I found much good in _Dialectical Economics_, that perhaps the organization could be shorn of zaniness and used as a sane vehicle for the worthy causes of promoting science, technology, classical culture, and peace, that perhaps Lyn was not always mad, that the organization just took a wrong turn when it abandoned Marxism, and so forth. But after the deluge of information and personal witness I have read on this witness board over the same time period, I simply cannot take any of this seriously at all any more. As with you most likely, I was supportive of the cause of science, technology, and classical culture before I hooked up with this lot which is why I joined in the first place. So the task is to return to my own original interests and see best how I can advance these causes without the help of a criminal enterprise cloaked in the guise of a cult of personality. And others are opposing Cheney, trying to avert killer asteroids, etc., but perhaps - sanely and effectively - not all at once.
It would be truly crazy if you were just to entirely and immediately turn your back on Lyn after years of devotion, so don't worry if you are not as adamant in opposition at this point as some of us. If you keep reading and most importantly reflecting on your own experience you'll wake up one day and realize that this guy is 100% humbug. But give it time.
As an aside, I used to love that term "species consciousness", but now have found that for me it is hard enough just struggling to be a good man one day at a time. For me, humility has been the hardest virtue to come by since leaving this cult.


06-03-2007, 05:14 PM
The idea that combining Cheney and square root of 1 is nothing that makes Lyn unique. Every night on History Channel and Discovery Channel the more oddball theories come up like: the pyramids were created by 1) the Atlanteans, or 2) alien visitors or 3) both. Or other stuff like the Dan Brown conspiracies about Opus Dei and DaVinci, etc. This stuff always causes people to lap up the latest new "discovery". Think of what's been written about the Freemasons for a couple of hundred years for instance. And of course feeling that one has learned the "secrets of the inner elite" etc. makes one feel superior since one has learned "secret knowledge" without having had to go through the arduous process of actually learning a subject area. One can rely on repeating something that Bruce Director or Larry Hecht writes about Gauss and believe one has actually mastered Gauss's mathematics.
Once Lyn suggested creating a new university like the University of Gottingen in Germany. If he was serious that idea could have had real merit, and one could perhaps unite those minds who were really breaking new ground in different areas of science, math, etc. But it's much easier to simply get the masses of LYM members to raise money for Lyn's latest "discoveries" instead.


06-03-2007, 05:31 PM
How to be a laroucheaholic in 12 easy steps.
We are going to see how Lyn's lunacy is a systemic production in the LC/LYM Bizarro world. I will show you the mysteries of how you can create a laroucheaholic in 12 easy steps. When you run into the cult or get a phone call from them, the first words are usually going to be pretty harmless about something you may or may not agree with. That is by design as the lunacy will slowly build up and hit a fever crescendo pretty soon. If anything sounds screwy at the first sound, run away as your initial agreement with a cult about any issue will come back to blind you to what you thought was screwy in the first place.
I should talk and I will be the first to admit that when I first heard about brainwashing plots and how Rocky controled the universe, I should have run. Instead, like a naive yute, I thought I was going to be active in supporting Fusion power. I had no idea that a few years later I would be supporting Lyn's attempt to breed a Master Race of Golden Soul Steers in Leesburg.
The 12 steps hit me in the face when I did a simple test using Al Gore as a perfect example. People can debate CO2 levels and Al Gore, but that is not the issue here. The issue is how can you take a naive yute and turn them from a cube doubler into a wide eyed , frenzied wacko . A LYM member sent me some briefings and I just copy/pasted any mention of Al Gore in any substance and over 12 briefings you can see the results.
Day one April 2
Lyn issues a memo about LPAC and going after Al Gore is part of it. Immediately we notice that the reason given for Gore's speaking trips and activities has nothing to do with any concern of his about environmental issues but far more sinister ones.

  • "And those financial circles pushing Al Gore, throwing millions of dollars behind his lies--as shown in reports below--they, too, are being driven frantic by financial collapse,and are desperately in search of ``the money,'' in the form of new financial bubbles they think can be pumped up. We're dealing with insanity, and fear of truthful action, as the main strategic crisis people face.
  • *
    Regardless of what you may or may not think about global warming, for the yutes on day one Gore exists to confirm Lyn's prediction that the world economy is going to end. since this is now the cult's operational reason for existance, the Six degrees of larouche come into play.
    What is the six degrees of larouche you ask?
    It works like this. Once Lyn sets the agenda, the intell and security people have to now prove that they have a reason to be in the same room with Lyn. No matter what the issue or who the peson is, we can link someone to Lyn's plots in six degrees or less. If you look at enough gorups, business meetings, being in the same hemisphere, you can link anyone to anyone.

06-03-2007, 05:32 PM
This method now links Al Gore to Bush and Cheney!

  • *
    Among the sponsors of the April 19-20 "Poder-New
    American Alliance-Green Forum" conference held in Miami are Kissinger McLarty Associates and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) whose president, Luis Alberto Moreno, sits on Jeb
    Bush's Inter-American Ethanol Commission (IEC). The latter group is also sponsoring the May 11 First Congress of the Americas on Biofuels in Buenos Aires, at which Gore is the keynote speaker. Now reports have surfaced, although not confirmed, that Barrick Gold is one of the sponsors of the May 11 conference in Chile, at which Gore is also the keynote speaker, entitled
    "Gl o bal Warming and Climate Change: The Time to Act is Now." Recall that George H.W. Bush sits on Barrick's International Advisory Committee, along with former Canadian Premier Brian Mulroney. And, not only is Chilean fascist Sebastian Pinera sponsoring that conferen ce, he is also a driving force behind the creation, in Chile, of the "National Committee of Support for Al Gore's Candidacy for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize." Joining Pinera here is the rabid anti-nuclear activist Sara Larrain. Pinera, like Gore, went to Harvard. Perhaps he and Gore were

Next we read that Al Gore is not really doing this as his own project, but is being funded by people who know that a crash is imminent and need Gore to set up another operation to loot.

Biofools' Day featured the announcement that the Gore of Babylon will speak at Arizona State University at Tempe on Monday. Students and faculty reportedly bought out the tickets
within seven hours. Behind the glossy cam pus poster of the Earth from space, announcing Gore's appearance, is the sponsorship of the Valley Forward Association. Its most influential members include Wal-Mart, Wells Fargo Bank, KB Homes, Intel, the {Arizona Business Journal}, and an executive committee apparently headed
by representatives of Arizona law firms and equity funds. They are paying the Gore of Babylon $165,000--the amount reported by
the {Phoenix Daily}--to speak falsehoods to youth at the university...............This, and similar speaking fees and prizes from such
sources, also have the aspect of looking like funding for a Presidential campaign by Gore. But more importantly, such financial and corporate circles are frantic about a crash and looking for ``the money''--a new financial bubble.

  • *

06-03-2007, 05:34 PM
Trying to decipher this is pretty hard and the only thing I can gather is that when Gore talks about new technologies of efficiency or energy production, the oligarchy will use that for some new plot.
We end with this about the President of Brazil and Biofuels.

For the yutes we skip the fact that Brazil is 100 % fueled by ethanol from sugar and wishes to export fuel to the US. The US has a tax on Brazilian ethanol which they oppose, but US producers want.
Again, whatever real issues this involves disapears in the Bizarro world as the now Brazil is part of the plot. Briefings are not put together by accident. What is placed there and for that matter, anything in the LC/LYM is by design for effect. I can read a dozen magazines and newspapers to make my own decision. Here, it is made for you.

More to come and this is just a warm up.


06-03-2007, 05:50 PM
Day 2 April 3
Jeff Steinberg is in the running to be the Grand Poobah of the Loyal order of Larouche when the time comes. To place himself on the short list he has to really try to be like Lyn. Here is his intro for today's yutes to wake up to.

  • **
    In an evening discussion with the NEC on Monday, Lyn reiterated, even more forcefully, the point he made over the weekend in his dialogues with the Los Angeles town hall meeting, and especially
    in the discussion with the Wiesbaden office.
    The entire g lobal system is coming down and the world is facing global Hell--unless Lyn's four-powers initiative is adopted now. The United States must align with Russia, China and
    India to solve the collapse, through cooperation among leading nation-states of this planet, or we all go down in the worst Dark Age in history.
    We are running the only worthwhile conspiracy that exists. Everything else is just a process of plunge into Hell.
  • **
    The rest of the short slugs are about anti Gore coverage in Europe which is Ok, but, a slug on a legal decision caught my eye.
  • **
    On March 30, however, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffery White, of the 9th District in San Francisco, ruled that the suit has merit, and cited Al Gore's movie in his ruling, saying that
    something which negatively affects the environment anywhere in the world, will eventually have negative effects on the United
    States. This is in the spirit of actions in Nazi, Germany, which early on required that all major construction projects be processed through Goering's Reichsnatureschutzgesetz (Forrestry
    Office), which also held the rights of stripping the assets of corporations for the betterment of nature.
  • *
    Keep this in mind because the suit is over the effects of a project in one place effecting people somewhere else. The LA LYM members should be concerned because the West Coast of the US often has pollutants carried from Asia to their part of the USA. Notice how Gore is now in the company of Nazis for the yutes to absorb.

06-03-2007, 05:51 PM
Next we have the Queen of England slowly entering the fray as another willing co conpirator of Al Gore. Maybe the CFL bulbs she installs in Buckinham Palace will make it easier for her to package her drugs for sale and increase her profit margin.
Surley I must be kidding about the Queen of England and Al Gore? Hye, this is Larouche we are talking about.

  • **
    Queen Elizabeth II intends to emulate her son Prince Charles, by appointing environmental consultants to turn the royal palaces into models of environmental efficiency, sources told the {Sunday Times}. Charles is expected to announce in July that his household at Clarence House is "carbon neutral." For the Queen, this will involving changing some of the 40,000 incandescent light bulbs at Buckingham Palace; they have already converted two Bentleys (guess where they hid the other one), and two Rolls Royces into hybrid vehicles.
  • **
    We end the briefing with a report from LA where Lyn addresses the yutes and like a proud father and listens to his offspring who have had his DNA spliced into theirs.
  • **
    The panel of presenters consisted of Ian Overton, Nick Walsh, Aaron Halevy, Brent Bedford and Shawna Rodarte. For all, but one, this was the first public event at which the audience
    was not just young adults, but tweeners and boomers, also. In the case of two of the panelists, this panel was their first. Ian opened the discussion by taking the argument of Al Gore and the IPCC off of the movie screen and under the microscope.Nick unearthed the roots of the environmentalist movement: the cult of Dionysus, eugenics, financers and Nazism. He made it plain that the Gore hoax equals a racially determined genocide, especially of third world nations. Brent continued in a similar
    vein and further investigated the question as to what makes society susceptible to scientific fraud. This brought the discussion to Claudius Ptolemy an d th e importance of Johannes
    Kepler's definitive invalidation of the Ptolmaic system. Aaron then bit into the nitty-gritty of some aspects of the various opinions about celestial mechanics. Bringing the audience into
    the mind of Kepler, Shawna used a portion of Plato's Phaedo to elucidate Keplers scientific method, that is, a hunt for the best reason as to why the universe is as it is, rather than finding the most accurate mechanical description of the universe and calling that a cause for its being. Shawna, then made the point that once Kepler found the reason, he then looked to conduct a physical experiment; one, which Albert Einstein thoroughly enjoyed. The panel closed with a brief contrast between Gore's view of humanity and that of Kepler.
  • **
    Wow, and we are only on day 2. Wait until you see what makes Gore a real Nazi
    (Message edited by xlcr4life on June 03, 2007)

06-03-2007, 10:30 PM
How will we attain any sort of species consciousness that will permit us to achieve the sorts of physical powers to do things like
As an aside, I used to love that term "species consciousness", but now have found that for me it is hard enough just
That was sort of the end of the rope of a conversation with a current Larouchie I had on my blog. I knew we were talking two different languages here, but I for one was perfectly fine with that. He, Steve, asked: "Do you know the difference between man and beast?"
I think my snark-ish answer started with "a miniscule percentage of dna between humans and apes" -- though, I guess I might add a shockingly small overlap between humans and the fruit fly. Beyond that, I have garnered a few things of where Larouche is heading with that question. It does not end entirely well, because the question is where do you fit those humans you have determined are not living up to those Great Heights of Species Conciousness? Sub-humans are they, apparently.
Looking up my answer, and I'd probably change a few things having read this board since then, I see:
Bestializing is thrown around quite casually in LaRouche's literature in terms of what various plotters are doing to the masses of people. The Gay Movement, the CIA, and the Dick Cheney Administration are, therefore, Beast-Men.
In terms of culture, Beethoven is a Man, The Beatles are Beasts. The French Revolution was <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> (and very Aristotlean, I might add), the American Revolution… ARE WE NOT MEN???
Cue Ruth Williams in Younger Than That Now, page 229.
The political philosophy feeding LaRouche's party in 1974 was deemed "Beyond Marxism." Mastery of it was a requisite of membership. Among other things, we were told the black community was a CIA target and blacks were being manipulated within their CIA-controlled ghetto culture. Jazz was defined as brainwashing. The final logic of this scenario was that black inner city youth — who had obviously succumbed to their CIA masters — could be addressed as "<font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font>".
"What are you people, fascists?" Bill interjected when we were told this at a briefing. Others in our group quickly backed him up. There was nervous laughter. "Why don't we just call ourselves the Ku Klux Klan?" I asked. More laughter.
The speaker merely smiled and switched to a discussion of Beethoven.
This strikes me as another good reason to intertwine politics and culture: if something uncomfortable is brought up about the implications of the political ideology, you can always just change the subject to Beethoven.}
I see that this edits for profanity. I wouldn't think the first set of red dots is a negative word, but okay. The second one? Context clues should make it clear that it is the dreaded "N" word.


06-04-2007, 04:09 AM
Howie, you want some species consciousness? Check out the brief we issued for Debbie Freeman's USLP campaign in Baltimore.
I posted a while ago how MD. Sen Parren Mitchel had to pull a gun on Larouche crazies on his front lawn.
Read that brief and wonder how Debbie Freeman can talk to the Cong Black Caucus with a straight face? It is like Shelly Ascher being concerned about the elderly and how they can manage on only Social Security.
The Larouche crackpots can "prove" that Al Gore is a racists who wants to kill 2 billion dark skinned people. Debbie Freeman runs around DC with a foaming at the mouth full moon influence every day about Gore. Her self professed written history is on the LYM web site with this pamphlet which the yutes can't seem to find.
This is the Bizarro world after all.


06-04-2007, 10:51 AM
Check out the section in the Freeman pamphlet on Zionism is not Judaism, too. How can Debbie Freeman look any Jews in the face either, after having written that tripe? And the attacks on Mitchell are disgusting.
Interestingly, years later, when Judaism was such a giant NO-NO in the org, and when LaRouche was briefly pushing his (nonexistent) ties to the Vatican, Debbie was running around saying she was "only half Jewish" and the "other half" had been Catholic....
This is what I mean about the organization shredding the identities of its members, but having known Freeman years ago, I'd say her identity was not in the best of shape even at the outset.
Of course, LaRouche's "Catholic period" didn't last long, because the Roman Catholic Church didn't want any part of him--much to his surprise. So, having figured that out, in a matter of moments he became a vituperative anti-Catholic, assailing Fernando et al., blasting any members who had had or adopted children, and ultimately blowing off the entire Latin American organization.
What a guy!


06-04-2007, 11:52 AM
The LYM should note that while Mrs. Fearless Leader was promoting the so-called Club of Life around the time they were born and trying to then enlist the support ($) of pro-life Jews, Evangelicals, and Roman Catholics, Nancy Spannaus - among others in the locals - was regularly and methodically marching female Labor Committee members to the abortionist.
For how many deaths in total does that now make the LaRouches responsible?


06-04-2007, 12:54 PM
Indeed, since lhl et al always equated "population control" with "genocide"...
The org had always this strange way of estimating the death tolls, that is the number of unborn people due to (genocidalist) malthusian policies. In fact, the org IS malthusian: no babies, no elderly allowed.
It reminds me another contradiction (amongst so many)... The Club of Life's strategy vis the non aligned mvt and Indira Gandhi in the 1980s, the larouches' "best friend". In 1982 they were her host to defend the antimalthusian... "Club of Life"!!! (as opposed to the malthusian Club of Rome)
Well the fact is that a few years earlier Indira Gandhi was ousted from office because of her dictatorial methods: arrest and torture of thousands of political activists; her ruthless clearing of slums and... her brutal Malthusian policies: 8.3 million Indians were sterilized and 5,000 women died, police officers forcibly performing vasectomies etc
Of course Indira Gandhi's Malthusian policy was carefully omitted from all the org publications and briefings (this was before Googles age) - that would have been a bit embarrassing and it would have triggered some serious question marks.
We were lied the same way the lym are today.
The difference is that THEY live in Googles age and therefore I reckon this is the reason why the mind control methods are more brutal and systematic compared to say, in the 70s or the 80s.


06-04-2007, 12:57 PM
i meant "her guests"...


06-04-2007, 01:26 PM
On Indira Gandhi--she was all the things you say, Shadok. However, she was nobody's fool--I have it on very good authority that after her memorable meeting with LaRouche, she said to her staff, "Never let him near me again" or "Never let that man in here again."
So that, as with so many others, LaRouche's great friendship with Gandhi was nonsense.
Only the truly desperate or the truly wacky took LaRouche seriously (Ferdinand Marcos talked to Goldstein for awhile, but Goldstein et al. stabbed him in the back; Noriega talked to the Latin American Labor Committee and even held a joint conference with them, but he was both desperate and wacky; Turkey's Ozal met with LaRouche because he thought LaRouche was the head of the U.S. Democratic Party.)
On the organization's Malthusianism, it is absolute.
No children, no elderly, no health care (if possible); no vacations, no weekends, no leisure, no rest.
All the things that enlightened labor policy promotes, LaRouche opposes--for his own people. Listening to him carrying on about Schachtian looting is revolting.
Although LaRouche attacked anyone who promoted birth control in the Third World, forced abortion was the order of the day in his own organization.
In fact, the "Beyond Psychoanalysis" series purveys the LaRouche theory about pregnancy and birth: Women get pregnant when they get sick of their husbands.
(Maybe that was what he thought when his first wife got pregnant with Danny LaRouche. Maybe she WAS sick of him. In any case, they divorced pretty soon thereafter.)
LaRouche's other theory was that women get pregnant because they want to be infantile. So the most basic human drive, for a family, is turned by the Champion of Population Growth/ Extended Reproduction--into witchy women's neuroses.
Thus LaRouche and Helga and Nancy Spannaus and the others made it into a matter of IMMORALITY, to have a child.
Not only were Labor Committee women forced to have abortions, but many of them found, years later, that they could not get pregnant or stay pregnant because of the damage done by those abortions.
And this is called a "personal matter of people's sex lives" by the LaRouche morons when questioned. But it NEVER was personal--it was ALWAYS the province of the leadership of the organization, demanding infant sacrifice to the Moloch of Leesburg.


06-04-2007, 05:01 PM
The Moloch of Leesburg... When I was getting in there was a tale that "Lyn is absolutely pro-life," though I observed that he tended to skirt around this issue. Little did I know...
The scam in the later 90's/early 2000's was almost perfectly constructed. "Helga has met with the Pope; we've had contact and discussions with Cardinal Ratzinger..." The residue of the Catholic Lyn conceit melded in to the rhetoric of this period in quite a convincing way, with the Dialogue of Civilizations pamphlet especially. On this reading Lyn (with some warts to be sure) could nonetheless pass for a grandfatherly Great Patriot, of essentially original national stock, fighting for the soul of his country, beleaguered by our great national enemy Britain and its agents here.
It seemed like such a coherent narrative, it explained so much. Eventually I wised up to the romanticist/Rousseau-ite ideological core, to the class-war demagoguery, and to the increasingly thin and ludicrous explanations of contemporary events.


06-04-2007, 10:50 PM
Six LaRouchies, everyone immediately presumes, dressed like Christmas elves or something just interrupted. No, wait. Their supposed to be those chanting monks from Monty Python and the Holy Grail—they're chanting something and hitting themselves on their empty heads with their idiotic tracts.
"That's the LaRouche cult," says Gore, as Town Hall ushers rush them out of the auditorium, to applause. "For some reason they've taken a liking to me."


06-05-2007, 03:52 AM
We jump to day 3 on March 22
After a lull, the briefing gets fired up because Al Gore is in front of congress. it is highly unlikely that members are watching the Cspan video and if they are, the only thing in their head is that Gore is a Nazi eugenics racist who wants to kill dark skinned people. So here we go

After Al G ore's appearance before both House and Senate committees yesterday, Republicans are "smelling a big fat opportunity," and if the Democrats are insane enough to follow Gore, "Don't even bother choosing a Presidential candidate for 2008," warned Lyndon LaRouche yesterday. The lunatic Green Nazi Gore, swelled to an incredible width, oiliness, and floridity since his last appearance in the halls of
Congress, called for the United States to ban the light bulb! tax water consumption! shut down every power plant in the country!.........
Back in the 1930s, Hitler lectured his British supporters that all of Europe should agree, {never} to allow the "agricultural countries" to develop industry. Gore is directly
in that Nazi line, making the same fascist demand. ........

  • Read Gore's testimony and see if they are watching the same TV. Here is an NPR report with links
  • **
    in hours-long testimony before two House subcommittees this morning. Then the Senate Environment Committee devoted the afternoon to his raving and lies. At least, the puffy, red-faced speaker claimed to be Al Gore, although witnesses swore that he was actually Ariel Sharon, with a few touches of makeup to make him reminiscent of Gore.

  • More Nazi references about Gore conducting a Nuremburg rally at a Walmart. I thought Gore was there for the discounts on CFL bulbs for his house.

06-05-2007, 03:53 AM
Here is TREC
What this remionds me of is how when I was in we created a whole new conspiracy of how the Rockefellers were going to use slave labor under methadone to work like zombies at shale oil mines in Colorado and Canada. Today, people flock to those places to get in on the money to be made.

    Cementing the backwardness of the developing sector nations, keeping their role as raw material suppliers, continuing the policy of genocide under another flag now, is what the core of the European Union's drive for "renewable energy sources" is. One aspect of that became public several weeks ago, when US
    Ambassador C. Boyden Gray told the Europeans at a Brussels meeting to drop plans for expensive bio-fuels production in Europe, and open their market for mass imports of cheap ethanol
    from Brazil and Central America. Indeed, the required state funding of bio-fuel production in Europe to make bio diesel and ethanol prices affordable, would run into conflict with the
    policy of the EU Commission to phase out all state funding of production. Another aspect is the insane idea of constructing huge solar
    power parks in the North African deserts, to supply Europe with cheap power. That p r oject is runing under the name of TREC (Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation), a project that originates with the Club of Rome and has been adopted by the European Commission, in the context of its own EUMENA
    (Europe-Middle East-North Africa) scheme.
  • *
    More "research' to prove that Al Gore is a Nazi.

The Global Warming hoax became a worldwide campaign in the 1980s through intervention of Margaret Thatcher's British government regime. Guided into environmentalism by advisor Sir
Crispin Tickell, Mrs. Thatcher pounded on the theme at various summit conferences, wearing down the resistance in the U.S.A. and
elsewhere. This British genocidal policy was earlier enunciated in a meeting between Adolf Hitler and Lord Lothian (Philip Kerr), the
chief of the Milner group/Round Table faction which was sponsoring Hitler's German dictatorship. Adolf Hitler told Lord Lothian in their meeting Jan. 29, 1935, "Germany, England, France, Italy, America and Scandinavia... should arrive at some agreement whereby they would
prevent their nationals from assisting in the industrializing of countries such as China, and India. It is suicidal to promote the
establishment in the agricultural countries of Asia of manufacturing industries." (Transcribed in James R.M. Butler's
{Lord Lothian})

  • To be continued
    Same Lyn channel
    Same Lyn time

06-05-2007, 03:57 AM
Day 4 march 23
More descriptions of Al Gore as a Nazi who wants to kill dark skinned people on behalf of the British.

  • **
    British agent, and green fascist, Al `Hermann Goering' Gore left little to the imagination in his Congressional testimony March 21, as he called for denial of life-saving technologies to
    Americans--and the poor nations of the Third World--in the name of ``stopping global warming. Indeed, as the story on the rape of Africa by the British oligarchical bosses and allies of Gore shows, his policy is, in its practical effects, totally racist. As Lyndon LaRouche said yesterday, the only question that
    remains, is whether Gore is personally racist as well.
    Can the genocidal policies of Prince Phillip's World Wildlife Fund be pinned on Gore? You betcha they can! Not only has Gore consistently s aid that the cause of the horrendous
    conditions in Africa is a result of alleged ``overpopulation
    of poor people, but LaRouche pointed out that Gore's track record
    during the Clinton Administration reveals a directly murderous policy on that continent.

  • The briefing and Lyn now combine to hint that the yutes better get used to raising money in the streets as Lyn starts the process.

  • With this reality in mind--not to mention the
    civilization-threatening crises of the world financial breakdown and the expanding wars--it is the height of insanity for the
    Democratic Party to embrace Gore, and his CO2 hoax. Even more insane is the refusal of our own membership to carry out the effective mass outreach required to build the future: the Youth
    As LaRouche put it in a conference back in the 1970s, if you don't organize, you are clinically insane. It's even more true
    • **

06-05-2007, 03:58 AM
Now the secret service and Gore's security better start paying attention because you do not know how crazy a LYM can get and we are only a few days into this . In DC the LYM confront Gore and his wife.

  • **
    Kaleena got a copy of our cartoon
    (carbon swap) to Tipper with a personal message : ``Your husband's policies mean GENOCIDE! (with a smiley face drawn) Your
    husband should also make use of that pool; his lies are almost as big as his waistline. Later, Ligaya got the Luddite EIR to
    Tipper with another cartoon, and when pressed a third time to take a cartoon from Joanne, Tipper gave a stern look to Jo and asked ``What's wrong with you people?
    Gore himself saw the
    cartoon, and after a double-take, didn't take the cartoon......
    The LYM's efforts in D.C. today are making sure we free the Democratic Party from Blood and Gore.
  • **
    Basically you have the whole cult now stalking Gore around the globe and feeding a daily dose of hysteria that Gore is a Nazi and he is going to kill people and destroy the Democratic party, unless Larouche and the LYM save us by getting rid of Gore.

    This sounds mighty creepy and DC has had it's share of mental cases and their obsesions. Every encounter with Gore around the globe is reported as Gore is the NUMBER ONE TARGET of the larouche cult.

06-05-2007, 05:51 AM
Hi, I have read some of the postings here, and if the purpose of this board is to discourage potential LYM members, let me tell you, you have done more than enough. How about doing something else now? A group of ex-members in Germany set up a website where they publish fairly interesting articles. How about doing something like that here? Maybe not a website but something more constructive than endlessly ridiculing LaRouche. I live in Northern Virginia, I was a member for a few years. I have kids now and a full time job but most people around me are more interested in the next American Idol than any real issues. So, any ideas? We would have to get out of our closets. Anybody with guts out there?


06-05-2007, 07:56 AM
I don't think you can ever do enough to discourage people from entering such a cult... And BTW, paying interest to American Idol is by far much more productive than doubling the cube!
What is the link to this German site? The implosion of the European org interests me, as I think the same is about to happen in Sweden!


06-05-2007, 08:38 AM
German site (


06-05-2007, 10:24 AM
To publish interesting articles you have to have something to say. To have something to say you have to do the work--intelligence work, interviews, attend news events, etc.--to back it up.
If we want to put out our own opinions on things--which is fine, don't get me wrong--we can blog. But the articles on the German site have a quite specific Social Democratic slant which implies a certain cohesiveness to the people who quit (mainly the EEC and the EC), and also implies that they have people to do this stuff fulltime.
For most of us, we have to work. If we were to write interesting articles with something behind them, that would imply having the resources to do all the things I listed above, and that would imply raising money.
I am not interested in a LaRouche cult without LaRouche, myself. The German grouping includes many wonderful people, a lot of them known to me personally, but I'm not interested in their politics either--though I am interested in them as people.
Jeff Steinberg and Paul Goldstein are hard at work trying to construct the LaRouche cult without LaRouche--trying to set up for the post-LaRouche period, including by interviewing all sorts of former members for "jobs."
That's what underlies the charm offensive they started the day of Ken Kronberg's funeral, where Michelle Steinberg I believe actually kissed Fernando Quijano (!!)
I'm with the Swedish Lyn Watcher on the importance of discouraging people from entering a cult. I don't think I agree on the relative weight of American Idol and geometry, but it's a pretty funny remark.


06-05-2007, 01:02 PM
From the looks of things, it appears that this site may end in little under a month from the little message on the top of this page that popped up, plus the email I receive for funds. I would suggest we each try and contribute something to make sure this site keeps going, otherwise it won't matter what direction we want the site to take.


06-05-2007, 05:02 PM
This forum can be a big help to those having to "come down" from the nasty high of Belonging, as Lyn drives off all the real analytic talent in the organization, the Tennenbaums, Liebigs, and such; and as he and the organization get more and more sclerotically paranoid and start to fragment further and ultimately dissolve. I've kicked in a donation. I hope this forum can be saved, it has certainly been useful to me. If you have benefited from it or just enjoy checking out the wild stories, please kick something in.


06-05-2007, 05:24 PM
I would like to elicit further comment now on the incredible image, of Michelle Steinberg smooching Fernando Quijano! If this actually occurred and became known it seems to me it would accomplish the immediate deconstruction of the mythos of the organization. Nothing incensed nor elongated Lyn's rabid ire like Fernando over the period 2000-2005 (and maybe beyond). The tale was that Fernando was an agent in cahoots with the gang that ran the Salvadoran death squads, and thus with those around Ollie North who helped conspire against Lyn. Lyn, it was said, was helpless to oppose Fernando due to the prohibitions from his parole conditions. Once the parole terms elapsed, Lyn moved to purge out the evil agent-villain. If anyone has any further revelations about what really happened I would love to hear them.


06-06-2007, 12:34 AM
Part 1 of 2
As a long time LaRouche supporter, though never a full-time member, I thought I should try, briefly, to clear up some basic misconceptions about Lyn and his work.
First, I would suggest that criticisms based on the fact that Lyn presents himself as a world authority on questions of economics, philosophy, science, etc. and that his views on these questions are at variance with accepted authority are misplaced. It happens throughout history that people of genius arise whose ideas, in the long run, change history for the better. Usually they are not recognized as such in their own lifetime. The fact that Lyn appears nutty by conventional standards could either mean that he is really nuts, or that he really is a genius. The interesting question how a persion should eveluate unconventional ideas to figure out which is which. Looking for "practical" results won't do it. Many great ideas never attained practical results in their own time.
The observation that Lyn's speeches fail to make sense from the point of view of conventional logic is similarly unhelpful. The man rejects Aristotelean logic an a method. Duh! So you should hardly expect his discussions to parse meaningfully in those terms. Now whether his criticisms of logic an an intellectual metthod are correct (and I think they are) is a substantive question worthy of debate. But unless that question is addressed, the fact that he fails the test of logic proves nothing but that he is being consistent with how he says thinking should work.
(Homework exercise. Attempt, in the privacy of your own brain, to parse irony, humor, poetry or music logically. Did it work? Can those forms of communication be classified as conveying truth? Why or why not?)
The criticism that Lyn demands great sacrifices from his people, and claims significance in the world which is not obvious is clearly not definitive either. Any philosophically revolutionary movement which operates from a viewpoint superior to that of the society in which it exists would appear irrelevant when judged by the standards of that society. The interesting question is whether LaROuche's philosophical axioms are or aren't superior to the aximos of 21st century America.
(And if the axioms of present day society are actually judged the best available, then I think we are all in serious trouble.)
And as to sacrfice, anybody who is not a selfish narcissist, and who has a concern for the future beyond their own personal lifespan will face, at some point, the necessity of sacrificing personal pleasure and immediate rewards for a greater good which they may never live to see. The question of whether LaRouche's movement represents such a greater good is a substantive one which can be profitably debated. The fact that sacrifice is required proves nothing except that those who raise that issue place an inordinate value on immediate personal reward.
As to non-linearity. I am well aware of what "non-linearity" means in conventional mathematics re differential equations. To say that that is what non-linearity "is" or "really means" is merely to say that the convenional understandings of mathematics are to be considered authoritative (why) and that Lyn's criticisms of those viewpoints are to be considered wrong. (Why - because we have previously established he's nuts QED). Seriously, this is again a substantive question, not satisfactorily resolved by mere appeal to authority or convention.


06-06-2007, 12:38 AM
Part 2 of 2
What nonlinearity really means, IMO. One example. I was at a conference where Dennis Speed was giving a class which included the question of humor. And the calss was trying to analyze some joke - why is this funny. (Again, try to parse such a question logically. It won't work, but you'll learn a lot). ANd the folks in the class wer debating whether it's because the punchline "fit" the setup. Or because it "didn't fit". But some totally unfunny alternative punchline also "doesn't fit". And then I had my breakthrough. Yeah, breakthrough. The light bulb went on in my head, just like Lyn says in Beyond Psych (which IMO is the most valuable and most misunderstood thing Lyn has ever written, along with the PSP Campaigner.) So, I got it, I raised my hand and waved it frantically because I was so excited and wanted to share(Okay, I'll admit it, I wanted to show off). And I said, It does fit! BUT NOT THE WAY YOU EXPECTED! And that's it, right there. The whole of Lyn's intellectual method in the nutshell people keep asking for.
Look, it's like this. There's a logical domain in which the setup for the joke makes sense. Perfectly Aristotelean. And there's this completely other and unexpected domain within which the punchline appears as the logical outcome of the setup. Also entirely logical. But the process of getting from one to the other is not logical at all. A machine can't do it, Aristotle can't do it, and your dog or cat can't do it. That's the difference between human, beast, and computer, and why a joke is funny.
Look. what Lyn says in Beyond Psych boils down to the fact that your state of mind whan the "light bulb" of creativity is on in your head is radically different than the state of mind you normally walk around in day to day. And your sense of who you are and your relation to the universe changes for the better at those moments. And that organizing politically involves bringing that sense of consciousness and identity to the population you're organizing. This is what Lyn says, and anything else he has ever said or will say has to be understood in that context, or the understanding is not competent. And anyone who says otherwise, including those in the organization, is a liar or a fool (And, yes indeed, they have them there plentifully, as Lyn has always recognized.)
Does Lyn make mistakes in fact, lose coherence at moments in speeches, and change his views of what we organize for or against over a period of time? Undoubtedly. Unlike what some members may think, Lyn is human, not some being in an accomplished state of perfection. (But for members who feel too "little" to ever aspire to become like Lyn, the assumption of his virtual Godhood makes for a convenient "out" from that responsibilty). But the things he understands correctly and consistently over his career, like the primacy of creativity as defining humanity, are right. And whatever he may have been "wrong" about is secondary and of lesser importance. It does not detract from the importance of his actual contribution, which in literally immeasurable by any metric this side of Eternity. (And parse that logically too - I dare you

I will probably not be back anytime soon to argue these points. Respond as you will. And decide, in the sovereignty of your own minds, which is real, what you think of all this.
Best wishes,


06-06-2007, 02:39 AM
(1) LaRouche has no original ideas. "I dare you" to name ONE.
(2) Without conventional logic as a means for helping to determine the validity of an argument, how is one then to determine whether LaRouche is bright or a quack? On his authority, evidently. No good.
(3) The issue is not that members sacrifice, but that as they sacrifice LaRouche enriches himself while - as the World's Greatest Economist - he falls for worse business schemes than did Ralph Kramden.
(4) As to nonlinearity, you make the usual LaRouche mistake of conflating nonlinearity in the physical world with the nonlinearity of the creative process. Note that linearity is built into the LYM's geometrical constructions, so they are not avoiding it there, either.
(5) I note that you evade the issue of the wasted lives, the discarding of older members as yesterday's rubbish, the suspicious deaths of two Jews, the abortions, the mail fraud, etc., etc., etc. I further note that yours is a hit-and-run message, because you haven't the means to ably defend this fraud to whom you've devoted your life.
Go over all the previous posts: if they don't sicken you, I would suggest you have no conscience, not to mention common sense or compassion.


06-06-2007, 03:57 AM
Steve, I get douche chills reading this from you. it is all of the same show done for another audience. In the 1970s Lyn put on his wizard hat and said the same thing in conferences with the same need for yutes to not look at the man behind the curtain.
Back then he and the NCs would go on for hours about the split second between "Knowing" and "Not Knowing". "We in the LC through Lyn are mastering the "In betweenness" to take world power.
When you are 18 without any standards to measure frauds, cults or scams, it is easier than getting a degree or a job.
Steve, I will next prove to you and others that reading Better Homes and gardens will make you a better and more informed individual than becoming a 12 step Laroucheaholic


06-06-2007, 04:01 AM
Jeff is back on top today and Gore is the headline again. The chants of racism against Gore take a new turn as we now use connecto to make Gore the clone of Hitker and the British

  • **
    Let us be very blunt. The most elementary fact--the thin g
    that is going to poison Al Gore with all sane Democrats--is that
    Al Gore is a big, fat Southern racist. And he has a long track
    record to prove it. He is not a racist in the same sense as his
    daddy, who tried every-which-way to sabotage the civil rights
    movement, especially around voting rights, during the 1950s and
    1960s. He is more in the Hitler/Schacht tradition, the brown and
    green mold. His policies kill. They kill Africans, in
    particular, on a grand scale..........
    This is the significance of Al Gore's absolute ideological
    commitment to the "environmentalism" of Prince Philip and Prince
    Bernhard of the World Wildlife Fund. ...................
    In the
    meantime, Huxley, Prince Philip, Prince Bernhard, Sir Peter
    Scott, and Sir Max Nicholson--the oligarchs who founded the WWF
    and its antecedent, the International Union for the Conservation
    of Nature--contented themselves to use the more sanitized terms,
    "conservation," "ecology," and "environmentalism," instead of
    race science: eugenics.
    But the content was the same: mass murder of the
    darker-skinned races.........................

    As Vice President, Al Gore further demonstrated his
    genocidal racism, going totally berserk against South African
    President Mbeki, when he threatened to produce generic AIDS drugs
  • **
    Something is not right here. With LC material you can poretty much count on using a sampliong technique to see if we are on the level here. The issue as always is that a legitmate problem which people solve becomes an elaborate conspiracy of connecto and the FSG in Lyn's head. This can only lead to LC researchers and security working from the top down to prove that Lyn is right and eveyone else has it wrong.
    You can look at the issue of Gore and South Africa when it happened and I remember what was discussed was US patent laws and protection of intellectual property. Gore was between the White House, South Africa and the Drug companies negotiating that. I get a different situation than what the briefing is saying to fill up the heads of yutes who are inhaling exhaust fumes .

06-06-2007, 04:04 AM
You can critique Gore on anything and since he was the VP, he and Clinton's policies are there to be debated and judged. But that is not what is being attempted here as in a cult, things are done for the cult's benefit, not the real world.
Next the yutes are being told that Gore and Lyn are equals but Lyn has the superior mind!

It is all a totally coherent bill of indictment against this
cracker. He is a died-in-the-wool Malthusian, who stands
shoulder-to-shoulder with Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard, in
promoting radical population reduction. In his 1992 book {Earth
in the Balance}, Gore used the same population charts that Lyndon
LaRouche used in his "History as Science" {Fidelio} study. But
Gore drew the opposite conclusion. He labelled the 17th-century
upward spiral of the population curve as a disaster point, and
wrote that the world has to return to the pre-nation state era of
oligarchical feudalism.

  • **

    Now we are back to Gore and the British.
  • **

    The biggest mistake that Al Gore's London handlers made, was
    to send him out into the public, to make his End-Times Armageddon
    pitch. They actually thought that they had successfully
    re-engineered this sociopath, to turn him into a "popular" hero.
    Nothing could be further from the truth--and it is our job to
    make that point perfectly clear.

  • Whats next is one of the most bizarre exercizes I have seen in a larouchian mind meld . The breifing now states that since Al Gore had native plants restored to the VP residence he is a real Nazi !!!!!!
    You have to read this insanity to understand why the yutes you run into are clueless and the deadenders you see slogging to liquor stores like the living dead in Leesburg are so larouchefied .

06-06-2007, 04:07 AM
Read this lunacy and see how Steve is ready to send another check for 5K to Lyn for this.

    When Al Gore was Vice President, living at the mansion in
    the park of U.S. Naval Observatory, he embarked on a project to
    restore the grounds, especially the gardens and forest.
    An article describing this project at the time Gore was
    running for President, stated,
    "Gore restored the rich diversity and lush beauty of his own
    backyard by yanking out FOREIGN EXOTICA IN FAVOR OF NATIVE
    PLANTS."(emphasis added; www. ). Treating
    plants as if they were unwanted foreigners from the "mixed races
    of the south" or other unwanted immigrants under orders from
    Gore, the gardeners "dug out all exotic plants," including such
    "invasive" immigrants as English ivy and garlic mustard from
    Europe and Kudzu from Japan.
    Gore's interest in gardens comes from the same fascist roots
    as his lying CO2 campaign that could make Joseph Goebbels blush

06-06-2007, 04:10 AM
Reread the Larouche Gospels about Al Gore and plants and ask yourself if any comedy writer in Hollywood could have written something like that.

Here is Tipper Gore about the VP residence
Vice President Gore's long-standing interest in environmental preservation prompted a unique landscaping project for the property surrounding the house. With the help of the Foundation, a tract of land was targeted for "reforestation," an effort that restores native and indigenous species which are environmentally self-sustaining to the forest patches that border the house and public areas. To bring the grounds back to what they must have looked like around the turn of the century when the house was built, tulip poplars, red maples, hickory, persimmon, walnut, dogwood, redbud and American holly, along with a great variety of small shrubs and tiny native wildflowers were introduced to areas once diffuse with non-native species, such as English Ivy, which can choke out less hardy plants.
Elsewhere around the house, perennial, vegetable, cut flower beds and a summer garden are maintained. Plans are under discussion now to plant the same kind of fruit trees around the grounds that original owner Margaret Barber would have been familiar with when she owned the property. The project has garnered great interest from visiting dignitaries, including Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto and His Holiness, The Greek Patriarch.

Folks, I would wager any Lyn authored delusion against a version of Better Homes and Gardens for intellectual honesty.


06-06-2007, 04:56 AM
To Steve, or Odd One 2003:
You wrote, "What Lyn says in Beyond Psych boils down to the fact that your state of mind whan the 'light bulb' of creativity is on in your head is radically different than the state of mind you normally walk around in day to day."
No, what Lyn says in Beyond Psych is that by reducing your identity to the Id, to the Pit, and terrorizing you with a synthetic "Mother Image," he can make you his, following him slavishly.
What Lyn did with Beyond Psych is to run a bunch of unbelievably destructive "sessions" with the NEC in which he turned many if not most of them into cringing zombies who orient toward him as the All-Father. They were degraded, humiliated, exposed, ridiculed--and lo! When they woke up, they were robots.
Perhaps, Steve, since you were just a supporter, not a member--I think that's what you said--you don't know the history of Beyond Psych and the formation of the amoral, infantile, vicious body known as the NEC, but I was a longtime member, and I do know.
The Feuerbach Campaigner, part of the Beyond Psych series, has the anti-Semitic crap we have alluded to above, plus a wild formulation of the Virgin-Mary-Is-a-Whore. Creativity? Hardly.
We are dealing with Abnormal Psychology here, not non-linearity.
And I can tell you that LaRouche is one of the most linear and reductive thinkers I have ever known. Don't believe me? Read any interview he does with a semi-hostile reporter. Go back and watch his performances on TV in 1976 in the minor candidates' forums. Or read some of his court testimony, starting with his performance in the NBC case.
Linear? To work in your frame of reference for a moment, he's so linear he makes Aristotle look like Timothy Leary--although as a matter of fact, Aristotle is not a linear thinker, and one could think that only if he/she lacked the attention span actually to read Aristotle (three guesses who I am talking about).


06-06-2007, 07:14 AM
I agree.
Creativity? nonlinearity? Change? There is none of that! Not even pro-creativity! This is a sterile cult populated with soon-to-become zombies.
I used to joke about this "nonlinearity" tantrum when i was in the cult:
"yeah, i said: the most important thing is nonlinearity, the most important thing is nonlinearity, the most important thing is nonlinearity,...!" Get it?
The only "nonlinearity/creative/highest hypothesis" process that is tolerated is: RAISING MONEY, you dummies! The rest is mental masturbation.
What a real "sovereign/creative mind" would do is to LEAVE the cult. That s creative and nonlinear! To break free from it both mentally and physically.
And by the way, all that glitters isn't gold, and that applies to would-be "golden souls" too...


06-06-2007, 09:17 AM
If it's the same Steve with whom I exchanged a few comments with, he rejects the "Golden Soul" line because it so opposite of the Larouche he knows.
There's nothing wrong with the supposed insight he had into the creative process, except its supposed correlation with Lyndon Larouche. What bugs me a bit more, and gives me the reaction of "ugh" -- is the outs he provides against anyone who leaves Larouche's mental grip.
Steve: Read this. It's been posted here before, but repetitive is the nature of this board. I have one question: Do You Feel Like God???


06-06-2007, 09:18 AM
Dear Jeff,
Much has changed since your visit and I hesitate to unfold it within the limited scope of a letter but it must be attempted if we hope to continue to communicate. There are innumerable reasons to recoil in dismay from reality. However, Bill and I have ruthlessly confronted those reasons and found them less than human, if not totally insane. Throughout our lives, Jeff, we have been surrounded with fantasy — TV, mother's homeside magic, Vietnam and its deluded antiwar "revolutionaries", the myth of success, etc. — and we have responded with neurotic insanity, feverishly constructing more fantasy, performing propitiatory rituals to dead pasts. Now the fantasies are melting away.
This letter is VERITABLY IMPOSSIBLE for me to write, so big is the gulf between yourself (who can write impassively of Rockefeller and William F Buckley) and myself (who is pouring my intellect, creativity, time, energy, probably my life's blood into the battle for humanity against the bestialized filth of those men and their following). Have you read about TRIAGE as suggested by Rocky's Trilateral Commission? If so, how can you possibly tolerate it and call yourself human? Einstein, Feuerbach, Marx, Luxemburg, Hegel, Oparin, Vernadsky — in essence break out of the controlled environment spawned by "higher education" and begin your education anew. Bill and I have embarked on the excruciating task of finding the real world and we are tempted to backslide daily, but the realization of the discovery of self-concious mentation of the type experienced by Descartes, "I think therefore I am", and the responsibility it carries of negentropic growth constantly compels us to tear out the demons of our education. Ie, we are confronting the "giggling, nervous infants of bourgeois fear" which grip and strangle the minds of most of our acquaintances, our families, our friends — and we are becoming members of a new species, equipped to make the conceptual leap which is absolutely necessary if the human race is to survive an impending ecological holocaust.
Political, economic, psychological, personal, moral, scientific, artistic levels — all the pursuits of mankind — must be conceptually raised to the next level of human progress. We are in the process of an intellectual renaissance, Jeff, and it is very real. I would be less than equal in the demands of a truly creative friendship if I didn't joyfully bring it within the grasp of your mind. I've enclosed several clippings which I hope you will read. They're from N S — you know, the paper you used to laugh at? We are planning to leave Madison and will be organizing full-time with the Labor Committees in Milwaukee and Chicago. I quit my job in November and have since been making intellectual leaps necessary to maintain the integrity of my decision to be a world historical being rather than Ruth Tuttle of Yazoo City. I am beginning to locate myself by my mental coordinates rather than geographically. Within me exists not only the experiences of 23 years, but also an intensifying sensuous grasp of the geometry of the universe and the laws and forms I am capable of imposing on it. Of all my friends, you are the one I know best intellectually. We have shared our minds much more than our experiences and for this reason, I am convinced that you have the intellectual integrity to grapple with your bourgeois persona and fear and to discover your humanity, your pride. This will be very straining to our relationship because it calls for an honesty not accepted in polite society and is certainly far removed from the magnanimous apathy of the counterculture many of our peers have opted for.
So, there you have an infinitesimal glance into the burgeoning currents of my life. Jeff, I feel like every human being can potentially feel. I feel like God.


06-06-2007, 09:53 AM
Yikes. That's it precisely--"I feel like God."
Delusional, prideful (let's not forget LaRouche's favorite word used to be hubristic), contemptuous of mere ordinary human beings, contemptuous of God (because after all, what's God have that I don't have?)--that's pretty much "The LaRouche Experience."
And then, of course, when you discover the organization is only big enough for One God--and you ain't it, pal--then, suddenly, you feel more like the Goat and less like God.
And at the other end of the room, at the podium, is the goat-God himself, as it were, a figure with a smug, self-satisfied, gloating grin-- with a real demonic tinge. (Three guesses who I'm talking about?)
Is everyone contributing to keep this site going?


06-06-2007, 10:23 AM
I have to be honest after reading Steve's posts it is possible he has totally missed anything that has gone on inside the organization since the suicide of Ken K. The self-destructiveness that is imposed by Lyn's regimentation stares at one in the face but he blythely dismisses it as contributing to the greater good. Maybe he is one of those younger members who are being served dinners by the boomers whereever he is, and is being told he is the next generation of leadership of the organization.
It's interesting, if you read the ravings of any lunatic in religion, politics, etc. they all have a messianic complex, and they all deem themselves misunderstood geniuses that common people and ordinary scientists, mathematicians, etc. don't understand. But as Thomas Edison say genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. Or as someone like Louis Pasteur may have indicated, one performs hundreds and thousands of experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis and then and only then you may come up with a true discovery. Lyn thinks that genius flows out of his mind like Athena emerging from the brow of Zeus, without the necessity of studying those who come before you, working and learning from their mistakes and then making your contribution. That, I guess, is too linear.
I wonder if someone like Steve could actually go to a college level calculus class, learn calculus as it's taught in college, and then argue the views that he thinks Gauss and Leibniz espouse to debunk the professor.


06-06-2007, 11:26 AM
Some good advice to the LYM-ers who suggested that "school books should be burned" (sic):
Question: Aren't Kepler or Leibniz your role models?
Well here is some info from their respective bios... (just google it)
In 1589, at the age of 18 and after moving through grammar school, Latin school, and lower and higher seminary in the Württemberg state-run Protestant education system, Kepler began attending the University of Tübingen as a theology student. There, he studied not only mathematics but also Greek and Hebrew (both necessary for reading the scriptures in their original languages). Teaching was in Latin. At the end of his first year Kepler got 'A's for everything except mathematics. Despite his desire to become a minister, near the end of his studies Kepler was recommended for a position as teacher of mathematics and astronomy at the Protestant school in Graz, Austria (later the University of Graz). He accepted the position in 1594, he was 23.
In 1661, at the age of 14 Leibniz entered the University of Leipzig. He studied philosophy and mathematics. Among the other topics which were included in this two year general degree course were rhetoric, Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He was awarded his Master's Degree in philosophy. By 1663 Leibniz was starting his studies towards a doctorate in law. After being awarded a bachelor's degree in law, Leibniz worked on his habilitation in philosophy. Leibniz was refused the doctorate in law at Leipzig and went immediately to the University of Altdorf where he received a doctorate in law in February 1667 at which point he started his career. He was 21. The prestigious Royal Society of London elected Leibniz a fellow on 19 April 1673.
IN OTHER WORDS: THEY DIDN'T DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, even if their ideas were quite revolutionary (against the "Establishment") but, unlike larouche who failed to get his diploma in economics, they worked hard to get their way and ideas go through, not by rejecting the system but by embracing it! Their fame is justified by real accomplishments not mere words.
The LPAC/LYM is NOT a "university", the only thing you ll ever learn is how to raise more money for the cult.


06-06-2007, 11:37 AM
The difficulty someone like Steve might have in any class, calculus or otherwise, in college or elsewhere, is that it is necessary to listen to the teacher and listen to others in order to participate in the class.
But if you already Know Everything, why would you want to do that, and how would you be able to do that?
Like every demagogue, LaRouche solves things so simply, so clearly, that the need for thought, dialogue, disagreement, etc., is abolished. You can just leap into the froth, like the letter-writer whose letter Howie posted.
I think these folks are too wrapped up in feeling like God to be able to pay the slightest attention to anyone else's views on anything.
LaRouche doesn't have the patience to perform anything resembling an experiment. He would be lost in the lab. He was lost in his first year at college. He flunked out of Northeastern in his freshman year not once, but twice.
He couldn't do Euclid at 14.
Hard work holds no charms for LaRouche, and so he lives off others, doesn't read books but "gets briefed" by others, etc. etc.
Steve et al. need to realize that we actually KNOW this guy. Some of us were members way back when he was actually circulating among the membership, eating dinner with people, etc. We know him as they never will, and we have seen him start off nuts and only get worse. Honest, folks.


06-06-2007, 04:20 PM
I can make this real easy for Steve and others to see if they are a Laroucheaholic who needs help.
Steve, read the Dean Andromidas article.
and then read two articles about the reforestation project.
Tell us and the world that the 55 + year old Andromidas , who has been with Lyn for more than three decades of his life wrote a rationale article which explains why the Naval Observatory grounds were returned to their native vegetation.
That is all I ask. No where on the planet does anyone even remotely use that project to connect Gore to jack booted Nazi's. There are plenty of things one can find about Al Gore to disagree with over issues. I watched short clips on that project on numerous cable TV shows on gardening iver the years.
Only a Laroucheaholic could find a way to make a forest restoration project into a Nazi conspiracy of genocide by Al Gore.
This is what you got yourself into Steve. Two years ago we gave you many reasons to stay away from this cult. According to people who know you, the cult has extracted a good chunk of change from you and your parent's money and maybe yours in producing a Dean Andromidas production which is YOUR life's time to defend, not ours.
I read this Andromidas material for a good laugh and I hope Howie and others have a good laugh until we all figure out that this is really what the cult thinks. So if anyone from a college paper wants to interview the cult, just find things on factnet here to ask them about. Keep the recorder running for an hour. Do your articles and then replay the tape back at an end of year keg party to get a good laugh going.
Better yet, reprint the Andromidas article and videotape asking some yutes about it at a card table shrine. Put it on YouTube and we will post the URL here so everyone can have a good time.
Steve, do you think that you can escape from a card table shrine so easy? Read the briefings about how the LYM now have "PowerSquads" to raise money for Lyn.
Lyn knows that Steve is in a cult. Steve does not. The slogan of the day is:
"If only Steve knew"


06-06-2007, 05:47 PM
Part 1 of 5
I wasn't going to come back right away, but I'm glad I changed my mind. I seem to have attracted notice, which is flattering, even if that notice is adversarial.
There's much too much here to try to answer systematically. I'm going to pick and choose stuff which is either especially interesting to address, or especially easy.
I'm going to cut and paste the comments as I address them, or if long, I may just refer to them briefly. I probably won't include the name of which poster I'm respondng to.
Here goes:
(1) LaRouche has no original ideas. "I dare you" to name ONE.

  • Larouche claims very few original ideas. Indeed, he is meticulous to the point of verbosity about claiming his sources. I will not bother to list those, as they probably number in the hundreds, and would be household words to most ex-members.
  • I recall him referring to his "fundamental discovery" which I'm not recalling with certainty at the moment. I think it may have been the notion of applying the insights of Riemannian physics to economic processes. You can disagree about whether that works, but I think you'd have to grant it as original.
    (2) Without conventional logic as a means for helping to determine the validity of an argument, how is one then to determine whether LaRouche is bright or a quack? On his authority, evidently. No good.
  • How does one determine if a poem is a good poem. How do you know when you're in love. How do you know when to trust another person. These are not logical processes. Logic is a mechanical process, similar to a computer algor(e)ithm. The proverbial "garbage in - garbage out:" applies. Logic can never tell you more than the implications of your assumptions (axioms). It can't tell you if those axioms are right or wrong. LaRouche claims the conventional axioms are wrong. No amount of logic will tell you anything more than that if you accept the conventional axioms as correct, you must regard LaRouche as wrong, and vice versa. LaRouche himself suggests the notion of "crucial experiment". Figure out something which inherently distinguishes between the two universes implied by the competing sets of axioms. Then perform the operations to determine, empirically, which is the case.
    (3) The issue is not that members sacrifice, but that as they sacrifice LaRouche enriches himself while - as the World's Greatest Economist - he falls for worse business schemes than did Ralph Kramden.
  • I don't know of my own knowledge how Lyn lives. If he lives well, it can be argued he needs to live well to accomplish work only he can do. If you think his work is of little or negative value, you will of course disagree. And as to his conventional business acumen, I don't know and won't try to speak. But it is certainly possible to be a genuinely great philosopher without necessarily having a great grasp of day-to-day practical detail.
    (4) As to nonlinearity, you make the usual LaRouche mistake of conflating nonlinearity in the physical world with the nonlinearity of the creative process. Note that linearity is built into the LYM's geometrical constructions, so they are not avoiding it there, either.
  • You call this a "mistake", but it has always been one of Lyn's central philosophical principles that nonlinearity in the physical universe is precisely the same nonlinearity as found in the creative process. Else, how could our brains, which are after all part of the physical universe, accomplish creativity? If you think he's wrong, you should argue the point - not merely dismiss it.
    (Message edited by odd_one_2003 on June 06, 2007)

06-06-2007, 05:57 PM
Part 2 of 5
(5) I note that you evade the issue of the wasted lives, the discarding of older members as yesterday's rubbish, the suspicious deaths of two Jews, the abortions, the mail fraud, etc., etc., etc. I further note that yours is a hit-and-run message, because you haven't the means to ably defend this fraud to whom you've devoted your life.

  • Calling the deaths of "two Jews" "suspicious" is evidence of your own motivation in the discussion. Nobody can prove that Lyn ordered their deaths because of his presumed anti-semetic hatred, and I for one don't believe that for a minute. But your formulation invites such a belief, based as far as I can tell on nothing more than predjudice against the man.
  • And as to wasted lives, that is the question of sacrifice. If Lyn's purpose is worthy, then those lives were not wasted.

    Go over all the previous posts: if they don't sicken you, I would suggest you have no conscience, not to mention common sense or compassion.
  • What sickens me is the consistent campaign to make a good guy look like a bad guy. Most of the posts here present an undisguised and rather virulent hostility against him. Admittedly, I know him only through his work, but that can tell a great deal. And the man I know is not the man presented in these posts.

    Back then he and the NCs would go on for hours about the split second between "Knowing" and "Not Knowing". "We in the LC through Lyn are mastering the "In betweenness" to take world power.
  • Forget what anybody else tells you. That "moment of in betweenness" is right there in your own head (or at least it's there in mine) and you can see it for yourself. It is a question that is rather pointless to argue. Lyn desreves credit for pointing out its significance, which is not a small accomplishment.

    Steve, I will next prove to you and others that reading Better Homes and gardens will make you a better and more informed individual than becoming a 12 step Laroucheaholic
  • Since you were in the organization for many years, I'm sure you know that the issue here isn't that Lyn thinks that planting native species is "wrong" in some Kantian moral sense. Quite obviously the point is that Gore's obsession with "native species" is a marker for a viewpoint that is entirely consistent with everything else that is known about Gore's racial and biological determinist ideology. People who don't understand why Lyn would organize on that point have no sense of having fun - or else disagree with the whole anti-Gore polemic anyway.
    No, what Lyn says in Beyond Psych is that by reducing your identity to the Id, to the Pit, and terrorizing you with a synthetic "Mother Image," he can make you his, following him slavishly.
  • Well, I've read it through at least three times. One reading was as part of a group discussion in a local chapter, with no full time members to tell us what we were supposed to think. Just us and Lyn's words.
    (Message edited by odd_one_2003 on June 06, 2007)

06-06-2007, 06:10 PM
Part 3 of 5
(continuing the response on Beyond Psych)

  • Lyn says rather specifically how to apply the insights of BP to organizing, and it is not to evoke the pit, but rather to strip away the false persona in order to replace it with a healthy identity as a world historical human being. Not the same thing at all. Now some people - notably Kenny Dalto, former NC of the Detroit Region, are known to have abused BP to create their own little brainwashed cult (at least Kenny did). But that's not Lyn. And please note that Kenny is now long gone.
  • I'm just going to be hard-a** about this. BP says what I said. Not what you say. I'm right. You're wrong. Anybody who wants to know can go look for themself. (Google "Beyond Psychoanalysis") Warning - it is a difficult read. It's one of Lyn's denser documents from a period when his writing was somewhat more obscure to the average reader than in recent years. But take time to work your way through. You'll see.
    The Feuerbach Campaigner, part of the Beyond Psych series, has the anti-Semitic crap we have alluded to above, plus a wild formulation of the Virgin-Mary-Is-a-Whore. Creativity? Hardly
  • Well, I've got to admit I never completely made it through the Feurbach. But I've seen enough to know what it's about. Lyn there is still in the period when his intellectual community of reference was Marxist scholars - and he writes with the anti-religious fervor typical of that community. I doubt that most of the particulars of the Feurbach would reflect his thinking today. The thrust of the Feurbach is that is is a critique of religious ideology generaly and Christianity in particular. Then, partway through, as an aside, in a footnote, he says essenatialy oh, and by the way, maybe you think none of this applies to you because you're Jewish and not Christian. Well, Judiasm isn't all that either. Let me tell you about Judiasm. And on to the usually referenced quotes.
  • Now the particulars of what is in those quotes may be wrong, (and I believe Lyn references someone else's work - possibly even a Jewish scholar though I'm not sure of that - as the source of that characterization.)
  • In any case, even if it was entirely Lyn's idea, it's quite a stretch to take a polemic against one religion, delivered as a footnote to a polemic against a related religion, as indicative of the sort of racial or quasi-racial hatred that characterizes anti-semitism as we normally conceive it.
  • I mean, I have huge and not particularly nice criticisms of Calvinism and Calvin. But that doesn't mean I'm about to start marching Presbyterians into gas chambers.
  • Again, don't take my word for it. Google the document and see for yourself.

06-06-2007, 06:18 PM
Gee whilikers, Steve, I guess you are a member, not a supporter.
Here's a course of study for you:
Read the lead to the morning briefing of April 11, the day Kronberg died. Read the crazy memo LaRouche put out during the day that day, bizarrely titled "Containing Your Rage." Go take a look at the author of that briefing lead, one Tony Papert, as crazy as they make 'em.
Then go back and read all the attacks in the briefing in the past year on the printing company PMR--that would be Kronberg.
Then--if you can get ahold of them, which you can't--look through the records of PMR/Worldcomp and see what various organizational entities did and didn't pay for all the printing PMR did.
Then check out PMR's tax status.
Then read that briefing lead one more time.
Then ask someone who's on the NEC to brief you about all the times at NEC meetings a drunken LaRouche ranted against Kronberg, Kronberg's wife Mollie, Uwe, Fernando, Gus, Hillary Clinton for having fat ankles, blah blah, etc.
Figure out many NEC members quit in the first couple of years after LaRouche got out of prison in 1994. Ask them--Mel, Webster, Warren, Fernando, Carol, Chris, and I'm sure there are more--about those wonderful NEC meetings with LaRouche when he got out, crazy as a loon.
Then go to Europe and ask Uwe and Michael and Anno and Gabriele and Elisabeth (that would be the EEC that just dropped out) about his great raving interventions over there.
Then you go back and you re-read Beyond Psych. It's a little worrisome that you've read it three times ("just us and Lyn's words") and you still don't get it. Some day you will--the only question is when.


06-06-2007, 06:22 PM
I actually read the Feuerbach Campaigner. (I actually have the hardcopy Beyond Psych, too--no need for Googling here.) The "scholar" you're thinking of is probably Abraham de Leon, and LaRouche's interpretation of Judaism is bat-s--t crazy, and filled with the special kind of animus he is so adept at.
Give it up. You've gotten yourself hooked up with a man who is filled with hatred for everyone except one special person (three guesses who I'm talking about).


06-06-2007, 06:23 PM
Part 4 of 5
If it's the same Steve with whom I exchanged a few comments with, he rejects the "Golden Soul" line because it so opposite of the Larouche he knows

  • I don't think that was me, but since you raise the question. I stopped reading Dennis King's book in disgust when he used an out of context quote from Lyn to make it appear that Lyn regarded Bronze, Silver or Golden souls as biological species. Lyn actually said something in the quote that sounded like that, but anybody who knows how Lyn thinks and is not illiterate can easily see that this is obvious metaphor. Those "souls" are levels of development of the human personality - how you choose to live and what you choose to live for. Anybody can be a Golden Soul. Read I Corinthians 13, it's all there.
  • Lyn is totally hostile in principle to any notion of biological determination of the human personality, except in instances of severe organic brain damage. The howler is that "Larouche Expert" King either doesn't know that or chose not to speak of it.

    Steve: Read this. It's been posted here before, but repetitive is the nature of this board. I have one question: Do You Feel Like God???
  • In all seriousness - not nearly as much as I should. WTF is supposed to be wrong with feeling like God? The Bible, after all, even says we are created in his image. WOuld it be better to feel like Satan? Or maybe Dick Cheney? When I am in touch with the part of myself which reflects my ability to create - the power of God within each of us - I'm a better person. This is supposed to be somehow bad? Puhleeeze!
  • As to the letter, it's sad. The fervor of the "new convert" who knows little or nothing about what they've decided to attach themselves to, but jeeze can they sling with the buzzwords. I'd be willing to bet she was like that before she joined. And, what is particularly telling, is that although she claims to have been intellectually close to the man she addresses, she cannot or will not formulate her insights in the shared language of their past conversations, but is degraded to the entirely mindless use of buzzwords. I believe this is what Lyn once called the "Papagallo" (sp? - Italian for parrot). Or what Schiller calls the "bread scholar". How ironic to find such a person claiming with her words to follow Lyn, when by her actions she denies his method.
    I wonder if someone like Steve could actually go to a college level calculus class, learn calculus as it's taught in college, and then argue the views that he thinks Gauss and Leibniz espouse to debunk the professor.
  • Well, I had two terms of college calc, and followed up to a small degree on my own. But that's actually kind of irrelevant. The question of (for instance) whether the infintesimal has physical significance or is mere formalism will not affect one whit how you go about solving an equation. It will affect greatly the implications for what that equation actually means when you are using it to model a physical process. That is a philosophical question, not a questiom of mathematical technique, and being good at what they teach you in calc will not help you address it.

06-06-2007, 06:26 PM
Part 5 of 5
I think these folks are too wrapped up in feeling like God to be able to pay the slightest attention to anyone else's views on anything.

  • Taking account of somebody's views is one thing. (Lyn says explicitly in BP that you need to replicate in your own head a mental map of the person you're organizing). Kissing their butt when you know perfectly well they're talking BS but you're supposed to be too polite to notice is something else entirely. A lot of folks who react badly to LaRouche or his people just don't like being called on their BS.
    I can make this real easy for Steve and others to see if they are a Laroucheaholic who needs help.
  • And more with the garden thing. This really seems to have touched a nerve. Probably evidence that Lyn's instincts about what to organize around are sharp as ever, even if a bit counterintuitive.
  • Well, the Andromidas article seems well documented. If nobody wants to refute it, I'm going to take it as accepted that the Nazi gardeners did in fact have the kind of blood and soil romantic ideology the article attributes to them. And it's amusing to see how this apparenntly trivial element of Gore-dom is completely coherent with his traditional southern racist views, which as Lyn and his people have extensively over the years are also blood and soil romanticism.
  • One thing I'm at a complete loss to understand is why neither Better Homes and Gardens nor Tipper Gore herself raised this as an issue. This is an unaccountable and incomprehensible lapse in what should have been an unimpeachably authoritative account of the project.
  • But seriously - what do *you* think was his point in insisting on only species that previously grew there? Sounds to me like echoes of bioregionalism. Of course, you may wish to argue that bioregionalism makes sense
    Well, all for now. I may stop back tomorrow. Or not.
    Have fun.

06-06-2007, 07:08 PM
Eaglebeak - A few points:
Gee whilikers, Steve, I guess you are a member, not a supporter

  • Well, depends on how you look at it. I was a chapter member (chapter not local) during the years the chapters were maintained, but that is not really "membership" the way I meant it. I meant the status where you are a full-time ICLC member and are subject to being deployed. I had a chance to go full-time under Kenny Dalto. I may be crazy but I'm not stupid.
  • Your references to Lyn's bad behavior versus various of the membership is disturbing, but what can anybody really know who wasn't there. Lyn has his side of things, and those he attacked have theirs. From my position, I hear Lyn's account of why various people left or were forced out. Some, such as Fernando, I think "should have happened long before". But of course, that accepts Lyn's characterization of Fernando's role in the organization.
  • I knew Nora Hammerman slightly, though not Warren, and was sad to hear that they had left. But if they actually saw their responsibility toward their children as anthetical to their responsibility for the work (which seems to be what Lyn was saying) then maybe it was for the best that they left.
  • I knew Steve Bardwell, and was sorry when he left. But, supposedly, he had old leftist roots and chose to leave when Lyn adopted his anti-Soviet stance.
  • If you were there for any confrontations, let me ask you honestly. Was Lyn actually in some kind of abusive rage - or did he simply express justified anger at what he saw as members' shortcomings? It's a fine line, but there is a difference.
  • And, maybe Lyn has his warts. Maybe he's not a perfect person. Most everybody I know is an idiot at one time or another. (I originally used a term somewhat stronger than idiot - but then I noticed that there's a no swearibng rule in force.) But most are not also great philosophers dedicated to saving the world. If we tolerate defects in one another, which we do and must, how much more should we tolerate similar defects in a man who is making an important contribution.
  • Now, if the dominant feature of Lyn's character is that he is a liar, thief and murderer then maybe he is not fit to lead a movement like this. But I don't believe that of him.

    Give it up. You've gotten yourself hooked up with a man who is filled with hatred for everyone except one special person (three guesses who I'm talking about).
  • Lyn uses the method of the polemic. This is deliberately harsh and provocative language designed to get attention, arouse emotion, and wake the spiritually dead. And it may be harsh - perhaps necessarily so - both toward his foes and potential friends. But none of that suggests to me a man consumed with hatred. He certainly "does not suffer fools gladly". And he will be the first to tell you. But as a person who has some of that myself, and somewhat more since I've been with Lyn, I can tell you it's really not the same thing.
  • And whatever judgements others make about the intellectual quality of his work, all I can say is that it is genuinely great and important work. I know it when I see it. And it is not credible to me that a man consumed with hatred could function at the level of creativity Lyn's work evidences. Anger, perhaps. But justified anger can be good for you. Gets the juices flowing. And even anger would seem to be a only secondary theme in his work. Consider the implications of his emphasis on choral singing as an organizing tool. That shows a completely different character than what you suggest.
    Have fun,
    (Message edited by odd_one_2003 on June 06, 2007)

06-06-2007, 07:10 PM
To adapt an ethnic joke:
Q: Why are there no ice cubes in the Labor Committees?
A: Because the scientist who knew the formula died.


06-06-2007, 07:35 PM
Yes, I actually was there. I will tell you honestly: Yes, LaRouche was in a psychotic rage on many occasions in my presence. Yes, I have seen him falling down drunk and filled with venom.
Did you know that Fernando and his wife lived with LaRouche for years? Strange, then, that LaRouche only "discovered" that Fernando was "a fascist" late in that process.
(BTW, the author of the briefing lead that lowered the boom on Fernando in 2000 was ... Tony Papert, the killer briefing writer.)
Also, Steve, I notice that you haven't responded to a single thing I said about LaRouche and Kronberg and PMR.
As for the polemical method nonsense, and LaRouche's not suffering fools gladly--that's not his problem. LaRouche's problem is he actually hates hates hates, and screams out in a rage that never dies down. Are you like that, and more so since you've "been with Lyn"? I'm sure not.
I take it that you do not know him personally, or you would have some sense of his volcanic rages.
As to feeling like God? The Bible tells us we are made in His image--and sharply contrasts that with being LIKE God, which is what the serpent tempts Eve with--"ye shall be as/like gods..." Being LIKE God, or "feeling like God," has a very different theological content from being made in God's image--just read Ratinzger/Benedict on this, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer--two people the Labor Committee has lionized, but never read.
And the part about liar, thief, murderer?
LaRouche is certainly a liar, many times over. And he's certainly a thief--just ask those little old ladies who lent their life savings. Ask Ken Kronberg at PMR--oops! You can't--he's dead.
And thence to the murderer part--the answer to that is shrouded in the mists of the future, I guess.
(Message edited by eaglebeak on June 06, 2007)


06-06-2007, 07:52 PM
I didn't say anything about Ken Kronberg and PMR since I know absolutely nothing about that situa6tion except what I've seen from Lyn. What I don't know about I won't try to speak on.
If Lyn is truly prone to drunken abusive rages, this is sad. I can only hope that the people closest to him will try to help him become a better person. Whatever his personal demons may be (and goodness knows we all have them), he is doing important work. Hopefully he will become more effective as time goes on.
I did meet Tony Papert at one point. I was impressed. He struck me as "good people".
As to the Bible, I'm not in any sense a fundamentalist or Biblical literalist. I find it quite plausible as a Campaigner article once suggested that parts of the Old Testament may have been produced or influenced by the Babylonians during the captivity. It would make sense. And attributing "being like God" and having the "knowledge of good and evil" to the evil power (serpent) would be a typical oligarchical trick to polemicize against the idea that mere humans can acquire Godlike powere of creativity and science.
(Message edited by odd_one_2003 on June 06, 2007)


06-06-2007, 08:05 PM
"Steve" has much to say. I too have often felt Lyn was a good man, working for the future. My problems are axiomatic---beyond the irregularities. Lyn has expressed sympathies for Stalin, repeatedly. He called Stalin "provoked" and a pragmatist. "We brought out his nasty side," or the Oligarchy did. Lyn believes like Rousseau that "man is good, it's only society that corrupts." This has the implication that corrupt society must be cleansed. Lyn also adopts a sort of General Welfare fundamentalism as regards interpreting the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights, property rights, are right there, and were clearly thought by the Framers as important. Lyn discards this casually, in my estimation. He also has said things that are sort of frightening. He once "joked" that homosexuals could use some baseball bat-ting. He demonizes opponents. He underestimated in a telltale way the Jewish deaths in the death camps; he denied in fact that there WERE death camps. He adopts grotesquely simplistic, comical views of the history of science, odd tending towards the unfathomably bizarre: Galileo as a reactionary! Recently he said that not all baby boomers will have to be killed---an apparent joke... If you combine all these things it makes for quite a troubling portrait. To me he is undoubtedly brilliant but I couldn't trust him with ANY sort of executive power---sorry.


06-06-2007, 11:42 PM
"LaRouche claims the conventional axioms are wrong," says Steve.
Just what are "the conventional axioms" ?
As far as I can make out Lyn doesn't really identify any particular set of axioms as wrong and in need of correction, not in any consistent way; rather, he proffers trite, potted histories, dangles some philosophical buzzwords, and creates cheap targets like "the Baby Boomers;" and a Villain Pool: a continuously-evolving set of Bogey Men, to affright the members and scare contributors that the End of the System is at hand, unless they give their money and savings; only through contributing does one become Potent.
Criticizing green ideology is one thing. Blathering on about how Al Gore is a Nazi, John Roberts is a Nazi, Samuel Alito is a Nazi, such and such "is in fact a fascist"... Lyn throws these charges around with reckless frequency, especially considering his own avowed sympathies for despots like Stalin, and his essentially communistic take on the US Constitution.
He distorts and radically oversimplifies the history of the founding of the US, expediently rendering it a phenomenon of a Youth Movement; hmmm... His constitutional philosophy puts the Preamble and the General Welfare clause in privileged place. The other considerations mentioned in the preamble, are ignored. The Framers' views of man, are ignored, in favor of a sentimental romanticism. The Bill of Rights, the body of statute law of the nation, federalism, the long history of constitutional interpretation, are all generally ignored. Lyn uses this impoverished view as part of his brainwashing method to get the members and contacts to believe that they are the elite carriers of historical change and that the country will be putting up swastikas and invading Poland if Roberts and Alito get confirmed. Meanwhile his own rather sordid consorting with far-right factions in the '80's goes down the memory hole, as does his past defense of Nazi war criminals and fingering the Jews for 9-11, and, essentially, Hitler in the first place!
Lyn supposedly "uses the method of polemic." When you distort and falsify history, it goes beyond polemic. Now you are in the domain of the demagogue. And the Elite Members and true believers partake of the Sacred Cow: Lyn is above ordinary standards of evaluation; he operates in some sort of "non-Aristotelian" dimension. Beyond good and evil, I guess.
Furthermore the TACTICS get literally fascist. I saw members make posters that compared political opponents to animals; the LYM like to disrupt speeches and classrooms.
As one guy I met once at my card table put it: We're not putting that guy in charge.
(Message edited by charltonrom on June 07, 2007)
(Message edited by charltonrom on June 07, 2007)


06-07-2007, 01:33 AM
I find this exchange with "steve" interesting.
1/ "lyn s axiomatic method".
When "steve" writes :
"How does one determine if a poem is a good poem. How do you know when you're in love. How do you know when to trust another person. These are not logical processes. [...] It can't tell you if those axioms are right or wrong. LaRouche claims the conventional axioms are wrong. etc..."
Well, to compare what "lyn says" (good axioms) with poetry is very revealing: it s about your feelings and tastes, no rigorous scientific method involved here. Read Leibniz or Cantor: much logic involved in there I can tell you! And as for the "crucial experiment", It was NEVER applied to any of larouche's "ideas", the so called "empirical facts" are non existent. What you have is a series of so called "facts" (like in Andromidas gore=nazi gardening piece) put together in order to PROVE the fundamental axiom of the LO: "lyn s always right".
2/ "Steve"'s attachement to lyn as father figure.
He reminds me how we probably were when members: Lyn is being defended against all odds, AS IF HE WAS HIS OWN FATHER. It is known that even abusive fathers remain "fathers" in the eyes of their children (this is not the stockholm syndrom), no matter how abused they were. Lyn (like stalin and other dictators) is like a surrogate father to these youths, and no matter how bad, evil and abusive he is, he will always be defended against all odds, there will always be a "good reason" for his mistakes, behavior, etc
3/ Feeling like God. Well much s been already written about this here. It is considered rightly so by religions as blasphemy, and by psychologists as insanity. It s worse than that, larouche-god is hateful and despises everyone except himself.


06-07-2007, 01:48 AM
Paraphrasing Sancho:
Q: Why is there only one ice cube in the Labor Committees?
A: They don't know how to double it!
Q: Why can't the LC make up their mind on tuning a1 at 428 Hz or 432 Hz?
A: They haven't decided which is the prime number.


06-07-2007, 06:42 AM
What bothers me most from everything I read here is the idea that there was NEVER a plan to pay promisory notes. In view of that any discussion about Lyn's ideas is irrelevant, he may as well investigate UFOs. When I joined I was told that he and others were political prisoners, I read statements by James Mann, Ramsey Clark, etc, etc. My question is: do you have access to the testimonies of former members who testified against Lyn (and I don't mean press reports).


06-07-2007, 07:51 AM
Testimony of former members should be available in the public record.
In the Alexandria federal trial, former member Pam Goldman gave devastating testimony (along with current members Rick Magraw and Kathy Magraw, who were forced to testify). Not sure about Chris Curtis, etc.
In New York State, Wayne Hintz, Chris Curtis, and maybe one or two others testified. Also, LaRouche testified in New York, and that caused a big ruckus, which people might remember. Mollie Kronberg was denounced as a traitor for some arcane move she made against LaRouche in the context of that trial (she was a defendant), and a number of people associated with the trial--like lead paralegal Sandy Roberts and defendant Bob Primack--dropped out in the aftermath.
Grand jury testimony from Alexandria would be pretty interesting, including a lot of testimony by people who were members, but I'm not sure how you could get that. I think you would have to get it from someone who was a party to (defendant in?) the case and who would be willing to give it to you.
Grand jury stuff is not normally in the public record, but trial transcripts are. There may even be courtroom videos of some of these cases.
The most devastating thing about the cases is what you put your finger on, kxxmark--there was no plan to repay the loans. That was something one of the paralegals stressed at the time--the most important thing about the FBI raids in 1986 was what they DIDN'T find in Leesburg--a plan to repay.
So what you wrote is indeed a sufficient answer to Steve/Odd One--because why bother paying attention to the "ideas" of a man who's a cheat and a liar and a thief and completely enraged and filled with hate? I mean, what could be the content of those "ideas"?
And in that connection--Steve, could you explain what it means to "apply the insights of Riemannian physics to economic processes"? You say we have to admit it's original, but I just want to hear your explanation of it, or of whatever you think LaRouche's fundamental discovery was.


06-07-2007, 08:15 AM
Also, Steve--I meant to ask:
When various posters write that there's something perverse about feeling like God, you cite the Bible--the Old Testament--to say we are made in God's image, so therefore there's nothing wrong with feeling like God.
When I bring up the very clear distinction the Bible--the Old Testament--makes between being made in God's image and being/feeling like God, you tell me the Bible is a Babylonian hoax, and cite one of the most dishonest Campaigner articles ever written.
I can see that you are in the process of freeing yourself from linear logic.
Also--what can it possibly mean to say the Bible is a Babylonian hoax?
Question 1: If something's written by the Babylonians, does that make it bad? Why? Because LaRouche says so?
Question 2: If something's written later (or earlier) than it once appeared, does that make it bad? Wrong? Not God-inspired?
Qusetion 3: Did that Campaigner article lift its "facts" from Julius Wellhausen?
Question 4: Ever read the devastating rebuttals to Wellhausen?
Question 5: Ever wonder why LaRouche feels} able to assert that the New Testament was "essentially historically accurate" but that the Old Testament was a hoax? Ever wonder how he knows?
Question 6: Ever wonder how LaRouche could obsess for years about man being created in image of God, and about the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, and have dominion over the earth--and yet reject the Old Testament? What happened to Genesis--the first book in the Old Testament--to make it TRUE while the rest of the Torah and the Prophets was "a hoax"? Did Genesis get sprinkled with LaRouche dust?


06-07-2007, 08:21 AM
All this balderdash about Riemann ... here is Clifford's translation of the paper:
Read it, you LaRouche morons. Then compare both the quality and depth of thought with that of your deranged Fuehrer. Riemann embeds "linearity" in the small (II.1), as we have no usable metric at present which is not "linear." You can b--ch about it all you want, but until you or your confreres come up with a usable alternative, stop squawking ... so tired of all this stupidity which drags the memory of great man into the magical thinking of a sick man ...


06-07-2007, 09:12 AM
<font color="0077aa">"Why don't you "can" the rhetoric and simply do something about it.


06-07-2007, 09:42 AM
The Bible as a "Babylonioan hoax"...?
I have two quotes here from two authors who both despise(d) the Judaic "infection" within Christianity or any "semitic/oriental/near eastern/asiatic" influence over our "western culture":
Author 1:
"The personality of Evil is clearly and concretely identified as "The Whore of Babylon." This is no symbolism; it is the name of a very specific mother-goddess, whose priestesses practiced prostitution as part of religious ritual, to such effect that the names of Ishtar, Astarte, Isis, and Venus, are venerated as the goddesses of the lesbian's and the whore's professions into modern times. The source of these whore-goddesses' cults, in Mesopotamia, in Sheba-Ethiopia, in Egypt, in Palestine, and among the Phrygians, is the worship of the whore-goddess Shakti by ancient "Harrapan"' culture of the Indian subcontinent, introduced to Mesopotamia through the "Harrapan" colony at Sumer. The Satan-figures of ancient Mesopotamia, Sheba-Ethiopia, and of Osiris, Apollo, Lucifer, are, like the Phrygian Dionysos, derivatives of the "Harrapan" Siva. The most powerful form of this Satanic cult then, was the Syrian Magicians' cult of Mithra, which had been established as the leading cult of the Roman imperial legions, through an agreement reached between Augustus and Syrian magicians at the Isle of Capri."
Author 2:
"The great whore of Babylon of whom the Apocalypse speaks is no fairy tale or metaphor, but an historical reality attested to a hundredfold. It was literally the rule of the hetairai over the peoples of the near and middle east. On high festival days at all the centres of these various racial groups, the official prostitutes were enthroned as the embodiment of a common sensuality and universal lechery. In Phoenicia they served Kybele and Astarte; in Egypt, the great procuress Isis; in Phrygia as priestesses of wholly unbridled communal sexual orgies. The reigning priestess of love was joined by her lover dressed in diaphanous Libyan robes. Anointed with costly perfumes and bedecked with precious jewels, they then copulated before all the people (just as did Absalom with David's concubines in II Samuel XVI:22). This example was imitated in Babylon, in Libya, and in Rome under the Etruscan dynasty where the goddess priestess pushed the institution of the hetairai to its extreme limit in the closest collaboration with the Etruscan priests. (...) But in the hands of the Etruscan priests this becomes Asiatic magic, witchcraft linked with pederasty, masturbation, the murder of boys, magical appropriation of the manna of the slaughtered by the priestly murderer, and prophecies derived from the excrement and the piled up entrails of the victims. The virile sun impregnates itself with the magical phallus on the solar disc (the Egyptian point in the sun) which finally penetrates it. From this is born a golden boy, the foetus of a boy with a magical orifice. This is the so called seal of eternity. The violence of the magical phallus is imagined as a bull which copulates with such frenzied force that the disc rolls and the phallus bearer of the horn turns to fire, the phallus of him who possesses the heavens. In endlessly repeated obscenities, the original myth is degraded into repulsive homosexual love. This is to be seen on the wall paintings of graves, as in the Golini tomb where the dead man holds a banquet with his boy lover in the next world, and where two gigantic phalluses spring up from a sacrificial fire as a result of magical satanic rite."


06-07-2007, 09:46 AM
Ok, both quotes sound similar and even familiar, dont they?
Well author 1 is... Lyndon Larouche (in "The Truth About St. John's Vision of Apocalypse" - 1987)
and author 2 is... Alfred Rosenberg, the chief ideologue of the nazi party (in "The Myth of the 20th Century")
Strange that lyn attacked the nazis as "babylonian", isis/ishtar homosexual worshipers...

and these are just a few quotes, if you read it all, you ll be in for some more surprises.
Maybe you ll think again before attacking Rohatyn the Jew as... a satanist or a nazi?


06-07-2007, 11:29 AM
Fantastic, shadok.
In this tricentennial of the birth of Euler, the most prolific mathematician in history, all civilized people everywhere should rejoice. Like Riemann, Euler was, in addition to being a true genius, a very pious Lutheran and humble man. At one point, in defense of his religious views, he wrote a series (pun intended) of so-called _Letters to a German Princess_. Even though in analysis he built foursquare on the work of Leibniz, he rejected Leibnizian metaphysics and had the rather commonsense view that nature's laws must be susceptible to quantification. (Euler also caught Leibniz napping at maths several times, e.g. when the former proved the latter's counterexample to the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra wrong.) Enter Little Lyndy a.k.a. Walter Mitty II:
Lyn is of the "if you ain't with me yer agin me" school of thought, so the above realities make Euler an enemy of not only Leibniz - the last universal genius - but thereby of you-know-who, who could not even finish a bachelor's degree at Northeastern, G.I. Bill in hand. So to support this childish contention, we have whoppers like the following:
"In the matter of this about-face, it is neither useful for necessary to debate each Euler work one at a time."
Especially for one who reads next to nothing.
"Euler's apostasy"
From what? From the magical thinking of a 21st-century crackpot?
"The issue is that treated with bold precision by Carl F. Gauss in his own 1799 doctoral dissertation, the same issue for which the famous student of both Gauss and Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, was celebrated by such as Albert Einstein later: the most important of the issues of scientific method in all known science to the present day, the issue of the ontological actuality of the infinitesimal which remains the principal issue of modern European science, from Nicholas of Cusa's discovery of the systemic error in Archimedes' mistaken effort to treat the circle as an expression of quadrature, and with Kepler's celebrated treatment of higher order of the methodological fallacy of the quadrature of the circle, in his definition of the principle of motivated action in the generation of the planetary elliptical orbit."
What issue? The ontological reality of the infinitesimal? Gauss's dissertation hasn't the remotest connection to such a claim. Nor again for the umpteenth time did Einstein ever have anything at all to say on the matter, let alone to note its centrality to Western science and All Good. Cusanus's correction of Archimedes had no methodological implications whatsoever. I cannot speak to the Kepler point, but suspect it is also hot air given the nature of the foregoing.
"... the circles of Socrates and Plato, is the conception of the infinitesimal as an ontologically efficient actuality ..." Um, that was not the viewpoint of Eudoxus. who was a member of the Academy, and what "circles of Socrates?" The plates that Xanthippe used to toss at Socrates' head as he headed out the door to hang with the boys down at Piraeus?


06-07-2007, 11:31 AM
Of course, things soon get even crazier, now that we've established a baseline of bizzaro scholarship and heedless flatulence:
"The essential issue implicit in Euler's descent into mere mathematician's formalism, instead of physics, is not a mere issue of formalities. The issue, as since Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, is whether or not the high priesthood reigning over the opinions which society is permitted to believe, shall be a pretext for denying society the right to access to practical knowledge of the use of various ordinary, and also higher forms of "fire.""
"Let me stand next to your fire!"--Jimi Hendrix
I'm exhausted refuting this drivel.
LYMers just know: your master would be intellectually dishonest if he knew what truth were, but unforunately for you his criterion of truth is that whatever is true is so because it passes out of one of his divine orifices. Guess which one.
But I can't resist one last:
"The efforts of Euler's turn into awful ideologies such as those expressed by his 1763 Letter to a German Princess, is not the sort of thing we should promote under the specific kinds of breakdown of the production process which Europe and North America are suffering today."
Breakdown indeed.


06-07-2007, 05:07 PM
The idea that Lyn nevers reads a whole book, just gets briefings from others who have (or reads the blurb) strikes a chord with me.
I still maintain that my time in the ICLC had its benefits, and that the best thing I got out of it was a strong preference for primary sources. Not sure where I got that from in there, maybe the history work? If you think everyone is part of a lying conspiracy to hide the truth about xzy then all secondary sources are suspect.
Anyway, this means that I read Liebniz (or tried) while in the movement, and read Vernadsky. And Gauss, etc. Reading Liebniz was strange, because most everything I could find was about logic. He seemed to want to reduce all knowledge to a formal logical system, to be, to be, an Aristotelian!
Vernadsky was interesting too, with all his talk of 'empirical generalisations'. Surely he knew empiricism was evil! And no-one, except Lyn, seems to mention this epic battle of good versus evil, I mean Plato versus Aristotle. Liebniz was polite to Newton. Kepler treats the other astronomers with respect.
I saw people use a quote from Poe, from Mellonta Taunta, about 'Aries Tottle' and creeping and crawling methods of truth seeking. I've read the whole thing now. There is glowing praise of both Newton and Kepler. There is also comments on how democracy is fit only for dogs, and others praising Malthusianism.
I think bizzaro-world is an apt description.


06-07-2007, 05:43 PM
OK I have read plenty here this is a very elaborate devious trick indeed whether it is intentional or accidental. The trap is one of deduction. I will explain what too many from the LYM fall trap into as they walk into this domain of self perpetuated deceit!
Any and all X members are such because they really did not learn one key fundamental. How to come to understand something to be true! Do you take popular opinion? All those opinions CANT POSSIBLY BE WRONG, right? How about the accumulation of a whole bunch of facts that will get to the truth right? Because the simple tally of more facts will show an aggregation of evidence which always leads us in the right direction? Right?
Lets say we dont have telescopes and are living in the time of the ancients. We in an investigation step outside and collect an aggregation of facts (i.e. observations) of the sun in the sky, From When the sun rises to when it falls. We have compiled a twelve hour data sheet. Our senses demonstrate as well as the massive accumulation of facts that the sun rotates around the earth? are we right?
The problem is merely one that is an elementary one. Instead of taking someone's word Whether Larouche's or anyone else's one has to investigate where that person got their understanding and knowledge from, and whether that source had their investigation set in the real universe. Also what is the history of where that person understood what they did?
Since the real universe is invisible (Because ideas like gravity and Universal least action are every where in the universe) to the senses, how does one comprehend something invisible, use the invisible part of what makes you human. What is that? Read Plato! Lyndon H. Larouche calls such a process willfull and conscious "Acts of re-discovery"
One then has to realize the type of things the road down this particular path will ultimately take you, is into the realm of philosophy, and metaphysics. In that area one learns the 'parallel pathways' that certain key policies and ideas today run alongside. This is how we as TRUE understander s can place Larouche's reasoning and analytical skills at the forefront of science and political economy. Not because we are blind as soooo many have purportedly fallacious stated but because those who have done their own independent work come to understand, what many pass as 'code speak' whenever Larouche speaks!
Every single X member who has walked into this forum has fallen prey to ultimately that. They have read Lyndon Larouche's words but don't understand how he reached them. Therefore no matter what they themselves can profess as good intentions and good sounding policies, they fall short in then re-connecting that to the invisible in a transcendent way.
They then make further folly with trying to DEDUCTIVELY explain away their REASONING! The example of Kheris is far too appalling! She asserts what she asserts with relative ease of words. She truly has some issues to grapple with. Her claims along with all who negatively attack Larouche have no real intention to find out the truth or they would have asked Lyn themselves Here Is a Link!


06-07-2007, 05:45 PM
The XLC er and other similar types are highly laughable! They tell you all they come from the inside and have an understanding of how certain aspects of the organization are run then drop a lot a bit of fiction, no that was too kind LIES, then you all eat it up! None of you have gone through a process of understanding to see how these Naysayers got to their conclusions!
I wont even address the Naysayers themselves the reason is simply one does not try to dialogue with Satan!
The only people that I am concerned about are those poor souls who really do think Larouche runs a cult and are being massively deceived. When it is them who unfortunately are deceived because they can so readily talk about something and they really don't KNOW (meaning comprehension of origin)about!
Lastly remember, If you are truly intent on understanding what Larouche is saying stop taking second hand opinions! Go back and read what he says and then see where he got that then see what you gain from where he got what he talks about! Read Kepler because he starts with the exploration in reality in a REAL way. Then move to read what Larouche says about Kepler.
It is a longer process but that is what it takes to begin to say 1 tenth of what has been posted here since 2003! Remember if opinions are <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> cause everyone's got one, then stop getting "sloppy" second hand <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> because thats pretty disgusting!

Ask Lyn about Anti semitism and bring him quotes, then post discussion here if your really honest


06-07-2007, 06:06 PM
Jimmyo, you could create a real life Bizarro world comic strip with Lyn as the head Bizarro and the LC/LYM as local characters. In this world it could be self sustained. it would be a complete failure, but a complete success in a city named Lynzarro.
You could have:
-A book store which has no books by anyone except the chief Bizarro.
-A radio station named WLYN which is the only radio station which loses a half million under deregulation.
-A computer firm which makes money but loses money the more Lyn's hands are in it.
-Cold Fusion to power it.
-Everyone works around the clock for no money.
-The person who heads up the Club of Life is the person who takes you to the abortion clinic.
-You borrow money with no intention of repaying.
-You accuse the people who lent you the money of being the criminals.
-You tell the residents of Lynzarro that everything around them will collapse while everything around them has grown.
-You double the cube each year but work for half of the previous year.
-Your health plan is called LaroucheCare. No one under 45 needs it or gets it.
-Everyone outside Lynzarro is part of the conspiracy against the inside of Lynzarro.
-The farm you set up is financed by the farmer's family you collapsed.
-The farmer who ran it and was your VP is now broke.
-The farm is now outside the city limits of Lynzarro.
-Rental apts where you do not pay rent.
-You hire lawyers for far more money than the cases can be settled for.
-You create a newspaper and magazines and do not publish them.
-You sell subscriptions to newspapers and magazines and do not mail them.
-You treat Helga's dog to people food and treat the people worse than the dogs.
-Nazi war criminals are heros and patriots.
-Dictators are patriots and Platonists.
-The Lynzarro official religion is what you claim to be the latest religion you are "influencing".
-A colonoscopy is considered a "an assasination attempt".
-All your leaders are agents and have left.
-You raise money for a pollution free Lynzarro Maglev by breathing in exhaust fumes all day in a street filled with cars and trucks.
-You raise millions each year and never see it, or the people Lyn never sees whom he sends the millions to that the yutes no nothing about.

Figure that one out yutes because we are getting closer to telling you .
To quote a famous American "Larry the Cable Guy" .... 'We can do this all day".
I am now afraid to hire a LYM member to cut my lawn. They are not even qualified to do that with a Dean Andromidas reference in their resumes.


06-07-2007, 06:48 PM
Timefortruth purports to challenge posters on this site for not knowing LaRouche's ideas. I suspect most of us have had more of that crammed in our heads over ten twenty or more years than he will ever digest. This is why we tend to have an idea about the actual development or way LaRouche changes his views to suit his audience while claiming that he is holding to his cohesive world view that claims to unify all aspects of human knowledge and endeavor into one size fits all weltanschaung. After going from the days when LaRouche attempted to unity Marxist economics with his critiques of artificial intelligence and Godel's proof, etc. to the time when Lyn supposedly crafted the entire concept of SDI to spoonfeed Ronald Reagan, etc. we've seen it all. As many ex-members know, Lyn and others may come up with the kernel of an interesting idea which makes sense but then it gets integrated into his bizarre world schema and whatever positive idea might have existed gets totally twisted and mangled. To give a simple example, in the 80s we could go out and promote fusion power and space research (good) and then undercut it by not only defending but idolizing the Nazi rocket scientists of Pennemunde and pretend they were simply good Germans and not aiders and abettors of the actual evil Nazi war machine.
We've been through all the works you cite, BP, PSP, Secrets Known only to the Inner Elites, the Dope Inc edition that gives credence to the Protocols of Zion, etc.


06-07-2007, 07:10 PM
Part 1 of 11
OMG, did I throw a rock into a hornets' nest or what? Things are sure a buzzin'. At some point, which may be upon us now, responding to all this is going to get unmanagable. But I'll do what I can. Both because some of the responses are actually interesting, and some are really so bad as to need to be exposed for their awfulness.
Here goes:
Lyn has expressed sympathies for Stalin, repeatedly.

  • Well, no doubt there are elements of Stalin's regime which could be viewed sympathetically. I don't really know the particulars.
  • I might sympathize with Hitler's opposition to the injustice of the Versailles reparations. That doesn't mean I'm down with his racial, economic or foreign policies, all of which were terribly evil.

    This has the implication that corrupt society must be cleansed.
  • Doesn't need to imply that at all. We might use the metaphor of "healed" (which I would prefer) rather than "cleansed" - which has different implications. The obsession with "cleanliness" can indicae a certain pathology of thought which I haven't seen in Lyn. But look at how many certifiable right wing nuts are into "pure" and "natural" foods, and also, on the fringes, advocate regular colon cleansing to remove "accumulated wastes". Compare to the notion of polluted bodily fluids and "Purity of Essence" as parodied in "Dr. Strangelove". And I swear I'm not making any of this up. And fair warning, don't provoke me on this point or I may post my poem "Call 911 for Sanitation".
    Lyn also adopts a sort of General Welfare fundamentalism as regards interpreting the US Constitution.
  • You may be familiar with Lyn's references to Plato's Parmedidies (sp?) dialogue on the paradox of the One and the Many. Although I don't claim to have decoded Plato's intentions, the subject is an extrordanarily fruitful one to consider. Look at the motto on a coin from your pocket (If you're in the U.S.)
  • "E Pluribus Unum" - From Many - One. This suggests that the founding fathers had some sense of that issue. And the notion of the "General Welfare" sits right in the same conceptual territory. Look at all the free-enterprise crudheads who would assert there is no "General Welfare" - just a linear additive collection of individual interests. To assert the reality of a "general welfare" or "common good" gives the lie to the free-enterprise epistomology by saying there is a dood for the whole which is not merely the sum of the "goods" of each part. This is revolutionary in its implications. To the extent that the founding fathers may not have intended the concept to have a place of primacy (and don't know the history one way or the other) then so much the worse for them. Lyn is entirely right to emphasize the importance of this clause.

06-07-2007, 07:13 PM
You completely miss the point! What you have done can be tantamount to copy and paste tactics, take what lyn says [insert here] How can you demonstrate the ontological implications of Goedls proof for science! That is what I am getting at Forget about Lyn Right now (even though he is very important). Have you read and developed who he cites? Have you tried to prove HIM WRONG BY DOING THE WORK AND PRESENTING THAT TO THE MASSES!
All the works you cite are secondary sources! No wonder you left!


06-07-2007, 07:15 PM
You mean invisible like your stipend? Like Lyn's influence in the world? Like the number of votes he has garnered?

Go back to school, son. In four years you will know enough to see how foolish your argument is. It's OK, we all here have been performing monkeys for LaRouche at one time or another: it's simply your turn now. Try to get through this phase as quickly as possible so you can start your own life.
All the best.


06-07-2007, 07:18 PM
Part 2 of 2
He underestimated in a telltale way the Jewish deaths in the death camps; he denied in fact that there WERE death camps.

  • There may have been facts in evidence suggesting the lower figure (2.3 million?). Maybe Lyn found those arguments persuasive. I wasn't there and I don't know what figure is correct. But you can hardly say that a figure of 2.3 milion makes the Nazis some sort of good guys.
  • And I remember reading a Campaigner in which the death camps were discussed. It's the one with the layout of a camp (Auschwitz?) on the cover. Lyn's point was that the motivation of the death camps was primarily economic and only secondarily racial.
    He adopts grotesquely simplistic, comical views of the history of science, odd tending towards the unfathomably bizarre: Galileo as a reactionary!
  • I doubt reactionary was the term he used, but I understand why Lyn considers him a bad guy. Galileo presents a linear physics - i.e. a physics appropriate to a dead universe - in which everything can be reduced to the ultimate simplicity of a set of rules for manipulating numbers. But, as you may have noticed when you got up this morning, the universe is not dead.
    Just what are "the conventional axioms?
  • OMG, you actually expect an answer? Discerning the axioms of one's own society is a little like being a fish and trying to study water. You need an outside standpoint to make it possible. Candidates for such a standpoint include history, philosophy, and anthropology. Given the biases within anthropology, I prefer history and philosophy. And to critique the assumptions of one's own society in the light of a universal perspective could be a book-length project - even the work of a lifetime. Excuse me if I decline to finish up this evening. You live here - look at your own assumptions critically and you will discover the answer.
    As far as I can make out Lyn doesn't really identify any particular set of axioms as wrong and in need of correction, not in any consistent way; .....
  • Look at his criticisms of linearity. That is probably the central one. I think you may be wishing for a laundry list laid out like a set of Axioms and Postulates in Euclid. Number one, Lyn doesn't work that way. Number two, the axioms of a society are rarely articulated in such a coherent fashion. But they are real for all that.

    He distorts and radically oversimplifies the history of the founding of the US, expediently rendering it a phenomenon of a Youth Movement; hmmm... His constitutional philosophy puts the Preamble and the General Welfare clause in privileged place. The other considerations mentioned in the preamble, are ignored. The Framers' views of man, are ignored, in favor of a sentimental romanticism.
  • See my comments on the preamble and General Welfare above. It's true Lyn picks and chooses points from history, the Constitution, etc. that illustrate and support his views. Some reason he shouldn't? The man is organizing a social revolution, for crying out loud - not writing a freakin' encyclopedia.

06-07-2007, 07:23 PM
Part 3 of 11
Furthermore the TACTICS get literally fascist. I saw members make posters that compared political opponents to animals; the LYM like to disrupt speeches and classrooms.

  • Comparing political opponents to animals has a long history in American political cartooning, and I can't consider it particularly heinous. Disrupting speeches is open to question, as to whether it's justified in a particular situation, but I certainly wouldn't say it could never be justified.
    Well, to compare what "lyn says" (good axioms) with poetry is very revealing: it s about your feelings and tastes, no rigorous scientific method involved here.
  • Well, I've got you good on this one, because as it happens I've actually written poetry and I can tell you exactly how wrong you are. My own poetry is hardly world-historical, but it is at least moderately good for a beginner. And I can tell you that it was not easy to write it, nor to learn how to write it. It was difficult and exacting. But it was fun and I learned a lot.
  • writing crappy poetry is easy. Just write whatever and assert it is poetry. Few will say you nay. But good poetry - that's another story. There are at least four independent domains that have to work together to make a poem effective. These are literal meaning of the words, the images suggested by the words, the sound of the words (i.e. rhyme) and the rhythym of the presentation (i.e. meter). And then you have to compose the interplay among those elements - be it simple reinforcement, ironic opposition, whatever. I certainly don't claim to have mastered all that - but by making the attempt, I learned unmistakeably how poetry actually works.
  • For another take on this. Google Poe's "Philosophy of Composition". It includes his own detailed analysis of "The Raven".
  • Bottom line - it's extremely rigorous - and not logical whatsoever - except perhaps incidentally.
    And as for the "crucial experiment", It was NEVER applied to any of larouche's "ideas", the so called "empirical facts" are non existent.
  • One outstanding counter-example. On the question of LaRouche's views versus those of the Malthusians. And, subsumed in that, the question of human creativity and the role of technology in enhancing the human population potential. The "critical experiment" here is the history of population growth on the planet. The fact we have arrived at our present point is ample proof that LaRouche's views on these matters are correct and those of his opponents are not.
  • And the fact that no other species, except for those cultivated by man, show a similar growth, is ample evidence of the correctness of Lyn's views on the difference between humans and other species.
    "Steve"'s attachement to lyn as father figure.
  • This is not consciously how I view Lyn, but if there is some of that, what of it. We all need role models, somebody to look up to, etc.

06-07-2007, 07:25 PM
Part 4 of 9
Feeling like God. Well much s been already written about this here. It is considered rightly so by religions as blasphemy, and by psychologists as insanity.

  • Depends on which religions. The notion of having "God within" or acheiving "union with the Godhead" is orthodox in a number of traditions. I would even suggest that the unwillingness to "feel like God" is a fine way of evading responsibility for developing and using your own human creative powers which are in fact Godlike. It allows the person to remain as what Lyn called the "little me" - and illustrates the roots of the lament by, I believe, Shiller, who wrote that the present moment is history was a "great moment". But that the "great moment has found a little people". Would that more over the years had accepted the responsibility of being Godlike.
    It s worse than that, larouche-god is hateful and despises everyone except himself.
  • To the contrary - LaRouche's image of God is explicitly creative. You can't do that from a place of hatred.
    What bothers me most from everything I read here is the idea that there was NEVER a plan to pay promisory notes. In view of that any discussion about Lyn's ideas is irrelevant, (......)
  • To the contrary, LaRouche's ideas are of such substantial importance that they trump any personal failings the man might have.
  • The promissory notes should have been paid back. If they were taken out without no intention of repayment this bad and dishonest.
  • However, going into a new dark age which will kill billions is worse. Have a little perspective!
  • Of course, if you don't agree that we stand at the brink of a new dark age, and that LaRouche is uniquely necessary to preventing this, then I would expect you to reject my viewpoint.
    (Message edited by ODD_ONE_2003 on June 07, 2007)

06-07-2007, 07:27 PM
Before you continue, Odd One, please note how often you don't have an answer. I respect you for your honesty, but we are looking for your refutations, and it gets rather boring seeing that 80% of the time, you don't know how to reply. So please save us a little time and refute only those ideas you know how to convincingly refute.


06-07-2007, 07:30 PM
Part 5 of 9
And in that connection--Steve, could you explain what it means to "apply the insights of Riemannian physics to economic processes"? You say we have to admit it's original, but I just want to hear your explanation of it, or of whatever you think LaRouche's fundamental discovery was.

  • LaRouche has discussed this at length, but I'll try to briefly give my take on it.
  • At any particular level of technology the relations between the various elements of production are approximately linear, and could be modeled by linear methods with little distortion. When you introduce human creativy - in the form of technological change - it's a very different story. The transition to a new technology represents a radical discontinuity from the point of view of the earlier model. This can even introduce "infinities". What would be the cost of a Dell PC in 1939 dollars? Effectively "infinite" since such product did not exist in that timeframe.
  • There is no way that any model from the "manifold" representing an earlier stage of technology can predict the relationships obtaining in the "new manifold" generated by the impact of the new technology. Marx, from what I understand, sought a model which could do exactly this, and that is the root of Lyn's fundamental theoretical criticism of Marx.
  • So, where does Riemann come in. I cannot claim familiarity with Riemann's work except in bits and pieces, but some of those bits and pieces are suggestive. Lyn makes much of RIemann's work on shock waves. And a shock wave, physically, works exactly like what we're discussing. there are relationships in the subsonic domain that are different from those in the supersonic domain, and a discontinuty between them.
  • Also of interest is Felix Klein's exposition of Riemanns theory of ALgebraic functions. Klein discusses how when mapping complex functions onto a plane (conformal mapping?) certain classes of functions will produce infinities. But, if you change the topology of that plane and make it a torus, or higher object (i.e. with more holes) then you can transform the mappings topologically in such a way that the infinities disappear. Really rather beautiful.
  • (And yes, I'm aware that Lyn is miffed at Klein because he credited Lindemann rather than Cusa with demonstrating the trancendentalism of Pi. My belief, nonetheless, is that Klein has done useful work and that Lyn and the LYM could benefit by taking another look.)
  • Now what you should not expect to find in any of this is the basis for an "engineering" style mathematics where you could plug a set of equations into a computer and predict the future of an economy. We are accustomed to think that such a setup is the definition of what it means to apply mathematics to the universe. But this is not Lyn's view at all.
    (Message edited by ODD_ONE_2003 on June 07, 2007)

06-07-2007, 07:33 PM
That right there is the principle for every single post in this heaven where only darkness resides!
No one here seems to know or can bring to the surface a fundamental flaw. That is where they are found, fundamental flaws only when that work has been done to decipher the intricate work that comes with the pursuit of truth!
My misguided brethren who so quickly render the blame upon those they don't understand ascend unto true understanding from doing hard core work. Work that goes into history looking for invisible things the only things that are really existent because they remain when all the perceptible things wax and wane!
Then engage me in this matter Sancho! Because as of now I have done work what Have you done intensive work on?
If I am the ignorant kiddie enlighten me with you age old knowledge that has produced what in this life may I ask?


06-07-2007, 07:34 PM
Part 6 of 11
When various posters write that there's something perverse about feeling like God, you cite the Bible--the Old Testament--to say we are made in God's image, so therefore there's nothing wrong with feeling like God.
When I bring up the very clear distinction the Bible--the Old Testament--makes between being made in God's image and being/feeling like God, you tell me the Bible is a Babylonian hoax, and cite one of the most dishonest Campaigner articles ever written.
I can see that you are in the process of freeing yourself from linear logic.

  • Well, you seem to think linear logic is a good thing, so perhaps to you that's an insult. My mileage varies.
  • I cited the Bible as supportive of my view, which it is at that point. You cited another place where it does not support my views. I attempted to come up with an explanation for why the Bible is inconsistent on the question, and takes the wrong side in the text you referenced.
  • And when you say that I called the Bible a Babylonian hoax, you were either being incredibly careless in reading what I actually said, or you chose to deliberately distort it. For the record:
  • "I find it quite plausible as a Campaigner article once suggested that parts of the Old Testament may have been produced or influenced by the Babylonians during the captivity. It would make sense."
  • What I did not say is that I accepted the assertion as true. I said I found it "plausible" which suggests a far lesser state of certainty. It's a "maybe". And I said "parts" of the Old Testament - which is not "The Bible" or even "The Old Testament". Indeed, Bible scholars have identifed a number of more or less independent strains of text even just within Genesis.

    Also--what can it possibly mean to say the Bible is a Babylonian hoax?
  • Uh well, since I didn't say that I'll pass.
    Question 1: If something's written by the Babylonians, does that make it bad? Why? Because LaRouche says so?
  • It makes it suspect - because Babylon was an empire and might be presumed to act the way empires act toward their subject peoples, including the use of religious and cultural manipulation to help keep them subject. Of course, if you have a different understanding of what empires are and how they work, your mileage will vary.
  • And the referenced text is bad on it's face, anyway, because it takes the wrong side on the point in question.

    Question 2: If something's written later (or earlier) than it once appeared, does that make it bad? Wrong? Not God-inspired?
  • WTF is God-inspired? Not to deny that such a thing could exist in some sense, but it means different things to different people. I don't view the Bible as "inspired" in any fundamentally different sense than the Republic, the Gettysburg Address, the New Colossus or Beyond Psych.
  • And I would certainly look at the historical context and motive when evaluationg a text, though I wouldn't deny that the text could have value and meaning independent of that.

    Qusetion 3: Did that Campaigner article lift its "facts" from Julius Wellhausen?
  • I have no idea, and I'm too lazy to look it up. You tell me.
    Question 4: Ever read the devastating rebuttals to Wellhausen?
  • Nope.

06-07-2007, 07:37 PM
Part 7 of 9
Question 5: Ever wonder why LaRouche feels} able to assert that the New Testament was "essentially historically accurate" but that the Old Testament was a hoax? Ever wonder how he knows?

  • I'm not sure he asserts that, and since you royally messed up your account of what I myself asserted, even though it was in front of your face, I'm disinclined to trust you as a reporter.
  • And the way you can tell certain things about the accuracy of historical accounts is by knowing about the long-standing battle between the oligarchs and the humanists, and the viewpoints and assumptions that characterize each faction. (Read "Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites") Once you have the scorecard you can identify the players - even in camouflage. Of course, if Lyn is really just making all this up, then that method will be misleading.
    Question 6: Ever wonder how LaRouche could obsess for years about man being created in image of God, and about the commandment to be fruitful and multiply, and have dominion over the earth--and yet reject the Old Testament? What happened to Genesis--the first book in the Old Testament--to make it TRUE while the rest of the Torah and the Prophets was "a hoax"? Did Genesis get sprinkled with LaRouche dust?
  • Don't know that he "obsessed". It's certainly a fundamental tenent of his views that people are good, human control of the Earth is good, and Malthusian population control is bad. So it's hardly surprising that he would accept the support of Genesis on that point.
  • And I don't know that he ever called the Old Testament a "Hoax", though I won't deny he might have. Do you have a source for this?
  • If you yourself are a conservative Christian, you may believe that the Bible is all of a piece and that one must accept or reject it as a whole. My views are a bit more irreverent. It's a book. When it's good, it can be very good. When it's bad it's rotten. And the rest of the time it can just be boring. No offense intended.
    (Message edited by ODD_ONE_2003 on June 07, 2007)

06-07-2007, 07:42 PM
No answer thought as much. The grounds upon which I want to tread you can not come. Your acumen's ability is belabored or am I wrong Sancho?


06-07-2007, 07:43 PM
Such ardor, zeal, and bad writing: "have purportedly fallacious stated". Rather telling. I repent of my prior sentiments. Lyn MUST be the epochal genius of the age. No lesser a light could prove that Galileo was a reactionary.
Odd One 2003: May I ask... Who gets to define the General Welfare? Any guesses? Lyn's basic premises remain collectivist and Marxist. In this philosophical tradition individuals are sacrificable to the Common Good. Stalin's "particulars": MILLIONS murdered---20 million? 50 million?--- advancing it. Combine this with Lyn's feverish, generally horrible writings that only a member or acolyte could love, his proclivity for rewriting his history, his embrace of former villains-become-heroes and friends, like Jimmy Carter and the Iranian clerics, his demonizations and dehumanizations of opponents (You are a NAZI!, he raves, while denying his own deeply established anti-Semitic history), his occasional espousal of violence, as against homosexuals,and his evident paranoia--- let no one deny that he has implicated first the Jews and then Cheney in the 9-11 attacks--- and what you get is basically a pretty rabid demagogue with some visionary proposals maybe, but a guy that's just a few sandwiches short of a picnic. But of course what we say will probably have little effect; the Creed has great power. People crave a messiah. And once a Totem Idol is formed in one's mind, it's painful to have to let it go.


06-07-2007, 07:44 PM
Simply stated!


06-07-2007, 07:45 PM
My acumen's ability is belabored, yes. Together with my English which bad is.
Your treading reminds me:
1: This coffee tastes like mud!
2: Of course, it was ground this morning.


06-07-2007, 07:49 PM
Part 8 of 9
All this balderdash about Riemann ... here is Clifford's translation of the paper:

  • I've read this several times before, as well as some of Clifford's popular work, which is actually quite interesting. But thanks for calling it to my attention. I get something new out of it each time.
  • Now, I'll take the liberty of posting the closing paragraphs in their entirety, because this is the point where Riemann says exactly what Lyn says he says.
  • As Follows:
  • ***
    If we suppose that bodies exist independently of position, the curvature is everywhere constant, and it then results from astronomical measurements that it cannot be different from zero; or at any rate its reciprocal must be an area in comparison with which the range of our telescopes may be neglected. But if this independence of bodies from position does not exist, we cannot draw conclusions from metric relations of the great, to those of the infinitely small; in that case the curvature at each point may have an arbitrary value in three directions, provided that the total curvature of every measurable portion of space does not differ sensibly from zero. Still more complicated relations may exist if we no longer suppose the linear element expressible as the square root of a quadric differential. Now it seems that the empirical notions on which the metrical determinations of space are founded, the notion of a solid body and of a ray of light, cease to be valid for the infinitely small. We are therefore quite at liberty to suppose that the metric relations of space in the infinitely small do not conform to the hypotheses of geometry; and we ought in fact to suppose it, if we can thereby obtain a simpler explanation of phenomena.
    The question of the validity of the hypotheses of geometry in the infinitely small is bound up with the question of the ground of the metric relations of space. In this last question, which we may still regard as belonging to the doctrine of space, is found the application of the remark made above; that in a discrete manifoldness, the ground of its metric relations is given in the notion of it, while in a continuous manifoldness, this ground must come from outside. Either therefore the reality which underlies space must form a discrete manifoldness, or we must seek the gound of its metric relations outside it, in binding forces which act upon it.
    The answer to these questions can only be got by starting from the conception of phenomena which has hitherto been justified by experience, and which Newton assumed as a foundation, and by making in this conception the successive changes required by facts which it cannot explain. Researches starting from general notions, like the investigation we have just made, can only be useful in preventing this work from being hampered by too narrow views, and progress in knowledge of the interdependence of things from being checked by traditional prejudices.
    This leads us into the domain of another science, of physic, into which the object of this work does not allow us to go to-day.
  • **
    (continued - with comments on the Riemann paragraphs)
    (Message edited by ODD_ONE_2003 on June 07, 2007)

06-07-2007, 07:50 PM
I am sure you are familiar with the tactics of sophistry, are you an ex as well?
The idea is stated!
Focus On that! I will make human error, we all do!


06-07-2007, 07:51 PM
Part 9 of 9
(Continuing on Riemann)

  • What he says here is that the curvature of space in the infinitely small is not necessarily linear (i.e. constant) and by my reading there is a clear implication that he thinks it will probably prove not to be constant in point of fact.
  • And in the last line, he says that this further investigation is in the realm of "physic" (physics). implying that it is a subject for empirical investigastion. This is what Lyn has always said, and this is what Riemann clearly says. "read it and weep"
    The Bible as a "Babylonioan hoax"...?
  • Read my lips - I didn't say that (as noted above), and I'm not at all convinced Lyn ever said it.
    Ok, both quotes sound similar and even familiar, dont they?
    Well author 1 is... Lyndon Larouche (in "The Truth About St. John's Vision of Apocalypse" - 1987)
  • And I picked that out without peeking. Lyn's style is really that distinctive.
    and author 2 is... Alfred Rosenberg, the chief ideologue of the nazi party (in "The Myth of the 20th Century")
  • There were various factions within the Nazis, who were by all accounts great occultists, though generally preferring the more northing traditions (e.g. the Thule group). There was a "liberal" faction, which reputedly included a heavy amount of homosexual activity associated with (Roehm?) and the Brown Shirts. They were violently purged early on, but still have to be considered significant in understanding what Naziism was.

    I'm not going to tackle Euler, since it wasn't addressed to me, and I know little about the man anyway. Read Lyn, Read Euler. Make up your minds.
    Probably won't be back anytime soon, but who knows.
    As always - have fun,

06-07-2007, 08:00 PM

  • And in the last line, he says that this further investigation is in the realm of "physic" (physics). implying that it is a subject for empirical investigastion. This is what Lyn has always said, and this is what Riemann clearly says. "read it and weep" :-)
    YOUR Axioms shine brightly Physics as empirical work! That is highly laughable! The Reimanian Tensor which came directly out of the results of the Hypothesis which underlie geometry or the Habilitation dissertation of Bernhard Reimann in 1854 implicitly gets at how physics is wholly non empirical. This as well is the Work of Johannes Kepler who was to my understanding the First real Physicist.
    I am sure then these terms need defining are you ready?

06-07-2007, 08:04 PM
It was a very Ironical statement Reimann made at that time!


06-07-2007, 08:06 PM
"What he says here is that the curvature of space in the infinitely small is not necessarily linear (i.e. constant) and by my reading there is a clear implication that he thinks it will probably prove not to be constant in point of fact."

The term "linear" does not always - and usually doesn't - denote a constant. Whatever metric is applied always ends up as a linear expression or is compounded of linear expressions. There has been no escape, and all the racket one wishes to make will not make it happen.
I have no beef with the idea of empirical investigation into the nature of space. It's you guys who keep reinventing the wheel with your little toothpick constructions: get on with it already.
As to Truth guy: I'm glad you're doing the work - psychotherapy rarely succeeds without the patient so applying himself.


06-07-2007, 08:08 PM
What I meant to imply by "empirical" in that context is that Riemann is suggesting we must investigate the actual curvature of space as we find it - not attempt to assume it a priori a la Kant. It was always my understanding that this was how Lyn took Riemann on that point.
Best wishes,


06-07-2007, 08:10 PM
No doubt a fascinating barrage; Lyn remains a bellwether for us lesser mortals. But ex-Marxians with Marxian interpretations of the Constitution, demagogic qualities and avowed sympathies for murderous tyrants remain worrisome, to me at least. And observe that Steve, if that be his name, repeats the canard that the death camps were economic in character rather than racial. All this leads us into contemporary politics and Lyn's traditional, sustained anti-Israelism. I'm sorry but one has to call a spud a spud.


06-07-2007, 08:17 PM
Steve! Analysis Situs are you familiar!


06-07-2007, 08:22 PM
Odd One 2003: May I ask... Who gets to define the General Welfare? Any guesses? Lyn's basic premises remain collectivist and Marxist. In this philosophical tradition individuals are sacrificable to the Common Good.

  • Ah, a libertarian, perhaps?
  • Who gets to define the General Welfare is a political question and is dependent on the system of government that obtains. In a democratic republic, such as the U.S. aspires to be, this is supposed to be done by informed discussions among responsible citizens who communicate their views to their elected representatives. Clearly, in reality, there is much work yet to be done on this. But Lyn is off to a good start.
  • And it's important that ideas about what really is the General Welfare not be asserted as mere opinion. If you think an idea is really for the good of all, you should be able to back it up. As Lyn does.
  • And, interestingly, Lyn long ago resolved the paradox between individualism and collectivism by observing that although the well-being of the whole (i.e. organized society) is essential to the creation and nurturing of individuals, the sovereign creative individual is essential to the
    preservation and advancement of society.

06-07-2007, 08:22 PM
Because constant curvature is always changing so any general investigation will have to rely on a topological principle in combination with other principles at every instant.


06-07-2007, 08:34 PM
Look Principles like the general welfare have all been extensively documented.
It is when work is done understood to be a notion of natural law.
These Purely have their founding in the Sphaeric tradition of the ancient Egyptian. Plato elaborates on this in the republic as well but not to the thorough level as I have seen for the proof for proportion in the Egyptian works.


06-07-2007, 08:45 PM
Look Principles like the general welfare have all been extensively documented.
It is when work is done understood to be a notion of natural law.
These Purely have their founding in the Sphaeric tradition of the ancient Egyptian. Plato elaborates on this in the republic as well but not to the thorough level as I have seen for the proof for proportion in the Egyptian works.


06-07-2007, 08:45 PM
And observe that Steve, if that be his name, repeats the canard that the death camps were economic in character rather than racial.

  • Not sure why you call it a canard. Being economically motivated makes them no less evil. Nor does it deny the anti-semitism of Hitler and his regime. Economics provides the incentive to work people to death - racism determines who gets picked. Makes sense to me. (You can certainly see variations of the principle at work in today's United States.)
  • But I should emphasize, I claim no independent knowledge on this point. I'm accepting Lyn's views because I think he is a smart knowledgable guy who I would tend to look to as an authority. Your mileage may vary.
  • Would you say that the death camps were not work camps, or that people were not literally worked to death, or that this was not done to prop up Schact's debt structures? Unless you know for a fact that Lyn is making all that up, I'm puzzled why you find the idea offensive.
    Let me know,

06-07-2007, 09:23 PM
None have demonstrated an understanding of lyn beyond the superficial. All of you understand lyn to the level an infant fresh out the womb understands their ancestors.
For the reasons stated above. And simply re-stated here: The work that is necessary to reconstruct what lyn has outlined as political, economic, and universal physical principles, can not be addressed, albeit competently, unless a thorough re-working of aforementioned principles, and not a copy and paste fact finding hunt as what is going on in this forum, takes place!
All who comment on lyn here act as excavators of artifacts who are trying to re-construct and question the thinking of an individual by using the method of rigorously examining their fecal matter!
Good night!
Good Riddance!
Good Fight!


06-07-2007, 09:39 PM
The idea that the camps existed to "prop up Schact's debt structures" could only come from someone so steeped in Lyn's doctrines as to merit pity. In the words of Rudolf Hess: " National Socialism is applied biology." The Final Solution was not an intention to get marginal work value from Jewish labor. The goal of the visionaries of Nazism was for a purification of the human race and the elimination of inferior strains like the Gypsies, but especially the Jews. It would be charitable to state that Lyn has a decades-long history of misunderstanding this. His original Marxist indoctrination appears to have instilled in him something of the hostility towards Jews evinced by Marx himself. The organization's writings show a clear bias, for decades, against Israel's existence, with the occasional rhetorical sop of "we need a 2-state solution" thrown in. There is a sustained, protracted pattern of distorting regional history, a blame-Israel-first syndrome, a pattern of outright omission of key facts; of refusing to recognize the vile character of regional Islamic discourse regarding Israel and the Jews, the comparisons of Jews to pigs and apes, and a blatant denial of the massive fact of what can only be called a commonplace Muslim intention to utterly annihilate Israel. If you deny that these are existent facts then you are ignorant of key matters pertinent to our time. Lyn seems to believe these sentiments arose as part of an oligarchic plot when it is utterly clear that their source is the Koran itself and the other canonical works of Islam. Recently he stated that "Israel has to engage in a dialogue with the Palestinian people." Ha! If it is naivete it is forgivable, but coming from one as canny as Lyn I fear it is otherwise: I fear it can only be called collusion in the project of Israel's delegitimization and eventual destruction, which project is underway and accelerating. And don't tell me please that the oligarchy set up the religious combat; not unless you wish to claim that Mohammad was an agent of the Pre-Venetians.
(Message edited by charltonrom on June 08, 2007)


06-07-2007, 10:45 PM
Your assumption that you can determine the actual reason for an historic event, such as the Holocaust, by examining the views of a particular player, such as Hess, even assuming those views are honestly presented by that individual, which is in no way assured, is naive at best.
Look at a much closer and very well documented piece of history. Watergate. Why did that happen? Various actors in the event had their own views of what they thought they were trying to accomplish. Obfuscation abounded. If Nixon were to give his views on the matter, would those be definitive?
Or, the Iraq invasion. Was it to topple Saddam? Neutralize Iraqi WMD's? Destroy any of the remnants of the great civilization of the Caliphate which might still have existed in Baghdad libraries and museums? Neutralize Saddam's connection to Al-Queda? Liberate the Iraqi people? Destroy the U.S. by getting it bogged down in an interminable war? Make a grab for Iraqi oil? More than one of these?
Who are you going to ask - and how much could you believe their answer. Again lies and obfuscation abound.
The views of Hess are not useless, but they certainly are not definitive. They are one piece of a complex process. Why are you so certain that the imperative to pay off Schact's debt was not another piece - perhaps the definitive piece as Lyn contends.
As to the rest, if you are an Israeli partisan, in a narrowly conceived sense, you may well believe than anyone who shows sympathy for the Arab cause, or outrage at the crimes of Israel must be anti-semitic. I assure you, there are many in that category, including many Jews, and it is a viewpoint that reaches far beyond LaRouche.
I will never forget watching Nightline during some particular episode of Israeli agression (I forget which - It was years back.) and hearing an Israeli represnetative state that Israel was undertaking the "final solution" to the Palestianian problem. Can you imagine how chilling it was to hear such a formulation in that context? This was an Israeli spokesman using the most powerful historical code-word for genocide to describe Israeli policy toward the Palestinians. I didn't get this from Lyn. I sat in front of the TV and heard the man say it.
But, tell me, if you will, how Lyn's supposed attitudes on this score comport with his Oasis plan for the Middle East, or his support for the vision of David Ben Gurion. Read Lyn's remarks about particular Jews and you will find everything from his praise of Moses Mendelsohn (sp?) to his condemnation of the facist Jabotinski (sp?). This is not race hatred. This is politics.


06-08-2007, 01:27 AM
what a great effort to enlight us with "the Truth"... so maybe there is some hope for you, if you are a honest "truth-seeker".
To answer some of my addressed points:


06-08-2007, 03:50 AM
Shadok and Charltonrom have made the point, which I only intend to reinforce: The Nazi death camp system was not a slave-labor system. Who knows what Steve means by Schacht's debt structures??
It is demonstrably the case, often noted, that the death camps, and the materiel required to transport Jews to them, detracted from the Nazi war effort, but that when the conflict between the two was plain, Hitler chose to continue to "feed" the death camps at the expense of the war effort.
Maybe Hess's views aren't definitive, but presumably, Steve, you'll accept that Hitler's were?
It's just incompetent to claim that the Holocaust was an economic project and supported anyone's debt structures, whatever that may mean. Of course, by the time the Final Solution got into full swing, Schacht was out of the Nazi government and shortly to be in a concentration camp (NB concentration camp, not death camp) himself.
Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a Nazi slave-labor camp, a Nazi concentration camp, and a Nazi death camp, really should not engage in polemics on this matter. As Shadok said, this sort of thing is ridiculous.


06-08-2007, 04:11 AM
The masses rejected Lyn over and over and watched the TV shows to goof on them. If they did not goof on them they were terrified that a madman could buy TV time and claim to be a Democrat, while stating that Democracts are run by the KGB.
My tenure in the LC covered the many moods and delusions of Lyn and the LC over many years. How do you think I can look at every "New" directive and tell you the that it is a rerun of an earlier scheme? Right now the briefing is whooping it up over an all female "Power Squad for Lyn" who raised a $165 all day two days ago.
Forget the curvature of space as the only straight lines to be seen are the 4 edges of a card table shrine. The only thing to be measured is how much cash your "Power Squad for Lyn" raised that day.
timefor_truth, did you know that Lyn had such confidence on the masses electing him in the 1980 New Hampshire primary that we secretly borrowed a ton of money from a mob loan shark to give to some one who said that they could "fix" the primary for us? Did you know that each week we gathered $17,000 cash from various accounts to put into brown paper bags and fly them with a security staffer to make payments? No debt moratorium to the mob it seems.
Let us talk about something simple, like former NEC member CHris White. There are a few Campaigners on the web site about his brainwashing on the LYM web site. Can you tell us what you think of that?
I will go first. It was a hoax, done by Lyn to both whip the LC into a frenzy of lunacy as a cult and a way to show the guy who took his woman who the boss is.
Your turn.
SuperLyn has delusions far beyond those of mortal men truth.


06-08-2007, 05:31 AM
Timefor_truth and others:
you are ignoring the most important point: Lyn and others were involved in a criminal activity when they issued promissory notes without any intention to pay them, and they have lied about it calling themselves political prisoners.
Lyn has repeatedly LIED about his associates, called them fascists, beasts, idiots, British agents, youth haters - and, no, he does not have the right or a good reason to do that. Has he ever presented any proof that Fernando is a fascist or that Uwe F. mismanaged any money?
He has been abusing his own followers, and frankly, I cannot understand those Baby Boomers who are still in the org sitting through hours of briefings full of insults. At one of the seminars poor Freeman was compelled to make explanations about his sex life! I could not believe it!


06-08-2007, 05:34 AM
"Again lies and obfuscation abound." Just so. Steve seems like a sincere advocate but his hagiologies of Lyn have to be taken on head-on.
LaRouche's ideas are of such substantial importance that they trump any personal failings the man might have.

  • By their fruits shall ye know them. I think it's been well demonstrated here that Lyn is in essence a clever sharpie and demagogic aspirant. He is truly a volcano of utterances but the Machiavellian quality of his praxis is notable: the end justifies the means; say whatever it takes to "create change"--- slander, calumny, distortions, it matters not because the end goal is what's important. If my minions have to go without dentistry or rack up thousands in credit card debt and defraud their creditors, hey, sorry charlie; I and my NC's require first-class airfare; I am what's happening.
    I doubt he used the word reactionary (to describe Galileo)
  • "Cusa's and Kepler's method stands in sharp contrast to the inferior, hostile reactions of Galilean empiricism and Cartesian mechanism. These latter sought to undermine the progress in human knowledge gained by Cusa and Kepler, by disconnecting the changes measured in small intervals, from the universe as a whole. These reactionary efforts were dealt a further blow with Pierre de Fermat's elaboration of the principle of least-time."
    Bruce Director here, chief ideological lackey to Lyn. It seems to me that Lyn suffers from some form of deep paranoia. Not only did I see it in evidence at points during my work at our local; it appears Lyn actually believes that there was once some form of Pure Science, with a Pure Method, enunciated by one faction of the Greeks. This was evilly attacked by the wicked Aristotle. Later the Pure Method of Cusa and Kepler was evilly attacked by the reactionaries, such as Descartes, Galileo, and Newton, all stooges of the reigning oligarchy.
    All I can say to this is: it is nuts, paranoid, and ignorant. Human history has a developmental character. Kepler was probably more concerned to demonstrate the realities of his Trinity Sphere than anything else, to judge by the occurrence of this concept in his writings. Galileo's work, Kepler's work, Newton's work, even the putative villain Descartes, are inflection points in the development of European thought and science. The calculus arose from the convergence of a number of developments in mathematical technique, notation and problems. Kepler's Stereometria Doliorum was a key point in the road to the calculus. This has never been discussed as far as I can make out by Bruce. Furthermore the paradoxes and difficulties in interpreting Lyn's beloved infinitesimal were all known and agonized over for a century or more after the efforts of Newton and Leibniz. The derivative, integral and limit are the fundamental concepts of the calculus, which is nothing more than a conceptual and analytic tool to mathematically measure various forms and rates of change, a tool of ancient pedigree and history.

06-08-2007, 05:36 AM
There was never some Pure Method which was attacked, only to be recovered just in time by Lyn. This ideology does however allow Lyn to be presented as the effective reincarnation of all the spiritual giants and liberators of the past.
hearing an Israeli representative state that Israel was undertaking the "final solution" to the Palestianian problem.

  • If some Israeli said this it would be a sad thing, but since Israel and the Jews have in effect been under siege for a long time it wouldn't be completely surprising if an Israeli fell into a formulation like this. What Lyn's entire luminously, grandly baroque corpus and history reveal is an effective denial of Israel's legitimacy. In one of the '02 webcasts he had it that "Israel is a hand grenade, thrown in to the mideast to blow it up." The Oasis Plan is a great idea. Maybe Hamas and Ahmadinejad should look into it.
    (Message edited by charltonrom on June 08, 2007)

06-08-2007, 06:21 AM
Look all of your accusations are baseless there is no mode of proof! To get into this realm is stupid indeed. This type of communication is a form of brainwashing simply because it is baseless and it goes to extreme lengths in order to cause the inkling of doubt to be placed! It's the kernel of truth hoax! But to those who recognize something outside of themselves as existent can cut through this b.s! Go ahead ask me what I mean!
Every single X member here did not do any work from the start. Im talking about going to Lyn's basis and try and prove him wrong!
Im sure there was an initial fascination with him but that "honey moon" period can only last so long ! After some time it is necesary to buckle down and do some serious work. Whether it was Kheris or steve I knew them both and almost all including Tom, and they all had known lyn on a level of reading his literature and maybe going to read Noam Chompsky or Read inner elits, or read ugly truth about ADL, but none of them not one went through a fundamental process of understanding method of approach.
I have read your posts they are less than intelligible because it intends to defame!
Why did Norbert Brineen Stay with, Lyn, Why did Rosa Parks write a letter to Clinton to try and get him out of prison, why did Reagen do what he did with the SDI!
I know the lies, know the slanders, know what is being said. There is oh so much a fine line, because to discuss these things from this point is folly! Slanders dont need to be addressed as if their credible because their is no possible way to come to a conclusion. Just propound the [baseless] evidence.
All that is being done is getting one person to say they are an XLC er for life, have a pity party abut their mistreatment, have the group lean on his shoulder to show their condolences, and have passer by's whiteness the event, wonder what is going on, then useage of the same method of persuasion:
1. Give them MY "experience"
2. Have others chime into whether their experiences were similar
3. Draw others to lure into a trap.
Tell me why that is not brainwashing!
Enough said I will only entertain this to see if I make error!
Let all whitness As I make quick work of this Imbecile XLCR4 life!


06-08-2007, 07:24 AM
See this baseless info can not be proven sufficient. You have not demonstrated how Lyn is wrong!
I myself am involved in work that has not been done before in the movement history!
We are pouring over documents like the life and letters of Kepler that Lyn had nothing to do with, that demonstrate the fraud of Galileo and all these other empiricists!
We are going through translating extensive documents of Abraham Kaestner that is getting at the subversion in the circles of Euler, LA place, et all in their attacks on this way of thinking!
We the youth movement have translated authors you probably have never heard of that understood Kepler's eliptical orbits but threw away his method (as did that fraud Isaac Newton did at a later time) because they did not like it because they would have to transcend the empirical understanding!
This is no secret our work comes from primary sources and we are re-constructing this evidence and presenting it to students in Schools all across the nation.
Now you repeatedly things like:
"Bruce Director here, chief ideological lackey to Lyn. It seems to me that Lyn suffers from some form of deep paranoia. Not only did I see it in evidence at points during my work at our local; it appears Lyn actually believes that there was once some form of Pure Science, with a Pure Method, enunciated by one faction of the Greeks. This was evilly attacked by the wicked Aristotle. Later the Pure Method of Cusa and Kepler was evilly attacked by the reactionaries, such as Descartes, Galileo, and Newton, all stooges of the reigning oligarchy"
"All I can say to this is: it is nuts, paranoid, and ignorant."
It's baseless! There is no substantive demonstration of what you are saying!
We can read your words but there is not a work to demonstrate the opposite!
Reading is not enough one must recreate the discovery process!


06-08-2007, 07:27 AM
See this baseless info can not be proven sufficient. You have not demonstrated how Lyn is wrong!
I myself am involved in work that has not been done before in the movement history!
We are pouring over documents like the life and letters of Kepler that Lyn had nothing to do with, that demonstrate the fraud of Galileo and all these other empiricists!
We are going through translating extensive documents of Abraham Kaestner that is getting at the subversion in the circles of Euler, LA place, et all in their attacks on this way of thinking!
We the youth movement have translated authors you probably have never heard of that understood Kepler's eliptical orbits but threw away his method (as did that fraud Isaac Newton did at a later time) because they did not like it because they would have to transcend the empirical understanding!
This is no secret our work comes from primary sources and we are re-constructing this evidence and presenting it to students in Schools all across the nation. That is the key to recruitment! The students understand they have been spoonfed lies when they see the original documentation, and see how the universe really is!
Now you repeatedly write things like:
"Bruce Director here, chief ideological lackey to Lyn. It seems to me that Lyn suffers from some form of deep paranoia. Not only did I see it in evidence at points during my work at our local; it appears Lyn actually believes that there was once some form of Pure Science, with a Pure Method, enunciated by one faction of the Greeks. This was evilly attacked by the wicked Aristotle. Later the Pure Method of Cusa and Kepler was evilly attacked by the reactionaries, such as Descartes, Galileo, and Newton, all stooges of the reigning oligarchy"
"All I can say to this is: it is nuts, paranoid, and ignorant."
It's baseless! There is no substantive demonstration of what you are saying!
We can read your words but there is not a work to demonstrate the opposite!
Reading is not enough one must recreate the discovery process!


06-08-2007, 07:51 AM
I met quite a few people like Steve / Odd One when I was in the org. They were always good to talk to and seemed to have a better grasp than I of Lyns policies, philosophy etc… What's more, the "Steves" were not cultish and would apparently think for themselves. That may be why I joined in the first place and then stayed in the org as long as I did. What I was never able to swallow was the non-linearity of a late night discussion about Riemann, Cusa, Schiller etc and then getting up at 5:00 am to suck exhaust at an intersection with a nut job like "time for_ truth"
I didn't quit because of the bogus promissory notes or the "now you see it, now you don't" anti-Semitism. It was just the process of standing in front of a K-Mart, looking and all of the lit and wondering for which words on those pamphlets, books, newspapers am I standing there shivering. After peeling all the layers off of that onion and not finding anything, I basically folded up the card table and went home.


06-08-2007, 08:06 AM
Dont make yourselves look stupid I am almost done with these games!
None can stand upright in the light of these accusations!
The Naysayers cower because they have been exposed!
Pathetic! And you call yourselves adults! HA! Driveling pathetic ADULTS!
Your speaking of what You have limited to no Knowledge of will slowly become unraveled as I will ultimately make all who challenge me embarrassments of this network! I just only wish I were challenged in public so I could organize the potential lot of naysayers in public as well (I would of course use a different method of communication because the general public is usually open minded when the are approached in a certain way)!
Step forward all who think they have something of credence to utter!
One by one my fundamental principle will be affirmed and communicated to others to free their minds of the shackles of this pseudo hell of "truth"! That none of the intended minds here have done any of the work that would warrant 1/1000 of the things said here!
They only speak of personal experience that can not be demonstrated by anyone!Including themselves!
My visceral candor is a result of what I am dealing with here! Baseless B.S character assassination.
I wont shine the light by just writing words either!
I will show you all the WORKS that extensively document and refute the falsities you all have too quickly called your opinion, that is absent of timely meditation and devoid of meticulous rigor, to shame all into thinking, and away from asinine assertions!
So come naysayers! The young "brainwashed cultist" is about to make work of ye all!


06-08-2007, 08:26 AM
Well dave77 I am 130 percent sure if the time you were there you had went through a process of discovery you would still be in the movement.
I know I would have left as well if I were in your shoes.
But the mission requires that we really tap into the same stream of events that created this great republic, that created all the breakthroughs that allowed 6 billion Plus individuals to live on this earth! That allowed Men Like Martin Luthor king to lay his life for a cause outside of himself!
I am hardly a nut job! But every single one of these posters are, and I want you to lay whitness to all of their arguments crumble!
Invite others to see this because this filth has been going on unanswered for a time!
The southern racists attack king to this day! I fight back against that with an everyday example.
This lot of defamers have said and posted all sorts of ridiculous things and now refuse to respond!
I stand to really be a discontinuity in that process!
So once again forgive the brazen approach. I only mean to make intellectual mincemeat out of these types that have no intention for truth, but have an intention of a sinister nature!


06-08-2007, 08:55 AM
Truth guy illustrates well why I term the LYM Visigoths. LaRouche has no method except to imply that whatever he says is true based upon some gnostic "method" which he cons others into thinking they are using when they make declarations, rather than offer arguments. It's interesting to note that Truth guy demands "proof" of LaRouche's critics, but in response to our demand for proof he alludes only to the mysterious fruits of his "hard work" (at a rock quarry?)
For me, even when I was a LaRouche cultist, I think if someone had shown me how Lyn had plagiarized Alfred Rosenberg of all people, I would have had the good sense to open my eyes. But maybe not, given that I was nearly as crazed as Truth guy.
Truth guy, so long as you make ad hominem attacks, may I suggest that you ask your psychopharmacologist to increase the dosage?


06-08-2007, 09:51 AM
You are very defensive, what s your problem? Feel threatened in your convictions? It is so typical of a larouchie... the discussion will always end up in insults etc. I thought you were supposed to be... socratic? Read Plato and try to be inspired by how Socrates was dealing with arguments opposed to his.
By the way, your fundamental epistemological error is that you oppose noumenes to phe-noumenes. The so-called "real universe" (noumenes) is not "invisible", it s us who are blind. This applies not only to "ideas" (aka "real universe/ noumenes") but also to our senses (the so-called "unreal universe"). Some people are really blind, they cannot see with their eyes. Same with ideas. You re wrong to oppose them. But that dualism is the very kernel of larouche mindset. Larouche is a dualist, it transcends everything.


06-08-2007, 10:01 AM
I have given you a citation!
Regardless of whether you were a member or not does not bear fruit on the weight you have levied on your shoulders!
Once again do not just cherry pick what to lob address the position that Kepler was not the 1st physicist, that Kepler communicated with Galileo Galilei that the copernican theory of the sun in the center was the case. Galileo stole this simple idea and the correspondence is completely written out of history classes across the world! There are plenty other Damning revelations that will become more evident as more lies file out of your mouth onto this post as gallons and gallons of putrid feces filie out of any Metropolitan sewer in America!
And so goes popular opinion Folks!
No shred of evidence for any of the baseless accusations you state about Larouche though!
Where is the evidence for:
"LaRouche has no method except to imply that whatever he says is true based upon some gnostic "method" which he cons others into thinking they are using when they make declarations, rather than offer arguments."
I see no documentation. I thought maybe there would be someone here who supposedly "came from the movement" that could show me some evidence as to why what they say what they say is true!
Call me crazed then throw an ad hominem attack seems to be the common recipe here anything original here?
Cause Sancho's a bread fed joke!
Anyone please show me how I am wrong with Kepler or Larouche's method which I am somewhat familiar with?
Why doth the crickets chirp so?


06-08-2007, 10:22 AM
If you can refrain from scatology (an apparent hobby of yours), please explain clearly to us what this so-called method of LaRouche is. Every educated scientist is well aware of discontinuities, and how the laws pertaining to one domain don't pass over a discontinuity into the next; some see this as a metaphor for the creative process. We know all this.
CLEARLY explain what is DISTINCTIVE about LaRouche's method.


06-08-2007, 10:29 AM
I have a theory that timefor_truth is kidding, that all his posts are actually deeply ironic and constitute a devastating and hilarious ritique of LaRouche's method.
But if I'm wrong, timefor_truth, I know you'll shriek it from the rooftops. If I'm wrong, would you simply lay out for us the application of the insights of Riemannian physics to economic processes?


06-08-2007, 10:33 AM
Ok Shadok is the closest to a competent reply!
But he makes an error of lyn.
He could not be further from a dualist!
Once again I dont want you to take my words go and read the Acta Euriditurum 1686 to the early 1700's From Benjamin Franklin Book Publishers.
Lyndon Larouche had done work on the Catenary Tractrix which implicitly demonstrated the folly of dualist's.
That paper is very crucial because when Leibniz was embroiled in heavy fights with the dualist's they had tried to attack his method of approach which founded the calculus, based on the dualist philosophy. Leibniz as Larouche, see what the dualist's see as separate to be unified. Except the cognitive powers of man reign superior than any empirically adduced phenomenon.Why? well once mankind can understand the generative force behind that empirically adduced phenomenon they can controll that phenomena to increase how the can act in the realm of reality!
To the dualist's Dismay Descarte contributions are not really considered in a light that will cause an axiomatic inflection point today, but Leibniz's are implicitly apart of the methodology of Bernhard Reimann (who outlines the vernacular for Larouche's discovery) and Larouche's. If you want to find out how I reached this position please ask?
Other than that what else do you have as a qualm?


06-08-2007, 10:51 AM
You do the same thing Lyn does: throw names around without clearly stating what is distinctive about this "method." So you still have not answered my request for a CLEAR explanation of what makes LaRouche's "method" distinctive.
Your English is worse even than Lyn's as well: I guess that's a criterion of being "creative," to be a semiliterate. But I'll bite:
How did you reach "this position"? First of all: what position?
"... that will cause an axiomatic inflection point today, but Leibniz's are implicitly apart of the methodology of Bernhard Reimann (who outlines the vernacular for Larouche's discovery) and Larouche's."
makes absolutely no sense at all. What exactly is "an axiomatic inflection point"? What does it mean to say that Riemann (the correct spelling) "outlines the vernacular for LaRouche's discovery"? What is "LaRouche's discovery"? Please enlighten us CLEARLY on all these points, preferably without the use of proper nouns.


06-08-2007, 11:09 AM
you re unfamiliar with lyn's logic, which comes from his study of Hegel's "Science of Logic" and the Hegelian logical knot called "negation of negation".
True, Larouche is an "anti-dualist."
So much so that in his mindset there are two warring irreconcilable factions: the "dualists" (ie "negation", Aristotle) and the "anti-dualists" (ie "negation of negation", Plato).
Lyn always defined "Good" as "anti-Evil", never as "Good in itself". If "Good" doesn't oppose "Evil", if "Good" is not defined as "Anti-Evil", then it is not.
The problem obviously is that you re still framed into the same hegelian logical knot: dualism v. anti-dualism = dualism.


06-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Im not stupid! You do the work for the the Reimann!
Lyn's specific contributions will be mastered by this movement before any invalid online poster gets it!
We will fundamentally advance before any one else!Because we devote ourselves to the truth!
If you have any questions though concerning the work needed to master that here it is:
Start with Plato (a good translation not the horrendous ones I recommend Carey's translations) and the Phythagoreans
Then head to Cusa on the quadrature of the circle as well as De docta ignorantia.
Kepler in his Mysterium Cosmagraphicum, New Astronomy, world Harmonies and Gauss elliptical Functions and complex domain, Reimann, then Larouche.
I have pointed to the work instead of my words, in the future if you want to outflank us do the Dang work!
That is why such vicious attacks are levied at lyn. But dont worry his legacy will be upheld by our fundamental contributions to science that will rock the world when all these scientists that you talk of had all the time to flesh out the implications Of the Hypotheses which underlie Geometry!
And Young Kids who unlike the Boomers want to learn and hunger for truth (not all boomers of course) out did them with a revolution in thinking. And breakthroughs in all area of economics, military breakthrough, and the (area which serves our method of science) Empiricism!
I wonder if you get it now?
A discontinuous point of inflection!


06-08-2007, 11:32 AM
Very funny.


06-08-2007, 11:56 AM
Merely semantics shadok!
This reason is what I state would cohere with the implications of an anti-evil negatively entropic universe. That is my barometer.
But your stance does call for an elementary mathematical demonstration so Maybe you can enlighten me with a geometric one instead?
For my good friend Sanchez or sanco or whatever, I am posing something outside of the words on the screen! I am saying If I tell you the method of approach it is no diferent than what your professor does in school!
Pose the question that ascends to knowledge not one of mere understanding! Here is why?
After I write something or type, more useless semantics, we will just argue the point again and again.
You all are either operations or genuinely misguided individuals here.
Because of the honesty of the question and the dramatic shift in what you have communicated I will rweveal the path to understanding!
Give a man a fish or teach a man to fish!
Give a man the method or teach the man the method!
But these things can not be explained deductively! This is the folly of all of the LYMMERS who have come into this domain!
Shame on them!
But my heart does go out too them as well! As humans they have been through a lot!
May God guide them through his son!
So if you still ask for method I will give you transcendent speak what you all so readilly condemn Lyn for because that is the only way these ideas can be communicated.
If you are ready address me specifically what you want answered, and if it concerns method, then it will be communicated transcendently!


06-08-2007, 12:04 PM
hahaha ... brilliant


06-08-2007, 12:37 PM
Greetings All,
After "observing" for months, I have decided to enter into the fray.
As a thirty-year veteran of LL-related madness, I have much to say, although I will attempt to do it with some economy of words.
I have studied LaRouche's so-called scientific "work" and have concluded that he is a fraud of the highest order.
The carrying capacity of animals is fixed, whereas humans can use their minds to make improvements in their standard of living.
Surely LaRouche didn't discover this? What then, is his crucial contribution? Did he write the algorithm that generates mind-numbing prose. Consider the following ratio:
The number of times LaRouche writes/speaks of "discoveries of universal physical principles" divided by the number of universal physical principles he actually mentions and/or discusses and/or explains.
What is the above ratio, and what is its "rate of growth"?


06-08-2007, 12:52 PM
Yes! A reductionist Can We tango? Discontinuously?!
Calculate how many posts I will disassemble your argument from that!
Non-axiomatically and non deductively as well!
Your method will allow me to run circles around you. Because of your choice of arms!
I will forwarn you if I sense a hostile intention I will pull out more stops!
Please call many to watch the unraveling!
Now your ridiculous ratio what is it good sir I presume?


06-08-2007, 12:57 PM
Well, trying to digest this is very interesting. First we had odd-one-2003 actually repeating the LaRouche line minimizing the insidious destructive nature of Nazism and the camps. By removing the racialist nature of the Nazis (as opposed for instance to Mussolini and other fascists), we can thereby make the ludicrous claim that any banker (especially Jewish banker) who advocates austerity policies (i.e. Schactian economics) is a Nazi. LaRouche's tagline should be You don't have to be Jewish to be a Nazi." And I was around the organization when Jewish members were encouraged to make anti-Semitic jokes like the Shake - N- Bake Joke and the Ashtray Joke (these were favorites in security in the 70s and 80s.
And then we have the idea of the general welfare. Yes, the phrase is in the Constitution, and the idea that the government is more than the Hobbseian world view of "each against all." And certainly people like Franklin, who built the postal system and advocated for roads, bridges, dams, etc. knew that the gov't needed to assist the development of infrastructure, etc. The problem is that Lyn totally distrusts institutions governed by the "mob" which is why he so hates people like Jefferson and the other early Republicans who helped insure that the Bill of Rights was placed into the Constitution, something we can be very grateful for today. Lyn is certainly a proponent of top down gov't, as Hamilton advocated but didn't get totally what he wanted, or the Stalinist form today.
And as to reading source materials, having read the litany of prescribed authors on the approved list, from Plato and Aristotle, St. Augustine, having done original research on Erasmus and More, Hegel, Kant, (first good then very bad according to LaROuche) Liebniz, Spinoza (who went from good to bad in the LaRouche hagiography); and many others. The point is that one can look at these thinkers and argue that some are non-linear thinkers and others are linear axiomatic Ptolemaic thinkers, and there may even be some reality, but going from recognizing that these are people who were all engaged in some ongoing conspiracy (like the Knights of Malta against the Knights Templar, etc. Rather these can be seen as strains of different philosophical currents jockeying for position without one side being the apotheosis of good vs. the other being the epitome of evil.
As for Time for Truth who is asserting all the intellectual groundbreaking work going on in LYM, I would like to know what they are. Have they manufactured cold fusion? Are they designing new maglev train systems? What intellectual breakthroughs are we talking about, and have they been picked up in the scientific or mathematical community at large, being peer-reviewed, etc. The only thing close to such a real world experiment I can recall was the 244A vs 256 C pitch issue which for awhile attracted some interest in music circles. Fact was, I have it on good authority that that campaign originated with members who did the music work and then of course Lyn picks it up and fashions it as his contribution, like so many other things.
But please show me your latest inventions, or discoveries, and please tell me what journals they have been published in. Or perhaps we're simply discussing intellectual masturbation, otherwise known as a circle jerk.


06-08-2007, 01:47 PM
ok timefor_truth
to answer to your comment ("mere semantics"...) This is not mere semantics, THIS IS larouche's method, not mine! (and obviously the paradox I put in front of you seems beyond your reach)
Lar's method is based on formal logic which he learned from Hegel and B Russel (+ his so called "hereditary principle") That s what lyn means when he talks about "dialectics". It is Hegelian dialectics, nothing to do with Socrates' (which requires a minimum of dialog, not very larouchian)
In fact, i do not understand your point here. What are you trying to do? To convince ex members? Even your God eventually failed. Or maybe you re trying to "supersede larouche"?
Here is what you just said:
Ok thats VERY interesting and I hope you re not the only lunatic in the LYM of that sort who believes that. Because this will seal the LYM's fate just like Mao's Youth Movement (otherwise called Red Guards) Both the Red Guards and the LYM were created for the same tactical reasons (struggle for power of a senile mad dictator), and the LYM will end the same way: to be called off for the same reasons Mao put a halt to the Red Guards: their zeal was getting out of control. (funny you just quoted chairman Mao...)
Soon you will discover what larouche means by monotheism: there is only one God, and that s him.
So, please if you dare, try to "supersede larouche", just try...
This will be your "crucial experiment"...


06-08-2007, 01:49 PM
Borisbad you tire me!
Where is my reductionist rondevu?
I was looking toward more interesting exchanges with him! Ahh oh well need to be going soon this was very fun and insightful!
I hope you all figure the truth out! For your sakes see all these negative posts you see posted everywhere as paradoxes and ascend to the truth not second hand opinion.
It's a pretty difficult concept to figure out actually and hope you all endeavor in it.
So borisbad I hate boar as well!
Do you understand that these thinkers in their implicit method of approach (all those philosophers you quoted from what seems to be a "Great books" archive) could enslave entire societies?
First off how do you keep slaves slaves by keeping them in camps or farms, or by subversion of their mind?


06-08-2007, 02:12 PM
Shadok are you trying to pull weight with your friends here in this post!?
Dont want to be seen as out done by a cultish youth!?
My good friend the hereditary principle how is it linear let us see if you even know what you are talking about?! WHAT IS THE HEREDITARY PRINCIPLE AND HOW IS IT LINEAR! (You must think Im stupid or bluffing!)
Entertain me monkey dance!
(you brought that upon yourself with implicit attacks that are unfounded)


06-08-2007, 02:13 PM
LaRouche's method?
Here it is, explained for the children.
LaRouche does NOT use language to communicate ideas; he has NO original ideas -- none.
LaRouche uses a simple "trick" to capture the ignorant. Here is how it works:
Choose a subject that few people know about, at least not in any detail. Talk about it using lots of big words; refer to dozens of historical figures, some well known, others obscure. Act like you know what you are talking about. Make it look "fancy".
Some people will react as follows: This guy is full of <font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font><font color="ff0000">•</font> because I cannot understand a word he is saying. If he actually knew something, he could explain it well.
Others will react as follows: "I can't understand what he is talking about (it is over my head). THEREFORE he must really know what he is talking about."
Amazingly, because of school, etc., few people have any true intellectual confidence and fall prey to the con. LaRouche has mastered this trick, but he did not invent it. It is dishonest beyond measure.
Sometimes LaRouche (or his minions) will actually make some sense (they have to, once in a while). But LaRouche is the ultimate intellectual imperialist -- he steals ideas/concepts from others and pawns them off as his own.
This works on uneducated people.


06-08-2007, 02:20 PM
Oh and does someone know where Kheris is at I need to "Greet" old acquaintances!


06-08-2007, 02:32 PM
Borisbad wrote:
"The only thing close to such a real world experiment I can recall was the 244A vs 256 C pitch issue which for awhile attracted some interest in music circles. Fact was, I have it on good authority that that campaign originated with members who did the music work and then of course Lyn picks it up and fashions it as his contribution, like so many other things."
Many of your posts make sense, Borisbad, but this is nonsense. The c=256 experiments are pure fraud, pawned off on people who are ignorant and/or inexperienced.
Indeed, claims surrounding this issue are a perfect example of what I described in my previous posts.
Experiments?! Please describe them, and the results -- I am all ears.


06-08-2007, 02:41 PM
Earnest oh Earnest where for art thou your earnestness!

You are'nt being very Earnest now are you I have given you proof throughout this post for all to see!
Im besting you! Am I?
Well here is a suggestion to be more Earnest:


06-08-2007, 03:16 PM
I suggest that Truth Timee is a plant from the Enemy Oligarchee. No one could possibly write (and therefore think) as horribly as that unless it were on purpose. I propose that the Oligarchee has her/him/it posting here to try to display the badness for one's mind of being in the LYM. All that brilliant original work... Wow. Just keep it coming baby, no better proof exists on the planet!!


06-08-2007, 03:19 PM
Earnest! Earnest!
Have you done the work in the harmonies Earnest!
I'll be leaving soon since there are no REAL contentions.
What is a real contention well kind of like the now disappeared Shadok had with his concept of Hereditary principle! Where are you SHADOK!
Trying to Google it I would know how to crack through that don't do it!
Shadak don't do it!
Save your dignity and say you don't know what it means!
A real contention finally would be something that an individual did work on and the contention is based on the work they did as contradicting the original author who existed years before lyn.
Lastly when You have (what you all like to call) A Larouchie who is well versed in Method and the work, Just shut up cause they will expose a whole bunch of siht that you would not want known.
Like how much most of you really know!
Stop getting spoonfed, as this exchange prooves, and go do your own research on something that you could actually prove Larouche wrong with.
Instead of what most of you like to post (there are some genuine people on this post which is a revelation I did not expect to find) which is baseless accusations that no one, even yourselves could prove!
Like Larouche is a [insert here] [insert optional invective here] Anti-Semite!
It was amusing!
Say what you must to redeem your dignity (all who were involved) when I leave you are now free to promote baseless accusations, or change.
To God
or A Dios!


06-08-2007, 03:43 PM
Why doth the crickets chirp so?"

Most of us have jobs and children and real things to work on. All I ask is can you comment on Chris White and the whole brainwashing hoax done on the LC by Lyn?
This aint no myth, you have Campaigner PDFs on the LYM web site.
We have nothing to prove since we are not in a cult. In a cult of personality whatever you think is yours is really Lyns. That is how he wants it and that is why his biggest tactical advantage over you is that he knows you are in a cult, but you don't.
Is that dualism? I must have slept throught those classes.
We give people LC history lessons. This ain't rocket science. If you really know Lyn , than you must really know where several thousands of dollars go each month have gone for decades to fictitious people and scam artists.
THOSE people know Lyn better than anyone else on the planet which is why you are broke, living 8 to a room , sucking in exhaust fumes and thinking that you are unique.
Read the last two days briefings about "Power Squads". This is from the 1970s when we started to ramp up field depoloyments. We sent our best street fundraisers to different cities and called the "Flying Squads". Next we upped the telephone income by setting up Power squads who met with the contacts in trying to get more money from them.
This evolved into "Specials" teams who then were sent out to get money in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars for Lyn. So what ever you say here about original readings and Lyns mumbo jumbo does not mean squat because we know where you will be ending up. Your hoping for a desk instead of a card table shrine. That desk may be connected to a phone for a nice 16 hour shift to raise money to save the world from same enemies with different names.
Instead of shale oil slavery Lyn will give you bio fuel horrors. Instead of Jimmy Carter being a 100 times worse than Hitler he gives you Al Gore as a 100 times worse than Hitler.
To me, the LYM is like people from years ago who went out to test ride Yugos. If you never drove a real car, then a YUGO seemed Ok at the dealer who told you everything you wanted to hear. Once you bought it, it was too late. Anyone who does a search for "larouche + cult" gets this site and they can see the cult of personality in real time.
If Chris White is too much from the past, any thoughts about leader Dino De Paoli?


06-08-2007, 03:50 PM
mmmm gettin nervous? already tired? u re now calling me "monkey"?
What s interesting is not what you re answering but the questions you avoid to answer. I think you begin to integrate larouche's dialectical method... ie to change the subject!
or escape our arguments with some dignity
But for your information, here s what your god wrote about the "hereditary principle" (I dont need to google it and I know what lar means):
"Any prevailing body of ideas about man and the universe, most clearly and simply mathematical science, can be interpreted as a logical latticework defined everywhere by some "hereditary principle." This principle may be either of the syllogistic or constructive species. In the case of a syllogistic lattice-work, all theorems have embedded in them reflections of the axioms and postulates upon which the elaboration of the lattice-work is premised." ("On The Subject of B.G. Tilak's Thesis" - 1984)
It is also found in B Russell's "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" but it is limited to ... natural numbers!
In any cases, both are aristotelean in essence.
The "hereditary principle" is a wonderful magic wand larouche uses any time any where he needs to label somebody or something of... whatever he needs to. When asked why, his answer will be, "thats because of the "hereditary principle"!"


06-08-2007, 05:26 PM
New notion: the LaRouche Zinger. Another such catch-all, ad hoc Zinger is the "fallacy of composition." Lyn used to trot this one out pretty frequently and some of the senior members learned how to parrot the utterance. Since as we are gently reminded by the acolytes Lyn is beyond Aristotelian logic one wonders why logical fallacies are referenced. Oh well, I guess it's just more proof of his genius, that he can refer to fallacies but doesn't have to define them or abide by ordinary reasoning himself. "You're engaging in a fallacy of composition!" I used to hear. It seemed to be the only fallacy Lyn had heard of so he liked to trot it out I guess to impress some folks. Glaring fallacies in his own writings and assertions, e.g., that when the Kursk sub went down it proved that the oligarchy were provoking the Russians, are OK. Any sort of reasoning or thought patterns that Lyn disapproves of can thus be readily depotentiated, with aid of the aforementioned Zinger.


06-08-2007, 06:08 PM
Earnest One really hits the nail on the head. I believe that the final key to decoding Lyn's contemporary ideology, which I admit is a fantastically elaborated structure, is the concept of the Universal Physical Principle. As Earnest One put it:
"The number of times LaRouche writes/speaks of "discoveries of universal physical principles" divided by the number of universal physical principles he actually mentions and/or discusses and/or explains."
The only Universal Physical Principle Lyn ever mentions is gravity. He once made mention of a "roster of universal physical principles," but this was never elaborated. The Least Time idea is mentioned some.
What this is, is a rather massively developed pseudoscience. Lyn says some beautiful things; that's why so many are drawn to him. His insistence on man vs ape and the attempt to descry and promote a politics thereof, is interesting. I used to think that there would be a noetic revolution based on this that would maybe sweep the world and usher in a new age of human physical progress.
If such a thing could happen, it won't be based on the U.P.P ideology. What that does, is reinforce Lyn's romanticism, of Original Discovery, and especially of HIS original discovery; all true science is "original discovery," referenced back to the standard of Lyn's epochal 1948-52 "original discovery" rebutting the cyberneticists. And so on. Self-serving propaganda with absurd corollaries, like the facile condemnations and calumnifications.
You can't fault the guy for indolence. I couldn't put any real trust in him but I have to say there are SOME positive elements to his work, despite the cultlike aspects. Maybe it's the SPIRIT of discovery, of Man the Seeker that he wishes to enshrine and promote. But a new Humanism (if it can be constructed at all)is going to require a lot more work, and richer, truer doctrine than the fodder currently being fed to the LYM.


06-08-2007, 06:40 PM
As inspiring as the notion of homo quaerens or homo faber is to me as well, several considerations come to mind:
(1) in every field right at this moment there are oodles of creative people doing groundbreaking work, for example in biological sciences - they do not need an uneducated cheerleader like LaRouche to inspire them as they are too busy actually making creative discoveries - but the organization belittles all of this activity because people are not being creative the LaRouche way, LaRouche being a guy who never had an original idea in his life apart from slapping incongruous elements together in a hideous collage;
(2) if "being creative" were to become the dominant ethos of a society, I fear the marginalization of many who for whatever reason are at a given moment incapable of generating or even appreciating creative works thereby introducing the notion that some are more "human" than others;
(3) my own humble opinion is that we should promote the Decalogue and Beatitudes - but good conduct and poverty of spirit would not do for a criminal cult such as the LaRouche organization. Although I strive to discover or create new things in several fields, I derive much greater satisfaction in trying - and daily failing in some area or other - to be a good man. This is one way in which we are made in God's image: to love what is good and true. The ability to create something new is just one among many of God's additional blessings, but in the end it is not what makes us uniquely human. It is the agon of the spirit against the flesh that defines us.
Just my two cents on the matter.
P.S. I'm waiting for someone to clearly state what LaRouche's "fundamental discovery" was. Please enlighten me.


06-08-2007, 07:20 PM
@ time_for_truth
Oh and does someone know where Kheris is at I need to "Greet" old acquaintances!
So 'greet' me then.


06-08-2007, 08:00 PM
I'm telling you, folks--Timefor truth is a satirist, brilliantly skewering the LaRoucheans by imitating them so deftly--yet with that hilarious, high-spirited high-jinks difference that tells you this is no real LYMer--too funny.
(Message edited by eaglebeak on June 08, 2007)


06-08-2007, 08:01 PM
for time for truth I'll give you a very LaRouchean concept. When you live in a controlled environment then everything is like the proverbial goldfish bowl, or watching the shadows on the cave and imagining it reality. That's the world the LYMers live in. But when I hear the tone of voice, I can imagine how the LYMers are used by Lyn to terrorize the so-called baby boomers and dead enders who are being shuffled aside by the new "prometheans" directly fashioned by Lyn and with no independent thought ability other than what Lyn pushes on them. The difference with the Baby Boomers so called is many of them came out of other political organizations or had some kind of life experience that sometimes caused them to experience the "cognitive dissonance" between what Lyn instills and what they might have uncovered by actually studying those like Marx, Lenin, Hegel, Fueurbach, Luxemburg and others that Lyn initially claimed to have absorbed and transcended. I can imagine the tone of voice that time for truth utters, backed by a shrieking NC'er like Harley or Larry or Debby or Dennis, to cow the half-hearted or burnt out members who lived with LaRouche's lies and delusions for twenty or thirty years and have absolutely nothing to show for it, unless they're lucky enough to have social security. But of course, since the crash is imminent (as if we weren't hearing that since 1972), we don't have to worry about things like saving or preparing for the future since we have to Live for LaRouche or Die for (Rockefeller, Rohatyn, George Schultz, the Queen of England, the Synarchists, or whomever).
It's like the believers in the 9/11 Truth Commission. Gather a few facts that seem to point to a dramatic conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans (especially point to the Jews or the Zionists to get the Arab money behind you). Then show how the mass media is blacking out the truth on 9/11, which only Lyn and some other internet conspiracy buffs seem to have uncovered, and you have shown how you are in on the secrets known only to the inner elite. Time for Truth seems much more the person who can be a committed shock trooper for Lyn than odd_one who seems to see everything as more like a clever intellectual exercise. But we'll see a year from now what happens (if the world survives that long without LaRouche in power).


06-08-2007, 08:09 PM
Hardly good friend


06-08-2007, 08:26 PM
Ahh my good friend Kheris we meet again!
My heart!
People I am a larouchie! I know too much about her! She will testify!
Let the games begin I will demonstrate one crucial the validation of universal principles are all ready?
But first Kheris what occupies your time now that you have left the "brainwashing" cult?
You all are still stuck in the insult without proof stage!
Tiresome indeed!
I do like the compliments in only the context as the dimensionality and uniqueness of diffrent members are being contrasted!
But I am not being pompass for the sake of being such I am merely demonstrating a point!
This is where you come in Kheris!
But now a wonderful exchange should be taking place before I go into the non-axiomatic demonstration of universal principles!
Timefor truth to once again rise to the surface!


06-08-2007, 08:45 PM
Have you left already sweet kheris?


06-08-2007, 08:55 PM
Ahh my good friend Kheris we meet again!
I don't believe I know you.
My heart!
People I am a larouchie! I know too much about her! She will testify!
But first Kheris what occupies your time now that you have left the "brainwashing" cult?
Whatever are you nattering about? I wasn't in "the brainwashing" cult. But since you claim firsthand knowledge of the state of the LYM, perhaps you can tell us how much Beltran gets paid to put on the workshops. We have read earlier that funding for the voice and drama lessons for the LYM ( is a fairly high priority. Since Beltran declared himself a Larouchie I assumed he was working for free, or a pittance, as his contribution to the org's health and welfare.


06-08-2007, 09:33 PM
Right when I arrive the party is over!
Ah oh well I will come back tomorrow for you kheris!
I must know ever since you left I wondered why?
How is Aaron doing?
Is he here in this abominable environ as well?
Tomorrow will be the last day I am ever here! So if you have some questions (this is of course directed to the peanut gallery) please congeal them like shadok (except with out the COPY and PASTE tactics shadok employed as I distinctly warned will not work with me earlier in the post) and I will address them accordingly.
The question of Universal physical principles is the single most important question I have encountered here, and I will address it non-axiomatically and leave you all works for which you can do your own investigation!
I truly intend on giving you a (mathematical zero) inkling of understanding of the beauty of Larouche's method!
It is a necesary fundamental something alas Kheris or any X member here understood outside of the words Lyn wrote, and this is because they did not explore where Lyn had gotten this idea because Plato knew it as well!
I could still go tonight If she comes but if she does not I will wait until tommorrow!
I will not supply the end all be all for this concept! After the work is done full understanding and knowledge will be yours!
So get your questions ready and tommorrow dont say anything ANYTHING that you cant back up with:
2.An understanding where the method comes from
3.Why the particular instance you are citing is in the context of whatever it is in, as well as how the context fits the author from which you procured the information from.
For those idiots that still make baseless "personal experience" attacks on Lyn I only ask that you not comment on what Lyn says but why he says what he does with proof. I hope that is Layman enough!
Now we lie in wait!


06-08-2007, 09:42 PM
Oh well that changes everything indeed!
Ask me something of more credence that question is one I dont think will aid beltran who is doing good work here lyn personally put beltran in this position because of beltran's particular capability and connection to the classical method.
That is all that needs espousing... wait how do you know of Harley Schlanger and what was he insulting you about a post that you had talked about so long ago in old posts, or am I mistaken?
If I am it is to no avail!


06-08-2007, 10:05 PM
I have a simple, straightforward request:
Please list twelve (12) "Universal Physical Principles" along with a short description of their history. Please include:
1. date(s) of discovery
2. name of discoverer(s)
3. importance for the development of humankind (technological spinoffs, conceptual impact, etc)
4. book, journal, and/or web site references
I would like to learn something, truly, about this most important area.
Earnest One


06-08-2007, 10:40 PM
Too much indeed Earnest!
I dont intend on writing your dissertation full with source documentation as well!
My good friend I will define the field of activity because to express a beautiful object of the soul in such terms as presented would be tantamount to calling Larouche God!
You dont want me to commit Blaspheme do you!


06-08-2007, 11:47 PM
klerus: timefortruth singled you out in posting to another, long since not posted-to thread:
They then make further folly with trying to DEDUCTIVELY explain away their REASONING! The example of Kheris is far too appalling! She asserts what she asserts with relative ease of words. She truly has some issues to grapple with. Her claims along with all who negatively attack Larouche have no real intention to find out the truth or they would have asked Lyn themselves
I have an internal debate about time-for-truth's level of self-awareness. He does know that his purple prose makes him a buffoon, right? On one hand, he carries on with this "FLEA BEFORE ME, MERE MORTALS!". On the other hand, he pre-emptively shouts the "Not brainwashed. Nope. Not me" as well that statement that in other situations, he communicates differently.
Either eaglebreak is right, or he is the final product of Larouche's schooling / programming. Apparently some ex-Larouchites see their former selves in him, and that passage I stuck up from Ruth Williams approaches where time-for-truth is.
Okay, Time for Truth. Here's a basic problem with Larouche. He sees everything as a game. You, who are a reflection of Larouche's ego, do so too. Or so you give away with
Good night!
Good Riddance!
Good Fight!
When I posted a series of posts on the history of Larouche, based basically on mainstream news features from the past four decades with a smattering of material from Larouche, Dianne Bettag left a comment where she apparently thought she had successfully "check-mated" me. Her comment ended with "Good Game!"
It is a game for Larouche. Everything. His political and philosophical underpinnings -- a Mad Libs puzzle. The Doubling of the Cubes -- moving it into the realm of the metaphysical just as awkwardly as new agers like to move String Theory into their spiritual and metaphysical realm, to the chagrin of theoretical physicists.
You believe that the reason there are ex-members are because of some intellectual sloth when confronted with the genius of Larouche. They weren't TOUGH enough to handle this rigorous intellectual regime. No. I think they left because they realized they were wasting their time playing games.
You have already rejected out of hand any and all personal testimonies and accounts of experiences. Convenient. Nonetheless, eaglebeak said it as:
Speaking of discussion, here's a test to try with LaRouche, LYMers: Copy down verbatim something he said a week ago or a month ago, and then insert it into a LYM cadre school "dialogue" with LHL. Say, "I was just thinking about X, and I thought--" and then read, word for word, whatever it was of LaRouche's you copied down.
Then sit back and watch LaRouche say, "No no no" or "You're missing the point," or "The issue is" and proceed to tear apart his own dictum--because he thinks he's attacking what you said, and because LaRouche cannot possibly let anyone say anything without attacking it or correcting it.
More than one Labor Committee member has tried this, as a litmus test on the way out the door.
Games. It is why you communicating like a bad cartoon super-villian. This is a game to you.
I am wondering about you. I know you are not going to answer this question, but really... who were you before you accepted Lyndon Larouche as your own personal savior? As patronizing as my attitude toward you may be, I think I have more humanity toward someone who entered the orbit of Larouche than you have toward one who has exited the orbit of Larouche.


06-08-2007, 11:49 PM
To jmp87, akka... jimmyyo?: My response to the comment on returning to college but "bringing the best of Larouche" with you is actually more sincere than I originally thought when I posted them. However warped the manner the Larouche cadre school covered some topics, I think you would be ahead of the curve with them in an undergraduate environment. Maybe the basic reason that one is attracted to Larouche -- a feeling of a lack of intellectual stimuli within modern society and your peer group -- and the faux-creation that Larouche has set up to meet those needs can collide for a better, more aware and cultured, experience post-Larouche. If that makes sense.


06-09-2007, 01:10 AM
Ok let us shift gears then! I hope you are still here because I will make you understand the fundamental tenet to which the overwhelming majority here do!
If you are reasonable then you will respond or reflect!
My good man can you in any way demonstrate, or show me original source work documentation so as to support any claim based on actually re-discovering how lyndon Larouche came to think and analyze the way he does today?
Many here still believe that Lyn is a multitude of things, that he is well a cult owner, a this or that! It is believe me a good initial position to be in. BUT ONLY IF YOU USE THAT TO PROVE LYN WRONG IN A NON SUBJECTIVE WAY THAT ALL OF US HERE CAN FOLLOW AND REACH THE SAME CONCLUSION AS WELL.
Well I pose this question BECAUSE I am in the movement firsthand and am not experiencing any of these things that people state here?
Do I then simply believe what they say?
Because If you think so then your stance in this post is less than insignificant!
So What we can all have access to is the pathway which larouche does leave for all to come to understand what he does and the implication of these things lyn says himself!
If he is a liar then Galileo Galilei did discover the earth at the center of the universe. If he is a liar then Newton did discover the calculus. If he is a liar then he did not make any fundamental contribution of science which no one here understands in principle.
So simply said Larouche then is a liar right, that is where you are comming from right?
Then on your shoulders will sit a heavey burden soon!


06-09-2007, 03:24 AM
For how can you explain the correspondence from Kepler to Gallileo in "The Life and Letters of Johannes Kepler"? Is this a fluke in history?
Lets say it is I'll give to you! (trust me you need it but no more grace!)
How can you then explain Kepler's New Astronomy which demonstrates not only the proof for a heliocentric universe, elliptical orbits, the first application ever of modern non empirical physics, the first ever documented physics applied scientific method,and also the demonstration of the first physically demonstrable universal Physical Principle?
Oh but your burden grows heavier my foolish friend!
How can you then contest that Leibniz in his own letters which are in the Aiton Biography, found Kepler's work tried to get them massively printed (because at this time there were then attacks against Leibniz from the royal society during the 1700's over the Calculus) all in stark refutation of Newton because Newton had claimed Kepler's discoveries for his own. Leibniz who was the real founder of the Calculus, was able to do something new with his discovery that Newton could not do with his to this day, non-existent calculus. Leibniz was able to open up a new area of physics, the study of transcendental curves! This was very crucial because as some of the individuals in this forum understand all that was being investigated beforehand were curves that you could plot on a graph. Or in other words they were algebraically derived. But these New curves could not be constructed algebraically. They were non linear because they were not being investigated on graphs but in reality (for those who love the Riemann hints which says something about the curvature of space!) SO now Physical curves could be mapped, all because of Kepler and Leibniz!
Physics is to Leibniz Calculus as Infinite series is to Newton's Calculus. That is why Newton's Calculus is considered a fake because it was doing nothing different than what Archimedes was doing back in the days of the ancients.


vBulletinฎ v3.7.3, Copyright ฉ2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Retrieved from
Page last modified on August 10, 2012, at 07:06 AM