edit SideBar

FACTNET.ORG FORUM: LaRouche Continued 1

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


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 4:09 am:

new thread


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:39 pm:

CALLING ALL LC/LYM MEMBERS TO THE FIGHT OF THE CENTURY: LAROUCHE V. LAROUCHE (or is it LaRouche v. LaRouche v. LaRouche v. LaRouche?) I invite you, and everyone else, to ringside seats as LaRouche refutes himself, changes his line, and contradicts himself, all in the space of weeks, starting the day of poor Ken Kronberg’s tragedy. But first a word of introduction.

There is a price of admission, albeit a small one, to this fight, for those who still think Lyn walks on water,. Without paying this price, this fight will not be fun for you, will hold no interest, might even induce mental illness (or worsen any such already present). The price is this: you must concede that Lyn is mortal, and therefore that he is not perfect, has made mistakes, and will make more of them, and that you agree to be open-minded enough to grant that if Lyn is shown, in his own words, to be blatantly contradicting himself over a span of a few days or weeks, that this will give you pause and open at least a crack, if not a deeper fissure, in your kneejerk belief that whatever he says, in all situations, has to be true.

And you really must pay this price, on pain of admitting that the LC/LYM is a cult, and you are a willing member of it. Because your whole mantra is to seek the truth, find universal principles, think for yourself, be creative. If you confess to believing that Lyn is incapable of error, you elevate him to a higher pedestal than the pre-1875 popes, you affirm that, like the modern popes, he is incapable of error, infallible—and in all matters, not just matters of theology. Do you really believe that is true? Do you really want to be telling that to the world, and to potential recruits? If you do, you will be gate-crashing the big fight, and while I can’t throw you out, you will be missing out on the fun.

Now, to the big fight.

In one corner we have LaRoucheApril11, as transcribed by Tony Papert, the infamous briefing attack on “the print shop,” aka Ken Kronberg. (See

In a second corner, we have LaRoucheApril18, Lyn’s first-known written reaction/response to the Kronberg matter, in a probably narrowly circulated memo. (See )

In a third corner, we have LaRoucheApril 20, in a second, perhaps slightly more public, memo on l’affaire Kronberg. (See )

In the fourth corner, we have LaRoucheAug3, the memo reported previously on the previous Larouche thread, which I can’t find anywhere else on the web, so see post 163 from xlcr4life near the end of the LaRouche Continued thread.

The issue concerns Lyn trying to keep his stories straight on the PMR situation before, and after, Kronberg’s suicide. The line was straight-forward on April 11: in the context of a screed against Baby Boomers, summarizing what appears to have been a multi-hour rant by LaRouche to an audience of LYMers, BBers were guilty of a “moral breakdown in leadership,” and “the print shop (aka Kronberg) was the worst.”
(to be continued)


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:41 pm:

In typical LaRouche fashion, there are lots of missing parts without which this is not an intelligible argument. In 1994, when Lyn came out of jail, “he presented his solution to the sales force….People went screaming out of the room.” What it was that LaRouche proposed to them is not stated, nor implied, and one has to wonder a) what it was, and b) how Lyn could be so impotent that he couldn’t get the sales force to do it. But most importantly for today’s fight, Lyn clearly said that Ken argued, against Lyn, that “the economy won’t go under,” and “there will always be money there for people smart enough to grab it,” meaning, that commercial enterprises, of which PMR/WorldComp was the only one in the U.S., could always make a profit. Ken, as the only person in the “print shop” who was on the NC and could have represented any policy issues to Lyn, was clearly targeted. (Parenthetically, it is beyond dispute and known to numerous members, that this was in any case far from the first attack on Kronberg—it was rather the last straw for him.) To doubt that Lyn’s message was that Kronberg was to blame for his leading role in sabotaging Lyn’s strategy—whatever that was—of overcoming financial problems, is to be really self-delusional. So much for LaRoucheApril 18.

Parenthetically, as is well-known, LaRouche had no response to Ken’s death. Nancy Spannaus penned the creditable encomium posted on the website. It was only under pressure that he finally wrote Ken’s wife, Molly, the letter that was then posted on the website—amazingly, given what a dreadful, spiteful, awful letter it was, which LaRouche and the leadership apparently don’t even “get.” But it turns out that, like Stalin after the start of Operation Barbarosa, when Stalin was absent from the public eye for two weeks not because he was in shock, but because it took him that long to figure out how to spin the debacle to deflect blame from himself, Lyn’s absence from the field in terms of honoring Kronberg’s contribution, did not mean Lyn wasn’t working on the problem. An internal memo has been revealed from April 18, the day before the funeral, and before his letter to Molly, which is very interesting.

So, in LaRoucheApril18, suddenly, Lyn knows what absolutely nobody else thought they knew then, or thinks they know now with any certainty, namely, exactly why Ken committed suicide. LaRouche states that “Evidence presently placed at my disposal has now shown me the actually determining personal factor in the suicide.” This little gem must be read in its entirety (it’s very short, less than a single page, please read it now) to be believed. Lyn knows, but won’t tell. But the evidence, “not so much [revealing] the cause of Ken’s suicide,” but certain “aggravating factors” traceable to the ‘90s when “Ken was under the misdirection of Fernando Quijano and Uwe Friesecke,” is there, only needing certain final additional research, before it can be revealed.

Bingo. I mean, that really nails it. Ken committed suicide in 2007, 8-13 years after he was allegedly being misdirected by Quijano, long gone as of 2007, and Friesecke, under attack for years and finally gone this spring. How’s that for causality? Now, we all (I should say, many of us) knew Ken. He wasn’t easily dominated, he was supremely well-educated and intellectually secure. How anything from Quijano and Friesecke years earlier could have had anything to do with his suicide this year is a mystery we will have to wait for Lyn’s promised partial revelation of what this influence was…though don’t hold your breath, I strongly doubt it will ever appear. But this, some weird spin where Lyn can claim definitive knowledge of what allegedly drove him to suicide, is Lyn’s first response to the suicide.
(to be continued)


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:43 pm:

Oh, and he says that Nancy’s piece “truthfully in respect to what it includes” “should be the only official reference to Ken’s passing made publicly by our association at this time.” And Lyn has the effrontery to talk of agape? LYMers, Kronberg was a member of Lyn’s association for over 35 years, most of that time as a leading member, whom Lyn knew extremely well. He didn’t quit, at least other than as his suicide can be so interpreted. But since Lyn doesn’t choose to publicly understand it that way, how are we to understand Lyn’s failure to write a public item expressing his sorrow, and his gratitude to Ken for his devoted service to Lyn’s cause. His letter to Molly doesn’t count. He was talked into writing it, and publishing it was not his idea.

LYMers, and you think LaRouche cares about you, thinks you are the future of humanity? Like we thought he thought of us 30 years ago? Like Kronberg thought Lyn cared about him? If he treats a devoted, loyal leader like Ken Kronberg as not even deserving a personal, public statement of sorrow and condolence, how can anyone believe that what Lyn means by agape is practiced by him.

This point is not germaine to the LHL v LHL fight we are covering today, but just had to be made.

To return to ringside, in the third corner we have the LaRouche of 2 days later than the above memo, LaRoucheApril20. This one, a little longer but still pretty belief, should also be read in its entirety. Several times, if the full effect is to be experienced. Elementary logic is nowhere to be seen, as this not only contradicts the April 11 briefing message, but contradicts itself at several points—and the illogicality grows on one only on second and third reading.

First of all, it is now specified that Quijano and Friesecke (does anyone know if it is even remotely likely that these two were working together on anything—without knowing the particulars, but just their personalities, I would find this highly unexpected) wrecked PMR from 1990-1999. In fact, PMR’s demise was “a virtually inevitable calamity” since possibly as early as 1994. Then, in the same paragraph, having outlived this forecast by 6 years, an ill-advised investment in 2001 “meant the end of PMR's ability to continue to exist for long,” even though PMR actually lasted for 6 more years. LYMers, is this making sense to you? Do you think what LHL has written here does not constitute an incoherent mishmash of charges that don’t make sense as a whole? If so, you make a mockery of saying that you base yourselves on a belief in the importance of fundamental scientific principles (which Lyn talks incessantly about), since science above all requires a modicum of reasoning ability and clear understanding of cause and effect—these rantings by Lyn do not partake of rationality, and crumble at the merest examination as the cranky charges of someone who isn’t used to people actually thinking about what he says—or he would have been called on such absurd, non sequitur-ial statements long ago.

But it gets better. After blaming Quijano and Friesecke for mismanagement, Lyn then credits “the minds of many of our associates” for being “corrupted” by the belief that “there will be lots of money being passed around for those clever enough to tap into the flow." Now, this is the mindset of “many of our associates,” where earlier, on April 11, this was the mindset of Ken, aka “the print shop.” But with Ken’s suicide, oops, “I guess we’d better change our public tune.” But not that much, really, as Lyn continues, that this ideology, and “its effects on policy-shaping in the printing operations as in the organization itself,” contrived to put PMR into a “ruined situation” in 2000.
(to be continued)


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:50 pm:

OK, fast forward to 2007. But how can we? How did PMR get here at all? If PMR was ruined in 2000, at the onset of the Bush recession, and had just moved to major new quarters it couldn’t afford, how did it survive at all until 2007? LYMers, you need to pay close attention here. You are watching a verbal magician. Or perhaps a verbal three-card monte expert. Now you see it, now you don’t. If you are not watching carefully, Lyn appears to be making sense. But if you actually try to find the thread of a coherent argument, that lives in chronological reality, you will begin to see the sleight-of-hand at work here. Let’s retrace our steps:

  • By 1994, it was clear that PMR was doomed. This was before the 1994-1999 period when the mentality of making money was predominant.
  • From 1990-1999, Quijano and Friesecke mismanaged business affairs creating special problems for PMR (not clear if these were the same problems caused by wrong ideology on the ease of making money).
  • In the same period, some members thought that money could be made easily, which ideology was crucial in ruining PMR.
  • In 2000, PMR was in a ruined state.

So, was it Quijano-Friesecke mismanagement, or Boomer money-making ideology, that doomed PMR by 2000? Or was it the bad decision to expand operations just when the market was tanking in 2001? Now, granted, all three could have been involved. But LaRouche doesn’t care to state an intelligible argument. It is enough to throw up a bunch of “stuff” in the knowledge that his acolytes never apply a single brain cell to the task of asking themselves if what he is saying actually makes sense. LYMers, as presented, it doesn’t, it really doesn’t.

And then the crowning anomaly: PMR stayed afloat for another 7 years after having been ruined, taken on (anticipating the Aug. 3 memo) huge new debt service and greatly raising its costs of production, and faced a destroyed market environment. How exactly was this possible, unless the stated facts about PMR c. 2000 were not as Lyn stated. (What, are we to believe that Ken was actually a business genius to keep this hopeless derelict afloat? Which is it, Lyn?) Lyn is so used to just saying stuff like this, that doesn’t hang together, and relying on an uncritical audience to get away with it.

But this memo has more to say. Suddenly, we are informed that despite being doomed from as early as 1994, and being in a ruined state in 2000, having expanded just as the market collapsed in 2001, and having miraculously stayed in business for the succeeding 6 years, there was now a potential solution in sight. This can’t be fairly paraphrased, so I reproduce the quote in full. Lyn writes:

“The only last-minute hope for saving PMR came from the new conceptions agreed to between me and Ken Kronberg et al. during recent months This solution depended chiefly on matching PMR's and associated potential with the expansion of the market for LPAC operations.”

This is fairly opaque, you must admit. Since PMR was a printing company, and since it presumably wasn’t working to capacity, the “expansion of the market” for LPAC operations (so “operations” are now being sold in a market?) must, translated into English, be intended to mean that LPAC was supposed to so greatly increase its income generation that it could afford to print huge amounts of literature that would bail out PMR?
(to be continued)


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:54 pm:

Leaving aside the unreality of such a “new conception”—that LPAC had the remotest possibility of raising, what, well over a million dollars, in a few months, or that LPAC could possibly make use of a million dollars worth of literature—which unreality suggests no such “new conception” in fact existed, but be that as it may—what follows takes the cake. It requires an extended quote, to take in the full enormity of blameshifting this sudden invention of a last-minute possible “fix” for PMR enables Lyn to engage in:

“With the failure to support that LPAC program by parts of our assoc'n, the lack of support from among our veterans, removed the last hope of success for our collaboration with Ken Kronberg on this basis, and, thus, created a hopeless situation for an already, otherwise doomed, PMR .

“The failure among far too many among our BBs, to find an adequate response to the challenge within themselves, did not actually kill Ken; there were other causes. However, your failure to muster to the challenge which I and others posed to you, could have been helpful to those among us trying to help him overcome his pessimism. You owe it to his memory now, to honor the lesson which you should have learned while he still lived.”

I get sick every time I reread this. So, there was a solution to PMR that would, presumably, have meant that Kronberg wouldn’t have committed suicide, but the BBers sabotaged it by refusing to support this LPAC program, whatever that actually was. So, the BBers “did not actually kill Ken,” but clearly contributed. Lyn’s bugaboo of the moment, the old-timers in the LC itself, were to blame for Ken’s death!!! Truly stunning. And the only way BBs can atone for this crime is doing now what they refused to do then? Whatever that was?

And what was it, precisely, that the BBs didn’t do? As usual, “he don’t say.”

And, of course, we have the new added supposed information, nowhere previously mentioned, that Ken was stuck in “pessimism,” which Lyn, and unnamed others, were trying to help him overcome? Exactly what was Lyn doing to help Ken overcome his pessimism? Let me guess. I’ll bet being cited on April 11 for being the “worst” offender in destroying the present fundraising performance was item number one on Lyn’s list of therapeutic interventions.

LYMers, and other LCers, have you eyes to read, minds to comprehend, and souls to feel? LaRoucheApril20 asserts that Lyn was trying to help Ken overcome his (alleged) pessimism. Do you attack someone who is pessimistic, which sounds like a euphemism for depression (clinical depression, not economic depression), by saying what Lyn told the April 10 LYM meeting about Ken’s responsibility for wrecking the prospects for saving humanity from extinction, and then having it reported in the daily briefing? A briefing in which, don’t forget, he also posed that BBers who can’t get with the program might as well commit suicide?

These two assertions, the one from April 10-11, and the one about trying to help Ken overcome his pessimism, simply cannot live in the same universe. If Lyn had been trying to help Ken, he simply wouldn’t have attacked him at all, in any context, must less have it reported publicly afterward. Since the April 10-11 attack is consistent with many previous attacks of a similar vein, there is no question: Lyn is simply lying in LaRoucheApril20. Probably lying about everything, not just this, but this for certain.

I will leave LaRoucheApril20 for now, due to the length of this extended post, but the final four paragraphs would merit additional commentary in their own post. (to be continued)


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 12:58 pm:

Which brings us to the final corner, LaRoucheAugust3 (I don’t know if this was exactly Aug. 3, but it was apparently around that time). Eaglebeak has fully commented on this, proving, in summary, that most of it is lies to begin with. The biggest single point to repeat is that even if LPAC and other political committees had to pay market prices to PMR (for FEC legal reasons, not mentioned by LaRouche)—if that is even true, these payments were only a small part of the work that PMR did for Lyn’s entities: the vast bulk was printing/mailing EIR, New Fed, Fidelio, 21st Century, various pamphlets and books, and leaflets. It was these that were not paid at all, or well below the cost of production, that ensured that PMR eventually had to fold.

Here, LaRouche is in his eye-gauging mode. I say LaRouche, because it has his ring, but it could have been a flunky on his orders, which wouldn’t change anything. But I vote for LaRouche. Anyway, for openers, we have his tired stock in trade: tell lies about who is doing something, create a strawman, and attack the strawman, hoping to divert attention from the real issue. I don’t know from nothin’ about whether the AFF has any connection to FACTnet, and don’t much care. Dennis King doesn’t post there, to my knowledge. John Train, oh, come one, what a tired whipping boy. LYMers, do you even know who he is? The bogeyman? Do you believe in bogeymen?

What I do know, and any medium- to long-term ex-members know, is that every ex-member posting here is basing themselves on what they experienced and knew from their time in the LC, plus whatever they may have heard since. To glibly say that King “and others” never knew Ken and have no idea about the financial relationship between LC entities and PMR, could well be true, and is totally irrelevant. We DID know Ken, some of us pretty well. And we also knew—everybody knew, pretty much from day 1 for PMR and WorldComp—that LC was NEVER able to pay PMR even for costs of production of LC literature.

This is the crux of the matter, period. And Lyn knows it, and only in this memo does he finally acknowledge what this is all about. The operative admission comes in the first paragraph, where Lyn says that “King and others…claim that the movement “looted” PMR to ruin.” Well, those “others” include many people posting here, and we know it from personal knowledge while we were in, and second-hand knowledge from those still in who have passed that information to some of us, confirming that nothing changed after each of us left.

LYMers, you can be forgiven for not knowing this undeniable fact. How could you? Boomer members reading this, YOU do know it. How can you say you base yourself on truth, and then let Lyn get away with this lie? How do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning?

Because, to wrap up this first LHL v LHL contest, here is the nub. PMR was doomed by the organization’s refusal to pay even cost of production to PMR for most publications it printed. To cover up this reality, LaRouche has had to shift the blame—starting well before Ken’s death—to others, including Ken himself, the BBers who sabotaged Lyn’s “new conceptions” on how to raise money, Uwe Friesecke, Fernando Quijano, ex-members, etc. It was clear that with PMR clearly about to shut its doors, making it impossible to continue printing much literature at all, including even EIR, the main money-maker for the LC since the mid-80s, something had to be done, and presto, a “solution” was found: the web. (to be continued)


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 1:02 pm:

I don’t know how many people know, but in the same April 11 briefing, or possibly a couple of days earlier, was an extensive discussion of shifting all EIR subs to web subscriptions, hailing this as a major advance. It detailed how all possible EIR subs were to be converted to web subs, and that no new print copy subs were to be sold, so they can phase out hard copy EIR as quickly as possible.

So, with PMR going under, and the ability of LC to have much printed material, even for the card table shrines, about to disappear, a scape-goat was needed, and Ken, and PMR, was it. Hence, the clear message of the April 11 briefing. While no one will ever know Ken’s exact motivation, or motivations, it is likely true that at the very least, Ken knew that his suicide was the last thing that Lyn expected, and would function after his death as the Cranes of Ibykus functioned in the Schiller poem. Everything Lyn has written since (that we know of) has been his desperate attempt to deflect from himself his role in driving Ken to suicide as part of his ham-handed effort to cover his own behind for the demise of the ability of his movement to print anything again.

The Cranes of Ibykus are air-borne, and Lyn is scrambling to keep ahead of the blow-back from his own mis-deeds that sent them aloft. Another literary reference is apt here: “Oh, the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” LaRouche’s web is getting more and more tangled with every new memo on the subject. Surely, especially those who have only invested a few months to a few years to his cause, can still manage to see this web for what it is. For if Lyn is capable of blatantly lying on this matter, then where else is he lying, or at least, not telling the truth? There is a cost for claiming to be Infallible. One proven case of fallibility, or even worse, outright lying, leads the whole edifice—can I call it “lattice”—to crumble, hopefully freeing those able to escape the falling rubble.

End of Round 1 of LHL v LHL. Stay tuned for later rounds on this same channel.


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 3:27 pm:

Of interest:

Scott McLemmee.


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 6:07 pm:

I caught this on youtube. There are two videos, one is a "straight" video of Helga of a Buso video, the other includes Helga and a dead-on impersonator. It's in German so you may need to get a translation but the image is clear.


Posted on Friday, August 10, 2007 - 6:24 pm: HAHAHA

Hey, gang, are we all getting together at John Train's later? Dennis is in London getting his instructions, so he won't be joining us.

Rule Britannia!


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 5:17 pm:

This is all very interesting LTruth. What is happening is pretty much how Lyn runs the cult with variuous subcompartments which are kept at each other's throats. Lyn then pleads ignorance whenever money is missing or people leave and then comes right back saying that he knew the operation which was going on all of the time. The members are kept so busy that there is absolutlely no internal discussion of anything , just rumblings. Soon, another big mobe is created and everyone is whisked away to their next appointment with Lyn's delusions. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, hell any two bit dictator has a system like this in place.

I can pretty much count on one hand the meetings we had called "Internals" which were conducted after a regular ICLC conference. Looking back we had one in NYC where a cheap newsprint budget for the USLP was approved and the org was run by Lyn to the point not a single peep of debate or question would ever be raised again. It was so laughable that we would laugh and take bets on the over and under for standing ovations for Lyn and how every question about anything would be framed with Lyn yelling about how blocked you are when you ask it.

I must say LTrth that there is a component of what you are saying which has not been mentioned. The cult functions as a Mafia/Cult with Lyn as the boss of bosses. There is a hidden element of financial doings and trickery which most people will not understand unless they know how this cult is run. There is another whole level of activity which a yute will have absolutely no idea about. I know I pronmised the yutes a score card of the scam artists and that is in production now. You yutes deserve to know where tax free cash is being sent to. Just ask for a computer summary of the ICLC budgets for the past 10 to 15 years and do the math yourself. You yutes love to squawk about math, so here is your chance.

I surely can not talk about some of the fun stuff which is unravelling these days. that has to wait for the right time. For now here is a letter from one of your biggest LC leaders who everyone knows. I may have posted this last year. Since almost a year has gone by and it is from Europe, I get this feeling that a few USA versions are being prepared now.

Back in the day any resignation letter given by a member , unless it was photocopied and mailed to every member was enver made public. We would have people just vanish without a trace and no mention of them at all. There would be an official line issued and then some if us figured out why Lyn had a hard on for Joe Stalin .

Read this again and see if you can figure out why Lyn ranted against Uwe F for doing something with almost 9 million or so dollars in his memos last year. Ask the local NCs what ever happened to that 9 million Lyn was yapping about.

In reading this consider that Dino himself does not have all of the story, no one does except Lyn. Nothing happens in any part of this mafia/cult without Lyn. He has nothing in his name and if you read a little bit about gangsters and how RICO works, you will start to get the picture.


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 5:21 pm:

Hannover 9.12.2006
> My memories about the Larouches
> From Dino De Paoli
> Given that in a recent "answer to H. Cramer" neither Lyndon nor Helga Larouche have shown a sign o minimal truthfulness concerning the "Fernando" issue, I feel released from any bond or reserve implicit in my relation with them. I will talk only of the political implication of events which I directly experienced between 1985-2003 while I was operating as "fact-totum" around the Larouches.
> 1985->1988
> I moved from Jeff Steinberg house to the Larouches guesthouse. Fernando, at that time, was already very close to the Larouches and shared with them the rightwing catholic contacts. I was directly involved in delivering a letter from Fernando-Larouche to a "special person" in Castelgandolfo, accompanied by Cristina Fiocchi. Most of Fernando-Larouche italian contacts are today the controller of the terrible "fascist" Antonio whose article caused the expulsion of the french Fusion.
In that period Helga was also super active in attempting to fight the "blase", that is: the supposed influence of "CIA" agents on Lyn, mediated through Paul Goldstein and Jeff Steinberg.
> Given that I had had experiences in handling the intelligence community in France, and that I had a good working relation with Paul and Jeff, Helga asked me to "infiltrate" the american security sector. I refused and I told her that I would work WITH her whenever I had reason to agree, but that I would not work FOR her.
> I came to share her view that indeed Lyn was not so perfect and that he was "manipulable", and indeed manipulated in paying idiots or double agents like "Frick and Frack" or "Carpet"( who to my knowledge still today get his monthly 5000$ from Larouche). >

> In 1988 after the Boston trial Lyn wrote a 10 lines memo "for eyes only" where he nominated Fernando and Helga (given their proven leadership), as vice-presidents of the ICLC. This is the "famous" memo which is making Lyn hysterical like a dog caught by the tail.
> He at first denied he had done it, then he admitted but added that he "had not signed it", then that he had written it "under the influence of Warren", then that he had written it in 1989(sic) "to defend Helga from Ed Spannaus", tomorrow he will say something else.
> Fact is, he wrote that memo, his secret motivations are irrelevant for the moment. Lyn can blame but himself for giving so much power to a "fascist", who was also so close to his wife.

> 1989-1990
> Lyn went into prison. Helga-Fernando were officially on top of the organization: Helga in Europe Fernando in the USA but in daily telephone contact.
> They thought they had not enough power an so tried to "shape the & lt; BR>organization for the after Lyn" and get full control by eliminating the "CIA faction".
> Among other things, the very first act was to write a "resolution" for the February 1989 ICLC conference to force the adoption of a "catholic" God. I intervened at that conference saying: "please do not do to God what you did to the golden mean".>


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 5:23 pm:

>Lyn, from the prison in Alexandria, wrote a manuscript letter authorizing Fernando to cut the 5000$ for Carpet and to "reduce" the power of Paul, Jeff and Michelle. Fernando acted accordingly during a meeting with the three. This action was slowly reversed by Lyn once he was moved out of Alexandria into Rochester.
>Helga and Fernando proceeded with their reorganization of the organization:
>1) Inside the NEC power is redistributed (for ex. Warren moves into Legal, etc).
>2) Open factionalization in Leesburg and in the regions. This was ac companied by a wave of "conversions" to Catholicism (Warren, Will, etc).
>At that time the "enemy" regions were: California and Philadelphia, although Helga later tried to "recruit" Steve, who like many others was invited in Europe to be tested by Helga herself. One of the most pathetic example of such recruit was, Joe Brewda who came back from Europe and told me: "I am now part of Helga faction and she told me I must work with you". I had Ambrose to chase him out of Ibykus Farm and told him that I was part of no faction.

>3)Helga-Fernando formed their "secret government" with: Warren, Gerry, Webster, Mel, Will, D.Small ( to be put in the NEC)and even madame Debra was part of the list.

> Warren, Gerry, Webster, Mel and Fernando were meeting regularly in Warren's house. Helga in this period was not coming in the USA, and therefore Renate Müller-De Paoli, who was Helga "assistant" and "friend", represented her at such meetings in two occasions. I refused to go and told Helga that this was insane.
> Helga was not handling the American situation through Renate (except for the message to be given to Lyn in prison) but DIRECTLY with Fernando. Fernando was constantly in contact with her by telephone, or he was coming in Europe to meet her without that any other member of the EEC attended or was even informed!.
> Fernando was playing also his own games, especially in Latin America or even in Rome. He ( with Helga?) acted against the Italian local, he tried to sabotage operations in France and tried to get rid of the EEC. In this context he did an obscene tape to induce Lyn to attack Michael Liebig. And, as often was the case, Lyn followed Fernando.


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 5:25 pm:

> The issue was Saddam Hussein: Fernando was 100% pro Saddam another "golden souls", especially because his Argentine an fascis t friends had deals (petrol, arms?) with Iraq.
> September 1990, Fernando made his "speech" at the ICLC conference. There were protests: among others K. Kanter wrote a letter of protest to Lyn, letter that Fernando himself brought to Lyn in prison. Lyn did not say a thing against Fernando.
> I myself send a letter to Lyn (through Renate) warning that Paul, Fernando and Philip G. were destroying the organization, all of them being manipulated by outside forces : i.e. French secret services (Philip), CIA (Fernando and Paul) +Senaldin forces (Fernando).
> 1990 ( or first half 1991?) an italian secret services man (Colliandro), delivered a message through Fiorella saying that "the number two in the organization is probably a traitor and there is the risk that Larouche will not get out of prison".
> We had a meeting in Ingelheim (Anno, Bruno, Helga and ?) we discussed th at Renate should deliver the message to Lyn, Helga thought this message would be referring to Paul and Jeff. I said to be careful, because in the famous MEMO of 1988 Lyn had named Fernando and Helga "number two"!. The message was delivered to Lyn, without the mentioning the last part.

> 1991: Fiorella went in the USA, in Leesburg got briefed from someone in the LALC (Fernando or Dennis?) about contact with right wing terrorists in Latin America. She came back freaked out, among others she called and briefed me. She was enraged against Fernando and HELGA. The entire Italian organization left, but that has little to do with what Lyn says today. One problem in any case was that Helga had the absolute monopole of the relations with the italian organization, no other member of the EEC were allowed to speak with them ( Muriel in particular).
> 1992 : There was the crazy conference in Mexico under the slogan Larouche-Senaldin-Chavez etc. Not only I and Elisabeth intervened against the Argentinean "fascists", but I did also an improvised undercover to spot out the now famous "synarchist" networks around Fernando. Lyn never acted upon it, before 2003.
> 1993
> Steve, in Philadelphia, launched his "own method" of collecting money. ( At least only then became an issue, and it became known to me).
> Lyn himself started attacking the method of the "specials" indeed pushed by Fernando, D. Small, M. Billington etc. I have no knowledge if Uwe was part of that debate.
> End 1993, Gerry Rose ( one of Helga-Fernando man in the NEC) went to talk to Lyn, and because of the issue of fundraising, Lyn indeed intervened "calmed Helga out" during a meeting in prison whose detailed content his not known to me.
> 1993/1994
> Crises in the Los Angeles local, with Kushro an d Luise dr opping out. Paul Goldstein who was working very closely with Kushro, got scared and made a tape asking Lyn to defend him and to construct a cover for him. Lyn promptly obeyed and blamed the Los Angeles disaster only on Fernando.
> 1994
> Lyn came out of prison, but Helga was so unsure about Lyn reactions, that she did not come in Leesburg (the excuse was security!) to meet him. I and Renate had a very long discussion with him the evening he arrived at the farm.>


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 5:27 pm:

Lyn was very upset and felt betrayed by the "Catholics" and raged against the uses of "specials" because he could go back to prison. Apparently he had signed some paper to be able to get out of prison. Helga finally came few days later for the ICLC conference.

>Starts the counter-reaction of the "CIA"
> Paul Goldstein made a tape, saying that Mr. "X" advises Lyn to kick out all the Catholics from the organization, "Carpet" makes a trip in Europe ( Italy and Germany) supposedly to make investigation but probably to get a paid holiday . In any case, I told Lyn that I would never accept that someone is kicked out if based only on intelligence sources.
> Mel, Warren and Webster left the organization, but Fernando stayed! He did not attend the NEC meetings but at least once a week he had a phone conversation or a meeting with Lyn. In the meetings which I attended, Lyn was normally very positive and pleased with Fernando work with his Argentinean friends.
> 1997: Lyn made his public attacks against Helga ( it is in the briefing!!!). Soon after, he got sick and Helga got again in a position of command, this time without Fernando "influence".
> How did she behaved now that nobody was influencing her? > Precisely as usual, she look ed to get more Power, she "protected" Lyn so much that, finally he himself smelled that the protection was not due only to pure love.
> In 1999 when I went to Malaysia and subsequently tried to organize a meeting between Lyn and Mahathir in Davos, Helga got furious with me, because I did not organize the meeting for her!
> In 2000, Lyn got out from Helga "protective love" and he told me that now he was again ALONE in command. Helga went into a "depression" and then finally I SUPPOSE she got "green light" to operate in Germany, but she had to stay out from the american organization.
> Helga, even without Fernando, went in her usual modus operandi: faction building. This time there was no more CIA to be stopped, but "Erbenheim" and this time Lyn would support her. When I spotted her "secret" deal with Frank on the back of the Hannover local in 2002, I realized that that was the beginning of the end of the Europ e an organization if nothing would be done. I warned Frank, and in a steering meeting in Hannover, said that Helga this time with the support of Lyn would make a mess inside the European organization. This motivated me to intervene in the 2003 EEC-EC meeting.
> The rest is present history.


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 5:28 pm:

> Therefore if in the world there is a sufficient reason, I ask: was Helga only a dupe of Renate Müller De Paoli, of X and Y? Or could it not be that she is a bit neurotic and moreover pathetically infantile? And, is not true that Larouches "household struggles" have determined most of the problem in the recent history of the organization? (and I was not present in 1980-81)
> Most o f the people recognize Helga neurosis ( I am sure the american are laughing about what Lyn says about the poor manipulated Helga), but the same people have difficulty to see that she is also a victim of the "I am unique" in Lyn.
> The present destructiveness in Lyn, like in the famous Goya's painting "Saturn devouring his son" cannot be reduced only to the frustrations derived by the fact that ALL of his "vice-presidents", ALL of his "number 2s" and moreover ALL of his wives (at least the last 3) betrayed him. The real problem, which is shaping his character since long, is terror.
> Terror to admit that he has a flaw, terror to admit a that he makes mistake, terror to recognize bad judgments. Terror to recognize that he is a normal man.
> If it is true, as Lyn says that God cannot be at the same time omniscient and omnipotent, than this is even more true for Lyn himself. But, Lyn seems to have chosen to try to be omnipotent, at least inside his small group of follower. He would destroy even the world if the world shows sign of disagreement with his fantasies.
> Lyn does not represent an y danger for the world, but the people who will accompany him in his last days, will get a very different experience than the sublime experience of the followers of Socrates facing death. >
> p.s. I am ready to explain any point which is not clear

Rereading that I get a kick out his writing about all of Lyn's "Number 2s".

Committee Member: “We deplore your spirit of disharmony.”

No.6: “That's a common complaint around here, isn't it?”

--A Change of Mind


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 7:20 pm:

Thank you LaRoucheTruth, please keep posting.

It's remarkable how long LaRouche can keep a grudge. He cherishes them, nourishes them, and brings them out when he needs to explain his latest failure.

LaRouche's grudges? Dalto, Computron, Typaldos, Axios, Friesecke, Quijano, now PMR and Ken Kronberg. Probably not the full list.

LaRouche reminds me of the divorcee who blames her ex-husband for every wrong in her life--decades after the divorce. Not unlike the mother in Tennessee William's The Glass Menagerie who constantly reminisces about her 17 southern suitors decades earlier.

This was sent to me recently: In a posting on Nick Benton's Wikipedia website, someone from the LaRouche organization posted the following this week:

"As a member of the National Committee, he was a trusted friend and associate of Mr. LaRouche. It seems that Mr. Benton has never adequately explained his departure from trusted leader, to unflagging adversary."

How ironic that LaRouche and company do not understand why Nick Benton, and Factnet and others are outraged over LaRouche's failure to accept ANY responsibility for the deaths of Ken Kronberg and Jeremiah Duggan, and outraged over the continuing deception of the LYM, and outraged over the continued abuse of the older members.


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 8:04 pm:

Thanks 2 xlcr for bringing to our attention this letter from Dino whom I remember quite well - he was very inspirational in his speeches and articles and somewhat genuine, as far as one can be in the cult (he knew it was cultish).
Were I aware of all these pathetic petty intrigues for so-called "power" - I probably would have left then!
SO Yutes, if you don't leave by now I am sorry for your moral integrity (and sanity)!

Lots of important stuff posted recently here.

Interesting article on larouche brought to our attention by Howie- the author of this article is obviously an exmember and uses info posted on facnet (no wonder lar et al worry) Thanks!

And thanks to ltruth for his/her very good analysis that helps us to understand how lar manipulates facts. Case study: Ken K/PMR/WorldCom. Very good.

And don't forget Eaglebeak's point by point response to this recent internal memo against facnet - very crucial info indeed. (thanks to xclr for posting this memo btw) and of course thanks to all regular contributors like borisbad, sancho, kheris, and many others that make this site worry lar and the security...


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 8:13 pm:

To conclude this post on a lighter note: here is another version of LAROUCHE V. LAROUCHE, or rather LYN V. HELGA, the match of this century?

Boridbad's link ( to youtube's satirical video on Helga/Bueso is hilarious (although i dont understand german very well but it s a punt about "back to the future", and back to the Reichmark... if my german doesnt fail me...)
The comedian is a real professional btw! probably paid by the G.H.T.F. (= the "Get Helga Task Force")...

SO heeere is the match:

Lyndy's Homer Simpson's satire (at that managed to have 3,819 viewers in 7 monthes


Helga/Bueso who got 3,133 viewers in FIVE weeks only!

it seems Helga's Lunacy is highly appreciated in Germany (it s in German!!).

Will Helga overtake Old Lyndy in the Lunacy category (this, in itself, would be an outstanding achievement in her life) and if so... when?

The tension is at its peak (and hardly bearable)...

When this happens, Lyndy won't be amused...

Would he then file for a divorce?... Only time will tell.

Stay tuned, we ll keep you informed on this channel...


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 8:29 pm:

I just came across this blog/article:

It appears not everyone believes Larouche made a right wing turn in the 70s, the article says:

"That’s when I started thinking: what if the Mariners played a mid-season invitational against the LaRouche Political Action Committee (PAC)?

You know, those crazy pseudo-communist/creepy political activists who waylay us on the way to and from the HUB and other strategic points on campus with their folding table checkpoints?

I’m sure you know what I mean, and have probably been accosted on several occasions. My personal favorite is the caroling LaRouchers that appear in late November (to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas," imagine something like "on the fourth day of Christmas, my true love sent to me, an impeached Cheney and a defeated Hillary, lalalala…" and so on).

Now, I’m all for free speech and expressing one’s opinion, and the LaRouchers have every right to their collective (if slightly weird) point of view.

A little background info is in order.

Lyndon LaRouche (1922 - ), is a perennial candidate for president and leader of the movement that bears his name. Although he seems a little, well, nuts, his voice is important in the American marketplace of ideas. That being said, there are some disturbing elements of this "movement," as reported by the Washington Post, with its odd marriage of far-left and far-right ideology.

But come now, who are we to judge, right?

That’s why it’d just be good, old-fashioned fun for the local UW chapter of LaRouche PAC to take on the Mariners.

Think about it. President Emmert could umpire the game, which would take place on a gloriously sunny Seattle Friday afternoon.

The smell of freshly cut grass fills the air. The crowd of students (for this is a free game open to the entire UW community) murmur with excitement.

Suddenly, the LaRouche team take the field, and proceed to set fire to first, second and third bases, all the while chanting, "take-me-out-to-the-capitalist-ball-game! Down with the bourgeois, up with the proletariat! Join us in our glorious crusade!"

The Mariners, standing in a line for the national anthem on the green grass, are in shock, and only Ichiro appears relatively unaffected by what he sees (he merely frowns, in his Vulcan-Zen-like way).

President/umpire Emmert tries to calm the LaRouchers down, but they’ve already set up their ever-ready checkpoints in all the aisles in Safeco Field, trapping tens of thousands of people and giving them a literally captive audience.

Black smoke from the burning bases drifts through the stadium.

Crazed shouts of political mongering drown out the groans of the disappointment students. It’s going to be a long day.

Ok, so maybe that’s more of a nightmare than a game, but hey, at least it’s free.

And it’d make a good story. "****}


Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 9:27 pm:

The Leesburg LaRouchites would lose, 143-0:

The asexual LaRouchites would be unable to get to first base, would toss only screwballs at the opposition, and one after the other would get tossed out for the liberal use of pine tar "in the tradition of" George Brett.

Of course, they would afterwards celebrate their grand victory over the Mariners.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:25 am:

Boy! Thanks, xlcr4life, for reprinting Dino's report. I had never seen it before, and most of what he reported was unknown to me, at least in detail. The Catholic v Security (CIA) faction fight was clear enough in real time, but the specifics he reports were not. Talk about Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites! I have some things to report on the Fernando story in another post, but Dino's recounting suddenly brought me far enough away from the trees to see the forest in another respect.

LYMers reading this, you think you base yourselves on history. And well you should, as should we all. But the history that is the most important thing to you in the world right now, is LaRouche's own history. When many of us met him, he had almost no history leading an organization. His history, all of it through his own reporting of it to us, was of a lone individual finding his way to the exit door of the organized Trotskyist movement, until fate led him to having influence over a faction of the Columbia University strike in 1968. In other words, he didn't have much history.

Today, almost four decades later, he has four decades of history leading an organization. Four decades of which you, almost for sure, know next to nothing, if not absolutely nothing. For you, LaRouche probably is a tabula rasa--what you think you see is what you think you get. In the early days, we were proud of our organizational history, and even published a pamphlet "history of the Labor Committees," and used it as an organizing tool. Today, a history of the Labor Committees would be pretty embarrassing report.

LYMers, one of the most interesting, at least to me, topics that LaRouche wrote many papers on in the early 70s was the history of the Trotskyist movement, more specifically, on the history of the fractionalization of that movement. How, pretty much divorced from significant political influence or activities, already small Trotskyist organizations would split and split again over doctrinal differences that seemed to the outside world to be pretty minor compared to the areas of agreement. But in the superannuated world of hot-house Trotskyism, maintaining a totally pure ideology was more important than anything else.

What suddenly hit me reading Dino's report, is that the LaRouche organization, internationally, has carried on this Trotskyist tradition, only in this case, the groups that split off from LaRouche, with two exceptions, didn't attempt to set up their own shop, but just evaporated. But the sheer number and magnitude of the splinters that have left over the years should give any current member pause. Surely, at the very least, explanations should be provided--and you should demand them--for why so very many people who once were just as dedicated to LaRouche and everything you now think he stands for as you are now, decided to leave, and frequently in significantly sized groups all at once, over the years. The composite picture is really quite stunning. (see next post)


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:26 am:

To assist the LYM member in getting some perspective on this, I list below all of the significant group departures that I can think of. I invite the rest of you to supply any that I have missed, or to correct any dates or other particulars that I may be misremembering. How the following list of "leaveniks" can fail to concern present, young members, I don't know.

1970: Steve Fraser faction, at least 1/3, possibly 1/2, of the membership left, set up a rival organization, lasted for about a year
1971: (year uncertain) the entire Greek organization broke off association with LaRouche
1980: Ken Dalto left with about 1/3 of the organization, set up a rival organization, lasted about a year
1980: Computron circle, at least 10 people, left
1984: about 8 members of the Asia intelligence sector left
1991: the entire Italian organization left
199?: Almost the entire Mexican organization left (which year)
200?: Didn't much of the French organization leave? (which year)
2007: Most of the German organization left (or were expelled).

Others: I am sure I have missed some, weren't there some more mass exoduses in Europe and Latin America? Can others please fill in this timeline?

Anyway, every LYM member should ask themselves what might induce people who once believed exactly as you do now, to decide to leave. Doesn't that suggest that not everything with LaRouche is on the up and up. And they should ask, how is this any different from the constant splintering of the Trotskyist movement? LaRouche represents a rigid ideology, and as soon as one questions any part of that, there's no longer any room for one in the organization.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 3:02 am:

Someone at posted the following. It's extremely, fatally damning. Is it true?


FACTnet stands for "fight against coercive tactics." FACTnets’s longstanding argument against LaRouche is founded on the accusation that LaRouche uses coercive tactics. There is no proof for that accusation.

On the other hand, FACTnet is a website owing its existence to the American Family Foundation, which was funded largely by grants from Richard Mellon Scaife, who is well known as the major source of funds behind the attempt to destroy the Clinton presidency during the 1990’s.

One of the leaders of the American Family Foundation until his death in 1999, was Dr. Louis Jolyn West, who is notorious for being a leading CIA asset in the infamous MK-Ultra experiments, which used massive amounts of LSD in an attempt to control the minds of thousands of their victims. Apparently, Dr. West’s career was dedicated to various techniques of mind-control using drugs and other methods of torture.

Among the active board members of the American Family Foundation is Margaret Thaler Singer who was also a CIA, MK-Ultra asset. Dr Singer is now an advisor for FACTnet. When I think of FACTnet, I think of Dr. West, Dr. Singer, MK-Ultra, and massive, coercive, and destructive mind-control. However, FACTnet remains small and insignificant. Perhaps they should go back to LSD.


If this is true, my whole world is turned upside down! What will I ever do?


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 5:10 am:

"FACTnet remains small and insignificant"

Ah, but the power of - the INFINITESIMAL!


By the way, where's my check from the AFF? They're late again.

LSD = LaRouche Sucks ... Cheney



Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 8:07 am:

The same "TC" who posted the above conspiracist interpretation of what we critics of the World's Greatest X since Y do here mostly for sheer fun also posted this on (a site which in fairness it should be noted is one critical of Fearless Leader and his epigonoi):

"It’s really about the axioms and the epistemology. I believe that anyone who is capable of reason, and who is willing to do the work, will probably come to the same conclusions that I have about LaRouche. If you don’t know what epistemology means, perhaps your work should begin immediately, because once one has a firm understanding of LaRouche’s epistemology, negative or derogatory criticisms of LaRouche become absurd."

Words of the typical LaRouche drone. These uneducated, semiliterate barbarians (i.e., the LYM) can never state CLEARLY

(1) these much-vaunted "axioms"


(2) their presumably unique "epistemology."

To state these matters CLEARLY would enable rational discussion, which no LaRouchite (including myself, when I was under their fetid penumbra) can manage, immediate assent being their only expectation in any argument. (So much for the so-called Socratic Method.)

Until such time as one of you cultists can get it together to respond CLEARLY, perhaps you should take the time to address a more managable task: address LaRoucheTruth's chronology of defections above. Were ALL of these former devotees - including myself and others - defective with regard to "axioms" and "epistemology?" Or perhaps was it the case that many of us were simply tired of being kept as trained animals and being complicit in both outright criminal activity and quasi-legal shenanigans? Perhaps we were exhausted by the unremitting atmosphere of hatred fostered by this impotent character LaRouche. Perhaps we grew to appreciate reality and understand that typical cult tactics were being practiced on us to keep us divorced from the world of reality.

And anyone who says coercive tactics are not used in the LaRouche organization has either never been a member or is just lying. Why do you think that the "boomers" take the LYM to distant points for these cadre schools? That's right out of the Hare Krishna playbook. From what I observe, being in the LYM is much scarier than when I was in the NCLC.

Run for the hills, kids! (But avoid the Autobahn.) If you question too much, you might end up like Mr. Duggan.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:31 am:


in one of my previous posts (August 11, 2007 - 8:04 pm)

I wrote erroneously: "Interesting article on larouche brought to our attention by Howie- the author of this article is obviously an exmember and uses info posted on facnet ..."

I meant "the author of this article is obviously in contact with exmembers and uses info posted on facnet " - the author is of course NOT an exmember of the lar org!

Sorry for the confusion - next time i ll be less hasty when posting!!!


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:04 am:

to brewncue

soooo "who s behind facnet", right?

This post on marco org is so ludicrous and stupid, it s beyond belief!!! I had to pinch myself

1/ larouche is NOT the center of interest/concern on facnet site; there are hundreds of other cults being discussed
2/ facnet's supposed powerful and wealthy sponsors (yet insignificant): for your info they recently nearly closed this site down for lack of money and asked people like us to give some contribution from our own pockets! So now you know where the money comes from.
3/ as for this "conspiracy theory", concretely speaking, it requires a top-down control of all the individual posts throughout the entire site... Get real pls!



As a reminder:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:14 am:

I don’t get it. I googled everything that TC said about the American Family Foundation and those doctors that were involved in MK-Ultra, and it’s all true. Why should I trust FACTnet if it’s being advised by doctors who are into mind-control? What is this thing about epistemology? It just seems to me that there must be a "method to the madness" so to speak.

The more I look into it LaRouche, the less convinced I am that he’s all that crazy. I kind of like what he says about population control. It seems like everyone nowadays thinks the world is overpopulated. Then there’s this guy LaRouche who gets into big fights with everybody because he says we need to let the population grow with technology and stuff. That seems like a good idea, because I never really believed in global-warming and all that. And I think it’s wrong to use LSD to control the population like those FACTnet people did back in the MK-Ultra days.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:53 am:


Before jumping to these conclusions (MK-Ultra = AFF = FACTnet = ???), answer me:

1/ what s the evidence factnet is controlled by the AFF? (other than larouche's gratuitous assertion)
2/ So what? Who cares? It s a free forum, we dont do LSD and we, unlike larouche, dont brainwash. People can disagree here without being psychologically or physically bullied. Is that bad???

Before joining larouche and wasting your life, google more and read these thousands of posts here on factnet most written by ex members who know what they re talking about!
At least, and unlike most of ex members, you ve been warned.

Friendly advice: use what s between your ears!


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:20 am:


I agree with you regarding population. It is a position maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, among others. (see Paul VI, Populorum Progressio)

I also agree with you regarding LSD. Let's assume that what "TC" states about the ultimate originators of this message board is true: how does that invalidate anything critical of LaRouche that is posted here? For me, this is a message board, nothing more, and I have no truck with any who are into mind control.

The one cult with which I have any experience is the LaRouche cult, and it is that experience and reflections thereon that I report here. I happen to agree with many positions taken by LaRouche. The point is that one does not have to be party to criminal activity, a cult of personality, and antisemitism to support scientific progress and the revival of classical civilization.

At the end of the day, Lyndon LaRouche is just another fallible human being, no better - and demonstrably much worse - than the average Joe.

Hope this helps.



Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:23 am:

Back in the day, in order to try and maintain the illusion of his own greatness, LaRouche spent a fortune going after John Mintz, Pat Lynch, Chip Berlet, Dennis King, and Brian Ross, all journalists who wrote articles exposing LaRouche.

What a nightmare the Internet must be for Larouche now: Factnet, Skull/Bones, LaRouche Watch,, myspace, youtube, LaRouche Planet, etc. etc. etc. - all exposing LaRouche with the postings of former members with insider knowledge. LaRouche trying to stem the flow of such information on the Internet is akin to using chewing gum to stop the dam from leaking. Eventually, the dam bursts.

It's only going to get worse for LaRouche. 2008 is not only a presidential election year, but it is also the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown massacre. The three most discussed cults in the U.S. today, scientology, the polygamous movement, and LaRouche will all be front and center.

Sancho, Borisbad, Shadok, LaRoucheTruth, xlcr4life, Eaglebeak and many others are posting factual evidence that demonstrates LaRouches's perfidy, and instability. Historical truth doesn't change. no matter how many insults and threats are thrown at it.

Bottom line here: LaRouche et al, if you don't believe the truth is being posted here, post what you think is the truth. Otherwise, what is it you think you are doing? Scaring the LYM away from this site? Scaring the posters? Using chewing gum to stop the dam from bursting?


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:33 am:


filling the gaps...

the EEC (in fact the German leadership) resigned en masse before and after the U Friesecke affair, aka the "Kingpin", in Nov-Dec 2006.
Lyn's internal memo was posted on factnet at on December 02, 2006 by xclr. As for the other countries i dont really know.
I dont think there were massive departures in France. Their Fusion mag team left when lyn decided to shut it down because they werent mentioning his name enough... That was about the same time when the german leadership left. But lets face it, apart from the German and the US orgs, the size of their operations is so... infinitesimal that losing a member there is like losing an entire local in the States!!!


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:36 am:

Well I’m not joining LaRouche, but from what I can tell by "using what’s between my ears," he has good ideas. All that stuff about the American Family Foundation and MK-Ultra is on the internet if you just look. Margaret Singer was in MK-Ultra, and she’s the FACTnet advisor. So was Dr. Jolyn West.

That’s funny what you said about having to pay for FACTnet out of your own pocket, because some people are always calling LaRouche a cult because they don’t get enough money. LOL

Howcome it seems like you are the one bullying me, if I’m just curious and trying to find out for myself what’s really going on?


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:47 am:

...from my same hastily written post (August 11, 2007 - 8:04 pm): Eaglebeak's response to this recent "factnet" internal memo was not about factnet, BUT about the content of this memo whose intent was to "rectifiy" what s being posted here on Ken Kronberg/ PMR / WorldCom.
Thanks Eaglebeak!


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:47 am:


Curious is good, please keep being curious. The more you investigate, the more you will understand that your life is your most precious asset. Please don't give it away.

As for who is advising Factnet--so what? Did you have to get Margaret Singer's permission to post your message? Or Dr. Jolyn West's? Did anyone tell you what to post? It doesn't seem like it. Why don't you try posting your last message about not joining LaRouche on the WLYM or LPAC website. Do you think those websites will allow this type of debate?

As for "people are always calling LaRouche a cult because they don’t get enough money." That's not what is said. What is said is that the members are deprived of a living wage, while LaRouche and his leaders are not. When LaRouche was raking in millions during the 1980s, he spent those millions on his lifestyle and on his con-artist security advisors. He did not use that money to insure that the members had proper housing, proper food, or proper healthcare.

He still doesn't.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:06 pm:


sorry if I appeared "bullying" you, it wasnt my intention.
Bullying in the lar org is far worse than my words. You d be under pressure and eventually ego-stripped if you appear "blocking", ie don t swallow the "line" You ll be under sleep deprivation and fed with junk food, packed like sheeps in small appartments and working 7/7, 365d/y, for decades... THAT'S what I call "bullying".

Now, could you please answer my questions:
1/ what s the connection between the AFF and FACTnet (otherwise all this connecto thread, leading to MK-Ultra, Tavistock and what not falls apart)
2/ So what? Why would it matter anyway? It s a free forum like any others - no posts are monitored or suppressed or rewritten. There is no "Big Brother" and many who disagree had their chance... before eventually vanishing.
Moreover this whole discussion board could be moved at any time to any other place!

What matters is what s being said here, not "where". Btw, there isn t such a thing as "where" on the internet, but "what"...


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:07 pm:

Well, to tell you the truth, I know someone who used to work for LaRouche for a long time. He still likes LaRouche and told me that I shouldn’t believe any of the slanders against LaRouche. He’s the one that told me about the population control, and it all makes sense to me. If we just go along with popular opinion, we are all in trouble. Somebody has to fight for the people on this planet. That’s what LaRouche is doing, so I think we should give him a break.

When I think about what it must be like working for LaRouche, I’m thinking it must be just like working anywhere else. Some people are going to get mad about something and leave no matter where you work. I’d rather take my chances working somewhere where you do something good for the world.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:21 pm:

"... some people are always calling LaRouche a cult because they don’t get enough money."

Does that make any sense? Do you really think that's why the LaRouche organization is regarded as a cult?

I find no reputable report on the Internet connecting Singer and MK-Ultra. The only people making this connection are conspiracy nuts such as the LaRouche cult. Margaret Singer appears to have lived her life to good purpose:

By the way, I happened upon this excretion from the "Christian" Tony Alamo group which demonstrates the rabid hatred FACTNet engenders in some cults:

Note that here FACTNet is dismissed not as an MK-Ultra offshoot but as one of the

"... covert Vatican interlocking anti-religious organizations dedicated to spreading false and maligning information on various religious organizations and Churches ..."

So FACTNet must be doing much good if it can elicit such evil.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:28 pm:

There were a few other splits that occurred apart from those LaRTruth mentioned, if you include for instance the Fred Newman, IWP a/k/a Center for Change group which happened in the 70s (although whether they were ever really "in" the NCLC is questionable). There was also the group around The Next Step, a paper formed by ex-vets who were centered I thinkin Wiesbaden, the neo-Maoist group that briefly joined the NCLC also in the 70s, etc. This was many moons ago so my memory is vague, and again these were more like moons that spun into the NCLC's orbit and then lost their attraction and spun away than actual internal faction fights. The only memorable thing about the Frasier split was that at that time there was actually some opportunity for internal debate and opportunity for people to say things other than the official line.

The issue brewncue says was well-addressed by Shadok. If you look throughout the Factnet site, you see major attacks on the Scientologists, various "churches", AA, Al-anon, etc. This kind of "expose" is so typical of LaRouche, if you find some "villain" donates money to some group or idea, you denounce the idea by saying so-and-so gives money, and hence controls the ideas of the group. And as Shadok points out, the fact is, the site almost went bankrupt. I'm sure that Scaife-Mellon could easily have kicked in the $20K.
Opposing ideas, including by LC moles have regularly appeared on this site. Let brewncue find out whether LaRouche tolerates any type of dissent or altnerate opinion from the drones who raise the money for Helga and himself.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:32 pm:

Brewncue, I wish I could tell you to go for it, that it is the same as working in a bank or a department store or an office. If I did that, however, I would be guilty of a crime against you.

What is sad is that our culture and educational system has been so shallow and so lacking that bright people like you believe there is no where else to go to have a meaningful life.

You have read what living conditions are like in the LaRouche organization, that there are forced abortions, that LaRouche lies to his members, that he breaks the law and then is outraged when caught.

Imagine how shocked and disappointed we all were to discover that not one dime of the millions raised for LaRouche to save humanity actually went to save humanity.

If you think this life is for you, and you are prepared to sacrifice your life for it, including your freedom if LaRouche and company, including you, go to jail, then investigate thoroughly. Ask where the money goes, every non-profit has an obligation to disclose that information. Ask how long you will be living as a "volunteer" on a stipend of $5-7 a day. Ask if you are allowed to date, see your family, and have kids. Ask if you have to deploy at card tables every day, how many days a week you are allowed to read and relax, how many hours a day you have to sleep, whether you can bring your computer with you to keep posting messages, whether LaRouche et al will protect you if the FBI raids their offices again. Or whether LaRouche will offer you to the government in exchange for his own immunity, as he tried to do in 1989.

Ask all of these questions, please.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:35 pm:

As to coercive tactics, if Messieur brewncue can track down Chris White, Alice Weitzman and some of the others that LaRouche claims to have "deprogrammed", or attended an all-day or weekend "retreat" with members hammering the person to stay on, or gotten the chance to talk to Jeremy Duggan then we can talk about coercive environments.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:36 pm:


Now I know that you're a troll. What you read here mostly is EXPERIENCE with - not slanders of - LaRouche. Assuming you are just a simple soul and not a troll, ask your friend why he "used to" work for LaRouche. Why do you assume that Lyndon LaRouche is the only guy "fight[ing] for the people on this planet?" Isn't that a tad grandiose? Working for LaRouche also is not like working anywhere else. First of all, LaRouche does not pay a living wage (at present it is at best about $1.67 per hour.) Second of all, on an ordinary job I am not required to socialize exclusively with my coworkers WITH WHOM I ALSO LIVE. Thirdly, my employers do not ridicule me for a choice in books and music which may vary from an employer-approved list. And so forth.



Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:47 pm:


ok, now the truth is coming out... I was right, wasnt I, when I suspected you joining larouche?
I dont know of course your "source/ex member" but suspect he wasnt a long time member. I know no ex members who spent decades and would say that! They know lar and his org far too well and stayed long enough to realize what it s really all about.
Your ex-member friend should come here and explain us what are "slanders" and what are "facts".

It s easier to dig your head in the sand.
It s easier than facing the fact that (maybe) you were used, probably screwed and sometimes abused.

Listen to tuer07, it is a wise advice.

BTW: if you do the total sum of the time spent by all ex members on this discussion board, you would reach several CENTURIES of direct experience with the lar cult. Who would you trust: centuries of experience or a few years from your friend?


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:49 pm:

Another note:

If LaRouche and his leaders break the law, and the LYM goes along with that, there is no "free pass" for the LYM. If an LYMer commits fraud by misrepresenting where the money is going, or is a party to harming another LYMer, i.e., by not allowing him/her to leave, by physically abusing him/her, by forcing her to have an abortion, the law will find the LYMer just as guilty as LaRouche.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 12:59 pm:

A quick google search turned up the following, dated from just as FACTnet was getting set up, it appears from context to be just before 2000, presumably in 1999. It confirms here that Margaret Sanger is one of 6 member of the Board of Advisors. Three other people are listed as the Directors: Jon Atack, Lawrence Wollersheim, and Bob Penny, all described as "victims of coercive mind control who, having successfully survived, are now dedicated to educating the public." I don't recognize any names other than Singer's.

Contrary to what was posted (by TC?) on, AFF is described not as in any way a financial backer or involved in organizing it, but thusly: "FACTNet's goals are supported by one of the world's leading and most credible resources for research on coercive mind control and the destructive organizations that use it, the American Family Foundation (AFF). The AFF is providing fourteen years of accumulated research and work to be scanned, computerized, and made available through FACTNet's telecommunication services."

Sanco, I couldn't find TC's post on on epistemology, nor on the AFF-Factnet connection posted by Brewncue. Could each of you post the link to exactly where to find the original. I think generally we're pretty good about posting sources, but can we all agree to always post links to anything we cite of any interest?

I particularly want to see if TC said anything more on epistemology. When a LaRouchie brings this up, I say, "make my day." That's the core area where LaRouche is most blatantly exposable as a charlatan and sophist.

One more point to add to those above in answer to Brewncue. It's right to bring up what you did. If this were an actual organization, it would definitely matter who was running it, and who we were associating with. But it's a blog. Thnk about it. There are literally millions of blogs, and billions of people post on them. Many blogs list dozens to hundreds of other blogs, and people click on these, and go to blogs they've never heard of before, and post on them. They don't have any way of knowing who might behind a given blog. That's the nature, and the beauty of blogs. Once up, as long as it is not monitored to screen out comments that the blog owner disagrees with, it becomes common property, like the village green in old New England villages.

And think about this. LaRouche obviously disputes that he runs a cult. But he and the LC have been denouncing cults since day 1. They did all the Tavistock Rawlings Reese research in the early 70s, and were very big on the importance of opposing cults. Well, FACTnet has threads dealing with hundreds of cults, not just LaRouche. If you are going to say that FACTnet is inherently bad, or even evil, then you must stand against the help FACTnet has given people in groups that LaRouche DOES consider cults, to escape. In effect, if you denounce FACTnet as a whole, you are supporting keeping people prisoner in groups that LaRouche agrees are cults.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:12 pm:


TC's "axioms" passage is in an August 8, 2007 comment at



Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:32 pm:

Some of the earlier gems from LaRouche, posted on

A LaRouche Sampler

This "LaRouche Sampler" of LaRouchian quotes was first published in the Chicago Lawyer newspaper, April 1986

It was compiled by writer Chip Berlet, editor Rob Warden, and other staff who relied exclusively on primary (original) documents and transcripts.

Defenders of LaRouche are urged to explain and defend the following statements...


"Judaism is the religion of a caste of subjects of Christianity, entirely molded by ingenious rabbis to fit into the ideological and secular life of Christianity. In short, a selfsustaining Judaism never existed and never could exist. As for Jewish culture otherwise, it is merely the residue left to the Jewish home after everything saleable has been marketed to the Goyim."

"The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., (under pen name L. Marcus), The Campaigner, December 1973

"America must be cleansed for its righteous war by the immediate elimination of the Nazi Jewish Lobby and other British agents from the councils of government, industry, and labor."

"A War-winning Strategy", Editorial, New Solidarity, March 1978


"Jazz was foisted on black Americans by the same oligarchy which had run the U.S. slave trade, with the help of the classically trained but immoral George Gershwin and the Paris-New York circuit of drug-taking avant-garde artists."

"The Racist Roots of Jazz", Back Cover, The Campaigner, September-October 1980


"Zionism is the state of collective psychosis through which London manipulates most of international Jewry."

"Zionism Is Not Judaism" Editorial, The Campaigner, December 1978

Harold Washington

"Washington was elected with a strong homosexual vote, backed by the pro-drug, pro-pornography Playboy Foundation."

"AIDS is More Deadly Than Nuclear War", Authorized Statement, National Democratic Policy Committee, October 1985

The Beatles

"The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence."

"Why Your Child Became A Drug Addict" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Campaigner Special Report, Copyright 1978


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 1:35 pm:

More tidbits from

A LaRouche Sampler

"The Beatles

"The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British intelligence."

"Why Your Child Became A Drug Addict" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Campaigner Special Report, Copyright 1978

Adolf Hitler

"The first, and most important fact to be recognized concerning the Hitler regime, is that Adolf Hitler was put into power in Germany on orders from London. The documentation of this matter is abundant and conclusive."

"Humboldt Versus Hitler", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, August 1978

The Rockefellers

"The Rockefeller designs for fascism are essentially identical with the Hitler and Mussolini forms of the past."

"The Conceptual History of the Labor Committees", Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., (under pen name L. Marcus), The Campaigner, October 1974

"Nelson A. Rockefeller is a raving fascist presently pushing as rapidly as he is able to impose a fascist police-state in the U.S.A. before the 1976 elections."

"The Guts Needed to Survive", Editorial, The Campaigner, August 1975


"Britain has in fact two governments, the first a parliamentary charade for the edification of the credulous, the other the real monarchial government."

"The Secrets Known Only To The Inner Elites" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, May-June 1978

"We shall end the rule of irrationalist episodic majorities, of British liberal notions of 'democracy.'" (see longer version of this quote)

"Creating a Republican Labor Party" Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Citizens for LaRouche Policy Statement, c. 1980

"Henry A. Kissinger

"Under Henry A. Kissinger's two terms as Acting President of the United States, agencies committed to genocide were made institutions of both the National Security Council and State Department."

"The Frameup of Harrison Williams", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, September 22, 1981


"The inner hierarchy of the Episcopagan church is properly viewed not merely as something within the established Church of England, but as a coordinating agency for an array of forces with arms not only among Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern autocephalic denominations....It controls, with complicity of Venice, Libya's psychotic Colonel Khadafy, and most of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, as well as the psychological warfare and assassination arm of British intelligence, the London Tavistock Institute."

"Why the Anglicans Want to Eliminate the Pope", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., Executive Intelligence Review, June 2, 1981

Harvard and MIT

"Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are among a handful of leading centers of fascist social engineering research and development throughout the post-war U.S. Other universities of comparable status include Columbia University, Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of California at Berkeley, and Leland Stanford University."

"What Happened To Integration", Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., The Campaigner, August 1975


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 2:25 pm:


i am posting something i recently read from "The Racist Roots of Jazz", Campaigner, (September-October 1980)
When I came across the following quote (never highlighted before by chip b et al, unfortunately), I couldnt believe my eyes:

Sub title:
"Jews, Blues and Jazz" , p 56

We are now ready to peek into the most revoking irony of popular music in America during this century, an irony which would be laughable were it not for the seriousness with which it was pursued by the protagonists. We are referring to the bitter struggle between the black and Jewish portions of the entertainment industry over which of these two ethnic minorities constituted the rightful proprietors of the racist and pornographic wreckage known as jazz and the blues. We will present the grotesque spectacle of individuals and sections of the pop music business competing in racialist self-identification, tribal genealogy, and racist psychosis--the psychological truth of the whole affair being perhaps best summarized in the racist and anti-Semitic adage of the old South, "Jews are only ••••••••• turned inside out."

and the rest of this article is to prove this adage to be right!!!

The whole article is utterly insane, under the apparent cover of "anti-racism" it is, in the end, thoroughly racist and its "artistic" stance (anti modern art, anti jazz, anti pop/rock music etc) has only one historical precedent to my knowldege, and it is the Nazi propaganda exhibition "Entartete Kunst" (Degenerate Art), with a poster showing a "••••••" playing saxophone and wearing a "Star of David" badge... That says it all. (larouche could have used that poster for the frontcover of that Campaigner!!)

sorry for the ••••••, factnet doesnt allow that racist word but it s a pejorative way to call afro-americans and other dark skinned people....


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 2:31 pm:

you can access this Campaigner at the wlym website at


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 2:35 pm:

Hmm, so LaRouche thinks that all those cults listed at [] are listed solely for the purpose of discrediting him? What's next? That the Jonestown massacre was a shadow op designed to discredit him. Oh wait, he did say that....


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 2:54 pm:

Thanks Shadok,
Count Basie, Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Helen Forest, Dinah Shore, Glen Miller and others, helped to get America through World War II. Hitler hated the fact that he was losing the war to a west dancing to the music of Jews and African Americans, music that was influenced by Klezmer and Southern Spiritual music.

What I don't understand is how what LaRouche wrote in 1977 comports with the Schiller Institute's new found love for African-American music


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 3:18 pm:

Enough, enough, I am now prepared to spill the beans so Tony Chaitkin can write another article. Here is the Confession of xlcr4life on the real insider secrets about so it can be revealed in a new xeroxed copied mass pamphlet.

Years ago the LYM had a website called "Academy2004" which I found one day googling Larouche. I soon registered and began to simply raise some questions about the history of the LC and what I went through when I first joined. For some crazy reason that I did not know back then, bringing up things like the Chris White brainwashing hoax or how we were doing dirty tricks for Republicans like Dick Cheney for example was not a good message starter. Why I became even more confused and saddened when proudly recounting our credit card fraud and promisorry note adventures were not met with open arms like I expected. On top of that, I mentioned Jeremiah Duggan's death and asked the LYM if they caught on why certain people who were with Jeremiah were soon in the USA and a certain LYM member in France was never to be seen again.

We were all having a great time and I really developed a close kinship with LA yutes. I even posted some of this a few years ago on . One La yute was all set to be my close bud until he was sent out to do walking tours in rough LA streets and was beaten pretty badly. I am so silly that I kept on thinking that there was some type of error on my part instead of the LYM part which kept purging me from their forum. All I kkow is that I kept on getting many emails from LYM members asking me to keep the stories coming in about the LC and to explain so many things which Phil and Harley just could not seem to do.

Then one day, poof, no more Academy 2004 LYM site. A few weeks later there is a yahoo site called "antidummies" which I joined proudly and soon again found that I was having a hard time posting and some of my posts were now being eliminated. I never made the connection, but maybe something I wrote was unapreciated. It sure looked like I was now "blocked". Being blocked in the LC/LYM is not a good sign.

Still, like the nice guy that I am, I wanted to offer so much to the LYM and explain how things work, how they will be living, tips on survival, why the old person next to them is so mad and depressed at times and show them so much LC memorabelia like internal memos, old Campaigners to check out and real high lites like Debbie Freeman calling an African American Senator named Parren Mitchel a House Nig**r for the Baltimore Jews.

Well, one day no more LYM came to their own yahoo group site and soon all the LYM had was a site with spammers posting.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 3:20 pm:

With all of this LC experience just waiting for a LYM to enjoy, what could I do now?

Now here is the inner secret for Tony Chaitkin about all of this. One night I had nothing to do and just typed in "larouche and former members and cult" into google and one of the choices was I never knew the thing existed and on April 17, 2004, this appeared:

"Yo Yo Yo,
XLCR4life in da house! "

I think I read the home page of once in three years. The only reason I post here is because it is available and is found by people who want to find about the Larouche cult of personality. The only reason people post here is because many of us have witnessed or been part of the many things written about here. Call up Tony Chaitkin and ask him how much of the money we borrowed from old people was repaid. He is one of the smarter people in Leesburg. Surely he can provide you with a nice spread sheet , fresh from the Wang which clearly shows how he made sure that every single debt was paid off. Surely after more than TWO DECADES since borrowing that maney, Tony Chaitkin can proudly wave that list to us .

Brewncue, if your friend was in the LC for a long time, can you ask him about the role Nancy Spannaus played in LC women and abortions. I still have a hard time believing that we put out a Fusion magazine with the cover "No limit's to growth" and set up a farce called the Club of Life with Nancy running it when you find out about how many members had abortions. Anyone wish to figure out why so many LC women adopted later in life?

This whole cult is sick and you really are not yet at the end of the sickness when you add Jeremiah Duggan and now Ken Kronberg to this nightmare.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 4:05 pm:


these are typical "concessions" done to African-Americans the same way "concessions" were done to the Jewish members of the org. It s psychological trick, a carrot for desperate members, to keep them quiet, to let them hope larouche isnt racist.
For the "Jews for larouche", the carrot was the so-called "higher, real Judaism" of a minor intellectucal Jewish figure Philo of Alexandria (purified from bad judaism by to the superior Greek philosophy). Some other names of jewish figures were added later to the list of "authorised Jewish figures", thanks to relentless efforts of late Ken Kronberg.
For the African-Americans: larouche tells them that Jazz (and all its descendants) is bad, evil and is a creation of the racists (British and Jews), just like Zionism (and bad Judaism) are.
BUT, like Philo for the jewish members, there are the Spirituals... to save their souls from that evil Jazz influence. Read this D Speed article, trying to connect the Spirituals to... 5th Century AD (African) theologian St Augustine and then to... Dvorak and concluding in praise of (racist) Hon. Min. Louis Farrakhan!


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 6:22 pm:

Wow! All I did is say a couple things, and here comes this flood of stuff, and people start calling me a troll. I’m not joining LaRouche for nothing, but I don’t really trust the people who are against him, because I agree with LaRouche on all the things I’ve found out about for myself, and my friend who used to work for LaRouche is the only person I know that makes any sense about a lot of things I wonder about.

People complain all the time about places they used to work. That’s why they don’t work there no more, so why should I really give all the credit to the all of the stuff you guys are saying. There’s probably a lot of people that are happy working for LaRouche, and there is just so much stuff on the internet about Margaret Singer, Dr. Jolyn West, and MK-ultra, that its seems dumb to try to say it ain’t true.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 6:34 pm:

It's your life. Don't come crying to us in thirty years.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 6:53 pm:


you seem a very confused person who needs answers more than questions and I understand why larouche appeals to you. I prefer questions.
And here are some questions for you: ever wondered why your "friend" is not a member of the Lar org anymore? Why don't you ask him? You don't realize that there is NO "in-between" status in the Lar Org, no "special cases": you're either "in" or you're "out"; you're either "good" or "bad". So, did you friend leave and why? or was he expelled (and why?)
Why does he think his time is too precious not to be a full-time member to save the world from this "ongoing genocide" he's complaining about. Where is his "morality"?
I personally wouldnt trust people who don't mean what they are saying...
But of course it's about your life, not mine.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 7:29 pm:

No none is "Against Larouche". People are against fraud, criminals and mind control masquerading as a cult of personality. When you ask a simple question at a card table shrine about Lyn's conviction for tax fraud and other crimes you get an immediate side story about people who are "out to get Lyn".

Simple yes or no.

Does one wish to follow a convicted tax cheat who lived off the cash in a muti millionaire lifestyle who paid his field hands 5 bucks a day and then declared that he has no income to the tax man/woman?

Does one think it highly odd that an org which expended endless manpower and fundraising in promoting more people ends up sending it's female members to abortion clinics in number which may approach hundreds when finally tallied.

Does one think that the many elderly who signed over their entire life savings to Larouche run outfits made this all up?

Does one wish to sign over one's life to a group which has these credentials?

Does one wish to be in a group where the leader claimed an elaborate brainwashing plot against a member when it all turns out to have been made up?

Lyn just may believe all of his lunacy, let him and save yourself from watching time evaporate in front of you when you finally figure it all out.

Being "against Larouche" is a laughable premise. I would think most of us here are "Against organised crime" and "Against racists". If Larouche did not run a cult which hurt, abused, stole, defrauded, scammed and wasted people's lives, no one would give a rat's •••.

Because we witnessed this over the decades and gave a damn about people is why we spend a few minutes writing this stuff and making it very public. I see people all of the time who do silly things and people can make decisions by themselves.

When the person gets hurt or has something stolen from them is when it is no longer silly.

Lyn knows that he running a cult, most people know that as well. For those who do not, well, you came to the right place for starters.

If one enjoys reading Lyn's speeches, then ask the office to provide you with Lyn's greatest speeches which is his cross examinations at his trials. The Leesburg office or local soup kitchen/LYM CLubhouse has plenty of copies for you to read at your leisure.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 7:59 pm:

btw the AFF connection to FACTnet, ie Dr Margaret Singer died in 2003...
I had a peek at some of her writings re mind control/cults etc. Interesting stuff, no wonder larouche hates her.
All this cult=anticult conspiracy concocted by the org for... decades is more than suspicious (as usual).
It is interesting to note that lyn moved the org towards a cult/mind control org (ie during the BP sessions) at about the same time he was desperately seeking CIA connections. In other words, the same "pattern" behind the so-called MK-Ultra project. There is little doubt (in my mind) that the intelligence community was interested to use cults for its own ends (eg Moon).
Of course, the org goes far beyond that and describes the whole thing as not just LSD/mind control experiments (especially to understand how american soldiers were brainwashed by the Koreans) but as a titanesque conspiracy involving ALL the cults with ALL the anticult orgs (CAN/AFF etc) + FBI/CIA/Kgb + ADL/JDL/Mossad, the whole thing being under control of the (anti-authoritarian) Frankfurt school of H Arendt/adorno and... Tavistock/MI6 etc... Gosh! and here at FACTnet we didnt know all of that!
I think, to this day, some spooks find lunatics like the larouchies as a useful channel to leak crazy stuff. And there are also these scam artists looking for cash the LYM-ers slaves are raising day and night.
After all lyn is so easily manipulable, his psychological profile is very readable...


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 8:00 pm:

The main thing I’m really confused about is why you guys just want to attack LaRouche. You say all these things about cults and stuff, and talk only about the bad things you think LaRouche did. But then I look at LaRouche’s writings, and his websites for myself, and I feel like I’m learning more than I ever have about the economy and history, and what’s really going on with the war, and so on, even though it‘s tough reading. I mean, if we are really interested in the truth, don’t you think we should talk about some of the good things? For example, I think the economy is going pretty bad, and the war is all based on lies. Don’t you guys want to change the economy like LaRouche wants to, so we can have more people living better? Is it because you guys think the world is overpopulated too? It just seems like with all the environmentalism, and population control going on, what LaRouche is doing is good. When I was little I used to believe the world was overpopulated too, because that’s what everybody said. LaRouche is the only one that changed my mind, and what most people believe about overpopulation and other things seems stupid to me now.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 8:09 pm:

Gee whiz, Beav'.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 8:19 pm:


you don't understand that ex-members spent decades of their lives understanding/arguying/defending the "good ideas" of larouche and we know them by heart. I could lecture you about Malthus etc, no problem.
The thing is: you don't catch a fish with a bare hook! That's how cults operate. J. Duggan was attracted to the org because he was anti-war...
And as for "overpopulation" , since this seems what "hooked" you to larouche, maybe you ll start thinking again when you ll share an appartment packed with 5-10 of your colleagues: no private life anymore. Then you ll start wondering how to "double the square" of... this appartment ;-)

I have a paradox for you: never wondered why the highest birth rates are found in the poorest countries whereas here in our rich countries, these very birth rates are the lowest... Larouche theories dont always match the facts - reality is not as simple


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 8:39 pm:

Well it seems like if anyone would spend decades arguing for LaRouche's ideas, they must be worth a lot. I'll spend the rest of my life arguing with anyone who says the world is overpopulated. I already have some friends I've argued with who believe me now when it comes to population control issues. The point that LaRouche makes is that you need more people to develop the economy. You have to have a lot of guts to say that when almost everybody else believes just the opposite, and seems so passionate about reducing the world's population. That's some pretty deep stuff. That's no bare hook.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:14 pm:

Some of the best looking pictures of kitchen, bathroom and other home improvements is used by crooked contractors in their wonderful ads. Most people do not get past the color copy ad in their local magazine to find out the liens, judgements, bankruptcy filings, arrests, multiple business fronts and other problems of their new contractor friend. After you lose some money and waste precious time do you become more critical in your hiring practices and check things out more closely.

Lyn can promise you anything. In fact, he has promised an end of the world economy as we know it for 5 DECADES. It is cheap parlor tricks which get changed for different times. It works on yutes who want quick solutions for sometimes inaginary problems. When you live in the real world and gain knowledge of life you find that a one paragraph solution does not answer complex problems.

I can read an interview by Lyn where he states to yutes who never ran a business that shipping cargo by Maglev is the cheapest way to ship.

Really? I do not see UPS, DHL, Fed Ex, air freight, railroads, trucking firms or ocean shippers telling stockholders that they are wasting their investments because a maglev will make them go broke. Instead, we find all of these companies and millions of employees who spend each day trying to compete with each other to get business by offering the best rates and quickest turnaround.

In fact, if one looks at international shipping and all of these businesses we find that they have all expanded dramatically as WORLD TRADE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH INCREASES.

The world's greatest economist is completely ignorant of container shipping which revolutionised world trade by standardising containers so they can be used on ships, trains and trucks. That and so many other things which were invented have increased the world economy every year.

I like maglev trains myself. I have been following their development before I met the LC in the early 1970s. As an adult and a taxpayer I find it silly to think that spending several trilion dollars to take a Maglev from Seattle to NYC which at a few hundred miles per hours is still a long trip makes sense when one can find a flight on Orbitz for a few hundred bucks right now.

That is the parlor trick. You are supposed to get excited over Fusion power, Maglev trains and other things. That is the same hook as the nice pictures of the kitchen cabinets you were looking at in the glossy ads. Once you hand over some money and your home, then the real game begins which you had no idea of.

Same principal here. I can think of several ex members who went into special education and helped thousands of kids who otherwise may have been thrown away who have become productive people. The teachers did that, made money and did not have to join a cult of personality.

Those now retiring ex members are known by the several THREE DECADE card table shriners we posted recently. We have more to post next week. You can spent THREE DECADES in a cult of personality or you can find real orgs and real things to do.

The one thing I am very certain of is that almost everyone who joins as a yute has no real idea of what they are good at or what talents they have to make things better. You find that out as part of growing up. A cult takes that away from you and puts you years and dollars behind in finding out what goals you have that are there to be discovered.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 9:54 pm:

Well, I'm not gonna go out and work at a card table or anything like that. There's no LaRouche people around my neck of the woods that do that anyway. But I'm not gonna go along with you guys either, and I don't really care about all the stuff you guys complain about LaRouche. All the complaints that have ever been registered in the history of the universe don't amount to a pile of beans. No one can ever make me believe the economy is going good. Most everyone's standard of living keeps getting worse in this country, and we need ideas and solutions instead of complaints. I can't find anyone else that has ideas as good as LaRouche.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:06 pm:


Of course LaRouche says some reasonable things! He HAS to in order to attract idealistic young people and get them to commit their lives to him and his various world historical "ventures".

It is no easy matter to start a business and pay people pennies per hour, working 6 to 7 days a week. You need to have something special, something that touches people deeply and makes them feel like they are truly extraordinary.

Most people on this board happen to agree with many of Lyn's core positions. Sadly, however, these core positions are simply window dressing, designed to pull you into his slave labor camp.

If Lyn truly cared about humanity, he would never treat people so badly. The inhuman treatment proves that his core positions are not real: They are fake and he is fake. He does not hold any truly decent human principles. All the wonderful words are simply words only and they existin order to attract and then trap idealistic young people.

The whole scam is evil beyond measure.

Lyn runs a slave labor camp. His core positions are incidental -- he would drop them in an instant if he found something more efficient to trap people with.

Again, it is altogether nontrivial to set up a business where workers are paid pennies per hour. Lyn's idealism is only a pawn in his evil scheme to steal your time.

Yutes: Demand to see the books, demand payment for your time. Don't be treated like cattle, like sheep, like sh.t.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:18 pm:

Well, if most people on this board agree with LaRouche's core positions, why don't we try to do something about it instead of complaining all the time? If LaRouche is doing a bad job with good ideas, why don't we try to do a good job with good ideas? You guys never even talk about the good ideas, you just say how bad LaRouche is.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:35 pm:


A couple of remarks.

1. Who cares who runs FactNet? When I write something here, it doesn't matter to me who the Mastermind Behind It All is, because I am saying what I think and also what I know for a ... Simple Fact. Jolyon West and Margaret Singer and all the others simply don't enter in.

2. I don't agree with LaRouche's core ideas, and I'll wager you can't even identify them. What are LaRouche's ideas that are UNIQUE to LaRouche, not cribbed in distorted undigested form from someone else?

3. If you're interested in someone with ideas as good as LaRouche, you could start with the pre-Socratics and work your way forward to Pope Benedict--for example--and find a multitude of ideas much better than LaRouche's. First of all, those ideas would be rigorous, coherent, and transparent.

Even in your neck of the woods, there must be books. And if you can find books, trust me, you can find ideas far better than those of Mr. Dialogue, Lyndon "I never met a man I could actually talk to" LaRouche.


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:54 pm:


It wasn't just the Mexican organization, it was the whole Latin American Labor Committee that left at the end of the 1990s. In tandem with that, the Catholic members in Leesburg were driven out in the second half of the '90s, culminating with the LaRouche-dictated, Tony Papert-signaled witchhunt of the fall of 2000, which finally drove Fernando Q out.

2006--Entire staff of French Fusion leaves.

Fall 2006--German leadership--EEC and EC--plus most of the organizers--leaves/is driven out. What's left is the dregs of the American expatriates and a bunch of members of Jugendbewegung. It's been brewing for months, but LaRouche's suspension of Uwe F starts the endgame.

And let's not forget the collapse of the Swedish organization in the mid-1980s, after the Olof Palme assassination....

But the most interesting mass defection is that of the NEC in the years 1994-1998 or so. LaRouche comes out of prison in the beginning of 1994, and spends the next two years in a drunken rage (really drunk--falling down on the floor drunk).

The weekly NEC meetings at LaRouche's house are needless to say unbearable. When the dust has cleared, the following NEC members have left the organization: Carol and Chris W. Mel K and wife, longtime API intelligence officer Kathy K. Webster T. Warren H (and wife NC member Nora H). And finally Fernando Q and wife NC member Robyn Q.

Who's left today are Nancy S (and formerly Ed S, but in LaRouche's memorable words he has been busted to rank private); Will W, Jeff S, Tony P, Gerry R, Dennis S. So there are six NEC members today, but before LaRouche came out of prison and tore everyone to shreds, there were twice that many NEC members.

Now, if you look at all the other NEC members who quit over the years (Kostas, Criton, Uwe H, etc., etc., not counting Dalto), you realize that the people who really can't stand LaRouche are the ones who have to meet with him.

(This doesn't include the tremendous attrition rate of the NC members--topic for another day.)


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 10:58 pm:


Which idea of LaRouche's do you like best? The one wherein he said there was no holocaust? The one wherein he accused Jeremiah Duggan's mother of responsibility for his death? The one wherein he called Benjamin Franklin a stupid tinkerer? (yes, he did) The one wherein he called Plato the philosopher of becoming? (read the book)

The one wherein he said a newborn baby wasn't a human being till its parents recognized it as such? The one wherein he salivated over Descartes?
The one wherein he denounced Ed S and Uwe F as enemies of Helga?

Which one? There have been so many...


Posted on Sunday, August 12, 2007 - 11:22 pm:

Man you guys just keep doing the same thing over and over. I don't know about all that factional in-fighting you guys talk about, but that kind of stuff goes on everywhere. That's just human nature. You guys just keep complaining about old fights and stuff instead of talking about solutions.

I guess you're right when you say it doesn't matter who is running FACTnet, but it does matter how it's being run. It seems like there is a blog for every cult in the country, and many are them are churches. What are you guys gonna do, shut down all the churches because you think they are cults? Even if you shut down LaRouche, we would still have all the problems in the country to deal with.

For the supposed majority of us who agree with LaRouche's core positions, we might be the only one's left to do something about those problems. What are you gonna do? If you can't even identify what those core positions are, or you don't agree with them, then you ain't gonna be no help. So if you don't agree, you must have some better ideas. If you have some better ideas from the pre-Socratics, or Pope Benedict, then let us in on it.

I guess my favorite idea from LaRouche is that we need to focus more on scientific and technological development, so the economy can grow faster, and more people can live better. We need more people to agree with that, so we can change the government policy to implement bigger development programs.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 12:31 am:

Hey, Brewncue--

Here's what DOESN'T go on "everywhere." Leaders of businesses don't viciously attack their colleagues for months, refuse to pay their bills, tell their high-ranking execs to kill themselves, and then when they do, spend months writing self-serving garbage about how it was everyone's fault but the Leader's who told the guy to kill himself--and then--do it again! Repeat the same venom that drove the guy to suicide in the first place.

THAT'S what doesn't go on everywhere.

Here's my better idea from Pope Benedict--and the whole Judeo-Christian tradition: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neigbor as yourself.

NOW--I have let you in on it. Does Lyndon LaRouche do that? No, he does not. Does he love God? Only insofar as he thinks he IS God.

Does he love his neighbor as himself? Hardly--he hates almost everyone who ever worked for him and helped to sustain him-- Jeez--did he love Ken K? Jeremiah D? Uwe F? Fernando? Ed Spannaus? Carol? Chris? All those lenders who put millions into his operation in the 1980s and were snookered bigtime by Lyndon "If you want your money ask Henry Kissinger" LaRouche? Think he loved them? Even though they were putting food on his table, wine in his glass, and horses in his stables?

As to population growth--I would be WAY more impressed with LaRouche's pro-population stance if I didn't know that virtually every woman in the LaRouche org had at least one abortion, often more, and almost always under extreme duress from the leadership. The world needs more people, but it evidently didn't need the children of Labor Committee members.

At least one woman was forced to have an abortion when she was FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.

Nope, not too impressed with LaRouche's population policies.

Finally, you ask me what I'm gonna do? Well, Brewncue, here's what I'm gonna do: Work every day, support my family, give all I can afford to charity, vote and organize politically for the candidates of my choice, AND --

I am going to work to expose Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. as the hate-filled banana he is.

Oh, and I'm going to warn the kiddies away from Bad Uncle Lindy.

And since I told you I don't agree with LaRouche's core positions, and since I told you that he doesn't really HAVE core positions, I don't have to rush around trying to implement his stupid, unworkable, megalomaniacal, grandiose schemes.

But--here's the thing--LaRouche followers don't try to implement his ideas either. They try to raise money. That's the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the name of the game. Money. As those poor LYM kids are finding out now.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 12:31 am:

Hey, Brewncue--

Here's what DOESN'T go on "everywhere." Leaders of businesses don't viciously attack their colleagues for months, refuse to pay their bills, tell their high-ranking execs to kill themselves, and then when they do, spend months writing self-serving garbage about how it was everyone's fault but the Leader's who told the guy to kill himself--and then--do it again! Repeat the same venom that drove the guy to suicide in the first place.

THAT'S what doesn't go on everywhere.

Here's my better idea from Pope Benedict--and the whole Judeo-Christian tradition: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neigbor as yourself.

NOW--I have let you in on it. Does Lyndon LaRouche do that? No, he does not. Does he love God? Only insofar as he thinks he IS God.

Does he love his neighbor as himself? Hardly--he hates almost everyone who ever worked for him and helped to sustain him-- Jeez--did he love Ken K? Jeremiah D? Uwe F? Fernando? Ed Spannaus? Carol? Chris? All those lenders who put millions into his operation in the 1980s and were snookered bigtime by Lyndon "If you want your money ask Henry Kissinger" LaRouche? Think he loved them? Even though they were putting food on his table, wine in his glass, and horses in his stables?

As to population growth--I would be WAY more impressed with LaRouche's pro-population stance if I didn't know that virtually every woman in the LaRouche org had at least one abortion, often more, and almost always under extreme duress from the leadership. The world needs more people, but it evidently didn't need the children of Labor Committee members.

At least one woman was forced to have an abortion when she was FIVE MONTHS PREGNANT.

Nope, not too impressed with LaRouche's population policies.

Finally, you ask me what I'm gonna do? Well, Brewncue, here's what I'm gonna do: Work every day, support my family, give all I can afford to charity, vote and organize politically for the candidates of my choice, AND --

I am going to work to expose Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. as the hate-filled banana he is.

Oh, and I'm going to warn the kiddies away from Bad Uncle Lindy.

And since I told you I don't agree with LaRouche's core positions, and since I told you that he doesn't really HAVE core positions, I don't have to rush around trying to implement his stupid, unworkable, megalomaniacal, grandiose schemes.

But--here's the thing--LaRouche followers don't try to implement his ideas either. They try to raise money. That's the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the name of the game. Money. As those poor LYM kids are finding out now.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 1:51 am:

Well, folks. The word is out on where Avi Klein is coming from!

Hm. Oh. Kay. Your guess is better than mine, I hope.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 10:09 am:

Avi Klein's article could be cancelled, Myspace could shut down, Factnet could shut down, and LaRouche would still be ineffectual and in trouble. There is no European organization, no Latin American organization, no printing, no presidential campaign. What's left are a handful of oldtimers and young people. There is no "get LaRouche" conspiracy. LaRouche's response to [and responsibility for] the deaths of Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg horrified a number of former and soon-to-be former members. Although silent for many years, these people stepped forward, individually, one by one, on his/her own initiative, to tell his/her story, in order to prevent more deaths. As the stories were told, and as ex-LYMers contributed their stories, it became clear that LaRouche had gotten more coercive, more abusive and more pyschotically self-centered over the intervening years. Such realization caused even more former members to step forward, haunted by his/her own ghosts of forced abortions, forced malnutrition, ego-stripping, and so, in order to prevent this from happening to yet another generation of bright, well-meaning young people.

LaRouche et al's response to the growing number of individuals telling his/her story is revealing: according to LaRouche et al, these individuals could not be acting individually; rich, evil, oligarchs must be controlling them. This is because LaRouche does not believe in free will or he would understand each person contributing to Factnet and elsewhere is operating on his/her own. The increase in autobiographical stories posted here has caused Avi Klein and others to investigate LaRouche and to write journalistic exposes.

The story is out, and getting bigger every day. Nothing LaRouche says is going to stop it. No person in this society has the right to take another person's life, whether physically, through killing, or psychologically through a coercive cult. Factnet is not LaRouche's biggest enemy, nor is Mellon Scaife, the British aristocracy, Rupert Murdoch, Kissinger, or Cheney et al. Free will is LaRouche's biggest enemy, thank God for that.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 12:50 pm:

Well I have to admit those are some pretty serious accusations, but I really don’t have any way of knowing they are true. It reminds me about a little history I learned about the early Church when the Christians were always being accused of this and that, and being thrown to the lions. Nero accused the Christians of burning down Rome, when he’s the one that did it himself. They even accused the Christians of killing people in their ceremonies, and it turned out to be just some fool named Simon Magus doing crazy things and calling it Christianity. Maybe LaRouche has some Simon Magus people working against him? But pretty soon more people started reading or hearing the simple words of Jesus himself, and a lot of them became real Christians. You know, stuff like "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself." That’s a great idea. I agree with stuff like that, and I agree with LaRouche’s economic programs.

You guys are just being silly when you just go around and around like Nero making accusations that most people don’t even care about. The only thing I see burning is the economy, and the only one that seems to be saying enough about it is LaRouche. Then you go say things like "here's what I'm gonna do: “Work every day, support my family, give all I can afford to charity, vote and organize politically for the candidates of my choice." That’s cool, but who you gonna vote for? Another person like Bush who tells all kind of lies and sends our troops to get killed for nothing? So far I haven’t heard anyone talking about good things that really matter to everyone like LaRouche does.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 1:09 pm:


You re so naive, beyond belief- I think what you need is a serious reality check.
All that is being warned friendly to you isnt taken into account, it means one thing to me: you have very little experience in life (and politics) and all of this means nothing to you.
These are empty words.
You really need a serious reality check.
You said in a previous post: "Well, I'm not gonna go out and work at a card table or anything like that. " Wanna bet?
That will be your first contact with reality: you WILL be deployed to sell literature.
Then, after years of going nowhere politically (because the lar org is NOT a political organisation- in case you didnt get it), maybe you ll remember our warnings.
Good luck (and please, dont argue with them, you may end up like Jeremiah)


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 1:44 pm:

Well folks, I think brewncue has made up his mind, and he "ain't" going to change it. Thanks for your input brewncue. It's been an interesting few days. I, for one, intend to move on with other issues.

Isn't it great that is so open to everyone?


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 5:16 pm:

You just throw around insults and accusations, and now your saying I need a reality check. I don't know what makes you think I'm going out to sell anything. I surely ain't buying what your selling, because it ain't worth a thing. You guys don't seem to have any real ideas about anything. It seem like all you are ever gonna do is complain about LaRouche instead of thinking about anything important like he does. Then when somebody says, wait a minute, LaRouche has a good idea, you just start flaming at the mouth, and change the subject. That's all so wierd, it makes me think you guys are the real cult.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 5:36 pm:

Well folks, I think brewncue has made up his mind, and he "ain't" going to change it. Thanks for your input brewncue. It's been an interesting few days. I, for one, intend to move on with other issues.

intentional duplication


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 6:21 pm:


Accusations that most people don't even care about?

Hmm, let's see. Forced abortion, induced suicide, thievery, fraud, death, destruction, brainwashing....

Dumkopf, the point is, LaRouche devours his own. Just like those Goya pictures he was so taken with....

So you may not care about mayhem, death, destruction, and mind control, but to dismiss them and charges of them as irrelevant and petty is an act of real oafishness. Or fear.

You're still pretending you're not in the LaRouche org? Gimme a break.

I do like your line about "flaming at the mouth," though. A malapropism freighted with irony.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 7:19 pm:

This is to let you folks know that the much-maligned "Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism" (Doubleday 1989) is now available for free in a revised HTML version (replacing the PDF version) at

All 40 chapters have now been converted to html, with links from each chapter to the corresponding chapter notes. I have done some stylistic cleanup, fixed typos, and corrected a few minor errors re dates and names.

My thanks to certain ex-ICLC members for their help with this project.

I welcome input from ex-members--and others with special knowledge--for additional footnotes and citations, appendices, and additions to the text. You can sent your input to or simply post it on FactNet, or both.

(Message edited by dking on August 13, 2007)


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 7:23 pm:


you say "It seem like all you are ever gonna do is complain about LaRouche instead of thinking about anything important like he does."

A very basic reality check for you:
this site is called FACTnet, it s about coercitive cults and this particular thread is about larouche.

What did you expect???

btw: what we are discussing here are not larouche's ideas per se but indeed what he does... IN REALITY


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 7:33 pm:

Mayhem, death, destruction, and mind control? What planet are you from? Just because I read some LaRouche, and listened to some speeches, doesn't mean I'm "with" LaRouche, whatever that's supposed to mean. You seem paranoid or something. You say things that are just plain bizarre, and I'm not so "naive" that I can't tell the difference between someone that says things that make a lot of sense like LaRouche, and someone like you that just flames at the mouth and makes no sense at all. I don't believe anything you guys say, because it doesn't even seem like you know how to talk right at all. Mayhem, death, destruction and mind-control? Were you in that MK-Ultra experiment? That's what they did! The people that run FACTnet! Now I get it!


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 8:09 pm:


lol... yeah alright we were brainwashed by MK-Ultra (in the 60s?) and by factnet (who s the guru? damn' I forgot his name!)

Before you join , read D King's book on larouche which is now available online at

You dont realize your luck, to live in the age of the Internet where the information is much more accessible, at least for those who want to know and can read...
When it came out in print the book was verboten in the org but many who read it left... because what s in there confirmed what they suspected was utterly wrong with larouche


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 8:37 pm:

Brewncue sounds just like I did when I entered my first year of college after reading LC lit for a few months. 4 years to a degree sounded soooo long when I could join a revolutionary cadre org which was full of energetic young people who did not smoke pot, listened to Beethoven and were emphatic that they could achieve state power in a few years. I had visions of leading the masses in 4 years instead of studying for a Calculus test.

The real thing which scared me is that after finishing college or just entering your 20s, you are more scared of what it means to be a real adult who has to make a living, take care of children for ever , find an area to reside in, pay adult bills and face the world. God it was just so easy and cool to be able to not think about that and just walk into a meeting and disrupt it by showering the audience with what ever lunacy we had at the time. It made no difference who we were targetting because we could creat any connection we wanted.

That article about the Avi Klein article is not for the masses or anyone except the yutes and whatever is left in Leesburg. It has always been like that. You have to imagine a life where every day begins and ends with some endless collections of connections and invented conspiracies which are designed to scare the bejesus out of you. Before joining I was really a dummy and had no idea of how many ways there are to change things and first hand make your life better.

Every group and every music or artistic or lit type association always had to be under attack by the cult to scare YOU, not the tens reds of millions of people out there who get things done and enjoy their lives.


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 8:38 pm:

I was watching a Brando movie last night on DVD when this all hit me when Brando talks about being a preliminary or Prelim fighter instead of the main eventer who ends up a bum. You grow up and are scared of what is going on in the real world. Instead of learning how things change and what groups or parties or associations are doing, you take a detour to the guy who is promising you all of the answers.

You get taken advantage of by a person you think is smarter than you. When you get mesmerised and fall for the parlor tricks, you become a PreLYM bum so to speak. As a PreLYM bum the cult knows more than you do. As a PreLYM bum you are weak as you really do not have any connections to the many places where things get done. It is so overwhelming that anyone who can make it simple has you hooked. Lyn ain't the only one who knows this and there are plenty of outfits which know the tricks.

A PreLYM bum will take the path of least resistance, not knowing that is all leads into an endless circle. Think I am kidding yutes? We have a few more stories of THREE DECADE memebrs who started off like you and all eneded up at card table shrines or sucking on exhaust fumes for Lyn.

Now for people who think that they will avoid it, think again yutes. Remember when Jeff S . came to your local office and said that Leesburg is now looking for people to staff the publications. What publications is he talking about? Do you really think that you are going to get a job? You guys are "volunteers" as far as the IRS goes. Everyone of you thinks the other yute will end up in the street. If you pay attention to the list of THREE DECADE members who were far more educated than you drop outs you will figure it out.

Being in the Larouche Movement means that you move out of the way of cars yutes.

Up next is a fascinating find from one of the numerous WABAC Machines operating around the globe. Just wait until you read something attributed to Lyn 43 years ago which is the business plan for the yutes. It was the business plan for me when I joined. Once the transcriptions are completed, the SWP Lyn unveils his plan for the Trotsky yutes. What is it that Lyn always used to spout at conferences? "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it". I feel like Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space" telling you PreLYM bums that you are "Doomed, Doomed I say".


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 8:53 pm:

Well I think I should say something to shadok because you didn't really say anything as crazy as that other guy, and I guess, to answer your question, I shouldn't have expected anything different these last couple of days. But I'm just looking at things a piece at a time. I'm probably not gonna read that Dennis King book because I'd rather spend my time reading something that really matters, because when somebody says LaRouche is anti-semitic, I'm alarmed. That's one of the reasons I don't believe all the stuff you guys say on this message board. You say LaRouche is anti-semitic. I don't believe it. There's no reason for anyone to be anti-semitic. We all have friends that are Jewish, and they are just like anyone else. When people say "He's anti-semitic," they're just using a word to try to make someone look bad for some other reason. It's just low budget mud-slinging.

So I'm thinking, why would he say that? The main thing I have to go on is what I know about population control, environmentalism, and all that. The scary thing is that most people believe the world is overpopulated. How did they get to believe that? To have so many people believing the world is overpopulated is the most evil thing I can imagine. LaRouche says it's some "oligarchs" that just want to keep people down so they can control resources, and they don't have to worry about things like the American Revolution. That sounds way out there, but it's the only thing that really makes sense! So I'm thinking, maybe this Dennis King guy works for one of them "oligarchs?" I mean, people that run, or used to run this message board handed out LSD all over the place during the MK-Ultra days. What the heck is going on?

(Message edited by brewncue on August 13, 2007)


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 11:40 pm:

Brewncue, I appreciate the cross-currents you are caught in, and am especially glad that you have continued to post, and speak your mind. I intend, perhaps as early as tonight, but it might have to wait until tomorrow, to begin to address your biggest issue--what about LaRouche's "core positions." I for one feel that you deserve a serious discussion on them, and I intend to start one, in hopes that others will contribute.

In response to your post above, I also want to say that I find the charge of anti-semitism to be one I have never subscribed to. I agree it makes no sense, and even given everything I think LaRouche is out to lunch on, being anti-semitic is not one of them. Some of the quotes that people have reported, most of which I either never saw, or have long since forgotten, are pretty damning, but other arguments, starting with his pro-Palestinian position vis a vis Israel, is shared by the vast majority of humanity outside of the U.S., who are not anti-semitic in general, because it happens to be true. Attacking what Israel has done for the past 40 years is absolutely not proof of being anti-semitic. So in my book, anyone who includes that charge in their list of items of evidence, is prima facie not credible to me.

And I don't think it can be denied that the Anti-Defamation League did pick a fight with LaRouche, I think starting in 1975. I don't know whether they profiled him to know he would counter-attack in ways that would appear to bolster their claims, or whether they were just doing what they do, keeping the entire American electorate in line, above all the Congress, to ensure that Israel is never criticized, no matter what barbarity they perpetrate against the Palestinians.

And Dennis King, well, I've never read his book. I've read some things on his website, and some charges, and some information, I consider correct and fair, and other items I consider not true. I do think he is not an objective observer, but someone who has an axe to grind. He's made his career out of going after LaRouche.

And to me, the biggest irony is, I don't think he has comprehended squat about why people join LaRouche, or stay with him for years, decades, and entire lifetimes. I can well imagine that a member who already has largely figured it out, could read King's book and find enough justification for his/her misgivings to decide that's the final straw, and leave at that time. I doubt that King says anything that could sway a regular member, or even a new LYM member. Hopefully, what we contribute on this site can/is doing that, because, as we have all been telling Brewncue, this isn't about doing what LaRouche does all the time, ad hominem attack (attack the man to avoid discussing what he stands for). It is about reporting on our experiences with the man and his organization, a very different thing. Brewncue, you ignore the first-hand experience reported here at your peril.

(to be continued)


Posted on Monday, August 13, 2007 - 11:44 pm:

That said, you are also due a discussion directly on what you call LaRouche's "core positions." Because, while I freely concede that he says some things that make sense, the things that "make sense" do not govern anything that LaRouche does. And these "things that make sense" are accompanied by so much that makes no sense, much of it utterly illogical, self-contradictory and absurd. His method is pure sophistry, because he draws you in with his seemingly sensible overall positions and broad approaches, and those who get to the point of thinking that, "Wow, LaRouche really has things together, he is so incredibly knowledgeable and intelligent, way more so than me," then are prepped to believe everything that LaRouche says, and very soon, LaRouche deviates from the "sensible" generalities (that are usually not as unique to him as he claims they are anyway, at least the valid ones), and the new recruit eats up the absurdities and in his mind they must also be true, just like the original generalities that attracted him.

All of that said, you deserve very specific particulars to back up my assertion that under the hood is mainly illogicality, self-contradiction, faulty reasoning, appallingly bad history (never documented), incredible objuscation, elevation of trivial concepts to the pinacle of high philosophical truth, etc. You shall have that shortly. Stay tuned.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 12:12 am:


Note that "core positions" do not necessarily mean "original ideas".

I readily concede that many of LAR's core positions are completely reasonable and sane.

I do NOT believe, however, that LAR has produced anything of value in terms of original thought -- certainly not anything of real scientific value or merit. He uses words without thought(s).

Wait... there is one item. The idea of forming a worldwide political-intelligence cult-of-personality “may” be an original idea, albeit hideous and odious.

Perhaps others can comment on whether LAR actually came up with something new, or whether he simply lifted the above "idea" from someone else.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 8:11 am:

I disagree with the idea that LaRouche is not anti-Semitic. I do agree that he is not only anti-Semitic, and not even primarily anti-Semitic, but to say he is not anti-Semitic is absurd.

The question is not that of Israel and Palestine, the question is that of such abominations as the favorable citing, in Dope, Inc., of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a reliable source, or the vile anti-Semitic jokes (yes) that used to appear in New Solidarity, or the famous centerfold that said that Auschwitz was not a death camp, and that the deaths there were not primarily deliberate. Or LaRouche's insistence for years--until it got too embarrassing--that there was no Holocaust, followed by his modification that "only" 1 million Jews were killed, followed by his "insight" that they were killed not because they were Jews, but because they were trade unionists, communists, etc.

His attacks on the Old Testament are deranged, and a case in point.

His vision (later deep-sixed) that Judaism was a derivative of medieval Christianity, developed to create and maintain a usurer class, is another case in point.

His famous joke about Moshe Dayan as "the only Jew with b--ls" will be remembered with distaste by early ICLC members.

The appearance in ICLC publications of such tripe as Jeff S's centerfold on the Joint Distribution Committee is another case in point--there Jeff claimed that virtually every Jewish immigrant to the U.S. was an "agent" of the Joint.

Are you familiar with the book that Jeff S and Paul Go published in Japan on Jews? Probably not....

How about LaRouche's rants against the Talmud?

Or his endless jokes about Jews and circumcision?--talk about "pathetically sexually obsessed" and concerned about matters of virility. (Will someone please tell LaRouche Muslims are circumcised too? Maybe then he'll shut up about it. He is courting Muslims.)

There is the oft-cited Feuerbach Campaigner, which I commend to all of you. There is the "Zionism is Not Judaism" Campaigner, ditto.

All in all, LaRouchetruth is in error on this--I don't believe anyone takes LaRouche's position on Palestine as the marker. It's his entire history and oeuvre that make the point.

As to Dennis King's book, it contains extremely useful information and insights. It is true that, since King is not a former member, there is plenty he misses, but it seems to me, judging from his recent work, that he is fast rectifying that.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 12:01 pm:

Hey! Nick Benton has a myspace page! That has to be a double-fer for Larouche... an ex-member, and a myspace page.

And he has some more things to say about Larouche.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 1:01 pm:

Speaking of MySpace, I suppose I am the last to read the absolutely STOOPID "MySpace" jokes on the LaRouche PAC website, but if not, here you go--they're too awful to reproduce here, but if you want an insight into the inner workings of the Collective Mind of LaRouchedom, you can use this URL:

What's the epxression? Dumb as a bucket of hammers? or something like that.

One reason I put the URL up here (aside from providing a glimpse into the Greatest Mind of the Eon) is because the "jokes" remind me of some repulsive leaflets issued in 1975 in NYC by the "LaRouche Youth" of the day against the Puerto Rican Socialist Party (about whom LaRouche wrote his famous Part 3 in Beyond Psych, the "Sexual Impotence of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party" Campaigner).

And speaking of "pathetically sexually obsessed," as that frothing end-of-July "Simple Facts" memo did, if you go back and read the PSP Campaigner, and then dig up the leaflets from 1975 (good luck), and then read the LaRouchies' jokes about MySpace, I think you'll see some seriously pathetic sexual obsession going on here.

What do all those things have in common? Only one thing, and one person: LHL himself.

Maybe it's useful to analyze his core ideas--although they barely exist, beyond a nod towards technology and grandiose Stalin- or Hitler-style Great (=Huge, =Powerful) Projects; and a hallucinogenic tour through the History of Philosphy without benefit of the texts. Anyhow, maybe it's useful to analyze his core ideas, and I am all for it, but I think it's essential to expose the fetid, furtive, slithering, sexually vicious nastiness that emanates from LaRouche to the minds of young, impressionable followers and comes out in these "jokes."

Even 40 years ago, his supporters cringed at this stuff--but were too insecure to say "You're bats" and walk out. No reason for today's yutes to drown in the same river (twice).


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 1:07 pm:

I agree with eaglebeak

Larouche stance on jews/zionism/israel etc smacks of antisemitism.
I posted that stuff monthes ago but let's have a quick reminder of his alledged recent "pro-semitism".

Todays' "absolute evil" of the org is called the SYNARCHY.

What's all about? Well it is a historical reference to a conspiracy theory of the 30s and 40s that was concocted in pronazi Vichy France, which said that some factions of the Vichy regime and consequently the French econony were under control of the Jewish bankers family owners of the Banque Worms.
That was then called the "complot synarchique d'empire", very similar to its russian equivalent the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...

Now, that is not what larouche says, he goes FAR BEYOND what the racist fascist Vichysts were saying! The larouche's "Synarchists" are (without the slighest evidence as usual) a conspiracy of international bankers who, like Felix Rohatyn, Lazard Frere, Andre Meyer etc, appear to be most exclusively Jewish and who, acc to larouche, PUT HITLER INTO POWER, and are now behind Dick Cheney, P Wolfowitz, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore and want to unleach a genocide, start a ww3, destroy the US and German economies (Helga calls them "locusts", a term that outraged the Germans given their past - btw the Iranian regime had a revisionist antisemitic exhibition in Tehran called "Ho-Locust"...)

So, here you have lym yutes, who are probably not antisemites, calling Jews like Rohatyn, Meyer "nazis", which is a de facto hate campaign targetting explicitly jewish bankers...
People of course are confused because they can't imagine that, in larouche's sick mind, Jews=Nazis=British...

Here is a recent lhl quote: "Well, Felix Rohatyn is essentially a Nazi. That's no exaggeration, that's no mistake, no caricature. That's what he is. Felix Rohatyn is a protégé of a fellow called André Meyer. André Meyer was a kingpin of an organization known as Lazard Frères, in Paris. Lazard Frères was an integral part of the Nazi takeover of Continental Europe! And Meyer personally trained Felix Rohatyn. Now Felix is not bright. As a matter of act, he's very uncouth, very stupid in many ways. He's not an intellectual, he's a thug! He's like a mafia hit-man who is not known for his intellectual characteristics. He's a thug, equivalent to a murderer. Now, what Meyer represented, and what Lazard Frères represented, then, and now : Lazard Frères was the key Continental center in banking which brought Adolf Hitler to power, and launched World War II, and the crimes that went with it." \\(


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 1:26 pm:

lar antisemitism (cont.)

And what about the Zayed centre in Abu Dhabi where lyn, helga, cheminade were guest?
It was eventually closed down due to internatioonal pressure (especially jewish orgs) because it drifted towards a center for propagating antisemitism, revisionism and the 9/11 conspiracy theory (aka the jews are behind it).
For your info: “In August 2002, the Los Angeles Times quoted Mohammed Murar, the executive director of the Zayed Center, saying about Jews that "the truth is they are the enemies of all nations." His comment came on the heels of a Zayed Center report stating that "the Zionists are the people who killed the Jews in Europe." Rings a bell?
In may that year, lyn was their guest and was reinvited the following year.

Now, did larouche complain about this?
Yes, of course he did but NOT about the fact it was spreading antisemitism and revisionism. He OPPOSED its closing down... and said about this center's role that "the world has had the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the Arab world most immediately, and, implicitly, with a larger part of the world of Islamic cultures".
So, antisemitism and revisionism aren't an issue to him and shouldnt prevent us to engage in a dialogue with the Muslim world, even on that basis.
When interviewed about his antisemitism, he answered that's "garbage... from C Berlet", and when asked to say something good about Israel, he hardly could answer anything...


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 1:27 pm:

lar antisemitism (end)

In conclusion, are we supposed to believe lyndon larouche jr. when he says he s not an antisemite, simply because he says so?

Some other links:

By the way, Larouche called recently Himmler, the author of the Final solution, merely the "Nazi concentration camp boss" (no "extermination camps"... just in case you have doubts about his revisionism - revisionism is exactely that: it denies the "extermination" camps but agrees on the existence of "concentration" camps and so denies a voluntary policy of systematic extermination, which is the REAL meaning behind the word "genocide", not "schachtian economics"...)


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 3:08 pm:

Shadok is 100% correct.

The LaRouche take on Nazism and the Holocaust has always been that it was purely an economic phenomenon--that was the point of the infamous Schacht Campaigner of so many years ago.

LaRouche's line was that "Schachtian economics"--looting--was the entire point of the Nazi exercise (that and attacking the Soviet Union on behalf of the British aristocracy, esp Winston Churchill). That's no doubt why Hjalmar Schacht wound up in a concentration camp--because he was running Hitler.

In LaRouche's view, the death of 6 million Jews (a) didn't happen and, when he was forced to admit that it did, (b) didn't happen because they were Jews but because they were worked to death, or were trade unionists, or some such. Hence he insisted on regarding Auschwitz as a giant labor camp, and blatting on and on about I.G. Farben plants next to it, slave labor, etc.

He categorically refused to admit that there was a DEATH camp, EXTERMINATION camp, KILLING center at Auschwitz, whose only purpose was to kill people, the overwhelming majority of whom were Jews.

LaRouche is the ultimate historical revisionist: Hitler wasn't the fault of the Germans, but of the Americans and British, and of the American and British Jewish bankers. (At one point in his career, LaRouche even claimed Hitler had been raised in a "Warburg orphanage," but dropped that after his source was shown to be rather embarrassingly mistranslated.)

Next, in LaRouche's revisionism, the Jews weren't exterminated, they died (those of them that actually did die) in the maelstrom of war, "just like" everyone else.

In LaRouche Thought, Nazism wasn't a crazed racialist cult, but a physical-economic looting mechanism. This is the communist view, more or less--because, translated, it means that Nazism is the final stage of capitalism, and that was communist theory.

So please discard any ideas you may have that LaRouche's attitude toward Jews is merely LaRouche's attitude toward the problems and failures of the Israeli state. It's just not the case.

Granted, LaRouche has always hated Israel, and used to support the terrorist PFLP of Georges Habash, before he and his minions (Michele S) decided Arafat was "sublime" (as an article of hers once said). Every terrorist attack on Israelis in the Mideast or anywhere else has been blamed on ... the Jews. (E.g., Ariel Sharon created Hamas.) Blamed on the Mossad.

Hence the special twistedness of LaRouche's recently announcing that journalist Avi Klein's obvious joke--signing himself "Special Agent, Mossad" in some letter or other--has been escalated to the highest level by the ICLC, which has communicated with the Israeli embassy to "warn" them.

Of course, Klein's joke makes more sense if you recall that LaRouchite Anton Chaitkin did "research" to "show" that Avi Klein was a "Mossad agent." That appeared in the Morning Briefing some time ago, but I don't think it has made its way into any publications....

What a malevolent clown LaRouche is.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 3:17 pm:


I notice that the LaRouche interview Shadok cites has been moved by the industrious little creatures in Leesburg--within a few hours of Shadok's posting it.

If you go to the link Shadok posted,, you will note that, strangely, you can't find the webpage....

Hmmm. Lots of work being a LaRouchie, cleaning up after the mother of all elephants.

Frankly, folks, you might as well erase EVERYthing the great man said, because sooner or later it will all come back to haunt you.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 3:41 pm:

that s funny, eaglebeak!

the whole isnt working...., maybe under heavy maintenance or they decided to cancel it all... anyway the link is still available because google has cached the page at

On a more sinister note for those who believe that rumor that larouche has softened his line on the Jews, think about this British Jewish student coming to attend what he innocently believed to be an antiwar conference and who, acc. to his parents and friends, was nothing like a Jew involved in his coummunity, a zionist or even religious, this student felt he HAD TO stand up in front of the LYM audience and larouche to tell them: "But I AM a Jew...."
What was said that day such that he had to defend himself for being... Jewish!
Of course you know this student was Jeremiah Duggan, found dead a few days later, a hundred yards from Larouche's HQ in Wiesbaden, Germany.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 6:44 pm:

The funniest damned thing about this aptly described "malevolent clown" LaRouche is that he regularly condemns himself out of his own mouth. He has an almost perversely lucid self-knowledge, but it only finds expression in his wholly inapt invective against others, to wit, from the above:

"Now [Lyndy] is not bright. As a matter of act, he's very uncouth, very stupid in many ways. He's not an intellectual, he's a thug! He's like a mafia hit-man who is not known for his intellectual characteristics. He's a thug, equivalent to a murderer."


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 9:24 pm:

brewncue, people who gravitate towards the LC/LYM usually have motives which are based on things they depply believe in. In my case, what made me very happy and what made me very sad was not just a motivation to persue more knowledge , but also a weakness. That is part of what happens to you when you'r relationship to events and the way things change seems more like an abstraction than something a person can just do by themselves.

Something like overpopulation was an issue which effected me before I joined the LC. I was riding in a bus one day and overheard two people talking about how if they were in charge they would enforce a strict 2 child limit to replace the parents . This was when ZERO population Growth was a big issue in the early 1970s. Now overhearing that bothered me when I was maybe 12 because I asked myself how do you enforce that and with so much space on Earth, how is this a problem? Now ask yourself why would someone think about overpoulation in the first place? There are so many reasons that it is not a simple recipe because the motivation is often for different reasons. You may be talking to a person who spends 2 hours stuck in traffic each day and sees rapid development of what was once farmland. Another person may have had one too many Sally Struther's commercials or solicitations to feed starving kids in overseas areas. Other people in the era I grew up in were upset over seeing people on public assistance getting more money automatically for each additional child. Some people do not like the Catholic Church's stance on birth control. There are plenty of reason why someone can say in passing comment that there are too many people. If you think any issue is clear cut than just try to follow the many arguement sin the immigration law debates.

When I was in the LC I was piled into an apt which had me moving aorund a lot. Now I own a home and reside in the real worls. When you have kids in the public school system and a builder proposes a 1,000 homes and you see the local government has no plan to handle that influx of people ,of course you are against more people. Once you start paying property taxes and take an interest in your kids schools and follow funding of infrastructure you change your tune real fast about people, growth and development. When you live in a depressed local economy your problem is people moving out.

These are all things that people debate and fight over using many tactics and eventually budgets are passed and bond issues are voted on. All of this is something you will never do in the LC/LYM because that is not why issues are presented to you. In the LC/LYM this is merely the bait and the bait changes depending on who is biting and what the issue of the day which can be molded to include how LHL and his delusions views it. You will not have any debate over policy and there has not been any thing remotely considered a discussion of substance since the early 1970s in the SDS LC when you talk to older members.

People here who were in the LC and post material were in for years. You can't blame them for being very concerned when a person starts to dance with Lyn. We know how this always ends and there are a few thousand ex members who joined for very good reasons and left for even better reasons. We almost never recruited older people as they were far more savvy about us then we were as yutes. I participate on other forums where people as for advice in purchasing varuous goods and servies. In this day people can get instant feedback about a product or service and what the downfalls were. I don't find fault with people who join the LC/LYM based on their reasons to do good. I can only show you history and explain how and why things work in a certain way.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 9:28 pm:

Last year I received pretty angry emails from LYM members who said I was full of it in stating that they will soon be manning card tabel shrines full time and inhaling exhaust fumes. The writing was not on the proverbial wall, but in Lyn's own memos and NC conference calls where he said clearly that the boomers are no longer pulling their weight and the LYM will be taking over the production, writing and FUNDRAISING. For fun loving yutes who had visions of listening to music, rehearsing plays, doing math and occasionally going to an intervention and a college campus for name gathering, this party was never going to end. Since they did not the history of how Lyn works they would not know of Lyn's famous dictum when sending people out to the streets "This aint no debating society".

The HARDEST idea for someone to understand is that the whole show is designed NOT TO WORK. This formula Lyn has for yutes is pretty much over FOUR DECADES old. For older members here who have been around I ask you the following question.

Why was the LC so unsuccessful at joint work with so many groups and never had a coalition of sorts last more than it took to boil the membership lists?

It seems that the only remote success theLC had was with NUWRO (National Unemployed Welfare Rights Organisation) and that came to a quick end with Mop Up. Lyn does not want coalitions or joint work, just FOLLOWERS. IN that short span of time between Mop Up and the phony Chris White brainwashing hoax the LC transformed itself in a cult of personality.

I came in after this and found that my hubris in wanting Fusion power, world wide development , projects galore blinded me to the lunacy I would soon be in the middle of for some time. I saw what I wanted to see and did not believe what people I knew who saw the whole picture and warned me of my future folly. The heavy criticism of what I think I loved was turned into a seal of approval since in a cult of personality, one is built up to be a superiour intellect to the surrounding masses and experienced critics. There was no internet to check this all out and the only people who semed to be upset by the LC were leftists groups whom I did not like anyway.

Was I a naive idiot? Damn right. Were my internal beliefs and philosophy and motivation wrong, absoluteley not. Pick better friends to work with and you will get farther towards the goals you want to see.

The big secret is that Lyn only needs followers as the rest is not important. To see the first inkling of this, we use one if the greatest inventions ever devised by one of the greatest baby boomer cartoons ever made........

The incredible WABAC MAchine from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show!

In many emails I recieved from Leesburg, LCers were referring to Lyn as "Fearless Leader" in how he considered Leesburg his kingdom. Fearless leader also had a "LYM basement " of sorts called "Central Control". This stuff began to get hysterical as Fearless Leader had two bumbling security spies and Lyn had Michelle and Jeff. Fearless Leader answered to a man named "Mr. Big" who ran him while Lyn has "The Major" to send him on wild delusions. Fearless Leader's head was very big and so is Lyn's cranium.

If you want to see how close the two are, consider this scene in the show with Fearless Leader and his closest collaborator, Boris Badenov from Wikipedia.

"The nicest thing Fearless Leader ever wrote about Boris Badenov was sending a picture of himself to Boris with the words "Drop DEAD Signed Fearless Leader'."

On the show was an invention called the WABAC machine.


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 9:32 pm:

The WABAC machine is your friend yutes and the cult's worst nightmare because we can post and find so many things for people to read and figure out for themselves. Evidently, quite a few LYM are just doing that as the THREE DECADE LCers are being sent around the country to try to get the yutes really excited about card table shrines and inhaling carcinogens daily .

There are a few dozen WABAC machines working around the globe by people who know what to look for. This is not done around the clock as everyone has families, hobbies and things to get done.

For all of the yutes who think that they are special and unique, we have a surprise for you. This has all been done before by Lyn and you just happen to be the latest set of yutes who have been hijacked out of college. I thought this process began with the SDS days by Lyn, but it seems to go back even further when Lyn developed a business model which may have begun in 1965 in the SWP.

An email came in a few days ago and I thought it was fan mail from some flounder until I read it closely

As best as I can put this together, Lyn was in the SWP and writing endless reports which no one read or cared about. In the SWP was a guy named Wohlforth who has some brilliant quotes about Lyn which are right on the money.

Wohlworth had a splinter groupcalled the American Committee for the Fourth International or ACFI. ACFI published the "Bulletin for Intl Socialism" or BIS. BIS

The person(s) who were doing some research seem to be very familiar with Lyn and were shocked when they found a copy of the October 4, 1965 (Vol2 # 15) on the shelves at a major US University and were intrigued when they began to read it.

Now we can read one of the numerous WABAC machine generated fun.

Here is some of the details known by the people who have uncovered this document. Thee quotes are from the researchers who know a lot more than I know about this.

"Wohlforth set up the ACFI after his group was expelled from the SWP in the early 1960s. It later became the Workers League. Larouche became a supporter of the group and after he quit the SWP he briefly became a member before leaving it first to join the Sparticist League for a few months and then to form his own group which became the Labor Committee."

"The Wohlforth ACFI group published the Bulletin. Larouche wrote for it while still a member of the SWP which is why he wrote anonymously. He then officially joined the group after his resignation from the SWP."

"On October 4, 1965, the Bulletin (Vol. 2, No. 15) published part II of "Special Report on SWP Convention : How Trotsky's 'Heirs' Celebrated the 25th Anniversary of His Death." In it the author, almost certainly LaRouche, devoted a section to the role of "youth" in the party. The "youth" were from the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), the SWP version of the LYM. The SWP leadership at the time was headed by Farrell Dobbs with support from Tom Kerry."

Whoa, what I thought was some junk email is from some people who have been reading factnet and did a double take when they found out Lyn was still alive and up to his old tricks.

So what we have is a document where the researchers are pretty well convinced that Lyn Marcus wrote an article about how to use Trotsky yutes in a small org.

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 14, 2007)


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 9:34 pm:

Here are exerpts sent to me with their comments.

"The conservativism of the Dobbs-Kerry tendency had an

obvious contradiction. Old cadre members were gradually lost by attrition. Even to continue to pursue the course of organizational conservativism, the Dobbs-Kerry group required "new blood" for the party to fill the emptying chairs in the branches and -- more important to any trade union bureaucrat -- to reduce the danger of red ink in the party's financial accounts. Even the most conservative organization can not exist unless it reproduces itself."


LaRouche then continues a bit later on:

"But faced with the contradiction of a declining old cadre membership, Dobbs-Kerry sublimated their anti-youth prejudices and forced themselves to accept and exploit the youth movement. The attrition in the old SWP cadre left them no other choice."

LaRouche next observes:

"The first instinct of the leadership was to turn thi s

youth into a political labor contingent, best fit to run itself ragged in door-to-door subscription campaigns, collect petition signatures, wear itself to exhaustion in meaningless, WPA [Workers Project Administration], "Jimmy Higgins" work ["Jimmy Higgins" was a name for a type of slavish cadre willing to do anything, the more menial the better, for the party], and begin to refill the empty coffers of the SWP treasury."


Next LaRouche writes:

"Activism" and not political qualifications became the

standard of youth leadership and membership. The perpetual exhaustion of youth driven to superactivism was easily turned into bitter hostility against "older" comrades who could not maintain the pace and still maintain their responsibilities to their jobs and families."


We continue to quote:

"As the numbers of these superactivism-dragooned youth increased in the party's ranks, they became the social layer whose frenzy was the tool for effecting the expulsion of political minorities, attacking all critics of the regime, the instrument which destroyed the last vestige of democratic centralism in the SWP."


We continue to quote:

"But this youth proved to be a two-edged sword. The rage of the party youth against political minorities was extended to "older comrades" in general. As these youth came, in the past two years, to outnumber the older comrades in many branches, they began to make menacing gestures towards sections of the Dobbs-Kerry combination itself. As Kerry repeated at this convention, the youth have "built a fire under me" and Kerry does not intend to lose his position, he announced, explaining the need for more and more expulsions and active suppression of internal political life."

Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 9:38 pm:

LaRouche then inserts a subtitle "Problems of Internal Party Life" before he continues:

"As the SWP's equivalent of a trade union bureaucracy, Dobbs-Kerry face not only the insurgency of the youth, but also the continuing problem of party finances and the problem of the uneasy coalition of the "squirearchy" and youth on which the regime itself rests. Dobbs needs as much of the older cadre as he can hold in order to keep the party youth in check. He must impose a lockstep discipline upon the youth to prevent it from throwing up political factions which could overthrow the Dobbs-Kerry regime itself in the relatively near future. He needs to keep the youth as a club over the "old cadre" members of the "Cannon school" [Jame Cannon] who are not entirely happy with the present state and course of internal affairs."

[So the youth are really a "club" to be used against disgruntled old cadre. Curiouser and curiouser.]

LaRouche continues:

"He [Dobbs] wants to get rid of the political minorities and yet he needs to have a political minority through which to divert the rage of the youth from his own old cadre supporters. At the same time,& lt; B R youth recruits to the party in the past two years have just balanced off the membership losses from expulsion, resignation and other inevitable forms of attrition. Minorities, in total, still represent about one-quarter of the total membership and, consequently, a significant part of Dobbs' all-important budget. Under these circumstances, Dobbs is compelled to resort to the most awkward organizational maneuvers in his efforts to contain this mass of explosive interrelated problems."

There it is. We have "an all-important budget," a need to "divert the rage of the youth" by using the "most awkward organizational maneuvers" to play the youth off against the dissident older factional members in order to "contain this mass of explosive interrelated problems" so the leadership can continue to generate money.

Sound familiar?


Posted on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 9:41 pm:

This is a pamphlet that I have not seen and I admit no knowledge of SWP affairs. I do know this though.

Boy ,these people are pretty familiar with Lyn when he was a Marcus, when he was a Larouche and now as Fearless leader. This stuff may may be too esoteric for the yutes and people who just stumble into these posts. What I got out of this explained a lot to me about why we were such abysmal failures in anything we tried to do.

The secret is that Lyn wants followers and each revision in the LC is designed to create a more intense follower where the line seperating cult from group was crossed many times over.

I think I have the story straight now. It seems that Lyn smelled an opportunity to try to either take over an existing group and the splinter group. I guess he thought that his brilliance would cause everyone to leave and join him enmasse. When that did not happen the idea of starting his own group seemed better as everyone else thought of him as an idiot.

When I was in this was our strategy in almost everything we did. We would find the different sub stratas of politics or causes and start in by writing things to support their view. After finding and contacting the leaders and getting a membership list we tried to get the whole group to welcome Lyn as their saviour. Almost everyone figured out how loony we were and things came to a halt. If we picked up the membership list we could call them for money and if out of that we recruited some people it was a success. We did this with RTL, the opposition to environmentalists, the GOP and Conservatives, military people, farmers, business owners with high interest rates, churches, black churches now Dems.

In each case we presented them with an elaborate report of who their enemy is who is opposing them. We sent in our "support" staff to meet and sell some subs and eventually build the idea that only Lyn can save them . It really is an insane plan because it forces them to quickly get rid of us after seeing Lyn up close. Most normal groups would conduct workshops and joint conferences and meetings to address an issue. Here the issues is just the way to get into the door and then the issue is Lyn and nothing else.

Being in the region it was really wacky because whenever we heard of some new initiative with a new layer of people we all joked that we probably burnt out the last group and now are on to the next group we will burn out.

In all of these cases the dominant theme is that Lyn and only LYN can save them from the oligarchs. After they reject him, Lyn then launched into a denunciation of the group and why without him they are impotent and will fail.

Now the resemblence to Fearless leader makes sense.

Now Moose and Squirrel are part of conspiracy against Larouche.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 1:55 am:

Wow, xlcr4life. What a gem! Lyn himself described in early written documents how he determined that the SWP was hopelessly centrist (a term he coopted and gave his own meaning to) from probably the late 50's, and how he basically vegetated there, just waiting for an opportune moment to split and create his own organization. In 1965, Wohlforth left to form the Workers League and Tim Robertson to form the Spartacist League. Lyn describes how when he finally left the SWP, he spent a month in the Workers League before being shown the door, and then a month in the Sparpacist League, before being shown the door. Memory fails on what exact issues he said he was rejected on, but his own clear intent to take them over was probably the real reason.

He then got involved in some tenant organizing, and through a few activists involved with that who were also in SDS at Columbia, he ended up giving some sort of lectures to members of the Labor Committee of the Columbia SDS chapter, and when Columbia exploded in the spring of 1968, a number of members of this "labor committee" played leading roles, suddenly greatly expanding its membership, and the rest is history.

As for this document, xlcr, it's a gem. There is absolutely no question that it's genuine, and written by Lyn. It's his style, and while I don't recall exactly those words, much of what the document says strikes me as vaguely familiar to points he himself made about the SWP in written documents he produced.

But boy, looked at from the perspective of the LYM, did he nail what is wrong with the "business model" the LYM is based on. With the dwindling number of Boomers being targetted by Lyn for the LYM to go after, to "revive" them, while still keeping the Boomers in the game, since they still raise almost all the money on phone teams, is precisely the tightrope that he so aptly described Dobbs and Kerry as doing. How delicious.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 2:04 am:

At the risk of being considered “soft on LaRouche,” a charge which I hope my previous posts would shield me from, I want to engage on the anti-semitic issue. I will state my general question, and then some quibbles small and large with some of the evidence provided in response to my original post by Eaglebeack, Shadok et al., before returning to the broader point as I see it.

Basically, being a conscious anti-Semite doesn’t fit LaRouche’s profile, as I see it. I guess it boils down to asking whether you all think that in his private thoughts, LaRouche believes himself to be an anti-Semite—is he, subjectively, an anti-Semite? I won’t attempt to dispute that the quotes and other information as you have assembled it make a strong prima facie case that he is objectively anti-Semitic. But in my book, being anti-Semitic requires being conscious that one is so. The obvious candidates today— Ahmadinijad of Iran, the KKK, the Liberty Lobby (do they still exist?), European skinheads, other kooky right-wing cults in this country—they are anti-Semitic, and aren’t ashamed to affirm that fact in public. LaRouche is obviously not like them at all. So, if he’s anti-Semitic, he is a sui generis form thereof.

In fact, think about this. Whenever confronted, he of course denies it, as well he would have to, on pain of losing probably his entire membership, no one of whom would stay with an avowed anti-Semite. So if he’s an anti-Semite, he would have to disguise that fact. But then we come to the reality, that he certainly says things that create the impression that he is, and that he has permitted other even more graphically anti-Semitic things to get published by others (e.g., Protocols, other references in Dope, Inc.) in his organization. So let’s follow this through. If LaRouche were really a conscious anti-Semite, but one who also knows full well that if he openly avowed such he would lose his organization, I can’t escape the conclusion that he would be careful to disguise this fact, rather than appear to flaunt it.

If, on the other hand, he, in his own mind, is NOT anti-Semitic (meaning, he does not believe that being a Jew is anything different than being a Protestant or any other denomination), it is pure LaRouche, and fits the profile that I have of him, that he would flaunt his refusal to be cowed by the normal constraints of “political correctness” and feel he can go after Jewish bankers, among others, as responsible for putting Hitler in power, and go after Rohatyn, and invite the charge of anti-Semitism, secure in his belief that he is not one. Because LaRouche is like the boxer who intentionally sticks out his chin inviting a punch, and he usually gets it. He relishes the negative publicity of being a “bad boy,” who says things that violate the norms of accepted political dialogue. Look at his frequent use of scatological slurs, and his general name-calling. He doesn’t care what anyone thinks.

It seems to me that the same principle must be at work here. He doesn’t mind appearing anti-Semitic only because he doesn’t believe he is one. And if he doesn’t believe he is one, is it still accurate to say that, objectively, he is? What would that mean?

Let me now list my quibbles, which I believe respond to many, though not all, of the points cited above as evidence of his anti-Semitism.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 2:05 am:

A very small quibble: I distinctly recollect it was the DPFLP (Democratic PFLP), a split of and opponent of George Habash’s group, that we were trying to ally with in the early ‘70s. I don’t recall enough now to know if that is a distinction without a difference, but I do know that at the time I was in favor of working with them, and since I have never opposed Israel’s right to exist, I apparently didn’t think that the DPFLP were intent on driving Israel into the sea. Maybe I was wrong, does anyone know?

No one has mentioned LaRouche’s repeated claim, including in public, that he had a back-channel relationship to Abba Eban, and tried to broker a Middle East settlement between Israel and Iraq in 1975. I am unaware that Eban, before he died, ever attempted to dispute the claim, and I have tended to assume LaRouche may have actually had the relationship he claimed. If anyone has definitive information on this, it is obviously relevant, since if true it argues against the anti-Semitic charge.

Plus, also not mentioned by anyone, and this has been a constant for 40 years, LaRouche has always held that the basis for lasting Mid-East peace is an Israel within the ‘67 borders, at peace with the Arab countries, and serving as the driver to share their technology and help green the deserts of the region and bring development to it. I have trouble imagining a conscious anti-Semite ever proposing a leading role for Israel along these lines. It just doesn’t compute.

By the way, I mentioned the Israel vs. Palestinians issue in my original post because one or two posts on this subject in the previous thread had included among their arguments the points I was arguing against. It sounds like we all are now agreeing that his opposition to how Israel treats the Palestinians is not by itself evidence of anti-Semitism.

Let me address one other charge, from Shadok, and possibly others, that suggest that the Duggan murder was driven by anti-Semitism. I find the reasoning that would suggest that illogical. If killing Jews was the agenda, why did it take them over 30 years to kill their first one? Duggan’s phone call to his mother the night before he died provides strong evidence that he was not drinking the Kool-Aid. If there was a motive to have him dead, wouldn’t the likely motive be that he was threatening the controlled environment by his probably public questioning of things? THAT motive I could well believe, and it seems far more plausible than simply that he was Jewish. I haven’t previously seen the report that he stood up and said “but I AM a Jew,”—how do we know this?—but if true, it certainly suggests that Jews were being attacked for something, but his standing up, again, would have been disruptive of the controlled environment they depend on establishing.

My biggest quibble is on the 6 million vs 1 millions Jews killed issue. My memory is very clear on this. In the late ‘70s, LaRouche and Security, above all via Scott T., were in bed with the Liberty Lobby, Willis Carto’s organization, who were definitely anti-Semitic. This was the height of the “right-wing” period before LaRouche self-transmogrified (is that redundant?) into a “conservative Democrat” after the 1980 election.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 2:07 am:

Let’s recall the history of this. Until late 1976, LaRouche was still on the “left,” running for president for the first time that year on the U.S. Labor Party label. Recall that we scraped enough money together at the last minute for him to have a half-hour broadcast blasting Carter for being a fascist and essentially saying to vote for Ford. Then the election proved to be a squeaker, where the shift of a few states would have tilted the election, and LaRouche claimed vote fraud in several states. His broadcast, and his attempt to prove vote fraud against Carter, attracted to him a circle that never would have touched him with a ten-mile pole before this. Suddenly, LaRouche was getting support from others who may have disagreed with him on most things, but who were also conspiracy nuts who could play “Connecto” with the best of them, and they shared a common enemy: the Fed, Rockefeller, the Illuminatti, etc. I’d be willing to bet this was heady stuff for LaRouche, who perhaps fancied himself leading a movement of all of these groups.

Wasn’t that a wild ride! The Liberty Lobby was one of the more enduring relationships, and, largely through Scott T., as I recall it, various items of Liberty Lobby “information” began filtering into New Solidarity. This was also the period of the “Anti-Drug Coalition,” and the analysis and research that went into the book Dope, Inc. But on the subject of the holocaust and how many were killed, I remember the day that it finally happened, that Scott T. wrote an article that claimed, for the first time in any LC publication that I was ever aware of, that only 1 million Jews died in concentration camps, which was direct Liberty Lobby propaganda. And I recall that just about everyone in the National Center in New York was freaked out, and in the very next issue, it was changed back to 6 million. And I never saw another reference to the 1 million figure of the Holocaust deniers anywhere in our publications.

This didn’t come from Lyn, and I never, ever, heard him say 1 million, or anything but 6 million, in person or in print, before or after this incident. Since several posts say he started out saying 1 million, and only after quite awhile was forced to correct it, the burden of proof is on you who claim this to cite chapter and verse, and I doubt you are correct. I would have heard it, and would have been very upset. And I know my memory is correct on this one instance of the 1 million claim getting into New Sol. and then being corrected the next issue.

Which brings up the “slave labor” versus “extermination” camp issue. No argument here. I recall a shouting match one time between Lyn and his then common law wife Carol, where Lyn got downright nasty and vicious toward Carol, who, to her credit, refused to buckle in her opposition to his claim that the camps were essentially economic looting measures rather than conscious genocide for its own sake. But someone on this thread also provided what I consider a sufficient explanation that doesn’t require being anti-Semitic, which was the very explicit “line” LaRouche had in those early years. For him, Nazism was the direct lineal outcome of mature capitalism, that is becomes a parasite that must consume more and more individuals, even to the point of working them to death. Theory determined what Lyn decided to “see” with regard to the concentration/extermination camp issue.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 2:08 am:

And here, in my view, is an example of the “bad boy” issue. Precisely because everyone else said it was genocide, LaRouche had to have a totally different interpretation. If other well-known historians had already been saying that the camps were mainly economic looting mechanisms, LaRouche would probably have come up with some third interpretation, just to be different. He can’t stand not being the only one to espouse most of his positions. I’ve known his line on this since early on, and it never struck me as anti-Semitic, and still doesn’t. Btw, what other known anti-Semite has ever claimed that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews among others purely as economic looting? This is not standard anti-Semitic fare.

Which brings me to the Jewish bankers issue. The quotes in Shadok’s post from the June 6, 2006 webcast are, solly cholly, out of context. If you read the paragraphs that follow the ones quoted, you will realize that the operative word in the quote is “continental.” LaRouche considers Lazard Freres the key “continental” leading player backing Hitler, but he then jumps to the leading U.S. forces also responsible for Hitler, led by non-Jewish Prescott Bush and Brown Brothers Harriman, who, LaRouche claims, provided the funds to tide the Nazi party over when it was about to go bankrupt.

He then launches into a broader historical discourse, going back to the Crusades, and identifies first the Venetian bankers, and then the Anglo-Dutch bankers, and then the “French Synarchist bankers,” as the third leg of the “international banker” support for Hitler. And don’t forget, Lazard is NOT a Jewish bank, say, like Rothschild. Meyer, who did not even run it during the ‘30s, was just one of a number of leading bankers working for it before the war. Lyn only mentions him, IMO, because he became the head of it in New York after the war, and Rohatyn became his protégé. Given Lyn’s penchant for connecto, in this case his desire to tie Rohatyn to Hitler, the rest follows as night follows day. But it is not accurate to say that he claims that Jewish bankers put Hitler in power. His connecto is, that Meyer was a “kingpin” of Lazard in the ’30s, and that Lazard was “an integral part” of the operation (also including U.S. and British bankers) to put Hitler in power, and since Meyer later had Rohatyn as a protégé, ergo, Rohatyn through guild by association with Meyer, was a Nazi. I really think that Rohatyn and Meyer weren’t singled out because they were Jewish. Rohatyn was singled out because he has been in LaRouche’s sights since he created the big MAC in New York in the 70s, and all the rest is dragged in to complete the connecto.

This is further confirmed by Lyn’s treatment of the same subject (the installation of Hitler) in his Jan. 11, 2006 webcast Here, he is explicit that the leading force putting Hitler in power was Montague Norman, head of the Bank of England, with Lazard and the French Synarchists playing a supporting role. So, the only point here is that Norman isn’t Jewish. I really thinks he takes the targets that fit his needs, and that whether they are Jewish or not is not a factor.

And I’m not impressed by LaRouche calling Rohatyn a Nazi. In the summer of 1992, Clinton was a “southern-fried fascist.” Lyn throws those terms, fascist and Nazi, around everyehre, and I’m sure a proper inventory would show no particular bias toward using those terms disproportionately toward Jews.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 2:09 am:

I know I haven’t responded to everything cited, but it’s late, and this is already much longer than I thought it would be, so I’ll give it a rest and let the responses pour in. But let me just say that for my money, the real point LaRouche thinks he is making in the instances cited is much more “interesting” than the tired charge of anti-semitism—it is the completely absurd misuse of history, and the way he constructs sophistic arguments to make points based on the wildest instances of connecto. LYMers, if you don’t know what connecto is, the explanation will have to come another time. But I’ll be willing to bet you are already adept at the game, and just don’t know it by its proper name (and this is not the name for it assigned by ex-ers—this is its official name within the organization, used all the time internally since at least the early ‘80s to characterize the wild arguments constructed chiefly out of what used to be called Security).

So, as I told Brewncue, I think the charge of anti-Semitism gets in the way of making what I believe are more telling criticisms of LaRoucheThink, and most of the examples cited of alleged anti-Semitism have much more interesting explanations that are more revealing of the real LaRouche, one who can’t actually make an argument for anything without making up history, chaining it together in absurd ways, and playing Extreme Connecto.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 3:12 am:

Amazing stuff, xlcer.

The only thing I will say is that from reading Tim Wohlsforth's book -- The Prophet's Child -- I have gathered that in Trotskyite circles, "Youth Movements" tended to be fetishized a wee little, and Wohlsforth once found him bum-rushed right on out.

The game Larouche has been playing is a variation of that Trotskyite tic. (In his other book, the survey of political cults -- On the Edge -- Wohlsforth and his co-author comment on how many of the personality cults originated from Trotskyite roots, and there are reasons for that -- including the never-ending sectionalism... and, the need for a Vanguard Youth Movement against the Reactionary Older Generation.)


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 8:19 am:


I definitely agree with you on what may be your central point: LaRouche is not a conscious anti-Semite--that is, he does not consider himself one. How could he, when on the left, where he (presumably) started, no one would dare to call himself or herself an anti-Semite, even if they held anti-Semitic positions?

That's why I started out my first post-response to your remarks by saying that LaRouche is not only, and not even primarily, an anti-Semite.

But he is one nonetheless. This is an anti-Semitism that I imagine probably means LHL is a creature of his time and place, born in 1920s New Hampshire, not supremely well educated, etc.--the kind of anti-Semitism one could find all over smalltown America.

But because LaRouche's entire personality and mind are a special cauldron, his sort of standard-early-20th-century-kneejerk anti-Semitism wound up as more than it started out.

I am not in a position to go through old New Solidarities and the like to find the locations where 1 million appeared, but perhaps Shadok is in a better position. I have certainly heard LaRouche say it, as late as the period when the ICLC was in the 58th Street Office (we moved in there in 1979, as I recall), right before LaRouche changed his approach to the "Green File" theory (6 million Jews killed, but not because they were Jews).

On the other matters, I believe the various citations should be sufficient to indicate that LaRouche is an anti-Semite.

As to Abba Eban--I think he met with him once. LaRouche made all sorts of claims about all sorts of people who never bothered to refute him, because to do so would give him more credibility, and it was beneath their dignity to notice him ("his friend" Indira Gandhi is a case in point--she reportedly told an aide "Never let that man in here again" after their meeting, but she certainly never said publicly that LaRouche's misuse of her name was misuse).

I think you are being somewhat naive to assert that the Jewish bankers weren't singled out, but you are certainly right in saying that LaRouche picks the targets he needs. And by golly, targeting Jews was very convenient when he was in bed with Willis Cardo, or Friedrich von der Heydte and a bunch of other old Nazis, or Mitch WerBell, the louche gun-runner, etc. (Or even the ineffable Roy Frankhauser.)

I'm not sure why you're so anxious to defend LaRouche on this one point, unless it's because you don't want to think you associated with such a sleaze. I can understand that, but I think it's important to face it and deal with it.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 8:19 am:

LaRouche's middle name is bigotry, for Pete's sake (that's what the "H" stands for.... When he was in prison writing the so-called "Science of Christian Economics (or Economy)," the first couple of versions, which never saw publication, were the most virulently anti-Protestant tracts I've seen, with raving foaming attacks on Luther and Calvin, and wild assertions that Protestants were not Christians but Gnostics.

This sort of hatred is LaRouche's meat and potatoes--and not just vis-a-vis Jews. Anyone who's been around him for 10 minutes should notice this, but the nature of cults and cult leaders seems to mean that we did not. Or rather, we noticed it, either were mortified by it or embraced it, but basically blocked it out.

I have had a top NEC member sit in my living room and argue with me with a straight face that Judaism was a cult, not a religion. I will not name the individual, who has since left the org and deserves his/her privacy, but this was the prevailing wisdom in the org at that time, which was the spring of 1984.... after LaRouche had retooled a bit to lose his more violent anti-Jewish aura. Also, the NEC member in question was Jewish.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 8:21 am:

LaRouche is a man who will say anything at all (and if he could get away with it, do anything at all); he is a man with no control over his thoughts or his tongue--and he has said and written and screamed all sorts of foul abuse over many years at many targets. Jews and Judaism were one such target (downplayed exceedingly now).

I posted about this earlier, but you may not have seen it--do you remember the 6th Column in New Solidarity in about 1979-80 which made the disgusting joke about the rabbi and the stripper, and the stripper using yarmulkes for pasties, or some such? I certainly considered that anti-Semitic.

It had a Nazi propaganda quality to it. This was the sort of thing that was not uncommon in those days, because the atmosphere for it had been created, ever since the first edition of Dope, Inc.

Also, not to open another can of worms, but Helga is a crude, kneejerk, lowbrow anti-Semite herself. She hates Jews, Americans, men--so especially Jewish-American men. You can imagine what this meant in an organization which has a lot of Jewish-American men in the leadership.

The presence of so many Jews in the organization does not undercut anything said about LaRouche's anti-Semitism. Good heavens, the CPUSA is or at least was crammed with Jewish members and it supported every zig and zag Stalin ever took, and the generalized anti-Semitism of the USSR, Russia, etc.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 8:41 am:

As we have been discussing for some time, I think there's trouble in River City--questions and uproar among the yutes.

First, I hear there's another memo about Kronberg's death in the latest morning briefing , but haven't seen it yet. Hope someone puts it up here.

In any case, the memo was reportedly buried in the Operations Bulletin, like its predecessor, which means it was aimed at the LYM--no one else would bother to read that swill.

In addition, the trolls at LPAC have updated their crazed "Right-Wing Conspiracy Rides Again" article to include a psychotically vicious attack on Avi Klein for an article they haven't even seen yet. Have Not Seen Yet. Does that suggest there's fear and trembling in LaRouche Land? To me it does. Interesting, too, to note that the author (must be Jeff Steinberg) cites as his source the Homeland Security Daily Wire that I believe Tony Chaitkin previously "exposed" as "Mossad"--does that mean the Labor Committee is relying on these dreadful people it just "exposed," for the goods on Klein and his profoundly feared, but not yet seen, article?

Look at this bat-bleep article:

This is what you call industrial-strength crazy.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 9:29 am:

I just noticed at

that there is a request

"Have you heard nasty slanders about The Schiller Institute or about Lyndon and Helga Zepp LaRouche?"

If so, at

you are instructed to "Send your intelligence leads to"

Since this link is on one of their AFF-expose pages, presumably the only slanders against Fearless Leader and Natasha in the universe emanate from this message board.

On the topic of antisemitism: LaRouche's antisemitism is well-documented, and I believe he is a conscious antisemite in the sense that he wishes to eradicate anything distinctively Jewish, that the Jewish tradition is only of value to the extent that one or another Jew adheres to one or another LaRouche-approved gentile movement (e.g., (neo)platonism, die Erklaerung.) I suppose in the recesses of his own twisted brain he thinks he is "helping" Jews by shearing off the Talmud, etc., so he may on that basis think that he is not an antisemite.

I must say however that when I was in the organization, the critiques of Dennis King, Chip Berlet, and others left me cold when they would go on and on about LaRouche's antisemitism when that was never perceived by me as the focus of the organization, nor even true because most of the people I worked with were Jews some of whom had no problem tossing around Yiddish expressions. It was only after I left the organization and read Dennis's book that my eyes were opened as to how much of this conspiracy crap was (1) lifted directly out of classical antisemitic literature and (2) written to appeal to the far-right wackos to whom the NCLC looked for support. If one is not familiar with the history of antisemitism (and these yutes really know little about anything), it is tough to spot LaRouche as the Jew-hater he is. Yet I would still agree with those above who maintain that this is not the focus of the organization. That is something LaRouche's detractors must understand: LaRouche is crazy about everything, including - but not limited to - Jews.

Still, I had one harrowing experience long ago when I was sent to a midwest local of about six members, each of whom was in fact an undeniably rabid antisemite. At the time I thought they were just playing with my head by giving vehement utterance to their hatred but also implying that there were forces in place (the Jewish membership?) that kept Lyn a coward in not going full tilt against Jews. So from my experience there was one pocket of unadulterated antisemitism in the NCLC. Perhaps there were more. I have the impression that they were taking their cues from the coded language LaRouche used and which Dennis reveals in his book, plus they perhaps were on the front line dealing with the Willis Carto types. Fortunately, I did not have to stay long with this crew.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 11:02 am:

I m not sure I can retrieve (if I have it) this New Solidarity article denying the holocaust but I have this one (similar to the infamous "zionism is not judaism" Campaigner, and signed by LL:

"No one knows, or will probably ever know how many persons died as Jews under the Nazis. One of the principal difficulties here is the methods employed by the Gestapo and SS to classify victims as "Jews." Perhaps as many as millions of persons not self-classified as Jews prior to the Nazi rule were astonished to find themselves so categorized under Nazi racial laws. It is not irresponsible to estimate that the figure of "six millions" is within the range of persons who died under the Nazi classification as Jews. However, and here we come to the nub of the issue, only a large minority of the total, perhaps in the order of one and a half millions, were killed simply, outrightly as Jews."

Interesting how he contradicts himself... he starts saying "no one knows..." and then a bit further gives us a number of 1.5 millions "outrightly killed as Jews"...
So, how does he know that? Was he there by any chance??

From HOW A SOCIALIST QUARTERLY DRIFTS TOWARD FASCISM, by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., in The CAMPAIGNER, Vol. 14, n°2, April 1981. pp 15-16


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 11:12 am:

Okay, I still have not seen the new "Internal Memo" that appears in today's Morning Briefing (in the Ops Bulletin, where the yutes live), but I have been told that it attacks Linda de Hoyos and Uwe Friesecke for having run operations against Ken Kronberg for years, unspecified operations which somehow created the conditions for his death, or helped to.

Some "Simple Facts"

Linda left the Labor Committee in 2000 or 2001, and was working only on Africa for the last five years, roughly, of her membership.... Uwe quit or was driven out last fall, but had had nothing to do with U.S. operations, money, finance, printing, etc., for many years before that.

So the announcement of this "discovery" in an internal memo is 100% ludicrous. Of the "now it can be told" variety. Since LaRouche & Co. have been writing memos on Kronberg's death at quite a clip since Kronberg died in April, it is strange that this is the first time this "connection" has been revealed.

What Next?

But this is actually an ominous development in LaRoucheville's flight from reality. As a well-known fellow-poster pointed out in a private communication, this increasingly resembles what was done to the Duggans, the Alternate Universe Fantasy World LaRouche created around that tragedy, culminating in the LaRouchites accusing Erica Duggan of being responsible for her son's death.

So I wonder: How long before the memo-writers start blaming the people who worked most closely with Kronberg at the companies? Or Kronberg's family?

(Parenthetically, here's the principle of a LaRouche-style forecast, yutes: If the memo-writers do blame any of these people in the future, I can claim I was right. If they don't, I can claim that by publicizing the possibility, I prevented it.)

(Message edited by eaglebeak on August 15, 2007)


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 11:19 am:

to Ltruth

As for Jeremiah Duggan, my sources are first-hand witnesses who were at that iclc conf.
But, I didn’t mean he was killed BECAUSE he was Jewish (I didn’t say he was killed either, we dont know what happened exactely, the whole thing is highly suspicious to say the least), but killed or not, he was considered as an "enemy of the org", and this is a quote from frau Helga soon after he died (still acc to my witnesses). Indeed, he argued with the LYM-ers all the time, disagreed deeply with larouche. Moreover not only was he Jewish, but he was British and disagreed with what the org was saying about Tavistock since he had a direct experience with that psychiatric clinic. When he was 7 (if m not wrong), he and his parents while divorcing, were seeking some family counselling there... Not to be brainwashed and turned into a Manchourian candidate sent to kill L.L. which is what the org, and certainly lyn, believed....


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:10 pm:

The question of Larouche’s antisemitism

Well much has been well explained by eaglebeak and sancho on how to deal with the “anti-Semitism question” of L larouche Yes, it isn’t the center of all of his obsessions, he s got so many, but it is undeniably there and it s easier to turn a blind eye on this and carry on with our “revolutionary mission”.
When you find LYM yutes, today, in the streets with posters calling Rohatyn and Lieberman Nazis with a picture of pig, it woud be perceived, rightly so, as antisemitic.
The question is not just what lhl says but how it is perceived by the outer world, and I am sorry but Lazard Freres bank is perceived, like Lehman bro bank, Rothschild bank, Warburg bank etc as a "Jewish bank" (Andre Meyer is/was at its head?) and many of the above cited banks are considered as "Synarchist" by the org...

All of this makes me angry because it s exactly why lar anti-Semitism was tolerated in the org (incl by myself): finding excuses, reasons when there are none, at least on moral grounds, if not intellectual ones.

I agree that lar's anti-Semitism is not comparable to the racialist theories of the Nazis (or the liberty lobby’s).
His anti-Semitism takes its roots in christian/paulinian anti-Semitism, hence lyn's attack against circumcision which comes from St Paul. Of course, St Paul didn’t know about the Muslims since the Prophet Mohamed was born several centuries later.
It just shows lyn's source of anti-Semitism. He is not even bothered to "update" it to today's reality.
Indeed, the Nazis wouldn’t have tolerated Jewish members in their party, unlike larouche. Because larouche, as a Christian, believes he can "save" them, they can redeem themselves by... working for him. (wasn't what he was saying about Ken's death?) True he never forced or demanded Jews in his org to convert to Christianity. That’s because, in the end of the day, it s not about being "Christian” (unlike what Helga thinks), it’s about being "larouchian", a cult of which he is the only worshipped God. All he wants is to be the centre of everything, the Alpha and the Omega.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:23 pm:

LaRouche is a Christian as much as an orange is an apple. Apart from his mangled, insincere use of Christian language at times, there is nothing to indicate in either his words or deeds that he subscribes to the Nicean Creed or any of its variants. LaRouche views himself as God, so there is not much room for that other guy, you know, the one who created the heavens and the earth. But I would agree that his antisemitism does have that Pauline stamp on it - together with the Alfred Rosenberg imprint.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:26 pm:


That's misleading, to put it mildly.

LaRouche is anti-people. At root, he hates human beings -- he has no genuine connection.

No amount of big-talk humanism can fill his hollowed-out, rotting core.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:42 pm:

larouche's antisemitism (final?)

I proposed at several occasions that maybe we should “rate” his anti-Semitism, otherwise, since there are various “degrees”, we ll fight each other over words rather than facts.

I propose the following scale (open to discussion):

1. mild, negative a-priori against the Jews.
2. popular anti-Semitism (Pauline Christianity, popular myths about the Jews: from "money/usury" to... drinking babies' blood)\\ 3. established anti-Semitism: e.g. the Catholic Church, despising the Jews (they "killed God"), yet will utilize them for usury practice and diplomacy. I find it worse than the point (2) because it legitimizes antisemitism.
4. Revisionism. I place it here because their concerns are to combat “jewish power” in the world. It is more harmful, in my view, than the “established anti-Semitism”, yet doesn’t propose a “solution” to the “Jewish question”.
5. Inquisition solution to the "Jewish question": forced conversion policy.
6. No hope for conversion (Luther), let’s expel them and burn their synagogues: e.g. pogroms, the neonazis desecrations of tombs etc. First “nazi solution” (ie to expel them to Africa).
7. Racial anti-Semitism (Nazism). Jews are a “virus” that infects the “body” of the nation. No expulsion, exterminate them: Final solution.

I would rate larouche’s anti-Semitism between (4) and (5). At (5), the “conversion” is not to “Christianity” but to “larouchism”, yet using them for his own needs (3) while negating the Holocaust (4) (still to this day - see my previous post + the fact the revisionist Campaigner is made available online). Larouchism is a kind of rejection of Judaism as practiced by today’s Jews (no Jewish members would be allowed to go to the Synagogue's services). Therefore I consider it as a form of conversion, not to an established religion, but to a cult: the Larouchism.

PS: when catholic Helga/Fernando were in charge in 1988-94, many Jewish members converted to Catholicism.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:47 pm:

To compare LaRouche to Paul is surely an insult to Paul.

To compare a fight among different factions of Jewish Christians (Paul vs. Peter) in the first years after Christ, to 20th- and 21st-century anti-Semitism is a bit of a stretch, too.

Bottom line: LaRouche doesn't understand Thing One about Judaism or Christianity, either as religions or as social-cultural phenomena. Hence his famous insistence that the Logos is the Holy Spirit--a novel interpretation blown away by the first chapters of the Gospel of John, and blown away over and over again by St. Augustine (but LaRouche declared, "St. Augustine is wrong").

Hence his nonsense about the Filioque being the only important part of the Nicene Creed, the central part of Christianity--until he dropped it over the side one day, never to hear from it again.

Hence his outrageous garbage about Judaism's hostility to others, based on his total misunderstanding of the notion of a covenant between God and Israel, and his total misunderstanding of the idea of a Chosen People.

At bottom, yes, it's true--LaRouche just plain hates people.

Once you've grasped that, yutes, you should head for the hills. No need to refine the insight.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 12:53 pm:

Between (4) and (5).

Note that the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church never condoned antisemitism, though in reality it was not infrequently promoted by Church leaders and more frequently indulged in by the faithful. It is a much better world now after Nostra Aetate.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 1:15 pm:

My scale makes more sense than I thought..
at point (5) Inquisition and forced conversions...
Wasn't catholic Fernando who defended the Inquisition? (for which lyn "blamed" him- but that s another and irrelevant story - lyn defended Stalin and other mass-murderers long before)

PS to eaglebeak. I didnt mean Lyn = St Paul but Pauline Christian tradition within the Church is known to be a if not the source of what s called "Christian antisemitism", and especially with its rejection of "Jewish Christians" or viewing "Jesus" as Jewish... Lyn often refers to St Paul, for his own agenda of course. He reads and retains what he wants....

Anyway I m not an expert - just a thought!


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 1:52 pm:

LaRouche once claimed (memorably) at a national conference that "I know St. Paul's mind better than he knows himself"--but then ruined the effect by referring repeatedly to the "Gospel version of the Epistles," which any reader of the New Testament knows is a hairraising and grotesque blooper.

A typical LaRouche speech: dramatic and then agonizingly embarrassing.

I know that Peter and James are generally seen as the pro-Jewish, and Paul as the anti-Jewish, of the early Christians, in the sense that Peter and James believed that to become a Christian, one must first become a Jew, and Paul believed that Gentiles could become Christians without becoming Jews or following Jewish Law.

But LaRouche? 100% off the wall, all the time.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 3:20 pm:


I dont want to appear avoiding your remarks. They are all correct and I take them on board. Yet, as far as I m concerned, the simple fact that Jews, overwhelmingly, consider larouche as an anti-Semite proves the point (if he s not one then he should at least apologize for some of his more extreme stances on Judaism and the Holocaust, saying he is not one isn’t good enough) I recently showed to a Jewish friend the "Zionism is not Judaism" Campaigner and that person was horrified, to put it mildly... Now from what I sense could be his real motives behind his anti-semitism, I can see two issues:
1/ the "Judas" question
2/ the "Chosen People" question.
This last point is easily understandable why he can’t stand that. He clearly, as eaglebeak said, doesn’t understand that notion and his "complex of superiority" kicks in.
Now to the more important question of JUDAS.
Jews, in lyn's mind, are viewed as the descendants of the People who didn’t recognize Jesus and even, betrayed him. Jews are traitors since the time from their Babylon captivity (dixit lar).
This is illustrated in the Dope Inc book: the "Jews" (zionists, jewish lobby) are presented as traitors within the US, as a "Fifth column", a "Trojan Horse" on behalf of their masters, the British. They are the archetypal "enemy from within" whose goal is to destroy the United States (with drugs in this case). Remember the "Expel Britain's Kissinger for Treason" pamphlet? Then the Chaitkin's book "Treason in America" (not about Jews, I agree) or A. Hammer's "Trust" (Trojan Horse) to sell the West to the Communists etc etc And here is my point:
larouche is obsessed with TREASON.
This is why he picked Aristotle as an "enemy philosopher". He could have accommodated with him instead of Plato (as a matter of fact there are things in Aristotle that could support better his views on economy and science!) But he chose Aristotle because Aristotle was a... traitor!!!
He criticised Plato and created his own school.
Larouche is always paranoid about dissident schools (the so-called "larouche without larouche org" scare, a bit like the recent solon-inline website...)
As Dino wrote in his letter (previous post, courtesy of xlcr):
"ALL of his "vice-presidents", ALL of his "number 2s" and moreover ALL of his wives (at least the last 3) betrayed him. "

That s what is scaring lyn from the beginning. He doesn’t trust anyone (he hates everyone too!). Therefore his only way dealing with it is by lying, manipulating, bullying, brainwashing...

So this is how, in my view, his anti-Semitism comes in: Jews cannot be trusted (only used). But I agree, his anti-Semitism is only a particular case of his hatred for people in general and scare of betrayal in particular.

All ex-members would agree that one of the big problems in order to quit is to overcome this "traitor" hurdle. The feeling of guilt, of being a traitor...

Don't worry guys, by leaving you don’t betray larouche, he has betrayed many times the ideals you join in for. He is the traitor "en chef". Ironically, leaving him is the only way to be faithful to your ideals...


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 4:53 pm:

I think Israel should be supported too, but I think they should go back to what David Ben-Gurion was all about when he wanted to use Israel as a way to develop poor countries. When I look at the way Israel was put up by colonial powers though, and now they just seem go along with all the stuff that makes poor countries poorer, it’s easy to see why so many people are against Israel. So just because you are against Israel, doesn’t mean you are against Jews. LaRouche just wants to see if he can say something to get development for poor countries. He’s not against Jews at all. You guys just complain about LaRouche, and never say anything helpful. The way you guys talk about LaRouche makes everything you say seem so ridiculous.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 5:02 pm:

What on earth would you consider helpful, since what we seem to have here is an actual disagreement?


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 5:22 pm:

Some of these other guys at least seem to think about a couple of things, sort of. I think it would be helpful if you would think a little bit too.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 5:37 pm:

Is that what Ben Gurion thought Israel all about, helping poor countries? Is that what Operation on Wings of Eagles was all about?

And as to LaRouche, why don't you explain his remarks on the six million? Why don't you explain his persistence in denying the validity of Jewish religion?

You must be a LaRouche troll because I don't believe I have ever encountered a bigger Dummkopf.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 5:53 pm:

You just throw out insults. What do you want, a discussion on the military ops involving early modern Israel? I might not be as think as you dumb I am.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 5:55 pm:


As a matter of fact all recent posts on larouche's anti-Semitism were NOT about his stance on Israel. larouchetruth had a more elaborate analysis on larouche's view on Israel.
But again, this is a discussion board on coercive cults, like larouche (whether we agree or not and that s why this is a discussion board), not about larouche's ideas per se (insofar as it pertains to the cult). We are trying to understand/exchange our different experiences of the "larouche phenomenon" and it is open to anybody intrigued by it.
It is not a place to find answers to the world's problems... (I know you prefer answers to questions) But my advice, say for the question you just raised: that is Israel/Palestine, my advice is that if you want to have a better understanding of the situation: GO THERE, meet people, Israeli, Palestinians, normal people, activists of all sorts and make up your mind. Then, compare the real situation to what larouche says and figure out by yourself if it makes any sense.
If it does then you know what to do, if it doesnt then 1/ either confront him or 2/ try another strategy... if you are genuinely concerned to find a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 6:09 pm:

and to complete my advice: in general, get a real sense of the problems (be it in Third world countries, Russia, China... even the U.S.!)
The trouble once you re in larouche's bubble you lose all sense of reality (provided you had any before you joined), things become pure abstractions. And that s why, with him, things go wrong, terribly wrong.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 6:11 pm:

Well, geez, it sounds like you might have a presumed solution to the Israel/Palestine problem, but judging by the tone of your previous post, I might be inclined to suspect it involves revenge for Operation on the Wings of Eagles. Revenge is such a base and counter-productive motive. Anyway, I would be absolutely thrilled by your thoughts on Israel/Palestine if they are worth a damn.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 6:26 pm:


again, this is a discussion board about larouche, NOT about the world's problems. I m sure people here have ideas about all sorts of other hot topics that make todays news, like Iraq, Iran, China or the Middle east BUT again, I can't imagine anyone letting you divert this discussion board about larouche. There are other places on the net to discuss anything you like, so i invite to join other discussion boards because otherwise here you are wasting your (and our) time. But if you have any real question about larouche we can try answer them (but so far you havent responded sensibly to all the recent posts)


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 6:50 pm:

Some of these other guys at least seem to think about a couple of things, sort of. I think it would be helpful if you would think a little bit too.

Thus Browncue on my posts.... The only way I'm trying to be "helpful" to people like you, Browncue, is to wake you up so you split with LaRouche.

How now, Brown Cow? Whatever else one could say, I think your name is perfect.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 6:55 pm:

I can't imagine! Well, geez, what ever happened to free speech? The thing you have to deal with is that I'm having fun right here. Is that a problem?

I have a question about LaRouche. Does he really skewer infants on his bayonet?


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 7:03 pm:

eaglebeak, there is nothing to split, eaglebeak.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 7:22 pm:

Der Helga took away his bayonet (such as it was) long ago.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 7:28 pm:

Hah! That was good one!


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 9:55 pm:


What happened to Jeremiah Duggan's "free speech?"

Try asking that of Lyn, in public, on tape, during one of his "world-historical" webcasts. Then come back here and report his honest, thoughtful answer(s).

We will be interested, too, in how you were treated by him. WAS IT FUN? If so, rate the fun you had. Invent a scale: well-tempered, meantone, or equal et al.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 10:22 pm:

Wow! And wow again. I expected I would get some responses to my post on LaRouche and anti-semitism, but I never expected such an amazing cornucopia of really thoughtful, sincere responses each of which has added to and enriched the discussion. On balance, I would say that almost everything posted since my last I agree with. I am gratified to learn that when you all talked about LaRouche as anti-Semitic, you really meant what these recent spate of posts understand by that. That fundamentally, LaRouche hates people, and he trashes and blasphemes Christianity just as badly as Judaism, but that that said, given the reality of anti-Semitism in the world, anyone who would go out of his way to say many of the things that anti-Semites say, as he does, is acting as an anti-Semite. And that not to care that he has this effect is tantamount to being an anti-Semite, whatever he, in his own mind, thinks he is.

This really wonderful discussion should send a strong message to all LYMers reading this blog, at least to LYMers who aren’t totally brain dead, namely, it shows them what it means to have an actual dialogue. Meaning, a forum where people can say things to each other, even when they disagree, or appear to disagree, on something, and genuinely listen to what others are saying, and respond with thoughtful answers that take in and acknowledge what the other has said. Where no one believes they have an absolute monopoly on the truth or that it’s “my way or the highway” on whatever is being discussed. Can any of you honestly say that you can feel free in the LYM to criticize something, anything, no matter how minor, that LaRouche has said, to other members of your local group, much less to Lyn himself in a conference (oops, sorry, you don’t know what a Labor Committee conference is since the semi-annual conferences that we all used to look forward to with anticipation are a thing of the past for financial reasons) or a webcast, without being jumped all over and harshly criticized? If you answer yes, you are either fooling yourself or worse, and clearly have never tried it yourself.

Here’s the irony, LYMersLaRouche supposedly stands for the Socratic method (not), for free and creative inquiry, for the best that mankind can attain to in terms of intellectual development, while the reality is that whatever He says (LaRouche, that is) is accepted unquestioningly, above all among the youth recruits (that some of the Boomers do, at least privately but known to Lyn, complain about some of the things he says is evident from some of his attacks on them—the two issues I recall are that they don’t all believe that He has never in his life made an erroneous long-range forecast, and they don’t all agree with the substance of the attack on Boomers (aka, themselves)).

Look at what this discussion of LaRouche and anti-Semitism has achieved, it seems to me. The collection of these posts is the most profound, insightful discussion of LaRouche and anti-Semitism that has ever taken place, and resolves what drove me to make my initial post on this in the first place—my feeling that classical anti-Semitism didn’t fit my profile of LaRouche. The burden of these responses concurs that LaRouche’s anti-Semitism is a sui generis (of its own origin, ie., not like other anti-Semitisms), home-grown version that comes out of his other neurotic faults, including paranoia, an inferiority complex that manifests as a superiority complex, etc., etc., and they explain, to my satisfaction, how what we are calling his anti-Semitism does, indeed, fit his profile. (see next post)


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 10:23 pm:

So, I say again, wow. LYMers, THIS is real intellectual dialogue, where the result is greater than the sum of the parts, where multiple minds are conjoined in a collective search for the truth, free of ego-involvement, where the give and take brings people to contribute ideas that they otherwise wouldn’t have thought of, that then trigger others to do likewise. If you can’t see this, you are pretty far gone. If you can see this, you should ask yourself why something like this cannot happen, not even close, anywhere in LaRoucheland.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 10:36 pm:

I don't know what happened to Jeremiah Duggan, and from what I can tell, none of the LaRouche people know either. If there was any sort of foul play involved, maybe there was a Simon Magus around. If that's the case, I sincerely hope you can smoke out the ••••. I offer my condolences to his family.


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 10:51 pm:


You call this a dialogue? I hope you are being sarcastic. Whatever happened to your promise to discuss LaRouche's "core positions"?


Posted on Wednesday, August 15, 2007 - 11:55 pm:

LaRouchetruth--thank you for your heartfelt and intellectually honest response. I agree with you--this is dialogue, and we are all forced by it to refine our "positions," think closely about what we mean, and give an account of it.

Brown Cow--no, you don't know what happened to Jeremiah Duggan. The difference between you and us is that we care what happened to him.

Also, we care what happened to Ken Kronberg. What about you?


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 12:06 am:

Here is the internal memo I mentioned previously. This appeared in the Aug. 15 Morning Briefing, somewhere in the "Operations Bulletin."


It should now be stated clearly for the information of the members, that Linda de Hoyos and Uwe Friesecke had been conducting operations against Ken Kronberg personally over many years--operations which significantly contributed to the conditions that led to his death.

Whew--that's a relief. Now we know who to blame for Kronberg's death. Mirabile dictu! It isn't Lyn.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 1:57 am:


That sounds like an institutional confession to me -- an acknowledgment that someone attached to the LaRouche organization created conditions that led to Kronberg's suicide. Lyn is just bickering over who exactly it was.

Not exactly a rousing defense, I'd say.

avi.klein AT


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 2:06 am:

Brewncue, if you can't recognize that the efflorescence of posts following my defense of LaRouche against the charge of anti-Semitism as I have always viewed it, was a dialogue, you are pretty far gone in the opposite direction from what you claim LaRouche represents. Meaning, you have shut off you brain, stifled whatever creative faculties you have ever had, and can't see the most plain reality staring you in the face.

My original post on this subject was in direct response to your post dismissing the anti-Semitism charge. As I had always previously heard it formulated, citing all the usual items of evidence, it didn't ring true to me, so I could understand why it wouldn't ring true to you. If you can't see how much more subtlety, thoughtfulness and reflection were brought to this discussion, making clear that LaRouche isn't mainly an anti-Semite (the way most anti-Semites are mainly all about that), and probably isn't subjectively one at all, in response to my questioning of the previous way this had been discussed, then I have to ask if you are language impaired. People provided you, in particular, a boatload of useful and valid insights into LaRouche and how thinks and operates.

And most important, if people on this blog were as you seem to think they are, they would just have attacked me for being in denial about LaRouche's "obvious" anti-Semitism, for being a "closet" LaRouche supporter, or whatever. They would have done what LaRouche does to everyone he disagrees with--vilify them and question their motives. But they did nothing of the kind. Why doesn't that tell you something about the genuineness and integrity of the people posting on this blog? Or have you been around LaRouche so long already that all ability to perceive events outside of LaRoucheLand has atrophied?

As for discussing LaRouche's "core positions," I am working on a draft of what I want contribute on this topic, but it will take probably a week before I'm ready to post it. But I have not forgotten my promise to you, and am glad you are waiting for it. I believe it is a very important subject for us to address.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 4:17 am:

LaRouche's core position is ME:

look at ME

listen to ME

obey ME

flatter ME

serve ME

adulate ME

stroke ME

sacrifice all for ME

there is no truth outside of ME

there is no duty apart from to ME


Get it?


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 6:56 am:


This reminds me of when Maestro Braino was doing a tour of the regions. Once during a warm up exercize, you know, the ones that start at 10 PM I thought of a joke for people in the room.

"Hey everybody, let me show you Lyn's diabolic scale!"

Do, Ray Me me me and only meeeeeeeeeeee!

I guess I really was the "odd man out" after going through all of this and leaving.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 9:06 am:

To Avi Klein:

I agree, in the sense that the internal memo picks two people who were involved at a high level in the organization's finances.

However, LaRouche has in the past concocted a complex series of lies about those two individuals (along with Fernando Q) and their financial dealings, accusing them of things they never did, making libelous charges against them, and of course ignoring the fact that he, and he alone, called the shots in the deployment of money.

His claims of not knowing what was going on wear pretty thin: Over many years, he alternates between saying he didn't know x or y or z, and issuing memos announcing that he is now taking charge and everything will be run according to his "dialectical accounting practices."

This has been going on since 1980, when he did this to Gus Axios (Kostas K). He did it again with Ken Dalto, he did it with Fernando, he did it with Linda and Uwe (and Ken Kronberg too, in effect, in memos starting around 2004 if not earlier).

Anyone who ever came near running the money for LaRouche's operations was sooner or later blamed for exotic things and driven out. If the person in question tried to comply with various laws, LaRouche would announce in public memos (while the person was a member) that they were breaking laws--and on and on.

So the two people mentioned in this memo are the most recent targets.

I mean, LaRouche has routinely accused former leading executive committee members of having been fascists, agents of the Bulgarian KGB, FBI agents, Synarhcists, mafiosi, etc.--so he has no problem attacking institutional layers and pillars--as long as he gets away scot free.

Of course the obvious question is how did this huge number of dreadful people, enemy agents, etc., get into the absolutely top echelons of the organization year after year if LaRouche is such a genius?

But with this memo, as I noted previously, he is preparing an Alternate Universe for the youth to live in, an Orwellian 1984 universe in which Black is White, Up is Down, and the victims become the perpetrators. That's what he did with the Duggan tragedy, as I noted, up to and including blaming Erica Duggan for her son's death.

Quite a politician, eh? Most politicians send letters of condolence, deplore this or that development, give their sincerest whatever, to the victim or the bereaved. Not LaRouche. No sympathy letter from him to Mrs. Duggan! No sir--he issues a statement saying that she killed Jeremiah by saying some mysterious dreadful something or other to him on their last phone call.

That is happening with the Kronberg case too--the process will reach his closest friends, co-workers, family, and blame them.

The Enemy Within is at least as important to LaRouche as the Enemy Without--and the two are really identical. So LaRouche habitually attacks members and former members of his organization with a degree of venom that is pathological.

That's why I don't think this is all that much of an institutional confession, in his mind at least, although to the outside observer (doctor, lawyer, journalist) it seems as though LaRouche should realize that's what he's doing.

The fact is, because of his own psychological difficulties, he doesn't realize it.

In general, he and his "associates" have no idea what they look like to the outside world. Nor do they care. Their entire reality is bound up with LaRouche. The existence of other continents and planets is a hazy rumor.}


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 12:51 pm:


You profess to care about Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg. Maybe so, but the way you address these tragedies betrays an an ulterior motive that is blatantly obvious. I believe I care about Jeremiah Duggan and Ken Kronberg as much as I can, given the fact that I never knew either one of them, but I have no "axe to grind."


You have my apologies, and I recognize the fact that you have stuck your neck out a little bit.

The rest of you guys need to work on your jokes.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 12:57 pm:

What is this blatantly obvious ulterior motive?


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 1:26 pm:

"What is this blatantly obvious ulterior motive?"

You wish to save others from wasting their lives, both literally and figuratively.

You don't really care about Jeremiah and Ken; you care about living breathing people. You are using those tragedies in a shameless attempt to help others.

You are pure evil. Probably a Venetian, or worse.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 4:21 pm:

brewncue is a waste of time - period


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 4:36 pm:

I just thought I'd add a few things from my history. Anybody who has questions about LaRouche's anti-semitism should just ask any long-term member, especially those in security to explain jokes whose punchlines were variously "Shake and bake" and Jews in an ashtray. You can start with Jeff Steinberg, Paul Goldstein if he's still around the org. and a few others who recommended such jokes as a way of avoiding ADL conditioning (or the influence of parents, friends and families upon Jewish members). We also have LaRouche accusing people like Sharon of crimes "worse than Hitler". Whatever one thinks of Sharon, that statement shows LaRouche to be either a supporter of the kind of anti-Semitism associated with the right or possibly the left-wing anti-Semites who attack Israel while ignoring what Israel's enemies are doing. On the other hand, not only anti-semites have disputed that Zionism and Judaism are identical. There are some within the Hassidic community like the Satmars who believe very strongly that Zionism is a secularist perversion of Judaism and that Israel can only be restored when the Mischach comes. Of course the Satmar are considered fringe but they certainly have many members. I have also read books that go back to the days of Ben Hecht, who condemned the Jewish Zionist establishment of his day for refusing to acknowledge the reports about the holocaust because they didn't want to cause problems for FDR by making the war against the Nazis a causus belli to stop the holocaust and for not moving to save the Jews in Hungary. On the other hand, Hecht was a supporter of the extreme right winger Jabotinsky. I reprint a link to a site that may surprise many Jews who believe that the terms Judaism and Zionism are identical.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 4:49 pm:


nobody questions the fact that, indeed zionism is not judaism. It s different. Most of the jewish religious leaders were - at the beginning - opposed to the creation of Israel. When two Jews are arguying you have three different oppinions... It's never simple, is it? Except for larouche: zionism=nazism and judaism is hardly a religion...


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 5:05 pm:

Is larouche a Christian?

I just came across something quite funny…

I quote lhl:
On the Matter of Christianity:
Contrary to the current self-adulatory delusions of, not reformed, but reprocessed Tom DeLay, God does not have bad taste. People are not naturally “born wretches.” The human being is naturally good, which is why Jesus Christian wished to redeem him from childish errors such as the depravity to which DeLay was subjected in both his rearing and the Sodom-and-Gomorrah-like erring ways of his adulterated young manhood.
The Christian is therefore a person of love, as the Apostle Paul emphasizes in such locations as 1 Corinthians 13… From: Children of Satan II: The Beast-Men Accessible ONLY via this Google's cached page (the website is indeed down)

So is he a Christian?

1/ “The human being is naturally good”. Well that sounds Rousseauist, but not very Christian: no “Original Sin” anymore, we are not born sinful? The "Original Sin" is the foundation of Christian Faith. Without it (as a theologian reminded me once) the whole Christianity falls apart. That’s why there is Baptism, new born babies are NOT “naturally good”. And without Baptism, there is no Salvation in Christ... 2/ he can’t even spell correctly Jesus’ name (“Jesus Christian” sic!, not proofread either!) 3/ what does larouche know about Love and Compassion anyway?

The answer is: No, he is not.

All what larouche “understood” from Christianity is his version of the Filioque (or rather "misunderstood" as noted eaglebeak), what he likes is the “God-Like-ness” thing (ie "to be in the image of God").

What he likes is being like Prometheus: “Making men in my own image was the conscious articulation of my central purpose from approximately 1946.” (in “Power of Reason”, 1979, p76)… What he wants is being worshipped, being a God of his own Cult called “Larouchism” (not Catholicism, wrong Helga! and definitely no Judaism...).

I posted this reference (and more) on June 01, 2007 - (


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 6:00 pm:

I just want you guys to know that I have read probably far more than most people on the history and nature of anti-semitism, and I know the crimes that have come with anti-semitism are among the worst in history. You may not really care, but if I had even a small shadow of respect for what you guys claim to be doing here, I lose it when you bring charges of anti-semitism into the discussion, regardless of how elaborate those charges are. I have only disdain. I think it shows only that you have little or no understanding of the crime of anti-semitism.

I, too, believe there is an important difference between Zionism and Judaism, and I too believe one should probably never allow the ADL to influence one's thinking about anti-semitism. In short, you will never convince me that LaRouche is anti-semitic. I'll give my shadow of respect to larouchetruth on that issue, and I really hope his promised discussion of LaRouche's "core positions" is worthy of continued respect.

On the other hand, the issue of whether or not LaRouche is a Christian is a far more important and complex discussion than his alleged anti-semitism. I just wonder if anyone here is really up to the task.

On the lighter side, here is a sort of joke about LaRouche that I think is really clever and amusing, in case some of you guys haven't already seen it. Enjoy:


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 6:19 pm:

Brewncue, you mistake the essence of the argument. As Shadok says, while Jews can dispute the validity of Zionism, LaRouche hates both. As I said before, ask a Larouche old-timer for their favorite anti-Jew jokes, the one asking how many Jews fit in an ashtray, or the Shake-N-Bake joke that used to go the rounds in the national office. And once you get past the hemming and hawing and denials, you will probably be accused of being an enemy agent. Such is LaROuche's love for his fellow human beings. LaRouche is the perfect description of someone who loves humankind but hates people.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 6:30 pm:

Well, geez, I would just say go read a couple of those LaRouche Memo Generators, which, by the way, have been keeping me in stitches, then go back and read your argument. What's the difference?


New member Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 9:40 pm:

I guess my favorite idea from LaRouche is that we need to focus more on scientific and technological development, so the economy can grow faster, and more people can live better. We need more people to agree with that, so we can change the government policy to implement bigger development programs.

I'll take this one on. The economy is petroleum based at its roots, that is a fact not an opinion. Without the oil that runs our vehicles and factored into our industries as feedstock (ex. NG for ethanol distilling and fertilizer; oil in synthetic materials, plastics, herbicides and pesticides), much of our technological advancement would not have occurred when it did. We owe a great deal of our 'growth' to oil and its impact on our economy.

However, oil as an economic lubricant is in decline. That is also a fact not an opinion. PEMEX has declared its producible oil reserves will be exhausted in 7 years They are the 3rd largest source of oil for the US. In less than 7 years it is likely they won't be exporting to anyone. The National Petroleum Council released a report specifically stating that we are in for a supply/demand crunch by 2012. (PDF Warning)

Post 1


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 9:42 pm:

In 2005 Dr. Robert Hirsch of SAIC wrote a report for DOE (PDF Warning) addressing peak oil as a risk mitigation issue. He advised DOE that a 20 year crash program would be needed to mitigate the effects of declining oil production, directly impacting transportation and by extension the entire economy which relies upon liquid fuel to move goods and people. Anything less than a 20 year lead time would result in fuel shortages of varying durations depending on when the mitigation efforts began. In July 2007 a UK group released a report on the impact of peak oil on rural communities (PDF Warning) Portland Oregon conducted its own risk assessment.

These are not the actions of mindless Chicken Littles mistaking an acorn for a falling sky. However in 2005 in an interview with Jeff Rense Larouche responds to a question about Peak Oil:

LaRouche: Yeah! Well, right now, in terms of oil available, petroleum available, there's a world glut. It's not just what's in the Earth, which of course is there, but in the amount that's being produced is a glut.

What we're seeing here is simply international financial interests, which are a cartel, which control the world's petroleum supplies, are rigging the prices.

I should mention that Rense believes in abiotic oil, which has absolutely no scientific standing.

That was not the first time Larouche poo-pooed peak oil. He did it 2004:

LaRouche: There is no peak in this thing. The actual amount of petroleum being produced is far in excess of consumption requirements at present. The price of petroleum is rising because of hedge-fund speculation, primarily, in grabbing up control of the flow of petroleum, and petroleum resources; is part of a general speculation in metals and other things which are so-called natural resources. This is happening instead of that.

There is no problem in petroleum, as such, if we were functioning as a normal economy. We're producing more than enough. The cheap oil from the "Middle East" so-called, which is the cheapest source of petroleum in the world, is adequate.

He hasn't seen fit to update his perspective, as a search of LarouchePAC will show

Post 2


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 9:53 pm:

Given that oil reserves are depleting with every drop that is pumped out of the ground and that all best estimates are calling for a supply/demand crunch within a few years, for which we are ill prepared, where is Larouche's plan?

We can't drill our way out of this. Claims of oil in the Artic are not proven and any oil obtained from there will be quite expensive. That is also true of deep water wells currently being worked. Thunder Horse is behind schedule due to technical issues never seen before in the Gulf of Mexico, and Jack 2 is not being developed because of the costs.

Where is the plan to move the globe, or at least the USA, off its diet of liquid transportation fuel? Building maglevs may sound wonderful and technologically sexy, but there are economic costs that have to be considered for any solution that is proposed. The Land Bridge won't last long if it runs on diesel.

It doesn't take a genius, or a Larouchie, to recognize that our current crop of national leaders are shopping for votes rather than growing a pair and showing some leadership. Yet I see nothing from Larouche that would encourage me to believe that he has the vision or savvy to gain the support of the body politic and implement a viable solution. What comes across is a megalomaniac with delusions of importance that are unequal to his true impact on the world stage.

Post 3


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 10:05 pm:

The bottom line is that within the next 5 years we will begin to see a serious reduction in the availability of liquid transportation fuel, leading to shortages and the related impact on our economy. Within the next 10 years we will know if, and how, we will survive this significant change. "Growth" as the economic paradigm will have to be rethought since the fuel for that growth will no longer be plentiful or cheap. We cannot predict the total impact, however we can say for a certainty that the longer we go on without planning for it, the more painful it is likely to be.

Dr. Hirsch laid it out in 2005. The National Petroleum Council (Big Oil's sock puppet) has acknowledged the problem. Larouche, on at least 2 public occasions that we can document, has blown off Peak Oil as nothing to be concerned about. He has shown no inclination to consider this as a serious issue, preferring to attribute oil price fluctuations to other sources.

He is wrong about this. He may be proven right about a coming economic collapse, but it will occur for reasons he never considered.

Ball is in your court brewncue


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 11:13 pm:

Brewncue, let’s take this anti-Semitism issue on at the most basic level, where I don’t see how you can disagree. Let’s start from the agreement that several of the others indicated to my contention that LaRouche is not, in his own mind, a conscious anti-Semite. That conceded, you simply cannot deny that over the years, he has permitted, and even fostered, the appearance that he is anti-Semitic by his lead-ear approach to hot-button issues that anyone either knows, or should know, will be perceived as identifying one as an anti-Semite. The acceptance of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a genuine historical document in the book Dope, Inc., that was reprinted several times and printed in tens of thousands of copies, starting in the late 1970s, is perhaps the most compelling illustration of the point.

Let me ask a question we perhaps should have asked you much earlier. Since you are surely relatively new in your knowledge of LaRouche, certainly compared to most of us, do you even have any idea of what we are referring to in our many references to things LaRouche has said and done. Have you ever even heard, outside of this blog, of Dope, Inc., for instance? Have you ever seen a copy? If not, your reaction becomes much more understandable. We who lived through this period know, that which you cannot know, that LaRouche made fighting the international drug trade the leading organizing issue of the world-wide LaRouche movement for a year or two in the late ‘70s. You have surely seen the references to LaRouche having called the Queen of England a “dope-pusher.” This came from LaRouche’s identifying of Hong Kong, then still a British colony, not incorrectly, as a leading center for financing of the world drug trade at that time. We created the “Anti-Drug Coalition,” which briefly had support from a number of other organizations.

Well, Security got information, which I personally never knew whether to believe or not, that the drug trade accounted for some enormous figure, I think, $500 billion, huge for that time frame, and wrote this huge book, that included this reference to the Protocols. I know I winced when it appeared, and I know many others did, because even though we may have rationalized (out of ignorance) that somehow what was said about it, which I no longer remember, might have been true, even if it were (and in fact it wasn’t), we knew it would be impossible to get a hearing for our unique interpretation of it, and it would make us look anti-Semitic. Knowing that we were putting out things that appeared anti-Semitic was something that totally devoted, loyal members knew and understood in real time. It didn’t undermine our belief in LaRouche, but we were quite aware of how it made us look, and we wished he would stop doing it.

And why would a movement seeking to attract the support of a majority of the country go out of its way to appear anti-Semitic, if it really wasn’t (which we didn’t think it was)? So, I am asking you whether you are able to recognize that at the very least, LaRouche both said, himself, and sanctioned others saying in Organization-sanctioned publications, numerous claims that the rest of the world understood (and understands) to be anti-Semitic. If you can recognize the truth of this, I propose we move on, in this blog. If you aren’t willing to acknowledge that in the past, at least, LaRouche did at least what I say here, then you aren’t playing with us with a full deck.


Posted on Thursday, August 16, 2007 - 11:15 pm:

And let me add one more item, that I haven’t seen anybody else recalling. I don’t remember when, and I no longer remember all of the exact title, but it was an article by LaRouche on Jews appearing in New Solidarity, the title of which was something like “The Answer to the Jewish Question.” The part of the title I’m not sure about is the first part. I know absolutely that he used the expression “the Jewish Question.” Excuse me. What, pray tell, IS “the Jewish Question.” While it is true that before World War II, the term “the Jewish question” was a more or less legitimate phrase, used by Jews and non-Jews alike to discuss whether Jews could be assimilated into their countries of residence (or should go to a Jewish homeland, perhaps), and whether they could ever have loyalty to those countries that could be trusted, the term was then appropriated by Hitler to refer to what to do with the Jews, culminating in the decree on “the Final Solution to the Jewish Question,” which was the blueprint for the extermination of European Jewry in the death camps. I certainly knew the phrase in this context. Is it credible that LaRouche did not? I distinctly recall cringing when that centerfold article came out. How could anyone who knew the use that Hitler put that phrase to go ahead and use it the way LaRouche did?

And finally, Brewncue, again, the difference between living through something and hearing it as something that occurred during your parents’ generation before you were born, is immense. New members of LaRouche’s organizations have no idea, and no way to have an idea, other than reading this blog, in particular, of the history of LaRouche and his organizations in the earlier years. So you really have no means, at least no means that will convey the proper emotion to it, to understand what was going on during this late ‘70s period, when the Organization was cozying up to real right-wing organizations and individuals, some of whom were avowedly anti-Semitic. The Liberty Lobby was one such, and the Organization was VERY close to it for several years. A security expert named Mitch Werbell was on the right, though I don’t know whether he was anti-Semitic. But some of the willingness to let these anti-Semitic-sounding statements go public may well have been propitiating these groups and individuals and trying to impress them that we, too, were, perhaps secretly, anti-Semitic like them. This is just a guess. But LaRouche certainly had no shame, no sense of impropriety, in associating himself, and us by association with him, in some cases publicly, with such groups and individuals. So, go figure.

Anyway, hope this helps.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:00 am:

Now, from the Jewish question to the “Christian question,” which Brewncue has rightly said is more complex, and more important. He asks if any of us are up to the challenge. Well, here goes.

LaRouche began his political life as a member, card-carrying, of the Communist Party, being a member in India during the war, and leaving it to join the Trotskyist movement in 1945 when the Communist Party of India refused to start a revolution at the end of the war. He stayed in the Socialist Workers Party, the main Trotskyist party in the U.S., until 1965, when he finally left, founding the West Side Tenants Union in 1966, and then becoming the guru of most members of the Columbia chapter of Students for a Democratic Society’s “Labor Committee” in 1968, from which he recruited the nucleus of what has been his organization ever since. He was an avowed Marxist from the early ‘40s until about the mid-1970s, and of course, socialist and Trotskyist. He would call himself the best “Marxian economist” alive during the latter part of this period. He was predicting a depression to end all depressions as early as the late ‘60s, based, according to him at that time, on his actually rather clever interpretation of Marx’s “principle of the falling rate of profit,” that, LaRouche argued, doomed capitalism to be unable to prevent itself from accumulating ever more financial paper totally out of proportion to the real economy underneath.

Up until the mid-1970s, the only books members were told they needed to master were Immanual Kant, GWF Hegel, Ludwig Feuerbach, Marx himself, of course, some of Lenin, Trotsky, and Rosa Luxemburg. Even that was a lot, especially Hegel—most of us never got past the preface to his Phenomenology. Since the rest of the left, including the avowed communist, Trotskyist and socialist fractions thereof, rarely read much of this stuff, except for Lenin and a little Marx, we could feel superior that we were getting the ultimate in the deep philosophy that underlay “our” Marxism, putting us head, shoulders and torso above everyone else on the left.

Never, in this entire period, was there the slightest hint that LaRouche had a religious bone in him. Few (if any) dedicated communists of that era would have been religious. Lyn wrote just as copiously then as he does now, so surely, it should be clear, if he was a Christian, or even if he just believed in a God recognizable to a monotheist, there would have been some hint thereof in his writings and in what he said. But not a peep.

What there was was the sub-sector of Western philosophy that led directly into Marx. We studied Kant because Hegel built on him. Hegel was really important for LaRouche. I have no idea how much Hegel LaRouche ever actually read himself, but he made it appear that he had read him extensively. From Hegel, LaRouche got the idea of the “Logos,” which he traced through Hegel and Feuerbach to Marx, though I now forget most of the details of what he did with this. part 1


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:04 am:

Note what wasn’t there: no Leibniz, no Gauss or Riemann, no Cusa, no Plato, no polemic against Aristotle (at least not in its later form, but more on this in a moment), no Kepler. What was there was Lyn’s alleged discovery of the three modes of human existence, the Promethian, the Aristotelian, and the Dionysian. The Dionysian was the degenerate, the orgiastic, the pornographic, etc. The Aristotelian, which could also have been the Kantian, was the “norm,” not evil like the Dionysian, but not satisfactory. And the Promethian was the proper role model, of those who stepped out of bounds and defied the Gods. We were all supposed to be Promethians. It was in this context that LaRouche launched his operation against the “Counterculture” in, I believe, 1971, attacking it as pure Dionysian, and promoting classical music as the exclusive type of music compatible with who we were supposed to be (and I find nothing wrong in that, it is, up through Brahms, the greatest music ever written).

I don’t have time to say anything about what happened starting in early 1973 with the “Beyond Psychoanalysis” series of articles, except that it prepared the way, around New Years Day 1974, for LaRouche to suddenly come up with a specific target, Nelson Rockefeller, as the evilest person in the country who was plotting a coup that we had to stop by going out in the streets of New York and other cities with mass leaflets warning the population of his evil plans to establish a dictatorship. LYMers, yes, this really happened. Ever heard of the BAE? Ever heard of the Club of the Isles? That one was the “Rockefeller” of the mid-90s. It faded away, too. Replaced by I remember not. But it was always something.

Around the same time, LaRouche discovered (actually, others discovered, and brought it to his attention) the British Round Table of the first third of the 20th century, through a book, Tragedy and Hope, by Carroll Quigley. An interesting book. I later got a copy and still have it. Yes, everyone, there really was a British Empire, and it was run by some pretty nasty people, who actually did plot how to control as much of the world as they could, and this book detailed a lot of that. Not, actually, very extraordinary to anyone who knew much about modern world history, which LaRouche clearly did not. For LaRouche, the Round Table was the ultimate conspiracy of the British against the U.S., a secret known only to him and Quigley (discounting that perhaps a few others might have also read the book and found it credible).

Truth to tell, he has basically maintained that tack for the subsequent 32 years, to the present date. The British are the ultimate evil behind everything to this day.

During this period, also, there was a heavy emphasis on the issue of mind-control, brainwashing, the Tavistock Institute and John Rawlings Reese, etc.

All of that is foreplay to the Christian issue. In the mid-70s, LaRouche was informed by others of the existence of Leibniz, and he was hailed as a great forebear. I don’t know recall the exact chronology, someone with access to documents could probably fill this in more completely, but over the late ‘70s, Leibniz was joined by Riemann, almost certainly seconded to LaRouche by Uwe Parpart, and perhaps one or two others in the emerging new Pantheon. part 2


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:08 am:

Then, Criton Z did his research on the 2 1/3 millenium battle between the Platonic and the Aristotelian world views, and, plagiarizing totally without a single nod of credit, based on Criton’s research and other research that others had done, LaRouche produced one of the most seminal works of his career, the Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites, tracing the Plato versus Aristotle issue from 4th century BC Greece to the present. From this point forward, all of history, and every figure in it, was judged by the optic of which side of this divide one fell Aristotle was now not just the average Joe, but the embodiment of pure evil, and every mathematician judged to be an empiricist was suddenly cast into the ninth circle of LaRouche hell, including Euclid, Newton, Euler and a host of others.

I don’t recall where the Logos was through all of this, but I believe it was still present somewhere. Also, agape, as true love, against eros, came in about now, actually maybe with BP in 1973-74. But, still no Christianity, at least not in any form that suggested LaRouche was one of them.

On or around 1980, Bob Dreyfuss published his lengthy Campaigner article on Christianity. It was, I later discovered, dreadful and mostly wrong. As I recollect it presented as known history that Peter met Philo of Alexandria and other inventions of that sort.

Oh, and in the latter ‘70s, LaRouche inveighed strongly against Catholicism, especially in the persons of Mary and John G., devout Catholics who had a lot of friends in the New York chapter, and LaRouche clearly found their brand of Christianity very dangerous and a real threat to his leadership of the organization on strictly philosophical grounds.

I believe it was not until 1982 that, in rather short order, LaRouche suddenly started talking a lot about Christianity, to the point that one who had never heard of him before and had not read any of his prior writings might mistake him for a Christian. Having at that point total confidence that LaRouche didn’t believe in God, much less in the divinity of Christ, I interpreted this rather sudden and dramatic turn to be a recognition that he had to appear Christian, or at least sympathetic to Christianity, in order to expand his influence to Christians in the U.S.

What he did, quite clearly, was assimilate Christianity, as best he could, to his previous, long-standing interpretation of the history of philosophy. His intent, I am totally certain, was to show that Christianity was really the same, philosophically, as what he had always stood for when he couched it in purely philosophically terms, especially as that philosophy had evolved in his post-Marxist period (he rather quickly, and without fanfare or official announcement—more by attrition—dropped all references to Marx or socialism around the end of 1976, when his opposition to Carter attracted far right-wing support for him) with the adoption of Plato as the replacement for Marx in his pantheon. Suddenly, Christianity became Platonism, humanized. The only thing that Christianity brought to Platonism was the mediator between God and Man, namely, Christ. By adding Christ to Platonism, LaRouche claimed that Christianity made Platonism accessible to the masses. I doubt he ever said it quite so straightforwardly, but that is definitely how I understood it at the time. part 3


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:09 am:

Now, the astute among you, and any of you that actually are Christians, might find this surgery a bit off the mark. And it led to an utterly comical, absurd, idiotic error that LaRouche to this day refuses to correct. Now, stay with me on this. LaRouche already had the Logos, which means “word” in Greek, from Greek philosophy (rescued from Hegel by the fact that Plato used it first). For LaRouche, the Logos was the core of his philosophical doctrine, it stood for pure Reason, and he was its embodiment. So, at the point of his “discovery,” which I prefer to characterize as his “assimilation” of Christianity into his philosophical construct, he matched his “Logos” up with, guess what, the Holy Spirit. In LaRouche’s “Christianity” the Holy Spirit represents the Logos. He has held on to this absurdity, despite repeated attempts by people to convince him he can’t do this, for the past quarter century. Talk about obstinacy! It would be like saying you believe in our Constitution, especially the part that establishes a parliament as our legislative branch. Hey, it’s not up to you to define what it is. It is already defined, and you either agree with it or you don’t. But you can’t redefine it to suit your needs.

So, don’t talk about LaRouche being a Christian. First of all, if LaRouche is now, or has ever been a Christian since 1982, it could only have come about by him actually converting to some brand of Christianity. Because he certainly, absolutely, wasn’t one before then. It is not believable that LaRouche, who writes so extensively, could have been one, and hidden this fact. It simply makes no sense. We started hearing about Christianity from LaRouche as soon as he had something he wanted to say about it. However, nothing in what he said when he started talking about it in 1982, suggests he had suddenly “converted.” So, the burden of proof is on anyone who maintains that he is a Christian to a) define what they mean by it, b) indicate what indications exist that LaRouche fits that definition, and c) point to the period when he converted from his previous atheism.

Old-timers remember, generally with a chuckle, that early Campaigner with the lead story “Fidel Joins the Labor Committee.” Well, in 1982, “God Joined the Labor Committee” would have been a clinically accurate description of how LaRouche now intended to define his relationship to Christianity.

He has never, to my knowledge, ever used the formulation that he was a Christian, that he has any personal relationship to Jesus, in fact, the Jesus recognizable to most Christians is notably absent in everything LaRouche writes.

I am going to stop here. There is lots more to be said, and I’m sure others will carry the ball from here. Since 1982, LaRouche has couched things he wanted to say on the goodness of man, and lots of other moral-sounding things, in what he thinks are Christian ways. It’s protective covering for him. But he derives nothing from Christianity. He merely chooses to identify everything he wanted to say anyway with some precept from Christianity. Christianity, for him, is at best like a kind of Confucian “religion,” a set of principles for right living, not really a religion at all. There is simply no evidence I have ever seen that suggest that LaRouche believes in a God, or in Christ, in any way that any true Christian would recognize as valid. part 4


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:10 am:

Which, by the way, does not, in and of itself, impugn what LaRouche says that he calls Christian. Everything he says, whether truly Christian or not, must still be judged on its merits. But to call LaRouche a Christian strikes me as blasphemy.

Oh, and a brief addendum. By 1987, as LaRouche began expecting himself to be imprisoned, he made, as has been noted, a strong term toward the Catholic Church. He even attended the wedding of Louis Dupont S in the Vatican. Rumor had it that he hoped to get the Pope to intervene on his behalf. I find that quite credible. This turn culminated in the monstrous conference of 1992, where not only did Fernando Q reverse some of the core historical assertions of Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites, starting with Fernando’s praise of the Hapsburgs, previously a leading villain of the piece, he even defended the Counter-Revolution and the Inquisition. But equally off the wall was Webster T’s (I believe it was Webster, unless it was Gerry R, who also presented a paper) attack on Calvinism and by extension, on most Protestantism, even, by extension if not explicitly, on Milton despite his being in the pantheon before this time. That speech effectively finished off a number of black activist women, leaders in their churches, who had been coaxed into attending the conference, but who were outraged by this attack on their religion.

And the beat goes on. end


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:41 am:

Actually, not quite the end. Marxism, certainly in its Soviet manifestation, if not in the way that Rosa Luxemburg might have implemented it had she survived and managed to ever come to power, is based on the notion that the top knows what’s best for everyone else. That’s why central planners were employed to plan the Soviet economy. It never worked. But the idea that a handful of smart people at the top can run an economy better than the market is on that I’m sure many Communists, and Trotskyists, have believed, and LaRouche is absolutely of this mold. Surely none can deny this. He says he is the only person in the world qualified to take over, and put the entire world financial system into bankruptcy and receivership. And he knows exactly what to do to issue trillions of dollars to invest in infrastructure and get the real economy moving again.

So, the transition from a Marxist pantheon with Marx at its apex, and LaRouche his leading successor, to a Platonist pantheon with Plato, as author of the Republic, at its apex, with LaRouche his leading successor, was a matter of minor surgery, at best. In Plato’s Republic, the Guardians run society for benefit of everyone else, and they know best.

This is often called collectivist psychology—the belief that only a benevolent few brainiacs at the top can make society work. It is not necessary for those thinking this to be evil. They can have the best intentions in the world. It’s just that it won’t work. One can have ideas, but the belief that a simple set of such ideas can simply be imposed on a nation or a world is puerile self-delusion, derived from this Communist view of saving mankind from itself.

Which is where LaRouche’s belief structure is revealed to be totally antithetical to some basic precepts of Christianity. In Christianity, only God, not men, can know what’s best for everybody. Man’s role is to be humble. Humility has no place in LaRouche’s worldview. Christ preaches love, even to love thine enemy. LaRouche divides the world into friend and foe, and then proceeds to heap calumny, often scatological or worse, at his foe. Christianity teaches that no one is perfect, that all humankind sins, for which they must seek God’s forgiveness. LaRouche effectively claims to be perfect, at least in all matters that he claims are his areas of expertise, and has never taken responsibility for any serious errors of anything, much less admitted he ever sins. And, as someone pointed out yesterday, that I had not picked up on, LaRouche’s formulation that the baby is born good and gets corrupted by his parents is straight Rousseau—“man is born free, and is everywhere in chains.” In contrast to Christianity’s view that the infant is born with original sin and must be baptized to remove that sin.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 3:44 am:

Let me end by highlighting the key point I’m making here: LaRouche’s assertions that he, and he alone, knows exactly what to do, and nobody else knows anything, and that if he were just in charge, he would order everything to be done to deal with the crisis, is nothing but tired Communist, collectivist delusion that a society can be run from the top by a small group of benevolent dictators, who know best what’s best for everyone. It’s profoundly anti-democratic, and anti-republican, which is certainly consistent with the political workings of LaRouche’s organization, which hasn’t had much real democracy since before Beyond Psychoanalysis, and now hasn’t a shred of it, where there are no conferences even to elect the benevolent dictators of the NEC and NC, and where LaRouche, acting alone with no “legal” authority to do so, can sack a member of the NEC of 30 year standing (Ed S), based on a ridiculous reason that even if true is absurd, that Ed denied in any case, and without any hearing or due process, not even concurrence by the rest of the NEC, much less the membership which still, nominally, are the source of the authority of the NEC which is supposedly an elective position.

If this is how LaRouche runs his own organization, how can anyone believe that he would change his entire MO in any other context? The benevolent dictator is still a dictator. And one man’s benevolence is another’s malevolence. I rest my case.


xlcr4life Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 7:07 am:

Ltruth, you bring up so many things which many of us endured without even a whimper as Lyn set the sails to new funds, new phone lists to boil and new delusipons to discover.

What I have noticed and have found over and over in reviewing what went on in the LC is that the members would do some research and present it to Lyn who would usually abscond with with it and then calim it as his own new, world shattering discovery. What the people who did the work and and wrtie the papers often found was that their eforts were now maybe a single sentence at a conference while Lyn took everything to the bank as the creator.

What happened next was part of how a cult of personality operates. Lyn then adds his delusions at the time to rewrite everything to fit what he believes are the new boogiemen and boogiewomen who are now his enemies. You can see this if you read NS in order and see the ever increasing list of enemies who are now the enemeies of whatever new discovery was made. The members I beleive were awestruck how Lyn made these connections and believe that this is why Lyn is the superiour being. This charade has gone for decades and I hear every few months how this worked.

The C=256 campaign started off with an innocent remark at Ibykus by a very talented member who had some knowledge of this and a suggestion that it could be an issue to persue. In no time it ws now Lyn's idea and his discovery and like everything else in the LC, became all about Lyn.

So whatever the LC did which had some merit always ended up in the cult of personality bin and now completely revolving around Lyn. It did not matter that the thing dies a slow and forgotten death as long as Lyn gets a few people to wish him a happy birthday and call him a genius in the end.

Ltruth, I think we did only a few verison of Dope Inc with the Protocols due to the backlash against it.

Our Christian turn in the 1980s coincided with our now calling up Black Churches for support and the MLK day march. We go where the money or the bodies to display for Lyn are.

All of the recent posts here have really brought out some people who have a lot to offer. I just recieved an email from the person(s) who did the work on Trotsky yutes and Lyn.

I will be recieving some more from this person later today. I asked who he was and he emailed back


Well, Bullwinkle, we await your research as this one is supposed to show something about Lyn's Nazi - Holocaust thinking from his SWP days.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 7:09 am:

I have decided to get ahead of myself here, for Brewncue’s sake, and in the context of the present financial turmoil, to show him at least a glimmer of what is wrong with everything LaRouche says even in the domain of his “core positions” where on the surface he might seem to be on target. I intend to develop a more lengthy discussion of everything I consider a “core position” shortly, and will no doubt have to repeat some of what I put here to complete the argument.

I have no direct access to confirm this, but it is hard to imagine that the banking and financial crisis that got suddenly worse last week isn’t being taken as confirmation by all loyal LaRouche supporters that, “see, LaRouche was right and everyone else was wrong.” I have to assume that Brewncue would be among them, and why not? On the surface, such a conclusion appears to be spot on. But let’s look a bit deeper.

First of all, we need to overlook how often LaRouche has previously said that the big one was imminent, that would be worse than the 1929 depression, over the past 35 years. I won’t belabor this point here, but it needs to be noted. Second, it may be enough for naïve, clueless college dropouts to see that LaRouche said there would be a financial crisis, and look, there is one, so isn’t he a genius. But more mature observers who know something would look a little further and ask, OK, what did LaRouche say was the reason he was predicting a crisis? This is not a small issue. Let’s take this one apart a little. As I pointed out earlier tonight, LaRouche was predicting a 1929 or worse depression as early as the early ‘70s, 35 years ago, and he has predicted the same almost every year since, almost always saying it would actually happen within a year. So you need to ask, why did he make those predictions? What was the evidence, and what was the theory of how such a crisis would develop from that evidence? Because in the early ‘70s, the reason there would be a crash that couldn’t be stopped was because of LaRouche’s confidence in his correction to Marx’s notion of the inevitability of the “falling rate of profit,” that said that capitalism inevitably had to create more and more of what LaRouche called “fictitious capital,” basically speculation, which for a reason too arcane to expand on here, capitalism couldn’t solve.

There are probably those cynics still around today who would hold that the reason that LaRouche believes that financial crises that inevitably occur after speculative binges must be “the big one” that would put 1929 to shame, is that in this regard at least, he is, still, a Marxist at heart, and he believes it because he believes it, even if he no longer gives out the reason that he spent 2 hours a week for six weeks at a time teaching in those early days. Because notice, please, that he never quantifies, never even attempts to quantify, anything. LaRouche, Mr. “I make no assumptions, Euclid is a fraud because he bases his math on postulates and axioms,” is simply arguing from Aristotelian sense-certainty that, obviously, there is so much hot air in the financial markets that once it starts to go, it has to go all the away, and implode to the point that no recovery is possible short of implementing LaRouche’s own hyper-drastic draconian solution.

For the rest of us, who see that there was no crash in 1971 (there was a major crisis, but no 1929-style crash), no crash in any year thereafter. We had a few crises. There was the savings and loan debacle, which was partly bailed out, partly wiped out. There was the 1987 stock market crash that had almost no impact on anything in what LaRouche calls the “real economy” (a distinction I agree with him on, and one of his most useful contributions to such discussions). There was the housing decline of 1988-91. There was the post-911 prolonged downturn.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 7:10 am:

But the stock market went from just above 2000 at the end of the 1987 crash, to nearly 13000 in 2001, before coming down quite significantly—and despite coming down so far, no major impact was felt on the “real economy.”

Now, the “real economy” hasn’t been doing that well either, and I’m not trying to argue that it is. But we’re not dealing not with a sick economy, but for LaRouche, a terminal economy, an economy that has terminal cancer that is moments from metastasizing into every corner of the economy and bringing on a depression worse than 1929. So my point is, the real economy weathered even a 30% or so stock market decline from 2001 to whenever it hit bottom, without triggering a financial collapse.

So, the question is, why does LaRouche believe that a financial crash is inevitable, and why does he believe it will be so devastating that only fighting fire with fire, declaring an “orderly” bankruptcy of the world’s financial system before uncontrolled defaults bankrupt it anyway, is called for? Well, for the past 15 years or so, the answer appears to be “derivatives.” LYMers, do you know what these are? Do you know how they work? Are you aware that there is a wide variety of derivatives, and that not all derivatives are equal. Some are actually really useful, like futures trading in farm commodities that allows farmers to lock in a guaranteed price for their crop. There are some others that are pure casino and should be illegal. But most derivatives are what’s called “marked to market” every night, meaning that if something bad happens to someone, they have to pay up or get out of the game right away, they can’t just sit there while unpayable obligations pile up against him. This is not true in all cases, and I don’t doubt that some derivatives could potentially hurt people. It was speculating in derivatives a number of years ago that caused Orange County, California, to lose millions. In the end, taxpayers took a bath, others learned from their mistake, and life went on.

But LaRouche believes that derivatives have actually created a hyperinflationary bubble. He has taken what are called “notional” valuations, which I don’t propose to explain here, and erroneously assumed that they represent debt obligations just as if someone borrowed such an amount of money and now had to pay it back. He doesn’t understand derivatives (some of them are extraordinarily complex, but he doesn’t even understand most of the simpler ones), so I believe he has greatly magnified the losses that can come from problems in the derivatives markets.

Well, what triggered the present crisis? The mortgage bubble. And why? For a reason that I had no idea of, because I didn’t understand the mortgage securities industry fully enough. Not because I didn’t see that there was an enormous bubble that couldn’t go on indefinitely, and that when it would hit, it would be ugly. That was obvious to me. It was also obvious to LaRouche in Jan. of 2006, in a webcast on Jan. 11, after which it appears he stopped highlighting the real estate bubble, in preference to hyping the “hyper-inflationary” policies that were supposedly keeping the hedge funds and other speculators afloat. But I have not seen him return to this theme (the real estate bubble) as the likely proximate cause of a financial crisis since. So one is left to infer that LaRouche’s prediction of a near-term crash was motivated by his belief that there was simply so much inflationary money that had been pumped into the system by central banks to prop up the overstretched derivatives markets, that it simply had to come down, and soon, and that once it started coming down, there would be no stopping it.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 7:11 am:

Fellahs, look at reality. That’s not what’s happening. What happened is that as the housing bubble went sour (and granted, a majority of economists somehow managed not to predict that it had to at some point (but also many did, not just LaRouche), it turned out that a number of hedge funds had purchased the securitized mortgages that were backed by these sub-prime mortgages that were starting to default at very high rates. And that panicked hedge fund investors who started to try to pull their money out of the hedge funds, and that caused a number of them to collapse.

A monument to stupidity? Absolutely. But whether it will lead to a quick recovery, a mild recession, a moderate recession, a deep recession, a depression, a 1929-style depression, or LaRouche’s predicted civilization-wrecking depression to end all depressions, is, for all who are not self-imprisoned within the LaRouche protective bubble that blocks you off from normal reasoning processes and evidence that isn’t pre-sanctioned by LaRouche, an open question. Meaning, how it plays out has a lot to do with how it is responded to. What LaRouche has not proven, nor attempted to prove, is why measures short of his pre-emptive bankruptcy proposal for the world financial system cannot work. He, defying his own oft-repeated railing against those who use “sense certainty” to draw conclusions, certainly appears for all the world to be doing just that. He provides no quantitative analysis, no investigation of options available to banking and government authorities nor an analysis of why he thinks that whatever they do, they are doomed. Nothing. Just sweeping assertions that he hands down ex cathedra with an air of immense authority, convincing only those already convinced that he is the greatest economist who ever lived that he is “obviously” right, since everybody else remains open to factoring reality into the equation.

I’ll close by illustrating concretely that LaRouche is making, among many other mistakes, an elementary one that any student of economic history 101 would not make. The irony of ironies is that this mistake relates to the area that LaRouche claims is the single most important distinction between him and all other economists—his supposedly rigorous separation of financial matters, paper in one form or another, and the “real economy,” a distinction that I believe is absolutely on the mark, and that most economists don’t, at least not rigorously, make. But suddenly, when it comes to analyzing a financial crisis, he ignores his own distinction, one of the only instances where he has otherwise made a useful contribution.

Because, in assuming that a financial crisis would lead to a 1929-style or worse depression, he is assuming that the evaporation of financial paper and the shutting down of an economy are essentially the same thing. I urge you: read over his recent statements about this, and you will find that for him, the implosion of financial values IS the depression. But excuse me, as you have taught, financial matters are a distinct domain from the real economy. And while the two influence each other, they are not necessarily joined at the hip. Just as financial values can blow up in a bubble while the real economy stays behind, why shouldn’t it be the case that the financial bubble can be pricked, some of the air let out, without it bleeding over into and destroying the physical, the real, economy?


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 7:12 am:

And we have the ability to analyze the 1929 crash. The real economy did not go into depression for several years. The immediate crash wiped out the fortunes of a relatively small number of people. It was the incompetent, narrowly nationalist policies that were enacted after the initial crash that ensured the Depression, raising tariffs, not lowering interest rates, and a host of other things. The stock market crash did not, of itself lead to, or need to lead to, the Depression, the collapse of employment and of physical production. If it didn’t then, why should it now?

This gets even more clear when, as any first-year economics student ought to understand, the real cause of severe financial crises is panic. That is, when some negative event causes people to think their money is not safe, and they run to pull it out, hoping to beat everyone else. Well, the panic creates just what everyone was hoping to avoid, the crashing of prices and soon, the inability of banking and other institutions to pay at all. It creates a short-term liquidity crisis, since the assets of the banks are not liquid enough to pay off all depositors at once. But, if confidence can be restored quickly enough that people’s money is safe, panics can, and have been, stopped, and financial losses limited.

Which is the significance of the money poured into the markets by Central Banks earlier this week. They were taking a page from J.P. Morgan’s playbook in 1907, when he single handedly stopped a panic by taking gold from his own bank and driving it in an open cart to all of the most threatened banks, so that people could see that Morgan was going to guarantee their deposits. They stopped trying to withdraw it, and the panic lead nowhere.

I can’t take the time, and don’t know enough, to know what further options can be taken to limit losses in the present crisis, what other vulnerabilities lie lurking, etc. Neither does LaRouche. Neither does, probably, any one person, though obviously some people know things that aren’t public yet, good or bad. But think about this. It is so far the hedge funds that are taking the major hits. These are the funds for the super rich. These rich have earned far more than they should have for years, and can largely afford to take large losses for a change. There is no doubt that a lot of speculative slop must be wrung out of the system. But LaRouche cannot prove that as long as a panic can be avoided or minimized, and a few trillions of speculative investments wiped out, hurting largely the richest stratum, though certainly some losses will be felt by lower income people with money in the stock market, that the system cannot be stabilized short of causing a deep depression. Maybe a serious recession is unavoidable. I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that nobody knows, and nobody could know.

What we can say is that LaRouche has no basis for “knowing” that nothing at all can be done to mitigate the effects of an uncontrolled financial implosion that will wipe out world finance and plunge humanity into a new dark age. And we can say that LaRouche flunks economics 101 by ignoring the distinction between losses of speculative financial values and a collapse of physical production, and also the distinction between a panic and depression.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 7:12 am:

So, Brewncue, what does LaRouche’s “core position” as it relates to the thing that he says, constantly, that he obviously thinks is the most important thing he has to say, namely, his perennial “prediction” that a financial crash ••• worse-than-1929-style depression is just around the corner, amount to? It amounts to an unsubstantiated assertion that for reasons he cannot or will not provide, he believes that a financial implosion to end all financial implosions is inevitable, just because. “Trust me, I’m the world’s best economist, which is proven by the fact that I have been forecasting just such an implosion every year for the last 30 years, and I’ve never been wrong.”

Solly, cholly, no Kool-Aid for me.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 9:42 am:

Just to amplify and support what LaRouchetruth has written.

LaRouche has gone through a number of phases in his relationship to Christianity, starting with the memorable Feuerbach Campaigner and the infamous "Madonna/Whore" analysis of Mary that persisted for a number of years.

Later on he became obsessed by the Filioque, as noted previously, and on the strength of the fact that the Eastern Churches do not include the Filioque in their version of the Nicene Creed, announced that they were (a) not Christians and (b) not human.

We already discussed his massive confusion concerning the Logos--a mistake no one with a nodding acquaintance with the Gospel of John would make--but John's is the only Gospel LaRouche is interested in, because he sees it as the most Platonic.

When he decided to try to woo the Jews back after years of outrageous assaults, he dropped the Filioque and turned to the formulation of "imago dei" in Genesis--"God created man in His image, male and female created He them." However, he insisted on calling this a Christian formulation, even though it appeared in the first book of the Hebrew Scriptures.

He announced that creativity was the content of being created in God's image--thus rejecting the handicapped, mentally ill, senile, etc. etc. as being in effect non-human.

He rejects the concept of original sin--whatever shades of meaning you want to assign to it--which means, as LaRouchetruth suggests, that there's no earthly reason for baptism.

Of course, he was raised a Quaker, and Quakers don't baptise, or take communion; they are entirely non-liturgical and non-sacramental. However, he wasn't much of a Quaker, because he and his family were thrown out of Quaker meeting for spreading gossip and acting in a non-Christian manner, according to written reports of the Monthly Meeting of wherever it was, Massachusetts.

Basically, LaRouche knows zip about Christianity, and isn't interested to find out. The fact that he called his Alexandria federal trial of 1988 "the third trial of Socrates"--the first two in the series being that of Socrates and, if you can believe it, that of Jesus--suggests an arrogance that crossed the boundary into delusion some time ago.

Ditto his piece written after his Alexandria conviction, "I Become a Martyr." He didn't--he wasn't even remotely close to being martyred, and he sure complained a lot more than most martyrs....

Doesn't believe in original sin, doesn't believe in the afterlife, doesn't believe that Jesus died to save the human race from its sins and clearly doesn't believe it was a good thing that Jesus died on the cross (Christians, however, do believe it was salvific).He obviously does not believe that "Pride goeth before a fall," either.

Bottom line: Not a Christian.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 10:13 am:

For LaRouche's newest adherents, LaRoucheTruth's sweeping summary of Lyn's "thought" across the decades should prove useful. They should note that at no point in all that time did he ever once admit he was wrong about anything. That should scare one. They should further note that his "thought" is shot through with the black-and-white thinking characteristic of the alcoholic. With him it's always cowboys vs. indians, the white hats vs. the black hats, the good guys vs. the bad guys. Plato guys, all good; Aristotle guys, evil. Filioque guys, all good; Orthodox guys, evil. Carey guys all good; Marx guys, evil. Brahms/Schumann guys, all good; Wagner guys, evil. FDR, all good; Truman, evil. Just to pick apart his ideology, as it is necessary to do so that the LYM can appreciate the intellectual fraud of LHL, makes me thoroughly nauseous. But if one soul is saved from squandering years of his/her precious life in that cult, it is all worth the slogging.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 6:06 pm:

Well the WABAC machine is pretty busy. I finally recieved another email from Bullwinkle and it is some more things uncovered about how Lyn operates. This time we find out about some intersting observations by Wolforth about Lyn's thinking about Nazis and death camps.

Here is Bullwinkle with his comments and what he, she or they have found in a basement.

Pay attention yutes, I know you did not plan to spend all day at a card table shrine or inhaling carcinogens for Lyn, but we like you so much that you deserve to know everything.

This is from an article from the Bulletin, the paper of the Workers League which Tim Wohlforth created out of > the ACFI. The issue is Vol. 5, Nos. 8-9 and it appeared on December 16, 1968.

The article in question > is a very long Wohlforth piece entitled "The Many Theories of L. Marcus" ("Marcus" being LaRouche's pen name at the time).

The article begins:

"Just as America has become the home for astrology, Scientology, witchcraft, and even the most obscure Indian guru clutches his Air India ticket to the States, so too with our Marxist scholastic and meta-physicians" and "as we shall see, we have a few home grown ones too."

Of course the Marxist guru in question is Wohlforth's old crony, LaRouche. Wohlforth comments first on a LaRouche paper entitled "The History of Capitalism" that LaRouche submitted to the then SDS Labor Committee. In the paper LaRouche argued that there was no ability for the US ruling class to carry out a policy LaRouche called "The Third Stage of Imperialism" (basically meaning the export of technology and industry and infrastructure to the Third World to postpone a capitalist crash at home)due to capitalist backwardness and cretinism.

[NOTE: The importance of this is that it shows LaRouche moving to the notion that a capitalist economic crisis was just around the corner similar to the view advanced in England by Wohlforth's boss, Gerry Healy.]

Wohlforth first attacks the idea of the Third Stage as well as LaRouche's eccentric theory that the war in Vietnam was really being fought so that Vietnam could serve as the "rice bowl" for Indian workers who would develop capitalism in the "Third Stage" model. Wohlforth labeled this idea a totally "economic reductionist" view. He argued that it would mean that there was now no concept of "primitive accumulation" in the Third World and that US imperialism's policy was to introduce higher living standards. Speaking as an orthodox Trotskyist, Wohlforth comments that this would mean the idea that imperialism was linked to "super profits" was wrong.

Instead, Wohlforth says that the only way to stop imperialism was by the power of the working class. LaRouche's turn away from his "Third Stage" argument in the "History of Capitalism" paper was to be welcomed.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 6:07 pm:

Then, VERY INTERESTINGLY, Wohlforth comments that Marcus's "most preposterous theory to date" wasn't "Third Stage" idea but his theory about the Holocaust. Wohlforth states that LaRouche claimed that the Nazi extermination of six million Jews was really "a rational economic policy of primitive accumulation" and that Nazi race theory was simply an ideological cover!

Wohlforth points out that there were millions of non-Jews, foreign workers and forced laborers who worked for the Nazis and weren't singled out for extermination while millions of Jews were sent to death camps. He also says that in a rational model, the persecution and extermination of the Jews wasted German resources and made absolutely no economic sense. Once again, LaRouche had fallen victim to "simplistic economic determinism."

(Another way to look at this is to say that LaRouche minimized the absolutely critical role of culturally irrational anti-Semitism in causing the Holocaust.)

In part two of his essay, Wohlforth critiques LaRouche's notion of a transitional economic program. He argues that LaRouche's idea of a national employment policy that would create some 4 millio> new productive jobs was not a revolutionary program as defined by orthodox Marxism but a "transitional> program" inside of capitalism. As Wohlforth put it: "Marcus is clearly a man of another era. How happy he would have been in the old FDR brain trust."

Taking an orthodox Marxist line, Wohlforth said that Marxists promote transitional programs with demands that can't be met by capitalism. LaRouche, however, is promoting "reform demands limited by the existing capitalist structure. In no way does Marcus differ on this question" from other non-revolutionary Marxist like the German SPD leader Karl Kautsky.

Even worse was LaRouche's idea of an "orderly transition' to state power that involved "using the capitalist corporate income-tax system for our own purposes in our own way." According to Wohlforth, "never before has a single man compressed into such a short statement so much revisionism."

Marcus/LaRouche/Fearless Leader, in short, had adopted a "peaceful road" to socialism. Real communists knew that in order to take power there had to be class struggle and a forceful seizure of power. Marcus was like Khrushchev and Brezhnev in his endorsement of a "peaceful road to socialism."

Part three of the essay focused on the role of the Party. Wohlforth identifies what he says is the central issue that lies at the heart of LaRouche's blunders. He complains that the organization that would in a few years degenerate into an crazed leadership cultlacked any Leninist vanguard party model. Following Marxism 101, Wohlforth writes that what was needed was a real party, one "conscious, disciplined, yes, particularly and harshly and cohesively disciplined. We are speaking of a Leninist Party."

At the time most LC members joined (the pre-1973 period), the SDS Labor Committees DID explicitly reject the "Leninist model." That angered Wohlforth, who writes: "Marcus's programmatic understandably demands of him that he organize a loose propaganda group which he hopes someday will lead an even looser mass organization which will have confidence in L.Marcus's ability to administer the Federal Reserve System."


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 6:08 pm:

The fact is that at the time LaRouche advocated an anti-Leninist "mass strike" point of view supported with cites from Rosa Luxemburg who famously opposed Lenin on the "party" question.

Wohlforth continues that all LaRouche cares about is creating a "cadre grouping of revolutionary intellectuals" who would get the workers to support them. But this is a "one-sided" view since both Marx and Lenin built a workers' party. With the League of the Just [the group that became the Communist League] Marx didn't form a special intellectual group apart from the workers. Wohlforth then remarks about LaRouche: "What disdain for the working class Marcus represents! in everything he writes, it comes through." According to Wohlforth, intellectuals bring in both pragmatism and bourgeois ideas into the working class. Didn't Lenin in "One Step Forward" also attack a LC-like tendency to substitute intellectuals or workers?

Finally, Wohlforth concludes that when LaRouche was with the ACFI he supported unification with the other dissident former SWP tendency called the Spartacist League so LaRouche could have his own base of cadre and not because he cared about the Fourth International. in fact, LaRouche has never been able to clearly explain his break with the Fourth International and that's why his politics are such a mess.

Wohlforth's detailed attack on LaRouche came after the Workers League had tried to court the LC following the LC's success at Columbia University. On 12 February 1969, the Bulletin ran an article describing that period under the headline "SDS Labor Expels Trotksyists." It states that the SDS Labor Committee expelled some Workers League supporters from the group as "disrupters." It also said that prior to the expulsions, "longtime SDS Labor Committee member Tom Gordan" gave a paper attacking the LC for "reformism." The LC, however, refused to discuss his paper.

The Bulletin then revealed that for some months the Workers League had been pushing for "serious discussions" with the LC. (Clearly Wohlforth's attack in the 16 December 1968 Bulletin was an outline of his areas of disagreement with LaRouche.) The Bulletin then reports that since LaRouche came out of the SWP and the rest of the LC's top leadership was largely from the Progressive Labor Party,the SDS Labor Committee carried on the techniques of both groups and suppressed political opposition. Therefore the LC represented a "right-wing" break from both PL and the SWP.

Wohlforth's article is fascinating with regard to the to the early history of the NCLC. First, the WL and the early SDS Labor Committee did have some close ties. Wohlforth even allowed the LC to use WL press facilities to print some literature. It also seems clear that Wohlforth and Healy saw LaRouche's abandonment of his "Third Stage" argument as an opening for collaboration since the Healy group heavily promoted the idea of an imminent world economic depression.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 6:09 pm:

Yet the real irony in reading Wohlforth today is the realization of just how "un-Leninist" the LC was from the standpoint of an ultra-orthodox Marxist Trotskyist like Wohlforth was at that time.

Looking back, it is not hard to see just how "un-cult-like" the LC could appear to prospective members.To someone not steeped in Trotskyist orthodoxy, many of the ideas promoted by the LC seemed innovative which helps explains why the LC managed to recruit many talented cadre at the time.

The NCLC reached its height with the successful NU-WRO conference in Philadelphia in March 1973. It would begin its seemingly never-ending descent into madness just a few days later with LaRouche's launching of the disastrous "Mop-Up" policy. The results of this disaster still echo today the tragedy of Ken Kronberg and the clownishness of the LYM.

What can we expect from Bullwinkle and his WABAC machine in the future in showing the history of Fearless Leader?


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 8:49 pm:

RE: LaRoucheTruth’s fine work (above) and the ongoing, devastating exposure of LL’s ability to prevaricate without conscience.

Refusal to admit error, or an inability to admit error, or an inability to recognize error is, perhaps, a POSITIVE trait in terms of attracting supporters.

BushCo appears to "suffer" from the same problem. Yet support levels remain firm at approx. 25 - 30% of the population. That's tens of millions of people (noted here as a public service for exhausted Yutes everywhere who, perhaps, cannot calculate in their heads).

Even with the intellectual insanity ramped up beyond measure, it is hardly surprising that LL et al., can still find/retain one or two thousand "followers".

After the present phase runs its course it might be fruitful to move the discussion away from intellectual analyses per se and toward the psychology of cult phenomenon or, more generally, the phenomenon of group dynamics and blind faith.


Posted on Friday, August 17, 2007 - 10:26 pm:


I've been real busy the last couple days, so I couldn't respond to your argument sooner. I think you made a reasonably interesting argument, the subject of which becomes more interesting when it's time to fill a tank of gas. It appears that you want me to respond to the charge that LaRouche is wrong about his contention that there is a glut in oil production. Well, I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject, but in defense of LaRouche, I would point out that I haven't seen an actual shortage of petroleum products in my lifetime. For example, I've never had a problem finding enough gas to fill my tank. However, especially in the last couple of years, we've seen wild fluctuations in the price of gas. LaRouche argues that this a result of speculation. That sounds reasonable to me. So in the end, I think your argument is reasonably interesting, but kind of weak. I think what's more interesting is LaRouche’s insistence that we move to methods of energy production that are potentially much more efficient. That mean’s fission and fusion. I'm for it.


I appreciate your argument on LaRouche’s apparent religious inclinations, and I consider it to be profound, even if it is cynical and slanderous. My counterargument is simple. I believe that Christianity in its purest form has "core positions." I believe that LaRouche also has core positions, and I believe the core postions of Christianity and the core positions of LaRouche are virtually identical. I agree with LaRouche when he contends that the essential point of Christianity is to make Platonism accessible to the masses, and that the Holy Spirit, is virtually identical to creative reason.* I realize that you have already stated this argument, and I’m really just repeating it. However, you do not agree with the argument. You say, "In LaRouche’s "Christianity" the Holy Spirit represents [creative reason]. He has held on to this absurdity, despite repeated attempts by people to convince him he can’t do this, for the past quarter century. Talk about obstinacy! It would be like saying you believe in our Constitution, especially the part that establishes a parliament as our legislative branch. Hey, it’s not up to you to define what it is. It is already defined, and you either agree with it or you don’t. But you can’t redefine it to suit your needs."

I, for one, am not in agreement with people who say that LaRouche cannot identify the Holy Spirit with creative reason. I think all that LaRouche has done is to contemplate the Holy Spirit as a metaphor that lends itself to redefinition given the current milieu, and I appreciate LaRouche’s insight.

Moreover, I have read your argument against LaRouche on economics. You have some guts! Your argument is interesting, but I don’t agree with it, because you conclude that LaRouche does not make a distinction between financial matters and the physical economy, and that he ignores "the distinction between losses of speculative financial values and a collapse of physical production, and also the distinction between a panic and depression." To me, LaRouche obviously makes those distinctions. Your conclusion is absurd.

  • I don’t think LaRouche ever argued that the Logos and the Holy Spirit are the same.

Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 4:30 am:

Is that why Jesus died on the Cross, to make Platonism accessible to the masses? Can one be a bigger Dummkopf?

John's Gospel is clear: Jesus is the Logos - not the Holy Spirit. "En arkhe en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai ho logos en ho theos." (John 1:1) Pneuma (Spirit) and Logos are two entirely different things, though two persons of the one triune God.

Lexical point: when someone is wrong it is called an "error" not an "insight." The LYMers find Lyn full of such insights. No wonder, given their relative lack of education.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 5:57 am:

Yes I agree, lar has a lot of "insight", he s even got a magazine called E.I.R. that stands for "Executive Insight Review".


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 6:26 am:

As to why I find completely irrelevant and a waste of time to discuss lar "core ideas" is because people have to realize the lar org is NOT a political movement, it is a CULT (there are 1,000 of posts on this discussion board to demonstrate this). Whatever lar says or has said is irrelevant (however "interesting" he might appear), everything is biased and serves only one purpose: the adulation of God-Larouche.
As xlcr noted at several occasions, the Lar Org was and is not meant to succeed.
Ex-members wasted a part of their precious lives before accepting this fact.
There is no problem in my view to discuss (elsewhere) any idea from Larouche however “right” or “wrong” it can be. If it inspires someone, good! Do you want to do something about “over-population”, about “Fusion energy”, about “peace in the Middle East”, about Africa, about Maglev, about AIDs etc etc? Good! Do it!, get involved, but do it the REAL way in the REAL WORLD. Never ever join this “political mvt” because it ain’t one: it s a dead-end road, there is no future in the lar org (both politically and personally). It serves only one purpose: Larouche’s cult of personality.
You LYM-ers have no idea how precious is this advice! If you re not listening to it, you may one day, in thirty years time, say: “Gosh, why didn’t I listen to these idiots. My arrogance blinded me. Now, thirty years later, it might be too late. Many things I could have done in my life are probably irremediably gone.”
You LYM-ers think that we (ex-members) are against you. We are not, in fact we, unlike larouche, are FOR you. You are far better than larouche. That’s why he needs you so desperately.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 7:47 am:

I would go even further: if you want to make sure a “good cause” to be spoiled and doomed: Do it with larouche.
A recent example: the “An Unconvenient Truth” campaign about climate change by Al Gore. However right or wrong was the BBC Tv program that criticized Gore’s arguments, the fact larouche s using this TV program for his own agenda, the fact the LYM s been behaving so stupidly and irresponsibly, the authors and scientists who took part in this TV program could be, from now on, associated with larouche’s anti-Global Warming campaign… even if they disapprove larouche! They can now be easily discredited. Whenever some scientist will try to refute the Global Warming question, they could be dismissed as “larouche crank theories”. As a matter of fact, if I were Al Gore I would be welcoming larouche’s opposition: every time an argument comes up he could then dismiss it (if he wants to), as “larouche conspiracy theory” and the audience would automatically have a laugh. (lar would then call this a “victory” the fact his name is mentioned)
Larouche’s political reputation is a result of 40 years of nonsensical, absurd, fanatical and hateful political campaigns: nobody takes him seriously anymore (if anyone ever did!)


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 9:17 am:

Now here is something for yutes, a secret operation to be out of the insular world for a few minutes. Go buy a copy of the Sep 07 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Whoops, big mistake, the yutes do not have a pot to P in let alone have a few dollars for a magazine. Since the yutes are really Lyn's sweat shop posse masquerading as volunteers, we have to figure out another way to pull this caper off. Here it is.

On you next card table shrine or carcinogen inhalation deployment, try to locate yourself near a supermarket with a magazine rack. Now take a bathroom break and go inside and find the Sep 07 issue of Popular mechanics. Look inside to a very large article on preparing for a Mission to Mars. Read what real people who spent time in engineering schools and studied many years are creating, inventing and testing for future mars Missions. A few pages in you will find Dr. not yute, not cultist, not Lyn worshiper Robert Zubrin quoted on Mars.

If you get caught by the THREE DECADE LCer who is wondering why you abandoned your shrine or strip of assfault, you should say this.

"OMG , look what I have just found, the Evil Dr. Zubrin is quoting the Satanic fraud Isaac Newton. We must report this when we call in for the Mid Day update!"

It will make the nightly basement report and you will have done your part to stop Newtonian physics. Now git back to the card table shrine or start inhaling those NO2, Na and Co particles as a good yute does who knows that environmental gasses are all an Al Gore/Nazi plot to commit genocide against non native fauna so the Anglo Dutch with the Queen of England can spawn evil English Gardens globally.

I really think that Bullwinkle wrote "Clownishness" in describing the LYM cause he saw 14 of them come out of a Larouchemobile at a deployment site in downtown LA.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 10:33 am:


Your question is rhetorical, and has not been answered here. Perhaps you would like to give an answer? It appears that the disagreement may be whether LaRouche equates the Logos with the Holy Spirit. The plot thickens!

So let me see if I have larouchetruth's argument and your argument. Correct me if I am wrong.


Holy Spirit=Holy Spirit


Logos=creative reason

As I stated in a footnote, I don't think LaRouche ever argued that the Logos equals creative reason. I think he argued that the Holy spirit equals creative reason. Here is my argument:

Logos=idea of ideas=Jesus=Son of Man
Holy Spirit=creative reason

I think LaRouche agrees. I would also point out that a basic tenet of Christianity is the following:

God the Father=Jesus=Holy Spirit

Think about what that does to the argument!

Logos=Jesus=Holy Spirit=God the Father

Now, if LaRouche says that we must allow for a principle of creative reason to be part of the equation, is that such a crime?


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 10:59 am:

It is true that in Roman Catholic theology the Holy Spirit is the creative principle. As to the equality of the three persons, I would suggest you read the Athanasian Creed:

By this standard, the absurdity of your equations should be clear.

The core idea (your language) of Christianity is redemption from sin, not all of this hoo hah about creativity. Peter did not set aside his nets to promote Plato or "creative reason." Any notion that the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus and the later coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost were cooked up to promote a first-century LaRouche-style agenda is more than ludicrous.

One thing that stands out as I review the wreckage of my years in the LaRouche organization is how much lip service was given to creativity when not a single thing was created, except for those things which were aborted in the womb at the express command of LaRouche. Neither LaRouche nor his followers have ever generated a single novel idea: they simply exercise this sleight-of-hand technique whereby they recombine disparate elements and claim that this represents some novel advance. Any idea which is genuinely new they otherwise have just cribbed, plagiarized, or stolen. Now someone has lifted without attribution the LYM's Kepler animations and the organization is furious:

What's good for the goose, etc. C'est a rire.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:11 pm:

One thing you yutes should think about is this. No matter what you do, you do not own any of the intellectual content. That means that Lyn has succeded in creating another sweat shop where your labor gets squat. There are countless examples of members who have done original work which has been placed into books and other publications which have generated income which eventually goes to pay the Rhinegau bill.

After you figure out that this is all a cult and you just blew a few years of your life and leave, you will find out that you not only have nothing, but what ever you did is not yours, but the cults.

David Icke makes a fortune in taking everything from the cult and setting up his own seminars and book sales with his own spin. Another guy in South Africa used to just take EIRs and take out Lyn and just reprint it in his own newsletter for a few thousand dollars with other people's newsletter clippings.

Enjoy working in Lyn's sweat shop yutes. Lyn's version of "Dust to Dust" in worshipping him is basically "you came in with nothing, what you have is mine and when you leave it is mine and you will have nothing".

This assumes that you will not be left with any debts or bills which also leave with you when you leave.

And you yutes thought that life was going to be so easy because you are indoors instead of a card table shrine or off ramp.

Can anyone translate this into Latin so it can be posted over the front door of the soup kitchen/LYM Clubhouses?

"Lyn knows this is a cult but you will not"


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:28 pm:


RE: Kepler

Perhaps my memory is fading, but that is the first non-LC link that I have ever seen on an LC site.

It's always been a closed universe -- a world of controlled information.

What gives?


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:29 pm:


It's interesting how you first contend "that in Roman Catholic Theology the Holy spirit is the creative principle", but then you say the core idea (language first introduced by earnest-one, whereas "core idea" was first intruduced by eaglebeak) of Christianity is not "all of this hoo hah about creativity." Therefore, what you just said is that the core idea of Christianity is not the Holy Spirit. Hmmm! That argument might get you in trouble.

On the other hand, you say the core idea of Christianity is redemption from sin, which by the way, requires that our sins are forgiven. Hence, another core idea of Christianity is forgiveness, a quality which your apparent bitterness about the "wreckage" of "years in the LaRouche organization" seem to exclude. I really don't think you know what you are doing. Therefore, I pray, "Father forgive him for he knows not what he does," and I pray that you may also forgive."


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:30 pm:

Here's an attempt:

Ut is cultus est tenet Lyn, sed vos non tenebitis.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:45 pm:

Good point, earnest one. The 21st Century site I recall had some links to outside sites - sites which in turn largely linked to 21st Century!

I note too that the MySpace joke of the day has been discontinued, no doubt due to a lack of creativity. What else is new.

(Note to self: a Dilbert-style cartoon strip based on the psychedelic LaRouche experience ...)

"It's interesting how you first contend "that in Roman Catholic Theology the Holy spirit is the creative principle", but then you say the core idea ... of Christianity is not "all of this hoo hah about creativity." Therefore, what you just said is that the core idea of Christianity is not the Holy Spirit. Hmmm! That argument might get you in trouble."

In the immortal words of the Geico caveman, "uh, what?"

"redemption from sin ... requires that our sins are forgiven"

No, it requires first contrition on the part of the individual. Your god LaRouche cannot admit error in the least detail, so how likely is redemption for him? I do appreciate your prayers, however. I hope to save many from brainwashing by LaRouche through fulminating on this message board. (Your statement is a tautology, by the way.)

LYMers, look at brew's posts and consider: This is your brain. This is your brain on LaRouche.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:45 pm:

Cult is a Latin word once used to describe Christianity. The plot thickens!


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 12:52 pm:


Wie Schiller gesagt hat, "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens."

(As Schiller said, "With stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.")


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 3:42 pm:

I find it bizarre that you talk about forgiveness, Browncue, at the same time that you hold up Lyndon LaRouche as the apex of human achievement.

Perhaps you don't know him very well personally? Forgiveness is not in his lexicon.

Perhaps you should ask people more familiar with LaRouche if you can see his memorable piece from April 1989 titled "I Have No Enemy Who Is Not Evil."

Or the January 1989 exercise in forgiveness written by LaRouche and titled "How Each of My Enemies Shall Die."

There are also his November-December 1988 pieces "I Become a Martyr" and Call for Worldwide Anti-Bolshevik Resistance.

On a second topic:

Cult is not a "Latin word once used to describe Christianity." The Latin word, "cultus" is still used by theologians, historians of religion, etc. to describe the ritual, liturgy, worship of various gods, including the Judaeo-Christian God. The word "cult," derived from but not identical to "cultus," has some different meanings than "cultus," and pal, you're living those meanings.

As Alexander Pope so wisely observed, "a little learning is a dangerous thing."

Lastly--as to your declaration that you "do not believe" that LaRouche ever identified the Logos with the Holy Spirit, perhaps one of your friends in the ICLC can give you writings of LaRouche's from the 1985-86 period where he does just that (also the fall and early winter of 1987).

The fact that you "do not believe it" is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. If I say "I don't believe George Bush ever said we should invade Iraq," that doesn't make it the case, it just means I'm kinda out of it.

(Message edited by eaglebeak on August 18, 2007)


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 4:01 pm:

Perhaps Brewncue forgives LaRouche for LL's inability to practice forgiveness.

Now that IS Christian, truly.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 4:35 pm:

That's true, Earnest One. I haven't gotten to that point--but perhaps if LaRouche asked me for forgiveness for various things, I would be able to do it.

The thing is, he never will, that I can see. His emhasis on the Promethean/Luciferian, the upholding of the Satanic, the erstwhile emphasis on the virtue of hubris, which of course is a terrible vice--the killing vice of overweening pride--probably makes it impossible for him.

But yes, if LaRouche sought forgiveness from those he has harmed, and recognized the harm he has done, I think most of us would forgive him. Or at least enter into a dialogue.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 4:39 pm:

Here's more on the Kepler issue:

Note the last line: "Finally, of note, we are currently investigating connections between this "bizarro Kepler" site, and other various anti-LaRouche, slander websites, some of which are connected to John Train and Richard Mellon Scaife."

(Note how they lifted the bizarro epithet from xlcr. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

Security must be as profoundly stupid as the latest troll on this message board. Why in hell would any of us try to hijack LaRouche crap? They're just animations, for crying out loud. Steinberg needs to get a life. Apparently beating up Michelle no longer occupies all of his free time: his impotence has found other outlets, so to speak.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 4:48 pm:


I'm over five-hundred miles from the nearest LaRouche office, and I'm not a LaRouchie. You guys just throw out more insults when your arguments crack, but I forgive you.

Let me crack another one of your arguments: You admit that cult is derived from the Latin word cultus. However, by your own logic, sancho, who used the word cultus, merely described the LaRouche organization "to describe the ritual liturgy, worship of various gods, including the Judeo-Christian God." Does that make sense?

Moreover, sancho writes "with stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." What is that supposed to mean in this context? I'm stupid, and you guys are gods? Maybe you should forgive me.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 8:04 pm:

No--it means stupidity is a more powerful force than the gods, not to be dented.

I do forgive you, dear child. But that may not be enough....

(I admit the word is derived from cultus? Was it ever in question?)

P.S. Everyone is 500 miles, or perhaps 5,000 miles, from the nearest LaRouche office. There aren't too many of them.

P.P.S. The worst of it is, "John Train's" animations are more animated than the LYM's....

Talk about a rich fantasy life. Must be all the Rheingau.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 8:41 pm:

Fantasy Life?!

LaRouche never recovered from that high-dose LSD that the MK-Ultra-inspired Tavistock-trained team of Cuban frogmen beamed into him from their Euler-Lagrange Newtonian-like orbits.

LaRouche himself is at least ten trillion miles from the nearest LaRouche office. He has been "out to lunch" for a long, long time.

It's a veritable feeding frenzy...


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 9:59 pm:

Here are two pieces on the ADL which some may have missed:

The first piece clearly had the Nation of Islam as its intended audience, together with other people of color who may already have been prejudiced against Jews. Beginning on p.17 B'nai B'rith (bad) is set against the Nation of Islam (good) by implying that all the situations which the Nation of Islam is trying to correct (drug addiction, poverty) was caused by B'nai B'rith. The ADL is then described as "nothing more than a protection racket for the drug lobby." (p.21) We are later informed in this dispassionate work of historical scholarship that B'nai B'rith was also responsible for the 1905 Russian Revolution because they helped send guns for pogrom victims in Russia to defend themselves. Earlier the Wiesenthal Center is dismissed as "another Jewish group involved in monitoring the activities of so-called hate groups." (p. xiii)

Few pieces of LaRouche material are as inflammatory as this trash. It must be popular reading in Jew-hating circles.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 10:14 pm:

Another quote from the above source:

"It should be clear by now that the ADL is one of the most pernicious agencies working to destroy the United States, ..." (p.129)

If this is not straightforward antisemitism and Jew-baiting, I don't know what is.


Posted on Saturday, August 18, 2007 - 11:03 pm:

Do you suppose Browncue is a reincarnation of our late interlocutor Time for Truth?

Ever thought all these posts (Browncue, Time for Truth, Jump 87, whatever) might be old Lyndon sitting around three sheets to the wind telling his LYMers in the basement what to write next?

Kind of a Rheingau-fueled "be-in"?

With ole Lindy giggling the way he does sometimes? And a whole lotta punnin' goin' on?


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 2:10 am:

I seriously doubt Lyn is sharing Rhinegau with any yute unless they slurp what is left in the bottles when he leaves the room.

What he is probably doing is convincing them to stay outside at the card table shrines and carcinogen inhalation sites to create "sustainable deployments". Those are the deployments where you make enough money to get the car out of the parking garage and the tolls to get back to the soup kitchen/LYM Clubhouse. The issue of whether they make enough to pay a stipend is a moot point since Lyn runs a sweat shop cult that would have kept Kathy Lee Gifford in business for ever.

Lyn figures that since he convinced some college kids to drop out THREE DECADES ago or more based on the world economy collapsing, or nuclear war he can do it all over again with this crop of yutes. If you check out the last 4 years of LPAC you can see how this month is not a vacation month, but "The Guns of August". I and Lyn figure the yutes can take whatever leftover "Guns of August" briefs from a few years ago are lying around and reuse them every August saving valuable printing costs and preserving precious bytes on the old Wang.

Now Yutes ain't employees, they are "volunteers" for the campaign. With that, let us resume seeing some more THREE DECADE Larouche volunteers in action. I have a new set (collect all 119) of fascinating pix sent to me by people using the WABAC machine.

Anyone a fan of "That 70's Show"? Here is someone who joined in the early 1970s to create a Strategy for Socialism in the LC.

What she got was a Strategy to avoid Starvation for THREE DECADES. I was told her name is Linda Leppig and this pix was taken a few months ago in NYC. The sender said she really is a nice girl who started off as a field hand and then was promoted to the phone team. That means you sit 18 hours a day in a boiler room instead of boiling in the hot sun. Last year I posted an NC conference call where Lyn complained about the books/finances/fundraising in NJ and blamed a Linda. This could be her and if you yutes think that you have a future to move up the ladder...., well you do but it is at a card table shrine. The sender noted that you must check out the pants as they look circa 1975 corduroy. So be carefull what you purchase yutes because it has to last THREE DECADES. The sender did say that she was one of the nicer people in the LC.

Our next THREE DECADE card table shriner I was told was a very smart guy from Columbia University who left to join the LC over THREE DECADES ago.

The sender said that she recognized him as Steve Romm and thought he was in Pittsburgh with his wife running the local in the 1980s with stops in Boston or New Brunswick locals. Well, when you leave the Ivy league and join the Larouche League you will be traded and moved around a lot. The bus in the backround is a NYC bus and the pix is from May 2007. The sender said that Steve was a real smart guy with some pretty impressive course loads when he met us. THREE DECADES later, he is a card table shriner4life.

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 19, 2007)


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 2:11 am:

In black and white these boys below look like a scene out of the Night of the Living Dead at a DC Metro Card table shrine.

Michelle Lerner was complaining about her crew hemming and hawing without enthusiasm at DC card table shrines and carcinogen breathing stations. Really Michelle, the guy on the right needs to hem those trousers with that sport coat. It has to last him THREE DECADES you know. Surprise him and get the trouser hemmed and take the expense out of his paycheck. Wait, does he get a paycheck or is he another "volunteer" .

We can look at this and maybe have a few laughs, but for many of us this is no longer funny. When you go through a few years of the cult and live the Bizarro world of endless chasing of Lyn's delusiuons you can only have sympathy for the THREE DECADE people we all can see now on the web. They have lived this horror every day and every day people they know pass them on the streets who have wonderfull and fullfilling lives which allow them to persue their political, scientific and artistic interests as well as the silly things in life. Not only has Lyn squeezed everything out of them, but the cult of personality has taken every potential to experience how much life can offer you from them.

Ut is cultus est tenet Lyn, sed vos non tenebitis.

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 19, 2007)


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 7:32 am:

Maybe we should put in the word for yutes:

Ut is cultus est tenet Lyn, sed vos iuvenes non tenebitis.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 8:48 am:

In response to XLCR: No, no, I didn't meant that LaRouche was sharing his Rheingau--I meant that he was stewed and giggling manically, and the kids were channeling him.

Kind of like this:


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 1:25 pm:

I sure wish factnet allowed more than a miserly 1/2 hour to correct typo errors.

A little correction here in names. The THREE DECADE CTS4life is Steve, but I was sent a correction that the last name is Komm. We did have a Steve Romm in Detroit which is where the confusion comes in. I think he came to his senses decades ago and left.

If you look at the pix closely, and know Komm, you will see that it is the very bright guy who also people say was too nice for the LC.

try these links again to see some sustainable DC fundraising. The first one is the B/W Night of the Living Dead picture mentioned above.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 1:55 pm:

The bottom line is that within the next 5 years we will begin to see a serious reduction in the availability of liquid transportation fuel, leading to shortages and the related impact on our economy. Within the next 10 years we will know if, and how, we will survive this significant change. "Growth" as the economic paradigm will have to be rethought since the fuel for that growth will no longer be plentiful or cheap. We cannot predict the total impact, however we can say for a certainty that the longer we go on without planning for it, the more painful it is likely to be.

From Brewncue:
I guess my favorite idea from LaRouche is that we need to focus more on scientific and technological development, so the economy can grow faster, and more people can live better. We need more people to agree with that, so we can change the government policy to implement bigger development programs.

Brewncue - your protestations notwithstanding, you are a part of the Larouche cult no matter how far you live from the nearest card table shrine. Your response cleverly ignores my answer to your claim regarding Larouche's view on economic growth. I presented you with a basis for why that is an ill founded notion. You respond by noting that you can still fill up your gas tank. Typical response from a Larouchie, and I have contended with those folks before.

I suggest you spend some time at The Oil Drum and read up on current events. It's not just about whether there is a glut of oil, it's about what the near future will bring us in terms of transportation fuel, the costs of same, and the impact on the economy. Nuclear power in whatever form will not be a substitute for the gas that fuels internal combustion engines, and hydrogen cells are decades from economic, let alone technological, viability on the scale we need just for today. I don't see the LYM or Larouche spending anytime coming up with or working on implementing alternatives. Dr. Hirsch's contention that we need a 20 year window with an enormous infusion and dedication of resources on the national, if not global, scale has never been refuted. Not even by Larouche.

His expectation that economic growth and your belief that bigger development programs are the answer to what ails us fall apart because you fail to take into consideration the very fuel the economy relies on and that makes any growth possible. Because it is there today you expect it to be there tomorrow. You are in for a very nasty surprise.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 2:44 pm:

Somewhere along the lines, browncue asked the question:

"Does Lyndon Larouche skewer babies?"

No. That is not one of his Mafia-like techniques. He has killed kittens, though. Or so a number of reporters who have covered him allege, and if one wishes to downplay that to another in a long series of allegations, what is anyone supposed to tell you?


howie Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 2:45 pm:

And by "He", I mean his cult. And the killing of cats was an intimidation technique pointed to the reporters.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 2:50 pm:

Brewncue, ALL:

Since we are still mired in the intellectual (and why not?), I am most interested in the LaRouche "C=256 proposal/discovery".

Recently, XLCR wrote:

"The C=256 campaign started off with an innocent remark at Ibykus by a very talented member who had some knowledge of this and a suggestion that it could be an issue to persue. In no time it ws now Lyn's idea and his discovery and like everything else in the LC, became all about Lyn."

I want to find experimental evidence for the existence of register shifts taking place at precise frequencies. Where are these studies?

Note, for example, that perhaps these frequencies change from day-to-day (or hour-to-hour) in the typical highly trained singer. If so, what are the ranges of fluctuations, for each of the crucial shifts for each of the various "species" of singer? What are we dealing with. Is it 1Hz, 10Hz, .0000001Hz? 1,000HZ

I note -- and with great interest -- claims that a Strad violin was "tested" and found to have a strong resonance at "precisely" 256Hz (the LC reference is online -- I can probably find it if anyone is interested). This test was used to butress the argument that C=256 was the previous pitch standard.

Disregarding, for the moment, the precision of the “test apparatus” (the experimental equipment), I am struck by the utter incompetence of the statement, for it demonstrates an amazing ignorance of the art and science of instrument making.

One always wants to AVOID strong resonances, particularly resonances that fall near or "on" an actual note. Strong resonance peaks kill tones – they are to be avoided. No competently designed/constructed instrument exhibits such behavior.

Therefore, even if that particular Strad tested as stated, it would NOT have been a very good instrument(if/when tuned LaRouche’s "way").

Note, too, that C=256 is always compared to the present-day A=440 (a pitch standard ostensibly brought to us by evil Nazis). A=432 is mentioned as the approximate frequency when the present C is lowered to 256. But what is the value of the present-day middle C? How much higher is it fromm the LaRouche's proposal?

Never once, in ANY public literature, is there mention of the present-day value of middle C. It is always C=256 versus A=440, or C=256 implies A is approx. equal to 432. It appears to be a shell game dsigned to confuse the reader.

Actually, Kathy Wolfe (sic?) authored an article, published in 21st Century, titled something like, "Why C=256 MUST be implemented."

There she gives the present-day value of middle C, based on the standard equal tempering when A=440 is the reference pitch. But she gets the value wrong.

Our future world leaders (in politics AND science) cannot perform simple mathematics! Unless, of course, the four basic operations (plus, minus, times and division) have been supplanted by "creative reason".

Again, I am looking for the heart of the intellectual argument for C=256Hz (what WAS the discovery?). I also seek any and all experimental evidence, particularly evidence for precise register shift values in singers.

Brewncue: Are you versed in these matters? You have certainly chimed in on other topics, far more complicated. Surely you can handle this.

Lyn: Are you out there? (Surely you are "out there"!). Please answer directly or get your basement workers to address these issues – issues that are of world-historical importance. According to your literature the Nazis changed our precious tuning. And look -- now we are being destroyed. Help us, please, in our hour of need.

Surely a crucial experiment has been performed. Cough up the details, please.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 9:45 pm:

This is a decent question even if it appears you are trying to play stump brewncue, and being anal about numbers. I'm not a great expert on the subject, but I'll just say that my favorite evidence supporting c=256 is that, apparently, the absorption frequency of DNA is coherent with c=256.

On the other hand, there is a wealth of evidence in the poetry cited in certain LaRouche publications. If you look at the poetry used in great lieder, you can see where the emphasis would be most effective. It appears that our greatest composers were often consistent in placing lawful poetic emphasis at register shifts consistent with c=256. Granted, great singers such as Marion Anderson are gifted with the talent and capability to alter the placement of their register shifts, but the the great majority of singers apparently are most comfortable at similar register shifts, depending upon the species of their voice. If the typical singer wishes to perform the great lieder properly, it seems it is best to do it at c=256.

Apparently, this is reason why Placido Domingo, Luciano Pavarotti, Joan Sutherland, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Montserrat Cabballe', Marilyn Horne, Mirella Freni, Grace Bumbry, Sherrill Milnes, Birgit Nielson, Carlo Bergonzi and many other great singers have supported LaRouche's campaign to lower the tuning to c=256. Personally, I play bass and sing in a band, and I insist that our tuning is 1/2 step below a=440, or approximately c=256. I find it much easier to sing at that tuning. That's my crucial experiment.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 10:21 pm:


I hope you keep working on the subject of energy. Your points are well taken if I ignore the attacks and the cynicism. I think LaRouche has done an excellent job addressing these issues. For example, consider the fact that more nuclear power production potentially means less petroleum consumption, leaving more for internal combustion engines. Nuclear power can also be used to power mass transportation systems that can potentially move internal combustion engines towards obsolescence. I believe that if we choose to make scientific and technological development a priority, we will prosper.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 10:24 pm:

Aha--Browncue is definitely channeling more of Lyndon as time goes by--sounds less like a dumb rube and more like a Basement Dweller.

So my Rheingau and Lindy thesis is not far off.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:04 pm:

Brewncue wrote:

"...the absorption frequency of DNA is coherent with c=256."

I asked for studies/papers/experiments, not simply assertions.

"Coherent with"?

Do you mean ALL DNA from ALL people? ALL strands? Perhaps you mean DNA from Golden Souls only. What about Jews? Or Nazis? Where were these tests performed? Or is the coherence an axiom of Kepler?

Is the absorbtion frequency of DNA coherent with any other frequencies? For example, is it coherent with a=440, or c=256.001 or c=257?

What does the DNA absorb at those frequencies? Does it absorb truth?

How do you compute your half step Brewncue? Do you mean that you tune your middle C to be a half step lower than a=440Hz? That would be something special, truly. I think you would be fined (perhaps even jailed), based on the text of that Italian proposal -- the one that all those fancy singers endorsed. BTW: Aren’t those people from the establishment?

Perhaps you meant to say that you tune your middle C to be half a step lower than the frequency of the standard C (the frequency that nobody from the LC et al., can EVER mention, let alone compute; only the Lord knows the number or perhaps LaRouche keeps the number in a vault, for safety; perhaps Bruce Director knows something about this -- can I invite him to lecture about it at our local kindergarten?).

Do you really think that C=256 is a half-step lower than the present-day tuning of middle C, based on equal tempering and the standard pitch of A=440? How does one compute such a thing? Is Riemanian mathematics required?

What is a half step, really, truly? Should textbooks be consulted or should they be burned if we can't find the answer here on FactNet, working together, as a team, toward this common, worthwhile goal?

Is C=256 a universal physical principle? Who discovered coherence?

LaRouche must be a Genius. Has his DNA been tested? Does LaRouche have an anus? If so, is it filled with the type of DNA that absorbs at c=256?


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:06 pm:

For Brewncue: From Fueurbach Part I written by Lyn Larouche: "For the most compelling psychological reasons, as we shall indicate, Christian doctrine, evolving through numerous prolonged and hard-won struggles, pre- Feuerbach's Neurotic Obsession describes a liturgical Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, or Logos, is the essential form..." See page 17 Feuerbach Campaigner. Then he goes on to denounce Feuerbach for "burying the logos in Christ."
He goes on to say that Jesus was born in sin like the rest of us because he was "born of woman." His denunciations of Mary's adoration in the Catholic Church was born of his theories about mother worship and domination by women, a crucial part of LaRouchian "psychoanalysis". Of course to LaRouche the Catholic emphasis on Mary the Mother of God become worship of the Whore of Babylon (Of course he modified this position once he wanted to ally himself with the Church in the 80s during the Club of Life days.


Posted on Sunday, August 19, 2007 - 11:32 pm:


You must be wearing tighty-whiteys. Get some boxer shorts.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:09 am:

No Golden Soul for you, Brewncue, until you show us your big scientific rod. Light it up, Baby.

Compute something. Demonstrate some competence.

Too much repetitive action and not enough juice. Produce something "precious" for all to see and admire.

Rise up from the basement and lead the world to victory. Use your lubricants, or lose them.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 5:11 am:

The continuing saga of a nose being bent out of shape:


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 5:58 am:


I hope you keep working on the subject of energy. Your points are well taken if I ignore the attacks and the cynicism. I think LaRouche has done an excellent job addressing these issues. For example, consider the fact that more nuclear power production potentially means less petroleum consumption, leaving more for internal combustion engines. Nuclear power can also be used to power mass transportation systems that can potentially move internal combustion engines towards obsolescence. I believe that if we choose to make scientific and technological development a priority, we will prosper.

1 - 70% of the oil and related products consumed in this country is used for transportation. Nuclear power is a source for electricity only. If you are referring to trains as the mass transport then yes, the electricity generated by nuclear can power electrified rail. Forget the maglev for now. However, do not forget Hirsch's warning about the 20 year lead time. We have far less than that to work with.

2 - Technology is not energy, it is not a source of energy. It is a tool only. Assuming that technology will save us is a standard response used by folks who don't seem to know the difference. Technology does not create energy and without an energy source the technology we take for granted today will be useless.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 6:49 am:

Ok everyone. The one thing which has been consistant with the cult is how they have not yet reached the bottom of depravity and creepiness. Lyn takes the depravity while the LYM takes the creepiness level.

This appeared in the Sunday briefing for ALL members to read, including the widow and by default, the surving son.

How sick can this cult be? Well, I for one thought that what was done to the elderly and some of our contacts with early verison of Alzheimers and dementia was below what was done to members. Decades after I left we have Duggan and his family. Now we have this for us to internalise.

Some Plain Facts Once Again -

According to Federal Election Commission records, Marielle Kronberg, through 6/22/2004 had contributed $775.00 to the Bush-Cheney campaign for re-election. According to the same FEC records, on April 4, 2005, Marielle Kronberg contributed $250 to the Republican National Committee. A simple Internet Google search on Marielle Kronberg's name pulls up data assembled by Fundrace on the Huffington Post stating that Kronberg contributed $725 to George Bush in 2004 and $776 to the RNC in 2004.

At the time of these contributions, Marielle Kronberg insisted on retaining her status as a member of the national committee of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. At the time of these contributions, Ken Kronberg, with other members of the LaRouche movement, was engaged in an all-out war to prevent the re-election of Bush-Cheney and the clearly manifested fascism which they represent. Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?

There is much to be said about this flight into deeper insanity and depravity.

For you dopey yutes I will offer you this.

When that skivosa Debbie Freeman yaps about Lyn directing the Democratic party she will name drop James Carville's name to anyone in her dwindling land of delusions. Carville was married to not just a Republican, but the top person in Bush Sr's campaign Mary Matalin.

For this sick, sick, sick, sick cult to send this lunacy to the members means many things. Much of that will come over time. For you Leesburg hangers on and yutes, this is a real life hybrid of a Kafka/Orwellian nightmare that will further drive you lower and lower into a pit of depravity and immorality.

Go on Debbie, Phil, Larry, Harley, Dennis, Tony, Nancy, Ed, Gerry , Babara, Jeff and the rest, preach to the choir because that is all you have left.

You all have not reached bottom yet, though you all are not the bottom feeders of Lyn.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 7:11 am:

After reading the above, any LaRouche follower with a scrap of human decency will leave NOW.

Otherwise, you have forfeited any right to the title "human being."


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:04 am:

Okay, folks.

On August 15, in commenting on the bizarre internal memo in that day's briefing blaming Linda de Hoyos and Uwe Friesecke for Kronberg's death, I wrote the following:

So I wonder: How long before the memo-writers start blaming the people who worked most closely with Kronberg at the companies? Or Kronberg's family?

Now we know the answer--it was four days before "the memo-writers" (LaRouche, channeled through whoever was lucky enough to be the receptacle) started blaming Kronberg's family--his widow.

I will be doing detailed posts on this memo in relation to previous memos--including some surprises--but let's quickly review the people LaRouche has blamed for Kronberg's death since April 11:

1. Kronberg himself (early memos)
2. The Baby Boomer fundraisers (who didn't make enough money to pay PMR)
3. PMR's (that is, Kronberg's) supposed repudiation of LaRouche's financial analysis in favor of a "get rich quick" approach--which LaRouche wants you to be believe characterized Kronberg's behavior--Big Lie, not "Simple Fact"
4. Linda de Hoyos, Uwe Friesecke, and Fernando Quijano
5. Linda de Hoyos, Uwe Friesecke, and their supposed years-long personal operations against Kronberg And now--
6. Molly Kronberg, the widow

Now, let's recall the LaRouche-conceived, Papert-written lead of the morning briefing of April 11, the day Kronberg died (quoted in relevant part):

The leadership is among the 18-35 year olds. The Baby Boomer generation is politically dead, and can only be brought back by artificial insemination....

It's not an individual problem; we have mass insanity. The Boomers are politically insane. They can follow a trail of ••••, but they can't lead anything....

The leadership in society will come from the young adult generation, because the Boomers are all similar as a generation; it's not a question of individual, but of group behavior. Despite individual exceptions, the group behavior is tantamount to senility....

The breakdown in fundraising is a symptom of a moral breakdown in leadership. The issue is not a supportive attitude to the right agenda; the issue is the conviction to make that agenda effective. The disintegration began in the period of the 1990s to 2000, especially, in Leesburg, in 1992-93. When Lyn came out of jail, he presented his solution to the sales force in the very living room in which he spoke last night. People went screaming out of the room, and refused to change. This Boomer policy failure went on uninterrupted into Y2000, and only changed as the Y2K bubble finally exploded. The print shop was the worst. "Lyn is wrong," they said. "There may be crisis, but the economy won't go under. There will always be money there for people smart enough to grab it." This was the prevalent approach radiated back and forth, out of Leesburg into the whole organization.

Winstar was another part of it; a phoney company which was paying big salaries, while producing and selling absolutely nothing! "We have a lifestyle." Commitment to the lifestyle was a cause of the collapse. Some of them disappeared in 2000 or thereafter....

The Boomers will be scared into becoming human, because you're in the real world, and they're not. Unless they want to commit suicide....

The Boomer is characterized by a self-imposed insecurity; a sense of jeopardy regarding his personal identity in society. Imagine yourself at a big party of cannibals, wondering if you'll be next....

Much More To Come

(Message edited by eaglebeak on August 20, 2007)


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:14 am:

This is the comic interlude in the task of analyzying LaRouche's malignant narcissism and the moral depravity you see gleaming out of that crazy eye:

I. LaRouche and Women

LaRouche's decision to blame Molly Kronberg for Ken Kronberg's suicide is in keeping with the misogyny that afflicts him.

It's always the woman. When Gerry Ford wouldn't fight vote fraud, it was Betty. When Ronald Reagan didn't do this or that, it was Nancy. When Bill Clinton did whatever, it was Hillary--LaRouche was fixated on her "fat ankles," too.

In terms of the Bush-Cheney Presidency? It's not Bush, it's Cheney--but it's not really Cheney, it's Lynne Cheney.

And of course, in LaRouche Land it was Erica Duggan who was responsible for Jeremiah Duggan's death.

No wonder Helga stays in Europe!

II. One More Quote from April 11 Briefing

The comic interlude from a briefing which in its totality screams "depraved indifference," is this--clearly Papert channeling LaRouche on all frequencies:

"Our impact as an organization in every way depends on LPAC, which depends on its website. Activate that! Don't look for any other miraculous plan. No effort we do would exist without LPAC. The world has changed! Any other idea is masturbation: a lot of work and no satisfaction!"

Hmmm. Talk about self-revelatory.

Much More, and More Serious, To Come


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 12:00 pm:

Sancho wrote:

"After reading the above, any LaRouche follower with a scrap of human decency will leave NOW.

Otherwise, you have forfeited any right to the title 'human being.'"

The first sentence is obvious. I don't know about the forfeit claim -- that is a bit extreme.

Perhaps the next charge will be that money was funneled out of PMR and put directly into Cheney's bank account.

It appears that the only stable "core position" is hate based on lies and/or delusions.

Run for the hills, kids. No amount of C=256 irradiation will protect you from this madness, this filth, this obscenity.

Dark Ages indeed.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 12:10 pm:

It's a shame that someone of eaglebeak's intelligence must stoop to close analysis of the statements of a madman, but it is necessary for the LYMers and other LaRouche supporters to see clearly the type of person to whom they have surrendered their liberty, diligence, good will, and conscience.

Female supporters in particular have now also been given solid evidence of Lyn's decades-long misogyny. My only caveat on the above analysis is the implication that Der Helga is a woman ...


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 12:14 pm:

Yes, earnest one, a bit of hyperbole that reflects the ongoing baneful effects of years in that cult.

My apologies to all offended.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:23 pm:

Don't expect any LYM-er to be puzzled, shocked and then leave. They swallowed even worse b-s ; about Erica being responsible for her beloved son's death, that Boomers should kill themselves, and all the crazy keplerian conspiracy theories. Can't list all these lunacies here, far too many.
It is a CULT.
LYM-ers are mental zombies.
Most of them can't think, can't read (hence my scepticism about discussing lhl's so-called "ideas" here). And they hardly have any conscience left.
Although there is an "intellectual" interest in lar (ie "larouche's ideas"), very soon in the process of being "larouchised" there is an "emotional" element that is essential as to why people don't leave despite the overwhelming (intellectual) evidences of the fraud put under their noses: they will defend Lar against all odds, as he was their (surrogate) father. In other words: it is a cult (sorry to repeat myself).

Now, after having exposed a little bit of his antisemitism, his non-christianity, there is much to say about his anti-women stance; the Isis/Ishtar/Astarte/Whore of Babylon (aka "Satan's mother")/ Feminine (or Mother) Principle as a universal source/cause of "Absolute Evil" throughout Human History (see my previous posts about the similarity with Nazi chief ideologue Alfred Rosenberg on that point)

Lar is in the tradition of Witch Hunting and I think it's open season now: Erica, Linda, Molly... who's next? (all of this because lar's erection problems?)

Lar worst nightmare:
an hysterical woman running after him, trying to cut off his balls with a Rabbi's scissor...


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 1:36 pm:


You believe we are heading for a catastrophic energy crisis. You object to the idea that this crisis can be avoided with economic development. On the contrary, you believe increased economic development would only hasten the onset of the crisis, because energy consumption levels would increase. Therefore, you believe we must reduce energy consumption levels. Right?



Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 6:49 pm:


The linked article was written by someone with NO scientific training. It is confused and filled with obvious errors.

It is an article published on the Internet, with zero peer review.

Work by Dr. Dreamer is mentioned, but NO reference is given for ANY published paper of his, let alone ANY work that would allow one to understand his experimental setup.

When was this work performed? What equipment was used? What controls were employed? Has the work been replicated?

What is presented – and on COMPLETE FAITH -- is a list of 30 to 40 numbers associated, in some way, with the four DNA base molecules. Of key concern, apparently, are the frequencies near our present-day C# (the one right above middle C). The frequencies posted are obtained by reducing the actual DNA results (assuming they exist) by 13 octaves!! in order for them to FIT into our hearing range.

Here is the key data

BASE DNA Downshifted Harmonic Frequency

Adenine: 545.6 Hz
Guanine: 550
Thymine: 543.4
Cytosine: 537.8.

Okay, fine. Let us assume that the above has SOME meaning, for EACH of the molecules.

The author then computes the AVERAGE of the above four DNA molecules and gets 544.2Hz

No explanation is given for WHY the average has meaning, or what that meaning would be.

Now, 544.2Hz is somewhat near our present day C#.

But no mention is made of C=256. Indeed, the above value for C# implies a value for middle C of 257Hz and NOT 256Hz.

Therefore, even within the narrow confines of the (apparently fraudulent) article, the results do NOT even support your precious C=256.

I was wildly amused by the following section:

“Are The Frequencies in DNA Bases Harmonically Ordered?

They most certainly are. By comparing all 60 pitches one can find all of the precise ratios found in the first 16 harmonics of the overtone series: octaves, P5th, P4ths, Major and minor thirds, Major and minor 2nds and 7ths; even a 'flat' seventh. Mathematically, the odds of this happening at random are almost non-existent.”

Almost non-existent?!!

Probability (P) is usually expressed by a real number between 0 and 1, inclusive. P = 0 means absolutely impossible. This is the likelihood of getting both heads and tails on a single toss of a coin. P = 1 means absolute certainly. This is the likelihood of getting either heads or tails on a single toss of a coin. P =1/2 is the likelihood of getting heads on the toss of a fair coin.

Again, the author states: “Mathematically, the odds of this happening at random are almost non-existent.” But there is NO computation, NO reference to a computation and, most crucially, NO evidence that the author even understands what a competent computation in probability theory would entail.

In short, the article presents nothing but mysticism. It is pseudo-science of the worst kind.

Continued Below


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 6:52 pm:

I am amused that the author is part of a company, founded by Dr. Dreamer -- the scientist that supposedly performed this “research”.

No doubt they are both making money off this swindle. What a big surprise… Of course, they sell tuning forks for each of the four frequencies above. I did not see, however, a tuning fork for the average frequency, the one that is nominally close to C# in a C=256Hz tuning.

Again, I asked for evidence, not simply assertions --- especially experimental evidence of the frequency locations for the purported register shifts of the various “species” of singers.

It appears that you have never seen, read, or understood a real scientific paper, where an experiment is described in enough detail that a competent person could attempt to replicate the results using the proper equipment, methods, and scientific controls.

Here, of course, controls also means controlling the urge to devolve into mysticism. Control also means controlling the urge (if it exists) to fabricate results.

Again, you supplied a link that is virtually vacuous, save for that it points to C=257Hz, and NOT C=256Hz. This was mildly amusing. Thanks Brewncue! Keep up the great work!

There are, no doubt, very interesting relationships between the vibrations of all the objects (and sprits) in this world of ours. True science requires trained, honest people. Science is not a Madison Avenue advertising brochure.

Now, go upstairs and tell Lyn that he is full of sheeeeeet.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 7:25 pm:

I noticed that brewncue was pretty silent when I posted the Feuerbach Campaigner where LaRouche most definitely equates logos with Holy Spirit, says that Christ was born in sin, and that Feuerbach was wrong for equating logos with Christ, all opposite of what brewncue thought LaR believed. For any mere mortal, one would simply say that guy didn't know what he was talking about and say the guy made a mistake. However, with Lyn's monstrous ego and his need to appear infallible (even the Pope doesn't claim infallibility on all matters), he can't admit to being wrong on anything, which makes debunking him that much easier. Maybe brewncue is busy rereading the Feuerbach series which is fine if he can realize what a hash Lyn makes of theology, even if he was attempting to create a "Marxist" critique of same rather than pretending to be a reincranation of Christ.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 8:20 pm:


The author of the article you linked to also believes in crop circles!!!

It appears that she is a total scientific fraud, just like LaRouche and crew.

The following is from another article of hers, published on the same website:

Crop Circles are fortunately gaining more respect as scientists continue to legitimize their amazing properties. I am going to mention a few F# references by Freddy Silva from his book Secrets In The Fields.
When Jane Ross and I earlier had sat inside the ‘Grid Square (within the Etchilhampton Flower Circle – l997), we recorded an oscillating, high-pitched tone. Its purpose was later made clear during a channeling session. ..’The frequency of the note that they gave us is important…to be used in the ‘opening’ process. It’s a frequency that needs to be used to complete the opening for the individual.’ That note – F# - creates an unusual oscillating effect between the two cavities of the brain, especially when generated by the tuned resonant cavity of a quartz crystal bowl. It has a frequency of 5.8 kHz (5800 Hz) and is traditionally associated with the tone of the Earth; this is a whisker away from that other frequency associated with crop circles..the trilling noise…and its frequency of 5.2kHz. (ME: not really a whisker. It’s almost a whole step away…from E to F#. Just under) p.293 F# happens to be the resonant frequency inside the Grand Gallery of the Great Pyramid at Gizeh, and the floor of the corbelled chamber is inclined at an angle of 26.3027 degrees, making its vertical height twenty-eight feet (F#) and the height perpendicular to the floor twenty-five feet (E), which are the Grid Square hum and the trilling noise, respectively. The Circlemakers and the Pyramid designers appear to share the same technology. Essentially, the Great Pyramid contains the necessary ingredients that make it a kind of transformational, possibly inter-dimensional temple….its effects on the molecules of steel, meat, and particularly water are already well known.
And F# is regarded with great respect by the ancient Chinese as Hu, the tone of the Earth. (Hu is also referenced by HI Khan as the origin of sound)). Native American flute makers to this day tune their instruments to serenade Mother Earth to this note. Silva also references acoustician Tom Danley’s work where he measures the resonant frequencies in the Great Pyramid (cited above): The notes form an F# chord which, according to ancient Egyptian texts, was the harmonic of our planet. Danley’s tests show that these frequencies are present in the King’s Chamber even when no sounds are being produced. (from an interview on the Laura Lee Radio Show, Seattle, l997).”


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:22 pm:


First of all, I have read scientific papers. Anyone who gets a degree in a scientific discipline has to do that. I have a degree in a scientific discipline. I even had to write a scientific paper to get that degree. Secondly, the person who wrote the article is in fact an M.A. reporting on her work with a PHD, one Dr. Deamer, who is not linked to crop circles. While I wouldn't pin the whole c=256 hypothesis on this paper, I think your critique of it is overblown.

However, amongst your critiques is the following:

"But no mention is made of C=256. Indeed, the above value for C# implies a value for middle C of 257Hz and NOT 256Hz."

So, we're off by 1Hz?

Moreover, in a previous post you asked, "what is a half-step really?" Here goes: Start with an E string. Divide it in half. That gives you an octave. Divide it again. That gives you a fourth. Now take the same string and divide it into thirds and fifths. Think of our divisions as the vertices of a square, an equilateral triangle, and a pentagon. You end up with twevle intervals between each octave. (4+3+5=12). A half-step is just one interval. Got it?

Now, if we use an A=440 tuning fork, or an electronic tuner set at A=440, which is known as concert pitch, then tune down 1/2 step, we are close to C=256. It's not exact! That's why C=256 tuning forks are still in use!

I'll cite this article from the Schiller site which I believe is excellent:

Now, if you think that article is worthless, or the author is lying or mistaken, and there is really nothing to support the idea that C=256 is the correct tuning, then why not turn the argument around? Why don't YOU give ME the exact scientific proof, together with citations of "studies/papers/experiments, not simply assertions," showing that A=440 is the correct tuning? If you can do that, then why don't you get busy explaining to Placido Domingo, Luciano Pavarotti, Joan Sutherland, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Montserrat Cabballe', Marilyn Horne, Mirella Freni, Grace Bumbry, Sherrill Milnes, Birgit Nielson, Carlo Bergonzi, and all the others, why they were so wrong?


As for the argument about whether or not LaRouche is theologically unsound if in fact he equated the Logos with creative reason (not the Holy Spirit! Can anyone here keep the argument straight?), I'll just reiterate what I asserted to be a "core position" of Christianity:

God the Father=Jesus=The Holy Spirit

If you go back and look at sancho's rebuttal, he cites the Athanasian creed as a refutation of this equation. He's wrong! Read the Athanasian Creed, line 26!

"26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal."

Therefore, whether LaRouche identifies the Logos with a creative principle, or the Holy Spirit with a creative principle, he is not in error, as evidenced by the fact, as sancho pointed out, that "in Roman Catholic theology the Holy Spirit is the creative principle."



Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:43 pm:

I do hope the audience here understands that the C Note Lyn and Helga really are after is this one:

We have stacks and stacks of C Note stories in brown paper bags being prepared by the WABAC Machines.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 9:56 pm:

Oy. The idea is that God is three persons, and that each person is God, and that in that identification lay their equality. To say that the Holy Spirit is the Logos is like saying the Holy Spirit died on the Cross. The Trinity ultimately is a mystery. But Scripture clearly states that the Christ is the Logos, i.e. not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. Your problem is a typically LaRouchian fabrication: (1) Philo identified the Logos with the creative principle, (2) Christianity was a Platonic conspiracy at least informed by Philo, (3) The Johannine School identified the Logos with Jesus, (4) therefore the second person of the Trinity is the creative principle. Nonsense.

More to the point than any of these academic discussions is the mere fact that the LaRouche organization is a criminal cult or personality. Period. Funny how you don't address that insane screed above which states that the ADL represents one of the gravest threats to the United States. Here it is once again:

Address that one, if you have the courage.


Posted on Monday, August 20, 2007 - 11:03 pm:


I really don't see a grave sin in equating creative reason to the second person of the Trinity, as opposed to the third, if in fact that ever happened. Otherwise, I suspect I may ultimately agree in many ways with your views on the Trinity.

The Ugly Truth about the ADL: I read the book. It describes some of the criminal activities and nefarious history of the Anti-Defamation League. If one reads the book, and decides they are against the Anti-Defamation League, are they anti-semitic? Is the author anti-semitic because he had the audacity to write the book in the first place?

If that's the case, then if anyone were to write a book describing the criminal activity and nefarious history of the Ku Kluk Klan, then they are anti-anglo. If anyone reads such a book, and decides they are against the Ku Klux Klan, then they too, are anti-anglo. Right?


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 12:00 am:

Brewncue wrote:

"So, we're off by 1Hz?"

Well, how much are the Nazis off with their A=440 tuning, using equal temperament?

Perhaps THAT tuning yields C=257?

Again, you have yet to state what the present-day value of C is, based on the A=440 standard, using equal temperament.

Indeed, maybe it is ALREADY C=256! If so, then the whole thing is a gigantic joke played on the "arithmetically challenged".

The author of those articles has an MA in Music Composition. She has no scientific training and, as the two links demonstrate, she is completely confused.

You write:

"Moreover, in a previous post you asked, "what is a half-step really?" Here goes: Start with an E string. Divide it in half. That gives you an octave. Divide it again. That gives you a fourth. Now take the same string and divide it into thirds and fifths. Think of our divisions as the vertices of a square, an equilateral triangle, and a pentagon. You end up with twelve intervals between each octave. (4+3+5=12). A half-step is just one interval. Got it?"

No I don't get it. Your explanation is confusing. What does your method have to do with an E string? Do E strings have a special relationship to octaves or squares or triangles or pentagons or vertices?

Are you saying that if you divide a string into 12 equal parts, then each part is a half-step?

There are indeed twelve intervals to an octave. These are called (in the textbooks) "semitones". Perhaps this is what you call a half-step. Please confirm.

Two semitones make a whole tone (again, according to the textbooks).

So far, your math is correct: 4+3+5=12. I am relieved (things could be far worse).

You write:

"Now, if we use an A=440 tuning fork, or an electronic tuner set at A=440, which is known as concert pitch, then tune down 1/2 step, we are close to C=256. It's not exact! That's why C=256 tuning forks are still in use!"

Okay, suppose we start with 440. What arithmetical operation(s) do we use to arrive at the note one semitone below it or, as you would say, one half-step below it?

It appears that you are allowed to use addition. Does Lyn allow you to use the other arithmetic operations?

I want to see the computation that lowers 440 to "approximately" 256, via your half-step decline. What you say is truly amazing. Perhaps when we resolve this matter we will have a firm definition of what “approximately” means, at least in YOUR world.

When we get there, then we can move to some of the other issues.

I feel a certain progress.

The link you provided about tuning (on the Schiller Institute website) was NOT authored by the person listed. This is a fraudulent attribution. It is unfortunate, truly.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:23 am:

Some Plain Facts Once Again -

According to Federal Election Commission records, Marielle Kronberg, through 6/22/2004 had contributed $775.00 to the Bush-Cheney campaign for re-election. According to the same FEC records, on April 4, 2005, Marielle Kronberg contributed $250 to the Republican National Committee. A simple Internet Google search on Marielle Kronberg's name pulls up data assembled by Fundrace on the Huffington Post stating that Kronberg contributed $725 to George Bush in 2004 and $776 to the RNC in 2004.
At the time of these contributions, Marielle Kronberg insisted on retaining her status as a member of the national committee of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. At the time of these contributions, Ken Kronberg, with other members of the LaRouche movement, was engaged in an all-out war to prevent the re-election of Bush-Cheney and the clearly manifested fascism which they represent. Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?

Some More Comments

As the Skull/Bones blog points out (, the key sentence in this memo is the ungrammatical, but memorable, last sentence: Does anything more need be said in the matter of Ken's suicide?

It is clearly the devout hope and wish of LaRouche and whichever member of his tiny but hyperactive legal department wrote this, that this memo will SHUT EVERYONE UP. Talk, gossip, anxiety, unease, are swirling around in the organization, no doubt, and this is supposed to be THE LAST WORD.

Like the memos which preceded it (the "Simple Facts" memo of July 31, the "Linda and Uwe Did It" memo of Aug. 15, the elegantly titled "MotherF---ers' Fears" written by LHL himself for the July 1 briefing, and other memos and more internal communications soon to appear here), this is strictly for internal consumption.

Obviously so--even more than its predecessors, it's too idiotic, and leans too heavily on LaRouche's special ideology, to work anywhere except in the LaRoucheland Bubble. In the real world it's a hair-raiser.

So the message of the memo, exclusively for LaRouchies, is: Shut Up Already.

Of course, in any normal organization, if people wanted to discuss the suicide of a colleague of 36 years, it probably wouldn't be called "gossip." But in LaRouche's world, anything that shows him to disadvantage, or raises or might raise an awkward question, is "gossip."

The other day we revisited contents of the April 11 briefing--the briefing of the morning Kronberg died.

Today, in our own version of the WayBack/WABAC machine, we will re-examine some of the other, more internal memos that LaRouche generated in the days right after Kronberg's death. Some have been posted here before, some not.

But first--let's look at what a valued, beloved associate Ken Kronberg was to Lyndon LaRouche before his death, and even before the suicide briefing of April 11.



Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:43 am:

The following is excerpted from a conference call LaRouche held with the National Committee members of the Labor Committee on Nov. 21, 2005. It was transcribed for the morning briefing, so the remarks LaRouche made here were known to all the members. Please note, as the full text will show you if you look up, LYMers and LCers, that Ken Kronberg was present on this conference call, but dared not say a word about what LaRouche said about him.

The conference call was titled: "I DON'T ALLOW VETO POWERS OVER ME: I'M OUT TO WIN THIS FOR HUMANITY." I think we can all guess who the "I" was.

Here is the introductory paragraph to the transcript:

The following is the full transcript of an NC conference call with Lyndon LaRouche held yesterday, which launched a renewed assault on the problems we must solve to achieve victory in this period. It is a discussion which the NEC thought should be shared with the membership as a whole.

Here is the relevant part of LaRouche's opening remarks.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: Well, we're coming into a very interesting period. It's Thanksgiving. The turkey is running around town, in very short visits and saying "gobble, gobble, gobble!" It's like the thing, today.
I don't know if Cheney's wife's going to take him back, or not. But in any case, the situation is, we are now--, shall we say, I don't think that most of our people really know where they are, in the universe at this time. You get that, particularly from our phone team members in Baltimore, in New Jersey, especially in California, where you've really got the pits, the furthest from reality! Chicago. Because there, in the Baby-Boomer generation there really is not an understanding of reality. What happened of course, is that, in the course of the '90s, there was a certain amount of mismanagement by Fernando, {and} others, who restructured the organization in a way which eliminated the field, in the sense. That is, it eliminated our face-to-face contact with the human population, and restricted the outreach to a select list of phone screened people, a phone bank. Now a phone bank is not human. And particularly as the use of phone banks becomes more and more and more common, when you're calling a number, you're calling the same number that's being besieged by perhaps 50 to 100 different other calls, which are doing funny kinds of solicitation. And therefore, by coming in that way, you run into the worst side of the U.S. population, the side that's reacting to that, and you are somehow placed in that, and that really is a terrible place to be. Now, in the course of the 1980s and early 1990s, we had supporters who were members of my generation, leading toward the older side of my generation. And these people died out, or became infirm. And often people over 70-75, a significant percentile of them in our population becomes infirm. And therefore, by relying on that part of the population for our support, of people who had known us back in '80s and so forth, what actually happened was that the sales force in various parts of the organization died.
It died--well, in Los Angeles, it died, of course from Khushro diseases. It died in Jersey, for similar reasons. It died in Baltimore--it became senile in a sense, politically senile. And similarly....
So, there was no outreach. As a matter of fact, in 1994, in April of 1994, there was an {hysterical} reaction, both in the United States from Leesburg, and in Europe--absolutely hysterical! Screaming, yelling, raging, against my insistence that we get back with real outreach by going out of the offices, and going out and shake hands, and talk to real people on the streets, in a normal situation. So, that happened.



Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:46 am:

And you should see the scene [This is precisely the scene described in Tony Papert's morning briefing lead of April 11, 2007--obviously faithfully written down from LaRouche's rant of the night of April 10,2007, recalling this same scene--ed.]: Remember, in April 1994, right here at the residence [Residence? Residence? Who is Lyn--the Pope? Note that Papert wrote in the April 11 briefing "in this very room" or some such formulation], we had all these people here. And I gave a presentation on outreach. The faces grew gray, and purple, depending on which type--some got gray, some got purple, some got {red}. When they went out of the meeting, they were out {SCREAMING}! All of them--different issues--but, screaming. And they wouldn't do it, they wouldn't do outreach.... They're so conditioned, they're like Struldbruggs: They're so conditioned to a certain habit. And we would have people who would even do stupid things, rather than simply doing a simple thing, of calling somebody. Rather than call somebody they're supposed to call, on a follow-up, they'll go on the phone for half an hour, or an hour, to gobble up the time, to make sure they won't have any time left to talk to these {stra-a-a-ngers}.... So, actually, many of you--not you fine ladies and gentlemen--but many of you, similars, are {clinically insane}.

Now, this insanity also took another form. About this time, we'd gone into a period, where after 1990, 1992, sections of the world population of your age, that is, the Baby-Boomer age, went into a new phase of insanity, which is called "the end of history." History is over, you were past the age--that is, your generation--in which you were looking for promotions. You weren't looking for promotion to stepping up to the head of the corporation or something like that. You had passed promotion-eligible age. You were still adults, you were still adults out in the street, turned loose, but you had no more promotions--there was no future for you, that is, no upgrade. You were stuck where you were. And it was like being at the end of the trolley line, and living out at the end of the trolley line service, when the service was cut down; and you're living in someplace that can't get repaired, because there's no place to get in, the trolley isn't reliable any more.



Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:50 am:

[Okay, here comes the money shot. Wait for it.--ed.]

And along came a guy who said, "Well, Lyn is wrong. He says, there are crashes. Well, I've seen some crashes around, but I don't believe it. Yeah, we had a crash--but I don't believe it. I think Lyn's wrong. Maybe there'll be more crashes--but he's still wrong. They may have happened, but they never happened. Not as far as I'm concerned. Because I know, because somebody told me, and they told me at our print shop, they told me at Winstar, they told me at other places: We had a miracle in this country! It's call the IT, or Y2K Revolution. {And there's money out there--LOTS OF MONEY!} But you have to know how to get it."

And so, we had a scam at PMR, and they almost bankrupted us, and nearly bankrupted themselves with this crazy scam, believing that they were going to get this great contract, and they had no contract. But they went deeply into debt, and they dragged us into debt, pursuing a •••••-willow, that didn't exist.

And Winstar--the same thing. And back as late as 1999 and 2000, people were saying, around us, were saying, "Lyn is wrong. Where's the crash?"
And you look at the figures, the physical figures of crashes around the country, and every time I've predicted a crash, or forecast one, it's happened! But they keep saying I'm wrong, there's no crash. Why? Because they wish to believe, there's not a problem: "The {money} is out there! You just have to know how to find it."
And so, what they do, is they say, "We are not going to change. We are going to do, what we have always done. We know, the money is out there. And we'll get it {our} way! It will come to us--leave us alone, it will come to us.
"Lyn is wrong!"}



Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 7:03 am:

Okay--so Lyndon LaRouche accuses National Committee member Ken Kronberg--who is PMR, in everyone's eyes--not of bad judgment or misjudgment, but of a scam that almost destroyed the organization.

(It can be explained at a future point what LaRouche was talking about, but it was the farthest thing from a scam imaginable. Naturally.)

Clear, isn't it? Ken Kronberg gets on the NC conference call that day and hears himself described as a scam artist who almost destroyed the organization, as a sleazy wheeler-dealer out to make "lots of money" [that certainly worked out well for Kronberg, didn't it? He left no estate at all except a 1997 Toyota and bankrupt PMR/WorldComp], as a low-life hustler.

Not one of the other NCs says a word. Kronberg doesn't say a word. And the NEC decides that the whole membership should read the transcript of the conference call.

And that, gentle reader, is absolutely typical of the kind of abuse Lyndon LaRouche was heaping on Kenneth Kronberg for years.

The LaRouche entities couldn't pay their debts to PMR and WorldComp; the passionate belief in a moratorium on all LaRouche-related debts was driving the companies into bankruptcy and Kronberg into despair.

Kronberg was at this very time not paying withholding taxes, making himself personally and criminally liable, in order to keep the "print shop" going--in order to keep printing New Federalist and EIR and 21st Century and Fidelio and books and pamphlets and leaflets and the Spanish publications--he was under unbearable financial, legal, and psychological pressure.

And this is how much LaRouche valued his longtime follower and supporter and NC member and colleague.

So, dear reader--use a grain of salt in evaluating LaRouche's utterances and the utterances of his sidekicks today about their respect and love for Kronberg, and their comments about Kronberg's suicide.

Much More To Come


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 7:21 am:

Arguments by analogy - particularly by analogy with hypotheticals - are fallacious. The point is that Jews have suffered millennia of persecution and the ADL stands at the forefront of combating antisemitism. Let's assume that all the charges leveled in that tract against people who have been involved in the formation of B'nai B'rith and the ADL were true, it does not invalidate all the good work done by both organizations toward the elimation of prejudice against people in general, and against Jews in particular. Many among the Founding Fathers of the United States were slave owners: does that invalidate the entire subsequent history of the nation as a whole? Further, to cotton up (so to speak) to a notoriously antisemitic group like the Nation of Islam is reprehensible and entirely indefensible. Don't forget that Fearless Leader had the forgery known as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion republished in the first edition of Dope, Inc. until of course there was a backlash by Jewish members who knew something about the history of antisemitism in Eastern Europe. So this text is just another hopeful stab at undermining the Jewish people.

The point about the Logos is simply to demonstrate once again that LaRouche is WRONG. It is another instance of him babbling on about something of which he knows nothing. Once again, error does not equal insight. Of course, there is nothing wrong with being in error per se as we all are imperfect. But LaRouche keeps laughably stoking this pipe dream that he is somehow infallible on all matters. It is clear from this message board that he is, if anything, more fallible than most, particularly in his o'erweening (and baseless) pride.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:07 am:


A couple of helpful additions to the material I posted above on LaRouche accusing Kronberg of running a scam, etc.

1. At the time that Kronberg was not paying withholding taxes, the entire NEC was informed of this fact: Jeff, Tony, Nancy, Ed (at the time), Will, Gerry, Dennis.

As a matter of fact, throughout 2005 there existed a "special committee" of NEC members created by LaRouche to oversee finances--four people instead of two. So, of seven NEC members, four were supposed to be intimately involved in finances and especially PMR and WorldComp finances. (More to come on this.)

2. According to a source whom I cannot reveal, at least not yet, in 2004 LaRouche's "investigators" already knew all about Molly Kronberg's giving money to Bush. They picked it up from a post on FactNet. (If you have the time, you can go back and search for it, although Kronberg was not identified by name there, but merely as "your editor" or something like that--at the time she was the editor of the now-defunct New Federalist, although interestingly, she would not put her name on the masthead.)

So the Aug. 19 memo about this contribution is not being entirely honest with you, kids. The Kronberg donations were no news to anyone who knew anything in the org.

Certainly not enough of a reason to jump off a 35-foot overpass in 2007.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 11:26 am:

To read about the disgusting and cavalier attitude Lyn and his sycophants take towards Ken's death really takes one's breath away. That's why it's hard to discuss theological issues with brewncue who doesn't seem to understand that Lyn uses theology the same way he uses everything else, for his self promotion. Very simply put, Lyn is confused on the issue of the trinity, and you can't simply say that since all aspects of the triune God are co-equal it doesn't matter who is the Logos. St. John very clearly says that the Word was made flesh. Does that refer to Christ or the Holy Spirit? The reason it's important is because Lyn will never admit that he's wrong. And loking at his denunciation of Mariolatory, he goes far beyond the normal Protestant view that Mary is to be honored but not worshipped in the Catholic sense. He calls Mary the Whore of Babylon, Astarte and simply a version of mother-worship infantilism.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 11:34 am:

Right! Add the Blessed Virgin Mary to the witch list: Janice, Carol, ..., Molly, ...

Too funny.


xlcr4life Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 5:30 pm:

Well folks, don't look now, but the WABAC machine is now sending pictures of THREE DECADE LCers manning their chic card table shrines in France. Excuse me, Frauunce, as Lyn says. Todays CTS4life is in this picture from Paris Frauunce.

Sometimes flyckyr is quirky. If you do not get th epicture, just paste

c'est la révolution camarade

in the search box and you will get the picture.

Look for the guy in the middle wearing glasses with brown hair. His name is Karel Vereycken and he has been a member for at least THREE DECADES. In this picture he appears to be selling the French New Solidarity. There are other comments on the photo site people can read. He seems pretty happy knowing that Lyn, sipping Rheingau in his estate and writing endless delusions has actually kept a campaign promise.

IN 1976 when we ran Lyn as the USLP candidate for president, we had these posters we glued with flour paste glue to other candidates posters in several US cities and in Europe. Lyn's election promise was :

"Out of work? This man can give you a job rebuilding the world"

Karel Vereycken got his job and he has been a happy paper boy for Lyn for THREE DECADES.

You can read here

about how the French LC works and how you can create a paper boy who belongs in the CTS4life club.

Good to see that we have many readers in Germany and Frauunce.

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 21, 2007)


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 5:41 pm:


I'm actually intrigued by some of your questions. It would be interesting to work through some of the problems you pose. Maybe you have done some of this work? If so, I yield to you. I have only a rudimentary understanding of different approaches to tempering, and problems that come up like the pythagorean comma. Is this where you are going?


I don't agree with the idea that arguments by analogy are necessarily fallacious. I think they're just analogous. I empathize with what you are saying about the persecution of Jews, and I agree that nothing can invalidate good work. On those grounds, if the ADL is doing good work to eliminate antisemitism, I'm for it. I'll give the ADL a break.

It occurs to me that at least a small part of our battle of words on this message board may be as simple as this: You guys seem to be saying LaRouche is intolerable because he claims infallibility, among other things. In LaRouche's defense I would counter that while LaRouche may be incredibly stubborn, and, dare I say, over-confident to some, I'm certain there has never been a claim of infallibility on his part. Having said that, I come full circle, and quote myself, "If we just go along with popular opinion, we are all in trouble. Somebody has to fight for the people on this planet. That’s what LaRouche is doing, so I think we should give him a break."


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:07 pm:


Here's the test: name three positions Lyn holds that you regard as wrong, i.e. false.

You may be kind enough to "give the ADL a break," but what do you think of a group that makes the outrageous claims about them that this cult does?

Again, in each generation there are tens of millions of people in this world fighting to make it a better place. No one person has all - let alone more than a few - of the answers.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:37 pm:

I'll take an F on your test. Zero out of three.

I can give you three positions that LaRouche holds that I regard as right, i.e true!

1. The world is not overpopulated.
2. The monetary system desperately needs to be reorganized.
3. Science, technology, and development projects should be our economic priorities.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 6:55 pm:

XLCR shared the recent Morning Briefing. This was sent to directly to the National Committee (12 members, maybe), the Wiesbaden office, and to Frau Helga.

Thanks to Dennis King for being first to post this.



FROM: "Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr."



August 18, 2007 (7:34am) EDT

I had thought it had been agreed, that the documentation of Molly Kronberg's public filings of financial contributions to the Bush-Cheney campaign and the Republican National Committee would have appeared prominently in the Saturday AM Ops Bulletin.

Wha' happened, huh?

Members who have been suffering distress for reason of a lack of this sort of information bearing on the actual circumstances of Ken's suicide, deserve the reassurance which those facts supply. Once any among our associates have possession of those facts, the other available, crucially relevant facts tumble properly into their relevant places. Withholding circulation of well-documentation of firmly established, relevant facts, is itself a form of fraud when a crucial issue is involved.

I, personally, am well aware of certain crucial other facts, bearing on the same matter, which, taken together would tend to console those who have worked so hard, against such frustration, for the really important issues of life, that they deserve access to knowledge of who is involved in cheating them of the facts which assure them that it is not their fault if some things for which they have worked so hard, and sacrificed so much, did not produce the results they had the right to achieve.

It is now past time to clean up that part of the mess. Our honest members have no reason to feel any sort of guilt over the suicide. They have the right to know the facts, especially the public facts, which assure them of that. They also have a related right, to know the name of the enemy who is guilty in contributing to that misfortune. Sometimes, just knowing supplies the needed balm of a sense of relief.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 7:01 pm:

This discussion goes to nowhere.
We are not here to measure up how much lar is right or wrong. This is NOT the point. Larouche says he is always 100% right.
We, ex-members, know he is a liar when he s saying that (and can prove and document this).
We know there are good ideas in larouche's, that s why we once joined.
The POINT IS: THIS IS A FRAUD. It is a CULT. Period. A waste of time, and sometimes a waste of lives.
If you find interesting ideas in larouche's, good!
But if you really want to do something about it, do it WITHOUT AND AWAY FROM larouche.
Now, I hope you can register what I just wrote because I think you don't draw the conclusions any normal person would from what s being posted on this discussion board.
You say you have a scientific background, so then behave in a scientific way: gather the evidences in a contradictory double-checked way AND STOP SAYING "I DON'T BELIEVE THIS OR THAT..."

Scientific method is NOT about "believing", it s about proven and tested facts. And we are the living facts.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 7:25 pm:

extract from "The Cranes of Ibycus" by F Schiller

Dedicated to the memory of Michael Gelber, Jeremiah Duggan, Ken Kronberg and many others.

Then hears one from the highest footing
A voice which suddenly is crying:
"See there! See there, Timotheus,
Behold the cranes of Ibycus!"
And suddenly the sky is dark'ning,\\ And o'er the theater away,
One sees, within a blackish swarming,
A host of cranes pass on its way.

"Of Ibycus!" - That name beloved
Each breast with new grief bath affected,
As waves on waves in oceans rise,
From mouth to mouth it quickly flies:
0f Ibycus, whom we are mourning,
Whom by a murd'rer's hand was slain!
What is't with him? What is his meaning?
And what is't with this flock of crane?"

And louder still the question's growing,
With lightning strikes it flies foreboding
Through every heart: "Tis clear as light,
'Tis the Eumenides' great might!
The poet's vengeance is now granted,
The murderer hath self-confess'd!
Be him, who spoke the word, arrested,
And him, to whom it was address'd!"

But scarce the word had him departed,
Fain had he in his breast it guarded;
In vain! The mouth with horror white
Brings consciousness of guilt to light.
And 'fore the judge they're apprehended,
The scene becomes the justice hall,
And guilty have the villains pleaded,
Struck by the vengeance beam they fall.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:12 pm:

@ eaglebeak


A couple of helpful additions to the material I posted above on LaRouche accusing Kronberg of running a scam, etc.

1. At the time that Kronberg was not paying withholding taxes, the entire NEC was informed of this fact: Jeff, Tony, Nancy, Ed (at the time), Will, Gerry, Dennis.

As a matter of fact, throughout 2005 there existed a "special committee" of NEC members created by LaRouche to oversee finances--four people instead of two. So, of seven NEC members, four were supposed to be intimately involved in finances and especially PMR and WorldComp finances. (More to come on this.)

The tax code includes a provision that anyone who has the authority to sign returns or access the company's accounts is potentially liable for 100% of any withheld income and social security tax (i.e. 'Trust Fund') that is not paid over to the government. That means they are personally liable for paying over the unpaid withheld monies. Usually it just attaches to officers of the corporation, but anyone who has the requisite authority to sign returns or direct the disbursement of dollars is, under the law, potentially at risk if the taxes are unpaid.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:31 pm:

How can anyone agree 100% with anyone else?

Sheer madness.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:32 pm:



You believe we are heading for a catastrophic energy crisis. You object to the idea that this crisis can be avoided with economic development. On the contrary, you believe increased economic development would only hasten the onset of the crisis, because energy consumption levels would increase. Therefore, you believe we must reduce energy consumption levels. Right?

Economic development has progressed due to the availability of cheap transportation fuel. The issue is not that economic development would hasten the crisis (although a deep look at China and India's economic growth and the related growth in fossil fuel consumption would suggest exactly that). The issue is that we are dealing with a demonstrably finite resource that has driven the pattern and pace of economic growth. The depletion of that resource and the decline in production levels, already underway in the light crude grade, requires a response at the national level. Economic growth, as we have understood and practiced it over the past 100 years must be revisited. What it means to have a prosperous and healthy society must be examined and we must come up with alternatives to the present paradigm which cannot be supported without cheap transportation.

By the way, I notice that you have bought into Larouche's notion that the world is not overpopulated. You might consider that the increase in agricultural productivity is due to the availability of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, all of which owe their existence to petroleum and natural gas as feedstocks. As those products become more expensive and less ubiquitous due to the decline in feedstocks, agricultural productivity will decline as well. What then do we feed the billions on this planet? What then becomes the true carrying capacity of Earth? If it is significantly less than the number of people currently present, then it is indeed fair to say that the earth is overpopulated.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 8:33 pm:

RE: That sick briefing.

LaRouche will burn in hell.

And none too soon.

He is orders of magnitude more spoiled than George W. -- another sick motherf..ker who is incapable of taking responsibility for his own actions, policies, and mistakes.

Burn with Uncle Adolf.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 11:25 pm:

There is madness in LaRouche's method. "And whom the Gods would destroy, they first..." do what, again? How does that go? I guess we'll see if his latest in the briefing, blaming Kronberg's widow for his death because, three years ago, she financially supported the party of Satan's children, will be the final straw.

Brewncue, and others still defending LaRouche: we are dealing with a pathological liar. Leaving aside the internal idiocy of the latest charge, not to mention its hideous immorality--attacking the widow for causing her husband's suicide because, what, she disagreed over politics! As if anyone commits suicide for such reasons--please note that a) this suddenly discovered "explanation" for the suicide, proposed here as all one needs to know to explain it ("Does anything more need to said in the matter of Ken's suicide?"), flies in the face of, and totally contradicts everything that LaRouche has said on this topic since April 11 (blaming the Boomer members, Uwe F., Linda dH, Fernando Q, et al, but never Molly), and b) that LaRouche clearly has no idea that he is contradicting himself, or that by suddenly saying this new thing, that others may note that he is clearly lying--either he was lying before, or he is lying now, if not in both instances--but no way can he be telling the truth at all times.

Doesn't this matter to you? The only way anyone, even the most loyal member (excepting those that actually know the score, like Steinberg, and are staying around for totally cynical reasons), can possibly justify staying with LaRouche is that LaRouche is always right about what he says, meaning, he tells the truth. Thus, when in the course of a few weeks, LaRouche completely contradicts himself as he has here, if you can't accept that he has told a lie either up until now, or is telling one now, you are really far gone down the rabbit hole. And if you do recognize that he is lying, then you have to grapple with the fact that it is clearly a pathological lie.

What is a pathological lie? I found the following from a scholarly paper on the subject that says a lot of it:

"the pathological lie is active in character, a whole sequence of experiences is fabricated and the products of fancy brought forward with a certainty that is astonishing. The possibility that the untruth may be at any minute demolished does not abash the liar in the least. Remonstrances against the lies make no impression. On closer inspection we find that the liar is no longer free, he has ceased to be master of his own lies, the lie has won power over him, it has the worth of a real experience. In the final stage of the evolution of the pathological lie, it cannot be differentiated from delusion."

And, "Then follows a closer analysis of the qualities possessed by pathological liars: (a) Their range of ideas is wide. (b) Their range of interests is wider than would be expected from their grade of education. (c) Their perceptions are better than the average. (d) They are nimble witted. Their oral and written style is above normal in fluency. (e) They exhibit faultiness in the development of conceptions and judgments. Their judgment is sharp and clear only as far as their own person does not come into consideration. It is the lack of any self criticism combined with an abnormal egocentric trend of thought that biases their judgments concerning themselves."

Does that fit LaRouche to a tee, or what? The pathological liar doesn't know he is lying when he says it. Whatever he says at the time, he believes it is true, and simply does not realize that he is contradicting previous lies, and makes no effort to make them consistent or coherent. And yet he can be abnormally convincing when he speaks, abnormally fluent both verbally and in writing. Hmmm.


Posted on Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - 11:28 pm:


To say that "economic development has progressed due to the availability of cheap transportation fuel" is incredibly reductionist. I would rather say economic development has been facilitated by advances in transportation technologies. At the same time, one should never exclude the possibility that future technological advances will continue to revolutionize the economy just as countless technological advances have revolutionized the economy in the past.

For example, the very same petroleum which you fear is near depletion, was once unknown as a resource at all. It was merely a dark liquid waiting for future generations to utilize as a source of energy, etc. The same goes for fertilizers, pesticides, and all the rest.

Here is the deeper issue which I hope you will consider: Human beings are the single most important resource. We rely on their present productive potential to realize future productive gains. If we choose to deplete our most important resource (i.e. people) for whatever reason, we have only assured ourself that the potential for future productive gains are also depleted. Ultimately, we need all the people we can get to pool their talents and capabilites, to work together, to make the discoveries, to develop the economy. That's the way it has always been, and that's the way it always must be.


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 1:50 am:


Excuse me, but you are mildly clueless.

Essentially every regular poster on this board is well versed on the basics of "resource" issues.

The very point you make is proof that LAR is a fraud. He destroys people, their talents, and their potentials.

And for what? To save humanity, or to promote/protect his massive ego?

Stop looking at the shiny rhetorical superficial toys and pay attention to the deeds.


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 2:22 am:

Here is something at which to have a laugh, whether for the fractured English liberally sprinkled with commas or for the sickly sweet insincerity and kitschy condescension:

Somehow it evokes the tone of the Frankenstein monster as a candy striper in a children's oncology ward.



Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 8:04 am:

What a great image, Sancho!

Another thing to note is that Helga's mash note to Amelia is datelined Leesburg, which would seem to suggest that Der Helga has finally come to this side of the Atlantic.

Jiminy Cricket! What's going on that she had to rush over here?

I like to think that she materialized in response to my crack about "No wonder Helga stays in Europe," but it's more likely that Something Is Wrong and that's why she's here.

I notice that she has been addressing cadre schools in Detroit, and this and that. A briefing lead this week featured a conference call or some such by her. She appeared on some radio show or other.

So this is most interesting. Wonder if she and Jeff-n-Paul will start their endless succession struggle again?--not that it ever really went away, but Jeff-n-Paul has won several past rounds.

Of course, the briefings are a lot less exciting when they offer Helga's dreary, garbled, confused analyses than when they give us Lindy's irridescent excesses.



Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 8:17 am:

Of course it's also possible that the unraveling of the organization in Europe, which was never terribly raveled, means that HZL has less to do over there (fewer people to oppress).

Maybe she's here because there's no longer any there there.

Ach, du lieber!


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 8:57 am:


The only one proving himself to be a fraud right now is earnest_one. I sincerely thought earnest_one might have some insight on tempering to offer, but instead he retreated with an attack. As earnest_one implied, Kheris is apparently not "well versed on the basics of resource issues, like "essentially every regular poster on this board." Is earnest_one's moral decay so advanced that all he has left to offer amounts to little more than insults?

As shadok pointed out "we know there are good ideas in LaRouche's, that is why we once joined." He said if you "really want to do something about it, do it WITHOUT AND AWAY FROM larouche." Well, here I am, doing it without and away from LaRouche.


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 12:35 pm:


Moral decay? This is the favorite fallback position of LAR-types. They insult you all day long -- spew garbage in every direction -- but when you fling an "infinitesimal" amount back they denounce you for being morally decayed.


Do you REALLY want to obtain "insight" into tempering? Do you REALLY want to learn about the Pythagorean Comma? Equal Temperament? Well Temperament? Meantone? Intervals? "Pure" intervals? Tempered intervals? Overtones, harmonics, and partials? Coincident partials? Beats? Continued Fractions (wildly efficient rational approximations to irrational numbers)? Periodic functions and Fourier's theorem? Vibrating strings? Inharmonicity? Stretched octaves?

Musical tempering is a beautiful topic, but it requires some basic knowledge and skills to understand the core issues.

Do I need to start from scratch, with the cavemen looking to the heavens (“spherics”)?

Or can I use modern methods, like the math that appears in 8th or 9th grade textbooks?

We need to use objects such as natural numbers (1,2,3,4...), rational numbers (objects that are the ratio of two natural numbers, such as one half -- one divided by two -- or, in symbols, 1/2), and "real" numbers (numbers with an infinite, non-repeating decimal expansion such as 0.10120123101234012345...).

Do you know what a "function" is? Can you graph a function in the evil Cartesian coordinate system?

This is the place where algebra and geometry date each other have all kinds of fun. It is truly exciting! They take their clothes off.

How about a simple parabola: y = x^2. Here "^" is the standard symbol for exponentiation (raising to a power), used in plain text communications.

The function can be thought of as a box, having an input and an output. You stick any real number (x) into the input, and out comes another number (y). The output is a "function" of the input.

For example, the above function takes in x and spits out x squared (x^2). Inside the box, little workers do the computation. This can be very difficult when x has an infinite decimal expansion!

Are you with me Brewncue? If so, then soon you can discover the secret value of the present-day middle C Nazi-inspired pitch.

And you will see that you will be fined big money if LaRouche ever takes power and you continue to tune your middle C a "half-step" below A=440.

You will have a monetary incentive to keep him and his people from dictating what tuning you can use!

And more!


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 1:28 pm:

I rather had the impression that after Der HaZeL had scrawled her drunkenly sloppy encomium in midnight blue Crayola, Grandpa Lyndy - poster geezer for E.D. - stumbled along and "improved" her clumsily Teutonic prose with his trademark, Ayn-Randian random-walk comma generator. What a display. If I were Amelia, I would be mortally offended - assuming of course that I hadn't already squandered all of the good will I had earned in the civil rights struggle years ago by choosing in my dotage to be fawned upon by this crackpot, antisemitic cult, LaRouche, Inc.

My dear eaglebeak! My very dear dearest shadok!! My dearestest xlcr!!! *sniffle*



Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 6:29 pm:


Your latest diatribe gives me an idea for a movie: "The Wrath of the Math." Since it seems you don't know how to act, maybe you can write the script?


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 7:03 pm:


what I heard from Europe after the expulsion of Uwe F et al in November, is that Lyn was convinced they will "come back home" before the end of this year! Maybe they would but in a very different way lyn was thinking of. Helga is known for her faction-building and working behind the doors. I dont think, from what I gather from Europe, that communications between helga and her dear old friends Uwe F, anno et al ever stopped completely. They never did. Several ppl have confirmed me this. It is an End Game. Everybody s positioning him/herself for the A.L.D. (the After-Larouche-Days). It s so fun to watch.


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 7:41 pm:


It would certainly make sense if Helga didn't dump her old friends completely. After all, they'll probably live longer than LaRouche, and when Jeff takes over in the U.S. after LaRouche, where will Helga hang her hat?

She needs some kind of power base, and it certainly won't be in the U.S. ... So I'm inclined to believe this analysis. A number of other people have hypothesized the same--that the split between Helga and the rest of the EEC is more apparent than real....


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 8:53 pm:

Arguing over Larouche’s ideas though sometimes interesting is a little beside the point here. Are people really dropping out of school, alienating their families, working for $5 a day, and standing at intersections because of difference of opinion about musical tuning? This cult has become adept at convincing people that the economy and civilization itself is on the verge of collapse and only Larouche can stop it from happening. This can be seductive. For a short time, I enjoyed thinking that I was part of the elite cadre that was going to save the world. Reality has not use of course for Larouche’s apocalyptic theories and the world keeps not coming to an end. Some of us dropped out with vague ideas of carrying out the battle to save the world on our own terms in a better way perhaps than Larouche. The trouble is, without Lyn the battle lines quickly disappear. Where, for instance is the line dividing those for and against technological progress? Who are the ones calling for genocide in Africa as a form of population control? How are we to come to terms with the fact that the most technologically advanced nations have the lowest birth rates? Genocide via advancement? Most of us stayed in the org longer than we should have because we believed the mantra that “no one else is doing what we are”. It took me nearly a decade to accept the fact that what we were doing was.... nothing.


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 9:08 pm:

On the other hand my experience there has sure made me grateful for health, sanity, and arising each new day - especially on a Saturday and a Sunday - knowing I don't have to make a public spectacle and nuisance of myself for twelve hours that day manning a ratty card-table shrine or cold calling people in a dingy office and lying to them in order to help separate them from their money.

I think few appreciate fresh air and sunshine more then we who underwent that zombification. So there is a silver lining to it. My only true regret is that I did not see at all how stupid and undeducated Lyn is. I was totally bamboozled into thinking him a genius when he's the type of guy who can't even fill out a 1040EZ without assistance.


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 9:09 pm:

Lyn was rambling about 9 million dollars that Uwe F has of HIS money in last years memos. It makes sense based on the Dino letter that Helga was tired of seeing Lyn Pee away 5 to 10 K tax free cash to his delusion suppliers every week when there are competing fasion capitals in Germany awaiting her vist. Between Düsseldorf and Berlin there must be something which fits Helga besides Isle of Capri pants.

Jeff has to be pi**ed off since this would mean less money for him to play with spooks. I don't think security and Lyn ever forgave Helga for ruining the the Bonnevilles. They survived daily assasination threats against Lyn for years.

None of the cars rear suspension survived Helga's shopping trips with the cavernous trunks filled to the brim. The interior never survived Helga's legendary beer farts either, neither did Jeff.

This is all looking like a Eurotrash version of a 50 cent rap video. GrandMaster Lyn is having his pockets picked and being forced to pay for the yutes room and board while Uwe F and Helga plan shopping trips and finding people to pimp Helga's armored mercedes while Uwe F welcomes people to his new crib, all paid by money which is taken from someone who also took.

In Bel Canto and at C=256 Lyn is yapping "Got my mind on my money and my money on my mind"

While Helga is tired of being a window shopper and wants the good life back with Uwe F.

The yutes, as usual, are utterly clueless and are teamed with THREE DECADE LCers inhaling mind altering fumes on busy city streets.

(Message edited by xlcr4life on August 22, 2007)


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 11:55 pm:

Boy, what an accumulation of interesting issues to add my two cents (it must be two dollars by now, with inflation) to. So I’ll be jumping in with a number of posts unrelated to each other, but picking up several of the interesting threads of the past few days. What an outpouring!

I want to start by emphasizing perhaps the single most important point, made by Dave72, that anyone has said in a while concerning what it is that keeps members in long after you’d think they would leave. To expand on this point, I will put it in my own words.

Basically, it is, that once someone has joined, they have generally done so not necessarily because of any one thing LaRouche has said or stands for, but because no one else says ALL the things that LaRouche says, that people like. And above all, there are no other political movements that combine everything they like about LaRouche. So, they are confronted with the pain of abandoning the dream, the vision, of being able to devote their lives to what LaRouche claims to be about.. Once in the mind-set to believe that they are in a movement that: stands for technological progress, understands the difference between financial paper and real production, understands how fragile the world financial system is, advocates what they believe is the only solution to that financial crisis, stands for nuclear power and maglev trains, opposes Malthusianism, and whatever other predicates each individual associates with LaRouche; once they believe that LaRouche and his movement (the ICLC and LYM) uniquely in the world stand for this union of all these issues, positions and solutions, then leaving is not just a matter of becoming convinced that LaRouche may not be all that they thought he was on a given issue; leaving is a matter of abandoning forever the notion that they can be part of a political movement that represents the full range of what they think LaRouche stands for.

There is no simple antidote for this problem. The “answer”, actually answers, involve a combination of: debunking the uniqueness of those aspects of what LaRouche says or advocates that are, in-and-of-themselves positive or praise-worthy and show that, while positive, LaRouche’s approach to these issues is actually shallow, which it is in all cases I am aware of; showing the nuttiness of LaRouche in so many of these areas where a position that seems on the surface to make sense, actually doesn’t at all when fully analyzed; showing how LaRouche contradicts himself in instance after instance; showing how LaRouche demands of his followers a double standard toward himself, where they should criticize everyone else in the world, but cannot critique him; showing the cases in which LaRouche’s positive precepts are trashed by his actions (e.g. advocating creativity, and then crushing it whenever it appears among his members); and various other means of showing that the positive picture of LaRouche that followers come to believe is based on a tissue of deception, sophistry, shallow or illogical reasoning and deliberate obfuscation.

Over time, I intend to develop most of the issues suggested in the above paragraph.

In addition, members need to realize that while there may not be any single group or organization professing to stand for absolutely everything that they think LaRouche represents, that there are actually a large number of groups doing and standing for many of the same things LaRouche stands for. There are a large number of groups dedicated to stopping Cheney from starting a war with Iran, there are groups focused on fighting free trade and the IMF (|Global Exchange is one that holds a lot of views consistent with what LaRouche stands for in terms of the IMF), groups mobilizing opposition to the War in Iraq, and myriad other organizations on a variety of issues. (continued below)


Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - 11:59 pm:

Admittedly, the list is a bit thin on the specifics of how to respond to a financial crisis, or how to rebuild economic infrastructure, but there are proposals out there, including from Democratic candidate Kucinich, for an infrastructure development bank very much like LaRouche’s recent proposal along this line. There are multiple groups and websites for impeachment of Bush and Cheney

But bottom line, you don’t have to choose between the ICLC or LYM, and political inaction, or working for the Democratic Party. There is a vibrant, large and growing progressive movement in this country, that is the strongest it’s been since the 1930s, in my opinion, and much more diverse and healthy than that of the 1930s, which had this huge homunculus known as the Communist Party mucking up political discourse in that period. And much stronger and healthier than in the late ‘60s when the Vietnam War was the only widely popular issue, such that when that was over, the movement died.

Not so today. There is a greater awareness of the issue of American Empire, of the growing corporate control of the economy, of the danger of privatization of everything from schools to prisons to the military itself, and on and on. LYM members, I think it would be a tragedy if you were to be convinced by this website, or by your own perception of what’s wrong with LaRouche, only to become a political dropout. You are needed by any one of these organizations and movements.

Which, by the way, brings up the inevitable observation that the strongest age-group represented in the vibrant and growing activism of today is the Baby Boomers, and the weakest is your generation, the 18-35 age group. So your contributions are needed.

And finally, LaRouche wants you to think that despite being a dwindling band of followers of someone that no one in the U.S. will touch publicly with a ten-mile pole, who have a tiny membership and no significant following in the country, the NCLC/LYM have influence, as proven by LaRouche’s assertions of how much influence he has on Capitol Hill. Forget that nothing, absolutely nothing, can be demonstrated as the result of this supposed influence. Just ask yourself this: here, LaRouche, who would claim in any other context that nobody in Congress is rational, they’re all brainwashed by standard economics and belief in the power of the Fed, is claiming that despite his pariah status, and despite the fact that in every other context, nobody but him is anticipating a depression collapse, yet, somehow, these same members of Congress are turning to him because they suddenly DO believe that there is a crisis, and since only LaRouche forecast it, they now also are interested in his solution, namely, the declaration of the bankruptcy of the U.S. Treasury.

Anyway, the point here is that in reality, even on specific “issues,” such as stopping Cheney from starting a war with Iran, LaRouche and his organizations are the LEAST effective vehicle imaginable to effect events. Joining with the large number of others in the country who feel the same way and are involved with various organizations some of which are way more effective than LaRouche, is a far, far more effective way to have an effect on these issues, than trying to do it as a follower of LaRouche.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:07 am:

I’ve wanted to clear away another issue that irritates the H… out of me. It is this running dialogue between Kheris and Brewncue on oil, where I think Brewncue misunderstands most of what Kheris has been saying, and Kheris doesn’t quite nail what the real issue is.

Kheris began by discussing the issue that has come to be called “Peak Oil.” Brewncue clearly has no clue what this refers to or what it means. Brewncue, it’s called the “internet,” aka the “world wide web.” Google “peak oil”, and spend the next 3 weeks reading all about it. I can’t imagine what Brewncue is thinking when he poo poos the notion that oil is a finite resource and that we can forecast the day when supplies will start to dwindle, and that that day is relatively close, if not already here. Brewncue, LaRouche would surely subscribe to this view. One of his “core premises” going back 40 years is the succession of technologies that are required to discover new energy sources as old ones deplete. He has touted nuclear energy since the early ‘70s, as a stand-in until we can get fusion power going. He knows petroleum won’t last forever, or even for a long time. So what’s your point?

Moreover, in his Jan. 11, 2006 webcast (entitled “Save our Republic from Fascism”, ), LaRouche specifically discusses how we should make the gasoline-powered car obsolete by moving to hydrogen cars, fueled by nuclear plants cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen. Leaving aside that this specific mechanism is extremely energy inefficient and impractical—the number of nuclear plants required to produce enough hydrogen this way would probably fast deplete uranium reserves—LaRouche is at least recognizing that we need to move away from petroleum-fueled vehicles, so that we can “use it [petroleum] for plastics and other things we need,” in his words, rather than for energy.

Now, Kheris, I note your two citations of LaRouche debunking peak oil. I’d be willing to bet he didn’t know what it was. The reason he gave was a true fact—the rising price of petroleum was not caused by shortage, but by speculation and manipulation of the oil markets by the oil companies, and sure, there is plenty of oil for the next few years, certainly if Iraq ever comes on line. Since I genuinely believe that LaRouche has always preached the view that energy sources at a given level of technology will always deplete relatively, until the cost of continuing in that mode is exorbitant, I cannot imagine a basis for him to disagree with the principle that there is a theoretical point, whether we can measure it in real time or only retrospectively, at which the absolute quantity of oil being pumped reaches an upper limit and starts to decline. At worst, the debate would be about how soon that date would come.

Brewncue, you state, as if it is a point of difference, “we need to focus more on scientific and technological development, so the economy can grow faster, and more people can live better.” I doubt that Kheris, or anyone on this blog, certainly not myself, would disagree with this, at this level of generality. The devil, as is customary, is in the details. (continued below)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:07 am:

The caveat is in the matter of “how” the economy should grow faster. What sort of growth? More energy-inefficient single family homes and suburban sprawl, more automobiles on the roads, etc.? Basically, more “growth” of the kind we have been experiencing? Or “growth” by a huge national shift to alternate energy sources, including nuclear, but also including tidal, solar, wind, biomass (not from corn, but switchgrass and other such plants), and involving, as feasible, conversion of some of this energy to hydrogen, and to make coal clean. And “growth” also by conserving energy everywhere possible to lower its demand without lowering quality of life, and switching to more efficient habitation patterns, with more mass transit, more compact communities, etc.

Until and unless fusion power becomes feasible, and it still seems it eventually must, there is no silver bullet, certainly not nuclear alone, that can transition us from our present heavy dependence on petroleum for energy to rapidly lessening such dependence. So, technology is absolutely at a premium in this process, Brewncue. We need, absolutely, a huge explosion of technological breakthroughs to make each of these types of renewable energy sources more efficient and cheaper, so we can replace petroleum, and other fossil fuels, as rapidly as possible.

And here’s where LaRouche breaks down, as he always does. He only says things that are unobjectionable at the highest level of generality. “Technology is good. We need more of it.” Great, I agree. But other than proposing using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen from water (a very energy expensive way to do it), and using nuclear to desalinate water, and using nuclear for most new energy plants we need, what is LaRouche proposing in the area of technology for energy? Nothing. He dismisses all renewable sources except hydropower. I don’t know why. It’s just a prejudice of his. Why don’t you ask him, Brewncue?

So, he is not really for technology, just for certain pet technologies like nuclear.

Anyway, the final aspect is the political aspect. It’s curious, actually, that LaRouche never goes after Cheney et al for their tight involvement with the oil industry. Nor does he go after the oil companies for their role in controlling the United States. He reserves the role of enemy only for bankers, mostly British bankers and their U.S. supposed sock puppets. Yet, battles for the control of oil are rather important in the 20th century, from the British-German rivalry in Iraq and Iran for oil before World War I, to the Angle-American control of Mideast oil from the ‘20s to the present. Surely, while not the sole motivation, control of Iraqi oil was an included and important factor motivating the start of the Iraq invasion. And the oil companies are certainly hugely important in American politics. Yet, LaRouche is largely silent on this elephant in the tent. Why? I have no idea, unless it simply flies in the face of his mantra-esque belief that only banks, “financier capitalism,” are responsible for bad things in the financial world. If not that, I haven’t a clue. But read his writings carefully, and you’ll see his bias toward blaming banks and their offshoots such as hedge funds, as the real villains of the piece.

And he lets the oil companies off the hook. The biggest “pig” capitalists on the planet. Go figure.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:22 am:

I also want to respond to Brewncue’s non-response to my posts last week on why even when LaRouche appears to be right about something (the present financial crisis), he isn’t really.

Whew, Brewncue, if you ain’t active with LaRouche, and don’t plan to be, you better make sure they don’t get your phone number. I can’t tell how you walk, but you sure talk like that duck, and appear to surely be that (LaRouche) duck.

In general, Brewncue, you exemplify the “core approach” of LaRouche and those who cross the “event-horizon” into his black hole. Suddenly, when that event-horizon is first breached, every principle which has motivated every great person that LaRouche cites favorably, from Plato to Augustine, to Cusa, to Kepler, to Leibniz, to Franklin, to Gauss, to Reimann, etc., gets turned on its head. Every one of these truly great contributors to the intellectual development of mankind was a seeker of truth, one who welcomed opponents’ arguments, and who actually engaged themselves with the philosophical and/or mathematical issues of their day. LaRouche will not do this. And neither will his fellow black hole denizens.

This point is so important, it needs to emphasized and repeated. If you actually examine anything LaRouche has written for years on any topic, you will find that he not only makes no case that could convince those not already believers in his supposed genius, he makes no effort to make a case. He presents no argument, develops no point, presents no evidence. He simply asserts everything he says, as if his merely saying it makes it true. He asserts that something that Gauss and Riemann discovered is relevant to understanding economics, but has never developed what that might, actually be, other than throwing out the undeveloped phrase about a “Riemannian manifold in the complex domain” or some similar mumbo-jumbo. (His simplistic discussion of certain geometric forms such as spirals, etc., doesn’t qualify—you don’t need Riemann for that.) He asserts that Euler and Euclid and Newton are “bad” and Leibniz, Cusa, Gauss, Riemann, are “good,” but never develops the ideas of either that would back up either claim. And so it goes. He makes no argument as to why he thinks the present financial crisis will be any harder to weather than after the 1987 stock market crash, the S&L crisis, or the post-911 crash. He just asserts it.

And when challenged by anyone (which doesn’t happen very often, most in the outside world don’t bother, those inside don’t dare—but it has happened) he never, ever, takes on what they say, but attacks them ad hominem, “discrediting” them (in his own eyes, at least) on some concocted basis or other. Name-calling is his primary stock in trade. “Name it and nail it,” a most-perfect Aristotelian, if not Confucian, method. In Haiti, it’s called voodoo. If we can equate LaRouche’s calling someone a bad, often scatological, name, to sticking pins in a doll likeness of the target, which seems a proper analogy to me, I think we have a very useful understanding of LaRouche. Why else would a grown man stoop to such infantile name-calling? Brewncue, LYMers, other followers: can you seriously read LaRouche berating the Boomers for “neotony” and not include LaRouche in this category as well for his puerile practice of obscene name calling? How does that comport with being some kind of universal genius, a follower of Socrates. Is that how Socrates or Plato argued with their opponents? (to be continued)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:24 am:

Brewncue, you have trapped yourself, exposed yourself, in your response to my discussion of LHL’s “core position” on the financial/economic collapse that you, yourself, requested. You revealed that you are just as much a fraud as LaRouche himself. You taunted xlcr4life, Sancho, Eaglebeak and the rest, to put up or shut up on LaRouche by tackling what LaRouche claims to be saying. I actually hoped that you meant it, and I thought it worth the time to reply, to see if you were serious, and to demonstrate to others reading this what it means to actually analyze an issue, present arguments, make a point and back it up.

It turns out, what I did was call your bluff. You weren’t interested in my answer. You totally ignored everything I said. You did what LaRouche always does. You refused to engage me on the issue. You refused to even try to dispute my points.

So, in our case against LaRouche as an intellectual fraud, you have become a prime witness, Exhibit A for the prosecution. You asked for someone to take on what you called LaRouche’s “core positions.” I did what you asked. I presented a whole lot of very specific discussion points and information to show how LaRouche totally fails to provide a cause for the economic crisis other than a dimension-less, unit-less, measureless unproved assertion that the “big one” is obviously here.

But, to repeat myself, you simply ignored everything I said. You didn’t even try to refute a single item, you presented no arguments against my arguments, you quoted nothing from LaRouche to show that I mischaracterized him. You refused to engage in any serious discussion of any kind, despite the great detail of my argument that showed that LaRouche had largely missed the boat on the mechanism that was driving the present financial crisis, and that short of his making an argument that actually uses facts from the financial and economic realms, he had no empirical basis for assuming that only a “crash to end all crashes” could ensue.

To be specific, you say you don’t agree with my argument, which took up about 4 posts, which is about four printed pages, “because you [that is, me—LT] conclude” that LaRouche fails to distinguish between financial matters and the physical economy, and between a panic and a depression, but “to me [Brewncue], LaRouche obviously makes those distinctions.” Do you have any idea how utterly absurd the “reasoning” process involved in making such an intellectually moronic argument is? This is Exhibit 1 for the prosecution, to prove that LaRouche-ism is a mental disorder.

You reject my argument because you reject the conclusions I draw from it. If that’s your “methodology,” then why should anyone bother with arguments at all. We should all just state our conclusions, and we will each bring whatever we bring to the table and give a thumbs up or thumbs down to each set of conclusions. We won’t look at any facts. We won’t look at WHY anyone comes to a given conclusion. (to be continued)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 1:25 am:

Brewncue, my conclusions FOLLOWED FROM my arguments. You CAN’T reject my conclusions except by demonstrating at least one of the following: either that my conclusions don’t follow from my previous arguments, that my previous arguments are flawed, or that specific facts specifically disprove my conclusions. You have done none of these three things. You appear to be trying to apply the third, that my conclusions are simply counter-indicated by facts, but you adduce none such.

My point on LaRouche ignoring the distinction between financial matters and the physical economy was not a general statement that he always does this, but that he is doing it in regard to his “forecast” that nothing short of declaring the entire world financial system bankrupt can save it from an even more disastrous uncontrolled unraveling. He has stated, over and over again, that the financial system, in his view, has so much speculative money in it, that nothing anyone can do can prevent a new depression / Dark Age from ensuing, short of his specific proposals. My point is, that could only be true in a mechanistic world in which financial values were NOT distinct from economic and physical economy ones. If they were distinct (and I believe they are), then there is room for human intervention to limit the damage to the physical economy. LaRouche actually believes this, but believes that the only possible successful such intervention is his own solution.

My point is, how does LaRouche know that his, and only his, solution can possibly work? How does he know that a partial financial meltdown, and let’s say even a serious recession, won’t be the worst of it, followed by a renewed recovery? He doesn’t. Nobody does. Because it depends on the activities of the FREE WILL of hundreds of important actors, and millions of secondary actors on the world stage as this crisis unfolds.

And my argument got at what should be the “core issue” here—the mechanism which leads to financial crises, aka, “causality.” So, Brewncue, WHY, in your opinion, do you believe the system has gotten to a state where there is so much speculative paper around that nothing short of bankrupting the system can save it (which certainly looks a lot like the military’s defense in Vietnam about how they had to “destroy a village to save it.”). What causes the system to get to this point in the first place, where new crises keep cropping up, forcing ever more money to be used to bail it out (LaRouche’s description, not mine)? Why has speculation gotten out of hand, do you think, Brewncue, or what do you think LaRouche’s explanation is? And if you can’t find anywhere where LaRouche lays this out, I say QED, which is Latin for “Bingo.”

The funny thing is, when some of us joined, there WAS a rational-seeming, Marxist explanation for why this had to occur. One is tempted to believe that LaRouche still believes this, but no longer says it to anyone. What’s left is the appearance that LaRouche thinks that what causes such crises is simple greed. His latest formulations describe the entire financial system as nothing but “gambling,” where people are just making money off of financial speculation. Now, who was it that said that greed propelled the system. That wasn’t Adam Smith, now, was it? Wow! What a genius he must be to come up with this level of sophisticated explanation for why the world of finance is about to implode. How come no one else has ever come up with it? Hmmm!


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 6:59 am:

LTruth, a lot of correct observations to discuss. In may of my early posts I have often mentioned how being a yute and seeing ALL of your concerns being addressed in a one stop outfit is very appealing. That same appeal is also the anchor around your neck as your mind plays tricks with you. Abandoning a cult of personality doe snot mean abandoning core beliefs.

After leaving the Bizarro world one will find that there are tons and tons of people who are actively invovled in solving problems. You do not have to be an activist or be shouting on top of a milk rate. Most problems get resolved adfter much debate and give and take. Lyn's attitude is the same as any totalitarian is. He alone knows everything and will make everyone one follow HIS design. The landscape is littered with countries , local governements and companies which followed this course.

When I read a transcript of a Lyn speech to yutes about hydrogen I crack up in laughter. The yutes are ooohing ang aaahhing over some gazillion dollar scheme presented by a guy who could not even run his own book store in Leesburg without going of business.

As Lyn yaps away and the clueless yutes nod like weebles, Hydrogen is well underway in Norway as a fuel .

National Council for Solar Growth

Look up hynor yutes.

While you babble and sing against Arnold S in California, he is involved in planning a similar Hydrogen Highway in California.

Now THE question is what will come first.

LYM yutes with cancer from inhaling carcinogens for Lyn or fuel cell cars?


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 7:49 am:

I think much of what LaRouchetruth says is extremely valid and important, and I do hope Brewncue will take the time to follow the argument.

However, personally I very much doubt whether what LaRouche has--the products of his mind--can rightly be called ideas. He does appropriate the ideas of others--but always misunderstood and misapplied.

This is because he has neither the patience nor the attention span to work through the ideas of others. Nor the intellectual discipline. Maybe all three qualities come to the same thing.

In any case, as a result, he distorts and tortures the ideas of others--in music, math, history, religion, theology, philosophy, literature, drama, poetry--and then cries triumphantly, with that crazed glint in his eye, "Look! I was right again! So-and-so agrees with me! But I understand So-and-so's mind better than he does himself, so my idea is even righter than his!"

(Forgive the use of the male pronoun alone, but, with the exception of Helga and Rosa Luxemburg, and maybe Indira Gandhi, LaRouche--as noted--can't abide women.)

LaRouche lines his intellectual nest--his mind--with bright and shiny objects, the way a magpie or a crow does, attracted to the glitter and the flash, and readily stealing from others to prettify, or make magnificent, his own space.

Just as a bird will pick up a piece of aluminum foil and use it for decoration, not understanding its original or true purpose, so LaRouche does with ideas.

That is why, when Brewncue offered his/her repeated challenges to analyze LaRouche's core ideas, I didn't bother to analyze.

I think LaRouche's ideas are to be studied as products of a disturbed mind, "thought objects" improperly understood and misused, rather than participants in the dialogue of ideas.

However, I think LaRouchetruth does a tremendous service in analyzing the conflicts and contradictions inherent in LaRouche Thought, and I hope those of you who are, as Ltruth says, veering toward permanent capture below the "event horizon" of LaRouche's particular black hole, can use LaRouchetruth's analysis to blast yourselves out.

Otherwise, one quibble with Ltruth--Aristotle would never have behaved as LaRouche does in terms of "name it and nail it."

P.S. What exactly do you suppose LaRouche thinks the word "neotony" means? I heartily recommend to LHL the book "After Many a Summer Dies the Swan." Food for thought in there...


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:30 am:

Let me direct everyone's attention to recent posts on Dennis King's website, particularly

What's new here is that King has posted, not just the Morning Briefing/Operations Bulletin Memo about how Molly Kronberg drove Ken Kronberg to suicide by giving money to George W. Bush, but the memo written the day before by LaRouche himself to the NEC and NC, demanding to know why this information had not yet appeared in the briefing.

So we have an interesting chronology of events: Day 1 (Saturday morning, 8/18), LaRouche writes a crabby memo to the NCs asking why, even though "it had been agreed" that the memo attacking Molly Kronberg would appear in the Saturday a.m. Operations Bulletin, it had not.

Hmmm--did someone think that was a stupid thing to do, and try to hold back on it? Well, no matter what they thought, it surely was stupid.

Day 1 cont'd. (Later Saturday morning, after LaRouche's memo hits the NCs): At the Saturday morning briefing at the National Office, given every week by Jeff Steinberg, "documentation" of Molly Kronberg's donations is passed out. Imagine! Xeroxes of FEC filings! Well, that settles that!!

Day 2 (Sunday Morning Briefing 8/19): The "need more be said" memo on Marielle Kronberg and her donations appears as the lead of the Ops Bulletin.

But as to LaRouche's "thoughts" as reflected in his own memo: As King points out, the burden of LaRouche's memo is that no guilt attaches to anyone in the Labor Committee for Ken Kronberg's April 2007 suicide, because Molly Kronberg gave money to the Bush campaign in 2004.

So relax, AP--no need to feel guilty for writing that obscene morning briefing of April 11.... Even if former members do yell things at you on the street.

Relax, NBS--no reason to have any lingering regrets.... Jeff and Dennis and all the rest--no worries. There's nothing different you could have done, eh?

And you others, lower down, who may feel guilty for this or that--don't give it a second thought.

After all, as one NEC member said in the days after April 11, "We're in a war." (Translation--in a war people die. So Kronberg died. So what?)

In truth, like the Pat Tillman case, the Kronberg case is one of friendly fire, followed by a series of conflicting attempts at coverup--a phenomenon so familiar from the devour-one's-children aspects of the LaRouche trials of the late '80s and early '90s.

Another common thread between the late 1980s and the present is LaRouche's insistence that "No one in the organization ever did anything wrong." Period.

This didn't work well during the trials, either. All a part of what someone once called "LaRouche's strategy of flamboyant doom."

Seriously, folks on the "inside"--just because LaRouche intends to go down in flames, is that any reason for you to get crisped?


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:47 am:

There's much to reflect upon, especially the disgusting briefing in the Ops bulletin attacking Molly Kronberg. What brewncue doesn't understand is that is the real Lyn, no being pro-technology, etc. What is the problem is that Lyn has certain positions, some of which may make sense (i.e. support fusion, oppose population growh as anti-technology, the old war on drugs as a war on the financial syndicates laundering drug money, etc.) The problem is that brewncue misses a point that Lyn always made with the true cadre. The various "causes" would be promoted through ancillary organizations, NDPC, FEF, Anti-Drug Coalition, etc. to attract people who may be sympathetic who would give money, and possibly serve as a conduit for new recruits. However, from what I remember although we'd get contributors and people who attended meetings, very few of these people became hard-cord organizers). Then you have the true believers in the cadre organization (very Leninistic). Lyn always emphasized that you have to look at the "essence" or epistemology of a group, not the external attributes (i.e. pro-technology, etc.). Therefore, you could not simply be pro-certain positions, you had to believe the "METHOD" lock, stock and barrel as derived by and through Lyn. The method supercedes the particular issue which is there only to find points of agreement with which you hope to intersect with the outside population. As to the financial crisis, Lyn again is fundamentally. (More below)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:56 am:

Oh--one more thing about the LaRouche memo to the NCs that Dennis King posted.

The following sentence appears in the memo:

"I, personally, am well aware of certain crucial other facts, bearing on the same matter, which, taken together would tend to console those who have worked so hard, against such frustration, for the really important issues of life, that they deserve access to knowledge of who is involved in cheating them of the facts which assure them that it is not their fault if some things for which they have worked so hard, and sacrificed so much, did not produce the results they had the right to achieve."

Two things:

1. The formulation about knowing certain special facts is one that LaRouche frequently uses when in a state of extreme paranoia. Compare his memo to the NCs in the days right after Kronberg's death. (The facts, of course, will be made up later.)

2. The sentence, amidst its convolutions, seems to concede that maybe everything hasn't worked out right in the efforts of the ICLC. Maybe the people who worked so hard and sacrificed so much deserve to be told why their efforts failed.

And here, of course, is the absurdity: Their efforts failed because Molly Kronberg gave $$ to George Bush and therefore three years later Ken Kronberg killed himself?

Well, when it came to working so hard and sacrificing so much, Ken Kronberg was in a class by himself. So what caused the failure? His suicide? Molly Kronberg's donations? Her donations and then his suicide?

As always, LaRouche's thought and writing is a model of incoherence and a mass of lies, subterfuge, and un-reason.

But two things shine through the spatter:

Someone or Some ones feel guilty.

LaRouche is conceding some degree of failure.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:57 am:

As to the financial crisis, Lyn again is fundamentally flawed. Lyn somehow believes that the financial crisis can be averted without bankruptcy by simply adopting one of his schemes, whether it's a gold backed dollar (1970s), a convertible ruble (1980s), an International Development Bank (1980s) or now a transSiberian railway and a tunnel or bridge through the Bering Strait. Or as Brewncue suggests somehow these transportation systems are going to rescue the financial system. Marx certainly wouldn't see it that way, he'd say you either have a depression, or general collapse or the working class imposes a new system, ie socialism. Lyn used to argue that forcing actual bankruptcy through things like debt moratoria would help impose order by bringing fictitous value in line with actual value. Now he doesn't even suggest such radical solutions, although that seems to be happening in the sub-prime mortgage market or elsewhere. But Lyn has moved away from any view that these are natural outcomes of the economic system, and rather puts forward the notion that these result from the evil machinations of Dick Cheney, Baroness Symmons, and various financial cabals. In my day it was the Trilateral Commission, the Knights of Malta, the Bildberberg Society, but I think that relected Lyn's orientation towards getting support from the Minutemen, and others in that right-wing anti-Trilateral Crowd. The point that has been made by so many is that being "for" some particular position or attribute or view of Lyn does not require sacrificing your life, your soul, and your sanity. In the 60s we had teach-ins, study groups, political groups that didn't require members to sleep ten to a room, etc. that people could be active in without believing everything that organization espoused. There are groups today as well, or you can contact Congresspeople, write letters to the editor, find like minded individuals, etc. You don't have to be a slave for LaRouche to be for change.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 3:22 pm:


If there is some guilt, it indicates that some have not completely lost their conscience and there is still some remnants of humanity somewhere inside. That’s the message from Schiller's poem Ibycus… Of course, this is precisely what lyn s trying to suppress.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 5:23 pm:


That's a lot of stuff. Is that all for me?


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 6:13 pm:

Aah, well, Brewncue, if the foo sh*ts, wear it, as the fractured aphorism goes. And not quite. That is, the first of my three sets of posts certainly speaks to you, but it was not prompted by anything you have posted, it was a general statement I was moved to post in response to Dave72's remark in the same vein.

The latter two sets of posts obviously were in response to your posts. On the oil issue, I was just jumping in on your back and forth with Kheris. On the other, well, duh, you asked for it, you got it. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. The only interesting question now is, will you put up or shut up. Or better yet, be honest and mentally free enough to recognize that my critique of LaRouche on the issue of the crash has merit and that you, at least, now see the way in which LaRouche doesn't make sense on this issue. I'll be happy if you come to that conclusion only provisionally, reserving final judgment for a while to see if someone is willing to come forth from LaRouche's side and refute what I presented. Unless you take on my specific arguments and points, and somehow show them to be fallacious, you are admitting ipso facto that you have no counter to them, and that you therefore per force concede their truth, even if you are unwilling to acknowledge so on this blog.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 6:41 pm:

Brewncue wrote:


That's a lot of stuff. Is that all for me?"

Not much stuff, actually. Indeed, it is "approximately" equal to LaRouche's July 3rd jibberish titled:

"Music: Science or Fantasy"

The above clocked in a measly 12,787 words.

You might ask Lyn whether he wrote that for all for you, Brewncue.

Larouchetruth's recent posts -- readable, thoughtful, and sane -- total just over 4,000 words.

But I guess they are about the same length, approximately the same length. Perhaps Larouchetruth's material is about a half-step lower (but that's a good thing).


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 7:53 pm:

Here's a paragraph descriptive of the doings at the beloved nonagenarian's birthday celebration.

The trick is to read it as a paragraph out of an Evelyn Waugh novel - Vile Bodies, say:

"The event concluded with more spirituals and a cake cutting ceremony, after which Amelia spoke on the importance of Agape and it being the thing most needed in our society. She reminded people of the important role that falls upon the youth of society in securing a future. The LYM delegation closed with Mozart's "Hallelujah Canon". Overall the event was quite a treat. It also provided for a great organizing opportunity. Many people approached the LYM to discuss their organizing and the role of the Schiller Institute. A gentleman with Black College Media Productions out of Atlanta interviewed Kesha after the event and got into a heated discussion with Rachel on wealth and capitalism. Another lady who teaches at a rural school where Amelia volunteered for over 10 years was moved by the cultural and scientific education of the LYM. She has been reading the material for many years and considers it to be a vital part of education."

You can't make this stuff up.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 8:15 pm:


Which parts are for me, and what do you want me to respond to first?

(By the way, I won't be home til late tonight.)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 9:16 pm:

Why not start with my discussion of LaRouche's forecast of financial/economic implosion which can only be prevented from leading to a New Dark Age and an 85% reduction of population by his proposal to put the U.S. treasury into bankruptcy, along with the rest of the world's financial system--my posts 48-50.

You can respond on the oil and energy technology issue at a later time, or not, as I think I've pretty well covered the terrain here, and there's no particular reason to disagree with me.


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:08 pm:

On musical pitch tuning and C=256: TIME TO STOP THE NONSENSE. And that means everybody, not just Brewncue. There has been more twaddle posted on this subject in the last few days than on any other subject I’m aware of on this blog. In hopes of putting this particularly stupid topic to rest for good, I will devote some time to making clear what is what.

ON TUNING. Musical pitch, which is to say, the pitch of sound, is based on cycles per second, or hertz. The higher the frequency (cps or hertz), the higher the perceived tone. The progression is exponential. A note that is heard as one octave higher than another has double its frequency. A220 is one octave below A440, C512 is one octave higher than C256. That’s why it is heard as so consonant, because the waves fit into each other two into one. That is the only natural and self-consistent harmonic tone. After that, it gets wooly.

The problem is that perfect fifths, fourths and thirds are created by dividing an octave on a string in ratios such as 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, 5/3, etc. (Look this up on the internet as I did for a fuller explanation, I don’t want to take the time to go into this in detail). This creates the purest consonances as heard by the human ear. However, it creates havoc when trying to construct a 12-tone scale because they do not yield even intervals from half-step to half-step. This creates two problems: eventually, the “cycle of fifths” comes around again a number of octaves above its starting note, and it’s not a perfect octave. And the notes that emerge from the key one begins with may work OK for that key, but may work terribly for some other keys. This tuning, called Pythagorean, more or less limits one to only a few keys.

Well-tempering was developed to solve this. It basically involves small adjustments to make the fifths a little less perfect, and ends up with a result that permits all 24 major and minor keys to be used, but does not make them all equal. Each key ends up with its own particular “color,” a certain feel based on the slight differences in the intervals that each key has. It was this tuning that Bach wrote the Well-Tempered Klavier for, a set of 24 preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys.

Finally, equal tempering was created, which creates absolutely equal half-steps between all notes. This is done by making the frequencies of each note the 12th root of 2 higher than the half-step below it. The ear hears each note the same distance from all other notes, and none of the keys sound intrinsically different from each other, except for being higher or lower than another. But the core intervals of fifth, fourth and third do not sound as perfect as their Pythagorean counterparts, or even their well-tempered counterparts. That’s the sacrifice for getting the ability to use all 24 keys equally. Almost all tunings today are equal tempering.

ON PITCH: When it comes to pitch—the exact frequency that any tuning is based on—we find that until the 20th century there was a huge variability in the pitches at which the scale was defined. Basically, the musical scales were treated consistently, but only in relation to each other, not with respect to some absolute standard. Which makes sense. The first tuning fork wasn’t invented until 1711. The first measurement of musical pitch in cycles (now called hertz) was in 1834. And since the 17th century to the mid-20th century, pitches have varied all over the lot, from significantly higher than A440 to significantly lower than C256. The website lists about 50 recorded pitches, based on instruments or tuning forks from 1640 to the mid-1930s, when the A440 standard was adopted worldwide. (continued)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:09 pm:

The list is longer than it is worth repeating all of here. But here are some representative standards, most expressed in terms of A, but a few in C also:

1640 Vienna Franciscan Organ A457.6 1711 John Shore's tuning fork, a pitch of A423.5 He invented the tuning fork, one of which still exists today. 1780 Stines, for Mozart, A421 1714 Strasbourg Cathedral organ A391 1772 organ in the Roman Catholic church in Dresden, A 415 1751 Handel's own fork A422.5 1800 Broadwood's C fork, 505.7 1811 Paris Grand Opera A 427 1812 Paris Conservatoire A440, as modern pitch 1813 Philharmonic Society A423.3. 1820 Westminster Abbey organ A422.5. 1828 Philharmonic Society A 440 1834 Vienna Opera A 436.5 1836 Pleyel's Pianos A446 1846 Philharmonic pitch was A452.5 (very high) which lasted till 1854 1849 Broadwood's medium pitch was A445.9 which lasted till 1854 1858 New Philharmonic pitch C522 (close to A440) 1860 Cramer's piano makers of London A448.4 1862 Dresden Opera A 440 1877 Collard's piano maker standard pitch was A 449.9 1877 St. Paul Cathedral organ A446.6 1877 Chappell Pianos A455.9 1878 Vienna Opera A447 1879 Covent Garden Opera A450 1879 Steinway of England A 454. 1939 At an international conference A440 was adopted. (continued)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:17 pm:

As the list above indicates, pitches in the 17th and 18th centuries were generally lower than in the 19th. Use the chart below to estimate C from the A pitches in the list in the previous post (please note, the way this blog works, the only way to get the values to roughly line up was to double the single character notes, to make them equally wide as the sharped notes, so C is CC, etc.):

AA 220.0 215.3 211.8 210.5 212.6 A# 233.1 228.1 224.3 223.0 225.3 BB 246.9 241.6 237.7 236.3 238.7 CC 261.6 256.0 251.8 250.3 252.9 C# 277.2 271.2 266.8 265.2 267.9 DD 293.7 287.4 282.7 281.0 283.8 D# 311.1 304.4 299.5 297.7 300.7 EE 329.6 322.5 317.3 315.4 318.6 FF 349.2 341.7 336.1 334.1 337.5 F# 370.0 362.0 356.1 354.0 357.6 GG 392.0 383.6 377.3 375.1 378.8 G# 415.3 406.4 399.7 397.4 401.4 AA 440.0 430.5 423.5 421.0 425.2

Note that the first column is A440, the second is C256, and ther next 3 are A423.5, A421 and A425, drawn from the larger list above.

Handel’s own tuning fork was 422, giving C somewhat lower than 256, around 251. A tuning for Mozart was almost the same. Some were higher, one was A lower than 400, which would have given a very low C. Early in the 19th century, pitches began rising, until for much of the century, including many opera houses, it was above 440, even significantly above 440 (456, 452, 449, etc.). Finally, in the 1930s, A440 was agreed on internationally.

For all non-LaRouche worshipers, the case is already made that there is not a shred of historical basis to settle on C256. There is not one historical instance cited in this list of over 50 known tuning standards that hits, or is even particularly close to C256, which translates to A430.5. A few instances came somewhat close, but none hit it. But even if one tuning did, it would be one among hundreds that didn’t. There simply wasn’t any standard at any time, and before 1834, no way to even measure the cycles anyway.

So, why did so many prominent singers line up behind the campaign to lower the tuning in the 1980s? Well, that may be somewhat of a mystery, looking back on it from this vantage point. The main reason was surely that lowering the pitch even a slight amount eases the vocal strain on the highest notes, and they liked that. And perhaps some were persuaded by an argument that the pitch had been raised arbitrarily, and perhaps they never did their homework (the internet didn’t exist back then) to discover that there was no historical basis for 256, and just took the word of the LaRouche organizers that there was. But I certainly don’t know for sure. (continued)


Posted on Thursday, August 23, 2007 - 11:18 pm:

So, let’s take one, hopefully final, look at LaRouche and his campaign for C256. Well, interestingly, the difference between C256 and A440 is about one-third of a half-tone, that is, one third of the musical distance from B to C. In my book, that’s pretty close. The international standard actually LOWERED the pitch substantially from its highs in the 19th century. It seems to me they deserve some credit for going in the right direction, not excoriation for being fascists bent on destroying the great voices of Europe.

Also note that during the century in which the vast bulk of operas were written, including Verdi, Puccini, Rossini, the French opera composers, the tuning was generally higher than A440, which means that in lowering it to A440, this was already giving opera singers in particular a break. But in any case, since the standard tunings were already in the A450 range, composers surely knew this and took that into account, so it would be highly unlikely that the composers would have deliberately created impossible ranges for their singers. In fact, the entire LaRouche case rests on the presumption that the pieces, above all operas, were written at LOWER pitches, which were then raised. In fact, it was just the opposite!

Given how little C256 lowers the pitch from A440, it would stand to reason that if the real reason were to help the voices, you would pick a lower pitch, say, C250, which is around where it was for Mozart and Handel, and perhaps Bach as well. Why C256 for LaRouche, which is higher than for Mozart and Handel?

The reason, if you haven’t figured it out already, dear reader, is simple. Only 256 is an even exponential of the number 2, 2 to the 8th, to be precise. LaRouche picked C256 because it is 2 to the 8th power. What, you might ask, should this purely mathematical fact, have to do with the best tuning? Well, in the real world, nothing. But for LaRouche, everything. Folks, if you haven’t caught on yet, LaRouche believes in numerology. His only reason for picking C256 is purely numerological. There is no other earthly reason. There is, and was, no reason to fulminate over A440, given that it was actually lower than typical pitches in the preceding 125 years, and was lower than when the vast bulk of operas were written, in the 19th century, which is relevant since the issue mostly affects opera singers. And it is only a third of a semi-tone lower than C 261.5 (A440).

Oh, and please don’t bring up DNA, anyone. What possible connection is there, could there be, between the pitch that best suits the human voice, and anything whatsoever that relates to strands of microscopic DNA.. Oh, and please notice, the issue of pitch is PURELY A MATTER OF CONVENTION. It really doesn’t matter at all intrinsically. It is the frequent change of pitch that creates a problem, if a composer intended a piece to be heard in a certain range, based on the pitch of his day, and a later period changes the pitch, his piece won’t sound as he intended it to. But given the historically very wide range of different pitches, this train has already left the station. The selection of A440 seems about as good a compromise as one could get between the higher pitches of the 19th century, and the generally lower pitches of the preceding 150 years. And, as with so many other things, especially involving technology today, picking a standard is what must be done. It’s only too bad that it took until 1936 to pick one for music.

Case closed? I hope?


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 12:59 am:


Do you think you have actually posted the present-day value of middle C, in strict equal temperament, based on the A=440Hz standard?

I was waiting for an ex-LaRouche person to chime in, technically, and I remain amused at the continued confusion. You are still slightly off, albeit far closer than Kathy Wolf was in her published article. I remain amazed at the hysteria surrounding all this.

Your criticisms of Larouche's proposal make far more sense than your explanation of what temperament is and what the true problems are.

I admire your political arguments, but the technical ones are somewhat problematic. "Hand waving" simply won't work.

Again, one must use just a little bit (more) of mathematics. One must also know some physics and psychoacoustics. And you've almost completely neglected the integers. THESE ARE KEY!

That 256=2^8 is of course the ONLY reason why C=256 was called, historically, the "scientific pitch". I note with great pleasure that you have actually broached this issue. Bravo -- a secret has been revealed. This is almost never mentioned.

You have pointed out that the difference between C=256 and the present one is very small. This is also a good thing, as it has almost never been noted. On the other hand, small differences can have a large effect, especially if resonances are involved. It is an open question as to whether C=256 or some other frequency, might be more “in tune” with the body. The DNA connection is far-fetched indeed, but there may by other relationships. This is speculative, obviously, but it’s a worthwhile question to pursue, as resonance effects comprise a large part of physics and, presumably, some part of biology. Resonance peaks can be very narrow indeed.

Lyn and Company tried to develop scales without reference to the overtone series (harmonics/partials) of musical tones. This was an extreme reaction to Helmholtz, who had a most interesting theory about consonance and dissonance based, in part, on the beat rates of coincident partials. Again, one must know something to understand all this. I doubt you know anything, quite frankly, about the salient technical issues here.

The true theory of temperament is altogether non-trivial, especially well temperament. Even Helmholtz in his classic book, "Sensations of Tone" got it all confused. And at the time he was the world's expert on tuning!

Even pitch is nontrivial, as one can construct, electronically, a tone where the perceived pitch differs from the actual fundamental frequency of the tone.

Pitch and frequency are NOT the same.

I admire your attempt to step in and resolve all these matters, in one full swoop. I don't think you have closed the case on everything, however.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 3:20 am:

Under the guise of what the remaining LaRouche Loyalists (shall we dub them the LLs?) probably think is the master stroke that will finally give them something totally concrete to really go out with and make headway with Congress and be popular with millions of Americans, starting with those about to have their homes foreclosed on, LaRouche appears embarked on what will hopefully be the last straw in his insanity, at least with respect to anybody in Congress from the lowliest aide on up, and anybody else with half a brain.

I refer to the lead item on the LPAC website, the “The Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007”. I’ll even admit that at very first glance, a thought occurs, has LaRouche actually hit on something here? But it doesn’t take much reflection to realize that LaRouche may have done something he has avoided doing for the past quarter century: put in writing something sufficiently concrete that embodies his “bankrupt the Treasury, bankrupt the world financial system” lunacy that people who previously gave him credit for some good ideas will now see that he is stark, raving mad.

The brief introductory statement at the beginning of the LPAC release on this says that distributing this piece de merde is the subject of a “mass mobilization” on Capitol Hill that presumably took place Tuesday, Aug. 22. It is described as the “only means, at this late date, for stopping millions of home foreclosures and evictions this year and next, and for launching a larger process of bankruptcy restructuring of the U.S. and global dollar-based financial system, which is now already doomed.” LaRouche even forecasts that “Governors and state legislators all across the United States will enthusiastically join in this effort, which some leading bankers and Democratic Party figures, briefed on LaRouche's proposal, have already declared is “doable” and the “only salvation” for the American people.” Somehow, I doubt it, or perhaps they got the “short” version that didn’t include putting the entire U.S. banking system into receivership.

The bill may take more detailed shape in the future. What is available is described as the “essential features” of the Act. I will put the provisions in italics, and comment in roman:

1. Congress must establish a Federal agency to place the Federal and state chartered banks under protection, freezing all existing home mortgages for a period of however many months or years are required to adjust the values to fair prices; restructure existing mortgages at appropriate interest rates; and write off all of the cancerous speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other forms of Ponzi schemes that have brought the banking system to the present point of bankruptcy.

Let’s start with the first sentence. Congress must create an entirely new Federal agency. What sort of agency? Who would run it? And the task of this agency: “place the Federal and state chartered banks under protection.” Oh, really. What ever happened to the rule of law? Of the existence of private property? By what conceivable legal right does the Federal Government have to just come in and put all Federal AND STATE banks under some sort of Federal control? This is laugh-out-loud hysterical stuff. And what does “protection” mean? Protection from their creditors? Meaning what? Many of their creditors are other banks. Would this force them to stop paying on their debts to other banks and whomever else? But it gets worse. (continued)


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 3:22 am:

All the banks would be ordered by this new Federal agency to freeze all existing home mortgages. What does that even mean? Make no new home mortgages? Oh, like that will REALLY help get things going. It would stop the economy cold in a day and send it into a tailspin like nothing it’s ever seen before, as all new housing would cease on the spot, with massive ripple effects, and, let me see, how would people be able to move if no one can get mortgages? Or this freeze just a freeze against declaring foreclosures. So the banks will just take the losses. But wait a minute. I thought the problem was securitized mortgages, after the originating banks had sold them. Wasn’t that how it worked. If so, how would taking over just the banks deal with the problem?

All of this is not to mention that almost no banks are presently in serious trouble. Could some become so? Sure. But any move to preemptively take over ALL the banks, even when virtually all of them are solvent and not in apparent trouble, would send the most utterly incredibly destructive signal to everybody that the ensuing panic would make the Holland tulip bubble when it popped look like the model of peace and calm by comparison.

But it gets still better. This “freeze,” whatever it is that is frozen, is to remain in effect as long as it takes “to adjust the values to fair market prices.” Excuse me? By “values,” he presumably means the prices of homes. So he’s saying this undefined freeze will remain until home prices decline to “fair market prices.” Let me get this straight. The banks are going to sit on mortgages they have, and then they are going to keep sitting on them until the prices come down. So, the banks are going to hold these mortgages until the values that collateralize them fall below the value of the mortgage. Good strategy, Milo Minderbinder! Hold the mortgages until the homeowners become reverse leveraged and owe more than their property is worth. A master stroke by a true genius!! And then what? Sell these now truly dangerous mortgages?

But wait, it gets better still. Someone (the banks? This new Federal agency?) is going to “restructure existing mortgages at appropriate interest rates.” Not very clear, at best. Does this mean, they will lower the interest rates? On all mortgages, or just on those that were made at very high interest? Because most mortgages out there have historically very low interest rates already. And what is “appropriate” for an interest rate? Who decides?

But the coup de grace has been saved for the last. The bank “freeze” (still undefined what this means), will remain until “all of the cancerous speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other forms of Ponzi schemes that have brought the banking system to the present point of bankruptcy,” have been written off!!! Where to begin. Let me count the ways. “cancerous speculative debt obligations of mortgage-backed securities,” now what, exactly does this even mean? What is a “debt obligation” of a security, much less a cancerous, speculative one? A mortgage-backed security is a security backed by mortgages, normally pretty safe. Now they’re not so safe, because of the sub-prime mortgages backing some of them. This wasn’t supposed to be, and normally isn’t a speculative investment. It is normally pretty much the opposite, almost like buying government bonds, a relatively low yield, but reliable, with a built-in margin for the “normal” percentage of defaults and foreclosures. (continued


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 3:23 am:

So why is it suddenly a “cancerous” investment, a “speculative” investment. And what is its “debt obligation?” And this debt obligation is now to be written off? Is the entire mortgage-backed security to be written off? Even when most of the mortgages backing them are still good (or were until Larouche’s proposal sent every market on the planet into free fall)? I mean, this very sentence was written by someone who a) knows less than nothing about any of this stuff, b) has absolutely no conception of how moronic every single thing in this one short paragraph really is, c) would, if anyone actually thought he would get anywhere near the ability to implement this, set off the very doomsday panic he claims is already underway.

Of course, finally, he wants “all of the…debt obligations of…derivatives, and other forms of Ponzi schemes” to be totally written off. So, every single derivatives, of every type, is to be written off? I can’t go on, this is too stupid for words. How is putting all of the U.S. banks under “protection,” whatever this means, related to writing off every derivative in the world—even the U.S. doesn’t control every world market for everything. Granted, the kind of panic and crash that LaRouche would cause in the U.S. were he to get anywhere near a position to implement this lunacy would pull down the entire world financial system overnight the way nothing else I can imagine would, it is still the case that the notion of holding U.S. banks in this “freeze” until every derivative in the world is written off (by whom? What power does the U.S. have to get everyone in the world to write off their trillions in derivatives?) suggests they will be in “freeze” mode for a very long time.

Now, we come to section 2:

2. During this transitional period, all foreclosures shall be frozen, allowing American families to retain their homes. Monthly payments, the effective equivalent of rental payments, shall be made to designated banks, which can then use the funds as collateral for normal lending practices, thus recapitalizing the banking system. Ultimately, these affordable monthly payments will be factored into new mortgages, reflecting the deflation of the housing bubble, and the establishment of appropriate property valuations, and reduced fixed mortgage interest rates. It is to be expected that this process of shakeout of the housing market will take several years to achieve. In this interim period, no homeowner shall be evicted from his or her property, and the Federal and state chartered banks shall be protected, so they can resume their traditional functions, serving local communities, and facilitating credit for investment in productive industries, agriculture, infrastructure, etc.

I’ll be briefer. Now, it is foreclosures that will be frozen. Is this a clarification of the “freeze” from section 1. That only foreclosures will be frozen? Who knows? Then, new terrain: “monthly payments, the effective equivalent of rental payments, shall be made to designated banks.” What? Are these payments just from those facing foreclosure? Or for all mortgage holders? And what the h*ll are “designated banks.” So the payments won’t go to the holder of the mortgage? What are these “designated banks?” Who designates them? Why do we need “designated” banks? (continued)


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 3:25 am:

More important, what about the vast bulk of mortgages that are, guess what, securitized in the form of mortgage-backed securities and held by investors around the world? In fact, isn’t that at least the proximate cause of the financial crisis?” But, these mortgages aren’t held by banks at all. They are held by whatever agency manages the securitized funds. I don’t know how this works, who actually bundles the mortgages into securities and sells them. Perhaps banks are involved, I don’t know. But the vast bulk of mortgages are NOT even held by banks in the traditional way. Never mind. LaRouche is just a few decades out of date.

Then, we are told that the incoming money (is this just the money from troubled mortgages, or for all mortgages? It really maters, as the latter is 15 times larger than the former) is to be used “as collateral” for ”normal lending practices.” ONot if the incoming money is owed to the investors in the mortgage-backed securities. It’s their money, not any bank’s. And even it goes to a bank, it’s not just “free money” to lend as they wish, it is their income, part of which at least goes to their costs of doing business. Oh, and since when does the lender need collateral to make loans? I thought it was the borrowers who needed the collateral? I know, details, details.

The rest of this section speaks for itself.

3. State governors shall assume the administrative responsibilities for implementing the program, including the “rental” assessments to designated banks, under the authority of the Federal government, which will provide the necessary credits and guarantees to assure the successful transition. By September-October, unless this legislation is enacted as a first order of business of the 110th Congress in September, many millions of Americans will be evicted from their homes, setting off a process of social chaos that must be avoided. The freezing of foreclosures is the vital first step in a thorough reorganization.

More insanity. By what power can the Federal government force state governors to administer the Federal takeover of the Federal and State banks? This leaves me speechless, even after what has gone before. And the governors are to implement these “rental” assessments to “designated banks” (still in need of clarification of what either of these terms means). So, the government is going to get involved in every single mortgage instance to, do what, determine the size of these “rental” assessments? By what criteria would they do so? The entire notion is such lunacy, it’s difficult to even speculate on how this would work in the real world, since it wouldn’t, and would never get within a parsec of being enacted in the first place.

Oh, look what we have here, a testable prediction. By September-October (OK, let’s give him until October 31),”many millions of Americans will be evicted from their homes, setting off a process of social chaos.” Since we know Congress won’t even look at, much less consider, much less pass this absurdity, we have a slightly more than 2 month window for LaRouche’s next prediction to prove itself. (continued)


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 3:28 am:

Under this plan, the Federal Reserve System will, itself, be put through bankruptcy reorganization, and transformed into a Third National Bank of the United States. As developed in LaRouche's just-released draft platform for the Democratic Party, these actions shall be complemented by the creation, by treaty agreement among leading nation-states, of a new Bretton Woods system, based on fixed exchange rates, and long-term treaty agreements for large-scale development projects on a global scale.

The foreclosure tsunami is occurring, not as a result of a mere housing or mortgage crisis, but a disintegration of the entire global financial system. There is no bottom to this collapse-- unless a legislative firewall is created now, and a halt to the income drain on the population, brought on by the hyperinflationary debt bubbles created by Alan Greenspan and his ilk.

Once again, at a crucial inflection point, Lyndon LaRouche has provided the solution which will uniquely remove the nation from the pathway to disaster. Now the question is, will the leaders among the American population stand up and lead the fight to win a human future for our nation, and civilization itself?

I won’t spend much time on these final gems. This presupposes that Congress will be willing to revoke all the legislation that set up and enabled the Fed to operate, and to nationalize the Fed, which I suspect is a dubious legal proposition. Isn’t the Fed technically private? Can the Congress just expropriate it—and then put it into bankruptcy? And how does one do that, exactly? Who would be the receiver for it? And doesn’t an institution have to demonstrate some serious progress towards involvency, if not already be insolvent—well, the Fed is not close to insolvent.

I’ll leave the Bretton Woods phantasmagoria for another day. On the “foreclosure tsunami,” he puts the cart before the horse. With no evidence to back it up, he blames the mortgage crisis on the “disintegration of the entire global financial system,” rather the financial crisis on the mortgage crisis. Good luck with that one. You gotta prove it, not just assert it, fella. And of course we have the obligato final paragraph of self-puffery.

Anyway, another installment from the Magical Mind of Lyndon the Loopy Loony.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 4:41 pm:


Last night I had a response to your discussion on economics, but you beat me to the punch with your posts on music, and I deleted it. Now, I'd rather just thank you for your posts on music. I think you did some really good work, and I learned from it. earnest_one's critique was interesting and educational. I really appreciate the whole discussion.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 5:55 pm: Thanks, brewncue, for your honest reaction. I try to be strictly honest in whatever I post, and if someone else says something that I hadn't thought of, or that critiqued something I wrote that I agreed with, I have no problem acknowledging it either.

I am disappointed, though, if you had something in response to my earlier piece on economics (not counting mine of last night on the Banking and mortgage act) and won't rewrite it. Did you delete it by accident? I experienced some sort of conflict last night on my last segment on something, where it said there was some sort of conflict, but it ended up posting it. Perhaps that was your post that mine blocked.

Unless you no longer agree with what you had written last night, please do take the time to rewrite it. Thanks.


Posted on Friday, August 24, 2007 - 6:01 pm:


For the last few days, my computer, at least, has taken forever to load this thread, and even longer to post to it, so, as this seems about as long as the previous one when we bailed and started a new one, it seems time to do so again.

So, I've already started LaRouche Continued 2, and I hope you all switch over there, and make this the last post on this one. Thanks.


Posted on Monday, August 27, 2007 - 7:24 am:

Give us a hint where the new thread is, larouchetruth. Haven't been able to locate it....

 counter-reaction of the "CIA"
Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on March 15, 2017, at 09:46 AM